VIABILITY OF CONCRETE PAVING BLOCKS

UTILIZING DOLOMITIC LIMESTONE POWDER

AS PARTIAL CEMENT REPLACEMENT

by:

ENGR. ISRAEL A. BAGUHIN

Civil Engineering Department
 Background of the Study

 Concrete Paving Block  Unreinforced pre-cast paving unit

 Placed in a variety of shapes and colors.

Type A Type B Type C

 Used in public areas

Walkways Sidewalks

Car Parks Shopping Areas

 Used in areas of exceptional loads

Airports Courtyards

Docks Freight Yards

 Objectives of the Study
 Main Objective
 To come up with a viable process of utilizing dolomitic limestone powder
as partial cement replacement in the production of concrete paving blocks.

 Specific Objectives
 To determine the effect of fineness of dolomitic limestone powder on the
compressive strength of concrete paving blocks.

 To determine the mix proportions complying the required minimum

compressive strength of concrete paving blocks.

 To compare the compressive strength, modulus of elasticity, water

absorption, density, material cost-to-strength ratio and structural
efficiency of possible replacement levels of dolomitic limestone powder
in the production of concrete paving blocks passing the minimum required
compressive strength.
 To design a production process for better quality and uniformity in the
properties and strength of concrete paving blocks.
 Methodology
 Preliminary Tests
Fine Sand
Grading Test

Item RESULTS
Specifications
Standard Size % Passing
(ASTM C33)
Water Absorption 3.10 %

37.5 mm 100 Passed Fineness Modulus 2.34

25.0 mm 100 Passed
Specific Gravity 2.60
19.0 mm 100 Passed
12.5 mm 100 Passed Unit Weight (kg/m3) 1,572.5
9.5 mm 100 Passed
4.75 mm 100 Passed
2.36 mm 100 Passed
1.18 mm 90 Passed
600 μm 54 Passed
300 μm 18 Passed
150 μm 4 Passed
75 μm 1 Passed
Aggregates
Grading Test

Item RESULTS
Specifications
Standard Size % Passing
(ASTM C33)
Water Absorption 1.50 %

100 mm 100 Passed Specific Gravity 2.60

75 mm 100 Passed
Unit Weight (kg/m3) 1,578.0
63 mm 100 Passed
50 mm 100 Passed
37.5 mm 100 Passed Los Angeles Abrasion Test
25 mm 100 Passed
19 mm 100 Passed Item RESULTS Specification
12.5 mm 100 Passed
9.5 mm 100 Passed Loss by Abrasion
24.0 Passed
4.75 mm 32 Passed and Impact (%)

2.36 mm 4 Passed
1.18 mm 1 Passed
600 μm 1 Passed
300 μm 1 Passed
150 μm 1 Passed
75 μm 0 Passed
DOLOMITIC LIMESTONE
Physical Properties

Dolomitic Limestone Composition

Passing 5.0 mm 98.02 %

Retained 5.0 mm 1.98 %

Moisture Content < 6.00 %

Fineness Modulus 4.42

Chemical Properties
Dolomitic Limestone Composition

Calcium Oxide, CaO (Lime) 34.02 %

Magnesium Oxide, MgO 18.30 %

Silicon Dioxide, SiO2 0.54 %

Aluminum Oxide, Al2O3 0.22 %

Iron Oxide, Fe2O3 0.13 %

 Sampling of Dolomitic Limestone
 Sampling of dolomitic limestone was done using the Japan International
Standards (JIS) at Philippine Mining Service Corporation (PMSC) in Alcoy,
Cebu City.

A. Limestone B. Coning C. Quartering

D. Sieving E. Moisture Test F. Chemical Test

 Fabrication of Equipment
 The equipment used in the preparation of the concrete paving block
specimen consists of 1) the paving block maker, 2) the drop-weight, and 3)
the mould. The equipment is fabricated using steel plates and angle bars,
welding machine and lathe machine.
 Mix Proportion
 Mix proportioning involves finding the best aggregate grading, aggregate-to-
cement ratio, water-cement ratio, and maximum dolomitic limestone powder
content as partial cement replacement. In this study, cement-sand-gravel ratio
is 1: 1.5: 3, aggregate-cement ratio is 4.5:1.

Dolomitic Water-
% Cement Cement Sand 3/8” Aggregate Water
Limestone Cement
Replacement (grams) (grams) (grams) (grams)
(grams) Ratio (W/C)

0 623.00 0.00 934.00 1,868.00 218.00 0.3500

8 573.00 50.00 934.00 1,868.00 185.00 0.3222

12 548.00 75.00 934.00 1,868.00 174.00 0.3174

16 523.00 100.00 934.00 1,868.00 166.00 0.3178

20 498.00 125.00 934.00 1,868.00 161.00 0.3227

24 473.00 150.00 934.00 1,868.00 158.00 0.3338

28 449.00 174.00 934.00 1,868.00 158.00 0.3519

32 424.00 199.00 934.00 1,868.00 160.00 0.3777

 Flow Chart in the Production of Concrete Paving Block Specimen

Dolomitic Passing No. 24 Sieve (Type I)

Limestone Passing No. 100 Sieve (Type II)
Powder Passing No. 200 Sieve (Type III)

0 % (Control Mix)
8%
12 %
Cement 16 %
Replacement
(by Weight) 20 %
24 %
28 %
32 %

Cement
Sand
Mixing Choker (3/8” Aggregate)
Water (Powers’ Model)

Compressive
Strength
Slump 28-day
Casting Product Testing
Curing
Test Water
Absorption
 Manufacturing Method in the Production of Concrete Paving
Block Specimen

Paver Molds Ready Paver Molds at half- Manual compaction

for Concrete Casting full of concrete mix at half-full

12-kg. weight block drop Concrete vibration at Manual compaction at

at 16cm height (3x) specified time full level
 Manufacturing Method in the Production of Concrete Paving
Block Specimen

12-kg. weight block at Removal of 12-kg Removal of paver

the top of concrete mix weight at the moulds from the
compaction compaction
chamber chamber

Paving blocks ready for

de-molding and curing
 Casting of Concrete Paving Block Specimen
1. The predetermined amounts of cement, dolomitic limestone powder, sand,
3/8” aggregate and the mixing water are weighed.

2. The cement and dolomitic limestone powder are mixed thoroughly until the
mixture appears homogeneous.
3. The sand and 3/8” aggregate are mixed separately until the mixture appears
homogeneous.

4. All the component materials in steps 2 and 3 are then mixed together until
uniformity of the mixture is apparent.
5. Predetermined amount of clean water is then poured into the mixture of the
component materials.

6. Mixing of the water with the component materials is done using hand
trowels.
7. The mixture is tested for workability by conducting slump test. For dry-mix
concrete, zero slump is required.

8. The concrete mix is then poured into two moulds. An amount of the mix
enough to fill more than half of each of the mould is first poured and then
slightly compacted using the 1” x 1” tamping rod. Additional amount of the
mix is poured, enough to overfill the two moulds with 5-10 mm thick of the mix.
9. Two moulds are then vibrated through contact with a concrete vibrator that
was operated at 60 Hertz for 26 seconds based on the following formula:

Where:
t = time required in seconds for vibrating the concrete
s = slump in centimeters
Ø = diameter of the needle vibrator in millimeters
A = shape of aggregates
A = 1.0 (round)
A = 5.0 (crushed)
F = refers to steel
F = 1.0 (no steel)
F = 1.5 (with steel)
10. Two moulds with the mix are then placed in the chamber of the paver block
maker for compaction using the 12-kg drop-weight dropped from a height of 16
centimeters. For better compaction, the drop-weight is made to fall thrice on
the mix in two moulds.

11. Two moulds are removed from the chamber and the excess materials above
their brim are scraped off.
12. The compacted paver blocks are then removed from their moulds after 24
hours and stored in a room under normal condition where they are cured for
28-day through sprinkling with water twice in a day.
 Compression Test of Concrete Paving Block Specimen
 A day prior to testing for their compressive strength, the concrete paving
block specimen are allowed to dry at normal room temperature without
direct exposure to sunlight.

 Before the start of the compressive strength test, the paving block specimen
are each weighed. The dial gauge is installed to measure deflection of the
specimen at selected interval of loads, until crushing of specimen occurred.

A. Weighing B. Compressive Test

with Dial Gauge
 Water Absorption Test of Concrete Paving Block Specimens
1. The specimen are completely immersed in a tub containing water for 24
hours. Thereafter, they are removed from the tub and allowed to drain for one
(1) minute by placing them on a 10-mm or coarser wire mesh. Surface water
are removed with a damp cloth and the paver blocks are immediately weighed
(Wt. A).

2. The specimen are then dried in an oven at 100°C to 115° and weighed at 24
hours interval, until the weight becomes constant (Wt. B). The absorption is
then be calculated as follows:

Absorption = [(Wt. A – Wt. B) / Wt. B)*100%

The arithmetic mean of the absorption of five (5) specimen is taken as the
average absorption. The maximum allowed percentage of absorption in each of
concrete paving block is set at 7% (ASTM Standard).
 Cost Analysis of Concrete Paving Block
 The economic aspect will only focus on the component materials being used
in the production are considered; cement, sand, 3/8” gravel, water and
dolomitic limestone.
 Results and Discussion

 Effect of Fineness of Dolomitic Limestone on the Compressive

Strength of Concrete Paving Blocks

Ave. 28-Day Compressive Strength of Concrete Paving Block Specimen

Type of
% of Dolomitic Limestone as Partial Cement Replacement
Dolomitic
Limestone 0 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Type I -
Passing Sieve 21.00 12.62 18.23 25.86 13.92 14.9 14.39 15.77
No. 24
Type II -
Passing Sieve 21.00 18.56 16.41 10.18 13.09 11.11 16.49 15.09
No. 100
Type III -
Passing Sieve 21.00 21.54 19.42 15.82 19.73 14.67 14.66 22.71
No. 200
 Results and Discussion

 Effect of Fineness of Dolomitic Limestone on the Compressive

Strength of Concrete Paving Blocks

Ave. 28-Day Compressive Strength of Concrete Paving Block Specimen

Type of
% of Dolomitic Limestone as Partial Cement Replacement
Dolomitic
Limestone 0 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Type I -
Passing Sieve 21.00 12.62 18.23 25.86 13.92 14.9 14.39 15.77
No. 24
Type II -
Passing Sieve 21.00 18.56 16.41 10.18 13.09 11.11 16.49 15.09
No. 100
Type III -
Passing Sieve 21.00 21.54 19.42 15.82 19.73 14.67 14.66 22.71
No. 200
 Minimum Required Strength Type I (16%) Type III (8%) Type III (32%)

25.86 MPa
22.71 MPa
20.70 MPa 21.54 MPa

Compressive Strength vs. Cement Replacement Levels of Dolomitic Limestone

Fineness Passing Minimum Required Compressive Strength

Cement Dolomitic Minimum Actual

Water-Cement
Replacement Limestone Required Comp. Compressive EVALUATION
Ratio (W/C)
(%) Fineness Strength (MPa) Strength (MPa)
8 Type III 20.70 21.54 0.3222 PASSED
16 Type I 20.70 25.86 0.3178 PASSED
32 Type III 20.70 22.71 0.3777 PASSED
 Mix Proportions Attaining Minimum Required Compressive
Strength of Concrete Paving Blocks

Mix Proportions of Three (3) Concrete Paving Blocks Passing the Minimum
Compressive Strength

Mix Proportions
Cement Dol. Water- Actual Comp.
Replacement Limestone Cement Dolomitic Sand Gravel Water Cement Strength EVALUATION
(%) Fineness (grams) Limestone (grams) (grams) (grams) Ratio (W/C) (MPa)
(grams)
8 Type III 573 50 934 1868 185 0.3222 21.54 PASSED
16 Type I 523 100 334 1868 166 0.3178 25.86 PASSED
32 Type III 424 199 934 1868 160 0.3777 22.71 PASSED
  Comparison of the Elasticity of Concrete Paving Block Specimen
Passing Minimum Strength Requirement

Modulus of Elasticity of Three (3) Concrete Paving Block Specimen Passing the Minimum
Compressive Strength
REPLACEMENT

PAVER BLOCK Ave.

Weight Max. Ave.
DIMENSION (mm)
CEMENT

Max. Comp. Ave. Ave. Mod. Of

Limestone
Dolomitic

Fineness

Before Applied Comp. Deformation Strain

Applied Strength Deformation Strain Elasticity
Testing Load Strength δ (mm) ε
Length

Depth
Width

Load (MPa) (mm) ε E (MPa)

(Kg) (KN) (MPa)
(KN)
200 100 80 3.395 376.557 18.828 1.850 0.023
200 100 80 3.395 301.576 15.079 2.220 0.028
8% Type III 200 100 80 3.490 497.377 430.801 24.869 21.54 2.190 2.156 0.027 0.027 797.778
200 100 80 3.352 365.438 18.272 1.980 0.025
200 100 80 3.570 613.059 30.653 2.540 0.032
200 100 80 3.449 588.097 29.405 4.720 0.059
200 100 80 3.402 497.227 24.861 4.600 0.058
16% Type I 200 100 80 3.840 288.798 517.138 14.440 25.86 4.200 4.740 0.053 0.059 438.254
200 100 80 3.708 571.245 28.562 4.980 0.062
200 100 80 3.463 640.321 32.016 5.200 0.065
200 100 80 3.577 455.671 22.784 2.890 0.036
200 100 80 3.498 318.97 15.948 1.730 0.022
32% Type III 200 100 80 3.646 330.211 454.202 16.511 22.71 2.470 2.326 0.031 0.029 783.103
200 100 80 3.643 685.22 34.261 2.340 0.029
200 100 80 3.558 480.938 24.047 2.200 0.028
 Comparison of Water Absorption of Concrete Paving Block
Specimen Passing Minimum Strength Requirement
Water Absorption of Three (3) Concrete Paving Block Specimens Passing the
Minimum Required Compressive Strength
PAVER BLOCK
Dolomitic DIMENSION (mm) Weight Water Ave. Water
CEMENT
Limestone Before Absoprtion Absorption
REPLACEMENT
Fineness Length Width Depth Testing (Kg) (%) (%)

200 100 80 3.395 3.740

200 100 80 3.395 3.940
8% Type III 200 100 80 3.490 2.200 3.13
200 100 80 3.352 4.030
200 100 80 3.570 1.750
200 100 80 3.449 1.400
200 100 80 3.402 1.500
16% Type I 200 100 80 3.840 1.400 1.44
200 100 80 3.708 1.500
200 100 80 3.463 1.400
200 100 80 3.577 3.500
200 100 80 3.498 5.300
32% Type III 200 100 80 3.646 5.800 4.44
200 100 80 3.643 5.600
200 100 80 3.558 2.000
 Comparison of Density of Concrete Paving Block Specimen Passing
Minimum Strength Requirement
Density of Three (3) Concrete Paving Block Specimens Passing the Minimum Required
Compressive Strength
PAVER BLOCK
Dolomitic DIMENSION (mm) Weight Density Ave.
CEMENT Volume
Limestone Before (Mass / Density
REPLACEMENT (m3) 3
Fineness Length Width Depth Testing (Kg) Volume) (kg/m )

200 100 80 3.395 0.0016 2122

200 100 80 3.395 0.0016 2122
8% Type III 200 100 80 3.490 0.0016 2181 2150
200 100 80 3.352 0.0016 2095
200 100 80 3.570 0.0016 2231
200 100 80 3.449 0.0016 2156
200 100 80 3.402 0.0016 2126
16% Type I 200 100 80 3.840 0.0016 2400 2233
200 100 80 3.708 0.0016 2318
200 100 80 3.463 0.0016 2164
200 100 80 3.577 0.0016 2236
200 100 80 3.498 0.0016 2186
32% Type III 200 100 80 3.646 0.0016 2279 2240
200 100 80 3.643 0.0016 2277
200 100 80 3.558 0.0016 2224
 Comparison of Structural Efficiency of Concrete Paving Block
Specimen Passing Minimum Strength Requirement
Structural Efficiency of Three (3) Concrete Paving Block Specimens Passing the Minimum
Required Compressive Strength
PAVER BLOCK Max.
Dolomitic Weight Before Testing Ave.
CEMENT DIMENSION (mm) Applied Structural
Limestone Max.Applied
REPLACEMENT Ave. Load Efficiency
Fineness Length Width Depth (in kg.) (in KN) Load (KN)
(KN) (KN)
200 100 80 3.395 0.033 376.557
200 100 80 3.395 0.033 301.576
8% Type III 200 100 80 3.490 0.034 0.034 497.377 430.801 12764
200 100 80 3.352 0.033 365.438
200 100 80 3.570 0.035 613.059
200 100 80 3.449 0.034 588.097
200 100 80 3.402 0.033 497.227
16% Type I 200 100 80 3.840 0.038 0.035 288.798 517.138 14756
200 100 80 3.708 0.036 571.245
200 100 80 3.463 0.034 640.321
200 100 80 3.577 0.035 455.671
200 100 80 3.498 0.034 318.97
32% Type III 200 100 80 3.646 0.036 0.035 330.211 454.202 12917
200 100 80 3.643 0.036 685.22
200 100 80 3.558 0.035 480.938
 Cost Analysis of Concrete Paving Block
CONCRET E MIXT URE (1 : 1 1/2 : 3)
PRICE COST PAVER SIZE (100 x 200 x 80 mm)
MATERIAL QTY UNIT
(Pesos) (Pesos) PERCENT CEMENT REPLACEMENT (in grams)
0 8 12 16 20 24 28 32

P. Cement 40 kgs. 240 6 /kg. 658 605 579 553 526 500 474 447
Dol. limestone 1 mt. 3,000 3.00 /kg. - 53 79 105 132 158 184 211
Sand 1 m3 450 450 /m3 987 987 987 987 987 987 987 987
3/8" Choker 1 m3 800 800 /m3 1,974 1,974 1,974 1,974 1,974 1,974 1,974 1,974
Mixing Water 1 m3 25 25 /m3 253 215 200 191 187 182 182 185

P. Cement 40 kgs. 240 0.0060 /g. 3.95 3.63 3.47 3.32 3.16 3.00 2.84 2.68
Dol. limestone 1 mt. 3,000 0.0030 /g. - 0.16 0.24 0.32 0.40 0.47 0.55 0.63
Sand 1 m3 450 0.0012 /g. 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15
3/8" Choker 1 m3 800 0.0021 /g. 4.18 4.18 4.18 4.18 4.18 4.18 4.18 4.18
Mixing Water 1 m3 25 0.0000 /g. 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
MATERIAL COST OF CONCRETE PAVING BLOCK
9.29 9.13 9.05 8.98 8.90 8.81 8.73 8.65
(in Pesos)
 Comparison of Cost-Benefit Ratio of Concrete Paving Block
Specimen Passing Minimum Strength Requirement
Cost-to-Strength Ratio of Concrete Paving Block
Dolomitic Actual
CEMENT Material Cost-Benefit
Limestone Materials Compressive EVALUATION
REPLACEMENT Cost (P) Ratio (CBR)
Fineness Strength (MPa)

Cement, Dolomitic
0% - Limestone, Sand, 9.29 22.81 0.41 PASSED
Gravel, Mixing Water

Cement, Dolomitic
8% Type III Limestone, Sand, 9.13 21.54 0.42 PASSED
Gravel, Mixing Water

Cement, Dolomitic
16% Type I Limestone, Sand, 8.98 25.86 0.35 PASSED
Gravel, Mixing Water

Cement, Dolomitic
32% Type III Limestone, Sand, 8.65 22.71 0.38 PASSED
Gravel, Mixing Water
 SUMMARY

RANKINGS (BY SPECIFICATION)

Cement Dol.
Replacement Limestone Secant RANK
Comp. Water Matarial Cost-to-
Mod. Of Density Structural
(%) Fineness Strength Absorption 3 Cost Strength
Elasticity (Kg./m ) Efficiency
(MPa) (%) (Pesos) Ratio
(MPa)

8 Type III 3RD 3RD 2ND 3RD 3RD 3RD 3RD 3RD

16 Type I 1ST 1ST 1ST 2ND 1ST 2ND 1ST 1ST

32 Type III 2ND 2ND 3RD 1ST 2ND 1ST 2ND 2ND
 CONCLUSION
 Based on test results, it can be concluded that:
1. Dolomitic limestone fineness has a significant effect in attaining the
minimum compressive strength of concrete paving blocks.
2. The best mix proportion considering economy and quality among the
three types of dolomitic limestone powder passing the minimum required
compressive strength is Type III, having the maximum cement replacement
of 32%.
Cement = 424 grams
Dolomitic Limestone = 199 grams
Sand = 934 grams
Gravel = 1,868 grams
Mixing Water = 160 grams
(W/C) ratio = 0.3777
3. Type I dolomitic limestone at 16% cement replacement has a greater
compressive strength (25.86 MPa) than Type III at 8% and 32% cement
replacements (21.54 MPa and 22.71 MPa), all of which passing the minimum
required compressive strength of 20.70 MPa.

4. Type III dolomitic limestone at 8% and 32% cement replacement

(Modulus of Elasticity of 798 MPa and 783 MPa) is much stiffer and more
rigid than Type I (Modulus of Elasticity of 438 MPa) passing the minimum
required compressive strength of paving block.

5. Type I dolomitic limestone at 16% cement replacement has the best

resistance to freezing and thawing since it has the minimum water
absorption at 1.44% compared to Type III, having 3.13% and 4.44%
absorptions at 8% and 32% cement replacement levels.
6. Type III at 32% cement replacement level has the maximum density
compared to 8% and 16% cement replacement levels of Type III and Type I,
attaining the minimum required compressive strength.
7. Type I at 16% cement replacement level is commendable since it has the
maximum value of structural efficiency compared to 8% and 32% cement
replacement levels of Type III, passing the minimum required compressive
strength.
8. Type I at 16% cement replacement level has the minimum value of Cost-
Benefit Ratio (CBR) at 0.34 compared to 0.42 and 0.38 CBR’s of Type III. This
indicates that Type I at 16% cement replacement has lower material cost but
can carry bigger loads compared to Type III at 32% cement replacement,
which is much cheaper, but can only accommodate load lesser than Type I,
passing the minimum required compressive strength.
 RECOMMENDATION
 In line with the conclusion, it is recommended to:
1. Adopt the manufacturing method in the production of concrete paving
blocks.
2. Used the appropriate mix proportions, depending on paving block
application, in the manufacture of concrete paving blocks considering the
water-cement ratio, the minimum required compressive strength and the
percent of cement replacement using Types I and III dolomitic limestone
powder.
 THANK YOU
FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION!