A Comparative Study between the Effects of Using

Coconut Fiber and Fiber Glass as a Reinforcement on

Interlocking Colored Concrete Paving Blocks
H.A. Baluran, A.P. Gurdiel, D.F. Iglopas, K. Inoc, R.B. Montero, E.S. Legaspi
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering
Technological University of the Philippines
Manila, Philippines
Iglopas.darwin@gmail.com
Interlocking Concrete Paving Blocks is a road building
technique which is easy to install and requires less maintenance.
This technique is already accepted and widely used worldwide.
However, there are some problems that needs to be addressed like
cracking in ICCPB under mowing traffic loads. The primary focus
of this study is to compare the glass fiber and coconut fiber as a
reinforcement to Interlocking Concrete Paving Blocks. This study
also evaluates the influence of the fibers to the physical and
mechanical properties of ICCPB.
The components of the Interlocking Concrete Colored Paving
Blocks (ICCPB) were cement, sand, gravel, water, pigment,
glass fiber and coconut fiber. A total of Nineteen(19) design
mixtures were developed including the control specimen. The
amount of fibers were 0.08, 0.16 and 0.24% by weight with varying
lengths of 0.5, 1, and 1.5 in. A fabricated I-shaped mold was used
in producing the ICCPB.
The Mechanical Properties, such as Compressive and Flexural
Strength test was conducted after 7, 14, and 28 days of curing. The
Density and Water Absorption were determined after the 28 days
curing for its physical properties. Field Testing of the ICCPB was
conducted in order to observe the actual performance of the ICCPB
when applied to its intended use. All tests conducted were in
accordance with the ASTM standards.
The results of the physical property tests shows that
ICCPB with coconut fiber have higher density compared ti ICCPB
with glass fiber. In general, ICCPB with fiber have lower density
compared with the control specimen. The study revealed that the
addition of fiber in ICCPB increased its compressive and flexural
strengths. Particularly, the glass fiber is a more effective
reinforcement than the coconut fiber as manifested in the test
results. Moreover, the field testing of the ICCPB showed a
settlement of only 14mm which is less than the allowable 25mm
deflection.
Index TermsICCPB, Glass Fiber, Coconut Fiber, Pigments

I. INTORDUCTION
Roads are important infrastructure providing connectivity
between cities, towns and even villages. For main roads and
wider roads, flexible pavements are being used while for

narrow areas, concrete pavement are being provided. These

types of pavement generally gain early damages due to poor
quality of ingredients, improper mixing, inadequate vibration,
less curing, early usage and lack of supervision resulting to
insufficient strength and durability. Unfortunately, such
advance technology equipment is needed to be available for
construction of local narrow street or road pavements here in
the Philippines.
A material that is easy to install and requires less
maintenance is in need. Thus, Interlocking Concrete Paving
Blocks (ICPB) is the answer for such difficulties. Block
Pavements for roads are not a new concept because even in
ancient buildings/sites, bricks and stone blocks have been used.
Interlocking Concrete Paving Blocks can improve locations
where roads face water stagnation resulting road damages
because ICPB is known to be permeable. Road building
Technique using ICPB is already accepted and widely used in
America, South Africa, U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
and Japan etc. and more recently in middleeast countries.
(Brajendra Singh, Concrete block pavements for Roads New
Building Materials & Construction World, 2007)
It is unfortunate that in isolated cases the ICPB laid in
position get cracked and damaged due to poor quality of
concrete/materials and curing. In several precast units, concrete
mixes are not designed for desired strength and blocks are cast
using rubber molds placed over ordinary low frequency
vibration tables. Concrete pavement blocks production need
very strict quality control on materials, use of appropriate
process of casting and then proper curing.
The use of fiber in concrete is generally accepted
worldwide. Fiber is known to decrease a significant amount of
micro-cracking. So to compensate to the problem of cracking
under
moving
loads
and
for
achieving
high
compressive/flexural strengths and less maintenance, the
researchers aim to use natural and synthetic fibers and
determine the difference between these two fibers.
Coconut Fiber (CF) was used in this research as the natural
fiber. As of 2012 to 2014, the production of CF in the
Philippines is second to top before Abaca Fiber. CF is being
used in the production of geo nets, geotextile, coco fascines

and peats and exported to different countries. Glass Fiber (GF)

was used in this research as the synthetic fiber. GF has been a
material that is used in the application of fiber as a reinforcing
material in concrete today. Researches around the world
recognizes that this material can really improve the strength
capacity of concrete.

welding rod. Figure 3.4 the actual appearance of the mold

and its dimension.

II. METHODOLOGY
A. Preparation of Materials
1) Cement
The Portland cement used was in accordance with
ASTM C150 specifications for Portland cement. The
cement bags were kept dried and enclosed in a dried plastic
bag to avoid too much air circulation resulting to a loss of
cement strength.
2) Water
Water used in the mix was clean and free from
detrimental amount of acids, alkalis, salts, oils, organic
materials, or other substances that might be deleterious to
mix.
3) Fine Aggregates
The fine aggregate consists of natural other inert
materials with similar features having solid, tough, longlasting particles (ASTM C 33, 2008). The grain of sand
passing through sieve opening 2.38mm was used. The sand
used was free from foreign materials to ensure the quality
of the cement mortar.
4) Glass Fiber
Glass fiber was acquired from Polymer Product
Philippines in Pasay near Edsa Rotonda and is available in
cut lengths and weighs up to 7 kilos. Figure 3.2 shows the
cutting of Glass Fiber into 3 lengths: 0.5 in, 1 in and 1.5 in
in the mix design.

Figure 2.1 Fiber Glass

5) Coconut Fiber
The coconut fiber was acquired from Las Pias.
Fibers were cut in three different sizes such as nominal
length of 0.5 in, 1 in, and 1.5 in as shown in the Figure 3.3.

Figure 2.2 Coconut Fiber

6) Fabrication of Steel Mold
Production of paving blocks for the field testing was
accomplished using fabricated steel molds. The steel used
was 3/16 thick steel plate and was welded using E60

Figure 2.3 Steel Mold

B. Determination of Physical Properties
Physical properties of the materials were tested in
accordance with the ASTM standards.
1) Cement
a) Specific Gravity of Cement
This test for specific gravity of cement was in
accordance with ASTM C150 Specification for Portland
Cement and JIS R201-81 Physical Testing Method of
Cement. The specific gravity of cement was used in the
design and control of concrete mixtures. Specific gravity
was also used as an index for the quantity of cement.
2) Aggregates
a) Specific Gravity and Water Absorption of Aggregates
The test for the specific gravity and absorption of
ordinary sand was in accordance with ASTM C128 79
Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregates and
JIS A 1110 79 Method of Test for Specific Gravity and
Absorption of Fine Aggregates.
After obtaining the necessary data for determining the
specific gravity, the sample was poured out into a pan. It
was oven-dried to constant weight at temperature of 100 +
5 Centigrade for twenty-four hours. Afterwards, the
sample will be weighed as oven-dried sample (Wd).
Figure 3.5 shows the SSD conditioning of the sand.
b) Unit Weight of Aggregates
The determination of the unit weight of aggregate was
in accordance with ASTM C29 78 Test Method for Unit
Weight of Aggregates and JIS A 1104-76. The unit weight
of materials effectively measures the volume that the
graded aggregate occupied and included both solid
particles and voids between them. The test was done to
determine the necessary unit weight to be used in
designing concrete mixtures. The unit weight of fine and
coarse aggregates within ASTM grading limits were
generally in the range of 1450 to 1750 kg/cu.m.
C. Mix Design Parameters
Table 2.1 and 2.2 shows the different Mix proportions of
ICCPB with Coconut Fiber and Glass Fiber reinforcement.

Table 2.1 Mix Design for Glass Fiber

Specimen
Mix 1
Mix 2
Mix 3
Mix 4
Mix 5
Mix 6
Mix 7
Mix 8
Mix 9
Mix 10
Sand (g)
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800

Glass
Fiber
(%)
0
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.24
0.24
0.24
Grav
el (g)
2700
2700
2700
2700
2700
2700
2700
2700
2700
2700

Fiber
(g)

Length
(in)

0
4.68
4.68
4.68
9.36
9.36
9.36
14.04
14.04
14.04
Water
(g)
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450

0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
Water/Ce
ment (%)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50

D. Preparation of Test Specimens

Cement(g)
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
Pigments(g)
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2

Table 2.2 Mix Design for Coconut Fiber

Specimen
Mix 11
Mix 12
Mix 13
Mix 14
Mix 15
MIX 16
Mix 17
Mix 18
Mix 19
Sand (g)
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800

Coir
Fiber
(%)
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.24
0.24
0.24
Grav
el (g)
2700
2700
2700
2700
2700
2700
2700
2700
2700

Fiber
(g)

Length
(in)

4.68
4.68
4.68
9.36
9.36
9.36
14.04
14.04
14.04
Water
(g)
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450

0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
Water/Ce
ment (%)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50

Cement (g)
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
Pigments(g)
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2

1) Mixing Procedure
In the production of concrete paving block, cement,
sand, gravel, fiber and pigments were mixed thoroughly into
the pan. Then water was added into the mixture.
2) Casting of Specimen
In the production of test block, a fabricated steel Ishaped mold was used. The constituents of the paving block
were mixed manually. Then the fresh concrete was
transferred immediately to the pan. An approximate volume
of mixture was placed into the mold and vibrated using a
rubber hammer. The top of the casted fresh concrete was
finished so that the thickness of the block was maintained up
to 60 mm.
3) Curing
The fresh mixed ICCPB were laid over a flat
nonabsorbent surface overnight to develop initial strength
prior to transferring into the curing area and maintained for
7, 14 and 28 days of curing. It was occasionally sprayed with
water for moisture regulation.
E. Testing of Specimen
1) Compressive Strength Test
2) Flexural Strength Test
3) Water Absorption
4) Density Determination
5) Actual Field Testing
III. RESULTS
A. Physical Properties of ICCPB and Materials
1) Physical Property of Cement
The specific gravity of cement which is 2.99 was
determined in accordance with the JIS R201-81 Physical
Testing Method of Cement.
2) Physical Property of Fine Aggregates
For the test conducted in fine aggregates, the results
were gathered. In compliance with JIS A 1110 79 Method
of Test for Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine
Aggregates, the fine aggregates were natural sand with a
specific gravity of 2.524, and water absorption of 1.76%.
While the unit weight of the fine aggregates is 1427.87
kg/cu.m which was determined in accordance with JIS A
1104-76.
3) Physical Property of Coarse Aggregates
The physical properties of course aggregates were
determined in accordance with JIS A 1110-79. The values of
specific gravity, water absorption and unit weight of coarse
aggregates were 2.513, 1.392%, and 1654.92 kg/ cu.m.,
respectively.

Table 3.2 Density of ICCPB with CF

4) Water Absorption of ICCPB
Specimen

Figure 3.1 Moisture Absorption of Glass Fiber @ 28 days

Mix 11
Mix 12
Mix 13
Mix 14
Mix 15
Mix 16
Mix 17
Mix 18
Mix 19

Coir
(%)
0.08
0.16
0.24

Length of
Fiber (in)
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5

Average Density
(kg/cu.cm)
7
14
28
Days
Days
Days
2.42
2.41
2.29
2.28
2.26
2.25
2.29
2.29
2.20
2.34
2.23
2.22
2.32
2.38
2.36
2.28
2.27
2.27
2.31
2.27
2.28
2.28
2.20
2.23
2.43
2.38
2.19

In general, ICCPB reduces weight when both fibers

were added. It was also observed that CF ICCPB produces
higher density compared to GF ICCPB.
B. Mechanical Properties of Interlocking Paving Blocks
The tests conducted were Compressive Strength and
Flexural Strength. UTM (Universal Testing Machine) was used
to determine the strength development of the ICCPB after 7,
14, and 28 days of curing.

Figure 3.2 Moisture Absorption of Coconut Fiber @ 28 days

Figure 3.1 shows that the specimen with 0.08%

weight of glass fiber for 1 and 1.5in length, absorbed more
water than for 0.5inch. Gradual decrease in water absorption
was evident as the weight of the glass fiber increases. On the
other hand, Figure 3.2 shows that as the weight of coconut
fiber increases, water absorption also increases for 1in and
1.5in length. While for 0.5inch, 0.24% exhibit different
behavior than the other two length.
5) Density of ICCPB
This test method covers the determinations of
density, percent absorption, and percent voids in hardened
ICCPB. Table 3.1 and 3.2 shows the density of 7, 14, and 28day-cured ICCPB.
Table 3.1 Density of ICCPB with GF

Specimen
Mix 1
Mix 2
Mix 3
Mix 4
Mix 5
Mix 6
Mix 7
Mix 8
Mix 9
Mix 10

Glass
Fiber
(%)
0
0.08

0.16

0.24

Length of
Fiber (in)
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5

Average Density
(kg/cu.cm)
7
14
28
Days
Days
Days
2.31
2.44
2.45
2.39
2.40
2.42
2.39
2.27
2.21
2.27
2.19
2.28
2.40
2.27
2.40
2.41
2.41
2.35
2.40
2.30
2.34
2.23
2.28
2.38
2.23
2.23
2.33
2.24
2.18
2.28

1) Compressive Strength
Table 3.3 and 3.4 shows the results in the
determination of compressive strength of Interlocking
Concrete Paving Blocks reinforced by either Coir or Glass
Fiber.

Table 3.3 Compressive Strength of Glass Fiber

Specimen
Mix 1
Mix 2
Mix 3
Mix 4
Mix 5
Mix 6
Mix 7
Mix 8
Mix 9
Mix 10

Glass
Fiber
(%)
0
0.08
0.16
0.24

Length
of
Fiber
(in)
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5

Average Compressive
Strength (MPa)
14
28
7 Days
Days
Days
20.26
22.34
26.06
25.11
28.96
36.55
24.96
29.75
33.22
22.32
24.23
27.01
28.39
32.97
42.13
25.33
29.78
33.14
22.58
25.26
27.98
23.07
27.87
34.32
22.03
28.62
33.00
21.13
22.92
27.05

Figure
3.3

Compressive Strength Development for Glass Fiber

Figure 3.3 shows that ICCPB with glass fiber have

higher compressive strength compared to the control
specimen. The graph also shows the compressive strength
development of ICCPB at different curing age. It can be
seen that there is a linear increase in strength as the
concrete sample reaches 28 days. Mix with 0.16% of 0.5in
glass fiber attained the highest compressive strength at 28
days curing, which is 42.13MPa, compared to all mixes
containing fiber glass. ICCPB with 0.08% and 0.16% glass
fiber of 1in and 1.5in length showed almost similar
compressive strength. All the ICCPB w/ glass fiber
specimens surpassed the compressive strength of the
control specimen..

Figure 3.4 Compressive Strength vs. Weight - Glass Fiber at 28

days

Figure 3.5 Compressive Strength vs. Length - Glass Fiber at 28

days

Figure 3.4 shows that at 0.16% amount of glass fiber

with varying lengths, the highest compressive strengths
were attained. And exceeding that amount decreases the
strength as observed in 0.24% amount of glass fiber.
Figure 3.5 shows that while the length of the glass
fiber increases the strength decreases. The highest
compressive strength is at 0.16% with 0.5in length, while
the lowest is at 0.08% with 1.5in length.
Table 3.4 Compressive Strength of Coconut Fiber
Specimen
Mix 11
Mix 12
Mix 13
Mix 14
Mix 15
Mix 16
Mix 17
Mix 18
Mix 19

Coir
(%)
0.08

0.16

0.24

Length
of Fiber
(in)
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5

Average Compressive Strength

(MPa)
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
22.52
25.85
30.38
22.42
25.44
30.47
22.38
25.12
30.79
23.16
26.70
30.82
22.68
25.82
30.97
22.85
25.01
31.08
21.93
25.38
30.08
20.75
24.93
30.10
21.35
23.13
30.72

Figure 3.6 Compressive Strength Development of Coconut Fiber

Figure 3.6 shows ICCPB with coconut fiber have

higher compressive strength of ICCPB compared with the
control specimen. The graph also shows the compressive
strength development of ICCPB at different curing age. It
can be seen that the compressive strength increases as the
number of curing days increases. Mix with 0.16% of 1.5in
coconut fiber attained the highest compressive strength at
28 days curing, which is 31.08MPa, compared to all mixes
containing coconut fiber. All the ICCPB w/ coconut fiber
specimens surpassed the compressive strength of the
control specimen.

Table 3.5 and 3.6 are the results of the determination

of flexural strength of Interlocking Colored Concrete Paving
Blocks reinforced with Coconut and Glass Fiber with
different sizes of 0.5 in., 1 in., and 1.5 in. through different
amounts of 0.08%, 0.16%, and 0.24%.

Figure 3.7 Compressive Strength vs. Weight Coconut Fiber at

28 days

Figure 3.8 Compressive Strength vs. Length Coconut Fiber at

28 days

Figure 3.7 shows that at 0.16% amount of coconut

fiber with varying lengths, the highest compressive
strengths were attained. And exceeding that amount
decreases the strength as observed in 0.24% amount of
coconut fiber. Figure 3.8 shows that while the length of the
coconut fiber increases the strength also increases. Highest
compressive strength is at 0.16% with 1.5in length, while
the lowest is at 0.24% with 0.5in length.
From the minimum requirements stated by the
Specification for Pedestrian and Light Traffic Paving Brick
(ASTM 902), all the mixes passed the required 17.2 MPa
(2500 psi.) Compressive strength, Class MX (Brick
intended for exterior use where resistance to freezing is not
a factor) for Light traffic.
2) Flexural Strength
Table 3.5 Flexural Strength of Glass Fiber

Specimen

Mix 1
Mix 2
Mix 3
Mix 4
Mix 5
Mix 6
Mix 7
Mix 8
Mix 9
Mix 10

Glass
Fibre
(%)

Length
of Fiber
(in)

0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5

0.08
0.16
0.24

Average Flexural
Strength (MPa)

7
Days

1.66
2.40
2.27
2.09
2.40
2.35
2.29
1.97
1.92
1.90

14
Days
1.83
2.51
2.37
2.20
2.55
2.47
2.40
2.19
2.12
2.09

28
Days
2.10
2.63
2.50
2.36
2.79
2.64
2.55
2.51
2.42
2.31

Figure 3.9 Flexural Strength Development for Glass Fiber

Figure 3.9 shows ICCPB with glass fiber have higher

flexural strength compared with the control specimen. The
flexural strength development of ICCPB increases as the
number of curing days increases. Mix with 0.16% of 0.5in
glass fiber attained the highest flexural strength at 28 days
curing, which is 2.79MPa, compared to all mixes
containing glass fiber. All the ICCPB w/ glass fiber
specimens surpassed the flexural strength of the control
mix.

Figure 3.10 Flexural Strength vs. Amount-Glass Fiber at 28 days

Figure 3.13 Flexural Strength vs. Weight Coconut Fiber

Figure 3.11 Flexural Strength vs. Length - Glass Fiber at 28 days

Figure 3.10 shows that at 0.16% amount of glass

fiber with varying lengths, the highest flexural strengths
was attained. And exceeding that amount decreases the
strength as manifested in 0.24% amount of glass fiber.
Figure 3.11 shows that while the length of the glass fiber
increases the strength decreases. This shows similar pattern
with the compressive strengths of ICCPB with glass fiber.
Table 3.6 Flexural Strength of Coconut Coir
Specimen
Coir
Length
Average Flexural
(%)
of
Strength (MPa)
Fiber
7
14
28
(in)
Days Days Days
Mix 11
0.5
1.94
2.09
2.19
Mix 12
1
1.71
1.88
2.28
0.08
Mix 13
1.5
1.78
2.13
2.31
Mix 14
0.16
0.5
2.05
2.24
2.26
Mix 15
1
1.78
2.06
2.33
Mix 16
1.5
2.05
2.24
2.42
Mix 17
Mix 18
Mix 19

0.24

0.5
1
1.5

1.81
1.66
1.78

2.01
1.87
2.01

2.10
2.19
2.21

Figure 3.12 Flexural Strength Development for Coconut Fiber

Figure 3.12 shows the same behavior of strength

development compared to fiber glass. Increase in flexural
strength was observed in all mixes but lower than in flexural
strength of fiber glass. The graph also shows the flexural
strength development of ICCPB that increases as the number
of curing days increases.

Figure 3.14 Flexural Strength vs. Length Coconut Fiber

Figure 3.12 and 3.13 shows the effectiveness of

0.16% Coir in flexural strength. It displays the best result
regardless of the length of the fibers. In addition, at the
amount of 0.16% with 1.5 in. length provided the highest
flexural strength. It is also evident in Figure 4.13 that
0.24% Coconut Fiber delivered lower results compared to
0.08% and 0.16% Coir. From figure 3.13, it shows that
flexural strength increases as the length of the fiber
increases.

C. Field Testing
This section of the chapter presents the results of the
different testing that proponents have made in order to observe
the actual performance of the ICCBP when applied to its
intended use.
1) California Bearing Ratio
The moisture content obtained from the test soil was
18.829 % before it was soaked. It also has 20.162 kN/m and
16.97 kN/m for Wet unit weight and Dry unit weight
respectively. After soaking for ninety eight hours, moisture
content became 16.65% with a percent swelling of 97.328%.
This indicates that the soil swells gradually. The value of
CBR was 11.62 % normally obtained at penetration of 2.5

mm which is greater than at penetration of 5.0 mm with

11.35 % bearing ratio. This indicates that the experiment
should not be repeated. This CBR result passed the required
CBR value that should not be less than 2.5 % based from

design guidance for road pavement foundations.

FIGURE 3.15 STRESS PENETRATION CURVE

2) Field Density Test and Moisture Density Relation Results

Figure 3.16 shows that in trial no.5 the optimum
moisture content and maximum dry density attained were
17.44 % and 1.87 g/cc respectively. As the moisture content
increases the dry density of the soil also increases.
However, it will come to a time that dry density will
decrease in a particular moisture content it is due to filling of
excess water to spaces that soil grains need to occupy.

Figure 3.16 Moisture vs. Density

The dry density of the field was 1.79 g/cc which is

less than the maximum dry density from laboratory tests.
Relative compaction is a way of comparing compaction on
the construction site with the laboratory compaction results.
In most specifications for earthwork, it is required to achieve
a compacted field dry density of 90 to 95 % of the maximum
dry density determined in the laboratory by either the
standard or modified proctor test. The relative compaction
obtained from the test was 95.72 % which passed the
standard percentage for relative compaction.

3) Actual Testing of the Test Pavement

The leveled initial elevations were measured with the
aid of the leveled nylon that is fixed at both ends by stakes.
This initial elevation was the basis for the rutting behavior
caused by repeatedly passing a light weight vehicle over the
pavement.
Figure 3.17 shows the plan view of the pavement
marked with points A to F, where the difference in elevations
are to be measured. Deformation readings were made in
every 100 pass of vehicles in each marked points. After 4000
passed of the vehicle, the maximum deformation of 14 mm
was measured on the test pavement specifically Profile B
and D, and a constant value were obtained from 3 4 last
readings.
Figure 3.17 Six Points for Profiling
Based on the data gathered, after 4000 passes of light
weight vehicle, Profile C (Seed Table 3.7 and Figure 3.18)
developed the lowest deformation among the profiles. It
shows that the Profile C was more compacted than the
others. However, all results does not surpass the allowable
25 mm deformation for the block pavement as required. The
rutting of the pavement increases as the load passing
increases. In every passes of loads, the pavement deformed
non uniform because the structure is not stable to react with
the loads. But after 1000 passes of light weight vehicle, it
attained its stability and the pavement deformed gradual and
uniform.
Table 3.7 PROFILE OF AFTER FIELD TEST
TOTAL
INITIAL
FINAL
CROSS
DEFORREADING READING
PROFILE
MATION
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
A
17
30
13
B
16
30
14
C
22
34
12
D
17
31
14
E
18
31
13
F
23
36
13
Visual inspection was made after every 100 passes of
vehicle. It was found out, there was no cracking of blocks
because of very tight joints which allow adjacent units to

come into physical contact with each other and induce

swelling (breaking or chipping of blocks).
Figure 3.18 Rutting Development along Cross Profile A,

D. The most appropriate amount of fibers is 0.16% for both

fibers where the ICCPB attained the highest compressive
and flexural strength.
E. For GF ICCPB, the most suitable mix design is 0.16% of
0.5 inch glass fiber. And for CF ICCPB is 0.16% of 1.5
inch coconut fiber.
F. No cracks were developed in the field testing of the ICCPB.
Paving block settled a maximum of 14mm which is less
than the allowable 25mm deflection.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

B and C

IV. CONCLUSION
A. ICCPB with coconut and glass fibers produced lower
densities compared with the control specimen. CF ICCPB
produces higher density compared to GF ICCPB. The
result in water absorption shows that in GF ICCPB,
0.08% with 1.5 in. length of fiber absorbs the greatest
amount of water. Coir and fiber glass affects the
absorption of water of paving blocks inversely because
glass fiber absorbs less water as the amount of fiber
increases while in the case of coconut coir, the water
absorption increases with the weight. This behavior is
explained by the ability of coir, a natural fiber, to absorb
more water compared to a synthetic glass fiber.
B. ICCPB with fiber have higher compressive and flexural
strengths compared to the plain concrete paving block.
The highest compressive and flexural strengths were
attained at mix with 0.16% and 0.5 in length glass fiber,
which is 42.13MPa and 2.79MPa, respectively. For paving
blocks reinforced with glass or coconut fiber, 0.16%
amount of fiber produces the highest strength, while 0.24%
amount of fiber produces the lowest strength. This means
that there is a certain amount of fiber that can enhance the
strength of the block and exceeding that amount will tend
to decrease its strength. Paving blocks with GF showed
that while the length of fiber increases the strength of
blocks decreases. The opposite occurred in the application
of Coconut Fiber as it can be seen that the strength
increases with the corresponding increase in length. The
difference in behavior of the strength of fiber glass ICCPB
as compared to coir ICCPB was attributed due to their
difference in strength and texture of the fiber. Fiber glass
can be mixed to concrete better as when its length is
shorter. On the other hand, coir easily tangle when in
contact with other coir fiber while mixing regardless of its
length.
C. The effective length for glass fiber is 0.5 in. while the
effective length for coir is 1.5 inch.

The preparation of this thesis would not have been possible

without the guidance and help of several individuals who in
one way or another contributed for the completion of this
study. First and foremost, our thesis adviser Engr. Edgardo S.
Legaspi, for all the advice, encouragement and support that
have been imparted to the authors. Also, for all the information,
suggestions and time to discuss them the entire study.
To their Project Study Instructor, Engr. Teodinis PetalcorinGarcia, for her untiring effort and patience throughout this one
fruitful year spent in educating the future engineers.
To Engr. Reynaldo O. Baarde, for allowing them to do all
the laboratory experiments at the Construction and Materials
Laboratory of the Intergrated Research and Training Center
(IRTC).
To Engr. Jasine Garna and Sir Mario for patiently observing
and instructing them while performing all the necessary
experiments.
To the staff Coconut Weaving Corporation, Las Pinas for
giving us the coconut fibers for free.
To all the faculty of the Department of Civil Engineering
for all the knowledge, instructions and wisdom that they have
taught to them.
To their families for the unconditional love, patience,
financial assistance, prayers and never ending support. To each
of the members of this thesis group for sharing and giving all
their best. To all their classmates and friends who had given
their whole hearted support to make this a truly worthwhile
endeavor.
And last but not the least, to Almighty God, for answering
all their prayers, for the guidance and patience, and for giving
them the strength and wisdom in making this research a
successful one.
REFERENCES
[1.]

ASTM International. (2004). Specification for

Aggregate for Masonry Mortar. ASTM Standard
C144.
Retrieved
August
2014,
from
http://www.astm.org
[2.] ASTM International. (2004). Specification for
Concrete Aggregates. ASTM Standard C33.
Retrieved August 2014, from http://www.astm.org
[3.] ASTM International. (2004). Specification for Graded
Aggregate Material for Bases or Subbases for

[4.]
[5.]

[6.]

[7.]

[8.]
[9.]

[10.]

[11.]
[12.]
[13.]

[14.]
[15.]

[16.]

[17.]
[18.]

Highways. ASTM Standard D2940. Retrieved

August 2014, from http://www.astm.org
ASTM International. (2004). Specification for
Portland Cement. ASTM Standard C150.
Retrieved August 2014, from http://www.astm.org
ASTM International. (2004). Specification for Solid
Concrete Interlocking Paving Units. ASTM
Standard C936. Retrieved August 2014, from
http://www.astm.org
ASTM International. (2004). Test Method for Samling
and Testing Concrete Masonry Units and Related
Units. ASTM Standard C140. Retrieved August
2014, from httP://www.astm.org
ASTM International. (2004). Test Method for Specific
Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregates.
ASTM Standard C128-97. Retrieved August 2014,
from http://www.astm.org
ASTM International. (2004). Test Method for Unit
Weight of Aggregates. ASTM Standard C29.
Retrieved August 2014, from http://www.astm.org
ASTM International. (2004). Test Methods fo
Sampling and Testing Brick and Structural Clay.
ASTM Standard C67. Retrieved August 2014,
from http://www.astm.org
Bruce, S.M. & Rowe, G.H. (n.d.). The Influence of
Pigments on Mix Designs for Block Paving
Units. Central Laboratories, Works and
Consultancy Services Ltd, Wellington, New
Zealand.
Concrete Block Paving Book 1: Introduction, South
Africa, MA: Concrete Manufacturers Association.
David R. Smith (2006). Section I: Selection.
Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavements, 3rd
Ed. pp. 2 & 4.
Federal Aviation Administration. (2015). Federal
Aviation Administration. Retrieved September
2014, from Advanced Composite Materials:
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handboo
ks_manuals/aircraft/amt_airframe_handbook/medi
a/ama_Ch07.pdf
Gornale et al., (2012) Strength Aspects of Glass
Fibre Reinforced Concrete, International Journal
of Scientific & Engineering Research, 3(7), 5.
Li, Z., Wang, L., and Wang, X. (2006). "Flexural
characteristics
of
coir
fiber
reinforced
cementitious composites. Fibers and Polymers.
7(3), 286-294.
Li, Z., Wang, L., and Wang, X. (2007). "Cement
composites reinforced with surface modified coir
fibers." Journal of Composite Materials, 41(12),
1445-1457.
Majid Ali (2010). Introduction: Properties of Coconut
Fibres. Coconut Fibre A Versatile Material and
its Applications in Engineering. pp. 1-8.
Munawar, S.S., K. Umemura, And S. Kawai, (2007).
Characterization of the morphological, physical,
and mechanical properties of seven non-wood

[19.]

[20.]

[21.]
[22.]
[23.]

plant fibre bundles. Journal of Wood Science,

53(2), 108-113.
Philippine Fiber Industry Development Authority.
(2015). Philippine Fiber Industry Development
Authority. Retrieved August 2014, from FIDA
Fiber
Statistics:
http://fida.da.gov.ph/fida_fiber_statistics_2012._ht
ml)(http://ycap_.org_.ph/news-andevents/philippines-aims-for-top-coco-coirexporterRao et al., (2009). Flexural Behavior of
Reinforced Conrete Beams Using Self
Compacting Concrete. 34th Conference on OUR
WORLD IN CONCRETE & STRUCTURES
Reis, J. M. L. (2006). "Fracture and flexural
characterization of natural fiber-reinforced
polymer concrete." Construction and Building
Materials, 20(9), 673-678.
Slate, F. O. (1976). "Coconut Fibers In Concrete."
Eng J Singapore, 3(1), 51-54.
Szadkowski G.V. (n.d.). The effect of pigments on
the quality of concrete blocks. Bayer Ag, West
Germany.
Wallenberger, F., Watson, J., & Li, H. (n.d.),
Definition of Glass fibre. Glass Fibres.