Dr. Dawit Nogussey is associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Syracuse University in Syracuse. New York. He obtained a Ph.D. in civil engineering from the University of British Columbia in 1985 and remained there until 1988 as Natural Science and Engineering Industrial Research Fellow. Dr. Negussey has worked on a variety of engineering projects in both the US and Canada. He was formerly a senior engineer with Golder Associates, an international consulting firm in the geotechnical engineering specialty. Dr. Negussey has been engaged in research and application of EPS in geotechnical projects since 1989. He first suggested the term geofoam as an alternate name for EPS when used in geotechnical applications and is Chair of the Geofoam Task Group of the American Society for Testing and Materials. He is also presently Chair of the Commitee for Soil and Rock Instrumentation of the Transportation Research Board —m-EPS TOKYO '96 Japan, 29-90 October 1996 Reducing Lateral Pressure by Geofoam (EPS) Substitution. Dawit Negussey and Michael C. Sun Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY ABSTRACT: Geofoam (expanded polystyrene, EPS) is a very low density material that can be used as a soil substitute in subsurface construction. Essential engineering properties of geofoam are reviewed. Alternative use of geofoam and conventional soil as exterior backfill against a basement wall are compared in a finite element model. Observations from field monitoring are also corspared with finite element results. Data from laboratory experiments, finite element analyses and field monitorng confirm that geofoam is suitable for use as a soil substitute backfill. The results further demonstrate that use of geofoam as a soil replacement offers significant advantages in reducing settlement and horizontal loading INTRODUCTION Geofoam refers to block or planar low density plastic foam solids when used as a light weight soil substitute or for thermal insulation in geotechnical applications. Extruded polystyrene is sometimes preferred for insulation applications (Departments of the Army and the Air Farce, 1985). For a majority of lightweight fill project, expanded polystyrene is by far most used. All geofoam test results and comparisons presented in this paper pertain to use of expanded polystyrene blocks as geofoam. There is now a background of over 20 years experience in the use of geofoam as light weight fill (Aaboe, 1987; Flaate, 1989; Hohwiller, 1994; RefSdal, 1985: Tsukamoto, 1993). With time, more is being leamt about the durability and long-term performance of geofoam in service. Progressively. pioneering applications in light weight embankments (Frydenlund, 1991; Mimura and Kimura, 1995; Rygg and Sorlie, 1981); slope stabilization (Construction Project Consultants, 1991; Yeh and Gilmore, 1989). light weight fill over buried pipe (Vaslestad, 1991) and other applications have been reported (Construction Project Consultants, 1989; Duskov, 1991: ‘Skuggedal and Aaboe, 1991). Many more innovative applications are bound to follow in the coming years with broader exposure and better understanding of the behavior and performance of facilities that contain geofoam elements. This paper presents an account of geofoam use as a component of backfill placed against a basement wall of a shopping mall complex. A brief background on geofoam properties useful for such applications is provided. Results of finite element modeling of the wall and backfill. with and without geofoam inclusion are examined and data from field monitoring of lateral pressure is presented. The stress cell and method of installation employed for the field monitoring are briefly described. PROJECT In Syracuse, New York, development of a large shopping mall over deep deposits of compressible fill and soft lake bottom sediments was made possible through use of geofoam as light weight fill. The first stage of the project, completed in 1990, covers a total area of about 65,000 m? and is supported on load compensated, floating, mat foundation system. Site conditions required that soil excavated from the building plan area be distributed as grade fill within the property. This implied placement of up to 2.7 m of new fill adjacent to the building perimeter wall. The net loading condition on the outside and net unloading on the inside of the building became a concern in relation with expected development of post construction differential settlements. The solution chosen included extension of the mat area ty 2.1 m beyond the superstructure perimeter as well backfilling with a combination of light weight aggregates and_geofoam along the entire outside perimeter of the mall. Approximately 28,000 m? geofoam was placed as part of the outside perimeter fill. All 1700 columns supporting the superstructure were fitted with jacking fixures along the basement ceiling for future shimming and — 02leveling, as found necessary. The groundwater level is controlled to remain at 1.5 m above the top of the mat. A more detailed account of the site conditions, foundation alternatives considered and post construction performance of the first stage foundation system is given by Stewart et al. 1994. ‘A second stage development of the shopping mall complex, encompassing 5580 m’, was completed in 1993. Geofoam and light weight fill placed in the first stage development along 100 m wall segment adjoining the new evelopment was excavated. Up to 2.7 m of earth placed as grade fill in the first stage development over the plan area of the second stage development was also excavated. This removed fill served as preloading for the new expansion. The foundation support for the expansion consists of column support on deep piles that extend to an average depth of about 90 m. The basement floor slab is supported on grade at about the site ground elevation prior to the first stage development. The basement floor of the expansion is about 1.5 m above that of the first stage basement floor. Underground parking is also provided in the second stage development and the ground ‘water level is maintained to remain at the base of the floor slab. To reduce the intensity of horizontal pressures induced by earth fill against the basement walls, a truncated wedge shaped segment of the backfill was replaced by geofoam and light weight aggregates, as shown in Fig. 1. Exterior Well - 262 m “4 Pavement Over Concrete ; - 488 m “ Concrete Dect L : pal | Stress 6 Cells « 27 m eofoam Porhing Area é Bach fill v 3 3 S 533. ai 2S Se ( { i i \ 1, | exi onulor Fill Material Compressible Soil Strata Up To Deep Piles 55m In Depth Fig. 1 Basement wall and geofoam backfill in section. GEOFOAM BEHAVIOR Information about the engineering properties of geofoam is required for proper design and construction of facilities with geofoam substitution. Compression strength and deformation, lateral stress coefficient and der are important properties of interest when considering geofoam as a light weight backfill. Stress-strain curves from uniaxial compression tests on geofoam samples of different densities is shown in Fig. 2. Compression strength is commonly inferred as stress at 5 or 10 percent strain. The difference between strengths at 5 and 10 percent at each density is less than 10 percent. Both compression strengths and initial moduli of geofoam increase with density. The trends of strength (at 5 percent strain) increase with geofoam density is shown in Figs. 3. This type of curve can be viewed as a strength envelope and would be useful for selection of an appropriate density of geofoam to support anticipated loads, For example, the strength at 5 percent strain for a 22.8 kg/m’ density geofoam is about 120 kPa while that for a 32.4 kg/m? density geofoam is 200 kPa. Tihus the higher density geofoam would offer a larger value of working stress. In the same manner the trend of initial modulus increase with density is shown in Fig. 4. The results shown above were all obtained from tests performed at a strain rate of 1 percent per minute.‘Strain (percent) Fig. 2 Geofoam compression behavior for different densities. Tk ers siracneUnnay AE 989) Compressive Strength (kPa) ° ” = * o Density (kgim’) Fig. 3. Relationship between geofoam density and compression strength at 5 percent strain. Density (kg/m) Fig. 4 Relationship between geofoam density and initial modulus. Results of uniaxial compression tests on geofoam samples of the same density but tested at different strain rates are shown in Fig. 5. Both strength and initial modulus tend to increase with strain rate. Fig. 6 shows results from two tests performed on geofoam of the same density but wherein the strain rates were changed in the course of the tests, In one case, the test was started at a strain rate of 25 percent per min. (12.5 mm per min.) and was decreased to 0.8 percent per min. (0.4 mm per min.) at about 10 percent strain. For the other, the test progressed at a strain rate of 0.8 percent per min. to about 10 percent strain and was then changed to a strain rate of 25 percent per min. Again, the higher strain rate results in a larger strength but the increase in initial modulus is small, As the strain rate is changed in the course of the test, the curves shift in response to the change. The curve for the initially higher strain rate drops to continue along the lower strain rate curve. Whereas the curve for the initially lower strain rate jumps to continue along the higher strain rate curve, Thus the choice of a 1 percent per min. strain rate as a standard testing rate for purposes of specifying the strength and modulus of geofoam has inherent unconservatism in that a lower strength and modulus would be obtained for a lower strain rate. The trend of strength decrease with decreasing strain rate is shown in Fig, 7. To take account of such rate and long- term creep effects, working strengths derived from tests run at 1 percent strain per minute are limited to about 30 to 40 percent of the strength at 5 percent strain. So far, maintaining a 1 percent per min. strain rate testing standard has enabled meaningful extrapolation of performance experience. The short test time is also convenient for rapid acceptance and quality control testing. Creep effects contribute to long term deformation, especially as the working stress level approaches the inferred compression strength (Negussey and Jahanandish, 193; van Dorp, 1988).Compressive Stress (kPa) I Strain (percent) Fig, 5 Geofoam compression behavior for different strain rates. Strain percent) Fig. 6 Effect of sudden change of strain rate on ‘compression behavior. 130 125 120 115 110 Compressive Strength (kPa) Hor Stress / Ver Stross. 105 100 o 1 10 +100 Log Strain Rato (%imin) Vertical Stross (kPa) Fig. 7 The effect of test strain rate on compression Fig, 8 K, values for geofoam with stress level: strength, The lateral stress coefficient and Poisson's ratio values for geofoam are so far much less known, Based on observation of field performance, lateral stress coefficient values in the range of 0.1 have been suggested for design (Construction Project Consultants, 1992; Norwegian Road Research Laboratory, 1992). Results from a confined compression test on geofoam in which states of induced horizontal stress with increasing vertical stress were monitored is shown in Fig. 8. The experimental data indicates that the lateral to vertical stress ratio for geofoam is higher than 0.1 at low stress levels. As the vertical stress level increases to magnitudes approaching, failure and beyond failure, the lateral to vertical stress ratio decreases gradually toward zero. Similar behavior was also observed by Erikson and Trank, 1991. As a geofoam specimen is compressed severely in one dimension, the sample perimeter orthogonal to the direction of compression deforms concave inward. However, the vertical stress range over which the lateral to vertical stress ratio approaches 0.1 is much higher than corresponding working stress levels. Lateral stress ratio values suggested for design of retaining structures with geofoam backfill are less than values derived from laboratory testing. Such discrepancy was also encountered with one of three stress cell readings discussed below:FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS A finite element analysis of the retaining wall with gcofoam backfill and an altemative simulation of the wall with cohesionless earth fill was performed. The purpose of the simulation is to examine the relative advantage of arth fill substitution by geofoam and also to compare the results of the analysis with field observation. Soilstruct, a finite element program for plane strain soilstructure interaction problems, was used for the analysis (VPI, 1991b). A variety of element geometries and element types can be used in Soilstruct to simulate different construction loading cases. Soilstruct uses a non-linear (hyperbolic) stress-strain model for soil behavior and a linear elastic model for structural material elements. The program uses a stiffness method to solve for the incremental nodal displacements due to input or calculated nodal loads. The element stiffnesses are assembled in a global stiffness vector. Equivalent nodal loads resulting from backfilling are assembled in an incremental load vector. Element incremental stresses, calculated from the incremental displacements, are used to update element stresses, The updated stresses are then used to update element stifffesses. These procedures are repeated for ach iteration and loading step of an analysis. Soilstruct is linked to Automesh, a program for simplified data input and output presentation through AutoCAD (VPI, 1991a). The pre-processor of Automesh interprets. an AULOCAD line drawing of the wall section to create nodes, elements, a connectivity table and construction loading steps for the Soilstruct input data file The pre-processor also creates a feedback drawing for a visual check of the input file. The post-processor selects and displays output from Soilstruct in a graphical or numerical form on the mesh, Once the important results have been identified from the graphical displays, specific values of selected variables are output in table form. A simplified finite element representation of the wall, backfill and foundation soil cross section is shown in Fig. 9. Two cases of wall backfill configuration were analyzed. The first case is of the wall with sandy soil backfill. In the second case, backfill abutting against the wall is replaced by geofoam in step increments that increase in width with height. This was to provide a transition fom soil to geofoam fill maintaining an average slope equivalent to the soil repose angle such that lateral soil pressure and the volume of geofoam fill are both minimized. Both cases were analyzed in four lifts, one for each tier represented on the cross-section. The deck weight is entered as a fine load on the wall. Also, the concrete slab and pavement on top of the geofoam are distributed as equivalent node loads on top elements. Loads resulting from construction activity and temporary heavy vehicle traffic are not simulated. Recent Fill : Light Weight Aggregate pope “ Geotoum Beckett ompr¢ssible Clay Deposit — sind Vertical Stress APs) = = Geotonm (Ko-0.5) Fig. 9 Finite element model of the wall and orn Distance Foe backfill TBewofFoting (a) Fig. 10 Comparison of vertical stress profiles at footing grade due to soil and geofoam fill. A summary of typical material parameters used in the finite element analysis is presented in Table 1. Geofoam and concrete elements are modeled as elastic structural materials. The parameters selected for geofoam correspond to a density of 23.6 kg/m’, With this density, an initial modulus of 4800 kPa and a strength at 5 percent strain of 130 kPa are selected from Fig. 4 and 3, respectively. To limit deformations within a reasonably clastic range and to minimize long term creep effects, stresses in all geofoam elements are checked to remain below a working stress of 39 kPa, that is 30 percent of the compressive strength at 5 percent strain. Because of 206 —the low density of geofoam, the magnitude and range of gravity stresses within the geofoam fill is low. Hence stress level effects, if any, on geofoam behavior are not considered. The stress strain behavior and strength of geofoam is influenced by density but the density of geofoam specified and acquired for a project varies within a very narrow range. Therefore, geofoam behavior is represented for only the selected density of 23.6 kg/m. Values of Poisson’s ratio of 0.01 and 0.33 correspond to cases of K, of 0.1 and 0.5, respectively. The shear strength of 40 kPa assigned for the foundation (base) soil is taking into account the benefits of surcharge loading applied as part of the first stage development for a period of three years. Table | Summary of Material Properties Used in the Finite Element Analysis. Parameier RecentFill Geofoam LW Aggregate Base Soil Sand Backfill Concrete p (kg/m) 1885 236 1256 1885 2042 2356 © (kPa) n 40 ° 35 32 Kk 06 04 06 os n 001 05 0.01 0s Kw (KPa) 16 4 16 4 Ky, (kPa) 16 4 16 16 Rr 09 08 o9 08 Eman (KPa) 9600 4800 7200 48000 m O. 02 01 02 K, 24 2 4 12 E, E, (kPa) 48 4800 48 48 48 2x10" u 0.33 and 0.09 0.16 Fig. 10 presents a profile of vertical stresses at the base of footing grade with horizontal distance outward from the toe, D, for a soil and also a geofoam backfill conditions. Along C-D the geofoam is substituted over the full height of the wall. Vertical stresses along A-B and to the left of A result from a full height of soil overburden. While along B-C, vertical stresses transition from full soil to full geofoam overburden. The geofoam substitution results in reduction of vertical stresses from about 42 to less than 4 kPa. Most of the 4 kPa stress associated with the geofoam fill is actually contributed by the concrete slab and pavement. Corresponding settlements shown in Fig. 11 are also reduced in magnitude from about 20 mm, to less than 5 mm in the vicinity of the footing Expected long term secondary settlements are not represented by the hyperbolic stress-strain model. Actual long- term settlements should therefore be greater than these magnitudes obtained from the analysis. Fig. 11 Settlement profile at wall footing grade. ig. 12 Lateral stress profile at the wall face. Fig. 12 presents a profile of lateral pressures over the wall stem. The wall is restrained from moving laterally by a conerete deck resting on a ledge at the wall top. Hence, the lateral pressures simulated represent K, or at rest conditions. For the geofoam backfill, two lateral pressure coefficient values are considered. The first is a value of — 297 —0.1 as suggested in Construction Project Consultants, 1992 and Norwegian Road Research Laboratory, 1992. For the second case, an upper lateral pressure coefficient value of 0.5 is used, based on the trend of laboratory test results shown in Fig. 8. For both K, values assigned to the geofoam, the lateral stresses imposed by the geofoam backfill are less than 3 KPa over the entire height of the wall. Corresponding lateral stress estimates for the soil backfill range from about 2 to 26 kPa from the top to base of the wall, respectively. The lateral earth pressure coefficient used for the soil backfill is 0.5. Pressures resulting from both the low and high lateral pressure coefficient cases for geofoam are significantly lower than lateral pressures from soil backfilling. The low mass of geofoam dominates the development of lateral pressure and the choice of lateral pressure coefficient does not appear to have significant influence. FIELD OBSERVATION A field observation program was planned to assess the effectiveness of the geofoam backfill in reducing post ‘construction lateral pressures against the basement wall. Three earth pressure cells were installed to be flush with the outer face of the wall. The cells consist of a circular stainless steel diaphragm and base plate welded together around the periphery. The space between the diaphragm and the base plate is filled with an incompressible fluid. The cell fluid is connected to a pneumatic transducer by a stainless steel tube to form a closed hydraulic system. ‘The exposed pressure sensing face of each cell is 298 mm in diameter. The nominal cell width of 10 mm implies aan aspect ratio of less than 0.1. Previous investigations indicate, a stress cell aspect ratio of 0.1 provides for registry of about 99 percent free field normal pressure (Weiler and Kulhawy, 1978). In anticipation of expected ow lateral pressures, the stress cells acquired have a rated range of O to 138 kPa. These stress cells are of the largest area and lowest pressure range available from suppliers at present. Details of the stress cell are shown in 13. /-—— PNEUMATIC. SENSOR BODY E> Fig, 13 Plan and section view of an earth pressure cell The stress cells were installed on plywood concrete form panels with the sensing diaphragms mounted to be flush with the plank surface. The pneumatic sensor and connecting tube was positioned to remain encased within the wall, The sensor leads were withdrawn through the back plywood form. Conerete was then poured to form the wall. After curing, the plywood forms were carefully removed, The cell base plate remained embedded in the concrete and the sensor diaphragm was exposed to be even with the concrete wall surface. The relative position of the three sensors is shown in Fig. 14 and a photograph of the sensor and the completed wall is shown in Fig,15. One cell is located at a depth of 0.70 m from the top of wall. The other two stress cells are located at a depth of 1.60 m with a 7.32 m center to center lateral separation. Top of Wall t Upper 070 m ' ven Stress Cell ~@ | ! tos 65m Z Fig, 14 Front view of stress cell positions. resure APA) . Timetdaye Fig. 16 Stress cell readings with time, Fig. 15 Photograph of stress cell 3 and the wall After removal of the concrete form and prior to placement of geofoam backfill, initial stress cell readings were taken, These readings represent in place zero reference for further lateral stress monitoring. Thereafter, periodic readings have continued to be taken and the results are shown in Fig. 16. In the early stages of the monitoring rogram, readings for the upper stress cell were higher than for the two lower cells. The higher readings of the upper cell may have been due to construction related loadings. Induced stresses from compaction of the adjacent earth fill and also from paving operation may have contributed to the higher readings. Such loads would be felt ‘more at the upper cell, as shown by the data, All stress cell readings have gradually decreased. The observed lateral pressure relaxation over time may be due to ongoing consolidation and differential settlement of the ‘compressible foundation soil. The geofoam backfill at the wall face would settle less than geofoam at the stepped soil interface and near the full height of the recent fill. Geofoam blocks were placed with stagger to promote — 209 —interlocking and continuity. With differential settlement, a slight rotation of the geofoam fill away from the wall face can account for the observed reduction in lateral stress over time, A small movement of the wall away from the geofoam fill can also account for the lateral stress reduction, The restraint imposed by the deck at the top of the wall makes such movement less likely. The more recent low pressure readings are believed to reflect a synergetic geofoam block movement in response to differential settlement, Lateral pressure estimates from the finite element analysis at the stress cell positions are compared with the most current cell pressure readings in Fig. 12. The finite element analysis results are derived using lateral pressure coefficients of 0.1 and 0.5 for the geofoam. The upper cell is now registering negligible stress, consistent with a view of a low K, behavior. Whereas the lower cells 2 and 3 indicate stresses of 2 and 2.6 kPa, respectively, and agree better with the analysis for Ka of 0.5. The near end of construction readings of all stress cells exceed the finite element estimates. In the case of the upper cell, the near end of construction readings were even in excess of expected stresses from conventional earth fill. These high pressures are believed to be construction related as discussed above. The finite clement analysis did not simulate construction related horizontal loads. However, both the initial high readings from all cells and the present readings of the lower cells support the laboratory observation that the K, value for geofoam at working stress levels is higher than 0.1. The discrepancy between laboratory determined lateral stress coefficients for geofoam and coefficients inferred from field observation would tend to be less pronounced for smaller foundation soil differential settlement In the case of the field data reported herein, although the soil fill had been in place for about 4 years, periodic surveys indicate long-term consolidation settlement of the deep compressible strata due to the grade fills still in progress (Stewart, 1994), However, from a point of practical interest, the significant reduction of lateral stress by geofoam substitution for soil is realized mainly on account of the large contrast in the density of the two materials rather than the choice of stress coefficient value. Overall, results of the finite element analysis are in good agreement with field observation. The use of geofoam as soil substitute backfill in the manner of construction described herein resulted in significantly reducing lateral pressures against the basement wall to negligible levels, as intended. CONCLUSION The density of geofoam is a good index for classifying the strength and deformation behavior of geofoam. Laboratory test results suggest the lateral pressure coefficient for geofoam, in the working stress range, should be in the range of 0.4 to 0.2, decreasing with increasing stress. The finite element analysis compare well with the data from field observation. Because of the relatively low density of geofoam, the finite element analysis results did not show significant sensitivity to the choice of K, values selected for geofoam. Under field conditions, the settlement profile and soil, geofoam, wall interaction may tend to favor a tilt movement away from the wall. Such interaction would lead to a reduction of lateral pressure from the geofoam on to the wall with on going settlement, Placement of geofoam as backfill behind a basement wall was eflective in reducing vertical settlements and lateral pressure against the wall stem. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The Authors thank the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) for providing support for the investigation, Thermal Foams Inc. supplied test samples for the laboratory work. Jonathan Brackett and Mare DiGrigoli participated in the field program. Jeff Hill and Phil Buremeier helped prepare some of the figures. Robert Taylor of RST instruments provided the stress cell drawing, Tom Walsh facilitated the ficld study and Jim Stewart provided helpful information, The Authors thank them all for their respective contributions. The continued interest and support of Syracuse University in geofoam research and assistance of the technical staff is gratefully acknowledged. REFERENCES Aaboe, R., 1987, 13 Years of Experience with Expanded Polystyrene as a Lightweight Fill Material in Road Embankments, Norwegian Road Research Laboratory, Publication No. 61, Oslo, Norway, pp. 21-27, BASF Corp., 1993, Styropor Foam as a Lightweight Construction Material for Road Base-Courses, Styropor Technical Information, v. TI 1-800 ¢ 24558, Ludwigshafen, Germany. — 210 ~Construction Project Consultants Inc., 1992, Design and Construction Manual for Lightweight Fill with EPS, The Public Works Research Institute of Ministry of Construction, Tokyo, Japan. Construction Project Consultants Inc., 191, Technical Reports of Construction Method Using Expanded Polystyrol, Expanded Polystyrol Construction Method Development Organization, Tokyo, Japan. Construction Project Consultants Inc., 1989, Technical Reports of Construction Method Using Expanded Polystyrol, Expanded Polystyrol Construction Method Development Organization, Tokyo, Japan. Departments of the Army and the Air Force, 1985, Pavement Design for Seasonal Frost Conditions, Army TM 5- 818-2, Air Force AFM 8-6, Washington, D.C. Duskov, M.. 1991, Use of Expanded Polystyrene Foam in flexible pavements on poor subgrades: International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering for Coastal Development, Yokohama, Japan. Erikson, L., and Trank, R., 1991, Properties of Expanded Polystyrene, Laboratory Experiments: Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Linképing, Sweden. Flaate, K., 1989, The (GEO)Technique of Superlight Materials: The Art and Science of Geotechnical Engineering; At the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century - A Volume Honoring Ralph B. Peck, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NI, pp. 193-205, Frydenlund, T.E., 1991, Expanded Polystyrene: A Lighter Way Across Soft Ground, Norwegian Road Research Laboratory, Internal Report, No. 1502, Oslo, Norway. Hohwiller, F., 1994, EPS Foamblocks as Lightweight Construction Material in Road Embankments: Intemational ‘Symposium on the Applications of EPS Foam for Embankment Construction, Seoul, S. Korea, pp. 105-122. Mimura, C.S., and Kimura, S.A., 1995, A Light Weight Solution, Geosynthetics “95 Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1, Nashville, Tennessee, pp. 39-51 Negussey, D., and Jahanandish, M., 1993, A Comparison of Some Engineering Properties of EPS to Soils, “Transportation Research Record No. 1418, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., pp. 43-50. Norwegian Road Research Laboratory, 1992, Expanded Polystyrene Used in Road Embankments-Design, Construction, and Quality Assurance, Form 482 E, Oslo, Norway. Refsdal, G., 1985, Plastic Foam in Road Embankments: Future Trends for EPS Use: Norwegian Road Research Laboratory, Oslo, Norway. Rygg, N.O., and Sorlie, A., 1981, Polystyrene Foam for Lightweight Road Embankment: Xth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 247-252. Skuggedal, H., and Aaboe, R., 1991, Temporary Overpass Bridge Founded on Expanded Polystyrene: 10th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, Florence, Italy, pp. 559-561. Stewart, LP., Lacy, H.S. and Ladd, C.C., 1994, Settlement of Large Mat on Deep Compressible Soil, Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments, Proceedings of Settlement ‘94, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 40, pp. 842-859. ‘Tsukamoto, H., 1993, What's going on with the EPS Construction Method and Challenges, Construction Project Consultants, Inc., Osaka, Japan. van Dorp. T., 1988, Expanded Polystyrene Foam as Light Fill and Foundation Material in Road Structures, International Congress on Expanded Polystyrene, Pre-print, Milan, Italy. 19 p. Vaslestad, J., 1991, Load Reduction on Buried Rigid Pipes Below High Embankments, Pipeline Crossing Proceedings Special Conference/PL Div., ASCE, Denver, CO, p. 47-58 VPI, 1991a, Automesh - Reference Manual. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia VPI, 1991b, Soilstruct- Finite Element Program for Plane Strain With Beam Element. Draft User's Manual Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Weiler, W.A. and Kulhawy, F-H., 1978, Behavior of Stress Cells in Soil, Contract Report B-49(4), Comell University, Ithaca, New York Yeh, S~T., and Gilmore, J.B., 1989, Application of EPS for Slide Correction, Stability and Performance of Slopes and Embankments Il, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 31, pp. 1444-1456. = 2