Simplified Nonlinear Temperature Curling Analysis for

Jointed Concrete Pavements

Jacob E. Hiller, A.M.ASCE1; and Jeffery R. Roesler, A.M.ASCE2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The assumption of a linear temperature change through the slab depth has been overwhelmingly used in pavement analysis
since Westergaard proposed a curling solution for rigid pavements. However, the actual temperature profiles through the slab thickness are
primarily nonlinear. These nonlinear temperature profiles produce stresses that can be divided into three components: a uniform tempera-
ture stress, an equivalent linear curling stress, and a nonlinear self-equilibrating stress. It is the self-equilibrating stress component that
often goes unaccounted for in concrete pavement stress prediction and can significantly affect the tensile stress magnitude and critical
location. This paper presents a solution for a piecewise method and proposes a simplified method termed NOLA, or nonlinear area, that
easily captures the effect of temperature nonlinearity on rigid pavement responses. The proposed NOLA method enables the use of a
three-dimensional temperature frequency distribution that allows simple postprocessing of rigid pavement curling stress solutions derived
from a linear temperature assumption. The impact of accounting for self-equilibrating stresses in terms of projected fatigue damage levels
and critical cracking locations is also explored using a mechanistic-based rigid pavement analysis program called RadiCAL.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲TE.1943-5436.0000130
CE Database subject headings: Temperature effects; Fatigue; Damage; Stress; Concrete pavements.
Author keywords: Non-linear temperature; Curling; Fatigue damage; Self-equilibrating stress; Built-in curl.

Introduction sical medium-thick plate theory suggests that lines perpendicular

The solution for temperature curling of Westergaard 共1927兲 and
his subsequent correction factors for finite slabs popularized by
Bradbury 共1938兲 has made the assumption of a linear temperature
change through the depth of concrete pavement slabs widespread.
During this time frame, it was also first reported that actual tem-
perature profiles through the slab thickness were actually highly
nonlinear 共Teller and Sutherland 1935兲. With regard to the mea-
sured magnitude of the resultant stresses from temperature, Teller
and Sutherland noted that “stresses arising from restrained tem-
perature warping are equal in importance to those produced by
the heaviest legal wheel loads.” More recently, numerous re-
searchers have also noted the observed nonlinearity of the tem-
perature profile on concrete slabs 共Mirambell 1990; Choubane
and Tia 1992, 1995; Lee and Darter 1993; Harik et al. 1994;
Masad et al. 1996; Mohamed and Hansen 1997; Ioannides and
Khazanovich 1998; Ioannides and Salsilli-Murua 1999兲.
The first researcher to address the issue of stress development
specifically due to a nonlinear temperature profile was Thomlin-
son 共1940a,b兲. He proposed subdividing stresses due to the total
nonlinear temperature profile into three parts 共Fig. 1兲. Since clas-
before bending must remain after bending, these three compo-
nents can only result in axial or bending stresses in the plate.
The axial stress component, Fig. 1共a兲, of the total temperature
profile captures the uniform temperature factor that results in an
expansion or contraction of the slab. Resistance to this uniform
slab movement from friction of the underlying layer or neighbor-
ing slabs can generate stresses. However, for jointed concrete
pavements at mature ages, this restraint is assumed to be minimal,
and thus, this axial stress component is generally ignored. At
early ages, this assumption is not valid since the tensile stresses
produced are closer to the material strength.
The component of Fig. 1共b兲 is the equivalent linear bending
stress which is derived to give the same moment as the nonlinear
temperature profile. The final component, Fig. 1共c兲, is the nonlin-
ear self-equilibrating internal stresses. While the nonlinear com-
ponent affects the compressive and tensile stresses in the slab at
different depths, it does not alter the deflection profile of the slab
共Ioannides and Khazanovich 1998兲. It is this self-equilibrating
stress component that routinely goes unaccounted for in stress
prediction of concrete slabs as it is more difficult to validate the
magnitude of this temperature-related stress component.

1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Michigan Technological Univ., 1400 Townsend Dr., 201F Dillman Hall, Quadratic Temperature Profile Method
Houghton, MI 49931 共corresponding author兲.
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Several researchers 共e.g., Khazanovich 1994; Mohamed and
Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1211 Newmark Civil Engineering Hansen 共1997兲; Jeong and Zollinger 2005兲 have used third-order
Laboratory, 205 N. Mathews Ave, Urbana, IL 61801.
polynomials in an attempt to better capture the actual temperature
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 20, 2009; approved
on November 2, 2009; published online on November 9, 2009. Discus-
profile and the resultant stresses. One drawback is that the use of
sion period open until December 1, 2010; separate discussions must be higher-order temperature profile models complicates the imple-
submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of mentation into rigid pavement analysis to rapidly predict the all
Transportation Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 7, July 1, 2010. ©ASCE, temperature stress components at the top and bottom of the slab
ISSN 0733-947X/2010/7-654–663/$25.00. for multiple locations.

654 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010

J. Transp. Eng. 2010.136:654-663.

 E␣T共z兲
␴T = 共5兲
z
1−␮
The average axial stress can be derived from integration of the
temperature over the slab depth

冕
Total a.) Uniform b.) Linear c.) Self­equilibrating h
Temperature Axial Curling Non­linear E␣ T共z兲
Distribution TA TL(z) TSES(z) ␴A = dz 共6兲
Function, T(z) h 0 1−␮

Fig. 1. Stress components due to nonlinear temperature profile Substituting the expression for T共z兲 and integrating gives a
relationship between the quadratic coefficients and the average
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

axial stress in the concrete slab

冋 册
Choubane and Tia 共1995兲 showed that daily temperature pro-
files can be captured adequately by assuming a simpler quadratic E␣ Bh Ch2
␴A = A+ + 共7兲
function for describing the temperature through the depth of the 1−␮ 2 3
slab. The quadratic temperature function can be expressed math-
The next step solves for the equivalent moment that gives the
ematically using the following:
same moment as the total stress minus the axial stress component
T共z兲 = A + Bz + Cz2 共1兲 as defined below

冕
where A, B, and C = regression coefficients based on the measured h
slab temperature profile; z = distance from the bottom of the slab; ML = 共␴T − ␴A兲zdz 共8兲
and the temperature profile can be decomposed into three analo- 0
gous components similar to the temperature stresses discussed
Integrating over the depth of the slab gives the relationship in the
previously. Given temperatures at the top, middle, and bottom of
following:
the slab, as shown in Fig. 2, the coefficients for quadratic tem-

冉 冊
perature function can be derived as follows 共Choubane and Tia
E␣ Bh3 Ch4
1995兲: ML = + 共9兲
1 − ␮ 12 12
A = Tbot 共2兲
The equivalent linear stress component of the temperature is now
related to the temperature coefficients and the depth of evaluation,
4Tmid − 3Tbot − Ttop z, as follows:
B= 共3兲
h
E␣
␴L = 关B共z − h/2兲 + Ch共z − h/2兲兴 共10兲
2共Tbot + Ttop − 2Tmid兲 1−␮
C= 共4兲
h2
When applying the set of coefficients from Eqs. 共2兲–共4兲 to the
where Ttop, Tmid, and Tbot = temperatures at the top, middle, and resulting relationship in Eq. 共10兲, the equation matches the solu-
bottom of the slab, respectively and h = slab thickness. tion of Westergaard 共1927兲 for an infinite slab. This is true for
While the temperatures at the top, middle, and bottom of the quadratic temperature profile but not higher-order polynomials.
slab were used in determining Eqs. 共2兲–共4兲, any three discrete To find the self-equilibrating stress 共␴SES兲 due to the nonlin-
temperature locations through the slab depth could be used to earity in the temperature profile, the linear and average axial
derive profile coefficients. stress functions are subtracted from the total temperature stress
The formulation for calculating the total curling stresses based function as seen in Eq. 共11兲
on the axial, linear, and self-equilibrating nonlinear stress compo-
nents has been developed and presented by many researchers ␴SES = ␴T − 共␴L − ␴A兲 共11兲
共Choubane and Tia 1995; Mohamed and Hansen 1997; Ioannides
Substituting Eqs. 共5兲, 共7兲, and 共10兲 into Eq. 共11兲 yields a relation-
and Khazanovich 1998; Rodden 2006兲. The closed-form equa-
ship between the quadratic temperature profile coefficients and
tions developed are presented herein to better communicate the
the self-equilibrating axial stresses
proposed method for utilization of the nonlinear temperature pro-

冋 册
file in rigid pavement design.
Using the quadratic temperature profile, T共z兲, from Eq. 共1兲, the E␣ h2
␴SES = C z2 − hz + 共12兲
total restrained stress, ␴T, from a zero reference temperature can 1−␮ 6
be calculated as the following: The determination of the ␴SES distribution through the depth of
the slab with a quadratic temperature profile assumption is solely
dependent on the coefficient C in addition to slab material prop-
Ttop
T3/4
erties and thickness. It is important to note that the self-
T(z)
z Tmid h equilibrating component does not cause bending or axial
3h/4
h/2 expansion/contraction of the slab, but is only due to thermal
Tbot strains that distort the pavement cross section 共Khazanovich
1994兲. This method is valid for slab-on-grade design, but can be
Fig. 2. Definition of terms for determination of quadratic tempera- easily applied to multilayer systems through the use of a trans-
ture profile coefficients formed section concept 共Khazanovich 1994兲.

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010 / 655

J. Transp. Eng. 2010.136:654-663.

 0
A parameter named NOLA 共Nonlinear Area兲 was developed to
accommodate the aforementioned objectives. NOLA is defined as
Depth From Top of Slab (cm)
5 the area between the actual temperature profile, T共z兲, and an as-
sumed linear temperature profile 共using the top and bottom tem-
10 NOLA
peratures兲. Mathematically, NOLA is expressed in Eq. 共13兲 below
+58.5 o C*cm where z is equal to zero at the bottom of the slab
NOLA
‐21.5 o C*cm

冕冋 册
15
Daytime h
⌬Tz
Nighttime NOLA = T共z兲 − dz 共13兲
20 0 h
10 20 30 40 50
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Temperature (oC)

Fig. 3. Typical daytime and nighttime temperature profiles with When the actual temperature profile is linear or uniform, the
graphical representations of NOLA NOLA term has a value of zero, which means that no ␴SES exists.
In general, the NOLA term has a practical maximum value of
⫾1 / 2h⌬T except in extremely rare temperature profile events.
Using the example temperature profiles in Fig. 3 developed
NOLA Concept
using the enhanced integrated climatic model 共EICM兲 共Larson
and Dempsey 1997兲 for a 20.3 cm concrete slab in Los Angeles,
Since the utilization of nonlinear temperature profiles can have a
the calculated NOLA values are +58.5 and −21.5° C · cm for the
significant impact on stress development and subsequent fatigue
positive and negative temperature profiles, respectively. The posi-
life predictions in concrete pavement slabs, a method for easily
and rapidly accounting for these ␴SES is needed to assess pre- tive NOLA would lead to a compressive stress at the top and
dicted fatigue damage development. A mechanistic-based rigid bottom of the slab added to the curling stress found using a linear
pavement analysis software named RadiCAL 共Hiller and Roesler temperature profile assumption. In contrast, a negative NOLA
2005b; Hiller 2007兲 will be employed for this fatigue damage value would add a tensile self-equilibrating stress at the top and
prediction. bottom of the slab.
The new mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide Using Eq. 共12兲, Fig. 4共a兲 shows the change in stress distribu-
共MEPDG兲 共ARA, Inc. 2007兲 software accounts for nonlinear tem- tion at the interior of the slab for the daytime temperature profile
perature curling stresses using a piecewise approach. The shown in Fig. 3 for a linear to nonlinear temperature profile as-
MEPDG only allows for the total stresses due to load and a non- sumption. This nonlinearity at the top of the slab is compensated
linear temperature profile to be predicted at five locations 共one at by adding compressive stresses near the top and bottom of the
the bottom of the slab and four on the top of the slab along the slab 共a maximum of 866 kPa at both the top and bottom of the
longitudinal edge兲. Since RadiCAL predicts stresses and calcu- slab兲 while adding tensile stresses in the middle portion of the
lates fatigue damage at up to 178 nodal locations at both the top slab. The added compressive stress at the top of the slab during
and bottom of the slab along the longitudinal edge and transverse the daytime places the top of the slab in further compression. The
joint, a generalized scheme to account for ␴SES from the nonlinear 866 kPa compressive stress also reduces the tensile stress at the
portion of the temperature profile is required. bottom of the slab from 2,351 to 1,482 kPa, which translates into
One approach to accomplish this is to develop a parameter that a longer fatigue life. The opposite effect is noted in Fig. 4共b兲 for
captures the level of nonlinearity in any given temperature profile the nighttime temperature profile. The tension at the top of the
which can be directly related to the ␴SES. This allows for postpro- slab is magnified by the tensile self-equilibrating stress of 321
cessing of finite element solutions previously conducted using a kPa, thereby increasing the likelihood of failure at the top of the
combined linear temperature difference and external load analy- slab. The key challenge is mathematically relating NOLA to the
sis. The ␴SES can then be added or subtracted from the combined self-equilibrating stresses for the expected temperature differen-
load and linear temperature stress cases at all individual nodes to tials of a given climate and creating a visualization tool in order
estimate the fatigue damage at each node. to easily implement into a rigid pavement analysis program.

0 0
Non­linear temp Non­linear temp
(a) (b)
Depth From Top of Slab (cm)

Depth From Top of Slab (cm)

Linear Temp Linear Temp

5 5
Tension is positive Tension is positive
∆ T = +16.1oC ∆ T = ­6.7oC

10 10

15 15
σSES = +321 kPa
σSES = ­866 kPa
at top and bottom of slab
at top and bottom of slab
20 20
­4000 ­3000 ­2000 ­1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 ­2000 ­1500 ­1000 ­500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Stresses (kPa) Stresses (kPa)

Fig. 4. Temperature stresses for nonlinear and linear profile assumptions for typical: 共a兲 daytime; 共b兲 nighttime Los Angeles temperature profiles

656 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010

J. Transp. Eng. 2010.136:654-663.

 Calculation of NOLA
Using the temperature profile coefficients for a quadratic function
关Eqs. 共2兲–共4兲兴 and Eq. 共13兲, NOLA is written as a function of the
relative temperature at the middle of the slab, the slab thickness,
and the temperature differential, as seen in the following:

冕冋 4Tⴱmid − ⌬T 2⌬T − 4Tⴱmid 2 ⌬T

册
h
NOLA = z+ z − z dz
0 h h2 h
共14兲
where ⌬T = actual temperature difference from top to bottom of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

slab and Tⴱmid = temperature at h / 2 relative to the temperature at

the bottom of slab.
In this equation, all temperatures are relative to the bottom
slab temperature, thereby making the temperature at the top of the
slab equal to ⌬T. Integrating Eq. 共14兲 results in the NOLA term
being directly related to ⌬T and a second relative temperature in
the profile as seen in the following: Fig. 5. Locations of representative California weather stations

2Tⴱmid − ⌬T
NOLA = h 共15兲 California and Nevada 共Arcata, Daggett, Los Angeles, Reno, Sac-
3
ramento, and San Francisco兲 were used in the EICM to predict
In order to simplify the problem, the self-equilibrating stresses nonlinear temperature profiles to represent the several climatic
must be related directly to NOLA. The ␴SES for a quadratic tem- regions in California as seen in Fig. 5. Three of the weather sta-
perature profile are dependent on one quadratic coefficient, C, as tions represent more moderate weather influenced by the Pacific
previously seen in Eq. 共12兲. Rearranging Eq. 共15兲 for Tⴱmid results Ocean 共Arcata, Calif., San Francisco, and Los Angeles兲, while the
in the following equation: other three weather stations 共Daggett, Calif., Reno, Nev., and Sac-
ramento, Calif.兲 have more extreme daily temperature swings and
3NOLA ⌬T are protected from direct temperature influence of the ocean by
Tⴱmid = + 共16兲
2h 2 mountain ranges and elevation differences.
While the NOLA value allows the level of nonlinearity to be
Eq. 共16兲 can be substituted into Eq. 共4兲 for the quadratic pro- expressed in a single variable, the complete picture of stress-
files using the top, middle, and bottom temperatures in the slab. inducing mechanisms from any temperature profile still requires
As stated above, if all temperatures are made relative to the bot- knowing the slab’s temperature differential. Since NOLA is only
tom of the slab, then ⌬T = Ttop and the coefficient, C, is directly dependent on the area between the actual and assumed linear
related to the slab thickness and the calculated NOLA value profile, a range of NOLA values can be found for a given ⌬T for
a particular site and vice versa. A three-dimensional frequency
− 6NOLA plot between NOLA and ⌬T can be calculated for any climatic
C= 共17兲
h3 zone if a historical record of temperature profiles exists or can be
estimated from programs such as the EICM. Fig. 6 shows a direct
Substituting Eq. 共17兲 into Eq. 共12兲 gives the generalized ␴SES
relationship between ␴SES 共calculated from NOLA values兲 and ⌬T
at any location in the slab depth in terms of NOLA 关see Eq. 共18兲兴.
for Los Angeles 共a兲, Daggett, Calif. 共b兲, San Francisco 共c兲, Sac-
Eq. 共19兲 provides the ␴SES at either the top 共z = h兲 or bottom of the
ramento, Calif. 共d兲, Arcata, Calif. 共e兲, and Reno, Nev. 共f兲. The
slab 共z = 0兲, while Eq. 共20兲 is applicable at the mid-depth of the
coastal climates 共a, c, and e兲 are to the left side of Fig. 6, while
slab 共z = h / 2兲
the inland climates are on the right side 共b, d, and f兲 of this figure.

冉 冊
The coastal climate profiles show a greater frequency of lower
− 6NOLA E␣ h2
␴SES共z兲 = z2 − hz + 共18兲 ␴SES and ⌬T relative to the inland climate profiles as indicated by
h 3
1−␮ 6 the tall peaks. This indicates that low temperature-related stresses
exist in these locations for a large percentage of time. The inland
− NOLA E␣ profiles not only show a larger range of expected ⌬T, but also a
␴SES共h兲 = ␴SES共0兲 = 共19兲 greater range of maximum ␴SES. More extreme climates can pro-
h 1−␮ duce both high levels of ⌬T as well as large ␴SES at the top and
bottom of the slab due to more sudden environmental changes,

␴SES 冉冊h
2
=
NOLA E␣
2h 1 − ␮
共20兲
thereby causing earlier fatigue of slabs.
While large positive NOLA values increase the maximum
compressive ␴SES and subsequently reduce the combined tem-
perature and load-induced stresses at the bottom of the slab, top
tensile stresses are greatly exacerbated under high negative
Visualization of Temperature Stress-Inducing
NOLA values and built-in curl such as those in arid climates
Components
共Hiller 2007兲. Similar designs under the same traffic would gen-
To characterize the level of temperature nonlinearity expected, 30 erally lead to reduced fatigue life in the more extreme location,
years of hourly weather data from six weather stations across such as Daggett, Calif. Since Los Angeles is a coastal climate

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010 / 657

J. Transp. Eng. 2010.136:654-663.

 0.1 0.1
a.) Los Angeles 0.08
b.) Daggett 0.08

Frequency

Frequency
0.06 0.06

0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02

‐1.1 ‐1.1
‐0.7 ‐0.7
‐0.3 ‐0.3
Self‐ Self‐
0.1 0.1
Equilibrating Equilibrating
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.5 0.5
Stresses Stresses
‐15

‐15
‐12

‐12
‐9

‐9
‐6

‐6
‐3

‐3
0.9 0.9
0

0
(MPa) (MPa)
3

3
6

6
9

9
12

12
15

15
18

18
21

21
0.1 0.1

c.) San Francisco 0.08 d.) Sacramento 0.08

Frequency

Frequency
0.06 0.06

0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02

‐1.1 ‐1.1
‐0.7 ‐0.7
‐0.3 ‐0.3
Self‐ Self‐
0.1 0.1
Equilibrating Equilibrating
0.5 0.5
Stresses Stresses
‐15

‐15
‐12

‐12
‐9

‐9
‐6

‐6
‐3

‐3
0.9 0.9
0

(MPa) 0 (MPa)
3

3
6

6
9

9
12

12
15

15
18

18
21

21
0.1 0.1

e.) Arcata 0.08

f.) Reno, NV 0.08

Frequency
Frequency

0.06 0.06

0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02

‐1.1 ‐1.1
‐0.7 ‐0.7
‐0.3 ‐0.3
Self‐ Self‐
0.1 0.1
Equilibrating Equilibrating
0.5 0.5
Stresses Stresses
‐15
‐15

‐12
‐12

‐9
‐9

‐6
‐6

‐3

0.9
‐3

0.9 (MPa)
0

(MPa)
3

6
6

9
9

12
12

15
15

18
18

21
21

Fig. 6. Comparison of ⌬T and ␴SES frequency relationship for: 共a兲 Los Angeles; 共b兲 Daggett, Calif.; 共c兲 San Francisco; 共d兲 Sacramento, Calif.;
共e兲 Arcata, Calif.; and 共f兲 Reno, Nev.

along the Pacific Ocean, large temperature swings are less likely
than an area more inland such as Daggett, Calif. 共roughly 225 km
from Los Angeles兲. This difference in proximity to the tempering
effects of the ocean, the influence of mountain ranges between
these two locations 共San Gabriel and San Bernadino Mountains兲,
and elevation differences 共roughly 600 m兲 can drastically change
the expected distribution of both the temperature difference and
maximum ␴SES. This same trend is observed between the other
paired coastal and inland locations including the San Francisco
and Sacramento, Calif. sites as well as the Arcata, Calif. and
Reno, Nev. sites.
Piecewise Nonlinear Temperature Profile Stress
Calculation
Another process to calculate ␴SES from a nonlinear temperature
profile is to use a piecewise integration approximation by assum-
ing linear temperature change from known discrete temperatures
through the depth of the concrete slab. This process was first used
in the rigid pavement finite element code Illislab 共Khazanovich
1994兲 to calculate nonlinear temperatures stresses in the slab and
more recently in the MEPDG 共ARA, Inc. 2007兲. This method is
inherently more accurate than a quadratic temperature profile

658 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010

J. Transp. Eng. 2010.136:654-663.

 Table 1. Comparison of ␴SES by Method of Calculation at Top and Bottom of Slabs 共Tension Is Positive兲
Actual ⌬Teq
Profile ⌬T共°C兲 共°C兲 NOLA
Night ⫺6.7 ⫺6.65 321
Day 16.1 15.39 ⫺866
since some temperature profiles cannot be precisely matched with
a quadratic function, but more computationally intensive. A com-
parison between the piecewise method and the NOLA method can
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
assist in assessing the potential viability of using the quadratic
temperature profile assumption for the analysis and design of
rigid pavements.
Just as with the quadratic temperature profile method, the
piecewise method involves the division of the total temperature
profile into three temperature components 共average axial, linear
bending, and self-equilibrating兲. However, the complexity in this
method is the calculation of the linear gradient that induces the
equivalent bending moment from any given nonlinear tempera-
ture profile. This is best demonstrated through the use of the
temperature-moment 共TM兲 concept.
TM Concept
The theory of a TM in concrete slabs and beams has been ex-
plored in many fundamental textbooks over the years 共Timosh-
enko and Lessells 1925; Bradbury 1938; Boresi 1965兲. The TM
relates to the portion of the temperature profile that provides a
bending moment in the slab. To calculate TM, the temperature
profile is divided into small sectional areas with the units of Tⴱz.
The thickness of each specific area is defined by the thickness of
slab that the specific area represents. The temperature for each
distinct area is defined as the difference between the average tem-
perature for that particular area and the average temperature of
the entire profile 共Tavg兲. The average temperature of the profile is
calculated using the trapezoidal method. The TM is then calcu-
lated by multiplying each area by the moment arm from the bot-
tom of the slab to the centroid of the area using the right-hand
rule to derive the TM contribution for each specific area. The TM
for the entire temperature profile can then be found by summing
the individual area’s temperature moments with units of Tⴱz2.
Further details on the calculation of TM can be found in Janssen
and Snyder 共2000兲.
TM is generally negative if the top of the slab is warmer than
the bottom and positive if the slab is warmer on the bottom. As
the temperature profile becomes more nonlinear, the TM will start
to approach zero as an extremely nonlinear profile starts to ap-
proach a uniform temperature profile. TM has a direct relationship
to the equivalent linear temperature difference 共⌬Teq兲, which can
be defined as the temperature difference which gives the same
bending moment as the nonlinear temperature profile as seen in
below 共Janssen and Snyder 2000兲
− 12ⴱTM
⌬Teq = 共21兲
h2
where ⌬Teq = equivalent linear temperature difference from top to
bottom of slab.
When the temperature profile is either linear, uniform, or can
be expressed as a quadratic function, then the actual ⌬T 共Ttop
− Tbottom兲 is equal to the ⌬Teq. If these conditions are not true, then
⌬Teq and ⌬T are unequal.
JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010 / 659
J. Transp. Eng. 2010.136:654-663.
␴SES-top共kPa兲 ␴SES-bottom共kPa兲
Piecewise NOLA Piecewise
315 321 301
⫺944 ⫺866 ⫺738
From the equivalent linear temperature difference, the equiva-
lent linear temperature for any point through the slab can be de-
termined from Eq. 共22兲. Eq. 共22兲 assumes that the temperature at
bottom of the slab is zero and all the temperatures through the
depth of the slab are relative to this value
⌬Teq
Tlinear共z兲 = z 共22兲
h
Piecewise Nonlinear Self-Equilibrating Stresses
After the average and equivalent linear temperatures have been
calculated, the nonlinear temperature component can be calcu-
lated at any depth using Eq. 共23兲 following the logic graphically
noted in Fig. 1. Eq. 共23兲 takes into account the average, equiva-
lent linear, and actual temperatures at a specified depth with re-
spect to the reference temperature at the bottom of the slab 共Tbot兲.
Note, the derivations for the average temperature and equivalent
linear temperature is already relative to the bottom temperature
T共z兲 = Tavg + Tlinear共z兲 + Tnl共z兲 共23兲
This equation can more simply be rewritten as
Tnl共z兲 = T共z兲 − Tavg − Tlinear共z兲 共24兲
where Tnl共z兲 = relative nonlinear temperature component at speci-
fied depth; Tavg = average temperature of profile through depth;
and T共z兲 = actual temperature at specified depth.
These relative nonlinear temperatures can then be converted
into nonlinear ␴SES at any specified depth using the following:
E␣
␴SES共z兲 = Tnl共z兲 共25兲
1−␮
where ␴SES共z兲 = self-equilibrating stresses at specified depth.
For nonlinear temperature implementation in RadiCAL, only
stresses at the top and bottom of the slab are analyzed. Therefore,
Eq. 共25兲 can be evaluated at the bottom 共z = 0兲 and top of the slab
共z = h兲 to calculate the ␴SES. The piecewise method can now be
compared with the accuracy of the NOLA method to account for
␴SES in concrete slabs.
Comparison of Quadratic and Piecewise
Temperature Stress Component Predictions
Using the example temperature profiles from Fig. 3, the nonlinear
␴SES can be found using both the NOLA method and the piece-
wise method, as seen in Table 1. For both the daytime and night-
time profiles using either method, the ␴SES at mid-depth and
shape of these profiles appear to be similar. Since the stresses at
the top and bottom are critical for fatigue crack initiation, Table 1
shows the summary of ␴SES at the top and bottom of the slab for
both methods. Since the quadratic temperature profile assumption
produces no change in the equivalent bending moment 共⌬T
= ⌬Teq兲, the ␴SES are the same at the top and bottom of the slab.
 5000 5000
(a.) Daggett, California (b.) Daggett, California
20.3 cm PCC Slab 4000 20.3 cm PCC Slab 4000
Top of the Slab Bottom of the Slab
3000 3000
NOLA σ Linear + σ SES (kPa)

NOLA σ Linear + σ SES (kPa)

2000 2000

1000 1000

0 0
­5000 ­3000 ­1000 1000 3000 5000 ­5000 ­3000 ­1000 1000 3000 5000
­1000 ­1000

­2000 ­2000
Mean Difference Mean Difference
­3000 ­3000
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

­0.0248 kPa ­0.0455 kPa

Root Mean Squared Error Root Mean Squared Error
­4000 16.9 kPa ­4000 25.5 kPa

­5000 ­5000
Piecewise σ Linear + σ SES (kPa) Piecewise σ Linear + σ SES (kPa)

Fig. 7. Comparison of total temperature stresses using the piecewise method and the NOLA quadratic method at the: 共a兲 top of the slab; 共b兲
bottom of the slab using hourly data from 1986–1990 in Daggett, Calif.

This assumption is not true with the piecewise method as the ␴SES top, bottom, and 0.25h from the top of the slab 共termed
at the top is not forced to match the bottom. For the nighttime NOLA3/4兲, the mean difference in comparison to the piecewise
condition, the NOLA method reasonably matches the piecewise method was also found to be nearly zero, but the scatter of these
method at both the top and bottom of the slab, producing self- predictions is more visibly noticeable 共RMSE of 138.8 and 113.0
equilibrating axial tension of 321 kPa at the top and bottom of the kPa for top and bottom of the slab, respectively兲 and therefore it
slab. Since the actual nighttime profile can be fit well with a not recommended to be used over the first definition of NOLA
quadratic temperature profile assumption, it is not surprising that presented in Eq. 共16兲 共Hiller 2007兲.
the NOLA and piecewise techniques produce similar results in
this scenario.
The nonlinear stress components calculated from the example Effect of Nonlinear Temperature Stresses on
daytime temperature profile do not match as closely as they did Fatigue Damage
for the nighttime profile. At the top of the slab, the NOLA method
had a 78 kPa difference and 206 kPa at the bottom of the slab. In Since NOLA has been shown to be a good approximation to
this example, the NOLA method to account for temperature curl- calculate temperature stresses relative to a piecewise solution for
ing would reduce the bottom tensile bending stress due to load nonlinear temperature profiles, the next step in this analysis is to
more than the piecewise method, thereby artificially decreasing assess differences in fatigue damage profiles and magnitudes.
the projected fatigue damage from bottom-up cracking. This dif-
ference will be somewhat compensated by the difference in ⌬Teq
in the NOLA and piecewise methods 共16.1 and 15.4° C in this Damage Profile Comparison
case, respectively兲, but that is not enough to fully compensate for For this analysis, a nondoweled, 20.3 cm slab with a standard lane
the difference in ␴SES at the bottom of the slab. width of 3.7 m and joint spacing of 4.6 m was used with a k-value
While the use of the NOLA concept demonstrated varied suc- of 68 kPa/mm, and a modulus of rupture of 4.8 MPa. A moderate
cess in matching ␴SES of the piecewise solution, a better compari- effective built-in curl level 共Rao and Roesler 2005兲 of −6 ° C lo-
son would be between the NOLA and the piecewise methods in cated in Los Angeles was also used. For traffic, an average annual
terms of total temperature stress prediction 共␴linear + ␴SES兲. To find daily truck traffic 共AADTT兲 of 10,450 trucks for a 30-year design
the total temperature stresses, the linear temperature bending as well as an average load spectrum, axle spacing distribution,
stress was calculated using the equation of Westergaard 共1927兲 for and vehicle class distribution from over 100 weigh-in-motion sta-
maximum curling stresses at the bottom edge of the slab. tions 共Lu et al. 2001兲 were input into RadiCAL. This average load
Eqs. 共19兲 and 共25兲 were then used to calculate the nonlinear spectrum and AADTT utilizes produced approximately 67 million
self-equilibrating for the NOLA and piecewise methods, respec- equivalent single axle loads 共ESALs兲 over this period. For this
tively. Using 5 years of predicted hourly temperature profiles for fatigue analysis using Miner’s hypothesis 共Miner 1945兲, the zero
Daggett, Calif., Fig. 7共a兲 shows a direct comparison between the maintenance fatigue transfer function 共Darter 1977兲 was em-
total temperature stress 共␴L + ␴SES兲 using the NOLA and piece- ployed as seen in the following:
wise calculation methods at the top of the slab. Subsequently, Fig.
7共b兲 shows this comparison for the NOLA and piecewise methods
at the bottom of the slab.
For both the top and bottom of the slab, the total temperature
log共N f 兲 = 17.61 − 17.61 冉 冊
␴
MOR
共26兲

stresses show an excellent match between the two methods with a where N f = number of repetitions until failure 共at 50% reliability兲;
mean difference of nearly zero and a root-mean-square error MOR= modulus of rupture of the concrete; and ␴ = applied maxi-
共RMSE兲 of 16.9 and 25.5 kPa, respectively. The match between mum stress level.
NOLA and the piecewise method enables the use of the NOLA When a linear temperature assumption is used in RadiCAL,
method for a wide range of nonlinear temperature profiles. When the damage profile from Fig. 8共a兲 is found. At this lower level of
the NOLA method was retested with actual temperatures at the built-in curl, almost all of the fatigue damage is concentrated at

660 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010

J. Transp. Eng. 2010.136:654-663.

 a.) Linear b.) Non‐Linear NOLA c.) Non‐Linear Piecewise
1 1 1

Top of Slab
0.8 0.8 0.8

Relative Damage Level

0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2
0 0 0

Bottom of Slab
‐0.2 ‐0.2 ‐0.2
‐0.4 ‐0.4 ‐0.4
‐0.6 ‐0.6 ‐0.6
‐0.8 ‐0.8 ‐0.8
‐1 ‐1 ‐1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Damage profile comparison incorporating nonlinear ␴SES for Los Angeles using: 共a兲 linear temperature differences; 共b兲 quadratic nonlinear
temperature; and 共c兲 piecewise nonlinear temperature profiles

the midslab location along the longitudinal edge, thereby predict-
ing bottom-up transverse fatigue cracking. When ␴SES from the
nonlinear profiles are accounted for, as in Fig. 8共b兲 using the
NOLA method, high levels of fatigue damage exist at the midslab
bottom location, but also near the midslab at the top and at the top
of the slab between the wheelpaths along the transverse joint.
This damage profile suggests multiple potential failure locations
including bottom-up transverse cracking, top-down transverse
cracking, or top-down longitudinal cracking. Using the piecewise
method to account for ␴SES 关Fig. 8共c兲兴, a similar profile to the
NOLA method is found with slightly different damage levels.
Damage Level Comparison
Relative damage profiles give an excellent indication of where
fatigue damage will accumulate. However, the absolute fatigue
damage magnitude is indicative of when damage will manifest
itself as a physical crack in the pavement. Applying Miner’s hy-
pothesis 共Miner 1945兲 for damage accumulation in RadiCAL, this
absolute level of fatigue damage can also be predicted. The as-
sumption using Miner’s hypothesis is that fatigue damage of 1.0
equates to a 50% probability of fatigue cracking failure. Using the
assumptions for traffic, pavement geometry, and materials, de-
scribed in the previous section, the fatigue damage level using the
NOLA method and piecewise method are very similar around
6.8⫻ 10−4 关Fig. 9共a兲兴 for the Los Angeles climate at a built-in curl
level of −6 ° C. Conversely, the damage level assuming linear
temperature differences at this built-in curl level is 56 times
higher at 0.038. The ␴SES reduces the level of stress at the critical
tensile bottom locations and increase the damage at other tensile
stress locations on the top of the slab. For the Los Angeles climate
with no built-in curl, Fig. 9共a兲 predicts that the slab would have a
much higher probability of being cracked using a linear tempera-
ture assumption and uncracked using either NOLA or piecewise
methods accounting for nonlinear temperature profiles. However,
at built-in curling less than −8 ° C, accounting for nonlinear tem-
perature exacerbates temperature and load-induced stresses at the
top of the slab thereby resulting in top-down fatigue failure. Fig.
9共b兲 shows the fatigue damage for the desert climate of Daggett,
Calif. has similar results to the Los Angeles climate. Therefore,
the NOLA method provides similar damage locations and magni-
tudes as the more accurate piecewise solution for nonlinear tem-
perature stress prediction.
The built-in curl level where top-down fatigue damage con-
trols over bottom-up fatigue damage is termed the “flip point.”
This flip point usually occurs as the level of bottom-up fatigue
damage at the midslab is minimized with increased negative
built-in curling such that the top-down fatigue damage becomes
critical. The flip point is represented approximately by the mini-
mum points in Figs. 9共a and b兲. However, the flip point magnitude
varies depending on the temperature profile assumption. With a

100

10
Maximum Fatigue Damage

Linear
1 Temperature

0.1 Non­Linear
(piecewise)

0.01
Non­Linear
(NOLA 1/2)
0.001
a.) Los Angeles b.) Daggett
0.0001
0 ­5 ­10 ­15 ­20 ­25 0 ­5 ­10 ­15 ­20 ­25
Built­in Curl Level (oC) Built­in Curl Level (oC)

Fig. 9. Maximum fatigue damage level by built-in curl level using several nonlinear ␴SES methods and maximum stress fatigue for: 共a兲 Los
Angeles; 共b兲 Daggett, Calif.

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010 / 661

J. Transp. Eng. 2010.136:654-663.

 linear temperature difference assumption, this flip point is be-
tween a built-in curl level of −11 and −14° C 共Hiller and Roesler
2005a, 2006兲. However, when the ␴SES are accounted for, the
tensile stresses at the bottom of the slab are usually reduced while
the tensile stresses at the top of the slab are increased due to the
nonlinearity occurring near the top of the slab. The flip point for
nonlinear temperature assumption ranges from −6 and −8 ° C de-
pending on traffic, geometry, climate, and materials. This gener-
ally agrees with fatigue damage results using the MEPDG 共ARA,
Inc. 2007兲 where top-down cracking becomes more prevalent
around the default built-in curl level of −6 ° C and almost exclu-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sively occurs at higher negative levels of built-in curling.
Conclusions
The use of self-equilibrating stresses 共␴SES兲 in concrete pavement
analysis and design is critical to properly characterize the total
thermal stresses and likely timing and position of fatigue crack-
ing. By using only the linear temperature differences in these
analyzes, bottom-up stresses are generally overestimated and top-
down stresses are subsequently underpredicted. This omission
will typically lead to an under prediction of fatigue life in cases
with no to low built-in curl 共bottom-up failures兲 and over predic-
tion of fatigue life in high built-in curl cases 共top-down cracking
mechanisms兲.
To account for these ␴SES, a parameter named NOLA was
developed that represents the difference in area between a qua-
dratic temperature profile 共three temperatures at three depths兲 and
an assumed linear profile 共temperature at top and bottom of the
slab兲. A simple closed-form solution was derived to account for
the ␴SES based on the NOLA parameter that allows pavement
engineers to easily account for temperature nonlinearity in ana-
lyzes. The NOLA method also allows for visualization of the
level of temperature nonlinearity as a function of the slab’s tem-
perature difference to account for all temperature-related stress
components in a slab on one plot. Comparisons using the NOLA
method were made to the more rigorous piecewise method for
␴SES determination. In terms of ␴SES, the NOLA method using the
midslab depth temperature matched the piecewise method quite
well. An excellent trend was also found between total temperature
stresses between the NOLA method and piecewise solution.
When comparing the temperature profile characterization tech-
niques in terms of fatigue damage, both the fatigue damage level
and the fatigue damage profiles matched well for both the NOLA
and piecewise methods for two distinct climates in California.
This indicates that the simplified NOLA method would be an
appropriate approximation for the piecewise method in predicting
both where and when fatigue damage would occur. Comparisons
in the flip point of fatigue cracking mechanisms 共from bottom-up
to top-down cracking as the built-in curl level becomes more
negative兲 found that the utilization of ␴SES in the damage analysis
reduced the level of built-in curl required to cause top-down
cracking to become predominant. For a maximum stress fatigue
damage approach 共such as the zero maintenance transfer function兲
using nonlinear temperature profiles, this flip point occurred in
the range of −6 to −8 ° C built-in curl. This flip point range is less
extreme than those found using linear temperature profiles. It was
also found that the use of nonlinear temperature profiles with a
built-in curl concept generally reduces the fatigue damage level in
comparison to its linear counterpart except for the scenarios with
more extreme built-in curl levels than −8 ° C, where accounting
662 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010
J. Transp. Eng. 2010.136:654-663.
for ␴SES exacerbates temperature and load-induced stresses at the
top of the slab and results in top-down fatigue failure predictions.
Acknowledgments
The research presented herein was conducted under a grant from
the University of California Pavement Research Center and the
support of the California Department of Transportation. Financial
assistance was also provided through the FHWA Eisenhower
Transportation Fellowship program, the Illinois Department of
Transportation through the Illinois Center of Transportation and
the Illinois Chapter of the American Concrete Pavement Associa-
tion. The financial assistance received from all sources is greatly
appreciated.
References
ARA, Inc. 共2007兲. “Interim mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide
manual of practice. Final draft.” National Cooperative Highway Re-
search Program Project 1-37A, Champaign, Ill.
Boresi, A. P. 共1965兲. Elasticity in engineering mechanics, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 222–223.
Bradbury, R. D. 共1938兲. Reinforced concrete pavements, Wire Reinforce-
ment Institute, Washington, D.C.
Choubane, B., and Tia, M. 共1992兲. “Nonlinear temperature gradient effect
on maximum warping stresses in rigid pavements.” Transportation
Research Record. 1370, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C., 11–19.
Choubane, B., and Tia, M. 共1995兲. “Analysis and verification of thermal-
gradient effects on concrete pavement.” J. Transp. Eng., 121共1兲, 75–
81.
Darter, M. I. 共1977兲. “Design of zero-maintenance plain jointed pave-
ments.” Rep. No. FHWA-RD-77-111, Federal Highway Administra-
tion, U.S. DOT, Washington, D.C.
Harik, I. E., Jianping, P., Southgate, H., and Allen, D. 共1994兲. “Tempera-
ture effects on rigid pavements.” J. Transp. Eng., 120共1兲, 127–143.
Hiller, J. E. 共2007兲. “Development of mechanistic-empirical principles
for jointed plain concrete pavement fatigue design.” Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Ill.
Hiller, J. E., and Roesler, J. R. 共2005a兲. “Determination of critical con-
crete pavement fatigue damage locations using influence lines.” J.
Transp. Eng., 131共8兲, 599–607.
Hiller, J. E., and Roesler, J. R. 共2005b兲. User’s guide for rigid pavement
analysis for design in California (RadiCAL) software. Version 1.2,
UC-Berkeley/Caltrans Partnered Pavement Research Center, Rich-
mond, Calif.
Hiller, J. E., and Roesler, J. R. 共2006兲. “Alternative failure modes for
long-life jointed plain concrete pavements.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Long-
Life Concrete Pavements, Chicago, Illinois.
Ioannides, A. M., and Khazanovich, L. 共1998兲. “Nonlinear temperature
effects on multilayered concrete pavements.” J. Transp. Eng., 124共2兲,
128–136.
Ioannides, A. M., and Salsilli-Murua, R. 共1999兲. “Temperature curling in
rigid pavement: An application of dimensional analysis.” Transporta-
tion Research Record. 1227, Transportation Research Board, Wash-
ington, D.C., 1–11.
Janssen, D. J., and Snyder, M. B. 共2000兲. “Temperature-moment concept
for evaluating pavement temperature data.” J. Infrastruct. Syst., 6共2兲,
81–83.
Jeong, J. H., and Zollinger, D. G. 共2005兲. “Environmental effects on the
behavior of jointed plain concrete pavements.” J. Transp. Eng.,
131共2兲, 140–148.
Khazanovich, L. 共1994兲. “Structural analysis of multi-layered concrete
 pavement systems.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Urbana, Ill.
Larson, G., and Dempsey, G.J. 共1997兲. Enhanced integrated climatic
model version 2.0 (EICM), Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.
Lee, Y. H., and Darter, M. I. 共1993兲. “Mechanistic design models of
loading and curling in concrete pavements.” Proc., Airport Pavement
Innovations—Theory to Practice, ASCE, Reston Va.
Lu, Q., Le, T., Harvey, J. T., Lea, J., Quinley, R., Redo, D., and Avis, J.
共2001兲. “Truck traffic analysis using WIM data in California.” Draft
Rep., Univ. of California-Berkeley, Pavement Research Center, Rich-
mond, Calif.
Masad, E., Taha, R., and Muhunthan, B. 共1996兲. “Finite element analysis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of temperature effects on plain-jointed concrete pavements.” J.
Transp. Eng., 122共5兲, 388–398.
Miner, M. A. 共1945兲. “Cumulative damage in fatigue.” Trans. ASME, 67,
A159–A164.
Mirambell, E. 共1990兲. “Temperature and stress distributions in plain con-
crete pavements under thermal and mechanical loads.” Proc., 2nd Int.
Workshop on the Design and Rehabilitation of Concrete Pavements,
Siguenza, Spain, 121–135.
Mohamed, A. R., and Hansen, W. 共1997兲. “Effect of nonlinear tempera-
ture gradient on curling stresses in concrete pavements.” Transp. Res.
JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010 / 663
J. Transp. Eng. 2010.136:654-663.
Rec., 1568, 65–71.
Rao, S., and Roesler, J. R. 共2005兲. “Characterizing effective built-in curl-
ing from concrete pavement field measurements.” J. Transp. Eng.,
131共4兲, 320–327.
Rodden, R. 共2006兲. “Analytical modeling of environmental stresses in
concrete slabs.” MS thesis, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Urbana, Ill.
Teller, L. W., and Sutherland, E. C. 共1935兲. “The structural design of
concrete pavements, Part 2: Observed effects of variations in tempera-
ture and moisture on the size, shape and stress resistance of concrete
pavement slabs.” Public Roads, 15共9兲, 169–197.
Thomlinson, L. 共1940a兲. “Temperature variations and consequent stresses
produced by daily and seasonal temperature cycles in concrete slabs.”
Concrete Constructional Engineering, 36共6兲, 298–307.
Thomlinson, L. 共1940b兲. “Temperature variations and consequent stresses
produced by daily and seasonal temperature cycles in concrete slabs.”
Concrete Constructional Engineering, 36共7兲, 352–360.
Timoshenko, S., and Lessells, J. M. 共1925兲. Applied elasticity, Westing-
house Technical Night School Press, East Pittsburg, Pa., 272–273.
Westergaard, H. M. 共1927兲. “Analysis of stresses in concrete pavements
due to variations of temperature.” Proc., Highway Research Board,
Vol. 6, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 201–217.