See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281690364

Settlement of Embankment Constructed with Geofoam

Article  in  Geotechnical Special Publication · March 2015

DOI: 10.1061/9780784479087.017

CITATIONS READS
3 1,428

3 authors, including:

Sasanka Mouli Hariprasad Chennarapu

VNR Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering & Technology Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad
19 PUBLICATIONS   50 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   118 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geofoam analysis View project

Back-to-back MSE walls View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hariprasad Chennarapu on 17 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IFCEE 2015 © ASCE 2015 161

Settlement of Embankment Constructed With Geofoam

Umashankar, B1; Sasanka Mouli, S2 S.M. ASCE; and
Chennarapu Hariprasad3
1
Assistant Professor, IIT Hyderabad, India, [email protected]
2
Doctoral Student, IIT Hyderabad, India, [email protected]
3
Doctoral Student, IIT Hyderabad, India, [email protected]

ABSTRACT: Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) geofoams are being widely used in civil
engineering. They are mainly used to construct embankments over weak sub soils
because of their light weight property. Embankment constructed with geofoam as fill
material typically consists of geofoam blocks with a load distribution slab and a soil
cover above it. Settlement of such embankments is critical in the design due to high
compressibility of geofoam. In this paper, Finite difference program (FLAC - Fast
Lagrangian Analysis of Continua) is used to obtain the settlements at the top of
embankment due to applied loading. Live loads as per ASSHTO specifications are
applied on the embankment. The numerical model is also used to analyze the vertical
stresses on geofoam due to applied loading. Parametric studies are performed for
various thicknesses of soil cover above geofoam (30cm, 75cm and 100cm), and for
two different values of elastic modulus of geofoam (1MPa and 10MPa).

INTRODUCTION

EPS geofoam applications in civil engineering have increased drastically in the last
four decades. Major applications include reduction of settlements in embankments,
and reduction in lateral earth pressures in retaining walls, underneath approach slabs
and around buried pipelines. It is also used to reduce the swell pressure on the
structures resting on swell-type soils.
Lin et al. (2010) proposed investigation methods to assess the quality of
manufactured geofoam, and performed the cost analysis of using geofoam for a
roadway expansion project. Elragi (2000) discussed the effects of creep, sample size,
strain rate and cyclic loading on the stress-strain response of geofoam. He proposed
the initial modulus and strength of geofoam from experimental tests conducted at
different strain rates.
Wong and Leo (2006) developed a simple elasto-plastic hardening constitutive
model. The constitutive model was developed to incorporate the shear behavior of
geofoam in drained triaxial condition. The model did not consider the temperature
and creep effects on stress-strain behavior.
Hatami and Witthoeft (2008) performed finite difference analysis on Mechanically
Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall in which geofoam was introduced within the reinforced

Page 1
IFCEE 2015 © ASCE 2015 162

zone. This inclusion was found to reduce the lateral earth pressure drastically. The
active state was found to develop with the introduction of geofoam layer. Parametric
studies were performed to study the effects of stiffness and thickness of geofoam on
the lateral earth pressures. Ikizler et al. (2006) discussed the reduction of lateral
pressure behind the wall with swell-type soil as a backfill material with the use of
geofoam. They showed that the inclusion of EPS geofoam had reduced both vertical
and horizontal swell pressures on wall significantly. The swelling pressures acting on
the wall were found to decrease with the increase in the thickness of geofoam.
Dave and Dasaka (2012) performed experimental studies on retaining walls with
geofoams and studied the distribution and magnitude of lateral earth pressures for
traffic loads. Geofoams were found to reduce the earth pressures in the upper part of
the wall. Traffic loads would be predominant in upper half of the wall. Lingwall
(2011) conducted both experimental and numerical modeling studies on the influence
of use of compressive inclusion around the buried pipes.
Harvath (1998) and Harvath (2000) reported that embankment constructed using
geofoam is an effective solution to reduce the “bump at the end of the bridge”, caused
due to thermal cycles or settlement of approach embankment supporting the approach
slab .
Arrelano (2005) provided guidelines for the use of geofoam as embankment fill
material. Relevant engineering properties were summarized. A comprehensive design
procedure was developed and an economic analysis was also performed. Stark and
Arellano (2003) published a report on the design procedure of geofoam applications
in embankment projects. The stability checks for sliding, overturning, uplifting due to
hydraulic forces, seismic stability, etc. are reported.
Duskov and Scrapas (1997) performed a three-dimensional finite difference analysis
of an embankment with geofoam as fill material, and studied the influence of open-
joint EPS blocks on the settlement of embankment. A layer of cement-soil was
proposed over the geofoam fill to reduce the settlements.
Newman et al. (2010) used Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC) using a
bilinear material to model the geofoam material, and analyzed the stresses and strains
developed in an embankment.
Studies on numerical modeling and analysis of embankment incorporating all the
components- geofoam, soil cover and load distribution slab- are limited in the
literature. In the present study, settlements and vertical stresses due to loading were
analysed for various soil cover thickness and for different values of elastic modulus of
geofoam (Eg). The influence of inclusion of load distribution slab (LDS) was also
studied.

NUMERICAL MODELING

An embankment of height equal to 5m was modeled using commercially available

finite difference program (FLAC) [Itasca (2011)]. The foundation soil was taken as
25m deep, and the slopes of the embankment were equal to 2H: 1V. The top width of
the embankment was equal to 8m. The total thickness of EPS geofoam was taken as
3.25m, and the thickness of soil cover (Tc) over the geofoam was varied from 30cm to

Page 2
IFCEE 2015 © ASCE 2015 163

100cm. Load distribution slab (LDS) of thickness equal to 15cm was included in
particular cases. Fig. 1 shows the schematic diagram of the embankment consisting of
geofoam, soil cover, and load-distribution slab.
Mohr-Coulomb material was assumed to model the cover soil material and the
foundation soil. While the EPS geofoam and LDS were modeled as elastic material.
Table 1 gives the properties of EPS geofoam, foundation soil, and soil cover
considered in the study. Properties of concrete were assumed for LDS.

Table 1. Material Properties

Properties Foundation Covering Geofoam LDS
Soil Soil
Material Type Mohr Mohr Linear Linear
Coulomb Coulomb Elastic Elastic
Density (kN/m3) 2160 2240 18 2400
Elastic Modulus 100 100 1 and 10 20000
(MPa)
Poisson’s Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.1 0.15
Cohesion (kPa) 0 0 Nil Nil
Angle of Shearing 35o 35o Nil Nil
Resistance
(degrees)

Interface elements were used between soil and geofoam. AASHTO (1996)
recommends a total surcharge load intensity of 33.0 kPa. However in this study, a
load intensity of 50kPa was applied on the top of embankment over a length of 7m,
leaving 0.5m on either side as shoulders. This loading accounts for the traffic and
pavement loads. While representing the settlement of embankment along the width of
the embankment due to loading, the center line of the embankment was taken as the
origin.
Settlements on the top of the embankment, δT, was obtained for various cover
thicknesses and elastic moduli of geofoam. The stress variations on the top of
geofoam were also analysed.

Page 3
IFCEE 2015 © ASCE 2015 164

FIG. 1 Schematic diagram of typical geofoam embankment.

Settlement on the crest of the embankment (δT) is given by:

δT = δG+ δC ……………………………………………(1)

where, δG is the settlement in the geofoam layer, and

δC is the settlement of the soil cover
Fig. 2 shows the settlement profile at the crest of the embankment and at the top of
geofoam layer. From this figure, it can be inferred that the settlement due to geofoam
layer is a major contribution to the total settlement of the embankment. Hence, the
settlement in the soil cover can be considered as negligible.
X-Coordinate
-4 -2 0 2 4
0
At the top of the geofoam
At the crest of the embankment
0.5
Settlements in cm

1.5

2.5

FIG. 2. Settlement profile at the crest of embankment and at the top of the
geofoam in one of the cases (75cm of soil cover and Eg=10MPa with LDS).

Page 4
IFCEE 2015 © ASCE 2015 165

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

1. Embankment without LDS

The effect of thickness of soil cover on settlements at the top of the embankment
was studied. Modeling and analysis was done for the embankment without LDS over
the geofoam. The thickness of soil cover was varied from 30cm to 100cm. Figs. 3(a)
and 3(b) show the settlement variation with varying thickness of soil cover (30cm,
75cm and 100cm), and corresponding to elastic modulus of geofoam equal to 10MPa
and 1MPa, respectively. The maximum settlement of embankment was in the range
1.8-to-2.0cm and 15-to-16cm for Eg=10MPa and Eg=1MPa, respectively. For both
stiffer and softer geofoam (Eg=10MPa and 1 MPa), the effect of thickness of soil
cover was found to be negligible for the range of soil cover thickness considered in
the study. The variation in the maximum settlement of the embankment for both Eg
values was within 6-to-8%.

X-Coordinate X-Coordinate
-4 -2 0 2 4 -4 -2 0 2 4
0 0
100cm Soil Cover
75cm Soil Cover
100cm Soil Cover
30cm Soil Cover
0.5 75cm Soil Cover
4
Settlements in cm

Settlements in cm

1 8

1.5 12

2 16

2.5 20
(a) (b)

FIG. 3. Settlement profile for (a) Eg=10MPa and without LDS (b) Eg=1MPa and
without LDS.

Page 5
IFCEE 2015 © ASCE 2015 166

X-Coordinate X-Coordinate
-4 -2 0 2 4 -4 -2 0 2 4
0 0
100cm Soil Cover
100cm Soil Cover
75cm Soil Cover
30cm Soil Cover
75cm Soil Cover

Vertical Stress in kPa

Vertical Stress in kPa

20 20

40 40

60 60

(a) (b)

FIG. 4. Vertical stress profile for (a) Eg=10MPa and without LDS (b) Eg=1MPa
and without LDS.

The variation of vertical stresses at the top of geofoam was also obtained for various
thicknesses of soil cover and elastic modulus of geofoam. Figs. 4(a) and 4(b) show
the variation of vertical stress at the top of the geofoam with Eg=10 MPa and 1MPa.
The stress acting on the geofoam with thickness of soil cover equal to 30cm was
slightly higher (about 5%) than that with thickness equal to 100cm for both stiffer and
softer geofoams (Eg=10MPa and 1 MPa). For embankment with stiffer geofoam
(Eg=10MPa), the distribution of stresses and hence the settlements were found to be
uniform compared to that with softer geofoam (Eg=1 MPa).

2. Embankment with LDS

Modeling and analysis was also done for the embankment with load distribution
slab overlying geofoam. Figs. 5(a) and 5(b) show the settlement variation with
thickness of soil cover equal to 30cm, 75cm and 100cm, and corresponding to elastic
modulus of geofoam equal to Eg=10MPa and 1MPa, respectively. The thickness of
soil cover had an insignificant effect on settlement of embankment and vertical stress
on the geofoam. For both stiffer and softer geofoams considered in the study
(Eg=10MPa and 1MPa), the difference in settlements for various thickness was found
to be negligible (within 10%) even with the inclusion of LDS. The maximum
settlement of the embankment ranged from 1.6-to-1.9cm and 12-to- 13cm for Eg=10
MPa and 1MPa with the inclusion of LDS over geofoam. Figs. 6(a) and 6(b) show the
vertical stress profiles for various thickness corresponding to Eg=10 MPa and 1MPa,
respectively.

Page 6
IFCEE 2015 © ASCE 2015 167

X-Coordinate X-Coordinate
-4 -2 0 2 4 -4 -2 0 2 4
0 0
100cm Soil Cover
75cm Soil Cover 100cm Soil Cover
30cm Soil Cover 75cm Soil Cover
0.5 30cm Soil Cover

4
Settlements in cm

Settlements in cm
1

1.5 8

2
12

2.5
(a) (b)
FIG. 5. Settlement profile for (a) Eg=10MPa and with LDS (b) Eg=1MPa and with
LDS

X-Coordinate X-Coordinate

-4 -2 0 2 4 -4 -2 0 2 4
0 0

100cm Soil Cover 100cm Soil Cover

75cm Soil Cover 75cm Soil Cover
30cm Soil Cover 30cm Soil Cover
10
Vertical Stress in kPa
Vertical Stress in kPa

20

20

40 30

40

60
(a) (b)
FIG. 6. Vertical Stress profile for (a) Eg=10MPa and with LDS (b) Eg=1MPa and
with LDS.

3. Comparison of Settlement Profiles with and without LDS

Settlement profiles for both with and without LDS were compared for a given
thickness of soil cover (equal to 100cm), and presented in Figs. 7 (a) and 7 (b) for Eg=
10 MPa and Eg = 1MPa.

Page 7
IFCEE 2015 © ASCE 2015 168

X-Coordinate X-Coordinate
-4 -2 0 2 4 -4 -2 0 2 4
0 0

With LDS With LDS

Without LDS Without LDS
0.5
4
Settlements in cm

Settlements in cm
1
8

1.5
12

16

2.5
(a) (b)
FIG. 7. Settlement profile for the case- 100cm cover thickness and (a) Eg=10MPa
(b) Eg=1MPa.

For the case of embankment constructed with softer geofoam, the settlement of
embankment with LDS reduced by 25% compared to when no LDS was placed over
the geofoam. However, the effect of LDS on the settlement of embankment was
found to be negligible when constructed with stiffer geofoam.

CONCLUSIONS

Numerical model was developed to simulate the embankment constructed with

geofoam, soil cover and load distribution slab. The variation in settlement of
embankment and vertical stress on geofoam for various thicknesses of soil were
proposed in the study. From this study, the following points can be concluded:

• The thickness of soil cover had negligible effect on the settlement and vertical
stress due to loading. It is recommended to have a cover thickness equal to 30cm
as it is an economical solution.
• The inclusion of load distribution slab (LDS) showed significant reduction in
settlement of embankment (about 25%) when constructed with softer geofoam
(Eg=1MPa). But, the reduction was insignificant for embankment made up of
stiffer geofoam (Eg=10MPa).
• The settlement of embankment was in the range 1.8-to.2.0cm and 15-to-16cm
without the inclusion of load distribution slab corresponding to the elastic
modulus of geofoam equal to 10 MPa and 1 MPa, whereas the corresponding
settlement ranged from 1.6-to-1.9cm and 12-to-13cm with the inclusion of load
distribution slab.

Page 8
IFCEE 2015 © ASCE 2015 169

REFERENCES

American Association of State highway and Transportation Officials, (1996).

“Standard specifications for highway bridges”, 16th American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
Arellano, D. (2005). “Guidelines for the use of expanded polystyrene (EPS) - block
geofoam for the function of lightweight fill in road embankment projects.”
Dissertation of Doctor of Philosophy, University of Illinois, Urbana.
Dave, T.N., and Dasaka, S.M. (2012). “Experimental studies on EPS geofoam buffer
to reduce earth pressures on retaining walls due to traffic loads.” Proceedings of
the International Conference on Ground Improvement and Ground Control,
Wollongong, Australia.
Duskov, M. and Scarpas, A. (1997). “Three dimensional finite element analysis of
flexible pavements with an (open joint in the) EPS sub-base.” J. of Geotext. and
Geomem., Vol. 15: 29-38.
Elragi, A.F. (2000). “Selected engineering properties and applications of EPS
geofoam.” Dissertation of Doctor of Philosophy, State University of New York,
New York.
Hatami, K. and Witthoeft, A.F. (2008). “A numerical study on the use of geofoam to
increase the external stability of reinforced soil walls.” Geosynthetics
International, Vol. 15 (6): 452-470.
Horvath, J.S. (1998). “The compressible-inclusion function of EPS geofoam: analysis
and design methodologies.” Manhattan Research Report No. CE/GE-98-2.
Horvath, J.S. (2000). “Integral-abutment bridges: Problems and innovative solutions
using EPS geofoam and other geosynthetics.” Manhattan Research report No.:
CE/GE-00-2.
Horvath, J.S. (2010). “Lateral pressure reduction on earth-retaining structures using
geofoams: Correcting some misunderstandings.” Earth Retention Conference 3,
ASCE, Bellevue, Washington, U.S.A.
Ikziler, S.B., Aytekin, M. and Nas, E. (2008). “Laboratory study of expanded
polystyrene (EPS) geofoam used with expansive soils.” J. of Geotext. and
Geomem., Vol. 26: 189-195.
Itasca (2011). FLAC Fast Langragian Analysis of Continua Version 7.00. Itasca
Consulting Group Inc., Minneapolis, Minn.
Lin, L.K., Chen, L.H. and Chen, R. H. L. (2010). “Evaluation of geofoam as a
geotechnical construction material.” J. of Mat. in Civil Engrg., Vol. 22 (2) :160-
170.
Lingwall, B.N. (2011). “Development of an expanded polystyrene geofoam cover
system for pipelines at fault crossings.” Dissertation of Doctor of Philosophy,
University of Utah.
Marradi, A., Pinori, U. and Betti, G. (2012). “The use of lightweight materials in
road embankment construction.” Proceedings of 5th International Congress -
Sustainability of Road Infrastructures, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 53: 1001 – 1010.
Newman, M.P., Bartlett S.F., Lawton, E.C. (2010). “Numerical modeling of geofoam
embankments.” J. of Geotechnical & Geoenv. Engrg., Vol. 136 (2): 290-298.

Page 9
 IFCEE 2015 © ASCE 2015 170

Stark, T.D., and Arellano, D. (2003). “Design procedures for geofoam applications in
embankments projects.” Annual Conf. of ASCE Kentucky Geotechnical
Engineering Group, Lexington, KY.
Wong, H. and Leo, C.J. (2006). “A simple elastoplastic hardening constitutive model
for EPS geofoam.” J. of Geotext. and Geomem., Vol. 24: 299-310.

Page 10
View publication stats