Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 99 (2020) 103377

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Effect of hydraulic gradient on the permeability characteristics of foam- T

conditioned sand for mechanized tunnelling
⁎ ⁎
Qinxin Hua, Shuying Wanga, , Tongming Qub, , Tao Xuc, Shuo Huanga, Haibo Wanga
a
School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, Hunan, China
b
Zienkiewicz Centre for Computational Engineering, College of Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales SA1 8EP, UK
c
State Key Laboratory of Internet of Things for Smart City & Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Macau, Macao, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Low permeable soil is important for stabilising the tunnel face during mechanized tunnelling in sandy soils under
EPB shield water level. Foam is one of the most common conditioning agents to achieve low permeability of the excavated
Pipe-jacking soil. This study investigates the effect of hydraulic gradient on the permeability characteristics of foam-condi-
Sand conditioning tioned sand in various conditioning states, according to a series of experimental permeability tests under dif-
Foam
ferent hydraulic gradients. With an increase in the hydraulic gradient, the duration of the initial stable stage of
Permeability
Water pressure
the permeability coefficient either gradually decreases or completely disappears. In the rapid growth period, the
permeability coefficient increases greatly. The pipe flow model is introduced to analyse time-dependent per-
meability characteristics of conditioned sand under different hydraulic gradients. The results shows that as
hydraulic gradient increases, the time required for water to penetrate throughout the foam plugs decreases and
the enlargement rate of the assumed pipe diameter increases in the rapid growth period. Finally, changes in the
conditioning parameters for EPB shield tunnelling and EPB pipe-jacking under the influence of hydraulic gra-
dient are discussed. With an increase in the hydraulic gradient, the range of conditioning parameters of the soil
that satisfies the shield tunnelling permeability requirement gradually narrows and moves towards a low water
content (w) and high foam injection ratio (FIR). The results show that an increase in the hydraulic gradient poses
a more serious challenge for foam-dominant soil conditioning during mechanized tunnelling.

1. Introduction used to evaluate the conditioning effects of foam on the flowability of

Water spewing often occurs and sometimes leads to instability of the
excavation face during earth pressure balance (EPB) shield or EPB pipe
jacking tunnelling in saturated sandy soils with high water pressure (Liu
et al., 2018b; Jancsecz et al., 1999). An injection of conditioning agents,
such as foam and bentonite, is usually required in the excavation
chamber, screw conveyor and in front of the cutterhead for improving
the rheology of conditioned sand, lowering the permeability coefficient
(Liu et al., 2018a, 2019; Qu et al., 2019). Therein, foam is a kind of gas-
liquid two-phase medium formed by mixing a surfactant agent and air
in a foaming system (Peña, 2007; Tao et al., 2019). It is widely used in
EPB shield construction as a conditioner due to its convenience low cost
and comprehensive conditioning effects such as promoting the stability
of chamber pressure, reducing the wear of cutters, etc. (Langmaack and
Lee, 2016; Mori et al., 2017; Zumsterg et al., 2012).
In engineering practice, slump tests (ASTM, 2003) were commonly
conditioned soil. Based on slump value, Peila et al. (2009, 2013) clas-
sified the conditioned sand into three states (not suitable, borderline,
and suitable) and pointed out that the content of coarse grains in the
sand affected the foam injection ratio (FIR) and water content (w). Peila
et al. (2008) also considered the influence of both temperature in
chamber and a long-term standstill on foamy conditioned sand with
different particle size distribution (PSD) during shield tunnelling. Their
study showed that the higher the temperature, the faster the flow
plasticity of conditioned sand decayed with time. Quebaud et al. (1998)
conducted slump tests on conditioned sand and noted that the ideal
slump value was 140 mm for conditioned medium sand. Vinai et al.
(2008) took 150–200 mm as the reasonable slump range of conditioned
medium sand. Budach and Thewes (2015) proposed that the reasonable
slump of conditioned sand ranged from 150 mm to 200 mm based on
previous engineering experience. Ye et al. (2016) found that the sui-
table slump value of conditioned soil ranged from 170 to 200 mm

⁎
Corresponding authors at: No. 68, Shaoshan Rd (South), Tianxin District, Changsha 410075, Hunan, China (S. Wang).
E-mail addresses: hqx1993@csu.edu.cn (Q. Hu), sywang@csu.edu.cn (S. Wang), 931505@swansea.ac.uk (T. Qu), taoxu@um.edu.mo (T. Xu),
1073098375@qq.com (S. Huang), haibowang@csu.edu.cn (H. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103377
Received 6 October 2019; Received in revised form 10 February 2020; Accepted 24 February 2020
0886-7798/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Q. Hu, et al.
during EPB tunnelling in argillaceous siltstone with a high clay mineral
content. Galli and Thewes (2019) combined BMS (an abbreviation of
ball measuring system) rheometer test with slump test to research the
flowability of sand-foam mixture under different shearing conditions
and found that the soil compositions have a huge impact on the
rheology and proposed the BMS-like system to evaluate the flowability
of conditioned soil. Moreover, Bezuijen (2012) found that the effective
foam expansion ratio (FERm) of foam in the mixture was less than the
original FER of pure pore in the atm pressure, resulting in foam with a
higher permeability and lower shear strength. Wu et al. (2018) in-
vestigated the stability of foam under pressure in the range of
0–0.4 MPa, finding that the foam would be more uniform and smaller
and the drainage half life of foam was longer in a higher pressure.
The slump test merely shows the flowability of conditioned soil, and
its results cannot reflect the permeability characteristics of conditioned
soil. Bezuijen (2012) pointed out that the permeability of foam-condi-
tioned sand was influnenced significantly by foam filling in the sand
pores. Wilms (1995) noted that the permeability coefficient of soil in
excavation chamber and screw conveyor should be less than 1 × 10−5
m/s. Budach and Thewes (2015) considered the shield standstill dura-
tion and suggested that the permeability coefficient of the conditioned
sand should be kept below 1 × 10−5 m/s for at least 90 min. Generally,
the permeability of soil is tested by falling head test or constant head
test. Constant-head permeability tests is considered as the priority when
measuring the permeability of foam-conditioned sand since the water
level is almost unchanged during EPB shield tunnelling (Liu et al.,
2018a, 2018b) and the permeability of sand-foam mixture is unstable
and time-dependent. For example, Quebaud et al. (1998) conducted
constant head permeability tests to determine the permeability coeffi-
cient of sand-foam mixture and reported that the foam with lower foam
expansion ration (FER) made more contribution to decrease the per-
meability coefficient of sand. The finding given by Borio and Peila
(2010) and Qiao (2009) also showed that lower FERs had better con-
ditioning effects on permeability. Budach (2012) found that foam can
reduce the permeability coefficient of sand as much as 10–100 times by
constant head permeability tests. Additionally, Borio and Peila (2010)
reported that water pressure is an important factor associated with
mechanized tunnelling. Peila (2014) proposed that the impermeability
of the conditioned sand was weakened with an increase in water
pressure.
In summary, previous studies mainly focused on the rheology and
permeability of foam-conditioned sand, but few researchers concerned
about the relationship between its permeability and hydraulic gradient.
It is still unclear how hydraulic gradient affects the time-dependent
permeability characteristics of foam-conditioned sand, resulting in that
the testing results with only similar water pressure with field conditions
cannot be referenced well for EPB shield tunnelling due to much longer
flow path in field than in the tested specimens. This study is a further
research which based on previous studies (Quebaud et al., 1998; Qiao,
2009; Borio and Peila, 2010; Budach and Thewes, 2015; etc.) and
mainly investigates the time-dependent permeability coefficient of the
foam-conditioned sand under different conditioning parameters (FIR
and w) and hydraulic gradients firstly, and then a simplified model,
which presumes the process of permeability as laminar flow, is pro-
posed to explain the time-dependent change of the flow path in foam-
conditioned sand during permeability tests. Finally, the application and
limitation of foam for sand conditioning during EPB shield and pipe-
jacking tunnelling were discussed.
2. Background
It is expected that the water pressure influences the foam con-
ditioning effects of permeability (Borio and Peila, 2010). This study first
investigates the relationship between the hydraulic gradient and per-
meability characteristic. The hydraulic gradient between cutterhead
and discharge gate during EPB shield or EPB pipe-jacking tunnelling is
2
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 99 (2020) 103377
Fig. 1. EPB shield or EPB pipe-jacking machine tunnelling under water level.
calculated as follows. When EPB shield or EPB pipe-jacking tunnelling
under water table (Fig. 1), the water head difference △h (m) between
the water table and discharge gate is:
△h = M + D − h (1)
where M (m) is the height difference between the water table and the
top of excavation face; h (m) is the height of the screw conveyor outlet;
D (m) is the diameter of the excavation face. The flow paths from
cutterhead to screw conveyor are shown in Fig. 1. The shortest length of
flow paths is calculated as follows:
Smin = B + L (2)
where the B (m) and L (m) are the lengths of the chamber and screw
conveyor, respectively.
The maximum of the pressure gradient (imax) is:
imax = △h/ Smin = (M + D − h)/(B + L) (3)
Eq. (3) shows that the hydraulic gradient is mainly determined by
the longtidual thickness of soil in chamber (B) and the length of screw
conveyor (L). Tunnelling would be more dangerous in pipeline projects
in the same condition with EBP shield tunnels since the pipe jacking
machine is generally smaller than the shield machine and the length of
the former chamber and screw conveyor are shorter, resulting in that
flow path in EPB pipe-jacking machine is shorter than that in EPB shield
machine. For commonly used EPB shield and pipe-jacking machine,
there are the following data: D = 1.8–6.5 m, B = 0.3–1.2 m, L = 2–9 m
and h = 2D/3. Table 1 shows hydraulic gradients collected from some
projects in China. Although it is recommended that EPB shield should
be used with water head less than 20 m (Galli and Thewes, 2014), but
the water head in some EPB shield or EPB pipe-jacking tunnel projects
is higher than the recommended one when tunnelling in deep granular
ground or under rivers due to a relatively low engineering cost by EPB
shield or EPB shield pipe-jacking. For example, Longquan water tunnel
in Kunming, which is being constructed by China Railway No. 5 En-
gineering Group Co. LTD., has been designed to adopt EPB shield as
tunnelling machine, and the maximum water head reaches as high as
50 m (maximum buried depth is 75 m). Therefore, the hydraulic gra-
dients range from 2 to 5 generally, sometimes up to 10.l. Noticeably,
the earth pressure and water pressure act on the conditioned sand in
chamber at the same time during EPB tunnelling and higher pressure
could help foam remain more stable (Wu et al. 2018), but this current
study does not concern about earth pressure and mainly focuses on the
effect of hydraulic condition and conditioning parameter on perme-
ability of foam-conditioned sand. The difference between laboratory
and real projects will be pointed out and figured out by other ways in
the future.
3. Testing methods
3.1. Materials description
The sand used for the permeability tests was collected from the
Q. Hu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 99 (2020) 103377

Xiao and Lei. 2020

Zhang et al. 2017
Guo et al., 2020
Ji et al. 2017
Reference
Maximum hydraulic gradient

Fig. 2. Grain size distribution of the tested sand.

4.43
10.2

Xiangjiang River, Changsha, China. The soil was sieved and then mixed
2.4
3.6

with the desired grain proportion to achieve the grain size distribution
in Fig. 2. To investigate the role of foam in the granular soil, the silt and
clay particles (both smaller than 0.075 mm in diameter) comprised only
Maximum Water Pressure (MPa)

0.08% of the total, and the sand and gravel particles (both larger than
0.075 mm in diameter) comprised 67.87% and 32.05%, respectively.
According to ASTM standard 2488-17ε1 (American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM), 2017), the test soil is classified as poorly graded
sand (SP). The specific gravity of the experimental sand was 2.634, and
its void ratio, bulkdensity are 0.340, 1.74 g/cm3 and 0.67, respectively.
The foam agent used in this study was a general anionic surfactant
with a weight concentration of 3%. The foam generation system (Fig. 3)
0. 58
0.11
0.18
0.28

refer to EFNARC (2005) and the foam generator, whose mixing

chamber is filled with glass balls with a diameter of 5 mm, is same as
that in EPB shield machine. Foam was generated under a pressure of
0.3 MPa. The foam expansion ratio was 10, and the half-life of the
The diameter of Tunneling Machines (m)

generated foam was approximately 6 min.

3.2. Testing approaches

The permeability test equipment was a permeameter which had a

maximum water pressure capacity of 0.5 MPa (Fig. 4a). The permea-
meter is 30 cm in diameter and 75 cm in height. The water pressure
gauges were installed at the top and bottom level of the specimen to
monitor the changes in water pressure and the height difference (H)
6.02
6.52
6.44

between the pressure gauges was 60 cm. The aimed hydrostatic head
4

(P), taking the location of top water pressure gauge as base level in this
study, was achieved by adjusting the height of the water tank.
The process of permeability tests referred to ASTM standard D2434-
The hydraulic conditions of some EPB tunnelling projects in China.

round gravel

round gravel
sandy gravel
sandy gravel

68 (American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2006). The

procedure is shown in Fig. 5. Firstly, a certain amount of granular soil
Stratum

was weighed and dumped into the mixer. Secondly, the dry sand spe-
cimen was mixed with the designed volume of water and then was left
there about 10 h. The specimen with water was mixed for 3 min to
reach water content equilibrium, followed by that the predetermined
foam was poured into the mixer and mixed with 30 rad/min for 1 min.
Electric Power pipeline in Shengyang (completed)

After that, the sand-foam mixture was poured into the permeameter
The 10th line of Shenzhen subway (completed)

with a height of about 60 cm and the actual filling height of specimen

The 1st line of Lanzhou subway (completed)

was recorded. At the same time, the water tank was placed at the de-
Water tunnel in Kunming(in process)

signated level and then water began to be stored. Secondly, the top cap
of the permeameter was installed and a water pipe was connected to the
top cap. Finally, to keep the same drainage time of foam in soil among
all the tests, the water valve was opened and the permeability time
started to be recorded at the same time for each test after 19 min re-
corded from the starting of the mixing of a specimen with foam. During
Projects (status)

each test, the height l (m) of the specimen (changed due to foam dis-
sipation and specimen compression), the water pressure P1 (m) at the
top gauge, the water pressure P2 (m) at the bottom gauge and the vo-
Table 1

lume of seepage quantity Q (m3) in a period of time Δt were recorded.

Table 2 shows the conditions of the permeability tests. The maximum

3
Q. Hu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 99 (2020) 103377

Fig. 3. Foam generation system.

hydraulic gradient is as high as 16.0, and this high value currently does P1+ (H-l)+l-P2 P +H-P2
i= = 1
not exist for EBP shield and EPB pipe-jacking tunnelling in engineering l l (5)
practice. However, it is also performed here for studying the effect of
The permeability coefficient of the foam-conditioned soil is calcu-
the hydraulic gradient of foam-conditioned sand and will probably
lated by the Darcy’s Law:
appear with rapid development of tunnelling technologies. All tests
were carried out for three times and the repeatability could be guar- ν
k=
anteed for each testing condition. i (6)
The flow velocity in the permeameter is calculated by the following
formula:
3.3. Sand conditioning states for the permeability tests
Q
ν=
A ·Δt (4) The permeability characteristics of sand with different conditioning
states were tested. During shield tunnelling, the conditioned sand must
where v (m/s) is the flow velocity; and A (m2) is the cross-sectional area maintain relatively strong rheology to be discharged out of the shield
of the specimen. chamber; therefore, the insufficiently conditioned sand was not studied
The hydraulic gradient (i) is calculated by the following formula here and so its permeability characteristics were not tested. The tested
(Fig. 4b): sands, whose conditioning states were suitable without any water and

Flow direction

P1 P1

Specimen

P2 P2

(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Permeameter and the diagram of hydraulic gradient calculation: (a) Permeameter, and (b) the diagram of hydraulic gradient calculation.

4
Q. Hu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 99 (2020) 103377

water dry sand was too strong, and sometimes the foam bled from the surface of the
specimen. As shown in Fig. 6d, with w = 2.5%/FIR = 40%, the
mixer conditioned sand with excessive fluidity would easily be extruded
mixing with 3 min water container from the screw conveyor. In this case, the mechanized tunnelling
wetted sand foam will suffer from troubles for controlling the chamber pressure in the
stand for 10 hours excavation chamber.
movement to designed height
mixing with 1 min

sand-foam mixture water storage 4. Testing results

4.1. Permeability characteristics of the sand with different conditioning

placement of a filter paper on the bottom plate states

specimen filling Fig. 7 shows the variation of the permeability coefficient k (m/s)
against time for the foam-conditioned sand at different conditioning
placement of a filter paper on the specimen states. For the sand with excessive conditioning with likely foam
bleeding (Fig. 7a), when the hydrostatic head (P) was 1.9 m, 2.9 m and
permeamter sealing 5.6 m, respectively, the permeability coefficient remained constantly
low at the initial stage. A comparison of the curves with different hy-
opening inlet valve and air release valve drostatic head shows that the duration of the initial stable stage of the
permeability coefficient decreased with an increase in P. The perme-
closing air release valve when the top of specimen is full of water
ability coefficient obviously increased during the rapid growth period,
following the initial stable stage. For example, with hydrostatic head of
data record
1.9 m, w = 2.5% and FIR = 40%, the initial permeability coefficient
Fig. 5. Testing procedures of the permeability test. was 2.5 × 10−6 m/s. The low permeability coefficient was maintained
for approximately 1280 min, followed by the rapid growth of the per-
meability coefficient. The average growth rate of the permeability
foam bleeding, suitable but with water bleeding, excessive with water
coefficient during the rapid growth period was 8.75 × 10−6 m/s per
bleeding, and excessive with likely foam bleeding, were chosen for the
hour. However, with hydrostatic head of 2.9 m and 5.6 m at the same
permeability tests. Fig. 6 shows some examples of different con-
conditioning parameters, the duration of the initial stable stages shor-
ditioning states of the foam-conditioned sands.
tened to 443 min and 167 min, respectively, although the initial per-
meability coefficient of conditioned sand slightly increased to
(1) Suitable conditioning without any water or foam bleeding: When
2.59 × 10−6 m/s and 4.33 × 10−6 m/s, respectively. During the rapid
the water content (w) and foam injection ratio (FIR) of the condi-
growth stage, the growth rates of permeability coefficients increased to
tioned sand were moderate, the conditioned sand had good fluidity
1.1 × 10−5 m/s per hour and 1.2 × 10−5 m/s per hour, respectively.
with no water or foam bleeding, and the slump value was in the
With hydrostatic head of 9.6 m, the initial permeability coefficient was
suitable range of 15–20 cm (Fig. 6a), which was referred to the test
about 4.06 × 10−5 m/s (higher than 10−5 m/s), the initial stable stage
result of Vinai et al. (2008).
merely lasted for 47 min and then grew rapidly, and the growth rate of
(2) Suitable flowability but with water bleeding: When the w of sand
permeability increased to 5 × 10−5 m/s per hour during the rapid
was high, a low FIR was enough to make the conditioned sand with
growth period. Especially with w = 5.0% and FIR = 40%, there was no
the slump value in the suitable range of 15–20 cm. However, the
initial stable stage, the permeability coefficient increased quickly once
water continuously bled from the specimen due to the high w
after the permeability test started at hydrostatic head of 9.6. Thus, for
(Fig. 6b). In EPB shield or pipe jacking tunnelling engineering
the sand with excessive conditioning with likely foam bleeding, the
practice, especially during tunnelling in a downward path, if water
initial permeability coefficient was lower than 10−5 m/s, which cannot
bleeds out of the sand, it will be difficult for the water to be
not be exceeded for EPB shield tunnelling (Wilms, 1995; Budach and
transported with sand by conveyor belts. Consequently, the water
Thewes, 2015) and there was the initial stable stage of permeability
will accumulate in the tunnel, seriously affecting the working effi-
coefficient at low hydrostatic height. With an increase in hydrostatic
ciency of the segment erector.
height, the initial stable stage became shorter and even the perme-
(3) Excessive conditioning with water bleeding: The slump value ex-
ability coefficient was higher than 10−5 m/s at the starting of perme-
ceeded 20 cm and the water bled from the specimen when the w
ability and increased rapidly after that.
and FIR were high. As shown in Fig. 6c, with w = 10%/FIR = 40%,
For the sand with suitable conditioning without any water or foam
the fluidity of the conditioned sand was far beyond requirements,
bleeding (Fig. 7b), the initial stable stage also decreased with an in-
and the water and foam continuously bled.
crease in hydrostatic pressure head. In addition, the initial permeability
(4) Excessive conditioning with likely foam bleeding: When the w was
coefficient of the specimen with hydrostatic head of 5.6 m, w = 5%,
low and the foam injection ratio was high, and the slump value was
FIR = 20% was 2.71 × 10−5 m/s, which was larger than 10−5 m/s.
also greater than 20 cm. The flowability of the conditioned sand
There was no duration of the initial stable. And the growth rate in the

Table 2
Testing Conditions of Permeability Tests.
Water Content (w) Foam Injection Ratio (FIR) Conditioning States Hydrostatic Pressure head (P) Hydraulic Gradients (i)

2.5% 20% Suitable conditioning without any water or foam bleeding 1.9 m, 2.9 m, 5.6 m and 9.6 m 3.1, 4.8, 9.3 and 16.0
40% Excessive conditioning with likely foam bleeding
5.0% 20% Suitable conditioning without any water or foam bleeding
40% Excessive conditioning probably with foam bleeding
10.0% 10% Suitable flowability but with water bleeding
20% Excessive conditioning with water bleeding

5
Q. Hu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 99 (2020) 103377

Fig. 6. The workability state for the sand specimen with (a) suitable conditioning without any water or foam bleeding, (b) suitable flowability but with water
bleeding, (c) excessive conditioning with water bleeding, and (d) excessive conditioning with likely foam bleeding.

1.38 × 10−5 m/s when hydrostatic head was 5.6 m, which was larger
than 10−5 m/s. Furthermore, there was no initial stable stage as well,
and the growth rate was 5.2 × 10−5 m/s per hour in the rapid growth
period. Both of them could not meet the construction requirements.
For the sand with water bleeding (see Fig. 7c) (including the sui-
table conditioning but with water bleeding and the excessive con-
ditioning with water bleeding specimens), there was no duration of the
initial stable stages even when P is low. The initial permeability coef-
ficient increased when P rose. For example, when the P increased from
1.9 m to 5.6 m for the sand with conditioning parameters of w = 10%/
FIR = 20%, the initial permeability coefficient increased from
5.24 × 10−5 m/s to 8.76 × 10−5 m/s, and the growth rate in the rapid
growth period increased from 1.2 × 10−5 m/s per hour to 1.6 × 10−5
m/s per hour. When hydrostatic head was 9.6 m, the initial perme-
ability coefficient was 1.35 × 10−4 m/s per hour, which was ap-
proximately 8.5 times than that under hydrostatic head of 5.6 m, and
the growth rate of permeability coefficient increased to 5.9 × 10−5 m/s
per hour during the rapid growth period.

4.2. Effect of hydraulic gradient on permeability characteristics

In order to further characterize the effect of water pressure on

permeability characteristics of the conditioned soil, the effects of the
hydraulic gradient (i) on the initial permeability coefficient ki (m/s),
the duration of the initial stable stage ts (min) and the rapid growth rate
of the permeability coefficient VK (m/s) are explored below. Fig. 8
shows the variation of the initial permeability coefficient against hy-
draulic gradients with error bars showing the standard deviations. The
initial permeability coefficient of conditioned sand increased with an
increase in the hydraulic gradient. When the hydraulic gradient ranged
from 4 to 7, both initial permeability coefficients for the suitable con-
ditioning without any water or foam bleeding (w = 2.5%/FIR = 20%
and w = 5.0%/FIR = 40%) and the excessive conditioning with likely
foam bleeding (w = 2.5%/FIR = 40% and w = 5.0%/FIR = 40%)
remained at a low level. However, when the hydraulic gradient reached
to 10 and 12, the initial permeability coefficient of suitable conditioned

Fig. 7. Results of permeability tests: (a) excessive sand conditioning with likely
foam bleeding, (b) suitable sand conditioning without any water or foam
bleeding, and (c) suitable sand conditioning with water bleeding and excessive
sand conditioning with water bleeding.

rapid growth period was around 1.9 × 10−5 m/s per hour. However,
with a comparison, the initial permeability coefficient of the specimen
conditioned excessively with foam bleeding (w = 5%/FIR = 40%) was Fig. 8. Effect of the hydraulic gradient (i) on initial permeability coefficient (ki).

6
Q. Hu, et al.
Fig. 9. Effect of hydraulic gradient (i) on the duration of initial stable stage (ts).
sand (w = 5.0%/FIR = 20%) clearly increased and was far beyond the
engineering requirement of less than 10−5 m/s. When the hydraulic
gradient was greater than 16, the initial permeability coefficient for the
suitable conditioning (w = 2.5%/FIR = 20% and w = 5.0%/
FIR = 20%) and the excessive sand conditioning with likely foam
bleeding (w = 2.5%/FIR = 40% and w = 5.0%/FIR = 40%) also in-
creased obviously. For the sand specimens with water bleeding, in-
cluding suitable (w = 10%/FIR = 10%) and excessive conditioning
(w = 10%/FIR = 20%), the initial permeability coefficient was sig-
nificantly larger than that of other conditioned states. In addition, the
initial permeability coefficient increased substantially with an increase
in the hydraulic gradient.
Fig. 9 shows the variation of the duration of the initial stable stage
against the hydraulic gradient. There was no stable period for the
conditioned sand specimens with water bleeding. The duration of the
initial stage clearly decreased with an increase in the hydraulic gra-
dient. For the sand specimens with water bleeding, taking the suitable
sand conditioning but with water bleeding as an example, when the
hydraulic gradient was 4.33 and 6.03, the duration of the stable stage
were 350 min and 132 min, respectively. When the hydraulic gradient
was 10.9, the initial stable period decreased to 0. However, the dura-
tion of the initial stable stage for the excessive sand conditioning with
likely foam bleeding did not disappear until the hydraulic gradient was
17.15.
Fig. 10 shows the variation of the growth rate of the permeability
coefficient during its rapid growth stage against the hydraulic gradient.
The growth rate of the permeability coefficient increased with an in-
crease in hydraulic gradients for all conditioning cases, and the increase
was more significant for the case with a hydraulic gradient higher than
about 11. Among them, the growth rates for the conditioned sand with
water bleeding (including the properly conditioned sand but with water
bleeding and the excessively conditioned sand with water bleeding)
were the highest, followed by those for the properly conditioned sand
Fig. 10. Effect of hydraulic gradient (i) on the growth rate of the rapid growth
period (Vk).
7
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 99 (2020) 103377
Flow direction
Cirular Pipe
Fig. 11. The assumed pipe flow model.
without any water or foam bleeding, and the lowest growth rates are
found in the excessively conditioned sand with foam bleeding.
5. Discussion
5.1. Simplified seepage model of foam conditioned sand
The permeability characteristics of sand depend on the size and
connectivity of the pores in the sand. Water flows through the pores in a
sand mass can be considered as laminar flow (Holtz et al., 2010).
Therefore, in this study, the water flow in the sand is assumed to be a
laminar flow in a vertical circular pipe (Fig. 11). In the seepage process,
the length of the circular pipe I (m), which is equal to the height of
specimen l (m), changed slightly due to the foam dissipation and spe-
cimen compression, and the variation of the permeability coefficient
mainly depends on the diameter d (m) of the circular pipe. The water
flows into the circular pipe from the top of the specimen. The diameter
of the water-carrying cross-section suddenly decreases when the water
enters the specimen. Once the water flows out of the pipe, the diameter
of the water-carrying cross-section of the water flow increases to be the
same as that before entering the pipe. The diameter of the circular pipe
is related to the number and size of seepage channels in the specimen.
The more seepage channels in the specimen, the larger water-carrying
cross-section of the seepage channels. The larger the diameter of the
assumed circular pipe is and the larger the seepage quantity is under the
same hydrostatic pressure.
The cross-sections 1-1 and 2-2 in Fig. 11 are water-carrying loca-
tions where the water pressure was monitored with gauges, respec-
tively. The Bernoulli Equation is established as follows:
P1 ν2 P ν2
z1 + + 1 = z 2 + 2 + 2 + hr
γ 2g γ 2g (7)
where z1 (m) and z2 (m) are the positional potential energies at cross-
sections 1-1 and 2-2, respectively; P1 (m) and P2 (m) are the hydraulic
pressures head measured by the gauges at cross-sections 1-1 and 2-2,
respectively; v1 (m/s) and v2 (m/s) are the flow rates at cross-sections 1-
1 and 2-2, respectively; γ (N/m3) is the unit weight of water; and hr (m)
is the head loss.
The head loss in the hydraulics is calculated as follows:
ν2
hr = ζ e
2g (8)
where v (m/s) is the flow rate in the assumed circular pipe of see-
page. The parameter ζe is the resistance coefficient, calculated as fol-
lows:
I
ζe = λ +ζ
d (9)
where I (m) is the length of the assumed circular pipe, i.e., the
height of the specimen; d (m) is the diameter of the circular pipe; ζ is
the coefficient of local resistance, which is equal to 0.5 for the sand with
Q. Hu, et al.
the diameter of circular pipe of seepage much smaller than the flow
cross-section of sand mass (Yamaguchi, 2008); λ is the friction factor of
head loss, λ = 64/Re for laminar flow in the pipe.
Re is the Reynolds number, and its expression is:
νd
Re =
α (10)
Where α is the viscosity coefficient related to temperature. The
average water temperature in the test remained at 20 °C, so the visc-
osity coefficient is 1.005.
By substituting Eq. (10) into Eq. (9), the following equation can be
obtained:
64αI
ζe = +ζ
νd 2 (11)
Since the flow rates v1 and v2 respectively at cross-sections 1-1 and
2-2 should be equal to each other, the following results can be obtained
by substituting them into Eq. (7):
P1 − P2
z1 − z2 + = hr
γ (12)
where z1- z2 (m) is the height difference of the pressure gauge H (m),
which is 0.6 m. When Eq. (8) and Eq. (11) are substituted into Eq. (12),
the diameter d (m) of the circular pipe is derived as follows:
αIν
d=8
2g H + ( P 1 − P2
γ ) − ζν 2
(13)
According to Eq. (13), the diameter of the circular seepage pipe is
proportional to the height of specimen and the flow rate v (m/s) but
inversely proportional to the difference in hydraulic pressure P1-P2 (m).
However, the changes in I (m) caused by foam dissipation and specimen
compression merely ranged from 0.02 to 0.04 m based on testing re-
cords so that it did not have obvious effects on the diameter of the
circular seepage pipe. i.e., a lower pressure difference and a faster flow
rate give rise to a larger diameter of the circular seepage pipe under the
same initial water pressure at the top of the sample in the process of
seepage.
5.2. Analysis of seepage characteristics of the sand conditioned with foam
Based on the results from the permeability tests and Eq. (13), the
variation of the seepage channels during the permeability tests of
conditioned sand with foam can be analysed. Fig. 12 shows the time-
dependent curves of the water pressures, which were measured with the
top and bottom gauges. At the beginning of the permeability test, the
water pressure at the top of the specimen was close to the corre-
sponding value of hydrostatic pressure, and that at the bottom of the
specimen was close to 0. For example, when the specimens with
Fig. 12. Time-dependent water pressure of the excessive conditioned sand
specimens probably with foam bleeding.
8
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 99 (2020) 103377
Fig. 13. Time-dependent diameter of calculated seepage pipe for the excessive
conditioned sand specimens probably with foam bleeding.
conditioning parameters of w = 2.5%/FIR = 40% under hydrostatic
head of 1.9 m and 2.9 m, the pressures at the top of specimens fluc-
tuated in the small ranges of 0.018–0.019 MPa and 0.028–0.029 MPa,
respectively. The water pressures at the bottom of specimens for both
cases fluctuated in the range of 0.0001–0.0002 MPa. Thus, the foam-
conditioned sand was almost impermeable at the beginning of perme-
ability tests. According to Eq. (13), the diameters of seepage pipes of the
excessive conditioned sand specimens with likely foam bleeding were
calculated to be equal to or close to 0 at the beginning of the perme-
ability tests (Fig. 13) when the hydrostatic head was 1.9 m and 2.9 m,
respectively. It is indicated that the flow channels for the water in the
sand were closed at the initial stable stage. The reason for this was that
the foam formed effective water plugs in the seepage channels to pre-
vent water seepage during the initial stable stage. The seepage channels
were penetrated gradually by water since the foam burst or was pushed
out from the channels. When a certain number of the seepage channels
were penetrated completely at a time, the water flowed through these
channels, the initial stage ended. Furthermore, the initial stage duration
decreased with the increasing of hydrostatic head from 1.9 m to 2.9 m
in Fig. 7(a). The result proves that increasing water pressure would
accelerate the water to penetrate seepage channels. It means that ap-
plied water pressure increased the liquid membrane stress of foam and
higher pressure difference made the foam be pushed out easier. When
the hydrostatic head increased to 5.6 m and 9.6 m in Fig. 7(a), there
were no stable stages; the water pressures at the top of the specimens
during the initial period of seepage were 0.0516 MPa and 0.0812 MPa,
respectively, both of them were relatively lower than the hydrostatic
pressure (equal to 0.0560 MPa and 0.0960 MPa, respectively). The
diameters of the seepage pipes were larger at the beginning of tests than
that at the hydrostatic head of 1.9 m and 2.9 m for the same con-
ditioning parameters, i.e, the water penetrated the seepage channels
directly at the beginning at the hydrostatic pressure heads of 5.6 m and
9.6 m, respectively. Moreover, the pipe diameters at 9.6 m were sig-
nificantly larger than those at 5.6 m. It means that the pressure dif-
ference may flush the foam out of the conditioned sand . The higher the
pressure differences, the larger seepage pipe diameter.
After the initial stable stage, the rapid growth in the permeability
coefficient (Fig. 7a) and the sharp decline of water pressure differences
between top and bottom specimen (Fig. 12) led to the continuous
growth of seepage pipe diameter in a period of time (Fig. 13). This is
mainly because more and more seepage channels were penetrated and
the flowing water carried more foam out of the specimen in this pro-
cess. In addition, it can be noted that the increasing rates were higher
when the pressure differences between top and bottom increased. This
is because higher pressure differences can promote the water to pene-
trate seepage in a shorter time and the flowing water can carry more
foam in the same period of time since the flow velocity was larger when
pressure differences were higher at the same seepage pipe.
After the rapid growth stage, the change rates of the permeability
Q. Hu, et al.
Fig. 14. Time-dependent water pressure of the suitable conditioned sand spe-
cimens without any water or foam bleeding.
Fig. 15. Time-dependent diameter of the suitable conditioned sand specimens
without any water or foam bleeding.
coefficient and the water pressures differences between the top and
bottom of specimens decreased (Fig. 12). Correspondingly, the growth
rate of the diameter of the seepage pipe calculated based on Eq.(13)
decreased in Fig. 13. The main reason for this phenomenon was that a
large amount of foam in the seepage channels had been carried away by
the water. However, it was still difficult for a small amount of foam in
the corners of the seepage channels to be carried away by the water in a
short time. From the previous Section 3.1, it can be seen that the
duration of the initial stable stage for the suitable conditioned sand was
shorter than that for the excessive conditioned sand specimens, most
likely with foam bleeding. Fig. 14 shows the time-dependent water
pressure at the top and bottom of the suitably conditioned specimens
without any water or foam bleeding, and Fig. 15 shows the time-de-
pendent diameter of its assumed seepage pipe calculated according to
Eq. (13). The initial stable periods of the water pressures at the top and
bottom of suitable conditioned specimens were shorter than those of
the excessive conditioned sand specimens, most likely with foam
bleeding specimens. For example, with a hydrostatic head of 1.9 m
before the beginning of seepage, the initial time for the pressures to
reach a stable state was up to 762 min for the excessive conditioned
sand specimen, most likely with foam bleeding (w = 2.5%/
FIR = 40%), which was longer than that for the suitable conditioned
specimen without any water or foam bleeding (w = 2.5%/FIR = 20%).
This was because the increase of the FIR can strengthen the water plugs
made of foam in the seepage channels and prolong the time for water to
penetrate the seepage channels.
Figs. 16 and 17 are time-dependent pressures measured at the tests
and time-dependent diameters of the seepage pipe calculated according
to Eq. (13) for the specimens with water bleeding (including suitable or
excessive conditioning), respectively. There were almost no initial
stable stages for the two types of conditioned sand even under a hy-
drostatic head of 1.9 m. The water pressure difference between the top
and bottom of specimens decreased rapidly at the beginning of tests,
9
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 99 (2020) 103377
Fig. 16. Time-dependent water pressure of the suitable and excessive condi-
tioned sand specimens but with water bleeding.
Fig. 17. Time-dependent diameter of the calculated seepage pipe of the suitable
and excessive conditioned sand specimens but with water bleeding.
and the diameter of the calculated seepage pipe increased. The reason
responsible for these results was that the conditioned sand specimens
with water bleeding had larger water contents (w), and there was more
free water in the seepage channels. On one hand, the free water occu-
pied a certain space in the seepage channels, and foam could not fill the
channels uniformly. On the other hand, free water increased the pres-
sure of the liquid membrane of the foam and caused the foam to burst
faster, resulting in the function of plugs, which were weaker than those
with lower w. After the starting of permeability tests, the water flow
directly penetrated parts of the seepage channels and the number of
seepage channels that were penetrated immediately after the starting of
the seepage test increased with an increase in hydrostatic head.
5.3. Soil conditioning technology for shield tunnelling under various water
pressures
As stated previously, Budach and Thewes (2015) proposed that the
permeability coefficient of conditioned sand should be less than 10−5
m/s, and this value must be maintained during excavating (normally at
least 90 min) to satisfy the requirements of EPB shield tunnelling. The
ranges of conditioning parameters for the specimens having a perme-
ability of less than 10−5 m/s and a duration time of longer than 90 min
are encircled for different hydraulic gradients in Fig. 18, in which dif-
ferent conditioning states of foam-conditioned sand are marked using
data points with different shapes.
With an increase in the hydraulic gradient, the range of the con-
ditioning parameters of the sand specimens satisfying the requirements
of shield tunnelling gradually narrowed. When the hydraulic gradient
was 4.0, the specimens satisfying the permeability requirements in-
cluded some of the suitable conditioned ones without any water or
foam bleeding (w = 2.5%/FIR = 20–30% and w = 5%/
FIR = 10–30%), all of excessive conditioned ones with likely foam
bleeding (w = 2.5%/FIR = 35–40% and w = 5%/FIR = 35–40%).
Q. Hu, et al.
Fig. 18. Range of the suitable conditioning parameters for permeability in
different hydraulic gradients. (“□”: Suitable conditioning without any water or
foam bleeding; “♦”: Insufficient conditioning; “○”: Suitable conditioning but
with water bleeding; “x”: Excessive with likely foam bleeding; and “Δ”:
Excessive with water bleeding).
When the hydraulic gradient was 11, the specimens satisfying the
permeability requirements only included some of the excessive condi-
tioned ones, most likely with foam bleeding (w = 2.5%/FIR = 40% and
w = 5%/FIR = 40%). When the pressure gradient was greater than 16,
all specimens with any conditioning parameters did not satisfy the
permeability requirements. In summary, with the increase of the hy-
draulic gradient, the range of conditioning parameters that satisfied the
permeability requirements for EPB shield and pipe-jacking tunnelling
gradually narrowed towards the range with a low w and high FIR. When
the hydraulic gradient increased to a certain value, the conditioned
sand specimens satisfied the flow plasticity requirements in slump tests
but probably did have suitable permeability coefficients or long dura-
tions of low permeability coefficients. Furthermore, when the hydraulic
gradient was too high, the specimen should be conditioned excessively
with foam, resulting in excessive flowability. Thus, the higher the hy-
draulic gradient, the greater the risk of water spewing. On one hand,
when the hydraulic gradient was high, the sand conditioning with only
foam as a conditioner cannot effectively prevent spewing, that is to say,
we should consider other conditioning agents in this situation.
Therefore, during EPB shield or EPB pipe-jacking machine tunnelling in
ground with high water pressure, more research should be carried out
in advance. Not only the rheology but also the permeability should be
tested on the conditioned sand. Above all, the water pressures for the
permeability tests should be set according to the maximum hydraulic
gradient in the actual shield tunnel project to ensure safe tunnelling. On
the other hand, although the sand with excessive conditioning state
meets the requirement of low permeability, its strong fludity (with
slump values of more than 20 cm) may give rise to the risk of soil
spewing from the excavation chamber (Peila et al., 2007; Qu et al.,
2019).
6. Conclusion
The permeability tests with different hydraulic gradients were car-
ried out to investigate the effects of hydraulic gradients on the per-
meability characteristics of foam-conditioned sand. The seepage model
was introduced to describe the time-dependent permeability char-
acteristics under various hydraulic gradient. Some conclusions can be
drawn as follows:
The permeability characteristics of foam-conditioned sand are
highly dependent on the conditioning state of soil and hydraulic gra-
dients. With an increase in hydraulic gradient, the initial permeability
coefficient of conditioned sand increases while the duration of the in-
itial stable stage clearly decreases. The growth rate of the permeability
coefficient in the rapid growth period increases with an increase in the
hydraulic gradient for all conditioning cases.
10
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 99 (2020) 103377
A simplified seepage model for conditioned sand with foam is pro-
posed to analyze the changes of permeability characteristic. The spe-
cimen is almost impermeable at the beginning of permeability tests
when the water pressures at the top of the specimen are very close to
the corresponding hydrostatic pressure since foam plugs in flow paths.
In the fast grow stage, the water pressure difference decreases rapidly,
which means that the expansion of flow path in specimen because lots
of foam is flushed out from the specimen. With higher water pressures
monitored at the top and bottom of the specimen, the foam is easier to
be flushed out from the specimen.
With an increase in the hydraulic gradient, the available foam-
dominated conditioning parameters for EPB shield tunnelling narrows
towards a smaller range with a lower w and higher FIR in permeability
tests. This finding indicates that higher water pressure may pose a more
serious challenge for conditioning soil with foam. To ensure a reliable
evaluation for real EPB shield or pipe-jacking tunnel projects, both
slump tests and permeability tests should be carried out at a hydraulic
gradient comparable to the actual hydraulicconditions in filed.
Although some of the excessively conditioned specimens can meet the
permeability requirement at a high hydraulic gradient, their slump
values already exceed 20 cm so that the soil is likely to be discharged
directly by the chamber pressure due to its excessive fluidity.
Although it has been found that the presence of foam in sand pore
was mainly affected by the hydraulic gradients in this study, the in-
fluence of earth pressure on permeability characteristics of the sand-
foam mixture is still unclear. For example, according to the research in
Colorado School of Mines (CSM), air compression occurred when the
sand-foam mixture was compressed (Mori et al. 2018) and the foam is
more uniform and stable under pressure (Wu et al., 2018). Therefore, it
is expected that the duration of the stable stage would be longer for the
specimen subjected to earth pressure, especially when the hydraulic
gradient is relatively low and FIR is high since the foam could exist in
sand pore for a longer time in this condition. Further studies are
planned to concern about multi-physical factors in other ways, such as
jobsite monitoring, scaled EPB model tests and numerical simulation.
7. Data availability statement
The measurement data and model output are available from the
corresponding author by request.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Qinxin Hu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
editing, Visualization. Shuying Wang: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Resources, Writing - review & editing, Supervision,
Project administration, Funding acquisition. Tongming Qu:
Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - review &
editing. Tao Xu: Formal analysis, Writing - review & editing. Shuo
Huang: Methodology, Formal analysis. Haibo Wang: Methodology,
Formal analysis.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (No. 51778637) and the National Key Research and
Development Program of China (No. 2017YFB1201204) are acknowl-
edged and appreciated. The authors are also grateful for the re-
commendations from Xibao Zhang and Zhenyu Gong in the China
Q. Hu, et al.
Railway No.5 Engineering Group Co., LTD.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103377.
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), 2006. Standard Test Method for
Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head): ASTM D2434-68.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2017. Standard Practice for
Description and Identification of Soils: ASTM D2488-17ε1.
Bezuijen, A., 2012. Foam used during EPB tunnelling in saturated sand, parameters de-
termining foam consumption. In: Proceedings WTC 2012. Bangkok, Thailand, pp.
267–269.
Borio, L., Peila, D., 2010. Study of the permeability of foam conditioned soils with la-
boratory tests. AM. J. Environ. Sci. 6 (4), 365–370.
Budach, C., 2012. Unter suchungen zumerweiterten Einsatz von Erddrucks childening
robkörni gem Lockergestein (Transl.: Investigations for extended use of EPB Shields
in coarse-grained soils). Doctoral Thesis, Ruhr-Universität Bochum.
Budach, C., Thewes, M., 2015. Application ranges of EPB shields in coarse ground based
on laboratory research. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 50, 296–304.
EFNARC, 2005. Specification and guidelines for the use of specialist products for me-
chanised tunnelling (TBM) in soft ground and hard rock.
Galli, M., Thewes, M., 2014. Investigations for the application of EPB shields in difficult
grounds. Geomechanik Und Tunnelbau. 7 (1), 31–44.
Galli, M., Thewes, M., 2019. Rheological characterisation of foam-conditioned Sands in
EPB tunneling. Int. J. Civ Eng. 17, 145–160.
Guo, S., Jin, P., Ji, G., Zhong, J., Hu, Q., 2020. The settlement characteristics and reasons
of building above EPB tunnel in mix ground. Journal of China Foreign Highway in
press.
Holtz, R., Kovacs, W., Sheahan, T., 2010. An Introduction to geotechnical engineering
(2nd Edition). Prentice Hall.
Jancsecz, S., Krause, R., Langmaack, L., 1999. Advantages of soil conditioning in shield
tunneling: experiences of LRTS Izmir. Proc., Int. Congr. Challenges for the 21st
Century, BalkemaRotterdam: 865-875.
Ji, X., Zhao, W., Jia, P., Qiao, L., Barla, M., Ni, P., Wang, L., 2017. Pipe jacking in sandy
soil under a river in Shenyang, China. Indian. Geotech. J. 47 (3), 246–260.
Langmaack, L., Lee, K.F., 2016. Difficult ground conditions? Use the right chemicals!
Chances–limits–requirements. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 57, 112–121.
Liu, X., Shen, S., Xu, Y., Yin, Z., 2019. Evaluation of foam conditioning effect on
groundwater inflow at tunnel cutting face. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Met. Geomech. 43,
463–481.
Liu, X., Shen, S., Xu, Y., Yin, Z., 2018a. Analytical approach for time-dependent
groundwater inflow into shield tunnel face in confined aquifer. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Met. Geomech. 42, 655–673.
Liu, P., Wang, S., Ge, L., Thewes, M., Yang, J., Xia, Y., 2018b. Changes of atterberg limits
and electrochemical behaviors of clays with dispersants as conditioning agents for
EPB shield tunnelling. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 73, 244–251.
11
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 99 (2020) 103377
Mori, L., Alavi, E., Mooney, M., 2017. Apparent density evaluation methods to assess the
effectiveness of soil conditioning. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 67, 175–186.
Mori, L., Mooney, M., Cha, M., 2018. Characterizing the influence of stress on foam
conditioned sand for EPB tunneling. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 71, 454–465.
Peña, D., 2007. Foam as a soil conditioner in tunnelling: physical and mechanical prop-
erties of conditioned sands . Doctoral Thesis, University of Oxford.
Peila, D., Oggeri, C., Borio, L., 2009. Using the slump test to assess the behavior of
conditioned soil for EPB tunneling. Environ. Eng. Geosci. 8 (3), 167–174.
Peila, D., Oggeri, C., Vinai, R., 2007. Screw conveyor device for laboratory tests on
conditioned soil for EPB tunneling operations. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (12),
1622–1625.
Peila, D., Oggeri, C., Borio, L., 2008. Influence of Granulometry, time and temperature on
soil conditioning for EPBS applications. Word Tunnel Congress 2008, 881–891.
Peila, D., Picchio, A., Chieregato, A., 2013. Earth pressure balance tunnelling in rock
masses: laboratory feasibility study of the conditioning process. Tunn. Undergr. Space
Technol. 35, 55–66.
Peila, D., 2014. Soil conditioning for EPB shield tunnelling. KSCE. J. Civ. Eng. 18 (3),
831–836.
Qu, T., Wang, S., Fu, J., Hu, Q., Zhang, X., 2019a. Numerical examination of EPB shield
tunneling–induced responses at various discharge ratios. J. Perform. Constr. Fac. 33
(3), 04019035.
Qu, T., Wang, S., Hu, Q., 2019b. Coupled discrete element-finite difference method for
analysing effects of cohesionless soil conditioning on tunneling behaviour of EPB
shield. KSCE. J. Civ. Eng. 23 (10), 4537–4551.
Qiao, G., 2009. Development of new foam agent for EPB shield machine and foamed-soil
modification. Doctoral Thesis. University of Mining and Technology (Beijing),
China.
Quebaud, S., Sibai, M., Henry, J., 1998. Use of chemical foam for improvements in
drilling by earth-pressure balanced shields in granular soils. Tunn. Undergr. Space
Technol. 13 (2), 173–180.
Tao, L., Chen, Z., Cui, J., Wang, H., Fang, Y., 2019. Experimental methods to assess the
effectiveness of soil conditioning with foam in fully weathered granite. Adv. Mater.
Sci. Eng. 1–12.
Vinai, R., Oggeri, C., Peila, D., 2008. Soil conditioning of sand for EPB applications: a
laboratory research. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 23, 308–317.
Wilms, J., 1995. Zum Einfluss der Eigenschaften des Stützmediums auf das
Verschleißverhalten eines Erddruckschildes (Transl.: Influence of properties of the
support medium on the wear of EPB-Shields). Mitteilungen aus dem Fachgebiet
Baubetrieb und Bauwirtschaft, Essen.
Wu, Y., Mooney, M., Cha, M., 2018. An experimental examination of foam stability under
pressure for EPB TBM tunneling. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 77, 80–93.
Xiao, G., Lei, B., 2020. The geology adaptability for EPB in the Longquan inverted siphon
tunnel in the 4th section of Kunming of water diversion project for central area of
Yunan Provience, China. China Railway No. 5 Engineering Group Co. LTD., Guiyang.
Yamaguchi, H., 2008. Engineering Fluid Mechanics. Springer.
Ye, X., Wang, S., Yang, J., Sheng, D., Xiao, C., 2016. Soil conditioning for EPB shield
tunneling in argillaceous siltstone with high content of clay minerals: case study. Int.
J. Geomech. 17 (4), 05016002.
Zhang, S., He, S., Zhu, Z., Li, C., 2017. Research on soil conditioning for earth pressure
balance shield tunneling in Lanzhou sandy pebble strata with rich water. Rock. Soil
Mech. 38 (2), 279–286.
Zumsterg, R., Plötze, M., Puzrin, A., 2012. Effect of Soil Conditioners on the Pressure and
Rate-Dependent Shear Strength of Different Clays. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 138
(9), 1138–1146.