International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2016

Vol. 17, No. 6, 478–488, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2014.993205

Experimental identification and mechanical interpretation of the interaction behaviour between

concrete paving blocks
J. Füssla*, W. Kluger-Eiglb and R. Blabb
a
Institute for Mechanics of Materials and Structures, TU Vienna, Vienna, Austria; bInstitute of Transportation, TU Vienna, Vienna,
Austria
(Received 11 November 2014; accepted 23 November 2014)

In recent years, concrete block (CB) pavements have become a favourite alternative to asphalt pavements, mainly in intra-
urban regions due to their architectural design possibilities. Unfortunately, this trend is restrained by a lack of adequate
design methods to assess the load capacity and durability of such pavements. Especially, the mechanical performance of the
vertical joints between CBs is often not depicted realistically enough. For this reason, in this work three new experiments are
proposed to determine the mechanical behaviour of the joints between the CBs, and thus the load transmission capability of
different joint formations. Mechanical models and the corresponding material parameters to describe the joint behaviour are
identified from the experimental results. Finally, performance optimisation of block pavements with respect to their jointing
behaviour should become possible.
Keywords: block pavements; concrete blocks; joint behaviour; shearing tests; Mohr– Coloumb friction

1. Introduction and motivation
Within the last decades, block pavements have been
almost completely replaced by asphalt and concrete
pavements, and are only applied to lowly stressed areas,
such as sideways, cycle tracks, pedestrian zones or parking
spaces. In recent years, the higher attractiveness of well-
designed block pavement systems compared with common
asphalt pavements has encouraged the use of block
pavements for public highways, especially in intra-urban
regions. Moreover, the modest replacement of parts of the
pavement makes the accessibility of supply lines easier.
This trend is restrained by a lack of adequate design
methods to assess the load capacity and durability of such
pavements. The challenge of performance prediction of
block pavements can be distinguished into two main tasks:
the assessment of (i) the vertical deformation behaviour
(see Figure 1(a)), and (ii) the resistance of the block
pavement against horizontal loading (braking and
centrifugal forces from traffic) (see Figure 1(b)).
While the former mainly depends on the nonlinear
material behaviour and the accumulation of permanent
strains of the underlying base layers, the latter exclusively
depends on the joint behaviour and the interaction between
blocks, respectively, of the block pavement system. This
work only deals with the interaction behaviour between
paving blocks, nevertheless, for the sake of completeness
and to show that for the vertical performance prediction
several modelling approaches already exist, the most
common methods for modelling the base layers are briefly
addressed in the following paragraph.
The nonlinear behaviour of unbound base layers (due
to the granular material structure) is often modelled by the
simple two-parameter k 2 f model (Hicks and Monismith
1971), which suggests that the resilient modulus is
proportional to the mean stress raised to a power, and
further developed models such as the three-parameter
model according to Uzan (1985), the Dresden model
(Gleitz 1996) and the isotropic or anisotropic Boyce model
(Boyce 1980, Hornych et al. 1998). A good overview of
the basic models for the resilient response of unbound
layers is given in Lekarp et al. (2000). The plastic material
behaviour is either described by classical failure criteria,
according to Mohr – Coulomb or Drucker – Prager, or/and
by the ‘shakedown’ concept described in Werkmeister
et al. (2001). A comprehensive model for granular layers,
from non-linear elastic material behaviour up to plastic
shakedown considerations, and the implementation into a
finite-element code can be found in Chazallon et al.
(2009). The material properties required for these models
are mainly obtained from comprehensive static and cyclic
triaxial testing programs, e.g. presented in COURAGE
(1999).
For the description of the load bearing behaviour of the
block layer itself, only few experiments were developed in
recent years. Most of them are of macroscopic nature,
considering the whole pavement structure under different
loading and boundary conditions. In Lerch (2005) and
Oeser et al. (2006), full-scale laboratory tests on block
pavements were conducted to investigate the influence of
dynamic horizontal and vertical loads on the deformation

*Corresponding author. Email: josef.fuessl@tuwien.ac.at

q 2015 Taylor & Francis
2 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 479

(a) (b)

Figure 1. Governing failure mechanisms for block pavements: (a) ‘rutting’ due to plastic deformation of the base layers and (b) large
horizontal displacements due to shear failure in the joints.

of different concrete block (CB) pavements. In Rohleder
(2002), a special testing device was used to apply
horizontal forces in situ into existing block pavements to
determine horizontal resistance. With respect to numerical
simulation tools for block pavements, one of the first
publications was Huurman et al. (1992), in which rigid
elastically bedded blocks are connected with springs, and
in a subsequent calculation the loaded CB is considered.
Further on, some similar models were developed
(Nishizawa et al. 1984, Nishizawa 2003, Hassani 2006,
Huurman 2006), which all had in common a linear elastic
interaction behaviour between blocks and a rather simple
material behaviour of the underlying base courses.
An interesting model was developed by Ascher (2003),
where the non-linear elastic Dresdner model (Gleitz 1996)
was assigned to the base course and the performance of the
model was evaluated by experiments in Lerch (2005), but
again the joint behaviour between CBs was considered to
be elastic.
Within this article, the nonlinear behaviour between
paving blocks is investigated, which is influenced by the
shape of the blocks, the joint width, the filling degree and
the filling material. As shown in Figure 2, many different
CBs exist: (a) rectangular blocks with plane side surfaces
(no interlocking effect), (b, c) shaped blocks with plane
side surfaces (shape-induced interlocking effect) and
(d – h) rectangular blocks with joint profile (interlocking
effect due to moulded side surfaces). To assess the
performance of these different blocks, appropriate
experiments are needed focusing on the load transmission
through the joint.
For this reason, in Section 2, three new experiments for
the investigation of (i) the horizontal, (ii) the vertical and
(iii) the normal joint behaviour are presented. In Section 3,
based on the experimental results, a material model for the
description of the whole joint behaviour is proposed.
Concluding remarks are given in Section 4.
2. Experiments
The load transmission capacity of the joints of a block
pavement has a significant impact on the general

(a) (b) (c) (d)

(e) (f) (g) (h)

Figure 2. Different CBs (Lerch 2005): (a) rectangular block with plane side surfaces, (b,c) shaped blocks with plane side surfaces, and
(d – h) rectangular blocks with moulded side surfaces.
480 J. Füssl et al.
tv
th1
rj
(th1 + th2) − rb
g rj ... reaction force in joint
rb
(tv + g) − 2rj
Figure 3. Acting forces and reaction forces on a block.
performance of the structure. Vertical as well as horizontal
traffic loads are transferred to adjacent blocks through
friction forces in the joints (see Figure 3).
For this reason, in this section, three experiments are
presented for the investigation of (i) the horizontal, (ii) the
vertical and (iii) the normal joint behaviour of pavement
blocks.
2.1 Vertical joint behaviour
To assess the vertical joint behaviour, the schematically
illustrated test set-up in Figure 4(a) was developed, and the
experiments were carried out at the TVFA Vienna (see
Figure 4(b)).
The test set-up consists of three blocks arranged in a row
on a wooden multilayer board. The resulting two joints
(5 mm) are sideways closed with a piece of soft wood and
filled with precious-crushed sand 0/2. The sand is
mechanically compressed by means of vibration using a
mallet. After the application of a constant horizontal load H,
the middle block is pushed-out with a continuous increasing
force V, and the vertical path uv is measured by a centrically
applied linear variable differential transformer (LVDT). The
test program covers a CB with plane side surfaces (see
V
(a)
LVDT
plane cut
H
vertical fixing
wooden multilayer board
Figure 4. (a) Schematic illustration of the vertical shearing test and (b) experimental set-up at TVFA Vienna.
3
rj
tv ... vertical traffic load
th2 th ... horizontal traffic load
g ... dead load of block
rb ... reaction force in bedding
Figure 2(a)), as well as a so-called concrete interlocking
block (CIB) with moulded side surfaces according to Figure 2
(d). Experiments are conducted at five different horizontal
load levels H. The whole test program is given in Table 1.
Figure 5 shows the acting forces in the vertical-
shearing-experiment and the resulting normal stress sn and
shear stress tnt in the vertical joints, which can be
calculated as follows:
H2R V 2 Gs
. sn ¼ and tnt ¼ ; ð1Þ
bh 2bh
where H is the constant horizontal load and V is the
continuously increasing vertical load. R denotes the
slipping frictional force between the CB and the wooden
panel (friction coefficient m ¼ 0.3), induced by the dead
loads of the block Gs and the steel plate Gp (part of the
vertical fixing). a, b and h are the dimensions of a CB.
Figure 6(a) shows the vertical shear stress tnt in the
joints as a function of the vertical displacement of the
middle block uv, for the CIBs at five different horizontal
load levels H. At a vertical displacement of about 4 mm the
maximum shear stress for each load level is achieved and
yielding at a constant shear stress takes place. The
comparison between two CIBs of different height (80 and
(b)
H
V
4 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 481

Table 1. Experimental program for the vertical shearing tests. (see Figure 7(b)). Again, no significant difference in the
shearing behaviour has been obtained.
Horizontal load, . H [kN] 5 10 15 20 30
Thus, it can be stated that the vertical shearing
CB80 a
† † behaviour is nearly independent of the side-surface profile
CIB80b † † † † † of the blocks.
CIB100b † †
CIB80 twisted † †
Note: Bullets indicate the configurations tested.
a
b
CB with height of 80 mm. 2.2 Horizontal joint behaviour
Concrete interlocking block with height of 80/100 mm.
To assess the horizontal joint behaviour, the schematically
100 mm) is shown in Figure 6(b), for two different illustrated test set-up in Figure 8(a) was developed, and the
horizontal load levels H. As expected, quasi no influence experiments were carried out at the TVFA Vienna (see
of the block height on the shear force in the joints can be Figure 8(b)).
determined. The test set-up again consists of three blocks arranged
Interestingly, the comparison of CBs and CIBs also in a row on a wooden multilayer board. The joints (5 mm)
leads to no significant difference in the vertical shearing are sideways sealed with a plasticine-like material and
behaviour, as can be seen in Figure 7(a). Finally, due to the filled with precious-crushed sand 0/2. The sand was again
asymmetrical moulded side surfaces of the CBs, the joint compacted mechanically under dry conditions, to avoid
behaviour in the 1808 twisted direction has been checked possibly different test conditions and long drying times.

Gp
H
h Gs σn τnt Gs τnt σn Gs

V R = (Gs + Gp)μ

V R H
σn b σn

Figure 5. Forces and stresses in the vertical shearing test.

(a) τnt [MPa] (b) τnt [MPa]

1.1 H = 30 1.1 CIB80

1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9 CIB100
0.8 H = 20 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 H = 15 0.6
0.5 0.5 H = 15
0.4 H = 10 0.4
0.3 0.3 H = 10
0.2 H=5 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 uv [mm] 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 uv [mm]

Figure 6. Results of vertical shearing tests: (a) CIB80 at five different horizontal load levels H [kN] and (b) comparison of CIB80 with
CIB100 at two different horizontal load levels.
482 J. Füssl et al. 5

(a) τnt [MPa] CB80 (b) τnt [MPa] CIB80 twisted

1.0 CIB80 1.0 CIB80
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 H = 20 0.7
0.6 0.6 H = 15
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
H = 10 H = 10
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 uv [mm] 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 uv [mm]

Figure 7. (a) Comparison of CB80 with CIB80 and (b) comparison of CIB80 with CIB80 1808 twisted installed.

plane cut
(a) (b)
H
LVDT

S
H

wooden
multilayer board

Figure 8. (a) Schematic illustration of the horizontal shearing test and (b) experimental set-up at TVFA Vienna.

After application of a constant horizontal load H, the

middle block is pushed-out, this time, horizontal with a
continuous increasing force S. The relative horizontal
displacement uh between the middle block and the blocks
on the sides is measured using a bridge and an LVDT (see
Figure 8(b)). The test program covers again a CB with
plane side surfaces, as well as a CIB with moulded side
surfaces, and the experiments are conducted at five
different horizontal load levels H. The whole test program
is given in Table 2.
Figure 9 shows the acting forces in the horizontal-
shearing-test and the resulting normal stress sn and shear
stress tnt in the vertical joints.
The mean normal stress . sn ¼ ðsn1 þ sn2 Þ=2
and the shear stress in the considered vertical joints are
given by
Table 2. Experimental program for the horizontal shearing
tests.
Horizontal load, . H [kN] 5 10
CB80 a
† †
CIB80b † †
CIB100b
Note: Bullets indicate the configurations tested.
a
Concrete paving stone with height of 80 mm.
b
Concrete compound paving stone with height of 80/100 mm.
H 2 1:5R S2R
. sn ¼ and tnt ¼ ; ð2Þ
bh 2bh
where H denotes the constant horizontal load and S is the
continuously increased horizontal load. R is the slipping
frictional force between the CB and the wooden panel
(friction coefficient m ¼ 0.3), induced by the dead loads of
the blocks Gs. The dimensions of a CB are denoted as a, b
and the height h.
Figure 10 shows the horizontal shear stress tnt in the
joints as a function of the horizontal displacement of the
middle block uh, for (a) the CIBs at five different
horizontal load levels and for (b) the CBs at two different
horizontal load levels. At a horizontal displacement of
about 4 mm the maximum shear stress for each load level
is achieved, and further displacement is followed by highly
nonlinear effects, whereas a constant yield stress is
reached for the CBs, the shear stress drops down in case of
15 20 30 CIBs.
This abrupt decrease of the shear stress can be
† † † addressed to concrete failure, which has been observed in
† experiments (see Figure 11).
A comparison of the horizontal shearing test results for
two different load levels between the CBs and CIBs is
shown in Figure 12.
6 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 483

H
h Gs σn2 S σn1 Gs
Gs

R = Gs μ R = Gs μ

R = Gs μ
R H
b σn2 τnt τnt σn1

Figure 9. Forces and stresses in the horizontal shearing test.

τnt [MPa] τnt [MPa]

(a) (b)
2.4 H = 30 2.4
2.1 H = 20 2.1
1.8 H = 15 1.8
1.5 H = 10 1.5
1.2 H=5 1.2 H = 20
0.9 0.9
0.6 0.6 H = 10
0.3 0.3
0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 uh [mm] 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 uh [mm]

Figure 10. Results of horizontal shearing tests: (a) CIB80 at five different horizontal load levels H and (b) CB80 at two different
horizontal load levels H.

For both load levels, the CIBs achieve a
considerably higher maximum shear stress, before the
shear stress drops down almost to the level achieved
with the CBs. Nevertheless, till the drop, the CIBs
Concrete failure
Figure 11. Concrete failure of CIBs at horizontal shearing tests.
provide a significant higher tangential deformation
resistance.
2.3 Normal joint behaviour
To determine the mechanical joint behaviour in normal
direction, a simple test set-up was developed (see Figure 13),
and the experiments were carried out at the TVFA Vienna.
The test set-up consists of two blocks on a wooden
multilayer board. One block is fixed and on the other block
a horizontal increasing load H is applied, and the relative
normal displacement between theses two blocks is
continuously recorded. The resulting normal stress in the
joint as a function of the relative displacement is given in
Figure 14, for two CBs and three CIBs.
The slightly softer behaviour of the CIBs may be
explained by a worse compaction of the joint sand due to
the moulded side surface of the CIBs. Due to the simple
test set-up and a good reproducibility of test results, this
484 J. Füssl et al. 7

τnt [MPa] τnt [MPa]

CB80 2.0
2.0
CIB80
1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6
+65%
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
+80%
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6 CB80
0.4 0.4 CIB80
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 uh [mm] 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 uh [mm]

H = 10 kN H = 20 kN

Figure 12. Comparison of horizontal shearing results between CB80 and CIB80 for two different horizontal loading levels H.

(a) (b)
σn H
h
Gs

R = Gs μ
H

R = Gs μ H
b σn

Figure 13. (a) Schematic illustration of the normal joint behaviour test and (b) experimental set-up at TVFA Vienna.

experiment is basically well suited for joint sand models describing the joint behaviour are chosen and the
characterisation. respective material parameters are identified.
For both the horizontal and the vertical shearing test,
the maximum shear stress as a function of the load level
3. Parameter identification
can be described by the Mohr – Coulomb friction criterion
In this section, on the basis of the obtained experimental with a constant friction coefficient w (see Figures 15 –17).
results presented in Section 2, appropriate mechanical For the vertical joint behaviour a friction coefficient wv
σn [MPa] of 0.58 is obtained, and the cohesion can be neglected (see
Figure 15). An interlocking effect of the joint has no
5.0
CB80 influence of the vertical friction coefficient. From the
4.5 CIB80 horizontal shearing test, a friction coefficient wh of
4.0
1.21/0.77 and a cohesion ch of 0.41/0.18 is obtained for the
3.5
CIBs and CBs, respectively (see Figures 16 and 17). The
3.0
maximum shear stress is assumed to be bounded with
2.5
tmax ¼ 2.41 MPa.
2.0
Based on the obtained results, the whole tangential
1.5
mechanical behaviour of a joint can be described by an
1.0
anisotropic friction criterion, which allows for different
0.5
friction coefficients in two orthogonal directions on the
0
contact surface. The critical shear stress surface (see
0 0.07 0.14 0.21 0.28 0.35 0.42 0.49 0.56 0.63 un [mm]
Figure 18(a)) is an ellipse in . th 2 tv space with the two
Figure 14. Normal stress in the joint sn as a function of the extreme points being . tcrit h ¼ wh sn and . tv ¼ wv sn ,
crit

relative joint displacement in normal direction un. where additionally t crit

is bounded above with tmax. The
8 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 485

τnt [MPa] τnt [MPa]

1.1 H = 30 1.1
1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9
0.8 H = 20 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 H = 15 0.6
0.5 0.5 ϕv = 0.58
0.4 H = 10 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 H=5 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 uv [mm] 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 σn [MPa]

Figure 15. Identification of vertical friction coefficient of CIBs by means of vertical shearing test results.

τnt [MPa] τnt [MPa]

H = 30
2.4 2.4
2.1 2.1
H = 20
1.8 1.8
H = 15
1.5 1.5 ϕ h = 1.21
1.2 H = 10 1.2 τ max = 2.41
0.9 H=5 0.9
0.6 0.6
0.3 0.3 ch = 0.41
0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 uh [mm] 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 σn [MPa]

Figure 16. Identification of horizontal friction coefficient of CIBs by means of horizontal shearing test results.

size of this ellipse changes with the change in contact
pressure between the surfaces. The direction of slip dg is
orthogonal to the critical shear stress surface. Before the
critical shear stress is reached, the tangential behaviour is
assumed to be linear elastic, with a maximum allowed
elastic slip ge of 4 mm (see Figure 18).
Figure 18(b) shows the experimental results of the
horizontal and vertical shearing tests, and the approximation
of these results with the proposed anisotropic friction model.
Although the nonlinear behaviour in the elastic region is
approximated linearly, and the plastic softening behaviour in
the horizontal direction is not considered, the basic joint
behaviour is captured by the model. Moreover, this model
can be easily implemented into a commercial finite-element
code, and despite its nonlinear nature usually allow for a
good speed of convergence.

τnt [MPa] τnt [MPa]

1.4 1.4
1.2 H = 20 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8 ϕh = 0.77
H = 10
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
ch = 0.18
0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 uh [mm] 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 σnt [MPa]

Figure 17. Identification of horizontal friction coefficient of CBs by means of horizontal shearing test results.
486 J. Füssl et al. 9

(a) |τv | (b) τ

τvcrit = ϕvσn ≤ τmax

Direction of slip dγ Slipping friction

τ crit
|τh|2 |τv|2
Ellipsc: + =1
τh crit 2 τvcrit 2
Elaastic region
τhcrit = ϕh σn ≤ τmax Maximum elastic slip γe = 4 mm

|τh| Total slip γ

Elaastic region Plastic region

Experiment
τv [MPA] Model τh [MPA] Model

1.1 2.4
1.0 2.1 Experiment
0.9
0.8 1.8
0.7 1.5
0.6
1.2
0.5
0.4 0.9
0.3 0.6
0.2
0.1 0.3
0 0
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 uv [mm] 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 uh [mm]
γe γe

Figure 18. (a) Anisotropic friction model according to Mohr – Coulomb [Zitat Abaqus manual] and (b) approximation of experimental
results with proposed friction model.

The joint behaviour in normal direction, defined by the
relation between the normal stress sn and the relative
displacement in normal direction to the joint un (see
Figure 19) can be well approximated with the following
power-law type relationship:
. sn ¼ E0 unn ;
where E0 denotes a secant-bedding modulus and n is a
dimensionless parameter. The identified parameters E0 and
n are given in the table in Figure 19.
4. Concluding remarks
In this article, three experiments to assess the mechanical
ð3Þ behaviour of sand-filled joints between CBs were
proposed. Each experiment was applied to two different
CBs with different joint profiles. From these experiments,

σn [MPa] 1 2 3 4 5
5.0
4.5 Experiment
4.0 Model
experiment stone E0 n
3.5 [N/mm3] [–]
3.0
1 CB80 13.374 1.6196
2.5 2 CB80 13.206 1.5139
2.0 3 CIB80 11.137 1.7793
1.5 4 CIB80 10.510 1.9059
5 CIB80 12.799 1.7008
1.0
0.5 un [mm]
0
0 0.07 0.14 0.21 0.28 0.35 0.42 0.49 0.56 0.63

Figure 19. Identification of parameters E0 and n from normal joint behaviour tests.
10 International Journal of Pavement Engineering
(a)
5.75 t
4.6 t
18.2 mm
Figure 20. Illustrative horizontal deformation fields for a pavement structure with (a) CBs and (b) CIBs, obtained with a finite element
model with the vertical joint behaviour, presented in Section 3, implemented.
appropriate material models for the tangential and normal
behaviour of the joints and their corresponding material
parameters could be identified.
Based on the obtained results, the following con-
clusions can be drawn:
. No significant difference of the vertical shearing
behaviour between CB and CIB was obtained.
. An interlocking joint system may considerably
increase the horizontal friction coefficient. The
investigated CIB shows a 57% higher horizontal
friction coefficient and a 127% higher cohesion
in horizontal direction compared to the normal
CB.
. Both the horizontal as well as the vertical friction
behaviour of the joint can be well described with
the Mohr –Coulomb criterion with a constant
friction coefficient.
. The maximum transmittable shear force in horizontal
direction of the CIB is limited by the strength of the
concrete. Failure surfaces through the CB were
observed in the horizontal shearing tests.
. The mechanical joint behaviour in normal
direction can be well described with a power-
law type relationship with two parameters.
The determination of the mechanical joint behaviour of
CBs with the proposed new experiments should make it
possible to optimise the side-surface profile of CBs with
respect to their mechanical performance. Furthermore, the
identified material models and material parameters serve as
reliable basis for structural simulations. In a next step, the
material models identified in Section 3 were implemented
into a finite element model for block pavement structures.
First results are shown in Figure 20, where the maximum
horizontal displacement is given for the two investigated
CBs. Due to higher horizontal frictional resistance in the
joints of the CIBs, more adjacent blocks are activated, and
therefore the horizontal deformation is much lower than that
of the pavement structure with the conventional CBs. In a
subsequent publication the finite element model and
487
(b)
5.75 t
4.6 t
9.6 mm
numerous parameter studies will be presented. In summary
it can be said that with the proposed joint models, the
performance prediction of block pavement structures
depending on the joint behaviour can be much more reliable.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank TVFA Vienna for the good cooperation,
helpful comments and the conduction of the experiments.
Funding
Financial support by the FFG Austrian Research Promotion
Association is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Ascher, D., 2003. Generierung von FALT-FEM Eingabedaten
für Betonpflasterbefestigungen [Generating FALT-FEM
input data for concrete paving block pavements], Technische
Universität Dresden.
Boyce, J.R., 1980. A non linear model for the elastic behaviour of
granular materials under repeated loading. In: International
symposium on soils under cyclic and transient loading,
Swansea, 285– 294.
Chazallon, C., et al., 2009. Modelling of rutting of two flexible
pavements with the shakedown theory and the finite element
method. Computers and Geotechnics, 36, 798– 809.
COURAGE, 1999. Construction with unbound road aggregates
in Europe. Final Report, European Commission – DGVII,
4th Framework Programme Road Transport Research. UK:
Coordinator, University of Nottingham.
Gleitz, T., 1996. Beitrag zur rechnerischen Erfassung des
nichtlinearen Spannungs-Verformungsverhaltens ungebund-
ener Tragschichtmaterialien in flexiblen Straenkonstruktio-
nen [Contribution to computational detection of the
nonlinear stress-strain behavior of unbound base course
materials in flexible road constructions], Dissertation am
Lehrstuhl Straenbau der Technischen Universitat Dresde.
Hassani, A., 2006. Modeling and structural design of a concrete
block pavement system. 8th International conference on
concrete block paving, San Francisco, CA.
Hicks, R.G. and Monismith, C.L., 1971. Factors influencing the
resilient behavior of granular materials. Transportation
Research Record, 345, 15 – 31.
488 J. Füssl et al.
Hornych, P., Kazai, A., and Piau, J.M., 1998. Study of the
resilient behaviour of unbound granular materials. In:
Proceedings of fifth conference on bearing capacity of
roads and airfields. Vol. 3. Trondheim, 1277– 1287.
Huurman, M., 2006. Validation of the new Dutch design method
for concrete block road pavements. 8th International
conference on concrete block paving, San Francisco, CA.
Huurman, M., Houben, L.J.M., and Kok, A.W.M., 1992.
Development of a three-dimensional finite element model
for concrete block pavements. Proceedings of fourth
international conference on concrete block paving, Auckland.
Lekarp, F., Isacsson, U., and Dawson, A., 2000. State of the art. I:
Resilient response of unbound aggregates. Journal of
Transportation Engineering, 126 (1), 66 – 75.
Lerch, T., 2005. Untersuchungen zum Verformungsverhalten von
Betonpflasterkonstruktionen unter praxisrelevanter Belas-
tung [Studies on the deformation behavior of concrete paving
block structures under practice-relevant loading], Disser-
tation. Technische Universität Dresden.
Nishizawa, T., 2003. A tool for structural analysis of block
pavements based on 3DFEM. Proceedings of 7th inter-
11
national conference on concrete block paving, Sun City,
South Africa, 1 –4.
Nishizawa, T., Matsono, S., and Komura, M., 1984. Analysis of
interlocking block pavements by finite element method.
Proceedings of 2nd international conference on concrete
block paving, Delft, 80 – 85.
Oeser, M., et al., 2006. Deformation behaviour of concrete block
pavements under vertical and horizontal dynamic load. San
Francisco, CA: Conference Publication.
Rohleder, M., 2002. Horizontale Verschiebung in
Pflasterdecken und deren Visualisierung [Horizontal dis-
placements in paving block structures and their visualiza-
tion]. Schriftenreihe des Institutes für Straßenwesen und
Eisenbahnbau der Ruhr-Universität Bochum 15, Selbstver-
lag Herausgeber: K. Krass.
Uzan, J., 1985. Characterization of granular materials. Trans-
portation Research Record, 1022, 52 – 59.
Werkmeister, S., Dawson, A., and Wellner, F., 2001. Permanent
deformation behavior of granular materials and the shake-
down concept. Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 1757, 75 –81.
Copyright of International Journal of Pavement Engineering is the property of Taylor &
Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.