PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR EPS-BLOCK GEOFOAM LIGHTWEIGHT FILL IN LEVEES OVERLYING SOFT GROUND

David Arellano, Ph.D., P.E. Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering The University of Memphis Department of Civil Engineering 104 Engineering Science Building Memphis, TN 38152 Phone: 901-678-3272 Fax: 901-678-3026 E-mail: darellan@memphis.edu

Paper accepted for presentation and publication at the 27th Annual Association of State Dam Safety Officials Conference September 19-23, 2010 Seattle, Washington

Final Paper Submitted July 28, 2010

PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR EPS-BLOCK GEOFOAM LIGHTWEIGHT FILL IN LEVEES OVERLYING SOFT GROUND
David Arellano, Ph.D., P.E., Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, The University of Memphis, Department of Civil Engineering, 104 Engineering Science Building, Memphis, TN 38152, Phone: 901-678-3272, Fax: 901-678-3026, E-mail: darellan@memphis.edu.

Abstract
Construction of levees on soft foundation soils, such as peats or soft clays, has long been problematic. Two main approaches for coping with the problem are (1) to improve the engineering properties, e.g., shear strength and compressibility, of the foundation soils or (2) to reduce the weight of the levee and thus the load applied to the soft foundation soils. The use of expanded-polystyrene (EPS)-block geofoam for the function of lightweight fill is one alternative to reducing the weight of the levee. Despite several case histories reported in the literature of EPS-block geofoam levees, EPS-block geofoam levees overlying soft ground are not currently extensively used internationally and in U.S. practice because comprehensive design guidelines have been unavailable. Therefore, there is a need in the U.S. to develop a detailed design guideline for the use of EPS-block geofoam in levees in routine practice. In an effort to address this need, this paper presents a proposed framework for developing a comprehensive design guideline for the use of expanded-polystyrene (EPS)-block geofoam for levee construction over soft ground. The basis of the proposed framework is the guideline for geofoam applications in highway embankments that was published in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 529 and the current ongoing NCHRP design guideline work for the use of EPS-block geofoam in slope stabilization and repair.

Introduction
The American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) define geofoam as a block or planar rigid cellular foam polymeric material used in geotechnical engineering applications. It also defines expanded polystyrene (EPS) as a type of foamed plastic formed by the expansion of polystyrene resin beads in a molding process (American Society for Testing and Materials 2007a). The predominant geofoam that has been used for lightweight fill in geotechnical applications is expanded-polystyrene (EPS)-block geofoam. This paper presents a proposed framework for developing a comprehensive design guideline for the use of EPS-block geofoam for levee construction over soft ground. Construction of levees on soft foundation soils, such as peats or soft clays, has long been problematic. Two main approaches for coping with the problem are (1) to improve the engineering properties, e.g., shear strength and compressibility, of the foundation soils or (2) to reduce the weight of the levee and thus the load applied to the soft foundation soils. The use of EPS-block geofoam for the function of lightweight fill is one alternative to reducing the weight of the levee and is included in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Project Engineering Technical Approaches and Innovations Workshop summary report as an innovative approach to levee design (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2006).

Two case histories involving geofoam levees that are included in the literature include the Suisun Marsh Facilities Roaring River Slough Distribution System Levee Restoration in California (Horvath 2008a; Horvath 2008b) and the River Torne Flood Bank Raising project in the United Kingdom (Horvath 2008a; Horvath 2008b; Sanders 1996). Figure 1 shows the placement of EPS blocks during construction of the California levee and Figure 2 shows the completed California levee. Unfortunately, specific design information about these two case histories to include data on the behavior and condition of the levees after flooding events is not available. Despite the use of EPS-block geofoam in these two levee case histories, geofoam levees overlying soft ground are not currently extensively used internationally and in U.S. practice because a comprehensive design guideline is unavailable. Therefore, there is a need in the U.S. to develop a detailed design guideline for the use of EPS-block geofoam in levees in routine practice.

Figure 1. EPS block placement as part of the Suisun Marsh Facilities Roaring River Slough Distribution System Levee Restoration in California.

Figure 2. Completed Suisun Marsh Facilities Roaring River Slough Distribution System Levee Restoration in California. 2

In an effort to address this need, this paper presents a proposed framework for developing a comprehensive design guideline for the use of EPS-block geofoam for levee construction over soft ground. The basis of the proposed framework is the guideline for geofoam applications in roadway embankments that was published in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) reports (Stark et al. 2004a; Stark et al. 2004b) and the current ongoing NCHRP study involving the development of a design guideline for the use of EPS-block geofoam in slope stabilization and repair (Arellano et al. 2009; Arellano et al. 2010). Horvath (2008a; 2008b) also suggested the use of the NCHRP design procedure for geofoam applications in highway embankments as the basis for a design procedure for levees. The primary difference between the preliminary design procedure for levees proposed herein and the NCHRP design procedure for EPS-block geofoam roadway embankments is that pavement design is not part of the proposed preliminary geofoam levee design procedure because EPS blocks utilized in a levee embankment may not require a pavement system. However, if a pavement system will be part of the levee or if the levee will support vehicle traffic such as maintenance vehicles, the reader is encouraged to review the design procedure for EPS-block geofoam roadway embankments (Stark et al. 2004a; Stark et al. 2004b).

Overview of Design Procedure

The design of an EPS-block geofoam levee over soft soil requires an understanding of the interaction between the four major components of a levee embankment, i.e. foundation soil, EPS-blocks, overburden material, and soil cover. These major levee components are shown in Figure 3. The overall design process is divided into two primary phases consisting of external and internal stability that consider the interaction between these four major levee components.

Figure 3. Major Components of an EPS-block Geofoam Levee. The external (global) stability phase considers how the combined EPS-block fill mass, soil cover, and overlying overburden material interacts with the existing foundation soil and considers stability of the overall levee. External stability considerations in the proposed design procedure include Serviceability Limit State (SLS) issues, such as total and differential settlement caused by the soft foundation soil, and Ultimate Limit State (ULS) issues, such as bearing capacity, slope stability, seismic stability, hydrostatic uplift (flotation), translation due to water (hydrostatic induced sliding), and translation due to wind. These external stability SLS and ULS issues are part of Steps 4 through 10 of the proposed preliminary design procedure,

which is summarized in Figure 4. Figures 5 through 7 include suggested modifications to the design procedure to meet the various design step requirements.

Figure 4. Preliminary Design Procedure for an EPS-block Geofoam Levee.

Start of Remedial Procedure A

A-1 A-2 Select a supplemental ground improvement technique to be used in conjunction with EPS lightweight fill. No Can The foundation soil be partially excavated to a depth that will decrease the effective vertical stress that will yield tolerable settlements of adequate stability? Yes Satisfy current step requirements and proceed to the next step in main procedure.

Proceed to step

Start of Remedial Procedure B

B-1 Satisfy current step requirements and proceed to the next step in main procedure.

Can the thickness of overburden material on top of the EPS blocks be increased?

Yes

No B-2 Proceed to step A-2 No Is a ground anchoring system feasible? Yes

Satisfy current step requirements and proceed to the next step in main procedure.

Figure 5. Remedial Procedures A and B of Design Procedure (Note: These are suggested modifications to the design to meet the design step requirements.).

Figure 6. Remedial Procedures C and D of Design Procedure (Note: These are suggested modifications to the design to meet the design step requirements.).

Figure 7. Remedial Procedures E and F of Design Procedure (Note: These are suggested modifications to the design to meet the design step requirements.).

The internal stability phase considers stability within the levee itself. Internal stability includes consideration of SLS issues such as the proper selection and specification of EPS properties so the geofoam mass can provide adequate load bearing capacity to the overlying overburden material and soil cover without excessive immediate and time-dependent (creep) compression that can lead to excessive settlement of the overburden material surface. Internal stability also includes consideration of ULS issues such as translation due to water (hydrostatic induced sliding) and wind, and seismic stability. These internal stability SLS and ULS issues are part of Steps 11 through 14 of the proposed design procedure as shown in Figure 4. The evaluation of the three internal stability ULS failure mechanisms, i.e., translation due to water (hydrostatic induced sliding), translation due to wind, and seismic stability, involves determining whether the geofoam embankment will behave as a single, coherent mass when subjected to external loads. Although a lightweight fill levee embankment constructed using EPS-block geofoam will consist of a large number of individual blocks, the proposed design procedure assumes that the geofoam acts as a single, coherent mass when subjected to external loads. An EPS-block geofoam embankment will behave as a coherent mass if the individual EPS blocks exhibit adequate vertical and horizontal interlock. Adequate interlock between blocks involves consideration of the overall block layout (which primarily controls interlocking in a vertical direction) and inter-block shear (which primarily controls interlocking in the horizontal direction), both of which are discussed subsequently. Figure 8 provides an overview of a typical EPS block layout for a roadway embankment. The current practice for lightweight fill applications to ensure interlock in the vertical direction is to align all the blocks within a given layer with their longitudinal axes parallel but offsetting the ends of adjacent lines of blocks, to orient the longitudinal axes of all blocks in a given layer perpendicular to the longitudinal axes of the blocks within layers placed above and/or below, and to align the blocks within the uppermost layer transverse to the longitudinal axis of the embankment. The primary reason for the third requirement is that blocks that are aligned transverse to the embankment longitudinal axis tend to provide better structural support for the overlying pavement system when subjected to vehicle traffic compared to blocks placed parallel to the longitudinal axis of the roadway especially if the EPS block joints are parallel to and located directly below the vehicle wheel lanes because the joints may open when subjected to vehicle stresses and provide reduced support to the overlying pavement system materials (Duskov 1998). Therefore, the last requirement about aligning the uppermost layer of blocks transverse to the longitudinal axis of the embankment may not be a key requirement for levees if the levee will not be subjected to vehicle traffic.

Figure 8. Isometric View of Typical EPS Block Layout. 8

Vehicles or construction equipment should not traverse directly on the EPS blocks. To minimize permanent damage to the blocks, soil or aggregate overburden material can be pushed onto the EPS blocks using appropriate equipment such as a bulldozer or front-end loader to cover the top of the EPS blocks so that vehicles or construction equipment do not directly traverse on the EPS blocks. Interface shear resistance between EPS blocks (EPS/EPS interfaces) and any interlocking along the horizontal interfaces between layers of EPS blocks are the primary mechanisms for resisting horizontal loads. The interface shear resistance of EPS/EPS interfaces has been studied by a number of researchers (Atmatzidis et al. 2001; EPS Construction Method Development Organization 1993; Kuroda et al. 1996; Miki 1996; Negussey et al. 2001; Norwegian Road Research Laboratory 1992; Sanders and Seedhouse 1994; Sheeley 2000; Sheeley and Negussey 2000). Unfortunately, the lack of a standard test method has meant that a range of test variables (specimen size, specimen preparation, smoothness of specimen surface, test setup, loading rate, etc.) have been used. Although there is no standard method for EPS/EPS interface tests, the typical procedures that have been used involve placing two pieces of EPS in contact along a single horizontal surface, subjecting the contact to a vertical normal stress, then horizontally shearing one piece of EPS (typically the upper one) relative to the other while measuring the horizontal displacement and force required for movement. This process is similar to direct shear testing (ASTM D 5321) in soils and geosynthetics testing. Because of variations in specimen dimensions, displacement rate, roughness of the EPS surfaces, and other factors, a range in EPS/EPS interface friction angles have been reported. Reported peak shear strength values range from 32 degrees to 48 degrees and residual shear strength values range from 27 degrees to 35 degrees. These ranges are based on normal stresses ranging from 10 to 80 kPa. Unfortunately, the stress range corresponding to the residual values is not included in the literature. Therefore, the EPS/EPS interface shear strength value of 30 degrees recommended as part of the NCHRP study on geofoam applications in highway embankments still appears reasonable for preliminary design. The final report of the currently ongoing NCHRP study on the use of EPS-block geofoam for slope stabilization and repair will include a summary of interface shear strength data reported in the literature for EPS/EPS interfaces as well as for EPS and dissimilar material interfaces such as soil, geotextiles and geomembranes. Additionally, the report will provide a summary of conclusions reached by various researchers about the various variables that impact the EPS/EPS interface resistance such as the post-molding condition of the block surfaces. If the calculated resistance forces along the horizontal planes between EPS blocks are insufficient to resist the horizontal driving forces, additional resistance between EPS blocks is generally provided by adding mechanical inter-block connectors along the horizontal interfaces between the EPS blocks. At the present time, all mechanical connectors available in the U.S. are proprietary designs. Therefore, the resistance provided by such connectors and placement location must be obtained from the supplier or via independent testing. In addition to their role in resisting design loads, mechanical connectors have proven useful in keeping EPS blocks in place when subjected to wet, icy, or windy working conditions during construction (Horvath 2001) and in minimizing shifting under traffic loads when only a few layers of blocks are used (Duskov 1994). The use of polyurethane adhesives, which are used for roofing applications, could be effective in providing additional shear resistance between EPS blocks (Barrett and Valsangkar 2009). However, long-term durability testing is needed to verify that that the shear strength will not degrade with time. 9

As shown in Figure 4, the design of an EPS-block geofoam levee over soft soil requires an iterative analysis to achieve a technically acceptable design that is economical. For example, the dead load imposed by the overburden material and soil cover may decrease the factor of safety of some failure mechanisms, e.g., slope stability, while increasing it in others e.g., hydrostatic uplift. The design procedure considers a fill mass with the minimum thickness of EPS-block geofoam and the use of an EPS block with the lowest possible density. The cost of EPS blocks based on material only basis is more expensive than the use of on-site fill material and the cost of EPS blocks increases with increase in density. Therefore, the design procedure will produce a cost-efficient design. The design procedure for EPS-block geofoam roadway embankments includes two steps (Steps 15 and 16 of the roadway embankment design procedure) related to the design of a pavement system that are not included in the proposed preliminary design procedure for levees that is shown in Figure 4. If a pavement system will be part of the levee or if the overburden material will support vehicle traffic such as maintenance vehicles, the reader is encouraged to review the design procedure for EPS-block geofoam roadway embankments (Stark et al. 2004a; Stark et al. 2004b) and to especially note that some issues of pavement design act opposite to some issues involving internal and external stability of an EPS-block geofoam embankment. A brief summary of each design step is subsequently provided. The details regarding each design step is included in the NCHRP reports. One report includes only the design guideline (Stark et al. 2004b). The second report includes the background for the design guideline as well as a summary of the engineering properties of EPS-block geofoam (Stark et al. 2004a). The definition of acceptable indicated in Steps 4 through 14 may vary by levee jurisdiction. Therefore, acceptability criterion is not specified in the design procedure. The acceptability criterion for Steps 5 through 14 is typically based on a factor of safety. Step 1: Background Investigation The purpose of the first step in the design process is to obtain the hydrologic and subsoil conditions at the project site, to obtain estimates of the loads that the levee system will be subjected to, and to obtain the geometrical parameters of the levee. Loads that may need to be considered when designing an EPS-block geofoam levee on soft ground include gravity, traffic, water (hydrostatic and seepage), seismic, and wind loads. Step 2: Preliminary Selection of EPS Block Type The second step of the design procedure is to select a preliminary type of EPS-block geofoam. The cost of EPS blocks increases with increase in block density. Therefore, the lowest density block commercially available can be used in this step. The final selection of EPS block type will be verified during the load bearing analysis step, Step 14. The ASTM D 6817 (American Society for Testing and Materials 2007b) standard includes typical EPS block types that are commercially available and the associated physical parameters. Step 3: Determine a Preliminary Embankment Arrangement The third step of the design procedure is to determine a preliminary overall levee embankment arrangement, which consists of EPS block fill mass height, overburden thickness, and soil cover thickness. Because EPS-block geofoam is typically more expensive than soil on 10

a cost-per-unit-volume basis for the material alone, it is desirable to optimize the volume of EPS used yet still satisfy design criteria concerning settlement and stability. Therefore, to achieve the most cost-effective design, a design goal is to use the minimum amount of EPS blocks possible that will meet external and internal stability requirements. The design failure mechanisms that will dictate the maximum stress that can be imposed on the soft foundation soil, which dictates the minimum thickness of EPS blocks needed, include settlement, bearing capacity, slope stability, and seismic stability (external). A minimum of two layers of blocks is standard practice for lightweight fills beneath roads because a single layer of blocks can shift under traffic loads and lead to premature failure (Horvath 1999). However, a single layer of blocks may also shift during construction. Therefore, based on the experience of geofoam roadway embankments, a minimum of two layers of blocks may also be practical in levee applications. The dimensions of an EPS block are governed primarily by the mold used during manufacturing. Although there is no standard mold size used in the U.S., block thicknesses typically range between 610 mm (24 in.) to 1000 mm (39 in.). Therefore, a minimum of two EPS blocks with a thickness of 610 mm (24 in.) each or a total initial height of 1.2 m (4 ft) can be considered for the EPS block height to determine the preliminary embankment arrangement during the design process. The preliminary thickness of overburden material is the total embankment height required based on the background investigation less the thickness of two EPS blocks of 1.2 m (4 ft). However, the minimum thickness of overburden material and soil cover around the EPS blocks should be 300 to 500 mm (12 to 20 in) to protect the EPS blocks against direct ultraviolet radiation and to accommodate surface vegetation growth. Thicker minimum overburden thicknesses will be required if vehicle traffic, to include construction traffic, will drive on top of the levee. Additionally, a thicker soil cover may be required to accommodate the loss of soil cover that may occur due to erosion during flood events as well as to minimize the impact of shrinkage cracks that may develop in the overburden materials and/or soil cover. As with traditional earth levees, various issues that need to be considered in the final embankment arrangement selection consist of anticipated settlement, shrinkage and cracking of the foundation and embankment materials, geologic subsidence, and construction tolerances (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2000). Two important issues that will especially have an influence on the embankment arrangement of an EPS-block geofoam levee include erosion protection measures and shrinkage crack development considerations of the soil cover and overburden material. Step 4 Settlement of Embankment Settlement is the amount of vertical deformation that occurs at the top of the levee surface from immediate or elastic settlement of the overburden material, EPS blocks, or foundation soil; consolidation and secondary compression of the foundation soil; and long-term creep of the EPS blocks. Additional settlement caused by lateral deformation of the foundation soil may also occur and can contribute to a large portion of overall vertical deformation. Step 5 External Bearing Capacity of Embankment Bearing capacity failure occurs if the applied stress exceeds the bearing capacity of the foundation soil which is related to the shear resistance of the soil. Failure is only considered

11

through the foundation soil in this step because Step 14 addresses load bearing failure through the EPS-block geofoam fill mass. Step 6 Slope Stability The NCHRP study for stand-alone embankments (Stark et al. 2004a; Stark et al. 2004b) and the current ongoing study involving geofoam for slope stabilization and repair (Arellano et al. 2009, Arellano et al. 2010) revealed some uncertainties in the modeling of the shear strength of EPS blocks in two-dimensional limit equilibrium slope stability analysis procedures when the slip surface is assumed to extend through the EPS block fill mass as shown in Figure 9(a). One approach to alleviate this uncertainty involves modeling the fill mass as a vertical surcharge and consists of applying a surcharge to the surface of the foundation material that approximates the weight of the EPS blocks, soil cover, overburden material, and any additional loads applied to the overburden material so the strength of the geofoam does not have to be considered as shown in Figure 9(b).

(a) Failure considering the shear strength of the EPS block fill mass materials.

(b) Failure ignoring the shear strength of the EPS block fill mass materials. Figure 9. Typical Slope Modes of Failure Assumed in Two-Dimensional Limit Equilibrium Analysis Procedures Involving EPS-block Geofoam.

12

This surcharge model has been standard practice in Japan for stability analysis of EPSblock geofoam embankments over soft ground because no data is available from instrumented, full-scale embankments about the sliding behavior of an EPS-block geofoam embankment system (Public Works Research Institute 1992). The vertical surcharge model appears to be a convenient model to use for external slope stability analysis and is the approach recommended over soft soil foundations where the primary concern is slope instability through the soft soil foundation and not through the EPS blocks. Step 7 Seismic Stability Seismic loading is a short-term event that may need to be considered in the design of levees. Seismic loading can affect both external and internal stability of a levee embankment containing EPS-block geofoam. This step considers external seismic slope stability of the overall EPS-block geofoam levee while internal seismic stability within the EPS-block levee is addressed in Step 13. External seismic stability can be evaluated using a pseudo-static slopestability analysis method. Other seismic considerations that should be considered in this step include liquefaction and earthquake induced bearing capacity failure and settlement. Step 8 - Hydrostatic Uplift (Flotation) EPS-block geofoam used as lightweight fill usually has a density of 20 kg/m3 (1.25 lbf/ft3), which is approximately 1 percent of the density of earth materials. Because of this extraordinarily low density, the potential for hydrostatic uplift (flotation) of the entire embankment at the interface between the bottom of the assemblage of EPS blocks and the foundation soil must be considered in external stability evaluations. Figure 10 presents the variables for hydrostatic uplift analysis for the case of water on one side of the levee embankment only.

Figure 10. Variables for Hydrostatic Uplift and Hydrostatic Sliding Analysis for the Case of Water on One Side of the Embankment Only.

13

It should be noted that the resulting hydrostatic uplift force resulting from the triangular hydrostatic pressure distribution shown underlying the embankment in Figure 10 may not be the most appropriate hydrostatic pressure distribution for use in the design of a levee because the hydrostatic pressure distribution will be site specific. Also, the hydrostatic pressure distribution shown in Figure 10 does not include seepage pressures. The determination of the resulting hydrostatic and seepage forces for use in design should be based on site-specific seepage modeling and analysis. For example, the results of a site-specific seepage modeling study may indicate that the most appropriate water pressure distribution is the case of equal hydrostatic water levels on both sides of the embankment. For this case the underlying hydrostatic water pressure distribution would be rectangular not the triangular pressure distribution shown in Figure 10. The factor of safety against upward vertical movement of the entire levee embankment due to a flood event is the ratio of the total vertical stress from the levee embankment applied to the foundation soil divided by the uplift water pressure under the extreme flood event as shown in Equation (1).
FS= N U

(1)

where N = summation of normal forces = WEPS + WW , U = summation of uplift forces, U, at base of embankment, WEPS = weight of EPS-block geofoam embankment, WW = vertical component of weight of water on the riverside of the embankment face above the base of the embankment. The long-term total settlement might have a significant effect on the factor of safety against flotation and should be included in the calculation of uplift force, U. Thus, as shown by Figure 10, U should be based on the vertical height of accumulated water, h, to the bottom of the levee immediately at the end of construction plus the estimated total settlement, Stotal. The water pressure, P, is derived from the vertical height of accumulated water immediately at the end of construction plus the estimated total settlement, h+Stotal, and results in a triangular pressure distribution acting on the side of the embankment with a magnitude of 1 [ W * BW * (h+Stotal) ] and Equation (1) becomes: 2
FS = WEPS + WW + O REQ 1 * W (h+Stotal) BW 2

(2)

where OREQ = additional overburden force required above the EPS blocks to obtain the desired factor of safety against the potential for hydrostatic uplift of the entire embankment (Note: translation or horizontal sliding of the entire embankment due to an unbalanced water pressure is covered in Step 9.), W = unit weight of water, Stotal =total expected settlement, and BW = bottom embankment width. 14

Equation (2) can be used to obtain the factor of safety against hydrostatic uplift or Equation (2) can be rearranged and used to obtain the value of OREQ required to obtain the desired factor of safety against hydrostatic uplift as shown by Equation (3).
1 O REQ = FS * ( * W (h+Stotal) BW ) [ (WEPS + WW )] 2

(3)

The water pressures included in Equations 2 and 3 represent static water level pressures. Seepage pressures from foundation underseepage and seepage through the EPS blocks are not included in these equations. The River Torne Flood Bank Raising project in the United Kingdom (See Figure 11) and the Suisun Marsh Facilities Roaring River Slough Distribution System Levee Restoration in California (See Figure 12) both included a geomembrane around the EPS blocks. The author suspects that the purpose of the geomembrane was to prevent seepage through the joints of the EPS blocks and to also minimize the shifting of individual blocks during a flood event. A study on the behavior of EPS blocks under a flood event with and without a geomembrane is needed to understand the need and effectiveness of the geomembrane and to determine the type and thickness of geomembrane that is needed. The study would also provide information regarding the behavior of the transition area between an EPS block levee and an adjacent conventional earth levee during a flood event.

Figure 11. Cross-section of the River Torne Flood Bank Raising project (Sanders 1996).

Figure 12. Cross-section of the Suisun Marsh Facilities Roaring River Slough Distribution System Levee Restoration in California.

15

An anchoring system to prevent hydrostatic uplift of the EPS blocks is also a viable design alternative. Although various conceptual drawings of anchoring systems are available, specific design calculations and details to these conceptual drawings as well as long-term durability data are not available. However, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) manual on ground anchors and anchored systems (Sabatini et al. 1999) can be a useful source for the design of an anchoring system to prevent hydrostatic uplift of the EPS blocks. The FHWA manual also provides guidance for the corrosion protection of ground anchors as well as for construction inspection and performance monitoring. Figure 13 presents a cross-section for an EPS-block geofoam roadway embankment in Japan that utilized an anchoring system to prevent hydrostatic uplift (Ninomiya and Ikeda 1996). An anchoring system was required because the overburden applied to the EPS was insufficient to prevent uplift of the blocks if they were subjected to the design water level acting on the side of the embankment. Also shown in Figure 13 is a detail of the anchor extending through a reinforced concrete slab overlying the geofoam. The reinforced concrete slab may have served two functions. First, the slab may have served as a load distribution separation layer to dissipate vehicle loads to low enough stress levels to minimize damage to the EPS blocks. The issue of appropriate stress levels required to minimize damage to the EPS blocks is discussed in the Step 14 (Load Bearing) discussion. The second function of the concrete slab may have been to provide support for the anchors and to minimize damage to the EPS blocks from the stresses imposed by the anchors.

Figure 13. Anchoring System Used to Prevent Hydrostatic Uplift (Flotation) of EPSblock Geofoam (Ninomiya and Ikeda 1996).

16

Step 9 Translation Due to Water (Hydrostatic Induced Sliding) Because of the extraordinarily low density of EPS-block geofoam, the potential for translation (horizontal induced sliding) of the entire levee embankment at the interface between the bottom of the assemblage of EPS blocks and the underlying foundation soil due to an unbalanced water pressure must be considered. This failure mode scenario is similar to the hydrostatic uplift case but the failure mode is sliding and not uplift. However, uplift water forces are still a key consideration in the horizontal sliding analysis. The factor of safety against horizontal sliding of the entire embankment is the ratio of shearing resistance along the EPS block/foundation soil interface to the total horizontal driving force as shown in Equation (4). Figure 10 shows the variables for the hydrostatic sliding analysis for the case of water on one side of the levee embankment only. As noted for the hydrostatic uplift case (Step 8), the resulting hydrostatic uplift force resulting from the triangular hydrostatic pressure distribution shown underlying the embankment in Figure 10 may not be the most appropriate hydrostatic pressure distribution for use in the design of a levee because the hydrostatic pressure distribution will be site specific. Also, the hydrostatic pressure distribution shown in Figure 10 does not include seepage pressures. The determination of the resulting hydrostatic and seepage forces for use in design should be based on site-specific seepage modeling and analysis.

FS=

horizontal resisting forces horizontal driving forces

c*A+ ( N- U ) tan

HF

(4)

where c = interface cohesion along the horizontal sliding surface, A = area of the horizontal sliding surface being considered, N = summation of normal forces = WEPS + WW +OREQ, U = summation of uplift forces = * ( W * h+Stotal) * (BW), = interface friction angle along the sliding surface, HF = summation of horizontal forces , W = unit weight of water, h = vertical height of accumulated water to bottom of embankment at the start of construction, Stotal=total settlement, and BW = bottom of embankment width. The total horizontal driving force is the net unbalanced water pressure, shown in Figure 10, which equals the resultant force of the triangular water pressure diagram or 1 W * (h+Stotal) 2 and is located * h above the base of the embankment. For the case of no 2 interface cohesion along the sliding surface, the expression for factor of safety against hydrostatic sliding simplifies to the following:

17

( WEPS+WW + OREQ ) 1 ( ( h + Stotal ) W ) ( BW ) tan 2 FS= . 2 1 W ( h + Stotal ) 2

(5)

As described for the analysis of hydrostatic uplift, OREQ is the additional overburden force required above the EPS blocks to obtain the desired factor of safety. However, in this case, the desired factor of safety pertains to horizontal sliding because the resistance to horizontal sliding is controlled by the vertical normal force acting on the sliding interface just as uplift is controlled by the vertical normal force acting on the base of the embankment. Equation (6) can be used to obtain the required value of OREQ for a desired factor of safety against hydrostatic sliding. To ensure the desired factor of safety in Equation (6) is satisfied for hydrostatic sliding, the calculated value of OREQ should be less than the sum of the overburden material, soil cover, and other permanent weights applied to the levee embankment.

OREQ=

FS ( 1 ) W ( h + Stotal ) 2 tan

) +(

1 2

( ( h + S ) ) ( B ) ) -W
total W W

EPS

- WW .

(6)

Step 10 Translation and Overturning Due to Wind Translation due to wind is an external failure mechanism that is unique to embankments containing EPS-block geofoam because of the extremely low density of EPS blocks. Because of this extraordinarily low density, the potential for translation (horizontal sliding) of the entire embankment at the interface between the bottom of the assemblage of EPS blocks and the underlying soil foundation due to wind is a potential failure mechanism. However there is no documented sliding failure of a geofoam embankment due to wind. At the present time there is no case history data available that provides data on the behavior of an EPS-block geofoam embankment subjected to extreme wind events such as hurricanes, typhoons, and tornados, which might produce a sliding failure. The factor of safety against translation of the entire embankment due to wind is the ratio of the shearing resistance along the EPS blocks/foundation soil interface to the total horizontal driving force as shown in Equation (4) except that the variable definitions are re-defined below for calculating wind forces instead of hydrostatic forces. c = interface cohesion along the horizontal sliding surface, A = area of the horizontal sliding surface being considered, N = summation of normal stresses = WEPS + OREQ, U = summation of uplift forces, = interface friction angle along the sliding surface, HF = summation of horizontal forces = RU + RD, RU = upwind force = pU * H, RD = downwind force = pD * H , and H = height of embankment. Figure 14 defines the forces and pressures. The resultant wind forces, RU and RD, are obtained from wind pressure diagrams. It can be seen from Figure 14 that the wind is modeled with a uniform pressure distribution with a magnitude of pU or pD. The expressions used to

18

calculate pU or pD were obtained from the French national design guide (Magnan 1989) for EPS-block geofoam road embankments and are summarized below:

p U = 0.75V 2 sin U

(7) (8)

p D = 0.75V 2 sin D

where V = the wind speed in meters per second, pU and pD have units of pascals, and the other variables are defined in Figure 14.

Figure 14. Variables for Determining Wind Analysis. For the case of no interface cohesion along the basal sliding surface, c = 0, and no uplift wind forces, U = 0, the expression for factor of safety against translation due to wind in Equation (4) simplifies to the following:

FS=

( W EPS+O REQ ) tan .

R U +R D

(9)

Equation (10) can be used to obtain the required value of OREQ for a desired factor of safety against translation due to wind.

OREQ=

FS *(R U +R D ) W EPS. tan

(10)

The components usually contributing to OREQ are the weight of the overburden material and the cover soil on the embankment side slopes. Therefore, to ensure the desired factor of safety, the calculated value of OREQ should be less than the sum of the overburden material and soil cover.

19

Step 10 is the last step involving an external stability failure mechanism. The subsequent steps, Steps 11 through 14, consider internal stability failure mechanisms. Step 11 Internal Translation Due to Water (Hydrostatic Induced Sliding) Internal stability for translation due to water consists of verifying that adequate shear resistance is available between EPS block layers and between the overburden material and the EPS blocks to withstand the forces of an unbalanced water head. Equation (5) can be used to determine the factor of safety against hydrostatic sliding at various heights of the EPS embankment. Alternatively, Equation (6) can be used to determine the required overburden force, OREQ, to achieve a desired factor of safety against horizontal sliding at various heights of the EPS embankment. Step 12 Internal Translation Due to Wind Internal stability for translation due to wind consists of verifying that adequate shear resistance is available between EPS block layers and between the overburden material and EPS blocks to withstand the design wind forces. Equation (9) can be used to determine the factor of safety against translation due to wind at various heights of the EPS embankment. Alternatively, Equation (10) can be used to determine the required overburden for the desired factor of safety at various heights of the EPS embankment. Step 13 - Internal Seismic Stability The main difference in this analysis and the external seismic stability analysis is that sliding is assumed to occur only within the levee embankment or along an EPS block interface. This analysis can be based on a pseudo-static slope stability analysis. Step 14 - Load Bearing The primary internal stability issue for EPS-block geofoam levee embankments is the load bearing capacity of the EPS blocks. A load bearing capacity analysis consists of selecting an EPS type with adequate properties to support the overlying overburden material, the soil cover, and any potential traffic loads without excessive EPS compression that could lead to excessive settlement of the levee surface. The recommended load bearing design approach included in the NCHRP design guideline for stand-alone embankments (Arellano and Stark 2009; Stark et al. 2004a; Stark et al. 2004b) and the one presented herein is based on limiting loads on the EPS blocks to less than the elastic limit stress of the EPS blocks. The compressive stress at 1 percent strain, as measured in a standard rapid-loading compression test, is the elastic limit stress, e. The ASTM D 6817 standard provides a summary of physical properties for standard block densities that includes elastic limit stress values (American Society for Testing and Materials 2007b). In general, the elastic limit stress increases with increase in block density. Because the applied vertical stress within an embankment decreases with depth under the overburden material and side slopes, it is possible to use multiple densities of EPS blocks in a levee. For example, lower density blocks can be used at greater depths and/or under the side slopes and higher density blocks can be used directly under the overburden material. The reason for minimizing the use of excessively high density EPS block is that the cost of EPS

20

block is linked to the block density in that the cost increases with increase in block density. Therefore, there is a cost reduction benefit to select one or more EPS densities within a proposed embankment, with blocks of different density placed according to the applied vertical stresses. The basic procedure for designing against load bearing failure is to calculate the maximum vertical stresses at various levels within the EPS mass (typically the overburden material/EPS interface is most critical) and select the EPS that exhibits an elastic limit stress that is greater than the calculated or required elastic limit stress at the depth being considered. The load bearing capacity analysis procedure for EPS blocks can be found in the literature (Arellano and Stark 2009; Stark et al. 2004a; Stark et al. 2004b). EPS blocks utilized in a levee embankment may not support a pavement system or heavy structural loads. Therefore, the potential to utilize EPS blocks with recycled EPS exists. The use of recycled EPS blocks would be an attractive green product that reduces waste by recycling polystyrene scrap and would also reduce the raw materials costs in the production of EPS (Horvath 2008a). Step 15 Final Levee design details The final step of the design procedure consists of preparing final design details of the EPS-block geofoam levee system. In addition to cross-sectional and longitudinal geometry details of the levee, additional details that may require consideration and further analysis include seepage control, support of vehicles, support and inclusion of any other structures such as pipelines, utility conduits, and culverts.

Summary
This paper presented a proposed framework for developing a comprehensive design guideline for the use of EPS-block geofoam for levee construction over soft ground. The basis of the proposed framework is the guideline for geofoam applications in highway embankments that was published in the NCHRP reports for EPS-block geofoam roadway embankments (Stark et al. 2004a; Stark et al. 2004b) and the current ongoing NCHRP study involving the development of a design guideline for the use of EPS-block geofoam in slope stabilization and repair (Arellano et al. 2009; Arellano et al. 2010). Figures 4 through 7 summarize the preliminary design procedure, which consists of 15 steps. The overall design process is divided into two primary phases. The external (global) stability phase considers how the combined EPS-block fill mass, soil cover, and overlying overburden material interacts with the existing foundation soil and considers stability of the overall levee. External stability failure mechanisms are included in Steps 4 through 10 of the proposed design procedure shown in Figure 4. The internal stability phase considers stability within the levee itself. Internal stability failure mechanisms are included in Steps 11 through 14 of the design procedure. Additional studies that would significantly contribute to refining the proposed preliminary design procedure includes locating and reviewing the design drawings and calculations for the Suisun Marsh Facilities Roaring River Slough Distribution System Levee Restoration project in California and the River Torne Flood Bank Raising project in the United Kingdom. The history of the various flood events of these levees should be evaluated as well as a reconnaissance of the current levee conditions should be performed.

21

A study on the behavior of EPS blocks under a flood event with and without a geomembrane is needed to understand the need and effectiveness of the geomembrane to prevent seepage through the EPS block joints and to maintain overall integrity of the EPS blocks as well as to determine the thickness and type of geomembrane that is needed. The study will also provide information regarding the behavior of the transition area between an EPS block levee and an adjacent conventional earth levee during a flood event. A study on the long-term durability of polyurethane adhesives for use between EPS blocks is needed to verify that the block interface shear strength provided by these adhesives will not degrade with time. The study can also include the effectiveness of the adhesives to control seepage through the joints of the blocks. The successful use of adhesives to control seepage may alleviate the need for a geomembrane to control seepage through the blocks and would ensure that the EPS blocks behave as a single, coherent mass when subjected to flood conditions. The proposed preliminary design procedure currently does not consider erosion protection measures of the soil cover or the overburden material. A study on the erosion susceptibility of various soil cover types to include the effectiveness of using geosynthetics such as geocells is needed to establish minimum soil cover thicknesses. Although various conceptual drawings of anchoring systems are available to prevent hydrostatic uplift and horizontal translation, specific design calculations and details to these conceptual drawings as well as long-term durability data are needed. In addition to these various studies, data from instrumented full-scale field trials of EPS-block geofoam levee systems are needed to confirm the recommended design procedure summarized herein.

Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges Mr. Chuanqi Wang, Graduate Research Assistant at The University of Memphis, for assisting with the figures. Also, the support provided Mr. Nico Sutmoller of Insulfoam in obtaining information about the Suisun Marsh Facilities Roaring River Slough Distribution System Levee Restoration project is also appreciated as well as the assistance of Mr. Brian Faurot also of Insulfoam for developing the cross-sections for the two case histories mentioned in this paper. Finally, the author also acknowledges Dr. Timothy D. Stark of the Fabricated Geomembrane Institute for the information about geomembranes and Mr. Gerard S. Satterlee, Jr. of Fenstermaker for his constructive comments.

References
American Society for Testing and Materials. (2007a). "Terminology for Geosynthetics." D 4439, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA. American Society for Testing and Materials. (2007b). "Standard Specification for Rigid Cellular Polystyrene Geofoam." D 6817-06a, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA. Arellano, D., and Stark, T. D. (2009). "Load bearing analysis of EPS-block geofoam embankments." Proceedings of 8th International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields, Champaign, IL, USA, 981-990. Arellano, D., Stark, T. D., Horvath, J. S., and Leshchinsky, D. (2009). "NCHRP Project 2411(02), Guidelines for Geofoam Applications in Slope Stability Projects: Interim Report." NCHRP Project No. 24-11(02), Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.

22

Arellano, D., Tatum, J. B., Stark, T. D., Horvath, J. S., and Leshchinsky, D. (2010). "A Framework for the Design Guideline for EPS-Block Geofoam in Slope Stabilization and Repair." Transportation Research Record, in press. Atmatzidis, D. K., Missirlis, E. G., and Theodorakopoulos, E. B. (2001). "Shear Resistance on EPS Geofoam Block Surfaces." Proc. EPS Geofoam 2001: 3rd Annual Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah. Barrett, J. C., and Valsangkar, A. J. (2009). "Effectiveness of connectors in geofoam block construction." Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27(3), 211-216. Duskov, M. (1994). "EPS as a Light Weight Sub-base Material in Pavement Structures; Final Report." Report Number 7-94-211-6, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. Duskov, M. (1998). "EPS as a Light-Weight Sub-Base Material in Pavement Structures," Doctor of Engineering Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. EPS Construction Method Development Organization. (1993). "EPS." Tokyo, Japan. Horvath, J. S. (1999). "Lessons Learned from Failures Involving Geofoam in Roads and Embankments." Research Report No. CE/GE-99-1, Manhattan College, Bronx, NY. Horvath, J. S. (2001). "A Concept for an Improved Inter-Block Mechanical Connector for EPSBlock Geofoam Lightweight Fill Applications: 'The Ring's the Thing'." Manhattan College-School of Engineering, Center for Geotechnology <http://www.engineering.manhattan.edu/civil/CGT/T2olrgeomat2.html> (Sep. 8, 2001). Horvath, J. S. (2008a). "Levee Alternative." Civil Engineering, 78(5), 72-77. Horvath, J. S. (2008b). "Using EPS-Block Geofoam for Levee Rehabilitation and Construction." GeoCongress 2008: Geosustainability and Geohazard Mitigation, New Orleans, Louisiana. Kuroda, S., Hotta, H., and Yamazaki, F. (1996). "Simulation of Shaking Table Test for EPS Embankment Model by Distinct Element Method." International Symposium on EPS Construction Method, Tokyo, Japan, 88-92. Magnan, J.-P. (1989). "Recommandations pour L'Utilisation de Polystyrene Expanse en Remblai Routier." Laboratoire Central Ponts et Chausses, France. Miki, G. (1996). "Ten Year History of EPS Method in Japan and its Future Challenges." Proceedings of the International Symposium on EPS Construction Method (EPS Tokyo '96), 394-410. Negussey, D., Anasthas, N., and Srirajan, S. (2001). "Interface Friction Properties of EPS Geofoam." Proc. EPS Geofoam 2001: 3rd International Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah. Ninomiya, K., and Ikeda, M. (1996). "Design & Construction of EPS Method Which Surfacing and Uses Anchor for Prevention." International Symposium on EPS Construction Method (EPS Tokyo '96), 162-167. Norwegian Road Research Laboratory. (1992). "Expanded Polystyrene Used in Road Embankments - Design, Construction and Quality Assurance." Form 482E, Public Roads Administration, Oslo, Norway. Public Works Research Institute. (1992). "Design and Construction Manual for Lightweight Fill with EPS." The Public Works Research Institute of Ministry of Construction and Construction Project Consultants, Inc., Japan. Sabatini, P. J., Pass, D. G., and Bachus, R. C. (1999). "Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4: Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems." FHWA-SA-99-015, FHWA, Washington D.C.

23

Sanders, R. L. (1996). "United Kingdom Design and Construction Experience with EPS." Proceedings of the International Symposium on EPS Construction Method (EPS Tokyo '96), Tokyo, Japan, 235-246. Sanders, R. L., and Seedhouse, R. L. (1994). "The Use of Polystyrene for Embankment Construction." Contractor Report 356, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire, U.K. Sheeley, M. (2000). "Slope Stabilization Utilizing Geofoam," Master's Thesis, Syracuse University, NY. Sheeley, M., and Negussey, D. (2000). "An Investigation of Geofoam Interface Strength Behavior." Proc. Soft Ground Technology Conference, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 112, the Netherlands. Stark, T. D., Arellano, D., Horvath, J. S., and Leshchinsky, D. (2004a). "Geofoam Applications in the Design and Construction of Highway Embankments." NCHRP Web Document 65 (Project 24-11), Available at http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_w65.pdf, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Stark, T. D., Arellano, D., Horvath, J. S., and Leshchinsky, D. (2004b). "Guideline and Recommended Standard for Geofoam Applications in Highway Embankments." NCHRP Report 529, Available at http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_529.pdf, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2000). "Engineering Manual 1110-2-1913: Design and Construction of Levees." Engineering Manual 1110-2-1913, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2006). "Enclosure H: Preliminary Technical Report of the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Project Engineering Technical Approaches and Innovations Workshop." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

24