Dynamic Tensile Strength of Concrete: A Review of Mechanisms, Test Results, and Applications for Dam Safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides a comprehensive review of the dynamic tensile behavior of concrete, focusing on its implications for seismic-resistant and impact-prone structures such as dams. The present work distinguishes itself in the following ways: providing the first comprehensive synthesis explicitly focused on large-aggregate dam concrete behavior across the seismic strain rate range (10−4 to 10−2 s−1), which is critical yet underrepresented in the existing literature; integrating recent experimental and numerical advances regarding moisture effects, load history, and cyclic loading—factors that are essential for dam safety assessments; and critically evaluating current design guidelines for concrete dams against state-of-the-art research to identify gaps between engineering practice and scientific evidence. Through the extensive synthesis of experimental data, numerical simulations, and existing guidelines, the study examines key factors influencing dynamic tensile strength, including strain rate effects, crack evolution, testing techniques, and material variables such as moisture content, load history, and aggregate size. Experimental results from spall tests, split Hopkinson pressure bar configurations, and cyclic loading protocols are analyzed, revealing dynamic increase factors ranging from 1.1 to over 12, depending on the strain rates, saturation levels, and preloading conditions. The roles of inertial effects, free water (via the Stefan effect), and microstructural heterogeneity in enhancing or diminishing tensile performance are critically evaluated. Numerical models, including finite element, discrete element, and peridynamic approaches, are discussed for their ability to simulate crack propagation, inertia-dominated responses, and moisture interactions. The review identifies and analyzes current design guidelines. Key conclusions emphasize the necessity of integrating moisture content, load history, and mesoscale heterogeneity into dynamic constitutive models, alongside standardized testing protocols to bridge gaps between laboratory data and real-world applications. The findings advocate for updated engineering guidelines that reflect recent advances in rate-dependent fracture mechanics and multi-scale modeling, ensuring safer and more resilient concrete infrastructure under extreme dynamic loads.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".