Finite-Element Model Approach to Determine Support

Conditions and Effective Layout for Concrete Block Paving

W. K. Mampearachchi1 and W. P. H. Gunarathna2

Abstract: Concrete block paving 共CBP兲 is one of the predominant road construction methods used in most of the developing counties
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 01/08/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

due to its economic adaptability. It has emerged as a cost-effective road construction method suitable for different ground conditions but
this has yet to be developed as a full fledged technique because of the dearth of technical expertise and knowledge. The aim of this
research is to evaluate the state of support conditions and to discover effective patterns which can be used to improve concrete block
paving technology. Development of a laboratory scale CBP model and evaluation of support conditions were mainly considered in the
initial stage of this study. A developed laboratory scale CBP model was used to measure deflection basin with four different load
arrangements. A three-dimensional finite-element model was built to measure elastic deflection behavior of concrete block pavement with
SAP2000 structural analysis software. This finite-element model was used to simulate field conditions of a concrete block pavement and
it was verified with the deflection values observed in a laboratory scale model. The verified analytical model has been used to perform a
parametric study in order to determine necessary improvements for weaker support conditions and find effective laying arrangement in the
concrete block paving. Developed design charts and field observations can be used to propose subgrade improvement methods for weaker
support conditions. The writers recommend concrete block laying work for low volume roads with subgrade strength higher than 10%
CBR. The results indicate that herringbone bond pattern performed well under effect of vertical loading and breaking action. It has the
capability to develop better interlocking action in CBP work.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲MT.1943-5533.0000118
CE Database subject headings: Finite element method; Concrete blocks; Elasticity; Deflection; Pavements.
Author keywords: Finite-element model; Concrete block paving; Elastic behavior; Surface deflection; Block laying pattern.

Introduction
The last century has seen an intensive process of urbanization
which has caused a need for rapid construction of roads and re-
lated infrastructure. The demand for better roads and services
required designers and builders to explore innovative construction
methods in order to economize construction as well as increase
durability. Concrete block paving 共CBP兲 proved to be a better
alternative than conventional paving techniques which are less
durable and have a high life cycle cost due to many technical and
environmental constraints 共Panda and Ghosh 2002a; Shackel
2003; Concrete Manufacturing Association 2004兲.
CBP is made of individual blocks of brick-size units, which
are arranged in closed joint patterns on a thin bed of sand and
joint space filled with sand. Blocks are held in place by edge
restraints such as curbs and the whole structure is supported by
subbase and subgrade. When load is applied to the surface, it is
transferred to the substructure of the pavement. Therefore, the
load spreading capacity of concrete block layer depends mainly
1
Senior Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Moratuwa,
Moratuwa, Sri Lanka 共corresponding author兲. E-mail: wasanthak@civil.
mrt.ac.lk
2
Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Moratuwa, Moratuwa,
Sri Lanka. E-mail: prageeth@civil.mrt.ac.lk
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 9, 2009; approved on
April 2, 2010; published online on May 8, 2010. Discussion period open
until April 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil Engineer-
ing, Vol. 22, No. 11, November 1, 2010. ©ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/2010/
11-1139–1147/$25.00.
on the interaction of the individual blocks, sand filling, sand cush-
ion and support condition of the pavement. Hence, it is very im-
portant to have good technical information to introduce
economically efficient pavement designs. Literature review re-
vealed a considerable difference in findings of block laying pat-
terns and support condition on performance of CBP. It is the aim
of this study to develop a verified finite-element model 共FEM兲 to
determine support conditions and an effective laying pattern for
CBP.
Background
A considerable amount of research was performed recently with
CBP models in order to analyze their performance with respect to
various factors 共block shape, thickness, size of the block, com-
pressive strength, laying pattern, and bedding sand conditions,
etc.兲. There have been few studies done where the model CBPs
were constructed and the measured responses 共stress, deflection,
and strain, etc.兲 were compared to the analytical results to validate
the models used. Most of block paved roads were constructed in
solid support conditions and no investigation has been made to
examine the behavior of CBP under poor support condition 共sub-
base /base thickness兲 and a different laying pattern.
Some early studies on CBP 共Knapton 1976兲 showed that lay-
ing pattern did not significantly affect the static load spreading
capacity of the pavement. Miura et al. 共1984兲 and Shackel et al.
共1993兲 have reported that herringbone bond exhibited higher per-
formance than stretcher bond. Panda and Ghosh 共2002a兲 found no
considerable influence in the strength of the block pavement due

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010 / 1139

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2010, 22(11): 1139-1147

 to different laying patterns. There are some contradictions in past
findings about effective laying patterns. None of the studies have
considered relative performance of four main different block ar-
rangements 共basket weave, herringbone, stack, and strecture兲 and
the response of the pavement for braking load. Therefore, the
effectiveness of block laying pattern under traffic load 共vertical
load and braking action兲 needs to be investigated in light of above
discussion for more stable block pavements. Most of the available
CBP design methods were developed based on equivalent design
concept, catalog design method, research-based design method,
and mechanistic analysis and their evaluation criteria were based
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 01/08/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
on substituted flexible pavement performance, field performance
of the CBP, rut depth of the tested pavement and stress variation
in base and subgrade material, respectively. Therefore, most of
the evaluation criteria and their concepts are different 共Concrete
Manufacturing Association 2004兲. Performance evaluations for a
new development in laying patterns or block shapes using the
above methods are very expensive. Therefore, it is desirable to
develop a new analytical method for evaluating concrete block
pavement behavior. In the earlier studies of Shackel 共1980兲, Bar-
ber and Knapton 共1980兲, Miura et al. 共1984兲, Jacobs and Houben
共1988兲 found that block pavement stiffen progressively with the
repetition of load. After a certain number of repetitions, compac-
tion of the underlying layers reaches its full extent and no energy
is lost during additional loadings. As a result, the deflection and
recovery become the same with loading and unloading of the
pavement. This manifest of elastic behavior can be used to de-
velop accurate design method using verified FEM 共Nejad and
Shadravan 2006; Nejad 2003兲. A verified computer model can
relate most of the design concepts and provide a more effective
design.
Development of Laboratory Scale CBP Model
Laboratory Scale Model Dimensions
Based on the comparisons between initially developed FEM, and
the experimental study by Panda and Ghosh 共2002b兲, it was con-
firmed that CBP could be simulated by linear elastic model. It was
necessary to verify the FEM for CBP analysis. The laboratory
scale experimental setup which was a modified version of the
Panda and Ghosh 共2002a兲 study and very similar to the one of
Shackel et al. 共1993兲 was developed for that purpose. The dimen-
sions of the test setup were decided by monitoring the stress
distribution of the initial FEM. It was observed that the stress
distribution reached a perimeter about 500 mm away from the
center of the applied load. A test model was then built with a
1 m ⫻ 1 m square in plane and 1 m in depth. A strong wooden
box with vertical and horizontal braced faces was used to build
the experimental setup. Then it was filled with subgrade soil, base
material, and bedding sand, respectively, for the support condi-
tion. Finally, test pavers were laid at the top and firmly compacted
using a plate vibrator. Fig. 1 shows a cross section of the labora-
Table 1. Material Properties for Subbase Preparation
Material Liquid limit Plastic limit Plastic index
Soil type I 36.9 33.07
Soil type II 36 25
1140 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2010, 22(11): 1139-1147
Measure
Measured
vertical
horizontal deflection
Concrete
deflection Load block layer
Solid
Wooden box
Support
Layers
(base &
subgrade
)
Sand layer
Fig. 1. Laboratory scale test setup
tory scale test setup. Laboratory scale experiments were con-
ducted for two types of support conditions and two type of
loading patterns.
• Model I—concrete block lay on subgrade without base layer;
and
• Model II—concrete block lay on base layer 关aggregate base
course 共ABC兲兴.
Thereafter, tests were conducted in the following stages:
• Test 1—Model I with Loading Arrangement 1;
• Test 2—Model I with Loading Arrangement II;
• Test 3—Model II with Loading Arrangement 1; and
• Test 4—Model II with Loading Arrangement II.
Materials Selection
A laboratory model was developed using two types of subgrade
soil. In order to check the suitability of the material, Atterberg
limit test 关ASTM D4318:05 共ASTM 2005兲兴 and soil classification
tests were done according to ASTM D2487:06e1 共ASTM 2006兲.
Results are shown in Table 1. Procter compaction test was per-
formed according to ASTM D698-07e1 共ASTM 2007b兲 to control
compaction effort for laboratory model preparation. Good quality
aggregate was used as the base material in the laboratory test
pavement which satisfied the Standard Specification for Construc-
tion and Maintenance of Road and Bridges in Sri Lanka 共Sri
Lanka Institute of Construction and Training Development 2008兲
共SSCM 1701.3 gradation requirements兲. A maximum dry density
of 2 , 237 kN/ m3 was obtained at the optimum moisture content
共OMC兲 of 10.3% for the base materials and aggregate impact
value of aggregate was 18% which satisfied the SSCM 180 limit.
River sand was used as filling and bedding material. Sand
samples were selected based on ASTM C33 which met the Panda
and Ghosh 共2002a兲 gradation requirements. Concrete blocks pro-
vided by Provincial Road Development Authority, Sri Lanka were
tested according to BS 6717: Part 1 关British Standards Institution
共BSI兲 1993兴. Block sizes of 210 mm 共length兲, 100 mm 共width兲,
and 75 mm 共height兲, and mixture of 1:2.5:4 共cement:sand:10-mm
aggregate兲 were used for the block preparation to achieve a grade
Maxm dry density Optimum moisture content
共kN/ m3兲 共%兲
3.8 1875 13.4
11 1910 19.3
 of 25Mpa. Blocks were prepared manually. The molds were filled 5 1- Hydraulic jack
with the concrete mix in two layers, each one compacted with a 2- Main dial gauge
3- Loading plate
0.9 kg hammer with 25 blows. Water-cement ratio was controlled 1 4- Dial gauge
at 0.58 共water/cement兲 carefully to achieve a good quality prod- 5- Proving ring

uct.

Construction of Model Pavements 2

3
4
Model Pavement I
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 01/08/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Subgrade was laid and compacted with seven blows using a 15-kg
Fig. 2. Laboratory experiment setup
rammer. First and second layers 共uncompacted layer thickness of
150 mm兲 were tested using sand cone test 关ASTM 1556:07
共ASTM 2007a兲兴 to verify compaction requirements which indi-
The model pavements were subjected to three cycles of load-
cated over 100% compaction. After completion of subgrade 共I兲
ing and unloading and the resulting deflections were measured.
共400 mm thick兲 preparation, field CBR and dynamic cone pen-
There were no swelling effects that could be observed. Deforma-
etration 共DCP兲 tests were conducted to measure the CBR value.
tion in the first load cycle was high compared with second and
The CBR value of Subgrade 共I兲 was 10%. Thereafter Subgrade
third attempts. Therefore, first loading cycle provide the seating
共II兲 共200 mm thick兲 was prepared using the same procedure as
load requirement. Deformations at 2nd and 3rd loading attempts
subgrade 共I兲 preparation. The CBR value of Subgrade 共II兲 was
were same, affirming the elastic behavior of CBP. In the acceler-
20%. Bedding sand which compiles ASTM C33 was uniformly
ated traffic test conducted by previous research, a higher number
spread to a loose thickness of 50 mm. Then concrete blocks were
of load repetition was required 共Shackel 1980兲 to achieve elastic
placed on bedding sand according to the stretcher bond pattern
behavior due to looseness of sand due to bulges out of sand in the
with 5 mm 共Panda and Ghosh 2002a兲 joint width. Once the blocks
initial stage of traffic. In Panda and Ghosh 共2002b兲, it took only a
were placed, joints were filled with sand and compacted using a
few repetitions compared with the Shackel 共1980兲 study. CBP
vibrating plate until a uniform level surface was achieved.
models were prepared under good quality control and blocks were
compacted until pavement was fully compacted. Therefore, labo-
Model Pavement II ratory scale pavement models had produced elastic behavior in
the second loading cycle without additional compaction of sand
Model II preparation was started after completion of Model 1
bed. Therefore, deflection and recovery were same in second and
tests. Model I was modified by adding 200-mm thick aggregate
third attempts.
base course to the top of the subgrade 共II兲. First, concrete blocks
Loading plate orientation, and Numbers 1 and 2 dial gauge
in Model I was removed with sand bed and subgrade 共II兲 was
locations were changed for Load Arrangement II. Testing proce-
cleaned of any leftover sand. Then 100 mm of ABC layer was laid
dure was repeated as in Loading Arrangement 1 and deflection
and compacted with vibrating plate. After completion of ABC
curves obtained at second and third loading cycles verified the
layer, density was checked using sand cone test and it was found
elastic behavior of CBP. Therefore, average deflection values of
to be 100% compaction. Base CBR was measured using DCP test
second and third loading cycles were used for the analysis. It can
and field CBR test and it was recorded as 58%. Sand bed prepa-
be observed a little different gradient in Test 1 and Test 2 deflec-
ration, concrete block laying, sand filling and final preparation
tion curves as shown in Fig. 4 for the two loading arrangements
were done as per Model 共I兲 construction.
of the Model I. Test 1 curve has higher gradient than Test 2
deflection curve. It can be seen that Test 2 arrangement obtained
higher lockup condition than Test 1 loading arrangement. Loading
Testing of Model Pavements Arrangements I and II were subjected to two types of edge re-
straints. When load is increased, CBP starts developing interlock-
Both models were tested for two loading arrangements and both ing and blocks attain lock up condition with hinge formation. If
loading arrangements have the same contact area 69, 750 mm2
共225⫻ 310 mm2兲. This was approximately equal to tire contact
area of a single wheel 共Panda and Ghosh 2002a兲. The compres- Concrete blocks Sand filling (63.5mm)
sive load was applied on a rigid rectangular plate using a hydrau-
8
lic jack against a rigid steel frame. Fig. 2 shows the experimental Wooden box
sand filling
setup. The load was increased in 10 kN increments from 0 to 60 (5mm)
kN. A wheel load of 60 kN is higher than the axle load of 22 kips 3
共98 kN兲 which is the maximum allowable axle load in many 5
countries. Surface deflections were measured for each load incre- 1
7
ment to an accuracy of 0.01 mm using six dial gauges. Fig. 3 9
2
shows the dial gauge location for loading arrangements. Loading Loaded area
6 (loading
plate was turned 90° to make the Loading Arrangement II. Three
4 arrangement I)
dial gauges 共7, 8, and 9兲 were fixed to the vertical surface of the
wooden box to monitor deformation of the box 共swelling effect兲.
Vertical deflections were measured along the diagonal line of the
box. The average value of the two deflection readings 共equal dis-
tance from loading area兲 were reported as a result at one location. Fig. 3. Loading Arrangement I

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010 / 1141

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2010, 22(11): 1139-1147

 1.8 Concrete block layer

1.6 Test 1
1.4 Test 2
Test 3
1.2
Test 4
Deflection (mm)

ABC Layer
1

0.8 Subgrade 2 Sand Bed

0.6 Sand bed

Sub grade 1

0.4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 01/08/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.2
Load (kN) Fig. 5. Finite-element software model
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Fig. 4. Comparison between deflection value in Test 1, Test 2, Test 3, E = 2,555 ⫻ CBR0.64 共2兲
and Test 4
Relationship between shear modules and elastic modules was
used to estimate shear modules 关Eq. 共3兲兴
edge restraints were placed much closer to loading, stronger
hinges will form very quickly with better load distribution E
G= 共3兲
共Gunarathna 2009兲. Test 1 has a weaker edge restraint with 63.5 2共1 + ␷兲
mm sand filling at edges. Test 2 had a stronger edge restraint with
5-mm sand filling. Therefore Test 2 setup “locks up” with less where G = shear modules; E = elastic modules; and ␷ = Poisson’ s
deflection and it conforms to Panda and Ghosh’s 共2002b兲 finding ratio.
of importance of edge restraints. SAP2000 Nonlinear 8.1.2 structural analysis program was
Similarly, Loading Arrangement I 共Test 3兲 and Loading Ar- used to develop three-dimensional 共3D兲 software models with
rangement II 共Test 4兲 of pavement Model II could be compared eight node hexagonal finite elements 共Computers and Structures
using averages of second and third attempt deflections. Test 3 and 2002兲. However, to maintain accuracy of result, the aspect ratio
Test 4 observations are also depicted in Fig. 4. The similar results 共the ratio of the longest dimension of 3D element to its shortest
were observed as Test 1 and Test 2. Therefore, Test 3 has a dimension兲 should not exceed 10 共Risser et al. 1993兲.
weaker edge restraint than Test 4. However, deflection values are Fig. 5 shows the 3D software model used to analyze the pro-
less compared with Model 共I兲 because of the higher strength sup- totype CBP. Load was applied at the center of the model observ-
port condition provided by the base course in Model 共II兲. ing deflections at various gauge locations similar to the laboratory
experiment. Comparison was carried out between the prototype
model and the software model for deflection along the diagonal
3D Finite-Element Model Development line. Fully bonded condition was adopted at the interface of layers
and edge nodes were allowed to move in vertical direction 共free to
Deflection data from laboratory scale loading conditions were move in vertical direction兲.
used to verify a FEM. The laboratory scale model and FEM di-
mensions are same and materials were modeled using the param-
eters given in Table 2. Software Model Verification
Relationship between elastic module and concrete cube
strength as in Eq. 共1兲 was used to estimate the elastic modules Fig. 6 shows the deflection results of laboratory scale model and
FEM at different gauge locations for test 1, 2, 3, and 4. The
E = 5.5冑 fcu/␥m 共BS 8110兲 共1兲 deflection data shows a little difference between experimental
where fcu = concrete cubic strength and ␥m = safety factor for model and FEM at the center of the loading because concrete
concrete 共␥m = 1.4兲. blocks interlock well and pavement behaves in fully elastic con-
Eq. 共2兲 proposed in AASTHO pavement design guideline was dition for higher loads. Previous research has been proofed this
used to estimate elastic modules of soil layers finding in early studies 共Shackel 1980兲. It was observed that field
deflection at a given locations away from the center is slightly
lower than that of the FEM for Tests 1 and 2. So, FEM model
gives lower deflection for support condition without base. Test 1
Table 2. Material Properties Used for FEM Development and 2 were performed without base layer and progressive stiffness
Modules of elasticity 共E兲 Shear modules 共G兲 did not develop away from the loading point due to applied load.
Material 共GPa兲 Poisson’s ratio 共GPa兲 Therefore, the deflection basin of prototype models had slight
Concrete 23.2 0.20 9.667 variation compared to the FEM. However, the difference was very
Sand 0.01 0.26 0.00396
small for Test 3 and Test 4 共with a base layer兲 compared with
Tests 1 and Test 2 共without base layer兲. Loading point deflection
ABC 0.24 0.30 0.0923
in the FEM model which is the most critical for failure is com-
Soil Type II 0.12 0.40 0.0429
patible with that in the laboratory scale model. Therefore it can be
Soil Type I 0.077 0.40 0.0279
concluded that the FEM can be used to analyze CBP behavior.

1142 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2010, 22(11): 1139-1147

 0.00 0.00
Distance (mm) Distance (mm)
-500 0 500 -500 0 500

-0.50 -0.50

Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)
-1.00 -1.00
10kN ( Field)
10 kN (Field)
40kN ( Field)
40 kN (Field)
60kN ( Field) 60kN (Field)
-1.50 -1.50
10kN (FEM) 10kN (FEM)
40kN (FEM) 40kN (FEM)
60kN (FEM) 60kN(FEM)
-2.00 -2.00
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 01/08/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

6a 6b
0 0.00
Distance (mm) -500 0
Distance (mm) 500
-500 0 500

-0.5 -0.50
Deflection (mm)

Deflection(mm)
-1 -1.00

10kN (Field) 10kN (Field)

40kN (Field) 40kN (Field)
-1.5 60kN (Field) -1.50 60kN (Field)
10kN (FEM) 10kN (FEM)
40kN (FEM) 40kN (FEM
60kN (FEM) 60kN (FEM)
-2 -2.00
6c 6d

Fig. 6. Verification of FEM

Design of Support Condition for Concrete Block
Paving
It has been verified in previous studies that the stress development
in paver bedding sand is complex and depends upon the size,
shape, orientation, and speed of the load as well as paver geom-
etry and laying pattern 共Algin 2007兲. Therefore, certain stress-
based CBP research findings and assumptions made by designers
are contradictory. Thus most of the researchers used deflections
criteria to evaluate the performance of CBP 共Panda and Ghosh
2002a兲. The writers have used a verified FEM to evaluate relative
deflection of the CBP for different support conditions under elas-
tic behavior.
nesses of most of the roads have been restricted to maximum 150
mm due to high material cost. Required thickness to protect the
subgrade is achieved by adding Type 1 soil as an improvement
layer. The following subgrade conditions were used in the design
charts: CBR of 5, 10, 15, and 20%.
Fig. 7 shows the deflection of the pavement for following sub-
grade improvements:
1. No subgrade improvements;
2. Use only 150 mm of ABC and 150 mm of Type 1 soil;
3. Use 150 mm ABC and 450 mm of Type 1 soil; and
4. Use 150 mm ABC and 550 mm of Type 1 soil.
Deflection for 20% CBR subgrade is shown in Fig. 7.

Design Chart Development 3.30

Existing
Design charts were introduced for different subgrade, subbase, 3.10
subgradee
150m
mm ABC 150mm ABC + 550 T
T1 soil
and base conditions and design charts were developed using veri- 2.90
50mm ABC + 150 T1 soil
15
fied software model. The following dimension and support con-
Deflection (mm)

2.70
ditions were used for development of design charts. 1500mm ABC + 4450 T1 soil

• Subgrade CBR values—5, 10, 15, 20, and 30%; 2.50

• Subbase CBR value—30% 共Type 1 soil兲; 2.30

• Base CBR value—90% 共ABC兲; 2.10
• Size of concrete blocks—225 mm⫻ 100 mm⫻ 75 mm;
1.90
• Subgrade thickness—2,000 mm;
• Sand bed thickness—40 mm; 1.70

• Loaded area—340 mm⫻ 205 mm; and 1.50

• Applied load—50 kN 共⬇11 kips兲. 0 1000
Impro
200 300
hickness , mm
oved layer th
400
m (150mm A
500 6600 700
ABC Layer + Type 1 soil layer)
5%
S
Selected 200 CBR C
CBR values 10%
Design Chart I „Base Improvement with 150-mm ABC d
deflection liine
15%
Layer…
Design Chart I was introduced for pavement sections with 150 Fig. 7. Proposed Design Chart I for block paving with improved
mm of ABC and Type 1 soil as subbase layer. Base layer thick- subbase

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010 / 1143

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2010, 22(11): 1139-1147

 3.3
3.1
CBR values
2.9 Selected 20 CBR
deflection
2.7
Deflection (mm)
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 01/08/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1.7
1.5
0 100 200 300 400
Improved ABC layer thickness (mm)
Fig. 8. Proposed Design Chart II for block paving with improved
ABC layer
Design Chart II „Base Improvements without Subbase
Layer…
Design Chart II was developed for ground improvement with base
layer 共ABC兲 and it is designed for different base layer thickness
as shown in Fig. 8. Deflection for the 20% CBR subgrade is
shown in the same figure.
Optimum Support Condition for Low Volume Roads
Field Surveys
Based on Charts I and II, suitable subgrade improvements for
different ground conditions can be determined. New design
guideline can be introduced for low volume roads based on the
design charts. But there should be a reference deflection value for
optimum subgrade condition in particular applications. Therefore,
optimum support condition was obtained based on existing design
methods and field surveys. There are only a few concrete block
paved roads in Sri Lanka. Hence, it was difficult to find good
sample of sections with different support conditions. Usually, low
volume roads are subject to an average daily traffic of around 300
vehicles per day. Sri Lanka Road Development Authority pave-
ment design guidelines refer low volume roads as those subjected
to less than 0.3 million standard axles within design life 共10
years兲. Thus, selected concrete block paved low volume roads
were evaluated considering the age 共operated time兲, road length,
road width, usage, dimension and quality of the concrete block,
flatness, block alignment, and subgrade CBR values of the road as
performance criteria. Selected roads are used as main access to
the villages and constructed under same weather condition. Their
widths are limited to 3 m and concrete blocks used for laboratory
testing were used for road construction. Support condition for
Roads 1, 2, and 3 was subgrade with CBR⬎ 35%, subgrade with
CBR= 25%, and subbase with CBR 25% on subgrade of CBR
11%, respectively. Road 3 has 150-mm thick improved subbase
layer of 25% CBR and none of road used ABC as a base improve-
ment layer. Their operated times varied from 1.66 years, 2.75
years, and 2 years for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd roads, respectively. The
qualities of the concrete blocks were same in 1st and 3rd roads.
But Road 2 had comparatively less quality due to higher operat-
ing period. Road fatnesses were measured using 3m length
straight edge. Road 1 and Road 2 performed well under existing
1144 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2010, 22(11): 1139-1147
600
Improved ABC layer thickness (mm)
Lock pave method
500
5% Emperical method
10%
15% Safe condition (Road 2)
400
20%
Fail condition (Road 3)
300
proposed safer condition
(20% CBR)
200
100
0
5 10 15 20 25 30
500 600 Existing Subgrade Strength (CBR)
Fig. 9. Comparison between field survey and existing design method
subgrade conditions. Road 3 does not satisfy the flatness criteria.
Therefore, Road 3 experienced excessive rutting and does not
have adequate support condition to satisfy flatness criteria. Road
2 satisfied the criteria for low subgrade strength 共25% CBR兲 con-
dition when compared to other roads. Thus 25% CBR value can
be used as a sufficient support condition for low volume road
based on the field survey. Hence, according to field observations,
subgrade strength of 25% CBR is considered as a safer condition
and needs no improvement for concrete block laying work. Chart
II indicates 125-mm ABC as an improvement layer for 20% CBR
subgrade condition to get equivalent 25% CBR subgrade condi-
tion. Simulated model of the Road 3 subjected to 0.7174 MPa
pressure gave a maximum deflection of 2.22 mm—the equivalent
deflection of 10% CBR subgrade condition with improved
100-mm ABC layer under the same loading 共refer to Chart II兲.
Therefore, subgrade condition of 10% CBR with 100-mm im-
provement layer can be considered as a failed situation according
to field observations.
Existing Design Methods
Fig. 9 clearly represents a comparison between Lock pave design
method, empirical design method 共Concrete Manufacturing Asso-
ciation 2004兲 and field observations. It clearly shows failure con-
dition and safe conditions of low volume road condition and the
comparison between design methods. Some of the findings can be
summarized as below.
• There is no need for any improvement layer for subgrade con-
ditions above 25% CBR;
• If subgrade condition is 20% CBR with an improvement layer
of 150 mm, ABC would be considered safer;
• Subgrade condition of 10% CBR should have an improvement
ABC layer more than 600 mm in order to achieve safe condi-
tion; and
• According to the chart, lock pave design is not adequate for
10% CBR subgrade condition in order to be safe 共even for
80-mm thick block兲.
Therefore it can be observed that there should be a particular
subgrade strength that does not need any improvement layer for
concrete block laying. According to Catalog method used in
South Africa 共Concrete Manufacturing Association 2004兲, mini-
mum subgrade strength of 15% CBR value can be used for low
volume roads with minimum thickness of 100–150 mm 共mini-
mum CBR of 45%兲 improvements layer. According to field sur-

900 Herring bone Stretcher Basket Weave Stack
Fig. 10. Laying patterns used for the study
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 01/08/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
vey, 300 mm of ABC improvement layer is needed for 15% CBR
subgrade condition 共Fig. 9兲 to achieve safer condition 共Road 2
condition兲.
Therefore, it is recommended to use subgrade strength of
15%CBR with improvement layer for low volume traffic condi-
tions. Improvement layer of 100 mm thickness is proposed by
some of the guideline for 20% CBR 共Tsohos and Iliou 1994兲
condition as a conservative approach. According to the study of
Abril et al. 共1994兲 design manual, if the average annual daily
heavy vehicle traffic is between 20–49, there is no need for sub-
grade improvement for CBR values higher than 20%. Also, the
Sri Lankan Road Development Authority design stipulates there
is no need for base improvement for concrete block laying which
has subgrade strength above 20% CBR.
Therefore considering above findings, it can be proposed that
concrete block laying work can be executed directly on low vol-
ume roads which have CBR values above 20%. It is important to
note that a fine estimation of the CBR value for safe condition
could have been obtained with a better sample of field observa-
tions using more block paved roads. Therefore the proposed new
design uses 20% CBR as optimum subgrade strength for low
volume roads. Design chart I 共Fig. 7兲 and design chart II 共Fig. 8兲
can be used to determine base improvements for weaker support
conditions using the reference deflection value for 20% CBR sub-
grade condition. It is recommended to introduce concrete block
laying work for low volume roads with subgrade strength higher
than 10% CBR based on Design Charts I and II 共support condi-
tion with CBR less than 10% needs excessive thickness of base
and soil subbase for improvements兲.
Effective Laying Pattern for Concrete Block Paving
Load-spreading in CBP roads is accomplished by interlocking
action and concrete blocks act as a major load spreading compo-
nent in concrete block paved surfaces. Complex stress distribution
can be observed in CBP surfaces due to interlocking action and it
is very difficult to investigate stress variations in field condition.
But it is very important to investigate effective laying pattern
which can improve interlocking action. Developed 3D software
model has the potential to investigate relative performance of the
different laying patterns which cannot be easily measured in the
field.
Paving Patterns Used for the Study
Higher stresses generate in CBP due to patch loading 共Algin
2007兲. Therefore, it is necessary to avoid patch loading under
operating conditions. This can be overcome by avoiding 45°
angle laying patterns in construction stage. Laying patterns with
90° and 0° angels only were used for the study as shown in Fig.
10.
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010 / 1145
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2010, 22(11): 1139-1147
Load
moving
direction
Load
moving
direction
Fig. 11. Block orientation in the loaded area for herringbone bond
Application of 3D Software Model for Different
Loading Conditions
Concrete block paved roads are typically subjected to different
loading conditions. The effect of loading orientation and different
loading conditions 共horizontal and vertical兲 were considered for
effective laying pattern study.
When concrete blocks are subjected to a moving vehicle load,
the loaded area encircles different block orientations on the pave-
ment. In Fig. 11, the pavement section of herringbone bond is
considered. A moving load is applied on the surface with the area
as indicated by rectangle. Fig. 11 gives different block orientation
subjected to the area of loading at any one time as the loaded area
changes. There are only three block orientations for the herring-
bone bond as shown in Fig. 11. FEM were developed with
205 mm⫻ 100 mm⫻ 75 mm block size and deflections were
subjected to a 50-kN load spread on 310 mm⫻ 205 mm area.
The number of block orientation for a moving load on paving
patterns such on herringbone bond, basket wave bond, stretcher
bond, and stack bond pattern can be represented using 3, 4, 2, and
2 orientations, respectively. Same model dimensions were used
for analyzing different laying patterns and same coordinates used
for different laying patterns corresponding to loading positions.
Fig. 12 shows the behavior of different laying patterns under ver-
tical loading. Figs. 13 and 14 show vertical and horizontal deflec-
tion at the braking for different laying patterns, respectively.
Effective Laying Pattern
According to 3D software model, herringbone bond pattern gave
lower vertical deflection value and stack bond has higher deflec-
1.85
Herringbone bond basketwave bond
stack bond strecture bond
1.83
Deflection (mm)
1.81
1.79
1.77
1.75
1.73
1.71
Loading
0 2 4 6
positions
Fig. 12. Loading position and vertical deflection in different laying
patterns 共effect of vertical load兲
 ness of the pavement. This effect was obtained in the laboratory
2.02
scale model by imposing proper compacting effort in the final
1.97
block laying. Laboratory scale model was loaded with sequential
increment of 10-kN load up to 60 kN. Elastic behavior was
v.Deflection (mm)

1.92 achieved after completing the seating load cycle similar to the
study of Dr. Frank 共1994兲. Throughout the experiment, the effect
1.87 of edge restraints was considered as highly important. Block
pavement behaves as a stable surface when edge restraints are
1.82 placed closer to the loading position. Shape of the deflection basin
Herringbone bond
was observed for different support condition used in the experi-
Basketwave bond
1.77 mental setup. It was found that ABC layer had more load spread-
Stack bond
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 01/08/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ing ability due to the interlocking action of aggregate particles.

Strecture bond
1.72
0 2 4 6
Fig. 13. Loading positions versus vertical deflection in different lay-
ing patterns 共effect of breaking action兲
tion. Therefore, herringbone bond is more stable against vertical
loading.
Fig. 12 clearly shows herringbone bond pattern gave minimum
deflection compared to other laying patterns. But there is no clear
difference in horizontal deflection among the different laying pat-
terns 共Fig. 14兲. The horizontal deflection values were less than
0.7mm and vertical deflection 共Fig. 13兲 gave minimum of
1.82-mm deflection 共vertical deflection nearly three times larger
than horizontal deflection兲. Therefore vertical deflection curve
could be considered as the deciding factor for selecting strong
bond pattern under breaking effect. Under the effect of vertical
load and breaking action Herringbone bond gave minimum de-
flection and it has the capability to develop better interlocking
action. Therefore it is better to use herringbone bond pattern for
road construction work for better performance
Conclusions
This study was developed based on laboratory scale prototype
experiments. The relevant parameters for the laboratory scale
model were determined based on stress distribution of initial FEM
and past experimental studies. It was revealed from literature re-
view that CBP switches to elastic behavior with progressive stiff-
0.7
Herringbone bond
Basketwave bond
0.65 Stack bond
Strecture bond
H.Deflection (mm)
Usually, a minimum layer of ABC was introduced as a base layer
Loading
8
positions
for most of the concrete block laying methods even for strong
subgrade conditions in existing guidelines.
Developed FEM showed the hinge formation and interlocking
of blocks under applied loading conditions and proved the finding
of previous studies. Four different experimental models under dif-
ferent loading conditions were successfully tested and experimen-
tal results that verified the FEM model also showed a good
compatibility with different edge restraint conditions.
New design charts 共Charts 1 and 11兲 were developed based on
the FEM. These charts can be used to determine necessary im-
provements for weaker support conditions. It is more economical
to carry out CBP work for low volume roads with subgrade
strength higher than 10% CBR according to the design charts.
According to the literature review and limited field observations,
there is no need for any improvements for subgrade with CBR
more than 20%.
Developed finite model can be used to determine relative per-
formance of the CBP for different block shapes and laying pat-
terns. Therefore, the developed computer model can be used to
find suitability of the pioneering improvement without the expen-
sive road test. Therefore relative performances of four concrete
block laying patterns were evaluated using the computer model.
Result showed that herringbone bond pattern can be introduced as
the best laying pattern for vehicular paths. Through the study, it
can be concluded that the software model developed can be used
to estimate the maximum anticipated deflection in CBPs while
emphasizing the significance of using accurate design parameters
and material properties.
References
Abril, J. M., Carrascon, S., Irastorza, L., and Josa, A. 共1994兲. “A manual
for concrete block pavement design.” Proc., Concrete Block Pavement
2nd Int. Workshop, Oslo, Norway, 141–148.
Algin, H. M. 共2007兲. “Inter locking mechanism of concrete block pave-

0.6 ments.” J. Transp. Eng., 133共5兲, 318–326.

ASTM. 共2005兲. “Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and
0.55 plasticity index of soils.” D4318, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. 共2006兲. “Standard practice for classification of soils for engineer-
ing purposes 共Unified Soil Classification System兲.” D2487, West Con-
0.5
shohocken, Pa.
ASTM. 共2007a兲. “Standard test method for density and unit weight of soil
0.45 in place by the sand-cone method.” D1556, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. 共2007b兲. “Standard test methods for laboratory compaction char-
0.4 acteristics of soil using standard effort 共12 400 ft-lbf/ ft3
Loading 共600 kN-m/ m3兲兲.” D698, West Conshohocken, Pa.
0 2 4 6 8 positions
Barber, S. D., and Knapton, J. 共1980兲. “An experiment investigation of
the behavior of a concrete block pavement with a sand sub-base.”
Fig. 14. Loading position versus horizontal deflection in different
Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng., 69共1兲, 139–155.
laying patterns 共effect of breaking action兲 British Standards Institution 共BSI兲. 共1993兲. “Precast concrete paving

1146 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2010, 22(11): 1139-1147

 blocks.” BS 6717, London.
Computers and Structures, Inc. 共2002兲. “SAP2000 integrated software for
structural analysis and design.” SAP2000 analysis reference manual,
Berkeley, Calif.
Concrete Manufacturing Association. 共2004兲. Concrete block paving book
1, 2, 3, 4, Concrete Manufacturing Association, Midrand, South Af-
rica.
Frank, B. 共1994兲. “Edge restrain for segmental concrete block pavement.”
Proc., Concrete Block Pavement 2nd Int. Workshop, Oslo, Norway,
281–287.
Gunarathna, W. P. H. 共2009兲. “Finite element model approach to deter-
mine an effective layout and support conditions for concrete block
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 01/08/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
paving.” MS thesis, Univ. of Moratuwa, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka.
Jacobs, M. M. J., and Houben, L. J. M. 共1988兲. “Wheel track testing and
finite element analysis of concrete block pavement.” Proc., 3rd Int.
Conf. on Concrete Block Paving, Pavitalia, Rome, 102–113.
Knapton, J. 共1976兲. “The design of concrete block roads.” Technical Rep.
No. 42.515, Cement and Concrete Association, Wexham Springs,
U.K.
Miura, Y., Takaura, M., and Tsuda, T. 共1984兲. “Structural design of con-
crete block pavements by CBR method and its evaluation.” Proc., 2nd
Int. Conf. on Concrete Block Paving, Delft Univ. of Technology,
Delft, The Netherlands, 152–157.
Nejad, F. M. 共2003兲. “Finite element analysis on concrete block paving.”
Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Concrete Block Paving, Document Transfor-
mation Technology, Sun City, South Africa.
Nejad, F. M., and Shadravan, M. R. 共2006兲. “A study on behavior of
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010 / 1147
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2010, 22(11): 1139-1147
block pavement using 3D finite element method.” Proc., 8th Int. Conf.
on Concrete Block Paving, San Francisco Int. Conf. on Concrete
Block Paving, San Francisco, 349–358.
Panda, B. C., and Ghosh, A. K. 共2002a兲. “Structural behavior of concrete
block paving I: Sand in bed joints.” J. Transp. Eng., 128共2兲, 123–129.
Panda, B. C., and Ghosh, A. K. 共2002b兲. “Structural behavior of concrete
block paving II: Concrete blocks.” J. Transp. Eng., 128共2兲, 130–135.
Risser, R. J., Lahue, S. P., Voigt, G. F., and Mack, J. W. 共1993兲. “Ultra-
thin concrete overlays on existing asphalt pavement.” Proc., 5th Int.
Conf. on Concrete Pavement Design and Rehabilitation, TRB, Purdue
Univ., West Lafayette, Ind., 247–254.
Shackel, B. 共1980兲. “The performance of interlocking block pavements
under accelerated trafficking.” Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on Concrete Block
Paving, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, U.K., 113–120.
Shackel, B. 共2003兲. “The challenges of concrete block paving as a mature
technology.” Proc., Pave Africa 2003 7th Int. Conf. on Concrete
Block Paving, Sun City, South Africa.
Shackel, B., O’Keeffe, W., and O’Keeffe, L. 共1993兲. “Concrete block
paving tested as articulated slabs.” Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Concrete
Pavement Design and Rehabilitation, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette,
Ind., 89–95.
Sri Lanka Institute of Construction and Training Development. 共2008兲.
Standard specification for construction and maintenance of road and
bridges (SSCM), Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Tsohos, G. H., and Iliou, N. E. 共1994兲. “Design of concrete block pave-
ments.” Proc., Concrete Block Pavement 2nd Int. Workshop, Oslo,
Norway, 149–154.