# Abrasion-Resistant and Temperature Control of
## 4 Analysis of Temperature Monitoring Data
To be specific, for the concrete of each placement section, thermometers were buried alternatively on the left/right side and arranged at the centers of the placement sections and 4-5 m in height from the bottom plate (\(\sim\)60 cm from the concrete surface), as shown in Figure 12. In the first three days, the measurement interval of fresh concrete was less than 8 h and could be increased to 12h afterwards and the measurement duration lasted for no less than 28 day. The sidewall was buried with a total of 127 thermometers, 122 of which performed well until the end of the monitoring work, with a survival rate of 96.1%. The temperature monitoring results are listed in Table 11.  
According to the relevant standards, the maximum permissible temperature inside concrete is 34 \({}^{\circ}\)C and the maximum temperature difference is 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C. As listed in Table 9, the average highest temperatures of the concrete measured in the sidewall's transition section from 0 + 000.00 - 0 + 120.00 m, standard section from 0 + 120.00 to 1 + 037.71 m and transition section from 1 + 037.71 to 1 + 075.50 m were 32.05, 33.60 and 33.47 \({}^{\circ}\)C, respectively, slightly higher than those calculated under working condition seven from the numerical simulation but all within the permissible range. The measured peak temperature was reached roughly 2 day after casting, similar to the calculation results, as shown in Figure 13. To sum up, the change rules of the temperature field obtained through numerical simulation were relatively consistent with the measured results, and the overall temperature control monitoring of the sidewall lining concrete had a qualification rate of \(>\)91%, suggesting that the temperature control and crack prevention measures proposed in this study were satisfactory for controlling the temperature. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Stake** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Number of** \\ **Resistive** \\ **Therometer** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Highest** \\ **Temperature/\({}^{\circ}\)C** \\ **Temperature/\({}^{\circ}\)C** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Average** \\ **Maximum** \\ **Temperature/\({}^{\circ}\)C** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Permissible** \\ **Maximum** \\ **Temperature/\({}^{\circ}\)C** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Analysis of Temperature** \\ **Control Effect** \\ **Qualified Numbers** \\ \end{tabular} & **Pass Rate/\%** \\ \hline
0+000.00–0 & 14 & 36.7 & 32.05 & 36 & 13 & 92.86 \\ +120.00 m & 110 & 35.8 & 33.60 & 34 & 101 & 91.82 \\ \hline
1+037.71-1 & 3 & 33.65 & 33.47 & 36 & 3 & 100 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: Temperature monitoring results of spillway side wall. Figure 12: Layout of embedded temperature monitoring instrument. Both the calculation and monitoring results indicated that concrete temperature generally would reach a peak level 2 day after casting and that the placing temperature of concrete exerted an obvious effect on its final highest temperature. Therefore, strictly controlling the placing temperature of concrete during construction is necessary. During the numerical simulation, the temperature of concrete was assumed to be 17 \({}^{\circ}\)C during casting; however, in the course of actual construction, the casting temperature was subjected to changes and fluctuations due to multiple factors. In the view of this, efforts should be made during construction for thermal insulation during concrete transport, e.g., improving the transport system and increasing the transport efficiency. Furthermore, concrete casting during high-temperature should be avoided. In addition, it is also necessary to adopt spraying and other measures to keep placement sections in the moisturized state and reduce their ambient temperature. The maximum thickness the cast layers should also be properly controlled.