Screw Conveyor Device for Laboratory Tests on Conditioned

Soil for EPB Tunneling Operations

Daniele Peila1; Claudio Oggeri2; and Raffaele Vinai3

Abstract: Earth pressure balanced 共EPB兲 full face tunneling machines have experienced a remarkable increase in the number of
applications throughout the world due to both mechanical developments and a more effective use of additives to condition the ground.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by La Trobe University on 05/27/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Conditioning modifies the mechanical and hydraulic properties of a soil by making it suitable for the pressure control in the bulk chamber
and extraction with the screw conveyor. The extraction system plays a fundamental role during the EPB operations particularly for a
correct application of the face pressure. Despite the extensive use of the EPB technique, little knowledge exists concerning the under-
standing of the behavior of conditioned soil, particularly for noncohesive ground 共sand and gravel兲. This paper presents and describes a
prototype laboratory device, which simulates the extraction of the ground from a pressurized tank with a screw conveyor. The results of
a preliminary test program carried out on a medium sized sand show that the prototype device is efficient in verifying the effects of foam
for an optimal use in EPB conditioning.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2007兲133:12共1622兲
CE Database subject headings: Tunnelling; Foam; Laboratory tests; Soil properties.

Introduction
Earth pressure balanced 共EPB兲 shields have become increasingly
more popular since their first applications in Japan in the 1970s
due to both the mechanical development of EPB machines and
the more effective use of additives 共mainly foams and polymers兲,
which are injected into the bulk chamber and ahead of the ma-
chine cutting wheel in order to condition the ground. Condition-
ing agents change the mechanical and hydraulic behavior of a soil
into a plastic paste and thus permit soil pressure application at the
tunnel face. Consequently, the face stability can be controlled
共Anagnostou and Kovari 1996兲, the machine head torque can be
reduced and, finally, clogging can be minimized when tunneling
inside sticky clay.
Despite its great importance, very little experience on soil con-
ditioning has been achieved, particularly for cohesionless soils.
The conditioning criterion is usually defined on the basis of a
trial-and-error procedure directly developed on job sites. As the
EFNARC 共2001兲 guidelines clearly states: “At present soil con-
ditioning in soft ground tunnel boring machines remains very
much a “black art” determined largely by experience or trial and
1
Dept. of Land, Environment and Geo-engineering, Tunnelling and
Underground Space Center, Politecnico di Torino, Italy and, ICAG-CNR-
Italian National Research Council 共corresponding author兲. E-mail:
daniele.peila@polito.it
2
Dept. of Land, Environment and Geo-engineering, Tunnelling and
Underground Space Center, Politecnico di Torino, Italy.
3
Dept. of Land, Environment and Geo-engineering, Tunnelling and
Underground Space Center, Politecnico di Torino, Italy.
Note. Discussion open until May 1, 2008. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this technical note was submitted for review and
possible publication on February 7, 2006; approved on June 15, 2007.
This technical note is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvi-
ronmental Engineering, Vol. 133, No. 12, December 1, 2007. ©ASCE,
ISSN 1090-0241/2007/12-1622–1625/$25.00.
error. This is no implicit criticism but represents the reality in the
industry where there has been little formal research into the key
parameters”.
Among the studies concerning ground conditioning the follow-
ing should be mentioned: Kuribashi et al. 共1993兲, Maidl 共1995兲,
Herrenknecht and Maidl 共1995兲, and Quebaud et al. 共1998兲, who
offered the first qualitative quantification of the effect of foam,
and Milligan 共2001兲, who developed a state-of-the-art procedure
with specific reference to microtuneling applications, whereas the
EFNARC 共2001, 2005兲 guidelines provided indications on the use
of conditioned products. The simple slump cone test was used to
provide a measure of soil plasticity by Peron and Marcheselli
共1994兲, Quebaud et al. 共1998兲, Bordachar and Nicolas 共1998兲,
Jancsecz et al. 共1999兲, Williamson et al. 共1999兲, Peña 共2003兲,
Boone et al. 共2005兲, and Vinai et al. 共2006兲. Only a few large
scale tests, using screw conveyor devices have been carried out
by:
• Bezuijen and Schaminée 共2001兲 who studied the behavior of
conditioned sand soils with both a full-scale and a laboratory
model screw conveyor;
• Yoshikawa 共1996兲 who performed a number of tests using a
full-scale EPB screw conveyor with plastic soil and with dif-
ferent screw speeds; and
• Merritt and Mair 共2006兲 who used a laboratory screw con-
veyor device to test the extraction of soil from a tank with a
subhorizontal screw and carried out 16 tests on clay samples.
This laboratory device was made up of a pressurized tank
which was connected to a 1 m long and 0.1 m diameter hori-
zontal screw conveyor which was instrumented to measure the
torque and the total stress, the soil-casing shear stress and
thepore water pressure, in four sections.
From the above-described studies, it appears that only a test
that is able to simulate the extraction of ground from the bulk
chamber with the screw conveyor inclined upwards, as in real
machines, can offer a quantitative indication of the conditioned
soil behavior for EPB use. Thus, it appears relevant to develop a
standard laboratory device that can allow the positive effect of

1622 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2007

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2007.133:1622-1625.

 Table 1. Main Characteristics of the Installed Sensor
Limit Number
Sensor Range Device Sensitivity Linearity Repeat. load 共Fig. 1兲
Displacement wire transducer 1,000 mm Potentiometer 0.952 mV/ V / mm ±0.25% ±0.03% N.A. 5
F.S. F.S.
Torque meter 500 Nm Slip ring 2.004 mV/ V ±0.02% ±0.05% 130% 4
F.S. F.S. F.S.
Tank pressure cells 500 kPa Silicon strain 7 mV/ V ±0.02% ±0.05% 200% 6–7
gauge F.S. F.S. F.S.
Screw conveyor pressure cell 500 kPa Load cell with 2 mV/ V ±0.02% ±0.02% 200% 1–3
full bridge SG F.S. F.S. F.S
Scale 50 kg Load cell with 2 mV/ V ±0.02% ±0.02% 200% —
full bridge SG F.S. F.S. F.S
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by La Trobe University on 05/27/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

soil conditioning to be quantified and to permit an easy compari- Sample Preparation and Test Procedure
son of various conditioning products.
The soil sample is prepared by mixing 25 kg of soil with known
moisture into a concrete mixer with the required amount of foam.
Description of the Experimental Apparatus The mixer bowl is then turned for 120 s and the conditioned soil
is poured into the tank. This operation is repeated until the tank is
Normal EBP machines, with a diameter ranging from 5 to 10 m, full 共approximately 350 kg of conditioned soil sand is necessary
have a screw conveyor with a 0.6– 1.2 m diameter and a length/ for each test兲. The upper plate is then positioned and pushed down
diameter ratio between 13 and 5 even though the length of the by the jack until the test pressure is reached in the tank. The screw
screw can be longer when it is necessary to face high water pres- conveyor is then started and the material is collected and weighed
sure 共Lovat 2004兲. at the discharging outlet. During the extraction of the material the
The proposed laboratory device prototype represents an ap- upper plate is moved downward to maintain the pressure in the
proximate 1:10 screw conveyor scale model with a screw con- tank constant. The test is stopped when the piston reaches its
veyor length/diameter of nine. It was designed to allow an index maximum stroke.
laboratory test which could handle a limited ground volume but
also permits soils with relatively large particles 共up to 20 mm兲 to
be tested. Tests Carried out on Sand
The device is made of an 800 mm high tank with a 600 mm
nominal inner diameter which is filled with soil. An aluminium In order to assess the feasibility of the proposed test procedure
plate connected to a hydraulic jack, with a stroke of 500 mm, and laboratory device, a testing program 共Table 2兲 was carried out
applies a nominal pressure to the tank of up to 2 MPa, which is on a medium graded sand with a grain size distribution shown in
the value that can be encountered in a number of urban tunnels at Fig. 2. The data obtained from a fully saturated sand 共Tests S1
a depth of 10– 20 m. A 1,500 mm long screw conveyor is coupled and S2兲 and a foam conditioned sand sample 共Tests C1 and C2兲
to the tank with an upward inclination of 30° which is the average were compared. The foam conditioned sand sample had a water
value usually used in EPB machines and the screw extends inside content of 10% and foam injection ratio⫽共volume of foam兲/
the tank to collect and extract the soil. The diameter of the screw 共volume of soil兲 of 40%, which is the average value normally
case is 168 mm, the flights have a pitch of 100 mm and the screw
shaft has a 60 mm diameter.
The laboratory device was instrumented with following sen-
sors as shown Table 1 and Fig. 1:
• Three total pressure cells 共Numbers 1–3兲 to measure the total
normal stress applied along the screw conveyor case. They
consist of load cells with a 50 mm diameter rounded pad that
fits the inner screw case bending. The cells are 250 mm
spacedand the first cell has a distance from the tank of
430 mm;
• A torque meter, in line with the screw shaft, to measure the
torque transferred from the motor 共Number 4兲;
• A displacement wire transducer to control the upper plate
movement 共Number 5兲; and
• Two total pressure cells with a diameter of 114 mm to measure
the load under the upper plate and on the bottom of the tank
共Numbers 6 and 7兲. Fig. 1. Screw conveyor device cross-sectional drawing 共measure-
The foam used for the soil conditioning is obtained from an ments are in millimeters兲 and photograph of the laboratory screw
industrial foam generator adapted for laboratory purposes, which conveyor device. Installed sensors include: 共1–3兲 pressure cells along
allows the conditioning liquid flow and air flow to be controlled the screw conveyor; 共4兲 torque-meter; 共5兲 displacement of the upper
and the foaming agent concentration to be electronically con- plate wire transducer; 共6兲 tank upper pressure cell; and 共7兲 tank bot-
trolled. tom pressure cell.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2007 / 1623

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2007.133:1622-1625.

 Table 2. Results of the Tests on Saturated and Conditioned Sand; Cell
Numbering Starts from the Closest to the Tank
Tank pressure Screw conveyor pressure
共kPa兲 共kPa兲
Test Screw torque
number Top Bottom 共Nm兲 Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3
S1 150–230 110–120 30–40 4–8 4–6 2–4
S2 90–150 75–85 35–40 4–6 7–9 2–4
C1 80–95 90–100 6–10 20–23 12–14 4–6
C2 60–80 60–80 8–10 23–28 12–17 4–7

used in the practice for cohesionless soils 共EFNARC 2005兲. The

foam used was produced with a foam expansion ratio 共FER兲,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by La Trobe University on 05/27/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

defined as FER⫽共volume of foam兲/共volume of foam solution兲, of
17 and a foaming additive concentration of 2%. The rotation
speed of the screw was 6 revs./ min, which is close to the one that
is usually adopted in practice, and the nominal pressure applied to
the tank was 90 kPa at the top and 105 kPa at the bottom.
The analysis of the pressure transmission in the tank indicates
that, in the case of conditioned soil, the pressure is properly trans-
mitted from the top plate to the bottom of the tank as the material
has a plastic behavior. In comparison saturated sand is not able to
properly transmit the pressure and there is an irregular pressure
distribution inside the tank. In this latter case, the flow of the
granular material from the tank towards the screw conveyor in-
duces the creation of a draw cone, as observed with other types of
granular material flow 共Brady and Brown 1985兲, which reduces
the contact area between the upper plate and sand thus increasing
the pressure which is measured by the upper load cell 共Fig. 3兲.
The screw torque measured with the conditioned soil is 25%
of the value recorded when saturated sand is used and the torque
vsersus time diagram is more regular. Periodic peaks due to the
screw rotation speed are clearly evident for the saturated sand
共Fig. 4兲.
The upper plate displacement speed for conditioned sand is
higher than for saturated sand as the screw conveyor increases in
Fig. 3. Schematic representation of the material flow in the tank
during the extraction procedure. The conditioned material has a more
regular flow and a better transmission of the pressure.
efficiency and more material is extracted over the same time in-
terval. An analysis of the pressure along the screw conveyor
共Table 2兲 shows that the conditioned material is able to reduce the
pressure which undergoes a regular decrease from the tank to the
discharge outlet as observed by Bezuijen and Schaminée 共2001兲,
Yoshikawa 共1996兲, and Merritt and Mair 共2006兲. The same effect
is not observed when saturated sand is used, and, the pressures are
practically constant along the screw length with periodic peaks
due to the rotation of the screw flights. Further, the pressure val-
ues along the screw conveyor are higher and more regular during
the extraction when the conditioned materials are used. The geo-
metrical inclination of the screw conveyor explains the pressure
loss before the fist load cell, which was not observed by Merritt
and Mair 共2006兲 as they used a subhorizontal screw conveyor.
The described regular decrease in the pressure is an indication
that the screw was properly filled and that the conditioned mate-
rial acts like a moving impervious plug as is required when work-
ing with an EPB below the water table. These measurements are,
therefore, an indication of the quality of the filling of the screw
conveyor and of the ability of the conditioned material to control
and dissipate the pressure acting in the EPB bulk chamber.

Conclusions

Ground conditioning is a crucial component of EPB tunneling

applications. It is, therefore, of primary importance to design and
construct reliable laboratory test procedures that are able to per-
mit quantitative measurements of the conditioned ground behav-

Fig. 2. Grain size distribution of the tested sand Fig. 4. Torque values measured during Tests S1 and C1

1624 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2007

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2007.133:1622-1625.

 ior, particularly when working with cohesionless soil. A reliable
test procedure can only be carried out using a laboratory device
which can simulate the EPB extraction procedure from the bulk
chamber using a screw conveyor. This type of device can be a
reliable tool for study of conditioned soils as it permits the mea-
surement pf parameters which are directly linked with the full-
scale machine performance, namely: Torque on the screw, ability
of the material to transmit a pressure, possibility of homogeneous
flow, and pressure control along the screw conveyor. The results
of a preliminary test program, carried out on a medium sized
sand, show that the proposed device is efficient in verifying the
effects of foam conditioning and that relevant differences are evi-
dent between conditioned and nonconditioned sand samples.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by La Trobe University on 05/27/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Acknowledgments
The writers would like to thank the MAPEI Company for the
technical and financial support for this research. Special thanks
are due to Professor S. Pelizza for his suggestions and his guide
and to Dr. D. Gallina and Dr. L. Borio who cooperated in the
execution of the tests during their MSc thesis work. The writers
have contributed equally to the development of this research.
References
Anagnostou, G., and Kovari, K. 共1996兲. “Face stability conditions with
earth-pressure-balanced shields.” Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.,
11共2兲, 165–173.
Bezuijen, A., and Schaminée, P. E. L. 共2001兲. “Simulation of the EPB-
shield TBM in model tests with foam as additive.” Proc., Modern
Tunnelling Science and Technology, Kyoto, Japan, Balkema, Rotter-
dam, The Netherlands, 935–940.
Boone, S. J., Artigiani, E., Shirlaw, J. N., Ginanneschi, R., Leinala, T.,
and Kochmanova, N. 共2005兲. “Use of ground conditioning agents for
Earth pressure balance machine tunnelling.” Proc., Congrès Int. de
Chambéry, AFTES, Chambery, France, 313–319.
Bordachar, F., and Nicolas, L. 共1998兲. “Fluides conditionneurs pour la
pression de terre.” Tunnels et Ouvrages Souterrains, 169共1兲, AFTES,
21–27 共in French兲.
Brady, B. H., and Brown, E. T. 共1985兲. Rock mechanics for underground
mining, George Allen & Unwin, London.
EFNARC. 共2001兲. “Specification and guidelines for the use of specialist
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2007 / 1625
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2007.133:1622-1625.
products for soft ground tunnelling.” Recommendation of European
Federation of Producers and Contractors of Specialist Products for
Structures.
EFNARC. 共2005兲. “Specification and guidelines for the use of specialist
products for mechanized tunnelling 共TBM兲 in soft ground and hard
rock.” Recommendation of European Federation of Producers and
Contractors of Specialist Products for Structures.
Herrenknecht, M., and Maidl, U. 共1995兲. “Applying foam for an EPB
shield drive in Valencia.” Tunnel, 5/95, 10–19.
Jancsecz, S., Krause, R., and Langmaack, L. 共1999兲. “Advantages of soil
conditioning in shield tunnelling: experiences of LRTS Izmir.” Proc.,
Int. Congress on Challenges for the 21st Century, Alten et al., eds.,
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 865–875.
Kuribashi, Y., Yagi, K., and Ishimoto, H. 共1993兲. “The PMF super shield
tunneling process—Expanding applications for earth pressure bal-
anced shield tunnelling.” Proc., Int. Congress on Options for Tunnel-
ling 1993, Burger, ed., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 411–420.
Lovat, R. P. 共2004兲. “Design and manufacture of tunnel boring machines
for the north east interceptor sewer, Los Angeles 共USA兲.” Proc., Int.
Congress: Mechanized Tunnelling: Challenging Case Histories,
GEAM, Torino, Italy, 119–124.
Maidl, U. 共1995兲. “Erweiterung der Einsatzbereiche der Erddruckschilde
durch Bodenkonditionierung mit Schaum.” Ph.D. dissertation, Ruhr-
Universität Bochum, Germany 共in German兲.
Merritt, A., and Mair, R. J. 共2006兲. “Mechanics of tunnelling machine
screw conveyor: Model tests.” Geotechnique, 56共9兲, 605–615.
Milligan, G. 共2001兲. “Soil conditioning and lubricating agents in tunnel-
ling and pipe jacking.” Proc., Underground Construction 2001, Lon-
don, 105–116.
Peña, M. 共2003兲. “Soil conditioning for sands.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.,
July, 40–42.
Peron, J. Y., and Marcheselli, P. 共1994兲. “Construction of the ‘Passante
Ferroviario’ link in Milan. Italy. Lots 3P, 5P, and 6P: Excavation by
large EPBS with chemical foam injection.” Proc., Tunnelling ’94,
IMM, London, 679–707.
Quebaud, S., Sibai, M., and Henry, J. P. 共1998兲. “Use of chemical foam
for improvements in drilling by earth pressure balanced shields in
granular soils.” Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol., 13共2兲, 73–180.
Vinai, R., Oggeri, C., Peila, D., and Pelizza, S. 共2006兲. “Condizionamento
con schiuma dei terreni per applicazioni EPB: Sperimentazione medi-
ante un nuovo apparato di laboratorio.” Gallerie e grandi opere sot-
terranee, 78共1兲, 39–47 共in Italian兲.
Williamson, G. E., Traylor, M. T., and Higuchi, M. 共1999兲. “Soil condi-
tioning for EPB shield tunnelling on the South Bay Ocean outfall.”
Proc., RETC 1999, 897–925.
Yoshikawa, T. 共1996兲. “Soil pressure drop at the screw conveyor for
shielded machines.” Trans. Jpn. Soc. Mech. Eng., Ser. C, Part C
62共595兲, 1197–1203.