Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 4544

EPS Geofoam Design Parameters for Pavement Structures

Xiaoodng Huang1, Ph.D., P.E. and Dawit Negussey2, Ph.D., P.E.

1
Parsons, 301 Plainfield Road Suite 350, Syracuse NY 13212; PH (315) 552-9698;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on 11/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FAX (315) 451-9570; email: Xiaodong.huang@hotmail.com, formally graduate

student at Syracuse University
2
251 Link Hall, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244; PH (315) 443-3304; FAX
(315) 443-4936; email: negussey@syr.edu

ABSTRACT

Most of the current geofoam design methods adopt the working stress
concept. To design pavement structures with geofoam as subgrade according to the
AASHTO and other pavement design guides, the resilient modulus, California
Bearing Ratio (CBR), and modulus of subgrade reaction of geofoam need to be
determined. The standard test methods are not suitable for geofoam because they
usually prescribe higher stress than can be applied on geofoam. This paper presents
modified tests methods designed for geofoam to determine the three parameters.
Modified tests showed geofoam has resilient modulus unacceptable for subgrade by
normal standards. CBR values interpreted by a modified method yielded higher
values than conventional methods but still less than acceptable soils. Modified plate
load tests indicated low values of modulus of subgrade reaction for geofoam. The
concrete slab-geofoam composite subgrade was evaluated by numerical modeling. By
considering the composite action of the concrete slab and geofoam, higher resilient
modulus and modulus of subgrade reaction values were obtained. Based on the
modified tests and modeling, an approach for selecting appropriate geofoam design
parameters is proposed.

INTRODUCTION

Among its many applications in geotechnical engineering, expanded

polystyrene (EPS) geofoam has been successfully used in pavement structures to
replace problematic soils for over three decades. Due to is super light weight
compared with any geotechnical material, geofoam provides a substantial reduction
of pavement weight, and thus offers a major solution to reduce the settlement of
pavement structures in areas of poor soil conditions. The  most  commonly  used 
density  has  been  20  kg/m3,  which  is  named  EPS19  (United  States)  or  EPS20 
(Europe  and  Japan).  Exemplary applications of geofoam in pavement structures in
the United States include the I-15 reconstruction project in Salt Lake City, Utah,
Route 23A reconstruction in Greene County, New York, and Kaneohe Interchange
construction in Oahu, Hawaii.
Most current geofoam design methods adopt the working stress concept,
which limits the pressure applied on geofoam below its elastic limits to prevent

Geo-Frontiers 2011
 Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 4545

excessive and plastic deformation (Negussey 2002). While the working stress concept
is easy to understand, it does not align with most conventional pavement design
methods. A summary of the required parameters for subbase/subgrade material in the
major design guides in the United States is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Design Parameters for Subbase/Subgrade

Pavement Design Guide Flexible Pavement Rigid Pavement
AASHTO (1993) Resilient Modulus Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on 11/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FAA (1996) CBR Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

AI (2005) Resilient Modulus Not available
PCA (1965) Not available Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
Mechanistic-Empirical
Resilient Modulus Resilient Modulus
(NCHRP 2004)

To design geofoam using the conventional pavement design methods, there

following three parameters need to be determined, resilient modulus, California
bearing ratio (CBR), and modulus of subgrade reaction. In the sections that follow,
this paper discusses test methods developed for geofoam, lab test results, and
numerical simulation to determine the parameters.

CBR OF GEOFOAM

As specified in ASTM D1883 and AASHTO T193, the CBR test is a

penetration test in which a standard piston of 3-inch2 (1935 mm2) is used to penetrate
the soil at a standard rate of 0.05 inch (1.27 mm) per minute. The pressure at each 0.1
inch (2.54 mm) penetration up to 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) is recorded and its ratio to the
bearing value of a standard crushed rock expressed in percent is termed as CBR.
Some of the standard CBR procedures are not applicable to geofoam, namely:
compaction, soaking and moisture content determination, seating load, and surcharge
that exceeds the working stress of geofoam. Therefore, the following procedures were
prepared based on AASHTO T193 for geofoam CBR tests:
1. Trim and weigh a 7-inch (178 mm) cubic geofoam sample to be tested,
calculate the actual density.
2. Cut the cubic sample into cylinders using hotwire and a standard surcharge
disc as guiding plate.
3. Trim the cylinder to the standard 4.5-inch (115 mm) tall sample for CBR
mold.
4. Place the cylinder in the CBR mold and fill the annular space with uniform
find sand of 1.3 mm average size. Tap the mold gently to pack the sand.
5. Place the mold on test frame. Perform the standard penetration test at 0.05
inch(1.27 mm) per minute to at least 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) total penetration.
Record load and displacement every three seconds.
6. Plot pressure vs. displacement curve for each test and correct for seating error.
7. Calculate the CBR for geofoam in accordance with the standard test
procedure.

Geo-Frontiers 2011
 Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 4546

1200
12.8 kg/m^3
15.6 kg/m^3
19.3 kg/m^3
1000 25.8 kg/m^3
34.7 kg/m^3
2.54mm
5.08mm
800

Pressure (kPa)
600
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on 11/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

400

200

0
0 2 4 6
Displacement (mm)

Figure 1 Geofoam CBR Tests

Figure 1 presents the CBR test results of five geofoam densities performed in
the Geofoam Research Center (GRC) at Syracuse University. The CBR values for
each density are summarized in Figure 2. It can be seen that the CBR values for all
densities tested under AASHTO T193 are no more than 5.2, and for the most
commonly used EPS20 the CBR is only 2.3. FAA pavement design method (FAA
1996) requires subgrade CBR to be greater than 3 or improvement is needed to
increase the CBR. The low geofoam CBR values from tests render it not suitable for
subgrade by the FAA design method. Observation during the CBR tests showed
punching failure occurred under the piston at 0.1 inch (2.54 mm) penetration. A close
examination of standard CBR tests on soil samples reveals that the 0.1 and 0.2 inch
(2.54 and 5.08 mm) penetration depths are still within the linear portion of the
pressure vs. displacement curves for most regular soils, whereas they are outside the
linear portion on geofoam curves as shown in Figure 1.
GRC AASHTO T 193
UK (Sanders,1996)
14 FWD back calculation (Momoi and Kokusyo,1996)
13 GRC Modified CBR at 2.54 mm
GRC Modified CBR at 5.08 mm
12
11
10
9
8
CBR

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Density (kg/m3)

Figure 2 Geofoam CBR Values

Geo-Frontiers 2011
 Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 4547

By extrapolating the linear portion to 0.1 and 0.2 inch (2.54 and 5.08 mm)
penetration depths and selecting the corresponding pressure, as shown in Figure 1,
higher CBR values can be obtained, which is referred to as modified CBR in Figure
2. On average the modified CBR is approximately twice greater than the conventional
CBR for all densities tested. Specifically, the modified CBR of the 19.3 kg/m3 sample
is 4.6, which is acceptable to FAA design method without modification. Figure 2 also
shows CBR test results by Sanders (1996) and back-calculated CBR from weight
deflectometer (FWD) by Momoi and Kokusyo (1996). The back-calculated CBR
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on 11/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

agrees with the modified CBR at 0.2 inch (5.08 mm) penetration very well. It should
be noted that the 0.1 and 0.2 inch (2.54 and 5.08 mm) of penetration are well beyond
the elastic limit for both the conventional and modified CBR of all tested densities. In
practice the modified CBR must be used in association with the stress limit that can
be applied on geofoam.

RESILENT MODULUS OF GEOFOAM

As indicated in Table 1, resilient modulus of geofoam need to be determined

to design flexible pavement with geofoam subgrade by the ASSHTO pavement
design guide. Although the elastic modulus of geofoam has been extensively tested
and researched, organized database of geofoam resilient modulus does not exist or
has not been widely available. Duskov (1997) performed uniaxial cyclic loading tests
on EPS20 samples with diameter of 100 mm and height of 200 mm. The dynamic
moduli determined from these tests were between 6.9 to 8.3 MPa and much below the
range acceptable for competent soil subgrades. Some resilient modulus and CBR for
geofoam was reported in NCHRP Report 529 (Stark et al. 2004), which are higher
than Duskov (1997) results, but detailed evidence as how the values were obtained
was not provided. All these reported modulus values are below the range of
competent soil subgrade; however, many highways constructed on geofoam continue
to perform well. These highways were not designed assuming EPS19 or EPS20 to be
equivalent to poor soil subgrade conditions. Much higher estimates of resilient
modulus for EPS20 were suggested by back calculations from FWD field tests
(Momoi and Kokusyo 1996). In the Netherlands, geofoam subgrades are designed
according to conventional Dutch Pavement Design Method with special
considerations to stress and strain for geofoam (Duskov, 2000).
Huang and Negussey (2007) proposed a modified geofoam resilient modulus
test procedure based on AASHTO T 307 and performed tests on geofoam of various
densities. The maximum axial stress specified in AASHTO T 307 for subgrade is 10
psi (69 kPa), which was established on findings from the AASHO Road Tests (HRB
1961-1962). According to ASTM D 6817, 10 psi (69 kPa) is greater than the linear
limit stress at 1 percent strain for most geofoam grades. In practice, pavements on
geofoam subgrades commonly feature mesh reinforced concrete slab for load
distribution and protection. A numerical analysis showed the concrete slab is very
effective in attenuating stress applied on geofoam subgrade under normal tire
pressure (Huang 2006). The modified resilient modulus test procedure controls the
maximum axial stress under the linear limit stress, and thus represents the stress
condition of geofoam subgrade realistically. Figure 3 shows one set of test results for

Geo-Frontiers 2011
 Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 4548

several densities. The linear limit stresses from 2-inch (50 mm) cube tests (ASTM D
6817) and 12-inch (600 mm) cube tests (Elragi et. al. 2000) are also presented for
comparison. The geofoam resilient modulus generally decreases with the increase of
axial stress, and is greater than the elastic modulus from 2-inch (50 mm) cube.
20
E 600mm-EPS29
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on 11/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

EPS29
15
Mr (MPa)

E 600mm-EPS19
10
E 50mm-EPS29

EPS19 E 600mm-EPS15
E 50mm-EPS19
5
E 50mm-EPS15

EPS15

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Axial stress (kPa)
Figure 3 Geofoam Resilient Modulus

Various correlations have been developed for soils to estimate resilient

modulus from CBR in the absence of lab testing. These correlations have been proved
not suitable for geofoam (Huang 2006). Geofoam is a man-made material with
quality control, so its properties are much less unpredictable than soils. Once the
resilient modulus values are established for each density, it is not necessary to
estimate the resilient modulus from CBR values.

MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION OF GEOFOAM

Standard ASTM and AASHTO plate load tests are performed in the field by
applying load increments in stages until plate settlement rates sufficiently diminish or
to set load duration periods. The standard plate diameter is 30 inches (762 mm). The
modulus of subgrade of reaction is commonly determined as the ratio of 10 psi (69
kPa) applied pressure and corresponding settlement. Similar as the standard resilient
modulus test, this criterion is based on prior observation that the stress level
developed at subgrades under heavy load tire pressures is approximately 10 psi (69
kPa) during the AASHO test road (HRB 1961-1962). Negussey and Huang (2006)
performed a series of plate loading tests on geofoam to determine its modulus of
subgrade reaction. Figure 4 shows comparison of stage loading and constant rate of
loading test results for 6-inch (152 mm) diameter plate on EPS15 geofoam. The
pressure-displacement curves confirm the initial segments of loading curves are
relatively independent of the mode of loading (i.e., continuous vs. staged). This is
consistent with expectation of the initial response to approach elastic behavior.
However, the yield stress or linear limit is less than 10 psi (69 kPa). Similar to the
rationale of the modified geofoam CBR test, the modulus of subgrade reaction based

Geo-Frontiers 2011
 Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 4549

on 10 psi (69 kPa) pressure and the corresponding deformation would be less than at
the same pressure and deformation at the linear extension of the initial linear segment.
This latter approach was used to derive modulus of subgrade reaction for geofoam by
plate loading tests.
160
Sample size: 430 mm (17 inch) cube
Density: EPS15 (1pcf)
140 Plate diameter:150 mm (6 inch)

120
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on 11/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Stress (kPa)

100

80 10%strain/min
staged loading
60 69 kPa (10psi)

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)

Figure 4 Geofoam Plate Loading Tests

Constant strain rate plate loading tests by 30-inch (762 mm) diameter plate for
four different densities of geofoam are shown in Figure 5. The horizontal line at 69
kPa (10 psi) again represents the standard load level at which modulus of subgrade
reaction is determined. Linear stress limits at 1 percent strain, as provided in ASTM
D 6817, are also shown on each curve as the solid dot. With the exception of the 29
kg/m3 (2 pcf) density geofoam, the curves for the remaining three geofoam densities
become non linear below the 69 kPa (10 psi) threshold. As aforementioned, the
modulus of subgrade reaction values were determined by extrapolating the initial
linear segments.
160
15 kg/m3 (1pcf)
140 19 kg/m3 (1.25pcf)
22 kg/m3 (1.5pcf)
120 29 kg/m3 (2pcf)
69 kPa (10psi)
100
Stress (kPa)

75kPa
80

60
50kPa
40 40kPa

20 25kPa
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Displacement (mm)

Figure 5 30-inch (762 mm) Plate Load Test on Geofoam

Geo-Frontiers 2011
 Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 4550

The test results are summarized in Figure 6. The geofoam modulus of

subgrade reaction decreases with diameter in a similar trend like previously indicated
for soils (Brebner and Wright 1953). The trend shown for soils is an average curve
from an early study of plate loadings on silt loam (A4 type) compacted subgrades at
the Arlington Experiment Farm (Teller, et al. 1935, 1936, 1943). Much of the
variability at a geofoam density and plate diameter was associated with sample
source. The solid line curves associated with the geofoam test data are from Equation
2 in the next section for rigid plates on semi-infinite half space and for maximum and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on 11/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

minimum moduli. For the soils and geofoam of different densities, the trend lines
indicate plate size effects tend to diminish beyond 30-inch (762 mm) diameter.
Regardless of the geofoam grade, the modulus of subgrade reaction derived from tests
with the standard plate size (30-inch diameter) were less than 100 pci (27.7 MN/m3)
and presumably equivalent to inferior subgrade type for airport and highway
pavement construction.

Plate diameter (mm)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
500
EPS15 (1 pcf) test results
450 EPS29 (2 pcf) test results 120
400 A4 Soil-Arlington Experiment Farm

100
350
300

k (MN/m3)
80
k (pci)

Theoretical-Rigid plate-EPS29 (2 pcf)

250
60
200 E 600mm

150 40
E 600mm
E 50mm
100
20
50
Theoretical-Rigid plate-EPS15 (1 pcf)
E 50mm
0 0
0 10 20 30
Plate diameter (in)

Figure 6 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction of Geofoam and Soil

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS

As expected, direct testing on geofoam indicate the three design parameters of

geofoam, namely CBR, resilient modulus, and modulus of subgrade reaction, are too
low to be used alone as subbase or subgrade by any conventional pavement design
method, no matter how the test methods are modified and results are interpreted. In
practice, a concrete slab or a layer of coarse material is always placed on top of
geofoam to attenuate the stress applied on geofoam, and this has been the focal point
of the stress limit design method of geofoam. In addition to lab testing, Huang (2006)
performed numerical analysis to estimate the resilient modulus and modulus of
subgrade reaction for geofoam and concrete slab composite. Figure 7 shows the
composite modulus of subgrade reaction using upper and lower bonds of elastic
modulus, along with the modulus of subgrade reaction from geofoam tests and the A4
soil at Arlington experiment Farm (Teller, et al. 1935, 1936, 1943) for comparison. It

Geo-Frontiers 2011
 Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 4551

can be seen that the concrete slab and EPS20 geofoam composite using the high bond
elastic modulus has modulus of subgrade reaction equivalent to the A4 soil.

composite k- 10 cm concrete slab

Tested average k from source A (without slab) 120
400 Composite k-E from 50mm cube (Anasthas 2001)

Composite k-E from 600mm cube (Elragi 2000) 100

A4 soil

Composite k (MN/m3)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on 11/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Composite k (pci)
300 80

60
200

40

100
20

0 0
10 15 20 25 30
Density (kg/m3)

Figure 7 Equivalent modulus of subgrade reaction of geofoam and concrete

composite

Based on a linear elastic model with flexible loading area, AASHTO

suggested the following relationship between modulus and subgrade reaction (k) and
resilient modulus (Mr) (AASHTO, 1993):

Mr
k=
19.4 (1)

in which k is in pci and Mr is in psi. Composite concrete slab-geofoam

resilent modulus calculated using numerical analysis results and Equation 1 is
referred to as estimated resilent modulus herein.
Theoretically the displacement of rigid circular plate on surface of semi-
infinite elastic body can be expressed as:

π qR (1 − μ 2 )
y =
2E (2)
For flexible plate:
2 qR (1 − μ 2 )
y max = at center
E (3)
Where:
y= displacement of loaded area under rigid plate;
ymax= maximum displacement of loaded area under flexible plate;
q= average stress applied through plate;
R= plate radius;
μ = Poisson’s ratio;

Geo-Frontiers 2011
 Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 4552

E= elastic modulus of semi-infinite elastic body. Composite resilient modulus

calculated using numerical analysis results and Equation 2 is referred to as back-
calculated concrete slab-geofoam composite resilient modulus herein.
Figure 8 presents the estimated composite resilient modulus (using Equation
1) and back-calculated resilient modulus (using Equation 2). For EPS20 the
composite resilient modulus ranges from 25 to 49 MPa (3626 to 7107 psi), which is
competent for conventional design methods.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on 11/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Composite Modulus- 0.1m concrete slab

80 E from 50mm cube (Anasthas 2001) 80
E from 600mm cube (Elragi 2000)
70 Backcalculation-E from 50mm cube (Anasthas 2001) 70
Backcalculation-E from 600mm cube (Elragi 2000)
Estimated composite Mr (MPa)

Backcalculated composite E
60 60

50 50

(MPa)
40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
10 15 20 25 30
3
Density (kg/m )

Figure 8 Estimated and Back-calculated Composite Moduli

SUMMARY

The presence of thin concrete slab can spread the load to a much greater area
and reduce the stress on geofoam below its elastic limit, without sacrificing the
geofoam’s advantage of light weight. Treating the concrete slab and geofoam as one
composite subgrade makes it suitable for design by conventional pavement design
methods. Numerical analyses indicate the composite resilient modulus and modulus
of subgrade reaction are comparable to competent soils. Composite geofoam
subgrade with various concrete slab thickness can be developed in the same manner
as shown in Figure 8. However, only very limited field data is available to validate
the numerical analysis results. FWD tests can test and back-calculate the composite
modulus to fill the data gap between numerical analysis and design. With sufficient
amount of field data, the numerical model can be calibrated and a database can be
established for selecting proper design parameters for various geofoam density and
slab thickness. Other variables, such as the geofoam thickness and effect of
underlying material, can also be accounted for as part of the FWD test process. As the
pavement design methods advancing to the mechanistic-empirical approach, resilient
modulus will be the single input parameter for subgrade, and this will further
rationalize the modeling and field testing effort.

Geo-Frontiers 2011
 Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 4553

REFERENCES

AI, (2005). SW-1 Asphalt Pavement Thickness Design Software for Highways,
Airports, Heavy Wheel Loads and Other Applications User’s Guide. Asphalt
Institute, Lexington, KY.
Anasthas, N. (2001). Young’s Modulus by Bending Test and Other Proteries of EPS
Geofoam Related to Geotechnical Applications, Master’s Thesis, Syracuse
University, Syracuse, New York.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on 11/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ASTM D 6817-07 (2007). “Standard Specification for Rigid Cellular Polystyrene

Geofoam”, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Philadelphia, PA.
Brebner, A, and Wright. W. (1953). “An Experimental Investigation to Determine the
Variation in the Subgrade Modulus of a Sand Loaded by Plates of Different
Breadths”, Geotechnique, Vol. 3.
Duskov, M. (1997). EPS as a Light-Weight Sub-base Material in Pavement
Structures. Ph. D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the
Netherlands, 1997.
Duskov, M. (2000). “Dutch Design Manual for Lightweight Pavements with
Expanded Polystyrene.” TRR, No.1736:103-109.
Elragi, A.F., Negussey, D., and Kyanka, G. (2000). “Sample Size Effects on the
Behavior of EPS Geofoam.” Soft Ground Technology Conference, ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication 112, the Netherlands. 
FAA, (1995). “Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation.” AC150/5320-6D, FAA.
HRB, (1961-1962). “The AASHO Road Test.” HRB Special Report 61 (7 reports).
National Research Council (U.S.). HRB; AASHO. Washington, D.C.
Huang, X. (2005). Evaluation of EPS Geofoam as Subgrade Material in Pavement
Structures. Ph.D. thesis, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York.
Huang, X., and Negussey, D. (2007). “Resilient Modulus for EPS Geofoam.” Proc.
Geo-Denver 2007 International Conference (ASCE Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 169), Denver, Co.
Momoi, T., and Kokusyo. T. (1996). “Evaluation of Bearing Properties of EPS
Subgrade.” Proc. Intl. symposium on EPS construction method.
Negussey, D. (2002). “Design parameters for EPS geofoam.” Keynote Lecture – IW-
LGM 2002 International Workshop on Lightweight Geo-Materials, March 26-
27, Tokyo, Japan.
Negussey, D., and Huang, X. (2006). “Modulus of Subgrade Reaction for EPS
Geofoam.” Proc.Geo Shanghai 2006 Intl. Conference (ASCE Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 169:165-172), Shanghai, China.
NCHRP, (2004). Guide for Mechanistic-empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated
Pavement Structures Final Report. Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, March 2004.
PCA, (1966). Thickness Design for Concrete Pavements. Potland Cement
Association.
Teller, L.W, et al, (1935, 1936, 1943). “The Structural Design of Concrete
Pavements”, Public Roads, Vol. 16, No. 8,9,10, Vol.23, No.8.

Geo-Frontiers 2011
 Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 4554

Sanders, R.L, and Seedhouse, R.L. (1994). “The Use of Polystyrene for Embankment
Construction.” Transport and Road Research Laboratory Contractor Report
356, HMSO, United Kingdom.
Stark, T., Horvath, J.S., and Leshchinsky, D. (2004). “Guideline and Recommended
Standard for Geofoam Applications in Highway Embankments.” NCHRP
Report 529, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on 11/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Geo-Frontiers 2011