Lightweight fill can be advantageous in embankment construction for the purposes of reducing the (i) bearing pressures on the underlying soil foundation, (ii) destabilizing moments for constructed earthen slopes, and (iii) earth pressures acting behind retaining walls. This paper investigates the merits/limitations of particulate expanded polystyrene (EPS) beads mixed with clayey sand (CS) soil as lightweight fill, considering both geotechnical and environmental perspectives. The bench-scale geotechnical testing programme included standard Proctor (SP) compaction, California bearing ratio (CBR), direct shear (sheardox), oedometer and permeability testing performed on two different gradation CS soils amended with 0.5, 1.5 and 3.0 wt.% EPS, investigating two nominal bead sizes equivalent to poorly-graded medium and coarse sands. Compared to the unamended soils, the compacted dry density substantially decreased with increasing EPS beads content, from 2.09 t/m3 (0 wt.% EPS) to as low as 0.33 t/m3 for 3 wt.% (73 v.%) of larger-sized EPS beads. However, from analyses of the test results for the investigated 50 to 400 kPa applied stress range, even 0.5 wt.% (21 v.%) EPS beads caused a substantial mechanical failure, with a drastic decay of the CBR and compressibility parameters for the studied CS soils. Given the more detrimental environmental cost of leaving myriads of separate EPS beads mixed forever among the soil, it is concluded that the approach of adding particulate EPS beads to soils for producing uncemented lightened fill should not be employed in geotechnical engineering practice.
Review of annual progress of bridge engineering in 2019
