• 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.

Additional value to calculate destruction of materials: Yield strength

1,673
289
"The yield point is the point on a stress―strain curve that indicates the limit of elastic behavior and the beginning of plastic behavior. Yield strength or yield stress is the material property defined as the stress at which a material begins to deform plastically whereas yield point is the point where nonlinear (elastic + plastic) deformation begins. Prior to the yield point the material will deform elastically and will return to its original shape when the applied stress is removed. Once the yield point is passed, some fraction of the deformation will be permanent and non-reversible. "

From wikipedia

In other words, this is the minimum amount of force you can apply to a material before it gets bent out of shape, for practical purposes we could use this value to calculate feats where materials such as steel get dented or seriously bent, but not outright torn or destroyed.

For reference, steel is listed on the aforementioned wiki page as having a yield strength of 250 Megapascals, applying the same logic used by the OBD and us by extension, we can infer that the energy required to bend 1cm3 of steel is 250j (you may notice the value is greater than the one for the fragmentation of steel in NF that we use, but this is because the general strength of steel varies depending on the way it is made).

One notable calc that makes use of this is batman kicking down a prison door which is currently accepted in his profile, should be noted that "Elastic limit" and "Yield strength" are interchangeable terms they both practically refer to the same thing.
 
I honestly think this along with compressive and tensile strength should be added to the calculations page.
 
You can ask DontTalkDT to take a look at this thread if you wish.
 
And we should talk about modification factors for materials as well since stress and shearing calculations require it so
 
because j/cc isn't an unit of measure of energy, it should be


"the energy required to bend 1cm3 of steel is 250j" or


"the energy required to bend steel is 250j/cc"
 
I am here

I'll wait before replying in-depth, working on a handful of calc requests that have built up, but when discussion DOES occur, I am here
 
@Votron

I think our current destruction values for fragmentation/v.frag/pulverization in the calculations page already make use of those values.

here you can see

Pulverization comes from the ability to turn something into dust for that we go with compressive strenght
 
Oh, I didn't know the J/cc of pulverized materials came from compressive strength. I think that these clarifications that fragmentation come from shear strength while pulverization comes from compressive strength should be added to the calculations page.

Tensile strength is not mentioned in that link you gave nor in the calculations page. Tensile strength can require far more J/cc than compressive strength.
 
The narutoforums article uses shear strenght (for fragmentaion) which is percentage of the ultimate tensile strength of the material, but you're correct, Tensile strength isn't used anywhere for some reason, even though it is the minimum amount of pressure you can subject a material before it tears.
 
There are also other factors that could be implemented like fracturing a material.

If I can punch a brick wall and it breaks into sizeable pieces, then good, I can just use the shear strength of brick and find it's volume, then great, I can figure out the joules it would take to break that wall.

But what if I punched the wall and just fracture some out it. It isn't in pieces. So what would be the joules of that? Would yield strength give an answer to that?
 
We do not use Tensile Strength since it involve splitting and not volume destruction, Yield is when the material deforms to the point that can't be fixed, meanwhile Ultimate is where the rupture happens. Imagine it as a cylinder of metal being stretched from its end, where it reach the point of not "joining back" to its original position that is TS: Yield, when it breaks is TS: Ultimate.
 
So you couldn't ascertain the amount of joules it is to deform a material or stretch it until it ruptures from it's volume and its yield strength or tensile strength?
 
Antoniofer said:
We do not use Tensile Strength since it involve splitting and not volume destruction, Yield is when the material deforms to the point that can't be fixed, meanwhile Ultimate is where the rupture happens. Imagine it as a cylinder of metal being stretched from its end, where it reach the point of not "joining back" to its original position that is TS: Yield, when it breaks is TS: Ultimate.
What would that mean for this calc though?

It utilizes Yield Strength/Elastic limit/Tensile Yield and extrapolates by volume.

would it be not valid to utilize the similar method depicted there?
 
This isn't my area of expertise. From what I am reading, this should be a good method of calculating something previously unquantifiable.
 
Okay. It definitely isn't mine either. It is probably best to wait for the other calc group members then.
 
From a quick look this seems to make sense. I'm going to sleep now first. If this is accepted it will be useful for calculating a lot of feats including some in the Common Calculation project.
 
Yeah, the value in the batman calc is 170 MPa off this site see elastic limit for reference

Obviously we would need to decide which values to use because Steels tend to vary a lot in terms of strength.

In fact I think the NF blog lowballs the values massively, the very same page from which they source their destruction values for steel establish a range of 186-758 Mpa for yield strenght and 276-1882 MPa for Tensile strenght, which translates to 207-1411.5 MPa for shear strenght when you multiply by the 0.75 ratio used to infer Shear values off tensile strength and that's a very wide range that encompasses and unknown number of different steels that would obviously vary massively in values.

Comparatively common structural steel used in the US has a 250 MPa yield and 400―550 Mpa Tensile which translates to 300-412.5 MPa for shear when multiplied by the same .75 ratio.
 
I agree with aguila. When I was calcing those common destruction feats on my blog, it was surprising that aluminum had better strength than steel. That NF blog is likely not as reliable we may think.
 
This may be me going off on a tangent but we really need to research and see if those destructions values for those materials stated in the NF blog are consistent with other sources. Maybe also figure out more destructive values for different materials.
 
That aside, assuming this gets accepted I think it'd be best to use 186 MPa|J/cc for yield strength/elastic limit for consistency with the values the blog from NF uses as a source.
 
Votron5 said:
How is a 186 MPa yield consistent with the NF blog?
I'm referring specifically to the blog from NF from which we lift our current destruction values for steel

They get their fragmentation values for steel from this site, by multiplying minimum tensile strength (278 MPa) by the number outlined in this other site (0.75) to find shear strength which is 208.5 MPa.

The minimum yield strength outlined by the same source they use is 186 MPa, so it's the value that would be more consistent with the blog.
 
Engineering is far from what I am knowledgeable about, but I suppose the idea doesn't seem worse than what we already make use of.
 
Can some calc group member (current or former) summarise what is being suggested here in an easy to understand manner?
 
Back
Top