Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
[127-134],
[page range],
20132013
The Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka
1.
1.1
Paving blocks, Mix design, Trial mix, ACI Method, DoE Method
Introduction
General
127
ENGINEER
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
50
Compressive
=
Strength
60
Failure load
Plan Area X
Correction
Factor
80
100
120
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)
30
Average
1Class A
2Class B
3Class C
4Foot paths
M-30
Compressive Strength
(N/mm2)
128
3.
Programme
and
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.
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.
2.
Experimental
Discussion
Methodology
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
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)
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
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
ENGINEER
28 Day
132
7.
8.
9.
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.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
133
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
134