See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/292678002

Numerical investigation of earth pressure reduction on buried pipes using EPS

geofoam compressible inclusions

Article in Geosynthetics International · February 2016

DOI: 10.1680/jgein.15.00054

CITATIONS READS

38 1,216

2 authors:

Alan F Witthoeft Hobi Kim

Geo-Logic Associates, Inc. Daelim
16 PUBLICATIONS 130 CITATIONS 17 PUBLICATIONS 177 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NCHRP 12-114 - Guidance on Seismic Site Response Analysis with Pore Water Pressure Generation View project

Foundation design for 1915 Canakkale bridge (2023-m-long main span suspension bridge to be built in Turkey) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hobi Kim on 27 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geosynthetics International

Numerical investigation of earth pressure reduction on

buried pipes using EPS geofoam compressible inclusions
A. F. Witthoeft1 and H. Kim2
1
Project Engineer, Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants, 475 Goddard,
Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92618, USA, Telephone: +1 949 753 7070; Telefax: +1 949 753 7071;
E-mail: awitthoeft@ninyoandmoore.com
2
Project Manager, Fugro Consultants, Inc., 6100 Hillcroft, Houston, TX 77081, USA,
Telephone: +1 713 369 5454; Telefax: +1 713 369 5518; E-mail: hkim@fugro.com
(Corresponding author)

Received 07 August 2015, revised 20 October 2015, accepted 28 October 2015

ABSTRACT: This paper presents a numerical study performed to investigate the effect of expanded
polystyrene (EPS) geofoam panels placed over a buried pipe. It is recognized that EPS geofoam panels as
compressible inclusions over a buried pipe are effective in reducing the earth pressure acting on the pipe due
to positive arching action. To date, however, there is no systematic methodology that links the earth pressure
on a buried pipe with the geometry of EPS panels. To investigate the ‘optimal’ geometry of EPS panels, a
two-step numerical modeling approach was employed and calibrated against results of a model-scale
experimental study. First, material properties were estimated for each component used in the model-scale
tests (i.e., soil, EPS geofoam and steel pipe). Second, the model-scale experiments were simulated using the
selected material properties. These simulations resulted in reasonable agreement between model-predicted
and measured vertical and lateral earth pressures. Using the calibrated model, additional cases that were not
covered in the experimental study were investigated to examine different widths and thicknesses of EPS
panels. The numerical analysis provided quantification of the effect of EPS compressible inclusion and a
systematic approach to optimizing the design of buried pipes using EPS geofoam panels.

KEYWORDS: Geosynthetics, Buried pipes, Compressible inclusion, EPS (expanded polystyrene)

geofoam, Imperfect ditch condition, Numerical study

REFERENCE: Witthoeft, A. F. and Kim, H. (2015). Numerical investigation of earth pressure

reduction on buried pipes using EPS geofoam compressible inclusions. Geosynthetics International.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jgein.15.00054]

the pipe into adjacent soils; as a consequence, the pipe

1. INTRODUCTION
The design of buried pipes typically involves computation
to evaluate whether the specified pipe wall thickness and
pipe stiffness are sufficient to support both the internal
pressure and the external load. The vertical and horizon-
tal earth pressures imposed on a buried pipe are control-
ling parameters for selection of both the pipe material and
cross-section.
For a buried pipe below a high fill, large earth loads
acting on the pipe require a substantial pipe section to
maintain its structural integrity. In such a case, the
imperfect ditch construction method can be used to
reduce earth loads on the pipe, resulting in a more
economical pipe design. The imperfect ditch method
generally employs one or multiple compressible inclusions
over the pipe crown. Deformation of the compressible
inclusion induces so-called ‘positive arching’ within the
fill over the pipe. This positive arching action transfers a
portion of the self-weight loading from the soil prism over
1072-6349 © 2015 Thomas Telford Ltd
experiences vertical earth pressure less than that corre-
sponding to the soil prism self-weight.
Since Marston (1930) proposed the concept of the
imperfect ditch method, several different types of
materials (e.g., leaves, baled straw, sawdust, woodchips)
have been suggested as compressible inclusions (Spangler
1958; Larson and Hendrickson 1962; Vaslestad et al.
1994a; McAfee and Valsangkar 2004, 2005). However, the
engineering properties of these organic materials are
difficult to control. Thus, several researchers have
focused on the use of expanded polystyrene (EPS)
geofoam as a compressible inclusion or a seismic buffer
(Horvath 1995; Frydenlund and Aabøe 1996; Hazarika
2006; Zarnani and Bathurst 2007; Kim et al. 2010). EPS
geofoam is a manufactured material; its engineering
properties are fairly reliable and uniform, and its
deformation behavior is predictable and controllable.
Several researchers have investigated the use of EPS
geofoam as a compressible material for use with buried
1

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
2 Witthoeft and Kim
pipes and culverts (e.g., Vaslestad et al. 1994b; Kim and
Yoo 2005; Sun et al. 2005, 2009). For example, based on
numerical analyses for box-type concrete culverts, Sun
et al. (2005) found that the use of EPS panels reduces
bending moments along both the top and sides of the
culvert. They also generally found that load reduction due
to placement of EPS panels is more pronounced for
gravelly, sandy fill materials than for silty, clayey fill
materials. Sun et al. (2009) performed both instrumented
field tests and numerical analyses to investigate earth
pressure reduction on concrete culverts with EPS panels in
various configurations. Based on these results, Sun et al.
(2009) indicated that EPS geofoam can be used effectively
to reduce vertical load on rigid culverts resting on rigid
foundations.
However, few studies exist to ‘optimize’ the dimensions
of an EPS geofoam compressible inclusion placed over a
buried pipe via a systematic approach. The effect of an
EPS geofoam compressible inclusion over a buried pipe
depends on several factors, such as: (1) EPS geofoam
density and panel thickness, which determine stress–strain
behavior; (2) EPS geofoam width relative to pipe
diameter; and (3) number and spacing of EPS geofoam
panels when multiple EPS panels are placed over the pipe.
Although Kim et al. (2010) researched these factors and
associated changes in the earth pressure acting on a buried
pipe, this experimental investigation was subject to
limitations on the measurement of stresses and strains.
Some of these limitations can be addressed through a
numerical modeling approach. For example, model-scale
tests provide stress and strain measurements at discrete
points; numerical analyses can provide continuous stress
and strain distributions over a cross-section. Moreover, a
limited set of EPS panel configurations was evaluated in
the model-scale tests; numerical analysis provides an
efficient means of evaluating a significantly larger set of
configurations. Consequently, additional study is war-
ranted to develop design guidelines for ‘optimal’ com-
pressible inclusion geometry.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate earth pressure
reduction on a buried pipe for various EPS geofoam
compressible inclusion configurations and to illustrate
‘optimization’ of EPS panel geometry using a numerical
approach. A numerical model was developed using
FLAC. Calibration was performed for each material
used in the Kim et al. (2010) model-scale tests (i.e., EPS
geofoam, Jumunjin sand and the pipe) using laboratory
test data reported by Kim et al. (2004, 2010) and Park
et al. (2008). Numerical model results were compared
against test results presented by Kim et al. (2010). After
calibration of the FLAC model, more cases not covered in
the Kim et al. (2010) model-scale test program were
examined to provide a basis for a sample ‘optimization’ of
EPS geofoam panel dimensions.
2. EVALUATION OF MATERIAL
PROPERTIES
A material model was calibrated for each of the three
materials used in the model-scale test (i.e., EPS geofoam,
Geosynthetics International
Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com
Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
steel pipe and Jumunjin sand). ‘In-isolation’ (i.e., individ-
ual component) tests were simulated for each of these
three materials.
2.1. EPS geofoam
The model-scale tests by Kim et al. (2010) used a
single type of EPS geofoam, which had a density of
approximately 15 kg/m3. Kim et al. (2010) performed
two unconfined compression tests on specimens of this
geofoam material. Results of these unconfined com-
pression tests are reproduced in Figure 1. For reference,
test results reported by Duskov (1997) for EPS with
a density of approximately 15 kg/m3 and by Hazarika
(2006) for EPS with a density of approximately 16 kg/m3
are also reproduced in Figure 1.
The EPS geofoam used in the Kim et al. (2010) model
tests was simulated as a linear-elastic/Mohr–Coulomb
material with post-yield strain-hardening using FLAC’s
built-in strain-hardening/softening model (Itasca 2011).
Although a bilinear elastic model might have been used to
produce similar behavior for monotonic loading con-
ditions, a linear-elastic/strain-hardening model was
adopted to allow for the possibility of non-recoverable
plastic strain in the event of unloading. In light of the
variation of test results on EPS materials having similar
densities illustrated in Figure 1, the assumption of
linear-elastic pre-yield behavior per se was considered
unlikely to introduce significant error into the model.
Post-yield strain-hardening behavior was assumed to be
linear (i.e., linearly increasing strength with increasing
strain level). This assumption of linear strain-hardening is
considered to be reasonably accurate up to strain levels
in the vicinity of 30% based on the test results shown
in Figure 1 and those reported by other researchers
(e.g., Horvath 1995).
For comparison with the unconfined compression test
results presented by Kim et al. (2010), a numerical model
was developed to simulate unconfined compression of an
EPS specimen. As shown in Figure 2, the simulation
results are in reasonable agreement with the test results
reported by Kim et al. (2010).
150
Axial stress (kPa)
100
50
Test results from Kim et al. (2010)
Test results from Hazarika (2006)
Test results from Duskov (1997)
0
0 10 20 30
Axial strain (%)
Figure 1. Unconfined compression test results on EPS geofoam
specimens from the literature
Earth pressure reduction on buried pipes using EPS geofoam 3

150 Table 1. Material properties assumed for EPS geofoam

Parameter Value
Axial stress (kPa)

100 Young’s modulus, Ef 2800 kPaa

Poisson’s ratio, νf 0.09b
Cohesion, cf 41 kPa at zero plastic axial straina
64 kPa at 30% axial straina
50 Density, ρf 15 kg/m3a
Test results from Kim et al. (2010)
a
FLAC model results Estimated based on results of laboratory testing EPS geofoam reported
by Kim et al. (2010).
b
Estimated based on regression equation proposed by Horvath (1995).
0
0 10 20 30
Axial strain (%)

Figure 2. Comparison of unconfined compression test results for
EPS reported by Kim et al. (2010) with FLAC model results
The Young’s modulus of the EPS was estimated based
on the stress–strain response of the Kim et al. (2010) EPS
specimens up to an axial strain level of approximately
2.4%. Following this approach, the Young’s modulus for
EPS was estimated to be approximately (Ef )avg = 2800 kPa
(two test results showed 3190 and 2500 kPa, respectively).
This value is in reasonable agreement with the density–
stiffness relationships proposed by other researchers. For
example, Hazarika (2006) and Horvath (1995) proposed
the following equations:
Ef ¼ 0
41ρf  2
8
Ef ¼ 0
45ρf  3
where Ef is the EPS Young’s modulus in MPa and ρf is
the EPS density in kg/m3. Based on these equations,
suggested Young’s modulus values are Ef = 3350 kPa and
Ef = 3750 kPa, respectively. These values are approxi-
mately 20–34% higher than the selected value.
According to Horvath (1995), the Poisson’s ratio of the
EPS geofoam was expressed in terms of EPS density as:
νf ¼ 0
0056ρf þ 0
0024
where νf is the EPS Poisson’s ratio and ρf is the EPS density
in kg/m3. A Poisson’s ratio value of approximately
νf = 0.09 was selected using this equation.
Strain-hardening parameters were estimated based on
the unconfined compression test data reported by Kim
et al. (2010). Strain-hardening was incorporated in the
model by setting EPS cohesion to cf = 41 kPa at a plastic
strain level of zero (i.e., at yield) and linearly increasing
EPS cohesion to cf = 64 kPa at a strain level equivalent to
30% axial strain. The material properties assumed for the
EPS geofoam model are summarized in Table 1.
2.2. Soil (air-pluviated Jumunjin sand)
Kim et al. (2010) backfilled the test box using Jumunjin
sand air-pluviated from a drop height of approximately
50 cm. This backfilling technique resulted in a sand dry
unit weight of approximately γd = 14.8 kN/m3, corre-
sponding to a void ratio of approximately e = 0.74 based
on a specific gravity of 2.63.
Geosynthetics International
The Jumunjin sand was modeled as a nonlinear-elastic/
Mohr–Coulomb material. Material properties for the
Jumunjin sand were estimated based on test results
reported by Kim et al. (2004, 2010) and Park et al.
(2008) and on recommendations by Duncan et al. (1980).
The elastic behavior of the sand was controlled by a
stress-dependent tangent Young’s modulus, Et, and a fixed
value of Poisson’s ratio, ν. The tangent Young’s modulus
value was calculated as the product of the initial Young’s
modulus value, Ei, and a hyperbolic degradation function.
The initial Young’s modulus value was calculated as a
function of mean effective stress, void ratio and Poisson’s
ratio. Following the general form adopted by
Papadimitriou et al. (2001), which is based on the
ð1Þ equation proposed by Hardin (1978), the initial shear
modulus (Gi) is calculated as:
ð2Þ  0 0:5
Bpatm p
Gi ¼ ð4Þ
0
3 þ 0
7e2 patm
where B is the shear modulus number, patm is atmospheric
pressure (assumed to be 101.3 kPa), e is the void ratio and
p′ is the mean effective stress. The initial Young’s modulus,
Ei, is related to the initial shear modulus according to
Equation (5):
Ei ¼ 2Gi ð1 þ νÞ ð5Þ
ð3Þ
where ν is Poisson’s ratio.
Young’s modulus degradation with increasing shear
stress was incorporated following the hyperbolic model
proposed by Duncan and Chang (1970):
 
Rf ð1  sin ϕÞðσ 01  σ 03 Þ 2
Et ¼ 1  Ei ð6Þ
2c cos ϕ þ 2σ 03 sin ϕ
where Et is the tangent Young’s modulus, Rf is the failure
ratio, ϕ is the soil friction angle, σ1′ and σ3′ are the major
and minor principal effective stresses, respectively, and c is
the soil cohesion.
The Poisson’s ratio of the Jumunjin sand was estimated
based on the ratio of horizontal to vertical stresses for
Test 1 (i.e., test box filled with sand only) reported by Kim
et al. (2010) using the equation:
σh ν
¼ ð7Þ
σv 1  ν
where σh and σv are the measured horizontal and vertical
stresses, respectively, and ν is Poisson’s ratio. A value of

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
4 Witthoeft and Kim

ν = 0.39 was estimated using this method. This value 400

agrees well with the measured Poisson’s ratio value (i.e.,
ν = 0.38) reported by Kim et al. (2004).

Deviatoric stress (kPa)

300
The shear modulus number was estimated based on
stiffness values during unloading as reported by Kim et al.
(2004). Kim et al. (2004) reported Young’s modulus 200
values for two tests performed at different void ratios
and confining stresses (i.e., with e = 0.79 at σ3′ = 150 kPa;
and with e = 0.74 at σ3′ = 100 kPa given in the paper). 100 Test results from Park et al. (2008): loose state
Test results from Park et al. (2008): medium state
The shear strength of the sand was estimated based on a FLAC model results
regression equation for direct shear friction angle ϕds as a
0
function of relative density proposed by Park et al. (2008). 0 4 8 12
Substituting the maximum and minimum void ratios Axial strain (%)
reported by Park et al. (2008) in place of the relative
density term, this equation is: Figure 3. Results of drained triaxial compression test simulation
using Jumunjin sand constitutive model
  
0
843  e 2
ϕds ¼0
0009 100
0
226
   ð8Þ 2.3. Steel pipe
0
843  e The pipe used in the Kim et al. (2010) model-scale tests
þ 0
0216 100 þ 31
233
0
226 was made of steel and had an outside diameter of
approximately 10 cm. According to Kim et al. (2010),
According to the Park et al. (2008) regression equation,
the bending stiffness of the model-scale pipe was eval-
the direct shear friction angle for a void ratio of e = 0.74 is
uated based on the results of two parallel plate loading
ϕds = 34°, which agrees reasonably well with the value of
tests. The estimated pipe bending stiffness values
ϕds = 33° reported by Kim et al. (2010).
measured in these tests at displacement levels of approxi-
The material properties assumed for Jumunjin sand are
mately 5% of the initial pipe diameter were approximately
summarized in Table 2. For comparison with the Park
433 kN/m/m and approximately 506 kN/m/m. It is noted
et al. (2008) drained triaxial compression tests, a model
that laboratory data recorded during these tests (unpub-
was developed to simulate drained triaxial compression of
lished) show an approximately linear load-displacement
a Jumunjin sand specimen. As shown in Figure 3, the
response within this strain level (i.e., up to approximately
simulation results are in reasonable agreement with the
5% of pipe diameter).
test results reported by Park et al. (2008).
A model was developed to simulate parallel plate
testing of the model-scale pipe for calibration with the
Kim et al. (2010) parallel plate test data. The pipe was
Table 2. Material properties assumed for Jumunjin sand simulated using beam elements assigned a linear-elastic
material model. Fixed values were assigned for the pipe
Parameter Value Young’s modulus, cross-sectional area and density, and
the moment of inertia was varied until agreement with the
Shear modulus number, B 150 for initial loadinga
Kim et al. (2010) test data was achieved. The simulation
450 for unloading/reloadingb
Poisson’s ratio, ν 0.39c results and the pipe parameters are shown in Figure 4 and
Failure ratio, Rf 0.85d Table 3.
Void ratio, e 0.74e
Total density, ρt 1.54 Mg/m3e
Friction angle, ϕ 34°e
4
Cohesion, c 0.5 kPaf
Dilation angle, ψ 0g Test results from Kim et al. (2010)
FLAC model results
a 3
Applied axial load (kN/m)

Assumed to be reduced by a factor of 3 from the value for unloading/

reloading based on recommendation by Duncan et al. (1980) for dense
sands.
b
Estimated based on results of laboratory testing on Jumunjin sand 2
reported by Kim et al. (2004).
c
Estimated based on results of laboratory testing on Jumunjin sand
reported by Kim et al. (2004) and on results of model-scale testing
1
reported by Kim et al. (2010).
d
Estimated based on results of laboratory testing on poorly-graded sands
(SP) reported by Duncan et al. (1980).
e
Estimated based on results of laboratory testing on Jumunjin sand 0
0 2 4 6
reported by Park et al. (2008).
f Vertical displacement (mm)
Assumed to account for moisture effects, following the convention
described by Hatami and Witthoeft (2008).
g Figure 4. Comparison of parallel plate test results for steel pipe
Negligible effect on model results based on preliminary simulations
varying from 0 to 10°. reported by Kim et al. (2010) with FLAC model results
Geosynthetics International

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
Earth pressure reduction on buried pipes using EPS geofoam 5

3. SIMULATION OF MODEL-SCALE pipe axis) by 140 cm wide by 90 cm high. The base and
TESTS three of the four walls of the box were made of steel, while
one face of the four walls was made of transparent rigid
The model-scale tests performed by Kim et al. (2010) were acrylic plate.
simulated using the calibrated material models for EPS The model-scale test procedure consisted of three steps:
geofoam, Jumunjin sand and the steel pipe. Photographs (1) pipe placement and side fill; (2) EPS panel placement
of the test box illustrating the testing procedure are shown and backfilling; and (3) surcharging. During the first step,
in Figure 5. The details of the test chamber and test the pipe was placed along the base of the test box, and
procedure were presented by Kim et al. (2010). The box Jumunjin sand was pluviated into the box until the sand
had interior dimensions of 100 cm long (i.e., along the fill level reached the pipe crown. During the second step,
an EPS geofoam compressible inclusion was placed at the
Table 3. Material properties assumed for model-scale pipe level of the pipe crown (as applicable), and Jumunjin sand
was pluviated into the box from a drop height of
Parameter Value approximately 50 cm until the sand level reached the top
of the box. During the final step, a surcharge load was
Young’s modulus, E 200 GPaa applied in three stages (i.e., 49, 98 and 147 kPa) to the top
Moment of inertia, I 47 × 10−12 m4/ma
of the Jumunjin sand fill using a steel plate advanced by a
Cross-sectional area, A 1.5 × 10−3 m2/mb
Density, ρ 8 Mg/m3a
hydraulic system.
Two pressure transducers approximately 5 cm in diam-
a
Assumed as typical steel material properties. eter were mounted on the pipe. One transducer was fixed
b
Estimated based on measurements reported by Kim et al. (2010). at the pipe crown and was oriented to measure vertical

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 5. Model test procedure by Kim et al. (2010): (a) cross-section of soil box, (b) air-pluviation Jumunjin sand, and (c) the placement
of EPS geofoam
Geosynthetics International

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
6 Witthoeft and Kim
stress. The other transducer was attached to the pipe
springline and was oriented to measure horizontal stress.
Both vertical and horizontal stress measurements were
recorded at the end of backfilling and after each surcharge
loading stage.
3.1. Geometry and boundary conditions
A plane-strain model was developed using FLAC (Itasca
2011) to simulate the Kim et al. (2010) model-scale test
sequence. Due to symmetry, only half of the test box
was included in the simulation. The geometry and
boundary conditions of the numerical model are shown
in Figure 6.
Each simulation was separated into two phases:
a pluviation phase and a surcharging phase. The pluvia-
tion phase consisted of a sequence in which one row of
soil numerical zones at a time (for a lift thickness ranging
from 1.0 cm to approximately 3.3 cm) was activated
and the model was allowed to reach static equilibrium.
This sequence was performed for the first (i.e., lowest) row
of numerical zones and was repeated until all soil
numerical zones in the model were active (i.e., rows of
numerical zones were activated sequentially from the
bottom to the top of the model). During the surcharging
phase, a vertical stress boundary condition was applied
along the top of the model. The magnitude of this vertical
stress was increased gradually (i.e., in increments of
approximately 2.5 kPa, allowing the model to equilibrate
between increments) until reaching the maximum sur-
charge load applied in the model tests by Kim et al.
(2010).
Displacement constraints were applied as shown in
Figure 6. A horizontal displacement constraint was used
along the plane of symmetry. The lateral and rotational
degrees of freedom were fixed for the structural nodes
lying on this boundary at all stages of the analyses. During
the pluviation phase, the lower boundary was fixed in the
vertical direction, and the right boundary was fixed in the
horizontal direction. However, these boundaries were
fixed in both horizontal and vertical directions during
the surcharging phase. It was assumed that friction
developed along these boundaries could be significant
(e.g., USACE 1994, recommendations suggest a sand–
steel interface friction angle of approximately one-half of
the sand internal friction angle, or approximately 17° to
18° for the sand considered here) and could be idealized
using a no-slip condition. It is noted that boundary
friction effects are evident in the test results by Kim
et al. (2010) test: for Test 1 (i.e., soil only), the measured
vertical earth pressure at the end of surcharging
(i.e., 139.3 kPa) was approximately 13% less than the
sum of the self-weight and surcharge loads (i.e.,
12.1 kPa + 147.1 kPa = 159.2 kPa). Thus, the model
allowed the development of friction between the sand
fill and the right boundary.
3.2. Pipe–soil interaction behavior
Pipe–soil interaction was modeled as a frictional interface
using the FLAC software’s built-in interface logic. Based
on recommendations by USACE (1994), the interface
Geosynthetics International
Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com
Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
shear strength was assumed to be one-half of the estimated
soil shear strength. The interface normal and shear
stiffnesses were estimated iteratively by fixing stiffness
values and comparing model-predicted stresses against
stresses in Test 1 (i.e., test box filled with sand only)
reported by Kim et al. (2010). Assumed properties for the
pipe–soil interface are listed in Table 4.
3.3. EPS–soil interaction behavior
EPS–soil interaction was modeled assuming a no-slip
condition. However, preliminary simulations were per-
formed to evaluate the effect of this assumption on
model-predicted stresses. The effect was evaluated as
change from the ‘baseline’ (i.e., no-slip assumption)
model-predicted stresses at the pipe crown and springline.
For these preliminary simulations, an EPS–soil inter-
face was included in the model, and interface shear and
normal stiffness values as well as interface friction angle
values were varied. Interface stiffness values were varied
from 600 × 103 kN/m/m to 9600 × 103 kN/m/m, and
interface friction angle values were varied from 1° (i.e.,
similar to a full-slip condition) to 34° (i.e., similar to a
no-slip condition). For the parameter ranges evaluated,
model-predicted stresses generally showed modest sensi-
tivity to interface stiffness (i.e., approximately 5–15%
variation from ‘baseline’ values) and interface friction
angle (i.e., approximately 5–10% variation from ‘baseline’
values). In light of this modest sensitivity the no-slip
assumption was considered to be adequate for the
purposes of this study.
3.4. Effects of soil and EPS constitutive behavior
Although the model results presented here were developed
using nonlinear-elastic/Mohr–Coulomb soil constitu-
tive behavior, preliminary simulations were performed to
evaluate the effects of using linear-elastic/Mohr–Coulomb
soil constitutive behavior on model-predicted stresses.
For these simulations, constant values of Young’s
modulus and Poisson’s ratio were assigned to all soil
zones in the numerical grid. Poisson’s ratio was fixed at a
value of ν = 0.39, while Young’s modulus was varied
between a ‘lower-bound’ value of approximately 48 MPa
and an ‘upper-bound’ value of approximately 183 MPa.
These Young’s modulus values were taken as representa-
tive of model-calculated (using the nonlinear-elastic/
Mohr–Coulomb soil model) values at the end of back-
filling and the end of surcharging, respectively.
The effect of the soil constitutive model was evaluated
as change from the ‘baseline’ (i.e., nonlinear-elastic/
Mohr–Coulomb) model-predicted stresses at the pipe
crown and springline. While agreement of model-
predicted stresses with the ‘baseline’ was reasonably
good for the ‘lower-bound’ Young’s modulus value (i.e.,
approximately 20–25% variation from ‘baseline’ values),
the variation was significant for the ‘upper-bound’
Young’s modulus value (i.e., approximately 60–65%
variation from ‘baseline’ values). In light of this
sensitivity to the constant stiffness value selected, it is
recommended to assume nonlinear-elastic soil behavior,
Earth pressure reduction on buried pipes using EPS geofoam 7

Surcharge load
(surcharging phase)

Jumunjin
sand

Model boundary Model boundary fixed

+y 90 cm
fixed in x -direction in x-direction
+r (pluviation phase) and
-
x- and y-directions
+x
(surcharging phase)

EPS
Model boundary fixed
Structural nodes geofoam
-
in y-direction
fixed x- and r- (pluviation phase) and
directions Steel pipe with x- and y-directions
frictional pipe - (surcharging phase)
soil interface

70 cm

(a)

Surcharge load
(surcharging phase)

Jumunjin
sand

Model boundary Model boundary

+y fixed in x-direction 90 cm
fixed in x-direction
(pluviation phase) and
+r
x- and y-directions
+x (surcharging phase)
EPS geofoam
(two-panel configura-
tion shown)
Model boundary
Structural nodes fixed in y-direction
fixed in x- and r- (pluviation phase) and
directions Steel pipe with x- and y-directions
frictional pipe - (surcharging phase)
soil interface

70 cm
(b)

Figure 6. Geometry and boundary conditions for the test box model, (a) single layer of EPS geofoam, and (b) double layer of EPS
geofoam

Table 4. Properties assumed for pipe–soil interface

particularly when representative soil stress–strain data are
available. Parameter Value
The effect of EPS constitutive behavior was not
systematically evaluated. However, for the EPS material Normal stiffness, kn 600 × 103 kN/m/ma
properties assumed and the stress levels examined in this Shear stiffness, ks 600 × 103 kN/m/ma
Friction angle, δ 17°b
study, the EPS material did not enter the plastic range.
Therefore, practically, the EPS constitutive behavior used a
Estimated based on calibration model for Kim et al. (2010) Test 2.
in the simulations was equivalent to linear-elastic con- b
Estimated as one-half of soil friction angle based on USACE (1994)
stitutive behavior. However, this equivalency should not recommendations.

Geosynthetics International

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
8 Witthoeft and Kim

Table 5. Model-scale test variables (D denotes diameter of pipe, Wgeofoam denotes the width of EPS, and SEPS panel denotes spacing
between EPS panels

The presence of EPS geofoam inclusion Test factor Variables Test no.

No EPS Stress distribution of fill soil Sand deposit without pipe Test 1
Sand deposit with pipe Test 2
Single layer of EPS The width of EPS Wgeofoam = 1.0D Test 3
(single layer of EPS geofoam inclusion) Wgeofoam = 1.5D Test 4
Wgeofoam = 2.1D Test 5
Double layer of EPS Spacing between EPS geofoam inclusions SEPS panel = 0.5D Test 6
(for all cases, Wgeofoam = 1.0D) SEPS panel = 1.0D Test 7
SEPS panel = 1.2D Test 8
SEPS panel = 1.5D Test 9

be expected to hold for all sets of EPS material properties 150

Test 1 results (Kim et al. 2010)
and loading conditions.

Vertical stress at pipe crown (kPa)

Test 2 results (Kim et al. 2010)
Test 3 results (Kim et al. 2010)
FLAC simulation of Test 1
3.5. Comparison of numerical results with model-scale 100 FLAC simulation of Test 2
test results FLAC simulation of Test 3

Based on the calibrations of materials used in the tests,

numerical analysis using FLAC was performed to
50
simulate the model-scale tests presented by Kim et al.
(2010). Table 5 summarizes the model-scale test variables
presented in Kim et al. (2010). Calibration simulations
were performed for three of the model-scale tests reported 0
0 30 60 90 120 150
by Kim et al. (2010):
Applied surcharge pressure (kPa)

• Test 1 – the test box contained sand only (i.e., no pipe

(a)

or compressible inclusion).
• Test 2 – the test box contained sand and the pipe (i.e., 150
Horizontal stress at pipe springline (kPa)

Test 1 results (Kim et al. 2010)

no compressible inclusion). Test 2 results (Kim et al. 2010)
• Test 3 – the test box contained sand, the pipe and a Test 3 results (Kim et al. 2010)
FLAC simulation of Test 1
100 cm long × 10 cm wide × 5 cm thick layer of EPS 100 FLAC simulation of Test 2
geofoam panel over the pipe. FLAC simulation of Test 3

Model-predicted values of vertical stress at the pipe crown

and horizontal stress at the pipe springline were plotted
against corresponding test results. The comparisons of
numerical results with model-scale test results are pre-
sented in Figure 7.
As shown in Figure 7, the numerical results agree
reasonably well with the measurements reported by Kim
et al. (2010). Based on the agreement between the
simulation results and the model-scale test results, it
appears that the numerical model described here provides
a reasonably accurate means to assess the effects of an
EPS geofoam compressible inclusion on the static earth
pressures around a buried pipe. As was observed in model
test results by Kim et al. (2010), the numerical results
using FLAC also showed the benefit of using EPS
geofoam over the pipe.
4. ‘OPTIMIZATION’ OF EPS PANEL
DIMENSIONS
Using the calibrated numerical model, a series of
simulations was performed to demonstrate a possible
‘optimization’ technique to select dimensions for a single
Geosynthetics International
50
0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Applied surcharge pressure (kPa)
(b)
Figure 7. Simulation results versus model-scale test results
reported by Kim et al. (2010) for (a) vertical earth pressure
measured at the pipe crown; and (b) horizontal earth pressure
measured at the pipe springline
EPS panel under the test conditions modeled (e.g., soil
type, surcharge load, etc.). Use of two layers of EPS
geofoam panel for further earth pressure reduction was
also investigated.
Knowing that reduction of overburden stress on the
pipe crown is an important consideration, the placement
of EPS geofoam over a buried pipe should aid in reducing
the vertical earth pressure on the pipe. However, uniform-
ity of stresses around the pipe should also be considered to
reduce the potential for ovaling deformation, as illustrated

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
Earth pressure reduction on buried pipes using EPS geofoam 9

σv, crown

(a): σv,crown / σh,springline = 1

(a) σh,springline

σv,crown
σv, crown

(a): σv,crown /σh,springline < 1 (a): σv,crown / σh,springline > 1

(b) σh,springline (c) σh,springline

Figure 8. Schematic illustration showing possible pipe deformation patterns for (a) uniform stress around the pipe; (b) vertical stresses
larger than horizontal stresses; and (c) horizontal stresses larger than vertical stresses. Solid and dashed lines indicate original and
deformed pipe cross-section

schematically in Figure 8. Therefore, ‘optimization’ of Considering both ‘optimization’ criteria, it appears that
EPS panel dimensions should consider at least the an ‘optimal’ wgeofoam/Dpipe ratio should be as narrow
following criteria: (1) the magnitude of vertical stress at as possible but at least wgeofoam/Dpipe = 1.5. Therefore,
the pipe crown, σv,crown, should be reduced to the extent for the conditions considered here, the ‘optimal’ value of
practicable; and (2) an acceptable ratio of horizontal stress the wgeofoam/Dpipe = 1.5 ratio is approximately wgeofoam/
at the pipe springline to vertical stress at the pipe crown, Dpipe = 1.5 (i.e., wgeofoam = 15 cm).
σh,springline/σv,crown, should be maintained. Regression equations may be used to facilitate the
In general, a lower overburden stress is preferred to ‘optimization’ process. For the configurations examined
a higher overburden stress. Additionally, based on the here, the effect of the normalized EPS panel width
σh,springline/σv,crown ratio reported by Kim et al. (2010) for (wgeofoam/Dpipe) on the normalized vertical and horizontal
Test 2 (i.e., sand and pipe only), it appears that σh,springline/ stresses at the pipe crown and springline, respectively, may
σv,crown = 1.0 ± 0.1 is a reasonable target. Therefore, the be approximated by:
goal of this example ‘optimization’ is to minimize σv,crown    
σ v;crown wgeofoam
while maintaining 0.9 ≤ σh,springline/σv,crown ≤ 1.1. ¼ 0
08 ln þ 0
27;
σ surcharge Dpipe
  ð9Þ
wgeofoam
0
5   2
5
4.1. Effects of EPS panel width Dpipe
The first variable investigated during the ‘optimization’ and
procedure was the ratio of EPS panel width to pipe    
diameter, wgeofoam/Dpipe, with a fixed EPS panel thickness σ h;springline wgeofoam 0:39
¼ 1
33 ;
of tgeofoam = 5 cm. Numerical results for the variation of σ v;crown Dpipe
wgeofoam/Dpipe are shown in Figure 9. For comparison,   ð10Þ
wgeofoam
model test results by Kim et al. (2010) are also plotted in 0
5   2
5
Figure 9. Dpipe
As shown in Figure 9a, the magnitude of σv,crown Following this approach, the ‘optimization’ objective is
initially decreases with the addition of an EPS panel but to minimize σv,crown/Δσsurcharge, by changing wgeofoam/
increases gradually as the EPS panel is widened. Applying Dpipe, subject to the constraint 0.9 ≤ σh,springline/
the first ‘optimization’ criterion (i.e., significant reduction σv,crown ≤ 1.1. The constraint is satisfied on the interval
of σv,crown), a narrow panel is preferable over a wide panel of approximately 1.5 ≤ wgeofoam/Dpipe ≤ 2.5. For this inter-
(i.e., the panel should be as narrow as possible). val, σv,crown/Δσsurcharge is minimized at a value of wgeofoam/
Meanwhile, as shown in Figure 9b, the σh,springline/ Dpipe = 1.5.
σv,crown ratio is relatively high for a narrow EPS panel
but approaches a value of σh,springline/σv,crown that is
practically close to 1.0 as the panel is widened. Applying 4.2. Effects of EPS panel thickness
the second ‘optimization’ criterion (i.e., 0.9 ≤ σh,springline/ The second variable investigated during the ‘optimization’
σv,crown ≤ 1.1), the ratio of EPS panel width to pipe procedure was the thickness of the EPS panel, tgeofoam,
diameter should be at least wgeofoam/Dpipe = 1.5. with a fixed ratio of EPS panel width to pipe diameter of
Geosynthetics International

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
10 Witthoeft and Kim

1.2 1.2

Regression line Regression line

FLAC parametric results Analytical results
1.0 1.0
Model test results (Kim et al. 2010) Model test results (Kim et al. 2010)
Test 1 Test 1

σv,crown / σsurcharge (unitless)

σv,crown /σsurcharge (unitless)

0.8 0.8

σv,crown /σsurcharge = 0.08 ln(Wgeofoam /Dpipe ) + 0.27 σv,crown /σsurcharge = –0.09 ln(t geofoam ) + 0.45
0.6 (R2 = 0.99) 0.6 (R2 = 0.98)
Test 2 Test 2

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 Test 4

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 4 8 12 16 20
Wgeofoam /Dpipe (unitless) t geofoam (cm)
(a) (a)

2.1 2.1

Regression line Regression line

1.8 FLAC parametric results 1.8 Analytical results
Model test results (Kim et al. 2010) Model test results (Kim et al. 2010)
Test 3
σh,springline /σv,crown (unitless)
σh,springline / σv,crown (unitless)

1.5 1.5

1.2 1.2

Test 2 Test 4 0.9 Test 4

0.9 Test 2
Test 5

0.6 Test 1
0.6 Test 1
σh,springline /σv,crown = 1.33 (Wgeofoam /Dpipe )–0.39 σh,springline /σv,crown = 0.94 (t geofoam )0.12
2
(R = 0.95) 0.3 (R2 = 0.95)
0.3

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 4 8 12 16 20
Wgeofoam /Dpipe (unitless) tgeofoam (cm)
(b)
(b)

Figure 9. Effects of varying ratio of EPS panel width to pipe Figure 10. Effects of varying EPS panel thickness while main-
diameter while maintaining constant EPS panel thickness taining constant ratio of EPS panel width to pipe diameter
(tgeofoam = 5 cm) on (a) vertical earth pressure measured at the pipe (wgeofoam = 1.5Dpipe) on (a) vertical earth pressure measured at the
crown; and (b) ratio of horizontal stress at the pipe springline to pipe crown; and (b) ratio of horizontal stress at the pipe springline
vertical stress at the pipe crown to vertical stress at the pipe crown

should not be larger than tgeofoam = 5 cm associated with

the model test case.
wgeofoam/Dpipe = 1.5. It is noted that the effect of EPS
Considering both ‘optimization’ criteria, it appears that
panel thickness is also a function of EPS density because
an ‘optimal’ EPS geofoam panel thickness should be as
EPS density controls strain above a buried pipe
large as possible but not larger than tgeofoam = 5 cm.
when placed above it. In this study, the EPS density of
Therefore, for the conditions considered here, the
15 kg/m3 was investigated. Numerical results of stresses
‘optimal’ thickness of the EPS panel is approximately
according to the variation of tgeofoam are shown in
tgeofoam = 5 cm.
Figure 10.
Following the regression equation ‘optimization’
As shown in Figure 10a, the magnitude of σv,crown
approach, assuming an EPS panel width of wgeofoam/
decreases with an increasing thickness of the EPS panel
Dpipe = 1.5, the effect of the EPS panel thickness (tgeofoam,
but tends toward a lower bound. Applying the first
cm) on the normalized vertical and horizontal stresses at
‘optimization’ criterion (i.e., significant reduction of
the pipe crown and springline, respectively, may be
σv,crown), a thick panel is preferable over a thin panel
approximated by:
(i.e., the panel should be at least 8 cm).  
Meanwhile, as shown in Figure 10b, the σh,springline/ σ v;crown

¼  0
09 ln tgeofoam þ 0
45;
σv,crown ratio is close to 1.0 for a small thickness of EPS σ surcharge ð11Þ
but increases gradually as the panel thickness increases.

1 cm  tgeofoam  20 cm
Applying the second ‘optimization’ criterion (i.e.,
0.9 ≤ σh,springline/σv,crown ≤ 1.1), the EPS panel thickness and
Geosynthetics International

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
Earth pressure reduction on buried pipes using EPS geofoam 11
 
σ h;springline
0:12 1.2
¼0
94 tgeofoam ;
σ v;crown ð12Þ FLAC parametric results (w geofoam = 1.5D)

1.0 FLAC parametric results (w geofoam = 1.0D)
1 cm  tgeofoam  20 cm Model test results (Kim et al. 2010)

σv,crown / σsurcharge (unitless)

Following this approach, the ‘optimization’ objective is to 0.8
minimize σv,crown/Δσsurcharge, by changing tgeofoam, subject
to the constraint 0.9 ≤ σh,springline/σv,crown ≤ 1.1. The con- 0.6
straint is satisfied on the interval of approximately
0 < tgeofoam ≤ 5 cm. For this interval, σv,crown/Δσsurcharge is
0.4
minimized at a value of tgeofoam = 5 cm. Test 9
Test 8

4.3. Effects of second EPS panel and spacing between 0.2

Test 6 Test 7
panels
0
Using two layers of EPS geofoam panels in a stacked 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
configuration (see Figure 6) was also investigated. SEPS panel /Dpipe (unitless)
Numerical results, together with test results from Kim
(a)
et al. (2010), for this dual-panel configuration are 2.1
presented in Figure 11. As shown in the figure, the
‘optimized’ dimensions of wgeofoam/Dpipe = 1.5 and 1.8
tgeofoam = 5 cm were used for both panels. Also, in order
Test 9
to compare the numerical results with model-scale test
(unitless)
1.5
results by Kim et al. (2010), numerical analysis with
dimensions of wgeofoam/Dpipe = 1.0 and tgeofoam = 5 cm 1.2
v,crown

Test 7 Test 8
were performed. Spacing between panels (spanels, i.e.,
σh,springline /σ

distance from the top of the lower panel to the bottom 0.9

of the upper panel) was varied between spanels/Dpipe = 0.0

0.6
(equivalent to a single EPS panel with tgeofoam = 10 cm) FLAC parametric results (w geofoam = 1.5D)
and a single EPS panel with spanels/Dpipe = 1.5. FLAC parametric results (w geofoam = 1.0D)
0.3
Based on the results shown in Figure 11a, it appears Model test results (Kim et al. 2010)

that vertical stress at the pipe crown is relatively insensitive 0.0

to the spacing between panels. It is noted that the value of
σh,springline/σv,crown is outside the interval 0.9 ≤ σh,springline/
σv,crown ≤ 1.1, as shown in Figure 11b. Therefore, the
‘optimization’ criteria are not satisfied for the double-
panel configurations examined here.
A reason for these results is suggested by the
patterns of stress and displacement presented in
Figures 12a and 12b, respectively. In general, a second
compressible inclusion generates additional stress
reduction when the second compressible layer is placed
above the plane of equal settlement (i.e., the level
above which the vertical displacement in the soil prism
overlying the pipe is approximately equal to that of
the adjacent soil). As illustrated in Figure 12b, for the
model geometry considered here, no plane of equal
settlement is developed; consequently, the effectiveness of
the second compressible layer is limited for this geometry.
In addition, Figure 12b indicates that the displace-
ment induced to the steel pipe is less than 0.15 mm.
As shown in Figure 4, because the steel pipe should
behave elastically for displacements less than 0.15 mm,
the soil–pipe system in the model test should represent a
rigid pipe condition.
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A series of numerical analyses was performed to study
the use of EPS compressible inclusions for reducing
earth pressures on a buried pipe. A numerical model
Geosynthetics International
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
SEPS panel /Dpipe (unitless)
(b)
Figure 11. Effects of varying spacing between EPS panels
while maintaining constant ratio of EPS panel width to pipe
diameter (wgeofoam = 1.5Dpipe) and constant EPS panel thickness
(tgeofoam = 5 cm) on (a) vertical earth pressure measured at the pipe
crown; and (b) ratio of horizontal stress at the pipe springline to
vertical stress at the pipe crown
was developed and calibrated against measurements
from an experimental study following a two-step
process. First, a material model was developed and
calibrated for each of the three materials used in the
model-scale tests (i.e., EPS geofoam, steel pipe and
Jumunjin sand). Second, a numerical model was devel-
oped to simulate the test box used in the model-scale tests.
The numerical model was calibrated against the
model-scale test results and was used to examine more
cases that were not covered in the experimental program;
results from these additional cases were presented in this
paper.
Notably, the use of numerical analysis methods pro-
vides for a systematic approach to evaluate the ‘optimal’
configuration of the EPS geofoam panel. ‘Optimization’
criteria were developed that considered both the magni-
tude of vertical stress at the crown of the pipe and the
uniformity of stresses around the pipe. Based on the

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
12 Witthoeft and Kim

equal settlement, which was not achieved for the geometry

used in the analysis.
More refined study should be performed in the future.
Jumunjin While the ‘optimization’ presented here illustrates one
sand possible design approach for compressible inclusions
above buried pipes, additional research is anticipated to
provide a more broadly applicable design approach for
+y 140 various pipe characteristics and site conditions. Key items
+r to be considered in developing a design approach for EPS
+x compressible inclusions include:
120

• Soil effects: the ‘optimal’ geofoam configuration

100 depends on the amount of displacement required to
mobilize shear stresses above the pipe. The amount of
80
EPS geofoam displacement required depends on factors including
60
soil type and relative density.
• Pipe stiffness effects: the stresses and strains developed
within a given fill material also depend on pipe
stiffness. Pipe stiffness also depends upon the shape
of the pipe (e.g., circular or different curvature) in
(a)
addition to the pipe material.
• Geofoam effects: the amount of displacement
Jumunjin achieved using a compressible inclusion depends on
sand
the properties of the inclusion, including stiffness,
– 1.05 strength and creep effects. These properties are
strongly correlated with the EPS density. Only one
– 0.90 EPS density was evaluated in this study. Consequently,
it is considered possible that ‘optimized’ geometry
+y – 0.75 of the EPS panel might vary depending on the
+r
EPS density specified. Also, analysis should consider
– 0.60
+x actual (delivered) EPS densities, not nominal densities,
because the EPS density may be manufacturer-
– 0.45
dependent and different from its nominal density.
Note that this variation of the EPS material quality
should be carefully discussed and accounted for from
EPS geofoam the design stage.
– 0.30
• Economic factors: for practical purposes, an ‘opti-
mized’ design should account for both expected
savings due to a reduced pipe section and cost
– 0.15
increases due to EPS material and installation costs.
• Practical considerations: while, in general, lower EPS
(b) density results in lower EPS stiffness and improved
compressible inclusions performance, practical lower-
Figure 12. Numerical results for EPS panel width to pipe
diameter ratio wgeofoam = 1.5Dpipe and EPS panel thickness
bound limits on EPS density may apply. For example,
tgeofoam = 5 cm: (a) vertical stress contours (kPa); and (b) vertical in the authors’ experience, manufacturing quality
displacement contours (mm) control issues may arise for EPS densities at or below
approximately 12 kg/m3. Additionally, regulatory
agencies may impose lower-bound limits on EPS
density.
simulation results and the ‘optimization’ objectives of
minimizing σv,crown while maintaining 0.9 ≤ σh,springline/
σv,crown ≤ 1.1, ‘optimal’ EPS panel dimensions geometry
for the problem considered were estimated to be approxi-
mately wgeofoam/Dpipe = 1.5 (i.e., wgeofoam = 15 cm) and
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
tgeofoam = 5 cm. The authors thank S. R. Gudavalli of Fugro Consultants,
The numerical model was also used to investigate the Inc., Houston, Texas; P. Strandberg of Fugro (USA), Inc.,
use of a double-panel configuration. The configurations Houston, Texas; and D. Chu of Ninyo & Moore
examined in this paper did not satisfy the ‘optimization’ Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants,
criteria. This is due to the fact that the second upper layer Irvine, California, for their reviews of the original manu-
of the EPS panel should be placed above the plane of script and valuable comments.
Geosynthetics International

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
Earth pressure reduction on buried pipes using EPS geofoam 13

NOTATION on EPS Construction Method (EPS Tokyo ‘96), EPS

Construction Method Development Organization, Tokyo, Japan,
Basic SI units are given in parentheses. pp. 31–46.
Hardin, B. O. (1978). The nature of stress-strain behavior for soils.
In Proceedings of the ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Division
A pipe cross-sectional area (m2/m)
Specialty Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Soil
B shear modulus number for soil Dynamics, American Society of Civil Engineers, Pasadena, CA,
(dimensionless) USA, pp. 3–90.
c soil cohesion (Pa) Hazarika, H. (2006). Stress-strain modeling of EPS geofoam for large-
cf cohesion (shear strength) of EPS (Pa) strain applications. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 24, No. 2,
79–90.
Dpipe diameter of pipe (m)
Horvath, J. S. (1995). Geofoam Geosynthetic, Horvath Engineering, PC,
E pipe Young’s modulus (Pa) Scarsdale, NY, USA.
Ef EPS Young’s modulus (Pa) Hatami, K. & Witthoeft, A. F. (2008). A numerical study on the use of
(Ef )avg average Young’s modulus of EPS test geofoam to increase the external stability of reinforced soil walls.
specimens (Pa) Geosynthetics International, 15, No. 6, 452–470.
Itasca (2011). FLAC User’s Manual, Fifth edn. (FLAC Version 7.0),
Ei initial Young’s modulus of soil (Pa)
dated September 2011, Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.,
Et tangent Young’s modulus of soil (Pa) Minneapolis, MN, USA.
e void ratio of soil (dimensionless) Kim, K. & Yoo, C. H. (2005). Design loading for deeply buried box
Gi initial shear modulus of soil (Pa) culverts. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
I pipe moment of inertia (m4/m) Engineering, 131, No. 1, 20–27.
Kim, S. I., Choi, J. S., Park, K. B., Seo, K. B. & Lee, J. H. (2004).
kn interface normal stiffness (N/m/m)
Simulation of dynamic response of saturated sands using modified
ks interface shear stiffness (N/m/m) DSC model. In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on
p′ mean effective stress (Pa) Earthquake Engineering, WCEE Secretariat; Paper No. 1208,
patm atmospheric pressure (Pa) Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Rf failure ratio for soil (dimensionless) Kim, H., Choi, B. & Kim, J. (2010). Reduction of earth pressure on
buried pipes by EPS geofoam inclusions. Geotechnical Testing
spanels spacing between EPS panels (m)
Journal, 33, No. 4, 1–10.
tgeofoam thickness of EPS panel (m) Larson, N. G. & Hendrickson, J. G. (1962). A practical method for
wgeofoam width of EPS panel (m) constructing rigid conduits under high fills. In Proceedings of the 41st
Δσsurcharge surcharge load applied at top of soil box Annual Meeting of the Highway Research Board (eds Burggraf, F.,
(Pa) Orland, H. P. & Jackson, E. W.), vol. 41, pp. 273–280. Highway
Research Board, Washington, DC, USA.
δ interface friction angle (degrees)
Marston, A. (1930). The theory of external loads on closed
ϕ soil friction angle (degrees) conduits in the light of the latest experiments. Bulletin 96, Iowa
ϕds soil friction angle measured in direct Engineering Experiment Station, Iowa State College, Ames, IA,
shear test (degrees) USA.
γd dry unit weight of soil (N/m3) McAfee, R. P. & Valsangkar, A. J. (2004). Geotechnical properties of
compressible materials used for induced trench construction.
ν Poisson’s ratio of soil (dimensionless)
Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 32, No. 2, 143–152.
νf Poisson’s ratio of EPS (dimensionless) McAfee, R. P. & Valsangkar, A. J. (2005). Performance of an induced
ρ pipe density (kg/m3) trench installation. Transportation Research Record, No. 1936,
ρf EPS density (kg/m3) 230–237.
ρt soil total density (kg/m3) Papadimitriou, A. G., Bouckovalas, G. D. & Dafalias, Y. F. (2001).
Plasticity model for sand under small and large cyclic strains.
σh, σh,springline horizontal stress at pipe springline (Pa)
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127,
σv, σv,crown vertical stress at pipe crown (Pa) No. 11, 973–983.
σ1′ major principal effective stress (Pa) Park, L. K., Suneel, M. & Chul, I. J. (2008). Shear strength of Jumunjin
σ3′ minor principal effective stress (Pa) sand according to relative density. Marine Georesources &
ψ soil dilation angle (degrees) Geotechnology, 26, No. 2, 101–110.
Spangler, M. G. (1958). A practical application of the imperfect
ditch method of construction. In Proceedings of the
Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Highway Research Board
(eds Burggraf, F., Ward, E. M. & Orland, H. P.), vol. 37,
REFERENCES pp. 271–277, Highway Research Board, Washington, DC,
USA.
Duncan, J. M. & Chang, C. Y. (1970). Nonlinear analysis of stress and Sun, L., Hopkins, T. C. & Beckham, T. L. (2005). Use of Ultra-
strain in soils. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations lightweight Geofoam to Reduce Stresses in Highway Culvert
Division, 96, No. SM5, 1629–1653. Extensions, Publication KTC-05-34/SPR-297-05-1I. Kentucky
Duncan, J. M., Byrne, P., Wong, K. S. & Mabry, P. (1980). Strength, Transportation Center, University of Kentucky, Frankfort, KN,
Stress-Strain and Bulk Modulus Parameters for Finite Element USA.
Analysis of Stresses and Movements in Soil Masses, Report No. Sun, L., Hopkins, T. C. & Beckham, T. L. (2009). Reduction of Stresses
UCB/GT/80-01. Department of Civil Engineering, University of on Buried Rigid Highway Structures Using the Imperfect Ditch
California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA. Method and Expanded Polystyrene (Geofoam), Publication
Duskov, M. (1997). Materials research on EPS20 and EPS15 under KTC-07-14/SPR-228-01-1F. Kentucky Transportation Center,
representative conditions in pavement structures. Geotextiles and University of Kentucky, Frankfort, KN, USA.
Geomembranes, 15, No. 1, 147–181. USACE (1994). Design of Sheet Pile Walls. Engineer Manual EM
Frydenlund, T. E. & Aabøe, R. (1996). Expanded polystyrene – the 1110-2-2504, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the
light solution. In Proceedings of the International Symposium Army, Washington, DC, USA.

Geosynthetics International

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
14 Witthoeft and Kim

Vaslestad, J., Johansen, T. H. & Holm, W. (1994a). Load reduction on
rigid culverts beneath high fills: long-term behavior. Transportation
Research Record, No. 1415, 58–68.
Vaslestad, J., Johansen, T. H. & Holm, W. (1994b). Load
Reduction on Buried Rigid Pipes; Load Reduction on Rigid
Culverts Beneath High Fills: Long Term Behaviour; Long-Term
Behaviour of Flexible Large-Span Culvert, Director of
Public Roads, Norwegian Road Research Laboratory, Oslo,
Norway.
Zarnani, S. & Bathurst, R. J. (2007). Experimental investigation of EPS
geofoam seismic buffers using shaking table tests. Geosynthetics
International, 14, No. 3, 165–177.

The Editor welcomes discussion on all papers published in Geosynthetics International. Please email your contribution to
discussion@geosynthetics-international.com.

Geosynthetics International

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
View publication stats