A STUDY ON MARINE SAND AS A JOINTING MATERIAL FOR
CONCRETE BLOCK PAVEMENT
GRAWIRA GANJUR GIWANGKARA
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
A STUDY ON MARINE SAND AS A JOINTING MATERIAL FOR
CONCRETE BLOCK PAVEMENT
GRAWIRA GANJUR GIWANGKARA
A project report submitted in fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Engineering (Civil – Transportation and Highway)
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
JULY 2010
iii I dedicate my thesis to my beloved mother, father, brother, sister,
grandpa, grandma, and all my family who always supported me in
everything all the time.
My thesis is also dedicated to all my friends who always helped me in
completing my research.
Thank You.
iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Syukur Alhamdulillah, after a year of hard work, with the will of Allah
Almighty, finally this thesis is completed. The utmost thanks to Allah for giving me
the strength to complete this thesis without any obstacles.
I extend thanks also to my parents, my sister, my brother, my grandparents,
and the whole family who always supported me either materially or morally to
achieve what I aspire. I was not able to be here and accomplish my goals without the
support of you all.
To my supervisor; Prof. Ir. Dr. Hasanan Md. Nor; I thank you for all the
guidance that you have given to me in the process of making this thesis from
beginning to end. All the advices and instructions that you provide were very
valuable in my learning process as a student. My thanks are also addressed to Assoc.
Prof. Dr. Mohd. Rosli Hainin, Mr. Che Ros Ismail, Dr. Haryati Yaacob and Mr.
Mohd. Izuddin Md. Ithnan as my panels for all suggestions that are given to me for
the perfection of my thesis. I also thank all the staff of Highway and Trasportation
Laboratory who helped me during my work in the lab which are Mr. Azman, Mr.
Suhaimi, Mr. Ahmad Adin, Mr. Rahman, Mr. Sahak, and Mr. Azri.
My thank is also given to my entire friend who helped me to finish my thesis,
especially for Nadra M.S., Habibi Ibrahim, Lanang A.P., Umar K.N, Windiarti,
Bimo B.A., and Mahani. Last, my special thank is given to Mr. Azman Mohammed
for his valuable contribution for my research.
v ABSTRACT
Concrete block pavement performance depends on many factors. Jointing
material is one of the components that affect the performance of concrete block
pavement. As there are many coastal areas around the world, then marine sand may
replace the river sand as jointing material. The massive availability of marine sand
and the ease of transportation make this material to be selected as a replacement for
river sand. This paper presents a study of laboratory research of jointing material that
was made from marine sand and mixtures of marine sand and Portland cement in
comparison with river sand. The pavement was tested by push-in test and pull-out
test under circumstance which was wetted condition. Water seepage test and erosion
test were also conducted in this study. This research used 3 mm joint width, two
cement percentages (6% and 8%), and three durations of after rain time (1 day, 3
days, and 7 days). The best performing jointing material for push-in test and pull-out
test was shown by mixture of marine sand and 6% of Portland cement. In the water
seepage test and erosion test, the best performing jointing material was show by
mixture of marine sand and 8% of Portland cement.
vi ABSTRAK
Prestasi turapan blok konkrit bergantung pada banyak faktor. Bahan
sambungan adalah salah satu komponen yang mempengaruhi prestasi turapan blok
konkrit. Oleh kerana ada banyak daerah pesisir di seluruh dunia, maka pasir laut
mungkin dapat menggantikan pasir sungai sebagai bahan sambungan. Ketersediaan
pasir laut yang besar dan kemudahan pengangkutan membuat bahan-bahan ini dapat
dipilih sebagai pengganti pasir sungai. Laporan ini menyajikan kajian penyelidikan
makmal bahan sambungan yang dibuat dari campuran pasir laut dan; pasir laut dan
simen Portland yang akan dibandingkan dengan pasir sungai. Turapan yang diuji
dengan uji tekan dan uji tarik berada dalam keadaaan yang sudah dibasahi oleh hujan
buatan. Uji rembesan air dan uji hakisan juga dilakukan dalam kajian ini. Penelitian
ini menggunakan jarak sambungan 3 mm, dua peratusan simen (6% dan 8%), dan
tiga jangka waktu dari selepas waktu hujan (1 hari, 3 hari, dan 7 hari). Bahan
sambungan yang paling baik untuk uji tekan dan uji tarik ini ditunjukkan oleh
campuran pasir laut dan 6% simen. Pada uji rembesan air dan uji hakisan, bahan
sambungan yang paling baik adalah campuran pasir laut dan 8% simen.
vii TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1.
2.
TITLE
PAGE
DECLARATION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
iv
ABSTRACT
v
ABSTRAK
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
LIST OF TABLES
x
LIST OF FIGURES
xi
LIST OF APPENDICES
xii
INTRODUCTION
1
1.1
Background
1
1.2
Problem Statement
2
1.3
Objectives
3
1.4
Scopes of Study
3
1.5
Significant of Study
4
1.6
Thesis Organization
4
LITERATURE REVIEW
6
2.1
6
Introduction
viii 2.2
3.
4.
Structure and Component of
Concrete Block Pavement
7
2.3
Joint Width
9
2.4
Joints Interlocking Mechanism
10
2.5
Filling the Joints
11
2.6
River Sand
12
2.7
Marine Sand
14
2.8
Portland Cement Mixture
14
METHODOLOGY
17
3.1
Introduction
17
3.2
Flow Chart of Jointing Material Research
18
3.3
Laying the Bedding Sand
19
3.4
Laying the Pavers
20
3.5
Filling the Jointing Material
21
3.6
Compaction
21
3.7
Pavement Installation Procedure
22
3.8
Water Seepage Test
24
3.9
Erosion Test
27
3.10
Push-in Test
29
3.11
Pull-out Test
32
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
35
4.1
Introduction
35
4.2
Water Seepage Test
35
4.3
Erosion Test
39
4.4
Push-in Test
43
ix 4.5
5.
Pull-out Test
48
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
54
5.1
Introduction
54
5.2
Conclusion
54
5.3
Recommendation
56
REFERENCES
58
APPENDICES
60
x LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
2.1
TITLE
PAGE
Components of CBP and factors affecting
the performance of CBP
8
2.2
Tolerance of surface levels
12
2.3
Surface regularity of the surface course
12
2.4
Grading requirement for jointing sand
13
2.5
Grading percentages for river sand from Johor Bahru
13
2.6
Grading percentages for marine sand from Tanjung Balau 14
4.1
Water seepage result
36
4.2
Result for erosion test
40
4.3
Result for erosion test
41
4.4
Push-in result for 1 day after watering at 15 kN
44
4.5
Push-in result for 3 days after watering at 15 kN
44
4.6
Push-in result for 7 days after watering at 15 kN
44
4.7
Pull-out result for 1 day after watering
49
4.8
Pull-out result for 3 days after watering
49
4.9
Pull-out result for 7 days after watering
50
xi LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO.
TITLE
PAGE
2.1
Typical concrete block pavement cross section
7
2.2
Optimum spacing for pavers (CMA, 2008)
9
2.3
Movements of the pavers (Mudiyono, 2006)
10
2.4
Schematic description of setting and hardening of
2.5
a cement paste (Soroka, 1979)
15
Compressive strength on cured concrete
16
(Integrated Publishing)
3.1
Flow chart of jointing materials tests
18
3.2
Laying the bedding sand
19
3.3
Pavers are laid on the bedding sand
20
3.4
Spreading the jointing materials on the pavement
21
3.5
Pavement compaction
22
3.6
Pavement before filled by jointing material
23
3.7
Pavement after filled with jointing material
24
3.8
Water seepage test points
25
3.9
Water seepage test
26
3.10
Water reduction measurement
26
3.11
Erosion test points
28
3.12
Spraying scheme
29
3.13
Push-in test points
31
xii 3.14
Setting the equipment for push-in test
31
3.15
Pull-out test points
33
3.16
Setting the equipment for pull-out test
34
xiii LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
TITLE
PAGE
A
Water seepage test result charts
60
B
After rain charts on erosion test
63
C
Push-in test result for 1 day after wetted tables
65
D
Push-in test result for 3 days after wetted tables
70
E
Push-in test result for 7 days after wetted tables
75
F
Push-in test result for 1 day after wetted charts
80
G
Push-in test result for 3 days after wetted charts
83
H
Push-in test result for 7 days after wetted charts
86
I
Pull-out test result for 1 day after wetted tables
89
J
Pull-out test result for 3 days after wetted tables
94
K
Pull-out test result for 7 days after wetted tables
99
L
Pull-out test result for 1 day after wetted charts
104
M
Pull-out test result for 3 days after wetted charts
107
N
Pull-out test result for 7 days after wetted charts
110
O
Block movements during the push-in test
113
P
Block movements during the push-in test
116
1 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
Road pavement is an essential part of a road to provide a good driving
quality. There are three kinds of road pavement which are usually used; asphalt
pavement (flexible pavement), concrete pavement (rigid pavement), and concrete
block pavement. Concrete block pavement is one of the popular pavement systems
because of many factors. The ease of application is one of the factors.
Concrete Block Pavement (CBP) is made of interlocking blocks that are set
on a compacted base of sand or sand and gravel. Jointing sand is vibrated into the
space between the units, causing them to interlock, forming a tough, beautiful paved
surface that is easily maintained. The history of concrete block paving dates back to
19th Century when paving stones were used in European countries for construction
of roads serving as footpaths and tracks for steel-wheeled vehicles. Concrete block
paving is presently used throughout most of the world, providing wearing surfaces
ranging from lightly-loaded pedestrian precincts to heavily-loaded industrial areas
such as dockside paving.
2 There are four basic components in CBP. The components are pavers,
bedding and jointing sand, base course and sub-base, and sub-grade. Each
component is affected by some factor. For example, bedding and jointing sand are
affected by sand thickness, grading, angularity, moisture, and mineralogy. The sand
between the pavers i.e. jointing sand lets them transfer loads to adjacent units. The
joints eliminate cracking typical to asphalt or poured concrete pavements.
Interlocking concrete block pavements have a host of repair advantages over
conventional pavements. The pavements can be removed easily and re-used after
repairs to underground utilities are completed.
There are some studies for concrete block pavement and jointing sand is one
of the areas being studied. Some studies try to get the perfect jointing sand by mixing
it with additive agents. For example by mixing the jointing sand with cement. This
mixture will have its own properties that can perform better. This report presents a
research about jointing sand made from mixtures of marine sand and Portland
cement. The pavement was wetted by an artificial rainfall and tested in certain times
later. Portland cement starts to harden after 45 minutes to 10 hours according to the
British Standard and ASTM. Even though cement reacts in a short time, it still needs
to be tested for the performance when mixed with marine sand. The mixtures were
also tested for water seepage through the pavement. In addition, the first three days
are most critical in the life of Portland cement concrete. In this period, the hardening
concrete is susceptible to permanent damage. After 7 to 14 days, the concrete
compressive strength may result in 70-85 % of the 28 days strength.
1.2
Problem Statement
Jointing material in concrete block pavement is a vital part of the pavement.
The material for jointing is made from sieved river sand. As there are many coastal
areas around the world, then marine sand may replace the river sand as jointing
3 material. The massive availability of marine sand and the ease of transportation
make this material to be selected as a replacement for river sand.
As an unbound material, jointing material is sensitive to erosion. The solution
to the erosion problem is by adding an additive material such as Portland cement to
hold the sand grains from erosion. The cement must be in low percentage (<10%) in
order to prevent the pavement from becoming a rigid pavement. The addition of
cement may also strengthen the pavement itself.
1.3
Objectives
The objectives of this study were to:
1. Investigate the performance of marine sand and mixtures of marine sand and
Portland cement as jointing materials in comparison with river sand.
2. Determine the best performing material or mixture for jointing sand.
1.4
Scopes of Study
The scopes of study were:
1. This study was limited to jointing sand only.
2. The materials for jointing sand were marine sand, mixture of marine sand and
cement; and river sand.
3. Rectangular paving blocks were used in this study.
4. The area width was 161 cm x 91 cm with 3 mm gap width in 90o herringbone
pattern. The content of the additive material were 0%, 6% and 8%. The
additive material percentages were taken from the previous study for the best
result (6% - 8%).
4 5. Portland cement was used as the additive material.
6. The artificial rain was based on the real rainfall intensity data from the
meteorological station in Malaysia.
7. The tests were conducted in various times after the pavement was wetted
with water. The times are 1 day, 3 days, and 7 days after.
8. The testing equipment was the push-in and pull-out testing machine available
at the Highway and Transportation Laboratory of Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia.
1.5
Significant of Study
Jointing material was used to fill the joints of concrete block pavement. The
usage of marine sand instead of river sand was to get a replacement material for
jointing material in coastal area. The addition of Portland cement in jointing material
was to get a better concrete block pavement performance. When it rains, the cement
reacted with water (rain) and held the sand grains from erosion. This condition also
strengthened the pavement system. This study was to determine the change in
performance of concrete block pavement due to the addition of cement to the
jointing material.
1.6
Thesis Organization
This thesis consists of five chapters, and the contents of each chapter are
explained as follows:
5 CHAPTER 1: This introductory chapter presents the background of the development
of Concrete Block Pavement (CBP) used throughout world. It also explains the
statement of problem, objective, and scope of the study and the significance of this
research.
CHAPTER 2: This chapter reviews the component of CBP. The application of
jointing material made from mixture of sand and additive material such as cement
from previous study is also discussed in this chapter.
.
CHAPTER 3: This chapter presents testing methodology used in this research. The
equipment were available in highway and transportation laboratory of Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia.
CHAPTER 4: This chapter contains the analysis about the test data. The results from
all tests are presented in this chapter. The finding and discussion about the results
also presented in this chapter.
CHAPTER 5: This chapter summarizes the main conclusions of this research and
recommendations are made.
6 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Introduction
Commonly, there are two types of pavement, rigid pavement and flexible
pavement. Rigid pavement is usually represented by concrete pavement and flexible
pavement by asphalt. Actually, in the ancient time, there was another type of
pavement. Rather than to build a continuous surfacing, this pavement was
constructed from many pieces of blocks. This type of pavement was called block
pavement. Nowadays, the block is made from concrete and it is called concrete block
pavement. This type of pavement is very popular now. Even though the material for
concrete block is rigid, but the pavement system is flexible (Mudiyono, 2006).
During 1970s concrete block pavement was introduced to Britain Canada, USA,
Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Subsequently the use of block paving spread to
Middle-East and Asia. Most of this regions, especially North America, have
experienced a sustain growth in the paving maker (Shackel, 2003).
Many factors affect the performance of concrete block pavement. It started
from supporting layers until the block itself. Many researches had been conducted to
analyze the concrete block pavement in order to get the best performance. Different
shape of block, block thickness, laying pattern, bedding sand thickness, etc, may
7 contribute to different performance of the pavement. This chapter of this report
discussed about the research conducted by previous researcher or by reviewing the
existing literature available.
2.2
Structure and Component of Concrete Block Pavement
The concrete blocks are laid on the sand called bedding sand and jointed by
jointing sand. This composition will receive the load from the surface of the concrete
block pavement. Blocks and pavers bedded on a sand laying course, in common with
other forms of flexible paving, deform under traffic as a load (Lilley, 1991). The
load will be transferred to the supporting layers through bedding sand. Some of the
loads will be transferred to the next blocks through jointing sand. See Figure 2.1
below.
Figure 2.1: Typical concrete block pavement cross section.
8 As the load forces on the pavers, then it will be transferred to bedding sand,
sub-base, and sub-grade. See Table 2.1 below for the concrete block pavement
components and factors affecting them. Concrete pavers act as a zipper in the
pavement (Sharma, 2007). When the need arises to make underground repair,
interlocking concrete pavement can be removed and replaced using the same
materials. Unlike asphalt or poured-in-place concrete, paving blocks can be opened
and closed without jack hammers and with less construction equipment. The process
of reusing the same paving units is called reinstatement.
Table 2.1: Components of CBP and factors affecting the performance of CBP
Pavement Components
Factors Affecting Performance under Traffic
Paver Shape
Paver Thickness
Pavers
Paver Size
Laying Pattern
Joint Width
Sand Thickness
Grading
Bedding and Jointing Sands
Angularity
Moisture
Mineralogy
Material Type
Base course and sub-base
Grading
Plasticity
Strength and Durability
Soil Type
Sub-grade
Stiffness and Strength
Moisture Regime
(Shackel, 2003)
9 2.3
Joint Width
The joint width for concrete block pavement is in the range from 2 until 5
mm and should be maintained with jointing sand inside (CMAA, 2000). According
to Shackel, the jointing width is about 3 mm + 1 mm, it means the joint width is in
range of 2 – 4 mm. There were two ways to check the joint width. The first was by
measuring the length and width of paving unit and project area. From these
measurements the joint width is calculated. The second way is by direct
measurement to the joint width.
The study about the optimum jointing width has been done before. The use of
bedding sand mixed with cement as jointing sand will require 5 mm or 7 mm width
of jointing gap for the best result (Azman, 2004). The width of the joint depends on
the joint filler. Bedding sand has a larger size than jointing sand and requires larger
joint.
This study was used marine sand as jointing sand which was has a finer size
than river sand. Based on the requirement, this study used 3 mm joint width.
Figure 2.2: Optimum spacing for pavers (CMA, 2008)
10 2.4
Joints Interlocking Mechanism
The movement of the paving units usually will cause rutting or heave on the
pavement (Mudiyono, 2006). In normal situation the movements of the pavers are
rotations, translations, or combinations of both rotations and translations. See Figure
2.6 for blocks movement. The movement shown as (a) is a rotation. The movement
shown as (d), (e), and (f), are translations. The movement shown as (b) and (c) are
combinations.
The joints on the pavement can influence the movement. Larger joints width
can make the pavers move easily. The jointing material has an important role in this
situation. Characteristic of each jointing material will provide a different condition
for the joints interlocking system. The type of jointing material and the width of the
joint will act together to prevent the movement of the blocks.
Figure 2.3: Movements of the pavers (Mudiyono, 2006)
11 2.5
Filling the Joints
The jointing material has to be dried to make it easier in filling the joints.
Before the joint filling operation is conducted, there are parameters should be
checked first. The parameters are joint width and blocks level (Interpave, 2005).
According to BS 7533-4, there are more parameters to be checked. The parameters
to be checked were
•
The surface level tolerances (See Table 2.2)
•
The flatness of the pavement (See Table 2.3)
•
The difference in level at the joint of adjacent paving units (See Table 2.3)
•
Joint width consistency
•
Joints correctly aligned
•
No damaged or broken units
Dry sand is obviously easier to spread and fill the joints than damp sand, but
there is a problem to dry the sand during wet weather. Even though no rain at all,
some countries have a high humidity which makes the sand difficult to dry. The
problem to fill the joints is about the sand movement in the gap after initial filling
(Lilley, 1991). When jointing sand is filled to joints in the first time, there is a stack
of sand in the joints entrance. This situation makes the further sand difficult to enter.
The surface vibration from compactor can reduce this problem. After few days from
the first joints filling, the jointing sand drops naturally and make the joints look
empty. Consequently, more sand has to be filled again to the joints. This process has
to be repeated several times.
In wet weather, the joints filling technique described previously may not
work well. It has been a practice in Europe to gently wash the jointing sand into the
joints (Shackel, 1990). This technique should be done carefully in case the jointing
sand is washed away. Besides that, there must be an impermeable seal to prevent
from infiltrating to the base course.
12 Table 2.2: Tolerance of surface levels
Layers of pavement
Maximum permissible deviation
from the design level (mm)
Sub-base
Road-base
Laying course
Surface course
+5
-10
+5
-10
+5
-10
+6
-6
(BS 7533-4 2006)
Table 2.3: Surface regularity of the surface course
Measurement of surface regularity
Flatness of pavements when laid
Differences in levels at joint of
adjacent paving units
Tolerances
3 mm under 3 m straight
edge
2mm
(BS 7533-4 2006)
2.6
River Sand
Jointing material use for filling the pavement is depends on the type of
pavement and purpose of the joint (Lilley, 1991). Jointing materials also have
different forms such as sand, mortar, and sealants. The sand that is used for jointing
13 material has finer size than bedding sand. The river sand was used as one of the
jointing materials in this study. The size of the sand was according to the
requirements from ASTM C 144 as seen on Table 2.4. River sand that is used was
fully dried or had 0% moistures content. The grading for river sand from Johor
Bahru can be seen in Table 2.5.
Table 2.4: Grading requirement for jointing sand
Natural Sand
Manufactured Sand
Percent Passing (%)
Percent Passing (%)
No. 4 (4.75 mm)
100
100
No. 8 (2.36 mm)
95 – 100
95 – 100
No. 16 (1.18 mm)
70 – 100
70 – 100
No. 30 (0.60 mm)
40 – 75
40 – 100
No. 50 (0.30 mm)
10 – 35
20 – 40
No. 100 (0.15 mm)
2 – 15
10 - 25
No. 200 (0.075 mm)
0-1
0 - 10
Sieve Size
(ASTM C 144)
Table 2.5: Grading percentages for river sand from Johor Bahru
Sieve Size
Percent Passing (%)
ASTM C 144
No. 4 (4.75 mm)
100.00
100
No. 8 (2.36 mm)
98.64
95 - 100
No. 16 (1.18 mm)
79.15
70 - 100
No. 30 (0.60 mm)
46.73
40 - 75
No. 50 (0.30 mm)
18.42
10 - 35
No. 100 (0.15 mm)
4.27
2 - 15
No. 200 (0.075)
0.50
0-1
Pan
0.00
0
14 2.7
Marine Sand
One of the jointing materials for this study was marine sand which has a finer
size than river sand. Marine sand was taken from Tanjung Balau, Johor. The
distribution size of the marine sand did not meet the requirement. However, the
marine sand was the new material for jointing material, so this material was still used
in this study. The distribution size of marine sand can be seen on Table 2.6.
Table 2.6: Grading percentages for marine sand from Tanjung Balau
2.8
Sieve Size
Percant Passing (%)
ASTM C144
No. 4 (4.75 mm)
100.00
100
No. 8 (2.36 mm)
99.93
95 - 100
No. 16 (1.18 mm)
99.59
70 - 100
No. 30 (0.60 mm)
98.53
40 - 75
No. 50 (0.30 mm)
31.44
10 - 35
No. 100 (0.15 mm)
0.84
2 - 15
No. 200 (0.075 mm)
0.04
0-1
Pan
0.00
0
Portland Cement Mixture
Cements are adhesive materials which capable of bonding together particles
of solid material into one unit. Cements may be classified into two groups (Soroka,
1979). The first is non-hydraulic cements. This kind of cement cannot react and
harden in water. The second type is hydraulic cements. Hydraulic cements are able
15 to set and harden in water, and also give a solid product. In most standards for
ordinary Portland cement (BS 12, ASTM C 150), usually a minimum 45 minutes of
initial setting time was specified. For final setting it is different between British
Standard and ASTM. A maximum 10 hours was specified in BS 12 and 8 hours in
ASTM C 150. In addition, the first three days is most critical in the life of Portland
cement concrete. In this period, the hardening concrete is susceptible to permanent
damage. After 7 to 14 days, the concrete compressive strength may result in 70-85 %
of the strength in 28 days.
Figure 2.4: Schematic description of setting and hardening of a cement paste
(Soroka, 1979)
16 Figure 2.5: Compressive strength on cured concrete (Integrated Publishing)
17 CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
This study was referred to previous studies, journals, technical standards, books,
and internet websites. The modelling study in the laboratory was held to get the detail
data from jointing sand of the concrete block pavement. The jointing sand had a
different grade with bedding sand. Herringbone laying pattern was used for this study
with a rectangular type of concrete blocks.
The usage of sand as a gap filler was for blocking the water seepage and
strengthen the pavement. The water could not fully block by the sand because there
were voids on it. At least it could reduce the water seepage to a minimum, thus
preventing the pavement from failing.
The location of this study was in the Highway and Transportation Laboratory of
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia with a 222 cm x 171 cm sized testing pavement for water
seepage and a 161 cm x 91 cm sized testing pavement for erosion test, push-in test and
18 pull-out test. The marine sand was taken from Tanjung Balau in Johor and the concrete
block paving was obtained from a factory in Johor Bahru.
3.2
Flow Chart of Jointing Material Research
Start
Material Properties:
Beach Sand, River Sand, Paver, and Portland Cement
Sample 1
Herringbone 90o pattern,
Rectangular block (80
mm),
3 mm of joint width,
River Sand + 0% of
cement.
Sample 2
Herringbone 90o pattern,
Rectangular block (80
mm),
3 mm of joint width,
Marine Sand + 0% of
cement.
Sample 3
Herringbone 90o pattern,
Rectangular block (80
mm),
3 mm of joint width,
Marine Sand + 6% of
cement.
Sample 4
Herringbone 90o pattern,
Rectangular block (80
mm),
3 mm of joint width,
Marine Sand + 8% of
cement.
Installation of CBP
Erosion Test
Water Seepage Test
Curing of samples:
1 day, 3 days, and 7 days
Push-in Test
Data Analysis
Define the optimum performance for samples
Conclusion
Figure 3.1: Flow chart of jointing materials tests
Pull-out Test
19 3.3
Laying the Bedding Sand
The installation process started from laying the bedding sand. According to
CMMA (2000), the thickness of bedding sand must not less than 25 mm after
compaction. Refering to that requirement, this study applied 60 mm bedding sand
thickness before compaction in order to get the thickness not less than 25 mm. The sand
has been protected from either excessive drying out or wetting to ensure uniform
moisture content. Varying moisture content leads to irregular compaction of the blocks
into the sand. Bedding sand was flatten but still in loose condition.
Figure 3.2: Laying the bedding sand
20 3.4
Laying the Pavers
The concrete block pavers were produced by Sun-Block Sdn. Bhd. The pavers
were made from ordinary Portland cement, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, and water.
The pavers used for this study were in rectangular shape and laid on 90o herringbone
pattern. The pavers were laid one-by-one by hand due to the small size of the pavement
area.
Figure 3.3: Pavers are laid on the bedding sand
21 3.5
Filling the Jointing Material
Jointing materials were fully dried before it was used for filling the joint gap.
The jointing materials were spread out on the laid pavers and filled the gap. When the
gap was filled, then the excess jointing materials were swept away. After all the gaps
were filled with jointing, then the pavement was ready to be compacted.
Figure 3.4: Spreading the jointing materials on the pavement
3.6
Compaction
After the blocks have been laid, it was necessary to compact them.
Recommendation for compactor in Britain were should have 0.35 – 0.5 m2 plate area, a
centrifugal force of 16 – 20 kN, and a frequency of vibration about 75 – 100 Hz
22 (Shackel, 1990). The compaction was run after the jointing material has filled the
jointing gap. Each compaction involved two passes of the compactor. Any units which
were structurally damaged during the compaction were immediately removed and
replaced. Once joints were filled, it was difficult to make any adjustment (CCAA,
1986).
Figure 3.5: Pavement compaction
3.7
Pavement Installation Procedure
The installation procedure for bedding layer, paver, jointing material, and
compaction were described as below:
1. Frame was placed on the floor and held with steel bar.
2. Rectangular cross-section bar was placed as a zero point of measurement
(datum).
23 3. The flatness of the frame was measured by water level gauge.
4. The distance from floor until the rectangular cross-section bar was
measured.
5. Bedding sand poured inside the frame and flattens.
6. The distance from bedding sand surface to the rectangular cross-section
bar was measured to know the thickness of the bedding sand.
7. Pavers were laid on the bedding sand with Herringbone 90o pattern.
8. Jointing gap was 3 mm for each sample.
9. Jointing materials were put into the joint gaps.
10. After all gaps were filled, then the pavement was compacted with
compactor.
11. The excess sand for jointing material was swept away.
Figure 3.6: Pavement before filled by jointing material
24 Figure 3.7: Pavement after filled with jointing material
3.8
Water Seepage Test
Water Seepage Test was held in order to know the performance of the pavement
to resist the water from infiltrating through the joint gap. The jointing sand was the
important part from the pavement to resist the water. Four types of jointing material
have been tested which were:
•
River sand + 0% cement
(Sample 1)
•
Marine sand + 0% cement
(Sample 2)
•
Marine sand + 6% cement
(Sample 3)
•
Marine sand + 8% cement
(Sample 4)
25 The spraying process needed equipment such as:
1. Ready tested pavement model
2. Water tank
3. Stopwatch
4. Ruler
The water was seeping from the transparent container to the pavement. The size
of the water container was 43 cm x 43.5 cm. The seeping time was taken every 1 cm
reduction. The volume of the water for every 1 cm level reduction was 43 x 43.5 x 1 =
1870.5 cm3. Totally there were ten measurements for this test. Every sample had five
testing points.
4
3
5
1
2
Figure 3.8: Water seepage test points
26 Figure 3.9: Water seepage test
Figure 3.10: Water reduction measurement
27 3.9
Erosion Test
Erosion test was held in order to determine the performance of each jointing
material in case of rain. There were four types of samples based on the jointing material.
The same as water seepage test, the samples used were:
•
River sand + 0% cement
(Sample 1)
•
Marine sand + 0% cement
(Sample 2)
•
Marine sand + 6% cement
(Sample 3)
•
Marine sand + 8% cement
(Sample 4)
The spraying process needed equipment such as:
1. Ready tested pavement model
2. Water tank
3. Stopwatch
4. Pump machine
5. Sprayer
6. PVC pipe
7. Water
8. Caliper or ruler
The water used was a simulation of actual rain. However, the water pump
available in the laboratory has produced higher intensity than actual rain. The water
pump generated much greater amount of water than the highest rainfall rate in Malaysia.
The water pump used to have power equal to 8.91 ml /s whereas the highest level of
rainfall in Malaysia was only about 0.00253 ml /s in the Kuantan area in February 2009.
This condition is not an issue because if the intensity was much higher and the samples
could survive, then there would be no problems if the pavement is exposed to real rain
situation.
28 The erosion test was held on samples of size 161 cm x 91 cm with water sprayer
at 135 cm high above the pavement. Each sample was arranged for as many as 20 points
of measurements. These testing points were made in the grid system. Water was sprayed
three times with a time of ten seconds for each time. The measurement data acquisition
were performed four times, respectively before the water being sprayed, after the first
spraying, after the second spraying, and after the third spraying. The measurements were
taken on the surface changes at the decided points as a consequence from the water
movement.
Figure 3.11: Erosion test points
29 Figure 3.12: Spraying scheme
3.10
Push-in Test
Push-in Test was carried out in order to determine the performance of the
pavement in receiving a load on it gradually. The load that was applied to the samples
was limited to 15 kN because of the limited ability of the equipment to hold the load. All
samples were watered by the simulation rain and tested after three different times, i.e. 1
day, 3 days, and 7 days. The samples were:
•
River sand + 0% cement
(Sample 1)
•
Marine sand + 0% cement
(Sample 2)
•
Marine sand + 6% cement
(Sample 3)
•
Marine sand + 8% cement
(Sample 4)
30 Each sample has five testing point and in each testing point, there were two
measurements (on each edge). Push-in test needed some equipment such as:
1. Ready tested pavement model
2. Steel frame for hydraulic jack
3. Steel frame for transducer
4. Hydraulic jack
5. Hydraulic pump
6. Data logger
7. Transducers
8. Load cell
9. Steel plate
The procedures for push-in test were as follow:
1. The same pavement model was used as for the pull-out test.
2. The steel plate on was used on the test point.
3. The hydraulic jack was placed on the prepared steel plate
4. The load cell was placed between the hydraulic jack and steel frame.
5. The transducer was placed on each edge of the test point.
6. The transducer and load cell were connected to the data logger to record the data.
7. The hydraulic jack was connected to the hydraulic pump. The hydraulic pump
was a manual pump.
8. These steps were repeated on the other tested pavers.
31 Figure 3.13: Push-in test points
Figure 3.14: Setting the equipment for push-in test
32 3.11
Pull-out Test
Pull-out test has the similar characteristic as push-in test. The difference was
about the load direction. The best performance was shown by the maximum load that
the block can resist. All samples were watered by the simulation rain and tested after
three different times, i.e. 1 day, 3 days, and 7 days. The samples were:
•
River sand + 0% cement
(Sample 1)
•
Marine sand + 0% cement
(Sample 2)
•
Marine sand + 6% cement
(Sample 3)
•
Marine sand + 8% cement
(Sample 4)
Each sample has five testing point and in each testing point, there were two
measurements (on each edge). Pull-out test needed some equipment such as:
1. Ready tested pavement model
2. Small steel frame for hydraulic jack
3. Steel frame for transducer
4. Hydraulic jack
5. Hydraulic pump
6. Data logger
7. Transducer
8. Load cell
9. Bolt plug
The procedure for pull-out test was as following:
1. The pavement model was set in place.
2. The hydraulic jack was placed on the small steel frame.
33 3. The bolt plug was put on the prepared hole and connected to the hydraulic jack
with screw.
4. The load cell was set on the hydraulic jack to get the exact load when pulling out
the paver.
5. The transducer was placed on each edge of the test point.
6. The transducer and load cell were connected to the data logger to record the data.
7. The hydraulic jack was connected to the hydraulic pump. The hydraulic pump
was a manual pump.
8. These steps were repeated on the other tested pavers.
Figure 3.15: Pull-out test points
34 Figure 3.16: Setting the equipment for pull-out test
35 CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
4.1
Introduction
This chapter presents the collected data, calculations and analyses from all
tests. The performances from each type of jointing materials are presented in this
chapter by tables and graphics. Each test is presented in the following sub-chapters.
4.2
Water Seepage Test
The result for water seepage test is tabulated in table 4.1. According to the
table, the highest average time was sample 4 (marine sand + 8% cement) from all
points and the lowest average time was sample 2 (marine sand + 0% cement) from
all points. For sample 1 (river sand + 0% cement) and sample 3 (marine sand + 6%
cement) have an equal performance according to the table 4.1.
36 Table 4.1: Water seepage result
Water
Reduction
(per 1 cm)
10 - 9
9-8
8-7
7-6
6-5
5-4
4-3
3-2
2-1
1-0
TOTAL TIME :
AVERAGE :
Water
Reduction
(per 1 cm)
10 - 9
9-8
8-7
7-6
6-5
5-4
4-3
3-2
2-1
1-0
TOTAL TIME :
AVERAGE :
Water
Reduction
(per 1 cm)
10 - 9
9-8
8-7
7-6
6-5
5-4
4-3
3-2
2-1
1-0
TOTAL TIME :
AVERAGE :
Time (minutes)
Sample
1
16.07
33.37
56.93
81.23
109.17
141.60
178.57
222.25
270.42
325.85
1435.45
143.55
Sample
1
22.75
46.82
78.03
112.40
152.57
198.98
248.85
302.82
360.45
423.02
1946.68
194.67
Sample
1
27.85
56.58
89.73
127.83
175.37
224.65
281.40
339.93
404.47
471.93
2199.75
219.98
Point 1
Sample Sample
2
3
9.93
15.58
20.73
34.77
32.68
60.62
44.78
88.00
58.37
118.17
72.88
154.37
87.70
192.28
102.98
231.92
120.77
273.02
139.28
315.47
690.12 1484.18
148.42
69.01
Sample Sample
4
1
23.33
18.48
53.07
40.37
86.63
70.60
124.95
101.55
168.40
132.98
217.72
169.23
281.97
210.53
351.67
258.80
426.60
313.63
507.13
371.33
2241.47 1687.52
168.75
224.15
Time (minutes)
Point 3
Sample Sample Sample Sample
2
3
4
1
11.35
20.70
27.72
26.22
24.15
47.32
59.05
53.92
37.68
76.22
94.73
89.43
52.08
107.17
140.75
128.70
68.52
136.98
195.73
174.27
86.85
172.38
259.93
224.20
106.78
211.57
341.28
276.33
129.12
256.48
426.40
333.80
153.68
303.63
517.25
393.32
181.10
354.95
611.80
456.55
851.32 1687.40 2674.65 2156.73
168.74
215.67
85.13
267.47
Time (minutes)
Point 5
Sample Sample Sample
2
3
4
14.47
25.18
31.22
30.05
51.87
68.82
47.38
85.90
109.92
67.22
118.48
162.25
88.32
157.32
222.12
112.18
195.02
291.62
138.02
241.40
379.05
166.33
289.13
469.60
196.52
345.20
563.43
229.92
402.87
658.50
1090.40 1912.37 2956.52
191.24
109.04
295.65
Point 2
Sample Sample
2
3
9.98
16.02
21.45
37.68
34.43
61.68
48.48
89.07
63.82
121.85
80.62
161.08
99.33
203.05
120.58
248.73
144.25
294.87
169.33
343.45
792.28 1577.48
157.75
79.23
Sample
4
25.27
53.68
86.08
125.43
169.75
221.37
289.13
357.65
431.47
513.05
2272.88
227.29
Point 4
Sample Sample
2
3
13.82
27.38
29.12
55.67
45.92
85.90
63.78
119.75
82.52
155.83
101.80
191.37
123.45
233.62
147.35
276.25
173.08
329.60
202.33
385.03
983.17 1860.40
186.04
98.32
Sample
4
29.07
63.85
103.23
153.10
209.55
275.70
360.35
446.00
534.75
627.35
2802.95
280.30
37 Sample 1 (marine sand + 0% cement) had the lowest average time because
water could easily seeping through this material. Marine sand has a rounded surface
so that the interlocking action between the grains of sand is not very strong.
Different things happen on the river sand which has a rough surface. This condition
makes the river sand grains interlock better. By having strong interlocking, water
could not seep through the pavement easily. The cement that was added to the
marine sand can give a fairly significant effect.
The cement content of 6% could make the marine sand perform like river
sand. With higher cement content, which is 8%, it turned out that the marine sand
has a performance far above the river sand. This could have happened because the
cement act as the glue between the grains of the marine sand and make it more solid
so the water is not easy to seep through the pavement. By adding the cement to the marine sand up to 8%, the performance was
better than no cement at all. For example, in the point 1, the performance of marine
sand + 8% cement was almost three times better than the performance of marine
sand + 0% cement as shown in figure 4.1. The other results are presented in
Appendix A.
The seepage time from point 1 to point 5 was increasing for every sample.
This condition was caused by the gradation of the base course which was a floor in
laboratory as shown in figure 4.2. Even though the pavement was flat, but when the
water had reached the floor, then water was flowing to the lowest level of the floor.
38 The lowest level of the floor was near point 1. That was why the results in point 5
had a higher time than in point 1.
Time (minutes)
Reduction (cm)
Figure 4.1: Water seepage result for point 1
Figure 4.2: Water flow on the floor as base course
39 4.3
Erosion Test
In this test, there were two condition of jointing sand in the gap. First, the
jointing sand was eroded and reduced. Second, the jointing sand accumulated or pile
up by the eroded jointing sand. From table 4.2 and table 4.3, value in negative (-)
means the jointing sand was eroded (after rain condition 1 from figure 4.3). The
positive values mean the jointing sand was added by the eroded jointing sand (after
rain condition 2 from figure 4.3).
Figure 4.3: Jointing sand conditions in erosion test
40 Figure 4.4: Erosion test
Table 4.2: Result for erosion test
Sample 1
River Sand + 0% Cement
Sample 2
Marine Sand + 0% Cement
Depth Difference (mm)
No
Point
1
A1
2
A2
3
A3
4
A4
5
B1
6
B2
7
B3
8
B4
9
C1
10
C2
11
C3
12
C4
13
D1
14
D2
15
D3
16
D4
17
E1
18
E2
19
E3
20
E4
AVERAGE :
After
First
Rain
0.90
-0.25
-3.65
0.50
2.15
0.30
-0.10
-1.30
-1.60
1.75
-2.45
-0.85
1.10
-5.30
0.65
-0.30
0.30
0.50
0.55
-1.70
After
Second
Rain
2.15
-2.40
0.75
1.00
-0.55
-5.05
2.40
-0.40
-0.95
-0.60
-1.20
-1.00
1.00
-5.85
3.95
-3.70
0.10
-7.95
-1.35
1.20
-0.79
After
Third
Rain
3.30
-3.95
5.85
3.50
-0.02
-6.63
3.17
-0.97
-1.80
-0.22
-2.42
-1.62
1.70
-9.57
5.48
-5.03
0.23
-10.43
-1.62
1.03
Depth Difference (mm)
No
Point
1
A1
2
A2
3
A3
4
A4
5
B1
6
B2
7
B3
8
B4
9
C1
10
C2
11
C3
12
C4
13
D1
14
D2
15
D3
16
D4
17
E1
18
E2
19
E3
20
E4
AVERAGE :
After
First
Rain
-1.25
4.65
4.75
1.10
-2.50
9.85
3.15
1.70
3.40
4.25
2.30
-4.80
-5.15
2.50
3.55
2.15
3.15
6.05
3.00
-1.15
After
Second
Rain
-0.25
2.55
3.60
-4.25
-3.35
8.35
3.35
-1.45
2.75
3.00
2.80
-5.95
-6.25
1.55
4.00
-2.85
-0.25
6.25
1.50
1.25
1.67
After
Third
Rain
1.00
4.20
4.85
-6.25
-2.10
8.75
5.15
1.40
5.20
7.00
3.30
-7.80
-4.50
1.00
7.00
1.20
-1.35
8.45
3.75
2.60
41 Table 4.3: Result for erosion test
Sample 3
Marine Sand + 6% Cement
Sample 4
Marine Sand + 8% Cement
Depth Difference (mm)
No
Point
1
A1
2
A2
3
A3
4
A4
5
B1
6
B2
7
B3
8
B4
9
C1
10
C2
11
C3
12
C4
13
D1
14
D2
15
D3
16
D4
17
E1
18
E2
19
E3
20
E4
AVERAGE :
After
First
Rain
0.70
0.20
-1.80
-1.75
4.80
0.20
-1.45
-0.80
-1.25
0.45
-0.10
1.25
0.25
0.30
2.20
-1.50
-0.25
0.60
0.45
0.80
After
Second
Rain
0.00
0.25
0.15
0.00
-7.55
-2.40
-2.70
1.15
-0.35
1.55
-0.25
0.60
-0.50
-0.35
-2.55
-1.00
-1.25
-0.15
0.60
0.25
-0.49
After
Third
Rain
0.23
0.40
-0.40
-0.58
-8.47
-3.13
-4.08
1.27
-0.88
2.22
-0.37
1.22
-0.58
-0.37
-2.67
-1.83
-1.75
0.00
0.95
0.60
Depth Difference (mm)
No
Point
1
A1
2
A2
3
A3
4
A4
5
B1
6
B2
7
B3
8
B4
9
C1
10
C2
11
C3
12
C4
13
D1
14
D2
15
D3
16
D4
17
E1
18
E2
19
E3
20
E4
AVERAGE :
After
First
Rain
2.00
0.25
0.85
0.65
0.35
-4.10
-4.00
0.15
0.25
-0.10
-1.05
3.40
-2.05
-0.60
1.65
-0.10
1.00
0.65
0.65
0.20
After
Second
Rain
1.70
0.30
0.75
0.05
-0.40
-7.95
-3.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.05
2.30
-4.30
-1.60
3.15
-0.95
3.05
0.55
0.20
-0.50
-0.24
After
Third
Rain
2.93
0.48
1.28
0.28
-0.42
-11.97
-5.33
0.12
0.22
0.17
-0.28
4.20
-6.42
-2.33
4.75
-1.30
4.40
0.95
0.48
-0.60
The best performance will be shown with an average value near zero. This
means that erosion and piling that occurs was very small. From table 4.2, the
differences of average values from zero as initial condition for those samples are:
•
Sample 1 (River Sand + 0% cement)
= 0 – (-0.79)
= 0.79 mm
•
Sample 2 (Marine Sand + 0% cement)
= 1.67 – 0
= 1.67 mm
•
Sample 3 (Marine Sand + 6% cement)
= 0 – (-0.49)
= 0.49 mm
•
Sample 4 (Marine Sand + 8% cement)
= 0 – (-0.24)
= 0.24 mm
Sample 2 has the farthest value from zero. This means that Sample 2 experienced
erosion and piling the most. Sample 2 which was a marine sand could be easily
eroded because of bonding between grains was not very strong. Fine grains of
marine sand surface was the cause why the bonding was not so strong.
42 Sample 4 showed that there have been few indications of erosion and piling.
With the existence of as many as 8% cement content in the marine sand, it can make
the marine sand became more resistant to erosion. Water and cement mixture will
turn into paste and serve as a glue for marine sand grains. Marine sand grains
attached to each other makes it difficult for the water to wash them away. The
changes of the jointing sand are presented in graphics as shown in Appendix B.
Figure 4.5: Pilling sand
Figure 4.6: Eroded sand
43 4.4
Push-in Test
Push-in Test was carried out in order to determine the performance of the
pavement in receiving a load on it gradually. As there was limitation in the test, then
all the samples were compared by the displacement at 15 kN. The displacement used
in the comparison was the displacement in the average of two measurements. In
order to get the displacement at exactly 15 kN, then interpolation was used from the
data below and upper 15 kN. The results are summarized and shown in table 4.4,
table 4.5, and table 4.6. Detailed results are presented in Appendix C to Appendix H.
Table 4.4: Push-in result for 1 day after watering at 15 kN
Sample
River Sand + 0% Cement
Marine Sand + 0% Cement
Marine Sand + 6% Cement
Marine Sand + 8% Cement
Point 1
0.833
0.865
0.594
3.328
Displacement (mm)
Point 2
Point 3
Point 4
1.283
0.904
1.619
0.391
0.197
1.290
0.512
0.354
0.406
0.662
0.506
0.325
Point 5
2.438
1.737
0.625
0.650
Table 4.5: Push-in result for 3 days after watering at 15 kN
Sample
River Sand + 0% Cement
Marine Sand + 0% Cement
Marine Sand + 6% Cement
Marine Sand + 8% Cement
Point 1
0.643
0.237
2.654
0.560
Displacement (mm)
Point 2
Point 3
Point 4
0.610
0.830
1.215
0.369
0.221
0.904
0.480
0.506
0.811
0.495
0.568
0.460
Point 5
0.972
0.221
0.494
0.461
Table 4.6: Push-in result for 7 days after watering at 15 kN
Sample
River Sand + 0% Cement
Marine Sand + 0% Cement
Marine Sand + 6% Cement
Marine Sand + 8% Cement
Point 1
1.267
1.370
2.260
1.499
Displacement (mm)
Point 2
Point 3
Point 4
0.364
0.617
1.871
0.630
0.573
1.333
0.872
0.362
0.175
1.290
0.527
0.319
Point 5
5.031
0.901
0.563
0.571
44 Displacement (mm) Point Figure 4.7: Displacement at 15 kN from each sample for 1 day after watering
Displacement (mm) Point Figure 4.8: Displacement at 15 kN from each sample for 3 days after watering
45 Displacement (mm) Point
Figure 4.9: Displacement at 15 kN from each sample for 7 days after watering
The best performance was shown by the least displacement from each point.
All the best performance from each point can be summarized as follow:
1 day after watering
•
Point 1 = Marine Sand + 6% cement
•
Point 2 = Marine Sand + 0% cement
•
Point 3 = Marine Sand + 0% cement
•
Point 4 = Marine Sand + 6% cement
•
Point 5 = Marine Sand + 6% cement
3 days after watering
•
Point 1 = Marine Sand + 0% cement
•
Point 2 = Marine Sand + 0% cement
•
Point 3 = Marine Sand + 6% cement
•
Point 4 = Marine Sand + 6% cement
•
Point 5 = Marine Sand + 0% cement
46 7 days after watering
•
Point 1 = River Sand + 0% Cement
•
Point 2 = River Sand + 0% Cement
•
Point 3 = Marine Sand + 6% Cement
•
Point 4 = Marine Sand + 6% cement
•
Point 5 = Marine Sand + 6% cement
From the previous summary, mostly the best performance was shown by marine
sand + 6% cement. It means that this sample has a good behavior when the load was
working on it. Cement contained in the sample 3 (marine sand + 6% cement) could
function well as a grain binder but could still provide friction against the surrounding
surface. Sample 1 (river sand + 0% cement) and sample 2 (marine sand + 0%
cement) also could provide friction against the surface around but easily separated
because there was no binding substance, while for sample 4 (marine sand + 8%
cement), cement was likely too much and made the surface of the marine sand bound
to be smooth and reduce friction. The details of the size and the surface of marine
sand and river sand can be seen in figure 4.10 and figure 4.11
The movement of blocks was also not always uniform. There was a movement
from the two ends of the block that move does not together. This was because both
ends of the block did not have the same friction. When there was one end pressed,
then, on the other end could come to move with the same or different displacement.
The details movement of the block can be seen on Appendix O.
47 Figure 4.10: Marine sand (left) and river sand (right) at 50x magnification
Figure 4.11: Marine sand (left) and river sand (right) at 250x magnification
48 Figure 4.12: Push-in test detail
4.5
Pull-out Test
Pull-out test has the similar characteristic with push-in test. The difference
was about the load direction. The best performance was shown by the maximum load
that the block can resist. The best performance was shown by the maximum load
from each point. The results from the test are summarized in table 4.7, table, 4.8,
table. 4.9. Detailed results are presented in Appendix I to Appendix M.
49 Table 4.7: Pull-out result for 1 day after watering
Sample
River Sand + 0% Cement
Marine Sand + 0% Cement
Marine Sand + 6% Cement
Marine Sand + 8% Cement
Sample
River Sand + 0% Cement
Marine Sand + 0% Cement
Marine Sand + 6% Cement
Marine Sand + 8% Cement
Point 1
Displacement
(mm)
14.964
14.822
1.675
1.687
Point 4
Displacement
(mm)
4.672
1.503
1.615
1.428
Load
(kN)
2.872
2.359
3.330
3.175
Load
(kN)
3.863
5.241
5.270
3.753
Point 2
Displacement
(mm)
3.654
1.481
5.935
2.021
Point 5
Displacement
(mm)
9.285
1.262
2.595
1.428
Load
(kN)
3.957
2.299
3.980
3.698
Point 3
Displacement
(mm)
2.003
4.457
11.845
4.303
Load
(kN)
6.511
6.162
7.310
9.507
Point 3
Displacement
(mm)
1.527
0.134
4.860
1.044
Load
(kN)
4.430
7.581
10.700
5.281
Load
(kN)
2.638
4.480
3.229
3.753
Table 4.8: Pull-out result for 3 days after watering
Sample
River Sand + 0% Cement
Marine Sand + 0% Cement
Marine Sand + 6% Cement
Marine Sand + 8% Cement
Sample
River Sand + 0% Cement
Marine Sand + 0% Cement
Marine Sand + 6% Cement
Marine Sand + 8% Cement
Point 1
Displacement
(mm)
1.373
0.195
1.205
2.891
Point 4
Displacement
(mm)
3.125
0.159
1.785
0.437
Load
(kN)
2.976
3.255
3.780
2.543
Load
(kN)
5.326
4.425
8.410
5.520
Point 2
Displacement
(mm)
24.248
0.989
11.165
6.140
Point 5
Displacement
(mm)
1.418
0.214
1.865
0.885
Load
(kN)
4.644
4.007
4.480
5.799
Load
(kN)
2.643
4.544
4.720
3.484
50 Table 4.9: Pull-out result for 7 days after watering
Sample
River Sand + 0% Cement
Marine Sand + 0% Cement
Marine Sand + 6% Cement
Marine Sand + 8% Cement
Sample
River Sand + 0% Cement
Marine Sand + 0% Cement
Marine Sand + 6% Cement
Marine Sand + 8% Cement
Point 1
Displacement
(mm)
1.481
0.164
1.160
2.776
Point 4
Displacement
(mm)
1.392
1.122
1.360
0.001
Load
(kN)
3.061
1.568
2.930
4.261
Load
(kN)
3.633
2.225
5.420
3.713
Point 2
Displacement
(mm)
7.609
1.253
0.550
1.717
Point 5
Displacement
(mm)
1.959
1.561
0.210
3.312
Load
(kN)
3.170
1.677
3.180
2.105
Point 3
Displacement
(mm)
11.678
0.924
1.990
3.157
Load
(kN)
1.005
1.125
0.940
1.712
Load (kN)
Point
Figure 4.13: Maximum load from each sample for 1 day after watering
Load
(kN)
5.575
3.270
9.450
7.671