ARTICLE IN PRESS

Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 175–180

www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Technical Note

Behavior of EPS geofoam in true triaxial compression tests

Chin Jian Leoa,, M Kumruzzamanb,1, Henry Wongc,2, Jin H Yinb,3
a
School of Engineering, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South DC, NSW 1797, Australia
b
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China
c
Ecole Nationale Travaux Publics de E’tat, 2 rue Maurice Audin, 69518 Vaulx en Velin, Cedex, France
Received 11 May 2007; received in revised form 6 October 2007; accepted 18 October 2007
Available online 3 December 2007

Abstract

This paper investigates the behavior of EPS geofoam in a true triaxial apparatus using 70 mm  70 mm  140 mm prismatic brick-
shaped specimens. The specimens are subjected to different stress paths in the deviator (p) plane by means of stress-controlled loading, in
which the axial stress is imposed at a rate of 75 kPa/min in the major principal direction. Stress–strain characteristics and volume change
behavior have been recorded, and the yield surface has been deduced from the experimental data. The following observations have also
been made for the geofoam: (a) it is an elastoplastic hardening material with plastic contractive volume change under compressive
loading, (b) it softens stiffness-wise under confining stress, (c) the onset of contractive volume change corresponds quite well to the
proportional limit, and (d) yielding is a slightly decreasing function of the intermediate principal stress. The study found that yielding can
be represented reasonably well by a Drucker–Prager yield surface.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: EPS geofoam; True triaxial test; Volumetric contraction; Constitutive model; Yield locus; Radial stress path

1. Introduction The use of EPS geofoam in geotechnical applications

Geotechnical applications of EPS geofoam abound. For
instance, due to its extreme lightweight and high strength/
stiffness to weight ratio, EPS geofoam is an excellent
material for building road embankments, in flexible
pavements and in fill constructed on top of very soft
compressible soils (e.g., Refsdal, 1985; Duskov, 1991;
Skuggedal and Aaboe, 1991; Frydenlund, 1991; McDonald
and Brown, 1993). The lightweight property of EPS has
been further exploited for optimal repair of failed slopes
(Jutkofsky et al., 2000), while its high compressibility
makes it a compressible buffer material of choice (Horvath,
1997; Bathurst et al., 2006; Zaman and Bathurst, 2007).
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 47360058; fax: +61 2 47360833.
E-mail addresses: c.leo@uws.edu.au (C.J. Leo),
05900107r@polyu.edu.hk (M. Kumruzzaman), henry.wong@entpe.fr
(H. Wong), cejhyin@polyu.edu.hk (J.H. Yin).
1
Tel.: +852 2766 6081; fax: +852 2334 6389.
2
Tel.: +33 4 72047268; fax: +33 4 72047156.
3
Tel.: +852 27666065; fax: +852 23346389.
such as those described above can be better optimized and
improved through rigorous field and laboratory testing.
Moreover, our understanding of the material behavior
can be enhanced when experimental investigation is carried
out in tandem with computer modeling, the latter being
particularly useful in filling the knowledge gaps where
expensive experimentation alone cannot do it. Yielding and
hardening behavior, and mechanical properties such as
stiffness and deformability of EPS geofoam, have already
been studied using conventional laboratory uniaxial and
triaxial compression tests by previous investigators (e.g.,
Zou and Leo, 1998; Atmatzidis et al., 2001; Chun et al.,
2004). Given that two of the three principal stresses are
identical, conventional triaxial tests can only access two
limiting lines of the yield surface in the general stress space,
when the Lode angle equals 01 or 1801. Such conditions are
rarely met in practice except at points of symmetry and/or
under very particular loading conditions. Generally, true
triaxial conditions prevail (near edges, unsymmetrical
structures or loading, etc.). As such, only the true triaxial
tests can establish the yield surface in such general stress

0266-1144/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2007.10.005
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
176 C.J. Leo et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 175–180
conditions. For instance, when Wong and Leo (2006)
proposed an elastoplastic hardening model based on
conventional triaxial test data, they also pointed out that
under triaxial conditions, the Drucker–Prager and Mohr–
Coulomb yield criteria will give similar results. Only
experimental results through more comprehensive true
triaxial tests can best decide which yield criterion is more
appropriate.
In view of the foregoing, a series of true triaxial tests
with three distinct principal stresses have been performed
to investigate the response of EPS geofoam under various
stress paths and to deduce its yield locus. In recent years,
various investigators have designed and undertaken true
triaxial tests for the purpose of studying the mechanical
behavior of geomaterials such as rocks (Hamison and
Chang, 2000), sand (Wang and Lade, 2001) and unsatu-
rated soil (Matsuoka et al., 2002). These tests have been
useful in enabling the investigators to develop constitutive
models for these materials. In the true triaxial tests
performed in this paper, the prismatic brick-shaped speci-
men is loaded independently in three orthogonal directions
corresponding to directions of the principal stresses. This
makes it possible to investigate the material response under
a number of stress paths without rotation of the principal
stress/strain axes. Of particular interest in this study is the
determination of an appropriate yield function for EPS
geofoam.
2. Experimental testing
2.1. EPS geofoam
EPS geofoam is manufactured in different grades with
the density typically ranging from 10 to 30 kg/m3. The
lower the density, the more compressible is the material
and the lower is its yielding stress. In this paper, the
material investigated is the 16 kg/m3 EPS geofoam, but
the qualitative results obtained will be applicable to the
geofoam material of different densities.
2.2. True triaxial test apparatus
Fig. 1a shows the true triaxial testing device used in
this study. The device was originally developed by the
Geotechnical and Consulting Testing Systems (GCTS).
Due to non-uniform stress distribution at the corner of the
specimen during loading, the loading frame was modified
by Yin et al. at Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Details
of the four sliding plates design are presented in Yin (2006).
The device includes four hydraulic load rams equipped
with linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs)
so that each platen can be independently computer
controlled. The loading can be either stress controlled or
strain controlled. With this configuration, the specimen is
maintained at the center to minimize the corner effect. This
is accomplished by always making one of the LVDTs on
each plane with hydraulic loaders the ‘‘master’’ and the
opposing LVDT the ‘‘slave’’. The master LVDT can be
controlled to deform at a particular rate, including zero,
and the slave is automatically programed to deform an
equal amount. Each one of the horizontal loading rams has
an internal load cell and there is only one load cell with the
top vertical ram. Four sliding rigid plates (top and bottom,
left and right) are used to apply two principal stresses.
The machine is currently designed for a brick-shaped
specimen. The whole specimen is encased in a rubber
membrane and the four sliding plates are all enclosed in a
chamber as shown in Fig. 1a. Thus, the front and the back
faces of the brick-shaped specimen are loaded by water
pressure inside the chamber. The vertical and lateral
stresses are applied using rigid plates and oil jacks and
are the major and intermediate principal stresses. The
minor principal stress is applied by water pressure in the
chamber. To reduce the effects of friction developing
between the membrane and the sliding plates, 0.01-mm-
thick plastic sheet with a thin layer of grease is used.
GCTS pressure–volume controllers that have been used to
measure pressure/volume are integrated with the true
triaxial system. The system uses hydraulic digital servo
control for maintaining the necessary test conditions.
Data from the experiments are logged electronically. All
the transducers in the setup are connected to a controller
through the computer interface unit for data acquisition
and control. The controller itself is also connected to the
computer. Computer-aided testing system (CATS) soft-
ware (developed by GCTS) automated various phases of
testing such as consolidation, and application of stresses
for applying a predetermined stress path or strain path.
The proportional integral derivative (PID) algorithm used
for control was based on adjusting the output channel to
match a target command in real time. The setup of true
triaxial system is shown schematically in Fig. 1b.
2.3. Experimental program
Stress-controlled true triaxial experiments (summarized
in Table 1) are carried out using prismatic brick-shaped
EPS specimens (70 mm  70 mm  140 mm; Fig. 2a) along
‘‘radial’’ stress paths (perpendicular to hydrostatic axis)
corresponding to Lode angle y of 01, 301, 601, 901, 1201,
that is b-values ( ¼ (s2s3)/(s1s3)) of 0, 0.5, 1, 2, and N,
respectively, while the stress invariant I1 ( ¼ s1+s2+s3) is
kept constant at either 120 or 180 kPa. The use of the brick-
shaped specimen is necessitated by the current design of the
machine. The specimen is seated so that the vertical height
is 140 mm and the horizontal section is 70 mm  70 mm.
For future reference, the vertical stress is denoted s1, and
the horizontal stresses are denoted s2 and s3 (Fig. 2a).
They are the principal stresses by construction. While the
first two stresses, s1 and s2, are applied through the contact
between the sample and steel plates, the last stress, s3, is
applied by the cell fluid pressure. This detail is important in
that it induces some kind of anisotropy in the sample
responses. The principal stresses s1 and s2 can be in any
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.J. Leo et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 175–180 177

Sliding
Chamber
plates inside
filled with
water and
closed

Specimen
Sliding plates

Signal Conditioning
Digital System
Controller
Computer Computer
Interface Unit

To/From
Sensors
Connected to
Servo Amplifier Double Acting Double
Actuators Acting
Actuator

Servo Value

Load Cell

Hydraulic Pressure
Pressure Line LVDT
System
Deformation
Solenoid Value Sensor

Fig. 1. (a) The truly triaxial cell with sliding plates. (b) Setup of true triaxial system.

Table 1 of 75 kPa/min in the major principal direction. The stress

Series of true triaxial tests in experimental program paths are kept on the same deviatoric (p) plane (i.e. I1 is
Series Stress loading rate Stress invariant Initial cell
constant) during each test by means of adjusting the
in principal I1 (kPa) pressure (kPa) deviatoric stress (s1s3) and/or (s2s3), as the minor
direction (kPa/min) principal stress s3 is being reduced at a prescribed stress
rate. The test is terminated when s3 reaches the lower limit
1 75 120 40
of cell pressure (about 5 kPa) and cannot be reduced any
2 75 180 60
further. Shown in Fig. 2b are the rosette of radial stress
paths emanating from the origin of the p-plane in the
order, but s3 always corresponds to the minor principal directions corresponding to the prescribed Lode angle
stress. We will denote by sI, sII, and sIII, respectively, y ¼ 01, 301, 601, 901, and 1201. Data acquisition and
the major, intermediate, and the minor principal stresses control loops are performed with update intervals 0.2 s.
(in which sIII ¼ s3), with sIXsIIXsIII.
Specimens are initially consolidated at the appropriate 3. Experimental results
confining cell pressure corresponding to the I1-value (see
Table 1) under ‘‘drained’’ conditions during which air is Plots of major deviator stress versus major principal
allowed to escape. This is followed up by controlled stress strain ((sIsIII)eI), volume strain versus major principal
path loading, in which the axial stress is imposed at a rate strain (eve1), and yield points on p-plane have been
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
178 C.J. Leo et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 175–180

σ1

70 mm
0°

mm
70 30°

60°
140 mm 

90°
σ1

120°
σ3
σ2 σ3
σ2

Fig. 2. (a) Specimen dimensions and notation for principal stresses. (b) Rosette of stress paths at various Lode angles y in the deviatoric (p) plane.

obtained from the true triaxial test after corrections have

100
been allowed for bedding errors. It is also worth noting
that the response of EPS geofoam to stress loading is quite
Major principal deviator

80
unique in the sense that the material does not have a well-
defined peak failure point which is commonly seen in
stress (kPa)

60
geomaterials. In fact, the slopes of the stress–strain curves
remain positive throughout as the monotonic stress loading
40
is being applied. I1 = 120 kPa
I1 = 180 kPa
20
3.1. Stress–strain characteristics b=0

0
The plot of major principal deviator stress against major 0.0% 4.0% 8.0% 12.0%
principal strain under stress loading appears as a curve in
Major principal strain
which the initial tangent line is linear until the proportional
limit, after which it decreases and asymptotes to the plastic
tangent line. The form and shape of the curves are similar 10.0%
for all b-values, and a typical stress–strain plot (with b ¼ 0) 8.0%
is presented in Fig. 3a. The proportional limit, which is the
Volume strain

point marked by a hollow dot on the plots, occurs generally 6.0%

at about 1% principal strain for the tests at I1 ¼ 120 kPa
4.0%
and 0.4% principal strain for the tests at I1 ¼ 180 kPa.
The yield point is defined in this paper as the point on 2.0%
the stress–strain plot corresponding to the strain at the I1 = 120 kPa
0.0% I1 = 180 kPa
intersection between the initial tangent line and the plastic b=0
tangent line, as shown in Fig. 3a. The solid dot on the plot
-2.0%
marks the yield point. This definition corresponds to the 0.0% 4.0% 8.0% 12.0%
modified yield stress (sM y ) adopted by Hazarika (2006), Major principal strain
who pointed out that the more common definition of yield
stress, the stress value at the intersection of the initial Fig. 3. (a) Major principal deviator stress versus major principal strain,
tangent line and plastic tangent line (e.g., Preber et al., b ¼ 0. (b) Volume strain versus major principal strain, b ¼ 0. The solid
dots correspond to the yield points (based on modified yield stress
1994; Horvath, 1995), is a rather fictitious one, as it is not
definition suggested by Hazarika, 2006). The hollow dots indicate the
on the actual stress–strain curve. Using a fictitious value of proportional limits.
yield stress not on the stress–strain curve will have an effect
of artificially forcing the stress path to deviate from the
p-plane, hence it is not adopted here. Yielding is found to Wong and Leo, 2006; Atmatzidis et al., 2001). The tests
occur between 0% and 4%, which is generally higher than have been able to record fairly extensive post yielding data
the yield strain (less than 2%) obtained from strain- for all stress loading cases except for b ¼ 0.5 and 1.0 at
controlled conventional triaxial compression test (e.g., I1 ¼ 120 kPa. In general, sM
y decrease as the stress invariant
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.J. Leo et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 175–180 179

Table 2 marginally dilatant but very small and can be

Initial modulus as a function of b-value
b Initial modulus (GPa)
I1 ¼ 120 kPa I1 ¼ 180 kPa
0 2.6 2.0
0.5 3.5 2.5
1.0 3.2 2.1
2.0 2.3 1.7
N 1.5 1.2
I1 increases from 120 to 180 kPa, a result that is consistent
with the findings from conventional triaxial compression
tests. As shown in Table 2, the initial modulus (slope of the
initial tangent line) at I1 ¼ 120 kPa is about 25–50% higher
than that at I1 ¼ 180 kPa. The plastic modulus (slope of the
asymptotic plastic tangent line) is about 410 kPa and of
approximately the same value for all tests, at both I1 ¼ 120
and 180 kPa, and along each of the stress paths.
In Table 2, it is observed that the material becomes stiffer
as the b-value increases from 0 to 0.5 and then softens
when the b-value is further increased from 1.0 to N,
even though the slope of the plastic tangent line, as
mentioned above remains constant in all cases. The
magnitude of the initial modulus in an isotropic material is
expected to be symmetrical about b ¼ 1.0, but it does not
appear to be the case for these results. The lack of symmetry
could be attributed to the ‘‘size effect’’. Negussey (2007)
found that a 10-fold increase in specimen size will lead to a
two-fold increase in ‘‘elastic modulus’’ but that ‘‘strengths’’
are the same. Hence, using a prismatic brick-shaped speci-
men in which the horizontal width is 70 mm but the vertical
height 140 mm may have introduced some ‘‘size effects’’.
neglected. These results are consistent with those
obtained from strain-controlled triaxial tests (e.g.,
Wong and Leo, 2006; Atmatzidis et al., 2001).
(b) Onset of contractive volume change, which is the
minimum point in the volume–strain plot (marked by
hollow dot in Fig. 3b) where the slope is zero,
corresponds quite well to the proportional limit in the
stress–strain plot (marked by hollow dot in Fig. 3a).
(c) During the transition from proportional limit to
modified yield point (marked by solid dot in Fig. 3a
and b), the rate of contractive volume change with
respect to major principal strain increases.
(d) After yielding, the rate of contractive volume change
with respect to major principal strain is fairly constant
and independent of I1.
3.3. Yield locus
Fig. 4 shows the yield loci plotted in the deviatoric (p)
plane. These results suggest that the Drucker–Prager yield
function, which represents a circular conic yield surface,
can be used to describe the yield locus. The radius of the
yield surface (intersection with the p-plane) decreases as I1
increases. Strength softening of the geofoam with increas-
ing I1 is consistent with the results obtained from
conventional triaxial compression tests, in which similar
softening with increasing confining cell pressure (s3) was
50
40

3.2. Volumetric change characteristics 30

A typical volumetric change plot with respect to the

20
variation of the major principal strain (with b ¼ 0) is
presented in Fig. 3b. In the plot, the compressive strain is
assumed to be positive. The volume change is negligible or 10
slightly dilatant initially but rapidly becomes contractive.
The onset of volumetric contraction change, which 0 Y
corresponds to the minimum point in the eveI plot, is -40 -30 -20 -10 0
found to coincide with the proportional limit. With
perhaps the exception of the test at b ¼ 0.5, I1 ¼ 120 kPa, -10
R = 37 kPa
where the particular limits of the test do not allow the stress
R = 32.5 kPa
on the specimen to be increased not much above the yield -20
I1 = 120 kPa
point, the volume changes are ultimately quite similar in all
cases after the material becomes plastic. This is true despite I1 = 180 kPa
-30
the fact that the magnitude of the deviator stress for
I1 ¼ 120 kPa is higher than the deviator stress for
I1 ¼ 180 kPa (as discussed above). The following summary -40
of the volumetric behavior has been observed:
X -50
(a) Volume change due to shearing below the proportional
limit (point marked by hollow dot in Fig. 3a) is Fig. 4. Yield points on p-plane.

180
0.1
Normalised major principal yield
stress increase
0 buffers. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27, 344–353.
-0.1 I1 = 120 kPa
I1 = 180 kPa
-0.2
20 30 40
II, intermediate principal stress (kPa)
Fig. 5. Normalized increase in major principal yield stress ððsM
Iy 
sM M and deformability of Westerly granite. International Journal of Rock
Iy jb¼0 Þ=sIy jb¼0 Þ against intermediate principal stress.
also observed (e.g., Wong and Leo, 2006; Atmatzidis et al.,
2001). Shown in Fig. 5 is the plot of the major principal
yield stress increase normalized with respect to the major
principal yield stress at b ¼ 0 ððsM M M
Iy  sIy jb¼0 Þ=sIy jb¼0 Þ
against the intermediate major principal stress (sII). The
plot shows a small inverse dependency between sM Iy and the
intermediate stress sII. This suggests that the onset of
plasticity is slightly affected by sII and is a decreasing
function of sII.
4. Conclusions
A program of true triaxial experiments has been under-
taken to investigate the mechanical behavior of EPS
geofoam. The results confirm that EPS is an elastoplastic
hardening material which also softens stiffness-wise under
increasing confining pressure. The onset of contractive
volume change corresponds quite well to the proportional
limit in the stress–strain curve. The study also found that
the EPS geofoam can be modeled as a Drucker–Prager
material.
Acknowledgments
Financial support from the Hong Kong Polytechnic
University and the Research Grants Committee of the
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government of
China for some parts of this work is gratefully acknowl-
edged. Mr. Y.P. Leong provided assistance to all labora-
tory testing works, which is also gratefully acknowledged.
References
Atmatzidis, D.K., Missirlis, E.G., Chrysikos, D.A., 2001. An investigation
of EPS geofoam behaviour in compression. In: EPS Geofoam 2001—
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference, 10–12 December
ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.J. Leo et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 175–180
2001, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. CD-ROM Conference preprints
/http://geofoam.syr.edu/EPS2001/S.
Bathurst, R., Keshavarz, A., Zarnani, S., Take, A., 2006. A simple
displacement model for response analysis of EPS geofoam seismic
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 Geomem-
branes 22, 223–237.
Duskov, M., 1991. Use of expanded polystyrene (EPS) in flexible
pavements on poor subgrades. In: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Geotechnical Engineering for Coastal Development,
vol. 1, Yokohama, Japan, pp. 783–788.
Frydenlund, T.E., 1991. Expanded polystyrene—a lighter way across soft
50 60 70 80 ground. Internal Report No. 1502, Norwegian Road Research
Laboratory, Solo, Norway, 12pp.
Hamison, B., Chang, C., 2000. A new true triaxial cell for testing
mechanical properties of rock and its use to determine rock strength
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 37, 285–296.
Hazarika, H., 2006. Stress–strain modeling of EPS geofoam for large-
strain applications. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24, 79–90.
Horvath, J.S., 1995. Geofoam Geosynthetic. Horvath Engineering, P.C.,
Scarsdale, NY, 217pp.
Horvath, J.S., 1997. The compressible inclusion function of EPS geofoam.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 15, 77–120.
Jutkofsky, W.S., The, S.J., Negussey, D., 2000. Stabilization of embank-
ment slope with geofoam. Transportation Research Record 1736,
94–102.
Matsuoka, H., Sun, D., Kogane, A., Fukuzawa, N., Ichihara, W., 2002.
Stress–strain behaviour of unsaturated soil in true triaxial tests.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 39, 608–619.
McDonald, P., Brown, P.G., 1993. Ultra lightweight polystyrene for
bridge approach fill. In: Proceedings of the 11th Southeast Asian
Geotechnical Conference, Singapore, pp. 664–668.
Negussey, D., 2007. Design parameters for EPS geofoam (invited state of
the art paper). Soils and Foundations 47 (1), 61–170.
Preber, T., Bang, S., Chung, U., Cho, Y., 1994. Behaviour of
expanded polystyrene blocks. Transportation Research Record 1462,
36–46.
Refsdal, G., 1985. Plastic foam in road embankments: future trends for
EPS use. Internal Report, Norwegian Road Research Laboratory,
Oslo, Norway.
Skuggedal, H., Aaboe, R., 1991. Temporary overpass bridge founded on
expanded polystyrene. In: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 2, Florence,
Italy, pp. 559–561.
Wang, Q., Lade, P., 2001. Shear banding in true triaxial tests and its effect
on failure on sand. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 127 (8),
754–761.
Wong, H., Leo, C.J., 2006. A simple elastoplastic hardening constitutive
model for EPS geofoam. Geotexitles and Geomembranes 24, 299–310.
Yin, J-H., 2006. A truly triaxial cell with combination of innovative rigid
sliding plate loading and flexible membrane loading (application no.
200410094697.X, public no. CN1773240A) (approved on 17 May
2006).
Zaman, S., Bathurst, R.J., 2007. Experimental investigation of EPS
geofoam seismic buffers using shaking table tests. Geosynthetics
International 14 (3), 165–177.
Zou, Y., Leo, C.J., 1998. Laboratory studies on the engineering
properties of expanded polystyrene (EPS) material for geotechnical
applications. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference
on Ground Improvement Techniques, 7–9 October, Singapore,
pp. 581–588.