Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

Annual Transactions of IESL, pp.

[127-134],
[page range],
20132013
The Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka

Study on Applicability of ACI and DoE Mix Design


Methods for Paving Blocks
K. Baskaran and K. Gopinath
Abstract: Applicability of either ACI or DoE mix design method for paving blocks is limited in the
published literature. Further, small scale paving block manufacturers struggle at the initial stages to come
up with mix proportions. In view of the above, a comparative study on both ACI and DoE mix design
methods, to select the initial mix proportion for the paving blocks was carried out in the present study.
Quantities of constituents were estimated for characteristic compressive strengths (cylinder strength for
ACI method and cube strength for DoE method), from 15 N/mm2 to 50 N/mm2. Based on the estimated
proportions, trial mixes were cast and tested for compression at 7 and 28 days.
When paving blocks are mix proportioned as per ACI mix design method, the achieved compressive
strengths are higher than the compressive strength requirements of Sri Lankan Standard for paving
blocks. Whereas a correlation being observed between the achieved compressive strength of paving blocks
and the grade designation.
Similarly, when paving blocks are mix designed as per the DoE mix design method, the achieved
compressive strengths satisfied the compressive strength requirements of Sri Lankan Standard for Classes
2, 3 and 4 roads.
Keywords:

1.
1.1

Paving blocks, Mix design, Trial mix, ACI Method, DoE Method

contemporary mix proportioning methods to be


unsuitable to CPBs. Thereby necessitate either
modification of the contemporary methods or
identification of new mix design methods.

Introduction
General

As a successful alternative to the conventional


road systems such as flexible and rigid concrete
pavements, Concrete Paving Blocks (CPBs)
have well suited in the Sri Lankan highway
industry. However, much more work is yet to
be accomplished, if the industry is to be fully
developed.

In all these cases, the basic ingredients in


concrete paving blocks are the same. But it is
their relative proportions that make the
differences with respect to their performance
and durability.
1.3

In line with this, a considerable attempt being


taken in the areas of abrasion [1-4] and partial
replacement of waste material as a constituent
for paving blocks [5-13]. However, a less effort
being observed to either develop a new mix
design method or to modify the existing
methods to cater the paving blocks initial mix
design [14, 15,19].
1.2

Requirements for Mix Design of CPBs

1.3.1 Compressive Strength Class


Compressive strength is a dominant measure to
assess the performance of CPBs in many
countries. However, this compressive strength
requirement seems to vary among countries to
facilitate different local conditions such as
traffic loads, environmental aspects, weather
etc. Table 1.1 briefly summarizes the different
compressive strength requirements of paving
blocks in various countries.

Mix Proportioning of CPBs

The prime purpose of mix proportioning of


paving blocks is to decide the relative
proportions of ingredients while meeting the
requirements given in standard practices in
most economical way. However, it is the
performance
requirements
and
their
dimensional characteristics that make the

Dr. K. Baskaran, B.Sc.Eng.(Hons)(Peradeniya), PhD


(Cambridge), Senior Lecturer, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Moratuwa.
Eng. K.Gopinath, B.Sc Eng (Hons) (Moratuwa), M.Sc Eng.
(Moratuwa), AMIE(Sri Lanka), Lecturer (Probationary),
Department of Civil Engineering, General Sir John Kotelawala
Defence University.

127

ENGINEER

Table 1.3 - Different road classes and their


corresponding
strength,
thickness
requirements as per Sri Lankan Standard (SLS
1425: Part 1: 2011) [17]

Table 1.1 - Strength requirements of the


paving blocks in various countries [5]
Country

Compressive Strength
(MPa)
55
54
40
59
50
60
52
50
60
43
45

United States
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Italy
Germany
Denmark
Canada
Belgium
Australia
Hong Kong

Strength
Class

M-40

40

M-50

50

M-55

55

Recommended
Minimum Block
Thickness
(mm)

Specified Compressive
Strength of Paving
Blocks at 28 Day
(N/mm2)
35

Traffic Category

Grade Designation of
Paving Blocks
M-35

40
32
25
12

80, 100
80, 100
80, 100
60

Correction factors

Plain
Chamfered
block
block a)
60
1.00
1.06
80
1.12
1.18
100
1.18
1.24
Blocks with chamfer of work size greater
than 5 mm in width

Thickness correction factors recommended in


the Sri Lankan Standard for paving blocks [18]
are tabulated in Table 1.4. Whereas the adjusted
compressive strength is calculated as given in
the equation below:

50

Compressive
=
Strength

60

Failure load
Plan Area X

Correction
Factor

1.3.2 Type of cement

80

The compressive strength gaining rate of


paving
blocks,
durability
in
severe
environments,
durability
under
heavily
trafficked roadways are depend upon the
cement type.

100
120

1.3.3 Workability of paving blocks

Sri Lankan Standard for CPBs which, at first


time, published in 2011 [17, 18] had taken the
above issues into account but in line with local
traffic volumes. The compressive strength and
the corresponding thickness requirements
according to the Sri Lankan Standard for CPBs
are given in Table 1.3. These compressive
strength requirements vary from 15 N/mm2 to
50 N/mm2 corresponding to the Strength Class
4 to Strength Class 1.

The working property of paving block is its dry


consistency. Mechanical vibration of the mould
enables adequate compaction and removal of
the mould soon after filling. Thereby making of
paving block is less time consuming. Roller
compacted concrete and earth moist concrete
are [19] few examples of concrete with dry
consistency. In spite of this, ACI 211.1 91 [30]
recommends to use a slump range from 25 mm
to 75 mm for pavements. However, Indian
2

ENGINEER

50
40
30
15

Work size
thickness
(mm)

a)

Non
Traffic
Light
Traffic
Medium
Traffic
Heavy
Traffic
Very
Heavy
Traffic

Individual

Block
Thickness
(mm)

Table 1.4 - Thickness and chamfer correction


factors for compressive strength as per Sri
Lankan Standard (SLS 1425: Part 1: 2011) [17]

Table 1.2 - Recommended grades of paving


blocks for different traffic categories as per
Indian Standard (IS 15658:2006) [16]

30

Average
1Class A
2Class B
3Class C
4Foot paths

In the meantime, Indian standard for paving


blocks suggests using different compressive
strengths to meet different traffic requirements
of roads [16], which are tabulated in Table 1.2.

M-30

Compressive Strength
(N/mm2)

128

roads as per Sri Lankan Standard. Based on the


above calculated proportions trial mixes were
cast and tested for compressive strength at 7
and 28 days. This experimentally achieved
compressive strength was compared with the
targeted mean compressive strength, leading to
suggest a mix proportioning method for
concrete paving blocks in line with the
requirements meant in Sri Lankan Standard for
CPBs.

Standard for concrete paving block [16]


recommends zero slumps. While it is found that
many manufacturers are also using zero slumps
to make concrete paving blocks. Yet the choice
of slump range should be based on the
following aspects as well:
Grout leakage, segregation and bleeding
should not be allowed during casting.
Shape of concrete paving block should be
maintained after de moulding at green stage.
Smooth surface texture and sharp edges
should be retained after direct stripping.
Deformations in shape, edges should not be
observed while transporting the blocks.

3.

Programme

and

3.1 Selection of Materials

1.3.4 Maximum nominal size of aggregates

Cement:
Ordinary Portland cement was used as a
binding material, which belongs to a strength
class of 42.5 N and it is in compliance with SLS
107: Specification for Ordinary Portland
Cement.

It is experimentally verified that for any given


strength of concrete (for a given w/c ratio),
there is an optimum maximum size of
aggregate
[21].
Moreover,
with
large
aggregates, surface area to be wetted per unit
mass will be reduced, thereby the water
demand of the concrete mix shall be reduced;
hence high strength shall be optimized [21].
This observation shall be incorporated in the
selection of coarse aggregates for paving blocks
as well. However, neither Sri Lankan Standard
[17 and 18] nor the British standards [22, 23 and
24] nor American standard [25] have any clue
about the maximum size of aggregates to be
used. Whereas the Indian Standard [16]
specifies the nominal maximum size of coarse
aggregate to be 12 mm for paving blocks.
Husken and Brouwers 2008 [19] have reported
several empirical formulae, which accounted
maximum aggregate size as a factor that
governs the strength of paving blocks.

Coarse Aggregates:
In ACI mix design method, single graded
coarse aggregates were used with maximum
size of 9.5 mm and minimum size of 4.75 mm.
Coarse aggregates were having a specific
gravity of 2.71 and dry bulk density of 1456
kg/m3 in compliance with ASTM C127-12 [26].
In DoE mix design method, coarse aggregates
were used with the maximum size of 10 mm
and minimum size of 5 mm. They were having
a specific gravity of 2.73 and dry bulk density
of 1456 kg/m3 in accordance with BS 812: Part
2: 1995 [27].
Fine Aggregates:
In ACI mix design method, fine aggregate used
was in compliance with ASTM C 33: 1992 [28]
and its sieve analysis results are shown in Table
3.1.

1.3.5 Minimum cement content


BS 6717: Part 1: 1993 [24] specified the
minimum binder content to be 380 kg/m3 in
order to look after the durability issues.
However, the recent British Standards for
concrete paving blocks [22 and 23] excluded the
above requirement. While imposed minimum
requirements for abrasion resistance which is a
durability measure. It was reported [19] that
even with 325 kg/m3 of cement content
adequate strength can be achieved in paving
blocks.

2.

Experimental
Discussion

In the DoE mix design method, fine aggregates


confirmed to the grading of BS 882: 1992 [29]
and satisfied M (medium) and F (Fine) grade, of
which 59.75 % passed through a 600 m sieve.
The sieve analysis results are shown in Table
3.2.
Water:
Ordinary tap (drinking) water was used
throughout the work of present investigation.

Methodology

Established mix design methods such as ACI


and DoE were used to estimate the constituents
of paving blocks for different strength classes of

Additives:
Neither additives nor pigments were used in
whatsoever form.
3

129

ENGINEER

Table 3.1 - Sieve analysis of fine aggregates according to ASTM C33 - 92a [28] for ACI Method
Sieve Size
(mm)

Mass
Retained (g)

4.75
2.36
1.18
0.60
0.30
0.15
pan
Total

0
139
525
945
926
307
103
2946

% Retained

Cumulative %
Retained

Cumulative %
Passing

0
5
18
32
31
1
4

0
5
23
55
86
97
100

100
95
77
45
14
4
0

Limits according to
ASTM C33 - 92a
Min
Max
95
100
80
100
50
85
25
60
10
30
2
10

Table 3.2 - Sieve analysis of fine aggregates according to BS 812; Section 103.1: 1985 [29] for DoE
Method
Limits according to BS 882: 1992
Sieve
Size
(mm)

Mass
Retained
(g)

5.00
2.36
1.18
0.60
0.30
0.15
pan
Total

0
71
185
346
477
275
143
1498

%
Retained
0
5
12
23
32
18
10

Cumulative

Cumulative

%
Retained

%
Passing

0
5
17
40
72
90
100

100
95
83
60
28
10
0

Min
89
60
30
15
5
0

Max
100
100
100
100
70
15

Moderate
Range

Fine Range

Min
100
65
45
25
5
0

Min
100
80
70
55
5
0

Max
100
100
100
80
48
0

Max
100
100
100
100
70
0

3.3 Concrete Paving Block Making


Concrete paving block making machine as
shown in the Figure 3.1 was used to cast paving
blocks. The prepared wet mix was laid as a first
layer to the moulds as shown in Figure 3.2. A
steel rod was used to evenly distribute the wet
mix in the mould and then mechanically
vibrated for about 20 seconds (or till grout
leakage was observed).

3.2 Mix Preparation


Mix proportions were estimated as per both
ACI [30] and DoE mix design methods [31].
With these mix designs at hand, trial mixes
were prepared in the laboratory following
standard procedures. Paving blocks, cylinders
with 150 mm diameter and 300 mm height and
150 mm cubes were cast. Whereas, three
samples represent the average compressive
strength for paving blocks, cylinders and cubes.
The mix proportions used in ACI and DoE
methods verification are presented in Table 3.3
and 3.4, respectively.
Based on the calculated mix proportions,
required quantities of the materials were
weighed. Moisture content of both fine and
coarse aggregates was measured and moisture
adjustments were done to bring them to
saturated surface dry condition. The coarse
aggregate, fine aggregate and cement were
placed in the concrete mixer and water was
gradually added to the mix. These ingredients
were then mixed thoroughly till a uniform
concrete mix was produced. The mixing time
was kept constant for all different mix
proportions.

Figure 3.1 - Concrete paving block making


machine

Figure 3.2 - After a first layer of wet concrete is laid


in the process of making concrete paving block
4

ENGINEER

Overall
Limit

130

Table 3.3 - Mix proportions per 1 m3 of wet concrete after moisture content adjustment for ACI mix
design method
Specified
strength
(N/mm2)

Average
strength
(N/mm2)

40
35
30
25
20
15

48.6
43.6
33.3
28.3
23.3
18.3

W/C

Dry bulk
volume of
coarse
aggregate

First
estimate of
density
(kg/m3)

Cement
(kg/m3)

Coarse
aggregate
(kg/m3)

Fine
aggregate
(kg/m3)

Water
(kg/m3)

0.35
0.39
0.50
0.56
0.63
0.72

0.475
0.475
0.475
0.475
0.475
0.475

2280
2280
2280
2280
2280
2280

590
528
418
372
328
286

692.5
692.5
692.5
692.5
692.5
692.5

794.2
856.6
966.9
1013.6
1057.3
1099.2

218.0
218.4
219.1
219.4
219.7
219.9

Table 3.4 - Mix proportions per 1 m3 of wet concrete after moisture content adjustment for DoE
mix design method

Grade

Target
strength
(N/mm2)

50
40
30
15

63.2
53.2
43.2
24.8

W/C

0.4
0.47
0.54
0.76

Wet
density
(kg/m3)

Total
aggregate
(kg/m3)

Cement
(kg/m3)

Coarse
aggregate
(kg/m3)

Fine
aggregate
(kg/m3)

Water
(kg/m3)

2432.4
2432.4
2432.4
2432.4

1769.6
1843.1
1895.3
1995.8

474.4
401.0
348.8
248.2

1152.1
1186.7
1193.2
1170.8

621.6
660.6
706.5
829.8

202.0
202.5
202.9
203.5

Table 3.5 - ACI method verification testing results for concrete paving blocks and cylinders

Mix

Specified
strength
(N/mm2)

Achieved compressive strength (N/mm2)

Average
strength
(N/mm2)

40

48.6

35

43.6

30

33.3

25

28.3

20

23.3

15

18.3

7 Day
Cylinder
(Average)

CPBs
57.0
55.4
59.6
47.5
48.2
49.8
40.4
40.4
41.2
42.5
36.3
33.2
26.6
31.7
29.3
19.4
20.7
20.4

28 Day

57.3

38.6

48.5

40.7

31.3

37.3

29.2

20.2

16.7

Cylinder
(Average)

CPBs
65.8
64.3
61.8
54.4
55.6
58.6
50.5
49.1
47.4
43.1
41.4
43.4
32.9
30.7
34.2
25.3
25.8
25.7

64.0

41.4

56.2

48.9

35.0

42.6

32.6

25.6

21.3

131

ENGINEER

Figure 3.3 - Correlation between achieved compressive strengths at both 7 day and 28 day and the
grade designation of concrete paving blocks as per ACI method
Table 3.6 - DoE method verification testing results for concrete paving blocks and cubes
Specified
characteristic
strength
(N/mm2)

Target
mean
strength
(N/mm2)

50

63.2

40

53.2

30

43.2

15

24.8

Mix

Average achieved compressive strength


(N/mm2)
7 Day
Cube
(Average)

CPBs
46.2
44.9
45.1
39.8
40.2
39.3
31.7
31.0
29.6
26.9
27.8
28.8

45.4

41.1

39.8

33.8

30.7

23.7

27.8

16.6

CPBs
49.0
48.1
48.3
42.6
42.1
41.8
34.2
31.6
29.6
28.9
32.8
30.6

Cube
(Average)

48.5

52.0

42.2

42.3

31.8

32.4

30.8

21.3

It is observed from Table 3.6 that the achieved


compressive strengths of paving blocks as per
DoE mix design method are higher than the
required compressive strengths for Classes 2, 3
and 4 roads (refer Table 1.4) as per Sri Lankan
Standard for paving blocks.

It is observed from Figure 3.3 and Table 3.5 that


when concrete paving blocks are mix designed
as per ACI method, the achieved compressive
strengths of paving blocks are higher than the
required compressive strengths of Sri Lankan
Standard for paving blocks by 60% to 70%.
Further, a correlation was observed between
the achieved compressive strength of paving
blocks at 7 day 28 days and their respective
grade designations.

ENGINEER

28 Day

132

7.

4. Conclusions and Recommendation


It can be concluded that when paving blocks
are mix proportioned as per ACI method, the
achieved compressive strength of paving blocks
at 7 day and 28 day are higher than the
required compressive strengths that specified in
the Sri Lankan Standard for Paving Blocks.
Further, a correlation was observed between
the achieved compressive strengths of paving
blocks and their corresponding grade
designations. However, similar studies to
confirm the findings also recommended.

8.

9.

Similarly, the achieved compressive strengths


of paving blocks satisfied the compressive
strength requirements of Sri Lankan Standard
for Paving blocks as per the DoE mix design
method for classes 2, 3 and 4 roads.

10.

11.

Acknowledgement
This research work was supported by
University of Moratuwa Senate Research Grant
Number SRC/LT/2011/23. Further, the
authors are immensely indebted to the staff
members, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Moratuwa, and the colleagues for
their timely help throughout the span of the
research work.

12.

13.

References
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

14.

Nader G. and Matthew W. T., Resistance to


Wear of Fast Track Portland Cement Concrete,
Construction and Building Materials, Vol 24, No 8,
2010, August, pp 1424-1431.
Yazici S. and Inan G., An Investigation on the
Wear Resistance of High Strength Concretes,
Journal of Wear, Vol 260, No 6, 2006, March, pp
615-618.
Massud S. and Roger K., Indirect and NonDestructive Methods for Assessing Abrasion
Resistance of Concrete, Magazine of Concrete
Research, Vol 38, No 137, 1986, December, pp
183-190.
Barr B. I. G. and Hasso E. B. D., A Study of
Toughness Indices, Magazine of Concrete
Research, Vol 37, No 132, 1985, September, pp
162-174.
Poon C.S. and Chan D., Effect of Contaminants
on the Properties of Concrete Paving Blocks
Prepared with Recycled Concrete Aggregates,
Construction and Building Materials, Vol 21, No 1,
2007, January, pp 164 -175.
Poon C.S. and Chan D., Paving Blocks Made
with Recycled Concrete Aggregates and
Crushed Clay Bricks, Construction and Building
Materials, Vol 20, No 8, 2006, October, pp 569 577.

15.

16.
17.

18.

19.

20.

Tayfun U., Ilker B. T., Osman G. and Wittold B.,


The Effect of Fly Ash Content and Types of
Aggregates on the Properties of Pre Fabricated
Concrete Interlocking Blocks (PCIBs), Journal of
Construction and Building Materials, Vol 30, 2012,
May, pp 180-187.
Lee H. S., Lee J. Y. and Yu M. Y., Influence of
Iron Oxide Pigments on the Properties of
Concrete Interlocking Blocks, Journal of Cement
and Concrete Research, Vol 33, No 11, 2003,
November, pp 1889-1896.
Gencel O., Ozel C., Koksal F., Erdogmus E.,
Martinez B. G. and Witold B., Properties of
concrete paving blocks made with waste
marble, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol 21, No
1, , 2012, January, pp 62-70.
Tung C. L. and Hasanan M. N., Granular Waste
tires in Concrete Paving Block, Proceedings of the
6th Asia-Pacific Structural Engineering and
Construction Conference (APSEC 2006), Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, 5-6 September 2006, pp E65E70.
Ling T. C., Prediction of density and
compressive strength for rubberized concrete
blocks, Journal of Construction and Building
Materials, Vol 25, No 11, 2011, November, pp
4303-4306.
Radhikesh P. N., Das A. K. and Moharana N C.,
Stone crusher dust as a fine aggregate in
concrete for paving blocks, International Journal
of Civil and Structural Engineering, Vol 1, No 3,
2010, pp 613-619.
Turgut P. and Yahlizade E. S., Research in to
concrete blocks with waste glass, International
Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Vol 1, No 4, 2009, pp 203-209.
Dowson A. J., Mix Design for concrete block
paving, Concrete Block Paving Journal, pp 121127. Downloaded from
http://www.sept.org/techpapers/86.pdf.
Pilanavithana U. S., Perera P. S., Appuhami R. S.
B. R. and Mampearachchi W. K., Optimized
Mix Design for Interlocking Blocks Using
Quarry Dust for Roads in Sri Lanka, 16th
Engineering Research Unit Annual Symposium,
University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, 2010, pp 6062.
Bureau of Indian Standards., Precast concrete
blocks for paving-Specifications, IS 15658:2006.
Sri Lanka Standards Institution, Specifications
for
Concrete
Paving
Blocks:
Part
1:
Requirements, Sri Lanka Standard 1425: 2011.
Sri Lanka Standards Institution, Specifications
for Concrete Paving Blocks: Part 2: Test
Methods, Sri Lanka Standard 1425: 2011.
Husken G. and Brouwers H. J. H., A new mix
design concept for earth-moist concrete: A
theoretical and experimental study, Cement and
Concrete Research, 38, No 10, October 2008, pp
1246-1259.
American Concrete Institute, Standard Practice
for
Selecting
Proportions
for
Normal,
Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete, ACI 211.1-91

133

ENGINEER

(Reapproved in 2009), ACI Committee 211


Report, Detroit, 1991.
21. Higginson E. C., Wallace G. B., and Ore E. L.,
Effect of Maximum Size Aggregate on
Compressive Strength of Mass Concrete,
Symposium on Mass Concrete, SP-6, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1963,
pp. 219-256.
22. British Standards Institution, Incorporating
Corrigendum No .1. Concrete paving blocksRequirements and test methods, BS EN 1338:
2003.
23. British
Standards
Institution.,
Precast,
Unreinforced
Concrete
Paving
Blocks.
Requirements and Test Methods, BS 6717: 2001.
24. British
Standards
Institution.,
Precast,
Unreinforced
Concrete
Paving
Blocks.
Requirements and Test Methods, BS 6717: Part
1: 1993.
25. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Standard Specifications for Solid Concrete
Interlocking Paving Units, ASTM C936 / C936M
11, 2011.
26. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Standard Test Method for Density, Relative
Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of
Coarse Aggregate, ASTM Standard Testing
Methods, ASTM C127-12.
27. British
Standard
Institutions,
Testing
Aggregates: Part 2 - Methods of Determination
of Density, BS 812: Part 2: 1995.
28. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Standard
Specification
for
Concrete
Aggregates, ASTM Standard Test Methods,
ASTM C 33-92a.
29. British Standard Institution, Specification for
Aggregates from Natural Sources for Concrete,
BS 882: 1992.
30. American Concrete Institute, Standard Practice
for
Selecting
Proportions
for
Normal,
Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete, ACI 211.1-91
(Reapproved in 2009), ACI Committee 211 Report,
Detroit, 1991.
31. Teychenne D.C, Franklin R.E, H. C. Erntroy H.C,
Design of Normal Concrete Mixes, Building
Research Establishment Report, 1988.

ENGINEER

134

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi