Road Materials and Pavement Design

ISSN: 1468-0629 (Print) 2164-7402 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/trmp20

Finite element modelling approach to determine

optimum dimensions for interlocking concrete
blocks used for road paving

Dhanushika Gunatilake & W. K. Mampearachchi

To cite this article: Dhanushika Gunatilake & W. K. Mampearachchi (2017): Finite element
modelling approach to determine optimum dimensions for interlocking concrete blocks used for
road paving, Road Materials and Pavement Design, DOI: 10.1080/14680629.2017.1385512

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2017.1385512

Published online: 11 Oct 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=trmp20

Download by: [Southern Cross University] Date: 13 October 2017, At: 23:17
 Road Materials and Pavement Design, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2017.1385512

Finite element modelling approach to determine optimum dimensions for

interlocking concrete blocks used for road paving
∗†
Dhanushika Gunatilake and W. K. Mampearachchi

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Moratuwa, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka

(Received 22 January 2017; accepted 5 September 2017 )

Downloaded by [Southern Cross University] at 23:18 13 October 2017

Interlocking concrete block paving (ICBP) is one of the foremost construction methods used
in most of the developing countries due to its economic benefits. Although it has emerged
as a cost-effective paving material, it is yet being developing as a full-fledged construction
technique. The aim of this study was to develop a finite element modelling (FEM) approach to
determine optimum dimensions for concrete blocks and to evaluate the deflections and stresses
induced in pavements with the application of loads. A three-dimensional FEM was built using
the ANSYS FEM software to analyse pavements with different block shapes and laying pat-
terns. Uni 3 block in a herringbone bond pattern induced the lowest deflections and stresses,
and therefore the dimensions of Uni 3 block were considered as the optimum dimensions in
this analysis. Based on that, a new block shape which incorporated the same behaviour was
proposed. Angles 110° and 100° were recommended instead of 137° for the uni-style block
shape. Furthermore, the stress and deflection distributions observed in the pavement for a
change in the wheel wander indicated significant variations in the stresses when the wheel
wander was closer to the pavement edge.
Keywords: concrete block paving; block shapes; block dimensions; wheel wander

Introduction
The rapid process of urbanisation which occurred during the past centuries resulted in an intense
construction of road and related infrastructure around the globe. The road designers are, there-
fore, seeking for innovative construction methods which are economical and durable. Although
several road surfacing materials have been used over the years, interlocking concrete block
paving (ICBP) has proved to be a better alternative than the conventional paving materials
(asphalt and concrete), due to its lower life cycle cost (Mampearachchi & Gunatilake, 2013;
Rollings, 1983). ICBP consists of small brick size concrete block units embedded in a bed of
sand with a gap in the joints which is also filled with the same material of sand. The whole
structure is supported by base/sub-base and subgrade. The horizontal movement of blocks is
restrained by the edge supports (curbs etc.). The load applied on the road surface is transferred
to the adjacent blocks and then to the substructure of the pavement. Therefore, the interaction
between the blocks, sand joints and support conditions is essential to achieve efficient pavement
designs (Concrete Manufacturing Association, 2004).
Literature has revealed a reasonable amount of research related to ICBP which were performed
over the years (Barber & Knapton, 1980; Knapton, 1976; Lin, Ryu, Hao, & Cho, 2016; Lin,

*Corresponding author. Email: dhanuvida@yahoo.com

† Present address: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa,

FL, USA

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

 2 D. Gunatilake and W.K. Mampearachchi

Cho, & Kim, 2016; Mampearachchi & Gunarathna, 2010; Mampearachchi & Senadeera, 2014;
Panda & Ghosh, 2002a, 2002b). Several ICBP models were developed and validated with exper-
imental results (Mampearachchi & Gunarathna, 2010; Nejad, 2003; Nejad & Shadravan, 2006).
Most of the available ICBP design methods were developed based on equivalent design con-
cept, catalogue design method, research-based design method and mechanistic analysis and their
evaluation criteria were based on substituted flexible pavement performance, field performance
of the ICBP, rut depth of the tested pavement and stress variation in base and subgrade mate-
rial respectively. The evaluation criteria and the concepts used were therefore different (Concrete
Manufacturing Association, 2004). With time, it was realised that the evaluations of performance
for a new development in laying patterns or block shapes were very expensive using the above-
mentioned methods. Thus, focus was on new analytical and experimental methods which could
evaluate the behaviour of the concrete block pavement. Recently, a simple and quick experimen-
tal set up was developed and verified to evaluate the ICBP performance using smaller blocks
Downloaded by [Southern Cross University] at 23:18 13 October 2017

(Lin, Ryu, et al., 2016). This set up was used to investigate the horizontal shifting of block pave-
ments. Several other research studies were conducted to analyse the block performance with
respect to the block shapes, thickness, size of the blocks, laying patterns, compressive strength,
support conditions, etc. Mamperarchchi and Senadeera performed a study to evaluate the field
performance of block shapes considering the vertical deflection of pavement under loading and
observed the least deflection in the pavement with uni-style blocks (2014). Additionally, the
pavements with both herringbone bond pattern and stretcher bond pattern had shown almost
similar least deflection variations. In another study which utilised a finite element model (FEM),
Mampearachchi and Gunarathna obtained the least deflection only for the pavement with her-
ringbone bond pattern (2010). Therefore, these two studies have presented contradicting findings.
Nevertheless, the effect of block dimensions on the pavement performance was not clearly stated
in the literature. The dimensions of the block shapes which are generally used differ depend-
ing on the ICBP manufacturer, as the mould sizes used by manufacturers for block construction
could vary. Thus, the block dimensions which have direct impacts on block shapes and laying
patterns were not yet determined. No indication of standard block dimensions was also found in
literature.
Some of the earlier studies (Barber & Knapton, 1980; Jacobs & Houben, 1988; Miura,
Takaura, & Tsuda, 1984; Shackel, 1980) revealed the stiffening of the block pavement gradually
with the repetition of the load. As a result of this behaviour, after a certain number of repetitions,
underlying layers achieve its full compaction and with the additional loading it would result in no
energy lost. Therefore, the deflection and the recovery induced by loading and unloading of the
pavement is the same, indicating an elastic behaviour. It was proved in some early studies that
the elastic behaviour can be used to develop accurate design methods using verified FEM (Nejad,
2003; Nejad & Shadravan, 2006). Hence, a verified FEM could be used to identify more effective
designs by analysing design concepts. Mampearachchi and Gunarathna (2010) also confirmed
that ICBP could be simulated by linear elastic model, comparing a SAP2000 FEM results with
the experimental results obtained elsewhere (Panda & Ghosh, 2002b). For further analysis of
ICBP, another FEM was developed by Mampearachchi and Gunarathna using SAP2000, consid-
ering the effect of support conditions. In order to verify this FEM, a laboratory scale experimental
set-up which was a modified version of a set-up used elsewhere (Panda & Ghosh, 2002a), and
similar to the one of Shackel, O’Keeffe, and O’Keeffe (1993) was constructed. The dimensions
of the test set-up were decided as 1 m × 1 m square in plane and 1 m in depth, by monitoring
the stress distribution in the FEM, which reached a perimeter of about 500 mm away from the
centre of the loading.
Upon reviewing the previous investigations, this study was performed to develop an FEM
which can be used to analyse deflections and stresses in interlocking pavements and to propose
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 3

a method to determine optimum dimensions for concrete blocks utilising the same FEM. As the
construction of ICBP for experimenting is costly and challenging, an FEM which simulates field
conditions would be appropriate to overcome the issues. The results obtained from the laboratory
scale model and the SAP model of ICBP by Mampearachchi and Gunarathna (2010) were used
for the verification of the ANSYS FEM developed in this study. As stated by Mampearachchi
and Gunarathna (2010), the effect of horizontal force on horizontal deflection was minimum,
and the horizontal deflection was found to be three times lower than the vertical deflection.
Therefore, the vertical deflection curve was considered to be the governing factor in selecting
the block shape and laying pattern with the best performance (Mampearachchi & Gunarathna,
2010), (Gunarathna, 2009).

Laboratory scale ICBP model and SAP model (Mampearachchi & Gunarathna, 2010)
Downloaded by [Southern Cross University] at 23:18 13 October 2017

A test model with a 1 m × 1 m square plane was used in this study. The experimental set up
was a strong wooden box with vertical and horizontal braced faces. It was filled with subgrade
soil, base material and bedding sand respectively, as shown in Figure 1. The block paving units
of 210 × 100 mm2 were placed on the top with a sand filled gap of 5 mm and compacted firmly
with a plate vibrator. Two types of loading arrangements (traffic direction perpendicular and
parallel to block pattern) were considered in the experiment and the loading arrangements had
the same contact area – 69,750 mm2 (225 × 310 mm2 ), which was approximately equal to tire
contact area of a single wheel (Panda & Ghosh, 2002a). The compressive load was applied on a
rigid rectangular plate using a hydraulic jack against a rigid steel frame. The load was increased
in 10 kN increments from 0 to 60 kN. A wheel load of 60 kN is higher than the axle load of
22 kips (98 kN), which is the maximum allowable single axle load in many countries. Surface
deflections were measured using six dial gauges.
FEM was developed using the SAP2000 nonlinear 8.1.2 structural analysis programme.
Deflection data obtained from the laboratory scale model were used for the verification of FEM.
The dimensions were the same in both the laboratory scale model and FEM. The materials were
modelled using the properties given in Table 1, which were same as the properties of materi-
als used in the laboratory scale model. Figure 2 shows the SAP model of ICBP developed by
Mampearachchi and Gunarathna (2010) for two types of support conditions.

Development of ANSYS model

Concrete block pavements differ from other types of pavements as the wearing surface is made
of small paving units rather than continuous paving. Beneath the bedding sand, substructure is

Figure 1. Section view of laboratory model.

 4 D. Gunatilake and W.K. Mampearachchi

Table 1. Material properties for SAP FEM (Mampearachchi & Gunarathna, 2010).
Modulus of Shear modulus
Material elasticity (E)(GPa) Poisson’s ratio (G)(GPa)

Concrete 23.2 0.20 9.667

Sand 0.01 0.26 0.00396
ABC 0.24 0.30 0.0923
Soil 0.12 0.40 0.0429
Downloaded by [Southern Cross University] at 23:18 13 October 2017

(a) (b)
Figure 2. SAP model (by Mampearchchi and Gunarathna).

similar to that of a conventional flexible pavement. Application of the tire load on the pavement
tends to rotate and translate the block units. This movement is restrained horizontally by the
curbs and is associated with the interlocking mechanism (Panda & Ghosh, 2002a). Therefore,
this behaviour of concrete block pavement was considered in model development.
SAP FEM was primarily developed for the analysis of support conditions (base and subgrade).
It cannot be used for the analysis of different block shapes and dimensions due to the limitations
in the SAP2000 software. Hence, the ANSYS Workbench 12.1 analysis software was chosen
to develop similar three-dimensional (3D) model and perform analysis further on block shapes
and dimensions. The effect of subgrade on pavement deflection was assumed to be the same
for all block types (Gunatilake & Mampearachchi, 2014). As the study focused on comparing
the deflection and stress variations for different block shapes and sizes, their effect on the out-
put would be similar if the subgrade was excluded from the FEM. Thus, FEM was developed
considering only the block layer, sand bedding and ABC layer.

FEM analysis using ANSYS workbench 12.1

The geometry of the pavement was created in the Solid Works 2012 software (Figure 3(a)) and
was imported to ANSYS Workbench. The FEM was developed using a higher order 3D 20 node
solid element, which exhibits quadratic displacement behaviour and adopting the Hexa Dominant
method for meshing (mesh type: all quads – fine mesh) to have a smooth convergence of the
solution (Figure 3(b,c)). The size of an element in Figure 3(b,c) is 5 mm, and there are about
40,000 elements in a model. The concrete block, sand and road base materials were modelled as
isotropic and linearly elastic. They were characterised by their elastic modulus, Poisson’s ratio
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 5
Downloaded by [Southern Cross University] at 23:18 13 October 2017

Figure 3. Geometry developed with Solid Works 2012. Mesh developed in ANSYS Workbench 12.1.
Mesh developed in ANSYS Workbench 12.1 for uni-style block in a herringbone bond pattern.

and shear modulus (Table 1). Same material properties were used for filling sand and bedding
sand, as the effect on material properties due to compaction was neglected. The filling sand
was modelled as a slab of sand with voids, which has the size and shape of concrete blocks,
as shown in Figure 4. Concrete blocks were then placed in these voids and bonded to the slab
of filling sand. The contact between the blocks and filling sands were assumed to be bonded as
the material properties of filling sands were also entered as inputs. A similar method was used in
previous studies to model sand in joints and the models were validated using experimental results
(Gunarathna, 2009; Hassani & Jamshidi, 2006). The contraction and expansion of concrete due
to temperature effect was also neglected in the analysis since the layer consisted of fragmented
units of 200 mm or less. FEM consisted of filling sand, bedding sand, base layer and concrete
blocks. The dimensions of the FEM were based on the experimental model dimensions and SAP
FEM dimensions used by Mampearachchi and Gunarathne in 2010.
ABC layer: 200 mm
Sand bedding: 40 mm
Sand filling: 5 mm
Concrete block: 210 mm × 100 mm
Load was applied as a point load across a rectangular area of 310 mm × 225 mm in the cen-
tre, which was equal to the tire contact area of a single wheel (Panda & Ghosh, 2002a). The
applied load was increased as 10, 40 and 60 kN for the verification of the FEM using previ-
ous results. The displacements of the bottom face in all directions were restrained. At the four
boundaries of the pavement, horizontal displacement was restrained, allowing displacement in
vertical direction, to simulate the effect of curbs. Loading and boundary conditions are illustrated
in Figure 5.
 6 D. Gunatilake and W.K. Mampearachchi
Downloaded by [Southern Cross University] at 23:18 13 October 2017

Figure 4. Slab of joint filling sand.

Figure 5. Loading condition and boundary condition. (a) Top view; (b) side view.

Verification of the ANSYS FEM

ANSYS FEM was verified using the deflection basin results obtained from the laboratory model
and SAP model in the previous study by Mampearachchi and Gunarathna (2010). The test set-up
presented as test 4 in Mampearachchi and Gunarathna’s study was used for comparison, since
the support condition and the loading arrangement of ANSYS FEM was similar to those in test 4
conditions. The deflection variation of the FEM is shown in Figure 6. As shown in Figures 6 and
7(b), the participation of several blocks for hinge formation and transfer of load was observed in
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 7
Downloaded by [Southern Cross University] at 23:18 13 October 2017

Figure 6. Deflection basin of FEM.

Figure 7. Hinge formation. (a) Adapted from Panda and Ghosh (2002a). (b) Developed ANSYS model.

the developed FEM. This behaviour is first explained elsewhere (Panda & Ghosh, 2002a) and is
shown in Figure 7(a). For blocks underneath the load, hinges were formed at the top edge of the
blocks while the hinges were formed at the bottom edge of the blocks for the adjacent blocks.
At hinging points, joint gap sizes were minimal. Simultaneously, at the opposing ends, joint
gaps were maximised. This behaviour proved the applicability of the joint modelling method
used in the proposed FEM. For further validation of the model, deflection variation along the
diagonal was considered, similar to the previous study. The maximum deflection was observed
underneath the loading. Figure 8 illustrates the comparison of the deflection basins obtained
from laboratory model, SAP model and ANSYS model. Similar deflection variation results were
observed from ANSYS model, SAP model and laboratory scale model, proving the applicability
of ANSYS model to analyse ICBP. Regression analysis was also performed and calculated R2 for
 8 D. Gunatilake and W.K. Mampearachchi
Downloaded by [Southern Cross University] at 23:18 13 October 2017

Figure 8. Verification of ANSYS FEM.

Table 2. R2 values for the predicted plots.

R2
Load (kN) SAP FEM ANSYS FEM

10 0.77 0.79
40 0.91 0.99
60 0.96 0.98

both SAP model and ANSYS model predicted deflection results are shown in Table 2. ANSYS
FEM showed an improved fit in all three loading conditions. This could possibly be a result of
the 3D 20 node solid elements used in the ANSYS FEM compared to the 3D 8 node elements
used in the SAP FEM. It is also likely that the finer mesh used in ANSYS FEM contributed
to improving the accuracy of the model. Hence considering the above findings, ANSYS FEMs
were used to carry out the analysis further, to identify the effect of block shapes and sizes on the
pavement performance.

FEM approach to determine optimum dimensions

As the use of experimental methods to determine the effect of different block shapes and sizes on
pavement performance would be costly, ANSYS FEM could be utilised as a tool to overcome this
issue. This FEM has the potential to investigate the performance of block pavements in different
conditions and present the deflection and stress variations. Therefore, several 3D models were
developed to examine the effect of block shapes of different dimensions and the laying patterns
on the pavement performance.

Block types used in the study

Cobble and uni-style blocks are widely used for ICBPs. According to ICBP manufacturers,
this is due to its high performance as well as pleasing appearance. Reviewing the findings on
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 9

Figure 9. Block dimensions.

Table 3. Dimensions of the block shapes used.

Plan dimensions (mm)

Downloaded by [Southern Cross University] at 23:18 13 October 2017

Block type a b c

Cobble 1 250 84 –
Cobble 2 210 100 –
Cobble 3 175 120 –
Cobble 4 145 145 –
Uni 1 90 43 30
Uni 2 70 33 50
Uni 3 50 23 70
Uni 4 - 46.2 70

the performance of pavements with cobble and uni-style block shapes and herringbone bond
and stretcher bond laying patterns (Mampearachchi & Gunarathna, 2010; Mampearachchi &
Senadeera, 2014), the two block shapes (cobble and uni style) and the two laying patterns
(stretcher bond and herringbone bond) were investigated in this study. Block shapes with dif-
ferent dimensions (Figure 9 and Table 3) for the same surface area (21,000 mm2 ) were used in
the analysis. Similar surface areas were considered to neglect the effect due to the formation of
additional joints between the blocks. The thickness of all block types was 75 mm. The effect of
block thickness was not considered in this study as it was already examined in a previous study
(Panda & Ghosh, 2002b). Cobble 4 and Uni 4 were symmetric blocks. FEMs were developed
for each block type in both stretcher bond pattern and herringbone bond pattern. The material
properties and layer thicknesses, boundary conditions were same as for the initial ANSYS FEM.
A vertical load of 50 kN was applied at the centre for a surface area of 310 mm × 225 mm to
simulate the wheel load.
The maximum deflection and maximum equivalent stress values observed in the pavements
with different block types in both stretcher bond and herringbone bond pattern were used for
the comparison of pavement performance. Equivalent stress is a parameter which represents the
principal stresses in all three directions. Thus, it was used as a measure to understand the abil-
ity of blocks to withstand the load. As it appears in Figure 10, the pavements with herringbone
bond pattern showed lower maximum deflection than ones with stretcher bond pattern, indicating
similar results to previous studies (Mampearachchi & Gunarathna, 2010). The pavements with
uni-style block showed lower deflections than the pavements with Cobble blocks (Figure 10),
as mentioned by Mampearachchi and Senadeera (2014). In pavements with cobble blocks in
stretcher bond pattern, the maximum vertical deflection was increased, with the decrease in long
dimension and increase in short dimension. However, with herringbone bond pattern, the maxi-
mum vertical deflection increased and then decreased, with the decrease in long dimension and
 10 D. Gunatilake and W.K. Mampearachchi
Downloaded by [Southern Cross University] at 23:18 13 October 2017

Figure 10. Comparison of maximum deflection variation of block shape dimensions in two laying
patterns.

Figure 11. Comparison of maximum equivalent stress variation of block shape dimensions in two laying
patterns.

increase in short dimension. It is likely that the maximum vertical deflection variation in uni-
style blocks were different to cobble blocks. Cobble 4 and Uni 4 blocks cannot be arranged in
the herringbone bond pattern because of the geometry. The results obtained for maximum equiv-
alent stress variation for two laying patterns showed results opposite to that of maximum vertical
deflection variation (Figure 11). This could be explained considering the restriction for the block
movement in the two laying patterns. The vertical deflection results indicated higher values for
pavements in stretcher bond pattern than in herringbone bond pattern. Higher movement was
observed due to the lower restraint and vice versa. Hence, higher stresses were observed in the
pavements with herringbone bond due to its higher restraint. As uni-style block has proved to
be more effective with interlocking mechanism due to its geometry, Uni 3 block in herringbone
bond pattern showed the lowest maximum vertical deflection and least maximum stress from the
block types considered in the analysis. Thus, it could be identified as the most effective block
type in enhancing pavement performance.

Introduction of new block shape

Considering the behaviour of Uni 3 in herringbone bond pattern, a new block shape which incor-
porates both the effects of Uni 3 block and herringbone bond pattern was proposed. A substitute
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 11

to new block, which could be obtained by using one and half of Uni 3 block was also suggested,
allowing for aesthetical appearance. This would be further enhanced if the half block is produced
in a different colour (Figure 12). In order to identify the structural performance of these two block
types, similar FEM analysis was performed. According to Figures 13 and 14, both maximum ver-
tical deflection and maximum equivalent stress values obtained for new block was almost similar
to that of Uni 3 in herringbone bond. The new block also induced the least maximum shear stress
in the pavement (Figure 14). As the effect from the new block to the pavement was almost the
same as from Uni 3 in herringbone bond pattern, it could be considered as a substitute to the
existing block shapes and dimensions. In contrast, alternate block showed the highest values in
all three cases: maximum vertical deflection, maximum equivalent stress and maximum shear.
The main reason for this behaviour could possibly be the additional joint formation in between
Downloaded by [Southern Cross University] at 23:18 13 October 2017

Figure 12. New block and alternate block.

Figure 13. Comparison of maximum deflection variation of new blocks.

Figure 14. Comparison of maximum equivalent stress and maximum shear variation of new blocks.
 12 D. Gunatilake and W.K. Mampearachchi

the blocks (although the new block and alternate block have almost similar surface area a gap was
formed additionally in alternate block). Thus, the structural performance of alternate block type
was low, compared to newly introduced block. For further clarification of the effect of proposed
block shape on pavement performance, FEM was analysed changing the loading position so that
the block orientation was different (Figure 15). Maximum equivalent stresses, maximum shear
stresses and maximum bending stresses (around X and Z axes) were plotted against the loading
positions. According to the results, the highest compressive stress had not exceeded 20 N/mm2
while the highest tensile stress had not exceeded 12 N/mm2 .

Effect of angle of uni-style blocks

As the effect of block dimensions on pavement performance was identified, subsequent task
was to determine the effect of angles in uni-style block. FEM analysis was performed for four
Downloaded by [Southern Cross University] at 23:18 13 October 2017

Figure 15. (a) Loading positions of new block (block orientation). (b) Stress variation of new block.

Figure 16. Angle of uni-style block.

 Road Materials and Pavement Design 13

uni-style block types, changing the angle “x” shown in Figure 16. Four angles 137°, 120°, 110°
and 100° were considered in this analysis and maximum vertical deflection and maximum equiv-
alent stress were obtained for each block in herringbone bond pattern (Figure 17). The lowest
maximum deflections and lowest maximum equivalent stresses were obtained when the angle
was reduced to 120°, 110° and 100°. Similar deflection and stress values were obtained for 110°
and 100° angles. It was apparent from the results that these two angles were more effective than
the angles currently used in uni-style blocks. Furthermore, according to the obtained results,
uni-style blocks with angles lower than 100° may not have a significant effect on the pavement
performance.
Downloaded by [Southern Cross University] at 23:18 13 October 2017

Figure 17. Effect of uni-style block angles dimensions on maximum vertical deflection and maximum
equivalent stress.

Figure 18. Wheel wander in the longitudinal direction.

 14 D. Gunatilake and W.K. Mampearachchi

Effect of wheel wander on ICBP

In addition to proposing a method to determine optimum dimensions for concrete blocks, the
effect of wheel wander on stresses and deflections of ICBP, were also determined using the
developed FEM. To simulate this behaviour, loading position was changed on a pavement with
Uni 3 blocks in herringbone bone pattern. FEM analysis was performed moving the load along
the pavement in longitudinal (Figure 18) and transverse (Figure 19) directions. No significant
patterns could be identified in the maximum vertical deflection and maximum equivalent stress
variations (Figures 20 and 21). Several block orientations were repeated as shown in Figures 18
and 19) when the wheel wander changes. Although four to six joints were found in the block
orientations, no significant effect on deflection and stress variations were observed. The effect
of joints may be negligible, as the load was applied on similar surface areas. The maximum
deflections and stresses were developed in the pavement when the wheel wander was closer to
pavement edges. This could be explained considering the effect of restraints. As the horizontal
Downloaded by [Southern Cross University] at 23:18 13 October 2017

displacements at the edges were fully restrained, deformation of pavement under loading was
prevented. Since the pavement was trying to move in the vertical direction, high deflections and

Figure 19. Wheel wander in the transverse direction.

 Road Materials and Pavement Design 15
Downloaded by [Southern Cross University] at 23:18 13 October 2017

Figure 20. Effect of wheel wander on maximum deflection variation and maximum stress variation (in
longitudinal direction).

Figure 21. Effect of wheel wander on maximum deflection variation and maximum stress variation (in
transverse direction).

high stresses were formed in the pavement. However, when the wheel wander was towards the
centre of the pavement, stresses and deflections induced in the pavement were much less.

Conclusions
The study was conducted to propose a method to determine optimum dimensions for concrete
blocks used for road paving using a FEM analysis. The laboratory scale experiment results
obtained from Mampearachchi and Gunarathna’s study were used for the validation of the devel-
oped ANSYS FEM. The hinge formation observed in the block layer with the application of load
was also similar to what was explained in literature. Similar, FEMs were used for the analysis
of ICBP to identify the effect of block shapes and sizes on the pavement. Following conclusions
were drawn from this study:
 16 D. Gunatilake and W.K. Mampearachchi

• FEM results for pavements in herringbone bond pattern indicated lower deflections and
pavements with uni-style blocks exhibited lower deflections as found in literature.
• The pavement with Uni 3 block in herringbone bond pattern showed the best performance
with respect to the deflection and stress variations. Hence, the dimensions of Uni 3 block
could be considered as the optimum dimensions for this analysis. Based on that, a new
block shape which incorporated the same behaviour was proposed.
• The new block exhibited better performance and it could possibly be used as an alter-
native to the existing block shapes and dimensions. In addition to the higher structural
performance, it reduces the number of blocks required per unit area, which could result in
minimisation of cost. It also reduces the need of skilled labour for placing blocks as the
herringbone bond pattern is already incorporated in the block itself, due to its “L” shape.
Manufacturing of blocks would not be an issue after the proper mould is built and thus,
the production cost would not be significantly affected.
Downloaded by [Southern Cross University] at 23:18 13 October 2017

• A substitute to the proposed block was also suggested considering the aesthetical appear-
ance. Since its structural performance was not satisfactory, it could be suggested only for
non-traffic areas where aesthetic appearance is a concern.
• Angles 110° and 100° for the uni-style block shape could possibly be recommended,
instead of 137°. Furthermore, uni-style blocks with angles lower than 100° may not have
a significant effect on the pavement performance, according to the obtained results.
• The change in wheel wander did not exhibit significant effect on the deflection and stress
variations in the pavement. However, when the wheel wander was closer to the pavement
edge, high stresses and deflections were observed.

Upon reviewing the investigation, it can be concluded that this FEM approach could be used
to determine optimum dimensions, by estimating relative performance of different block shapes
and sizes. In order to identify the optimum dimensions for blocks, further research needs to be
performed considering different surface areas.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Dhanushika Gunatilake http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6726-0024

References
Barber, S. D., & Knapton, J. (1980). An experiment investigation of the behaviour of a concrete block
pavement with a sand sub-base. Instituion of Civl Engineers, 69(1), 139–155.
Concrete Manufacturing Association. (2004). Concrete block paving book 1, 2, 3, 4. Midrand: South Africa.
Gunarathna, W. (2009). Finite element model approach to determine an effective layout and support
conditions for concrete block paving.
Gunatilake, D. V., & Mampearachchi, W. K. (2014). Development of a finite element model for concrete
block paving. Proceedings of the 9th Asia Pacific Conference on Tranportation and the Environment
(APTE-2014) (pp. 44–53). Colombo.
Hassani, A., & Jamshidi, A. (2006). Modeling and structural design of a concrete block pavement system.
8th international conference on concrete block paving (pp. 389–398). San Francisco, CA.
Jacobs, M. J., & Houben, L. J. (1988). Wheel track testing and finite element analysis of concrete block
pavement. 3rd international conference on concrete block paving (pp. 102–113). Pavitalia, Rome.
Knapton, J. (1976). The design of concrete block roads. Technical Rep.42.515. Wexham Springs: Cement
and Concrete Association.
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 17

Lin, W., Cho, Y.-h., & Kim, I. (2016). Development of deflection prediction model for concrete block
pavement considering the block shapes and construction patterns. Advances in Materials Science and
Engineering.
Lin, W., Ryu, S., Hao, H., & Cho, Y. H. (2016). Development of a horizontal shifting mechanistic-empirical
prediction model for concrete block pavement. Construction and Building Materials, 118, 245–255.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.04.124
Mampearachchi, W., & Gunarathna, W. (2010, November 1). Finite element model approach to deter-
mine support conditions and effective layout for concrete block paving. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, 22(11), 1139–1147.
Mampearachchi, W. K., & Gunatilake, M. (2013). A sustainable road construction material for low volume
roads. Proceedings of the FARU international research symposium (pp. 7–18). Hambantota, Sri Lanka.
Mampearachchi, W. K., & Senadeera, A. (2014). Determination of the most effective cement concrete block
laying pattern and shape for road pavement based on field performance. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering © ASCE, 26(2), 226–232.
Miura, Y., Takaura, M., & Tsuda, T. (1984). Structural design of concrete block pavements by CBR method
Downloaded by [Southern Cross University] at 23:18 13 October 2017

and its evaluation. Conference on concrete block paving (pp. 152–157). Delft: Delft University of
Technology.
Nejad, F. (2003). Finite element analysis on concrete block paving. 7th international conference on concrete
block paving. Sun City: Document Transformation Technology.
Nejad, F., & Shadravan, M. (2006). A study on behaviour of block pavement using 3D finite element method.
San Francisco international conference on concrete block paving (pp. 349–358). San Francisco.
Panda, B., & Ghosh, A. (2002a). Structural behaviour of concrete block paving I: Sand in bed and joints.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, 128(2), 123–129.
Panda, B., & Ghosh, A. (2002b). Structural behaviour of concrete block paving II: Concrete blocks. Journal
of Transportation Engineering, 128(2), 130–135.
Rollings, R. S. (1983). Concrete block pavements, technical report GL-83-3. Vicksburg: US Army
Engineers Waterway Experiment Station Geotechnical Laboratory.
Shackel, B. (1980). The performance of interlocking block pavements under accelerated trafficking. 1st
international conference on concrete block paving (pp. 113–120). Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Shackel, B., O’Keeffe, W., & O’Keeffe, L. (1993). Concrete block paving tested as articulated slabs.
Proceedings of the 5th international conference on concrete pavement design and rehabilitation (pp.
89–95). Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.