An Experimental Study for the Cyclic Interface Properties of the EPS–sand Mixtures Reinforced with Geogrid

  • Reza Jamshidi ChenariEmail author
  • Reza Ebrahimi Khonachah
  • Iman Hosseinpour
  • Aghileh Khajeh
Research paper


Design and analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures subjected to repeated loading (e.g. compaction, traffic and earthquake loads) require a proper understanding of the cyclic soil–geosynthetic interface behaviour. This research is undertaken to study the interface properties between sand-expanded polystyrene (EPS) mixtures and geogrid reinforcement under cyclic loading. A series of cyclic tests is performed and the influences of normal stresses, cyclic shear amplitudes and number of cycles are studied. The experiments are conducted using a large-scale direct shear test device allowing to perform displacement-controlled cyclic tests. Accordingly, the influence of the aforementioned parameters on interface shear stiffness and damping ratio is discussed. The results of the experiments showed that adding 0.9% EPS beads to the sand bed leads to the decrease in interface shear stiffness by 30% to 63%, depending on the shear displacement amplitude. In contrast, for the same EPS content ratio, the interface damping increases roughly twice, irrespective of the applied shear displacement amplitude. The value of hardening factor was also found to increase with cycle number under different normal stress levels.


Geogrid Interface Cyclic direct shear test EPS geofoam Damping Shear stiffness 

List of Symbols


Expanded polystyrene




Linear variable differential transformer


Unified soil classification system


Specific density of the soil (–)


Relative density (%)


Dry unit weight (kN/m3)


Effective size (mm)


Coefficient of curvature (–)


Coefficient of uniformity (–)


Ultimate tensile strength of geogrid (kN/m)


EPS content ratio (%)


EPS volumetric ratio (%)


Normal stress applied (kPa)


Maximum shear stress (kPa)


Minimum shear stress (kPa)


Maximum shear displacement (mm)


Minimum shear displacement (mm)


Interface shear stiffness (MPa/m)


Interface damping ratio (%)


Shear displacement amplitude (mm)


Degradation factor (–)


Hardening factor (–)


Shear stress at the nth cycle (kPa)


Shear stress at the tenth cycle (kPa)


Number of cycles (–)


  1. 1.
    Stark TD (2004) Guideline and recommended standard for geofoam applications in highway embankments, vol 529. Transportation Research BoardGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Almeida M, Marques MES (2013) Design and performance of embankments on very soft soils. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bathurst RJ, Zarnani S, Gaskin A (2007) Shaking table testing of geofoam seismic buffers. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27(4):324–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bathurst RJ, Zarnani S (2013) Earthquake load attenuation using EPS geofoam buffers in rigid wall applications. Indian Geotech J 43(4):283–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aytekin M (1997) Numerical modeling of EPS geofoam used with swelling soil. Geotext Geomembr 15(1–3):133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Asha BS, Ram Rathan Lal B, Padade AH, Mandal T, Mandal JN (2012) Emerging trends in ground improvement techniques. In: GeoCongress 2012: state of the art and practice in geotechnical engineering, pp 594–603Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Akay O, Özer AT, 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
  8. 8.
    Liu H, Deng A, Chu J (2006) Effect of different mixing ratios of polystyrene pre-puff beads and cement on the mechanical behaviour of lightweight fill. Geotext Geomembr 24(6):331–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edinçliler A, Özer AT (2014) Effects of EPS bead inclusions on stress–strain behaviour of sand. Geosynth Int 21(2):89–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    FHWA (2009) Design and construction of mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil slopes. Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nye CJ, Fox PJ (2007) Dynamic shear behavior of a needle-punched geosynthetic clay liner. Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(8):973–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ling HI, Wang J-P, Leshchinsky D (2008) Cyclic behaviour of soil–structure interfaces associated with modular-block reinforced soil-retaining walls. Geosynth Int 15(1):14–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vieira, C. S. (2008) Geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining walls and slopes. Seismic behaviour and design methodologies. Doctoral dissertation, PhD Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, University of PortoGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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):3340–3357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karimpour Fard M, Jamshid 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):2205–2220Google Scholar
  16. 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. Constr Build Mater 113:773–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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):533–544Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ASTM-D5321 (2017) Standard test method for determining the shear strength of soil–geosynthetic and geosynthetic–geosynthetic interfaces by direct shear. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ASTM-D4253 (2016) Standard test methods for maximum index density and unit weight of soils using a vibratory table. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ASTM-D4254 (2016) Standard test methods for minimum index density and unit weight of soils and calculation of relative density. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    ASTM-D854 (2014) Standard test methods for specific gravity of soil solids by water pycnometer. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    ASTM-C128 (2015) Standard test method for density, relative density (specific gravity), and absorption of fine aggregate. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Idriss IM, Seed HB (1968) An analysis of ground motions during the 1957 San Francisco earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58(6):2013–2032Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Desai CS, Drumm EC, Zaman MM (1985) Cyclic testing and modeling of interfaces. J Geotech Eng 111(6):793–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yegian MK, Kadakal U (1998) Geosynthetic interface behavior under dynamic loading. Geosynth Int 5(1–2):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mortara G, Mangiola A, Ghionna VN (2007) Cyclic shear stress degradation and post-cyclic behaviour from sand–steel interface direct shear tests. Can Geotech J 44(7):739–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of GuilanRashtIran

Personalised recommendations