TR/AR/061

Haji Hassan Readymix

Technical Report
(Addendum to TR/AR/054)

Temperature Monitoring Report

For
Mohammed Jalal Contracting,
Mass Concrete Pour
R50 Rectifier Foundation, ALBA

June 2014

Introduction
In January 2014 Haji Hassan Readymix submitted Technical Report TR/AR/054
which provided guidance to control the temperature of in situ concrete of a 1.5m
deep slab for the R50 Rectifier at Alba, Bahrain.
The Client (ALBA Aluminium), the Consultant Engineers (Ismail Khonji &
Associates) and the Contractor (Mohammed Jalal Construction) duly took note
and agreed the following.
The approved mix design was HHRM mix reference 28138-F3 (full details given
in Appendix A) using 30% Pulverised Fly Ash and having an expected
performance as shown in the laboratory trials (see Appendix B). The design
margin of 4.2N/mm2 was lower than normal. However, the strength gain of PFA
mixes up to 56 Days provided a comfortable degree of safety and avoided having
to increase cement; this would have exacerbated the in situ temperature
problem.
The expected temperature rise was estimated from the graph below taken from
BRE Digest 3 Mass Concrete.
Using 30% PFA at 400kg/m3 for pour depth 1.5m there was an expected
temperature rise of 35C.
Minimum Pour Dimension, m

5
4
3
2
1
0

When added to fresh concrete temperature of 32C a peak of 67C was derived.
This is below the theoretical maximum of 70C which in turn provides the margin
for a practical in situ maximum of 75C.

It was noted that the potential problem with high in situ temperatures, Delayed
Ettringite Formation (DEF) was significantly reduced by fully tanking the structure
(DEF requires an external source of water to proceed).
The target maximum temperature differential within the pour was 30C. This is
below the theoretical maximum of 38C (for limestone aggregate concrete) and
provides a comfortable margin.
The agreed monitoring procedure was to be carried out by Qatar Engineering
Laboratories using thermocouples (Ref TH1 TH6) at locations designated by
HHRM. The locations were selected to pick up the peak temperatures and
maximum temperature differentials as shown below
Diagram 1: Thermocouple Locations

.
6
5

12

The data analysis is from 230m3 concrete ordered on 22 nd May 2014 starting at
0700hrs with fresh temperature 29.0C at site and ambient temperature 32C.
The pour was completed at approximately 1400hrs using 217m3 of concrete with
fresh temperature 31.5C at site; ambient temperature reached 38C by the time
of pour finishing.
This report contains the data from the concrete pour and from QELs monitoring.
It compares the theoretical values with those actually achieved and makes
relevant comments regarding any deviations from expected behaviour.

Executive Summary
Internal concrete temperatures peaked at 70.3C (TH1) and 70.0C (TH5). This
was higher than predicted by 3C but remains below the signal value. The solar
gain due to lack of shading or fogging will have contributed to this.
The maximum differential was 27.6C between TH5 and TH6 occurring 70 hrs
after pouring was completed. This is below the signal value.
Concrete strengths are in line with trial mix data at 7 days (28 day results due on
19th June 2014) and summarised below. C45 compliance is predicted.
Test Type

Test Reference

Date

Lab trial
Field Test
Field Test
Field Test
Field Test

LT12
1615
1616
1617
1620

28/1/14
22/5/14
22/5/14
22/5/14
22/5/14

Compressive Strength, N/mm2

7 Days
28 Days
35.8
49.2
36.0
37.8
Due 19/6/14
34.8
35.9

No problems relating to pour timings and supply rates were reported.

Temperature Monitoring
QELs data from thermocouple readings are given in their report #12071 (see
Appendix C).
Appendix D contains more in depth analysis and full-size versions of the graphs
used in the following discussion.
Discussion of results
Data shows the following.
1. Peak temperature is 70.3C (see Graph 1)

Graph 1: Thermocouple Readings

75
C entre (1)

70

C entre (5)

Top C entre (2)

External C orner (4)

External C orner (6)

65
60
55
Entrant C orner (3)
In Situ Temperatutres, C entigrade

50
45
40
35

Ambient

30
25
0

12

24

36

48

60

72

84

Time Elapsed, Hours

2. By the time concrete pour reached half depth at 750mm (up to TH1) ambient
temperature had reached 34.3C

96

3. Each thermocouple was immersed in turn by concrete as follows (See graph

2)
TH1 at 1100hrs, ambient at 34.3C
TH5. at 1120hrs, ambient at 35.5C
TH2, TH3 & TH4 at 1200hrs
TH6 at 1330hrs

Graph 2: Early Thermocouple Readings

41.0
40.0
39.0
Ambient

38.0

External Corner (4)

Top Centre (2)

External Corner (6)

Centre (5)

37.0
36.0

In Situ Temperatutres, Centigrade

35.0
34.0
33.0

Centre (1)

Entrant Corner (3)32.0

31.0
30.0
29.0

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Time Elapsed, Hours

4. All deliveries showed temperature increase in situ from solar gain & ambient
temperature of approximately 0.3C/hr (Graph 2). This will increase the peak
temperature.
5. Thermocouple readings were affected by ambient temperature as shown in
Graph 3 overleaf

5.5

6.0

Graph 3: Difference between ambient and in situ concrete

Middle - Ambient

C orner Centigrade
(3) - Ambient
Temperature Entrant
Differential,

External C orner (4) - Ambient

26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Top Middle - Ambient

External C orner (6) - Ambient

11 17 23 29 35 41 47 53 59 65 71 77 83
8 14 20 26 32 38 44 50 56 62 68 74 80
Time Elapsed, Hours

Ambient Temperature

Temperature, Centigrade

11 17 23 29 35 41 47 53 59 65 71 77 83
14 20 26 32 38 44 50 56 62 68 74 80
Time Elapsed, Hours

There is a time lag of 3 to 4 hours between ambient temperature trends and

the response from in situ (at 100mm depth)
Overnight cooling rates increased with distance from the centre of the pour;
the temperature drops of TH3, TH4 & TH6 exceeded that of ambient (due to
their higher starting temperature) resulting in a reduction in the difference
between them.
TH2 showed a cooling rate equal to the ambient cooling rate indicating that
the production of heat from within was enough to offset the heat loss at the
surface.
The core temperature was unaffected by ambient conditions

Conclusions
Changes to the original concrete specification allowed the pour temperature to be
controlled within acceptable parameters and may be considered a success.
The structure has a characteristic strength of C45 and meets the durability
requirements given in BS8500-2 for DC-3 exposure conditions for 100 year
design life.
This includes sulfate exposure to DS-4 as shown in Table A2 from BS8500-1
(see below) and with 75mm cover meets the requirements for 100 year design
life with respect to non-marine chloride exposure and carbonation

Author Details
Andy Rogers holds the Diploma in Advanced Concrete Technology with over ten
years experience as Technical Manager with RMC (now Cemex), two years with
Readymix Qatar and two years spent in Libya as Concrete and Materials
Consultant for the Great Man Made River Project. He is currently the Technical
Manager for Haji Hassan Readymix
This report is, to the best of my knowledge, factually correct.
Signed

Date

Appendix A
Mix Design

Appendix B

Laboratory Trial Data

Appendix C
Qatar Engineering Laboratory Temperature Monitoring Report

Appendix D
Graphical Analysis of Temperature Recordings