Hydration-Induced Stresses in Concrete Buttressing of Existing Concrete Gravity Dams
-
Upload
nihal-vitharana -
Category
Engineering
-
view
271 -
download
3
Transcript of Hydration-Induced Stresses in Concrete Buttressing of Existing Concrete Gravity Dams
Hydration-induced Stresses in Concrete Buttressing of Existing
Concrete Dams
By
Nihal Vitharana (Arup, Sydney)Nuno Ferreira (Arup, London)
22
What is Concrete Buttressing ?
• It involves placing concrete behind an existing concrete dam to either raise or strengthen it.
• This is a viable solution and sometimes the only solution available.
• This presentation doesn’t cover the background behind buttressing or other design details (refer: N Anderson and N Vitharana paper at NZSOLD 2013).
• This paper concentrates only on the heat-of-hydration and its effects on the existing dam and the buttress.
3
Concrete Buttressing: Typical Arrangement
Foundation Drains
Foundation drainage access platform
Horizontal outlet drains
Interface Drains
Drain cap
Vertical foundation drains
NZSOLD-2003: Anderson &Vitharana
44
Two Major Challenges in Concrete Buttressing
1. Existing dam should not be subjected to cracking (particularly on the upstream face) due to heat-of-hydration effects, and
2. Two dam bodies to resist the hydrostatic and other loadings as a monolith (unified dam).
(Second point is discussed by Anderson & Vitharana NZSOLD-2003 with extensive mathematics involved).
55
Why heat-of-hydration is serious in buttressing ?
• Traditionally covered by: USBR-1965 and ACI committee 207 manuals dealing with mass concrete.
• However, the existing dam should not suffer damage (cracking resulting in degradation and instability)
• In recent times eg Different cement types (fly ash, slag, silica fume) Different characteristics (too fine cement particles) Faster construction times Cost implications (mantra is to keep the cost down !) Different delivery modes with accountabilities assigned to various
parties (eg D&C contracts)
66
Heat-of-Hydration calculations: what does this involve ?
1. Concrete mix design (Materials engineering/ constructability)
2. Heat generation (Physics)3. Heat transfer (Chemistry)4. Stress calculation (Engineering)5. Asked questions if cracked (Potential litigation)6. Fixing cracks (Repair technologists)(Although appears simple, it is complex with intertwined
disciplines => big picture)
77
Earlier work on this subject: Challenge the tradition
ANCOLD paper in 2002 (Adelaide) by Vitharana & Wark:Thermal Crack Occurrence in Large Concrete Placements: Theory and ApplicationsCanning dam anchoring project => challenged the tradition => faster construction without risk of concrete cracking
However, more to do on fundamentals and with buttressing……
88
Why thermal loading is different from applied loadings
1. It is a strain-induced loading (ie, caused by a strain) => similar to others eg shrinkage & swelling, AAR2. They are self-equilibriating (eg, vertical direction in a concrete gravity dam) => no direct influence on stability3. Being strain-induced stresses, they depend on stiffness:
=> thermal stress = Young’s modulus x thermal strainThis means => with “cracking”, stresses will be relaxed or disappear
99
Incorrect procedure => leads to conservatism
• With increasing load levels, thermal stresses relax• If not well understood, it will lead to over-
conservatism in the estimation of thermal stresses
Vitharana and Priestley (ACI Structural Journal, 1998)
1010
It is a serviceability issue, then why bother in dams ?
In dams, there is a secondary effect:If cracking is caused by combined thermal and applied stresses, it will modify the uplift pressures unfavourably => affecting its stability
In a water-environment, cracking will also accelerate deterioration mechanism with rapid ingress of water, eg, Alkali-Aggregate-Reaction (AAR)
1111
Modification of uplift pressures due to thermal cracking
Eg, a dam “without” drains:
Casagrande (1961) showed the benefit of drains for all adverse conditions => install drains wherever possible
1212
Fundamentals of Heat-of-Hydration
1. It is exothermic (ie, produces heat)
2. It is thermally-activated (rate of reaction depends on the temperature regime of the hydrating environment) as shown by Rastrup 1954 (Chemist from Denmark)
=> it reacts slowly at low temperatures
1313
Heat-Generation Characteristics
• Adiabatic is a special case (all boundaries are thermally insulated) eg ACI 207 data
• Use this with extreme caution if accurate results are required.
Temperature at time t:
Rate of heat generation J/kg/m3 of concrete:
1414
Heat-Generation Characteristics => ACI 207
• Popular document => ACI 207 “Mass Concrete for Dams and Other Massive Structure”
• Adiabatic curves for “four” cement types
1515
Heat-Generation Characteristics => ACI 207
• Dependence on placing-temperature T0
• Implicit admission of thermal activation => higher the temperature => higher the hydration rate
1616
What is wrong if using Adiabatic Curve ?
• Hydration is a thermally-activated process.• Two concurrent processes takes place:
- 1. Cement produces heat (hydration)- 2. Heat is lost to the ambient (heat-transfer)
• We need to couple heat-generation and heat-transfer
< Use of traditional adiabatic model is fundamentally wrong because it decouples the two processes >
1717
Heat-Generation Characteristics: Rastrup (1954)
• Rastrup (1954) introduces a model for varying-temperature environment => (Vitharana & Sakai 1995)
• Where te couples hydration and heat-transfer with an equivalent time
• Suitable for any varying-temperature regime
1818
Heat-Generation Testing
• Input to Rastrup model is via “Heat of Solution” tests• In HoS tests, small cement samples are tested under
constant reference temperature Tr.• It can be used for any cement composition by
separately testing the binders.• Now becoming popular and recognised in many
international standards eg, ISO, Norwegian, ASTM
1919
Difference in Temperature : Adiabatic vs Rastrup
• Eg. Low-heat cement with cement content of S=350 kg/m3
• Adiabatic with T0=20 0C and Rastrup at Tr=20 0C
A significant difference with adiabatic over-estimating the rate
2020
Difference in Thermal stresses: Adiabatic vs Rastrup
• 200 and 600mm thick walls with S=400 kg/m3 ; OPC (Vitharana & Sakai 1995)
Adiabatic over-estimates thermal stress by 40%
2121
Heat Transfer in a dam
• Generalised heat-transfer can be described by:
• Q0 is rate of heat generation • Ambient interaction => allow for heat transfer due to
convection, radiation through dam's surfaces
2222
Type and Removal Time of Formwork
• Eg. 750mm thick wall with steel and wood formworks (Vitharana 1998)
=> Thermal shock occurs on removal of wood formwork
2323
Typical Cost for Lowering Placing Temperature
• T0 has a significant effect on rate of hydration and tensile thermal stress
2424
Tensile Strength Development
• Hydration is also thermally-activated• Standard cylinder test is not simulating actual
hydration state within the dam.• Maturity function of CEB-FIP model code, modified
te by (Vitharana & Sakai 1995)
Ft is tensile strength at time t
2525
Mechanism of Hydration-Induced Cracking
• Cracking occurs when Thermal stress > Tensile strength at a given time t
Temperature is not causing cracking, it is the ’Thermal Stress”
2626
Schematic Representation of the Mechanism
• At early-age, change in concrete’s modulus E is the main reason for thermal stresses; ref; Vitharana & Wark 2002, Vitharana & Sakai 1995
2727
Creep Relaxation ?
• Creep relaxation can reduce the thermal stresses by 40-50% at early-age
• Eg 600mm thick wall: stress distribution with and without creep (Vitharana & Sakai 1995)
2828
Simple Thermal Stress Calculation
Once the net thermal and creep strain is known, stress increment at any time is given by:
Derivation is given in (Vitharana 1998)
2929
Finite Element modelling; The Need ?
• In a buttress dam, the mechanical interaction between existing dam and buttress is complex => Need finite element modelling
• Reliable thermal and material input parameters are more important than just operating a FE Model !
• Most commercial packages have severe limitations in modelling early-age thermal behaviour => check carefully what it gives you !
3030
Example Buttressing
• 35m high dam raised by 4 m and stabilised with a 1v:0.75h d/s slope
• Low-heat cement with heat = 273 kJ/kg of cement• Unit cement content of 350 kg/m3
• Placing-temperature of 20 0C• Time gap between 1.2m thick lifts: 5-7 days• Heat of Solution and Hot-Box trials were undertaken• total temperature rise would be about 36 0C or total of 56 0C
(adiabatic) with To=20 0C
3131
Example Buttressing: Dimensions
3232
Temperature distributions
• Maximum at any time was 47 0C (compared with traditional adiabatic = 56 0C)
Any time End of Construction
3333
Vertical Stress
• Maximum on upstream face at any time was 0.8MPa < tensile strength
Any time End of construction
3434
Thermal Stress vs Tensile Strength with time
• At 4m above the foundation level
Any time End of construction
3535
Deterministic vs Probabilistic
• Japanese Concrete Institute (1986) provides a probabilistic approach.
• Thermal stress/tensile strength ratio is related to probability of cracking (based on extensive site data)
3636
Concluding remarks
1. Early-age thermal stress calculation is complex.2. Important to evaluate your input parameters with accuracy
before embarking on complex analyses.3. Hydration characteristics play a major role.4. Creep relaxes thermal stresses by 40-50%.5. With proper testing and sophisticated structural modelling,
economy in construction can be achieved with a good understanding of the risks involved.
6. Example dam analyse proved (5).
Thank you !