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

1. Introduction contemporary mix proportioning methods to be

1.1 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 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 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
unsuitable to CPBs. Thereby necessitate either
modification of the contemporary methods or
identification of new mix design methods.
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 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.
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.

1
127 ENGINEER
Table 1.1 - Strength requirements of the Table 1.3 - Different road classes and their
paving blocks in various countries [5] corresponding strength, thickness
requirements as per Sri Lankan Standard (SLS
Country Compressive Strength 1425: Part 1: 2011) [17]
(MPa)
United States 55 Strength Compressive Strength Block
Class (N/mm2) Thickness
Norway 54
New Zealand 40 (mm)
Japan 59 Average Individual
Italy 50
1–Class A 50 40 80, 100
Germany 60
2–Class B 40 32 80, 100
Denmark 52
3–Class C 30 25 80, 100
Canada 50
4–Foot paths 15 12 60
Belgium 60
Australia 43
Hong Kong 45
Table 1.4 - Thickness and chamfer correction
factors for compressive strength as per Sri
In the meantime, Indian standard for paving Lankan Standard (SLS 1425: Part 1: 2011) [17]
blocks suggests using different compressive
strengths to meet different traffic requirements Work size Correction factors
of roads [16], which are tabulated in Table 1.2. thickness
Plain Chamfered
(mm)
Table 1.2 - Recommended grades of paving block block a)
blocks for different traffic categories as per 60 1.00 1.06
Indian Standard (IS 15658:2006) [16] 80 1.12 1.18
100 1.18 1.24
Specified Compressive
Grade Designation of

a) Blocks with chamfer of work size greater

Strength of Paving
Blocks at 28 Day

Traffic Category

Minimum Block
Recommended

than 5 mm in width
Paving Blocks

Thickness
(N/mm2)

(mm)

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:
Non
M-30 30 50 Compressive Failure load Correction
Traffic =
Light
Strength Plan Area X Factor
M-35 35 60
Traffic
Medium 1.3.2 Type of cement
M-40 40 80
Traffic
Heavy The compressive strength gaining rate of
M-50 50 100 paving blocks, durability in severe
Traffic
Very environments, durability under heavily
M-55 55 Heavy 120 trafficked roadways are depend upon the
Traffic cement type.

Sri Lankan Standard for CPBs which, at first 1.3.3 Workability of paving blocks
time, published in 2011 [17, 18] had taken the
above issues into account but in line with local The working property of paving block is its dry
traffic volumes. The compressive strength and consistency. Mechanical vibration of the mould
the corresponding thickness requirements enables adequate compaction and removal of
according to the Sri Lankan Standard for CPBs the mould soon after filling. Thereby making of
are given in Table 1.3. These compressive paving block is less time consuming. Roller
strength requirements vary from 15 N/mm2 to compacted concrete and earth moist concrete
50 N/mm2 corresponding to the Strength Class are [19] few examples of concrete with dry
4 to Strength Class 1. 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 128
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
 Grout leakage, segregation and bleeding
following aspects as well:
 Shape of concrete paving block should be
should not be allowed during casting.
 Smooth surface texture and sharp edges
maintained after de moulding at green stage.
 Deformations in shape, edges should not be
should be retained after direct stripping.
observed while transporting the blocks.
1.3.4 Maximum nominal size of aggregates
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.
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. Methodology
Established mix design methods such as ACI
and DoE were used to estimate the constituents
of paving blocks for different strength classes of
3
129
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.
3. Experimental Programme and
Discussion
3.1 Selection of Materials
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.
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 µm sieve.
The sieve analysis results are shown in Table
3.2.
Water:
Ordinary tap (drinking) water was used
throughout the work of present investigation.
Additives:
Neither additives nor pigments were used in
whatsoever form.
ENGINEER
Table 3.1 - Sieve analysis of fine aggregates according to ASTM C33 - 92a [28] for ACI Method
Limits according to
Sieve Size Mass Cumulative % Cumulative % ASTM C33 - 92a
% Retained
(mm) Retained (g) Retained Passing
Min Max
4.75 0 0 0 100 95 100
2.36 139 5 5 95 80 100
1.18 525 18 23 77 50 85
0.60 945 32 55 45 25 60
0.30 926 31 86 14 10 30
0.15 307 1 97 4 2 10
pan 103 4 100 0
Total 2946

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 Mass Cumulative Cumulative
% Overall Moderate
Size Retained % % Fine Range
Retained Limit Range
(mm) (g) Retained Passing
Min Max Min Max Min Max
5.00 0 0 0 100 89 100 100 100 100 100
2.36 71 5 5 95 60 100 65 100 80 100
1.18 185 12 17 83 30 100 45 100 70 100
0.60 346 23 40 60 15 100 25 80 55 100
0.30 477 32 72 28 5 70 5 48 5 70
0.15 275 18 90 10 0 15 0 0 0 0
pan 143 10 100 0
Total 1498
3.2 Mix Preparation 3.3 Concrete Paving Block Making
Mix proportions were estimated as per both Concrete paving block making machine as
ACI [30] and DoE mix design methods [31]. shown in the Figure 3.1 was used to cast paving
With these mix designs at hand, trial mixes blocks. The prepared wet mix was laid as a first
were prepared in the laboratory following layer to the moulds as shown in Figure 3.2. A
standard procedures. Paving blocks, cylinders steel rod was used to evenly distribute the wet
with 150 mm diameter and 300 mm height and mix in the mould and then mechanically
150 mm cubes were cast. Whereas, three vibrated for about 20 seconds (or till grout
samples represent the average compressive leakage was observed).
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 Figure 3.1 - Concrete paving block making
adjustments were done to bring them to machine
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
Figure 3.2 - After a first layer of wet concrete is laid
proportions.
in the process of making concrete paving block

4
ENGINEER 130
Table 3.3 - Mix proportions per 1 m3 of wet concrete after moisture content adjustment for ACI mix
design method

Dry bulk First

Specified Average Coarse Fine
volume of estimate of Cement Water
strength strength W/C aggregate aggregate
coarse density (kg/m3) (kg/m3)
(N/mm2) (N/mm2) (kg/m3) (kg/m3)
aggregate (kg/m3)
40 48.6 0.35 0.475 2280 590 692.5 794.2 218.0
35 43.6 0.39 0.475 2280 528 692.5 856.6 218.4
30 33.3 0.50 0.475 2280 418 692.5 966.9 219.1
25 28.3 0.56 0.475 2280 372 692.5 1013.6 219.4
20 23.3 0.63 0.475 2280 328 692.5 1057.3 219.7
15 18.3 0.72 0.475 2280 286 692.5 1099.2 219.9

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

Target Wet Total Coarse Fine

W/C Cement Water
Grade strength density aggregate aggregate aggregate
(kg/m3) (kg/m3)
(N/mm2) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3)
50 63.2 0.4 2432.4 1769.6 474.4 1152.1 621.6 202.0
40 53.2 0.47 2432.4 1843.1 401.0 1186.7 660.6 202.5
30 43.2 0.54 2432.4 1895.3 348.8 1193.2 706.5 202.9
15 24.8 0.76 2432.4 1995.8 248.2 1170.8 829.8 203.5

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

Achieved compressive strength (N/mm2)

Specified Average
Mix strength strength 7 Day 28 Day
(N/mm2) (N/mm2) Cylinder Cylinder
CPBs CPBs
(Average) (Average)
57.0 65.8
1 40 48.6 55.4 57.3 38.6 64.3 64.0 41.4
59.6 61.8
47.5 54.4
2 35 43.6 48.2 48.5 - 55.6 56.2 -
49.8 58.6
40.4 50.5
3 30 33.3 40.4 40.7 31.3 49.1 48.9 35.0
41.2 47.4
42.5 43.1
4 25 28.3 36.3 37.3 - 41.4 42.6 -
33.2 43.4
26.6 32.9
5 20 23.3 31.7 29.2 - 30.7 32.6 -
29.3 34.2
19.4 25.3
6 15 18.3 20.7 20.2 16.7 25.8 25.6 21.3
20.4 25.7

5
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

Average achieved compressive strength

Specified Target (N/mm2)
characteristic mean
Mix 7 Day 28 Day
strength strength
(N/mm2) (N/mm2) Cube Cube
CPBs CPBs
(Average) (Average)
46.2 49.0
1 50 63.2 44.9 45.4 41.1 48.1 48.5 52.0
45.1 48.3
39.8 42.6
2 40 53.2 40.2 39.8 33.8 42.1 42.2 42.3
39.3 41.8
31.7 34.2
3 30 43.2 31.0 30.7 23.7 31.6 31.8 32.4
29.6 29.6
26.9 28.9
4 15 24.8 27.8 27.8 16.6 32.8 30.8 21.3
28.8 30.6

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.
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.

6
ENGINEER 132
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.
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.
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.
References
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Massud S. and Roger K., “Indirect and Non-
Destructive Methods for Assessing Abrasion
Resistance of Concrete”, Magazine of Concrete
Research, Vol 38, No 137, 1986, December, pp
183-190.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7
133
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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 E65-
E70.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Dowson A. J., “Mix Design for concrete block
paving”, Concrete Block Paving Journal, pp 121-
127. Downloaded from
http://www.sept.org/techpapers/86.pdf.
15. 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 60-
62.
16. Bureau of Indian Standards., “Precast concrete
blocks for paving-Specifications”, IS 15658:2006.
17. Sri Lanka Standards Institution, “Specifications
for Concrete Paving Blocks: Part 1:
Requirements”, Sri Lanka Standard 1425: 2011.
18. Sri Lanka Standards Institution, “Specifications
for Concrete Paving Blocks: Part 2: Test
Methods”, Sri Lanka Standard 1425: 2011.
19. 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.
20. American Concrete Institute, “Standard Practice
for Selecting Proportions for Normal,
Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete”, ACI 211.1-91
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 blocks-
Requirements 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.

8
ENGINEER 134
View publication stats