Geotextiles and Geomembranes 35 (2012) 132e137

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Technical note

Confining stress influence on EPS water absorption capability

A. Ossa*, M.P. Romo
Instituto de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, CP. 04340 Coyoacán, México D.F., Mexico

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Expanded polystyrene (EPS) blocks are increasingly used in geotechnical applications, thus its stress
Received 8 March 2012 estrain behavior has been the focus of several researches. However, water absorption mechanisms of
Received in revised form expanded polystyrene blocks and the influence of water absorbed amount on their stressestrain
8 March 2012
behavior have received little attention. This paper presents a series of water absorption tests carried
Accepted 20 March 2012
Available online 21 April 2012
out to evaluate the water absorption capability of EPS specimens with nominal densities of 20.5 kg/m3
(EPS-20) and 29.9 kg/m3 (EPS-29), subject to various confining pressures. Additionally, the influence of
water absorbed on the EPS stressestrain behavior is evaluated by means of uniaxial and triaxial
compression tests conducted on immersed and non-immersed EPS twin specimens, subject to equal
confining conditions. Test results show that EPS water absorption depends on applied stress magnitude.
Furthermore, triaxial compression tests results indicate that EPS wetting does not affect significantly its
stressestrain behavior.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Ossa and Romo, 2011). Likewise, a number of investigations clearly

Expanded polystyrene blocks are increasingly used in a wide
range of geotechnical projects. Accordingly, the design engineer
should keep in mind that EPS stressestrain behavior depends on its
density, applied confining stresses, time effects and temperature.
Furthermore, EPS wetting could affect its stressestrain behavior.
Henceforth, investigations should be carried out to learn about this
issue.
Influence of EPS density on its stressestrain response for static
loading is no doubt the aspect more studied up to date. Static and
dynamic EPS compressive behavior has been the scope of several
investigations. Results of these investigations have been reported
elsewhere (e.g., Preber et al., 1994; Duskov, 1997; Zou and Leo,
1998; Chun et al., 2004; Atmatzidis et al., 2005; Hazarika, 2006;
Wong and Leo, 2006; Abdelrahman et al., 2008; and Ossa and
Romo, 2009). There is a general agreement to define EPS
compressive strength in terms of the initial tangent modulus Ei and
the yielding stress sy, both increasing with EPS density. Similarly, it
has been shown that EPS dynamic properties are affected by its
density: shear modulus increases as density enlarges, instead
damping ratio-shear strain relationships changes are negligible
with this parameter (e.g., Anastosopoulus et al., 1999, 2007; and
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ52 55 56233600x3647, 8441; fax: þ52 55
56160784.
E-mail addresses: aossal@iingen.unam.mx, laossa@yahoo.com (A. Ossa).
indicate that EPS compressive strength decreases with confining
stress (e.g., Preber et al., 1994; Zou and Leo, 1998; Chun et al., 2004;
Atmatzidis et al., 2005; Wong and Leo, 2006; and Ossa and Romo,
2009). Finally, even though it is known that temperature and
time influence EPS behavior, technical literature is deficient on
these issues. Therefore, research to overcome this deficiency is
badly needed.
In many applications, EPS blocks are placed in underground
conditions (e.g., when it is used as a partial or total replacement fill
in embankment foundations, as compressible inclusions between
fill and walls and fill-bridge abutment interfaces, and as protection
of water, gas and oil pipes). In these applications EPS is many times
under water conditions during long lasting periods of time. To the
best of the authors’ knowledge only the investigators Sarlin et al.,
1986; Duskov, 1997; Keating et al., 2002; Gnip et al., 2006;
Avesani-Neto and Bueno, 2008; and Ossa, 2009 have addressed the
EPS water absorption issue. EPS has been considered essentially
impervious over the years because it absorbs small amounts of
water when is below the groundwater level (Horvath, 1995).
However, when subject to medium to large water pressures, EPS
can absorb appreciable quantities of water, which implies an
increase in weight that must be taken into account, especially in
those problems where EPS is used advantageously due its light-
weight characteristics.
The purpose of this article is twofold: evaluate the all-around
hydrostatic pressure effect on EPS water absorption, and learn
more as to how EPS specimens’ density and compression resistance

0266-1144/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2012.03.003
 A. Ossa, M.P. Romo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 35 (2012) 132e137 133

are influenced by water inside the cellular structure. To this end,

a number of uniaxial and triaxial compression tests were carried
out on immersed and dry EPS specimens. Densification

2. Test procedures

σ
2.1. Absorption tests
Ei
σy Ep
Water absorption tests were performed to determine the
amount of water absorbed by expanded polystyrene under
different all-around hydrostatic pressures. The specimens, with
mean densities of 20.5 (EPS-20) and 29.9 kg/m3 (EPS-29), were Plateau
cylindrical (diameter d ¼ 6.6 cm and height h ¼ 10 cm) and formed
by a hot-wire cutting process controlled by a computer to ensure Linear elastic
a uniform specimen shape. EPS specimens were put inside a pres-
sure-regulated chamber where they were immersed during 234
days in a water-soluble contrasting substance having an average
temperature of 23  C. EPS-20 specimens were tested under ε
confining pressures of 0 and 60 kPa, and EPS-29 specimens under
confining pressures of 0, 30 and 60 kPa. Fig. 1. Stressestrain curve for expanded polystyrene (EPS).
To quantify the water sucked in by the EPS specimens, these
were periodically taken out of the chamber the dripping water
wiped off, and immediately wrapped up with a wet cloth to mention that the ambient temperature was kept close to 23  C
preserve their moisture conditions. Then the specimens were throughout the experimental investigation.
weighed and placed back in the chamber. It should be mentioned Initial elastic modulus Ei, yield stress sy and plastic modulus Ep,
that for each density and confining stress a number of tests were defined in Fig. 1, were obtained from the stressestrain curves of all
carried out. The reported figures in this paper are the corre- compression tests. The influence of the amount of water absorbed
sponding averages. The percentage of water content variation in on EPS yield stress and stiffness parameters is presented and dis-
each EPS sample at any given time was calculated as follows: cussed later.
 
wðtÞ  wo
AðtÞ ¼  100 (1)
rw Vo a 10
where, wo in grams is the initial specimen weight, w in grams is the σ 3 =0 kPa
specimen weight after t days of immersion, Vo in cm3 is the initial 8
Water content (%)

specimen volume, and rw is the water density (1 gr/cm3). EPS-29

EPS-20
6
2.2. Compression tests
4
The internal structure of EPS blocks is basically integrated by
sintered beads tangentially fused, closed in a large number of cells
2
developed during the manufacturing process (Gibson and Ashby,
1999). When subject to compression, EPS deformations by
bending, buckling and fracture of the walls allow more easily water 0
flow into the cells. 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
In Fig. 1 a typical EPS stressestrain curve is sketched (Gibson Time (days)
and Ashby, 1999; Ossa and Romo, 2009). This material shows b
linear elasticity at low stresses defined by an initial tangent 10
modulus Ei, followed by a plastic plateau zone, characterized by the
σ 3 = 0 kPa
plastic modulus Ep and yield stress sy. As the specimen is further
Water content (%)

8
deformed, the internal structure of EPS is dramatically modified EPS-29
passing from cellular in shape to a stack of membranes, leading to 6
EPS-20
a stage of densification where large axial strains and specimen
volumetric changes are developed. More details on load-induced
4
deformation mechanisms of EPS are given elsewhere (Ossa and
Romo, 2009).
To evaluate sample wetting effect on EPS stressestrain charac- 2
teristics, sets of identical EPS samples were used to obtain the
strengths and stiffnesses of dry samples under unconfined and 0
confined conditions and of after-immersion sample conditions. Dry 1 10 100 1000
and wet samples were placed in triaxial chambers and tested under
Time (days)
zero (unconfined) and 60 kPa confining stress, s3. Axial loading was
applied at a displacement rate of 1 mm/min until 10e12% strains Fig. 2. Time evolution of water content of EPS specimens subject to unconfined
were reached. All in all 8 tests were carried out. It is important to conditions. (a) Arithmetic scale (b) Logarithmic scale.
134 A. Ossa, M.P. Romo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 35 (2012) 132e137

2.2.1. Testing device

a 50
All compression tests were performed using an in-house built
automated triaxial testing system, which consists of a triaxial cell, σ 3 = 60 kPa
confining and load pressure modules, data acquisition and pro- 40
EPS-29
cessing unit.

Water content (%)

EPS-20
An acrylic cylinder with stainless steel plates on its top and 30
bottom form the triaxial chamber. Load pressures are applied with
a pneumatic servo-valve with a 1.03 MPa capacity and a regulated
20
piston system. The axial load is applied to the specimen with the
top cap that is connected to the piston and monitored with
a 226.8 kg capacity submersible load cell placed below the bottom 10
cap. The axial deformations of the specimen are measured with
a linear varying displacement transducer (LVDT) attached to the
0
piston and having a 2.5 mm stroke range. Confining pressures
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
were supplied by an air container and monitored with a conven-
tional pressure transducer. Input test conditions are defined Time (days)
through a computer. During the test, axial loadedisplacement data b 50
and confining pressure inside the chamber is recorded by a Lab-
View-based data acquisition system. Data processing is per- σ 3 = 60 kPa

Water content (%)

40
formed by software that yields, among other results, the
EPS-29
stressestrain curves.
EPS-20
30
3. Tests results and discussion
20
3.1. Water absorption capability of EPS

10
Figs. 2e4 present the time evolution of water content of
immersed EPS specimens. Test results indicate that there is a strong
influence of confining pressure on water content variation of EPS 0
1 10 100 1000
a 25
Time (days)

Fig. 4. Time evolution of water content of EPS specimens subject to a confining stress
σ 3 = 30 kPa of 60 kPa. (a) Arithmetic scale (b) Logarithmic scale.
20
EPS-29
Water absorption (%)

specimens. In Fig. 2a it can be seen that for unconfined conditions,

15 there is an increase in water content during the first thirty days,
reaching values of 3.9% and 4.7% for EPS-20 and EPS-29, respec-
10 tively. Afterwards, sample wetting remains practically unchanged,
as shown in Fig. 2b. It is worth mentioning that these results are
similar to those reported by Duskov (1997) for a density of 20 kg/m3
5
and tested under unconfined conditions. Figs. 3and 4 show that EPS
water absorption increases with confining pressures and, as ex-
0 pected, sample wetting rate decreases with time. Wetting rates are
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 higher during the first couple of weeks. The results obtained in this
study show that the effect of EPS density is not significant, partic-
Time (days)
b 25
ularly at higher confining stresses (see Fig. 4a). From the results
shown here, it may be expected that water content will reach
asymptotic values around 10% and 20% for confining pressures of
σ 3 = 30 kPa
Water absorption (%)

20 30 kPa and 60 kPa respectively, and for long lasting periods of time.
EPS-29 Although Duskov (1997); Keating et al (2002); and Avesani-Neto
and Bueno (2008) have evidenced that water absorption of EPS
15 specimens is density-dependent, the results obtained in this study
show that the effect of EPS density is not significant, particularly at
10 higher confining stresses. Moreover, it is known that lower bead
density implies higher expanded bead sizes (Vaitkus et al., 2006)
and greater contact area between them. Accordingly, the water
5 absorption content differences of EPS blocks with different densi-
ties and subject to the same confining pressure may be explained
0 on the grounds that the tested specimens came from EPS blocks
1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 manufactured with different size polystyrene granules, hence they
likely had different porosities.
Time (days)
Although the experimental results shown here display consis-
Fig. 3. Time evolution of water content of EPS specimens subject to a confining stress tent patters, the authors understand that further studies should be
of 30 kPa. (a) Arithmetic scale (b) Logarithmic scale. carried out to better define water absorption upper boundaries as
 A. Ossa, M.P. Romo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 35 (2012) 132e137 135

Table 1
Increment of initial density due to water absorption.

Material Initial mean s3 (kPa) Final mean Mean density

density, density*, increment (%)
ro (kg/m3) rf (kg/m3)
EPS-20 20.7 0 55.7 269.1
EPS-20 20.2 60 223.0 1103.9
EPS-29 30.2 0 77.5 256.6
EPS-29 29.6 60 238.5 805.7

* After 234 days of water immersion.

a function of confining pressures. Still and all, data included here

can be used in practical applications.
Fig. 6. Water absorption in unconfined EPS specimens: (a) At two weeks (b) At ten
Table 1 and Fig. 5 show that wetting causes a significant incre- weeks.
ment on EPS dry density. Nevertheless, since the modified EPS
weight remains much lower than that of other materials like soil
and concrete, EPS can be used advantageously as a lightweight
filling material.
During absorption tests, water penetrates inside the EPS speci-
mens by the hydraulic gradient generated across the EPS specimen.
As is shown in Figs. 6and 7, water migrates from the periphery to
the center of specimens staying in the voids between beads
following winding paths; and depending on the confining pressure,
water may also percolate into the cellular structure of EPS.
According to results in Fig. 7, when EPS is subject to low confining
pressures, water only surrounds the beads leaving unfilled many
spaces between beads because beads “welded” contacts act like
impervious barriers. On the other hand, as shown in Fig. 8, when
confining pressure is 60 kPa, water penetrates the cellular structure

a 5

σ 3 =0 kPa
4
EPS-29 Fig. 7. Water within an EPS-20 specimen under unconfined conditions.
EPS-20 γ f= 77.5 kg/m3
3
and percolates through no-longer-welded bead contacts. Based on
γ/γo

these observations, it could be argued that the increase in water

2 γ f= 55.7 kg/m3
absorption volumes with increasing confining pressures is most
likely due to either of the following causes: a) breakage of the bead
1 connections, b) percolation throughout cell membranes, and c)
time span of water immersion.
0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240

Time (days)
b 15
σ 3 = 60 kPa
γ f= 238.5 kg/m3
EPS-29
10 EPS-20
γ f= 223.0 kg/m3
γ/ γo

0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240

Time (days)

Fig. 5. Density evolution due to water absorption (a) unconfined condition (b)
confining pressure of 60 kPa. Fig. 8. Water within an EPS-20 specimen at confining stress of 60 kPa.
136 A. Ossa, M.P. Romo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 35 (2012) 132e137

a 25
320
Dry EPS-29
EPS-20 280 σ3= 0 kPa
Wet
Water absorption (%)

20
240

Deviator Stress (kPa)

Dry σ3= 60 kPa
Wet
15 0 kPa 200
60 kPa
160
10 Predictions with eqs. 2-3
120
5
80

0 40
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270
0
Time (days) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
b 25 Axial strain (%)
EPS-29
Fig. 11. Deviator stress and axial strain relationships for EPS-29.
Water absorption (%)

20

Table 2
15 0 kPa
Test characteristics and EPS parameters.
30 kPa
60 kpa Material Specimen s3 (kPa) Ei (MPa) Ep (kPa) sy (kPa)
10
Predictions with eqs. 2-3 state
EPS-20 Dry 0 4.6 185.68 89.33
5 EPS-20 Wet 0 5.3 215.92 84.10
EPS-20 Dry 60 4.09 290.14 51.75
0 EPS-20 Wet 60 3.73 253.10 50.08
EPS-29 Dry 0 7.9 338.20 148.39
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270
EPS-29 Wet 0 7.8 315.20 157.22
Time (days) EPS-29 Dry 60 7.2 383.33 105.57
EPS-29 Wet 60 7.7 350.52 116.82
Fig. 9. Experimental versus analytical (equations (2) and (3)) water absorption results.
(a) EPS-20, (b) EPS-29.
test results, it implicitly accounts for test confining stress
Gnip et al. (2006) carried out an experimental investigation on conditions.
water absorption of EPS boards, having densities of 11e36 kg/m3 By comparing EPS water absorption test results obtained in this
and subject to atmospheric pressure conditions during long study with those obtained from equations (2) and (3), it is observed
periods of time. Based on experimental results, they proposed the that the expressions proposed by Gnip et al. (2006) estimates
following empirical equation to predict long time EPS water adequately well the water content evolution of immersed EPS
absorption: specimens both for confined and unconfined conditions, as shown
in Fig. 9. Henceforth, these expressions can be used for long-term
Að%Þ ¼ A28 *mw (2) EPS water absorption estimations in practical applications.
where,
3.2. Compression strength
mw ¼ 0:41t 0:253 (3)
Figs. 10and 11 present the strainestress relationships of
t is the immersion time in days and A28 (%) is the water absorbed at (EPS-20) and (EPS-29), for 0 and 60 kPa confining pressures, and
t ¼ 28 days. Since A28 is an experimental parameter estimated from wet (immersed) and dry conditions. It is seen that regardless of test
conditions, the stressestrain curves have similar overall shapes:
200 they show a linear elastic behavior (Ei) up to yielding stress (sy) is
180 Dry EPS-20 reached, followed by an elasto-plastic behavior (Ep). These results
σ3= 0 kPa show that the influence of sample wetting on the stressestrain
160 Wet
behavior of dry samples is negligible in spite of EPS density and
Dry
Deviator stress (kPa)

140 σ3= 60 kPa confining stress testing conditions. It is also seen that yield strains
Wet
120 (strains at which stress yielding occurs) are smaller for growing
confining stresses, but are not susceptible to sample wetting.
100
Comparing the stressestrain curves of Figs. 10and 11, it is observed
80 that EPS density affects the stressestrain behavior notwithstanding
60 the confining stress. Table 2 summarizes test conditions and shows
EPS parameters computed from test results.
40
20 4. Conclusions
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Absorption test results indicate that confining pressure causes
Axial strain (%) breakage and weakening of bead connections, allowing water
penetration into the spaces among the beads and also into the
Fig. 10. Deviator stress and axial strain relationships for EPS-20. cellular structure of EPS, which evidences that within the range of
 A. Ossa, M.P. Romo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 35 (2012) 132e137 137

densities considered in this study, it cannot be considered as an Athanasopoulos, G.A., Pelekis, P.C., Xenaki, V.C., 1999. Dynamic properties of EPS
geofoam: an experimental investigation. Geosynthetics International 6 (3),
impervious material. This fact should be kept in mind when
171e194.
designing geotechnical works where EPS is used as a lightweight fill Athanasopoulos, G.A., Nikolopoulou, C., Xenaki, V., 2007. Seismic isolation of
and might be under water during long lasting periods of time. earth retaining structures by EPS geofoam compressible inclusions, dynamic
However, the weight increase can be important, the modified EPS FE analyses. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering Thessaloniki, Greece (CD-ROM), paper
weight remains much lower than that of other materials like soil 1676.
and concrete, thus EPS can be used advantageously as a lightweight Atmatzidis, D.K., Chrysikos, D.A., Missirlis, E.G., 2005. Laboratory testing and
filling material. modelling of EPS geofoam in compression. In: Proceedings of the 11th Inter-
national Conference on Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics,
Compressive strength and stressestrain characteristics of EPS Torino, Italia. Pàtron Editore, Bologna, Italy, pp. 11e18.
specimens are appreciably influenced by its density and confining Avesani Neto, J.O., Bueno, B.S., 2008. Simple and triaxial compression and water
pressures. On the other hand, absorbed water has negligible absorption tests on EPS samples, In: CD, Proceedings of First Pan American
Geosynthetics Conference and Exhibition, Cancun, Mexico.
influence on the strength and stressestrain behavior of EPS. Chun, B.S., Lim, S.H., Sagong, M.S., Kim, K., 2004. Development of a hyperbolic
constitutive model for expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam under triaxial
compression tests. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22 (4), 223e237.
Acknowledgements Duskov, M., 1997. Materials research on EPS-20 and EPS-15 under representative
conditions in pavement structures. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 15 (1 a 3),
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Dr Pilar 147e181.
Gibson, L.J., Ashby, M.F., 1999. Cellular Solids. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge,
Ortega, Head of the Laboratorio de Microscopía, Departamento de U.K.
Edafología, Instituto de Geología, UNAM for her kind advice and Gnip, I., Kersulis, V., Vejelis,
_ S., Vait, S., 2006. Water absorption of expanded poly-
invaluable help to obtain the enhanced pictures with the micro- styrene boards. Polymer Testing 25, 635e641.
Hazarika, H., 2006. Stressestrain modelling of EPS geofoam for large-strain appli-
scope Leica MZ-125, presented in this paper.
cations. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2), 79e90.
Horvath, J.S., 1995. Geofoam Geosynthetic. Horvath Engineering, P.C. Scarsdale, New
York, USA. 217 p.
Notations Keating, A., Leo, C.J., Zou, Y., 2002. Soaked behaviour of EPS geofoam in geotechnical
applications, In: Proceedings of the Third Australasian Congress on Applied
Mechanics, Sydney, Australia. pp. 201e206.
Ossa, A., Romo, M.P., 2009. Micro- and macro-mechanical study of compressive
Basic SI units are given in parentheses.
behavior of expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam. Geosynthetics International
Ei initial tangent modulus (Pa) 16 (5), 327e338.
Ep plastic modulus (Pa) Ossa, A., Romo, M.P., 2011. Dynamic characterization of EPS geofoam. Geotextiles
and Geomembranes 29 (1), 40e50.
h height of specimen (m)
Ossa, A., 2009. Comportamiento mecánico del poliestireno expandido (EPS) bajo
d diameter of specimen (m) carga de compresión, PhD Thesis, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional
r expanded polystyrene density (kg/m3) Autónoma de México, UNAM. (in Spanish).
s3 confining stress (Pa) Preber, T., Bang, S., Chung, Y., Cho, Y., 1994. Behaviour of expanded polystyrene
blocks. Transportation Research Record 1462, 36e46.
sy yield stress (Pa) Sarlin, J., Tormala, P., Jarvela, P., Jarvela, P., 1986. The effect of moulding on the
absorption of water in expanded polystyrene (EPS). Journal of Cellular Plastics
22, 391e403,.
Abbreviations Vaitkus, S., Laukaitis, A., Gnipas, I., Kersulis, V., Vejelis, S., 2006. Experimental
EPS expanded polystyrene analysis of structure and deformation mechanisms of expanded polystyrene
(EPS). Materials Science (Medziagotyra) 12 (4), 323e327.
Wong, H., Leo, C.J., 2006. A simple elastoplastic hardening constitutive model for
References EPS geofoam. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24, 299e310.
Zou, Y., Leo, C.J., 1998. Laboratory studies on the engineering properties of expanded
Abdelrahman, G.E., Kawabe, S., Tsukamoto, Y., Tatsuoka, F., 2008. Small strain polystyrene (EPS) material for geotechnical applications. In: Proceedings:
stressestrain properties of expanded polystyrene geofoam. Soils and Founda- Second International Conference on Ground Improvement Techniques,
tions 48 (1), 61e71. Singapore. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 581e588.