Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Contents of presentation
Introduction
Stress-Strain behaviour of EPS
Model calibration
Model tests
Laboratory model test
Full scale model test
Conclusion
Introduction
EPS does not typically exhibit failure like other solid
materials used in construction.
Steel, concrete
t = o + c
t - total strain, 0 immediate strain, c time dependent (creep) strain
Stress-strain behaviour of 21 kg/m3 EPS block under rapid, strain controlled, unconfined
axial compression (Horvath, 1995).
Model calibration
Hardening soil model in PLAXIS 2D V2010
A basic idea for the formulation of the Hardening Soil model is the
hyperbolic relationship between the vertical strain, 1, and the
deviatoric stress, q, in primary triaxial loading.
Model calibration
EPS material used for the model tests.
EPS type
EPS20
EPS30
EPS40
Density
(kg/m3)
20
Compressive stress at
5% strain (kPa)
100
40
240
30
180
Model calibration
Compressive Stress (kPa)
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
EPS20
EPS30
EPS40
40
0
0
10
Model calibration
EPS properties used in the calibrated Hardening Soil model
Hardening -Soil model parameter
Density(kg/m3)
Cohesion, c (kN/m2)
Friction angle, ( 0)
Dilatancy angle, ( 0)
Secant stiffness E50ref , (kPa)
Power, m
Poissons ratio,
Reference stress, pref (kPa)
EPS Type
EPS 20
20
EPS 30
30
EPS40
40
30
42
40
6000
9000
15000
0,1
0,1
0,1
35
0
0,5
100
60
0
0,5
100
75
0
0,5
100
Model tests
Laboratory model test
Using EPS 20
2m height with a load of 52.5 kPa
Model tests
Model tests
52.5 kPa
load
PC1
PC2,3,4
PC5
17 kPa
3 - 5kPa
12 kPa
PC 1
2m
PC 2
PC 3,4
PC 5
Model tests
PC1
PC2,3,4
9kPa vs 17 kPa
3 - 5kPa vs 3 - 5kPa
Model tests
Full scale model test
Using EPS 20, EPS 30 and EPS 40
Single lane Acrow steel bridge with one span
36.8m
Model tests
Lkkeberg bridge
Model tests
Model tests
Model tests
Model tests
Conclusion
The stressstrain behaviour of EPS geofoam in
the relatively low strain range can be fairly
simulated using Hardening soil model.
However, unlike soil the model parameters can
be determined by curve fitting technique.
The stress distribution in the EPS geofoam fill
also depends on the interaction between EPS
geofoam blocks. This could have been the reason
for some variations seen between the FEM
simulation result and the experimental result.