applied

sciences
Article
Effects of Soil Conditioning on Characteristics of a
Clay-Sand-Gravel Mixed Soil Based on
Laboratory Test
Yingjie Wei 1,2,3, * , Duli Wang 2 , Jianguang Li 2 and Yuxin Jie 1
1 State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China;
jieyx@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn
2 AVIC Institute of Geotechnical Engineering Co., LTD., Beijing 100098, China; wangduli@163.com (D.W.);
lijianguang10@126.com (J.L.)
3 School of Engineering and Technology, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China
* Correspondence: weiyj19@tsinghua.org.cn




Received: 22 April 2020; Accepted: 7 May 2020; Published: 9 May 2020


Abstract: Soil conditioning is of great significance for tunneling in soft ground with earth pressure
balance shield (EPBS) machines, which leads to safe, highly efficient, and high-quality tunneling.
To study the effects of soil conditioning on properties of a clay-sand-gravel mixed soil encountered in
an EPBS tunneling project in Beijing, a series of geotechnical test methods was carried out based on
laboratory test in this paper. The decay behaviors of foam particles generated by the Waring-Blender
method were studied first using the image particle analysis system, and then the feasibility of soil
conditioning on the mixed soil was qualitatively and quantitatively assessed through the mixing
test, slump test, and friction coefficient test. The preliminary test results indicate that drainage of
water in liquid film plays an important role in the decay of foam microstructure. The viscosity and
flowability of the conditioned soil were modified dramatically by using various amount of water and
foam, and a suitable state meeting the requirement of EPBS machines was obtained. The net power
and mixing time, which reflects the interaction between the blending rods and tested soils, as well as
the slump value, providing the overall indication for liquidity of the conditioned soils, and friction
coefficient, reflecting the friction between steel and tested soils, were used to provide insight into the
variation in viscosity and flowability of the tested soils.

Keywords: soil conditioning; feasibility; mixed soil; earth pressure balance shield

1. Introduction
For the sustainable development of the big city, developing more underground space is effective,
and the development of intensive tunnels, including metro tunnels, road tunnels, and utility tunnels,
is carried out throughout the world. Earth pressure balance shield (EPBS) machines, which were
originally developed and used in a close mode for fine grained soils or mixed grained soils with at
least 30 wt.% fines (d < 0.06 mm) [1,2], have been extensively used in various tunnels because of their
high security in driving, high efficiency in tunneling, and high feasibility in stratums. EPBS machines
achieve stability of tunnel face by filling the chamber and applying chamber pressure at the back
of cutterhead [3], and they have been used in many kinds of excavation soils with complicated
characteristics, such as caking property of clayed soils [4], looseness of sandy soils [5], and abrasivity of
gravelly soils [6]. Many studies on the application of soil conditioning in various given soils have been
carried out in recent years. Today, EPBS tunneling is possible through almost all geological conditions,
and more and more EPBS machines work in mixed ground due to their large excavation diameter [7]
thanks to the application of the soil conditioning system and soil conditioning agents.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3300; doi:10.3390/app10093300 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3300 2 of 16

Soil conditioning, which is often done by injecting water, foam, bentonite slurry, or polymer in the
excavation face, soil chamber, and screw conveyor during EPBS tunneling [8], is used to improve the
stability of tunnel face and then minimize the deformation of ground surface, reduce cutting tools
wear, and discharge the excavated soils smoothly [9,10]. The torque of cutterhead and the thrust of
EPBS machines increases even if the screw conveyor does not work when the soil chamber and the
screw conveyor are filled with excavated soils [11]. The workability of the excavated soils is improved
dramatically after the mixing caused by cutters and cutterhead in tunnel face and stirring caused
by rods in soil chamber. For soil conditioners, water is a common conditioner which is very easy to
access. Foam agent is a widely used soil conditioner, and bentonite slurry are usually used to modify
the grain size distribution of the excavated soils with unfavorable particle composition for EPBS
tunneling [12]. For challenging geological conditions, in which the use of water is insufficient, foam and
slurry, the structuring and water-binding polymers, are warranted to increase the muck cohesion and
decrease permeability, respectively [7]. Foam produced by chemical products, named surfactants or
surface-active agents, is usually used in two fields of underground works, including cellular concrete
and drilling operations, although the industrial applications of foam are various [13]. In most cases, it is
necessary to mix the excavated soils with some soil conditioners to modify the original characteristics
of the natural soils to meet the requirement of EPBS machines. In order to obtain and evaluate the
state and properties of the conditioned soils for various purposes, a series of evaluation methods
were proposed, such as a mixing test, slump test, friction coefficient test, adhesive resistance test,
penetration test, and compressibility test.
Among these tests, the mixing test is used to imitate the real mixing process in the soil chamber [14],
and it is necessary to mix the soil conditioner with the tested soils in laboratory tests [15]. The variation
of the electric motor power, the mixing time necessary to obtain a homogeneous mixture, and the
quality and behavior of the mixture could be observed and evaluated during the evolution of the foam
injection in the tested soil [13]. Some mixing tests have been carried out in previous studies [14–16].
The slump test [17], which is originally used for concrete materials, has been intensively used to
evaluate the characteristics of conditioned soils in EPBS tunneling [3,5,12–14,16,18–22]. For the
flowability of conditioned soils, slump values in the range of 100–200 mm are accepted and considered
reasonable in soft ground tunneling [2,3,18,19], which means that the overall state of conditioned soils
meets the requirement of EPBS machines during tunneling, and the EPBS machines could advance
smoothly. The friction coefficient test, imitating the friction process of soil and steel, is used to obtain
the frictional coefficient by measuring the friction angle between soil and steel or angle of external
friction [14], which also reflects the effect of soil conditioning on the tested soils. The mixing test,
slump test, and friction coefficient test are widely used in evaluating of properties of conditioned soils
in laboratory-scale tests because of their simplicity, speed, and low cost.
EPBS machines, which were originally used for fine-grained or mixed -rained soils with at least
30 wt.% fines (d < 0.06 mm), have been proved to be applicable for coarse-grained and cohesionless soils
by the utilization of soil conditioning, such as sand [19], rock masses [20], tar sand [12], weathered granite
soil [3], and so forth. The current research mainly focused on the soil conditioning in single soils,
while the feasibility of excavation soils from mix ground composed of cohesive soil and cohesionless
soil have rarely been investigated to date, which is more difficult to resolve in EPBS tunneling.
The characteristics of the mixed soil, which is abundant in large-diameter EPBS tunneling, are different
from those of either clay or sand, as the conditioning agents applicable to single soils cannot be directly
used in mixed soils. There are still some knowledge gaps in the application of soil conditioning in
mixed soils.
This article presents an experimental investigation of effects of common foam and water on the
characteristics of a mixed soil consisting of silty clay, fine-medium sand, and sandy gravel, from an EPBS
tunneling project in Beijing. The microstructure of the foam particle was first investigated to explore
the decay mechanism, followed by the description of the evaluation methods, testing procedures,
 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17

95 EPBS tunneling project in Beijing. The microstructure of the foam particle was first investigated to
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3300 3 of 16
96 explore the decay mechanism, followed by the description of the evaluation methods, testing
97 procedures, and tested soil used in this study. After that, the detailed results and discussion of the
98 laboratory
and tests,
tested soil which
used demonstrates
in this study. Afterthe effect
that, the of the soilresults
detailed conditioning, are presented.
and discussion of the laboratory tests,
which demonstrates the effect of the soil conditioning, are presented.
99 2. Methods and Materials
2. Methods and Materials
100 2.1. Image Particle Analysis System
2.1. Image Particle Analysis System
101 Foam was defined as a physical state in which a gaseous phase is dispersed in bubble form in a
102 secondFoam wasphase
liquid defined asIn
[13]. a physical
order to state
obtaininthe
which
decaya gaseous
behaviorsphase is dispersed
of the used foam, in the
bubble form in a
BT-1600-type
103 second liquid phase [13]. In order to obtain the decay behaviors of the used foam,
image particle analysis system, which is the production of combing traditional microscopic methods the BT-1600-type
104 image particleimage
with modern analysis system, which
processing is thewas
techniques, production of combing
used to observe traditionalinmicroscopic
the variation methods
foam microstructure
105 with modern image processing techniques, was used to observe the variation in
with time. The BT-1600-type image particle analysis system is a multifunctional particle analysis foam microstructure
106 with
systemtime. The BT-1600-type
consisting of optical image particle analysis
microscope, digitalsystem
chargeis acoupled
multifunctional
device particle
(CCD) analysis
camera, system
image
107 consisting of optical microscope, digital charge coupled device (CCD) camera, image
processing and analysis software, and so on. The test procedure is as follows: (1) The generated foam processing and
108 analysis software, and so on. The test procedure is as follows: (1) The generated
was dripped on the glass slide; (2) the dripped foam was covered with a coverslip immediately to foam was dripped
109 on the glass
obtain a thinslide;
foam(2) the dripped
layer; (3) videosfoam
andwas covered
photos werewithtakena coverslip
under theimmediately
condition of to theobtain a thin
microscope
110 foam layer; (3)eyepiece
with 10-times videos andandphotos
4-timeswere taken lens
objective under the condition
magnification forof60
themin;
microscope with 10-times
(4) the particle images
111 eyepiece and 4-times objective lens magnification for 60 min; (4) the particle
were transferred to a computer using USB data transmission and the images were analyzed images were transferred
using
112 to a computer using USB data transmission and the images were analyzed using special
special particle image analysis software; (5) the results were exported using the display and printer. particle image
analysis software; (5) the results were exported using the display and printer.
113 2.2. Mixing Test
2.2. Mixing Test
114 To mix foam with tested soils and preliminarily obtain the flowability state of conditioned soils,
To mix foam with tested soils and preliminarily obtain the flowability state of conditioned soils,
115 a mixing tester with electric power meter was used in this study. The device consists of a vertically
a mixing tester with electric power meter was used in this study. The device consists of a vertically
116 oriented steel cylindrical chamber with 385 mm in inner diameter and 255 mm in height, as shown in
oriented steel cylindrical chamber with 385 mm in inner diameter and 255 mm in height, as shown
117 Figure 1. A rod with eight steel sheets driven by an electric motor can rotate inside the vertical
in Figure 1. A rod with eight steel sheets driven by an electric motor can rotate inside the vertical
118 container. The mixer has the capability of mixing water and foam with tested soils. The tested soils
container. The mixer has the capability of mixing water and foam with tested soils. The tested soils
119 were mixed with soil conditioning agents according to the following procedure: (1) A quantity of 25
were mixed with soil conditioning agents according to the following procedure: (1) A quantity of 25 kg
120 kg of mixed soils was first placed in the cylinder container; (2) water with the designed injection
of mixed soils was first placed in the cylinder container; (2) water with the designed injection ratio was
121 ratio was added into the soil and mixed thoroughly; (3) the generated foam with the required
added into the soil and mixed thoroughly; (3) the generated foam with the required concentration
122 concentration of foam agent (Cf), foam expansion ratio (FER), and foam injection ratio (FIR) was
of foam agent (Cf ), foam expansion ratio (FER), and foam injection ratio (FIR) was added to soil
123 added to soil samples; (4) the mixture was blended for 2 min and the mixing time necessary to obtain
samples; (4) the mixture was blended for 2 min and the mixing time necessary to obtain a homogeneous
124 a homogeneous mixture without apparent foam. The electric motor power used for the mixing
mixture without apparent foam. The electric motor power used for the mixing process and pictures of
125 process and pictures of conditioned state after pulling up of the stirring rod, were recorded,
conditioned state after pulling up of the stirring rod, were recorded, monitored, and taken for each test.
126 monitored, and taken for each test.

127
128 Figure 1.
Figure 1. Mixer
Mixer with
with power
power meter
meter (after
(after [14]).
[14]).
 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3300 4 of 16
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 17

129 2.3. Slump Test

2.3. Slump Test

130 After
After the
the mechanical
mechanical mixing
mixing tests,
tests, slump
slump tests
tests were
were carried
carried out out toto provide
provide an
an overall
overall indication
indication
131 of
of the flowability of the fully conditioned soil. A standard slump cone with 100 mm in
the flowability of the fully conditioned soil. A standard slump cone with 100 mm in diameter
diameter of of
132 top
top opening,
opening, 200200 mm
mm inin diameter
diameter of of bottom
bottom opening,
opening, andand 300300 mm mm inin height
height was
was used,
used, asas shown
shown in in
133 Figure 2. The procedure of the slump test is as follows: (1) The slump cone was
Figure 2. The procedure of the slump test is as follows: (a) The slump cone was filled three times, filled three times,
134 that
that is,
is, to
to the
theheight
heightofof1/3,
1/3,2/3,
2/3,and
and3/3,
3/3,respectively;
respectively; (2)(2)
thethefilled soilsoil
filled was tamped
was after
tamped each
after fill; fill;
each (3) the
(3)
135 soil was flatted at the top opening and the cone was lifted slowly; (4) the dropping height
the soil was flatted at the top opening and the cone was lifted slowly; (4) the dropping height of the of the tested
136 materials was measured.
tested materials was measured.

137
138 Figure 2.
Figure 2. Slump
Slump test
test device.
device.

139 2.4. Friction Coefficient Test

Test
140 To study
To studythethe effect
effect of soil
of soil conditioning
conditioning on theon the viscosity
viscosity of the conditioned
of the conditioned soil, the
soil, the friction friction
coefficient
141 coefficient between soil and steel was tested by measuring the friction angle
between soil and steel was tested by measuring the friction angle using the friction coefficient test. using the friction
142 coefficient
The test.ofThe
procedure theprocedure of the friction
friction coefficient test is coefficient
as follows: test
(1) Ais plastic
as follows: (a) A
cylinder plastic
with cylinder
an inner diameterwith
143 an100
of inner
mm diameter
and height of 100 mm
of 100 mm and height
was filledofwith
100soil
mmsamples
was filledandwith
then soil samples
it was placedand then
on the flatit steel
was
144 placed(2)
plate; onone
the flat
endsteel
of theplate;
plate(2)was
one lifted
end ofup theslowly
plate was
and lifted up slowly
the angle on theand the dial
angle anglewas
on the angle
recorded
145 dial was
when therecorded whento
cylinder starts the cylinder
move, starts in
as shown to Figure
move, 3;
as(3)
shown in Figure
the friction 3; (3) the
coefficient friction
was coefficient
obtained by the
146 was obtained
following by the following equation:
equation:
f = tan δ (1)
f  tan  (1)
where f is the friction coefficient, and δ is the friction angle between soil and steel (◦ )
147 where f is the friction coefficient, and  is the friction angle between soil and steel (°)
 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3300 5 of 16

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 17

148
149 Figure 3.
Figure 3. Friction
Friction coefficient
coefficient test
test device.
device.

150 3. Soil Samples and

3. and Foam
Foam Agent
Agent Used
Used in
in Experiments
Experiments
151 AA mixed
mixed soilsoil consisting
consisting of of silty
silty clay,
clay, fine-medium
fine-medium sand, sand, andand sandy
sandy gravel,
gravel, with
with aa volume
volume
152 proportion of 2:2:1
proportion 2:2:1 encountered
encounteredininan anEPBS
EPBStunneling
tunneling projects in Beijing,
projects in Beijing, waswas used in this
used study.
in this The
study.
153 selected
The properties
selected of theofsoil
properties thewere
soil tested based based
were tested on GB/T on50123
GB/T[23]
50123 and[23]
areand
listed inlisted
are Table in 1. For
Tablesilty
1.
154 clay,silty
For X-ray diffraction
clay, tests were
X-ray diffraction performed
tests to determine
were performed the mineral
to determine constituent,
the mineral as shown
constituent, asinshown
Table
155 2. Figure
in Table 2.4 shows
Figurethe grain size
4 shows the distribution of the fine-medium
grain size distribution sand and sandy
of the fine-medium sandgravel. Basedgravel.
and sandy on the
156 liquid-plastic
Based limit combined
on the liquid-plastic limitmethod
combined [23],method
the plastic[23],limit (WP) and
the plastic liquid
limit (W Plimit
) and(W L) of limit
liquid the silty
(W Lclay
) of
157 were
the 30%
silty and
clay 44%,30%
were respectively. For the natural
and 44%, respectively. Forsilty
the clay withsilty
natural a water content
clay with of 25%,
a water the plasticity
content of 25%,
158 index
the (IP) andindex
plasticity liquidity index
(IP ) and (IL) were
liquidity 14%(Iand
index L ) -0.36,
were 14% respectively.
and -0.36, The gravel
respectively. particles
The gravelwrapped
particlesby
159 silty clay and sand particles cohere the cutting tools on the cutterhead and
wrapped by silty clay and sand particles cohere the cutting tools on the cutterhead and it is hard to it is hard to discharge the
160 mixed soils
discharge thevia screw
mixed conveyor.
soils via screwThe mechanical
conveyor. behavior ofbehavior
The mechanical the mixed soilmixed
of the is not soil
suitable
is notfor EPBS
suitable
161 tunneling.
for Soil conditioning
EPBS tunneling. is needed
Soil conditioning to modify
is needed characteristics
to modify characteristicsof the
of themixed
mixedsoilsoiltoto meet
meet thethe
162 requirement of
requirement of EPBS
EPBS machine.
machine. The natural water content of the mixed soil was approximately 25%,
163 and the
and the original
original water
water content
content was
wassetsettoto25%
25%for foraagroup
groupof ofsoil
soilsample
sampletest testininthis
thisstudy.
study.

164 Table1.1. Geotechnical

Table Geotechnical properties
propertiesof
oftested
testedsoil.
soil.

Natural
Natural Bulkbulk density Void
Density Void ratio
Ratio Cohesion
Cohesion Internal friction
Internal Friction angle
Angle
Soils ρ ϕ
Soils ρ e e c c φ
3) ◦)
(g/cm
(g/cm 3) (kPa)
(kPa) ((° )
Silty clay
Silty clay 1.961.96 0.770.77 2525 10
10
Fine to medium sand 2.00 0.60 0 30
FineSandy
to medium
gravel sand 2.052.00 0.450.60 0 0 30
45
Sandy gravel 2.05 0.45 0 45

For foam agents, there are two performance indicators which are often used to characterize
foaming behaviors and select a foam agent: Foamability and foam stability. Foamability means
how many volumes of bubbles with stable structure and moderate size can be produced by a given
amount of a foaming agent, which is quantified by the ratio between the resulting volume of the foam
and the volume of foaming liquid (foaming agent + water), that is, the foam expansion ratio (FER).
Foam stability (or drainage behavior) means how long the foam can remain and how long foamed
soils can sustain the desirable properties or behaviors. The half-life period (T1/2 ), representing the time
for half volume of the liquid matrix flowing out of the foam, can be used to characterize the foam
 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3300 6 of 16

stability. There are several important conditioning parameters for foam agent, which are defined as
follows [2,15]:
Vf
Cf = × 100(%) (2)
VL
VF
FER = (3)
VL
VFIR
FIR = × 100(%) (4)
VS
where Cf is the concentration of the foaming agent (%), FER is the foam expansion ratio (dimensionless),
FIR is the foaming injection ratio (%), Vf is the volume of foaming agent (mL), VF is the volume of
foam (mL), VL is the volume of foaming agent and water (mL), and VS is the volume of soil (mL).

Table 2. Mineral constituent of silty clay.

Soil Mineral Type Percent by Mass (%)

Quartz 39
Plagioclase 23
Microcline 7
Calcite 7
Silty clay
hematite 2
mica 9
montmorillonite 9
Clinochlore 4
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17

165
166 Figure
Figure 4.
4. Grain
Grain size
size distribution
distribution curves
curves of
of tested
tested soil
soil sample.
sample.

167 In order to obtain the foam Table 2. Mineral

during constituent
laboratory of silty
test, clay.
a commonly used method called the
Waring-Blender method was used in this study. The procedure of foam production in the Waring-Blender
soil Mineral type Percent by mass (%)
test is as follows: (1) 100 mL foaming liquid (foaming agent + water) with different concentration of
Quartz 39
foaming agent (Cf , vol.%) was added into a mixer; (2) the foaming liquid was thoroughly mixed for 1 min
Plagioclase 23
at a rotational speed of 3000 rpm (revolutions per minute), as shown in Figure 5a. Then, the foamability
Microcline 7
(i.e., FER) and foam stability (i.e., T1/2 ) of the generated foam were tested, as shown in Figure 5b.
Calcite 7
f = 4%, FER = 7 and T 1/2 = 30 min under the room temperature of 25 °C
SiltyCclay
Finally, the foam agent with
hematite 2
was used in this study. The generated foam was used for the observation of the microstructure and
mica 9
subsequent evaluation tests of the conditioned soil. The generated foam was added after thoroughly
montmorillonite 9
mixing of tested soils and water (see Figure 6a). The foam injection ratios (FIR) were set as 0%, 10%,
Clinochlore 4

168 For foam agents, there are two performance indicators which are often used to characterize
169 foaming behaviors and select a foam agent: Foamability and foam stability. Foamability means how
170 many volumes of bubbles with stable structure and moderate size can be produced by a given
171 amount of a foaming agent, which is quantified by the ratio between the resulting volume of the
184 Waring-Blender test is as follows: (1) 100 ml foaming liquid (foaming agent + water) with different
185 concentration of foaming agent (Cf, vol.%) was added into a mixer; (2) the foaming liquid was
185 concentration of foaming agent (Cf, vol.%) was added into a mixer; (2) the foaming liquid was
186 thoroughly mixed for 1 min at a rotational speed of 3000 rpm (revolutions per minute), as shown in
186 thoroughly mixed for 1 min at a rotational speed of 3000 rpm (revolutions per minute), as shown in
187 Figure 5(a). Then, the foamability (i.e., FER) and foam stability (i.e., T1/2) of the generated foam were
187 Figure 5(a). Then, the foamability (i.e., FER) and foam stability (i.e., T1/2) of the generated foam were
188 tested, as shown in Figure5(b). Finally, the foam agent with Cf = 4%, FER = 7 and T1/2 = 30 min under
188 tested, as shown in Figure5(b). Finally, the foam agent with Cf = 4%, FER = 7 and T1/2 = 30 min under
189 the room
Appl. Sci. 2020,temperature
10, 3300 of 25 ℃ was used in this study. The generated foam was used for 7 ofthe
16
189 the room temperature of 25 ℃ was used in this study. The generated foam was used for the
190 observation of the microstructure and subsequent evaluation tests of the conditioned soil. The
190 observation of the microstructure and subsequent evaluation tests of the conditioned soil. The
191 generated foam was added after thoroughly mixing of tested soils and water (see Figure 6(a)). The
191 generated
20%, and 30%foamfor was addedsoil
various after thoroughly
samples. mixing
After that, of
thetested soilsfoam
injected and and
water (see
soil Figure
were 6(a)).
stirred The
into a
192 foam injection ratios (FIR) were set as 0%, 10%, 20%, and 30% for various soil samples. After that, the
192 foam injection mixture
homogeneous ratios (FIR)
(seewere set6b).
Figure as 0%, 10%, 20%, and 30% for various soil samples. After that, the
193 injected foam and soil were stirred into a homogeneous mixture (see Figure 6(b)).
193 injected foam and soil were stirred into a homogeneous mixture (see Figure 6(b)).

194
194
195 Figure 5. Warning-Blender method: (a) Waring-Blender tester, (b) generated foam.
Warning-Blender method:
method: (a)
(a) Waring-Blender
Waring-Blender tester,
195 Figure 5.
Figure 5. Warning-Blender tester, (b)
(b) generated
generated foam.
foam.

196
196
197 Figure 6. Addition of foam agent :(a) Injection of foam before mixing, (b) homogenous mixtures after
197 Figure 6. Addition of foam agent :(a) Injection of foam before mixing, (b) homogenous mixtures after
198 mixing.6. Addition of foam agent: (a) Injection of foam before mixing, (b) homogenous mixtures
Figure
198 mixing.
after mixing.
199 4. Results and Discussions
199 4. Results and Discussions
200 4.1. Analysis of Decay Behavior of Foam Microstructure
200 4.1. Analysis of Decay Behavior of Foam Microstructure
201 Foam is a gas-liquid two-phase conditioner. The picture of foam microstructure before
201 Foam isisa gas-liquid
a gas-liquid two-phase
two-phase conditioner. The picture
conditioner. of foamofmicrostructure
The picture before treatment
foam microstructure before
202 treatment under 40-times magnification is clearly shown in Figure 7, and the pictures of
202 under 40-times magnification is clearly shown in Figure 7, and the pictures
treatment under 40-times magnification is clearly shown in Figure 7, and the pictures of microstructure underof
203 microstructure under different decay times are shown in Figure 8. The inside nucleus was filled with
203 different decay under
microstructure times are showndecay
different in Figure
times8.are
The insideinnucleus
shown Figure was filled
8. The with
inside air andwas
nucleus thefilled
surface is
with
204 air and the surface is covered with liquid film. After 0.5 min of decay, the generated bubbles were
204 covered with liquid film. After 0.5 min of decay, the generated bubbles were separated
air and the surface is covered with liquid film. After 0.5 min of decay, the generated bubbles were by the thick
205 separated by the thick liquid film full of free water and microbubbles. The shape of bubble particle
205 liquid filmby
separated fullthe
of thick
free water
liquidand
filmmicrobubbles. The shape
full of free water of bubble particle
and microbubbles. The was
shape approximately circle
of bubble particle
206 was approximately circle or oval regardless of bubble size, as shown in Figure 8(a). After 5 min of
206 or
wasoval regardless ofcircle
approximately bubbleorsize,
ovalasregardless
shown in ofFigure
bubble8a. size,
Afteras5 shown
min of decay, the 8(a).
in Figure relatively
Afterlarge
5 minsize
of
bubbles became bigger, while the relatively small bubbles become smaller gradually until vanishment.
The shape of bubbles started to be polygon, especially for large-size bubbles, as shown in Figure 8b.
After 10 min of decay, the bubble size further became larger, and the bubbles were firmly attached
to each other because of thinner liquid film induced by the loss of free water. The number of bubble
particles decreased further on account of the vanishment of microbubbles and small bubbles because
 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17

207 decay, the relatively large size bubbles became bigger, while the relatively small bubbles become
207 decay, the relatively large size bubbles became bigger, while the relatively small bubbles become
208 smaller gradually until vanishment. The shape of bubbles started to be polygon, especially for
208 smaller gradually until vanishment. The shape of bubbles started to be polygon, especially for
209 large-size bubbles, as shown in Figure 8(b). After 10min of decay, the bubble size further became
209 large-size bubbles, as shown in Figure 8(b). After 10min of decay, the bubble size further became
210 larger,
Appl. Sci.and
2020,the bubbles were firmly attached to each other because of thinner liquid film induced
10, 3300 8 ofby
16
210 larger, and the bubbles were firmly attached to each other because of thinner liquid film induced by
211 the loss of free water. The number of bubble particles decreased further on account of the
211 the loss of free water. The number of bubble particles decreased further on account of the
212 vanishment of microbubbles and small bubbles because of the merger. The shape of the remaining
212 vanishment
of the merger. ofThe
microbubbles and
shape of the small bubbles
remaining bubbles because
becameofpolygon,
the merger.
whileThe theshape of the
pentagon remaining
and hexagon
213 bubbles became polygon, while the pentagon and hexagon were the most common, as shown in
213 bubbles
were thebecame polygon,aswhile
most common, shown theinpentagon
Figure 8c.and hexagon
After 15 min,were the 25
20 min, mostmin,common, as shown
and 30 min in
of decay,
214 Figure 8(c). After 15min, 20min, 25min, and 30min of decay, it can be seen that the bubble size
214 Figure
it can be8(c).
seenAfter
that 15min, 20min,
the bubble size 25min,
further and 30min
became of decay,
larger and theitliquid
can be seen
film that the
further bubble
became size
thinner.
215 further became larger and the liquid film further became thinner. The liquidity of the bubbles dried
215 further became
The liquidity of larger and the
the bubbles liquid
dried film further
up gradually andbecame thinner.
the bubbles noThe liquidity
longer of the bubbles
had obvious dried
deformations,
216 up gradually and the bubbles no longer had obvious deformations, as shown in Figure 8(d–g). After
216 up gradually
as shown and the
in Figure bubbles
8d–g. Afterno60
longer
min ofhad obvious
decay, deformations,
the film as shown
was adsorbed in Figure
and bent by the8(d–g).
micro After
solid
217 60 min of decay, the film was adsorbed and bent by the micro solid body and the bubble structure
217 60
bodyminandof the
decay, the structure
bubble film was adsorbed
had all butand bent by the
disappeared micro
(see solid
Figure 8h).body and the bubble structure
218 had all but disappeared (see Figure 8(h)).
218 had all but disappeared (see Figure 8(h)).

219
219
220 Figure
Figure 7.
7. Microstructure
Microstructure of
of liquid
liquid film
film before
before treatment.
treatment.
220 Figure 7. Microstructure of liquid film before treatment.

221
221
222 Figure 8. Variation of foam microstructure under 40-times magnification after treatment (a) 0.5min;
222 Figure 8. Variation of foam microstructure under 40-times magnification after treatment (a) 0.5min;
Variation
223 Figure
(b) 8. (c)
5min; 10min; of
(d)foam microstructure
15min; (e) 20min; (f)under
25min;40-times magnification
(g) 30min; (h) 60min. after treatment (a) 0.5 min;
223 (b)
(b) 5min;
5 min;(c)
(c)10min;
10 min;(d)
(d)15min; (e)(e)
15 min; 20min; (f)(f)
20 min; 25min; (g) (g)
25 min; 30min; (h) 60min.
30 min; (h) 60 min.
224 The above phenomena were caused by the drainage of water in liquid film and air fusion
224 The above phenomena
Thebubbles
above phenomenawere werecaused
causedbyby thethe drainage of water in liquid filmairand air among
fusion
225 among [16]. The drainage of water in drainage
the liquidoffilm
water in caused
was liquid film and
by gravity fusion
and pressure
225 among
bubblesbubbles
[16]. The[16]. The drainage
drainage of water of
in water
the in the liquid film wasbycaused by gravity anddifference.
pressure
226 difference. The free water flowed under theliquid film
influence was caused
of gravity when gravity and
the liquid pressure
film was full of free
226 difference. The free water flowed under the influence of gravity when the liquid film was full of free
227 water. Meanwhile, a plateau boundary was formed at the intersection of adjacent bubbleswater.
The free water flowed under the influence of gravity when the liquid film was full of free (see
227 water. Meanwhile,
Meanwhile, a plateau boundary was formed at the intersection of adjacent bubbles (see
228 Figure 9(a)). aThe
plateau boundary
movement waswater
of free formed at theby
caused intersection of adjacentcan
pressure difference bubbles (see Figure
be expressed by 9a).
the
228 Figure 9(a)). The
The movement movement
ofas
free of freeby
water caused water caused
pressure by pressure
difference can bedifference
expressedcan be expressed
by the by the
Laplace equation
229 Laplace equation follows:
229 Laplace equation as follows:
as follows:
σ
PA − PB = (5)
R
where PA , PB are the pressure at A point and B point, respectively; σ is surface tension of liquid film;
and R is radius of constant volume circle. Free water flows from A point to B point when PA > PB ,
 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3300 9 of 16

as shown in Figure 9a. The existence of microbubbles in the liquid film hinders the movement of the
free water and contributes to the stability of the bubble microstructure. When the angle of plateau
boundary is 120◦ , the pressure at A point and B point is the minimum, and the bubble is stable.
Therefore, the shape of bubble in two-dimension plane is hexagon, which expresses the phenomena of
existence of2020,
Appl. Sci. hexagon inPEER
10, x FOR Figure 8c–e.
REVIEW 10 of 17

253
254 Figure 9. Diagram of foam microstructure: (a) Plateau junction; (b) surface tension on a
Figure 9. Diagram of foam microstructure: (a) Plateau junction; (b) surface tension on a
255 three-dimensional surface.
three-dimensional surface.
256 4.2. Results and Discussion of Mixing Test
Figure 9b shows the sketch of curved surface in three dimensional. The pressure difference can be
257expressed Various amounts of water content (25 w.t.% and 40 w.t.%) and foam injection ratios (0 vol.%, 10
as follows:
258 vol.%, 20 vol.%, and 30 vol.%) were added to the tested 1 soil
1 to achieve different conditioned soils.
!
259 ∆P = γ −
Figure 10 shows the pictures of tested soils with various water content and FIR after 2 min of mixing. (6)
R1 R2
260 For the soil sample with w = 25% &FIR = 0%, the soil composed of loose soil clumps, which was
261where ∆P isbypressure
caused the gravel difference, γ is coefficient
particle wrapped of surface
by silty clay tension, and
and fine-medium R1showed
sand, and R2 aare curvature
dry, loose, andradius
262at orthogonal
rigid state,plane.
as shown in Figure 10(a). For w = 25% &FIR = 10%, w = 25% &FIR = 20%, and w = 25%
263 &FIR
If the= bubble
30%, theis tested soils showed
the standard a sticky,
spherical, thenstiff,
R1and
= water
R2 =shortage
R, and state,
then astheshown in Figure
Equation (6) can be
10(b–d).
264changed to: The foam could not work in a water shortage soil because the water in liquid film of foam
265 was easily absorbed by the unsaturated soil, which2γ was found in the foam microstructure test.
266 Therefore, it was necessary to improve the water ∆P =content in the tested soils before the addition of (7)
R
267 foam, and then the other group soil samples with w = 40% were adopted. For tested soil with w = 40%
The pressure difference between large size bubble and the adjacent small size bubble can be
268 &FIR = 0%, the state was consistent and the flowability increased, as shown in Figure 10(e). For w =
269expressed
40% &FIRas: = 10%, w = 40% &FIR = 20%, and w = 40% &FIR = 30%, the ! tested soils were turned into a
loose and fluffy state, where the soil volume left on the rod 1decreased
1 as FIR increased, as shown in
270 ∆P = Ps − Pb = 2γ − (8)
271 Figure 10(f–h). This indicates that the flowability increased Rs andRviscosity
b decreased because of the
272wherelubrication
Ps and Pand dispersion induced by foam air bubbles.
b are the pressure in small size bubbles and adjacent large size bubbles, respectively;
273
and Rs and Rb are the radius of small size bubbles and adjacent large size bubbles, respectively.
According to Equation (8), the air in small-size bubbles diffuses into adjacent large-size bubbles,
and then the size of small bubbles becomes smaller until vanishment while adjacent large size bubbles
become larger. The large size bubbles become larger as the micro and small bubbles are continuously
captured by the neighboring large size bubbles with higher adsorption energy. To make the foam
stable and maximum its effect, the water should be sufficient to prevent from the decay of foam
microstructure induced by drainage of water.
 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3300 10 of 16

4.2. Results and Discussion of Mixing Test

Various amounts of water content (25 w.t.% and 40 w.t.%) and foam injection ratios (0 vol.%,
10 vol.%, 20 vol.%, and 30 vol.%) were added to the tested soil to achieve different conditioned soils.
Figure 10 shows the pictures of tested soils with various water content and FIR after 2 min of mixing.
For the soil sample with w = 25% &FIR = 0%, the soil composed of loose soil clumps, which was caused
by the gravel particle wrapped by silty clay and fine-medium sand, showed a dry, loose, and rigid state,
as shown in Figure 10a. For w = 25% &FIR = 10%, w = 25% &FIR = 20%, and w = 25% &FIR = 30%,
the tested soils showed a sticky, stiff, and water shortage state, as shown in Figure 10b–d. The foam
could not work in a water shortage soil because the water in liquid film of foam was easily absorbed by
the unsaturated soil, which was found in the foam microstructure test. Therefore, it was necessary to
improve the water content in the tested soils before the addition of foam, and then the other group soil
samples with w = 40% were adopted. For tested soil with w = 40% &FIR = 0%, the state was consistent
and the flowability increased, as shown in Figure 10e. For w = 40% &FIR = 10%, w = 40% &FIR = 20%,
and w = 40% &FIR = 30%, the tested soils were turned into a loose and fluffy state, where the soil
volume left on the rod decreased as FIR increased, as shown in Figure 10f–h. This indicates that the
flowability increased and viscosity decreased because of the lubrication and dispersion induced by
foam air bubbles.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17

274
275 Figure 10. Photographs of tested soils with various water content and foam injection ratio (FIR) after
Figure 10. Photographs of tested soils with various water content and foam injection ratio (FIR) after
276 mixing: (a) w = 25%, FIR = 0%; (b) w = 25%, FIR = 10%; (c) w = 25%, FIR = 20%; (d) w = 25%, FIR = 30%;
mixing: (a) w = 25%, FIR = 0%; (b) w = 25%, FIR = 10%; (c) w = 25%, FIR = 20%; (d) w = 25%, FIR = 30%;
277 (e) w = 40%, FIR = 0%; (f) w = 40%, FIR = 10%; (g) w = 40%, FIR = 20%; (h) w = 40%, FIR = 30%.
(e) w = 40%, FIR = 0%; (f) w = 40%, FIR = 10%; (g) w = 40%, FIR = 20%; (h) w = 40%, FIR = 30%.

278 Each mixing

Each mixingtest
test
waswas conducted
conducted for 2and
for 2 min minthe and thetime
mixing mixing timetonecessary
necessary to obtain a
obtain a homogeneous
279 homogeneous
mixture withoutmixture
apparentwithout
foamapparent foam by
was recorded wasa recorded by a timer,
timer, as shown as shown
in Figure in Figure
11. The 11. The
time used for
280 time used for foamed soils with w = 25% &FIR = 10% was less than the time used
foamed soils with w = 25% &FIR = 10% was less than the time used for foamed soils with w = 25% for foamed soils
281 with w
&FIR = =20%.
25%This
&FIRmight
= 20%. Thisbeen
have might haveby
caused been
thecaused
smallerby the smaller
amount amount
and faster and faster
defoaming defoaming
in tested soils
282 in tested soils with w = 25% &FIR = 10%. For tested soils with w = 40%, the general mixing
with w = 25% &FIR = 10%. For tested soils with w = 40%, the general mixing time was less than tested time was
283 less than tested soils with w = 25% because the soils already had a good flowability
soils with w = 25% because the soils already had a good flowability at w = 40%. The general mixing at w = 40%. The
284 general
time mixing
for soils time
with w =for40%soils with was=FIR
decreased 40% decreased
increased, as FIR
which increased,
might have been which
causedmight
by thehave been
decrease
285 caused by the decrease of viscosity induced by foam dispersion and increase of flowability
of viscosity induced by foam dispersion and increase of flowability induced by foam lubrication. induced
286 by foam lubrication.
287 Meanwhile, the net power of the electric mixer motor with a resolution of 1 W was monitored
288 during the mixing test, as shown in Figure 12. The net power value and fluctuation value induced by
289 the soils with w = 25% were higher than tested soils with w = 40%, which might have been caused by
290 the poor liquidity and high viscosity. The average net power and standard deviation, as well as the
291 change rate of the net power for various tested soils, are further plotted in Figure 13. Figure 13(a)
292 indicates that the fluctuation of net power for tested soils with w = 25% did not change significantly
 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3300 11 of 16
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 17

304
305 Figure11.
Figure 11.Mixing
Mixingtime
timefor
forvarious
variousfoamed
foamedsoils.
soils.

Meanwhile, the net power of the electric mixer motor with a resolution of 1 W was monitored
during the mixing test, as shown in Figure 12. The net power value and fluctuation value induced by
the soils with w = 25% were higher than tested soils with w = 40%, which might have been caused
by the poor liquidity and high viscosity. The average net power and standard deviation, as well as
the change rate of the net power for various tested soils, are further plotted in Figure 13. Figure 13a
indicates that the fluctuation of net power for tested soils with w = 25% did not change significantly
with increase of FIR, while the fluctuation of net power for tested soils with w = 40% decreased
drastically as the FIR increased from 0% to 10%. Figure 13b shows the change rate of net power with
FIR. For tested soils with w = 25%, the change rate of net power increased as FIR increased from 0%
to 10% and then decreased with the further injection of foam. This might have been caused by the
increase of viscosity in the mixed soils because of the defoaming of foam at w = 25% &FIR = 10%
caused by insufficient water in soil. However, the net power of tested soils with w = 40% decreased
by 50% as FIR increased from 0% to 30%, which might have been caused by the decrease of viscosity
and increase of flowability in the mixed soils because of the dispersion and lubrication induced by
enough air bubbles. The decrease of net power value and fluctuation value in the mixing test means
that the cutter head torque, as well as electric energy, could be decreased during EPBS tunneling after
the reasonable application of soil conditioning in this mixed soil.

4.3. Result and Discussion of Slump Test

After the mechanical mixing test, a series of slump tests were carried out in triplicate on
each soil sample to evaluate the workability and flowability of the conditioned soils quantitatively.
Figure 14 shows the selected pictures of the slump test, and the test results are summarized in
Table 3. For conditioned soils with w = 25% regardless of foam injection ratio, the soil sample was dry,
rigid, and stiff, such that they either stood straight with very small drop value (see Figure 14a–c) or
collapsed (see Figure 14d) once the cones were lifted. For tested soils with w = 25% in Table 3, the slump
306 values show that the foamed soil had a small increase in liquidity as FIR increased, although a collapse
still occurred after the lifting of the cone. It was hard to obtain a desirable state when w = 25%.
307 Figure 12. The measured net power during the mixing tests in various tested soils with w = 25% and
Proper slump values of 100–200 mm were obtained when the water content was improved to 40%
308 40% and: (a) FIR = 0%; (b) FIR = 10%; (c) FIR = 20%; (d) FIR = 30%.
regardless of foam injection ratio. The mean slump values of w = 40% &FIR = 0%, w = 40% &FIR = 10%,
309 w = 40% &FIR = 20%, and w = 40% &FIR = 30% were 154.3 mm, 174.7 mm, 179.0 mm, and 182.3 mm,
respectively, as shown in Table 3. The slump value increased as the foam injection ratio increased.
 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3300 12 of 16

Figure 14e–h shows that the foamed soils with w = 40% had an increased liquidity and no collapse
occurred. It indicates that the flowability of tested soils with w = 40% was improved dramatically
after the improvement of water content, and the flowability increases with increase of FIR. Tested soils
304 with w = 40% regardless of FIR meet the requirement of EPBS tunneling according to the slump value.
305 It also indicates that if the water
Figure content
11. Mixingistime
enough, low FIR
evenfoamed
for various soils.can cause it to be too fluid-like [3].

306
307 Figure
Figure 12. Themeasured
12. The measurednetnet power
power during
during the mixing
the mixing tests
tests in in various
various tested
tested soils soils
with 25% w
w =with = 25% and
and
308 Appl.
40%
40% Sci. 2020,
and:
and: 10,FIR
(a)
(a) ==
x FOR
FIR PEER
0%;
0%; REVIEW
FIRFIR
(b)(b) = 10%;
= 10%; (c)=FIR
(c) FIR = (d)
20%; 20%; = 30%.
FIR(d) FIR
= 30%. 13 of 17

309

310
311 Figure
Figure 13.13. Variationof
Variation of net
net power
powerduring
duringmixing test:test:
mixing (a) Net
(a)power value, (b)
Net power the change
value, (b) therate of netrate of
change
312 power.
net power.
313 4.3. Result and Discussion of Slump Test
314 After the mechanical mixing test, a series of slump tests were carried out in triplicate on each
315 soil sample to evaluate the workability and flowability of the conditioned soils quantitatively. Figure
316 14 shows the selected pictures of the slump test, and the test results are summarized in Table 3. For
317 conditioned soils with w = 25% regardless of foam injection ratio, the soil sample was dry, rigid, and
318 stiff, such that they either stood straight with very small drop value (see Figure 14(a–c)) or collapsed
319 (see Figure 14(d)) once the cones were lifted. For tested soils with w = 25% in Table 3, the slump
320 values show that the foamed soil had a small increase in liquidity as FIR increased, although a
321 collapse still occurred after the lifting of the cone. It was hard to obtain a desirable state when w =
 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3300 13 of 16

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 17

334
335 Figure 14. Photographs
Figure 14. Photographs of
of slump
slump test
test with
with water
water contents
contents ofof 25%
25% and
and 40%,
40%, as well as
as well as foam
foam injection
injection
336 ratios
ratios of 0%, 10%, 20%, and 30%: (a) w = 25%, FIR = 0%; (b) w = 25%, FIR = 10%; (c) w = 25%, FIR ==20%;
of 0%, 10%, 20%, and 30%: (a) w = 25%, FIR = 0%; (b) w = 25%, FIR = 10%; (c) w = 25%, FIR 20%;
337 (d)
(d) w
w ==25%,
25%,FIR
FIR==30%;
30%;(e)(e)
ww= 40%, FIRFIR
= 40%, = 0%; (f) w(f)= w
= 0%; 40%, FIR =FIR
= 40%, 10%;= (g)
10%; w =(g)
40%,
w =FIR = 20%;
40%, (h)20%;
FIR = w=
338 40%, = 40%,
(h) w FIR FIR = 30%.
= 30%.

339 Table
4.4. Results and Discussion of 3. Test
Friction results ofTest
Coefficient slump test of conditioned soil.

340 The friction w

coefficient testCfdevice,FER
developed FIRby the China UniversitySlumpof (mm)
Geosciences in Beijing,
No.
341 China, was adopted(%) to conduct (%)the friction
(-) coefficient
(%) test
Testin1 triplicate
Test 2 on each
Test 3testedMean
soil after the
342 mechanical mixing
Sample 1 test.
25 The angle 4 of external
7 friction
0 and friction
0 coefficient
- are
- shown in - Figure 15.
343 For soilSample
group2 with25w = 25%,4 it can be 7 seen that
10 the friction
- angle
4 and friction
2 coefficient
- first
344 increasedSample
to an3 apparent
25 maximum 4 7 FIR increases
as the 20 from7 FIR = 0% 5 (without - foam) to- FIR = 10%.
345 As the Sample 4
FIR continued 25 to increase
4 7
beyond 10%30until FIR- = 30%, the - 7 angle and
friction - friction
Sample 5 40 4 7 0 160 154 149 154.3
346 coefficient decreased. The trend is consistent with the trend of net motor power in Figure 13, which
Sample 6 40 4 7 10 173 180 171 174.7
347 might have
Samplebeen
7 caused
40 by the 4 increase7 of viscosity
20 because 179 of dissolution
183 of
175foam. For179.0the tested
348 soils with w = 840% regardless
Sample 40 4of FIR, the7 friction30angle and187 friction 182coefficient
178 were 182.3
less than the
349 tested soils with w = 25% and they decreased as FIR increased from 0% to 30%, as shown in Figure
350 15.
4.4. This also
Results indicates
and thatof the
Discussion increase
Friction of water
Coefficient Test dramatically changes the characteristics of tested
351 soils firstly, and then the foam reduces the viscosity and improve the flowability. The increase of
352 The friction
flowability coefficient
and decrease of test device,
viscosity aredeveloped by the
good for the China University
discharging of Geosciences
of the mixed soil in soilinchamber
Beijing,
353 China, was
through screwadopted to conduct
conveyor during EPBSthe friction coefficient
operation test in triplicate on each tested soil after the
in soft ground.
354 mechanical mixing test. The angle of external friction and friction coefficient are shown in Figure 15.
For soil group with w = 25%, it can be seen that the friction angle and friction coefficient first increased
to an apparent maximum as the FIR increases from FIR = 0% (without foam) to FIR = 10%. As the FIR
continued to increase beyond 10% until FIR = 30%, the friction angle and friction coefficient decreased.
The trend is consistent with the trend of net motor power in Figure 13, which might have been caused
by the increase of viscosity because of dissolution of foam. For the tested soils with w = 40% regardless
of FIR, the friction angle and friction coefficient were less than the tested soils with w = 25% and they
 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3300 14 of 16

decreased as FIR increased from 0% to 30%, as shown in Figure 15. This also indicates that the increase
of water dramatically changes the characteristics of tested soils firstly, and then the foam reduces the
viscosity and improve the flowability. The increase of flowability and decrease of viscosity are good
for the discharging of the mixed soil in soil chamber through screw conveyor during EPBS operation
in soft ground.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 17

355
356 Figure 15.
Figure 15. Variation
Variation of
of external
external friction
friction angle
angle and
and friction
frictioncoefficient.
coefficient.

357 5.
5. Conclusions
Conclusions
358 This
Thisarticle
articlepresents
presentsthe theresults
resultsofofananexperimental
experimental study,
study, which
which assessed
assessed thethe
influence of foam
influence on
of foam
359 aonmixed soil consisting
a mixed of siltyof
soil consisting clay, fine-medium
silty sand, and sand,
clay, fine-medium sandy andgravel utilizing
sandy gravelseveral geotechnical
utilizing several
360 methods to provide
geotechnical methodsa reference
to provide for soil conditioning
a reference on mixed
for soil soils often
conditioning on encountered
mixed soils oftenin EPBS tunneling.
encountered
361 Based
in EPBS ontunneling.
the preliminary
Based on tests
theconducted
preliminary intests
this conducted
study, the mainin thisfindings
study, the specific to the soils
main findings and
specific
362 conditioners
to the soils and tested in this study
conditioners testedcaninbethis
summarized
study can as befollows:
summarized as follows:
363 Foam
Foam microstructure
microstructure changes
changes with with the
the decay
decay ofof the
theliquid
liquidfilm.
film. The
The microstructure
microstructure test test carried
carried
364 out
out in
inthis
thisstudy
studyshowed
showedthat the
that thebubbles
bubbles decayed
decayed as the time
as the went
time by and
went the decay
by and mechanism
the decay was
mechanism
365 the
wasdrainage
the drainageof water in theinliquid
of water film caused
the liquid by theby
film caused gravity and pressure
the gravity and pressuredifference, and the
difference, andfoam
the
366 fusion amongamong
foam fusion various size bubbled
various due todue
size bubbled the pressure difference.
to the pressure difference.
367 Water
Waterplaysplaysananimportant
important role in modifying
role in modifying the characteristics
the characteristics of theofmixed soil. When
the mixed the water
soil. When the
368 was at the low level (w = 25%), the foam failed to modify the properties
water was at the low level (w = 25%), the foam failed to modify the properties of the mixed soil of the mixed soil because
369 of its failure
because of itsbehavior of foam particle
failure behavior of foam induced by the tested
particle induced by thesoil withsoil
tested insufficient water content.
with insufficient water
370 However, when w =when
content. However, 40%, w the flowability
= 40%, increasedincreased
the flowability and viscosity decreaseddecreased
and viscosity dramatically.dramatically.
371 Foam
Foamplaysplaysananimportant
importantrole roleininincreasing
increasingflowability
flowabilityand anddecreasing
decreasing viscosity
viscositywhenwhenthethe
water is
water
372 sufficient in the
is sufficient mixed
in the mixedsoil.soil.
TheThe mixed soil soil
mixed in this study
in this couldcould
study be modified
be modified into ainto
proper state to
a proper meet
state to
373 the
meetslump requirement
the slump of 100–200
requirement mm by mixing
of 100–200 mm bythe foam with
mixing the water
the foam withcontent
the waterof 40%. Foamofcould
content 40%.
374 maximum
Foam could itsmaximum
effect when itsthe mixed
effect when soilthe
with sufficient
mixed water
soil with contentwater
sufficient (i.e., 40%).
content (i.e., 40%).
375 When
When the the water
water content
content was was 40%,
40%, thethe mixing
mixing time,
time, netnet power
power valuevalue andand fluctuation
fluctuation value,
376 slump
slump value, external friction angle and friction coefficient were better than soil samples with
value, external friction angle and friction coefficient were better than soil samples with water
water
377 content
content ofof 25%.
25%. The
The net
net power
power caused
caused by by mixed
mixedsoil withww== 40%
soilwith 40% andand FIRFIR == 30% could decrease
decrease by by
378 approximately
approximately 50%. The The foam
foam couldcouldimprove
improvethe theproperties
propertiesofofmixedmixedsoil soilfurther
furtherwhenwhenthe thewater
water is
379 is sufficient.
sufficient.

380 Author Contribution: Conceptualization, Y.W; methodology, Y.W; software, Y.W, J.L; validation,
381 J.L; formal analysis, Y.W and D.W; investigation, Y.W and D.W; resources, Y.W; writing—original
382 draft preparation, Y.W; supervision, D.W and Y.J; project administration, Y.W; funding acquisition,
383 Y.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

384 Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) ，
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3300 15 of 16

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.W.; methodology, Y.W.; software, Y.W., J.L.; validation, J.L.; formal
analysis, Y.W. and D.W.; investigation, Y.W. and D.W.; resources, Y.W.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.W.;
supervision, D.W. and Y.J.; project administration, Y.W.; funding acquisition, Y.W. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC),
Grant number41472278, and the National Key Research and Development Program of China,
Grant number2017YFC0805008.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Herrenknecht, M.; Thewes, M.; Budach, C. The development of earth pressure shields: from the beginning to
the present/ Entwicklung der Erddruckschilde: Von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Geomech. Tunn. 2011,
4, 11–35. [CrossRef]
2. Budacha, C.; Thewes, M. Application ranges of EPB shields in coarse ground based on laboratory research.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2015, 50, 296–304. [CrossRef]
3. Kim, T.H.; Kim, B.K.; Lee, K.H.; Lee, I.M. Soil conditioning of weathered granite soil used for EPB shield
TBM: A laboratory scale study. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2019, 23, 1829–1838. [CrossRef]
4. Ye, X.Y.; Wang, S.Y.; Yang, J.S.; Sheng, D.C.; Xiao, C. Soil Conditioning for EPB Shield Tunneling in Argillaceous
Siltstone with High Content of Clay Minerals: Case Study. Int. J. Geomech. 2017, 17, 05016002. [CrossRef]
5. Wang, S.M.; Lu, X.X.; Wang, X.M.; He, C.; Xia, X.; Ruan, L.; Jian, Y.Q. Soil Improvement of EPBS Construction
in High Water Pressure and High Permeability Sand Stratum. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 1–9. [CrossRef]
6. Zhao, B.Y.; Liu, D.Y.; Jiang, B. Soil Conditioning of Waterless Sand–Pebble Stratum in EPB Tunnel Construction.
Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2018, 36, 2495–2504. [CrossRef]
7. Langmaack, L.; Lee, K.F. Difficult ground conditions? Use the right chemicals! Chances-limits-requirements.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2016, 57, 112–121. [CrossRef]
8. Alavi Gharahbagh, E.; Rostami, J.; Talebi, K. Experimental Study of the Effect of Conditioning on Abrasive
Wear and Torque Requirement of Full Face Tunneling Machines. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2014, 41,
127–136. [CrossRef]
9. Merritt, A.S.; Mair, R.J. Mechanics of Tunnelling Machine Screw Conveyors: Model Tests. Géotechnique 2006,
56, 605–615. [CrossRef]
10. Merritt, A.S.; Mair, R.J. Mechanics of Tunnelling Machine Screw Conveyors: A Theoretical Model. Géotechnique
2008, 58, 79–94. [CrossRef]
11. Yang, Y.Y.; Li, H.A. Failure mechanism of large-diameter shield tunnels and its effects on ground surface
settlements. J. Cent. South Univ. Technol. 2012, 10, 2958–2965. [CrossRef]
12. Martinelli, D.; Peila, D.; Campa, E. Feasibility study of tar sands conditioning for earth pressure balance
tunneling. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2015, 7, 684–690. [CrossRef]
13. Quebaud, S.; Sibai, M.; Henry, J.-P. Use of Chemical Foam for Improvements in Drilling by Earth-Pressure
Balanced Shields in Granular Soils. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 1998, 13, 173–180. [CrossRef]
14. Yang, Y.Y.; Wang, G.H.; Li, H.A.; Huang, X.G. The new clay mud and its improvement effects of tunnels.
Appl. Clay Sci. 2013, 79, 49–56. [CrossRef]
15. Wei, Y.J.; Yang, Y.Y.; Qiu, T. Effects of soil conditioning on tool wear for earth pressure balance shield
tunneling in sandy gravel based on laboratory test. J. Test. Eval. 2019, 49. [CrossRef]
16. Yang, Y.Y.; Wang, G.H. Experimental Study on Amelioration Effects of Foam for EPBS Tunnels. Disaster Adv.
2012, 5, 1734–1740.
17. ASTM C143-C143M-15a. Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete; ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2015. [CrossRef]
18. Vinai, R. A Contribution to the Study of Soil Conditioning Techniques for EPB TBM Applications in
Cohesionless Soils. Ph.D. Thesis, PhD-Turin Institure for Technology, Turin, Italy, 12 April 2006.
19. Vinai, R.; Oggeri, C.; Peila, D. Soil conditioning of sand for EPB applications A laboratory research. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 2008, 23, 308–317. [CrossRef]
20. Peila, D.; Oggeri, C.; Borio, L. Using the Slump Test to Assess the Behavior of Conditioned Soil for EPB
Tunneling. Environ. Eng. Geosci. 2009, 3, 167–174. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3300 16 of 16

21. Peila, D.; Picchio, A.; Chieregato, A. Earth pressure balance tunnelling in rock masses: Laboratory feasibility
study of the conditioning process. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2013, 35, 55–66. [CrossRef]
22. Peila, D. Soil conditioning for EPB shield tunneling. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2014, 18, 831–836. [CrossRef]
23. GB/T 50123. Standard for geotechnical testing method. National Standard of the People’s Republic of China
(in Chinese). 2019. Available online: http://www.waizi.org.cn/bz/66863.html (accessed on 2 August 2019).

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).