58 Paper No.

98-1358 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1629

Three-Dimensional Finite Element Study on

Effects of Nonlinear Temperature Gradients
in Concrete Pavements
IVINDRA PANE, WILL HANSEN, AND ASHRAF R. MOHAMED

A three-dimensional (3D) finite element (FE) model is developed to proposed by Mohamed and Hansen (3). Comparisons are then made
investigate whether the condition of plane sections remaining plane between the aforementioned results and the results obtained by
exists in concrete pavements subjected to nonlinear temperature gradi- imposing different contact conditions.
ents. This model is utilized to validate the analytical method proposed
by Mohamed and Hansen. The 3D brick element is chosen so that the
plane section condition is not imposed in the model, as compared with
the model using the flat plate element. Furthermore, the possibility of BACKGROUND
loss of contact between the pavement slab and the subgrade is studied.
The condition of full contact is investigated for a nonlinear temperature
gradient that produces the maximum tensile stress in the slab according The analytical solution proposed by Mohamed and Hansen (3) is
to the data used. Two slab lengths and two radii of relative stiffness are divided into two steps. In the first step the residual stresses caused by
considered. It is found that plane sections remain plane for the entire slab a nonlinear temperature gradient are calculated considering internal
except for a region very close to the free edges, which also establishes restraint. The second step estimates the stresses in the slab consider-
the boundary where solutions by Mohamed and Hansen are applicable. ing external restraints (e.g., subgrade reaction, self-weight, friction,
In both cases of the contact condition, the 3D FE model predicts no loss
etc.). The residual stresses can be expressed as the following:
of contact between the slab and the subgrade.

It is now well-established that portland cement concrete pavements

σ res =
E
1− ν [
− e( z ) +
12 M*
h3
z+
N*
h ] (1)
are subjected to nonlinear temperature gradients associated with
daily and seasonal variations in environmental temperature (1,2). where
Recently, Mohamed and Hansen (3) developed a new analytical
method to handle the nonlinearity of temperature gradients. Based h/2
on temperature data documented by Thompson et al. (2), the new M* = ∫ e( z )zdz
−h / 2
method prediction showed a significant difference when compared
with the result obtained using classical solutions by Westergaard (4)
and Bradbury (5). However, this new method includes the assump- and
tion of plane sections remaining plane that constitutes the stem of its
h/2
derivation. In addition, the condition of partial contact between the
slab and the subgrade has not been considered in their study. The
N* = ∫ e( z )dz
−h / 2
first assumption is one of the most basic in any analytical bending
problem (6). On the other hand, it has been shown (7–9) that there The second step involves calculating the equivalent linear tem-
is a possibility of loss of full contact between the slab and the sub- perature gradient due to the slab curvature, and reads
grade under extreme temperature differentials. In these studies,
solutions are based on linear temperature gradients. 12 M*
∆Teq = − (2)
The objectives of this paper are to evaluate the assumption used αh 3
in the new analytical method and to investigate the possibility of loss
of contact between the slab and subgrade. The latter issue is con- Thus, stresses due to equivalent linear temperature gradients can
sidered important when an unbounded subgrade-concrete slab sys- be calculated analytically (e.g., by Bradbury’s solution) or numer-
tem is subjected to an extreme temperature gradient. In order to ically (by the finite element method, FEM). Choosing Bradbury’s
capture the temperature variation within the slab thickness the slab solution, total stresses can be calculated by superimposing the
is modeled in three dimensions (3D). The commercial finite ele- residual stresses and the stresses caused by external restraints,
ment (FE) code ABAQUS Version 5.5 (10) is used to evaluate the which are
assumption of plane sections remaining plane. The analysis is per-
formed on a single finite slab without considering the effects of Eα∆T
dowels, tie bars, and reinforcing mesh. The result of FE analysis σ Total( x ) = σ res +
h(1 − v 2 )
(Cx + vCy ) z (3)
without the contact condition imposed is compared with solutions
Eα∆T
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI σ Total( y ) = σ res +
h(1 − v 2 )
(Cy + vCx ) z ( 4)
48109-2125.
Pane et al.
where Cx and Cy are coefficients for a finite slab given by Bradbury
(5). As mentioned earlier, all equations above are based on the
assumption that the plane sections remain plane and that the slab is
always in contact with the subgrade. FEM is used to verify the
validity of this assumption.
3D FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
In order to validate the solutions above using FEM, one needs to
develop a model that can accurately capture the in plane behavior of
the slab. A recent investigation by Harik et al. (11) reveals that a 2D
plate element can be used for calculating stresses in a slab under
nonlinear temperature gradients. In this paper, however, a 3D FE
model is used. A major advantage of using the 3D element is that no
assumption is made regarding plane sections remaining plane, as
opposed to the 2D flat plate element in which the plane behavior has
been implicitly included (12). The chosen 3D element must enable
our specifying more than two temperature values across its thick-
ness and must give smooth variations of displacement in all direc-
tions as well. The 20-node brick element satisfies the requirements
above and therefore can be used for the slab. The subgrade is mod-
eled using spring elements (Winkler foundation). Due to symmetry,
only one-quarter of the slab is modeled.
Nonlinear temperature profiles used herein are based on data
reported by Thompson et al. (2). Temperature profiles are approxi-
mated by Mohamed and Hansen (3) using a third-degree polynomial
that has a general form T = A + Bz + Cz2 + Dz3. Constants A, B, C, and
D are given in Table 1 for temperatures at six times during a 24-hr
period. As shown in Figure 1(a), temperature values can be assigned
at three locations through the element thickness. Therefore, increas-
ing the number of elements within the slab thickness ensures the
smoothness of a temperature profile [Figure 1(b)]. As can be seen
subsequently, the required number of elements through the thick-
ness is primarily determined from the sensitivity of the mesh due
to the nonlinear temperature gradient. This is often referred to as
convergence checking of the model. In this paper this is done for
both linear and nonlinear temperature gradients.
Convergence Check
A slab 9.15 m (30 ft) long, 7.32 m (24 ft) wide, and 22.9 cm (9 in.)
thick is subjected to the temperature gradient at 3 p.m. (Table 1), and
to a linear temperature gradient of ∆ T = 7.670°C (140°F). The
Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, and coefficient of thermal expan-
sion of the slab are 27 646 MPa (4 million psi), 0.15, and 9 × 10−6/°C
(5 × 10−6/°F), respectively. The spring constant of the subgrade, k,
is 27.21 MPa/m (100 psi/in.). Analyses are carried out using differ-
ent numbers of elements through the slab thickness but using the
TABLE 1 Curve-Fitting Coefficient for Temperature Data
Paper No. 98-1358 59
same number of elements along the width and length. The summary
of this preliminary study is illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. As can be
seen, stresses caused by a nonlinear gradient begin to converge after
using eight elements (through the slab thickness), whereas the
resulting stresses by a linear gradient converge after using four or six
elements. This implies that stresses due to nonlinear gradients are
quite sensitive to the number of elements used through the slab thick-
ness. Deflections caused by the linear and nonlinear gradients are
practically unaffected by changing the number of elements through
the thickness. Based on these findings, 10 elements in the thickness
direction should be quite accurate for the 3D FE model. Note also
that the maximum stress in the linear case (using 10 elements) is
1.213 MPa (175.5 psi), which is very close to the 1.212 MPa obtained
analytically using Bradbury’s solution.
VERIFICATION OF PLANE SECTIONS
REMAINING PLANE
In this section, the condition of plane sections remaining plane is
studied and the result is presented for verifying the analytical solu-
tion by Mohamed and Hansen. The verification procedure follows
the same steps proposed in their paper (3). In the first step, residual
stresses due to nonlinear temperature gradients are computed without
considering any external restraint. In order to simulate a slab without
any external restraint, small spring constant values (k ≈ 0) are assigned
for spring elements. In the second step, total stresses are computed by
assigning specific spring constant values. The spring element used for
this purpose is the compression-tension spring (C-T-spring). This
spring type carries both tension and compression, and therefore is
appropriate only for a slab that is always in contact and bonded with
the subgrade. The same slab used for the convergence check (tem-
perature profile at 3 p.m.) is chosen for verification. The equations
below are derived from Equations 1 and 2. These equations together
with Equations 3 and 4 are used for verification.
Eα
σ res =
(1 − ν)
(6.75 + 12.15Dz − Cz 2 − Dz 3 ) (5)
e res = α[ − A − 6.75C + ( B + 12.15) Dz ] (6)
α(DTeq )z
e Total = e res + Cx
h
and
α(DTeq )z
e Total = e res + Cy ( 7)
h
Figure 4 shows that the result from FE analysis agrees very well
with the analytical solution for both residual and total stresses. In
60 Paper No. 98-1358 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1629

particular, good agreement is obtained for the residual stress results.

This implies that the solution for residual stress by Mohamed and
Hansen (3) is valid. This is also supported by the strain profiles in
Figure 5, which shows the result from the FE model together with the
results calculated using Equations 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. However, stress
and strain profiles shown in Figures 4 and 5 are depicted from the
center of the slab. It is known that the slab is free of deformations at
the free (unrestrained) edges.
Figure 6 illustrates the strain profiles caused by both linear and
nonlinear gradients at locations along the symmetry line of the slab.
It appears that the strains caused by a nonlinear gradient are no
longer linear near the free edges. This means that the assumption
that plane sections remain plane (linear strain profiles) is no longer
valid near the free edges. However, this is not true for the linear gra-
dient. Boundaries where the strain profiles are no longer linear are
shown in Figure 7 for one-quarter symmetry of the slab. The region
enclosed by these boundaries is approximately 95 percent of the
total slab area.
Nonlinear strain profiles at the slab edges produce a nonplanar
cross section of the slab. This behavior may or may not be impor-
tant in practice. When the closed-form solution for this problem is
not available, strains at the slab edges may still be approximated by
assuming the plane sections remaining plane (Equation 7).

CONTACT CONDITION BETWEEN SLAB

AND SUBGRADE

FIGURE 1 Temperature gradient: (a) schematic through slab
thickness; (b) in a 20-node brick element.
In order to investigate the contact condition between the slab and the
subgrade, a parametric study is required. Some important parame-
ters governing the slab response are the radius of relative stiffness
l = [Eh3/12(1 − ν2)/k]1/4, the slab dimensions, and the boundary con-
ditions (6). Effects of parameter l on stress, strain, and deflection of

FIGURE 2 Stress profiles obtained using different numbers of elements.

Pane et al. Paper No. 98-1358 61

FIGURE 3 Deflections obtained using different numbers of elements.

the slab are presented herein. Actual slab sizes and k-values used
may vary for specific conditions. In this study, only two extreme
cases are investigated: the case of l = 0.737 m (2.417 ft), and the case
of l = 1.1315 m (3.71 ft). These two cases correspond to slab thick-
nesses h = 22.9 cm (9 in.) and k = 95.24 MPa/m (350 psi/in.), and
h = 26.67 cm (10.5 in.) and k = 27.21 MPa/m (100 psi/in.), res-
pectively. The first case can be interpreted as a thin slab resting on
a stiff foundation, and the second case can be regarded as a thick
slab resting on a soft foundation.
Two slab lengths are chosen, Lx = 4.575 m (15 ft) and Lx = 12.2 m
(40 ft), while the slab width is fixed at 7.32 m (24 ft). In both
cases, the slabs are subjected to the temperature gradient at 6 a.m.,
where the maximum tensile stress occurs (3), using both T-C-spring
(tension-compression) and C-spring (compression only) elements.
The C-spring is used because bonding between the slab and the
subgrade is negligible. In this case, for investigating the contact
condition, the slab self-weight is included because it can induce
more compression or contact pressures to the spring. The slab
weight, γc = 23.57 kN/m3 (150 lb/ft3), is applicable only for the
case using C-spring. Other mechanical properties such as Young’s
modulus, Poisson’s ratio, and coefficient of thermal expansion of
the slab are the same as those used for the convergence check.
Stress profiles obtained from the FE analysis are plotted in Figures 8
and 9, for l = 0.737 m (2.456 ft) and l = 1.1315 m (3.77 ft), respectively.
For l = 0.737 m (2.456 ft) stress profiles are more uniform than those
given by l = 1.1315 (3.77 ft). Stresses are in the longitudinal direction.

FIGURE 4 Residual and total stress profiles at slab center (temperature at 3 p.m.).
 FIGURE 5 Residual and total strain profiles at slab center (temperature at 3 p.m.).

FIGURE 6 Residual strain profiles at some locations along centerline at 3 p.m. (L denotes slab length.)
Pane et al. Paper No. 98-1358 63

FIGURE 7 Boundaries where strain profiles become nonlinear (9.15-m-long slab).

This implies that the effect of slab length is more important in the
pavement with higher l. Deflections along the symmetry line of the
slab (for one-half of the length) are illustrated in Figures 10 and 11,
for Lx = 4.575 m (15 ft) and Lx = 12.2 m (40 ft), respectively. As one
might expect, the use of T-C-spring results in some separations of
the slab from its supporting foundation, while no such behavior is
found when the slab and its self-weight are supported by the ten-
sionless C-spring. In addition, differences in slab deflections are also
shown in Figures 10 and 11. These quantities are constant and are
very close to w = γc h/k. For instance, when l = 0.737 m (2.417 ft),
w = 0.05664 mm (0.00223 in.), and when l = 1.1315 m (3.71 ft),
w = 0.2314 mm (0.00911 in.). In other words, the deflected shapes
(curvatures) caused by a nonlinear gradient are approximately the
same for models with the C-spring and T-C-spring. This is also
reflected in Figures 8 and 9, in which stresses calculated using
C-spring and T-C-spring are found to be very close. For our case

FIGURE 8 Stress profiles for different slab lengths and foundations with relative stiffness (l) = 0.737 m,
at slab center (6 a.m.).
64 Paper No. 98-1358 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1629

FIGURE 9 Stress profiles for different slab lengths and foundations with relative stiffness
(l) = 1.1315 m, at slab center (6 a.m.).

of a linear elastic material, this satisfies the linear relation between
the stress and the curvature.
For the single temperature profile studied, no loss of contact is
found based on the 3D FE predictions. It is worth mentioning that
thermal curling does not solely cause loss of contact. Several other
factors, such as pumping erosion, permanent soil deformations, and
moisture warping, may contribute to separating the slab from its
foundation.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the 3D FE analysis conducted in this study, the
following conclusions are drawn:
1. The assumption of plane sections remaining plane when sub-
jected to internal nonlinear temperature gradients is valid for about
95 percent of the slab area. An exception is for a 5 percent area close

FIGURE 10 Centerline deflections (bottom) of 4.575-m-long slab at 6 a.m.

Pane et al.
FIGURE 11 Centerline deflections (bottom) of 12.2-m-long slab at 6 a.m.
to the free edges. In the particular example studied (also in Figure 7),
the width of this region is about 2.5 percent of the slab length.
2. The predicted stress profiles obtained from the 3D FE analy-
sis agree very well with those predicted by the analytical solution
of Mohamed and Hansen (3).
3. For the single temperature gradient studied using the 3D FE
model, full plate contact with subgrade is predicted. The model con-
siders the slab self-weight and uses spring elements that can only
carry compression.
4. More work is needed to study the loss-of-contact issue covering
a wider range in temperature gradients, subgrade stiffnesses, and slab
thicknesses.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The support of the NSF-ACBM Center and the Michigan Depart-
ment of Transportation (MDOT) is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. Richardson, J. M., and J. M. Armaghani. Stress Caused by Temperature
Gradient in Portland Cement Concrete Pavements. In Transportation
Research Record 1121, TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1987, pp. 7–13.
2. Thompson, M. R., B. J. Dempsey, H. Hill, and J. Vogel. Characterizing
Temperature Effects for Pavement Analysis and Design. In Trans-
portation Research Record 1121, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1987, pp. 14–22.
3. Mohamed, A. R., and W. Hansen. Prediction of Stresses in Concrete
Pavements Subjected to Nonlinear Gradients. Cement and Concrete
Composites, Vol. 11, 1996, pp. 381–387.
4. Westergaard, H. M. New Formulas for Stresses in Concrete Pavements
of Airfields. Transactions, ASCE, No. 113, 1926, pp. 425–444.
Paper No. 98-1358 65
5. Bradbury, R. D. Reinforced Concrete Pavements. Wire Reinforcement
Institute, Washington, D.C., 1947.
6. Timoshenko, S., and S. Woinowsky-Krieger. Theory of Plates and
Shells. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1959.
7. Tang, T., D. Zollinger, and S. Sanjaya. Analysis of Concave Curling
in Concrete Slabs. Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 119, No. 4, 1993, pp. 618–633.
8. Huang, Y. H. Pavement Analysis and Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., 1993.
9. Kuo, C., K. T. Hall, and M. I. Darter. Three-Dimensional Finite Element
Model for Analysis of Concrete Pavement Support. In Transportation
Research Record 1505, TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1996, pp. 119–127.
10. ABAQUS, Version 5.5. User’s Manual. Hibbit, Karlsson and Sorensen,
Inc., Pawtucket, R.I., 1995.
11. Harik, I. E., P. Jianping, H. Southgate, and D. Allen. Temperature
Effects on Rigid Pavements. Journal of Transportation Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 1, 1994, pp. 127–143.
12. Hughes, T. J. R. The Finite Element Method: Linear Static and Dynamic
Finite Element Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1987.
DISCUSSION
WAHEED UDDIN
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Mississippi, University, MS
38677.
The authors have performed an excellent study on the effects of tem-
perature gradient in concrete slabs. It is important to consider tem-
perature gradient and resulting tensile stresses in concrete slab in
pavement thickness design and concrete mix design for achieving
the design flexural strength in the field. In a recent study of plain
jointed concrete pavement performance in northern Mississippi,
thermal concrete stresses were found to be a major cause of prema-
ture longitudinal cracking in the wheelpath (1,2). Some results are
presented here to provide support for 3D FE analysis for concrete
pavement.
66 Paper No. 98-1358
In the Mississippi study, nondestructive evaluation included
ground-penetrating radar testing, infrared thermographic survey,
and deflection tests by falling-weight deflectometer (FWD). In situ
pavement moduli were backcalculated using 3D dynamic analysis
of FWD deflection data that compared reasonably well with the
results of the laboratory tests conducted on cores. These results are
described by Uddin et al. (1). The temperature prediction computer
program PTEMP was used to predict temperatures at the surface and
bottom of the concrete layer. The PTEMP program uses climatolog-
ical data to calculate temperature at any depth, based on the conduc-
FIGURE 12 The deformed finite element model of the US-78
pavement under thermal gradient.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1629
tion of heat through an elastic mass (2). A temperature differential of
27°F was predicted using weather data from the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration for the US-78 highway test site.
The coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete was determined by
laboratory tests on a pavement core.
The predicted surface temperature at the top of the concrete slab
was used as the top boundary condition for the 3D FE simulation
model of the pavement. The ABAQUS code was used for all com-
puter simulations. A temperature differential of 27°F was calculated,
similarly to the PTEMP prediction. The output file of the tempera-
ture at each node of the 3D simulation model was used for analyzing
slab curling and tensile stress resulting from thermal gradient in the
concrete slab. The curled and deformed shape of the pavement model
is shown in Figure 12.
Finally, combined load and thermal stresses were used for fatigue
and remaining life predictions. For uncracked sections, the remain-
ing life was less than 10 percent. The visual distress data supported
these results. A recent windshield survey of Uddin showed that the
damage due to the fatigue cracks accelerated significantly throughout
the length of the pavement.
REFERENCES
1. Uddin, W., R. M. Hackett, A. Joseph, Z. Pan, and A. B. Crawley. Three-
Dimensional Finite-Element Analysis of Jointed Concrete Pavement
Having Discontinuities. In Transportation Research Record 1482, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 26–32.
2. Uddin, W., and T. Chung. Effects of Thermal Stresses on Jointed Con-
crete Pavement Performance. Proc., 2nd International Symposium on
Thermal Stresses, Rochester, N.Y., June 1997, pp. 621–624.
This paper was prepared under the sponsorship of MDOT in the interest of
information exchange. MDOT assumes no liability for its contents and use
thereof. The contents of this paper reflect the views and opinions of the
authors, who are responsible for the accuracy of the information presented
herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views of MDOT and do
not constitute a department standard, specification, or regulation.
Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Rigid Pavement
Design.