Values regarding fragmentation and pulverisation

[ReturnofKhadz]

In the calc page, I see that this is used for basis for the values for frag and pulv. However, I don’t get how this is reliable at all. Certain values, like 214J/cm³, seemingly come out of thin air. For other stuff, the OP just uses different material/rock strengths (compressive for pulv, shear for frag, etc). However this is objectively incorrect, especially for compressive strength. You cannot simply equate energy density to pressure of compressive strength. Rocks are the OPPOSITE of flexible. There is a thing called ductility. Rocks will crack and turn to dust at a small fraction of their full length, therefore compressive strength of a rock≠energy density toughness to pulverise.

I may be wrong and the values were obtained elsewhere, so someone walk me through this. I’ve seen certain other sources stating it’d take only 16MJ/m³ to crush granite down to micron-sized particles. That’s 16J/cm³; 13 times smaller than the current value for pulverising rock, and only double the value of simple fragmentation.

If anyone is gonna bring up Kuz-Ram model somehow, I’d note that it is highly inaccurate for kinetic impacts and loading, since it describes explosives and how they blast apart rock. They’re highly inefficient in doing so. Naturally, it’d take higher yields to blast apart and pulverise the same amount of rock as it would compared to, say, a hydraulic press.

 

[ReturnofKhadz]

Hmm I found this under the thread used for basis:

Both current values used

 

[KLOL506]

This topic has been discussed several times and it was decided that toughness isn't good enough to use for our values on frag and pulv. in this thread.

 

[ReturnofKhadz]

This topic has been discussed several times and it was decided that toughness isn't good enough to use for our values on frag and pulv. in this thread.

I’m reading through but it’s 8 pages…

Could you give me a TL;DR? And, in advance, tell me the final justification used for the values, as well as if they factored in ductility like noted. I’m really just trying to gauge this and move forward in using these values without doubt. I’ll keep reading but give me a TL;DR too please

 

[KLOL506]

TL; DR, toughness was far too impractical due to our simplified Attack Potency system and could not be consistently used for all materials, and it'd require recreating the wiki (And all its other policies) that was simply not a feasible thing to do anymore with too little benefits.

AFAIK, ductility wasn't noted in, but I doubt it would change things in the long run.

 

[ReturnofKhadz]

TL; DR, toughness was far too impractical due to our simplified Attack Potency system and could not be consistently used for all materials, and it'd require recreating the wiki (And all its other policies) that was simply not a feasible thing to do anymore with too little benefits.

AFAIK, ductility wasn't noted in, but I doubt it would change things in the long run.

So now we’re just using made-up values for stuff, but it’s fine because every character is being held under this same standard? Lol.

And yeah, I’ve read through the thread now. Seems everyone basically just opted out at the end, writing it off as too complicated for random internet people, even after mutually agreeing the current value used from Narutoforums was just made-up garbage. How is this, in any shape or form, reliable? I just can’t grasp it.

Also ductility would certainly change things, as it’s the whole reason why we wouldn’t just directly equate compressive strength to energy density. It’s the whole reason why the latter would numerically only be a fraction of the former. VSB is ignoring this rn tho

 

[KLOL506]

It is what it is. Doubt it's getting changed much without DontTalkDT and Mr. Bambu approving it.

 

[Passersby]

s (compressive for pulv, shear for frag, etc). However this is objectively incorrect, especially for compressive strength. You cannot simply equate energy density to pressure of compressive strength. Rocks are the OPPOSITE of flexible. There is a thing called ductility. Rocks will crack and turn to dust at a small fraction of their full length, therefore compressive strength of a rock≠energy density toughness to pulverise.

i wanted to say this as well the material properties aren't taking into account in calcs when accounting for the energy output needed to destroy a a material in question, the only circumstances where the destruction values of rocks and such is accurately quantified using plastic deformation stuff is when it's used to estimate the damage caused by nuclear detonations, high explosives or heavy kinetic impacts since in said scenarios the time frame is too short for brittle fracture to play any kind of role, with the pressures generated greatly exceeding material strength

plus shockwaves generated at multiple times the speed of sound cause the deformations to travel faster than the speed the rock can fracture rendering taking brttile fracturing into account meaningless



also the shear strenght for fragmention?
who the f uses shear strenght (resistance to cutting force) to calc the energy output of a punch?

like honestly

 

[KLOL506]

Like I said, far too impractical to apply at this point because of how our AP system works and it wouldn't be possible to apply this to all materials at large universally and consistently (Non-rock materials like wood or metals), plus the values are more widely available for use at this point, other stuff we can't take into account as well like angle of attack, surface area of the object attacking, etc. Else you'd have multiple types of AP, dura and whatnot (Which we also cannot do at this point because of our linear system for ease of access and simply because it'd be far too inconsistent in fiction to apply realistically due to fears of inflation of values).

Like, we even have a note saying this on our Calculations Page that it is no longer possible to do so, thereby making further discussion about these topics completely meaningless.

@Mr._Bambu @DontTalkDT I would appreciate if you could handle this on your point.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Hmm I found this under the thread used for basis:

Both current values used

I don't know who the **** Weiss is but we got our values from the old Narutoforums.

See here.

 

[KLOL506]

I don't know who the **** Weiss is but we got our values from the old Narutoforums.

See here.

More specifically, the books they listed in that old blog is where we got the values from.

 

[ReturnofKhadz]

I don't know who the **** Weiss is but we got our values from the old Narutoforums.

See here.

This is literally the thread I ssed from. They mention 214J/cc out of nowhere, and it’s pretty clear from that guy’s reply that he was the one that ”found” it originally. So, I ask, where is 214 from?

 

[ReturnofKhadz]

Like wtf is this?

the same page refers to a solid rock wall compressive strenght as > 200 mpa
or > 200 j/cc
which is hardly different from our current 214j/cc (which is...well >200 so yeah)

Complete nonsense. 214 isn’t substantiated anywhere. It’s just the shit they been using for a long time lmfao

 

[ReturnofKhadz]

Like I said, far too impractical to apply at this point because of how our AP system works and it wouldn't be possible to apply this to all materials at large universally and consistently (Non-rock materials like wood or metals), plus the values are more widely available for use at this point, other stuff we can't take into account as well like angle of attack, surface area of the object attacking, etc. Else you'd have multiple types of AP, dura and whatnot (Which we also cannot do at this point because of our linear system for ease of access and simply because it'd be far too inconsistent in fiction to apply realistically due to fears of inflation of values).

Like, we even have a note saying this on our Calculations Page that it is no longer possible to do so, thereby making further discussion about these topics completely meaningless.

@Mr._Bambu @DontTalkDT I would appreciate if you could handle this on your point.

Like I said, that isn’t what the problem is here. I’m just wondering where the hell they pulled 214 joules per cubic centimetre from specifically. Wouldn’t be too hard to cite if that’s what’s been used for years right? Narutoforums isn’t an official source LMFAO

Talk about fear of inflating values, 214 itself seems much too high from what I’ve seen. I linked a scan in OP from another source wherein the energy density for pulverisation is far smaller.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

This is literally the thread I ssed from. They mention 214J/cc out of nowhere, and it’s pretty clear from that guy’s reply that he was the one that ”found” it originally. So, I ask, where is 214 from?

That's fine, the guy in the comments isn't the source though. If your argument is that the OP in that thread was gathering resources to support a hitherto used number created by 'Weiss', then I suppose it's a valid concern to make but it is not as though these numbers tread from reality- the compressive strength of rock does reach into the 200s (although I'd use a lower value myself if I were to revamp the system).

These particular values are deliberately abstracted due to the fact that they are meant for use with unknown rock types. Another gripe from me is that I'd prefer assuming a specific rock type that works for the situation, but the system isn't really broken as it stands. The source has always indicated that these are approximations, and these approximations seem to align with reality. If 'Weiss' is the originator of them, then he appears to have gotten very lucky in his ballpark estimates, good for him.

 

[KLOL506]

That's fine, the guy in the comments isn't the source though. If your argument is that the OP in that thread was gathering resources to support a hitherto used number created by 'Weiss', then I suppose it's a valid concern to make but it is not as though these numbers tread from reality- the compressive strength of rock does reach into the 200s (although I'd use a lower value myself if I were to revamp the system).

These particular values are deliberately abstracted due to the fact that they are meant for use with unknown rock types. Another gripe from me is that I'd prefer assuming a specific rock type that works for the situation, but the system isn't really broken as it stands. The source has always indicated that these are approximations, and these approximations seem to align with reality. If 'Weiss' is the originator of them, then he appears to have gotten very lucky in his ballpark estimates, good for him.

The blog literally uses this as its source for the values as well.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

It does have that, but I can't read it, so I wouldn't defend it. But the fact remains that even if the guy did just invent these numbers, they're still essentially correct in terms of ballpark-estimations.

 

[KLOL506]

It does have that, but I can't read it, so I wouldn't defend it. But the fact remains that even if the guy did just invent these numbers, they're still essentially correct in terms of ballpark-estimations.

Here you go. Page 63 specifically.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

You have accessed a page not available for viewing or have reached the viewing limit for this book.

I believe you, but one can defend our values even without it.

 

[KLOL506]

I believe you, but one can defend our values even without it.

Welp. I tried. Just wanted to help out.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Welp. I tried. Just wanted to help out.

We will think we at least cited the sources we got the values on a blog already at this point. There should been other sources that involves the OP’s topic just to avoid this particular issue being brought up again, but that requires some looking into and also assuming it ain’t locked behind access restrictions or whatever.

 

[KLOL506]

Pretty sure we cited them in our Table of Destruction values ages ago when two other threads like this were made

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Pretty sure we cited them in our Table of Destruction values ages ago when two other threads like this were made

Did we? If not, we might as well do a minor CRT or staff discussion to properly ensured the sources were cited to hopefully not get brought up once again unless there is a more updated recent study on fragmentation and pulverization, then we can do some changes in the event that happens, which is hopefully not anytime soon.

 

[KLOL506]

We can just add the sources by using this thread as the CRT justification and that'd be that.

Rock values - Here (8mpa and >200mpa) and here (69 mpa) (For some reason none of these links can be archived and for some it is inaccessible, you need to login to google books to see them, do you want screenshots?)

Concrete values - Here (Sources included, this is already in the Table of Destruction Values AFAIK)

Other types of rocks and materials - Here (Links to sources included as well, this is already in the Table of Destruction Values)

The latter two have already been added to the Calculations page years ago.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Screenshots would help a great deal, yes.

 

[KLOL506]

Screenshots would help a great deal, yes.

No worries.

Rock values - 8mpa shear strength and >200mpa high-end unilaxial compressive strength (Source: Foundations on Rock- Engineering Practice, Second Edition - Page 63) and 69 mpa low-end unilaxial compressive strength (Source: Engineered Rock Structures in Mining and Civil Construction - Page 262)

 

[Hypertornado099]

Concrete values - Here (Sources included, this is already in the Table of Destruction Values AFAIK)

I can't download the first PDF, can someone post it here

 

[Hypertornado099]

I may be wrong and the values were obtained elsewhere, so someone walk me through this. I’ve seen certain other sources stating it’d take only 16MJ/m³ to crush granite down to micron-sized particles. That’s 16J/cm³; 13 times smaller than the current value for pulverising rock, and only double the value of simple fragmentation.

Do you have the source for this?

 

[KLOL506]

I can't download the first PDF, can someone post it here

Do you mean this?

Here you go.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

We can just add the sources by using this thread as the CRT justification and that'd be that.

Rock values - Here (8mpa and >200mpa) and here (69 mpa) (For some reason none of these links can be archived and for some it is inaccessible, you need to login to google books to see them, do you want screenshots?)

Concrete values - Here (Sources included, this is already in the Table of Destruction Values AFAIK)

Other types of rocks and materials - Here (Links to sources included as well, this is already in the Table of Destruction Values)

The latter two have already been added to the Calculations page years ago.

Alrighty. I guess the only issue is if any of the links are inaccessible.


Edit: Removed the “shouldn’t been the case” statement

 

[KLOL506]

Alrighty. I guess the only issue is if any of the links are inaccessible.


Edit: Removed the “shouldn’t been the case statement

I bet even with the appropriate links added people will still complain so eh.

 

[KLOL506]

Steel values - 207 MPa frag (Carbon steel) and 568.5 J/cc (alloy steel) (0.75x tensile strength). 310 MPa pulv/compressive strength (Not sure where 1000 MPa was from but the NarutoForums link said it was from military grade steel. Well, high carbon strength steel has a compressive yield strength of 2160 MPa average according to this and a low-end of 1320 MPa so mileage may vary). That being said, I'd rather we chose different types of steel for different types of objects (Cars will use mild steel, modern day armor plates and military vehicles will use ballistic armor steel, medieval armor and swords and knives may use high-carbon steel, etc. Contrary to popular belief, modern-day bank vault doors use cast-iron or steel-reinforced concrete)

Iron ores - Who the hell uses iron ores instead of cast iron and wrought iron (Which we have in our blogs on the wiki)

Glass - We already rejected it ages ago as it didn't fit with our system

Ice - Two links, this one here is frag and v. frag of 0.5271 J/cc and 0.82503 J/cc respectively, and another here is for pulv. (4.3919 MPa)

Human Body I won't bother with since not all parts are the same, we just rely on bone now IIRC.

Woods we phased out the NarutoForums for our own blog ages ago.

As for melting and vaporization values, we just wing it with latent heat and specific heat capacity for melting (Fusion) and vaporizing (Vaporization). Atomization is atomization.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I bet even with the appropriate links added people will still complain so eh.

They probably won’t bother to look up the wiki standards page we have set up and only assume we made it up as proven here and probably before this thread ever comes into existence

 

[KLOL506]

They probably won’t bother to look up the wiki standards page we have set up and only assume we made it up as proven here and probably before this thread ever comes into existence

They won't even bother checking the discussion rules or the edit histories to see the CRTs and links

 

[KLOL506]

Steel values - 207 MPa frag (Carbon steel) and 568.5 J/cc (alloy steel) (0.75x tensile strength). 310 MPa pulv/compressive strength (Not sure where 1000 MPa was from but the NarutoForums link said it was from military grade steel. Well, high carbon strength steel has a compressive yield strength of 2160 MPa average according to this and a low-end of 1320 MPa so mileage may vary). That being said, I'd rather we chose different types of steel for different types of objects (Cars will use mild steel, modern day armor plates and military vehicles will use ballistic armor steel, medieval armor and swords and knives may use high-carbon steel, etc. Contrary to popular belief, modern-day bank vault doors use cast-iron or steel-reinforced concrete)

Iron ores - Who the hell uses iron ores instead of cast iron and wrought iron (Which we have in our blogs on the wiki)

Glass - We already rejected it ages ago as it didn't fit with our system

Ice - Two links, this one here is frag and v. frag of 0.5271 J/cc and 0.82503 J/cc respectively, and another here is for pulv. (4.3919 MPa)

Human Body I won't bother with since not all parts are the same, we just rely on bone now IIRC.

Woods we phased out the NarutoForums for our own blog ages ago.

As for melting and vaporization values, we just wing it with latent heat and specific heat capacity for melting (Fusion) and vaporizing (Vaporization). Atomization is atomization.

@Mr._Bambu We can just paste these links below the Table of Destruction Values page like this.

"Rock values taken from here and here"

"Ice values taken from here and here"

Etc., adding references after said links (Linking to google books for anyone who has a google account to log in to them and check them).

Otherwise, we already have a lot of the new destruction values blogs of our own wiki pasted there from the get-go. But again, we added the disclaimer and nobody bothered to read it before making this thread so I am not sure if adding a discussion rule will do us any good if people aren't even gonna bother reading them from the get-go.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

We have a decent number of the "taken from here, here, and here" links below the table of destruction values on our Calculations page, but I suppose it would be a good idea to provide better sourced shit for the future, since it seems to me that it's most often an issue of sources, not correctness of the values themselves. You'd need more than my approval for such a thing though- as usual, these sorts of things are usually sent down DontTalk's particular dark alleyway.

 

[KLOL506]

We have a decent number of the "taken from here, here, and here" links below the table of destruction values on our Calculations page, but I suppose it would be a good idea to provide better sourced shit for the future, since it seems to me that it's most often an issue of sources, not correctness of the values themselves. You'd need more than my approval for such a thing though- as usual, these sorts of things are usually sent down DontTalk's particular dark alleyway.

@DontTalkDT Would you be able to provide a better way to add the references to the materials?

 

[KLOL506]

Bump

@DontTalkDT