eps2011-i15

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

1/34

Construction and Long-Term Performance of TransportationInfrastructure Constructed Using EPS Geofoam on Soft Soil

Sites in Salt Lake Valley, Utah

S. Bartlett, D. Negussey, C. Farnsworth, A. Stuedlein

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

2/34

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

3/34

I-15

I-15

I-80

I-80

I-215

I-80

I-215

I-215

I-15

Wasatch

Mountains

Great

SaltLake

Oquirrh

Mountains

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

4/34

Geotechnical Conditions

Subsurface Profile in Salt Lake Valley

SoftClay (10-

m thick)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000

CPT Tip Resistance, kPa

Depth(m)

Bonneville Clay

Alluvium

Pleistocene Alluvium

Cutler Clay

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

5/34

Geotechnical Conditions

Settlement Record

12 m

1.4 m

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

6/34

Geotechnologies

PV Drains

2-Stage MSE Walls

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

7/34

Geotechnologies

Lime Cement ColumnsEPS Geofoam

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

8/34

Geofoam Placement Areas

500 N

100 S

400 S

900 S

1300 S

State St

2100 S

3300 S

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

9/34

Primary Uses of Geofoam on the I-15 Project

Reduce Settlement to Protect Buried Utilities

Improve Slope Stability of Embankments

Rapid Construction in Time Critical Areas

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

10/34

EPS Density

Property ASTMTest

C 578

T e XI T e I T e VIII* Type II Type IX

NominalDensity

(kg/m3)

C303 / D1622 12 16 20 24 32

Minimum

Density

(kg/m3)

C303 / D

1622

11 15 18 22 29

* Type VIII was used for I-15 Reconstruction

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

11/34

Geotechnical Instrumentation

VW Pressure Cells

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

12/34


Magnet Extensometers

LEVEL 0

LEVEL 4

LEVEL 2

LEVEL 6

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

13/34


Horizontal Inclinometer

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

14/34


Surveying

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

15/34

100 South Instrumentation Array

500 N

100 S

400 S

900 S

1300 S

State St

2100 S

3300 S

100 South

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

16/34

100 South Array

(Construction)

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

17/34

100 South Array

(cross-section view)

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

18/34

100 South Array

(profile view)

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

19/34

100 South Array

(Load and Pressure Cells)

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

20/34

100 South Array

(Vertical Strain)

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

21/34

100 South Array

(Creep Settlment)

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

22/34

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

23/34

3300 South Array

(Construction)

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

24/34

3300 South Geofoam Array

(Cross-Sectional View)

h

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

25/34

3300 South Array

(Load and Pressure Cells)

h

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

26/34

3300 South Array

(Vertical Settlement / Strain)

1 % vertical strain (end of construction)

3300 S h A

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

27/34

3300 South Array

(Creep Settlement)

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

28/34

State Street Instumentation

500 N

100 S

400 S

900 S

1300 S

State St

2100 S

3300 S

State Street

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

29/34

State Street Construction

State Street Array

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

30/34

State Street Array

St t St t A

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

31/34

State Street Array

(Pressure Cells Measurements)

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

32/34

Geotechnologies Settlement Performance

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

33/34

Conclusions

EPS geofoam exhibited the best overall settlement performance

of the I-15 geotechnologies

Compression, seating and inter-block gap closure of EPS

produced about 1 percent vertical deformation during

construction loading.

Vertical pressure levels are in reasonable agreement with

allowable design limits of about 30 kPa.

I-15 EPS embankment has undergone about 0.2 to 0.4 percent

creep deformation in a 10-year post construction period.

The 10-year design criterion has been met and the 50-year design

criterion of 1.5 percent total strain will most likely be met.

8/2/2019 EPS2011-I15

34/34

Questions

eps2011-i15

Documents