TMH9 Manual Visual RoadPavements PartD Block

South Africa
COTO
Committee of Transport
Officials
TMH 9
MANUAL FOR VISUAL

ASSESSMENT OF ROAD
PAVEMENTS
PART D: BLOCK PAVEMENTS
Committee Draft Final

May 2016
Committee of Transport Officials

TECHNICAL METHODS
FOR HIGHWAYS
TMH 9
M ANU AL FOR VISUAL ASSESSMENT OF

RO AD P AVE MENTS
Part D: Block Pavements
Committee Draft Final

May 2016
Committee of Transport Officials

Compiled under auspices of the:
Roads Coordinating Body (RCB)
Committee of Transport Officials (COTO)
Road Asset Management Systems (RAMS) Subcommittee
Published by:
The South African National Roads Agency SOC Limited
PO Box 415, Pretoria, 0001
Disclaimer of Liability
The document is provided “as is” without any warranty of any kind, expressed or implied.
No warranty or representation is made, either expressed or imply, with respect to fitness
of use and no responsibility will be accepted by the Committee or the authors for any
losses, damages or claims of any kind, including, without limitation, direct, indirect,
special, incidental, consequential or any other loss or damages that may arise from the
use of the document.
All rights reserved

No part of this document may be modified or amended without permission and approval
of the Roads Coordinating Body (RCB). Permission is granted to freely copy, print,
reproduce or distributed this document.
Synopsis
TMH 9 provides the procedures for the visual assessment of the condition of roads.
Assessment procedures and requirements for road segment information data are
specified. Different distress types are classified and detailed descriptions of degree of
distress (including photographic plates illustrating condition) for each of the distress types
are given. TMH 9 is a companion document to TMH 22 on Road Asset Management
Systems.
Withdrawal of previous publication:
This publication replaces the previous Draft TMH9 “Standard Visual Assessment Manual
for Flexible Pavements” published in 1992. This previous publication is effectively
withdrawn with the publication of this document.
Technical Methods for Highways:
The Technical Methods for Highways consists of a series of publications in which

methods are prescribed for use on various aspects related to highway engineering. The
documents are primarily aimed at ensuring the use of uniform methods throughout
South Africa, and use thereof is compulsory.
Users of the documents must ensure that the latest editions or versions of the document
are used. When a document is referred to in other documents, the reference should be to
the latest edition or version of the document.
Any comments on the document will be welcomed and should be forwarded to

coto@nra.co.za for consideration in future revisions.
Document Versions
Working Draft (WD). When a COTO subcommittee identifies the need for the revision of
existing, or the drafting of new Technical Recommendations for Highways (TRH) or
Technical Methods for Highways (TMH) documents, a workgroup of experts is appointed
by the COTO subcommittee to develop the document. This document is referred to as a
Working Draft (WD). Successive working drafts may be generated, with the last being
referred to as Working Draft Final (WDF). Working Drafts (WD) have no legal standing.
Committee Draft (CD). The Working Draft Final (WDF) document is converted to a
Committee Draft (CD) and is submitted to the COTO subcommittee for consensus
building and comments. Successive committee drafts may be generated during the
process. When approved by the subcommittee, the document is submitted to the Roads
Coordinating Body (RCB) members for further consensus building and comments.
Additional committee drafts may be generated, with the last being referred to as
Committee Draft Final (CDF). Committee Drafts (CD) have no legal standing.
Draft Standard (DS). The Committee Draft Final (CDF) document is converted to a Draft
Standard (DS) and submitted by the Roads Coordinating Body (RCB) to COTO for
approval as a draft standard. This Draft Standard is implemented in Industry for a period
of two (2) years, during which written comments may be submitted to the COTO
subcommittee. Draft Standards (DS) have full legal standing.
Final Standard (FS). After the two-year period, comments received are reviewed and
where appropriate, incorporated by the COTO subcommittee. The document is converted
to a Final Standard (FS) and submitted by the Roads Coordinating Body (RCB) to COTO
for approval as a final standard. This Final Standard is implemented in industry for a
period of five (5) years, after which it may again be reviewed. Final Standards (FS) have
full legal standing.
Table of Contents
ITEM PAGE
D.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... D-1

D.2. General information .............................................................................................................. D-2
D.2.1. Block shape ............................................................................................................... D-2
D.2.2. Lay pattern................................................................................................................. D-2
D.2.3. Block thickness .......................................................................................................... D-3
D.2.4. Chamfers ................................................................................................................... D-4
D.3. Engineering assessment ...................................................................................................... D-5
D.3.1. General ...................................................................................................................... D-5
D.3.2. Spalled/ cracked/ broken blocks................................................................................ D-5
D.3.3. Block surface integrity ............................................................................................... D-7
D.3.4. Loss of jointing sand .................................................................................................. D-9
D.3.5. Edge restraints ........................................................................................................ D-11
D.3.6. Rutting ..................................................................................................................... D-13
D.3.7. Potholes / patching / reinstatements ....................................................................... D-15
D.3.8. Undulations / shoving .............................................................................................. D-17
D.4. Functional Assessment ...................................................................................................... D-19
D.4.1. Roughness .............................................................................................................. D-19
D.4.2. Skid Resistance ....................................................................................................... D-20
D.4.3. Surface Drainage .................................................................................................... D-20
D.4.4. Shoulders ................................................................................................................ D-21
D.5. Summary ............................................................................................................................ D-22
D.5.1. Overall condition of pavement ................................................................................. D-22
D.5.2. Comments and other problems ............................................................................... D-22
D.6. Assessment form ................................................................................................................ D-23
List of Figures
FIGURE PAGE
Figure D.1: Illustration of paving block shapes ............................................................................... D-2

Figure D.2: Illustration of lay patterns ............................................................................................. D-3
Figure D.3: Pumping adjacent to edge restraint as a result of poor drainage .............................. D-11
Figure D.4: Noticeable trench reinstatement on a block pavement .............................................. D-15
List of Tables
TABLE PAGE
Table D.1: Definition of block shape codes ..................................................................................... D-2

Table D.2: Description of lay pattern codes .................................................................................... D-3
Table D.3: Description of chamfer codes ........................................................................................ D-4
Table D.4: Description of degree of spalled/ cracked/ broken blocks ............................................. D-5
Table D.5: Description of block surface integrity............................................................................. D-7
Table D.6: Description of degrees of loss of jointing sand .............................................................. D-9
Table D.7: Description of degrees of edge restraint or anchor beam damage ............................. D-11
Table D.8: Description of degrees of rutting ................................................................................. D-13
Table D.9: Description of degrees of potholes / patching / reinstatements .................................. D-15
Table D.10: Description of degrees of undulations / shoving ....................................................... D-17
Table D.11: Description of Degrees of Roughness ...................................................................... D-19
Table D.12: Description of Degrees of Skid Resistance ............................................................... D-20
Table D.13: Description of Degrees of Surface Drainage Ratings ............................................... D-20
Table D.14: Description of degrees of unpaved shoulder conditions ........................................... D-21
Table D.15: Description of Degrees of Overall Condition of Pavement ........................................ D-22
PART D. BLOCK PAVEMENTS

Note: Examples and actual dimensions presented in this Part are given as guidelines only and should
not be regarded as fixed rules.
D.1. Introduction
This Part of the manual provides guidelines for the visual condition assessment of segmented block
pavements. Segmented block pavements include brick and cement pavers and cobble stones.
The segment length that is evaluated is the same as for concrete pavements and is a length of 200 m
in rural situations, and street “block” length in urban areas. The items required for the visual
assessment of block pavements are listed as follows:
 General Information
 Block shape and type
 Lay pattern
 Block thickness
 Chamfers
 Engineering assessment
 Spalled/ cracked/ broken blocks
 Block surface integrity (durability)
 Loss of jointing sand- resulting in loose blocks/ pumping/ differential block levels
 Edge restraints
 Rutting
 Potholes/ patching/ reinstatements
 Undulations/ shoving
 Functional assessment
 Roughness (Riding quality)
 Skid resistance
 Drainage
 Surface
 Side
 Shoulders
 Paved
 Unpaved
 Edge condition
TMH 9: Manual for Visual Assessment of Road Pavements – CDF May 2016
-D-1-
D.2. General information
This section covers the evaluation of the segmented block characteristics and lay pattern of the
surface.
D.2.1. Block shape
The block pavers shape code is based on the degree of interlock that can be achieved between
vertical faces of adjacent blocks, and is given in Table D.1, and illustrated in Figure D.1.
Table D.1: Definition of block shape codes
Code Description
Blocks which allow geometrical interlock between ALL vertical faces of adjacent
S-A
blocks.
S-B Blocks which allow geometrical interlock between some faces of adjacent blocks.
S-C Blocks which allow no geometrical interlock between adjacent faces.
Figure D.1: Illustration of paving block shapes
D.2.2. Lay pattern
Block lay patterns are determined by performance and aesthetic requirements. The three patterns
shown in Figure D.2 are the basic patterns. The pattern code (Table D.2) must be recorded on the
visual assessment form. Numerous other patterns are also possible. Permeable paving, where the
pavement structure is designed to allow entry of water into the pavement structure would be classified
as OT (other). The herringbone pattern ensures the best resistance to both horizontal and vertical
forces and is generally recommended for industrial and trafficked pavements.
-D-2-
Table D.2: Description of lay pattern codes
Code Description
HB Herring-bone
SB Stretcher-bond
BW Basket Weave
OT Other
Herring-bone Lay Pattern
Stretcher -bond
Lay Pattern
Basket Weave Lay

Pattern
Figure D.2: Illustration of lay patterns
D.2.3. Block thickness
Concrete paving block thickness varies between 50 and 80mm. However brick or burnt clay blocks
tend to be thicker. The thicker the blocks the better the pavement will resist vertical deformation and
horizontal creep.
The visual assessor is required to estimate the block thickness unless it is possible to physically
measure it, e.g. at missing or loose blocks or at poorly constrained edges.
-D-3-
D.2.4. Chamfers
Chamfering the top edges of blocks improves their service performance and appearance. Paving
block chamfer reduces stress concentration at the surface. The absence of a chamfer may result in
accentuated spalling. Chamfers can either be at a 45° angle, rounded or 90° angle (i.e. none). The
chamfer codes are given in Table D.3.
Table D.3: Description of chamfer codes

Code Description
45 45° angle chamfer
R Rounded chamfer
90 90° chamfer (i.e. none)
CHAMFERS
45
45° Angle chamfer
Rounded Chamfer
-D-4-
D.3. Engineering assessment
D.3.1. General
Assessment will follow the requirements for degree and extent as discussed in Part A (sections A.2.2.
and A.2.3). Although only three degrees of distress are illustrated in this document (degree 1, 3 and
5), use should be made of degrees 2 and 4 where necessary. The definitions for these two categories
are described in Part A, section A.2.2.
D.3.2. Spalled/ cracked/ broken blocks
Description
Spalled blocks have chips out of the edges on the surface, generally because of stress concentrations
through blocks deforming too much or the joint between adjacent blocks is unfilled or too narrow.
Spalling is generally a precursor to cracking. Cracked blocks refer to block pavers that are cracked,
and when extensively cracked or shattered these would be termed broken.
Possible causes:
Possible causes of spalled or cracked blocks are:
 Insufficient structural support;
 Block strength - unlikely if blocks conform to SABS specifications;
 Too thick bedding layer;
 Coarse substrate or stones in bedding layer;
 Mechanical damage.
Table D.4: Description of degree of spalled/ cracked/ broken blocks
Degree Description
1 Single cracks or chips per block with minimal spalling at cracks.
3 More than one crack or chip occurring on individual blocks, and spalling at cracks.
5 Shattered blocks losing parts of the blocks.
-D-5-
SPALLED / CRACKED / BROKEN BLOCKS
X 2 3 4 5
Single cracks or
chips per block
1 2 X 4 5
More than one crack

or chip per block
1 2 3 4 X
Shattered blocks
-D-6-
D.3.3. Block surface integrity
Under severe chemical and or mechanical conditions the upper surface of the blocks may wear away.
Blocks are generally manufactured with a durable and wear resistant topping layer. When this layer
starts to wear away it could affect the integrity of the blocks, and thus the structural capacity. The
texture that is evaluated is not the same as on other pavement types where the texture is a reflection
of the skid resistance. Generally the chamfers provide sufficient texture to drain surface water from
the tyre/surface contact patch.
Table D.5: Description of block surface integrity
Degree Description
1 Minimal evidence of wear visible.
3 Evidence of aggregate loss on surface, and some loss of the chamfer profile.
5 Rounding of the upper block surface as a result of severe aggregate loss.
-D-7-
BLOCK SURFACE INTEGRITY (DURABLITY)
X 2 3 4 5
Minimal evidence of
wear
1 2 X 4 5
Some evidence of
surface aggregate
loss and chamfer
wear
1 2 3 4 X
Rounding of upper
surface of block
through wear
-D-8-
D.3.4. Loss of jointing sand
Jointing sand in the joints assists with keeping water out of the pavement, and provides load transfer
between adjacent blocks. The loss of jointing sand is probably one of the most common defects
affecting block pavements. The loss of jointing sand could be the result of inadequate filling at the
time of construction or loss of sand through the action of wind or water. The result of a loss of jointing
sand is that water readily enters the pavement layers as the joints serve as water reservoirs and
under the action of traffic the fine material in the bedding sand layer or even the subbase is pumped
out. This leaves an uneven surface with steps between adjacent blocks. With the opening of the
joints, the blocks move horizontally, increasing the joint size and allowing even more water to enter
the pavement structure. In this condition the blocks are loose, and rattle when vehicles pass over the
surface. The loss of jointing sand also reduces the load transfer between individual blocks and the
pavement loses its integrity or “beam effect”.
The standard approach to overcome the loss of jointing sand is to regularly re-sand the joints during
the maintenance period following construction at 3 monthly intervals. During routine operations the
joints must be re-sanded when the sand is at a depth of 20 mm below the block surface, or degree 3
in Table D.6. When there is a sand loss of degree 5 the blocks have to be lifted and replaced, as
routine maintenance joint filling will be ineffective.
The degree of distress for loss of jointing sand is given in Table D.6.
Table D.6: Description of degrees of loss of jointing sand
Degree Description
The jointing sand is less than 10 mm below the surface of the blocks, and the block paving is
1
integral and has achieved lock-up.
Jointing sand is more than 20 mm below the surface of the blocks. Paving blocks loose lock-
3 up and joints widen with differential levels between blocks. Blocks move under loading and
pumping occurs.
A limited amount of jointing sand present in the joints, joint widths are variable and the
5 blocks can be rocked by standing on them. The levels of adjacent blocks are not even and
pumping occurs.
-D-9-
LOSS OF JOINTING SAND
X 2 3 4 5
Jointing sand less

than 10 mm below
block surface
1 2 X 4 5
Jointing sand more

than 20 mm below
block surface.
Blocks move.
1 2 3 4 X
Little jointing sand

between blocks,
which move and are
not even. May
pump.
-D-10-
D.3.5. Edge restraints
Edge restraints consist of kerbing, channels or other similar edge strips, or anchor beams on steep
gradients to prevent downhill creep of the paving blocks. The objective of edge restraints is to
prevent any lateral movement of pavers located along the edge of the pavement. This ensures that
the overall integrity of the pavement is maintained. Edge restraints or anchor beams must not trap
water, and should have drainage holes at the level of the bedding sand. Sections displaying lack of
drainage show up as pumping adjacent to the edge restraint or beam, as shown in Figure D.3. The
pavement defects would be listed under loss of jointing sand.
Figure D.3: Pumping adjacent to edge restraint as a result of poor drainage
Possible causes
Damage to edge restraints is often caused by heavy vehicle traffic, poor subgrade conditions or poor
construction quality and materials.
Severity levels
In cases where edge restraints are missing, damaged or structurally inadequate to perform their
function, this should be noted.
Table D.7: Description of degrees of edge restraint or anchor beam damage
Degree Description
1 Cracks visible without obvious lateral displacement of restraint.
3 Severe cracking visible, lateral displacement of restraint present.
5 Edge restraint not functional – sections missing or severely displaced.
-D-11-
EDGE RESTRAINT OR ANCHOR BEAM DAMAGE
X 2 3 4 5
Cracking but no
displacement. (Note
lack of drainage
shown by pumping)
1 2 X 4 5
Severe cracking with

lateral displacement
1 2 3 4 X
Edge restraint non-

functional. Sections
missing.
-D-12-
D.3.6. Rutting
Ruts are parallel depressions of the surface in the wheel paths.
Possible causes
Rutting results from compaction or shear deformation through the action of traffic and is limited to the
wheel paths. It is usually caused by inadequate compaction and/or strength in the pavement layers
below the paving blocks. The wider the area affected by the rutting, the deeper the cause of the
problem is beneath the pavement surface.
Table D.8: Description of degrees of rutting
Degree Description
1 Difficult to discern unaided. Deformation under a 2m straight edge is less than 5 mm.
3 Readily discernible, and typically between 10 and 15 mm under a 2 m straight edge.
5 Severe and dangerous, with rutting exceeding 25 mm under a 2 m straight edge.
The assessor is not expected to measure rut depths using a straight edge, but for calibration purpose
rutting is defined as the maximum deviation measured under a two metre straight edge placed
transversely across the rut.
-D-13-
RUTTING
X 2 3 4 5
Rutting present but

difficult to discern.
< 5 mm
10 to 15 mm 1 2 X 4 5
Easily discernible.
Between 10 and
15mm.
1 2 3 4 X
> 25 mm
Rutting severe and

dangerous. > 25mm
deep.
-D-14-
D.3.7. Potholes / patching / reinstatements
It is often difficult to distinguish between ‘missing blocks’ and ‘potholes’. However, any hole in the
surface should be indicated as a pothole. The origin could be broken blocks that were dislodged by
traffic, or man-made holes. Typically potholes are repaired with a foreign material, since it is difficult
to reinstate these with blocks if there has been lateral movement.
A patch is an area where the original pavement showed signs of distress and was subsequently
replaced with new pavement materials. Patches usually consist of either surface patches (only the
block pavers replaced) or deep patches (subbase repairs also required). A patch is not necessarily a
defect, but they do give an indication of the condition of the pavement in so far as they show the
extent of previous distresses.
Occasionally a service trench reinstatement is noticeable and could be the source of distress different
from the general pavement. Figure D.4 shows such an example.
Figure D.4: Noticeable trench reinstatement on a block pavement
The deterioration severity could be in terms of an open pothole, or a deteriorated patch with a foreign
material. Reinstatements with paving blocks would be covered under block condition or loss of
jointing sand, but when a foreign material is used it is considered to be a patch. Whether a pothole or
a distressed patch, the maintenance workload is similar.
Table D.9: Description of degrees of potholes / patching / reinstatements
Degree Description
1 No missing blocks or minimal distress on the foreign patch.
Single blocks missing with deformation/damage of support layers, or patches showing

3
significant distress on the foreign patch (e.g. deformation and/or cracking)
Five or more blocks missing with deformation/damage of support layers, patches

5
showing severe distress on the foreign patch (e.g. deformation and/or cracking)
-D-15-
POTHOLES / PATCHING / REINSTATEMENTS
X 2 3 4 5
No missing blocks
or minimal distress.
1 2 X 4 5
Less than 5 missing

blocks with distress
of support layers
1 2 3 4 X
≥ 5 missing blocks
with marked distress
of support layers
-D-16-
D.3.8. Undulations / shoving
Undulations refer to structural failures that extend through the surface layer and into the underlying
layers, with the accompanying shoving of blocks. Should the supporting layer (subbase) below the
bedding be damaged or disturbed, the distress should be recorded as undulations / shoving. This
defect is localised whereas rutting is in the direction of traffic and occurs over longer sections in the
wheel paths. On rural roads undulations would also be registered during roughness measurements.
Possible causes
Moisture ingress into the pavement layers can result in the total loss of the structural capacity of the
pavement and in the formation of undulations. Undulations occur when materials in weak pavement
layers are displaced laterally through shear forces induced by traffic, resulting in mounds adjacent to
depressions.
Severity levels
The degree of failures can generally be expressed by the diameter and depth of the depressions.
Table D.10: Description of degrees of undulations / shoving
Degree Description
1 Minor shoving (< 10 mm) – no mounding.
Undulations / shoving starting. Minor depression (< 30 mm). Start of surface distress
3
and shoving.
Severe undulations / shoving with loss of blocks and subbase material or severe
5
depression (> 50 mm) and shoving.
-D-17-
UNDULATIONS / SHOVING
X 2 3 4 5
Shoving just
evident. No
mounding yet
1 2 X 4 5
Shoving starting.
Minor depression
(< 30 mm)
1 2 3 4 X
Shoving with loss of

blocks or
depressions deeper
than 50mm
-D-18-
D.4. Functional Assessment
The functional requirements of a road reflect the service it provides to the road user. They are
predominantly those that govern the comfort, safety and speed of travel.
The various functional features to be assessed are the roughness, skid resistance, surface drainage,
condition of the shoulders and edge breaking. In this section they are assessed either on a five-point
or a three-point scale (excluding edge breaking).
D.4.1. Roughness
The roughness (riding quality) of a pavement is defined as the general extent to which road users,
through the medium of their vehicles, experience a ride that is smooth and comfortable, or bumpy and
therefore unpleasant or perhaps unsafe. This is determined by the unevenness of the road profile
(longitudinal deformation, rutting in wheel paths, etc.), deterioration of the blocks or subbase layer
material (e.g. potholes) and uneven patching. The description of degrees of roughness is given in
Table D.11.
Table D.11: Description of Degrees of Roughness
Degree Description
Ride very smooth and very comfortable, no unevenness of the road profile, no undulations
1
or uneven patching.
Ride smooth and comfortable, slight unevenness of the road profile, slight rutting,
2
undulation or uneven patching.
Ride fairly smooth and slightly uncomfortable, intermittent moderate unevenness of the
3
road profile, moderate rutting, undulation or uneven patching.
Ride poor and uncomfortable, frequent moderate unevenness of the road profile, frequent
4
rutting, undulation or uneven patching, comfortable driving speed below speed limit.
Ride very poor and very uncomfortable, extensive severe unevenness of the road profile,
5 extensive rutting, undulation, shoving or uneven patching, comfortable driving speed much
lower than speed limit, road unsafe owing to severe unevenness.
Note: Problems resulting in high roughness should be indicated on the assessment form (if required),
by marking the appropriate blocks.
These problems include:
 Potholes/failure and patches;
 Loose blocks because of loss of jointing sand;
 Undulations/settlement.
Road roughness is usually measured with an instrument on rural roads. In the urban environment it is
of minor importance, as the defects will indicate the general deterioration. The road noise on block
roads may be higher than on flexible pavements, often leading to an overestimate of the roughness.
-D-19-
D.4.2. Skid Resistance
Skid resistance reflects the general ability of the road surface to prevent skidding when wet, in all
manoeuvres generally executed by vehicles. Skid resistance is usually measured with an instrument
on rural roads. Paving blocks that have chamfers provide adequate escape paths for water in the
tyre/surface contact area, and skid resistance is not normally a problem except in deep ruts.
The description of degrees of skid resistance is given in Table D.12.
Table D.12: Description of Degrees of Skid Resistance
Degree Description
Skid resistance adequate, surface texture coarse, good chamfers. Blocks have rough
1
texture.
Skid resistance intermittently inadequate. Blocks have smooth surface texture and
3
chamfers not pronounced.
5 Skid resistance inadequate. Blocks with very smooth texture and chamfers not defined.
D.4.3. Surface Drainage
The surface drainage of a road is a measure of the general ability of the road to keep the riding
surface clear of water. This is related to the speed at which water runs off during rain and to the
extent of the ponding of water during and after rain. It is an important factor that can affect the skid
resistance and the volume of water sprayed by traffic (affects visibility and could inconvenience
pedestrians).
The description of degrees is given in Table D.13.
Table D.13: Description of Degrees of Surface Drainage Ratings
Degree Description
1 No visible problem that could retard the run-off of water from the road and shoulders.
3 Problems exist that could lead to general slight ponding or severe localised ponding.
5 Problems exist that could lead to widespread severe ponding in the wheel paths.
Note: Problems leading to inadequate surface drainage can be indicated on the assessment form, by
marking the appropriate blocks. These problems include the following:
 Profile;
 Rutting;
 Shoulders/edge restraint too high;
 Side drains, and
 Failures/depressions.
-D-20-
D.4.4. Shoulders
Unpaved shoulders
The unpaved shoulder is rated in terms of providing a safe recovery area. Several problems might
render the unpaved shoulder unsafe, for example:
 erosion of the shoulder by water;
 wearing out by traffic;
 differences in level between edge of carriageway and shoulder;
 the width of the shoulder is too narrow;
 the cross-sectional slope of the shoulder is too steep; or
 overgrown by vegetation.
These problems can be indicated on the assessment form by marking the appropriate blocks.
The description of the degrees of unpaved shoulder conditions is given in Table D.14.
Table D.14: Description of degrees of unpaved shoulder conditions

Degree Description
If the edge of the road is defined by a kerb or there are no shoulders e.g. in a mountain
0
pass.
1 Shoulder can be safely used as stopping area at the posted speed limit.
Problems may be expected if the shoulder is used as stopping area at the posted speed
3
limit (routine maintenance required).
Shoulder is unsafe to be used as stopping area at the posted speed limit. Scheduled
5
maintenance required e.g regravelling or substantial work required
-D-21-
D.5. Summary
D.5.1. Overall condition of pavement
The description of the overall condition of the pavement is given in Table D.15. A general rating for
the condition of the pavement is useful for data verification.
Table D.15: Description of Degrees of Overall Condition of Pavement
Degree Description
1 Very few or no defects. Degree of defects less than 2.
2 Few defects. Degree of structural defects mostly less than 3
3 A few defects of degree 3 is occurring locally or seldom.
4 General occurrence of defects with degree 3.
Many defects. The degree of the majority of structural defects is above 3 and the
5
extent is predominantly general to extensive.
D.5.2. Comments and other problems
Certain items requiring possible maintenance measures that are not recorded under standard defects
should be noted on the assessment form. These include problems such as mechanical damage, mole
damage or root damage or any other problems not listed on the form.
-D-22-
D.6. Assessment form
South Africa
COTO
VISUAL ASSESSMENT : BLOCK PAVEMENTS Committee of Transport
Officials
ROAD AUTHORITY : ROUTE CLASS : 1 2 3 4 5

REGION / SUBURB : TRAFFIC : VL L M H VH
ROAD NO / STREET NAME : GRADIENT : Flat M ed Steep
TERRAIN : Flat Ro lling M o unt
SEGMENT (FROM - TO) :

SEGMENT DIMENSIONS : LENGTH m WIDTH m
BLOCK SHAPE : S-A S-B S-C LAY PATTERN : HB SB BW OT
BLOCK THICKNESS (mm) : CHAMFER : 45 R 90
ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT
DEGREE EXTENT
M INOR WA RNING SEVERE ISOLA TED EXTENSIVE
SURFACING GENERAL 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
SPALLED / CRACKED / BROKEN BLOCKS
BLOCK SURFACE INTEGRITY (DURABILITY)
LOSS OF JOINTING SAND
EDGE RESTRAINT / ANCHOR BEAM DAMAGE
RUTTING
POTHOLES / PATCHING / REINSTATEMENTS
UNDULATIONS / SHOVING
FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT
ROUGHNESS 1 2 2 4 5
Problem failures potholes loose blocks undulations
SKID RESISTANCE 1 2 2 4 5
SURFACE DRAINAGE 1 2 2 4 5
Problem rutting shoulders profile failures side drains
SHOULDERS (unpaved) None 1 2 2 4 5
Problem eroded overgrow n inclined too high too narrow
SUMMARY
OVERALL PAVEMENT CONDITION 1 2 3 4 5
COMMENTS:
COMMENTS:
service
OTHER PROBLEMS trees moles mechanical damage
crossings
ASSESSOR : DATE :
-D-23-
-D-24-

TMH9 Manual Visual RoadPavements PartD Block

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TMH9 Manual Visual RoadPavements PartD Block

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

TMH9 Manual Visual RoadPavements PartD Block

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

South Africa

MANUAL FOR VISUAL

Committee Draft Final

Committee of Transport Officials

M ANU AL FOR VISUAL ASSESSMENT OF

Committee Draft Final

Committee of Transport Officials

All rights reserved

Withdrawal of previous publication:

The Technical Methods for Highways consists of a series of publications in which

Any comments on the document will be welcomed and should be forwarded to

D.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... D-1

Figure D.1: Illustration of paving block shapes ............................................................................... D-2

Table D.1: Definition of block shape codes ..................................................................................... D-2

PART D. BLOCK PAVEMENTS

 Block shape and type

 Spalled/ cracked/ broken blocks

 Block surface integrity (durability)

 Potholes/ patching/ reinstatements

 Roughness (Riding quality)

D.2. General information

D.2.1. Block shape

Table D.1: Definition of block shape codes

S-C Blocks which allow no geometrical interlock between adjacent faces.

Figure D.1: Illustration of paving block shapes

D.2.2. Lay pattern

Table D.2: Description of lay pattern codes

Herring-bone Lay Pattern

Basket Weave Lay

Figure D.2: Illustration of lay patterns

D.2.3. Block thickness

Table D.3: Description of chamfer codes

45 45° angle chamfer

90 90° chamfer (i.e. none)

45° Angle chamfer

D.3. Engineering assessment

D.3.2. Spalled/ cracked/ broken blocks

Possible causes of spalled or cracked blocks are:

 Insufficient structural support;

 Block strength - unlikely if blocks conform to SABS specifications;

 Too thick bedding layer;

 Coarse substrate or stones in bedding layer;

Table D.4: Description of degree of spalled/ cracked/ broken blocks

1 Single cracks or chips per block with minimal spalling at cracks.

5 Shattered blocks losing parts of the blocks.

SPALLED / CRACKED / BROKEN BLOCKS

More than one crack

D.3.3. Block surface integrity

Table D.5: Description of block surface integrity

1 Minimal evidence of wear visible.

5 Rounding of the upper block surface as a result of severe aggregate loss.

BLOCK SURFACE INTEGRITY (DURABLITY)

D.3.4. Loss of jointing sand

Table D.6: Description of degrees of loss of jointing sand

LOSS OF JOINTING SAND

Jointing sand less

Jointing sand more

Little jointing sand

D.3.5. Edge restraints

Figure D.3: Pumping adjacent to edge restraint as a result of poor drainage