this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2025
290 points (80.6% liked)

Technology

71921 readers
3940 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.”

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago (6 children)

From this article it sounds very likely that the bunker buster attack failed.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 20 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Paradox@lemdro.id 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The article is 3 years old

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But the information still seems valid.

[–] 3abas@lemm.ee 2 points 22 hours ago

It's confirming your bias so you like it...

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I mean they usually only do about 30 damage anyways.

Source

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

So Iran knew EXACTLY how strong they needed to make their defenses!
Pretty stupid of the American military to give that info to a game developer, that would obviously use it.

[–] dalekcaan@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I love how unhinged random fan wikis sound without context. Here for instance: Bunker Buster, see also: Concrete Donkey and Buffalo of Lies

[–] JustinTheGM@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 day ago

I hadn't clicked the link yet, but Concrete Donkey told me what it was immediately

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 9 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 7 points 1 day ago

Why? The kinds of UHPC being discussed in the article weren't available even in the United States until the year 2000 but most of Iran's nuclear facilities were built between 1974 and 2005. Even their primary enrichment facility in Fordow, which was struck with MOPs, was started no earlier than the mid-2000s as it was still unfinished in 2009.

Basically the majority of Iran's facilities, even their major ones, are too old to have the kind of concrete being discussed in the article.

[–] Darrell_Winfield@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago

Impressive.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Basically they used pyramid age tech to outplay billions of dollars worth of weapons tech.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Arguably letting a big weight fall down after being brought into the air somehow is also pyramid age tech.

[–] 3abas@lemm.ee 2 points 22 hours ago

These bombs are not just dead weights. These bunker busters are equipped with precision guidance and fly to and hit a person on the head if they desired. It's also designed to deliver a huge explosion AFTER it penetrates with the kinetic impact.

It can also be set to explode right before impact, like Israel really likes to do when attaching residential high-rises, to deliver maximum destruction and death.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Hardly. Did you read the article?

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Calling that pyramid age I think is a little disingenuous, they didn’t have 40,000 psi concrete back in those days.

Thats fair yeah

[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Yes....no.....maybe? I don't know. Can you repeat the question?

[–] Bonus@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Egyptians stacked blocks of stone to build the pyramids.

Roman concrete was impressively strong.

Neither of them had steel-reinforced concrete.

Neither did Gothic cathedrals, which is why they needed flying buttresses.

Reinforced concrete as we know it today is a 19th century innovation, as I understand it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_concrete?wprov=sfla1

Maybe the commenter was thinking of adobe.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AJ1@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

I sure would like to read this article, it seems fascinating, but it's paywalled.

[–] BakedCatboy@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›