Properties and Applications of Cement-Treated

Sand-Expanded Polystyrene Bead Lightweight Fill

Linchang Miao, Ph.D.1; Fei Wang, Ph.D.2; Jie Han, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE3; Weihua Lv4; and Jing Li5

Abstract: To mitigate settlement problems associated with bridge approach embankments over soft soil, a newly-developed lightweight
material was proposed in this study. This lightweight material consisted of expanded polystyrene beads, the hydraulic sand from the Yangtze
River, and cement. The mechanical properties of the mixed lightweight material were determined through a series of laboratory tests, in-
cluding standard Proctor tests, unconfined compression tests, California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests, unconsolidated-undrained tests, and
consolidated-undrained tests. The laboratory results showed the favorable properties of the lightweight material and that it can be used
as a backfill material in highway embankment projects. A field study was also conducted to verify the performance of the embankment
backfilled with this lightweight material, which resulted in a smaller settlement than the embankment backfilled with lime-stabilized soil
(with and without any other ground improvement). Sand cone and CBR tests were performed in the field to verify the density and strength/
stiffness of the lightweight fill. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000556. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Cement; Embankments; Sand (hydraulic); Hydraulic fill.
Author keywords: Cement; Embankment; Expanded polystyrene beads; Hydraulic sand; Lightweight material.

Introduction
The design and construction of a highway embankment present
several challenges, such as bearing failure, excessive total and dif-
ferential settlements, slope instability, which may result from the
weight of the embankment, and/or a weak foundation. Many
ground improvement methods have been proposed to mitigate these
problems. One ground improvement method is to reduce the weight
of the embankment using lightweight backfill material, especially
when soft soil exists. Different types of lightweight materials have
been developed and used in many projects, including geo-foam,
air-foam, waste tire chips, and hydraulic sand mixed with expanded
polystyrene (EPS) beads. (Oh et al. 2002; Tsuchida and Kang 2002;
Gan and Tan 2003; Tsuchida and Egashira 2004; Wang and Miao
2009; Miao et al. 2010).
With the rapid development of the Chinese economy, many
infrastructures have been constructed in recent years, for example,
highways and high-speed railways; especially in the east coast of
China, where soft soils exist in wide areas. How to deal with the
total and differential settlements of bridge approach embankments
has become one of the most challenging tasks in highway and
1 taining walls to reduce lateral earth pressure. Ikizler et al. (2008),
Professor, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Southeast Univ.,
Nanjing, Jiangsu, China, 210096 (corresponding author). E-mail:
lc.miao@seu.edu.cn
2
Lecturer, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Southeast Univ.,
Nanjing, Jiangsu, China, 210096. E-mail: feiwangseu@gmail.com
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineer-
ing, Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045. E-mail: jiehan@ku.edu
4
Ph.D. candidate, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Southeast
Univ., Nanjing, Jiangsu, China, 210096. E-mail: lvweihua@yahoo.com.cn
5
Ph.D. student, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Southeast Univ.,
Nanjing, Jiangsu, China, 210096. E-mail: lijing6952@hotmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 18, 2011; approved
on April 19, 2012; published online on April 23, 2012. Discussion period
open until June 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil En-
gineering, Vol. 25, No. 1, January 1, 2013. © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/
2013/1-86-93/$25.00.
railway projects in the areas with soft soil. In this study, a
lightweight backfill (i.e., cement-treated Yangtze River hydraulic
sand-EPS beads) was proposed for highway embankment projects.
The properties of this lightweight fill were evaluated in the lab and
an actual embankment was constructed with this fill, evaluated, and
monitored in the field.
Literature Review
Typically, EPS is used in two different ways: (1) EPS blocks (also
called EPS geo-foam) and (2) EPS beads mixed with soil and
binder. EPS geo-foam is a lightweight plastic block that has been
used around the world as a fill for more than 30 years due to its
favorable characteristics, such as light mass, high strength, good
chemical and water stability, reasonable mechanical properties,
and convenience in construction. A typical EPS geo-foam is ap-
proximately 1=100 the weight of most soils. The first successful
project using EPS geo-foam blocks was in Norway in 1965 and
the first road embankment project using EPS geo-foam blocks
was completed in 1972 (Frydenlund 1991). Recently, there has
been considerable interest in the use of EPS geo-foam behind re-
for example, found that the swelling pressure caused by expansive
soil behind a retaining wall might be considerably reduced by the
EPS geo-foam, which can accommodate soil expansion and reduce
swelling pressure. Furthermore, Hatami and Witthoeft (2007)
found that placement of geo-foam behind the reinforced zone of
a reinforced soil retaining wall (RSRW) could reduce the maximum
lateral earth pressure behind this zone by 75% at most, and the
reduction of lateral earth pressure depended on the backfill type
and the geo-foam thickness and stiffness. Stark et al. (2004) dis-
cussed the use of EPS geo-foam blocks as fill material in highway
embankments and compared their costs with those constructed with
typical soil fill. They concluded that EPS geo-foam provided a safe
and economical solution for embankments on soft soil. In Japan,
Tsuchida (1995) and Tsuchida et al. (1996) discussed the use of
dredged soil mixed with air-foam and stabilized by cement as a

86 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2013

lightweight fill on soft soil and concluded that the cost of the light-
weight material was offset by the reduced need for ground improve-
ment and the benefit of utilizing waste material. Miki (1996) found
that the inclusion of EPS beads made the lightweight soil much
lighter than the ordinary soil. Typically, the unit weight of a light-
weight soil is approximately 6 to 15 kN=m3 (Kim et al. 2008).
The use of a lightweight fill can reduce the total weight of an
embankment by 30 to 50%. This amount of weight reduction is
beneficial for the control of settlement, especially at the connection
between bridge and embankment. In addition, the reduced weight
of the embankment can avoid possible bearing failure. Typically, a
lightweight soil has similar flexibility to an ordinary soil, and thus,
can settle adaptively with the ground. The strength and stiffness of a
lightweight soil can be adjusted by changing the type and/or
content of the stabilizer on the basis of soil type and project require-
ments. Geo-foam is generally considered to be a costly material;
therefore, it has limited applications, mostly dealing with bridge
approaching problems. However, EPS beads are inexpensive
compared with EPS blocks (geo-foam), not only because they
can be mixed with soil to save the volume of EPS to meet the same
settlement requirement; but also because they can be recycled from
packaging materials, which are often treated as waste. Considering
both the cost and capacity of reducing fill material weight, the use
of EPS beads with soil and binder can be an attractive solution for
the construction of embankments.
Composition of the Lightweight Material
The proposed lightweight material in this study consisted of EPS
beads, Yangtze River hydraulic sand, and cement. The EPS beads,
as shown in Fig. 1(a), are white, rounded particles with diameters
Fig. 1. (a) EPS beads; (b) lightweight fill specimen with EPS beads
(Wang and Miao 2009)
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2013 / 87
varying from 2 to 3 mm, depending on the manufacturing pro-
cedure. Typically, EPS beads are manufactured through an expan-
sion process. In this process, expandable polystyrene particles are
placed into a container and heated with steam, which causes a
blowing agent to become gas, thus expanding the particles to ap-
proximately 50 times their initial volumes. The presence of gas in
EPS beads reduces the bulk density of EPS beads to only
0.0127 g=cm3 . EPS beads can be produced either in a factory or
at a construction site. The unit weight of the cement-treated
sand-EPS bead lightweight fill, as shown in Fig. 1(b), highly de-
pends on the amount of EPS beads in the mixture. Yangtze River
hydraulic sand is abundant in the Yangtze River area and is readily
available for nearby projects. The use of the readily available
Yangtze River sand can significantly reduce the cost of embank-
ment construction. Portland cement was selected in this study to
bond EPS beads and hydraulic sand together as a mixture, which
has the necessary strength and stiffness for carrying loads and
reducing compressibility. Overall, the proposed cement-treated
sand-EPS bead lightweight fill has four major advantages: it is
lightweight, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly, and pos-
sesses sufficient strength and stiffness.
Laboratory Study
The sand used in the laboratory tests was taken from the Yangtze
River and air dried. Particles larger than 2 mm were removed by
sieving through a sieve. The sand passing the 2-mm sieve was used
to obtain the grain size distribution, as shown in Fig. 2. According to
the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487-11) (2011a),
this sand can be classified as poorly graded sand (SP). The EPS
beads used in the laboratory tests had a diameter of approximately
2 mm. Cement was used with water as a binder to bond the cohe-
sionless sand and EPS beads together for strength and stiffness after
an appropriate curing time. In the unconfined compression test,
under each test condition, three specimens were prepared and tested.
If their unconfined compressive strength significantly deviated
(i.e., greater than 5% error), additional specimens would be prepared
and tested until three samples had consistent unconfined compres-
sive strength. The test data shown in the paper are the stress and
strain values of the specimen with the median unconfined compres-
sive strength. In the consolidated undrained (CU) and unconsoli-
dated undrained (UU) tests, three specimens used for three
different confining pressures and additional specimens were pre-
pared and tested if a Mohr’s failure envelope could not be created.
Standard Proctor Tests
To obtain the optimum water content and the maximum dry
density of the lightweight fill, standard Proctor tests were
Fig. 2. Particle-size distribution curve of the Yangtze River sand
conducted. The lightweight fills were prepared at three different
volume ratios of sand to EPS beads (i.e., 5∶5, 6∶4, and 7∶3). The
cement content of these fills was 7% in terms of the weight of
dry sand. Fig. 3 presents the compaction curves of the lightweight
fills at different volume ratios of sand to EPS beads. The optimum
water contents and maximum dry densities of these fills are sum-
marized in Table 1. It is shown that the optimum water contents
ranged from approximately 16 to 17% for all three fills and slightly
increased with an increase of the volume ratio of sand to beads. In
addition, an increase of the sand volume made the fill less sensitive
to water. Fig. 3 and Table 1 also show that an increase in the volume
of EPS beads reduced the maximum dry density of the fill. Because
the price of EPS beads was higher than sand, the increase of the
volume of EPS beads also increased the cost of the fill. Therefore,
the cost of the fill should be one of the important factors to be con-
sidered in the determination of the volume ratio of sand to EPS
beads, in addition to fill density and mechanical properties
(strength and compressibility), which will be discussed in the fol-
lowing section.
To investigate the effect of the cement content on the optimum
water content and the maximum dry density of the lightweight fill,
four lightweight fills at cement contents of 6, 8, 9, and 10% were
tested using the standard Proctor test, as was the fill with a cement
content of 7%. The same volume ratio of sand to EPS beads at 5∶5
was adopted in the preparation of these four fills. Fig. 4 shows the
compaction curves of the lightweight fills at different cement con-
tents. The optimum water contents and the maximum dry densities
of these five fills are listed in Table 2. The test results demonstrated
that the optimum water content and the maximum dry density of the
lightweight fill were not significantly affected by the cement content.
Unconfined Compression Tests
Cubic specimens of 70.7 × 70.7 × 70.7 mm were prepared for
unconfined compression tests at the optimum water content and
maximum dry density. The specimen size and preparation followed
the Chinese Standard JTG E30-2005 (China Ministry of Commu-
nication 2005). Each unconfined compression test was performed
using the displacement control method at the displacement rate of
Fig. 3. Compaction curves of lighweight fills at different volume ratios
of sand to EPS beads
Table 1. Optimum Water Content and Maximum Dry Density of the
Lightweight Fill at Different Volume Ratios
Volume ratio of Optimum water Maximum dry
sand to EPS beads content (%) density (g=cm3 )
5∶5 15.2 1.03
6∶4 16.3 1.20
7∶3 16.8 1.32
88 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2013
1 mm=min. In all unconfined compression tests, the specimens
were prepared at the volume ratio of sand to EPS bead of 5∶5
and the cement contents at 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10%. Specimens were
cured for 7 or 14 days at an average temperature of 20°C.
Fig. 5 shows the stress-strain curves of the specimens at differ-
ent cement contents and curing times. The figure shows that the
peak strength of the specimen increased with an increase of the
cement content and the curing time. The axial strain corresponding
to the peak strength ranged from approximately 3 to 6%. No sudden
failure was observed; instead, the stress decreased with an increase
of the axial strain after the peak value. This result indicated that the
cement-treated sand-EPS bead lightweight fill was ductile rather
than brittle. The mean elastic modulus of the specimen can be cal-
culated based on the stress at 50% peak strength and its correspond-
ing strain, i.e., E50 . The E50 values are summarized in Table 3. It is
shown that the cement-treated sand-EPS bead lightweight fill had a
relatively high elastic modulus or stiffness, so the compression of
this lightweight fill is expected to be small for embankment appli-
cations. Lime-stabilized soil is one of the common backfill materi-
als used in the construction of highway embankments in China.
The typical E50 value of lime-stabilized soils used in highway em-
bankment projects is approximately 8 MPa (the degree of compac-
tion is 95%, the lime content is 10%, and the curing time is 30 days)
(Guo 2008). Therefore, this lightweight fill had comparable or even
higher E50 values than lime-stabilized soils.
California Bearing Ratio Tests
The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test is a penetration test that is
commonly used to evaluate the mechanical properties (strength or
stiffness) of subgrade and base courses. This test is performed by
measuring the pressure required for a piston with a standard area to
penetrate into a soil specimen to a depth of 2.5 or 5.0 mm. The
ASTM standard D1883-07e2 (2007a) was followed to perform
the CBR tests for the cement-treated sand-EPS bead lightweight
fill. The specimens used for the CBR tests were the lightweight
fills at the cement contents of 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10% and the volume
Fig. 4. Compaction curves of lightweight fills at different cement
contents (Wang and Miao 2009)
Table 2. Optimum Water Content and Maximum Dry Density of the
Lightweight Fill at Different Cement Contents
Optimum water Maximum dry
Cement content (%) content (%) density (g=cm3 )
6 15.0 1.02
7 15.2 1.03
8 15.5 1.01
9 15.6 1.01
10 15.3 1.01
ratio of sand to EPS beads of 5∶5. Table 4 lists the measured CBR
values of the lightweight fills at different cement contents. The test
results show that the CBR value of the lightweight fill increased
with the increase of the cement content. The CBR values of the
specimens at cement contents from 6 to 10% were higher than
4%, which is the required CBR value for highway embankment
fill according to the Chinese specifications (JTG D30-2004) (China
Ministry of Communication 2004). Therefore, the proposed light-
weight fill is suitable for highway embankment projects.
Unconsolidated Undrained Tests
Unconsolidated undrained triaxial shear tests were conducted in
this study at the confining pressures of 100, 200, and 300 kPa
to obtain the shear strength parameters of the cement-treated
sand-EPS bead lightweight fill. ASTM D2850-03a (2007b) was
followed for the UU tests in this study. The specimens prepared
for the UU tests had the dimensions of 3.91 cm in diameter and
8 cm in height, the volume ratio of sand to EPS beads at 5∶5,
and the cement content of 7%. At each confining pressure, two
specimens were tested at two different curing times (i.e., 7 and
14 days). Each specimen was saturated using the back-pressure
method before the UU test. Figs. 6 and 7 show the stress-strain
curves and the total stress failure envelopes of the lightweight fills
obtained from the UU tests at 7 and 14-day curing times. Fig. 6
shows that the deviator stress increased with the confining pressure
and curing time, and did not reach a peak value at the axial strain
greater than 15%. Fig. 7 shows that the lightweight fill had an un-
drained cohesion of 40 to 60 kPa and a total friction angle of 9.1 to
9.6°. The undrained cohesion was controlled by the bonding
strength of cement. The angle of internal friction might result from
the presence of EPS beads in the mixes. Fig. 7 also implies that the
UU shear strength parameters of the lightweight fill slightly in-
creased with the curing time.

Consolidated Undrained Tests

CU tests with pore pressure measurements are often used to deter-
mine effective strengths of soils. This test method was used to

Fig. 5. Stress-strain curves of the lightweight fills from unconfined

compression tests at different cement contents and curing times (Wang
and Miao 2009): (a) 7 days; (b) 14 days

Table 3. E50 Values of the Lightweight Fill from Unconfined Compression

Test at Different Cement Contents and Curing Times
Cement Curing time 50% peak Corresponding E50
content (%) (days) strength (kPa) strain (%) (MPa)
6 7 71 3.10 2.29
14 76 1.91 3.98
7 7 83 2.00 4.15
14 120 2.48 4.84
8 7 97 1.04 9.33
14 142 0.98 14.49
9 7 108 2.32 4.66
14 145 1.30 11.15
10 7 137 1.04 13.20
14 200 1.61 12.42

Table 4. Measured CBR Values of the Lightweight Fill at Different

Cement Contents
Cement content (%) CBR (%)
6.0 4.27
7.0 5.15
8.0 6.03
9.0 6.73 Fig. 6. Stress-strain curves of the lightweight fills from UU tests at
10.0 8.21 different confining pressures and curing times: (a) 7 days; (b) 14 days

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2013 / 89

determine the effective strength of the lightweight fill. CU test pro-
cedures in ASTM D4767-11 (2011b) were followed in this study.
The specimens used in the CU tests were prepared in the same way
and same size as those in the UU tests, but were only cured for
7 days at an average temperature of 20°C. Each specimen was first
saturated using the back-pressure method before the CU test. A
series of CU tests was conducted at different confining pressures
(i.e., 30, 50, 80, 120, 150, 200, 250, 300, and 400 kPa) to simulate
different heights of embankments. Fig. 8 shows the stress-strain
curves of the lightweight fills from the CU tests, which did not have
any peak value. The test results also show that when the confining
pressure was lower than 80 kPa, it had an insignificant effect on the
maximum deviator stress. However, the maximum deviator stress in-
creased with the confining pressure increase when the confining pres-
sure was higher than 80 kPa. The effective stress failure envelope in
Fig. 9 has two straight lines, which are referred to as Line 1 and Line
2. Line 1 is horizontal (i.e., ϕ ¼ 0) when the total confining pressure
is lower than 80 kPa. This result is consistent with the finding from
the stress-strain curves. The intercept of Line 1 is 44 kPa, which is
almost equal to the undrained cohesion of the lightweight fill
Fig. 7. Total stress failure envelope of the lightweight fill from UU
tests at different curing times: (a) 7 days; (b) 14 days
Fig. 8. Stress-strain curves of the lightweight fill obtained from the CU
tests at different confining pressures
90 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2013
obtained from the UU tests. As discussed earlier, the undrained co-
hesion was controlled by the bonding strength of cement; therefore, it
is independent of the confining pressure. After overcoming the bond-
ing strength of cement (i.e., the confining pressure was higher than
80 kPa), the lightweight fill exhibited an increasing shear strength
with the confining pressure (i.e., Line 2) at an effective friction angle
of 17.7°. The increase of the shear strength with the confining pres-
sure was controlled by the shearing between sand or EPS particles.
Field Study
To evaluate the field performance of the lightweight fill proposed in
this study, this fill was used in a highway embankment project that
connects the Taizhou Yangtze River Bridge and the Hu-Ning (from
Shanghai to Nanjing) highway in China. This highway embank-
ment is located on a back swamp of the Yangtze River, where soft
soils exist in a wide area. Fig. 10 shows the soil profile and proper-
ties at the construction site. The groundwater table was at the depth
of 0.5 m below the ground surface. A highly compressible muddy
silty clay layer (the coefficient of volumetric compressibility was
0.25 MPa−1 ) with a thickness of 5.3 m was located at 1 m below
the ground surface. The Yangtze River sand is readily available on
the construction site and can be used as a fill for the embankment.
However, this sand is too weak and cannot be directly used as the
embankment fill. This soil can be stabilized by lime; however, the
lime-stabilized soil is too heavy and expected to induce large set-
tlement on the natural ground. Therefore, ground improvement is
needed to minimize the settlement. Another feasible option is to use
a lightweight fill to minimize the embankment load and thus reduce
the settlement. The lightweight fill option is also more cost-
effective because it does not require ground improvement. Three
embankments were constructed on the site to compare their perfor-
mances: (1) lime-stabilized soil embankment without ground
improvement, (2) lime-stabilized soil embankment with ground im-
provement by deep mixing, and (3) cement-treated sand-EPS bead
embankment without ground improvement. The embankment was
42.0 m wide at the crest and 5.0 m high with 1∶1.5 (V∶H) slopes on
both sides. Fig. 11 shows the picture of the embankment backfilled
with the cement-treated sand-EPS bead lightweight material. The
geotextile in the figure was used to prevent water from evaporating
from the fill and to ensure the hydration of cement in the fill.
The lightweight fill was prepared with a volume ratio of sand to
EPS beads of 5∶5 and a cement content of 7%. Considering possible
water evaporation during the construction, the lightweight fill was
mixed at a water content of 18%, which was 2.8% higher than the
optimum water content mentioned previously. The required degree
Fig. 9. Effective stress failure envelope of the lightweight fill from CU
tests
 Fig. 10. Soil profile and properties at the construction site
Fig. 11. Embankment backfilled with cement-treated sand-EPS bead
lightweight material
of compaction ranged from 93 to 94%, depending on the depth
of the fill. The following procedure was adopted to construct
the embankment: (1) the fill was placed in the lift thickness of
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2013 / 91
25 cm; (2) the fill was compacted for two passes using a 10-ton
smooth-wheel roller; (3) the fill was compacted for three passes
using a 20-ton smooth-wheel roller; (4) the fill was compacted into
a smooth surface using the 10-ton smooth-wheel roller for two
passes; (5) the embankment fill was covered with one layer of geo-
textile to maintain the water during the curing of the lightweight
fill; and (6) water was sprayed on the fill twice a day (the amount
of water depended on the air temperature and humidity) and each
lift was typically cured for 5 to 7 days.
For quality assurance, sand cone and CBR tests were performed
to evaluate the degree of compaction and strength/stiffness of the
lightweight fill in the field. Table 5 lists the degree of compaction
obtained by the sand cone tests in the field. The test results
demonstrate that the degree of compaction of the embankment con-
structed with the lightweight fill met the compaction requirement
recommended by the Chinese specifications (JTG D30-2004)
(China Ministry of Communication 2004). Therefore, the compac-
tion procedure used in the field was effective to control the density
of the lightweight fill.
CBR tests were conducted in the field to evaluate the strength/
stiffness of the lightweight fill used as the embankment fill, follow-
ing the test method recommended in the Chinese specifications
(JTG E60-2008) (China Ministry of Communication 2008). The
measured CBR values are summarized in Table 6. Both measured
Table 5. Degrees of Compaction of the Lightweight Fill at the
Construction Site
Depth from the embankment Required degree of Measured degree of
surface (cm) compaction (%)a compaction (%)
0 to 25 94 99.4
25 to 50 94 97.5
50 to 75 94 95.5
75 to 100 93 94.2
100 to 125 93 95.0
125 to 150 93 95.3
150 to 175 93 94.5
175 to 200 93 96.1
200 to 225 93 93.7
225 to 250 93 95.8
250 to 275 93 94.4
275 to 300 93 94.9
300 to 325 93 96.1
325 to 350 93 95.3
350 to 375 93 96.5
375 to 400 93 97.6
400 to 425 93 95.2
425 to 450 93 95.6
450 to 475 93 94.8
475 to 500 93 95.2
a
JTG D30-2004 (China Ministry of Communication 2004).

Table 6. CBR Test Results in the Field

Test Required CBR value (%)a Measured CBR value (%)
1 4 10.1 Fig. 13. Measured settlements of the lime-stabilized embankments:
2 4 9.7 (a) on untreated ground; (b) on treated ground by deep mixing
a
JTG D30-2004 (China Ministry of Communication 2004).

of 5 m was approximately 9 cm and the settlement was stable

Fig. 12. Measured settlement of the embankment backfilled with the
cement-treated sand-EPS lightweight material
CBR values in the field are much higher than the required CBR
value of 4% in the Chinese specifications (JTG D30-2004) (China
Ministry of Communication 2004). This evaluation demonstrates
that the proposed lightweight fill can be used as a fill material
in highway embankment projects.
Fig. 12 shows that the measured settlement of the embankment
backfilled with the cement-treated sand-EPS bead lightweight
material increased with the embankment height. The settlements
were measured in the middle of the embankment bottom where
the maximum settlement mostly took place, according to the
Chinese specification (JTG D30-2004) issued by the China
Ministry of Communication (2004). Under this lightweight
material embankment, the soft soils were not treated. The maxi-
mum settlement at the lightweight material embankment height
for one year since the beginning of the construction. Fig. 13 shows
the measured settlements of the lime-stabilized soil embankments
over the untreated ground and treated ground by deep mixing. The
deep mixed columns were arranged in an equilateral triangle
pattern with a length of 16 m, spacing of 1.5 m, and diameter
of 0.5 m. The cement content of the deep mixed columns was
15%. Fig. 13(a) shows that the maximum settlement of the embank-
ment at the similar height over the untreated ground reached 22 cm,
which is more than double that of the embankment backfilled with
the cement-treated sand-EPS bead lightweight fill. Fig. 13(b) shows
that the maximum settlement of the embankment at the similar
height over the treated ground by deep mixing was more than
11 cm, which is still larger than that of the embankment backfilled
with the cement-treated sand-EPS bead lightweight fill. Ground
improvement takes time and requires additional cost. Therefore,
the embankment backfilled with the cement-treated sand-EPS
bead lightweight material was the best option among these three
methods.
Conclusions
Settlement is an essential performance criterion in embankment de-
sign, especially for bridge approaches. The embankment settlement
is mainly induced by the weight of the embankment fill. This paper
proposed a new embankment fill to mitigate the settlement prob-
lem, which consists of EPS beads, Yangtze River sand, and cement.
Both laboratory tests and a field study of the actual embankment
were conducted to determine the properties of this fill and evaluate
the performance of the embankment constructed with this fill. From
this study, the following conclusions can be drawn:

92 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2013

 1. The maximum dry density of the cement-treated sand-EPS
bead lightweight fill was much lower than the lime-stabilized
soil embankment fill. The density of the lightweight fill de-
pended on the amount of EPS beads in the mix.
2. The lightweight fill had ductile behavior without sudden
failure in the unconfined compression tests.
3. The lightweight fill had a suitable CBR value (higher than
4%), which can be used as an embankment fill based on
the specifications.
4. The lightweight fill had not only cohesion, but also friction
angle under UU tests because of the existence of cement
and EPS beads.
5. Due to the chemical bonding by cement, the shear strength of
the lightweight fill under CU tests was constant when the con-
fining pressure was lower than 80 kPa. However, at a higher
confining pressure (higher than 80 kPa), the shear strength of
the fill increased with the confining pressure with a friction
angle of 17.7°.
6. The procedure for using the lightweight fill for field embank-
ment construction was presented in this paper. The results of
sand cone tests and CBR tests in the field verified the suitabil-
ity of the lightweight fill used for highway embankment con-
struction. The settlement observations of three comparable
embankments showed that the embankment backfilled with
the cement-treated sand-EPS lightweight fill had less than half
of the settlement of the lime-stabilized soil embankment on the
untreated ground and 20% less than the settlement of the lime-
stabilized embankment on the treated ground by deep mixing.
Acknowledgments
The research was sponsored by National Natural Science Fund
of China (Project No. 50878051). This sponsorship is greatly
appreciated.
References
ASTM. (2007a). “Standard test method for CBR (California Bearing
Ratio) of laboratory-compacted soils.” ASTM D1883-07e2, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2007b). “Standard test method for unconsolidated-undrained
triaxial compression test on cohesive soil.” ASTM D2850-03a, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2011a). “Standard practice for classification of soils for engineer-
ing purposes.” ASTM D2487-11, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2011b). “Standard test method for consolidated undrained
triaxial compression test on cohesive soil.” ASTM D4767-11, West
Conshohocken, PA.
China Ministry of Communication. (2004). “Specifications for highway
subgrade.” JTG D30-2004, Beijing.
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2013 / 93
China Ministry of Communication. (2005). “Standard test methods for ce-
ment and concrete in highway engineering.” JTG E30-2005, Beijing.
China Ministry of Communication. (2008). “Field test methods for sub-
grade and pavements in highway engineering.” JTG E60-2008, Beijing.
Frydenlund, T. E. (1991). “Expanded polystyrene—A lighter way across
soft ground.” Int. Rep. No. 1502, Norwegian Road Research Laboratory,
Oslo, Norway.
Gan, C. H., and Tan, S. M. (2003). “Some construction experience on soft
soil using light weight materials.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Advance in
Soft Soil Engineering and Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia Press,
Serdang Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia, 1–8.
Guo, C. L. (2008). “Study on settlement approaching the bridge and
remediation measurements.” Master’s thesis, Chang’an University,
Xi’an, China.
Hatami, K., and Witthoeft, A. F. (2007). “Reduction of backfill earth pres-
sure in reinforced soil walls using geofoam.” Proc., 86th TRB Annual
Meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Ikizler, S. B., Aytekin, M., and Nas, M. (2008). “Laboratory study of
expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam used with expansive soils.”
Geotext. Geomembr., 26(2), 189–195.
Kim, Y. T., Kim, H. J., and Lee, G. H. (2008). “Mechanical behavior
of lightweight soil reinforced with waste fishing net.” Geotext.
Geomembr., 26(6), 512–518.
Miao, L. C., Wang, F., Lv, W. H., and Li, J. (2010). “Study on cement-
treated Yangtze hydraulic sand mixed with expanded polystyrenes
(EPS) beads as backfill material in highway embankments.” Proc.,
GeoShanghai Int. Conf., ASCE, Shanghai, China, 372–378.
Miki, H. (1996). “An overview of lightweight banking technology in
Japan.” Proc., Int. Symp. on EPS Construction Method (EPS-
Tokyo’96), Tokyo, Japan, 9–30.
Oh, W. S., Lee, J. K., Kwon, Y. C., and Lee, B. J. (2002). “Bearing capacity
of light weight soil using recycled Styrofoam beads.” Proc., 12th Int.
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conf., ISOPE, CA, 670–674.
Stark, T. D., Horvath, J. S., and Leshchinsky, D. (2004). “Geo-foam appli-
cation in the design and construction of highway embankments.” TRB
Project No. 24-14, TRB, Washington, DC.
Tsuchida, T. (1995). “Super geo-material project in coastal zone.” Proc.,
Int. Symp. on Ocean Space Utilization, COSU’95, Japan’s Ministry
of Transport, Coastal Development Institute of Technology, and
University of Hawaii, Tokyo, Japan, and Hawaii, 22–31.
Tsuchida, T., and Egashira, K. (2004). “The lightweight treated soil
method: New geomaterials for soft ground engineering in coastal areas.”
A. A. Balkema, London.
Tsuchida, T., and Kang, M. S. (2002). “Use of lightweight treated soil
method in seaport and airport construction projects.” Proc., Nakase
Memorial Symp., Soft Ground Engineering in Coastal Areas, Balkema,
London, 353–365.
Tsuchida, T., Takeuchi, D., Okumura, T., and Kishida, T. (1996). “Develop-
ment of light-weight fill from dredgings.” Proc., Environmental
Geotechnics, Balkema, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 415–420.
Wang, F., and Miao, L. C. (2009). “A proposed lightweight fill for embank-
ments using cement-treated Yangtze River sand and expanded polysty-
rene (EPS) beads.” Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ., 68(4), 517–524.
Copyright of Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering is the property of American Society of Civil Engineers
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.