You are on page 1of 23

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
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Adi abatic Temperature Ri s e Semi Adi abatic Temperature Ri s e


DEVELOPMENT OF FEM MODEL
▪ To verify the model and the procedure three published research papers
were followed;
1. Lee et al. Model - Foundation size 15m x 12m x 1m Concrete
cube size 7.5m x 10m x 3m
2. Wenchao et al model - Foundation size 26m x 26.3m x 2m
Concrete cube size 24m x 24.3m x 1.8m
3. Madupushpa et al experiment – Foundation size 2m x 1.35m x
0.6m Concrete cube size 1m x 0.35m x 0.7m
1. LEE ET AL. MODEL

▪ Model ▪ Adiabatic Temperature Rise Curve


• Foundation size 15m x 12m x 1m
• Concrete cube size 7.5m x 10m x 3m
• Compressive Strength of Concrete at Age of 28 Days : 3.059e+6 kgf/m2
• Convection Boundary Surfaces: Convection Coefficient 13.956 W/m0C
• Prescribed Temperature : 200C
1. LEE ET AL. MODEL

▪ Implemented Model ▪ Temperature Behaviour


1. LEE ET AL. MODEL

Temperature [C]
60

50

40

30

20
PSLB_352 PSLB_442

10 Type IV

0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
Time(hr)
▪ Output in the research paper ▪ Output in the implemented model
1. LEE ET AL. MODEL

PSLB_352 PSLB_442

Type IV

▪ Comparison
2. WENCHAO ET AL. MODEL

Temperature 0C
▪ Model ▪ Adiabatic Temperature Rise Curve
Concrete Soil
Density 2401 kg/m3 Density 1600 kg/m3
Specific Heat 1.01 kJ/kg.C Specific Heat 0.84 kJ/kg.C
Thermal Conductivity 9.33 kJ/m.h.C Thermal Conductivity 7.12 kJ/m.h.C
Poisson’s Ratio 0.2 Poisson’s Ratio 0.2
Concrete cube size 24m x 24.3m x 1.8m Foundation size 26m x 26.3m x 2m
2. WENCHAO ET AL. MODEL

▪ Implemented Model ▪ Temperature Behaviour


2. WENCHAO ET AL. MODEL
77.5

72.5

67.5

62.5

57.5

52.5

T(C)
47.5

42.5

37.5

32.5

27.5
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

t(h)

▪ Output in the research paper ▪ Output in the implemented model


2. WENCHAO ET AL. MODEL
FEM-Model ed

▪ Comparison
3. MADUPUSHPA ET AL. EXPERIMENT

▪ Model ▪ Adiabatic Temperature Rise Curve

1000 mm × 7000 mm × 350 mm concrete grade 35 specimen


Thermal conductivity of hydrated concrete and thermal conductivity of floor were taken as 2.5 W/m.K (Wasala,
2014) and 1.2 W/m.K (Brown, 2005)
Heat transfer coefficient of 12mm plywood and air were mentioned as 6.5 W/m2 ℃ and
23 W/m2 ℃ respectively (Yongkim, et al., 2005).
3. MADUPUSHPA ET AL. EXPERIMENT

▪ Implemented Model ▪ Temperature Behaviour


3. MADUPUSHPA ET AL. EXPERIMENT

▪ Convergence Test

▪ Selected Mesh size – 50mm x 50mm x 50mm in concrete cube


3. MADUPUSHPA ET AL. EXPERIMENT
60
• The maximum temperature occurs
50 at the predicted temperature
profle was 53.5 ℃ and that value
40 of actual temperature profle was
55.5℃.
Temperature [T]

30

• The percentage of the temperature


20
difference at center node was 3.7%.
10
• Variation in descending branch after
0
18hr is due to 2nd stage concrete
casting and formwork was removed
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Time(hr)
after occurring the peak
Predi cted Temperature Actua l Temperature 2nd Phas e Starting Poi nt
temperature and starting
▪ Comparison
CONTINUATION OF RESEARCH
▪ The predicted temperature rise of the numerical model of the concrete
mass using MIDAS FEA has a good level of accuracy.
▪ In the next stage, conducting experiment on industry used concrete
mixtures to develop adiabatic curves
▪ Using this formulated FE model described above, and modeling typical
structures to predict the heat of hydration graphs
▪ As the fnal outcome composing the data gathered above of set of
guideline to control temperature in typical structures will be presented for
future references.
TIMELINE
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 !