Upload
lyhanh
View
225
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Ruttanaporamakul et al.
Settlement Mitigation of a Distressed Embankment in Texas by
Utilization of Lightweight EPS Geofoam Material
Pinit Ruttanaporamakul, Ph.D.
Box 19308, Department of Civil Engineering
The University of Texas at Arlington
Arlington, Texas 76019
Anand J. Puppala, Ph.D., P.E.
Distinguished Professor
Box 19308, Department of Civil Engineering
The University of Texas at Arlington
Arlington, Texas 76019
Aravind Pedarla, Ph.D.
Faculty Research Associate
Box 19308, Department of Civil Engineering
The University of Texas at Arlington
Arlington, Texas 76019
Tejo V. Bheemasetti, Ph.D.
Post-Doctoral Fellow
Department of Civil Engineering, Box 19308
The University of Texas at Arlington
Arlington, Texas 76019
Richard S. Williammee, Jr., M.S., P.E
District Materials Engineer
Fort Worth District
Texas Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 6 Fort Worth, TX 76115
Word Count: text = 3800; figures = 3000 (12 figures); tables = 250 (1 tables)
Total Words: 7050 words
A Paper Submitted for Possible Publication in
Journal of Transportation Research Board
2
Ruttanaporamakul et al.
2
ABSTRACT 1
Approach slab settlement occurring at the start of a bridge super structure is one of the most 2
common problems in many states across USA, resulting in rider discomfort and unsafe riding 3
conditions. Federal and State transportation agencies continue to spend millions of dollars 4
annually to repair the ‘bump’ problem. Major factors contributing to these settlements are the 5
long term compressibility of backfill materials as well as the erosion of backfill material. This 6
paper documents a distress occurred at the approach slabs on each end of the US 67 bridge over 7
SH 174 in Johnson County, Cleburne, Texas. This approach slab had experienced more than 16 8
in. (406 mm) of settlement in 16 years since its initial construction. Current study highlighted the 9
factors causing distress in the embankment and evaluated the remedial technique adopted at this 10
site. Native fill material at the top of the embankment was replaced with lightweight expanded 11
polystyrene (EPS) geofoam blocks. This technique considerably reduced the magnitude of 12
overburden stresses transferred to the underlying layers as well as the erosion of embankment fill 13
soil. This remediation also mitigated further settlements of the embankment fill and foundation 14
soils. Field monitoring studies using inclinometers and pressure plates have been conducted at 15
regular time intervals for a period of three years to study the long term performance of EPS 16
geofoam under live traffic. The long-term settlements of the rehabilitated embankment were 17
predicted by using the field measured data with the hyperbolic method. These studies were 18
validated using measured field settlement data. Based on the current study, the effectiveness of 19
adopting EPS geofoam as the embankment fill material near a bridge approach slab is evaluated. 20
Keywords: Bump at the end of the bridge, Embankment settlement, Bridge approach 21
embankment, Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) geofoam 22
23
3
Ruttanaporamakul et al.
3
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1
The existence of the differential settlement or ‘bump’ at the end of bridge, not only presents an 2
unsafe driving condition but also results in agencies spending millions of dollars on maintenance 3
costs annually. A survey carried out in Kentucky by Hopkins and Deen (1) revealed that 78% of 4
several hundred highway bridge approaches required some maintenance activities to remedy the 5
problem of the bump at the end of the bridge. Briaud et al. (2) reported that 30 percent of the 6
bridges in Texas (i.e., 13,800 out of 46,000 bridges) encountered the problem of differential 7
settlement at the bridge ends and at least USD 100 million was spent on annual maintenance cost 8
for state departments of transportation (DOTs). Seo (3) presented that approximately USD 7 9
million was spent annually on the bump problem repairs in Texas. Recent studies show that 10
many state DOTs have insufficient funds for the maintenance costs spent on bridge repairing 11
activities (4). This trend clearly shows the strong need for effective and durable construction 12
techniques for approach slab embankments near bridges. 13
Several studies were conducted to identify the possible cause of the ‘bump’ at the end of 14
the bridge problem and also many studies focused on designing the most effective techniques for 15
mitigating the ‘bump’ problem (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13). Researchers concluded 16
that the primary factors of the settlement problems of the bridge approach pavements are void 17
development from backfill collapse, backfill material consolidation, severe backfill erosion, poor 18
soil compaction and construction practices, poor surface and subsurface water management. 19
Many techniques have been proposed to mitigate the differential approach slab settlement 20
(3, 4, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17). Some of which are improvement of foundation soil, improvement 21
of backfill material, design of bridge foundation, design of approach slab and provide effective 22
drainage and erosion control methods (11, 13). 23
In the current research, the embankment for the bridge of a 40-ft. (12 m) high situated on 24
US 67 over SH 174 in Johnson County, Texas, had experienced more than 16 in. (406 mm) of 25
settlement in 16 years, since its construction. 26
From initial site analysis, it was found that the major factor contributing to the settlement 27
is the consolidation of the foundation soil due to its self-weight. Apart from current ground 28
improvement techniques, novel light weight fill materials such as expanded polystyrene (EPS) 29
geofoam material was found to be optimal for the current rehabilitation project and were 30
evaluated for performance in this research. 31
Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) 32
According to ASTM D 6817-07, EPS geofoam is defined as a block or planar rigid cellular foam 33
polymeric material used in geotechnical engineering applications. The first use of this material 34
was in 1972 for the construction of an embankment adjacent to a bridge founded on piles in 35
Norway (18). However, the use of EPS geofoam for lightweight fill in the US dates back to the 36
1980’s (19). The method of improvement of embankment backfill using expanded polystyrene 37
(EPS) geofoam material to mitigate the settlement problem has been well adopted worldwide 38
(18, 19). Because of its lightweight property, using EPS geofoam as an embankment fill can 39
reduce the loads on underlying soils and consequently, minimize the total settlement of the soils 40
and differential settlement at the bridge ends (20). The density of the EPS geofoam varies from 41
4
Ruttanaporamakul et al.
4
0.70 to 2.85 pcf (11.2 to 45.7 kg/m3), which is approximately 100 times lighter than most soils 1
and at least 20 to 30 times lighter than other lightweight fill alternatives (20). 2
Previous literature reported that EPS geofoam blocks can be effectively used in highway 3
embankment construction (18, 21, 22). Frydenlund and Aaboe (18) evaluated the embankment 4
construction for a temporary bridge, the Lokkeberg Bridge, in Norway, where site investigation 5
indicated that the foundation soil with low bearing capacity. EPS geofoam blocks were 6
considered for use as the fill material for the bridge approaching embankment. After being open 7
to traffic for 12 years, deformation of 6 cm (2.4 in) was all that was observed in the EPS 8
embankment, and most of the deformation occurred during the construction phase. 9
In a more recent application, EPS geofoam was adopted by the Utah Department of 10
Transportation (UDOT) in reconstructing a 27.4 km (17.03 miles) portion of Interstate Highway 11
15 (I-15) in Salt Lake City, Utah (23). From past observations along I-15, settlements of up to 55 12
in. (1400 mm) were documented over a period of 30 years for embankment height ranging from 13
20 to 33 ft. (6 to 10 m) (24). The reconstruction involved the widening of the interstate 14
embankment from 8 lanes to 12 lanes, where an extensive deposit of compressible lake bottom 15
sediment exists. After successful construction, Bartlett et al. (2012) concluded that EPS geofoam 16
successfully reduced the soil settlement to 0.98 in. (25-mm) over a 5-year period after the 17
highway was open to traffic. 18
The objective of the current research is to evaluate the effectiveness of using lightweight 19
EPS geofoam to mitigate the settlement of the bridge approach embankment at US 67 site, Texas 20
and to predict the long term settlement behavior of EPS geofoam. 21
BRIDGE REHABILITATION AT US 67 22
US 67 bridge over SH 174 was constructed in 1995, using pre-stressed concrete beams and 23
abutments were supported by drilled shaft foundations. Approach slabs were constructed on the 24
embankments adjacent to the bridge ends. Clay soil with moderately high plastic index (PI) was 25
used as the embankment backfill, retained by the concrete block walls, as presented in FIGURE 26
1. 27
28
FIGURE 1: Schematic of the US 67 bridge over SH 174 in Johnson County, Texas 29
16 years since the initial construction, the approach embankments on each end of the 30
bridge had experienced more than 16 in. (406 mm) of settlements, as illustrated in FIGURE 2. 31
Several treatment methods, including overlays, foam slab jacking, and compaction grouting were 32
attempted and found not effective in mitigating the settlements. According to the field 33
investigations conducted in 2000, it was found that the significant factors contributing to the 34
5
Ruttanaporamakul et al.
5
settlements experienced at this site include insufficient compaction of soils associated with 1
abutment construction, erosion and settlement of the embankment fill soil underlying the 2
approach slabs, and the movement of the concrete block retaining wall. 3
4
FIGURE 2: Settlement at US 67 bridge approach slab over 16 years since the initial 5 construction (Courtesy of TxDOT, 26) 6
SITE CONDITIONS OF TEST SECTION 7
BASED ON THE DATA OBTAINED FROM FIELD INVESTIGATIONS, THE 8
SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY UNDERNEATH THE PAVEMENT SYSTEM 9
CONSISTS OF THE EMBANKMENT WHICH COMPRISES OF 30 FT. (9 M) OF CLAY 10
FILL OVER 10 TO 20 FT. (3 TO 6 M) OF NATURAL CLAY SOILS EXTENDED TO A 11
LAYER OF LIMESTONE. THE COMPRESSIBILITY PARAMETERS OF THE SOILS 12
OBTAINED FROM THE TEST ARE PRESENTED IN 13
. 14
TABLE 1: Variation of Soil Parameters at US 67 bridge site over a period (2000 to 2011) 15
Year 2000 2011
Parameter Unit Embankment
fill soil
Foundation
soil
Embankment
fill soil
Foundation
soil
Natural moisture
content, 𝜔
% 27.2 20.7 23.2 N/A
Dry unit weight, 𝛾𝑑𝑟𝑦 pcf 96.9 106.6 101.9 N/A
Liquid limit, LL % 61 53 N/A N/A
Plastic index, PI % 40 36 N/A N/A
Initial void ratio, 𝑒𝑜 - 0.739 0.580 0.654 N/A
Compression index,
𝐶𝑐
- 0.25 0.18 0.23 N/A
6
Ruttanaporamakul et al.
6
Recompression index,
𝐶𝑟
- 0.10 0.06 0.07 N/A
Overconsolidation
ratio, OCR
- 1.00 10.29 10.10 N/A
Consolidation test was performed on the representative embankment fill and foundation 1
soil and test results showed that the natural foundation soils are overconsolidated (OCR = 10.29). 2
During this time period, the void ratio decreased with an increase in the dry unit weight. 3
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND INSTRUMENTATION OF EPS GEOFOAM 4
EMBANKMENT TEST SECTION 5
In 2012, the rehabilitation project on US 67 bridge over SH 174 was initiated by TxDOT to 6
repair bridge beams, and renew 150 ft. (46 m) of approach slabs and pavement on each bridge. 7
Approximately 35,000 ft3 (990 m
3) of EPS 22 geofoam blocks were placed at the top 6-ft. (1.8-8
m) of the bridge approach embankments. The use of EPS geofoam was expected to reduce the 9
settlements and erosion of the embankment fill and consequently reduce the approaching slab 10
settlement and bump at the end of the bridge problems. Preliminary design for the EPS 11
geofoam used in the US 67 bridge rehabilitation was conducted in accordance to NCHRP Report 12
529 (19). The wheel loads of a standard truck used in a bridge design, HS-20 (AASHTO, 2012), 13
was considered in the design. 14
The approximate analysis of soil settlement showed that in order to reduce the settlement 15
of the embankment to be less than 1 in. (25 mm), almost all of the existing backfill soil has to be 16
replaced by EPS geofoam. However, excavating and replacing all embankment backfill soil is 17
neither practical nor economical. From NCHRP report guideline and the preliminary design, the 18
height of 6 ft. (1.8 m) of EPS geofoam was adopted. With this depth of EPS geofoam, about 2.5 19
in. (63.5 mm) settlement was estimated to be occurred on the embankments. 20
The rehabilitation work started in January 2012 and was completed at the end of February 21
2012. The pavement structure along with underlying 10 feet of embankment material was 22
removed. The underdrain systems were installed at the bottom of the excavation. Following that, 23
2 to 6 in. (50 to 152 mm) of a sand-leveling layer was compacted on the underdrain systems and 24
then, the 6-ft. (1.8-m) high stack of three layers of the EPS22 geofoam was installed on the 25
compacted sand blanket, as illustrated in Error! Reference source not found.. To protect the 26
EPS geofoam from water infiltration, a layer of impermeable geomembrane was used in 27
encapsulating the installed geofoam blocks, as presented in FIGURE . Finally, about 2 ft. (0.6 28
m) height of the pavement structure, including lightweight aggregates, flex base, hot mix asphalt 29
concrete (HMAC), and concrete pavement, was constructed on top of the embankment. 30
7
Ruttanaporamakul et al.
7
1
2
FIGURE 3: Retrofitting of approach slab using EPS geofoam blocks 3
Utilization of EPS geofoam as the backfill material not only enhanced reduction in 4
settlement but also decreased the overall cost of construction. This is due to the easy handling 5
and reduced labor and installation costs of EPS geofoam blocks, without any necessity of having 6
heavy compaction equipment (11). To evaluate the effectiveness of EPS geofoam material in 7
mitigating the settlement problem of the embankment system, the test site was instrumented with 8
horizontal inclinometer device for monitoring the vertical movement of the embankment. During 9
the rehabilitation, the total four inclinometer casings of diameter 3.34 in. (8.5 cm) were placed 10
on top of the EPS geofoam layer (i.e., about 2 ft. (0.6 m) below the pavement surface. The length 11
of each casing is more than 22 ft. (6.7 m). The locations of the installed inclinometer casings are 12
shown in Error! Reference source not found.. 13
8
Ruttanaporamakul et al.
8
1
FIGURE 4: Location of the inclinometer casings installed at the test embankment 2
Settlement Behavior of the EPS Geofoam Embankment Test Section 3
The vertical movements at the top of EPS geofoam layer were monitored at every 2 ft. (0.6 m) 4
intervals. Collected data is presented in the form of graphs plotted between the vertical 5
displacements, recorded cumulatively from the initial reading at the time of casings installation 6
(01/30/2012). Error! Reference source not found. to 8 present the data of the vertical 7
movements measured from the horizontal inclinometer casings US 67 _ 1 to US 67_4, 8
respectively. Due to some damage caused during initial construction, casing US 67_2 had to be 9
replaced. Data from Figure 6, US 67_2 were missing in the time range of November 2013 to 10
May 2014. The variation of maximum vertical movements of the test embankment with time, 11
measured at the middle of pavement, is presented in FIGURE . The plot includes two sets of the 12
displacement data, which are the total vertical displacement and the post-construction vertical 13
displacement. Post-construction vertical displacement can be determined by subtracting the 14
settlement that occurred from initial 28 days of construction from the total vertical settlement 15
that had occurred at that time. It can be observed from the plots that during almost three years 16
after opening to traffic, less than 1.5 in. (38 mm) of post-construction settlement had occurred. 17
US 67_1
US 67_2
US 67_3
US 67_4
9
Ruttanaporamakul et al.
9
1
FIGURE 5: Vertical displacement data plot from horizontal inclinometer US 67_1 2
3
FIGURE 6: Vertical displacement data plot from horizontal inclinometer 67_2 4
10
Ruttanaporamakul et al.
10
1
FIGURE 7: Vertical displacement data plot from horizontal inclinometer US 67_3 2
3
FIGURE 8: Vertical displacement data plot from horizontal inclinometer US 67_4 4
5
11
Ruttanaporamakul et al.
11
Prediction of a Long Term Settlements of Geofoam replaced Test Embankment 1
Prediction of long term settlements in the test embankment is attempted using the Lin and Wong 2
(25) hyperbolic method. Based on the assumption that the rate of settlement is decreasing 3
hyperbolically with time, the relationship between the settlement and time can be presented by 4
the hyperbolic equation, as provided in following: 5
𝑡
𝑆 = 𝛼 + 𝛽(𝑡) (1) 6
where 𝑡 is time from the start of embankment fill (days); 𝑆 is measured settlement as any 7
specific time (mm); 𝛽 is gradient of the straight line between 𝑡 and 𝑡
𝑆 ; and 𝛼 is intersection of the 8
straight line on the 𝑡
𝑆 axis. 9
By plotting the average of total vertical movement at the middle of pavement with a 10
function of time-settlment ratio and using linear regression analysis, the values of parameters 𝛽 11
and 𝛼 can be estimated, as presented in FIGURE 3. 12
The equation for estimating the settlements magnitude at a specific time (𝑡) of the test 13
embankment can be generated by substituting the parameters 𝛽 and 𝛼 back into Eq. 1 and 14
rewriting Eq. 2 and 3 as follows: 15
𝑆 = 𝑡
(𝛼+ 𝛽𝑡) (2) 16
𝑆 = 𝑡
(7.5838 + 0.024 𝑡) (3) 17
According to Eq. 3, the plot of the predicted vertical displacement which will occur in the 18
test embankment at the specific time interval can be provided, as illustrated in FIGURE . 19
Similarly, it is possible to predict the long term post-construction vertical displacement of the 20
test embankment, as plotted in FIGURE 4. The field data and its best-fit curves are also plotted 21
in the figures. 22
12
Ruttanaporamakul et al.
12
1
FIGURE 9: Variation of average vertical displacement of the test embankment versus time 2
3
FIGURE 3: Relationship between time-settlement ratio of the test embankment 4
with time 5
13
Ruttanaporamakul et al.
13
1
FIGURE 11: Variation of total vertical displacement of the test embankment with time 2
3
FIGURE 4: Variation of post-construction vertical displacement of 4
the test embankment with time 5
It can be observed from the plots that the vertical displacement/settlement of the test 6
embankment predicted by hyperbolic method is in good agreement with the best-fit curve of the 7
measured field data from the horizontal inclinometer surveys. Based on the hyperbolic method, 8
the total and post-construction vertical displacements which will occur on the test embankment 9
at 10 years interval are predicted to be 1.5 in. (38 mm) and 1.3 in. (34 mm) respectively. This 10
clearly shows that minimal settlement from the compression of EPS geofoam material over the 11
10 year period, where the majority is contributed from post construction settlement. 12
14
Ruttanaporamakul et al.
14
SUMMARY 1
From the monitoring studies conducted at US 67 embankment over the past three years and 2
corresponding settlement prediction analysis conducted, it is recommended to adopt EPS 3
geofoam material as an embankment fill where high compressible and collapsible subsoil exists. 4
EPS material proved to be effective in mitigating the vertical stresses transferred to the 5
foundation soil thereby reducing any further increase in settlement. 6
Settlement prediction analysis conducted is consistent with the monitored data obtained 7
from horizontal inclinometer until the three year period. The maximum post-construction vertical 8
displacement occurring at the center of pavement, atop the EPS geofoam layer of the 9
rehabilitated US 67 bridge embankment was about 1.0 to 1.1 in. (25 to 28 mm). 10
Total settlement of 1.5 in. (38 mm) and post-construction settlement of 1.3 in. (34 mm) 11
were predicted to occur on the test embankment after 10-year time period. These settlements are 12
considered low, as they can cause only a slight bump at the bridge deck-approach slab interface, 13
which does not affect the riding quality. In the current rehabilitation project only top 6 feet of the 14
embankment section is replaced with EPS geofoam blocks. Studies are being conducted to 15
evaluate the optimal placement of EPS geofoam blocks in the embankment section for effective 16
performance. 17
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 18
This study was sponsored by Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) under research 19
project No. 5-6022-01. The authors would like to sincerely thank the Project Committee for 20
providing their support and valuable guidance during the research. 21
REFERENCES 22
1. Hopkins, T. C. and Deen, R.C. (1969). “The Bump at the End of the Bridge.” Rep. No. 23
KYHPR-64-17; HPR-1(4), Kentucky Transportation Center, Lexington, Kentucky. 24
2. Briaud, J. L., James, R. W., and Hoffman, S. B. (1997). NCHRP synthesis 234: 25
Settlement of Bridge Approaches (the bump at the end of the bridge), Transportation 26
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 27
3. Seo, J. (2003). “The Bump at the End of the Bridge: An Investigation.” Dissertation 28
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of the Doctor of 29
Philosophy, Texas, A&M University, College Station, Texas. 30
4. White, D. J., Mekkawy, M. M., Sritharan, S., and Suleiman, M. T. (2007). “Underlying 31
Causes for Settlement of Bridge Approach Pavement Systems.” Journal of Performance 32
of Constructed Facilities, 21(4), 273-282. 33
5. Stewart, C. F. (1985). “Highway Structure Approaches.” California Department of 34
Transportation, Sacramento, CA 35
6. Ardani, A. (1987). “Bridge Approach Settlement.” Rep. No. CDOT-DTP-R-87-06, 36
Colorado Dept. of Highways, Denver. 37
7. Tadros, M. K. and Benak, J. V. (1989). “Bridge Abutment and Bridge Approach Slab 38
Settlement, phase I.” Final Rep., Nebraska Dept. of Roads, Lincoln, Nebraska. 39
15
Ruttanaporamakul et al.
15
8. Wahls, H. E. (1990). NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 159: Design and 1
Construction of Bridge Approaches. Transportation Research Board, National Research 2
Council, Washington, D.C. 3
9. Mahmood, I. U. (1990). “Evaluation of causes of bridge approach settlement and 4
development of settlement prediction models.” PhD Thesis, University of Oklahoma, 5
Norman, Okla. 6
10. Kramer, S. L. and Sajer, P. (1991) “Bridge Approach Slab Effectiveness.” Final Report, 7
Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington. 8
11. Archeewa, E. (2010). “Comprehensive Studies on Deep Soil Mixing and Lightweight 9
Aggregates Application to Mitigate Approach Slab Settlements.” Dissertation submitted 10
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of the Doctor of Philosophy, the 11
University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas. 12
12. Chen, Y. and Chai, Y. H. (2011). “Experimental Study on the Performance of Approach 13
Slabs under Deteriorating Soil Washout Conditions.” Journal of Bridge Engineering, 14
September/October 2011(16), 624-632. 15
13. Puppala A. J., Archeewa, E., Saride, S., Nazarian, S., and Hoyos, L. (2012). 16
“Recommendations for design, construction, and maintenance of bridge approach slabs.” 17
Report No. FHWA/TX-11/0-6022-2, Texas Department of Transportation, TX. 18
14. Hoppe, E. J. (1999). Guidelines for the Use, Design, and Construction of Bridge 19
Approach Slabs: Final Report, Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, 20
Virginia. 21
15. Dupont, B. and Allen, D. (2002). “Movements and Settlements of Highway Bridge 22
Approaches.” Rep. No. KTC-02-18/SPR-220-00-1F, Kentucky Transportation Center 23
Report, Lexington, KY. 24
16. Abu-Hejleh, N., Hanneman, D., White, D. J. and Ksouri, I. (2006). “Flowfill and MSE 25
Bridge Approaches: Performance, Cost and Recommendations for Improvements.” 26
Report No. CDOT-DTD-R-2006-2. Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver. 27
17. Hsi, J. P. (2008). “Bridge Approach Embankments Supported on Concrete Injected 28
Columns.” Proceedings of The Challenge of Sustainability in the Geoenvironment, 29
ASCE, Geocongress 08, New Orleans, Louisiana. 30
18. Frydenlund, T. E. and Aaboe, R. (2001). “Long term performance and durability of EPS 31
as a lightweight fill material.” EPS Geofoam 2001, 3rd International Conference, UT. 32
19. Stark, T. D., Arellano, D., Horvath, J. S., and Leshchinsky, D. (2004). “Geofoam 33
applications in the design and construction of highway embankments.” NCHRP Web 34
Document 65, Project 24-11, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 35
Transportation Research Board. 36
20. Dusenberry, K. and Bygness, R. (2006). “Geofoam provides lightweight fill for York 37
Bridge in Washington.” Geosynthetics Magazine, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2-7. 38
21. Thompsett, D. J., Walker, A., Radley, R. J., and Grieveson, B. M. (1995). "Design and 39
construction of expanded polystyrene embankments." Construction and Building 40
Materials, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 40341. 41
22. Elragi, A. F. (2006). “Selected engineering properties and applications of EPS geofoam.” 42
Copyright © Softoria 2006. 43
23. Bartlett, S. F., Lawton, E. C., Farnsworth, C. B., and Newman, M. P. (2012). “Design and 44
evaluation of expanded polystyrene geofoam embankments for the I-15 reconstruction 45
16
Ruttanaporamakul et al.
16
project, Salt Lake City, Utah.” Report No. UT-1X.XX, Utah Department of 1
Transportation, UT. 2
24. Negussey, D. and Stuedlein, A. (2003). “Geofoam fill performance monitoring.” Utah 3
Department of Transportation Research Division Report No. UT-03.17, UT. 4
25. Lin, Q.L., Wong, I.H. (1999). “Use of Deep Cement Mixing to Reduce Settlements at 5
Bridge Approaches.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 6
ASCE, Vol. 125(4),309. 7
26. TxDOT-FTW Committee (2002). “The Bump at the End of the Bridge.” Report to 8
District Staff., Texas Department of Transportation, Fort Worth District. 9
10
11
12