- Email: [email protected]
Review of “Materials Science and Engineering Handbook”
Materials Research Bulletin 37 (2002) 811±812
Book review Review of ``Materials Science and Engineering Handbook'' James F. Shackelford, William Alexander (Eds.), 3rd Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2001, 1894 pp., ISBN 0-8493-2696-6 The book has a very large amount of valuable information useful for scientists and manufacturers who work with materials. Such data as mechanical properties are essential. In addition, this book contains a wealth of information on various types of steels. Another signi®cant feature of this book is the second part called ``Selecting . . .''. The authors present the same data as in the ®rst part sorted by the value and not by material. This may be very useful for the development of processes and materials. However, there are some drawbacks. The book lacks consistency in units. Sometimes two tables next to each other show the same type of data in different units. In some cases, the conversion factors are given, but in most cases, they are not. It is advisable to provide the conversion factors in all cases or use the same system of units throughout the book. Although it is up to the publisher, the space utilization in the book is not ef®cient. If the broken-up tables were allowed to occupy more space on a page, the book would be much thinner. In the given table of ionic radii (p. 23) the coordination number is ignored. Ionic radius depends on the coordination number of the ion, not only on its charge. There is a newer reference for ionic radii used by most scientists: R.D. Shannon, Acta Crystallogr. Sec. A 32 (1976) 752. Density and melting points of elements are dependent on allotropic modi®cation. Therefore, several densities or melting points may correspond to the same element. However, it is not re¯ected in the tables (pp. 56 and 212). For example, the densities of graphite and diamond that are carbon are different, but the table provides only one value. Despite some weaknesses in the smaller fundamental-science part of this book, it is very valuable for engineers who work with materials and the overall rating of the book is good. Below are some page speci®c comments that could be useful in correcting errata in the future editions: Page 19: The table of elements in polymers is missing sulfur and phosphorus, and probably other elements. For example, sulfur is in rubber. 0025-5408/02/$ ± see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 2 5 - 5 4 0 8 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 7 0 3 - 1
812
Book review
Page 51 (Chapter 1): It would be much more convenient to provide a complete periodic table with atomic masses, electronic configurations, etc. than providing different tables on different pages with this information. Page 55 (and others): The unit of density is rather unusual, Mg/m3. Pages 56, 213 (and others): Sometimes the symbol for cesium is given as Ce but should be Cs. Page 195: The unit (e.u.) reported for entropy is rather unusual. A conversion factor to J/mol K should definitely be provided. Page 216: Melting point of argon (Ar) is reported as 190.28C. It should probably be 190.28C because argon is a gas at room temperature. Page 229: Melting points for some ceramic compounds are different from those for the same compounds reported in Table 71. Table 72 uses Kelvin degrees as units for temperature while Table 71 uses Celsius. Page 240: Table 73 includes information from Table 71 (i.e. melting points) therefore Table 71 is redundant. Guerman Popov Chemistry Department, Rutgers University 610 Taylor Rd., Piscataway, NJ 08854-8087, USA Tel.: 1-732-445-3811 E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Popov)
Book review Review of ``Materials Science and Engineering Handbook'' James F. Shackelford, William Alexander (Eds.), 3rd Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2001, 1894 pp., ISBN 0-8493-2696-6 The book has a very large amount of valuable information useful for scientists and manufacturers who work with materials. Such data as mechanical properties are essential. In addition, this book contains a wealth of information on various types of steels. Another signi®cant feature of this book is the second part called ``Selecting . . .''. The authors present the same data as in the ®rst part sorted by the value and not by material. This may be very useful for the development of processes and materials. However, there are some drawbacks. The book lacks consistency in units. Sometimes two tables next to each other show the same type of data in different units. In some cases, the conversion factors are given, but in most cases, they are not. It is advisable to provide the conversion factors in all cases or use the same system of units throughout the book. Although it is up to the publisher, the space utilization in the book is not ef®cient. If the broken-up tables were allowed to occupy more space on a page, the book would be much thinner. In the given table of ionic radii (p. 23) the coordination number is ignored. Ionic radius depends on the coordination number of the ion, not only on its charge. There is a newer reference for ionic radii used by most scientists: R.D. Shannon, Acta Crystallogr. Sec. A 32 (1976) 752. Density and melting points of elements are dependent on allotropic modi®cation. Therefore, several densities or melting points may correspond to the same element. However, it is not re¯ected in the tables (pp. 56 and 212). For example, the densities of graphite and diamond that are carbon are different, but the table provides only one value. Despite some weaknesses in the smaller fundamental-science part of this book, it is very valuable for engineers who work with materials and the overall rating of the book is good. Below are some page speci®c comments that could be useful in correcting errata in the future editions: Page 19: The table of elements in polymers is missing sulfur and phosphorus, and probably other elements. For example, sulfur is in rubber. 0025-5408/02/$ ± see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 2 5 - 5 4 0 8 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 7 0 3 - 1
812
Book review
Page 51 (Chapter 1): It would be much more convenient to provide a complete periodic table with atomic masses, electronic configurations, etc. than providing different tables on different pages with this information. Page 55 (and others): The unit of density is rather unusual, Mg/m3. Pages 56, 213 (and others): Sometimes the symbol for cesium is given as Ce but should be Cs. Page 195: The unit (e.u.) reported for entropy is rather unusual. A conversion factor to J/mol K should definitely be provided. Page 216: Melting point of argon (Ar) is reported as 190.28C. It should probably be 190.28C because argon is a gas at room temperature. Page 229: Melting points for some ceramic compounds are different from those for the same compounds reported in Table 71. Table 72 uses Kelvin degrees as units for temperature while Table 71 uses Celsius. Page 240: Table 73 includes information from Table 71 (i.e. melting points) therefore Table 71 is redundant. Guerman Popov Chemistry Department, Rutgers University 610 Taylor Rd., Piscataway, NJ 08854-8087, USA Tel.: 1-732-445-3811 E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Popov)