In a First, America Dropped 30,000-Pound Bunker-Busters—But Iran’s Concrete May Be Unbreakable, Scientists Say
Technology
113
Beiträge
71
Kommentatoren
442
Aufrufe
-
Previously, a yield strength of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) was enough for concrete to be rated as “high strength,” with the best going up to 10,000 psi. The new UHPC can withstand 40,000 psi or more.
The greater strength is achieved by turning concrete into a composite material with the addition of steel or other fibers. These fibers hold the concrete together and prevent cracks from spreading throughout it, negating the brittleness. “Instead of getting a few large cracks in a concrete panel, you get lots of smaller cracks,” says Barnett. “The fibers give it more fracture energy.”
They used nagarjuna cement
-
Previously, a yield strength of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) was enough for concrete to be rated as “high strength,” with the best going up to 10,000 psi. The new UHPC can withstand 40,000 psi or more.
The greater strength is achieved by turning concrete into a composite material with the addition of steel or other fibers. These fibers hold the concrete together and prevent cracks from spreading throughout it, negating the brittleness. “Instead of getting a few large cracks in a concrete panel, you get lots of smaller cracks,” says Barnett. “The fibers give it more fracture energy.”
Nothing is unbreakable.
-
And no bomb is irresistible.
-
Nothing is unbreakable.
Except for my spirit.
-
Previously, a yield strength of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) was enough for concrete to be rated as “high strength,” with the best going up to 10,000 psi. The new UHPC can withstand 40,000 psi or more.
The greater strength is achieved by turning concrete into a composite material with the addition of steel or other fibers. These fibers hold the concrete together and prevent cracks from spreading throughout it, negating the brittleness. “Instead of getting a few large cracks in a concrete panel, you get lots of smaller cracks,” says Barnett. “The fibers give it more fracture energy.”
Ha ha yea go iran! Fuck the west and their imperialist bull!
-
From this article it sounds very likely that the bunker buster attack failed.
And I read that the US used more than half of its stock of these bunker-buster bombs in this attack, the largest conventional bunker-busters in existence. So they can't simply try again.
-
Hardly. Did you read the article?
So I did not read the article because of a paywall I'm too lazy to circumvent right now
But from OP's summary, the main technology they're talking about is concrete reinforced with steel or other fibers.
And that's definitely more advanced than "pyramid age"
But it's also pretty much a direct descendant of mud brick reinforced with straw which humanity has been using since well before the pyramids. Same basic concept, different materials.
So yes and no.
-
From this article it sounds very likely that the bunker buster attack failed.
I mean they usually only do about 30 damage anyways.
-
Previously, a yield strength of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) was enough for concrete to be rated as “high strength,” with the best going up to 10,000 psi. The new UHPC can withstand 40,000 psi or more.
The greater strength is achieved by turning concrete into a composite material with the addition of steel or other fibers. These fibers hold the concrete together and prevent cracks from spreading throughout it, negating the brittleness. “Instead of getting a few large cracks in a concrete panel, you get lots of smaller cracks,” says Barnett. “The fibers give it more fracture energy.”
I low key assume this means the next strike will be using tactical nukes. This is bad news folks.
-
The greater strength is achieved by turning concrete into a composite material with the addition of steel or other fibers.
Fiber reinforcment is thousands of years old.
Calling that pyramid age I think is a little disingenuous, they didn’t have 40,000 psi concrete back in those days.
-
Except for my spirit.
You can't break what is already broken
-
Except for my spirit.
Someone, somewhere, said they don't like you.
Now CRY!
-
Someone, somewhere, said they don't like you.
Now CRY!
Everyone likes me.
-
So I did not read the article because of a paywall I'm too lazy to circumvent right now
But from OP's summary, the main technology they're talking about is concrete reinforced with steel or other fibers.
And that's definitely more advanced than "pyramid age"
But it's also pretty much a direct descendant of mud brick reinforced with straw which humanity has been using since well before the pyramids. Same basic concept, different materials.
So yes and no.
Yes....no.....maybe? I don't know. Can you repeat the question?
-
I low key assume this means the next strike will be using tactical nukes. This is bad news folks.
.......please don't give them ideas.
-
Except copeium.
-
Previously, a yield strength of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) was enough for concrete to be rated as “high strength,” with the best going up to 10,000 psi. The new UHPC can withstand 40,000 psi or more.
The greater strength is achieved by turning concrete into a composite material with the addition of steel or other fibers. These fibers hold the concrete together and prevent cracks from spreading throughout it, negating the brittleness. “Instead of getting a few large cracks in a concrete panel, you get lots of smaller cracks,” says Barnett. “The fibers give it more fracture energy.”
Holy nothing burger, Batman!
First off, this article is from 2022, re-released to farm clicks from the current hype cycle.
Secondly, this is conjecture on top of conjecture. They discuss that we can't know the current damage from satellite, and Iran down plays the damage. Then they go on to say "concrete is strong and can be stronger".
Articles like this annoy me. It's all based on lots of unsubstantiated claims, and then one guy's theoretical research. We don't know the strength of the bombs. We don't know the strength of Iran's bunkers. We don't know how much damage was done. None of this has changed. I doubt we'll ever really know. But throw whatever political spin on it you want, and now you've got a click worthy news article.
-
From this article it sounds very likely that the bunker buster attack failed.
That's what they want you to think, but we have no evidence to either direction. And I doubt we will ever have a definitive answer.
-
And no bomb is irresistible.
You triggered a thought: what if those bunker busters carried a payload of corrosive material, something that the explosive event could deeply embed into the concrete, slowly degrading its strength - possibly until total failure?
-
From this article it sounds very likely that the bunker buster attack failed.
My guess: that bunker buster attack was twice as successful as the missile attack on the the airfield in Qatar.
2 x 0 = 0.
Now accepting bets on when we will find out that Trump had a secret call with Ali Khamenei where they negotiated the whole thing ahead of time, thus explaining the movement of the Uranium out of the facility, the movement of our servicemen out of the airbase, etc. etc.
