ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL
Title No. 112-M55
Improved Schmidt Method for Predicting Temperature
Development in Mass Concrete
by Christopher P. Bobko, Vahid Zanjani Zadeh, and Rudolf Seracino
Designing mass concrete structural elements to avoid early-age
thermal cracking requires good predictions of temperatures within
the mass concrete. An improved method for predicting temperature
in mass concrete structural elements is proposed and validated. The
new method combines empirical methods for predicting tempera-
ture rise associated with heat of hydration with the Schmidt method,
a simplified numerical tool for solving the heat transfer problem.
Methods for modeling thermal insulation with the Schmidt method
are also discussed. The new method is simple enough to implement
in a spreadsheet analysis. Three case studies are modeled with the
previous implementation of the Schmidt method and the proposed
new implementation. The model predictions are compared with
temperature measurements and predictions from detailed finite
element modeling. In all cases, the new implementation provides
much better predictions than previous versions of the Schmidt
method and nearly matches the predictions made by finite element
modeling.
Keywords: finite element analysis; heat of hydration; mass concrete;
Schmidt method; thermal cracking.
INTRODUCTION
Cement hydration is an exothermic reaction that can
produce high amounts of heat during curing, especially
in the first few days or weeks after casting. This heating
leads to temperature gradients within the concrete. If the
temperature gradients are too great, resulting tensile thermal
stresses can exceed the concrete tensile strength and cause
cracking, especially at early ages when the concrete is still
developing its full strength. Large volumes of concrete,
known as mass concrete, have the potential to experi-
ence temperature gradients during curing that can lead to
cracking. Analysis of mass concrete structures requires an
accurate analysis of the temperature development based
on concrete mixture proportions and boundary conditions.
Various analytical methods including graphical methods,
simplified analytical methods, and full finite element simu-
lations1-5 have been proposed to estimate the temperature
distributions within mass concrete. Some models are easier
to implement but are less accurate and have less flexibility,
while others are more complex but provide greater accuracy
and flexibility in model inputs.
This manuscript proposes and validates a new version
of the Schmidt method for temperature prediction. This
new version can be implemented in a spreadsheet and can
model a wide variety of cement mixtures. Two primary
drawbacks of the previous implementation of the Schmidt
method are overcome. First, the effect of elevated tempera-
ture on the reaction rate is modeled by the equivalent age
ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2015
TECHNICAL PAPER
maturity method. Second, the use of outdated curves with
limited mixture proportion inputs, or reliance on calorimetry
experiments, is avoided by modeling the heat of hydration
using empirical equations. Results from the new modeling
approach are much closer to temperature measurements
from the laboratory and the field, and to predictions from
detailed finite element models, compared to the previous
implementation of the Schmidt method. Improved analysis
using this simple but accurate tool will aid designers of mass
concrete structural elements.
Early-age thermal cracking in concrete
Early-age cracking in mass concrete occurs because of
temperature gradients that develop during the cement hydra-
tion reactions. As cement hydrates, heat is released and
concrete expands with the increase in temperature. At initial
stages of hydration, the concrete has a relatively low modulus
of elasticity, and any internal stresses are easily relieved due
to the high rate of creep.6 As the process continues, less
heat is released and the temperature reduces as the struc-
ture reaches thermal equilibrium with its environment. The
concrete contracts with temperature reduction, but the mate-
rial is now much stiffer and the internal volume of concrete
resists the contraction of the concrete surface. Tensile
stresses then develop along the surface of the concrete. If the
tensile stresses exceed the tensile strength of the concrete,
which may still be rapidly developing, cracking may occur.
Temperature gradients are therefore a key driver of
early-age thermal cracking. Factors that control tempera-
ture gradients in mass concrete include the initial placement
temperature, heat generation, and heat dissipation.2 Although
initial temperature can be modified to some extent, amounts
and rates of heat generation and heat dissipation are the most
important. Heat generation depends on cement content, the
Blaine fineness of the cement, use of supplementary cementi-
tious materials, and the addition of different admixtures such
as retarders or accelerators.7 Heat dissipation is a function
of the thermal properties of the concrete, including thermal
diffusivity, heat capacity, and thermal conductivity, and of the
thermal conditions surrounding the concrete. When concrete
structures have large mass-surface ratios, the heat generated
in the interior is not easily dissipated through the concrete
ACI Materials Journal, V. 112, No. 4, July-August 2015.
MS No. M-2014-103.R2, doi: 10.14359/51687454, received September 25, 2014,
and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2015, American
Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless
permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including
author’s closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the
discussion is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
579
due to its low thermal conductivity, and the structure almost
becomes adiabatic, resulting in high internal temperatures.
The increased heat on the surface of the concrete structure,
however, can dissipate much more rapidly into the environ-
ment, resulting in a much lower temperature rise unless the
heat loss is controlled.6 When the surface temperature is
much lower than the interior temperature, large temperature
differentials occur.
The primary methods of controlling temperature gradi-
ents in mass concrete include modifications to the concrete
mixture proportions, precooling methods, thermal insulation
blankets or sheets, and post-cooling methods. Modifying
the concrete mixture proportions and applying thermal insu-
lation are among the most cost-effective and widely used
methods for controlling temperature in mass concrete.
Current standards and specifications
ACI 301-108 suggests thermal limits including a
maximum temperature after placement of 158°F (70°C), and
a maximum temperature differential of 33°F (19.4°C). In
addition, ACI 301-108 specifies that hydraulic cement with
a low heat of hydration (but not a Type III or HE cement)
or portland cement with Class F fly ash or slag, should be
used for mass concrete construction. The concrete is then
specified to be cured and protected for a minimum of 7 days
unless otherwise specified. ACI 301-108 also requires
temperatures to be measured hourly at the center of the
concrete and the nearest surface of the concrete. Tempera-
ture is monitored from the time the concrete is placed until
the difference between internal concrete temperatures,
and the average daily ambient temperatures are below the
maximum temperature differential, after the peak tempera-
ture has been reached.
Analyses of temperature development
The most detailed analyses of temperature development
can be made using finite element models, where full three-di-
mensional geometries, boundary conditions, heat release, and
thermal properties can be explicitly modeled. Commercial
finite element codes including TNO DIANA, FEMASSE,
and CESAR have built-in features that enable modeling of
thermal rise and dissipation in mass concrete structures. Anal-
ysis codes designed specifically for studying mass concrete,
such as ConcreteWorks,4 have also been developed. Advan-
tages of finite element models include flexibility of inputs,
accuracy of results, and an ability to perform a stress analysis
based on the thermal results. Drawbacks of using specialized
finite element models include the cost of the programs and the
complexity of the model approach.
Finite element methods generally require results from
isothermal or semi-adiabatic calorimetry experiments to
model the heat of hydration associated with specific concrete
mixture proportions. To avoid the need for experiments, an
empirical model based on the cement constituent material
properties as well as the concrete mixture proportions was
proposed to model the early-age heat-of-hydration develop-
ment.9,10 The model is based on the equivalent age matu-
rity method,11 which allows the current temperature of the
concrete to affect the estimation of heat generation. Coef-
580
ficients for the empirical model were developed from more
than 300 calorimetry tests, considering variations across
cement chemistry, fly ash, slag, and silica fume content, and
dosing of some common chemical admixtures. Researchers
have begun to incorporate this empirical model in finite
element models. It is implemented directly in Concrete-
Works4 and has been implemented through a user subroutine
in DIANA.3
Three commonly used methods for analysis of thermal
rise without using finite element models are the Portland
Cement Association’s temperature estimation method
(PCA method), the ACI graphical method, and the Schmidt
method.2 The PCA method is a quick method for estimating
the maximum temperature reached in a concrete, but it does
not consider information about the type of cement used and
does not give information about the time that the maximum
temperature is reached. The graphical method in ACI
207.2R-072 uses several empirical equations and charts to
predict temperature rise for a variety of conditions, but is
limited by the constraints of the empirical equations. The
Schmidt method—one of the more widely used methods—is
based on a numerical solution for the heat transfer equation
where the temperature is calculated for discrete nodes at
discrete time steps, as described in ACI 207.2R-07.2 Typi-
cally the temperature rise for this method is calculated using
charts in ACI 207.2R-07,2 but using the adiabatic tempera-
ture measured from semi-adiabatic calorimetry tests has also
been proposed.12
Riding et al.12 assessed the effectiveness of these
commonly used temperature prediction methods for
calculating the maximum temperature and the time of the
maximum temperature in mass concrete structures. Riding
et al.12 used these three methods and Schmidt’s method with
the adiabatic temperature results to model the temperatures
of eight mass concrete bridge members with varying size,
shape, formwork, environmental exposure conditions, and
mixture proportions. They found that all three methods
underestimated the maximum temperature of the concrete
structures. The graphical method in ACI and the Schmidt
method both also gave poor predictions of the time at which
the peak temperature took place. The Schmidt method results
were found to be greatly improved; however, when the adia-
batic temperature results from semi-adiabatic calorimetry
tests for each concrete mixture was used in place of the ACI
charts. Riding et al.12 attributed the errors in these results
to be largely caused by the differences in modern concretes
versus that which was used when the PCA and ACI guide-
lines were developed. Modern concrete tends to use much
finer cements and consist of more chemical admixtures and
more supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), such
as fly ash, compared to older concrete mixtures.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The aim of this paper is to present a new implementa-
tion of the Schmidt method that incorporates the concept
of equivalent age and empirical equations for the heat of
hydration. The goal is to develop temperature predictions
with accuracy similar to predictions made using finite
element models, by using a method that can be implemented
ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2015
in a spreadsheet analysis. This implementation provides
an accurate tool that will allow researchers and engineers
to easily study the effects of size, insulation, construction
processes, and mixture proportions on the temperatures in
mass concrete structural elements.
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE
Schmidt Method with ACI heat-of-hydration curves
The Schmidt method, first published in 1934 and applied
to the analysis of thermal rise in mass concrete in 1936,13
is a simplified computational approach for solving the heat
transfer problem in a body with a uniform thermal diffu-
sivity. Implementing the Schmidt method requires assuming
a one-dimensional discretization of a structural element.
Typically, the minimum dimension of the structural element
is modeled because it represents the direction of maximum
thermal gradients. The length of each discrete element and
the thermal diffusivity of the material determine the size of
the time step, ∆t
2
(∆x)
∆t = (1)
2h 2
where ∆ x is the distance between nodes; and h2 is the diffu-
sion constant.2,13 The method works by determining the new
temperature at a node at the current time as the average of
the temperature of the neighboring nodes in the prior time
step, plus any temperature rise associated with heat added to
the node during the time step.
The next component of the Schmidt method is modeling the
addition of heat as the concrete hydration reaction proceeds.
ACI 207.2R-072 presents graphs of adiabatic tempera-
ture rise for concrete containing 375 lb/yd3 (223 kg/m3)
of Types I, II, III, and IV cement. ACI 207.2R-072 also
suggests scaling the temperature rise based on the amount of
cement and pozzolans actually used in the concrete mixture
to be modeled. It is suggested that pozzolan produces only
approximately 50% as much heat as the cement it replaces,
so an equivalent cement content should be the actual cement
weight per cubic yard plus one half of the pozzolan weight
per cubic yard. The ratio of the equivalent cement content to
the 375 lb/yd3 (223 kg/m3) baseline is the scaling factor for
the data from the temperature-rise graphs. ACI 207.2R-072
notes that the provided graphs are typical of cement produced
before 1960. It is likely that temperature rises much more
quickly in modern cements that are much finer. Because the
adiabatic temperature-rise graphs are outdated and do not
include pozzolanic materials, ACI 207.2R-072 recommends
that adiabatic temperature-rise tests be conducted on a
sample of the concrete to provide a more accurate represen-
tation of the anticipated thermal rise.
The final component of the Schmidt method involves
modeling the starting values and boundary conditions.
Starting temperatures and outside air conditions can be
assumed based on average local weather conditions. Many
mass concrete structural elements, however, are insulated to
control their temperatures. ACI 207.2R-072 gives some guid-
ance on how to handle insulation in an illustrative example,
ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2015
where 50% of the heat loss at the bottom boundary is retained
due to insulating effects of the ground. No justification for
this estimate was presented. Alternatively, insulation can be
modeled by including extra nodes of concrete that have an
equivalent thermal resistance as the insulation. A rational
method for implementing insulation in the Schmidt method
requires calculating the equivalent thickness of concrete,
given the thickness of the insulation and its R-value. The
R-value is a measure of thermal resistance of material to heat
flow through a given thickness. It is the reciprocal of thermal
conductivity and is given by
R-value = L/k (2)
where L is the material’s thickness; and k is its thermal
conductivity. By assuming the same R-value for insulation
and concrete, the equivalent concrete thickness can be found
LInsulation × kConcrete
LConcrete = (3)
k Insulation
New Schmidt Method with equivalent age and
empirical heat of hydration
Two primary drawbacks for using the Schmidt method
with the ACI 207.2R-072 heat-of-hydration curves are
evident. First, the adiabatic temperature rise is outdated. It
is based on cement that is very coarse compared to most
modern cements, and does not incorporate the effects of
commonly used pozzolans or chemical admixtures. This
inaccuracy is expected to lead to overall lower temperature
predictions. Second, the temperature rise is presented as a
function of time, even though it is known that increasing the
temperature increases the rate of reaction, thereby increasing
the rate of temperature rise.14 This inaccuracy is expected
to lead to lower temperature predictions at the center of
the mass concrete structural element. In turn, predictions
of temperature difference are expected to be lower than the
actual differences.
To improve predictions, a new implementation of the
Schmidt method was developed, incorporating the equiva-
lent age concept and Riding et al.’s10 empirical model for
heat of hydration as a function of cement chemistry and
concrete mixture proportions. The empirical model describes
the rate of heat generation per unit volume, with coefficients
for parameters defined in SI units
β
β τ E 1 1
 τ  β − 
t
a
 − 
R T T
Qh (te ) = H u ⋅ Cc ⋅   ⋅   ⋅ α u ⋅ e  e  ⋅ e  r c  (4)
 te   te 
where Qh is the rate of heat generation per unit volume
(J/m3·h); Ea is the apparent activation energy (J/mol); R is
the universal gas constant (8.314 J/mol/K); te is the equiv-
alent age (h); Hu is the total heat available for reaction at
100% hydration (J/g); Cc is the total amount of cementitious
material (kg/m3); αu is the ultimate degree of hydration; τ is
the hydration time parameter (h); β is the hydration slope
parameter; Tr is the equivalent age reference temperature
581
(K); and Tc is the temperature of the concrete (K).10 The
equivalent age is calculated by
− Ea  1 1 
t  − 
te = ∑e
R  Tc Tr 
⋅ ∆t
0 experiment
where Δt is a time interval (h); and Tc is the average concrete
temperature during that time interval (K).10 The variables Ea,
Hu, αu, τ, and β are found through empirical relationships as
a function of mixture proportions and cement chemistry
( )
Ea = 41, 230 + 1, 416, 000 ⋅  pC3 A + pC4 AF ⋅ pcem ⋅ pSO3 ⋅ pcem  − 347, 000 ⋅ pNa2Oeq
 
−19.8 ⋅ Blaine + 29, 600 ⋅ pFA ⋅ pFA − CaO + 16, 200 ⋅ pslag
−51, 600 ⋅ pSF − 3, 090, 000 ⋅ WRRET − 345, 000 ⋅ ACCL
Hu = Hcem · pcem + 461 · pslag + 1800 · pFA–CaO · pFA + 330 · pSF (7)
H cem = 500 ⋅ pC3 S + 260 ⋅ pC3 A + 420 ⋅ pC4 AF
+ 624 ⋅ PSO3 + 1186 ⋅ pFreeCa + 850 ⋅ pMgO
 −0.0885 − 13.7 ⋅ pC4 AF ⋅ pcem 
 −283 ⋅ pNa2Oeq ⋅ pcem 
1.031⋅ w/cm   method. Then, at each discrete element, the equivalent age
αu = + exp
0.194 + w/cm  −9.90 ⋅ pFA ⋅ pFA − Ca O 
 
 −339 ⋅ WRRET − 95.4 ⋅ PCHRWR
 2.92 − 0.757 ⋅ pC3 S ⋅ pcem + 98.8 ⋅ pNa2O ⋅ pcem + 1.44 ⋅ pslag 
τ = exp 
 + 4.12⋅⋅ pFA ⋅ pFA − CaO − 11.4 ⋅ ACCL + 98.1⋅ WRRET 
 −0.464 + 3.41⋅ pC3 S ⋅ pcem − 0.846 ⋅ pslag + 107 ⋅ WRRET + 33.8 ⋅ LRWR was cast as a laboratory experiment, a footing on the Sunset
β = exp 
 + 15.7 ⋅ MRWR + 38.3 ⋅ PCHRWR + 8.97 ⋅ NHRWR
where Hcem is the total heat of hydration of the cement (J/kg);
pcem is the cement mass to total cementitious content mass
ratio; pFA is the fly ash mass to total cementitious material
mass ratio; pFA-CaO is the mass percent of CaO in fly ash; pslag
is the granulated slag mass to total cementitious material
mass ratio; pSF is the silica fume mass to total cementitious
material mass ratio; and “Blaine” is the Blaine fineness of
cement (m2/kg).10 The chemistry of the portland cement is
identified, where pC3A is the percent aluminate content, pC4AF
is the percent ferrite content, pC3S is the percent alite content,
pSO3 is the percent SO3 content, pNa2O is the percent Na2O
content, pNa2Oeq is the percent sodium equivalent alkalis
content (given by 0.658 × %K2O + %Na2O), pMgO is the
percent MgO content, and pFreeCa is the percent CaO content
in the portland cement.10 Finally, chemical admixture
582
Table 1—Dimensions of studied structural
elements, ft (m)
Height Length Width
(5) Mass concrete block
5.0 (1.52) 5.0 (1.52) 5.0 (1.52)
Sunset Beach Bridge 6.0 (1.83) 42.0 (23.8) 27.0 (8.23)
Wilmington Bypass Bridge 14.76 (4.50) 93.18 (28.4) 61.02 (18.6)
dosings are considered, where WRRET is the mass percent
solids of ASTM Type B and D water reducer/retarder per
gram of cementitious material, ACCL is the mass percent
solids of ASTM Type C calcium-nitrate-based accelerator
per gram of cementitious material, LRWR is the ASTM Type
A low-range water reducer dosage, MRWR is the mid-range
water reducer dosage, PCHRWR is the ASTM Type F poly-
(6) carboxylate-based high-range water reducer dosage, and
NHRWR is the ASTM Type F naphthalene- or melamine-
based high-range water reducer dosage.10 Note that Eq. (4)
has been corrected from Riding et al.,10 where the last expo-
nential term involves subtraction rather than addition.
To implement the equivalent age and Riding et al.’s10
empirical model in the Schmidt method, calculations were
(8)
performed using a spreadsheet, with calculations repeating
at each time interval Δt as calculated by Eq. (1). First, the
average temperature of the two neighboring elements is
calculated as in the traditional implementation of the Schmidt
in the current time step is calculated based on the equiva-
lent age and temperature of the prior time step. Next, the
temperature rise generated during the time interval is calcu-
(9) lated using the heat generation rate Q(te) provided by Eq. (4)
multiplied by the time interval Δt and divided by the heat
capacity of the concrete, C. This temperature rise is added to
the average temperature of the neighboring nodes from the
 prior time step, giving the new temperature.
(10) Structures studied
Temperature development was analyzed for three mass
concrete structural elements: a mass concrete block that

 Beach Bridge in North Carolina, and a footing on the Wilm-
(11) ington Bypass Bridge in North Carolina. Early-age tempera-
ture measurements within the mass concrete block, and finite
element model predictions of early-age temperatures for all
three structures were reported by Edwards.3 Dimensions
of the block and footings are given in Table 1. The general
orientation of the blocks and locations of temperature sensors
and important calculation nodes are shown in Fig. 1. The
shortest dimension of each structural element was consid-
ered for modeling with the Schmidt method because it was
expected to generate the largest temperature gradients. The
mass concrete block experiment was uninsulated, except for
any possible insulating effect of the plywood forms, which
was neglected in the Schmidt method analyses. The footings
from the Sunset Beach Bridge and the Wilmington Bypass
Bridge were insulated with 0.75 in. (19 mm) thick blankets.
Concrete mixture proportions are given in Table 2, and
relevant additional input values for Riding et al.’s10 empir-
ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2015
Table 2—Mixture proportions, lb/yd3 (kg/m3)
Mass concrete block experiment Wilmington
and Sunset Beach Bridge Bypass Bridge
Cement—Type I/II 448 (266) 521 (309)
Class F fly ash 207 (123) 207 (123)
Silica fume 35 (21) 0 (0)
Water 258 (153) 260 (154)
Sand 1194 (708) 1144 (679)
No. 57 Stone 1800 (1068) 1560 (926)
Fig. 1—General orientation of mass concrete blocks and loca-
Table 3—Empirical model cement chemistry and tions of temperature sensors and important calculation nodes.
chemical admixture input values
Mass concrete block experi- Wilmington Bypass
Value ment and Sunset Beach Bridge Bridge
pC3S 0.61 0.60
pC2S 0.12 0.13
pC3A 0.07 0.06
pC4AF 0.11 0.11
pSO3 0.028 0.027
pFreeCa 0.009 0.009
pMgO 0.013 0.017
pNa2Oeq 0.0047 0.0043
pNa2O 0.001 0.001
pFA-CaO 0.01 0.01
Blaine 400.6 m3/kg 371.5 m3/kg
ACCL 0 0
LRWL 0 0
MRWR 0.0065 0.0065
NHRWR 0 0
PCHRWR 0.00345 0.00345
WRRET 0 0

ical model for heat of hydration are presented in Table 3.

Thermal properties of the concrete were assumed constant for
all concrete mixture proportions and all ages. Conductivity of
concrete was assumed to be 12.8 Btu/h·ft·°F (2.21 W/m·K),
and heat capacity of concrete was assumed to be 0.18 Btu/
lb·°F (0.75 J/g·K), while conductivity of the insulation blan-
kets was assumed to be 0.42 Btu/h·ft·°F (0.072 W/m·K).3
COMPARISON OF PREDICTIONS AND
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Comparison with temperature measurements
Figure 2(a) shows a comparison between the Schmidt
method predictions and the temperature measurements made
on the mass concrete block experiment. Predictions at the
center node and measurements at the center of the block
are compared. The new Schmidt method prediction with
the empirical equations for heat of hydration gave a good
prediction for the center temperature, while the Schmidt
method using the ACI heat-of-hydration curves under-
predicted the temperature for the first 4 days.
Fig. 2—(a) Measured and predicted temperatures; and (b)
measured and predicted temperature differences for mass
concrete block experiments.
Predictions at the first node deep and measurements
at the top and bottom of the block were also compared. It
was noted that outer elements in all the Schmidt method
models always under-predicted temperatures. The first node
deep in the concrete seemed to give a better match to the
measured temperatures at the outside edges of the concrete.
Note that no insulation was modeled for the mass concrete
block experiment in the Schmidt method models or the finite
element models because the boundaries in the experiment
were uncontrolled. The measured temperature at the top was
influenced by solar heating, while the measured temperature
at the bottom was influenced by the ground temperature.
Considering the limitations, the new Schmidt method predic-
tion at one node deep adequately predicted the measured

ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2015 583

Fig. 3—(a) Predicted temperatures from Schmidt
Method and FEM; and (b) predicted temperature differ-
ences from Schmidt Method and FEM for mass concrete
block experiments.
temperature at the top, while the Schmidt method with ACI
heat-of-hydration curves under-predicted the temperature.
The measured temperatures at the bottom were consistently
under-predicted, highlighting the importance of accurately
modeling insulation.
Figure 2(b) shows a comparison between the tempera-
ture difference predictions using the Schmidt method and
the measured temperature differences. Recall that tempera-
ture differences are responsible for thermal gradients that
can result in early-age thermal cracking, and temperature
differences are typically limited to 35°F (19.4°C). Measure-
ment differences between the center and the top and the
center and the bottom are presented because of the varying
boundary conditions in the experiment. For the Schmidt
method predictions, temperature one node deep from the
top and bottom was used as the basis for comparisons. The
measured center-top temperature difference oscillated with
the sunlight around the new Schmidt method prediction with
the empirical equations for heat of hydration. The measured
center-bottom temperature difference was lower because
of the influence of the ground temperature. The Schmidt
method prediction using the ACI heat-of-hydration curves
predicted a much lower temperature difference.
Comparison with finite element model predictions
Figure 3(a) shows a comparison of temperature predictions,
and Fig. 3(b) shows a comparison of temperature differential
predictions between those made with the Schmidt method
584
Fig. 4—(a) Predicted temperatures from Schmidt Method
and FEM; and (b) predicted temperature differences from
the Schmidt Method and FEM for Sunset Beach Bridge.
and those made with the finite element model for the mass
concrete block experiment. The finite element model closely
matched the temperature measurements, so the same obser-
vations made in the comparison with temperature measure-
ments on the mass concrete block experiment are relevant in
this comparison.
Figure 4(a) shows a comparison of temperature predictions,
and Fig. 4(b) shows a comparison of temperature differen-
tial predictions for the modeled Sunset Beach mass concrete
footing. The new Schmidt method predicted temperatures
that matched well with temperatures from finite element
modeling. At the center, the maximum temperature predic-
tion with the Schmidt method was reached approximately 16
hours earlier than the value predicted by the finite element
model, but the maximum temperature value matched very
well. The new Schmidt Method model predicted a faster
rate of cooling compared to the finite element model. The
Schmidt method model with the ACI heat-of-hydration
curves under-predicted temperatures. Similarly, the new
Schmidt method model predicted a very similar maximum
temperature differential compared to the finite element
model, although the temperature difference decreased
at a faster rate. The Schmidt method model with the ACI
heat-of-hydration curves under-predicted the temperature
differentials.
Figure 5(a) shows a comparison of temperature predic-
tions, and Fig. 5(b) shows a comparison of temperature
ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2015

Fig. 5—(a) Predicted temperatures from Schmidt Method
and FEM; and (b) predicted temperature differences from
Schmidt Method and FEM for Wilmington Bypass Bridge.
differential predictions for the modeled Wilmington Bypass
mass concrete footing. Recall that this footing was much
larger overall than the Sunset Beach footing or the mass
concrete block experiment, and used slightly different
mixture proportions. The new Schmidt method predicted
temperatures that matched well with temperatures from
finite element modeling, although the temperatures were
slight under-predicted. The high temperatures experienced
in this mass concrete footing change the rate of reaction,
which can be captured through the equivalent age prin-
ciple implemented in the new Schmidt method model. Once
again, the Schmidt method model with the ACI heat-of-
hydration curves greatly under-predicted temperatures.
In this case, the times when maximum temperatures were
reached were severely delayed in the Schmidt method model
with the ACI heat-of-hydration curves.
Similarly, for the Wilmington Bypass mass concrete
footing, the new Schmidt method model predicted a very
similar maximum temperature differential compared to the
finite element model, although the temperature difference in
the new Schmidt method model did not reach the maximum
temperature difference predicted by the finite element model.
The Schmidt method model with the ACI heat-of-hydration
curves under-predicted the temperature differentials. In
this case, the existing Schmidt method model predicted a
temperature differential just above the maximum limit of
ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2015
35°F (19.4°C), while the new Schmidt method model and
the finite element model predicted maximum temperature
differentials well above this limit.
Limitations of Schmidt method
Although many of the previously identified limitations
of the Schmidt method were overcome, some limitations
remain. The Schmidt method is better suited to rectangular
shapes with little variation in other dimensions and should
be considered a first rough estimate for more complicated
geometries. The Schmidt method cannot model cooling pipes
that may be necessary to control temperatures, although
many smaller mass concrete elements do not require post-
cooling systems. The method does not consider the effects of
solar radiation, convection, or other sources of heat or heat
dissipation on boundary elements, although the presence of
insulation blankets often limits those effects in practice.
Finally, although maximum temperature and tempera-
ture differentials are an important factor for design of mass
concrete structural elements, early-age thermal cracking
may still occur even if typical limits are met. Other mate-
rial properties, including the evolution of strength, stiffness,
and creep properties with equivalent age, play a role in
determining the potential for early-age thermal cracking.3,5
Designers, contractors, and owners should consider these
factors as a complement to the thermal analysis that can be
performed using the proposed method.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of this study, the following conclu-
sions can be made:
1. A new implementation of the Schmidt method was
developed, incorporating the effect of temperature on heat of
hydration and using updated empirical equations that predict
heat of hydration from knowledge of the concrete mixture
proportions and cement chemistry.
2. The new method is able to more accurately predict
maximum temperatures, times to maximum temperatures,
and temperature differentials compared to the imple-
mentation of the Schmidt method currently suggested by
ACI 207.2R-07.
3. Many of the previously identified limitations of the
Schmidt Method were overcome, while maintaining a rela-
tively simple analysis procedure where calculations may be
performed using a spreadsheet.
4. Remaining limitations of the Schmidt method were
discussed, and designers, contractors, and owners should be
aware of these when using the proposed method.
AUTHOR BIOS
Christopher P. Bobko is an Associate Professor at North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC. He received his PhD and MS from the Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, and his BSE from Princ-
eton University, Princeton, NJ. His research interests include the material
behavior of complex porous composites in civil engineering.
Vahid Zanjani Zadeh was a Researcher at North Carolina State Univer-
sity. He received his PhD from North Carolina State University; his MSc
from the University of Akron, Akron, OH; his MS from the International
Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Tehran, Iran; and his
BSc from the University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
585
ACI member Rudolf Seracino is a Professor at North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC. He received his PhD from the University of
Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, and his MASc and BASc from the University
of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. He is Co-Chair of ACI Subcommittee
440-M, FRP-Repair of Masonry Structures. His research interests include
the application of advanced materials and systems to enhance the resilience
of critical civil infrastructure.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The support of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, under
RP2012-09 and TA2014-07, is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 207, “Guide to Mass Concrete (ACI 207.1R-05),”
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 30 pp.
2. ACI Committee 207, “Report on Thermal and Volume Change Effects
on Cracking of Mass Concrete (ACI 207.2R-07),” American Concrete Insti-
tute. Farmington Hills, MI, 2007, 32 pp.
3. Edwards, A., “Early Age Thermal Cracking of Mass Concrete Foot-
ings on Bridges in Coastal Environments,” MS thesis, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC, 2013, 278 pp.
4. Folliard, K. J.; Juenger, M.; Schindler, A.; Riding, K.; Poole, J.; Kalli-
vokas, L. F.; Slatnick, S.; Whigham, J.; and Meadows, J. L., “Prediction
Model for Concrete Behavior—Final Report,” Report No. FHWA/TX-08/0-
4563-1, 2008, 78 pp.
5. Lawrence, A.; Tia, M.; Ferraro, C.; and Bergin, M., “Effect of Early
Age Strength on Cracking in Mass Concrete Containing Different Supple-
586
mentary Cementitious Materials: Experimental and Finite-Element Inves-
tigation,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 24, No. 4,
2012, pp. 362-372. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000389
6. Lu, H. R.; Swaddiwudhipong, S.; and Wee, T. H., “Evaluation of
Internal Restrained Strain in Concrete Members at Early Age,” ACI Mate-
rials Journal, V. 97, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2000, pp. 612-618.
7. Mehta, P. K., and Monteiro, P. J. M., Concrete: Microstructure, Prop-
erties and Materials, third edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2006, 659 pp.
8. ACI Committee 301, “Specifications for Structural Concrete (ACI
301-10),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2010, 77 pp.
9. Riding, K. A., “Early Age Concrete Thermal Stress Measurement and
Modeling,” PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX,
2007, 612 pp.
10. Riding, K. A.; Poole, J. L.; Folliard, K. J.; Juenger, M. C. G.; and
Schindler, A. K., “Modeling Hydration of Cementitious Systems,” ACI
Materials Journal, V. 109, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2012, pp. 225-234.
11. Carino, N., and Lew, H., “The Maturity Method: From Theory to
Application,” Structures 2001: A Structural Engineering Odyssey, 2001,
pp. 1-19.
12. Riding, K. A.; Poole, J. L.; Schindler, A. K.; Juenger, M. C. G.; and
Folliard, K. J., “Evaluation of Temperature Prediction Methods for Mass
Concrete Members,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 103, No. 5, Sept.-Oct.
2006, pp. 357-365.
13. Rawhouser, C., “Cracking and Temperature Control of Mass
Concrete,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 42, No. 4, 1945, pp. 304-346.
14. Schindler, A. K., “Effect of Temperature on Hydration of Cemen-
titious Materials,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 101, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2004,
pp. 72-81.
ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2015
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.