A Note on the Compressibility and Earth Pressure Properties of EPS Beads-Rigid Particulates Composite

  • Parichehr Tizpa
  • Reza Jamshidi ChenariEmail author
  • Farhang Farrokhi
Original Paper


In past decade, the application of lightweight composite materials has received great attention in geotechnical engineering discipline. This paper evaluates the effect of expanded polystyrene (EPS) beads on the compressibility and lateral earth pressure of completely rounded particulates presented by virtual steel pellets. EPS beads were added to steel pellets at 0%, 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3%, 0.4% and 0.5% by weight. A series of tall oedometer tests have been carried out to investigate the compressibility and “at rest” lateral earth pressure. Tests were conducted under five different overburden pressure (100 kPa, 150 kPa, 200 kPa, 250 kPa and 300 kPa). As well, a series of passive earth pressure tests have been conducted using a physical modelling of retaining wall in laboratory scale. The test results revealed that for a given overburden pressure, the volume compressibility and “at rest” lateral earth pressure coefficient increase as the EPS content increases. However, the internal friction angle and passive lateral earth pressure coefficient exhibited reduction by an increase of the EPS beads content.


EPS beads Compressibility Lateral earth pressure Tall oedometer 



The authors would like to acknowledge University of Guilan with thanks for access to its laboratory equipment. The authors also appreciate Dr. Mehran Karimpour Fard, who the design, fabrication and calibration of the employed tall oedometer has been conducted under his supervision. Finally, the authors would like to thank the reviewers and the editor for their valuable suggestions to improve the manuscript.


  1. Akay O, Tolga Özer A, Fox GA, Bartlett SF, Arellano D (2013) Behavior of sandy slopes remediated by EPS-block geofoam under seepage flow. Geotext Geomembr 37:81–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alaie R, Jamshidi Chenari R (2018) Cyclic and post-cyclic shear behaviour of interface between geogrid and EPS beads–sand backfill. KSCE J Civ Eng 22(9):3340–3357. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alaie R, Jamshidi Chenari R (2019) Dynamic properties of EPS–sand mixtures using cyclic triaxial and bender element tests. Geosynth Int (in press)Google Scholar
  4. Ashurian E (2018) Evaluation of sand/geofoam mixture compressibility considering deformability of geofoam particles. In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, Faculty of Engineering, University of Guilan, Guilan, IranGoogle Scholar
  5. ASTM D 4253 (2006) In: Standard test methods for maximum index density and unit weight of soils using a vibratory tableGoogle Scholar
  6. ASTM D 854 (2014) In: Standard test methods for specific gravity of soil solids by water pycnometerGoogle Scholar
  7. Aytekin M (1998) Numerical modeling of EPS geofoam used with swelling soil. Geotext Geomembr 15(1):133–146Google Scholar
  8. Bartlett S, Arellano D, Vaslestad J, Aaboe R, Ahmed T (2014) Bridge foundations supported by EPS geofoam on soft soil. In: 10th International conference on geosynthetics, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  9. Deng A, Xiao Y (2009) Modeling stress–strain behavior of sand–EPS beads lightweight fills based on cam-clay models. In: Recent advancement in soil behavior, in situ test methods, pile foundations, and tunneling. Selected papers from the 2009 GeoHunan international conference, pp 55–61Google Scholar
  10. Deng A, Xiao Y (2010) Measuring and modelling proportion dependent stress–strain behavior of EPS–sand mixture. Int J Geomech 10(6):214–222. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ertugrul OL, Trandafir AC (2011) Reduction of lateral earth forces acting on rigid non-yielding retaining walls by EPS geofoam inclusions. J Mater Civ Eng 23(12):1711–1718. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gao Y, Wang S, Chen C (2011) A united deformation-strength framework for lightweight sand–EPS beads soil (LSES) under cyclic loading. J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(8):1144–1153. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horvath JS (1997) The compressible inclusion function of EPS geofoam. J Geotext Geomembr 15(1):77–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ikizler SB, Aytekin M, Nas E (2008) Laboratory study of expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam used with expansive soils. J Geotext Geomembr 26(2):189–195. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jaky J (1948) Pressure in silos. In: 2nd ICSMFE, London, vol 1, pp 103–107Google Scholar
  16. Jamshidi Chenari R, Karimpour Fard M, Pourghaffar Maghfarati S, Pishgar F, Machado SL (2016) An investigation on the geotechnical properties of sand–EPS mixture using large oedometer apparatus. J Constr Build Mater 113:773–782. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jamshidi Chenari R, Firoozfar A, Attari S, Izadi A, Shafiei SE (2017) Deformation characteristics of sand geofoam blocks using large-scale oedometer apparatus. Civ Eng J 3(8):585–593Google Scholar
  18. Jamshidi Chenari R, Fatahi B, Ghorbani A, Nasiri Alamoti M (2018) Evaluation of strength properties of cement stabilized sand mixed with EPS beads and fly ash. Geomech Eng 14(6):533–544. Google Scholar
  19. Karimpour Fard M, Jamshidi Chenari R, Soheili F (2015) Shear strength characteristics of sand mixed with EPS beads using large direct shear apparatus. Electron J Geotech Eng 20(8):2205Google Scholar
  20. Lee J, Kim G, Kim I, Kim D, Byun B (2016) Effect of inter-particle strength on K0 correlation for granular materials. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on geotechnical and geophysical site characterisation, Gold Coast, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu HL, Deng A, Chu J (2006) Effect of different mixing ratios of polystyrene pre-puff beads and cement on the mechanical behaviour of lightweight fill. J Geotext Geomembr 24(6):331–338. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lovisa J, Sivakugan N (2015) Tall oedometer testing: method to account for wall friction. Int J Geomech 15(2):1–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miao L, Wang F, Han J, Lv W, Li J (2012) Properties and applications of cement-treated sand-expanded polystyrene bead lightweight fill. J Mater Civ Eng 25(1):86–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Murphy GP (1997) The influence of geofoam creep on the performance of a compressible inclusion. Geotext Geomembr 15(1):121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Özer AT, Akay O, Fox GA, Bartlett SF, Arellano D (2014) A new method for remediation of sandy slopes susceptible to seepage flow using EPS-block geofoam. Geotext Geomembr 42(2):166–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Padade AH, Mandal JN (2014) Expanded polystyrene-based geomaterial with fly ash. J Geomech 14(6):6014013. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rocco NT, Luna R (2013) Mixtures of clay/EPS particulates and undrained shear strength. In: Geo-congress 2013 at stability and performance of slopes and embankments III. ASCE, pp 2059–2068Google Scholar
  28. Stark TD, Arellano D, Horvath JS, Leshchinsky JS (2004) Guideline and recommended standard for geofoam applications in highway embankments. In: NCHRP report 529, transportation research board, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  29. Tsuchida T, Porbaha A, Yamane N (2001) Development of a geomaterial from dredged bay mud. J Mater Civ Eng 13(2):152–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zarbakhsh-Bahri S (2018) Design, fabrication and calibration of a pneumatic oedometer capable of pore water pressure measurement. In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, Faculty of Engineering, University of Guilan, Guilan, IranGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of ZanjanZanjanIran
  2. 2.University of GuilanRasht, GuilanIslamic Republic of Iran

Personalised recommendations