International Journal of Pavement Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpav20

Influence of bedding and jointing sand on the

shear strength characteristics of Interlocking
Paver Blocks – bedding sand interface

Arjun Siva Rathan RT , Sunitha V , Murshida P & Anusudha V

To cite this article: Arjun Siva Rathan RT , Sunitha V , Murshida P & Anusudha V (2020):
Influence of bedding and jointing sand on the shear strength characteristics of Interlocking
Paver Blocks – bedding sand interface, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, DOI:
10.1080/10298436.2020.1847286

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2020.1847286

Published online: 20 Nov 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 14

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gpav20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2020.1847286

Influence of bedding and jointing sand on the shear strength characteristics of

Interlocking Paver Blocks – bedding sand interface
Arjun Siva Rathan RT , Sunitha V , Murshida P and Anusudha V
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Shear stress behaviour is one of the predominant characteristics which influence the performance of Received 6 July 2020
Interlocking Concrete Block Pavement. The primary objective of the present study is to find the Accepted 2 November 2020
influence of bedding sand and jointing sand on the interface shear stress behaviour of Interlocking
KEYWORDS
Paver Blocks (IPB) and bedding sand. The shear stress behaviour was studied using a large-scale direct Interface shear stress; large-
shear test. Three grades of bedding sand were involved in the study. PLAXIS software was used to scale direct shear; bedding
simulate the laboratory test results and the accuracy of the test results was statistically validated. In sand; jointing sand; PLAXIS;
order to avoid tedious experimental studies, further analysis was executed using PLAXIS software. Interlocking Paver Block;
Eight gradations of jointing sand were analysed using numerical modelling to interpret its influence IITPAVE
on the interface shear stress behaviour. The actual shear stress due to the traffic load for 50 million
standard axles was estimated using IITPAVE software and the respective interface shear strength was
calculated from the experimental results to ensure that the interface shear strength can resist the
actual shear stress. Laboratory and numerical test results unveiled that the IPB when laid on Zone II
bedding sand packed by Zone II>>2.36 jointing sand exhibited better interface shear stress behaviour.

1. Introduction (1991) also stated that the ICBP exhibits an elastic behaviour in
the lock-up state as the effective elastic modulus of the wearing
Interlocking Concrete Block Pavement (ICBP) is a cost-effec-
surface increases when the recovery becomes constant. The
tive pavement type suitable for heavy as well as low traffic
major factors that govern the performance of the ICBP are gra-
areas such as ports, taxiways, aprons, parking bays and rural
dation of the bedding sand, joint width, jointing sand and geo-
roads. The historical road design concept of stone interlocking
metry of IPB. Jointing sand is considered as one of the most
marked the start of the evolution of ICBP. The structural com-
crucial and influential components in the wearing surface of
ponents of the ICBP are similar to that of the flexible pavement
ICBP since the predominant function of the jointing sand is
except in the case of its wearing surface. The wearing surface of
transferring the load between the blocks through friction and
the ICBP also serves as a medium for shear and load transfer
distribution of the load in the lower layers. An efficient fric-
along with performing its primary intended purpose of provid-
tional load transfer shall be achieved by proper filling of joint-
ing sufficient wear resistance. Hence, the load distribution pat-
ing sand and maintenance of uniform joint width between 2
tern and behaviour of ICBP is distinct from that of the flexible
and 5 mm (Shackel 1984; Huurman et al. 1992; Mampearach-
pavement. The wearing surface of the ICBP comprises of Inter-
chi and Gunarathna 2010). The influence of block thickness
locking Paver Blocks (IPB), bedding sand and jointing sand
and bedding sand on the structural behaviour of ICBP
that is filled between the laid blocks. The wearing surface com-
becomes minimal when the joint between the blocks are
ponents of ICBP does not perform independently but behave
filled with jointing sand (Ascher et al. 2006). Knapton and
as a single structure (Algin 2007). The load distribution mech-
O’Grady (1983) concluded that coarser gradation was best sui-
anism of ICBP is accomplished mainly by the shear transfer of
ted for large joints and tight joints that require fine sand for
load to the adjacent IPBs via jointing sand (Shackel and Lim
better performance. Knapton and O’Grady (1983) also
2003). ICBP experiences rotation and translation failure
suggested that Zone IV sand was not used for bedding sand
when traffic load is applied to it. Thus, the overall stability of
due to the presence of more fines. Livneh et al. (1988) pro-
the ICBP is generally attained by minimising this translation
posed a maximum particle size of 1.2 mm and an acceptable
and rotation with the aid of vertical and horizontal interlock-
passing rate of 7.5% through 75-micron sieve for jointing
ing. The adjacent individual blocks interact, and proper verti-
sand. Panda and Ghosh (2002) recommended that the Zone
cal interlocking is attained through the jointing sand. Edge
I sand with 10% fines passing through 2.36 mm sieve exhibits
restraints like kerbs, is one of the primary requirements to
better results for joint widths up to 5 mm and Zone I sand for
attain an efficient horizontal interlocking. The IPB stiffens pro-
joint widths more than 5 mm.
gressively with repetitive traffic loading resulting in a lock-up
Bedding sand is another vital component in ICBP which
state that minimises the deflection on further loading (Shackel
functions as a separation layer and cushion for the IPB. The
1984; Miura et al. 1984; Knapton and Algin 1998). Rada et al.

CONTACT Arjun Siva Rathan RT sivarathan07@gmail.com

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 ARJUN SIVA RATHAN RT ET AL.
thickness and gradation of the bedding sand and its compac-
tion level profoundly alters the performance of ICBP. Panda
and Ghosh (2001) conducted a detailed study on the shear
resistance and dilatancy of different zones of sand and rec-
ommended dense graded sand as bedding sand. The bedding
sand thickness of 30–50 mm after compaction delivers a better
structural behaviour (Shackel 1984; Rada et al. 1991; Dowson
1998). Panda and Ghosh (2002) recommended Zone I sand for
bedding sand in order to have an enhanced deflection behav-
iour. In light of the studies mentioned above, it was concluded
that the performance of the ICBP was mainly contributed by
the collective performance of bedding sand and jointing sand.
The stability of the ICBP is attained with the aid of better
shear resistance. The shear stress behaviour is prominent in
intersections and gradients where braking, acceleration and
turning movements of vehicles occur frequently. Hence, a
detailed study on the interface shear stress of the IPB and bed-
ding sand is inevitable to understand the shear behaviour. The
analysis of interface shear stress behaviour of IPB and bedding
sand is comparable to that of soil-structure interface studies.
Most of the interface studies between soil-structure combi-
nations were carried out by performing a large scale direct
shear test (Zekkos et al. 2010; Piratheepan et al. 2013; Hossain
and Yin 2014; Sayeed et al. 2014; Yang et al. 2018; Ma et al.
2019). The present study also employs large scale direct
shear test as it is capable of simulating the interface shear
behaviour between the IPB and bedding sand as per ASTM
D5321/5321M (2019). The interface friction is an indication
of the roughness and interlocking characteristics and therefore
it will be higher for a rough surface (Lok-Man Chu 2005; Sha-
kir and Zhu 2010; Xia et al. 2011). The insights from the litera-
ture review suggested that the peak shear strength and
interface friction are proportional to the roughness of the
interface.
A Finite Element based software is often used for the simu-
lation of large scale direct shear test (El-Emam et al. 2012).
PLAXIS is one of the useful software that is popular in simu-
lating soil-structure shear behaviour. Hegde and Roy (2018)
recommended PLAXIS 2D as a reliable software to simulate
the large-scale direct shear test for soil- geosynthetic interface.
Yu et al. (2015) conducted an extensive analysis on the per-
formance of PLAXIS software in the soil-structure interaction
behaviour and recommended PLAXIS as a competent software
to simulate the linear elastic and Mohr-Coulomb model.
A thorough literature review showed that the research
works had been mostly focused on finding the deflection
behaviour of the ICBP by varying the gradation of bedding
sand and jointing sand. A few research works have concen-
trated on the application of the small-scale direct shear test
to find the optimum gradation of bedding and jointing sand.
However, only a minimal number of research works was car-
ried out in the analysis of the combined interface shear stress
Table 1. Properties of bedding sand.
Specific Angle of internal
Sl no Description gravity (–) friction, ϕ (Deg)
1 Zone I 2.67 43.53
2 Zone II 2.62 42.67
3 Zone III 2.58 40.92
behaviour between Interlocking Paver Blocks and bedding
sand. Panda and Ghosh (2002) has carried out extensive
research on the effect of joint width, gradation of bedding
sand and jointing sand on the deflection behaviour of ICBP
using Plate load test. The bedding sand and jointing sand in
the present study are the controlled gradation similar to that
adopted by Panda and Ghosh (2002). The key objective of
the present study was to interpret the influence of bedding
sand and jointing sand in the interface shear stress between
the IPB and bedding sand. The shear parameters are calculated
from the readings obtained from a large-scale direct shear test.
The results obtained from the large-scale direct shear test for
different grades of bedding sand are simulated using PLAXIS
software. The results from the PLAXIS software are statistically
validated to approve the software for further analysis. The
interface shear behaviour of eight grades of jointing sand
was analysed using PLAXIS. The interface shear strength was
ascertained with the actual shear stress developed in the inter-
face that is calculated using IITPAVE for the design section for
50 msa as specified in IRC 37 (2018).
2. Experimental program
2.1. Materials
The materials used in the present study are described in this
section.
2.1.1. Bedding sand
M-sand that is commonly known as manufacturing sand, was
utilised for the entire study. Even though the properties of
river sand are superior to M-sand, river sand is presently
scarce in availability as it is becoming a depleting natural
resource. Hence, the locally available M-sand was utilised for
both bedding as well as jointing sand in different gradation.
Three different gradations, namely Zone I, Zone II and Zone
III within the specified limits as per IS 383 (2016) were adopted
for the study.
Zone I sand possesses higher specific gravity and relative
density when compared to other gradations. Small scale direct
shear test was carried out to find the angle of internal friction
and cohesion for the above soil. The basic properties of all
types of soil are listed in Table 1. The gradation of the three
different zones of sand is given in Figure 1. The Coefficient
of curvature and Uniformity coefficient results substantiate
that all three types of sand are well graded with relative density
ranges from 78.64% to 84.32%, which replicates medium dense
to coarser dense sand.
Figure 2 shows the SEM image for three different zones of
bedding sands. The SEM image portrays the size of the par-
ticles from coarser to finer gradation which was identical to
the interpretation from the sieve analysis results. The SEM
Cohesion, Relative Uniformity Coefficient of
C (kPa) density (%) coefficient (Cu) curvature (Cc)
4.11 84.32 5.32 1.52
4.15 83.01 4.63 1.12
5.25 78.64 2.56 0.96

Figure 1. Gradation of bedding sand.
image for the Zone I sand illustrated the presence of bigger and
elongated particles with sharp edges. There are possibilities of
breakage of such particles with the increase in normal stress.
The SEM image of Zone II and Zone III sand manifested the
predominant presence of angular particles. Close compactness
of particles was witnessed in Zone II sand and Zone III sand
which exhibited a finer particle size that is similar to the
respective gradations.
2.1.2. Jointing sand
Jointing sand is finer than bedding sand as it has to avoid
choking of particles between the joint gaps. The present
study employed eight different gradations of jointing sand
that were adopted in the study conducted by Panda and
Ghosh (2002). The type of sand used in the literature was
river sand, whereas M-sand was used in the present study.
This alteration in the material properties resulted in variation
in the shear parameters. The angle of internal friction and the
cohesion values for all the gradation was estimated from the
small-scale direct shear test. The properties of different grada-
tion of sand are shown in Table 2.
The designation of the different grade of sand is as follows:
Figure 2. SEM images for bedding sand.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 3
Zone I >>2.36 represents Zone I sand passing 100% through
2.36 mm sieve.
Zone II >>2.36 denotes Zone II sand passing 100% through
2.36 mm sieve.
10% Zone I >>2.36 represents Zone I sand passing 100% through
2.36 mm sieve with 10% of sand passing through 75 micron sieve.
15% Zone I >>2.36 represents Zone I sand passing 100% through
2.36 mm sieve with 15% of sand passing through 75 micron sieve.
2.1.3. Interlocking Paver Block (IPB)
IPB is a precast block manufactured in the industry by dry pro-
cess method. M35 grade concrete was used for the study. The
mix design was adopted as per the procedure explained in IRC
SP 63 (2018), IS 15658 (2006) and IS 10262 (2019). Water-
cement ratio of 0.4 was adopted. The commonly used zig-
zag-shaped block under Category A in IRC SP 63 (2018) was
used for the study as it represents the interlocking of blocks
at all sides. The thickness of IPB used for the study was
80 mm and the IPB used for the study was cast in a single
batch to maintain uniformity in the wearing surface. The
mechanical properties of the IPB are shown in Table 3.
2.2. Experimental apparatus
The experimental apparatus used for the present work is
explained under this section.
2.2.1. Large scale direct shear test
Large scale direct shear test is one of the most recommended
experiments for soil-structure interface studies. The current
study was analogous to the soil-structure interaction behaviour
analysis and hence large-scale direct shear test was employed.
The test set up consisted of two separate boxes with a dimen-
sion of 30 cm *30 cm *10 cm each. The normal loads applied
for the experiments were 50, 75, 100 and 125 kPa. The grid
plates were placed at the bottom and top of the shear box
4 ARJUN SIVA RATHAN RT ET AL.

Table 2. Gradation and properties of jointing sand.

Percentage passing
10% 15%
Sieve size (mm) Zone I Zone I>>2.36 Zone I>>2.36 Zone I>>2.36 Zone II Zone II>>2.36 Zone III Zone IV
10 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
4.75 94 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
2.36 70 100 100 100 88 100 98 99
1.18 46 65.71 68.23 70 72 81.81 89 94
0.60 30 42.85 47.05 50 45 51.13 63 88
0.30 16 22.85 28.52 32.5 21 23.86 25 38
0.15 6 8.57 15.29 20 6 6.81 8 6
0.075 2 2.85 10 15 2 2.27 3 3
Specific gravity (–) 2.67 2.65 2.61 2.57 2.63 2.62 2.58 2.56
Relative density (%) 87.65 83.98 80.25 73.45 83.35 80.05 74.60 66.75

perpendicular to each other. From the literature review, it was
found that most of the research works on soil-concrete inter-
face studies were carried out in 0.5 mm/min to 1.5 mm/min.
Also, the ASTM D5321/D5321M – 19 recommends a shear
rate of 1 mm/min for the soil-geosynthetic interface studies.
Therefore, the shear rate for the present study was fixed as
1.25 mm/min.
The upper portion of the shear box was occupied by IPB
that was maintained with an average joint width of 4 mm.
The lower portion of the shear box was packed with three
layers of bedding sand that was compacted by applying 110
blows per layer. The sand was mixed in an Optimum Moist-
ure Content of 6% before compaction to simulate the site
condition. The prepared wet soil for a required weight was
placed and compacted for three-layers to ensure 95% relative
compaction. The readings were measured with two LVDTs
and a load cell connected to a data logger. The test set up
was capable for a maximum horizontal shear displacement
of 30 mm and hence the test was terminated either with the
maximum shear displacement of 25 mm or early-stage peak
shear stress.
2.3. Experimental procedure
The major objective of the study was to understand the effect
of gradation of bedding sand and jointing sand of IPB on the
interface stress behaviour between the IPB and bedding sand.
The test setup with the zigzag block shape is shown in Figure 3.
The test procedure followed for the analysis was as per ASTM
D5321/D5321M (2019). The test was carried out in two scen-
arios, as discussed below.
2.3.1. Phase I – based on bedding sand
In this case, parameters such as jointing sand and concrete
blocks were kept constant. The jointing sand and block
shape used for the study were 10% Zone I>>2.36 and zigzag
shape respectively. The bedding sand was varied with three
different gradations viz. Zone I, Zone II and Zone III respect-
ively. The laboratory experiment was performed using a large-
scale direct shear test. The tested samples were simulated using
PLAXIS software and the results of the experimental and simu-
lated tests were statistically validated.

2.3.2 Phase II – based on jointing sand

2.2.2. Small scale direct shear test
Small scale direct shear test was used to find the shear behav-
iour of the bedding and jointing sand gradation. The shear
box size was of 60 mm *60 mm *25 mm. The test procedure
adopted was as per IS 2720 Part 13 (1986). The sand was
mixed with an Optimum Moisture Content of 6%. The nor-
mal stresses used for the study were 50, 100, 150 and
200 kPa. The readings were recorded digitally using a data
logger that is connected with two LVDTs for displacement
measurement and a load cell for load measurement. The
test was stopped either when the shear displacement reaches
25 mm or when steady state was reached. The shear modulus
was calculated by the ratio of shear stress and shear strain
considering the slope in the elastic region. The secant mod-
ulus was calculated from the derived shear modulus and Pois-
son’s ratio. The Poisson’s ratio adopted throughout the study
was 0.35.
In this case, zigzag-shaped concrete blocks were used as shown
in Figure 3. The best gradation of sand from the phase I test
result was used as the bedding sand. Eight gradations of differ-
ent zones of sand listed in Table 2 were used as jointing sand.
The plot between normal stress and peak shear stress from the
derived numerical result was used to calculate the shear prop-
erties. The gradation of jointing sand that delivers the most
desirable shear parameters was identified.
2.4. Shear calculation
The shear stress was estimated from the recorded shear force
to the corrected area ratio, as shown in Equation (1). The cor-
rected area was calculated based on the shear displacement. A
curve between the shear stress and horizontal displacement
was plotted from the measured readings and the peak shear

Table 3. Mechanical properties of Interlocking Paver Blocks.

Description Area (cm2) Water absorption (%) Compressive strength (MPa) Split tensile strength (MPa) Flexural strength (MPa) Abrasion wear (mm3/5000 mm2)
Zigzag block 242.9 2.63 39.43 2.79 4.32 5529.3

Figure 3. Experimental Setup.
stress was noted from the curve.
Fs
t= (1)
Ac
where, τ – Shear stress (kPa), Fs – Shear force (kN), Ac – Cor-
rected area (m2).
Elastic shear stress represents the shear stress calculated in
the elastic region of the shear stress horizontal displacement
curve. The elastic shear stress is half the average shear stress
value obtained from the experimental results. The secant mod-
ulus was calculated as a ratio of shear stress and shear strain.
The Poisson’s ratio for all types of sand was considered as
0.35. The peak shear stress for the varying normal stress was
then plotted to estimate the angle of internal friction and
coefficient of friction that fits the Linear Mohr–Coulomb fail-
ure model as given in Equation (2).
t = ca + sn tan f (2)
where, τ – Shear stress (kPa), Fs – Shear force (kN), Φ – Mohr-
Coulomb friction angle (deg), σn – Normal stress (kPa), ca –
Adhesion Intercept.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 5
The interface friction (μ)was calculated from the ratio of
peak shear stress to the normal stress using Equation (3).
Ilori et al. (2017) reported that the friction factor computed
as the ratio of peak shear stress and normal stress was more
conservative.
t
m= (3)
sn
where, τ – Shear stress (kPa), σn – Normal stress (kPa).
The contact efficiency was calculated from the ratio of the
derived angle of internal friction of the bedding sand and
the interface friction angle between IPB and bedding sand,
as mentioned in Equation (4). Higher the contact efficiency
higher was the interlocking effect between the IPB and bedding
sand.
tan F
Fc = (4)
tan d
where, δ – Angle of internal friction between IPB and bedding
sand, ϕ – Angle of internal friction of sand, Fc – Contact
efficiency.
6 ARJUN SIVA RATHAN RT ET AL.

2.5. FEM analysis
An FEM based software developed by Bentley Systems called
PLAXIS was used to simulate the large-scale direct shear test
in the present study. The large-scale direct shear test was
more time consuming and labour intensive when compared
to PLAXIS software-based simulation. However, the results
obtained from the PLAXIS software was validated using the
laboratory test results. The jointing and bedding sand were
simulated as Mohr-Couloumb model and IPB was represented
by a linear elastic model. The percentage of different particle
size was given as an input material parameter in the simulated
Mohr Coulomb model. The model consisted of a fixed bound-
ary condition on all sides except in the direction of load. Pre-
scribed line displacement was assigned for 25 mm towards the
direction of load.
One of the key advantages of using PLAXIS software is its
applicability in simulating the joint width and incorporating
the properties of jointing sand as depicted in Figure 4. The
normal load of 50, 75, 100 and 125 kPa was replicated as a uni-
formly distributed load. Based on the sensitivity analysis, a
medium mesh was chosen for the study. The Poisson’s ratio
is one of the input parameters for the numerical modelling.
IRC 37: 2018 recommends the Poisson’s ratio of 0.35 for the
flexible pavement analysis. Hence the same value has been
used for the present study.
The simulation was done in two phases, the first phase
simulated the test model, material properties and boundary
conditions and the second phase simulated the loading
Figure 4. Simulated test Model with mesh – PLAXIS.
condition and prescribed displacement. The simulated model
of the test setup is shown in Figure 4.
3. Results and discussions
The empirical findings of the research and the interpretations
are included under this section.
3.1. Effect of bedding sand
Bedding sand was considered as an influential parameter in the
shear stress characterisation. Three different zones of bedding
sand, viz. Zone I, Zone II and Zone III were engaged for the
study. Zone I to Zone III was coarser to finer gradation that
complied with the specifications of IS 383 (2016). Panda and
Ghosh (2002) suggested that the best jointing sand to possess
better deflection behaviour of ICBP when tested from the plate
load test study was 10% Zone I>> 2.36-grade sand and hence
the same grade sand was used as jointing sand in the current
study. The shear stress behaviour of the interface mainly relies
on the frictional characteristics of the bedding sand, jointing
sand and IPB. The normal stresses used for the study are 50,
75, 100 and 125 kPa. The test results are shown in Table 4.
The shear modulus was calculated from the elastic region of
the shear strain curve. The secant modulus was derived from
the calculated shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio. The Pois-
son’s ratio was assumed as 0.35 for all the grades of sand.
The plot between the shear displacement and shear stress for
Zone I, Zone II and Zone III are shown in Figure 5(a–c)
respectively. The result showed that under varying normal
stress, the strain hardening behaviour was predominant for
all the grades of sand.
The peak shear stress for the interface was witnessed in
Zone II sand. Irrespective of the higher angle of internal fric-
tion of Zone I sand, the sand experienced a lower interface
peak shear stress when compared to Zone II. The reason
may be due to the less surface contact between the Zone I bed-
ding sand and IPB. SEM analysis of Zone I sand highlighted
the presence of large flaky particles which may further break
down with the increase in the normal stress, as shown in
Figure 2(a). The presence of a higher proportion of 4.75 and
2.36 mm sized particles in Zone I gradation stimulated the
breakdown of particles. Also, the contact surface of the Zone
I sand during shear mechanism was lower due to the presence

Table 4. Experimental results from large scale direct shear test.

Avg. Peak Secant
Normal shear stress Elastic shear shear Shear modulus, Interface friction Secant friction Poisson’s Modulus, E
Description stress (kPa) (kPa) stress (kPa) strain G (MPa) coefficient angle (Deg) ratio, μ (MPa)
ZI 50 49.52 24.76 0.0047 5.27 0.99 44.72 0.35 14.22
75 65.67 32.84 0.0058 5.66 0.88 41.21 0.35 15.29
100 90.62 45.31 0.0076 5.96 0.91 42.18 0.35 16.10
125 112.86 56.43 0.0085 6.64 0.90 42.08 0.35 17.92
ZII 50 51.32 25.66 0.0047 5.46 1.03 45.75 0.35 14.74
75 67.86 33.93 0.0058 5.85 0.90 42.14 0.35 15.80
100 93.97 46.99 0.0075 6.26 0.94 43.22 0.35 16.91
125 116.02 58.01 0.0083 6.99 0.93 42.87 0.35 18.87
ZIII 50 40.63 20.32 0.0049 4.15 0.81 39.10 0.35 11.19
75 58.50 29.25 0.0062 4.72 0.78 37.95 0.35 12.74
100 79.30 39.65 0.0071 5.58 0.79 38.41 0.35 15.08
125 95.36 47.68 0.0084 5.68 0.76 37.34 0.35 15.33
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 7

Figure 5. Shear stress vs. Shear displacement for bedding sand.

8 ARJUN SIVA RATHAN RT ET AL.

of coarser materials when compared to the Zone II sand. The

higher contact efficiency of Zone II sand with an efficiency
ratio of 0.968 justified the said assumption with better inter-
locking effect when compared to other grades of sand. The
peak shear strength increased with the increase in the normal
stress. This was due to the fact that the increase in the normal
stress stiffens the surrounding material and tend to resist shear
stress. The difference in the peak shear strength was found to
be minimal at a normal stress of 50 kPa when compared to the
normal stress of 125 kPa. The percentage difference of peak
shear stress between the Zone II to the Zone I and Zone III
grade sand were 3.5% and 20.8% respectively. The Zone III
possessed a finer gradation with lower peak shear stress, as
the fine particles exhibited higher compression under the nor- Figure 7. Vertical displacement vs horizontal displacement for different bedding
mal stress leading to lower shear strength. Bullen and Knapton sand.
(1998) stated that finer grade sand was not suitable for bedding
sand due to its lower angle of internal friction. The secant
modulus of Zone II was observed to be 18.87 MPa and that sign indicates its dilation behaviour. Dilation is a tendency of
of Zone I was found to be 17.92 MPa. The higher peak shear volume increase during shearing and it occurs due to the lack
stress is an indication of higher load spreading phenomenon of freedom in the movement between the interlocked grains
under normal load. The peak shear stress and normal stress which on shearing leads to a bulk expansion of particles. The
plot which fits the Mohr-Coulomb model are shown in result shown in Figure 7 confirms that higher dilation was
Figure 6. The interface friction, contact efficiency and angle experienced in Zone I sand, followed by Zone II and Zone
of internal friction for different grades of sand were calculated III. The dilation behaviour plays vital role in the shear strength
as shown in Table 5. The interface frictional angle for Zone II behaviour of IPB as the dilation force will reduce the excessive
was found to be 41.34° and that of Zone I was estimated as relative displacement between the IPB and thus emphasises the
40.69°. lock-up phenomenon between the Interlocking Paver Blocks.
The plot between the horizontal and vertical displacement Figure 8 shows the plot between the horizontal and vertical
for different bedding sands is shown in Figure 7. The negative displacement for different normal stress for Zone II sand.

Figure 8. Vertical displacement vs horizontal displacement for different normal

Figure 6. Mohr-Coulomb model for different bedding sand. stress.

Table 5. Test results from the Mohr-Coulomb model.

Description Normal stress (kPa) Peak shear stress (kPa) C value (kPa) ϕ value interface (Deg) Coef of friction Φ value sand (Deg) Contact efficiency (Fc) R2
ZI 50 49.52 4.43 40.69 0.86 43.53 0.934 0.993
75 65.67
100 90.62
125 112.86
ZII 50 51.32 5.22 41.34 0.88 42.67 0.968 0.993
75 67.86
100 93.97
125 116.02
ZIII 50 40.63 3.70 36.50 0.74 40.90 0.891 0.997
75 58.50
100 79.30
125 95.36

The results highlighted that the vertical movement decreases
with the increase in horizontal movement and becomes con-
stant after a certain point. Another noteworthy point was
that the vertical movement becomes constant much earlier
with the increase in the normal stress. The mechanism of
IPB proved that the increase in the resistance to deflection
and shear stress increases with the increase in the load and
this progressed the stiffening process of IPB (Shackel and
Lim 2003). This elucidated the fact that the interlocking
effect occurs ahead for higher normal stress when compared
to lower normal stress. From the shear stress test results, it
was concluded that Zone II sand performs better, followed
by Zone I sand. The test results were contradictory to the lit-
erature findings of Panda and Ghosh (2002). Although Zone
II sand showed better shear resistance, the percentage differ-
ence between the Zone I and Zone II in parameters such as
peak shear stress, angle of internal friction and secant modulus
were 2.72%, 1.57% and 5.03% respectively.
3.2. Numerical simulation using PLAXIS and statistical
validation
The test procedure of large-scale direct shear test is tedious and
time-consuming. In order to overcome these difficulties, FEM
based software was used for the study. The simulation of joint
width, jointing sand and Mohr-Coulomb model are an added
advantage in PLAXIS. The model of large-scale direct shear
test, loading pattern and shear failure is shown in Figure 9.
Three test trials per normal stress were performed in the
laboratory and five test trials per normal stress were carried
Figure 9. Interface shear stress model– PLAXIS.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 9
out using PLAXIS analysis. The average peak shear test and
the respective standard deviation are shown in Table 6. The
standard deviation was found to be higher for the laboratory
test results and lower for the simulated model. The simulated
test results were comparable to that of the predicted values
from the laboratory test, as shown in Table 7. The simulated
test result depicted a higher peak shear stress value when com-
pared to the laboratory test result. The peak shear stress for the
Zone II sand from the FEM model was observed as 131.56 kPa
and that from the laboratory testing was found to be
116.02 kPa which showed a percentage change of 11.8%. The
difference in the standard deviation and the peak shear stress
between the experimental and FEM model may be due to
the assumption adopted in the simulation model that the
sand properties are homogeneous. In contrast to this point,
the uniformity in the sand properties differed between the lab-
oratory trials as the sand has to be removed and compacted for
each normal stress. It was also observed that the simulated
model was generated with the uniform joint width of 4 mm.
In laboratory testing, the joint width was maintained at a tol-
erance of 4 ± 1 mm. The angle of internal friction from the lab-
oratory test result for Zone II was estimated as 41.34° and that
from FEM result was found to be 42.62°. The R 2 value for the
FEM model was higher for the laboratory test results. Hence a
statistical analysis was carried out to find the significance in
accepting the simulated model for further studies. The statisti-
cal validation was carried out with t-test with a 95% confidence
level. The statistical test results are shown in Table 8. The null
hypothesis for the test was considered as there is no significant
difference between the laboratory test results and the PLAXIS
based simulation model results. The alternate hypothesis for
the testwas set as there is a significant difference between the
laboratory test results and PLAXIS model results.
The tests were performed for a total of 36 samples. The t-
critic value was higher than the t-static value calculated,
which confirmed the acceptance of the null hypothesis with
a 95% confidence level. The statistical test result affirmed
that the PLAXIS software is an effective tool in the analysis
of shear behaviour of Interlocking Concrete Block Pavements.
Therefore, further study on the shear behaviour and the influ-
ence of eight different gradations of jointing sand was simu-
lated using PLAXIS software.
3.4. Shear parameters of jointing sand using small
scale direct shear
The small scale simple direct shear test was carried out to find
the shear properties of the jointing sand. Eight different grada-
tions of sand were used as jointing sand. The test results for the
eight gradation of jointing sand are given in Table 9. The inter-
face shear stress increased with the increase in normal stress.
The peak shear stress for Zone I was found to be 197.22 kPa
which was higher than that of other grades of sand. The
peak shear stress of Zone II was observed as 186.91 kPa and
the lowest shear stress was experienced by Zone IV, with a
peak shear stress value of 167.03 kPa. The peak shear stress
of 10% Zone I>>2.36 and Zone II>>2.36 were identified as
183.26 and 181.16 kPa respectively, and the secant modulus
was estimated as 15.46 and 15.48 MPa respectively.
10 ARJUN SIVA RATHAN RT ET AL.

Table 6. Standard deviation for the test samples.

Average Peak shear stress
No of samples (kPa) Standard deviation (kPa)
Description Normal stress (kPa) Experiment FEM Experiment FEM Experiment FEM
ZI 50 3 5 49.52 55.28 1.93 0.028
75 3 5 65.67 75.33 2.02 0.029
100 3 5 90.62 99.57 1.72 0.028
125 3 5 112.86 123.25 1.44 0.028
ZII 50 3 5 51.32 63.5 1.65 0.022
75 3 5 67.86 74.25 1.89 0.021
100 3 5 93.97 100.2 1.76 0.021
125 3 5 116.02 131.56 1.59 0.022
ZIII 50 3 5 40.63 48.36 1.98 0.020
75 3 5 58.50 69.82 1.67 0.022
100 3 5 79.30 89.67 1.87 0.021
125 3 5 95.36 113.91 1.71 0.020

Table 7. Comparison of test results from laboratory test and PLAXIS.

Average Peak
shear stress (kPa) ϕ Value (Deg) Coef of friction R2
Description Normal stress (kPa) Experiment result FEM result Experiment result FEM result Experiment result FEM result Experiment result FEM result
ZI 50 49.52 55.28 40.69 41.67 0.86 0.89 0.998 0.993
75 65.67 75.33
100 90.62 99.57
125 112.86 123.25
ZII 50 51.32 63.5 41.34 42.62 0.88 0.92 0.993 0.967
75 67.86 74.25
100 93.97 100.2
125 116.02 131.56
ZIII 50 40.63 48.36 36.5 38.97 0.74 0.81 0.999 0.987
75 58.50 69.82
100 79.30 89.67
125 95.36 113.91

The model developed between the normal stress and peak
shear stress that fits with the Mohr-Coulomb model was
found to possess an R 2 value closer to 1. The best straight-
line fit was considered for the calculation. The angle of internal
friction was found to be 43.53° for the Zone I sand and from
this it was obvious that Zone I was coarser than other grades.
Zone IV showed a lower angle of internal friction as the grade
was finer. The angle of internal friction 10% Zone I>>2.36 and
Zone II>>2.36 was found to be 42.05° and 41.95° respectively
as shown in Table 10. The shear parameters were almost equal
for 10% Zone I>>2.36 and Zone II>>2.36 grade of sand.
Higher the angle of internal friction higher was the interlock-
ing effect.
3.4. Effect of jointing sand
Jointing sand is the primary material that is responsible for the
load transfer mechanism of ICBP. Eight different gradations
were considered for the study. From the statistical analysis, it
was verified that PLAXIS was an effective tool for the analysis
of the shear behaviour of IPB and bedding sand and hence the
study on different grades of jointing sand was done by using
PLAXIS. The test results from the simulated large-scale direct
shear test using different grades of jointing sand are shown in
Table 11. The bedding sand used for the test was Zone II.
In order to assess the significance of the jointing sand, a
preliminary simulated shear test model was generated with

Table 8. Statistical test results.

Average Peak shear stress (kPa)
Description Normal stress (kPa) Experiment results PLAXIS results No of samples t- static t-Critic Remarks
ZI 50 49.52 55.28 12 0.818 2.073 Accept null hypothesis
75 65.67 75.33
100 90.62 99.57
125 112.86 123.25
ZII 50 51.32 63.5 12 1.048 2.073 Accept null hypothesis
75 67.86 74.25
100 93.97 100.2
125 116.02 131.56
ZIII 50 40.63 48.36 12 1.244 2.073 Accept null hypothesis
75 58.50 69.82
100 79.30 89.67
125 95.36 113.91
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 11

Table 9. Experimental results from small scale direct shear test.

Normal Peak shear Elastic shear shear Shear Modulus, Interface Friction Secant friction Poisson’s Secant Modulus,
Description stress (kPa) stress (kPa) stress (kPa) strain G (MPa) coefficient angle (Deg) ratio, μ E (MPa)
ZI 50 50.46 25.23 0.0113 2.23 1.01 45.26 0.35 6.03
100 104.52 52.26 0.0133 3.93 1.05 46.27 0.35 10.61
150 144.20 72.10 0.0142 5.08 0.96 43.87 0.35 13.71
200 197.22 98.61 0.0163 6.05 0.99 44.60 0.35 16.33
ZI>>2.36 50 48.62 24.31 0.0124 1.96 0.97 44.20 0.35 5.29
100 102.87 51.44 0.0139 3.70 1.03 45.81 0.35 9.99
150 142.91 71.46 0.0153 4.67 0.95 43.61 0.35 12.61
200 191.42 95.71 0.0161 5.94 0.96 43.74 0.35 16.05
10%ZI>>2.36 50 46.72 23.36 0.0138 1.69 0.93 43.06 0.35 4.57
100 99.84 49.92 0.0147 3.40 1.00 44.95 0.35 9.17
150 140.89 70.45 0.0154 4.57 0.94 43.21 0.35 12.35
200 183.26 91.63 0.0160 5.73 0.92 42.50 0.35 15.46
15%ZI>>2.36 50 44.84 22.42 0.0149 1.50 0.90 41.89 0.35 4.06
100 94.97 47.49 0.0153 3.10 0.95 43.52 0.35 8.38
150 137.11 68.56 0.0161 4.26 0.91 42.43 0.35 11.50
200 174.12 87.06 0.0170 5.12 0.87 41.04 0.35 13.83
ZII 50 47.73 23.87 0.0136 1.75 0.95 43.67 0.35 4.74
100 99.76 49.88 0.0148 3.37 1.00 44.93 0.35 9.10
150 143.22 71.61 0.0151 4.74 0.95 43.68 0.35 12.80
200 186.91 93.46 0.0164 5.70 0.93 43.06 0.35 15.39
ZII>>2.36 50 45.93 22.97 0.0135 1.70 0.92 42.57 0.35 4.59
100 97.64 48.82 0.0147 3.32 0.98 44.32 0.35 8.97
150 141.80 70.90 0.0151 4.70 0.95 43.39 0.35 12.68
200 181.16 90.58 0.0158 5.73 0.91 42.17 0.35 15.48
ZIII 50 44.83 22.42 0.0150 1.49 0.90 41.88 0.35 4.03
100 96.96 48.48 0.0157 3.09 0.97 44.12 0.35 8.34
150 136.71 68.36 0.0169 4.04 0.91 42.35 0.35 10.92
200 176.12 88.06 0.0176 5.00 0.88 41.37 0.35 13.51
ZIV 50 42.72 21.36 0.0157 1.36 0.85 40.51 0.35 3.67
100 93.81 46.91 0.0161 2.91 0.94 43.17 0.35 7.87
150 131.01 65.51 0.0168 3.90 0.87 41.13 0.35 10.53
200 167.03 83.52 0.0179 4.67 0.84 39.87 0.35 12.60

Table 10. Test results from the Mohr-Coulomb model.

Description Normal stress (kPa) Peak shear stress (kPa) C value (kPa) ϕ value (Deg) Coef of friction R2
ZI 50 50.46 4.11 43.53 0.950 0.996
100 104.52
150 144.20
200 197.22
ZI>>2.36 50 48.62 4.34 43.10 0.936 0.997
100 102.87
150 142.91
200 191.42
10%ZI>>2.36 50 46.72 5.01 42.05 0.902 0.991
100 99.84
150 140.89
200 183.26
15%ZI>>2.36 50 44.84 5.27 40.69 0.860 0.995
100 94.97
150 137.11
200 174.1
ZII 50 47.73 4.15 42.67 0.922 0.998
100 99.76
150 143.22
200 186.91
ZII>>2.36 50 45.93 4.17 41.95 0.899 0.996
100 97.64
150 141.80
200 181.16
ZIII 50 44.83 5.25 40.92 0.867 0.995
100 96.96
150 136.71
200 176.12
ZIV 50 42.72 6.11 39.35 0.820 0.992
100 93.81
150 131.01
200 167.03
12 ARJUN SIVA RATHAN RT ET AL.

Table 11. Results from Numerical modelling.

Normal Peak shear Elastic shear shear Shear Modulus Interface Friction Secant friction Poisson’s Secant Modulus
Description stress (kPa) stress (kPa) stress (kPa) strain G (MPa) coefficient angle (Deg) ratio, μ E (MPa)
ZI 50 64.53 32.27 0.0052 6.20 1.29 52.23 0.35 16.75
75 75.66 37.83 0.0061 6.20 1.01 45.25 0.35 16.74
100 98.12 49.06 0.0070 7.01 0.98 44.46 0.35 18.92
125 134.01 67.01 0.0085 7.88 1.07 46.99 0.35 21.28
ZI>>2.36 50 59.51 29.76 0.0056 5.31 1.19 49.96 0.35 14.35
75 69.71 34.86 0.0064 5.45 0.93 42.91 0.35 14.70
100 92.56 46.28 0.0069 6.71 0.93 42.79 0.35 18.11
125 128.67 64.34 0.0084 7.66 1.03 45.83 0.35 20.68
10%ZI>>2.36 50 61.5 30.75 0.0047 6.54 1.23 50.89 0.35 17.66
75 71.05 35.53 0.0058 6.13 0.95 43.45 0.35 16.54
100 91.97 45.99 0.0075 6.13 0.92 42.60 0.35 16.55
125 131.86 65.93 0.0083 7.94 1.05 46.53 0.35 21.45
15%ZI>>2.36 50 59.56 29.78 0.0059 5.05 1.19 49.99 0.35 13.63
75 72.99 36.50 0.0064 5.70 0.97 44.22 0.35 15.40
100 89.81 44.91 0.0078 5.76 0.90 41.93 0.35 15.54
125 125.78 62.89 0.0086 7.31 1.01 45.18 0.35 19.74
ZII 50 61.34 30.67 0.0052 5.90 1.23 50.82 0.35 15.92
75 70.96 35.48 0.0057 6.22 0.95 43.41 0.35 16.81
100 95.33 47.67 0.0068 7.01 0.95 43.63 0.35 18.93
125 129.87 64.94 0.0082 7.92 1.04 46.09 0.35 21.38
ZII>>2.36 50 61.22 30.61 0.0059 5.19 1.22 50.76 0.35 14.01
75 75.03 37.52 0.0068 5.52 1.00 45.01 0.35 14.90
100 92.97 46.49 0.0078 5.96 0.93 42.91 0.35 16.09
125 132.08 66.04 0.0082 8.05 1.06 46.58 0.35 21.74
ZIII 50 60.56 30.28 0.0072 4.21 1.21 50.46 0.35 11.36
75 70.99 35.50 0.0079 4.49 0.95 43.43 0.35 12.13
100 92.81 46.41 0.0081 5.73 0.93 42.86 0.35 15.47
125 126.87 63.44 0.0089 7.13 1.01 45.43 0.35 19.24
ZIV 50 58.62 29.31 0.0074 3.96 1.17 49.54 0.35 10.69
75 70.99 35.50 0.0080 4.44 0.95 43.43 0.35 11.98
100 90.51 45.26 0.0082 5.52 0.91 42.15 0.35 14.90
125 122.34 61.17 0.0091 6.72 0.98 44.38 0.35 18.15

and without jointing sand as shown in Figures 10 and 11
respectively. It was understood from the shear test model
shown in Figure 10 that the test setup without jointing sand
experienced a rotation and translation failure. Moreover, it
was found that the IPB did not reach the prescribed displace-
ment of 25 mm. This may be attributed to the lack of load
transfer between blocks, which showed a lower shear resist-
ance. The shear resistance was prominent during the initial
shear and it reached a negligible value as the shear
displacement increased. The model with the jointing sand
seemed to be sheared as a whole part and the rotation and
translation of the IPB were found to be negligible. It was there-
fore affirmed that the jointing sand was concluded to be an
influential factor in the load spreading ability of IPB. From
both the test results, it was clear that the stability of the
ICBP depends on the presence of jointing sand. The peak
shear stress recorded for the model without jointing sand
was 40.26 kPa for a normal stress of 125 kPa, and it was

Figure 10. Large scale direct shear test model using PLAXIS software.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 13

Figure 11. Large scale direct shear test results using PLAXIS software.

increased to 129.87 kPa for the model with Zone II jointing to the relative movement of sand particles was higher for coar-
sand. According to Panda and Ghosh (2002), the deflection ser particles. Moreover, the presence of finer content may
of the ICBP without jointing sand was three times higher result in blockage of particles in gaps and creates problem
than the ICBP with jointing sand. Hence, it was concluded during the drainage especially during rainy seasons (Shackel
that jointing sand has a significant influence on the shear 1984). The peak shear stress, secant modulus and contact
and load dispersion behaviour of ICPB. efficiency were higher for Zone II>>2.36 and was coarser
The simulated model for the large-scale direct shear is than 10% ZoneI>>2.36. Therefore, Zone II>>2.36 was con-
shown in Figure 9. The prescribed displacement of 25 mm sidered as the best jointing sand to have enhanced shear
was considered in the model. The medium mesh was selected strength properties.
based on the sensitivity analysis. The numerical test results for
the shear stress between the IPB and bedding sand using eight
different grades of soil is shown in Tables 11 and 12 respect- Table 12. Mohr-Coulomb model test results.
ively. The numerical test results quantitatively established Normal Peak shear
that the Zone I sand exhibited higher peak shear stress of Stress, stress ϕ Value Coef of Contact
Description (kPa) (kPa) (Deg) friction efficiency, (Fc) R2
134.01 kPa followed by Zone II>>2.36 and 10% ZoneI>>2.36
ZI 50 64.53 42.7 0.923 0.981 0.945
with a peak shear stress of 132.08 and 131.86 kPa respectively. 75 75.66
The angle of internal friction of Zone I sand was higher than 100 98.12
other grades of sand and hence it exhibited a higher peak 125 134.01
ZI>>2.36 50 59.51 42.64 0.921 0.989 0.940
shear stress. The joint width used for the study was 4 mm, 75 69.71
but the gradation of Zone I highlighted 6% and 30% retention 100 92.56
on the particle size of 4.75 and 2.36 mm. In practice, the intru- 125 128.67
10%ZI>>2.36 50 61.5 42.86 0.928 1.017 0.92
sion of the 4.75 and 2.36 mm sand may result in clogging of 75 71.05
particles. Therefore, the Zone I cannot be considered as the 100 91.97
best jointing sand for a joint width of 4 mm. Zone II>>2.36 125 131.86
15%ZI>>2.36 50 59.56 40.72 0.861 1.001 0.943
and 10% Zone I>>2.36 possessed a better shear parameter 75 72.99
with a peak shear stress of 132.08 and 131.86 kPa respectively. 100 89.81
The angle of internal friction for Zone II>>2.36 and 10% 125 125.78
ZII 50 61.34 42.58 0.919 0.998 0.944
Zone I>>2.36 are 42.68° and 42.86° respectively with a coeffi- 75 70.96
cient of friction of 0.922 and 0.928. The test results were found 100 95.33
to fit the Mohr-Coulomb model with better R 2 value. The con- 125 129.87
ZII>>2.36 50 61.22 42.68 0.922 1.018 0.938
tact efficiency, which represents the interlocking effect was 75 75.03
higher for Zone II>>2.36 than 10% ZoneI>>2.36. Zone IV 100 92.97
sand exhibited lower shear strength properties followed by 125 132.08
ZIII 50 60.56 41.44 0.883 1.003 0.946
Zone III grade of sand. All the shear parameters between the 75 70.99
two grades of sand, namely Zone II>>2.36 and 10% 100 92.81
ZoneI>>2.36 were close to each other. 10% ZoneI>>2.36 was 125 126.87
ZIV 50 58.62 40.09 0.842 1.009 0.958
finer than Zone II>>2.36. Frictional force developed by the 75 70.99
interlocking effect of jointing sand between the IPB resisted 100 90.51
its rotation and translation failure. The structural resistance 125 122.34
14 ARJUN SIVA RATHAN RT ET AL.
Table 13. IITPAVE results.
Vertical distance, Radius, Shear stress, Tyre pressure
Sl no. Z (mm) R (mm) τ (kPa) (kPa)
1 120 0 11.78 560
2 120 155 33.7 560
3.5 ICBP shear strength
The interface shear strength was calculated using normal stress
of 125 kPa in the laboratory due to the limitation in the equip-
ment configuration. The actual normal stress the pavement
experience was 560 kPa tire pressure for a Cumulative Stan-
dard Axle of 81 kN with a radius of the contact area of
15 cm. It was necessary to analyse the actual shear stress devel-
oped in the field due to the traffic load and the shear strength
developed in the interface. In order to analyse the actual shear
stress, the pavement section adopted for 20–50 msa in the
design catalogue of IRC SP 63 (2018) was used. The section
constituted of 120 mm IPB, 35 mm bedding sand, 450 mm
granular layer and subgrade. The CBR value assumed for the
design was 5%. The resilient modulus of the subgrade and
granular layer was calculated using Equations (5) and (6)
respectively as specified in IRC 37 (2018).
MRsubgrade = 10∗CBR (5)
where, MRsubgrade – Resilient modulus of subgrade soil (MPa),
CBR – California Bearing Ratio (%).
MR granular = 0.2∗h0.45 ∗MRsubgrade (6)
where, h – granular layer thickness (mm), MR granular – Resili-
ent modulus of the granular layer (Mpa).
The subgrade CBR was considered as 5%, and the respective
resilient modulus of the subgrade was 50 MPa. The Poisson’s
ratio for soil and concrete was adopted as 0.35 and 0.2 respect-
ively. The resilient modulus of 450 mm thick granular layer
was found to be 158 MPa. The Young’s modulus of the discrete
blocks with the jointing sand was considered as 1500 MPa.
IITPAVE software is a multilayer linear elastic theory-based
programme developed by IIT Kharagpur to calculate the stres-
ses, strains and deflection for the analysis of flexible pavement
suggested in IRC 37: 2018. The actual shear stress developed
for the selected section was calculated using IITPAVE and is
shown in Table 13. The actual shear stress for the section
was found to be 33.7 kPa. The shear strength of the interface
layer for the 560 kPa normal stress, derived from the PLAXIS
model for Zone II bedding sand and ZoneII>>2.36 was
observed to be 260.25 kPa which was higher than the actual
shear stress developed in the Interlocking Concrete Block
Pavement. Hence the usage of Zone II sand as bedding sand
and ZoneII>>2.36 mm as jointing sand can resist the pertain-
ing actual shear stress due to traffic load.
4. Conclusions
Large scale direct shear test was adopted in the present study to
analyse the effect of bedding sand and jointing sand in the
interface shear stress behaviour of ICBP wearing surface.
The small-scale direct shear test was conducted to study the
shear properties of different grades of bedding sand and joint-
ing sand. PLAXISwas used to analyse the stress behaviour of
jointing sand. The following are the salient findings of the cur-
rent explorative research work.
. Effect of bedding sand
Three gradations of bedding sand viz. Zone I, Zone II and
Zone III were used for the study. The interface shear stress
increased with the increase in the normal stress for all the
grades of sand. Strain hardening behaviour with parabolic
curve was observed in the shear stress displacement curve.
The peak shear stress of 116.02 kPa was observed for Zone II
sand followed by 112.86 kPa for Zone I sand. The higher
peak shear strength represents a better load spreading ability.
The interlocking efficiency ratio was higher for Zone II with
a value of 0.968 when compared to Zone I sand. The vertical
displacement decreased with an increase in normal stress
due to the dilation behaviour of the bedding sand. The inter-
face peak shear stress was predominant in Zone II sand and
exhibited enhanced shear parameters followed by Zone I
sand. Although the Zone II sand exhibited a better perform-
ance than Zone I sand, the difference between the shear prop-
erties between the Zone I and Zone II was nominal.
. Numerical validation
The large-scale direct shear test was simulated using
PLAXIS software to validate the laboratory testing thereby sav-
ing time and cost. The PLAXIS software results used both lin-
ear elastic and Mohr-Coulomb model. The numerical test
results were quantitatively related to the experimental test
results and these were again statistically validated to conclude
the implementation of PLAXIS software for further analysis.
The statistical t-test proved PLAXIS as an effective tool to
simulate large scale direct shear test. The interface shear
strength obtained from the numerical results fitted the
Mohr-Coulomb theory model with a best straight line fit.
. Shear Properties
Small scale direct shear test was used to find out the shear
properties of eight grades of jointing sand. The Zone I sand
was observed to possess a higher angle of internal friction of
43.53°. From the test results it was identified that 10% Zone
I>>2.36 and Zone II>>2.36 showed similar results in terms
of peak shear stress, angle of internal friction and coefficient
of friction. The shear parameters derived from small scale
direct shear test were used for the numerical analysis of
large-scale direct shear test.
. Effect of jointing sand
Eight different gradations of jointing sand were used for the
study. The significance of the jointing sand was analysed by
simulating the large-scale direct shear test setup with and with-
out jointing sand. The numerical results revealed that rotation
and translation were higher for the test model without jointing
sand. This proved the importance of jointing sand in shear and

load transfer of ICBP. The test result proved that 10% Zone
I>>2.36 and Zone II>>2.36 showed better shear stress behav-
iour. Based on the shear properties, Zone II>>2.36 was con-
sidered as the desirable grade jointing sand followed by 10%
Zone I>>2.36. The frictional force developed by the jointing
sand resisted the displacement of the IPB thereby increased
the shear strength.
. ICBP Shear Strength
The shear stress at the interface developed in the Interlock-
ing Concrete Block Pavement (ICBP) due to the cumulative
standard axle of 81 kN for a tire pressure of 560 kPa was cal-
culated using IITPAVE software. The shear strength of the
interface was analysed using the PLAXIS software for the
Zone II sand as bedding sand and Zone II>>2.36 grade sand
as jointing sand. The results showed that the shear stress devel-
oped was 12.9% of the interface shear strength. This concluded
that the ICBP when laid in Zone II sand as bedding sand and
Zone II>>2.36 grade sand as jointing sand exhibited the most
desirable shear performance.
An in-depth analysis of interface direct shear stress and the
respective shear properties were performed in the present
study. However, the research can be further extended to assess
the influence of the geometric properties of IPB and the joint
width in the interface shear. The frictional properties between
the Interlocking Concrete Paver Blocks and bedding sand can
also be studied in detail.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Arjun Siva Rathan RT http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7637-4023
Sunitha V http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9198-1363
Anusudha V http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9265-6343
References
Algin, H.M., 2007. Interlock mechanism of concrete block pavements.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, 133 (5), 318–326. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-947X(2007)133:5(318).
Ascher, D., et al., 2006. 3D-FEM Simulation of Concrete Block Pavements,
457–466.
ASTM D5321/D5321M, 2019. Standard test method for determining the
shear strength of soil-geosynthetic and geosynthetic-geosynthetic
interfaces by direct shear. American Society for Testing and Materials
International, 1–11. doi:10.1520/D5321.
Bullen, F. and Knapton, J., 1998. The role of bedding sands fines in seg-
mental pavement instability. In: Proc., third international workshop
on concrete block paving. Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, 1–8.
Dowson, A.J., 1998. Investigation and evaluation of test methods for
sands for laying course. In: Third international workshop on concrete
block paving.
El-Emam, M.M., Attom, M.F., and Khan, Z.H., 2012. Numerical predic-
tion of plane strain properties of sandy soil from direct shear test.
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 6 (1), 79–90.
doi:10.3328/IJGE.2012.06.01.79-90.
Hegde, A. and Roy, R., 2018. A comparative numerical study on soil–geo-
synthetic interactions using large scale direct shear test and pullout
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 15
test. International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering,
4 (1), 1–11. doi:10.1007/s40891-017-0119-1.
Hossain, A. and Yin, J.H., 2014. Behavior of a pressure-grouted soil-
cement interface in direct shear tests. International Journal of
Geomechanics, 14 (1), 101–109. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.
0000301.
Huurman, M., et al., 1992. The shear failure mechanism in concrete block
pavements with a sand sub-base only. Pave, 92 (1), 297–307.
Ilori, A.O., Udoh, N.E., and Umenge, J.I., 2017. Determination of soil
shear properties on a soil to concrete interface using a direct shear
box apparatus. International Journal of Geo-Engineering, 8 (1).
doi:10.1186/s40703-017-0055-x.
IRC, 2018. Guidelines for the use of interlocking concrete block pavement.
In: Indianroad congress special publication, IRC-SP: 63. New Delhi.
IRC 37, 2018. Guidelines for the design of flexible pavements. In: Indian
road congress. New Delhi.
IS 10262, 2019. Concrete mix proportioning – guidelines. New Delhi:
Bureau of Indian Standards.
IS 15658, 2006. Precast concrete blocks for paving – specification. New
Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.
IS 2720, 1986. Method of test for soils- direct shear test – Part 13. New
Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.
IS 383, 2016. Coarse and fine aggregate for concrete – specification. New
Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.
Knapton, J. and Algin, H.M., 1998. Research into the structural perform-
ance of interlocking pavements. In: Proc., third international workshop
on concrete block paving, Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, 1–11.
Knapton, J. and O’Grady, M., 1983. Structural behavior of concrete block
paving. Journal Concrete Society, 17–18.
Livneh, M., Ishai, I., and Nesichi, S., 1988. Development of a pavement
design methodology for concrete block pavements in Israel. In: Proc.,
3rd Int. Conf. on concrete block paving, Pavitalia, Rome, 94–101.
Lok-Man Chu, J.-H.Y., 2005. Drilled shaft side friction in Gravelly soils.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131, 987–
1003. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131.
Ma, Q., et al., 2019. Large-scale direct shear test on scrap tire strip
reinforced brick powder. Advances in Civil Engineering. doi:10.1155/
2019/6046037.
Mampearachchi, W.K. and Gunarathna, W.P.H., 2010. Finite-element
model approach to determine support conditions and effective layout
for concrete block paving. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 22
(11), 1139–1147. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000118.
Miura, Y., Takaura, M., and Tsuda, T., 1984. Structural design of concrete
block pavements by CBR method and its evaluation. In: Proc., second
international conference on concrete block paving, Delft, 52–156.
Panda, B.C. and Ghosh, A.K., 2001. Source of jointing sand for concrete
block pavement. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 13 (3),
235–237.
Panda, B.C. and Ghosh, A.K., 2002. Structural behavior of concrete block
paving. I: Sand in bed and joints. Journal of Transportation Engineering,
128 (2), 123–129. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2002)128:2(123).
Piratheepan, J., Arulrajah, A., and Disfani, M.M., 2013. Large-scale direct
shear testing of recycled construction and demolition materials.
Advances in Civil Engineering Materials, 2 (1), 20120009. doi:10.
1520/acem20120009.
Rada, B.G.R., et al., 1991. Structural design of concrete block pavements.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, 116 (5), 615–635.
Sayeed, M.M.A., Ramaiah, B.J., and Rawal, A., 2014. Interface shear
characteristics of jute/polypropylene hybrid nonwoven geotextiles
and sand using large size direct shear test. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 42 (1), 63–68. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.12.001.
Shackel, B., 1984. The evolution and application of mechanistic design pro-
cedures for concrete block pavements, 114–120.
Shackel, B. and Lim, D.O.O., 2003, October. Mechanisms of Paver inter-
lock. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on concrete
block paving.
Shakir, R.R. and Zhu, J.G., 2010. An examination of the mechanical inter-
action of drilling slurries at the soil-concrete contact. Journal of
Zhejiang University SCIENCE A, 11 (4), 294–304. doi:10.1631/jzus.
A0900456.
16 ARJUN SIVA RATHAN RT ET AL.
Xia, H., Zhou, G., and Du, Z., 2011. Experimental study on shear mech-
anical characteristics of soil-structure interface under different normal
stress. Advanced Materials Research, 243-249, 2332–2337. doi:10.4028/
www.scientific.net/AMR.243-249.2332.
Yang, P., et al., 2018. Interface shear characteristics of dredger fill and
concrete using large size direct shear test. International Journal of
Geo-Engineering, 9 (1), doi:10.1186/s40703-018-0081-3.
Yu, Y., Damians, I.P., and Bathurst, R.J., 2015. Influence of choice of
FLAC and PLAXIS interface models on reinforced soil-structure inter-
actions. Computers and Geotechnics, 65, 164–174. doi:10.1016/j.
compgeo.2014.12.009.
Zekkos, D., et al., 2010. Large-scale direct shear testing of municipal solid
waste. Waste Management, 30 (8–9), 1544–1555. doi:10.1016/j.
wasman.2010.01.024.