Minimizing Temperature Differentials in Mass Concrete

High-strength concrete covered with blankets, minimizing cooling of foundation surfaces

BY STEVE WHITTIER, JIM OLYNIEC, AND ROBERT MCGLOHN

ngineers are using high-strength concrete more commonly in the design of heavily loaded structures. Because of this concretes higher strength, member dimensions are smaller compared to those built with conventional concrete. The heat of hydration of mass concrete (whether or not it is high strength) and the resulting temperature rise in the concrete, however, can cause thermal expansion and contraction problems. If left unchecked, differential expansion in the concrete can cause internal tensile stresses that exceed its tensile strength, causing the concrete to crack. This article presents the approach taken by one project team to monitor and control the temperature differential on a high-strength, mass concrete foundation.

MASSIVE FOUNDATIONS

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is installing selective catalytic reduction (SCR) environmental equipment at several of its fossil fuel power plants in the Tennessee Valley. One of these structures located in northeast Alabama, which houses the new equipment, required massive foundations to support large gravity and transient loads. Figure 1 shows one of the foundations for the Unit 8 SCR at its Widows Creek plant. The foundation consists of four large pile caps connected by grade beams. The pile caps are 9 ft square (2.7 m square) (in plan) and are 8 ft (2.4 m) thick while the grade beams are 4 ft (1.2 m) wide (in plan) and 4 ft (1.2 m) deep. The required

strength of the foundation concrete was 6000 psi (40 MPa) in 28 days. A standard available mixture, which met project specifications, contained limestone aggregate with 775 lb (350 kg) of ASTM C 150, Type II cement and 104 lb (47 kg) of Class F fly ash (ASTM C 618). 1 ACI 207.1R defines mass concrete as any volume of concrete with dimensions large enough to require that measures be taken to cope with generation of heat from hydration of the cement and attendant volume change to minimize cracking. These foundations met the definition for mass concrete. ACI 207 goes on to say that significant tensile stresses and strains may develop from the volume change associated with the increase and decrease of temperature within the mass. Foundations for this project were heavily reinforced and confined with perimeter reinforcement. This reinforcement, however, does not guarantee that the concrete will not crack and certainly will not prevent the concrete from generating heat. It was determined that these highstrength concrete foundations, if allowed to cure while exposed to cold weather, would be problematic due to high temperature differences between the center of the foundation and its exposed surfaces. These problems can be avoided, however, if the maximum temperature of the concrete is controlled and the mass foundation is allowed to dissipate heat evenly, avoiding differential temperatures within the foundation. The methods developed for use in this project were selected to

42

DECEMBER 2004

/ Concrete international

minimize temperature differentials and maximum concrete temperatures, thus preventing cracking and potential internal damage to the concrete.

INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING

The likelihood of thermal cracking increases as the inner core of the mass concrete continues to heat (due to hydration) while the outer surface of the concrete is cooling (due to heat dissipation). Additionally, depending on the mixture proportions, the amount of cement used, and the size of the placement, the inner concrete can easily exceed the maximum safe limit of 160 F (70 C). The 160 F (70 C) limit comes from current industry practices with regard to concern over future durability issues related to delayed ettringite formation (DEF). This situation is aggravated if the outside (ambient air) temperature is vastly different from the inner concrete temperature. Damage may result when the cooler, outside concrete resists thermal expansion of the inner concrete as it continues to heat. Foundations for this project were placed in November when the average outside temperature was between 40 and 50 F (4 and 10 C). Of even more concern was the fact that the two northernmost pile caps (shown in Fig. 1) were exposed to the ambient air on three sides, subjecting them to the cold front that was expected to move into the region during concrete placement. The southern two pile caps and grade beams were partially embedded in soil, flush with the ground surface. Because they had only their north faces exposed, they were less likely to suffer from extreme temperature differentials. Initially, the plan to avoid the problem of differential thermal expansion and contraction was to insulate the concrete with standard available blankets to minimize the temperature differentials. The amount of time estimated for the foundations to dissipate the heat generated during hydration and return to in-service conditions was 14 days. The constructor was concerned about the 14-day duration of foundation insulation because of the tight schedule of structural steel erection. The project team decided to install thermocouples inside the concrete to verify when the inner core temperature had cooled enough to remove the insulating blankets. This monitoring of temperatures was a simple solution to provide data on the maximum internal temperature in the concrete. Thermocouples were placed in the centers of the northeast pile cap and the southwest pile cap. Thermocouples were also placed in the center of the outside surfaces of the same caps (to represent the surface temperature of the concrete), located 2 in. (50 mm) inside the formwork surface. The southwest cap was instrumented to see what effect the ground would have on the temperature gradient and cooling of the concrete.

Thermocouples were also installed in the east grade beam at the center face and core. To control cracking in cases where special cooling is not practical and where high strength mixtures must be 2 used, PCAs Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures says that a good technique is to 1) place the entire concrete section in one continuous pour, 2) avoid external restraint from adjacent concrete elements, and 3) control internal differential thermal strains by preventing the concrete from experiencing excessive temperature differential between the internal concrete and the surface. These foundations were placed continuously and were not restrained by adjoining concrete elements.

TAKING ACTION

Internal heat of hydration causes an adiabatic rise in temperature. To predict the peak temperature rise in the foundation, two sources were used: the referenced 2,3 PCA document and ACI 207.2R. Factors identified as contributing to the peak rise in temperature include the initial concrete temperature, ambient temperature, the mixture proportions (cementitious material content), the size of the concrete element (volume to surface ratio), 2 and the amount of reinforcement. During hot weather, concrete is most commonly cooled with chilled water and/or ice as part or all of the mixing water. Other methods include cooling by sprinkling the aggregate with water or injecting the freshly mixed concrete with liquid nitrogen. The initial concrete temperature for the foundation was predicted to be about 60 F (16 C) based on temperature measurements of the aggregate and other materials at the plant. The concrete producer indicated that cooling the concrete below 60 F (16 C) using special methods would be

Fig. 1: One of the foundations for the Unit 8 selective catalytic reduction (SCR) environmental equipment at its Widows Creek plant. The foundation consists of four large pile caps connected by grade beams
Concrete international

/ DECEMBER 2004

43

costly. This initial concrete temperature was added to the predicted rise in concrete temperature to estimate if it would exceed the limiting value of 160 F (70 C). 1 Section 5.3 of ACI 207.1R can be used to approximate the maximum rise in temperature without losses from cooling. For this projects 6000 psi (40 MPa) concrete, the anticipated adiabatic rise in concrete temperature, using equations found in ACI 207.2R, was about 110 F (60 C) (without any losses from heat dissipation). 2 The formula from Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures similarly predicts a maximum temperature rise of about 107 F (59 C) (without cooling) using the 775 lb (350 kg) of cement and half of the 104 lb (47 kg) fly ash considered as cement. (It is generally accepted that one half of the fly ash weight can be considered to contribute 1 to the heat of hydration. ) Adding the higher peak temperature rise of 110 F (60 C) to the initial concrete placement temperature of 60 F (16 C) results in an approximate maximum concrete temperature of 170 F (77 C) (without any losses from cooling). The anticipated cooling of the concrete from normal exposure to the ground and/or air was anticipated to limit the maximum internal temperature of the concrete to between 155 and 160 F (68 and 70 C). Thus, adding ice to lower the initial concrete temperature was not required. To control surface cracking, the PCA document suggests that the interior and exterior temperature differential should generally not exceed 36 F (20 C). It also states that for concrete with limestone aggregate the maximum differential temperature should be limited to a maximum of 56 F (31 C). Concern over possibly exceeding this limit was the justification for using insulating blankets to reduce temperature differentials throughout the concrete in this project as it dissipated heat and reached ambient temperatures. For this project, 50 F (28 C) was chosen as the limiting temperature differential between the interior and the exterior concrete. A double layer of thermal insulating blankets, with a total thermal conductivity of about 4 ft2 h F/Btu (0.70 m2 K/W) was selected to prevent rapid cooling of the exterior concrete face. Concrete was placed on November 22, 2002, and insulating blankets were placed over all exposed concrete surfaces and the wooden formwork after placement. Temperature was measured using thermocouples and the differential temperature between the core and the outside face of the concrete was determined. It was predicted that it would take about 14 days for the interior concrete to cool to within 50 F (28 C) of the ambient temperature. The thermocouples were to be checked periodically to confirm this prior to removing the blankets. The ground surrounding the embedded foundations was considered to be a good insulator from cold weather while dissipating heat; however, the top surface of the

exposed concrete was insulated with blankets to allow even cooling.

WITHIN 50 F OF AMBIENT

The constructor periodically monitored the concrete temperatures via the thermocouples (Fig. 2(a) to (c)) and planned to remove the blankets and the formwork as soon as the inner concrete temperatures were no more than 50 F (28 C) above the average ambient outside temperature. Figure 2(a) shows the average ambient temperature during the time considered. One interesting observation is that the temperatures of the concrete core and surface converged faster when the foundations were partially embedded in the earth, as shown for the southwest foundation (Fig. 2(c)), compared to the northeast cap that was not embedded (Fig. 2(a)). This would be expected because the earth is a good insulator. The grade beam temperature differentials (Fig. 2(b)) are not as significant because the beam is only 4 ft (1.2 m) wide compared to the 9-ft-wide (2.7 m) caps. On December 3 (the 10th day), the inner concrete temperature of the northeast cap was 80 F (27 C), which was within 50 F (28 C) of the expected average ambient temperature and the insulation was removed. There were no visible signs of cracking observed on the surface of the exposed foundations immediately after the formwork was removed, nor were there any after several weeks.

DIFFERENTIAL TEMPERATURES LIMITED

Surface cracking is unsightly and detrimental to the service life of concrete structures. Surface cracking, however small, may concern the engineer, constructor, and owner. Internal cracking and excessive concrete temperatures are of equal or greater concern due to the unknown effects on the integrity of the concrete if DEF occurs. As high-strength mixtures become more common in the design of concrete structures, designers should understand and use the recommendations by PCA and ACI to avoid these problems. Thermocouples or other measuring devices are a simple way of confirming temperature differentials. Insulating concrete surfaces can minimize the differential temperatures between the inside and the outside of mass concrete while dissipating heat during curing in cold weather. Insulation, however, has little effect on the maximum temperature in the core. Heat dissipation by the earth helps to reduce the maximum temperature while also keeping the outside temperature of the concrete within an acceptable range of the inside temperature. The earth is better at minimizing differential temperatures in mass concrete than blankets used to insulate exposed mass concrete. Using the guidelines developed by PCA and ACI, the maximum concrete temperature must be calculated and checked to prevent the concrete from overheating and

44

DECEMBER 2004

/ Concrete international

incurring internal damage. Provisions should be taken to avoid high temperatures, such as modifying the cementitious content of the mixture if allowed by the strength required

by the project specifications, lowering the initial placement temperature, or providing a means of internal cooling.

Acknowledgments
The authors express their appreciation to John Gajda of Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc. (www.MassConcreteHelp.com) and Terry Collins of the Portland Cement Association (www.cement.org) for their information and assistance in determining the predictions of core temperatures and the anticipated effects of insulation. The advice from Jim Shilstone, Sr., on mixture proportion temperatures is much appreciated.

References
1. ACI Committee 207, Mass Concrete (207.1R-96), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1996, 42 pp. 2. Portland Cement Association, Design and Control of Concrete Admixtures, 14th EditionCD Version, CD100.1, 2003. 3. ACI Committee 207, Effect of Restraint, Volume Change, and Reinforcement on Cracking of Mass Concrete (207.2R-95 [Reapproved 2002]), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1995, 26 pp. Selected for reader interest by the editors after independent expert evaluation and recommendation.

Steve Whittier, P.E., is a Principal Engineer with the Tennessee Valley Authoritys (TVA) Fossil Power Group Engineering Design Services, Chattanooga, TN. He received a bachelors and a masters in civil engineering from the University of Tennessee and has been involved in numerous concrete designs for TVA over the last 25 years. Jim Olyniec is a Field Engineer with GUBMK Construction at TVAs Widows Creek SCR Project. He holds a masters in civil engineering from the University of New Mexico and has 25 years of experience in construction.

Fig. 2: Temperatures in the concrete core (middle) and surface (edge) in the (a) northeast foundation; (b) grade beam; and (c) southwest foundation

ACI member Robert McGlohn, P.E., is the Civil/Structural Manager for Neill and Gunter, Inc. in their Chattanooga, TN, office. He is a graduate of Mississipi State University with a bachelors and a masters in civil engineering and has 25 years of experience in the design of various industrial concrete and steel structures.
Concrete international

/ DECEMBER 2004

45