Thermal Mitigation for

Mass Concrete of the

Walterdale Bridge
Substructure Elements
2016 Tri-Party Transportation
Conference

March 21-22, 2016

Oliver Gepraegs, MASc, P.Eng.

Scott Cumming, ME, P.Eng.
Owner: City of Edmonton
Prime Consultant: ISL Engineering
Bridge Design: Dialog and COWI North America
General Contractor: Acciona/Pacer Joint Venture (APJV)
Concrete Supplier: LafargeHolcim

Project Value: $155 Million

Construction Start: 2013
Open to Traffic: 2016

Length: 230 metres (Single Span)

Arch Height: 56 metres
 3

Concrete Substructure
 4

Concrete Substructure
Arch Support Legs
Length: 4.0 metres
Width: 4.0 metres
Height: 7.8 to 12.3 metres

Thrust Blocks
Length: 5.4 to 6.6 metres
Width: 4.8 metres
Height: 6.0 metres

Thrust Block Bases

Length: 10.5 metres
Width: 9.0 metres
Height: 2.5 metres
 5

Project Specifications

Thrust Blocks Arch

Exposure Class
Compressive Strength
Minimum Portland Cement Content
Fly Ash Content
Silica Fume Content
Maximum Allowable Temperature
Thrust Block Bases Legs
C-1 C-XL
35 MPa at 28 days 45 MPa at 28 days
- 335 kg/m
- 11 to 15%
- 6 to 8%
60 C 60 C
 6

Thermal Control Requirements

7.4.1.3 Temperature effects Mass concrete

Where thermal stresses can create cracking of
structural mass concrete additional protection
shall be provided.
Notes:
(1)Mass concrete elements should be protected to
limit the internal and external concrete temperature
differential to within 20 C if cracking is to be
minimized. Concrete and ambient temperatures
should be monitored to determine whether the 20
temperature differential is being met and to check
compliance with the requirements of Table 21.
 7

Thermal Control Requirements

7.5.3 Mass concrete (CSA 23.1-14)

Mass concrete elements of 1.0 m or more in
thickness shall be protected to limit the internal core
and surface temperature differential to within 20
C..
If approved by the owner, this requirement may be
waived if a thermal control plan prepared in
accordance with ACI 207.1 demonstrates that the risk
of cracking can be satisfactorily mitigated through the
use of additional protection, mix design modifications,
artificial cooling and other suitable measures..
 8

Thermal Control Requirements

8.5.5 Temperature
The maximum concrete temperature at delivery shall be
specified when the owner requires a delivery temperature
lower than the values given in Table 14 (5oC or 10oC).

The maximum temperature reached during hydration shall

be limited to 70 C.
 9

Thermal Control Requirements

Largely based on research for construction of

the Hoover Dam
Used to develop ACI 207 Guide to Mass
Concrete
Prior to modern computing tools
Continue to be used today

Things have changed a bit since the 1930s

Take Advantage of Current Technology
 10

Thermal Mitigation Strategies

Four Approaches:
1. Optimization of Concrete Mixes
Cement Content
Supplementary Cementing Materials
Aggregate Geology and Content
2. Pre-Cooling
3. Post-Cooling
4. Construction Management
 11
Effect of SCMs on Heat of Hydration
 12

Effect of SCMs on Temperature Rise

 13

Project Challenges

Concrete mix designs already accepted

Could not optimize mixes for mass concrete
No change to cement and SCM proportions
Concrete strength higher than required
Relatively high cement content
Achieved 38 MPa at 10 days (56 days is common)
Large embedded anchor ducts within mass
Create heat sinks within mass section
Temperature differentials
 14

Thermal Mitigation Strategies

Four Approaches:
1. Optimization of Concrete Mixes
Cement Content
Supplementary Cementing Materials
Aggregate Geology and Content
2. Pre-Cooling Need to characterize
concrete mixes to
3. Post-Cooling determine optimal
4. Construction Management thermal mitigation
strategies
 15

Trial Blocks to Quantify Heat Liberation

DT ~ 57 C

1 m test block with R30 insulation

semi-adiabatic
Now What?

Concrete Properties:
Estimated Adiabatic Temperature Rise
- ~57 C in ~ 2 days
Potential DT is considerably higher than 20 C

Specification Requirement of DTMax < 20 C is

practically impossible to achieve
 17

Alternative Approach

Performance-based rather than prescriptive

As concrete develops strength, so too does
its ability to absorb stresses (tensile)
Must recognize that not all concrete mixes
are equal
 18

Thermal Modeling Thrust Block

Finite-element modeling Thrust Block

software b4-cast Base

Creates 3D models that we use

to simulate mass concrete
placements and the effects of
various thermal mitigation
measures
 19

Model input

Element geometry
Concrete properties
Boundary conditions:
External heat or cooling (weather)
Internal cooling (active cooling pipes, anchor sheaths, etc.)
Thermal properties of elements in contact with concrete
(tarps, formwork, adjacent concrete, substrate)
Restraint (foundation, adjacent soil/rock, previous lifts)
Heat generation maturity parameters
Maturity: Strength and stiffness development
 20

Concrete Properties

Mock-up blocks to estimate:

Rate and amount of heat evolution
Rate of heat dissipation

Additional test specimens (cylinders) were fabricated to determine the

following properties:
Thermal diffusivity
Specific heat
Coefficient of thermal expansion
Concrete density
Rate of elastic modulus vs. time
Maturity vs. strength development (direct tension and compression)
How Do We Use This Information?
Approach is based on the tensile strain capacity of the concrete
determined by laboratory testing
Tensile strain capacity increases with strength development:

DTmax = f(st, Ec, CoTE, Kr, f)

Where:
DTmax = Maximum allowable temperature differential
st = Tensile Strength
Ec = Elastic Modulus
CoTE = Coefficient of Linear Thermal Expansion
Kr = Restraint Factor
f = Stress relaxation factor due to Creep
 22

Concrete Properties and Model Calibration

Equivalent Direct
Compressive Elastic
Specimen Age Maturity at Tensile
Strength Modulus Class C Concrete
(Days) Test Age Strength Thermal Property
(MPa) (GPa) Result
(C-Hours) (MPa)
1 625 15.4 - - Concrete Density (Hardened) 2,315 kg/m
4057 - 2.33 22.9 Estimated Adiabatic Temperature Rise 57 C
4083 - 2.52 24.2 Concrete Thermal Diffusivity 12.1 x 10-7 m/s
7
4135 33.4 - 21.7 Specific Heat of Concrete 906.7 J/kg-C
4160 34.9 - 22.1 Coefficient of Linear Thermal Expansion 10.7 mm/m/C
5903 37.7 - -
10
5903 37.8 - -
8399 39.4 - -
14 8425 38.3 - 23.6
8451 - 2.87 26.7
28 17148 46.8 - -
 Maturity-Strength Relationship

Data from embedded

temperature sensors
can be used to
estimate in-situ
strength based on
laboratory-established
maturity relationship
Relationship of
Maximum Allowable DT vs. In-Situ Strength
Develop Thermal Control Plan

Thermal control measures can be optimized using

thermal modelling based on a maximum allowable
ratio:
stress : strength
Implemented thermal control measures that are
reasonable for what the concrete can accommodate
Real-time monitoring of the concrete using embedded
temperature sensors allows for adjustment of thermal
control measures if field conditions vary from those
assumed for modelling purposes
 26

Evaluation of Options

Pre-cooling rejected by due to logistics and cost

Construction management not feasible (optimization of
joint spacing and lift thickness)

Two options remain:

Mitigation of large temperature differentials by control of

heat loss from exterior surfaces (surface insulation)
Active cooling using water pipes embedded in concrete
 27

Evaluation of Options

Pre-cooling rejected by due to logistics and cost

Construction management not feasible (optimization of
joint spacing and lift thickness)

Two options remain: Not sufficient due to maximum allowable

temperature being exceeded
Mitigation of large temperature differentials by control of
heat loss from exterior surfaces (surface insulation)
Active cooling using water pipes embedded in concrete

Remaining option
 28

Optimization Of Cooling
Pipe Layout

Model allows
for optimization
of cooling pipe
layout, spacing,
diameter, water
flow rate, and
duration of
operation.
Measured Temperatures Northeast Arch Support Leg

Specified maximum
temperature limit of
60 C was maintained.

Maximum differential
temperature was well
below maximum
allowable
 30

Summary

Thermal control measures required for mass concrete

structures
Prescriptive specifications are not suitable for all
concrete mixes
Thermal modeling using input parameters validated by
laboratory testing
Effective performance-based approach for thermal
mitigation measures to address the unique needs of this
project
 31

Lessons Learned

Optimization of concrete mixes are most effective

method
Consider mass concrete requirements early in the
design phase
Consider specification requirements performance
based approach
Reduces the extent of thermal control measures
Mass concrete placements were successful due to
cooperation and sharing of information between
APJV, LafargeHolcim and WSP
Thank You!
Questions?
wps-pb.com

oliver.gepraegs@wspgroup.com