Road Materials and Pavement Design

This article was downloaded by: [Mount Allison University 0Libraries]
On: 05 October 2014, At: 07:11

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Road Materials and Pavement Design

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/trmp20
Comparative Economic-Engineering Evaluation of

Concrete Block Pavements
a
Ilan Ishai
a
Depart. of Civil Engineering , Transportation Research Institute Technion , Haifa,
32000, Israel E-mail:
Published online: 20 Sep 2011.
To cite this article: Ilan Ishai (2003) Comparative Economic-Engineering Evaluation of Concrete Block Pavements, Road
Materials and Pavement Design, 4:3, 251-268
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2003.9689948
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Comparative Economic-Engineering
Evaluation of Concrete Block Pavements
Ilan Ishai*
Downloaded by [Mount Allison University 0Libraries] at 07:11 05 October 2014
* Depart. of Civil Engineering

Transportation Research Institute
Technion
Haifa 32000
Israel
iishai@tx.technion.ac.il
ABSTRACT. This paper presents a comparative engineering-economical evaluation and

analysis of flexible, rigid, and Concrete Block Pavements (CBP) at different structure
alternatives. Several key factors were involved in the analysis. They are: three types of traffic
categories – Occasional, Medium, and Very Heavy; one subgrade strength (CBR=4%); local
pavement design practice (current design curves for flexible, rigid and CBP pavements);
consideration of both initial construction and maintenance costs; total pavement life -- 20
years with major maintenance implementation at 10 and 20 years; local construction and
maintenance costs. The results of the analysis shows that: 1) The construction cost of the
CBP is higher than that of the flexible pavement at the medium and low traffic categories;
however, it is lower for the heavy traffic; 2) The absolute values of construction plus the
maintenance cost of CBP are always equal or less than that of flexible pavements; 3) The
total CBP cost capitalized to the first day of service is higher than that of the flexible for the
low and medium traffic, but became lower for high pavement thickness; and 4) The cost of
CBP is substantially lower than the rigid pavement for all traffic categories and all cost
alternatives. The economic-engineering evaluation presented here may also provide a
general methodology for a comparative evaluation of different types and combinations of
pavement structures under any condition. Although the specific pavement design methods,
maintenance techniques, and unit prices are local by nature, the basic scheme presented
here may serve as a universal basis for evaluating specific conditions for any given
transportation engineering project, in which the selection of a pavement type is a key issue.
KEYWORDS: Concrete Block Pavements, Pavement Design, Flexible Pavements, Rigid
Pavements, Economic-Engineering Evaluation.
Road Materials and Pavement Design. Volume 4 – No. 3/2003, pages 251 to 268
252 Road Materials and Pavement Design. Volume 4 – No. 3/2003
1. Introduction and background
Hundreds of millions square-meters of Concrete Block Pavements (CBP) are

being paved every year around the world, and this trend is constantly growing.
Today, the concrete block pavement is an attractive and competitive alternative
either to the flexible asphaltic pavement, or to the rigid Portland Cement Concrete
(PCC) pavement in a wide spectrum of infrastructure applications. This spectrum
ranges from landscape aesthetic and environmental design applications, through
urban streets and parking lots, up to heavy duty pavements which are capable of
carrying very heavy and dynamic loading in highways, sea ports, airports, industrial
facilities, etc. The major recent example is the new Chek Lap Kok Hong Kong
International Airport, in which half a million square meters of CBP were paved in
aircraft aprons and stands.
The modern technology and practice in the concrete block pavements are backed
up today by intensive and sound research carried out all over the world. Basic and
engineering research projects, in the laboratory and in the field, has been carried out
for more than 20 years in Europe, Australia, Japan, South Africa, Asia, USA and
also in Israel. This wide-scope research (which was mainly reported in the nine
international conferences on CBP held during the last two decades) opened the way
for the development and validation of engineering and design technology which is
utilized today as routine and proven practice in the design and construction of the
concrete block pavements for most applications of the transportation infrastructure.
In the many research works and during the practical applications, it was found
that the concrete pavers (blocks) are superior engineering pavement surface material
which can provide an aesthetic surface with high structural capacity that can carry
very heavy dynamic loads on top of an adequate granular pavement structure for any
type of subgrade. The pavers surface also possesses high functional resistance to
skidding, abrasion and fuel & oil attack similar to the concrete. As compared to the
other pavement types, the adequately designed concrete block pavement requires less
maintenance which is also relatively cheaper. Also the block layer provides a
convenient access to substructure utility systems.
The CBP structure mechanically behave as flexible pavement with a unique
industrialize segmental concrete layer based on a bedding sand layer on top of
granular base and subbase structure. The concrete block pavement tend to rigidify
with service time and traffic by a “lock-up” action which substantially decreases the
permanent deformation afterwards. Generally, the interlocking pavement surface act
as a segmental multi-joint body, in which the block-to-block loading transfer
involves only compression and shear stresses. Due to the relatively small dimensions
of the blocks, only negligible flexural stresses, that might contribute to block
breakage, are developed. Also, due to the segmental effect, the small dimensions,
and the non-bound joints, the concrete block pavement is almost insensitive to the
many modes of the cracking distress.
Comparative Evaluation of CBP 253
However, apart from the engineering considerations and benefits, any selection
and preference decisions on choosing a pavement type should also be based on a
sound and realistic economic analysis. Therefore, this paper summarizes a
comparative economic-engineering evaluation of concrete block pavements with
respect to the flexible and rigid pavements which are common practice in the local
and global transportation infrastructures. The main objective of the analysis is to
determine the economic benefit of CBP in a variety of uses, from the small
residential street up to the heavy loading facilities.
The economic comparison is made on equivalent pavement structures at three
traffic categories under typical subgrade conditions. The economic data refer to the
initial construction cost, as well as to the expected maintenance cost, using up-to-
date practical unit prices.
2. Equivalent pavement structures
2.1. Pavement design
The comparative economic evaluation was made on equivalent structures of

flexible, rigid and concrete block pavements in three typical traffic categories. The
pavement structures were designed according to the local Israeli practice, as
developed in the last thirty years [NED 69, IMH 00].
The local flexible pavement design practice is essentially based on the US Corps
of Engineers (USCE) method [USA 61 and USD 80]. This method was earlier and
recently modified by the Israel Public Works Department (PWD) for rural roads, and
the Ministry of Housing & Construction for urban streets, taking into account the
specific Israeli conditions related to traffic, climate, materials, etc. [NED 69,
IMH 00]. The basic pavement design equation is as follows:
100 + P[75 + 50 log( N / 10)]

H = [1]
CBR + 5
Where:
H = Total thickness of the pavement, in centimeters;
P = Design wheel load, in tones;
N = Daily traffic volume of commercial vehicles at the last year of design period;
CBR = Subgrade CBR, in percent.
For each traffic category (as will be defined later), this equation is manifested by
a design chart. A typical flexible pavement design chart for the “Medium Light”
Traffic Category is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. A lexible pavement design chart for the “Medium Light” Traffic Category
The local rigid pavement design practice is also based on the USCE methods
[USD 85 and LIV 85]. In this modified design process, the thickness of the concrete
slab is a function of the Flexure Strength of the concrete after 28 days, the Modulus
of Subgrade Reaction (K) of the slab support (subbase or base course), and the
Traffic Category. A single design chart for the slab thickness is valid for all traffic
categories, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. A single design chart for the slab thickness is valid for all traffic
categories
The Modulus of Subgrade Reaction of the slab support is a function of the

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction of the subgrade (Ks) and the thickness of the granular
layers. Ks can be estimated from the design subgrade CBR (CBRs) using the
following equation:
Ks = 30 CBRs 0.75 [2]
The local concrete block pavement design practice has been developed during
the last two decades. The methodology was introduced in the eighties and was
implemented and validated in the nineties [NES 86; LIV 88; ISH 88a; ISH 92 and
ISH 94]. Generally, the CBP structure is similar to the flexible one where the
asphaltic layers are replaced by a bedding sand layer and the concrete pavers
(blocks) layer on top. A cross section of a typical CBP structure is illustrated in
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Illustration of a cross section of a CBP structure
The basic concept of the local CBP design is to rely on a well-established

flexible pavement design method, and modifying it through the use of valid layer
equivalencies. Thus, the Israel PWD flexible pavement design method was modified
with the incorporation of proven layer equivalencies which has been based on
extensive research and feedback from actual paving experience and performance.
The layer equivalencies were modified through the years with the advancement
of the CBP technology and the accumulation of laboratory and field performance
data. Table 1 presents the latest version of the local CBP layer equivalencies
[IMH 80]:
Table 1. A recent set of layer equivalencies for the design of concrete block
pavements
Layer/Layer Layer
Equivalency
Concrete Pavers/Bituminous Concrete 1.25
Concrete Pavers/Type A Subbase 2.40
Bedding Sand/Type A Subbase 0.50
Similar to flexible pavements, for each traffic category a design curve relates the
required pavement structure to the design CBR of the subgrade. A typical CBP
design curve for the “Medium Light” Traffic Category is presented in Figure 4.
2.2. Traffic categories
The local classification of traffic loads for pavement design purposes is based on
the average daily number of commercial vehicles (heavier than 3 tons) that pass in
the road, in two directions, in the 20th year of service. Accordingly, the total range of
traffic spectrum is divided in to 9 Traffic Categories, from the “Occasional” to the
“Very Heavy Industrial”, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Local classification of traffic for pavement design purposes
Average Daily
Number of Accumulated Number of
Traffic Category Commercial 18,000 lb. Standard Axle for
Category Symbol Vehicles at the the Entire Deign Period (20
20th Year of yrs.) (2)
Service (1)
Occasional 1 0-15 0-0.7x105
Very Light 2 15-45 0.7x105 - 2.0x105
Light 3 45-150 2.0x105 - 0.7x106
Medium Light 4 150-450 0.7x106 - 2.0x106
Medium Heavy 5 450-1500 2.0x106 - 7.0x106
Heavy 6 1500-4500 7.0x106 - 2.0x107
Very Heavy 7 4500-15000 2.0x107 - 7.0x107
Heavy Industrial 8 ---- 7.0x107 - 4.4x108
Very Heavy Industrial 9 ---- 4.4x108 -2.0x109
(1) In two directions, (2) In one direction.
As can be seen in the table, the daily number of commercial vehicle for each
traffic category was also converted to an accumulated number of equivalent
18,000 lbs. (8.2 tons) standard axle load for the entire design period. This conversion
is based on the following:
1. The equivalent factors for converting axle loads deviating from the standard
are those used by AASHTO. They are expressed by the following equations:
– For single axle with single or dual wheels:
4
 P
W18i = WPi  i  [3]
 8.2 
– For dual axle with dual wheels (tandem):
4
 P 
W18i = WPi  i  [4]
 14.8 
Where:
W18i = Number of equivalent movements of axles with a Pi load (in tons).
Wpi = Actual number of axles with a Pi load (in tons).
2. The average annual local increase of traffic volume is 5%.
3. In average, under the local traffic and loading characteristics, which includes
about 30% of commercial vehicles (heavier than 3 tons), it came out that one
commercial vehicle is equivalent to two 18,000 lbs. Standard axles, and thus, one
vehicle of the entire traffic is equivalent to about 0.67 standard axles.
2.3. Equivalent structures
As stated before, the comparative economic evaluation was made on equivalent

structures of flexible, rigid and concrete block pavements in three typical traffic
categories. The three traffic categories were the “Occasional”, “Medium Light” and
“Very Heavy”. Based on the above pavement design methodology, the structures
were designed for a single strength value for the subgrade. This value is CBR = 4%,
which is the design value of many typical Israeli subgrades. The three equivalent
structures for each one of the three traffic category are presented in Figure 5.
Figure 4. Three equivalent structures for each one of the three traffic category
are presented
3. Cost analysis
3.1. Initial construction costs
The comparative economic analysis of the different pavement structures is mainly

based on up to-date paving costs according to the following conditions and sources:
1. The unit prices of the block layers are applied to gray pavers of the “UNI”,
“UNICOLOCK” or 10/20 cm rectangular types. The prices include the supply of the
blocks and the complete construction of the bedding sand and block layers. These
unit prices are as follows:
6 cm blocks + bedding sand - $ 13/m2

8 cm blocks + bedding sand - $ 15/m2

2. The unit prices of the different pavement layers (besides blocks), are based on
up-to-date practical local paving prices, as published monthly [DEC 01], and as
extracted from actual contracts. These unit prices, which includes the complete
materials and construction costs, are as follows:
Type B subbase course - $ 14/m3,
Type A subbase course - $ 15/m3,
Crushed-graded base course - $ 21/m3,
Asphaltic prime coat - $ 1/m2,

Compacted asphalt concrete - $ 110/m3,
Portland cement concrete (including joints) - $ 200/m3.
3. The economic comparison does not consider some elements which are
practically identical in all pavement alternatives, such as: earth works and grade
preparation; edge and confining elements; overheads, surveying, testing, etc.
4. The local prices were converted to US Dollars at the rate of 4.20 Israeli
Shekels to one US Dollar.
Based on the above prices and conditions, the initial construction costs of the
different pavement combinations were calculated. These costs are also given in
Figure 5 (on the left side of each pavement structure).
3.2. Maintenance costs
The maintenance costs are based on average periodical maintenance actions and
intervals for the different pavement types, and under the following conditions:
1. The design period for comparison is 20 years for all pavement types.
2. For the flexible pavement, the predicted maintenance action is cold milling and
asphaltic overlay every ten years. This operation includes a 2-3 cm depth milling, a
tack-coat, and a 5.0 cm asphaltic overlay. This includes also the preventive
maintenance measures taken along the entire service time (crack-filling, pothole
filling, etc.).
3. For the rigid pavement, the maintenance action will also take place every ten
years. It includes joint treatment & filling, crack filling, edge & slab corner breakage
repaire. Based on local experience this cost is estimated to be only one half of that of
the equivalent flexible pavement over a period of ten years [ISH 88].
4. For the concrete block pavement, the maintenance action will also take place
every ten years, and it will include the removal and relaying of 40% of the pavement
area (with the same pavers), including distress correction and replacing of 10% of
the paving blocks.
5. The maintenance measures are identical for all traffic categories. This
assumption is realistic since the designed pavement structure is largely dominated by
the traffic category.
6. The current maintenance unit prices are:
– Cold milling and 5 cm asphaltic overlay - $ 8/m2 ;
– Taking apart and relaying of CBP, distress correction, and replacing 10% of
the pavers - $ 5/m2.
7. The interpretation of the maintenance costs will be contrived by two methods:
a) By adding the absolute maintenance cost to the initial construction cost;

b) By adding the maintenance cost as capitalized to the construction time,
taking into account a 10% annual interest rate, the specified design period, and the
maintenance intervals. The capitalization factors for these conditions are:
– For a ten-year period (initial maintenance period) - 0.3855;
– For a twenty-year period (secondary maintenance) - 0.1486.
8. The above costs, assumptions and conditions are also based on the information
given by several sources: [DEC 01, ISH 88, RUH 86].
4. Comparative economic analysis
The complete analysis of the unit prices and the calculated initial and
maintenance costs of the different pavement structures are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Summary of construction and maintenance costs per square meter

(absolute and capitalized)
Very Medium
Pavement Occasional
Type of Cost Heavy Light
Type Traffic
Traffic Traffic
Initial Construction Costs 25.35 21.70 16.30

Absolute Maintenance Costs 10.00 10.00 10.00
CBP Total: 35.35 31.70 26.30
Capitalized Maintenance Costs 2.70 2.70 2.70
Total: 28.05 24.40 19.00

Flexible Total 43.85 33.50 26.90
Total 32.15 21.80 15.20

Rigid Total 55.75 47.00 40.25
Total 49.90 41.15 34.40
The following are the main conclusions that can be derived from the comparative
economical analysis of the construction and maintenance costs for the different
pavement structures under the three traffic categories:
1. For the occasional traffic category, typical to small residential streets, the
initial construction cost of the CBP is higher than that of the flexible pavement by
about 50%. Considering the maintenance costs capitalized to the day of construction,
this difference is decreased to 25%. Conversely, under absolute maintenance costs,
the CBP and the flexible pavements are almost identical in cost.
2. For the medium-light traffic category, typical for collector streets, parking
facilities, filling stations, small aircraft facilities, etc., the initial construction cost of
CBP is still higher than that of the flexible pavement, but only by 24%. Considering
the capitalized maintenance, this difference is decreased to 12%. However, under the
absolute maintenance cost, the CBP is now cheaper than the flexible pavement by
5%. As for the comparison with the rigid pavement, which is relevant to this traffic
category, the rigid pavement is much-more expensive than the CBP at the range of
48% to 80% for the different cost combinations.
3. For the very heavy traffic category, typical to major streets and highways,
ports, airports, and some industrial pavements, the CBP is always cheaper than all
other types of pavements at any cost combination. In this category, the flexible
pavement is more expensive than the CBP by 10% to 24%, and the rigid pavement is
more expensive than the CBP by 58% to 87%.
Generally, it can be seen that the concrete block pavement is more expensive
than the flexible pavement. However, with the increase of traffic intensity, the cost
difference between the two type of pavenments diminishes, and at the heavy traffic
categories the CBP is cheaper than the flexible one at any cost combination.
The economical advantages of CBP are also manifested in the entire range of traffic
categories when the absolute maintenance costs are taken into account. The concrete
block pavement is allways much cheaper than the rigid pavement regardless the
traffic category and cost combination.
5. Advantages and disadvantages of CBP
In addition to the economic comparison and considerations, any promotion or

selection of concrete block pavement to replace the conventional pavement

structures should also be based on comparable engineering and operational
advantages and disadvantages of this paving technology. In this respect, these
advantages and disadvantages can be listed as follows:
5.1. Advantages
1. The concrete block pavement technology is based and backed up today by a

global research and proven engineering experience of more than twenty years. This
experience was thoroughly reported in the past nine international conferences and
workshops that took place around the world [SEP 80 through SEP 00]. Today,
several methods are available for CBP design under both vehicles and aircraft
operations, and under a wide range of loading and activity. With this proven
engineering level, the CBP technology stands in the same front line with the flexible
and rigid pavements. The modern CBP design method are computerized with
friendly programs and are very easy to use.
2. The concrete block is an industrial product whose properties can be pre-
determined under strict industrial quality control. For this product it is possible to
obtain mechanical and functional properties that are superior to the concrete plate
constructed in situ. With the industrial pavers it is possible to obtain pavement
surfaces with superior and homogeneous properties, compressive strength, flexural
strength, and special surface characteristics, such as treatment with special
aggregates and additives for abrasion resistance, skidding resistance, resistance to
the attack of chemicals oils and fuels, special coloring, etc.
3. Despite its small elements, the concrete block pavement functions as continuos
multi-joint monolithic body. Due to the relatively small dimensions of the blocks,
only negligible flexural stresses, that might contribute to block breakage, are
developed. Only compression and shear stresses are developed between the blocks.
The support of the subgrade and the underlying granular layers, together with the
mutual stone-to-stone friction obtained by the joint sand, produce an adequate
carrying capacity to withstand the compression and shear stresses. In this respect the
response of the concrete block pavement is similar to that of the flexible pavement.
4. Despite the many joints between the blocks, it was found that the CBP
possesses adequate resistance to water action, either under static or under critical
flow conditions in steep slopes [ISH 92]. This is quite comparable to the two
conventional pavement types.
5. The concrete block pavement is less sensitive to the common pavement
distress types, especially to cracking. Also, the CBP is much more easy to maintain.
Local distresses can be corrected quite easily by removing the blocks, treating the
underlying layers or utility systems, and installing back the stones without any
damage marks. This is very important in areas where sub-surface utility systems exist
(electric and telephone lines, water lines, sewer and drainage pipes, etc.), since these
system require maintenance from time to time. This exhibit a major advantage of the
CBP as compared to the flexible pavement, and especially to the rigid one. For each
facility (city, port, industrial plant, airport, etc.) it is possible to prepare a storage of
blocks for emergency and immediate maintenance use.
6. The concrete block pavement has lower sensitivity to deformations and
displacements originated from volume changes in active and water-sensitive soils.
These displacements are usually been absorbed by the joints and are dispersed in a
wider area. This is true also for the displacements due to traffic loading. In flexible
and rigid pavements these deformations and displacements are expressed by
cracking, breakage, distortion, and failure. These failure modes usually developed
with service time and cause, in many cases, the accelerated deterioration of the
pavement up to a sever advanced failure. This is why the concrete block surface has
recently become an alternative mean for rehabilitating pavements in active subgrade
zones (expansive clays, collapsible silts), where the conventional solutions had
failed.
7. The concrete block surface has a high resistance to the attack of oils and fuels.
This is comparable to the rigid pavement but superior to the flexible asphaltic one
that tends to disintegrate with the presence of oils and fuels.
8. The paving blocks can be laid manually or mechanically. In large paved areas
the mechanical laying is quite economical and rapid. Also the bedding sand can be
mechanically laid with conventional asphaltic paving machines. In many cases, a
substantial time saving can be achieved with CBP as compared to rigid concrete
pavement that requires form work, alternate plate casting, joints installation, curing,
etc.
9. The concrete block surface can be recycled without any material loss and
without the need for special breaking process. In case of design and performance
changes the block layer is removed and the whole blocks are stored either in piles, or
in layered stacking, until the next use. The recycling of the asphaltic pavement
requires special complex and expensive processes of pavement breakage and re-
mixing, and does not always assure the quality of the final recycled product. It is
almost impossible to recycle the rigid concrete pavement.
10. The concrete block pavement has significant aesthetic and environmental
advantages as compare to the two other types of pavement. In addition to the special
interlocking effect, the variable block combinations enable to combine colors,
shapes, textures, and patterns. Also, it is possible to mark lane delineation, aircraft
direction lines, parking stands, numbering, etc. This is done by using colored blocks
which consist of monolithic homogeneous pigment coloring. This block marking is
durable for the entire pavement service life.
11. Using special surface texture, and due to the joints between the blocks, the
speed of driving on the CBP surface create a special noise and vibrating effect. This
effect can be used to alert the driver or the pilot to reduce speed or to avoid entering
special zones. This has advantage in intersections, shoulders, or special operational
zones. Special block strips can be used as rambling strips with a moderate effect.
5.2. Disadvantages
1. The concrete block pavement is sensitive to operations of exposed metal

caterpillar loading. At intensive operations of tractors, tanks, cranes, etc., a massive
abrasion, corner breakage, and even entire block breakage, usually occur. In this
respect the rigid pavement, but not the flexible, has the advantage.
2. At the beginning of its service life, soon after construction, the CBP possess
high permeability potential to water that penetrate through the joints between the
pavers. In this case water can easily reach the subgrade down through the granular
layers. When sensitive expansive or collapsible subgrades are involved, special
sealing and protection means should be provided at the pavement surface or at the
top of the subgrade. It should be noted that the paver joints tend to seal early with
service time due to the road and tire detritus and traffic effect.
3. The concrete block pavement is suitable only to slower traffic, usually under
60 km/hr. Higher speed usually cause noise and vibration that reduce traffic comfort.
4. Without special treatment the CBP is unsuitable in airport areas which are
exposed to high level of jet exhaust thrust. The jet thrust may cause the erosion of
the joint sand and the loss of mutual friction between the pavers. This reduces the
bearing capacity of the pavement structure. The erosion of the sand and other free
mineral particles may also create an FOD (Foreign Object Damage) danger to the jet
engines.
5. In many cases, especially in small and composite sites, the laying of the pavers
is done manually. This is expressed by lower production rate as compared to the
flexible and rigid pavements.
6. Summary and major conclusions
This paper summarized a comparative economic-engineering evaluation of

concrete block pavements with respect to the flexible and rigid pavements which are
common practice in the local and global transportation infrastructures. The main
objective of the analysis was to determine the economic benefit of CBP in a variety
of uses, from the small residential streets up to the heavy loading facilities. The
economic comparison was made on equivalent pavement structures at three traffic
categories under typical subgrade conditions. The economic data refer to the initial
construction cost, as well as to the expected maintenance cost, using up-to-date

practical unit prices.
The economic-engineering evaluation presented here may also provides a general
methodology for a comparative evaluation of different types and combinations of
pavement structures under any conditions. Although the specific pavement design
methods, maintenance techniques, and unit prices are local by nature, the basic
scheme presented here may be served as a universal basis for plugging any specific
conditions for any given transportation engineering project, in which the selection of
a pavement type is a key issue.
From an engineering viewpoint, the concrete block pavement provides an
attractive alternative to the rigid pavement for the medium-light traffic category and
heavier, especially when the pavement is exposed to fuel and oil spillage, abrasive
forces, static loads, hot exhaust, etc. The use of CBP in these traffic categories,
instead of the rigid, provides also an economic advantage, as expressed by the
substantial saving in cost.
Engineering-wise, the CBP also provides an attractive alternative to the flexible
pavement at a wide range of traffic and loading conditions. This is accompanied by
an economical advantage in the heavy traffic categories and at all cost combinations.
The economical advantages are also manifested in the entire range of traffic
categories when the absolute maintenance costs are taken into account.
Finally, it is quite clear that any promotion or selection of CBP to replace
conventional pavement structures should be backed up and validated by both
engineering and economical analysis and interpretation that will be applied to the
unique conditions of the specific project.
Acknowledgements
This paper was prepared within the framework of a research on “Design and
Performance of Concrete Block Pavements for Heavy Loading”, financed by
Ackerstein Industries Ltd., Herzalia, Israel. The author wishes to thank Ackerstein
Company for its sponsorship and help. Acknowledgment is also due to Mr. A. Aines
for his technical assistance.
7. References
[DEC 01] DECKEL, Computer Services for Engineering, “Storage of Building and
construction Costs”, Haifa, Israel, November 2001.
[IMH 00] ISRAEL MINISTRY of HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION, “Guidelines for the Design of
Urban Streets - Part 3: Pavement Design”, Final Draft, August 2000.
[ISH 88a] ISHAI I. and LIVNEH M., “Three-Year Performance of Concrete Block Pavements
Under Heavy Abrasive Caterpillar Loading”, Proceedings, Third International
Conference on Concrete Block Paving, Rome, Italy, May 1988.
[ISH 88b] ISHAI I., “Concrete Block Pavements for the Israel Air Force (IAF),” LCI -
Transportation Engineers Consultants, November 1988.
[ISH 92] ISHAI I., DALIN J.S., and RUBIN H., “The Stability of Steep Block Pavements Under
High-Velocity Water Flow Conditions”, Proceedings, Fourth International Conference
on Concrete Block Paving, Vol. 1, Auckland, New Zealand, February 1992.
[ISH 94] ISHAI I., MAURER U. and HASSON R., “Design and Performance of Concrete Block
Pavements for Hangar Aprons Serving Heavy-Duty Aircraft”, Proceedings., Second
International Workshop on Concrete Block Pavements, Oslo, June 1994.
[LIV 85] Livneh M., “Rigid Pavement Structures - Design and Evaluation” (4 Volumes),
No. 85-058, Transportation Research Institute, Technion, March 1985.
[LIV 88] LIVNEH M. and ISHAI I., “Development of Pavement Design Methodology for
Concrete Block Pavements in Israel”, Proceedings, Third International Conference on
Concrete Block Paving, Rome, Italy, May 1988.
[NED 69] NEDAVIA D., “Guidelines for Pavement Design of New Asphaltic Roads”,
No. H.K.-16, Division of Materials and Research, Israel Public Works Department, 1969.
[NES 86] NESICHI S., ISHAI I. and LIVNEH M., “Concrete Block Pavements in Israel - A State
of the Art”, Proceedings, First International Workshop on Interlocking Concrete Block
Paving, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia, September 1986.
[RUH 86] RUHM K., “Analysis of Construction Costs and Economical Comparison Between
Asphaltic and Concrete Block Pavement Streets”, Ministry of Housing and Construction,
Engineering & Design Branch, June 1986
[SEP 80] SEPT - International Association of Small Elements Pavement Technology,
Proceedings, First International Conference on Concrete Block Paving, New Castle,
England, June 1980.
Proceedings, Second International Conference on Concrete Block Paving, Delft, Holland,
August 1984.
Proceedings, First International Workshop on Interlocking Concrete Block Pavements,
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia, September 1986.
[SEP 88] SEPT – International Association of Small Elements Pavement Technology,

Proceedings, Third International Conference on Concrete Block Paving” Rome, Italy,
May 1988.
Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Concrete Block Paving, Auckland,
New Zealand, February 1992.
Proceedings, Second International Workshop on ConcreteBlock Paving, Oslo, Norway,
June 1994.

Proceedings, Fifth International Conference on Concrete Block Paving, Tel Aviv, Israel,
June 1996.
[SEP 00] SEPT, “International Association of Small Elements Pavement Technology,
Proceedings, Sixth International Conference on Concrete Block Paving, Tokyo, Japan,
September 2000.
[USA 61] U.S., Army Engineer, Waterway Experimental Station, “A Revised Method of
Thickness Design for Flexible Highway Pavements at Military Installations”, Technical
Report, No. 3-582, 1961.
[USD 80] U.S. Department of the Army and the Air Force “Engineering and Design of
Flexible Pavements for Roads, Streets, Walks, and Open Storage Areas”, Technical
Manual TM 5-822-5, AFM 88-7, October 1980.
[USD 85] U.S. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer, “Air Force Airfield
Pavement Design Criteria”, Draft Paper, No. DAEN-ECE-G, July 1985.
Received: 9 April 2002

Accepted: 1 September 2003

Road Materials and Pavement Design

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Road Materials and Pavement Design

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

This article was downloaded by: [Mount Allison University 0Libraries]

On: 05 October 2014, At: 07:11

Road Materials and Pavement Design

Comparative Economic-Engineering Evaluation of

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2003.9689948

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

* Depart. of Civil Engineering

ABSTRACT. This paper presents a comparative engineering-economical evaluation and

1. Introduction and background

Hundreds of millions square-meters of Concrete Block Pavements (CBP) are

2. Equivalent pavement structures

2.1. Pavement design

The comparative economic evaluation was made on equivalent structures of

100 + P[75 + 50 log( N / 10)]

The Modulus of Subgrade Reaction of the slab support is a function of the

Ks = 30 CBRs 0.75 [2]

Figure 3. Illustration of a cross section of a CBP structure

The basic concept of the local CBP design is to rely on a well-established

2.2. Traffic categories

Table 2. Local classification of traffic for pavement design purposes

2.3. Equivalent structures

As stated before, the comparative economic evaluation was made on equivalent

3.1. Initial construction costs

The comparative economic analysis of the different pavement structures is mainly

6 cm blocks + bedding sand - $ 13/m2

8 cm blocks + bedding sand - $ 15/m2

Asphaltic prime coat - $ 1/m2,

3.2. Maintenance costs

a) By adding the absolute maintenance cost to the initial construction cost;

4. Comparative economic analysis

Table 3. Summary of construction and maintenance costs per square meter

Initial Construction Costs 25.35 21.70 16.30

Initial Construction Costs 27.85 17.50 10.90

Absolute Maintenance Costs 8.00 8.00 8.00

5. Advantages and disadvantages of CBP

In addition to the economic comparison and considerations, any promotion or

selection of concrete block pavement to replace the conventional pavement

1. The concrete block pavement technology is based and backed up today by a

1. The concrete block pavement is sensitive to operations of exposed metal

6. Summary and major conclusions

This paper summarized a comparative economic-engineering evaluation of

construction cost, as well as to the expected maintenance cost, using up-to-date

[SEP 88] SEPT – International Association of Small Elements Pavement Technology,

[SEP 96] SEPT – International Association of Small Elements Pavement Technology,

Received: 9 April 2002

Potrebbero piacerti anche