TEMPERATURE PREDICTION

OF CONCRETE VIA
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
H.P.RATHNAYAKA
PG/E/ST/2017/039
Supervised By: Dr. H.D. Yapa
OUTLINE
▪ Objectives
▪ Methodology
▪ Adiabatic Temperature Rise of Concrete
▪ Development of FEM model
▪ Results comparison
OBJECTIVES
▪ Formulation of FE model
▪ Validation of FE model with experimental data
▪ Experiments on industry used concrete mixtures to develop adiabatic
curves
▪ Composition of Set of guideline to control temperature in typical
structures
METHODOLOGY

Develop Development of Validation

adiabatic FEM model FEM
curves model

Experiments on
Composition of Set of
industry used concrete
guideline
mixtures
ADIABATIC TEMPERATURE RISE
▪ For accurate determination of the heat generation and adiabatic
temperature rise of concrete adiabatic curing test is needed.
▪ The test requires a controlled environment that is capable of preventing
heat transfer from the concrete specimen to the surroundings and vice
versa. Therefore, the adiabatic curing test is very difficult and costly.
▪ Semi-adiabatic curing test method with heat loss compensation has
been developed in literature.
ADIABATIC TEMPERATURE RISE
DEVELOPMENT OF FEM MODEL
▪ 1000mm x 700mm x 350mm concrete specimen cast with 12mm
plywood formwork.
▪ Grade 35 concrete with OPC 493kg/m3, Fine aggregate 652kg/m3,
Coarse aggregate 992kg/m3 and water 212kg/m3.
▪ Temperature measured for 140h at 30min interval via a data logger at
mid point.
▪ Semi adiabatic specimen casted to 200mm x 200mm x 200mm size
regiform box and placed another large outer regiform box filled with
regiform balls as an insulation material.
DEVELOPMENT OF FEM MODEL
▪ Maximum adiabatic temperature rise is 53.5 °C.
▪ Compressive strength of cubes at 28 days is 46.9 MPa.
▪ Mesh size 50mm x 50mm x 50mm
▪ Mass density = 2349kg/m3
▪ Poisson’s Ratio = 0.2
▪ Conductivity = 2.7 W/m °C
▪ Specific Heat = 1 kJ/kg°C
 RESULTS COMPARISON
Temperature
60 ▪ Prediction model has been able
to capture the temperature
50 profile.
40 ▪ Has a correlation between
ascending branches of the graph.
Temperature [°C]

30

▪ Ascending branch is important

20 towards the thermal cracking.
10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time(hr)

Predicted Temperature Rise Actual Temperature Rise

 RESULTS COMPARISON
Temperature
60 ▪ Peak temperature in actual 55 °C
occurred at 13.5h
50

▪ Peak Temperature in model 47 °C

40 occurred at 12.5h
Temperature [°C]

30 ▪ The discrepancies observed

could be due to inaccuracy of
20 thermal parameters.
10 ▪ For accurate results, study on
parameters will be done.
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time(hr)

Predicted Temperature Rise Actual Temperature Rise

 TIMELINE
Description July August September October November December

Literature Survey

FE model formation and validation

Trail tests for Semi adiabatic test and

heat loss compensation

Report Writing
REFERENCES
▪ Madupushpa, K.D., Kahatapitiya, N.K.S.S., Yapa, H.D., Numerical
Prediction of Concrete Temperature. ACEPS-2017, pp347-354.
▪ Midas FEA Training Series, HA-1. Heat of Hydration – Cooling Pipes.
▪ I.Y.T., Kwan, A.K.H., Heat Loss Compensation in Semi-adiabatic Curing
Test of Concrete. ACI Materials Journal. Volume 105, No 1, pp52-61.
(2008).
▪ Ng, I.Y.T., Ng, P.L., Kwan, A.K.H., Effects of Cement and Water Contents
on Adiabatic Temperature Rise of Concrete. ACI Materials Journal.
Volume 106, No 1, pp42-49. (2009a).
THANK YOU !