International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2021) 7:25

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-021-00268-9

ORIGINAL PAPER

Soil Pressure Reduction by Including Geofoam: A Numerical Study

Junqi Wang1 · Jie Huang2

Received: 3 January 2021 / Accepted: 12 April 2021 / Published online: 5 May 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Abstract
EPS geofoam has been increasingly used as a highly compressible geomaterial to reduce overburden stresses over various
buried structures. Design guidelines are available to facilitate the applications of geofoams in a few countries. However, these
existing design guidelines are primarily based on research and field results of shallowly buried, small-dimension structures,
while completed studies on deeply buried, large-dimension culverts are still lacking. This study uses numerical simulation
to assess and quantify effectiveness of geofoam that was used to protect deeply buried, large-span concrete culverts. The
study was based on a real project, for which a concrete culvert of 5-m net span was buried underneath a filled roadway
embankment. Geofoam of densities of 7.5 and 15 kg/m3 were placed at different sections of the culvert to reduce overburden
stresses. In this study, the soil and geofoam were simulated as non-linear plastic material and non-linear elastic material,
respectively. The interface between soil and geofoam was simulated by Goodman contact elements that allowed in-plane slip
but prevented penetration in normal direction. The construction was simulated by staged backfilling and executed in steps
in the numerical model. The results disclosed that the geofoam was very effective to reduce the stress; however, the stress
reduction varied significantly from different locations of the culvert. The highest stress reduction appeared at the culvert
shoulder, which was approximately 90% and the average stress reduction was approximately 20%. Due to the crown shape
of the culvert, a slight stress concentration was seen at the crown top of the culvert. In addition, according to this study the
shoulder-to-shoulder coverage of geofoam seemed insufficient as there were significant increases of overburden stresses
near the culvert shoulder. The numerical results further suggested that the geofoam shall not induce noticeable differential
settlement if the backfill height exceeded the width of the geofoam. The numerical model suggested isoparametric elements
be efficient in terms of computation time and Goodman contact elements, although can represent the interaction well, may
cause excessive stress concentration.

Keywords Geofoam · Numerical simulation · Differential settlement · Duncan-Chang model · Culvert

Introduction especially for buried pipeline and culverts, and retaining

Geofoam, made from expanded polystyrene (EPS) and
extruded polystyrene (XPS), are highly compressive and
tolerable to harsh environment, which has been increas-
ingly used for various geotechnical engineering applications,
* Jie Huang
jie.huang@utsa.edu
Junqi Wang
jqwangmail@163.com
1
School of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering,
North China Electric Power University, 2 Beinong Rd.,
Changping District, Beijing 102206, China
2
The University of Texas At San Antonio, One UTSA Circle,
San Antonio, TX 78249, USA
wall [1–5]. It was invented in 1960s as a lightweight fill
material for embankments and was then rapidly extended
to many other civil engineering applications, such as slope,
roadway, retaining walls, utility trenches [3, 6–14]. Origi-
nally, geofoam was made of rigid plastic foam but has been
now gradually evolved into two major categories, expanded
polystyrene (EPS) and extruded polystyrene (XPS) since
1970s. Nowadays, EPS geofoam has been overwhelmingly
used in civil engineering applications, which has been manu-
factured into different shape with the reported density being
as low as only 1% of regular soil backfill materials [15, 16].
The demand of geofoam in practice keeps steadily increas-
ing, which is projected to exceed 1 billion US dollar by 2025
in terms of market size.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
25 Page 2 of 12
As a major application, geofoam has been used in bur-
ied pipeline, utility trenches and culverts to alleviate verti-
cal stresses and tolerate differential movements since late
1960s, which has been included in design guidelines and
manuals to aid its implementation in recent decades [17,
18]. Even though design aids are available, discrepancy
between calculated and field-measured stresses have been
found. This is particularly true when geofoam is used for
deeply buried and/or large-dimension structure, since the
existing estimation methods are developed primarily based
on studies of shallowly buried, small-dimension structure.
Therefore, some studies were conducted in deeply buried,
large-dimension pipelines and culverts to improve the design
practice. Sladen and Oswell [19] reported a stress reduc-
tion of 20–40% due to the inclusion of geofoam over a bur-
ied pipe based on a full-scale field study lasted 4 years. In
contrast, Vaslestad and Johansen [20] and Vaslestad, Murad
[21] summarized field measurements of pipes of a diameter
1.4–1.6 and a culvert of 2.0 net span, which had a buried
depth of 10–22 m. They reported that the reduction can be
as high as 45%. Sun, Hopkins [22] measured stresses and
settlements in a trench with geofoam over a 5-year period
and concluded that stress reduction could be significant but
was impacted by many factors, such as material properties
and construction. Meguid et al. [23] customized Abaqus pro-
gram and analyzed the effect over buried culvert as well as
on the side wall.
Compared with expensive field studies, numerical study
can be an effective alternative to assess and quantify the
effectiveness of geofoam. Sun, Hopkins [22] conducted a
2D numerical study to assess the long-term performance of
geofoam used to protect an extension of a culvert underneath
roadway, in which the geofoam was simulated as linear elas-
tic material, and suggested that settlement be no greater than
25 mm over a 27-year period. Similar approach was used by
Karpurapu and Bathurst [24], Ertugrul and Trandafir [25],
Ertugrul and Trandafir [26] to assess the stress reduction
on retaining wall with geofoam, in which geofoam was also
treated as a linear elastic material. Ertugrul and Trandafir
[25] pointed out there was limitation when geofoam was
treated a linear elastic material; therefore, the conclusion
from these studies shall be cautiously used. Numerous stud-
ies have confirmed that the stress–strain behavior of geofoam
is highly non-linear [27]. Chun, Lee [28] and Chun, Lim [29]
performed triaxial tests on geofoam and proposed a hyper-
bolic constitutive relationship based on regression analysis
of the test data. Wong and Leo [30] proposed an elastoplastic
constitutive relationship for geofoam and described how to
use triaxial tests to determine the parameters for the model,
which provided convenience for numerical simulation. How-
ever, it was argued that stress–strain relationship of geofoam
was too complicated for computational implementation.
Preber, Bang [27], Horvath [2] and Tsukamoto, Ishihara
13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2021) 7:25
[31] suggested that stress–strain relationship of geofoam
experienced three phases and the hyperbolic model cannot
represent the rapid strain hardening that occurs at large strain
situations. To account for the nonlinearity of stress–strain
relationship of geofoam as a function of strain, Wang and
Li [32] used a constitutive model developed to mimic the
behavior of crushable foam, which was originally developed
by Krieg [33]. Compared with hyperbolic model, this model
can well present the rapid strain hardening at large strain. In
general, the study on deeply buried, large-dimension culvert
is still scarce and is needed to further promote the applica-
tion of geofoam.
Project Background
A 60-km-long highway was built to connect two cities in
mountainy area of China, i.e., from Yuncheng City of Shanxi
Province to Sanmenxia City of Henan Province. With dis-
tribution of mountains and valleys in the highway route,
embankments were built to support the highway. Among
the segments of embankment in valleys, one of them had
a height up to 28 m, as show in Fig. 1. The construction
of the embankment would cut off the water flow from the
mountain top to mountain foot, creating flooding concern;
therefore, concrete culverts were built to provide a water
pathway, as shown in Fig. 1b. The height of the embank-
ment varied from 27 to 29 m due to the transverse slope at
the top of the embankment as well as the uneven subgrade
at the bottom of the embankment that was divided into three
tiers with varying slope angles. Each tier of the slopes was
offset by 200 mm from its immediately lower tier. As the
water pathway, the concrete culvert was constructed cross
the embankment with an intersection angle of 100°. The
culvert was constructed by segments to provide expansion
joints, i.e., Segments 1–21 that were marked in Fig. 1a. To
monitor the stress and settlement during and shortly after
construction, Segments 3–18 were divided into 8 sections,
i.e., Sections A–H. The detailed cross-section dimensions
of the culvert are shown in Fig. 2. The clear span of the
culvert was 5 m and the maximum clear height of the cul-
vert was approximately 5 m measured from the base slab
to the highest interior point of the culvert. To reduce the
overburden stress over the concrete culvert, geofoam was
placed over the culvert, as shown in Figs. 2 and 3, which
was expected to induce soil arching to transfer load from
over the culvert to the adjacent soil mass. For the sections
studied in this paper, the geofoam covered from shoulder to
shoulder as shown in Fig. 2. A loose sand layer was placed
underneath the geofoam to create a flat working surface
for the convenience of geofoam placement. Earth pressure
cells and settlement sensors were installed to monitor the
stress and displacement. Even though instrumentation was
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2021) 7:25 Page 3 of 12 25

Fig. 1  Embankment with buried concrete culvert: a cross-section view, and b 3D view

Fig. 2  Cross-section of culvert (unit: cm) Fig. 3  Geofoam placement

utilized to provide stress and displacement information at on a numerical analysis on the basis of acquired field data
some predetermined, isolated locations, such information to assess the stress reduction and redistribution over a large
would be not available for a distributed area or cross-section area, as well as to assess differential settlements at different
to allow more comprehensive analysis. This study focuses elevations due to the inclusion of geofoam.

13
25 Page 4 of 12 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2021) 7:25

Numerical Framework the obtained α1, α2, α3, α4, α5, α6, α7, and α8 will be put
back to Eq. (1) to render a generalize Eq. (2) for coordinate
Many of the published numerical studies used existing com- transformation:
mercial software packages that contained defined constitu-
x = N1 x1 + N2 x2 + N3 x3 + N4 x4
tive models to simulate different materials. Some of these (2)
packages even allow user-defined constitutive models to y = N1 y1 + N2 y2 + N3 y3 + N4 y4
extend their capacity [34]. Alternatively, this numerical where Ni = 14 (1 + 𝜉i 𝜉 + 𝜂i 𝜂) (i = 1,2,3,4).
study developed a new finite element (FE) tool to analyze Once the displacements at the corner points of each ele-
this particular problem, which could circumvent the limita- ment are determined, the displacement at any point within
tion of the existing FE software and incorporate the most the element can calculated by linear interpretation using
suitable stress–strain relationship to describe the complex Eq. (3):
behavior of geofoam under large strain conditions as well
{ } [ ]
as the stress–strain relationship to describe the interaction u N1 0 N2 0 N3 0 N4 0
= {𝛿}e (3)
between geofoam-soil-concrete. This section outlines the v 0 N 1 0 N 2 0 N3 0 N4
framework of the developed FE analysis tool.
where δ—the displacement.
Isoparametric Elements Consequently, the strain can be obtained from Eq. (4):

⎡ 𝜕Ni 0 ⎤
The problem involved complex boundaries at the contact ⎢ 𝜕x 𝜕N ⎥
of geofoam-culvert, soil-culvert, and soil-geofoam. To {𝜀}e = ⎢ 0 𝜕yi ⎥{𝛿}e (4)
improve the computation efficiency and accuracy, isopara- ⎢ 𝜕Ni 𝜕Ni ⎥
⎣ 𝜕y 𝜕x ⎦
metric elements were used in this study, in which quadri-
lateral elements were created in local coordinates and then
transformed to global coordinates. The advantage of this Contact Elements
approach is that any quadrilateral special shape in the global
coordinates can be started from a square from local coor- The numerical model involved dissimilar materials, soil,
dinates [35, 36], which is illustrated in Fig. 4. The local concrete, and geofoam, which could behave distinctly under
coordinates were transformed to a global system through a loads. In this study, the interfaces were simulated by Good-
transformation formula as indicated by Eq. (1) below: man contact elements that are four-node, eight-degree-free-
dom elements with zero thickness. The Goodman element
x = 𝛼1 + 𝛼2 𝜉 + 𝛼3 𝜂 + 𝛼4 𝜉𝜂
(1) assumes that two interfaces are connected by infinite small
y = 𝛼5 + 𝛼6 𝜉 + 𝛼7 𝜂 + 𝛼8 𝜉𝜂 springs in normal and tangential directions. The normal and
where x, y—coordinates in the global system; ƞ, tangential directions are not coupled, that is, the normal and
ξ—coordinates in local system. tangential directions behave independently. The constitutive
Each quadrilateral element consists of four points (i.e., model of Goodman element is represented by Eq. (5):
1, 2, 3 and 4) in Fig. 4a, which are corresponding to four { } [ ]{ }
𝜏 [ ] k 0 ws
points (i.e., 1, 2, 3 and 4) in Fig. 4b. Thus, α1, α, α3, α4, α5, {𝜎} =
𝜎n
= k0 {w} = s
o kn wn (5)
α6, α7, and α8 can be determined through Eq. (1). Thereafter,
where ks and kn—shear and normal stiffness, respec-
tively; ws and wn—shear and normal relative displacement
at the interface.
In the normal direction, a linear spring was assumed. The
stiffness was ­109 kN/m3 for compression to prevent penetra-
tion but was 10 kN/m3 tension to mimic negligible bonding
strength at the interface. In the tangential direction, a non-
linear response was adopted, which was proposed by Clough
and Duncan [37], as indicated by Eq. (6).
( )n ( )
𝜎 Rfs 𝜏
ks = k1 𝛾w n 1− (6)
pa 𝜎n tan 𝛿s + cs

Fig. 4  Isoparametric elements: a global coordinates; and b local

coordinates

13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2021) 7:25 Page 5 of 12 25

where τ and σn—shear and normal stress at the interface,
respectively; cs—cohesion at the interface, kPa; δs—friction
angle (o); Rfs, k1 and n—unitless constant to represent the
interface physical characteristics of interface, which shall
be determined through direct shear test; γw—unit weight of
water; pa—atmospheric pressure. The determined the param-
eters of the interface are listed in Table 1 below.
Constitutive Model for Soil
Duncan-Chang model, which was proposed by Duncan and
Chang [38] to represent the stress-dependent, non-linear
behavior of soil, was adopted in this study. Duncan-Chang
model is a hyperbolic model, in which the tangential mod-
ulus is formulated as a function of confining stresses and
mobilized strength as shown in Eq. (7) below:
Et = (1 − Rf S)2 Ei
where S—stress level constant, which indicates the stress
with respect to strength; Ei—initial tangential modulus.
There two parameters are determined by Eqs. (8) and (9),
respectively:
( )
𝜎1 − 𝜎3 (1 − sin 𝜙)
S= (8)
2c cos 𝜙 + 2𝜎3 sin 𝜙
( )n
𝜎3
Ei = Kpa
pa
Duncan and Chang [38] originally proposed a hyperbolic
formula to calculate Poisson’s ratio but later suggested to use
bulk modulus for the convenience of computation, which is
shown in Eq. (10) [39].
( )m
𝜎3
Bt = Kb pa (10)
pa
where Bt—tangential modulus; m—exponential constant.
Duncan-Chang model consists of seven parameters, i.e.,
c, ϕ, Rf, K, n, Kb and m to be determined from consolidated
drained triaxial tests. Even though each soil shall be tested
to get accurate parameters, Duncan, Byne [39] was able to
suggest a typical value range of each parameter, as presented
in Table 2.
For the reloading or unloading, the stress hardening was
considered using a reloading/unloading modulus, which
depends on historical maximum confining stress as shown
in Eq. (11).
( )nur
𝜎
Eur = Kur pa 3 (11)
pa
(7)
where Kur, nur—model constant.
Kur and nur are similar to K and n in Eq. (9), which define
the initial slope and shape of the curve. Usually, difference
between nur and n is insignificant; however, Kur usually is
significantly greater than K. For competent soil, such as hard
clay or dense sand, the difference between Kur and K is usu-
ally greater than 20%. In contrast, for weak soil, such as soft
clay or loose sand, Kur can be 3 times of K. The Duncan-
Chang model parameters used in this study were determined
from triaxial tests, which are reported in Table 3.
(9)
Constitutive Model for Geofoam
EPS geofoam of four different densities, 7.5, 15, 25 and
32 kg/m3, were preliminarily selected and evaluated for
this buried culvert project. To define the stress–strain

Table 1  Goodman element δ (°) c (kPa) Rfs k1 n kn (kN/m3)

parameterss
Soil—concrete interface 21.0 10.0 0.82 2 × ­104 0.65 1 × ­108
Geofoam—concrete 21.0 10.0 0.88 2 × ­104 0.51 1 × ­108

Table 2  Duncan-Chang model parameters [39]

Parameters Range of values

Cohesion (c) Define relationship between deviatoric stress at failure (i.e., N/A
Friction angle (ϕ) (σ1 − σ3)f) and confining stress, σ3 N/A
Modulus coefficient (K) Define hyperbolic curve for modulus Silt: 100–700
Sand: 100–1600
Sandy gravel: 300–2000
Modulus exponential constant (n)
Failure ratio (Rf) Define the relationship between (σ1 − σ3)f (σ1 − σ3)ult Clay: 0.7–0.9
Sand: 0.6–0.85
Sandy gravel: 0.65–0.85

13
25 Page 6 of 12 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2021) 7:25

Table 3  Parameters of Duncan- Backfill zone Soils γ (kN/m3) c (kPa) ϕ (°) K n Rf ν

Chang model
Foundation soil Gravel 21.0 100.0 44.0 111.74 0.5 0.78 0.27
I Silty sand 18.49 63.03 32.3 191.25 0.55 0.491 0.4
II Clay 21.07 75.6 26.2 251.13 0.5 0.59 0.4
III Clay 18.75 18.5 24.6 111.74 0.53 0.65 0.4

600 Constitutive Model for Concrete

7.5 kg/m³ geofoam
500
15 kg/m³ geofoam The concrete culvert and its foundation were made from
400 25 kg/m³ geofoam regular compressive strength, cast-in-place Portland cement
Stress (kPa)

300
32 kg/m³ geofoam concrete (PCC). The properties of the cured concrete are
listed in Table 5. The concrete was tested from 200 mm
200 diameter and 400 height cylindrical specimens based on
100 ASTM standards. In this study, concrete was simulated by
linear elastic material but could fail if either tensile or com-
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
pressive strength exceeded.
Strain (%)
Modeling Details
Fig. 5  Compression curve of geofoam
Nonlinear Analysis

relationship, the geofoam was tested in a consolidometer Since the adopted constitutive relationships of soil and geo-
in a constraint condition. The geofoam specimen of each foam were nonlinear, the calculation was carried out in an
density was sliced and trimmed into pieces of a diameter incremental approach. Assuming Mi-1 was the starting point
of 50 mm and a height of 20 mm. The vertical loading was of a load increment, ∆R, the corresponding increment of
applied incrementally following the sequence of 0, 25, 50, displacement, ∆δ, can be calculated from Eq. (12) based on
100, 150, 200, 300, 400 and 500 kPa, which was elaborated the modulus at Point Mi−1:
in details by Wang, Huang [40]. The stress–strain curves of
these four geofoams are plotted in Fig. 5, which, although [k]i−1 {Δ𝛿}(1)
i
= {ΔR}i (12)
are distinct, show a similar non-linear pattern. Each curve
appeared to demonstrate three phases of deformation: ini- Then the strain and stress increment (i.e., {Δ𝜀}(1) i
,
tial linear phase, strain softening phase and strain hardening {Δ𝜎}i ) can calculated based on {Δ𝛿}i . Once the {Δ𝜎}i
(1) (1) (1)

phase, which are difficult to be represented a single non- is calculated, the modulus and stiffness at Point Mi can also
linear formulation as discussed in the introduction sec- be calculated, which will be used to calculate new modulus
tion of this paper. Therefore, to preserve the accuracy of
non-linear behavior of the geofoam during loading, each
of the stress–strain curve was discrete into numerous linear Table 5  Properties of concrete
portions in this numerical study as listed in Table 4. Such
Material γ (kN/m3) E ­(107 kPa) ν fck (kPa) ftk (kPa)
discretion not only preserves overall shape the stress–strain
curve but also shows negligible deviation from test curves. Cast-in-place 24 2.80 0.167 17,000 1750
Ultimately, the 25 kg/m3 and 32 kg/m3 were not included in concrete
this study because these two geofoams were not adopted in γ − unit weight, E − elastic modulus, ν − Poisson’s ratio, fck − com-
the project due to cost concern. pressive strength, ftk − tensile strength

Table 4  Linear piecewise ρ (kg/m3) σ (kPa)

segment of stress–strain
relationship for numerical 0 25 50 100 150 200 300 400 500
simulation
ε (%) 7.5 0 35.0 84.6 94.1 96.0 97.5 98.8 99.3 99.7
15 0 3.4 19.3 85.2 91.2 93.4 96.2 97.7 98.6

ρ − density; σ − compressive stress

13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2021) 7:25 Page 7 of 12 25

at Point Mi−1/2 according to Eq. (13). Point Mi−1/2 was a and compared with Sc to determine loading and unloading sta-
point between Points Mi−1 and Mi, of which the tangential tus. When S ≥ Sc, the soil is experiencing virgin loading and
modulus was equal to the secant modulus between Mi−1 and the ­SSm will be updated. The modulus will be calculated by
Mi as shown in Fig. 6. Eq. (9). When S ≤ 0.75 Sc, the soil is experience unloading/
reloading and the modulus will be calculated by Eq. (11).
1
Eti−1∕2 = (E + Et (1) ) (13) When 0.75 Sc < S < Sc, the soil is considered in an intermediate
2 ti−1 i
status and the modulus will be calculated by linear interpreta-
Thereafter, Eq. (12) is used to calculate {Δ𝛿}i by replac- tion of the values from Eqs. 9 and 11, i.e.,
ing [k]i−1 with newly calculated [k]i−1/2. By adjusting the ( )
∆R to a small magnitude each time, the difference of the 4 Sc − S ( )
E = Et + Eur − Et (16)
calculated {Δ𝛿}i and {Δ𝛿}(1) i
shall be negligible, i.e., the Sc
difference was controlled to less than 5%. Thereafter, the
A unique behavior of soil under shearing is dilation, which
increment of displacement, stress and strain will be added
may cause Poisson’s ratio (ν) greater 0.5. However, stiffness
to the total displacement, stress and strain at Point Mi−1 to
matrix contains a term of 1/(1 − 22ν), which prevents ν from
get these values at Point Mi:
becoming greater than or equal to 0.5. Thus, in this study,
{𝛿}i = {𝛿}i−1 + {Δ𝛿}i Poisson’s ratio was limited to 0.49; correspondingly, the bulk
modulus (Bt) was limited to 3t ∼ 17Et.
E
{𝜀}i = {𝜀}i−1 + {Δ𝜀}i (14)
{𝜎}i = {𝜎}i−1 + {Δ𝜎}i
Stress Correction at Failure and Distribution

Loading–Unloading Criteria Duncan-Chang model was capable of simulating soil behav-

The soil was expected to experience complicated stress
paths, which directly impacted its response to loads. Duncan,
Byne [39] suggested using stress level to indicate the soil
stress with respective to its historical stress, which in turn
can be used to determine the loading or unloading condition.
The stress level indicator (S) is the coefficient in the stress
state function as indication in Eq. (15):
( )0.25
𝜎 be corrected and redistributed, assuming overburden stress, σy,
SS = S 3 (15)
pa
The historical maximum SS is defined as ­SSm and the S at
­ Sm is noted as Sc, which will be updated at each calculation
S �
iteration. During the modeling, the current S will be calculated
ior before failure but may yield misleading results or create
model instability if significant failure occurs. Thus, the post-
failure stress transfer and redistribution shall be appropriately
addressed to maintain model stability and obtain reliable
results. In this study, the tensile strength of soil was consid-
ered negligible. The minor principle stress σ3 was used as the
criteria to determine the tensile failure. When tensile stress was
detected from any step of the iteration, i.e., when σ3 became
less than zero, the transient tensile stress in calculation would
was constant at that transient moment. The horizontal stress
and shear stress were corrected:
(1 − a)𝜎y + 0.02a
𝜎x =
1+a
�
𝜎y − 𝜎x (17)
�
𝜏xy = 𝜏xy
𝜎 y − 𝜎x
𝜎y −𝜎x
where a = 𝜎1 −𝜎3
In addition to tensile failure, the shear failure was deter-
mined by Mohr–Coulomb failure criteria. Similar to the cor-
rection of tensile failure, the horizontal stress and shear stress
would be corrected assuming overburden stress, σy, was con-
stant at that transient moment:

� 𝜎y sin 𝜙 + c cos 𝜙
𝜏xy = 𝜏xy √
𝜎y −𝜎x 𝜎 −𝜎
sin 𝜙 + ( y 2 x )2 + 𝜏xy
2
2
�
(18)
�
𝜏xy ( )
𝜎x = 𝜎y − 𝜎y − 𝜎x
𝜏xy
Fig. 6  Mid-point approach

13
25 Page 8 of 12
In the case that τxy = 0, the following equation would be
used to calculate the shear stress and horizontal stress:
�
𝜏xy = 0
� 𝜎y (1 − sin 𝜙) − 2c cos 𝜙 (19)
𝜎x =
1 + sin 𝜙
After the stresses were corrected, the equilibrium at each
node was re-assessed to re-calculate the unbalanced forces
that were derived from the difference between the stress
before and after the failure correction, i.e., {∆σ } = {σ }-{σ′}.
The integral form of the unbalanced force is:
∑ was less than 0.001% of the external force.
{ΔR} = ∫ [B]{Δ𝜎}dxdy (20)
If unbalanced force exceeded the predetermined threshold
value, i.e., 0.001% of the total force increment ΔR, the newly
obtained unbalanced force would be treated as an external
force and then applied back to soil. Thereafter, the calcula-
tion was proceeded until new equilibrium was restored.
Results and Discussion
The numerical simulation used three of the sections (i.e.,
Sections A, D and E, shown in Fig. 1) as prototypes with
focuses on Sections D and E. Section A was a section that
used loose sand as compressible layer to reduce overburden
stresses, while Sections D and E used 300 mm thick geo-
foam with a density of 7.5 kg/m3 and 15 kg/m3, respectively.
Among all the section, Sections D and E had the highest
Fig. 7  Numerical model mesh
(unit: m)
13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2021) 7:25
backfill height, which were the major concerning sections of
the culvert. The mesh of the model for Section D is shown
Fig. 7. The lateral boundary was chosen to be sufficient to
eliminate possible boundary effect. The mesh around the
culvert was denser compared with other places since the
stress concentrations and transfers, and differential settle-
ments primarily occurred in this region. A transverse slope
on the upper boundary simulated the construction of road-
way surface. The construction was simulated by a staged
construction, which was divided into 24 computational steps
in the simulation for Sections D and E and 15 steps for Sec-
tion A. Each step continued until the total unbalance force
Model Validation
To ensure the adequacy and accuracy of the numerical
model, a model validation was carried out by utilizing the
field measurements, including geofoam compression and
soil pressures. First, the compression test of geofoam was
simulated using the described non-linear model and the
comparison between the testing and simulation is presented
in Fig. 8. The discrepancy between the test and simulation
results is negligible.
Furthermore, the calculated geofoam compression after
it was installed over the culvert is compared with the field
measurements in Fig. 9, in which great agreement can be
found between the values. The compression of geofoam
in the numerical simulation was calculated as the vertical
displacement difference between upper surface and lower
surface of the geofoam. Both the numerical results and
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2021) 7:25 Page 9 of 12 25

600 500

Pressure over culvert (kPa)

7.5 kg/m³ geofoam (testing) Field measurements
500 400
7.5 kg/m³ geofoam (simulation) Numerical simulation
400
15 kg/m³ geofoam (testing) 300
Stress (kPa)

300 15 kg/m³ geofoam (simulation)

200
200
100
100
0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 20 40 60 80 100
Backfill height (m)
Strain (%)

Fig. 10  Overburden stress over culvert

Fig. 8  Comparison of testing and simulation of geofoam compression
tests

700

Overburden stress over culvert (kPa)

Loose sand
600
7.5 kg/m³ geofoam
300 500 15 kg/m³ geofoam
400
250
Geofoam compression (mm)

300

200 200
Field measurements
100
150 (7.5 kg/m³ geofoam)
Numerical simulation 0
100 (7.5 kg/m³ geofoam) -50 -30 -10 10 30 50
Field measurements Distance from culvert centerline (m)
(15 kg/m³ geofoam)
50 Numerical simulation
(15 kg/m³ geofoam) Fig. 11  Overburden stress at geofoam election
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Backfill height (m)
Numerical Results and Discussions
Fig. 9  Compression of geofoam
Overburden Stresses

The alleviation of the overburden stresses at the concrete

field measurements show significant compression of the
geofoam at the end of the construction, which is consist-
ent with the lab results that strain can reach as high as
99%. As aforementioned, Sections D and E used 7.5 kg/
m 3 and 15 kg/m 3 geofoam, respectively. Even though
15 kg/m3 geofoam at Section E showed much less com-
pression at the early stage of the construction; however,
the compression became nearly the same when backfill-
ing exceeded 15 m for both sections. Figure 10 shows the
stress comparison for only Section E, because the earth
pressure cell installed at Section D was damaged and was
not able to provide reading throughout the monitoring
[41]. The stress was measured right below the geofoam
at the culvert top. Consistence was found between meas-
urements and numerical results, which shows negligible
deviation. Both geofoam compression and stresses com-
parison manifests that the numerical model was capable
of simulating the problem appropriately and adequately.
culvert was the major objective of using geofoam for this
application. Figure 11 presents the overburden stress at the
elevation of the culvert top for the three sections, i.e., Sec-
tions A, D, and E. The maximums backfilling height for
Section A was 15.6 m; therefore, the comparison was based
on the backfilling height of 15.6 m for all three sections. The
theoretical overburden stress was 280 kPa (γh), which was
consistent with the stress in soil distant from the culvert.
Within 5 m range from the centerline of the culvert, the
overburden stress was impacted by loose sand or geofoam
in these three sections. Specifically, Section A demonstrated
a stress concentration over the culvert top, which was one of
the issues pointed out by the field study by Wang and Huang
[41]. The loose sand was supposed to reduce the stress over
culvert, but it did not function as it was supposed to. Thus,
loose sand was considered not as effective as geofoam [41],
which was confirmed by this numerical study. For Sections
D and E, geofoam appeared to play a significant role to
reduce the vertical stress. Geofoam and the loose sand layer

13
25 Page 10 of 12 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2021) 7:25

between the geofoam and culvert shoulder worked together Distance from culvert centerline (m)
as compressible cushion to mobilize soil arching to transfer -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
0.0
vertical stresses to adjacent soil mass. As a result, the stress
over the culvert shoulder experienced the most reduction -0.1
and the stress at the soil adjacent to the culvert had signifi-

Settlement (m)
cant increase. In contrast, the overburden stress at the small -0.2

region over the culvert crown top was slightly higher than -0.3
theoretical overburden stresses. This phenomenon is explain-
able since the compression of geofoam in this region was -0.4 Settlement below geofoam
Settlement above geofoam
less significant than the combined compression of geofoam
-0.5
and loose sand over the shoulder. The layout of the geofoam (a)
and underlain loose sand layer is illustrated in Fig. 2. Due to
different compression, the overburden stress over the central Distance from culvert centerline (m)
region was slightly increased and the stress in soil adjacent -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
to culvert was significantly increased. Whereas, the overbur- 0

den stress over culvert shoulders were significantly reduced. -0.1

The stress reduction is showed in Fig. 12 in terms of a ratio

to the theoretical overburden stress (γh = 280 kPa), which
shows stress reduction with respect to the distance from
the culvert centerline. Based on the figure, the effective-
ness of geofoam was obvious. The minimum stress ratio is
only about 0.1, which is equivalent to 90% stress reduction.
In contrast, the maximus stress ratio is about 2.25, which
means the stress increases by 125%. At the culvert crown
top, the stress was approximately 20% higher than theoreti-
cal overburden stress. Considering the average stress within
the shoulder-to-shoulder range over the culvert, the stress
ratio is about 0.8, which means approximately 20% stress
reduction in an average sense over the culvert.
Settlements
The settlement at the election of the culvert top was exam-
ined for different backfilling heights for Sections D and
E. Figure 13 presents the settlement profile at culvert top
elevation when backfilling reached 7.7 m and Fig. 14 pre-
sents that profile when backfilling reached 22.5 m. For both
sections, due to the existence of culvert the settlements at
2.5
Loose sand
2.0 7.5 kg/m³ geofoam
15 kg/m³ geofoam
Stress ratio
Settlement (m)
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4 Settlement below geofoam
Settlement above geofoam
-0.5
(b)
Fig. 13  Settlement at geofoam elevation with 7.7 m backfilling: a
7.5 kg/m3 geofoam, and b 5 kg/m3 geofoam
the culvert was less than the surrounding soil, which is indi-
cated by curves representing settlement below geofoam in
the two figures. Such differential settlement formed a local
“heave” over the culvert. However, with the inclusion of
geofoam, the compression of geofoam not only compensated
the “heave” but also created additional settlement relative to
the surrounding soil, which was crucial to mobilize soil to
reduce stress over culvert. Figures 13 and 14 jointly suggest
that the two geofoam, 7.5 kg/m3 and 15 kg/m3, have negli-
gible difference in terms of inducing differential settlements
at these two backfilling heights.
The differential settlement is expected to reflect to higher
elections in the gradually reduced manner. Such phenom-
enon is illustrated Fig. 15, where the differential settlement
was plotted with respect to the elevation measured from
geofoam. It shows the maximum differential settlement

1.5
occurred at the geofoam elevation, which was greatly more
1.0
than 200 mm for both sections. That differential settlement
vanished with the elevation, which became approximately
0.5 10 mm at the election of 6 m. Considering the width of
the geofoam, it is affirmative that the differential settlement
0.0
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50
would not create problem if the backfill height exceeded the
Distance from culvert centerline (m) width of the geofoam layer. The vertical stress at the eleva-
tion 6.0 m above the geofoam is plotted in Fig. 16. The verti-
Fig. 12  Stress ratio cal stress at this elevation appeared nearly uniform, which

13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2021) 7:25 Page 11 of 12 25

Distance from culvert centerline (m) 400

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
0

Overburden stress (kPa)

Settlement above geofoam 300
-0.1 Settlement below geofoam
Settlement (m)

200
-0.2

-0.3 100

-0.4
0
-0.5 0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Distance from culvert centerline (m)

Distance from culvert centerline (m)

Fig. 16  Stress at backfill election of 6 m
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
0
Settlement below geofoam
Settlement above geofoam were able to disclose more information than field measure-
-0.1
Settlement (m)

ments, especially, the distribution of differential settlements.

-0.2 Based on the results from the study, the following conclu-
sions can be drawn:
-0.3

-0.4 • Geofoam is effective to reduce overburden stress over

culvert and is more effective than using loose sand lay-
-0.5
ers. However, the use of geofoam over the culvert with
(b)
a crown top may increase the overburden stress locally,
causing unexpected situation, which shall be appropri-
Fig. 14  Settlement at geofoam elevation with 22.5 m backfilling: a
7.5 kg/m3 geofoam, and b 15 kg/m3 geofoam
ately addressed to avoid unexpected damage.
• Geofoam of two densities, 7.5 and 15 kg/m3, did not
show noticeable difference, which meant both were effec-
6 tive for this deeply buried culvert. Therefore, construc-
Elevation above geofoam (m)

tion shall consider their different costs to select suitable

5 7.5 kg/m3 geofoam geofoam for the project.
4 15 kg/m3 geofoam • For high backfilling or deep burial, the geofoam would be
compressed to a negligible thickness, i.e., the equivalent
3
strain exceeded 95%. The created differential settlement
2 shall be negligible if the backfilling height exceeds the
width of the geofoam layer.
1 • The developed numerical model effectively and accu-
0 rately provided results to analyze this application.
0 100 200 300
Differential settlement (mm) For the application of geofoam, the creep issue is of a
concern for long-term performance. This study focuses on
Fig. 15  Differential settlement vs. elevation the construction stage and does not assess the creep behavior
of geofoam, which shall be a study topic in the future.

is consistent with the fact that differential settlement was

negligible at this elevation. Authors’ Contributions JW: conceptualization, investigation, project
administration; JH: data curation, writing—review
& editing, supervision.

Conclusions
References
This study utilized numerical simulation to investigate the
application of geofoam to reduce overburden stress on a 1. Horvath JS, Geosynthetic G (1995) Scarsdale. Horvath Engineer-
deeply buried, large-dimension concrete culvert. The results ing, NY

13
25 Page 12 of 12
2. Horvath JS (1997) The compressible inclusion function of EPS
geofoam. Geotext Geomembr 15:77–120
3. Horvath JS (1999) Geofoam and geocomb: lessons from the sec-
ond millennium A.D. as insight for the future. Manhattan College,
Bronx, NY, p 24
4. Azizian M, Tafreshi SNM, Darabi NJ (2020) Experimental evalu-
ation of an expanded polystyrene (EPS) block-geogrid system to
protect buried pipes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 129:105965
5. Meguid MA et al (2017) Earth pressure distribution on a rigid box
covered with u-shaped geofoam wrap. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng
3(2):14
6. Bartlett S et al (2001) Instrumentation and long-term monitor-
ing of geofoam embankments, I-15 reconstruction project. In: 3rd
International Conference of EPS Geofoam, Salt Lake City, UT
7. Lingwall BN (2011) Development of An Expanded Polystyrene
Geofoam Cover System for Pipelines at Fault Crossings, in Civil
and Environmental Engineering. The University of Utah, Salt
Lake, p 432
8. Arellano D et al (2010) A framework for the design guideline for
EPS-block geofoamin slope stabilization and repair. J Transp Res
Board 2170:100–108
9. Bang S (1985) Active earth pressure behind retaining walls. J
Geotech Eng 111(3):407-412
10. Bathurst R, Zarnani S, Gaskin A (2007) Shaking table testing of
geofoam seismic buffers. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27(4):324–332
11. Ekanayake SD, Liyanapathirana DS, Leo CJ (2014) Attenuation
of ground vibrations using in-filled wave barriers. Soil Dyn Earthq
Eng 67:290–300
12. Murphy GP (1997) The influence of geofoam creep on the
performance of a compressible inclusion. Geotext Geomembr
15(1):121–131
13. Selvakumar S, Soundara B (2019) Swelling behaviour of expan-
sive soils with recycled geofoam granules column inclusion. Geo-
text Geomembr 47(1):1–11
14. Puppala AJ, Ruttanaporamakul P, Congress SSC (2019) Design
and construction of lightweight EPS geofoam embedded geo-
material embankment system for control of settlements. Geotext
Geomembr 47(3):295–305
15. Koerner R (2012) Design with geosynthetics, 6th ed, vol 1.
Xlibris, Bloomington, p 508
16. Neupane R (2015) Expanded polystyrene geofoam embankment
for support of railways and bridges, in civil and environmental
engineering. The University of Utah, Salt Lake, p 318
17. Sanders RL, Seedhouse RL (1994) The use of polystyrene for
embankment construction. Transport and Road Research Labora-
tory (TRRL), Berkshire, p 55
18. Stark T et al (2004) Geofoam Applications in the Design and
Construction of Highway Embankments
19. Sladen JA, Oswell JM (1988) The induced trench method—a criti-
cal review and case history. Can Geotech J 25(3):541–549
20. Vaslestad J, Johansen TH (2008) Arching on rigid structures
below high fills.: long-term behaviour of three instrumented full
scale tests. In: Nordic Geotetecnical Meeting, Sandefjord
21. Vaslestad J et al (2011) Load reduction and arching on buried rigid
culverts using EPS. In the 4th international conference on EPS
geofoam blocks in construction applications. Lillestrøm, Norway
22. Sun L, Hopkins T, Beckham T (2011) Long-term monitoring of
culvert load reduction using the imperfect ditch method backfilled
with geofoam. Transp Res Record 2212(1):56–64
13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2021) 7:25
23. Meguid MA et al (2017) Investigation of soil-geosynthetic-struc-
ture interaction associatedwith induced trench installation. Geo-
textiles Geomembr 45:320–330
24. Karpurapu R, Bathurst RJ (1992) Numerical investigation of
controlled yielding of soil-retaining wall structures. Geotext
Geomembr 11(2):115–131
25. Ertugrul OL, Trandafir AC (2011) Reduction of lateral earth
forces acting on rigid nonyielding retaining walls by EPS geofoam
inclusions. ASCE J Mater Civil Eng 23(12):1711–1718
26. Ertugrul OL, Trandafir AC (2013) lateral earth pressures on flex-
ible cantilever retaining walls with deformable geofoam inclusion.
Eng Geol 158:23–33
27. Preber T et al (1994) Behavior of expanded polystyrene blocks.
Transp Res Board 1462:36–46
28. Chun BS et al (1998) Strength deformation characteristics of EPS.
In the Eighth ISOPE Conference. Montreal, pp 491–496
29. Chun BS et al (2004) Development of a hyperbolic constitutive
model for expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam under triaxial
compression tests. Geotext Geomembr 22:223–237
30. Wong H, Leo CJ (2006) A simple elastoplastic hardening constitu-
tive model for EPS geofoam. Geotext Geomembr 24:299–310
31. Tsukamoto Y et al (2002) Use of compressible expanded polysty-
rene blocks and geogrids for retaining wall structures. Soils Found
42(4):29–41
32. Wang ZL, Li YC, Wang JG (2006) Numerical analysis of attenu-
ation effect of EPS geofoam on stress-waves in civil defense engi-
neering. Geotext Geomembr 26:265–273
33. Krieg RD (1972) A simple constitutive description for soils and
crushable foam. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM
34. Meguid MA, Hussein MG (2017) A numerical procedure for the
assessment of contact pressures on buried structures overlain by
eps geofoam inclusion. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 3(2):13
35. Barsoum RS (1976) On the use of isoparametric finite elements
in linear fracture mechanics. Int J Numer Meth Eng 10(1):25–37
36. Ergatoudis I, Irons BM, Zienkiewicz OC (1968) Curved, isopara-
metric, “quadrilateral” elements for finite element analysis. Int J
Solids Struc 4:31–42
37. Clough GW, Duncan JM (1971) Finite element analysis of retain-
ing wall behavior. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Divi-
sion, ASCE 97(SM12):1657–1673
38. Duncan JM, Chang CY (1970) Nonlinear analysis of stress and
strain in soils. Journal of Soil Mechanics & Foundations Division
96(SM5):1629–1653
39. Duncan JM et al (1980) Strength, stress–strain, and bulk modulus
parameters for finite element analysis of stresses and movements
in soil masses. University of California Berkeley, Berkeley
40. Wang J, Huang J, Zheng C (2019) Stress-strain behaviors of differ-
ent geofoams, in Geosynthetics 20149. Industrial Fabrics Associa-
tion Internationa, Houston
41. Wang J, Huang J (2020) Full-scale field study of using geofoam
to reduce earth pressures on buried concrete culverts. Geotextiles
Geomembr
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.