Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prediction of heat of hydration of cementitious systems using Gaussian process regression enables mass concrete thermal modeling

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Materials and Structures Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The temperature and time-dependent heat of hydration of cementitious pastes is a fundamental property to understand concrete performance. Cement hydration can be depicted using kinetic models by considering the effect of the chemical and physical properties of the cementitious pastes and the curing conditions. Supplementary cementitious materials and fillers are used as partial replacements for Portland cement to advance concrete performance and durability, which can exert varying effects on hydration kinetics. This adds a level of complexity that is difficult to capture with existing modeling methods. Here, the time and temperature-dependent heat of hydration of cementitious pastes was predicted using the machine learning Gaussian process regression (GPR) with information on the chemical and physical characteristics of the cementitious systems. Results show that high-fidelity heat of hydration predictions can be achieved using the GPR model when compared with isothermal calorimetry experiments. Moreover, the predicted heat of hydration was successfully used to perform mass concrete thermal modeling, which demonstrates the applicability of the model when upscaled to depict concrete performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ACI PRC-207.2–07 Report on thermal and volume change effects on cracking of mass concrete. https://www.concrete.org/store/productdetail.aspx?ItemID=207207&Format=DOWNLOAD&Language=English&Units=US_AND_METRIC. Accessed 3 Dec 2021

  2. ASTM International (2017) ASTM C1679 Standard practice for measuring hydration kinetics of hydraulic cementitious mixtures using isothermal calorimetry. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA

  3. Wadso L (2003) An experimental comparison between isothermal calorimetry, semi-adiabatic calorimetry and solution calorimetry for the study of cement hydration (NT TR 522). NORDTEST, Finland

  4. Xu Q, Wang K, Medina C, Engquist B (2015) A mathematical model to predict adiabatic temperatures from isothermal heat evolutions with validation for cementitious materials. Int J Heat Mass Transf 89:333–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Al-Hasani L, Park J, Perez G et al (2022) Quantifying concrete adiabatic temperature rise based on temperature-dependent isothermal calorimetry; modeling and validation. Mater Struct 55:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bullard JW, Jennings HM, Livingston RA et al (2011) Mechanisms of cement hydration. Cem Concr Res 41:1208–1223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.09.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Scrivener K, Ouzia A, Juilland P, Mohamed AK (2019) Advances in understanding cement hydration mechanisms. Cem Concr Res 124:105823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lothenbach B, Scrivener K, Hooton RD (2011) Supplementary cementitious materials. Cem Concr Res 41:1244–1256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Juenger MC, Siddique R (2015) Recent advances in understanding the role of supplementary cementitious materials in concrete. Cem Concr Res 78:71–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lin F, Meyer C (2009) Hydration kinetics modeling of Portland cement considering the effects of curing temperature and applied pressure. Cem Concr Res 39:255–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cook R, Han T, Childers A, et al (2021) Machine learning for high-fidelity prediction of cement hydration kinetics in blended systems. Mater Des 109920

  12. Schindler AK, Folliard KJ (2005) Heat of hydration models for cementitious materials. ACI Mater J 102:24

    Google Scholar 

  13. Riding KA, Poole JL, Folliard KJ et al (2012) Modeling hydration of cementitious systems. ACI Mater J 109:225–234

    Google Scholar 

  14. Riding KA, Vosahlik J, Bartojay K, et al (2019) Methodology comparison for concrete adiabatic temperature rise. Mater J 116:45–53. https://doi.org/10.14359/51714451

  15. Rios R, Childs C, Smith S et al (2021) Advancing cement-based materials design through data science approaches. RILEM Tech Lett; 6:140–149. https://doi.org/10.21809/rilemtechlett.2021.147

  16. Ford E, Kailas S, Maneparambil K, Neithalath N (2020) Machine learning approaches to predict the micromechanical properties of cementitious hydration phases from microstructural chemical maps. Constr Build Mater 265:120647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ford E, Maneparambil K, Neithalath N (2021) Machine learning on microstructural chemical maps to classify component phases in cement pastes. J Soft Comput Civ Eng 5:1–20

    Google Scholar 

  18. Oey T, Jones S, Bullard JW, Sant G (2020) Machine learning can predict setting behavior and strength evolution of hydrating cement systems. J Am Ceram Soc 103:480–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sargam Y, Wang K, Cho IH (2021) Machine learning based prediction model for thermal conductivity of concrete. J Build Eng 34:101956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nilsen V, Pham LT, Hibbard M et al (2019) Prediction of concrete coefficient of thermal expansion and other properties using machine learning. Constr Build Mater 220:587–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Trtnik G, Kavčič F, Turk G (2008) The use of artificial neural networks in adiabatic curves modeling. Autom Constr 18:10–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Evsukoff AG, Fairbairn EM, Faria ÉF et al (2006) Modeling adiabatic temperature rise during concrete hydration: a data mining approach. Comput Struct 84:2351–2362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wang L, Yang B, Chen Y et al (2012) Modeling early-age hydration kinetics of Portland cement using flexible neural tree. Neural Comput Appl 21:877–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rasmussen CE (2003) Gaussian processes in machine learning. In: Summer school on machine learning. Springer, pp 63–71

  25. Tien I, Pozzi M, Der Kiureghian A (2016) Probabilistic framework for assessing maximum structural response based on sensor measurements. Struct Saf 61:43–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2016.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. C09 Committee Practice for Measuring Hydration Kinetics of Hydraulic Cementitious Mixtures Using Isothermal Calorimetry. ASTM International

  27. Poole JL, Riding KA, Juenger MCG et al (2010) Effects of supplementary cementitious materials on apparent activation energy. J ASTM Int 7:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nadelman EI (2016) Hydration and microstructural development of portland limestone cement-based materials. PhD Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology

  29. Cardelino NH (2018) Design of self-consolidating precast concrete using powdered limestone. PhD Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology

  30. Dolphyn BP (2016) Laminar cracking in post-tensioned concrete nuclear containment buildings. PhD Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology

  31. Van Breugel K (1998) Prediction of temperature development in hardening concrete. Prev Therm Crack Concr Early Ages 15:51–75

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bogue RH (1955) The chemistry of Portland cement. LWW, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  33. Huang L, Yan P (2019) Effect of alkali content in cement on its hydration kinetics and mechanical properties. Constr Build Mater 228:116833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Quennoz A, Scrivener KL (2013) Interactions between alite and C3A-gypsum hydrations in model cements. Cem Concr Res 44:46–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Langan BW, Weng K, Ward MA (2002) Effect of silica fume and fly ash on heat of hydration of Portland cement. Cem Concr Res 32:1045–1051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kolani B, Buffo-Lacarrière L, Sellier A et al (2012) Hydration of slag-blended cements. Cem Concr Compos 34:1009–1018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wang D, Shi C, Farzadnia N et al (2018) A review on use of limestone powder in cement-based materials: mechanism, hydration and microstructures. Constr Build Mater 181:659–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Costoya Fernández MM (2008) Effect of particle size on the hydration kinetics and microstructural development of tricalcium silicate. EPFL, Lausanne

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kada-Benameur H, Wirquin E, Duthoit B (2000) Determination of apparent activation energy of concrete by isothermal calorimetry. Cem Concr Res 30:301–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Carino NJ (1984) The maturity method: theory and application. Cem Concr Aggreg 6:61–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Poole JL, Riding KA, Folliard KJ et al (2007) Methods for calculating activation energy for Portland cement. ACI Mater J 104:303–311

    Google Scholar 

  42. Riding KA, Poole JL, Folliard KJ et al (2011) New model for estimating apparent activation energy of cementitious systems. ACI Mater J 108:550–557

    Google Scholar 

  43. Musil CM, Warner CB, Yobas PK, Jones SL (2002) A comparison of imputation techniques for handling missing data. West J Nurs Res 24:815–829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Murphy KP (2012) Machine learning: a probabilistic perspective. MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Duvenaud D (2014) Automatic model construction with Gaussian processes. PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge

  46. Chalupka K, Williams CKI, Murray I (2013) A framework for evaluating approximation methods for gaussian process regression. J Mach Learn Res 14:333–350

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Stein ML (1999) Interpolation of spatial data: some theory for kriging. Science, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. The ‘K’ in K-fold Cross Validation. https://arpi.unipi.it/handle/11568/962587. Accessed 6 Dec 2021

  49. De Bin R, Janitza S, Sauerbrei W, Boulesteix A-L (2016) Subsampling versus bootstrapping in resampling-based model selection for multivariable regression. Biometrics 72:272–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.12381

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Freedman D, Diaconis P (1981) On the histogram as a density estimator: L 2 theory. Z Für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie Verwandte Geb 57:453–476

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Chai T, Draxler RR (2014) Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)?: Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature. Geosci Model Dev 7:1247–1250. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1247-2014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Maggenti R (2007) From passive to active thermal control. Concr Int 29:24–30

    Google Scholar 

  53. Wadso, L. (2003) An experimental comparison between isothermal calorimetry, semi-adiabatic calorimetry and solution calorimetry for the study of cement hydration (NT TR 522). In: NORDTEST. http://www.nordtest.info/wp/2003/03/28/an-experimental-comparison-between-isothermal-calorimetry-semi-adiabatic-calorimetry-and-solution-calorimetry-for-the-study-of-cement-hydration-nt-tr-522/. Accessed 5 Dec 2021

  54. b4cast - Simulation of Hardening Concrete. http://www.b4cast.com/b4cast/b4cast.html. Accessed 1 Apr 14AD

  55. Ouzia A, Scrivener K (2019) The needle model: a new model for the main hydration peak of alite. Cem Concr Res 115:339–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the Georgia Department of Transportation under Research Projects No. 16-25 and No. 19-04. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Georgia Department of Transportation. The author(s) are grateful for the help of Dr. Maria Juenger (University of Texas at Austin), Dr. Kyle Riding (University of Florida), Dr. Kevin Folliard (University of Texas at Austin), and Dr. Anton Schindler (Auburn University) for their collaboration in providing data for the model.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA

    Luna E. Al-Hasani, Greisi Perez, Hana N. Herndon, Iris Tien, Yong K. Cho & Kimberly E. Kurtis

  2. Department of Built Environment, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN, 47809, USA

    Jisoo Park

  3. MJ2 Consulting, Cedar Park, TX, 78630, USA

    Jonathan L. Poole

  4. Department of Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg, PA, 15289, USA

    Newell R. Washburn

  5. School of Architecture, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA

    T. Russell Gentry

Authors
  1. Luna E. Al-Hasani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Greisi Perez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hana N. Herndon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jisoo Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jonathan L. Poole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Iris Tien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Newell R. Washburn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yong K. Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. T. Russell Gentry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Kimberly E. Kurtis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kimberly E. Kurtis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Hasani, L.E., Perez, G., Herndon, H.N. et al. Prediction of heat of hydration of cementitious systems using Gaussian process regression enables mass concrete thermal modeling. Mater Struct 56, 45 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-023-02134-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-023-02134-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation