Laboratory Curing Protocols to Replicate

Thermomechanical Behavior of High-Strength

Concrete in Mass Placements
Ashley S. Carey 1; Isaac L. Howard, F.ASCE 2; Jay Shannon 3; Dylan A. Scott 4; and Brad Songer, S.M.ASCE 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Javeriana on 10/30/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper outlines a framework for a potential testing protocol in which specimens are cast following typical industry practices,
cured following a specific combination of insulting blocks and variable temperature boundary conditions, and then tested to approximate in-
place mechanical properties. Protocols to cure specimens following a time–temperature profile of a high-strength concrete mass placement
were developed so that mechanical properties can be measured directly. Findings showed that laboratory equipment was capable of rep-
licating time–temperature profiles of mass concrete structures, and one protocol was recommended for a specific set of conditions. This
framework is envisioned to be the foundational component of a standard method in which in-place properties of mass high-strength concrete
placements can be predicted by a commercial testing laboratory that already conducts standard concrete tests. Future work is needed to
extrapolate the proposed framework for different mixtures, placement sizes, and insulation types; this paper validates that the framework
is possible. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0004345. © 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: High-strength concrete; In-place properties; Mass concrete; Laboratory testing framework.

Introduction and Background
High-strength concrete (HSC) use has become more common as
the demand for structures with higher in-place mechanical proper-
ties than conventional ready-mixed concrete effectively can provide
continues to increase. These concretes often have high cementitious
material contents, minimal coarse aggregates, low water to cemen-
titious material (w=cm) ratios, and elevated high-range water-
reducing admixture (HRWRA) dosages compared with traditional
concrete mixtures. The minimum strength to be considered HSC is
55 MPa (8,000 psi), and additional classes of HSC such as very-
high-strength concrete (VHSC) and ultra high-performance concrete
(UHPC) require greater compressive strengths. In recent years,
VHSC and UHPC mixtures have been used or considered for
1
Research Engineer II, Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems (CAVS),
Mississippi State Univ., 200 Research Blvd., Starkville, MS 39759 (corre-
sponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8741-258X. Email:
asc296@msstate.edu
2
Materials and Construction Industries Chair and Interim Director,
Richard A. Rula School of Civil and Environmental Engineering and
CAVS, Mississippi State Univ., 250 Hardy Rd., P.O. Box 9546, Mississippi
State, MS 39762. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4642-7723. Email:
ilhoward@cee.msstate.edu
3
Chief, Concrete and Materials Branch, US Army Corps of Engineers,
Engineering Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd.,
Vicksburg, MS 39180. Email: Jameson.D.Shannon@erdc.dren.mil
4
Research Mechanical Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers,
Engineering Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd.,
Vicksburg, MS 39180. Email: Dylan.Scott@erdc.dren.mil
5
Research Civil Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering
Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd., Vicksburg, MS
39180. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0905-8052. Email: Bradford
.P.Songer@erdc.dren.mil
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 6, 2021; approved on
December 27, 2021; published online on May 26, 2022. Discussion period
open until October 26, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561.
applications ranging from infrastructure rehabilitation (Farzad et al.
2019; Haber et al. 2017; Graybeal et al. 2020) to protective structures
(Thornhill and Reinhart 2010; Cargile et al. 2002; Brown et al. 2019,
2021) in which increased strength and ductility are required. Reason-
able knowledge of in-place properties is critical for these applica-
tions, but often is difficult to predict. Methods that can reasonably
estimate in-place properties of large, high-strength concrete struc-
tures are useful in a variety of ways. Although there is no consensus,
mass placements typically are defined as having a least dimension
greater than 1.22 m (4 ft) as recommended by ACI Committee 207
(ACI 2005), but have been defined as having a least dimension as
large as 2.13 m (7 ft) (Gross et al. 2017).
One of the original methods for determining in-place properties
of concrete structures is the maturity method (Nurse 1949; Saul
1951). This method uses a time–temperature relationship to esti-
mate concrete compressive strength (fc ). An alternative version of
this method, known as equivalent age (Rastrup 1954), uses an affin-
ity ratio to convert time at any temperature to its equivalent time at a
standard temperature. Affinity can be found using an Arrhenius
equation in which apparent activation energy also must be known.
Carino (1984) fully summarized the theory and history of the matu-
rity method and vetted it using experimental data and found that
it was critical to select the appropriate inputs to predict f c values
accurately.
Currently, there are several methods to predict in-place proper-
ties for conventional concrete (Table 1). One software package to
determine in-place properties is ConcreteWorks (Riding et al. 2013).
ConcreteWorks utilizes a database of semiadiabatic calorimetry tests
to predict time–temperature relationships based on mixture material
constituents, environmental boundary conditions (BCs), and size
and shape of the placement. Mechanical properties also can be
estimated using the activation energy found by calorimetry rela-
tionships from the maturity method. Methods are being developed
to approximate heat of hydration using temperature measurements
from the center of a 1-m3 placement that could be used in place of
semiadiabatic calorimetry (Chen et al. 2021). Approaches such as
that of ConcreteWorks and some of the examples in Table 1 can be

© ASCE 04022189-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2022, 34(8): 04022189

 Table 1. Review of methods to predict in-place properties of conventional concrete
Method Reference Findings
Maturity Abdel-Jaward (2006) Modifications to Nurse–Saul equations to consider curing temperature and w/cm ratio were shown to more
method accurately predict f c versus traditional Nurse–Saul equations.
Brooks et al. (2007) Equivalent age maturity method overestimated fc at curing temperatures of 8°C and 40°C when using input
data for specimens cured at 23°C.
Yikici and Chen (2015) Four 6-ft cubes were cast and cored to evaluate accuracy of maturity method. Strength of cores from the top
of the cube was overestimated by 10%–20%, but center and bottom cores were reasonably predicted
(ranging from 0 to 20% error).
Upadhyaya et al. (2015) For high-volume fly-ash mixtures, standard laboratory curing could not predict in-place properties due to
increased heat generation in mass structures. Maturity calculations were 15% to 20% lower for laboratory
specimens that were match-cured to a mass placement.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Javeriana on 10/30/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Numerical Tia et al. (2010) TNO DIANA was used to model thermal and structural analysis. Users supplied adiabatic calorimetry of
methods material and input time history to the program, and output of in-place properties was given.
Folliard et al. (2008) User input is required for material properties as well as structural, construction, and environmental
parameters. Input was used in numerical models to predict temperature–time histories and in-place
mechanical modeling. The model used equivalent age based on simulated heat of hydration to predict in-
place properties.
Ge (2005) User inputs of material properties and mixture proportions were used to predict heat of hydration. Calculated
heat of hydration predicted a time–temperature profile of a mass structure used in a maturity-strength model
to estimate in-place properties. The model was not compared with in-place properties a mass structure.
Schmidt Riding et al. (2006) The Schmidt method was compared with thermal data collected from eight bridge elements. Schmidt’s
method method adequately modeled conduction in the concrete but needed refinement when modeling boundary
conditions.
Bobko et al. (2015) The Schmidt method was altered to incorporate equivalent age and empirical equations for heat of
hydration, which provided accuracy commonly found in finite-element models in a method that could be
calculated in a spreadsheet.

MASS STRUCTURE
The culvert placement
in Figure 3 was
evaluated in this paper. This
method could be used for
different size and shape
structures. Photo shows a
Least Dimension:
representative culvert poured
1.3 meters
for another HSC mass
placement by ERDC.
To simulate mass structure use laboratory protocol
LABORATORY PROTOCOL
CAST Cast four 10.2 by 20.3 cm specimens per
(1) prevailing test standards (e.g. ASTM,
AASHTO, ACI).
1:13 Scale
Curing blocks and VT
curing are used to
Boundary Condition (Fig. 4)
reliable for conventional concretes, but HSCs do not have the
same thermal and mechanical trends (Carey 2019), and are worthy
of additional investigation.
Carey (2021) developed curing protocols for modest-sized high-
strength concrete placements for use in a framework that uses
laboratory-scale specimens to predict thermomechanical properties
of HSC placements. This framework outlines a testing protocol in
which users cast, cure, and test 10.2 × 20.3-cm concrete specimens
using a combination of prescribed boundary conditions and insula-
tors to estimate a thermomechanical signature. This method can be
performed in a commercial testing laboratory in which concrete al-
ready is being made and tested with only modest modifications to
common curing procedures. This paper assessed the feasibility of
this framework (Fig. 1) for mass HSC placements and suggests a
representative curing protocol. This method is envisioned to be a
foundational piece of a standardized method in which in-place
properties of mass structures are estimated by curing laboratory-
scale specimens according to specific protocols based on the size

replicate thermal history and environmental conditions of the placement and then testing
of a mass placement on
Recommended them to obtain mechanical properties.
Insulator (Fig. 5)

lab scale specimens.

curing protocol
CURE would be based Four thermal points of
(2) on size of interest are calculated
placement and from recorded time- Experimental Program
1:13 Scale anticipated temperature profiles.
environmental
conditions. Blocks cost less than Material Properties
$3,000 to build and would
require the same level of A mass placement and laboratory experiments used a blend of very-
effort as established high-strength concrete (VHSC) developed by the USACE (Table 2).
curing methods.
TEST This VHSC blend contains eight constituents. Class H cement had
(3) Test four 10.2 by 20.3 cm specimens per little to no C3 A, with an average Blaine fineness of 319 m2 =kg.
prevailing test standards to obtain 4 fc and Silica fume had 93% SiO2 and a bulk density of 300–450 kg=m3 .
2 E data points.
1:13 Scale Class F fly ash had a total SiO2 , Al2 O3 , and Fe2 O3 content of 89%.
Concrete sand and Size 89 limestone [defined by ASTM C33/C33M
(ASTM 2018a) as having a nominal size of 9.5–1.18 mm] had
Fig. 1. Logic of laboratory testing protocol to predict thermomecha-
absorptions of roughly 0.4%. Two admixtures, a high-range water-
nical properties.
reducing admixture and a set retarder (SR), were used in the mass

© ASCE 04022189-2 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2022, 34(8): 04022189

 Table 2. Batching quantities of laboratory and field mixtures 0.165 was reported in all cases. For the mass placement, the w=cm
Laboratory Field ratio was approximately 0.16.
Constituent VHSC VHSC
Class H cement [kg=m3 (lb=yd3 )] 732 (1,234) 738 (1,243) Mass Placement Preparation and Curing Environment
Silica fume [kg=m3 (lb=yd3 )] 126 (212) 125 (210)
The mass placement was poured at a secure location in the
Class F fly ash [kg=m3 (lb=yd3 )] 82 (138) 79 (133)
Sand [kg=m3 (lb=yd3 )] 458 (772) 470 (792)
southeastern United States in August of 2019. Cement, fly ash, ag-
Size 89 limestone [kg=m3 (lb=yd3 )] 812 (1,369) 818 (1,378) gregates, water, and admixture were batched into a truck at a local
Steel fibers [kg=m3 (lb=yd3 )] 160 (170) 157 (264) concrete plant and hauled to the placement location. On site, silica
HRWRA [mL/kg (oz/lb)] 2.7 (0.04) 15.1 (0.23) fume and steel fibers were added to the mixture and given time to
Set retarder [mL=kg (oz=lb)] — 1.1 (0.02) mix until fully incorporated. A metal culvert with a diameter of
Water [kg=m3 (lb=yd3 )] 158 (266) 152 (256) 1.8 m and height of 1.3 m with plywood attached to the bottom
w=cm ratio
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Javeriana on 10/30/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.165 0.160
Note: Laboratory w=cm ratio ranged from 0.163 to 0.168; and admixture
reported as milliliters per kilogram and ounces per pound cementitious
material, which is defined as cement, silica fume, and fly ash.
placement; whereas only the HRWRA was used in laboratory mix-
tures. The steel fibers were Dramix 3D 55=30 BG fibers (Bekaert,
Zwevegem, Belgium) with hooked ends and were made of mild
steel (Fig. 2).
For laboratory-scale mixtures, aggregates were air dried for sev-
eral weeks to reach a moisture content that was less than saturated
surface dry, although the exact moisture contents were unknown.
Because the exact moisture contents were unknown, a range of
water to cementitious materials ratios was considered to encapsu-
late the range of potential moisture contents due to aggregate ab-
sorption. A w=cm ratio of 0.163 was calculated for oven-dry
aggregates, and 0.168 was calculated for saturated surface dry ag-
gregates; ultimately this difference was deemed to be negligible for
proportioning of laboratory-scale mixtures, and a w=cm ratio of
was used as formwork. Nine thermocouples (TCs) were placed
at known coordinates to measure temperature development during
early age hydration (Fig. 3). The placement was wrapped four times
with an insulating blanket (R-value ¼ 0.9 m2 ·K=W) and cured in
an outdoor environment subject to daily temperature variations for
approximately 5 days. Ambient temperatures recorded with addi-
tional TCs at the testing site ranged from 20.3°C to 46.7°C during
the 5-day curing duration, with an average temperature of 28.5°C.
Additional weather records showed that conditions were fair with
light winds for the majority of the 5-day curing duration, but thun-
derstorms produced approximately 7.6 cm of rain over approxi-
mately 4 h and maximum wind gusts of 40 km=h.
Laboratory-Scale Specimen Preparation and Curing
Environment
All laboratory-scale specimens were produced following an iden-
tical procedure. A Hobart HL200 mixer (Troy, Ohio) with a paddle
attachment was used to induce high-shear mixing. Due to the size
of these mixers, laboratory-scale batch sizes were limited to

30 mm

0.55 mm

Fig. 2. Steel fibers used in very-high-strength concrete mixture.

TOP VIEW SECTION VIEW

3
A B C
3

2
1.32 m
0.91 m

2
0.61 m

RA = 0.76 m
RB = 0.61 m 1
1
0.3 m

RC = 0.46 m

A B C A B C

(a) (b)

Fig. 3. (a) TC locations (marked with stars) in mass placement; and (b) and interior photo of mass placement precasting.

© ASCE 04022189-3 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2022, 34(8): 04022189

 100 100 100 100
BC1 BC2 BC3 BC4
80 80 EC1: 23°C 80 EC1: 23°C 80
EC2: 90°C Air Boundary Air Boundary EC2: 50°C
60 EC1: 23°C H O Boundary60 60 60 H2O Boundary
Air Boundary 2
40 40 40 40
20 20 20 20 EC1: 23°C
Air Boundary
0 0 0 0
100 100 100 100
BC5 BC6 BC7 BC8
80 80 80 80 EC4: 23°C
EC2: 90°C EC2: 50°C EC2: 90°C Air Boundary
60 H2O Boundary 60 H2O Boundary 60 H2O Boundary 60
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Javeriana on 10/30/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

40 40 40 40
Temperature (°C)

20 EC1: 23°C 20 EC1: 23°C 20 EC1: 23°C 20

Air Boundary Air Boundary Air Boundary
0 0 0 0
100 100 100 100
BC9 BC10 BC11 BC12 VT Variables
80 EC3: 32°C 80 EC3: 50°C 80 EC3: 70°C 80 EC4: Air TD 23
Air Boundary Air Boundary Air Boundary Boundary tD1 0
60 60 60 60 tS1 6
TP 70
40 40 40 40 tP 24
20 20 20 20 tS2 4
tD2 38
0 0 0 0
100 100 100 100
BC13 VT Variables BC14 VT Variables BC15 VT Variables BC16 VT Variables
80 EC4: Air TD 23 80 TD 23 80 EC4: Air TD 23 80 EC4: Air TD 23
Boundary EC4: Air
tD1 10 tD1 6 Boundary tD1 6 Boundary tD1 6
Boundary
60 tS1 6 60 tS1 6 60 tS1 6 60 tS1 6
TP 85 TP 90 TP 90 TP 90
40 40 40
tP 4 40 tP 4 tP 4 tP 4
20 tS2 24 20 tS2 48 20 tS2 100 20 tS2 148
tD2 28 tD2 8 tD2 148 tD2 4
0 0 0 0

Time (hours)

EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4

TP
Temperature (°C)

7 variables to
define VT curves
in BC12 – BC16

TD

tD1 tS1 tP tS2 tD2

Time (hours)

Fig. 4. Boundary conditions (BCs), environmental chambers (ECs), and variable temperature (VT) curve variables.

0.00396 m3 (0.14 ft3 ). Cement, silica fume, class F fly ash, con-
crete sand, and Size 89 limestone were all placed into a bowl
and mixed for 1 min to create a homogenous mixture. After
1 min of mixing, 80% of the water was added and mixing continued
for 1 min at a slow speed. The remaining 20% of water and the
HRWRA then were added to the mixture and the mixing speed
was increased to a slightly faster speed. Mixing continued until
a fluid state was achieved, and then steel fibers were added and
mixed until evenly dispersed. The mixture then was placed into
two 10.2 × 20.3-cm plastic cylinder molds in two equal lifts that

© ASCE 04022189-4 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2022, 34(8): 04022189

 were placed on a vibrating table between lifts to remove air voids.
Two mixtures were mixed simultaneously to produce four 10.2 ×
20.3-cm cylinders at one time. Specimens were then placed into a
designated curing environment until mechanical testing.
Laboratory-scale specimens were cured in groups of four spec-
imens (Fig. 1) using combinations of boundary conditions (Fig. 4)
and insulators (Fig. 5). Twenty-four combinations of boundary con-
ditions and insulators were used, each of which had a different pur-
pose (Table 3). Curing combinations are referred to in this paper
using the nomenclature X-Y-Z, where X represents the boundary
condition (Fig. 4), Y represents the insulator (Fig. 5), and Z rep-
resents total curing duration in days (i.e., time from initial water and

TOP VIEW WITHOUT LID SECTION VIEW

10.2

10.2

10.2

5.1
6.4

6.4
7.6

7.6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Javeriana on 10/30/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

6.4

20.3
30.5
10.2

40.6
7.6

5.1
10.2
6.4
EPS 6.4 10.2 7.6 10.2 6.4
58.4 40.6

TOP VIEW WITHOUT LID SECTION VIEW

1.3 2.5
2.5

21.6
26.7
22.9
2.5 30.5
1.3 2.5
1.3
2.5
2.5
1.3

2.5
1.3
1.3
2.5
22.9 22.9
AH
30.5 30.5

TOP VIEW WITHOUT LID SECTION VIEW

6.4 10.2 7.6 10.2 6.4

6.4
10.2 6.4

20.3

30.5
40.6
6.4 10.2 7.6

6.4
6.4 10.2 7.6 10.2 6.4
PIR 40.6 40.6

SECTION VIEW
TOP VIEW WITHOUT LID
11.4

5.1
2.5
22.9
35.6

48.3

21.6

2.5
SD
5.1

Note: all dimensions are given in centimeters

Fig. 5. Insulators used during curing: expanded polystyrene (EPS), aluminum honeycomb sheeting (AH), polyisocyanurate (PIR), and a steel drum
with loose insulation (SD). Lids were placed on all insulators prior to starting each test.

© ASCE 04022189-5 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2022, 34(8): 04022189

 Table 3. Summary of 24 curing combinations Legend: Tmax is the highest recorded
temperature. tmax is the time at which Tmax
Curing Curing occurs. Tincrease is the rate of temperature
case details Purpose of curing case increase and Tdecrease is the rate of temperature
decrease.
1 BC1-NI-14 General mechanical property characterization
2 BC2-NI-1 General mechanical property characterization 110
Tmax = 94.5°C

Temperature (°C)
3 BC3-NI-7 General mechanical property characterization 90 X
4 BC4-NI-2 General mechanical property characterization
70 Tincrease = Tdecrease =
5 BC5-NI-2 General mechanical property characterization
4.0 °C/hr -0.35 °C/hr
6 BC6-NI-7 General mechanical property characterization 50
7 BC7-NI-7 General mechanical property characterization tmax = 59.6 hours
30 X
8 BC8-SD-3 Replicating adiabatic curing condition 0 24 48 72 96 120
9 BC8-EPS-3 Replicating adiabatic curing condition Time (hours)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Javeriana on 10/30/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10 BC8-AH-3 Replicating adiabatic curing condition

11 BC8-PIR-3 Replicating adiabatic curing condition Fig. 6. Thermal curve with terminology defined.
12 BC9-EPS-3 BC–insulator combination testing
13 BC10-EPS-3 BC–insulator combination testing
14 BC11-EPS-3 BC–insulator combination testing
15 BC12-AH-3 BC–insulator combination testing After thermal testing ended, laboratory specimens were re-
16 BC13-AH-3 BC–insulator combination testing moved from curing and both ends were ground to obtain flat testing
17 BC14-AH-3 BC–insulator combination testing
surfaces. All mechanical testing was performed on a 2,670-kN
18 BC14-PIR-3 BC–insulator combination testing
19 BC14-AH-7 Final protocol development capacity compression machine. Compressive strength (fc ) testing
20 BC14-PIR-7 Final protocol development was performed on specimens at a load rate of 241 kPa=s (35 psi=s)
21 BC15-AH-7 Final protocol development in accordance with ASTM C39/C39M (ASTM 2018b). Compres-
22 BC15-PIR-7 Final protocol development sive strength testing was completed for two of four specimens, and
23 BC16-AH-7 Final protocol development the average strength was used to determine the 40% load used for
24 BC16-PIR-7 Final protocol development elastic modulus (E) testing, which then was conducted on the re-
Note: Curing details given as boundary condition–insulator–curing maining two specimens using a LVDT in accordance with ASTM
duration; and BCs are defined in Fig. 4, insulators are defined in Fig. 5, C469/C469M (ASTM 2014). After modulus testing, the two spec-
and curing duration is given in days. Curing cases in which no insulator imens were tested for fc.
was used are denoted NI (no insulator).

Test Protocol Criteria

cement contact to mechanical testing). For example, BC8-PIR-3
denotes the curing combination that used boundary condition 8
with a PIR insulator for a total curing duration of 3 days.
Sixteen boundary conditions were considered in this paper that
were developed through a combination of previous research and
trial and error. These boundary conditions were achieved using one
of four environmental chambers (ECs) which utilized air or water
(Fig. 4) to control the temperature around hydrating specimens.
BC12–BC16 utilized a variable-temperature bath (i.e., EC4) iden-
tical to the one used by Carey (2021) with programmed air temper-
atures using a specific profile. These profiles were defined with
seven variables for each BC (Fig. 4). Four insulators with varying
R-values were used to surround specimens during curing in a
boundary condition (Fig. 5). Insulating materials used to make cur-
ing blocks included expanded polystyrene (EPS) (R-value ¼
0.77 m2 ·K=W), aluminum honeycomb sheets (AH) (R-value ¼
0.01 m2 ·K=W), polyisocyanurate (PIR) (R-value ¼ 1.06 m2 ·K=W),
and a steel drum with loose-fill insulation (SD) (insulation
density ¼ 64 kg=m3 ). Insulators were not used in all 24 cases.
In cases in which insulators were not used, specimens were in direct
contact with the boundary condition.
Thermal and Mechanical Analysis Methods
Four thermal points of interest (TPOI) were calculated from the
temperature profiles of field and laboratory experiments (Fig. 6).
The maximum temperature (T max ) is defined as the highest re-
corded temperature, and the time at which this temperature
occurred is reported as tmax . The rate of temperature increase from
the end of the dormant period until the peak temperature is T increase ,
and T decrease is defined as the rate of temperature decrease from
peak temperature until the test ended.
To evaluate each curing combination, the authors developed four
criteria that a testing protocol must meet to reasonably predict ther-
momechanical signatures of a mass placement. The first criterion is
that specimens must be mixed and cast following ACI, ASTM, and/
or AASHTO standards (or equivalent) to reduce possible variability
between specimens produced for this test method and specimens
produced for other mechanical testing. The second criterion is that
peak temperature achieved during curing must be on the same scale
as a mass placement. The third criterion is that the time–temper-
ature profile used to cure laboratory specimens must match that
of a mass structure. The fourth criterion is that mechanical proper-
ties (e.g., compressive strength and elastic modulus) need to be
readily measurable so that in-place properties can be estimated.
Test Results and Discussion
Field Experiments Thermal Results
Based on the nine TCs placed in the mass placement (Fig. 3,
A1–C3), upper and lower boundaries and an average temperature
profile were found (Fig. 7). Laboratory curing regimes were in-
tended to produce specimen T max values that reached the average
temperature of the mass placement (94.1°C); however, any protocol
that produced a T max value within the envelope of temperatures re-
corded in the mass placement (89°C–99°C) was considered accept-
able. The average T max and temperature profile shape was on the
same scale as that of a 1-m3 cube UHPC placement described by
Sbia et al. (2017), which produced a T max of 90°C. The dormant
period for the mass structure was relatively long due to the addition
of a set retarder. Laboratory specimens did not contain a set
retarder, leading to thermal curves with noticeably shorter dormant
periods than those of the mass placement. Because of this, the

© ASCE 04022189-6 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2022, 34(8): 04022189

 TPOI A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 Avg.
dormant period of the mass placement was not considered when Tmax (°C) 89.0 94.5 92.5 92.0 97.4 94.0 93.0 99.0 95.9 94.1
tmax (hours) 57.8 59.6 59.4 58.0 62.0 59.2 59.1 62.0 60.1 62.0
comparing the mass placement with laboratory-scale specimens be- Tincrease (°C/hr) 4.2 4.0 3.9 4.2 3.4 3.9 4.0 3.5 3.9 3.4
cause the focus of the laboratory experiments was to determine Tdecrease (°C/hr) -0.32 -0.35 -0.35 -0.32 -0.36 -0.33 -0.30 -0.34 -0.30 -0.34

combinations of BCs and insulators to replicate time–temperature 110

profiles of mass placements defined by the four TPOIs. Upper Boundary

Temperature (°C)
90

70
Average
Laboratory Curing Results Lower Boundary
50
Set Retarder
Mechanical and thermal properties of all laboratory curing cases are
30
reported in Table 4, and additional commentary and comparison 0 24 48 72 96 120
with the four criteria needed for a successful testing protocol are Time (hours)
given in Table 5. Several trends were seen in this data set. For Cur-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Javeriana on 10/30/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ing Cases 1–7, in which the main purpose was mixture characteri-
zation, as curing temperature and duration increased, mechanical
properties also increased in a systematic fashion. BC2-NI-1 pro-
duced the lowest strengths, followed by BC3-NI-7, which both
were cured at room temperature. As specimens were introduced
to high-temperatures during curing, mechanical properties contin-
ued to increase systematically. BC6-NI-7 produced fc values that
were lower than those of BC7-NI-7, but higher than those of BC5-
NI-2. BC7-NI-14 produced the highest mechanical properties of
Curing Cases 1–7. This showed that the compressive strength of
this mixture was influenced significantly by the maximum temper-
ature and duration of curing, similar to other mixtures studied by
Carey (2021). Therefore, it can be said that replicating an accurate
time–temperature profile is critical to obtaining an accurate esti-
mate of in-place properties.
Curing Cases 8–11 evaluated four different insulators with no
programed boundary condition (i.e., 23°C air surrounding the in-
sulator for the duration of the test) to replicate a somewhat adiabatic
environment similar to what would be experienced by hydrating
concrete in a mass structure. All insulators produced a curve that
resembled the general shape of a hydrating structure; however,
insulators alone could produce peak temperatures only on the scale
of those of ready-mixed concrete mass placements (Riding et al.
2006; Gross et al. 2017). The addition of a prescribed boundary
condition is needed to produce time–temperature profiles similar
to mass HSC placements. Additionally, insulators produced T max
values ranging from 33.6°C (AH) to 65.5°C (PIR) which generally
were a function of the insulating R-value of each insulator. There-
fore, it can be said that not any insulating material will suffice when
trying to replicate the time–temperature profile of mass structures,
and factors such R-value must be considered.
Different boundary conditions and insulators were tested to
determine which combinations could produce peak temperatures
and time–temperature profiles to match those of mass placements.
Although temperature data during hydration of the mass placement
lasted approximately 5 days, a curing duration of 3 days was
chosen for Curing Cases 8–18 because the main objective of
these curing cases was to determine if insulation–boundary condi-
tion combinations could match the rates of temperature increase
(T increase ) and maximum temperatures (T max ) of the mass place-
ment. BC9-EPS-3, BC10-EPS-3, and BC11-EPS-3 showed the
limitations of both EPS insulation, due to its low melting point,
and of the nonprogrammable convection ovens, which could not
produce reasonable peak temperatures or time–temperature profiles.
BC12-AH-3 and BC13-AH-3 were selected to compare curing pro-
tocols previously used by the authors with that of the mass placement
(Fig. 7). BC12-AH-3 did not produce a time–temperature profile
similar to that of the mass placement, whereas BC13-AH-3 was
closer to the mass placement, but overall did not produce acceptable
peak temperatures or time–temperature profiles.
One trend that was seen in almost all curing cases that used a
combination of insulation and BCs was that regardless of insulator
Fig. 7. Time–temperature profiles recorded in the mass placement.
used, as the peak temperature of the boundary condition increased,
the difference between the peak temperature of the hydrating speci-
men and the BC decreased. For example, BC8-PIR-3 (BC peak
temperature ¼ 23°C) yielded a peak temperature difference of
þ42.5°C, whereas BC14-PIR-3 (BC peak temperature ¼ 90°C)
yielded a peak temperature difference of þ4.4°C. This indicated
that as specimens were cured at higher temperatures due to
BCs, specimens’ ability to generate additional heat due to hydration
decreased.
Based on the success of BC14, which used two different insula-
tors to reach an appropriate T max value and T increase rate, Curing
Cases 19–24 were evaluated to better recreate a T decrease similar
to that of the mass placement (Fig. 8). Both AH and PIR blocks
were subjected to three different boundary conditions (BC14,
BC15, and BC16) for a 7-day curing period. In each of these
BCs, PIR blocks produced a smaller T decrease value than did AH
blocks. This can be attributed to the meaningfully higher R-value
of the PIR block than of the AH block. Hydration heat generated by
the cylinders takes longer to dissipate in a PIR block because of its
greater insulating properties, which lowers the overall T decrease rate.
The value of T decrease did appear to have an effect on the mechanical
properties, but additional testing would be needed to definitively
determine the sensitivity of the mechanical properties to T decrease .
Based on preliminary efforts, the maximum temperature (T max ) and
T increase appear to have more influence on mechanical property de-
velopment than does T decrease ; however, additional testing is needed
of more mixtures to validate this observation. Overall, the use of
PIR insulation produced T decrease values that were closer to those of
a mass placement than did using AH insulation; therefore, PIR in-
sulation is suggested for use in future work.
Thermomechanical Relationship Implications
Maturity was calculated linearly for each curing case as the time–
temperature history in degree Celsius-days (°C-days) and reported
in Table 4. For example, Case 1 was cured in 23°C water for 7 days,
and then in 90°C water for 7 days, yielding a maturity value of
791°C-days (23°C × 7 days þ 90°C × 7 days ¼ 791°C − days).
Maturity for specimens in Curing Cases 8–24 was calculated by
finding the area under the curve of the time–temperature profiles.
Specimens cured in Cases 1–7 produced meaningfully higher fc
values compared with specimens cured with an insulator and pre-
scribed boundary condition with a similar maturity value. For
example, BC4-NI-2 and BC8-AH-3 produced virtually identical
maturity values (73°C-days and 72°C-days, respectively) but
BC4-NI-2 produced significantly higher fc values (p-value <
0.01 based on analysis of variance at a 0.05 significance level). This
trend also was found when comparing BC5-NI-2 (113°C-days) and

© ASCE 04022189-7 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2022, 34(8): 04022189

 Table 4. Thermal and mechanical results for laboratory experiments
TPOI fc E
Curing Curing Maturity T max tmax T increase T decrease Average Range COV Average Range
case details (°C-days) (°C) (h) (°C=h) (°C=h) (MPa) (MPa) (%) (GPa) (GPa) COV (%)
1 BC1-NI-14 791 — — — — 122 115–127 4.1 47.6 47.3–47.8 0.7
2 BC2-NI-1 23 — — — — 46 43–49 5.5 29.4 27.9–31.0 7.3
3 BC3-NI-7 161 — — — — 81 80–81 0.5 44.1 40.7–47.5 10.8
4 BC4-NI-2 73 — — — — 91 87–96 4.5 43.7 38.7–48.7 16.1
5 BC5-NI-2 113 — — — — 105 99–110 4.3 43.5 40.7–46.3 9.1
6 BC6-NI-7 323 — — — — 109 99–116 7.6 47.9 44.6–51.3 9.9
7 BC7-NI-7 563 — — — — 113 109–116 2.9 46.9 46.0–47.8 2.6
8 BC8-SD-3 83 41.4 18.6 1.9 −0.6 71 69–73 4.2 40.9 40.4–41.5 2.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Javeriana on 10/30/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

9 BC8-EPS-3 116 59.9 17.9 2.1 −0.6 89 77–94 6.8 40.8 40.0–41.5 2.6
10 BC8-AH-3 72 33.6 15.1 2.2 −0.4 69 67–71 3.1 — — —
11 BC8-PIR-3 131 65.5 17.2 3.5 −0.7 83 79–89 5.6 41.0 37.4–44.7 12.5
12 BC9-EPS-3 129 66.1 15.4 2.8 −0.6 88 81–91 5.6 41.2 39.9–42.6 4.7
13 BC10-EPS-3 171 77.6 14.5 3.9 −0.5 88 74–95 10.7 38.6 38.5–38.7 0.3
14 BC11-EPS-3 204 87.8 13.9 4.8 −0.3 89 85–94 4.3 39.7 28.5–41.0 4.4
15 BC12-AH-3 125 76.1 9.0 5.7 −2.6 76 69–81 7.6 34.4 30.9–37.9 14.3
16 BC13-AH-3 126 86.6 20.0 5.9 −2.1 91 86–95 4.8 38.4 36.7–40.1 6.3
17 BC14-AH-3 164 94.7 15.2 8.0 −1.4 84 81–89 4.3 51.9 51.3–52.6 1.8
18 BC14-PIR-3 197 94.4 17.6 6.1 −0.9 95 89–107 8.4 43.5 42.9–44.1 1.9
19 BC14-AH-7 263 101.1 14.3 10.6 −1.3 111 106–117 4.8 45.0 43.6–46.6 4.9
20 BC14-PIR-7 305 98.3 17.2 7.0 −0.7 109 104–113 3.6 42.7 40.4–44.9 7.4
21 BC15-AH-7 333 101.3 14.2 10.4 −0.7 109 104–113 3.6 42.7 40.4–44.9 7.4
22 BC15-PIR-7 382 93.6 19.7 5.0 −0.5 73 67–85 11.1 40.3 38.6–41.9 5.8
23 BC16-AH-7 397 99.7 14.3 10.4 −0.5 105 99–115 6.6 44.1 46.2–48.7 3.7
24 BC16-PIR-7 437 92.1 20.2 4.6 −0.4 81 74–86 6.4 44.2 42.3–46.2 6.1
Note: 1 MPa ¼ 145.04 psi (122 MPa ¼ 17.7 ksi); f c is given as average of four specimens; E is given as average of two specimens; and COV = coefficient of
variation.

Table 5. Commentary of thermal and mechanical results

Test method criteria
Curing Curing
case details 1 2 3 4 Commentary
1 BC1-NI-14 Y N N Y Produced highest fc of Cases 1–7.
2 BC2-NI-1 Y N N Y Produced lowest f c and E of Cases 1–7.
3 BC3-NI-7 Y N N Y Generally speaking, mechanical properties were a function of curing
4 BC4-NI-2 Y N N Y temperature and duration.
5 BC5-NI-2 Y N N Y —
6 BC6-NI-7 Y N N Y —
7 BC7-NI-7 Y N N Y —
8 BC8-SD-3 Y N N Y SD was not used going forward due to its size.
9 BC8-EPS-3 Y N N Y Somewhat adiabatic curing could not produce high enough
10 BC8-AH-3 Y N N Y temperatures to replicate those of a mass placement.
11 BC8-PIR-3 Y N N Y —
12 BC9-EPS-3 Y N N Y EPS was not used going forward due to low operating temperature
13 BC10-EPS-3 Y N N Y (80°C), and constant temperature oven was not used going forward
14 BC11-EPS-3 Y N N Y because it could not create appropriate time–temperature profiles.
15 BC12-AH-3 Y N N Y Curing case originally used by Carey (2021).
16 BC13-AH-3 Y N N Y Curing case originally used by Carey (2021).
17 BC14-AH-3 Y Y N Y Peak temperatures were achieved in two insulators with operating
18 BC14-PIR-3 Y Y N Y temperatures above 150°C.
19 BC14-AH-7 Y Y N Y Rate of temperature decrease was not close to the rate of temperature
20 BC14-PIR-7 Y Y N Y decrease of the mass placement.
21 BC15-AH-7 Y Y N Y Specimens cured in BC15 and BC16 (regardless of insulation) produced
22 BC15-PIR-7 Y Y N Y mechanical properties that were not significantly different, but the rate
23 BC16-AH-7 Y Y N Y of T decrease was much more accurate using BC16 with a PIR insulator to
24 BC16-PIR-7 Y Y Y Y retain noticeably more heat during curing.
Note: Y indicates criterion was met; N indicates criterion was not met; Criteria 1 = mixed and cast per standards; Criteria 2 = peak temperature reasonable;
Criteria 3 = time–temperature history reasonable; and Criteria 4 = tested per standards.

BC8-EPS-3 (116°C-days) as well as BC6-NI-7 (323°C-days) and BC6-NI-7 and BC15-PIR-7 specifically, the maturity method indi-
BC15-PIR-7 (382°C-days). BC5-NI-2 and BC6-NI-7 produced cated that CR15 should have produced higher f c values because its
significantly higher fc values, both with p-values of < 0.01, maturity was almost 60°C-days greater; however, it produced fc
compared with BC8-EPS-3 and BC15-PIR-7, respectively. For values that were 35 MPa lower than those of BC6-NI-7 specimens.

© ASCE 04022189-8 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2022, 34(8): 04022189

 110
laboratory specimens that were cured following a delayed temper-
95 Figure 7 (mass placement)
Temperature (°C) ature curing regime. Additionally, Upadhyaya et al. (2015) produced
80 match cured specimens (cured following the time–temperature pro-
65 file of a mass placement) which produced strengths that were 15%–
50 18
22
20% higher than the anticipated strengths calculated by the maturity
21 23 24
35 20 method and 20%–50% higher than those of specimens cured in the
17
20
19 same environmental conditions as the mass placement.
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168
= Table 3 curing combinations Time (hours)
Admixture Dosage Rate Effects
17 BC14-AH-3: fc = 84 MPa; E = 51.9 GPa 21 BC15-AH-7: fc = 109 MPa; E = 42.7 GPa
Admixture dosage packages varied between the mixture used in lab-
18 BC14-PIR-3: fc = 95 MPa; E = 43.5 GPa 22 BC15-PIR-7: fc = 73 MPa; E = 40.3 GPa oratory mixtures and the field placement (Table 2). Dosage rates of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Javeriana on 10/30/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the high-range water-reducing admixture were 5 times higher in the

19 BC14-AH-7: fc = 111 MPa; E = 45.0 GPa
20 BC14-PIR-7: fc = 109 MPa; E = 42.7 GPa
Fig. 8. Comparison of curing cases for final protocol development.
Typical laboratory curing methods that utilize delayed high-
temperature curing (i.e., exposing specimens to high temperatures
after some duration of room-temperature curing) produce mechani-
cal properties at the upper end of the expected range of properties.
This further highlights the need for a curing method that can cure
specimens in a manner that more closely resembles that of mass
structures to reflect their anticipated in-place properties accurately.
Various literature sources have shown the positive effects of delayed
high-temperature curing on HSC mixtures (Alsalman et al. 2017;
Graybeal 2006; Howard et al. 2018, 2021) and reaffirmed that rela-
tionships between maturity and mechanical properties for HSC are
not as reliable as they are for conventional concrete. For example,
Yikici and Chen (2015) found that cores from the top, center, and
bottom of four 1.8-m square mass placements were at least 15%
stronger than laboratory-scale specimens that were cured at room
temperature. Sbia et al. (2017) found that cores from a 1-m3 place-
ment of UHPC had strengths that were 40 MPa less than those of
23 BC16-AH-7; fc = 105 MPa; E = 44.1 GPa
24 BC16-PIR-7; fc = 81 MPa; E = 44.2 GPa
mass placement than in the laboratory-scale specimens, whereas the
set retarder was used only in the mass placement. Thermal analysis
of 5.1 × 10.2-cm cement paste cylinders cured at room temperature
was conducted to determine the implications of varying admixture
dosage packages. As the dosage rate of set retarder increased, the
dormant period also increased, and, ultimately, the overall peak tem-
perature decreased by 5°C from the lab dosage rate to the field dos-
age rate [Fig. 9(a)]. The temperature difference in the 5.1 × 10.2-cm
specimens cured at room temperature also translated to 10.2 ×
20.3-cm cement paste cylinders cured in a PIR insulation block
in which the BC was a modified 90°C variable temperature (VT)
profile [Fig. 9(b)]. An approximate difference of 7°C was found
in the 10.2 × 20.3-cm cement paste specimens cured at high temper-
atures [Fig. 9(c)]. Additional tests discussed by Carey (2021) used
this VHSC mixture with both admixture packages, and found the
difference in peak temperature to be approximately 5°C [Fig. 9(d)].
There were differences in the curing methods, but based on previous
findings this was a deemed to be a valid comparison to approximate
the difference in peak temperatures due to admixture differences.
Based on these findings, it can be estimated that peak temper-
atures of a concrete mixture with the lab admixture package would
have been roughly 5°C higher than that of the field admixture pack-
age. BC16-PIR-7 was adjusted to reflect this decrease in peak tem-
perature that would be expected due to admixture differences by

[2.7, 0.0] [8.9, 0.5] [12.1, 0.8] [15.1, 1.1] 95

40
37°C 37°C VT Variables
Temperature (°C)

80
Temperature (°C)

36 (Lab) 34°C 32°C TD: 23°C

(Field) 65 tD: 6 hours
32 tS1: 6 hours
28 50 TP: 90°C
tP: indefinite
24 35

20 20
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 0 24 48 72 96 120
(a) Time (hours) (b) Time (hours)

[2.7, 0.0] [15.1, 1.1] Lab Admix Field Admix

120 70
117°C
Temperature (°C)
Temperature (°C)

110°C 60°C
95 60 55°C
50
70
40
45
30
20 20
0 48 96 144 192 240 288 336 384 432 0 24 48 72 96
(c) Time (hours) (d) Time (hours)

Fig. 9. (a) Effects of admixture dosage rate on time–temperature profiles on 5.1 × 10.2-cm cement paste; (b) variable temperature profile used for
10.2 × 20.3-cm cement paste; (c) time–temperature profiles of 10.2 × 20.3-cm cement paste; and (d) time–temperature profiles of 10.2 × 20.3-cm
laboratory specimens and modest-sized field placements from Carey (2021).

© ASCE 04022189-9 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2022, 34(8): 04022189

 110
95
Temperature (°C)
80
65
50 Mass Placement
BC16-PIR-7
35 BC16-PIR-7 - Scaled
20
0 24 48 72 96
Time (hours)
Fig. 10. BC16-PIR-7 curing case scaled to account for admixture dosage rate differences.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Javeriana on 10/30/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
scaling all temperatures to 87.1°C, 5°C lower than the recorded
peak temperature of 92.1°C (Fig. 10). This curve was not recreated
in the laboratory due to a lack of material constituents. Even when
adjusting BC16-PIR-7 for the differences due to admixtures, the es-
timated peak temperature of BC16-PIR-7 tracked the lower bound of
the mass placement and was 2°C less than the lower bound of the
mass placement. Ultimately, admixture dosage rates had a meaning-
ful effect on time–temperature profiles of mixtures; however, this
paper still highlights that it is feasible to replicate temperature pro-
files of mass placements using laboratory equipment and to cure
laboratory-scale specimens so that mechanical properties can be
measured. More research is needed to fully understand their effects
on time–temperature profiles of HSC mass placements.
Curing Protocol Recommendations
Based on the preceding testing and analysis, Curing Case 24
(BC16-PIR-7) is recommended by the authors as a curing proto-
col that can be used within the testing framework described in
Fig. 1. This protocol was chosen because it produced the most
representative time–temperature profile of the curing cases evalu-
ated in this paper and is recommended for estimating a time–
temperature profile of a mass structure with a least dimension
greater than 1.3 m (Table 6) that uses class H cement, aggregate
no larger than Size 89, and a HRWRA. Due to thermocouple loca-
tions in the mass placement and insulation used, the protocol is
recommended to determine a time–temperature profile of an inter-
mediate area that does not include the surface or center of a mass
placement. Unlike the modest-sized placements described by Carey
(2021), the placement was large enough to overcome the influence of
outdoor curing conditions, which had no apparent effect on the time–
temperature profile. Therefore, this protocol is envisioned to be
used for modeling the intermediate interior of a mass placement for
various environmental conditions (e.g., stagnant air with minimal
boundary temperature variations, windy conditions with boundary
temperature variations, and so forth).
Next Steps toward Standardized Method
Laboratory curing methods proposed in this study (i.e., insulating
blocks and variable temperature boundary conditions) were shown
Table 6. Recommended curing protocol to replicate mass placement
Least dimension Curing case Curing details
>1.3 m 24 BC16-PIR-7D
Note: Fig. 4 explains VT terminology.
© ASCE
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2022, 34(8): 04022189
95
Tmax = 92°C
Temperature (°C)
90 Tmax = 89°C
85 Tmax = 87°C
80
120 144 168 12 18 24 30 36
Time (hours)
to be able to recreate thermal profiles of mass structures in laboratory
specimens. This paper relied on one mixture, one environmental
boundary condition, and one region within the mass placement and
served as a proof of concept. Future efforts are needed to standardize
this framework for additional mixtures, boundary conditions, and
regions within mass placements. The authors have begun to evaluate
some of these issues in an effort to standardize this method.
For example, this paper highlighted the influence that individual
constituents (i.e., admixtures) can have on thermal profiles, which
aligns with the literature (e.g., Hamid and Chorzepa 2020) that
details the impacts of cementitious materials and admixtures on
maximum temperatures in mass placements. The authors are work-
ing to make this framework robust enough to account for a wide
range of mixtures. A few possibilities being considered include
recommending different variable temperature parameters based on
mixture components as well as conducting preliminary mixture char-
acterization tests that lead to VT parameters used in a second evalu-
ation phase. Additional aspects being evaluated include developing
protocols for different regions in a mass placement (e.g., center, in-
termediate, and edge) as well as accounting for different sizes and
insulation types. One aspect being evaluated is the possibility of us-
ing commercially available equipment such as a programmable oven
rather than locally fabricated equipment, which can be more difficult
to standardize. Although there still are multiple questions to be ad-
dressed, the foundational aspects of this framework have been vali-
dated, and it is believed this approach has value as a standardized
method.
Summary and Conclusion
This paper introduced a testing framework that utilizes long-
standing laboratory testing methods to estimate thermomechanical
signatures of mass placements. Preliminary curing regimes high-
lighted the importance of replicating the time–temperature profiles
of mass structures to accurately estimate mechanical properties
as well as the meaningful impact of insulation properties on time–
temperature profiles. Curing cases were evaluated to determine
combinations of boundary conditions and insulators that could rep-
licate the curing environment of a mass structure in laboratory-scale
specimens. One protocol ultimately was recommended in this
proof-of-concept study for a specific set of conditions using vari-
able temperature boundary conditions and PIR insulation to cure
T D (°C) tD1 (h) tS1 (h) T P (°C) tP (h) tS2 (h) tD2 (h)
23 6 6 90 4 148 4
04022189-10 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 specimens for 7 days (Table 6). Although there were differences
between the laboratory and field mixtures, this paper showed that
it is feasible to replicate temperature profiles of mass placements
using laboratory equipment and to cure laboratory-scale specimens
so that mechanical properties can be measured. Future work is
needed to address questions regarding the standardization of this
framework, including expanding its robustness to account for multi-
ple mixtures and commercializing equipment rather than using lo-
cally fabricated curing environments. Overall, this paper showed
that the basis of this framework seems to be valid because laboratory
equipment can be used to simulate temperature profiles of mass high-
strength concrete placements.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Javeriana on 10/30/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, and code generated or used during the study
appear in the published article.
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the Military Engi-
neering R&D program of ERDC supported by TARDEC under
Contract No. W56HZV-17-C-0095 (PE 0602784A Project T53-
Military Engineering Applied Research TASK 08). Dr. Robert
Moser of ERDC was a key technical advisor and program manager.
Any opinions, finding, and conclusions or recommendations ex-
pressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessa-
rily reflect the views of the US Army TACOM Life Cycle Command
or the US Government. Permission was granted by the Director,
Geotechnical and Structures laboratory, to publish this information.
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; dis-
tribution unlimited. OPSEC No. 5641.
References
Abdel-Jawad, Y. A. 2006. “The maturity method: Modifications to improve
estimation of concrete strength at later ages.” Constr. Build. Mater.
20 (10): 893–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.06.022.
Alsalman, A., C. N. Dang, G. S. Prinz, and W. M. Hale. 2017. “Evaluation of
modulus of elasticity of ultra-high-performance concrete.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 153 (Oct): 918–928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017
.07.158.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2005. Guide to mass concrete. ACI
207.1R-05. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
ASTM. 2014. Standard test method for static modulus of elasticity and
Poisson’s ratio of concrete in compression. ASTM C469/C469M. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2018a. Standard specification for concrete aggregates. ASTM
C33/C33M. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2018b. Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindri-
cal concrete specimens. ASTM C39/C39M. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM.
Bobko, C. P., V. Z. Zadeh, and R. Seracino. 2015. “Improved Schmidt
method for predicting temperature development in mass concrete.”
ACI Mater. J. 112 (4): 579–586. https://doi.org/10.14359/51687454.
Brooks, A. G., A. K. Schindler, and R. W. Barnes. 2007. “Maturity method
evaluated for various cementitious materials.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
19 (12): 1017–1025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)
19:12(1017).
Brown, J. L., I. L. Howard, and A. T. Barnes. 2021. “Response of concrete
elements subjected to impact by fragments with varying aspect ratios.”
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 33 (4): 04021031. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
MT.1943-5533.0003649.
© ASCE 04022189-11
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2022, 34(8): 04022189
Brown, J. L., I. L. Howard, and B. G. Woodson. 2019. “Influence of com-
pressive strength, fiber reinforcement, and thickness on spall and breach
performance of concrete elements impacted with high-aspect-ratio frag-
ments.” Int. J. Impact Eng. 133 (Nov): 103342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijimpeng.2019.103342.
Carey, A. S. 2019. “Improved understanding of ultra-high performance
concrete via mechanical property testing of mixes with varying ingre-
dients and proportions.” Master’s thesis, Dept. of Mechanical Engineer-
ing, Mississippi State Univ.
Carey, A. S. 2021. “Laboratory testing protocols to represent thermo-
mechanical signatures of high strength concretes in medium to mass
sized placements.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Mechanical Engineer-
ing, Mississippi State Univ.
Cargile, J. D., E. F. O’Neil, and B. D. Neeley. 2002. “Very-high-strength
concretes for use in blast and penetration resistant structures.”
AMPTIAC Q. 6 (4): 61–66.
Carino, N. J. 1984. “The maturity method: Theory and applications.” Cem.
Concr. Aggregates 6 (2): 61–73.
Chen, H. L., S. Mardmomen, and G. Leon. 2021. “On-site measurement
of heat of hydration of delivered mass concrete.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 269 (Feb): 121246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020
.121246.
Farzad, M., M. Shafieifar, and A. Azizinamini. 2019. “Retrofitting of
bridge columns using UHPC.” J. Bridge Eng. 24 (12): 04019121.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001497.
Folliard, K. J., M. Juenger, A. Schindler, K. Riding, J. Poole, L. F.
Kallivokas, S. Slatnick, J. Whigham, and J. L. Meadows. 2008. Predic-
tion model for concrete behaviour—Final report. Rep. No. FHWA/
TX-08/0-4563-1. Austin, TX: Texas DOT.
Ge, Z. 2005. “Predicting temperature and strength development of the field
concrete.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Iowa State
Univ.
Graybeal, B. 2006. Material property characterization of ultra-high-
performance concrete. FHWA-HRT-06-103. Washington, DC: USDOT.
Graybeal, B., E. Brühwiler, B. S. Kim, F. Toutlemonde, Y. L. Voo, and
A. Zaghi. 2020. “International perspective on UHPC in bridge engineer-
ing.” J. Bridge Eng. 25 (11): 04020094. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
BE.1943-5592.0001630.
Gross, E. D., A. D. Eiland, A. K. Schindler, and R. W. Barnes. 2017. Tem-
perature control requirements for the construction of mass concrete
members. Rep. No. 930-860R. Auburn, AL: Highway Research Center.
Haber, Z. B., J. F. Munoz, and B. A. Graybeal. 2017. Field testing of an
ultra-high performance concrete overlay. Rep. No. FHWA-HRT-
17-096. McLean, VA: Office of Infrastructure Research and
Development.
Hamid, H., and M. G. Chorzepa. 2020. “Quantifying maximum tempera-
ture in 17 mass concrete cube specimens made with mixtures including
metakaolin and/or slag.” Constr. Build. Mater. 252 (Aug): 118950.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118950.
Howard, I. L., T. Allard, A. Carey, M. Priddy, A. Knizley, and J. Shannon.
2021. Development of CORPS-STIF 1.0 with application to ultra-high
performance concrete (UHPC). Rep. No. ERDC/GSL TR-21-14.
Vicksburg, MS: USACE.
Howard, I. L., A. Carey, M. Burcham, D. A. Scott, J. D. Shannon, R. D.
Moser, and M. F. Horstemeyer. 2018. Mechanical behavior of Cor-Tuf
ultra-high-performance concrete considering aggregate and paste
effects. Rep. No. ERDC/GSL TR-18-31. Vicksburg, MS: USACE.
Nurse, R. W. 1949. “Steam curing of concrete.” Mag. Concr. Res. 1 (2): 79–
88. https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.1949.1.2.79.
Rastrup, E. 1954. “Heat of hydration in concrete.” Mag. Concr. Res. 6 (17):
79–92. https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.1954.6.17.79.
Riding, K., A. Schindler, P. Pesek, T. Drimalas, and K. Folliard. 2013. Con-
creteWorks V3 training/user manual. Austin, TX: Texas Department of
Transportation.
Riding, K. A., J. L. Poole, A. K. Schindler, M. C. G. Juenger, and K. J.
Folliard. 2006. “Evaluation of temperature prediction methods for mass
concrete members.” ACI Mater. J. 103 (5): 357–365. https://doi.org/10
.14359/18158.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Saul, A. G. A. 1951. “Principles underlying the steam curing of concrete at
atmospheric pressure.” Mag. Concr. Res. 2 (6): 127–140. https://doi.org
/10.1680/macr.1951.2.6.127.
Sbia, L. A., A. Peyvandi, I. Harsini, J. Lu, S. Ul Abideen, R. R. Weerasiri,
A. M. Balachandra, and P. Soroushian. 2017. “Study on field thermal
curing of ultra-high performance concrete employing heat of hydration.”
ACI Mater. J. 114 (5): 733–744. https://doi.org/10.14359/51689677.
Thornhill, T. F., and W. D. Reinhart. 2010. Ballistic penetration test results
for ductal and ultra-high performance concrete sample. Rep. No.
SAND2010-2222. Livermore, CA: Sandia National Laboratory.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Javeriana on 10/30/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Tia, M., A. Lawrence, C. Ferraro, T. A. Do, and Y. Chen. 2010. Pilot
project for maximum heat of mass concrete. Rep. No. 00093793.
Tallahassee, FL: Florida DOT.
Upadhyaya, S., D. Goulias, and K. Obla. 2015. “Maturity-based field
strength predictions of concrete using high-volume fly ash as supple-
mentary cementitious material.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 27 (5): 04014165.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001123.
Yikici, T. A., and H.-L. Chen. 2015. “Use of maturity method to estimate
compressive strength of mass concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater. 95 (Oct):
802–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.026.

© ASCE 04022189-12 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2022, 34(8): 04022189