ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2018
Building the space elevator: lessons from biological design.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the biggest perceived challenges in building megastructures, such as the space elevator, is the unavailability of materials with sufficient tensile strength. The presumed necessity of very strong materials stems from a design paradigm which requires structures to operate at a small fraction of their maximum tensile strength (usually, 50% or less). This criterion limits the probability of failure by giving structures sufficient leeway in handling stochastic components, such as variability in material strength and/or external forces. While reasonable for typical engineering structures, low working stress ratios-defined as operating stress as a fraction of ultimate tensile strength-in the case of megastructures are both too stringent and unable to adequately control the failure probability. We draw inspiration from natural biological structures, such as bones, tendons and ligaments, which are made up of smaller substructures and exhibit self-repair, and suggest a design that requires structures to operate at significantly higher stress ratios, while maintaining reliability through a continuous repair mechanism. We outline a mathematical framework for analysing the reliability of structures with components exhibiting probabilistic rupture and repair that depend on their time-in-use (age). Further, we predict time-to-failure distributions for the overall structure. We then apply this framework to the space elevator and find that a high degree of reliability is achievable using currently existing materials, provided it operates at sufficiently high working stress ratios, sustained through an autonomous repair mechanism, implemented via, e.g. robots.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.