164 - Pragna Paper

ISSN(Online) : 2319-8753
ISSN (Print) : 2347-6710
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Engineering and Technology
(An ISO 3297: 2007 Certified Organization)
Website: www.ijirset.com
Vol. 6, Issue 2, February 2017
An Experimental Study on Strength

Improvement of Concrete Paver Blocks by
Using Flyash, Glass Fiber and GGBS
G.Pragna1, P.M.S.S.Kumar2
PG Scholar, Dept of Civil Engineering, Sanketika Institute of Technology and Management, P.M.Palem,
Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1
Assistant Professor, Dept of Civil Engineering, Sanketika Institute of Technology and Management , P.M.Palem,
Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India2
.
ABSTRACT: India is a developing country so here the construction of roadway and building plays an important role.
Paver blocks are made from semi dry mixes of concrete with zero slump and stone chips lesser in size as compared to
conventional concrete. The presently paver block is used in outdoor versatility application and also it is used in street
road and other construction places. Paver block has low cost maintenance and easily replace with a newer one at the
time of breakage. For improving strength and other parameter of paver block this study is necessary. In this project,
compressive strength, flexural strength and water absorption of paver block wereevaluated by replacing portion of
cement with the flyash and GGBS in M30 grade concrete. Glass fibers were also included along withthe fly ash and
GGBS to determine the strength. Different proportions of glass fiber are added starting from 0.2% to 0.8% byweight of
cement in the mix were added. The optimum fiber content from test results was found to be 0.4% by weight of cement.
15% to 60% by weight of cement was replaced with the fly ash. From the test results obtained the optimum fly ash
andglassfiber content were found to be 30% and 0.4% respectively. Now 15% to 60% by weight of cement was
replaced with the GGBS.From the test results obtained the optimum GGBSandglassfiber content were found to be 30%
and 0.4% respectively. Cost analysis of paver block was done and was compared withconventional paver block. There
was decrease in cost in replacement of cement with fly ash, GGBS respectively. The main objective of this project is to
use waste products like fly ash, glass-fibre and GGBS for the production of Paver Block which will useful in
construction and makes eco-friendly.
KEYWORDS: Fly ash, Glass fibre, GGBS, strength parameter tests, cost optimization, Water Absorption test.
I. INTRODUCTION
Concrete block pavements (CBPs) are formed from individual solid blocks that fit closely next to one another to form a
pavement surface. A typical CBP is placed on a thin bed of sand overlaying a sub base. CBP can be placed with a
variety of shapes and patterns. There are joint spaces between blocks. These spaces are filled with sand having suitable
grading. The blocks are restrained from two sides by edge restraints.
CPBs are manufactured from semi-dry mixes. During manufacturing process vibration and pressure is applied to the
mix. By this process dense and strong CPB can be achieved to form strong and durable paving surfaces. Moreover
interlocking behaviour of CBP gives the ability of spreading loads to larger areas.
CBP has several advantages they are available in different shapes, sizes, colour and patterns. So we can create
beautiful pavements with more strength.Maintenance in very easy.Easily replaceable in very short time.Laying of paver
blocks pavement has very less time. Before laying of road it gets its own strength by proper curing.Its life span is
more.Easy to transport.
Copyright to IJIRSET DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2017.0602164 2972

ISSN (Print) : 2347-6710

The compressive strength of hardened concrete which is generally considered to be an index of its other
properties, depends upon many factors, e.g. quality and quantity of cement, water and aggregates; batching and mixing;
placing, compaction and curing. The cost of concrete is made up of the cost of materials, plant and labour.
This limited use is largely due to the past experience formed when low strength cements and low quality admixtures
were used as well as the restrictions imposed by standards. Therefore, in view of current concreting technologies and
advances in materials production, there is a need to reform the negative impression, prevalent for a relatively longtime,
to increase the use of admixtures in construction.
II. MATERIALS USED
Materials introduction
The materials that are adopted in this study are fly ash, glass fiber, GGBS, cement, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate and
super plasticizer.The sources and properties of these materials described in below.
FLY ASH
Fly ash is a group of materials that can vary significantly in composition. It is residue left from burning coal, which is
collected on an electrostatic precipitator or in a baghouse. It mixes with flue gases that result when powdered coal is
used to produce electric power. Fly ash is purchased from National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) limited
Visakhapatnam.
Fig 1. Fly Ash

Physical Requirement of Fly Ash
Physical requirement of fly ash
Specific gravity 2.25
Requirement guide of fly ash
F C
Fineness specific surface in kg-m2 320 250
Lime reactivity 4.5 3.0
Compressive strength at 28 day in N/mm2,min Not less than 80% of strength of corresponding plain
cement mortar cubes
GLASS FIBRE
Glass fiber (or glass fibre) is a material consisting of numerous extremely fine fibbers of glass. Glass fiber is formed
when thin strands of silica-based or other formulation glass are extruded into many fibers with small diameters suitable.
Alkali resistant E Glass fibres were used and the properties of glass fibres were shown in table

ISSN (Print) : 2347-6710

Property Diameter(μm) Specific gravity Failure strain Elasticity(GPa) Tensile

strength(GPa)
Value 12 2.6 3% 80 2.5
Fig 2. Glass Fiber
GROUND GRANULATED BLAST FURNACE SLAG

Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag (GGBS) is a by-product from the blast furnaces used to make iron.
Chemical Composition of GGBS
Calcium oxide = 40%
Silica = 35%
Alumina = 13%
Magnesia = 8%
It is a granular product with very limited crystal formation, is highly cementitious in nature and, ground to cement
fineness, and hydrates like Portland cement.
Typical physical properties:-
Colour: off white
Specific gravity: 2.9
Bulk density: 1200 Kg/m3
Fineness: 350 m2 /kg
Fig 3. GGBS
CEMENT
Cement Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) of 53 grade conforming to IS: 12269-1999 was used for casting the paver
blocks. Physical properties of OPC were given in table.

ISSN (Print) : 2347-6710

Physical properties of OPC

Property Value
Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) of 53 grade conforming to IS: 12269-1999 3.15
specific gravity
Consistency limit 33%
Initial setting time 140 minutes
Final setting time 310 minutes
Fig 4. Cement
COARSE AGGREGATES
Locally available crushed coarse aggregates of nominal size 10mm were used in this work. Physical properties of
coarse aggregates used were given in the following table.
Property Water Specific Aggregate Aggregate Flakiness Elongation

absorption gravity of impact value crushing index index
value aggregates value
Value 0.45% 2.66 26% 27% 8% 9%
Fig 5. Coarse aggregate

FINE AGGREGATES
The sources of fine aggregates for paving blocks are river sand or, alternatively, artificial sand by crushing rocks. Fine
aggregates were used conforming to IS 383 2002.Locally available sand conforming to IS Zone-II and specific gravity
2.66 was used as fine aggregate in the present experimental study for the production of paver blocks. Gradation details
of fine aggregate were given in the table.

ISSN (Print) : 2347-6710

Grading of fine aggregate

Sieve size in mm Percent by weight of sand Remarks
passing the sieve
10 100 Conforms to grading ISO zone II,

Fineness modulus= 3.034
4.75 90.1
2.36 76.9
1.18 62.2
0.6 42.2
0.3 16.2
0.15 6
Fig 6. Fine Aggregate

ADMIXTURE
A water reducing admixture, Sikament FF in liquid form was used in concrete. It has a relative density of 1.25 and pH
range of 8-1
III. MIX PROPORTION
In this study, control mix S was designed as per IS 15658-2006 for M30 grade. Glass fibers are initially added in
fractions of 0.2% to 0.8% by weight of cement. Optimum glass fiber content was obtained and then fly ash was
replaced for cement in percentages of 15 to 60. . Optimum glass fiber content was obtained and then GGBS was
replaced for cement in percentages of 15 to 60.The details of the mix proportions are given in the following table.

ISSN (Print) : 2347-6710

Materials Cement Fine Coarse Water Sikament Glass fibre Fly ash GGBS
kg/m3) aggregate(k aggregate(k (litres) FF(kg/m3) (% w of (kg/m3) (kg/m3)
g/m3) g/m3) cement)
Mix ID’s
S 364.23 748.15 1332.00 142.05 1.82 0% 0 0
Sf0.2 364.23 748.15 1332.00 142.05 1.82 0.2% 0 0
Sf0.4 364.23 748.15 1332.00 142.05 1.82 0.4% 0 0
Sf0.6 364.23 748.15 1332.00 142.05 1.82 0.6% 0 0
Sf0.8 364.23 748.15 1332.00 142.05 1.82 0.8% 0 0
Sffa15 309.60 748.15 1332.00 142.05 1.82 0.4% 54.63 0
Sffa30 254.96 748.15 1332.00 142.05 1.82 0.4% 109.27 0
Sffa45 200.33 748.15 1332.00 142.05 1.82 0.4% 163.90 0
Sffa60 145.69 748.15 1332.00 142.05 1.82 0.4% 218.54 0
Sfg15 309.60 748.15 1332.00 142.05 1.82 0.4% 0 54.63
Sfg30 254.96 748.15 1332.00 142.05 1.82 0.4% 0 109.27
Sfg45 200.33 748.15 1332.00 142.05 1.82 0.4% 0 163.90
Sfg60 145.69 748.15 1332.00 142.05 1.82 0.4% 0 218.54
IV. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Experimental program carried out includes the methodology and testing procedures of paver blocks by using glass
fibers, fly ash and GGBS.
Paver blocks were casted for conventional mix, then Glass fibers were also included along withthe fly ash and
GGBS to determine the strength. Different proportions of glass fiber are added starting from 0.2% to 0.8% byweight of
cement in the mix were added. 15% to 60% by weight of cement was replaced with the fly ash by keeping glass fiber
content constant. Now 15% to 60% by weight of cement was replaced with the GGBS.
Mix Design
All the concrete mixes in the project are prepared As per IS: 10262-2009 the concrete mixes are prepared in this
project.
Testing Data
Specific gravity of cement=3.15
Specific gravity of sand =2.69
Specific gravity of aggregate=2.66
Specific gravity of chemical admixture =0.32
Zone of sand =II
Mix proportion Grade _ M30
Type of cement used _ OPC 53 grade conforming to IS 12269-1987
Mix-proportions
Cement = 364.23kg/m3
Water = 142.05 litres
Fine aggregate = 748.15 kg/m3
Coarse aggregate = 1332 kg/m3
Chemical admixture = 1.82 kg/m3
Water-cement ratio = 0.39
Ratio of cement: fine aggregate: coarse aggregate is 1:2.05:3.66

ISSN (Print) : 2347-6710

Experiments
Following test procedures are conducted in this paver block experiment.
 Compressive strength test
 Flexural strength test
 Water absorption test
1. Compressive strength test:

Compressive strength or compression strength is the capacity of a material or structure to withstand loads tending to
reduce size, as opposed to tensile strength, which withstands loads tending to elongate. After preparing and curing of
the specimen, it placed in the machine in such a manner that the load shall be applied to the opposite sides of the cube
cast. Align the specimen centrally on the base plate of the machine. Rotate the movable portion gently by hand so that
it touches the top surface of the specimen. Apply the load gradually without shock and continuously at the rate of
140kg/cm2/minute till the specimen fails. Record the maximum load and note any unusual features in the type of
failure. Minimum three specimens should be tested at each selected age. If strength of any specimen varies by more
than 15 per cent of average strength, results of such specimen should be rejected. Average of these specimens gives the
crushing strength of concrete.
.
Fig.7. Loading test specimen for compressive strength test on UTM
2. Flexural strength test:

The bed of the testing machine shall be provided with two steel rollers. The load shall be divided equally between the
two loading rollers, and all rollers shall be mounted in such a manner that the load is applied axially and without
subjecting the specimen to any torsional stresses or restraints.The distance between the outer rollers (i.e. span) shall
be 3d and the distance between the inner rollers shall be d. The inner rollers shall be equally spaced between the outer
rollers, such that the entire system is systematic.
The load shall be applied at a rate of loading of 180 kg/min for the 10.0 cm specimens.
Calculation
The Flexural Strength or modulus of rupture (fb) is given by
fb = pl/bd2 (when a > 20.0cm for 15.0cm specimen or > 13.0cm for 10cm specimen)
or
fb = 3pa/bd2 (when a < 20.0cm but > 17.0 for 15.0cm specimen or < 13.3 cm but > 11.0cm for 10.0cm specimen.)
Where,

ISSN (Print) : 2347-6710

a = the distance between the line of fracture and the nearer support, measured on the center line of the
tensile side of the specimen
b = width of specimen (cm)
d = failure point depth (cm)
l = supported length (cm)
p = max. Load (kg)
Fig.8. Loading specimen for flexural strengthtest on UTM
3. Water absorption test:

One of the most important properties of a good quality concrete is low permeability, especially one resistant to freezing
and thawing. A concrete with low permeability resists ingress of water and is not as susceptible to freezing and
thawing. Water enters pores in the cement paste and even in the aggregate. For concrete pavers, the test procedure
involves drying a specimen to a constant weight, weighing it, immersing it in water for specified amount of time, and
weighing it again. The increase in weight as a percentage of the original weight is expressed as its absorption (in
percent).
Fig.9. Water Absorption test

ISSN (Print) : 2347-6710

Formula used is Water absorption = [(A – B)/B] x 100%.

Where A= weight of saturated surface dried sample in gms
B=weight of oven dried sample in gms.
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Designation of paver blocks:

Name Description
S Standard paver block
Sf0.2 S+ 0.2% glass fibers
Sffa15 S+15% cement replacement with fly ash +0.4% glass fibers
Sffa30 S+30 % cement replacement with fly ash + 0.4% glass fibers
Sffa45 S+45 % cement replacement with fly ash + 0.4% glass fibers
Sffa60 S+60% cement replacement with fly ash + 0.4% glass fibers
Sfg15 S+15 % cement replacement with GGBS + 0.4% glass fibers

ISSN (Print) : 2347-6710

1. Test results of Glass fiber Paver blocks:

Compressive strength test:
GLASS FIBER
50
41.56
COMPRESSION STRENGTH
38.5 39.14 39.84 38.62

40 32.66 31.56
27.28 28.62 29.12
30
N/mm2
Compression strength at 7
20 days
10 Compression strength at 28
days
0
S Sf 0.2 Sf 0.4 Sf 0.6 Sf 0.8
TYPE OF PAVER BLOCK
Fig.10Compressive strength at 7& 28 days
Fig.10shows the variation of compressive strength at the age of 7 & 28 days for normal, 0.2%, 0.4%, 0.6% and 0.8%
glass fiber addition. There is an increase of 19.72% in compressive strength at 0.4% glass fiberaddition compared to
normal paver block at 7 days.There is an increase of 7.5% in compressive strength at 0.4% glass fiberaddition
compared to normal paver block at 28 days. Optimum content of glass fibers occurs at 0.4% by weight of cement.
Flexural strength test:
GLASS FIBER
5 4.46
4.12
FLEXURAL STRENGTH N/mm2
3.94 3.72 3.8

4 3.56
3.26
2.79 3 2.82
3
Flexural Strength at 7 days
2
1 Flexural Strength at 28
days
0
S Sf 0.2 Sf 0.4 Sf 0.6 Sf 0.8
TYPE OF PAVER BLOCK
Fig.11 Flexural strength variation at 7 & 28 days
Fig.11shows the variation of Flexural strength at the age of 7 & 28 days for normal, 0.2%, 0.4%, 0.6% and 0.8%
glass fiber addition. There is an increase of 35.77% in Flexural strength at 0.4% glass fiberaddition compared to normal
paver block at 7 days.There is an increase of 25.28% in Flexural strength at 0.4% glass fiberaddition compared to
normal paver block at 28 days. Optimum content of glass fibers occurs at 0.4% by weight of cement.

ISSN (Print) : 2347-6710

Water absorption test:
GLASS FIBER
4 3.24
3.12 2.96
WATER ABSORPTION %
2.96 2.8
2.74 2.64
3 2.59
2.4 2.56
2 Water Absorption test on

7 days
1
Water Absorption test on
0
28 days
S Sf 0.2 Sf 0.4 Sf 0.6 Sf 0.8
TYPE OF PAVER BLOCK

Fig.12 Water absorption variation at 7 & 28days
Fig.12shows the variation of Water absorption at the age of 7 & 28 days for normal, 0.2%, 0.4%, 0.6% and 0.8%
glass fiberaddition..There is an increase of 16.67% in Water absorption at 0.4% glass fiberaddition compared to normal
paver blockat 7 days.There is an increase of 20.46% in Water absorption at 0.4% glass fiberaddition compared to
normal paver block at 28 days. Optimum content of glass fibers occurs at 0.4% by weight of cement.
2. Test Results of Fly ash and glass fiber Paver blocks

GLASS FIBER+FLY ASH

50 42.48 40.31 40.13
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
38.86 39.44
40 35.66 36.18 37.64 36.98 36.82
29.06 28.62 28.38
30 26.38 27.32 Compressive Strength at 7
days (N/mm2)
N/mm2
20
Compressive Strength at
10 28 days (N/mm2)
0 Compressive Strength at
S Sffa 15 Sffa 30 Sffa 45 Sffa 60 56 days (N/mm2)
TYPE OF PAVER BLOCK

Fig.13Compressive strength variation at 7, 28& 56 days
Fig.13 shows the variation of compressive strength at the age of 7, 28 & 56 days for normal, 15%, 30%, 45%, and
60% cement replacement with fly ash along with optimum fiberaddition i.e. 0.4%. There is an increase of 10.16% in
compressive strength at 30% of fly ash replaced by cement compared to normal paver block at 7 days.There is an
increase of 5.55% in compressive strength 30% of fly ash replaced by cement compared to normal paver block at 28
days.There is an increase of 11.09% in compressive strength 30% of fly ash replaced by cement compared to normal
paver block at 56 days. The optimum combination of glass fiber and flyash at 0.4% and 30% by weight of cement.

ISSN (Print) : 2347-6710

GLASS FIBER+FLY ASH

5 4.32
4.1
3.8
3.74 3.52 3.86 3.82
4 3.5 3.62 3.58
2.98 2.84
3 2.56 2.68 2.72 Flexural Strength at 7 days
2
Flexural Strength at 28
1 days
0
days
S Sffa 15 Sffa 30 Sffa 45 Sffa 60
TYPE OF PAVER BLOCK
Fig.14. Flexural strength variation at 7, 28& 56 days
flexural strength at 30% of fly ash replaced by cement compared to normal paver block at 7 days.There is an increase
of 17.14% in flexural strength 30% of fly ash replaced by cement compared to normal paver block at 28 days.There is
an increase of 15.50% in flexural strength 30% of fly ash replaced by cement compared to normal paver block at 56
days.The optimum combination of glass fiber and flyash at 0.4% and 30% by weight of cement.
GLASS FIBRE+FLY ASH

3.5
3.03
2.98
2.83 2.79
2.78 2.79 2.9
2.87 2.85
2.82
3
WATER ABSORPTION %
2.59 2.57 2.66 2.62

2.4
2.5
2 Water Absorption
Percentage at 7 days
1.5
Water Absorption
1 Percentage at 28 days
0.5 Water Absorption

Percentage at 56 days
0
S Sffa 15 Sffa 30 Sffa 45 Sffa 60
TYPE OF PAVER BLOCK
Fig.15 Water absorption variation at 7, 28& 56days

ISSN (Print) : 2347-6710

Fig.15 shows the variation of water absorption at the age of 7, 28 & 56 days for normal, 15%, 30%, 45%, and
water absorption at 30% of fly ash replaced by cement compared to normal paver block at 7 days.There is an increase
of 15.06% in water absorption30% of fly ash replaced by cement compared to normal paver block at 28 days.There is
an increase of 8.99% in water absorption30% of fly ash replaced by cement compared to normal paver block at 56
days.The optimum combination of glass fiber and flyash at 0.4% and 30% by weight of cement.
3. Test Results of paver blocks with GGBS and glass fibers

GLASS FIBER+GGBS
50 44.76 42.92
41.07 42.03 41.29
37.68 38.56 40.06 39.38 37.88
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
40
26.87 27.86 27.32 26.94 Compressive Strength at
30 26.19
7 days (N/mm2)
20
N/mm2
10
28 days (N/mm2)
0
S Sfg 15 Sfg 30 Sfg 45 Sfg 60 56 days (N/mm2)
TYPE OF PAVER BLOCK
Fig.16 Compressive strength variation at 7, 28&56 days
60% cement replacement with GGBS along with optimum fiberaddition i.e. 0.4%. There is an increase of 6.37% in
compressive strength at 30% of GGBS replaced by cement compared to normal paver block at 7 days.There is an
increase of 6.31% in compressive strength 30% of GGBS replaced by cement compared to normal paver block at 28
days.There is an increase of 11.50% in compressive strength 30% of GGBS replaced by cement compared to normal
paver block at 56 days.The optimum combination of glass fiber and GGBS at 0.4% and 30% by weight of cement.
GLASS FIBER+GGBS
5 4.22
3.81 4.07 3.99 3.76
3.92
3.63 3.71
3.58 3.82
4
2.66 2.69 2.98 2.75 Flexural Strength at 7 days
3 2.64
(N/mm2)
2
1 days (N/mm2)
0
S Sfg 15 Sfg 30 Sfg 45 Sfg 60 days (N/mm2)
TYPE OF PAVER BLOCK
Fig.17 Flexural strength variation at 7, 28&56 days with GGBS

ISSN (Print) : 2347-6710

60% cement replacement with GGBS along with optimum fiberaddition i.e. 0.4%. There is an increase of 12.03% in
flexural strength at 30% of GGBS replaced by cement compared to normal paver block at 7 days.There is an increase
of 13.69% in flexural strength 30% GGBS of replaced by cementcompared to normal paver block at 28 days.There is
an increase of 16.25% in flexural strength 30% of GGBS replaced by cement compared to normal paver block at 56
days.The optimum combination of glass fiber and GGBS at 0.4% and 30% by weight of cement.
GLASS FIBER+GGBS
2.9 2.822.84
2.78 2.78 2.762.8
WATER ABSORPTION %
2.8 2.74
2.7 2.69 2.68
2.7 2.59 2.62
2.57
2.54
2.6 Water Absorption test on 7
2.5 2.4 days
2.4 Water Absorption test on
2.3 28 days
2.2
2.1 Water Absorption test on
56 days
S Sfg 15 Sfg 30 Sfg 45 Sfg 60
TYPE OF PAVER BLOCK
Fig.18 Water absorption variation at 7,28& 56 days
Fig.18 shows the variation of water absorption at the age of 7, 28 & 56 days for normal, 15%, 30%, 45%, and 60%
cement replacement with GGBS along with optimum fiberaddition i.e. 0.4%. There is an increase of 17.50% in water
absorption at 30% of GGBS replaced by cement compared to normal paver block at 7 days.There is an increase of
7.30% in water absorption30% of GGBS replaced by cement compared to normal paver block at 28 days.There is an
increase of 2.16% in water absorption30% of GGBS replaced by cement compared to normal paver block at 56
days.The optimum combination of glass fiber and GGBS at 0.4% and 30% by weight of cement.
Cost Evaluation
Cost details of materials used
S.No Materials Cost (Rs/Kg)
1 Cement 7.60
2 Sand 0.80
3 Quarry dust 0.40
4 Coarse aggregate 1.20
5 Dolomite powder 1.40
6 Sikament FF 82
7 Glass fibre 150
8 GGBS 1.5

ISSN (Print) : 2347-6710

Cost details of Paver blocks

S.No Type of paver block Cost per unit (Rs) Cost per unit meter(Rs)
1 S 9.82 5115
2 Sf0.2 10.03 5224
3 Sf0.4 10.24 5334
4 Sf0.6 10.44 5442
5 Sf0.8 10.65 5551
6 Sffa15 9.59 4995
7 Sffa30 8.94 4656
8 Sffa45 8.29 4318
9 Sffa60 7.64 3979
10 Sfg15 9.60 5000
11 Sfg30 8.96 4667
12 Sfg45 8.32 4334
13 Sfg60 7.68 4001
Table indicates that the cost of paver block increases with increase in glass fiber content. On replacement of cement
with GGBS and fly ash mix the decrease in cost can be observed. There was an increase of 4.27% in cost at 0.4%
addition of fibres. On replacement of cement with 30% fly ash along with addition of 0.4% fiber it is observed that
there is decrease in cost by 9.80% compared to conventional paver block.On replacement of cement with 30% GGBS
along with addition of 0.4% fiber it is observed that there is decrease in cost by 9.64% compared to conventional paver
block.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
1. By the addition of glass fiber and optimum content of fiber of 0.4% by weight of cement the compressive strength
and flexural strength of paver blocks increases.
2. There was an increase of 7.95% in compressive strength and 25.28% increase in flexural strength compared to
conventional paver block at 28 dayson addition of 0.4% glass fibers.
3. There was an increase of 11.09% in compressive strength, 15.50% increase in flexural strength and 8.99% increase
in water absorption compared to conventional paver block at 56 dayson addition of 0.4% glass fiberson 30%
replacement of cement with fly ash.
4. There was an increase of 11.50% in compressive strength, 16.25% increase in flexural strength and 2.16% increase
in water absorption compared to conventional paver block at 56 dayson addition of 0.4% glass fiberson 30%
replacement of cement with GGBS.
5. On replacement of cement with 30% fly ash and 30% GGBS mix along with addition of 0.4% fibre it was observed
that there was decrease in cost by 9.80% and 9.64% for each unit compared to conventional paver block.
6. Combined effect of GGBS and fly ash and glass fibres resulted in enhancement of strength properties with
simultaneous decrease in cost, making the paver block economical.
7. In this study by using of combination of fibers and mineral admixtures in paver blocks makes increase in properties
and decrease in cost and makes eco-friendly.
FUTURE SCOPE:
1. Tests can be continuing by mixing different proportions for strength optimization.
2. Only limited objectives analysed in a practical way to get comparison.
3. This project may extended to some more biopolymer mix for strengthening the paver blocks.

ISSN (Print) : 2347-6710

REFERENCES
1. Vishal panchal, LakshyaGupta ,ChetanDeshmukh(2015) “Comparative Study Of Interlock Paver Block” IJSART, ISSN : 2395-1052 - volume 1
Issue 6 .
2. B.A.V Ram Kumar, Prof. J. Venkateswara Rao(2015)“ Effect of inclusion of Glass fibers and GGBS in concrete paver blocks” IOSR-JMCE
ISSN:2278-1684 Volume 12 Issue 5.
3. Ritesh Mall, ShardaShrama and R.D.Patel( 2014) “Studies of the Properties of Paver Block using Fly Ash” IJSRD - International Journal for
Scientific Research & Development ,Vol. 2, Issue 10.
4. SomNathSachdeva,VanitaAggarwal,S. M. Gupta (2014) “High Volume Fly Ash Concrete for Paver Blocks” International Journal of Civil,
Architectural, Structural and Construction Engineering, Vol:8 No:3.
5. K. Vamshi Krishna and J. Venkateswara Rao (2014) “Effect of Glass FibersIn Rigid Pavement” International Journal Of Scientific Research
And Education, Volume2, Issue9Pages1797-1804.
6. Thakur, Saxena and Arora T.R., (2014) “Effect of Partial Replacement of Cement by Fly Ash with Using Nylon Fiber in Concrete Paver Block”
(IJERT) Vol. 3 Issue 1.
7. V. M. Sounthararajan and A. Sivakumar( 2013) “Reinforcing efficiency of glass fibers in low volume class F fly ash concrete” JCECT Vol.
4(6), pp. 184-191 .
8. BhavinK.Kashiyani, Jayeshkumarpitroda&Bhavnaben K. shah( 2013) “Innovative addition of polypropylene fiber in interlocking paver block”
IJCSEIERD Vol.3,Issue 2.
9. Rama Mohan Rao.P, SudarsanaRao.H and Sekar.S.K (2010) “Effect of Glass Fibers on Fly ash Based Concrete” International journal of civil
and structural engineering Volume 1, No 3.
10. BS EN 12390-3, Testing Hardened Concrete Part 3: Compressive strength of test specimens, 2009, British Standard Institution: London.
11. Gonen, T. and Yazicioglu, S., The influence of mineral admixtures on the short and long-term performance of concrete. Building and
environment, 2007. 42(8): p. 3080-3085.
12. Barnett, S.J., Soutsos, M. N., Bungey, J. H., and Millard, S.G. The effect of ground granulated blast furnace slag on the strength development
and adiabatic temperature rise of concrete mixes. 2005. Thomas Telford.
13. ASTM C 39M - 03, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens 2003, ASTM International
14. Targan, S., Olgun, A., Erdogan, Y., and Sevinc, V., Effects of supplementary cementing materials on the properties of cement and concrete.
Cement and Concrete Research, 2002. 32(10): p. 1551-1558.
15. Malhotra, V. M., Zhang, M. H., Read, P. H., and Ryell, J., Long-term mechanical properties and durability characteristics of high-strength/high
performance concrete incorporating supplementary cementing materials under outdoor exposure conditions. ACI materials journal, 2000. 97(5).
16. Hogan, F. J. and Meusel, J. W., Evaluation for durability and strength development of a ground granulated blast furnace slag. Cement, Concrete
and Aggregates, 1981. 3(1).
17. IS 10262: 2009, Concrete Mix Proportioning – Guidelines.
18. IS 15658:2006, Precast Concrete Blocks For Paving — Specification.
19. IS 383:1997, Specification For Coarse And Fine Aggregates From Natural Sources For Concrete.
20. IS 456:2000, Specification for Plain and Reinforced concrete- Code of practice (CED 2: Cement and Concrete)

164 - Pragna Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

164 - Pragna Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

164 - Pragna Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSN(Online) : 2319-8753

ISSN (Print) : 2347-6710

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

An Experimental Study on Strength

Copyright to IJIRSET DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2017.0602164 2972

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

II. MATERIALS USED

Fig 1. Fly Ash

Copyright to IJIRSET DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2017.0602164 2973

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Property Diameter(μm) Specific gravity Failure strain Elasticity(GPa) Tensile

Fig 2. Glass Fiber

GROUND GRANULATED BLAST FURNACE SLAG

Copyright to IJIRSET DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2017.0602164 2974

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Physical properties of OPC

Property Water Specific Aggregate Aggregate Flakiness Elongation

Fig 5. Coarse aggregate

Copyright to IJIRSET DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2017.0602164 2975

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Grading of fine aggregate

10 100 Conforms to grading ISO zone II,

Fig 6. Fine Aggregate

III. MIX PROPORTION

Copyright to IJIRSET DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2017.0602164 2976

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

IV. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

Copyright to IJIRSET DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2017.0602164 2977

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

1. Compressive strength test:

2. Flexural strength test:

Copyright to IJIRSET DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2017.0602164 2978

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Fig.8. Loading specimen for flexural strengthtest on UTM

3. Water absorption test:

Fig.9. Water Absorption test

Copyright to IJIRSET DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2017.0602164 2979

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Formula used is Water absorption = [(A – B)/B] x 100%.

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Designation of paver blocks:

S Standard paver block

Sf0.2 S+ 0.2% glass fibers

Sf0.4 S+ 0.4% glass fibers

Sf0.6 S+ 0.6% glass fibers

Sf0.8 S+ 0.8% glass fibers

Sfg15 S+15 % cement replacement with GGBS + 0.4% glass fibers

Sfg30 S+30 % cement replacement with GGBS + 0.4% glass fibers

Sfg45 S+45 % cement replacement with GGBS + 0.4% glass fibers

Sfg60 S+60 % cement replacement with GGBS + 0.4% glass fibers

Copyright to IJIRSET DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2017.0602164 2980

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

1. Test results of Glass fiber Paver blocks:

38.5 39.14 39.84 38.62

TYPE OF PAVER BLOCK

Fig.10Compressive strength at 7& 28 days

Flexural strength test:

3.94 3.72 3.8

TYPE OF PAVER BLOCK