Using the Slump Test to Assess the Behavior of
Conditioned Soil for EPB Tunneling
DANIELE PEILA
CLAUDIO OGGERI
LUCA BORIO
Department of Land, Environment and Geoengineering, Tunnelling and Underground
Space Center, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli, Abrutzi, 24, 10129, Torino, Italy
Key Terms: Tunnels, Soil Mechanics, Laboratory
Testing, Tunnel Boring Machine, Soil Conditioning
ABSTRACT
In order to extend the application field of Earth
Pressure Balance (EPB) tunnel machines to various soil
conditions, the soil to be excavated has to be treated
with additives in order to modify its mechanical
properties, changing it into a plastic paste. Sometimes
the grain size distribution is also changed with the use
of fine-sized materials. The performance of the
conditioned soil should be evaluated with tests that
are able to describe its mass behavior, but very little
research has been carried out in this field. Often the
choice of the conditioning agent set and its control
during the excavation is made on a trial-and-error basis
during the excavation process. The slump cone test
performed on conditioned material is a fast and low-
cost way of checking this behavior both in the
laboratory and on the job site. The results of a test
program on different conditioned non-cohesive soils
using the slump cone test are presented and discussed.
The influence of the water content and the amount of
conditioning foam has been studied, and the feasibility
of this type of test for the control of EPB conditioned
soil has been assessed.
INTRODUCTION
Full-face Earth Pressure Balance shield (EPBS)
machines have been widely applied in urban environ-
ments, and at present they can be considered the most
commonly used mechanized equipment for soil
tunneling. Excavation using an EPBS is made by
rotating a cutterhead fitted with picks or disk cutters
or a combination of both (Figure 1). The soil
excavated at the face enters into a bulk chamber
(also named a ‘‘plenum’’) directly behind the cutter-
head, where the soil is mixed with conditioning agents
Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XV, No. 3, August 2009, pp. 167–174
to give it a plastic, ‘‘pulpy’’ consistency. The pressure
of the soil in the bulk chamber, which is maintained
by a combination of the moving thrust and the
volume rate removal of the material, provides a
stabilizing action at the tunnel face to counteract the
underground water and soil pressure (Maidl et al.,
1995; Anagnostou and Kovari, 1996; and Gugliel-
metti et al., 2007). The conditioned soil is then
removed, in a controlled manner, from the bulk
chamber with a screw conveyor. The conditioned soil
inside the screw conveyor forms an impervious plug,
which ensures that there is no loss of pressure in the
bulk chamber and that no water enters (Yoshikawa,
1996). At the end of the screw drive, the spoil is
discharged onto a conveyor belt that transports it,
usually using trains, outside the tunnel.
Conditioning is done by modifying the soil into a
plastic, pulpy, impermeable paste that is able to
correctly control tunnel face ground movements; to
apply a stabilizing pressure to the face; to control the
water flow; to reduce wear of the tools, the cutter-
head, and the screw conveyor; and to permit easy
handling of the muck during transport. Determining
the optimum amount of conditioning agents that will
control the properties of the pulpy paste and the
conditioned soil behavior during excavation is there-
fore a key problem in EPB technology.
Very few laboratory tests on conditioning agents
have been carried out, and conditioning design is
often based on the workers’ experience or is
determined according to a ‘‘trial-and-error’’ proce-
dure performed directly on the job sites in the first
stretch of the tunnel. However, with reference to
water content and amount of conditioning agent, it is
much more suitable that the properties of the
conditioned soil should instead be assessed using
laboratory tests to give some reference data to the job
site operations in order to shorten and simplify the
usual trial-and-error procedure done on site at the
beginning of the excavation. These tests must be able
to provide an easy comparison of the various
167
 Peila, Oggeri, and Borio

Figure 1. Schematic drawing of the main elements that constitute an EPB shield machine. The photographs show the cutting wheel of an
EPB machine (a) (Herrenknecht News, March 2001); the shield (b) (machine that excavated the Line 1 of Turin Metro—courtesy Gruppo
Torinese Trasporti); and an example of a segment lining (c). The white arrows indicate the path of the excavated soil.

additives available on the market, the definition of the
correct amount of conditioning agents, and an easy
control of the conditioning quality during excavation.
The characterization of conditioned soil is usually
obtained using tests derived from geotechnical or
concrete measurement technologies; these tests in-
clude the mixing test, the cone penetration test, the
permeability test, the compressibility test, the shear
test, and the slump test. Some large-scale tests using a
laboratory screw conveyor device have recently been
proposed and they have proved feasible since they
allow many parameters directly linked to the EPB
excavation process to be measured (Mair et al., 2003;
Merritt and Mair, 2006; Peila et al., 2007; and Vinai
et al., 2007). At present, this type of test appears to be
the best tool for conditioning design but it requires a
large volume of soil to be handled and it is not
suitable for carrying out a systematic comparison of
various conditioning sets of various types of products.
It is therefore necessary for researchers and job site
engineers to have a simpler test procedure that can be
used to conduct both round-robin tests and more
complex tests. The round-robin test allows a prelim-
inary choice of the conditioning set on which to
conduct more complex tests and allows one to keep
the conditioning quality under control on the job site
during tunneling.
The various possibilities for tests include the slump
cone test, which is usually performed on fresh
concrete. However, the slump cone test has been used
by many in the tunneling industry and this test
provides a simple, quick procedure for quality control
(Peron and Marcheselli, 1994; Quebaud, 1996;
Jancsecz et al., 1999; Williamson et al., 1999; Leinala
et al., 2000; Peña, 2003; Hanamura et al., 2007; and
Vinai et al., 2007).
SLUMP CONE TEST FOR THE CHARACTER-
IZATION OF CONDITIONED SOIL
Slump cone tests have been used by several
researchers to provide a measure of the plasticity

168 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XV, No. 3, August 2009, pp. 167–174
 Soil Conditioning for EPB Tunneling
and mass behavior of a conditioned soil. The test
involves mixing the soil with the foreseen amount of
foam and water in a concrete mixer and then
pounding it inside two slump cones. After 1 minute,
without stroking or mixing the soil with the tamping
rod, the cone is lifted up. The fall value and the global
behavior of the mix are observed.
Peron and Marcheselli (1994) described the appli-
cation of an EPBS to excavate a twin tube tunnel in
Milan (Italy) in an alluvium containing 75 percent
sand, 20 percent gravel and cobbles, and less than 5
percent clay. They reported that, for a correct
excavation procedure, it was necessary to maintain
the slump between 50 mm and 100 mm. When
tunneling above the water table, a FIR (ratio between
the volume of foam and the volume of conditioned
soil) ranging from 50 percent to 80 percent and 5
percent water were added to the bulk chamber, while
below the water table it was necessary to inject foam
with a FIR of 50 percent. Quebaud (1996) and
Quebaud et al. (1998) carried out tests on a
homogeneous fine sand with a grain size distribution
curve ranging from 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm and on a sand
with a grain size distribution curve ranging from
0.01 mm to 4 mm. Quebaud et al. stated that the
optimal slump value was 120 mm and that, in order
to obtain this result, when the water content varied
between 6 percent and 23 percent, it was necessary to
use a FIR ranging between 5 percent and 35 percent
for both soil types.
Peña (2003) compared the effects of different
foaming agents to condition a reference sand with a
grain size distribution curve ranging from 0.002 mm
to 2 mm. He observed that with a water content of
22 percent, a concentration of foaming agent ranging
from 1.5 percent to 2.5 percent, and a FIR of 65
percent, the slump was 100–150 mm (which he
considered the correct range for EBPS application),
while with a FIR of 80 percent, the slump rose to
150–200 mm. Similar results were obtained by
Leinala et al. (2000), who carried out tests on the
different types of soil encountered during excavation
of the Toronto Sheppard Subway Project. For the
studied silty sand with an initial water content from 8
percent to 11 percent, it was necessary to use a FIR
of 50 percent to obtain a slump of 100 mm. Vinai et
al. (2007) carried out tests on a homogeneous sand to
obtain a workable mix, and they found that there is a
close correlation between the water content and the
FIR.
All the presented research shows that the slump
cone test can offer a good indication of the
workability of the conditioned soils and that there is
a close correlation between the water content and the
necessary FIR. For this reason, in this research, the
Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XV, No. 3, August 2009, pp. 167–174
Figure 2. Photo (a) and schematic drawing (b) with the principal
dimension (mm) of the slump test cone used in the study.
slump cone test was systematically applied to
different cohesionless soils, varying the amount of
conditioning foam and the water content, to investi-
gate the applicability and feasibility of slump tests to
characterize conditioned soil and to study the
influence of the soil granulometry, moisture, and
foam content on the behavior of the conditioned soil.
The foam was produced using a foam generator
that is able to control precisely the quantities of air,
water, and foaming agent in a generation cylinder full
of glass fragments; a commercial foaming agent was
used with a surfactant concentration of 2.5 percent.
The foam was produced with a FER (ratio of the
obtained volume of foam and the volume of the
generator fluid: water + foaming agent) of 16, which
is an average value that is usually used in tunnelling,
and it had a half-time life of 390 seconds with an
average bubble size of 0.50 mm. Since a great
variability of FIR can be observed in real tunnel
excavation (ranging from 10 percent to 80 percent),
the tests were carried out using a FIR range of 10–60
percent.
The slump cone test was performed following the
Standard Test Method for Slump, as suggested by
ASTM 143C (ASTM, 2003), and the test was carried
out as follows: the soil was mixed with the desired
amount of foam and water in a concrete mixer and it
was then poured inside two slump cones (see
Figure 2). After 1 minute the cone was lifted, without
stroking or mixing the soil with a tamping rod. The
fall value and the mass behavior of the mix were then
observed. The shape and eventual rupture of the soil
cone and the drainage of water and foam were
observed and taken into account in order to define
the behavior of the material, and the following
features were identified:
N failure to form a plastic ‘‘paste,’’ as defined by
irregular collapse of the cone (not suitable), due to
insufficient water or foam content or both (dry
mix) or too much foam but not enough water. A
loss of foam was observed, the grain size distribu-
169
 Peila, Oggeri, and Borio
Figure 3. Grain size distribution of the conditioned soils: soil 1: a
medium-size sand, with D10 5 0.12 mm and D60 5 0.5 mm; soil
2: a mix with the same sand as soil 1 and gravel with a grain size of
4 to 8 mm, with D10 5 0.2 mm and D60 5 5 mm; soil 3: a mix
with the same sand as soil 1 and gravel with a grain size of 8–
15 mm, with D10 5 0.2 mm and D60 5 9 mm; soil 4: a mix with
47 percent sand, 45 percent gravel (4 to 8 mm), and 8 percent silt,
with D10 5 0.2 mm and D60 5 3.5 mm.
tion curve was not suitable for the creation of the
paste (i.e., not enough sand, silt, or clay in the mix);
N a stiff behavior with a reduced slump value but with
the creation of a plastic paste (borderline behavior),
mainly due to an insufficient foam content;
N a too-fluid mix with a relevant loss of water and/or
foam (not suitable behavior) due to the presence of
too much water and/or foam;
N a plastic behavior with a reduced water loss from
the soil (borderline behavior); and
N a correct behavior of the mix (suitable behavior) that
consisted of a slump cone fall of 140–200 mm with a
regular shape of the mass and little or no water loss.
Figure 4. Tests carried out on soil 1 (clean sand—SP) and definition of the suitable area.
170 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XV, No. 3, August 2009, pp. 167–174
RESULTS
The tests were carried out on soils that were
artificially prepared in the laboratory by mixing
different percentages of silt, sand, and gravel to
obtain the grain size distribution curves shown in
Figure 3. The most relevant results for the various
soils are here presented and discussed.
Results of Tests on Soil 1
The results of the tests on soil 1, classified, using the
Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM, 2009), as
‘‘SP,’’ are summarized in Figure 4, and they indicate
that the conditioned soil only showed suitable
behavior and a slump within the 150–200-mm range,
for specific combinations of water and FIR contents,
and this FIR range (20–50 percent) is quite close to
the values suggested in EFNARC (2005) for sand
(20–40 percent).
Referring to the water content, it can be observed
that with a water content below 3 percent, the
conditioned soil is too dry, even though large foam
injection ratios were used, while with a water content
of more than 18 percent, the conditioned soil was
usually too wet, even though low foam injection ratios
were used. The suitable mixes are therefore restricted
to a limited area that defines, respectively, the upper
threshold over which the material is too wet and fluid
and a lower threshold under which the material is too
dry and does not show the required plastic and pulpy
features. The central position of this area indicates the
‘‘optimum’’ conditioning parameters, in which FIR 5
40 percent and water content 5 10 percent.
 Soil Conditioning for EPB Tunneling

Figure 5. Tests carried out on soil 2 (gravelly sand—SW) and definition of the suitable area.

Results of Tests on Soil 2
The results of the tests on soil 2, classified, using the
Unified Soil Classification System, as ‘‘SW,’’ are
summarized in Figure 5, and they indicate that, with
a water content below 8 percent, the conditioned soil
was too dry, even though high values of FIR were
used, while, with a water content higher than 12
percent, the conditioned soil was wet, and for high
FIR values (.50 percent), the mix was not able to
absorb all the added foam, which both flowed away
and made the mix too fluid.
The suitable mixes for this type of soil are located
in the water content versus FIR plane in a smaller
area than for soil 1 as a result of the presence of the
gravel grains and the reduction in the amount of sand
that can be conditioned by the foam bubbles, since
the gravel grains do not interact with the foam to
create the paste and since they have the negative effect
of breaking the paste structure made by the condi-
tioned sand.
Results of the Tests on Soil 3
The results of the tests on soil 3, classified, using the
Unified Soil Classification System, as ‘‘GP,’’ are
summarized in Figure 6, and they indicate that none

Figure 6. Tests carried out on soil 3 (gravel–sand mixture—GP). It is not possible to define a suitable area.

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XV, No. 3, August 2009, pp. 167–174 171
 Peila, Oggeri, and Borio
Figure 7. Tests carried out on soil 4 (gravel–sand–silt mixture—GM) and definition of the suitable area.
of the tested mixes showed suitable behavior and that
some of them can be described only as borderline.
This is because, with a water content of lower than
8 percent, the conditioned soil is too dry and it is
not able to absorb the foam, which flowed out
from the mix during the test, while with a water
content of about 15 percent, the conditioned soil is
too wet with any FIR and there is a great loss of
water from the mix. It is not possible to determine
an ‘‘optimum’’ value combination for this type of
soil.
The overall behavior of this mix indicates that the
large gravel grains completely break the paste,
preventing the foam from correctly conditioning the
sand, and, therefore, the overall behavior appears too
rigid or there is a loss of water.
Results of the Tests on Soil 4
The test results on soil 4, classified using the
Unified Soil Classification System, as ‘‘GM,’’ are
summarized in Figure 7 and they indicate that, with a
water content of less than 3 percent, the conditioned
soil was too dry, not pulpy enough, and with no FIR
value, while, with a water content higher than 12
percent, the conditioned soil is too wet. The suitable
mixes are located in a larger area than the mix
without silt (soil 2) and with lower FIR values.
The overall behavior of this mix is influenced by the
presence of the siliceous silt that fills the voids
between the sand and gravel grains, thus permitting
one to reduce the amount of foam, at the same water
content, compared to soils 1 and 2, in order to obtain
a suitable mix.
172 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XV, No. 3, August 2009, pp. 167–174
If the slump values are plotted versus FIR for the
same water content (8–10 percent), the data for the
various soils are located on parallel lines. Figure 8
reports slump values versus FIR for the tested soils,
the data reported in technical literature, and the value
(V1 point) suggested by Obayashi Company and used
by Peron and Marcheselli (1994) and by Maidl at al.
(1995) (FIR 5 a/2[(60 2 4.0X0.8) + (80 2 3.3Y0.8) +
(90 2 2.7Z0.8)], where FIR 5 ratio between the
volume of foam and the volume of conditioned soil; X
5 fraction passing a 0.075-mm sieve; Y 5 fraction
passing a 0.420-mm sieve; Z 5 fraction passing a 2.0-
mm sieve; and a 5 empirical coefficient that depends
on the uniformity coefficient of the soil [U]: U , 4a 5
1.6; 4 , U , 15a 5 1.2 ; U . 15a 5 1.0) and shows
that the proposed evaluations are in good agreement
with those reported in technical literature.
CONCLUSIONS
When tunneling with an EPBS machine in cohesion-
less ground, soil behavior needs to be optimized in
order to use the machine properly and to control tunnel
face stability. This change is obtained through injec-
tions of special additives, such as foam and polymers,
inside the bulk chamber and on the cutterhead.
The protocol for determining the correct amount of
conditioning agents and the control of the mix quality
and behavior during the excavation process are key
factors in the design and management of this
mechanized tunneling method. Among the various
possibilities, the slump cone test appears to be a simple
and inexpensive procedure that can be used both for
job site control and for preliminary design. Recent
 Soil Conditioning for EPB Tunneling

Figure 8. Plot of FIR and slump for soils 1, 2, and 4 that met acceptable behavior (indicated by darkened diamond, square, and triangle).
Acceptable performance based on previous study (Quebaud, 1996; Williamson et al., 1999; EFNARC, 2005) is also shown. Lines represent a
regression for each soil, and the hatching shown on each line represents the range of acceptable FIR values.

research has shown that a laboratory screw conveyor
device also can be used for the complete description of
the conditioned soil behavior and properties with
reference to EPBS tunneling (Merritt and Mair, 2006;
Peila et al., 2007; and Vinai et al., 2007).
The test program carried out on various types of
cohesionless soil (from silty sand to sandy gravel) has
led to some relevant information on the behavior of
conditioned soil and to the design of an assessment
procedure. The tests made it possible to highlight the
great influence of large-sized soil grains on the use of
foam in conditioning cohesionless soils, since it is
the sand size fraction of the grain size distribution
that interacts with the foam bubbles to create the
pulpy paste, which encompasses the larger grains. If
there are too many gravel grains and they are too
large, they break the conditioned mix and do not
allow a plastic paste to form. Therefore, in some
conditions, it is necessary to add a filler to the bulk
chamber to ‘‘plasticize’’ the paste. This was done,
for example, during excavation of the Turin Metro
(Carrieri et al., 2004; Grandori, 2004). Furthermore,
it was shown that it is possible to create a pulpy
paste for a defined mix only if the water content and
the FIR fall within specific ranges, which are a
function of the grain size distribution curve of the
soil.
The presence of gravel reduces the ‘‘suitable area,’’
and control of the conditioning is therefore influenced
to a great extent by the water content; this is a
problem when tunneling below the water table in soils
with different permeability and moisture levels. On
the other hand, the presence of silt in the soil enlarges
the suitable area, even when gravel is present, since
the fine granulometric fraction fills the voids between
the larger grains, interacts with the water, and thus
makes it possible to use less foam (reduced FIR
values) to obtain a pulpy consistency.
Finally, on the basis of the tests, it can be
concluded that the slump test provides a good
indicator of the overall behavior of the conditioned
soil and, as a result of its simplicity and economy, can
be profitably used both in the preliminary design
stage and at the job site to keep the conditioning
under control during excavation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank MAPEI S.p.A.
Company for the technical and financial support for
this research. Special thanks are offered to Prof. S.
Pelizza for his suggestions and comments. The
research has been financed by the Italian Ministry
of University and Research (National Research
Projects—PRIN 2006) within the project: ‘‘Optimi-
zation of the structural, technological and functional
performances of tunneling methods and materials
in tunnel linings’’ National Coordinator G. Plizzari,

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XV, No. 3, August 2009, pp. 167–174 173
 Peila, Oggeri, and Borio
Operative Unit of Politecnico di Torino: ‘‘First phase
tunnel supports: technological, design and safety
aspects,’’ local responsible C. Oggeri.
REFERENCES
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS (ASTM), 2003,
Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement
Concrete: ASTM C143/C 143M-00.
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS (ASTM), 2009,
Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils:
ASTM D2488-09.
ANAGNOSTOU, G. AND KOVARI, K., 1996, Face stability conditions
with Earth-Pressure-Balanced Shields: Tunnelling Under-
ground Space Technology, Vol. 11, pp. 165–173.
CARRIERI, G.; CROVA, R.; GRASSO, P. G.; AND GUGLIELMETTI, V.,
2004, Torino Metro Line 1. The tunnels excavation of the
first section: In International Congress on ‘‘Mechanized
Tunnelling: Challenging Case Histories: GEAM, Torino, Italy
[in Italian].
EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS REPRESENTING
PRODUCERS AND APPLICATORS OF SPECIALIST BUILDING PROD-
UCTS FOR CONCRETE (EFNARC), 2005, Specification and
guidelines for the use of specialist products for Mechanized
Tunnelling (TBM) in Soft Ground and Hard Rock. In
Recommendation of European Federation of Producers and
Contractors of Specialist Products for Structure, Farnham, 40 p.
GRANDORI, R., 2004, Construction of Lot 5 of the Turin Metro
Line 2 Tunnel: Felsbau, Vol. 22, pp. 33–41.
GUGLIELMETTI, V.; MAHTAB, A.; AND XU, S., 2007, Mechanised
Tunnelling in Urban Area: Taylor and Francis, London,
United Kingdom, 507 p.
HANAMURA, T.; KUROSE, J.; AONO, Y.; AND OKUBO, H., 2007,
Integral studies on mechanized functions of mudding agents
and the properties of muddified soils in the EPB shield
tunneling technology. In Bartak, J.; Hrdina, I.; Romancov,
G.; and Zlamal, J. (Editors), 33rd ITA-AITES World Tunnel
Congress: Underground Space. The 4th Dimension of Metrop-
olises: Taylor & Francis Group, London, United Kingdom.
JANCSECZ, S.; KRAUSE, R.; AND LANGMAACK, L., 1999, Advantages
of soil conditioning in shield tunnelling: Experiences of LRTS
Izmir. In Alten, T. and Broch, E. (Editors), ITA-AITES
World Tunnel Congress ’99: Challenges for the 21st Century:
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
174 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XV, No. 3, August 2009, pp. 167–174
LEINALA, T.; GRABINSKY, M.; DELMAR, R.; AND COLLINS, J. R.,
2000, Effects of foam soil conditioning on EPBM perfor-
mance. In Ozdemir, I. A. (Editor), North American Tunneling
2000: Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
MAIDL, B.; HERRENKNECHT, M.; AND ANHEUSER, L., 1995,
Mechanised Shield Tunnelling: Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Ger-
many, 428 p.
MAIR, R. J.; MERRITT, A. S.; BORGHI, F. X.; YAMAZAKI, H.; AND
MINAMI, T., 2003, Soil conditioning for clay soils: Tunnels and
Tunnelling International, Vol. 4, pp. 29–32.
MERRITT, A. AND MAIR, R. J., 2006, Mechanics of tunnelling
machine screw conveyor: Model tests: Geotechnique, Vol. 56,
pp. 605–615.
PEILA, D.; OGGERI, C.; AND VINAI, R., 2007, Screw conveyor device
for laboratory tests on conditioned soil for EPB tunnelling
operations: Journal Geotechnical Geoenvironmental Engineer-
ing, Vol. 133, pp. 1622–1625.
PEÑA, M., 2003, Soil conditioning for sands: Tunnels Tunnelling
International, Vol. 7, pp. 40–42.
PERON, J. Y. AND MARCHESELLI, P., 1994, Construction of the
‘Passante Ferroviario’ link in Milan. Italy. Lots 3P, 5P, and
6P: Excavation by large EPBS with chemical foam injection:
Tunnelling ’94: IMM, Chapman & Hall, London, United
Kingdom.
QUEBAUD, S., 1996, Contribution à l’Etude du Percement de
Galeries par Boucliers à Pression de Terre: Amélioration du
Creusement par l’Utilisation des Produits Moussants: Ph.D.
Thesis, Université des Sciences et Technologies de Lille, Lille,
France [in French].
QUEBAUD, S.; SIBAI, M.; AND HENRY, J. P., 1998, Use of chemical
foam for improvements in drilling by earth pressure balanced
shields in granular soils: Tunnelling Underground Space
Technology, Vol. 13, pp. 73–180.
VINAI, R.; OGGERI, C.; AND PEILA, D., 2007, Soil conditioning
of sand for EPB applications: A laboratory research:
Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, Vol. 23, No. 3,
pp. 308–317.
WILLIAMSON, G. E.; TRAYLOR, M. T.; AND HIGUCHI, M., 1999, Soil
conditioning for EPB shield tunneling on the South Bay
Ocean Outfall: In Hilton, D. and Samuelson, K. (Editors),
Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference 1999: SME,
Littleton, CO, pp. 897–925.
YOSHIKAWA, T., 1996, Soil pressure drop at the screw conveyor for
shielded machines: Transactions Japan Society Mechanical
Engineers, Part C 62, Vol. 595, pp. 1197–1203.