TECH SPEC N U M B E R • 4

Structural Design of Interlocking Concrete Pavement for

Roads and Parking Lots
History Advantages

T he concept of interlocking concrete pavement

dates back to the roads of the Roman Empire.
They were constructed with tightly fitted paving units
T he paving system offers the advantages of con-
crete materials and flexible asphalt pavement.
As high-strength concrete, the units have high resis-
set on a compacted aggre- tance to freeze-thaw cycles and deicing salts, high
gate base. The modern ver- abrasion and skid resistance, no damage from petro-
sion, concrete pavers, is leum products nor from concentrated point loads or
When considering design and construction,
manufactured with close tol- high temperatures. Once installed, there is no wait-
three types of interlock must be achieved:
erances to help ensure inter- ing time for curing. The pavement is immediately
vertical, rotational and horizontal interlock.
lock. Concrete pavers were ready for traffic. Stress cracking and degradation of
developed in the Nether- the surface is minimized because the numerous joints,
lands in the late 1940’s as a or intentional “cracks,” act as the means for load
replacement for clay brick streets. A strong, millen- transfer. Like flexible asphalt pavement, an aggre-
nia-old tradition of segmental paving in Europe en- gate base accomodates minor settlement without sur-
abled interlocking concrete pavement to spread face cracking. An aggregate base facilitates fast con-
quickly. It is now established as a conventional means struction, as well as access to underground utilities.
of paving there, with some two billion ft2 (200 mil- Mechanical installation of concrete pavers can fur-
lion m2 ) installed annually. Concrete pavers came to ther shorten construction time. Pavement reinstatement
North America in the 1970’s. They have been used is enhanced by reusable paving units, thereby reducing
successfully in numerous residential, commercial, waste materials.
municipal, port and airport applications.
The Principle of Interlock

I nterlock is critical to the structural performance

of interlocking concrete pavement. When consid-
ering design and construction, three types of inter-
lock must be achieved: vertical, rotational, and hori-
zontal interlock. These are illustrated in Figure 2. Ver-
tical interlock is achieved by the shear transfer of
loads to surrounding units through sand in the joints.
Rotational interlock is maintained by the pavers be-
ing of sufficient thickness, placed closely together,
and restrained by a curb from lateral forces of ve-
hicle tires. Rotational interlock can be further en-
hanced if there is a slight crown to the pavement cross
section. Besides facilitating drainage, the crown en-
ables the units to tighten slightly through loads and
minor settlement across the entire pavement, thereby
increasing structural capacity.
Horizontal interlock is primarily achieved through
the use of laying patterns that disperse forces from
Figure 1. The Roman Appian Way: early braking, turning, and accelerating vehicles. The most
interlocking pavement. effective laying patterns for maintaining interlock

© 1995 ICPI Tech Spec No. 4 Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute—Revised February 2003
Figure 2. Types of interlock: vertical, rotational, horizontal.
are herringbone patterns. Testing has shown that quire an aggregate subbase except for very heavy
these patterns offer greater structural capacity and use, or over a weak soil subgrade. In these situa-
resistance to lateral movement than other laying tions it may be more economical to use asphalt or
patterns (1, 2, 3). Therefore, herringbone patterns are cement stabilized base layers. They are often placed
recommended in areas subject to vehicular traffic. over a subbase layer of unbound compacted aggre-
See Figure 3. Stable edge restraints such as curbs are gate.
essential. They maintain horizontal interlock while Construction is covered in ICPI Tech Spec 2,
the units are subject to repeated lateral loads from Construction of Interlocking Concrete Pavement.
vehicle tires. ICPI Tech Spec 3, Edge Restraints for The steps for preparing the soil subgrade and base
Interlocking Concrete Pavements offers guidance on materials are similar to those required for flexible
the selection and detailing of edge restraints for a asphalt pavements. After the base surface is built to
range of applications. specified elevations and surface tolerances, bedding
sand is screeded in an even layer, typically 1–11/2 in.
Typical Pavement Design (25–40 mm) thick. The units are placed, manually or
and Construction mechanically, on the smooth bedding sand, con-

F igure 4 illustrates typical schematic cross sec-

tions for interlocking concrete pavement. Both
the base and subbase are compacted aggregate. Many
strained by stationary edge restraints.
The pavers are vibrated with a high frequency
plate vibrator. This action forces sand into the bot-
pavements for city and residential uses do not re- tom of the joints of the pavers and begins compaction

Figure 3. Laying
patterns for
vehicular traffic.

2
 traffic, subgrade soil strength, and pavement
Concrete Pavers Joint Sand materials. The design engineer selects values
representing attributes of these factors. The
values can be very approximate correlations
Bedding
Edge Sand and qualitative assumptions. Each factor, how-
Restraint/
Curb
ever, can be measured accurately with detailed
Compacted Unbound
Aggregate Base engineering studies and extensive laboratory
testing. As more detailed information is ob-
tained about each factor, the reliability of the
Compacted Unbound
Aggregate Sub-Base
design will increase.
The effort and cost in obtaining informa-
tion about each should be consistent with the
Compacted Subgrade Soil importance of the pavement. A major thor-
(A) Unbound Base/Subbase oughfare should receive more analysis of the
soil subgrade and traffic mix than a residential
Concrete Pavers Joint Sand
street. Furthermore, the degree of analysis
and engineering should increase as the
Bedding
subgrade strength decreases and as the antici-
Edge
Restraint/
Sand pated traffic level increases. In other words,
Curb Compacted Cement or
pavements for high volume traffic over weak
Asphalt Treated Base soils should have the highest degree of analy-
sis of each factor as is practical.
Compacted Unbound
Environment—Moisture and temperature
Aggregate Sub-Base significantly affect pavement. As moisture in
the soil or base increases, the load bearing
capacity of the soil or the strength of the base
Compacted Subgrade Soil
decreases. Moisture causes differential heav-
(B) Cement or Asphalt Treated Base ing and swelling of certain soils, as well.
Temperature can affect the load bearing ca-
Figure 4. Typical schematic cross sections. pacity of pavements, particularly asphalt sta-
of the bedding sand. Sand is then spread and swept bilized layers. The combined effect of freezing tem-
into the joints, and the pavers are compacted again peratures and moisture can lead to the two detrimen-
until the joints are filled. Complete compaction of tal effects. First, expansion of the water during freez-
the sand and slight settlement of the pavers tightens ing can cause the pavement to heave. Second, the
them. During compaction, the pavement is trans- strength of the pavement materials can be reduced by
formed from a loose collection of pavers to an thawing.
interlocking system capable of spreading vertical These detrimental effects can be reduced or elim-
loads horizontally. This occurs through shear forces inated one of three ways. Moisture can be kept from
in the joints. entering the pavement base and soil. Moisture can be
removed before it has a chance to weaken the pave-
Structural Design Procedure ment. Pavement materials can be used to resist mois-
ture and movement from swelling or frost. Limited
T he load distribution and failure modes of
flexible asphalt and interlocking concrete pave-
ment are very similar: permanent deformation from
construction budgets often do not allow complete
protection against the effects of moisture and freeze-
repetitive loads. Since failure modes are similar, a thaw. Consequently, their effects should be mitigated
simplified procedure of the method is adapted from to the highest extent allowed by the available budget
Reference 4 and the American Association of State and materials.
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) In this design procedure, the effects of moisture
1993 Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (5). and frost are part of characterizing of the strength of
The following structural design procedure is for subgrade soil and pavement materials. Subjective
roads and parking lots. Design for heavy duty pave- descriptions of drainage quality and moisture condi-
ments such as port and airport pavements is covered tions influence design strength values for sub-
in ICPI manuals entitled, Port and Industrial Pave- grade soils and unbound granular materials. In
ment Design for Concrete Pavers, and Airfield Pave- addition, if freeze-thaw exists, then soil subgrade
ment Design with Concrete Pavers. strength is reduced according to the degree of its
frost susceptibility.
Design Considerations Traffic—When pavement is trafficked, it receives
wear or damage. The amount of damage depends on
T he evaluation of four factors and their inter-
active effects will determine the final pavement
thickness and material. These include environment,
the weight of the vehicles and the number of expected
passes over a given period of time. The period of time,

3
 or design life, is usually locking concrete pavement streets are constructed
TABLE 1 20 years. Predicted traf- first and then housing is built. Axle loads from
Axle Load Damage Factors fic over the life of the construction-related truck traffic should be factored
pavement is an estimate into the base thickness design. The loads can be
Single Axle Tandem Axle of various vehicle loads, substantial compared to the lighter loads from auto-
Kips (kN) Damage Factor Kips (kN) Damage Factor
axle and wheel configu- mobiles after construction is complete.
2 (9) 0.0002 10 (44) 0.01 rations, and the number Soil Subgrade Support—The strength of the
6 (27) 0.01 14 (62) 0.03 of loads. The actual soil subgrade has the greatest effect in determining
10 (44) 0.08 18 (80) 0.08 amount of traffic loads the total thickness of the interlocking concrete pave-
14 (62) 0.34 22 (98) 0.17 can often exceed the pre- ment. When feasible, resilient modulus or soaked
18 (80) 1.00 26 (115) 0.34 dicted loads. There- California Bearing Ratio (CBR) laboratory tests
22 (98) 2.44 30 (133) 0.63 fore,engineering judge- should be conducted on the typical subgrade soil to
26 (115) 5.21 34 (157) 1.07 ment is required in esti- evaluate its strength. These tests should be con-
30 (133) 10.03 38 (169) 1.75 mating expected sources ducted at the most probable field conditions of
34 (157) 17.87 42 (186) 2.75 of traffic and loads well density and moisture that will be anticipated during
38 (169) 29.95 46 (204) 4.11 into the future. the design life of the pavement. CBR tests are de-
Damage to pavement scribed in ASTM D 1883 (6) or AASHTO T-193 (7).
results from a multitude In the absence of laboratory tests, typical resilient
of axle loads from cars, modulus (Mr) values have been assigned to each soil
TABLE 2 vans, light trucks, buses type defined in the United Soil Classification Sys-
Typical Design EALs and tractor-trailers. In tem (USCS), per ASTM D 2487 (6), or AASHTO
EALs* Reliability Design EALs* order to more easily pre- soil classification systems (see Tables 3 and 4).
Road Class (millions) Factor (millions) dict the damage, all of Three modulus values are provided for each USCS
the various axle loads are or AASHTO soil type, depending on the anticipated
Arterial or expressed as damage environmental and drainage conditions at the site.
Major Streets from an equivalent stan- Guidelines for selecting the appropriate Mr value
Urban 7.5 3.775 28.4 dard axle load. In other are summarized in Table 5. Each soil type in Tables
Rural 3.6 2.929 10.6 words, the combined 3 and 4 has also been assigned a reduced Mr value
Major Collectors damaging effects of vari- (far right column) for use only when frost action is a
Urban 2.8 2.929 8.3 ous axle loads are equated design consideration.
Rural 1.5 2.390 3.5 to the damaging effect of Compaction of the subgrade soil during construc-
18-kip (80 kN) equiva- tion should be at least 98% of AASHTO T-99 or
Minor Collectors lent single axle load ASTM D 698 for cohesive (clay) soils and at least
Urban 1.3 2.390 3.0 (EALs) repetitions. Dam- 98% of AASHTO T-180 or ASTM D 1557 for
Rural 0.55 2.390 1.3 age factors for other axle cohesionless (sandy and gravelly) soils. The higher
loads are shown in Table compaction standards described in T-180 or D 1557
Commercial/Multi- 1. For example, the table are preferred. The effective depth of compaction for
Family Locals shows that a single axle all cases should be at least the top 12 inches (300
Urban 0.43 2.010 0.84 load of 38-kip (169 kN) mm). Soils having an Mr of 4,500 psi (31 MPa) or
Rural 0.28 2.010 0.54 would cause the same less (CBR 3% or less) should be evaluated for either
*Assume a 20 year design life. pavement damage as replacement with a material with higher bearing
approximately 30 passes strength, installation of an aggregate subbase cap-
of an 18-kip (80 kN) ping layer, improvement by stabilization, or use
single axle. of geotextiles.
For pavements carrying many different kinds of Pavement Materials—The type, strength and
vehicles, greater study is needed to obtain the expected thickness of all available paving materials should be
distribution of axle loads within the design period. If established. Crushed aggregate bases, or stabilized
no detailed traffic information is available, Table 2 can bases used in highway construction are generally
be used for general guidance by listing typical EALs as suitable for interlocking concrete pavement. Most
a function of road class. In some situations, the de- states, provinces and municipalities have material
signer cannot know the expected traffic in five, ten or and construction standards for these bases. If
fifteen years into the future. Therefore, the reliability none are available, then the standards found in
(degree of conservatism) of the engineer’s predictions ASTM D 2940 (6) may be used. Minimum recom-
can be modified as follows: mended strength requirements for unbound aggre-
Adjusted EALs = FR x EALs (estimated or from gate bases should be CBR = 80% and CBR = 30%
Table 2) where FR is the reliability factor. Recom- for subbases.
mended reliability factors by road class are also given For unbound aggregate base material, the Plastic-
in Table 2, along with the corresponding adjusted ity Index should be no greater than 6; the Liquid
EALs for use in the design. Limit limited to 25; and compaction should be at
In some residential development projects, inter- least 98% of AASHTO T-180 density. For unbound

4
 TABLE 3 TABLE 4
Subgrade Strength as a Function of USCS Soil Type Subgrade Strength as a
103 psi = 6.94 MPa Function of AASHTO Soil Type
103 psi=6.94 MPa
Reduced
Resilient Modulus (103 psi) Modulus*
Reduced
USCS Soil Group Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 (103 psi)
AASHTO Resilient Modulus (103 psi) Modulus*
GW, GP, SW, SP 20.0 20.0 20.0 N/A Soil Group Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 (103 psi)
GW-GM, GW-GC,
GP-GM, GP-GC 20.0 20.0 20.0 12.0 A-1-a 20.0 20.0 20.0 N/A
GM, GM-GC, GC 20.0 20.0 20.0 4.5 A-1-b 20.0 20.0 20.0 12.0
SW-SM, SW-SC, A-2-4,A-2-5,A-2-7 20.0 20.0 20.0 4.5
SP-SM 20.0 20.0 20.0 9.0 A-2-6 7.5 15.0 20.0 4.5
SP-SC 17.5 20.0 20.0 9.0 A-3 15.0 20.0 20.0 9.0
SM, SM-SC 20.0 20.0 20.0 4.5 A-4 7.5 15.0 20.0 4.5
SC 15.0 20.0 20.0 4.5 A-5 4.5 6.0 9.0 4.5
ML, ML-CL, CL 7.5 15.0 20.0 4.5 A-6 4.5 10.5 20.0 4.5
MH 6.0 9.0 12.0 4.5 A-7-5 4.5 6.0 7.5 4.5
CH 4.5 6.0 7.5 4.5 A-7-6 7.5 15.0 20.0 4.5

*Use only when frost action is a design consideration.

NOTE: refer to Table 5 for selection of appropriate option. *Use only when frost action is a design consideration.

granular subbase material, the material should have for cement-treated bases. A minimum thickness of
a Plasticity Index less than 10, a Liquid Limit less aggregate base (CBR=80) should be 4 in. (100 mm)
than 25, and compaction requirements should be at for traffic levels below 500,000 EALs and 6 in. (150
least 98% of AASHTO T-180 density. In-place den- mm) for EALs over 500,000.
sity should be checked in the field as this is critical Bedding sand should be consistent throughout the
to the performance of the pavement. If an asphalt pavement and not exceed 1.5 in. (40 mm) after
treated base is used, the material should conform to compaction. A thicker sand layer will not provide
dense graded, well compacted, asphalt concrete speci- stability. Very thin sand layers (less than 3/4 in. [20
fications, i.e., Marshall stability of at least 1800 mm] after compaction) may not produce the locking
pounds (8000 N). Cement treated base material should up action obtained by sand migration upward into the
have a 7 day unconfined compressive strength of at joints during the initial compaction in construction.
least 650 psi (4.5 MPa). The bedding layer should conform to the gradation in
Recommended minimum base thicknesses are ASTM C 33 (6), as shown in Table 6 below. Do not
4 in. (100 mm) for all unbound aggregate layers, 3 in. use screenings or stone dust. The sand should be as
(75 mm) for asphalt-treated bases, and 4 in. (100 mm) hard as practically available.

TABLE 5 TABLE 6
Environment and Drainage Options for ASTM C 33
Subgrade Characterization Gradation for Bedding Sand
% Passing: Sieve Size
Percent of Time Pavement is Exposed to
Quality of Moisture Levels Approaching Saturation 3 8
Drainage <1% 1 to 5% 5 to 25% >25%
/ inches (9.5 mm) 100
No. 4 (4.75 mm) 95-100
Excellent 3 3 3 2 No. 8 (2.36 mm) 80-100
Good 3 3 2 2 No. 16 (1.18 mm) 50-85
Fair 3 2 2 1 No. 30 (0.600 mm) 25-60
Poor 2 2 1 1 No. 50 (0.300 mm) 10-30
Very Poor 2 1 1 1 No. 100 (0.150 mm) 2-10
No. 200 (0.75 mm) 0-1

5
 Joint sand provides vertical inter-
Subgrade CBR %
lock and shear transfer of loads. It can 4.6 6
2 2.5 3.3 4 5.3 6.6 10 13.3 20
be slightly finer than the bedding 0
sand. Gradation for this material can EALs= 60

Aggregate Base Thickness (Inches)

have a maximum 100% passing the

Aggregate Base Thickness (mm)

5 5x10
4
125
No. 16 sieve (1.18 mm) and no more 5
1x10
than 10% passing the No. 200 sieve 185
(0.075 mm). Bedding sand may be 10 3x10 5
250
used for joint sand. Additional effort 5x10 5
310
in filling the joints during compac- 7x10 5
15 380
tion may be required due to its coarser
1x10 6
gradation. See ICPI Tech Spec 9, 435
Guide Specification for the Construc- 3x10 6
20 500
tion of Interlocing Concrete Pave-
5x10 6
ment for additional information on 560
7x106
gradation of bedding and joint sand, 25 1x10 7 625
as well as ICPI Zaphers guide speci-
685
fications. 2x10 7
30 750
Concrete pavers should conform 2 3 5 7 10 20 30
to the ASTM C 936 (6) in the U.S. or (20) (34) (48) (69) (138) (207)
CSA A231.2 (8) in Canada. A mini- Subgrade Modulus x 1 03 psi (MPa)
mum paver thickness of 3.15 inches
(80 mm) is recommended for all pave-
Figure 5. Thickness design curves–aggregate base.
ments subject to vehicular traffic, ex-
cluding residential driveways. As previously men- mm) of bedding sand. Pavement stiffening and
tioned, the units should be placed in a herringbone stabilizing can be accelerated by static proof-roll-
pattern. No less than one-third of a cut paver should ing with an 8–10 ton (8–10 T) rubber tired roller.
be used along the edges. The above modulus is similar to that of an
Research in the United States and overseas has equivalent thickness of asphalt. The 3.125 in. (80
shown that the combined paver and sand layers mm) thick pavers and 1 in. (25 mm) thick bedding
stiffen as they are exposed to greater numbers of sand have an AASHTO layer coefficient at least
traffic loads. The progressive stiffening, or “lock equal to the same thickness of asphalt, i.e., 0.44 per
up,” generally occurs early in the life of the pave- inch (25 mm). Unlike asphalt, the modulus of con-
ment, before 10,000 EALs. Once this number of crete pavers will not substantially decrease as tem-
loads has been applied, Mr = 450,000 psi (3100 MPa) perature increases, nor will they become brittle in
for the 3.125 in. (80 mm) thick paver and 1 in. (25 cold climates. They can withstand loads without

Subgrade CBR % Subgrade CBR %

4.6 6 4.6 6
2.5 3.3 4 5.3 6.6 10 13.3 2 2.5 3.3 4 5.3 6.6 10 13.3 20
Cement Treated Base Thickness (Inches)

2 20
Asphalt Treated Base Thickness (Inches)

Cement Treated Base Thickness (mm)

0
Asphalt Treated Base Thickness (mm)

60 60
EALs=
EALs=
5
1x10 5
5 5 1x10 125
3x10 5 125
5x10 5
7x10 5
1x10 6 3x10 5 185
185 5x10 5
3x10 6 7x10 5
250 10 250
10 7x106 1x10 6
1x10 7
3x10 6
310 310
2x10 7
6
5x10
15 3x10 7 15 7x106
380
380
1x10 7
435 435
2x10 7 3x10 7
20 20 500
500
7 15 20 30 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30
2 3 5 10
(138) (207) (20) (34) (48) (69) (138) (207)
(20) (34) (48) (69)
Subgrade Modulus x 1 03 psi (MPa) Subgrade Modulus x 1 03 psi (MPa)

Figure 6. Thickness design curves–asphalt treated base. Figure 7. Thickness design curves–cement treated base.
6
distress and deterioration in temperature extremes. treated base is equivalent to 2.50 in. (65 mm) of
unbound aggregate subbase.
Structural Design Curves
Example
F igures 5, 6, and 7 are the base thickness design
curves for unbound aggregate, asphalt-treated
and cement-treated materials. The thicknesses on the D esign Data—A two-lane urban, residential street
is to be designed using concrete pavers. Labora-
charts are a function of the subgrade strength (Mr or tory tests on the subgrade soil indicate that the pave-
CBR) and design traffic repetitions (EALs). Use the ment is to be constructed on a sandy silt; i.e., ML
following steps to determine a pavement thickness: soil type according to the USCS classification sys-
1. Compute design EALs. Use known traffic val- tem. No field CBR or resilient modulus data are avail-
ues or use the recommended default values given in able. From available climatic data, and subgrade soil
Table 2. EALs are typically estimated over a 20-year type, it is anticipated that the pavement will be ex-
life. Annual growth of EALs over the life of the posed to moisture levels approaching saturation more
pavement should be considered. than 25% of the time. Drainage quality will be fair,
2. Characterize subgrade strength from laboratory and frost is a design consideration. Detailed EAL
test data. If there is no laboratory or field test data, use traffic data are not available.
Tables 3 and 4 to estimate Mr or CBR. Using the above information, designs are to be
3. Determine the required base thickness. Use Mr developed for the following base and subbase paving
or CBR for subgrade strength and design EALs as materials: unbound aggregate base, asphalt-treated
input into Figures 4, 5 or 6, depending on the base base, and unbound aggregate subbase. All designs
material required. A portion or all of the estimated are to include a base layer but not necessarily the
base thickness exceeding the minimum thickness aggregate subbase layer.
requirements can be substituted by a lower quality,
unbound aggregate subbase layer. This is accom- Solution and Results
plished through the use of layer equivalency values: 1. Estimate design EAL repetitions. Since
1 in. (25 mm) of aggregate base is equivalent to detailed traffic information was not available, the
1.75 in. (45 mm) of unbound aggregate subbase value recommended in Table 2 was used: 840,000
material; 1 in. (25 mm) of asphalt-treated base is design EALs.
equivalent to 3.40 in. (85 mm) of unbound aggregate 2. Characterize subgrade soil strength. Since
subbase material; and 1 in. (25 mm) of cement- only its USCS soil classification is known, Table 3

3.15 in. (80 mm) Concrete Pavers 3.15 in. (80 mm) Concrete Pavers

1.00 in. (25-40 mm) Bedding Sand 1.00 in. (25-40 mm) Bedding Sand

13 in. (325 mm) 5.25 in. (130 mm)

Aggregate Base Asphalt-Treated Base

Subgrade

Subgrade

3.15 in. (80 mm) Concrete Pavers 3.15 in. (80 mm) Concrete Pavers

1.00 in. (25-40 mm) Bedding Sand 1.00 in. (25-40 mm) Bedding Sand

3.00 in. (75 mm) Asphalt-Treated Base

4.00 in. (100 mm) Aggregate Base

7.75 in. (195-200 mm)

Aggregate Base
15.75 in. (400 mm)
Aggregate Sub-base

Subgrade

Subgrade

Figure 8. Alternative cross section solutions for the design example.

7
was used to establish the design strength value. For a can be conducted on key cost variables on various
USCS ML soil and the given moisture and drainage base designs. For further information on ICPI
conditions, the estimated subgrade modulus value is Lockpave, contact ICPI members, ICPI offices, or
Mr = 7,500 psi (52 MPa), or CBR = 5%. Since frost visit the web site http://www.icpi.org.
action is a consideration, the reduced design strength
value is Mr = 4,500 psi (31 MPa), or CBR = 3%. References
3. Determine base thickness requirements. In- (1) Shackel, B., “A Pilot Study of the Performance of
put of the design traffic (840,000 EALs) and subgrade Block Paving Under Traffic Using a Heavy Vehicle
strength (Mr = 4,500 psi [31 MPa]) values into Fig- Simulator,” Proceedings, of a Symposium on Precast
ures 4 and 5 yields base thickness requirements of 13 Concrete Paving Block, Johannesburg, South Africa,
in. (330 mm) for unbound aggregate, or 5.25 in. (133 1979.
(2) Shackel, B., “An Experimental Investigation of
mm) for an asphalt treated base.
the Roles of the Bedding and Joint Sand in the Perfor-
These values can be used to develop subbase mance of Interlocking Concrete Block Pavements,”
thicknesses. Since all designs must include a base Concrete/Beton, No. 19, 1980.
layer, only that thickness exceeding the minimum (3) Shackel, B. “Loading and Accelerated Traffick-
allowable value, 4 in. (100 mm) for aggregate bases ing Tests on Three Prototype Heavy-Duty Industrial
and 3 in. (75 mm) for asphalt-treated bases, was Block Pavements,” National Institute for Transport and
converted into subbase quality material. With the Road Research, CSIR, Pretoria, South Africa, Techni-
aggregate base option, 9 in. (230 mm) or cal Report 12, 1980.
13 - 4 in. of material can be converted into aggregate (4) Rada, G.R., Smith, D.R., Miller, J.S., and Witczak,
subbase quality material, resulting in 15.75 inches M.W., “Structural Design of Concrete Block Pave-
(400 mm) or 9 x 1.75 inches. Likewise, for the ments,” American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of
Transportation Engineering, Vol. 116, No. 5, Septem-
asphalt-treated base option, 2.25 in. (57 mm) or 5.25
ber/October, 1990.
- 3.0 in. of material can be converted into aggregate (5) Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, Ameri-
subbase quality material, resulting in 7.75 in. (197 can Association of State Highway and Transportation
mm) or 2.25 x 3.40 in. Officials, Washington, D.C., 1993.
The final cross section design alternatives are (6) Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vols. 4.02,
shown in Figure 7 with 3.15 in. (80 mm) thick Concrete and Aggregates, 4.03, Road and Paving Mate-
concrete pavers and a 1.0 in. (25 mm) thick bedding rials, and 4.08, Soil and Rock, American Society for
sand layer over several bases. These are a sample of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1995.
the possible material type and thickness combina- (7) Standard Specifications for Transportation Ma-
tions which satisfy the design requirements. Cost terials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Part II–
analyses of these and other pavement cross section Tests, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 1993.
alternatives should be conducted in order to select the
(8) Precast Concrete Pavers, CSA-A231.2-95, Cana-
optimal design. dian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario, 1995.
Computerized Solutions

I nterlocking concrete pavement can be designed

with ICPI Lockpave software, a computer program
for calculating pavement base thicknesses for park-
Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute
1444 I St. NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005-6542 USA
ing lot, street, industrial, and port applications. User (202) 712-9036
designated inputs inputs include traffic loads, soils, (800) 241-3652
Fax: (202) 408-0285
drainage, environmental conditions, and a variety of
ways for characterizing the strength of pavement ma- Canada:
terials. Parking lot and street pavement thickness can PO Box 23053
be calculated using the 1993 AASHTO pavement 55 Ontario Street
Milton, ON L9T 2M0
design procedure (an empirical design method) or a
mechanistic, layered elastic analysis that computes pro- E-mail: ICPI@icpi.org
jected stresses and strains in the pavement structure. Web site: www.icpi.org
Outputs include pavement thickness using differ-
ent combinations of unstabilized and stabilized bases/ WARNING: The content of ICPI Tech Spec Technical Bulletins is intended for use only
subbases. Base thicknesses can be calculated for new as a guideline. It is NOT intended for use or reliance upon as an industry standard,
construction and for rehabilitated asphalt streets us- certification or as a specification. ICPI makes no promises, representations or warran-
ing an overlay of concrete pavers. After a pavement ties of any kind, express or implied, as to the content of the Tech Spec Technical Bulletins
structure has been designed, the user can project life- and disclaims any liability for damages resulting from the use of Tech Spec Technical
Bulletins. Professional assistance should be sought with respect to the design, specifica-
cycle costs, by defining initial and lifetime (mainte- tions and construction of each project.
nance and rehabilitation) cost estimates. Design op-
tions with initial and maintenance costs plus discount
rates can be examined for selection of an optimal
design from a budget standpoint. Sensitivity analysis