• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Our concrete and reinforced concrete destruction values are outdated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vzearr

Vzearr

Vapour
He/Him
VS Battles
Retired
Messages
4,239
Reaction score
4,084
Concrete compressive strength = 17 MPa (V-Frag) to 28 - 70 MPA (Pulv), 80 here. Averaging 28 and 80 MPA we get 54 MPA, this is somewhat backed up by other sources too so I believe we should replace our values here for pulverisation.
Reinforced concrete compressive strength = I've always found it kinda odd how reinforced concrete wasn't largely stronger than concrete in terms of shear strength, well here are some sources that state the shear strength of RC is much higher then what we think 63 MPA , 50 MPA here. Getting an average of: 56.5 MPa. Compressive strength values of RC are very difficult to find though so... Idk about that.

Got this idea from flashlights recent thread lol.
 
Vzearr said:
I've always found it kinda odd how reinforced concrete wasn't largely stronger than concrete in terms of shear strength, well here are some sources that state the shear strength of RC is much higher then what we think 63 MPA , 50 MPA here. Getting an average of: 56.5 MPa
Click to expand...
Compared to 54 MPa that is indeed not largely stronger, huh?
 
Hey hey hey, whoa. First of all, concrete is a highly variable material. I've seen so many papers and studies on the engineering properties of concrete that you can probably go as far as to name any material that you think would be added into concrete and you could probably find a research paper on the mechanical properties of said concrete. The same can be said about steel.
Second, the way the first two links insinuates that regular ol' concrete is somehow stronger than reinforced concrete when that is complete bollocks. The first link overly generalizes concrete and second link is a homework website, which generally isn't something reliable.

Our current value for concrete's fragmentation uses an academic reference sheet for the low end fragmentation value (https://www.academia.edu/4156626/So...ogic_and_Otherwise_Angle_of_internal_friction ), although our current values for V. Frag and pulverization do make use of Engineering Toolbox's listed shear and compressive strength values, which is kinda odd. ET's always been a last resort-y type thing.

Personally, it is in our best interest to just stick with what we already have for concrete's values as, again, concrete is too variable for us to settle with any one value.

As for reinforced concrete, the values in the articles you provided aren't shear strength, they're compressive strength. If you want shear strength, here's a study from Purdue involving 370 reinforced concrete samples using a shear strength model that uses flexural stress: https://engineering.purdue.edu/~fro...rete Shear Strength - Another Perspective.pdf

The values range from 0.9 to 13.6 ksi (6.2 to 93.8 MPa), with the majority of the samples sitting in a cloud ranging from 2 to 6 ksi (13.8 to 41.4 MPa). Compressive strength doesn't exactly fare better; this source goes from 26 to 99 MPa: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9228203/

Keep in mind that reinforced concrete (which uses rebar) is different from UHPC (ultra-high performance concrete, which uses fibers). Generally UHPC must have a compressive strength higher than 15000 psi (103.4 MPa). This source sets UHPC's compressive strength at at least 150 MPA: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ultra-high-performance-concrete

One particular brand of UHPC goes for 25500 psi (175.8 MPa): https://cor-tuf.com/2022-everything-you-need-to-know-about-concrete-strength/

So yeah, maybe read into the sources a little more.
 
I'm pretty sure we have had numerous discussions that ended up with more or less the same general conclusions.
 
Flashlight237 said:
Hey hey hey, whoa. First of all, concrete is a highly variable material. I've seen so many papers and studies on the engineering properties of concrete that you can probably go as far as to name any material that you think would be added into concrete and you could probably find a research paper on the mechanical properties of said concrete. The same can be said about steel.
Second, the way the first two links insinuates that regular ol' concrete is somehow stronger than reinforced concrete when that is complete bollocks. The first link overly generalizes concrete and second link is a homework website, which generally isn't something reliable.

Our current value for concrete's fragmentation uses an academic reference sheet for the low end fragmentation value (https://www.academia.edu/4156626/So...ogic_and_Otherwise_Angle_of_internal_friction ), although our current values for V. Frag and pulverization do make use of Engineering Toolbox's listed shear and compressive strength values, which is kinda odd. ET's always been a last resort-y type thing.

Personally, it is in our best interest to just stick with what we already have for concrete's values as, again, concrete is too variable for us to settle with any one value.

As for reinforced concrete, the values in the articles you provided aren't shear strength, they're compressive strength. If you want shear strength, here's a study from Purdue involving 370 reinforced concrete samples using a shear strength model that uses flexural stress: https://engineering.purdue.edu/~frosch/ftp/Pavelchak/Concrete Shear Strength - Another Perspective.pdf

The values range from 0.9 to 13.6 ksi (6.2 to 93.8 MPa), with the majority of the samples sitting in a cloud ranging from 2 to 6 ksi (13.8 to 41.4 MPa). Compressive strength doesn't exactly fare better; this source goes from 26 to 99 MPa: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9228203/

Keep in mind that reinforced concrete (which uses rebar) is different from UHPC (ultra-high performance concrete, which uses fibers). Generally UHPC must have a compressive strength higher than 15000 psi (103.4 MPa). This source sets UHPC's compressive strength at at least 150 MPA: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ultra-high-performance-concrete

One particular brand of UHPC goes for 25500 psi (175.8 MPa): https://cor-tuf.com/2022-everything-you-need-to-know-about-concrete-strength/

So yeah, maybe read into the sources a little more.
Click to expand...
Your Purdue study on reinforced concrete shear strength show values ranging from 6.2 mpa to 93.8 mpa, with most falling between 13.8 mpa and 41.4 mpa. The shown compressive strength values range from 26 mpa to 99 mpa. With such a big range, sticking to outdated low end numbers (like 10 MPa for shear strength) doesn’t make sense. Instead, we should use an average of the values shown.

Anyways, concrete makes sense I guess.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I'm pretty sure we have had numerous discussions that ended up with more or less the same general conclusions.
Click to expand...
While that is true, I do feel that our values for reinforced concrete are more or less bullcrap. Like, how the heck do you get 610 J/cc for typical reinforced concrete when UHPC, the strongest non-specialized concrete, is only a third as strong?
 
I don't know why I was specifically asked to comment here, but:

"Concrete" and "Reinforced Concrete" are both technically extremely vague and contain a lot of variation, so using the average value from a study makes complete sense to me.
If the average from reliable studies is above our current default assumption, then that default assumption should obviously change.
 
FinePoint said:
"Concrete" and "Reinforced Concrete" are both technically extremely vague and contain a lot of variation, so using the average value from a study makes complete sense to me.
If the average from reliable studies is above our current default assumption, then that default assumption should obviously change.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between concrete and reinforced concrete. Reinforced concrete has this stuff called "rebar" in it. You know, those steel rods you put in structures.

Regarding reinforced concrete, the average for pulverization (compressive strength) is listed at at most 99 MPa (99 J/cc) from reliable studies. Our current 610 MPa value lacks justification and falters when the stronger UHPC has studied values three times weaker than what we got. That and after looking through Google searches on the matter, I feel as though Spino misinterpreted something down the line.
Vzearr said:
Your Purdue study on reinforced concrete shear strength show values ranging from 6.2 mpa to 93.8 mpa, with most falling between 13.8 mpa and 41.4 mpa. The shown compressive strength values range from 26 mpa to 99 mpa. With such a big range, sticking to outdated low end numbers (like 10 MPa for shear strength) doesn’t make sense. Instead, we should use an average of the values shown.

Anyways, concrete makes sense I guess.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you got the right message from my response about reinforced concrete. I was telling you that you mistook compressive strength values (four of which the first article's abstract pointed out quite clearly) for shear strength values and showing you a study that actually focuses on shear strength values. Personally, I'm convinced that reinforced concrete should have its values changed after just looking for shear and compressive strength values for the material.
 
Flashlight237 said:
There is a difference between concrete and reinforced concrete. Reinforced concrete has this stuff called "rebar" in it. You know, those steel rods you put in structures.
Click to expand...
That felt a little condescending. I know there's a difference between the two.

I meant that in both cases, 'concrete' refers to a mixture of various things which can include different materials or manufacturing. Therefore, the word itself doesn't give you a good idea of how strong any particular instance of it is- and in the case of rebar 'steel' itself is also a mixture which can vary in material and manufacturing. This is in contrast to something like two blocks of pure lead, which should have the exact same properties in the exact same conditions. That is what I meant by either being extremely vague.

Apologies if that wasn't clear.
 
FinePoint said:
That felt a little condescending. I know there's a difference between the two.

I meant that in both cases, 'concrete' refers to a mixture of various things which can include different materials or manufacturing. Therefore, the word itself doesn't give you a good idea of how strong any particular instance of it is- and in the case of rebar 'steel' itself is also a mixture which can vary in material and manufacturing. This is in contrast to something like two blocks of pure lead, which should have the exact same properties in the exact same conditions. That is what I meant by either being extremely vague.

Apologies if that wasn't clear.
Click to expand...
You're cool. I'm just explaining even if I may be a bit brash.
 
Agree with the change. Always found it weird how reinforced concrete had such a high pulv. value.

So, can someone provide a value of what the new values for concrete and reinforced concrete would be?

Also, unrelated, but concrete with rebar (The thin long steel rods) would also automatically refer to being reinforced concrete, yes?
 
Vzearr said:
Reinforced concrete compressive strength = I've always found it kinda odd how reinforced concrete wasn't largely stronger than concrete in terms of shear strength, well here are some sources that state the shear strength of RC is much higher then what we think 63 MPA , 50 MPA here. Getting an average of: 56.5 MPa. Compressive strength values of RC are very difficult to find though so... Idk about that.

Got this idea from flashlights recent thread lol.
Click to expand...
Flashlight237 said:
Hey hey hey, whoa. First of all, concrete is a highly variable material. I've seen so many papers and studies on the engineering properties of concrete that you can probably go as far as to name any material that you think would be added into concrete and you could probably find a research paper on the mechanical properties of said concrete. The same can be said about steel.
Second, the way the first two links insinuates that regular ol' concrete is somehow stronger than reinforced concrete when that is complete bollocks. The first link overly generalizes concrete and second link is a homework website, which generally isn't something reliable.

Our current value for concrete's fragmentation uses an academic reference sheet for the low end fragmentation value (https://www.academia.edu/4156626/So...ogic_and_Otherwise_Angle_of_internal_friction ), although our current values for V. Frag and pulverization do make use of Engineering Toolbox's listed shear and compressive strength values, which is kinda odd. ET's always been a last resort-y type thing.

Personally, it is in our best interest to just stick with what we already have for concrete's values as, again, concrete is too variable for us to settle with any one value.

As for reinforced concrete, the values in the articles you provided aren't shear strength, they're compressive strength. If you want shear strength, here's a study from Purdue involving 370 reinforced concrete samples using a shear strength model that uses flexural stress: https://engineering.purdue.edu/~frosch/ftp/Pavelchak/Concrete Shear Strength - Another Perspective.pdf

The values range from 0.9 to 13.6 ksi (6.2 to 93.8 MPa), with the majority of the samples sitting in a cloud ranging from 2 to 6 ksi (13.8 to 41.4 MPa). Compressive strength doesn't exactly fare better; this source goes from 26 to 99 MPa: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9228203/

Keep in mind that reinforced concrete (which uses rebar) is different from UHPC (ultra-high performance concrete, which uses fibers). Generally UHPC must have a compressive strength higher than 15000 psi (103.4 MPa). This source sets UHPC's compressive strength at at least 150 MPA: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ultra-high-performance-concrete

One particular brand of UHPC goes for 25500 psi (175.8 MPa): https://cor-tuf.com/2022-everything-you-need-to-know-about-concrete-strength/

So yeah, maybe read into the sources a little more.
Click to expand...
Okay so based on this, the proposed new values of reinforced concrete would be...

Shear strength (Frag): 13.8-41.4 MPa. Average would be 27.6 MPa.

V. Frag (High-end shear strength to low-end compressive strength): 26 (low-end compressive strength of Flashlight) to 41.4 MPa (High-end shear strength of Flashlight), average of 33.7 MPa. While Vzearr's values for high-end shear strength say it ranges from 50-63 MPa. Taking the average of the four individual values (26, 41.4, 50 and 63), that's 45.1 MPa. (This part be compressive strength)

Pulv. (High-end compressive strength): 99 MPa

I get it right?

I assume normal concrete remains untouched for now?
 
Last edited:
KLOL506 said:
Okay so based on this, the proposed new values of reinforced concrete would be...

Shear strength (Frag): 13.8-41.4 MPa. Average would be 27.6 MPa.

V. Frag (High-end shear strength to low-end compressive strength): 26 (low-end compressive strength of Flashlight) to 41.4 MPa (High-end shear strength of Flashlight), average of 33.7 MPa. While Vzearr's values for high-end shear strength say it ranges from 50-63 MPa. Taking the average of the four individual values (26, 41.4, 50 and 63), that's 45.1 MPa.

Pulv. (High-end compressive strength): 99 MPa

I get it right?

I assume normal concrete remains untouched for now?
Click to expand...
That's the issue; the 50 and 63 MPa values Vrezzar provided are NOT shear strength; they're compressive strength. The 63 MPa value's source makes it pretty clear that it's compressive strength.:

"63 MPa, 78.8 MPa, 85.9 MPa, and 92 MPa were the concrete’s compressive strengths, while 2.41 and 3.33 were its shear span to effective depth ratios."

While the source of the 50 MPa value says this:

"The target cylinder compressive strength (fcyl) of the concrete was 50 MPa and the longitudinal reinforcement ratio (ρL) was about 1%."
 
Flashlight237 said:
That's the issue; the 50 and 63 MPa values Vrezzar provided are NOT shear strength; they're compressive strength. The 63 MPa value's source makes it pretty clear that it's compressive strength.:

"63 MPa, 78.8 MPa, 85.9 MPa, and 92 MPa were the concrete’s compressive strengths, while 2.41 and 3.33 were its shear span to effective depth ratios."

While the source of the 50 MPa value says this:

"The target cylinder compressive strength (fcyl) of the concrete was 50 MPa and the longitudinal reinforcement ratio (ρL) was about 1%."
Click to expand...
Ah. Okay.

Just to be clear, they were referring to reinforced concrete, right?
 
Last edited:
Okay then.

V. frag amounts to 26-41.4 MPa, with Vzearr providing values of 50, 63, 78.8, 85.9 and 92 MPa.

Taking into account that we use high-end shear strength to low-end compressive strength for v. frag and high-end compressive strength for pulv. (That being 99 MPa from Flashlight's sources), taking the values above into account, the average value for v. frag thus amounts to...

(26+41.4+50+63+78.8+85.9+92)/7 = 62.443 MPa.

Do what ya will with that value.
 
So, 27.6 MPa for frag, 62.443 MPa. for V frag and 99 MPa for Pulv?
 
Seems like it, but we'll have to wait and see what the other Calc Overlords have to say.

There's also the issue of then putting the values somewhere with references and paragraphs so that people don't complain where we got the values from (Or some other editing boogaloo that makes the table look like a jumbled mess).
 
I got no disagreements yet at least, but I just wanted to make an FYI that these are the type of revisions needing input from @DontTalkDT
 
KLOL506 said:
Okay then.

V. frag amounts to 26-41.4 MPa, with Vzearr providing values of 50, 63, 78.8, 85.9 and 92 MPa.

Taking into account that we use high-end shear strength to low-end compressive strength for v. frag and high-end compressive strength for pulv. (That being 99 MPa from Flashlight's sources), taking the values above into account, the average value for v. frag thus amounts to...

(26+41.4+50+63+78.8+85.9+92)/7 = 62.443 MPa.

Do what ya will with that value.
Click to expand...
The 78.8, 85.9, and 92 MPa values in Vrezzar's linked articles aren't low-end. The 92 MPa value is a high-end, and the other two are middle-ground thus not really being relevant. It's more like this if you really want something:

26+41.4+50+63=180.4

180.4/4=45.1 MPa

Of course this is just going off your way of handling things. Some people prefer to just go right off the sources rather than assume a mean value, so it'd be more like this:

Frag: 13.8 MPa
V. Frag: 26-41.4 MPa (Option 1); 41.4-50 MPa (Option 2)
Pulverization: 99 MPa

Just my thought.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I got no disagreements yet at least, but I just wanted to make an FYI that these are the type of revisions needing input from @DontTalkDT
Click to expand...
The consensus based on the arguments thus far is to keep what we already got for normal concrete, but change the destruction values for reinforced concrete. Just summing that up for you.
 
Flashlight237 said:
The 78.8, 85.9, and 92 MPa values in Vrezzar's linked articles aren't low-end. The 92 MPa value is a high-end, and the other two are middle-ground thus not really being relevant. It's more like this if you really want something:

26+41.4+50+63=180.4

180.4/4=45.1 MPa

Of course this is just going off your way of handling things. Some people prefer to just go right off the sources rather than assume a mean value, so it'd be more like this:

Frag: 13.8 MPa
V. Frag: 26-41.4 MPa (Option 1); 41.4-50 MPa (Option 2)
Pulverization: 99 MPa

Just my thought.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't frag be 27.6 MPa (the average)? Like V frag.
 
Flashlight237 said:
Some do it that way, some don't. Why do you think steel's pulverization value is a range?
Click to expand...
I'mma be real, it shouldn't be that way. Averages should save us headaches in the long run.

But since it's only just us 3 here (Which isn't enough consensus), I'll tag the overlords once more.

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 Whaddya think we should do here?
 
Which staff members have accepted what here so far? 🙏
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Flashlight237
Atomizing and Sub-Atomic Destruction Question
Replies
1
Views
1K
PedjaTarzan
PedjaTarzan
Flashlight237
Adding AL-6061 to the Destruction Chart
Replies
22
Views
4K
KLOL506
KLOL506
Vzearr
  • Locked
Revolutionization Of Our Fragmentation, Violent Fragmentation, And Pulverization Values
Replies
38
Views
4K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Crimsonobu
PTJ durability / lifting strength
Replies
1
Views
966
BlackCat
BlackCat
Flashlight237
About Damascus Steel
Replies
13
Views
3K
Dark-Carioca
Dark-Carioca
Back
Top