SCE Journal of Civil Engineedr Geetechnical Engineering I

VoL 5, No. 2 / June 2 0 0 l

pp. 175-183

Application of Constitutive Model to Predict the Behavior of EPS-Geofoam

By Byung-Sik Chun*, Hae-Sik Lim** and Young-Wan Shin***

Abstract

EPS (Expanded Polystyrene)-geofoam, a super light weight material, has the unit weight of 20-~30 kg/m~ and is used as
one of the methods acquiring the safety for settlement and bearing capacity. There are a few constitutive models for the
selection of the EPS-geofoam fill which is essential to the determination of the fill configuration and the settlement calcula-
tion, However, it is difficult to determine the parameters of its model. In this paper, therefore, a practical nonlinear constitu-
tive model developed fi'om the results of drained triaxial compression tests was proposed. The proposed nonlinear numerical
constitutive model was applied to a large scale model test and to a field constmction in Japan. The predictions agree well
with the measurements.
Keywords: EPS-geofoam, cons~'tu~ive model, triaxial compression test, nonlinear numerical constitutive model

1. Introduction In general, the linear elastic model using initial tangent

Super light Expanded Polystyrene blocks (EPS blocks)
have been used in the road conswaction industry as a light
weight material for nearly three decades, The literature
indicates that the Norwegian Road Research Laboratory
has successfully used EPS-geofoam on more than 100
projects, it has been reported that the EPS-geofoam pro-
duces almost "Zero" lateral pressure on the bridge abutment
walls (Bang, S.C., 1995). EPS-geofoam has also been used
extensively as frost proofing layer in highways in Europe
and N o a h America (BASF, 1995).
When EPS-geofoam needs to be used, it should have
modulus has been used to predict the behavior of EPS-geo-
foam. But, it doesn't represent the nonlinear behavior of
EPS-geofoam, The nonlinear model was developed by
Cho, Y~K. (1992) as shown in Fig, 1, But, this constitutive
model for the stress-s~rain of EPS-geofoam is not practical
because it is difficult to obtain the exact values of its param-
eters, The time dependent model using Findiey equation
proposed by Horvath J,S. (1998) assumes that the immedi-
ate strain has only an elastic component although not neces-
sarily linear. It neglects plastic strain. T. Taka~ra and K.
50

appropriate strength and stress-strain behavior so that EPS- , !/-,,q-- !nitial Tangent Line
geofoam can endure overburden stress and deformation. 40

0-
The exact behavior of EPS-geofoam has to be predicted in
order to decide installation shape and replacement area
v
U) 3O .......... ........ i ......... / i
UJ
since the effectiveness of EPS-geofoam varies depending
on the installation shape.
EPS-geofoam behaves differently from soils, and the
O~
I- 2o
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::i"i
strength and stress-strain behavior of EPS-geofoam show
large differences based on the density of EPS-geofoam.
Therefore, it needs to develop the practical numerical con- o o.a2 o.~ o.o6 0.08 o.~ o.12 o.14

stimtive model predicting the behavior when EPS-geofoam AXIAL STRAIN

is employed as light weight filling material. Fig. 1. Parameters to Depict Stress-strain Relation

*Member, Professor, Dept. of Civil Engrg. of Hanyang Univ. (E-mail: hengdang@unitel.co.kr)

**Member, Senior Researcher, Office of Korea National Housing Co. (E-mail: haisik@hitel.net)
***Member, Graduate student, Dept. of Civil Engrg. of Hanyang Unbz (E-mail: geoeng@unitel.co.kr)

The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review on November 2, 2000,

Vol. 5, No. 2/June 2001 - 175-

 Byung-Sik CT~un,Hae-Sik Lira and Young- Wun Shin

Miura, 1995 are analyzed EPS-geofoam by DEM. E~ l ln~ 1 Y0

C (lb)
So, the objects of this paper are two. One is to propose the lX-o Xd L (1 +--Ejfo)J
practical stress-strain model of EPS-geofoam as a function
1 - ( - 107 + 91019 + ( 0 . 6 3 - 0.327) or3 (lc)
of overburden stress so that it is employed as light weight
filling material. And the other is to convict the adaptability G - (-4180 + 39000 t9 + (-6.2 - 53 Z) or3 (1 d)
of proposed constitutive model comparing the predictions
Ep = ( 1 0 4 + 4 4 0 t ) + ( - 3 . 6 - 1 5 0 7 ) c 5 (le)
with the measurements in the laboratory test and the field
construction. Y0 = (1.4+90519+( 1 . 1 + 4 . 5 D c 5 (lf)
cr3
/1= 0.2 0 . 5 ~ for 0< c73<62kPa (2)
2. Review of EPS-geofoam characteristics
where, cq : axial stress (kPa),
Anisotropy of EPS-geofoam is one of the most important
g : Axial strain
properties, but it is easily neglected. The stress-strain
y: unit weight ofEPS-geofoam (kN/m 3)
behavior of EPS-genfoam varies with producing direction
c~ : confming pressure (kPa)
(Kutara et a/., 1990). The direction of stress on the EPS-
g : Poisson's ratio
geofoam perpendicular to producing is more effective.
E~ : initial modulus
The EPS-geofoam typically shows elasto-plastic behav-
Ep : plastic modulus
ior showing linear behavior in the strain range from 1% to
l: intersection of the axial stress axis and the
1.5%. As the density of EPS-geofoam increases, the modu-
plastic tangent line
lus and axial stresses increase without showing clear apex.
X0 : strain value at the intersection of the initial tan-
According to Hamada and Yamanouchi (1989), the vol-
gent line and the plastic tangent line.
rune of EPS-geofoam decreases linearly during compres-
Y0 : axial stress value corresponding to strain X0
sion. Namely, the volume change rate is constant, and
depends on the density of EPS-geofoam and lateral pres- In this model, elasto-plastic stress-strain behavior of EP S-
sure applied. geofoam, which is related to the density and the confining
Another important property of EPS-geofoam is time stress is depicted with parameters (C, 1, G, Ep and Yo) in Fig.
dependent stress-strain behavior. According to previous 1. The Poisson's ratio that is important property in numeri-
researches (Chun et al., 1996, EPS CMDO, 1993, Horvath, cal analysis to calculate total volume change, is suggested
1998), the strain of EPS-geofoam increases with applied as a function of confining stress as shown in Eq. (2).
stress that maintains for long duration at the same stress The time dependent stress-strain model developed by
level. The amount and duration of creep depend on the den- Horvath, J.S. (1998) is expressed in Eq. (3). it assumes that
sity of EPS-geofoam and the level of applying stress (Hor- the immediate strain has only an elastic component al-
vath, 1998). Therefore, these 'facts indicate that EPS- though not necessarily linear and neglects plastic strain.
geofoam has to be used under adequate stress level in prac-
tical situations. x-G+G

3. Numerical model of EPS-geofoam =e'Fsi

rib(cry+o,- m,.,.smnt
' '--Y - -o-5It .. (3)
~cr~F G.J

There are three kinds of numerical model for representing
the behavior of EPS-geofoam. The first is the linear elastic
model using initial tangential modulus. The second is bi-
linear model (Bang, S.C., 1998, Cho, Y.K., 1992, Preber, T.
et al., 1994). The third is time dependent stress-strain model
(Horvath J.S., 1998).
The bi-linear model was developed by Cho, Y.K. (1992)
as shown in Fig. 1, and the corresponding equations are pre-
sented in Eq. (1) and Eq. (2).
where, x :total strain at some time after a stress applica-
tion
: the immediate linear strain upon a stress applica-
tion
G : the time-dependent{creep) component of strain
at some time after a stress application
GF : a dimensionless Findley material parameters
GF : a Findley material parameter with dimension of
stress
cr~F : a Findley material parameter with dimension of

"=('+'.4'ex.OC: (la)
stress
cr : the applied stress

- 176 - KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Application of Constitutive Model to Predict the Behavior of EPS-Geofoam

mv, nv :a dimensionless Findley material parameters
4. Proposed nonlinear numerical
EPS-geofoam
Principally, EPS-Geofoam will be used with stress not
with creep. In this study proposed nonlinear elastic model is
under condition of short-term loading.
Drained triaxial compression tests o f EPS-geofoam with
various densities and confining pressure were executed to
develop the practical constitutive model. The samples for
experiments were prepared with four different densities of
30 kg/m 3, 25 kg/m 3, 20 kg/m 3, 15 kg/m 3. The samples were
trimmed as cylindrical shape, diameter of 50 mm and
height o f 100 mm, and a series o f compression test were
performed. The axial load is applied to different specimens
o f various densities. Also, different confining stress o f 0,
20, 40, 60 kPa were applied. The axial load was applied at
the speed of 1 mm/min. The specimens were in drained
condition during the test, and the volume change of EPS-
geofoam during the test was measured by checking the vol-
ume o f water discharged from the triaxial cell and the rub-
ber membrane encasing the specimen to calculate Poissoffs
ratio. The experimental device was controlled by personal
computer.
model of The axial stress-strain relations obtained from triaxial
apparatus are shown in Fig. 2 with various densities of
EPS-geofoam and confining stresses. Also, the relations
between experimental axial strain and volumetric strain are
shown in Fig. 3.
The stress-strain relation of EPS-geofoam is closely
linked to its density and confining stress. As the density and
the confining stress increase, the axial stress and initial tan-
gential modulus increase as shown in Fig. 2. The stress-
strain relation to represent stress-strain behavior of EPS-
geofoam is proposed in Eq. (4) based on the experimental
results.
In this tests, the volume change was measured water
volume change between the wrapped membrane EPS-
geofoam and triaxial cell. So upper press plate and EPS-
geofoam sample were not exactly contacted, and the ini-
tial air pressure existed the inner membrane. The axial-
strain was measured linear axial strain directly. There-
fore, for the this reason from the above, saw the dila-
tancy as shown in Fig. 3, whereas not appeared the
dilatancy as shown in Fig. 2.

300

c~ j i !
200 9i . . . . 200 - ................................!................ " ~' :~.~" ~ 'U?)
b9

s . . . . . . . . . .

: 1 ~pressure uca ,:

A 4OKra lOO i ~ ,, ZOK~a

r~ ..... t - - ..... ,,
I..~I~............ i i o ~0~ ~

(200 4,00 600 e P -4-- i i

O.00 zt00 800 120(3
axial strain (%)
axial strain (%)
(a) density 30kg/m ~ (b) density 25kg/m 3
300 300

9i ~ ! i

i
200 ,,r

.e
v

............................ ? i' ~176 /

100
x
r

0.130 4.00 800 12oo

o
O.O0
. 4.00 8.00
_ .........
12 O0

axial strain (%) axial strain (%)

(e) density 20kg/m ~ (d) density 15kglm ~
Fig. 2. T h e T e s t R e s u l t s o f A x i a l S t r e s s - s t r a i n R e l a t i o n

Vol. 5,No. 2/June2001 - 177-

 Byung-Sik CT~un,HaelSik Lim cmd YounglWUn Shin

10.00 1000 . . . . . . . . . : ,~

8'00
............... :
]
I
I O'
. .
rqconflnlno~
~pressure
ii
.~a
~
----i ................ ~------z; ......
] i o
b ~ q~o
~ ........... S ' ~ ~ ...... 800 /
[
[
r288"~'fii~i'i{~ 22-ii
~#ressure .222
................ T~
.L. ............... .~.~..-..,.I
'~ t
........... I''ll "~ II ~ . ~ . 1_...:. ~ ;" . . . . . . . ................ ["'''~" Gl "4~ =~" "[ ~'" ~ I

ooo ~ ~ ~ ~. 6.~o .1 .........~...............:................,...........~ 1t..e.........i............/

.=_ i ! i ~ ~ i~ u
t ts~} ~,~ ~ ............
400 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~oo-~ ............... ................ i------2-% .......... ~-, .............. ~........... /
o>
] ', .....
/

oo0ti iltl iIiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii!iiii:iiiit 121 ...............

i............
I
0.00 4, O0 8 m 1200 0,00 4.00 8.00 12.00

axial strain ( % ) axial strain ( % )

(a) density 3 0 k g / m 3 (b) density 2 5 k g / m ~

1000 10.00
............... i ...... io; ~ ............................ ~ .............................. : ............... j........~, .......
f Dconfining~ K= ,' ~
/ pressure a o ~ , % . <' [ u~ressure-~'~ o ,.
8.00 800 [ ~ , a~ '-' "~, ~.............. /
............. i... o. ii ~" ~ ' " ~ " ~" 0 ~

6.00
l
............... I ' 8 "
z~ ll
i,
i ............
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~" K'~'" "1 ~'"~" ~
b..~..~.! ! ~.~....~ ............... 600 -
Io :
............... ,9............ ; i ~ ~"* o~
]
.=_
......... ............. : .............~.~~..{..~ .......... ................ - m
9 : + ~i~e~ ~ - [
4 (30 . . i ': ~ I ~ i :. ............ 400 ....................... ~................ .~.~..I,.s
,,~~ L ~ i l
-6 >
>

2 O0 - 2(30 -

s i[iiiiii;iiiiiii
OOO - 0.00 l [ i --t ............. I
0.00 4.00 8:}0 12.00 0 O0 4,00 8.00 1200

axial strain ( % ) axial s t r a i n (%)

(r density 2Ok~/m ~ (d) density 1 5 k g / m 3
F i g . 3. T h e T e s t R e s u l t s of Axial Strain-vol. Strain Relation

The material parameters a, b and c depend on the density o f relation with the density o f E P S - g e o f o a m and the confining
EPS-geofoam and the confining stress as shown in Eq. (5). stress, and the correlation coefficient, R, o f a and b are
b
6/s 1 0.982 and 0.800 respectively. O n the other hand, the coeffi-
~1 - b (4)
C+ E 1
cient o f determination o f parameter c is only 0.31. It is
because that the range o f parameter c is low with the value
where, % : axial stress
o f 0.814-~0.929, while a varies from 105.840 to 265.070,
~1 : axial strain
and b from 0.966 to 2.860. However, since the contribution
a, b, c : parameter
o f parameter c to form the stress-strain curve o f EPS-geo-
a - - 6 0 . 9 5 5 + 9 . 8 4 3 x d + 0 . 3 3 9 x cr3 R - 0.982 (5a)
foam is relatively small, Eq. (4) is reliable. The stress-strain
b - 1 . 1 3 5 + 0 . 0 4 2 • d - 0 . 0 0 8 x cr3 R - 0.800 (5b) behavior o f E P S - g e o f o a m well coincides with the behavior
predicted by proposed model.
c - - 0 . 4 3 7 + 0.102 x d - 0 . 0 0 2 x a~
The derivative o f Eq. (4), which is the tangential modu-
+0.011 x c s - 0 . 3 8 9 x d x c ~ R 2 - 0.310 (5c)
lus at each stress level, can be expressed as Eq. (6).
where, d : density o f E P S - g e o f o a m (kg/m 3) abcs 1
E, - 2b b 2
(6)
(Y3: confining stress (kPa) s + 2cs
R : correlation coefficient
where, G : tangential modulus
R 2 : coefficient o f determination
s : Axial strain
The statistic analyses o f various tests show that the mini- a, b, c : Parameters concerned with density and
m u m correlation coefficient is 0.99. Therefore, Eq. (4) confining stress
describes axial stress-strain behavior o f EPS-genfoam suc- The relationsNp between Poissons ratio and the density
cessfully (Table 1). The parameter a and b have multi-linear and the confining pressure o f E P S - g e o f o a m can be express-

- 178 - KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Application of Constitutive Model to Predict the Behavior of EPS-Geofoam

Table 1. The Statistic Analysis of Triaxial Test Data of EPS on Stress-strain Relation

Curve fitting of test results on proposed Prediction of parameter a,b,c by equation (4)
Density Confining ftmction " equation (3)
(t/m3) Stress kPa Conelation
a b c Coefficient a b c
0.294 0 238.584 2.2 0.537* 0.9985 234.347 2.394 0.814
0.294 0 248.515 2.17 0.684 0.9988 234.347 2.394 0.814
0.294 0 248.044 2.06 0.901 0.9978 234.347 2.394 0.814
0.294 20 246.71 2.86 0.985 0.9978 241.127 2.234 0.794
0.294 20 261.202 2.18 1.190' 0.9968 241.127 2.234 0.794
0.294 20 258.959 2.12 0.726 0.9977 241.127 2.234 0.794
0.294 40 252.528 2.01 0.900 0.9986 247.907 2.074 0.773
0.294 40 255.185 2.48 0.864 0.9973 47.907 2.074 0.773
0.294 40 236.599 2.45 0.567 0.9978 247.907 2.074 0.773
0.294 60 263.031 1.88 0.629 0.9977 254.687 1.914 0.753
0.294 60 265.07 1.95 0.829 0.9958 254.687 1.914 0.753
0.245 0 174.611 2.01 0.875 0.9985 185.13 2.184 0.857
0.245 0 167.971 2.01 0.69 0.9985 185.13 2.184 0.857
0.245 0 173.444 2.30 1.114' 0.9989 185.13 2.184 0.857
0.245 20 196.215 1.84 0.637' 0.9972 191.91 2.024 0.875
0.245 20 197.153 1.94 0.972 0.9984 191.91 2.024 0.875
0.245 20 187.599 1.92 0.726 0.9984 191.91 2.024 0.875
0.245 40 179.574 2.13 1.031 0.9961 198.69 1.864 0.893
0.245 40 179.972 1.807 0.95 0.9949 198.69 1.864 0.893
0.245 40 185.094 1.75 0.811 0.9958 198.69 1.864 0.893
0.245 60 196.225 1.42 1.062 0.9937 205.47 1.704 0.912
0.245 60 183.996 1.542 0.599' 0.9912 205.47 1.704 0.912
0.245 60 195.417 1.739 0.715 0.9910 205.47 1.704 0.912
0.196 0 127.718 2.2 0.967 0.9974 135.913 1.974 0.799
0.196 0 121.901 2.203 0.928 0.9969 135.913 1.974 0.799
0.196 20 142.91 1.591 0.737 0.9989 142.693 1.814 0.856
0.196 20 132.287 2.281 0.823 0.9983 142.693 1.814 0.856
0.196 40 134.355 1.805 0.584* 0.9947 149.473 1.654 0.913
0.196 40 150.003 1.565 1.007 0.9989 149.473 1.654 0.913
0.196 40 142.382 1.873 0.716 0.9949 149.473 1.654 0.913
0.196 60 161.188 0.966 1.062 0.9986 156.253 1.494 0.970
0.196 60 174.163 0.945 1.257 * 0.9982 156.253 1.494 0.970
0.147 0 91.812 1.435 0.739 0.9983 86.696 1.765 0.640
0.147 0 92.381 1.805 0.624 0.9994 86.696 1.765 0.640
0.147 20 97.642 1.487 0.786 0.9963 93.476 1.605 0.736
0.147 20 100.209 1.749 0.693 0.9967 93.476 1.605 0.736
0.147 20 99.255 1.674 0.584 0.9958 93.476 1.605 0.736
0.147 40 104.817 1.568 0.696 0.9940 100.256 1.445 0.833
0.147 40 108.622 1.528 0.773 0.9962 100.256 1.445 0.833
0.147 40 105.837 1.37 0.896 0.9902 100.256 1.445 0.833
0.147 60 108.696 1.346 0.938 0.9957 107.036 1.285 0.929
0.147 60 112.109 1.489 1.190' 0.9955 107.036 1.285 0.929
0.147 60 115.817 1.25 1.042 0.9855 107.036 1.285 0.929
0.147 60 108.786 1.300 0.958 0.9944 107.036 1.285 0.929
9excluded data in regression analysis o f t

Vol. 5, No. 2/June 2001 - 179 -

 Byung-Sik Chun, Hue-Sik Lira ard Young- Wan Shin

ed as Eq. (7). The volumetric strain of EPS-geofoam has a Table 2. Statistic Analysis Results of Poisson's Ratio
linear relation with the axial compression strain as shown in Calculation PreNctionof
Fig. 3, and the slope of the carwe has a correlation with the Density Confining Vol. Strain/ ofpoisson ~oissonratio
(t/m3) Stress axialstrain ratio by Eq.
density and the confining stress of EPS-geofoam. (6) by Eq. (7)
The regression analysis of the relation between the 0.03 0 0.59 0.9934 0.2050 0.189332
volumetric strain and the axial compression strain con- 0.03 0 0.6533 0.9995 0.1733 0.189332
ceming the density and the confining stress of EPS-geo-
0.03 0 0.6478 0.9983 0.1761 0.189332
foam in Fig. 3 shows that correlation coefficient is
0.03 20 0.7339 0.9985 0.1326 0.142977
0.9934 at least (Table 2).
0.03 20 0.7735 0.9985 0.1133 0.142977
r 0.0023xcr 3 R = = 0 . 8 4 (7) 0.03 30 0.8446 0.9997 0.0777 0.119800
where, p : Poisson's ratio 0.03 40 0.8235 0.9991 0.0883 0.096623
d : density ofEPS-gcofoam (kg/m 3) 0.03 40 0.8323 0.9986 0.0838 0.096623
crs : confining pressure (kPa) 0.03 40 0.8686 0.9995 0.0674 0.096623
R 2 : coefficient of determination 0.03 60 0.8713 0.9996 0.0644 0.050268
0.03 60 0.8072 0.9993 0.0964 0.050268
0.03 60 0.8873 0.9995 0.0564 0.050268
5. Numerical analysis of proposed model
0.025 0 0.5443 0.9996 0.2278 0.173900
The proposed nttmerical model was applied to two cases. 0.025 0 0.4316 0.9982 0.2842* 0.173900
One is the full scale model test which was performed in 0.025 0 0.4262 0.9998 0.2869* 0.173900
Public Works Research Institute, Ministry of Construction 0.025 0 0.413 0.9994 0.2935* 0.173900
of Japan, (1990), and the other is the retaining wall con- 0.025 20 0.737 0.999 0.1331 0.127546
stmction site to verify its applicability.
0.025 20 0.7698 0.9993 0.1151 0.127546
0.025 20 0.8615 0.9997 0.0692* 0.127546
5.1 Comparison with laboratory experimental tests
0.025 40 0.8323 0.9993 0.0839 0.081191
After the EPS-geofoam is built on as shown in Fig. 4,
horizontal pressure and settlement were measured. The 0.025 40 0.8321 0.9999 0.0840 0.081191
EPS-geofoam has a density of 20 kg/m 3 and the size of 2.0 0.025 40 0.861 0.9997 0.0695 0.081191
m• m• m, and the backfill material is river sand. The 0.025 60 0.8929 0.9997 0.0535 0.034837
soil parameters are shown in Table 3 and 4. 0.025 60 0.9242 0.9997 0.0379 0.034837
The proposed nonlinear elastic model and linear elastic 0.025 60 1.0847 0.9997 0.0423* 0.034837
model using initial tangential modulus axe used to analysis
0.02 0 0.655 0.9996 0.1725 0.158469
EPS-gcofoam, linear elastic model to concrete and Mohr-
0.02 20 0.7591 0.9982 0.1204 0.112115
Coulomb elasto-plastic model soil respectively
0.02 20 0.7532 0.9993 0.1234 0.112115
The comparisons of results between linear elastic model
and proposed nonlinear model are shown in Fig. 5, 6 and 7 0.02 20 0.7534 0.9996 0.1233 0.112115
0.02 40 0.8568 0.9999 0.0716 0.065760
0.02 40 0.8415 0.9995 0.0793 0.065760
face panel SCREW JACK unit : mm
0.02 40 0.8467 0.9998 0.076 0.065760
side wall Oil JACK *excluded data in regression analysis of Poisson's ratio
coo t
. . . . . .

I
o JUl Eps / ,and for horizontal pressure and settlement. It shows that they
IIit le ,; correspond.
II!1 0 r-------.--
25tv I c~
5.2 Comparison with field measurements
...... I ~ l ) ,~ooo
The two additional retaining structures were built on the
slope of existing retaining wall as shown in Fig. 8. Since the
Fig. 4. Outline of Laboratory Model Test bearing capacity of retaining wall was not enough, EPS-

- 180 - KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Application of Constitutive Model to Predict the Behavior of EPS-Geofoam

t.0 2',0 2.0 settlement

Plate
6m NO.3 I

6 i , , I - ~ ~.

g 5 ,i,
i
03 4
E
3
2m ~. " *~,~,k~ ~t.,.~ ~ '
r
"~ " ( ~. E=~S nlodel "

2 ,~, EPS model r~ - lineal elast c

linear elastic [ ~ rllSgsJred calue I
1
measured value
-5 [ I I I I
0 I I 0 1 2 3 4 5 8
0 1 2
horizontal position (m)
horizontal pressure (tim 2)
Fig. 7. Settlement after Banking of Height 2 rn
Fig. 5. Horizontal Pressure Before Banking

8 --
1.0 retaining
.5 wall

6 el
I
5 =
.E
d3 4
t-
,'5 J ~11,_,~. retaining
2m
wall
2 ,.~__~ EPS model Fig. 8. Outline of Test Construction
linearelastic
1 -- measured value
road lOm
O

1
I I
0 1 2 I settlement upper
horizontal pressure (tim 2) inclinometer plate con'c slab
Fig. 6. Horizontal Pressure after Banking of Height 1 rn f-
- I
~ concrete
I ~ anchoring
i l head
geofoam was used in backfill material. The slope in the rear r d
o f the EPS-geofoam filling is made at a slope of l : 1.5 to I r middle
reduce earth pressure. EPS-genfoam has a density of 20 kg/
m 3, and the size of EPS-geofoam is 1.8 m• mx0.4 m
W earth
(Fig. 9). H ~iI i pressurement
0 3m 0 8m
Wire mesh is installed on the concrete slabs which are
Fig. 9. Outline of Installing Measurements
placed in the surl~ace and the middle point o f EPS-genfoam
filling section. The concrete slabs are extended to the
ground as a role o f anchorage. The soils contacted on the imental test analysis obtained tiom triaxial tests.
EPS-geofoam are classified as GM and SM by USCS, and Boundary conditions in analysis are as follows; the anal-
soil properties are shown in Table 3 and 4. ysing scope was proposed as shown in Fig. 10, the displace-
In mmaerical analysis, nonlinear elastic model and linear ments of X and Y directions are fixed at the bases, and
elastic using initial tangent modnlns are employed for EPS- the displacements o f X direction are allowed at vertical
geofoam, linear elastic model was used for the concrete faces. Since the site is road, the traffic load o f 5.1 t/m 2
slab boundary o f EPS blocks and concrete plate, and Mohr- (DB 240, 3.8 t/m2(DB 18t)are applied on the road sur-
Coulomb elasto-plastic model is used for soils as shown in face. A t the locations o f the road surface, top concrete
Fig. 10. The soil parameter values used in analysis were base, and mid-layer concrete slab in the width o f road
determined through the same routine as in laboratory exper- surface 10 m, the measurements and the predicts o f set-

Vol. 5,No. 2/June2001 - 181 -

 Byung-Sik Chun, Hae-Sik Lira and Young-Wart Shin

Table 3. Test Results of Applied Soil

Natural water Max. dry Opt. Moistur
Type of soil Unit weight Friction angle Cohesion c density ym.... content
T(t/m3) content
o), (%) (degree) (t/m2) (t/m 3) COop~(%)
Backfilled soil of model test 1.46 6.3 31.3 0.5 1.606 10.9
Field soil of application site 1.68 30 1.5 1.967 9.5

Table 4. Material Parameters Used in Analysis

Type of soil Unit weight Friction angle, Cohesion c Elastic modulus Poisson's ratio Bulk modulus Shear modulus
/(t/m 3) ~ (degree) (t/m2) g(Kpa) v K(Kpa) G(Kpa)
lackfilled soil of model tesl 1.46 31.3 0.5 1.5x 104 0.25 1.0x 104 6.0x 104
;ield soil of application site 1.78 30 1.5 1.96x 104 0.30 1.63x 104 7.5x 10~
~PS as nonlinear elastic 0.02 Eq. (5) Eq. (6)
~PS as linear elastic 0.02 - - 5.10x103 0.12 2.24x103 2.28x103
;oncrete 2.5 2.04x 106 0.15 9.52x 106 7.69x 106

axial stress and strain can be expressed as a function o f

material model unit : rn 2 . 5 0 ~ parameters a, b, c concerned with the density o f EPS-geo-
rnohr-coulomb
elastic ~alysing scope foam and the confining stress. In the proposed model, the
eps & elastic
parameter a and b have multi-linear relation, and parameter
L ..L c has a nonlinear relation with the density o f EPS-geofoam
and the confining stress.
(2) The first derivative of stress-strain function, which

J_ .50~ can represent the tangential modulus, can be expressed as a

Fig. 10. Applicated Material Medel in Analysis
tlements using elastic model and proposed model were
compared in Fig. 11.
The predictions using proposed nonlinear model are
larger than those using linear elastic model, and agree well
with the measurements.
6. C o n c l u s i o n s
In this study, the numerical model to predict behavior o f
EPS-geofoam was proposed. In order to estimate validity o f
the proposed model, numerical analyses for the large scale
laboratory test and the field measurements were performed.
The conclusions o f this study are as follows;
(1) The EPS-geofoam has an elasto-plastic behavior, and
its behavior has close relations to density and confining
stress. Through the analysis o f drained triaxial test results
for the density of EPS-geofoam o f 15 kg/m3-30 kg/m 3, the
function o f density and confining stress.
(3) The volumetric strain and axial strain have a linear
relation, and its slope is related to the density and the con-
fining stress. The Poisson's ratio, which can be calculated
by dividing volumetric strain by axial strain, has a multi-
linear relation with density and confining stress, and its
relation can be described as a certain fimction.
(4) In the case o f the horizontal earth pressure compari-
sons, the predicted results by the proposed nonlinear elastic
model does not show a considerable difference with the
results o f linear elastic model and the measurements. How-
ever, the settlement predicted by the proposed constitutive
model shows larger values than the results by the linear
elastic model, and gives approximately the same values as
measurements. Therefore, the proposed model predicts
nonlinear compressibility of EPS-geofoam better than
existing linear elastic model.
References
1. S.C. Bang (1995). "Experimental and Analytical Study of
Expanded Polystyrene Blocks in Highway Application,"
Proceedings of International Seminar on the Application of
EPS Jbr Embankment Construction, Seoul, pp. 105-133.
2. BASF (1995), "Code of Practice Using Expanded Polysty-

182 KSCE Joumat of Civil Engineering

 Application of Constitutive Model to Predict the Behavior ofEPS-Geofoam

O bottom of EPg(analysed) -El- aid. con'c slab(analysed) -4-- upper con'c slab(analysed)
road surface(analysea) - - ~ roa~ surface(measureed) F : ~ upper con'c slab(~easured)
iB mid. conic slab(measured)

o
Er
(P
E E
o)
zl]

r -4 LJ
u3

-C . , , , . , .. --- i. . . . . . , , r ,

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 ~e ~8 20 2~ ~4 z~ zB
horizontal position of E P S filling (m) horizontal position of E P S filling (m)

(a) settlement by proposed EPS model(DB 24t) tl)) settlement by linear elastic model(DB 24t)

c
~D
E E
o
~D

,4
-C~ , p ., ..... ,

t6 ~8 20 22 24 2~ z8
horizontal position of E P S filling (m) horizontal position of E P S filling (m)
(c) settlement by proposed EPS model(DB 18t) (d) settlement by linear elastic model(DB 18t)
Fig. 11. The Comparison of Settlements with Surface Load and Numerical Model

rene for the Construction of Road Embankments," Technical
Information from BASF, pp. 7-9.
3. YK. Cho (1992). Behavior ojT~etaining Wallwith EPS Blocks
as Baclffill, Thesis of Master Course, University of South
Dakota, pp. 1-29
4. B.S. Chun, M.S. Jang and H.S. Lim (1996). "A Study on
Engineering Characteristics of Load Reducing Material
EPS," Journal of the Korean Geoteehnical Society, Vol. 12,
No. 2, pp. 59-69.
5. EPS Construction Method Development Organization (1993).
EPS Construction Methods, pp. 1-58.
6. Hamada, E. andYamanouchi, T. (1989). "Mechanical Proper-
ties of Expanded Polystyrene as a Lightweight Fill Material,
Soils and foundations," Japanese Geotechnical Society, Vol.
37, No. 2, pp. 13-18.
7. Horvath J.S. (1996). "Geofoam Gensynthetic: Past, Present
and Future," Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. 1,No. 1, 1996.
8. Hoiwath J.S. (1998). "Mathematical Modeling of the Sl~ess-
Strain-Time Behavior of Geosynthetics Using the Findley
Equation: General Theory and Application to EPS-Block
Geofoam," Manhattan College Research Report No. CE/GE-
98-3, U.S.A.
9. Kutara, K., Aoyama, N., Takenchi, 12 and Takechi O. (1990).
Prototype Model test on Earth Pressure Reducing by EPS of
Block Filling Structures, Public Works Research Institute in
Japan, pp. 4-55.
10. Preber, T., Bang, S.C. and YK. Chung (1994). '~ehavior of
expanded polystyrene blocks," Transportation Research
Record No. 1462, Transportation Research Board, Washing-
ton, D.C., U.S.A., pp. 36-46.
11. T. Takahara and K. Miura (1998). 'SMechanical Characteris-
tics of EPS Block Fill and its simulation by DEM and FEM,
Soils and Foundations," Japanese Geotechnical Society, Vol.
38, No.l, pp. 97-110.

Vol. 5,No. 2/June2001 - 183-