Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110396

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Sensitivity analysis of restrained shrinkage stresses of concrete deck overlays T

a,b,⁎ a
L. Orta , F.M. Bartlett
a
The University of Western Ontario, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 1151 Richmond Street, London, Ontario N6A 5B9, Canada
b
Tecnologico de Monterrey, Department of Civil Engineering, Ramon Corona #2514 Zapopan, Jalisco 45201, Mexico1

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Concrete overlays are widely used to rehabilitate bridge decks. This investigation presents parametric and
Shrinkage sensitivity analyses of the mechanical strains due to restraint of shrinkage of the overlay that may cause it to
Parametric analysis crack. The parametric analysis identifies the significant variables and the sensitivity analysis quantifies the
Mechanical strains correlations between these variables and the magnitude of mechanical strains. The strain analysis accounts for
Sensitivity analysis
drying shrinkage using Fick’s law, and for tensile creep strains. Total strains are computed by superposition,
Bridge deck overlays
assuming a linear-elastic concrete behavior, using a time-history approach developed in a previous investigation.
Concrete overlays on concrete slabs and composite systems are considered. Compressive strength of the overlay
concrete, curing period, overlay thickness and environmental humidity contribute the most to the variability of
the analytically predicted mechanical strains.

1. Introduction
Rehabilitation of concrete bridge decks by replacing unsound con-
crete with a new concrete overlay is common in Canada [1,2]. When
concrete decks deteriorate, the wearing surface becomes inadequate for
traffic and, less frequently, the safety of the structure may be reduced to
unacceptable levels. Jack–hammer or hydro demolition is typically
used to remove damaged concrete [3] that is then replaced with new
concrete. Shrinkage of the new concrete overlay is restrained at the
interface with the substrate, however, producing tensile stresses in the
overlay that may cause cracking. A cracked overlay provides corrosion
protection of the steel reinforcement and is a poor riding surface, par-
ticularly if the cracks are large and widely spaced, so cracking of the
overlay can be considered a limit state.
The likelihood of overlay cracking is difficult to predict because the
tensile stresses and tensile strength of concrete are uncertain during the
life span of the overlay. Both quantities depend on other factors that are
also uncertain including free shrinkage strain, creep strains, and en-
vironmental humidity.
This paper concludes a series by the authors [4–7] that focused on
the quantification of stresses due to restrained shrinkage in concrete
overlays: the reader is referred to these references for additional lit-
erature review. The computation of the deterministic stress distribution
(in time and space) due to restrained shrinkage in concrete overlays has
been developed using a Time History Analysis Method (THAM) [4] that
will be used in the present investigation. Other researchers [8–10] have
proposed simplified methods with shortcomings that are overcome with
the THAM analysis [4]. Other studies in restrained shrinkage consider
changing few parameters like the degree of restraint in ring experi-
ments when other parameters are kept the same [11].
The overall research objective is to identify factors that contribute
to the magnitude and variability of the mechanical tensile strains and
stresses due to restrained shrinkage in concrete overlays. To attain this
objective, a parametric study is first conducted to identify the sig-
nificant variables, and then their impact is quantified using a prob-
abilistic-based sensitivity analysis.
2. Research significance
Durable and economical partial depth concrete replacement re-
quires knowledge and control of the critical factors that cause re-
strained shrinkage cracking so that long service lives can be achieved in
practice. To identify potential economical savings, it is essential to
identify those factors that are critical to overlay durability, assess cur-
rent practices and propose means to extend the expected un-cracked life
of the overlay.
3. Analytical model
A parametric study will explore the variability of the mechanical

⁎
Corresponding author at: Tecnologico de Monterrey, Department of Civil Engineering, Ramon Corona #2514 Zapopan, Jalisco 45201, Mexico.
E-mail address: luis.orta@itesm.mx (L. Orta).
1
Permanent address.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110396
Received 27 May 2019; Received in revised form 5 February 2020; Accepted 17 February 2020
Available online 21 February 2020
0141-0296/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Orta and F.M. Bartlett
strains assuming practical maximum and minimum limits of the input
parameters to filter out those variables that are not influential. A sub-
sequent sensitivity analysis will quantify the contribution of each
variable to the mechanical strain and thus will identify important
parameters that can be controlled. The parametric analysis is not
computationally demanding and effectively identifies the variables that
have little impact but considers neither correlation between the input
variables nor the probability distribution that they are sampled from.
The sensitivity analysis is conducted to recognize the interaction among
input variables and their probability distribution.
The investigation is focused on mechanical strains, εm(y,t), rather
than stresses because, while the cracking strength of concrete, ft(t), is
proportional to the square root of the compressive strength [11] (in-
creasing with concrete age), the elastic modulus of concrete, Ec(t), is
also proportional to the square root of the compressive strength [12], so
the cracking resistance strain εcr, computed as the cracking stress di-
vided by the modulus of elasticity, is independent of the concrete age
and compressive strength [5]. A mean cracking strength strain is about
143 μm/m with a coefficient of variation of 34% [5].
The parametric analysis and sensitivity analysis consider only the
mechanical strain at mid-depth of the overlay, εm2(t) = εm(0.5ℓny,t).
Mechanical strains have large gradients close to the top and bottom
faces of the overlay in the initial period of drying, (t − t0) ≈ 10 days,
but stabilize shortly after[4]. At the same time, the mechanical strain at
mid-depth of the overlay, εm2(t), starts to increase and it defines the
time of cracking after the maximum localized strain has exceeded, at
very early ages after drying, the cracking resistance, εcr, of concrete[5].
Fig. 1 shows the two types of cross sections considered in the pre-
sent study: overlays on solid concrete slabs and overlays on composite
steel members. The structure is considered simply supported with a
total length ℓz and having a total deck depth ℓy, including the overlay.
Overlays on solid concrete slabs are considered to have a nominal
overlay thickness of 150 mm on top of 550 mm thick substrate, so
ℓy = 0.7 m, and the analysis is conducted for a one-metre wide strip,
ℓx = 1 m. The 150 mm overlay thickness was chosen because it satisfies
relevant Ontario specifications [13]. The overall slab thickness would
be typical for a short simple span of approximately 14 m.
Three different steel shapes were investigated for the composite
girder systems to represent slabs on stringers, floor beams or main
girders. The stringer, floor beam and girder consist of a W460x67, a
W760x173 and a WWF1400x405, respectively. The width of the slab is
assumed to be the centre-to-centre spacing of the steel members: 1.5 m
for the slab on stringers, 2.5 m for the slab on floor beams and 3 m for
the slab on girders. The concrete deck is assumed 250 mm thick, in-
cluding the overlay of 120 mm. The remaining 130 mm thickness of the
original slab is assumed to be sound, and serves as formwork for the
new concrete overlay. The shape designations and cross sectional
properties that were used are consistent with those listed by the
Canadian Institute of Steel Construction [14].
Previous research [4] has demonstrated that the moisture condition
of the substrate, and hence the substrate surface preparation method,
can impact the mechanical response of the overlay. However this effect
Fig. 1. Concrete slab and composite girder cross sections.
2
Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110396
becomes significant when the thickness of the overlay exceeds that of
the substrate [4], so the effect of different surface preparations is not
explicitly considered. The present study accounts for swelling of the
substrate due to moisture that has diffused from the overlay, and as-
sociated compressive creep in the substrate due to this swelling.
The cross section is discretized in constant thickness layers and the
solution is obtained at discrete times [4]. The principle of superposition
is applied to compute the mechanical strains at any time:
ε (y, t ) = εm (y, t ) + εc (y, t ) + εsh (y, t ) (1)
Free shrinkage strain, εsh(y,t), and creep strain, εc(y,t), are needed to
compute the mechanical strain, εm(y,t). The total strain, ε(y,t), is
computed assuming that plane sections remain plane and that the cross
section is free to elongate:
ε (y, t ) = ε0 (t ) + y [κ (t )] (2)
where ε0(t) = ε(0,t) is the strain at the top fibre and κ(t) is the curvature
of the cross section.
Two conditions of equilibrium are imposed to determine ε(y,t). The
stress resultants are equal to the axial force and bending moment pro-
duced by the external loads, FL(t) and ML(t), respectively:
∫ σz (t ) dA = FL (t ) (3]
∫ y σz (t ) dA = ML (t ) (4)
Free shrinkage strains, εsh(y,t), are computed for a given ultimate
shrinkage strain using Fick’s second law of diffusion as
∂εsh ∂ ∂h ∂h ⎤
= βs0 εs ∞ k sh ⎡ ⎛λ (h) ⎞ U(t − t0) +
⎜ ⎟
∂t ⎢ ∂y ∂y ∂t ⎥ (5)
⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎦
where h = h(y,t) is the internal humidity as a function of location y and
time t, βs0 is a constant such that the average shrinkage strain of drying
laboratory specimens is equal to the average shrinkage strain [6] pre-
dicted by the Model B3 [15], εs∞ is the ultimate (long-term) shrinkage
strain for a notional environmental humidity of zero, ksh is a constant of
proportionality that transforms a change in internal humidity into a
change in shrinkage strain, λ(h) is the diffusivity of the concrete as a
function of the internal relative humidity, U(t − t0) is the Heaviside
step function and t0 is the curing period in days. The first term within
the brackets represent the change of internal humidity due to drying
and the second term the change due to self-desiccation. The ultimate
shrinkage strain, εs∞, is computed using Model B3 as
εs ∞ = α1 α2 [0.019w 2.1 f −c28
0.28
+ 270] (6)
where α1 accounts for the type of curing and is equal to 1.2 for moist
curing, α2 accounts for the type of cement and is equal to 1.0 for normal
Type I cement, w is the water content in kg/m3, fc28 is the compression
strength of the cylinders tested at 28 days in MPa. The diffusivity λ(h) is
computed as
L. Orta and F.M. Bartlett Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110396

Table 1
10 λ 0 ⎞ ⎡ (1 − a0 ) ⎤
Input variables for parametric study.
λ (h) = ⎛ ⎜ ⎢a0 +
⎟
ns
⎥
⎝ f c28 ⎠ ⎢
⎣
1 −h
1 + 1−h
c ( ) ⎥
⎦ (7) Category No. Variable Description Min Max
(unit)
where λ0 = 86.4 mm /day [16] and a0, hc and ns are parameters cali-
2
Substrate 1 Ecs (GPa) Modulus of elasticity 26 38
brated from experimental data[6]. Parameters derived from Model B3
Overlay 2 fc28 (MPa) Compressive strength 25 50
have been adopted because they are believed generally representative 3 ce (kg/m3) Cement content 280 360
of typical concrete mixes, even though they have been shown to be 4 ℓny (mm) Overlay depth 100 200
inadequate for specific mixes[7]. Construction 5 t0 (days) Curing time 2 7
The internal humidity due to self-desiccation is computed as[6] 6 As (mm2/m) Steel reinforcement 0 540
Shrinkage 7 a0 Diffusivity constant 0.03 0.1
h = ha = 1 − a1 [1 − exp(−a2 t na)] (8) 8 hc Diffusivity constant 0.75 0.85
9 ns Diffusivity constant 6 16
where the constants a1, a2 and na are functions of the water-to-ce- 10 λ1 (mm2/ Concrete diffusivity 76.4 96.4
menting materials ratio, w/ce, and the period of curing, t0 [6]. day)
11 a1 Self–desiccation constant 0.017 0.153
Tensile creep strains, εc(y,t), are computed as [4]
12 a2 Self–desiccation constant 0.0198 0.178
13 na Self–desiccation constant 0.168 1.515
dεc dσ (t ′) ⎞ σ (t ) ∂ ∂h
= J(t , t ′) ⎛ z + rc βs0 εs ∞ k sh ⎛ z ⎞ ⎡ ⎛λ (h) ⎞ ⎤ U(t − t0)
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
14 βs0 Ultimate shrinkage 0.65 1.95
⎝ dt ′ ⎠ ⎢ ∂y ⎠ ⎥
dt ⎝ ft28 ⎠ ⎣ ∂y ⎝ ⎦ constant
Creep 15 c0 Modulus of elasticity 0.95 1.67
(9) constant
where J(t,t’) is the compliance creep function at time t, t’ is the age of 16 c1 Creep strain constant 0.3 1.1
17 m Creep strain constant 0.33 0.73
loading, σz(t’) is the axial stress at the age of loading, rc is a coefficient
18 nc Creep strain constant 0.2 0.4
calibrated using experimental data and ft28 is the 28-day cylinder ten- 19 rc Creep strain constant 0.1 0.6
sile strength. The first and second terms of this equation represent the Environment 20 hen Relative humidity 0.4 0.8
basic and drying creep [17], respectively. The creep function, J(t,t’), is Modeling 21 Nf Number of fibres 100 200
computed using Dirichlet series [4] as

c1 i=N τinc
J(t , t ′) = ∑i =1 γi
(t ′)m
{1 − exp[−(t − t ′)/ τi]}
c0 Ec28
where c0, c1, m and nc are coefficients calibrated using experimental
data, Ec28 is the modulus of elasticity of the overlay at 28 days, and γi
and τi are deterministic modelling parameters.
The numerical Time History Analysis Model (THAM) was used to
predict stresses and deflections of a full-scale composite truss tested at
the University of Alberta. The agreement between observed and pre-
dicted stresses and deflections is satisfactory [7] and thus the numerical
model is appropriate for use in the current investigation.
4. Parametric analysis
Deterministic analyses of εm2(t) are conducted by varying each
parameter in turn (between realistic minimum and maximum values)
while the rest are fixed at their average values. The range of each
variable is divided in four intervals of equal size and then five values
are sampled, corresponding to the boundaries at each interval. The
extrema correspond to values observed in ancillary tests by others or to
values simply deemed realistic. The probability distribution corre-
sponding to each variable is not accounted for in the parametric study
because the objective is simply to identify influential variables to be
included in the sensitivity analysis, where each probability distribution
will be accounted for.
Input variables are grouped in the following seven major categories:
substrate, overlay, shrinkage, tensile creep, construction, environ-
mental conditions and number of elements for modeling. Table 1 shows
the seven categories of input variables and their corresponding domains
used to investigate the response of the overlay on the all-concrete
substrates.
The substrate is characterized by its modulus of elasticity, Ecs. It was
assumed that at the time of overlay replacing the substrate could be
between a normal-strength concrete with Ecs = 26 GPa (fcs ≈ 30 MPa)
and a high-strength concrete with Ecs = 38 GPa (fcs ≈ 64 MPa). The
internal relative humidity of the substrate is assumed to be in equili-
brium with the environmental humidity, hen , at the time of the re-
habilitation is conducted.
The overlay is characterized by its nominal 28-day compressive
strength, fc28, the cementing materials content in the mix, ce, and the
overlay thickness, ℓny. The maxima shown for concrete strengths reflect
(10) a range of normal to moderately high-strength overlays. The cement
content by volume corresponds to the minimum quantity in kilograms
of cementitious materials per cubic metre of concrete (kg/m3) as re-
commended in the specifications for Design and Control of Concrete
Mixtures [18]. In this study the water content, w (kg/m3), is computed
for a given 28-day compressive strength as proposed by Bazant and
Baweja [15].
w = 23ce / (12 + fc28 ) (11)
The overlay depth depends on a decision by the owner or consulting
engineer, typically based on engineering surveys indicating the depths
where the in-place chloride concentrations exceed threshold limits.
The construction variables are the time of curing and the amount of
steel reinforcement. The lower limit for the time of curing is two days
because a shorter period could lead to poor concretes with insufficient
strength or stiffness to withstand superimposed live loads. Curing for
more than seven days could incur high costs due to project delay.
Typical periods of curing are 4 days for partial-depth overlays [5, per-
sonal communication Ministry of Transportation of Ontario]. The
amount of steel ranges from the option of no reinforcement to providing
twice the minimum for shrinkage and temperature specified in ACI 318
[19], 0.36%. This percentage is applied to the total area of the overlay
to compute the reinforcing steel area.
The extrema shown in Table 1 for a0, hc and ns were observed by
Bazant and Najjar [20] using experimental data. The extrema for a1, a2
and na correspond to the ± 80% limits of the values predicted using
expressions by Orta and Bartlett [6]. Similarly, the minimum and
maximum values of βs0 are the ± 50% limits of the mean value of 1.3
[6].
The extrema of c1, m and nc were observed by Orta and Bartlett [4],
and the extrema for rc were observed by Bazant and Chern [17] using
experimental data from compression creep tests. The extrema of c0
correspond approximately to the ± 25% limits of the value of 1.35 [4].
The limits for the range of environmental humidity, hen, in Canada
were estimated from Fig. A.3.1.3 of the Canadian Highway Bridge
Design Code [21].
Finally, the number of elements in a given cross section was varied
from 100 to 200 to investigate the consequences of achieving savings in

3
L. Orta and F.M. Bartlett
Fig. 2. Mechanical strain εm2(t) when input parameters are varied.
computational time by reducing the scale of the analysis. Such savings
are essential to carry out the sensitivity analysis.
For the parametric studies of overlays on composite systems, all the
input variables are as listed in Table 1 except ℓny and As. The nominal
overlay thickness, ℓny, is assumed to be 120 mm and ranges from
100 mm to 140 mm. The nominal area of steel reinforcement, As, is
assumed to be 250 mm2/m and ranges from 0 to 500 mm2/m.
4.1. Results of parametric analysis
Fig. 2 shows the variation of the mechanical strain εm2(t) for the
case of concrete substrate. Faint lines correspond to the 85 (i.e.
21x4 + 1) simulations when each single input variable in turn is
changed. At t = t0 (typically 4 days) the overlay mid-depth strain varies
from 5 to 45 μm/m and at 104 days (27 years) from 12 to 108 μm/m.
The maximum value of 140 μm/m occurs at 150 days suggesting that,
for this particular case where fc28 is at its minimum value of 25 MPa, the
overlay is likely to crack. The solid line indicates the result obtained
from a single analysis using the mean value of each input variable.
Open white dots represent the average values of the 85 different si-
mulations computed at discrete times. The dots all lie on the solid line
indicating that the single analysis using mean values of each input
variable gives an excellent prediction of the mean of the mid-depth
mechanical strain averaged over all simulations. Broken lines are
plotted at two standard deviations above and below the mean, where
the standard deviations are computed at discrete times from the data
from the 85 different simulations. Assuming εcr(t) normally distributed
these boundaries define the range that represents 95% of its possible
magnitude.
Fig. 3 shows the variability of εm2(t) for typical significant and in-
significant parameters – although the actual probability distribution
associated with each parameter has not been considered, the impact of
each is clear. Similar figures for the other input variables investigated
are presented in Orta [5]. The middle line denotes the mechanical
strain computed using the mean values of each input variable. The
arrows show the sense of the change of the response as the input
variable is increased from its minimum to its maximum value.
Fig. 3a indicates that overlay concrete strength, fc28, has a sig-
nificant impact. The mid-depth mechanical strain is reduced markedly
with increasing fc28 between 10 and 104 days. This occurs in part be-
cause the ultimate free shrinkage strain and creep parameters depend
on this variable: larger fc28 values correspond to smaller ultimate
shrinkage strains [Eq. (6)], reduced diffusivity [Eq. (7)] and larger Ec28
values that cause smaller creep strains [Eq. (10)]. For fc28 = 25 MPa, a
maximum εm2(t) of 140 μm/m occurs at approximately 100 days that is
likely to cause overlay cracking. It would, therefore, seen prudent to set
the minimum fc28 to be 30 MPa, to reduce the likelihood of overlay
cracking, as is currently specified in OPSS 930 [13].
Fig. 3b indicates that increasing the tension creep variable c1, that
changes the magnitude and rate of creep strains, causes reduced mid-
4
Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110396
depth tensile strains, particularly for t > 100 days. It is not clear how
to design a concrete mix to achieve certain tension creep character-
istics, however some guidance can be inferred by the results obtained
by Bissonnete et al. [22] that a reduction in the cement paste content
increases the tensile creep of concrete. Specifically, their mix with a
paste content of 22% exhibited 100% more creep strains compared to
their mix with a paste content of 32%. These findings contradict the
compression creep expressions recommended in ACI 209 [12] that
imply that increasing the paste content reduces creep in compression.
Fig. 3c indicates that the ultimate (long-term) shrinkage strain
parameter βs0 has a positive correlation with the mechanical strains, i.e.
increasing the ultimate free shrinkage strain will increase the tensile
mid-height strains and the overlay is more likely to crack, as expected.
The figure also suggests that this variable is almost as influential as fc28.
Fig. 3d indicates that the duration of moist curing, t0 is most in-
fluential at short times of drying. The effect of increasing t0 is to delay
the onset of shrinkage by keeping moisture in the overlay while its
modulus of elasticity increases and the overlay gains strength. At the
end of the longer period of curing, free shrinkage strains interact with a
larger modulus of elasticity of the overlay and therefore larger tensile
stresses are generated. The effect is less significant as time increases.
Fig. 3e indicates that the area of steel reinforcement, As, has no
effect in the overlay before cracking. The numerical method (THAM)
does not consider the behavior after cracking and thus the steel re-
inforcement is only subjected to mechanical strains in the order of
150 μm/m that correspond to stresses in the order of 30 MPa.
Finally, the response is not sensitive to the number of elements, Nf
as shown in Fig. 3f. This input variable would have more impact if the
ratio of overlay thickness to total thickness approaches to zero or one,
i.e. 0.1 or 0.9, as finer mesh would be required to accommodate the
large gradient of strains expected.
The metric proposed to rank the input variables is the maximum
range index, RX, computed as
RX = max[rx (t)] (11)
where rX(t) is the time-dependent range index for a particular input
variable X, computed as
2 2
⎡ 1 j= Ns − 1 ⎛ Δεm2 (t ) ⎞ Ω Xj ⎤
rX (t ) = ⎢
N −1
∑ j= 1 ⎜ ⎟ 2 ⎥
⎣ s ⎝ ΔXj ⎠ Ωm2 (t ) ⎦ (12)
where Δεm2(t) denotes the change in the output variable εm2(t) when
the input variable is changed ΔX, ΩX is the standard deviation of X,
Ωm2(t) is the standard variation of the output and Ns is the number of
simulations per variable, i.e. Ns = 5. The range index normalizes the
average change of output for a given change of input using the variance
of the input and output variables.
Table 2 shows the resulting ranking of the input variables based on
RX. The most influential variables, corresponding to the rows shown
shaded in the table, include the compressive strength of the overlay,
fc28, the ultimate shrinkage strain, βs0, the creep strain, c1, the curing
time, t0, and the overlay thickness, ℓny. The input variables nc, a1, na, m
and a2 are discussed in the section of critical variables for the sensitivity
analysis. Some of the least influential variables are the modulus of
elasticity of the substrate, Ecs, the area of steel reinforcement, As, and
the number of elements used to model the cross section, Nf, among
others.
Fig. 4 shows the variation of the mid-height mechanical strain εm2(t)
with time for the three overlays on composite substrates. The various
lines types and markers shown are identical to those shown in Fig. 2.
The restraining effect of composite substrates is similar to that observed
for the concrete substrates and shows little variation with the size of the
steel shape.
The corresponding range indices RX are also summarized in Table 2.
The typical range of variation is small for the different steel shapes, and
the values are similar to the corresponding RX value computed for the
L. Orta and F.M. Bartlett Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110396

Fig. 3. Variation of mechanical strain εm2(t) with various parameters: (a) overlay concrete strength; (b) basic creep coefficient; (c) ultimate free shrinkage strain
parameter; (d) curing time; (e) steel reinforcement area; and f) number of fibres.

concrete substrate. category the area of steel reinforcement is fixed with a value corre-
sponding to the minimum shrinkage and temperature steel ratio of
0.18% [19]. For the shrinkage category the autogeneous shrinkage
4.2. Critical variables for sensitivity analysis
variables a1, a2 and na are computed from w/ce and t0 as recommended
by Orta and Bartlett [6]. Parameters a0, λ0, hc and ns are fixed at 0.05,
The parametric study results can be used to identify critical vari-
86.4 mm2/day, 0.8 and 11, respectively. Since the parametric study
ables in each category for the subsequent sensitivity analysis. The ob-
results shown in Table 2 indicate that the mechanical strain demand is
jective of filtering the input variables is to save computational time by
sensitive to a1, future experimental data should be obtained to confirm
neglecting variables that are not significant and so enhance the simu-
that the expressions proposed by Orta and Bartlett [6] accurately pre-
lation by improving the modeling of the distributions of the remaining
dict autogeneous shrinkage. For the creep category variables nc and m
input variables.
are not independent and their possible combinations are not unique [4].
The input variables for the sensitivity analysis are the overlay
The variables m and nc are assumed to be constant with values of 0.53
compressive strength fc28, the overlay thickness ℓny, the curing time t0,
and 0.28, respectively, because they represent the best fit to experi-
the ultimate shrinkage strain parameter βs0, the basic creep strain
mental data [4]. The variable rc for drying creep does not rank highly in
coefficient c1 and the environmental humidity hen.
Table 2 and so it is fixed at its mean value of 0.35. Similarly c0 is as-
The rest of the input variables are considered fixed. The modulus of
sumed constant with a value of 1.35. The number of elements Nf is fixed
elasticity of the substrate, Ecs, is fixed at 29.5 GPa. For the overlay
at 100.
category the cement content ce is fixed at value of 350 kg/m3 corre-
sponding to the minimum cementing materials for concrete used in
flatwork based on Tables 9–7 in CAC [18]. For the construction

5
L. Orta and F.M. Bartlett Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110396

Table 2 Table 3
Parameter ranking from parametric study. Statistical parameters for input variables.
Variable Ranking Parameter RX Variable Type Bias COV Distribution Source

Concrete W460 W760 WWF1400 βs 0

I 1.00 0.20 Normal Bazant and Baweja [14]
fc28 D 1.15 0.27† Lognormal Bartlett [23]
Overlay 1 fc28 8.3 8.1 7.5 6.5 ℓny D 1.06 0.30† Lognormal Kennedy et al. [24]
Creep 2 nc 3.5 2.9 3.5 4.2 c1 I 1.00 0.11 Lognormal Orta and Bartlett [13]
Shrinkage 3 βs0 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.8 t0 D 1.00 0.40 Lognormal Assumed
4 a1 3.5 4.0 3.9 3.7 hen I 1.00 0.58 Uniform Assumed
Creep 5 c1 3.3 2.9 3.3 3.4
Shrinkage 6 na 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 †
Assumed double the COV for a Type I random variable.
Construction 7 t0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Overlay 8 ℓny 3.0 1.7 1.3 1.0
Creep 9 m 2.6 3.0 2.4 2.0
coefficient of variation of 0.27 is approximately twice that re-
Shrinkage 10 a2 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.2 commended by Bartlett [23] and so allows fc28 to be represented as a
Environment 11 hen 2.4 1.8 1.8 2.0 decision random variable, Type D. The distribution was assumed log-
Shrinkage 12 hc 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 normal to avoid negative magnitudes and was truncated at 20 MPa as
Creep 13 rc 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3
convergence becomes problematic for lower concrete strengths.
Overlay 14 ce 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Shrinkage 15 ns 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 The total concrete deck thickness is assumed to have a nominal
Creep 16 c0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 value of 700 mm for a concrete substrate or 250 mm for a composite
Substrate 17 Ecs 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 steel substrate. The nominal overlay depth in either case is 150 mm
Shrinkage 18 a0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 with a bias coefficient of 1.06 [24] and a coefficient of variation of 0.3.
19 λ0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Modeling 20 Nf 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
This coefficient of variation is also approximately twice the re-
Construction 21 As 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 commended value by Kennedy et al. [24] to explore a larger range of
overlay thicknesses.
The mean duration of curing of 4 days corresponds to the minimum
5. Sensitivity analysis curing in specifications for partial-depth and full-depth overlays in
Ontario Canada [5, personal communication MTO] and the coefficient
The results are quantified using correlation coefficients, ρX(t), and of variation was selected to reflect short and long curing periods, ran-
sensitivity indices, SX(t). A positive correlation coefficient means that ging between the maxima of t0 shown in Table 1. The distributions of
increasing the magnitude of an input random variable increases the ℓny and t0 are also assumed lognormal to avoid negative values.
mechanical strain. A large sensitivity index indicates an input random The factor for the creep compliance function c1 reflects test-to-
variable that contributes significantly to the variance of the mechanical predicted values obtained in a previous investigation and its nominal
strain. The correlation coefficient can be used to rank the impact of value of 0.71 is also reported [4]. The random environmental humidity,
each input variable on the magnitude of the mechanical strain, whereas hen, is assumed time-independent and takes values from 0.4 to 0.9 to
the sensitivity index indicates the effectiveness of controlling the reflect locations with very low and very high relative humidities.
variability of an input variable to reduce the variability of the me- Each random variable is sampled using the Latin Hypercube
chanical strain. Sampling (LHS) technique [25]. The number of samples per variable is
The accurate calculation of the sensitivity indices requires prob- denoted Ns and the sampling process is repeated for all k input vari-
ability distributions of the variables. Two types of randomness are ables. All the sample points are stored in a matrix M which has Ns rows
considered. Type D denotes a decision random variable that depends on and k columns.
a decision, like time of curing, and so can be controlled by the designer The analysis generates the output vector as
or contractor. Type I denotes an inherently random variable with an
Y (t) = g(M) (13)
established nominal value that cannot be controlled as efficiently, like
the environmental humidity hen. where Y(t) denotes the evaluation of the mechanical strain εm2(t) using
Table 3 summarizes the six variables considered for the sensitivity THAM[4] as the function g(·).
analysis, indicating whether the variable is type D or Type I and pro- The correlation coefficient is computed as
vides the bias coefficient, coefficient of variation (COV), distribution
ρX (t ) = bX (t ) [ΩX /ΩY (t )] (14)
type and typical range for each input variable.
The variable βs0 corresponds to calibration of the ultimate (long- where ΩX denotes the standard deviation of X, ΩY (t) denotes the
term) free shrinkage strain using Model B3. The coefficient of variation standard deviation of Y(t) and bX(t) corresponds to the fitted coefficient
is reported by Bazant and Baweja [15], the mean value is assumed 1.3 of a linear regression analysis.
[6] and the distribution is assumed normal. To compute the sensitivity indices, three sample matrices are
The variable fc28 is based on an assumed nominal compressive needed [26]. The first two matrices, M1 and M2, are sampled in-
strength of 30 MPa [5], with a bias coefficient of 1.15 [23]. The dependently using the LHS technique [25]. The third matrix is

Fig. 4. Mechanical strains εm2(t) for different composite substrates: (a) W460; (b) W760; (c) WWF1400.

6
L. Orta and F.M. Bartlett
generated for each random variable by replacing the j-th column of M2
with the j-th column of M1 to form the matrix M3j, for j = 1,2,…k. The
analysis generates three output vectors Y1(t), Y2(t) and Y3j(t) using M1,
M2 and M3j, respectively: Y1(t) and Y2(t) each represent the magnitude
of the mechanical strain εm2(t) when all the variables are sampled in-
dependently, Y3j(t) represents the magnitude of the mechanical strain
εm2(t) when all the input variables are resampled except the random
variable Xj.
The first-order sensitivity index SX(t) is computed as [26]
YT1 Y3j − Ns (mY1)2
SX (t) =
YT1 Y1 − Ns (mY1)2 (15)
where mY1 is the mean of Y1(t).
For additive, monotonic and non–linear models, the sum of the
j= N
sensitivity indices at any time equals one, βX = ∑j= 1 s SXj (t) = 1.
Additive models are models where the variance of the output is exactly
the sum of the variances of each independent input variable. For models
that are not additive, the parameter βX < 1 and the reminder, 1 − βX,
represents the fraction of the variance of the mechanical strain εm2 that
cannot be explained solely on the variance of each input variable and it
is attributable to the combination of input variables.
5.1. Results of sensitivity analysis
The total number of simulations required is N = Ns(k + 2). In the
current investigation, 1000 points per variable were used to conduct
the sensitivity analysis, resulting in 8000 simulations.
Fig. 5 shows the variation of ρX(t) for different input variables for
the four substrates considered, one concrete slab and three composite
steel beams, over a period of 50 years of drying. The logarithmic time
scale has been selected to highlight the early and late effects of each
variable on the mechanical strain demand. A positive ρX(t) indicates
that larger values of the variable are associated with larger values of the
mechanical strain demands.
Fig. 5a indicates that the correlation coefficients for the ultimate
free shrinkage strain parameter, βs0, are quite similar for concrete or
composite steel substrates. It has a fixed positive value of approximately
0.3 throughout the life of the overlay and consequently its impact on
the mechanical strain demands is significant. As expected, increasing
βs0 will increase the mechanical strains in the overlay and substrate.
Fig. 5b shows that the correlation coefficients for the compression
strength of the overlay are similar for concrete or composite steel
substrates. The ρX(t) value is initially positive, for times less than seven
days (concrete substrate) or less than five days (composite steel sub-
strate) because overlays with large fc28 will also have large moduli of
elasticity and consequently large stresses due to restrained shrinkage at
very young ages. For overlays on concrete substrates, ρX(t) becomes
increasingly negative between 7 days and 100 days, and subsequently
stays approximately constant at − 0.6. For composite steel substrates, ρX
(t) becomes increasingly negative as t approaches 100 days, reaching a
minimum value of − 0.75, and subsequently approaches a constant
value of approximately − 0.2. The average correlation coefficient for
the compressive strength of the overlay is –0.45 for a concrete substrate
and –0.31 for a composite/steel substrate. Therefore larger overlay
compressive strengths, achieved by decreasing the water content in the
mix and so decreasing the water-to-cementing materials ratio, is pre-
ferred to decrease the magnitude of the mechanical strain demands. It is
not cost-effective to increase the cement content to increase fc28.
Fig. 5c shows that the correlation coefficient for the overlay thick-
ness is negative throughout the time of drying with a minimum mag-
nitude of − 0.1 and − 0.2 for periods between 4 day and 20 days for
concrete and steel substrates, respectively. At later ages the average
correlation coefficient is roughly − 0.3 for composite substrates and
− 0.5 for concrete substrates. Overall, composite systems are slightly
less sensitive to ℓny. Thick overlays on concrete substrates or full-depth
7
Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110396
overlays on composite substrates are subjected to less restraint and so
the restraint-induced mechanical strains are smaller. Khan et al[11]
observed a similar influence of restraint rigidity in ring experiments.
Thick overlays may not be cost-effective, however, and other con-
trollable variables can be investigated before opting to increase the
overlay thickness.
The correlation coefficients for the basic creep factor c1 are ap-
proximately zero as shown in Fig. 5d. These results suggest that there is
not a clear linear correlation between creep and mechanical strains, or
at least a better characterization than a linear model is needed. This
finding is discussed afterwards.
Fig. 5e shows that the correlation coefficient for the curing time t0 is
positive, being extremely important for drying periods < 10 days, i.e.
for t < 14 days. As the drying period is increased, ρX(t) decreases ra-
pidly irrespectively of the type of substrate. The effect of curing for
longer than 4 days is only critical during the first 10 days, suggesting
that the overlay may be susceptible to cracking during this time but if
no cracks are detected from an inspection at 10 days the effect of curing
is unlikely to be a cause of later cracking.
Finally, Fig. 5f shows that the correlation coefficient for the en-
vironmental humidity is negative, as expected, t > 7 days. This con-
firms that the restrained shrinkage phenomenon is more likely to be a
problem in environments with low relative humidity. Knowing the
magnitude of the environmental humidity accurately is therefore par-
ticularly important for predicting long-term mechanical strain de-
mands.
Fig. 6 shows the resulting sensitivity indices SX(t) when the overlay
acts with a concrete substrate or with a composite system for the three
different steel beams investigated. A sensitivity index close to one in-
dicates the variance of the output is sensitive to variation of the par-
ticular input variable.
Fig. 6a shows that the sensitivity indices for βs0 are similar when the
substrate is a concrete slab or steel beams. Over the lifetime of the
overlay, the value of SX(t) remains constant at approximately 0.1. Thus
roughly 10% of the variance of the mechanical strain demand is due to
the variance of the ultimate shrinkage strain coefficient.
The relative high sensitivity indices for fc28 shown in Fig. 6b in-
dicate that it is a very important variable. The sensitivity index in-
creases until the drying period reaches approximately 100 days when
the maximum indices of 0.5 and 0.65 occur for concrete and composite
substrates, respectively. At 1 000 days the sensitivity index reduces to
approximately 0.1 for composite substrates and to a value averaging
0.25 for concrete substrates.
Fig. 6c shows the sensitivity indices for the thickness of the overlay.
Overall, the variance of the mechanical strain demands for concrete
substrates is slightly more influenced by ℓny than for composite sub-
strates. For concrete substrates the maximum index of 0.3 occurs at
40 days, whereas for composite substrates the index stays constant at
approximately 0.1 after 40 days.
Fig. 6d shows that the basic creep factor c1 does not have an effect
on the variability of εm2. The effect of c1 on εm2 is discussed in Fig. 7.
Fig. 6e shows that the variance of t0 contributes to the variance of
the mechanical strains only during the first 10 days. At later ages its
contribution is not significant.
Finally, Fig. 6f shows that the variability of the environmental hu-
midity affects the variability of the mechanical strains for drying per-
iods larger than 100 days. The composite substrates are more sensitive
to the environmental humidity given that the maximum sensitivity
index of 0.75 is larger than that of 0.45 for concrete substrates. This is a
result of the substrate thickness. Composite systems have thin slabs that
makes the overlay lose moisture rapidly and so the environmental hu-
midity becomes an important variable, similar to creep strains.
Fig. 7 shows the variability εm2 with respect to c1 at four different
times of drying. The variation is not linear and therefore supports the
results of ρX(t) shown in Fig. 5d. Fig. 7 also implies that the effect of c1
on εm2 is of high order, i.e. it is the interaction of c1 with the other
L. Orta and F.M. Bartlett
Fig. 5. Correlation coefficient ρX(t) for input variables: (a) Ultimate shrinkage coefficient; (b) concrete strength; (c) overlay thickness; (d) basic creep coefficient; (e)
curing time; and (f) environmental humidity.
factors that create the variability of εm2. The mechanical strain εm2
varies from 0 to approximately 300 μm/m and thus the creep coefficient
is a significant variable.
The most important variables are the compressive strength of the
overlay, the overlay thickness, and the time of curing. It is re-
commended to use strong concretes (with 28-day strengths greater than
or equal to 30 MPa) for the overlay, achieving such strengths by de-
creasing the water content and so the water-to-cementing materials
ratio while maintaining a minimum cementing material content of
350 kg/m3 as recommended by the Cement Association of Canada [18].
Thick overlays are less prone to cracking and that controlling thickness
variability is effective in reducing the variability of the mechanical
strain demands, particularly for concrete substrates. Although the
overlay thickness is controllable it may not be cost-effective to use thick
overlays as this may require otherwise unnecessary removal of sound
substrate material. Composite systems are less sensitive to the varia-
bility of the overlay thickness and more sensitive to the environmental
humidity.
The environmental humidity is the most important uncontrollable
variable, suggesting that the variability of the mechanical strains pre-
dicted using THAM is greatly influenced by the variability of the en-
vironmental humidity. Thus the uncertainty of the mechanical strains
8
Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110396
for concrete overlays in regions with low environmental humidity is
greater.
The sum of the sensitivity index SX is on average 0.64, indicating
that only 64% of the variance of the mechanical strain demands is ex-
plained by the variance of each input variable. The remainder is due to
interactions and non-monotonic behavior of the input variables [26].
6. Summary and conclusions
This investigation presents a parametric and sensitivity analysis of
cracking of concrete overlays of various thicknesses cast on concrete
and composite steel substrates subjected to restrained shrinkage strains.
A parametric study is performed that quantifies the importance of
substrate materials, overlay material, construction practices, shrinkage
parameters, creep parameters, environmental humidity and modeling
variables using a range index to identify the critical variables for in-
vestigation in the sensitivity analysis. The initial list of 21 input vari-
ables is reduced to six critical variables: the ultimate shrinkage strain
parameter, the overlay concrete compressive strength, the overlay
thickness, the tension creep constant, the duration of the curing, and
the environmental humidity. The results of the sensitivity analysis,
quantified using the correlation coefficient between each input variable
L. Orta and F.M. Bartlett
Fig. 6. Sensitivity index SX(t) for input variables: (a) Ultimate shrinkage coefficient; (b) concrete strength; (c) overlay thickness; (d) basic creep coefficient; (e) curing
time; and (f) environmental humidity.
and the mechanical strain demand, indicate that the overlay compres-
sive strength and its thickness and the time of curing are significant
variables and the tension creep strain constant is not significant. This is
a very important finding because these significant variables can be
controlled to reduce the likelihood of the overlay concrete.
The following conclusions are drawn:
1. The most important variables that influence the mechanical strain
demands are the overlay compressive strength, the duration of
curing and the overlay thickness.
2. The overlay compressive strength has a negative correlation with
the mechanical strain demand: higher compressive strengths reduce
the tensile strains in the overlay due to restrained shrinkage and so
the likelihood of cracking. The overlay concrete should have a
minimum 28-day compressive strength of 30 MPa, as is re-
commended in current MTO practices. This minimum strength
should be achieved by decreasing the water content and so the
water-to-cementing materials ratio, not increasing the cement con-
tent.
3. The duration of curing has a strong positive correlation to the mid-
depth tensile strain in the overlay during the first ten days of drying
only: prolonged curing periods may provide other benefits but they
allow the stiffness of the overlay to increase before any shrinkage
takes place. If cracking does not occur during the first ten days of
drying, later cracking is unlikely to be attributed to prolonged
9
Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110396
curing times.
4. The overlay thickness is negatively correlated to tensile strains in
the overlay. Thin overlays are restrained by relative stiffer sub-
strates and dry quickly, so they are more likely to crack. The use of
thick overlays may not be cost–effective, however, as it typically
requires sound substrate material to be removed.
5. The most critical uncontrollable variable is the environmental hu-
midity. It has a strong negative correlation coefficient, –0.6, with the
maximum overlay tensile strains for overlays cast on concrete sub-
strates and –0.78 for overlays cast on steel substrates. Overlay
cracking due to restrained shrinkage is therefore attributable to low
environmental humidity: greater environmental humidity reduce
moisture loss in the overlay and so reduce drastically the magnitude
of the mechanical strains that produce cracking.
6. The tensile strain demands in the overlay are not sensitive to the
type of substrate system investigated. For example the range index
of the curing time is the same for all cases of the different substrate
considered in the present investigation. The average correlation
coefficient for the compressive strength of the overlay is –0.45 for a
concrete substrate and –0.31 for a composite/steel substrate. The
results of the sensitivity analysis are consistent for both cases con-
crete and composite/steel substrates.
L. Orta and F.M. Bartlett
Fig. 7. Mechanical strain εm2 for different values of c1: (a) t − t0 = 101 days; (b) t − t0 = 102 days; (c) t − t0 = 103 days; and (d) t − t0 = 104 days.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
L. Orta: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal ana-
lysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft. F.M. Bartlett: Supervision,
Writing - review & editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The research reported in this paper was made possible by the fi-
nancial support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council (NSERC) of Canada and the National Council on Science and
Technology (CONACyT) of Mexico. The authors would like to express
their gratitude to these organizations for their support.
References
[1] Wells J, Stark R, Polyzois D. Getting better bond in concrete overlays. Concr Int
1999;21(3):49–52.
[2] Carter P, Gurjar S, Wong J. Debonding of highway bridge deck overlays. Concr Int
2002;24(7):51–8.
[3] Silfwerbrand J, Paulsson J. Better Bonding of Bridge Deck Overlays. Concr Int
1998;20(10):56–61.
[4] Orta L, Bartlett M. Stresses due to restrained shrinkage in concrete deck overlays.
ACI Mater J 2014;111(6):701–10.
[5] Orta L. Restrained shrinkage in bridge decks with concrete overlays PhD.
Dissertation The University of Western Ontario; 2009. p. 215 pp.
[6] Orta L, Bartlett M. Free shrinkage strains in concrete overlays. ACI Mater J
2014;111(3):263–71.
[7] Orta L, Bartlett FM. Restrained concrete shrinkage in composite trusses. Can J Civil
Eng, Struct Eng 2012;39(7):779–88.
[8] Silfwerbrand J. Stresses and strains in composite concrete beams subjected to dif-
ferential shrinkage. ACI J 1997;94(4):347–53.
[9] Scollard C, Bartlett M. Rehabilitation criteria for post-tensioned voided-slab bridges.
Can J Civ Eng 2004;31(6):997–1987.
[10] Rahman M, Baluch M, Al-Gadhib A. Modeling of shrinkage and creep stresses in
concrete repair. ACI Mater J 1999;96(5):542–51.
10
Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110396
[11] Khan I, Castel A, Gilbert R. Tensile creep and early-age cracking due to restrained
shrinkage. Constr Build Mater 2017;149:705–15.
[12] American Concrete Institute Committee 209 (2008): Prediction of Creep, Shrinkage
and Temperature Effects in Concrete Structures (ACI 209.2R–08). American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 48 pp.
[13] Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications (2006): Construction Specification for
Structure Rehabilitation-Concrete Patches Refacing and Overlays OPSS 930.
Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications, 22 pp.
[14] Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (2004): CAN/CSA S16–01, Handbook of
Steel Construction, Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, Willowdale, Canada.
[15] Bazant Z, Baweja S. Creep and shrinkage prediction model for analysis and design of
concrete structures: model B3. The Adam Neville Symposium: Creep and Shrinkage
– Structural Design Effects. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI Special Publication 194,
American Concrete Institute; 2000. p. 1–100.
[16] Comité Euro–International Du Béton. (1993): CEB–fib Model Code 1990 – Design
Code. Thomas Telford, London, Great Britain, 437 pp.
[17] Bazant Z, Chern J. Concrete Creep at Variable Humidity: Constitutive Law and
Mechanism. Mater Struct 1985;18(1):1–20.
[18] Cement Association of Canada (2002). Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures.
Seventh Canadian Edition, Ottawa, Canada, 356pp.
[19] American Concrete Institute Committee 318 (2008): Building Code Requirements
for Structural Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318–08). American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 465 pp.
[20] Bazant Z, Najjar L. Drying of Concrete as a Nonlinear Diffusion Problem. Cem Concr
Res 1971;1(5):461–73.
[21] Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) CSA S6–06 (2006). Canadian
Standards Association, Toronto, Canada, 733 pp.
[22] Bissonnette B, Pigeon M, Vaysburd A. Tensile creep of concrete: study of its sen-
sitivity to basic parameters. ACI Mater J 2007;104(4):360–8.
[23] Bartlett F. Assessment of concrete strength in existing structures PhD. Dissertation
Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta; 1994. p. 297 pp.
[24] Kennedy J, Gagnon D, Allen D, MacGregor J. Canadian highway bridge evaluation:
load and resistance factors. Can J Civ Eng 1992;19(6):991–1006.
[25] Iman R, Conover W. Small sample sensitivity analysis techniques for computer
models, with an application to risk assessment. Commun Statist, Theory Methods
1980;A9(17):1749–842.
[26] Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T, Campolongo F, Cariboni J, Gatelli D, et al. Global
sensitivity analysis. The primer. West Sussex, Great Britain: John Wiley and Sons
Ltd; 2008. p. 292.
Luis Orta is Assistant Professor at Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico. He received his
Ph.D. from The University of Western Ontario. His research interests include the long-
term response of concrete structures.
F. Michael Bartlett is Professor Emeritus of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. His research interests include challenges
encountered when rehabilitating existing bridges.