Advertisement

Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 327–345 | Cite as

Consistency Index and Its Correlation with EPB Excavation of Mixed Clay–Sand Soils

  • Daniela G. G. de OliveiraEmail author
  • Markus Thewes
  • Mark S. Diederichs
  • Lars Langmaack
Original Paper

Abstract

The behavioural properties of excavated ground have significant influence on the excavation process performed by an Earth Pressure Balance Machine (EPBM), as they are among the main factors responsible for maintaining the pressure ahead of the face, which affects face stability. Therefore, understanding the characteristics of the excavated material along with its flow behaviour is essential for a successful EPB tunnel drive. In scenarios involving the excavation of fine-grained soils containing clay minerals, the consistency index has been widely used as a guideline to define the ideal state of the excavated material. However, there are certain restrictions for the use of this index, the first of which are the Atterberg limits. These limits become more restrictive when mixed soils are involved. This study presents a brief review of the application of the consistency index and Atterberg limits in order to predict the performance of an EPB excavation. This study presents the results of a laboratory testing campaign with artificially mixed clay–sand soils by using a flow table as a preliminary flow assessment of cohesive soils.

Keywords

Earth Pressure Balance Machine EPB soil conditioning Mixed sand and clay soils Atterberg limits Consistency index Flow table 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Support for this research comes from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), Canada and funding from Queen’s University. The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Collaborative Research Centre SFB 837, “Interaction Modelling in Mechanized Tunnelling”, funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), as well as the laboratory team at TLB, at Ruhr-University Bochum. Special thanks to Dr. Wiebke Baille, from Ruhr-University Bochum, for the valuable discussions regarding the Flow Table results.

References

  1. ASTM C230/C230M-14 (2014) Standard specification for flow table for use in tests of hydraulic cement. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org.  https://doi.org/10.1520/C0230_C0230M-14
  2. ASTM C1437-15 (2015) Standard Test Method for Flow of Hydraulic Cement Mortar, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org.  https://doi.org/10.1520/C1437-15
  3. ASTM D2216-10 (2010) Standard test methods for laboratory determination of water (moisture) content of soil and rock by mass. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org. http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/D2216-10
  4. ASTM D4318-17 (2017) Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org. http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/D4318-17
  5. Atterberg A (1911) Die Plastizität der tone. Int Mitt Bodenkunde 1:10–43Google Scholar
  6. Baille W (2014) Hydro-mechanical behaviour of clays—significance of mineralogy. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering of the Ruhr-Universität BochumGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergaya F, Lagaly G (2013) Basics (1). Handbook of Clay Science. Elsevier Ltd, New York CityGoogle Scholar
  8. Borio L (2010) Soil conditioning for cohesionless soils. Ph.D. Thesis, Politecnico di Torino, Department of Environment, Land and Infrastructure EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  9. Brindley GW (1966) Discussions and recommendations concerning the nomenclature of clay minerals and related phyllosilicates. In: 14th national conference on clays and clay minerals, pp 27–34Google Scholar
  10. Budach C (2012) Untersuchungen zum erweiterten Einsatz von Erddruckschilden in grobkörnigem Lockergestein. Doctoral Thesis, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Institute for Tunnelling and Construction ManagementGoogle Scholar
  11. Budach C, Thewes M (2015) Application ranges of EPB shields in coarse ground based on laboratory research. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 50:296–304.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015.08.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Casagrande A (1932) Research on the Atterberg limits of soils. Public Roads 13:121–130Google Scholar
  13. Casagrande A (1958) Notes on the design of the liquid limit device. Geotechnique 8(2):84–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Claveau-Mallet D, Duhaime F, Chapuis RP (2012) Practical considerations when using the Swedish fall cone. Geotech Test J 35(4):618–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. CSM-Clay Minerals Society (1991) Report of the clay minerals society, nomenclature committee: revised classification of clay materials. Clays Clay Miner 39(3):333–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. EFNARC (2005) Specification and Guidelines for the use of specialist products for mechanised tunnelling (TBM) in soft ground and hard rock. EFNARC, NorfolkGoogle Scholar
  17. Galli M (2016) Rheological characterisation of earth-pressure-balance (EPB) support medium composed of non-cohesive soils and foam. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering of the Ruhr-Universität BochumGoogle Scholar
  18. Galli M, Thewes M (2014) Investigations for the application of EPB shields in difficult grounds (Untersuchungen für den Einsatz von Erddruckschilden in schwierigem Baugrund). Geomech Tunn 7(1):31–44.  https://doi.org/10.1002/geot.201310030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grim RE (1952) Objectives of the first national conference on clays and clay technology and definitions of terms used in the industry. Clays Clay Technol 169:13–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guggenheim S, Martin RT (1995) Report definition of clay and clay mineral: joint report of the AIPEA nomenclature and CMS nomenclature committees. Clays Clay Miner 43:255–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haigh S (2012) Mechanics of the Casagrande liquid limit test. Can Geotech J 49:1015–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haigh S (2016) Consistency of the Casagrande liquid limit test. Geotech Test J 39(1):13–19.  https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20150093 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haigh S, Vardanega PJ, Bolton MD (2013) The plastic limit of clays. Geotechnique 63(6):435–440.  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.11.P.123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herrenknecht M, Thewes M, Budach C (2011) The development of earth pressure shields: from the beginning to the present (Entwicklung der Erddruckschilde: Von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart). Geomech Tunn 4(1):11–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hollmann F, Thewes M (2012) Evaluation of the tendency of clogging and separation of fines on shield drives. Geomech Tunn 5:574–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hollmann F, Thewes M (2013) Assessment method for clay clogging and disintegration of fines in mechanised tunnelling. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 37:96–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2013.03.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Houlsby GT (1982) Theoretical analysis of the fall cone test. Géotechnique 32(2):111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Langmaack L (2000) Advanced technology of soil conditioning in EPB shield tunnelling. In: Proceedings of North American tunneling, pp 525–542Google Scholar
  29. Maidl U (1995) Erweiterung des Einsatzbereiches von Erddruckschilden durch Konditionierung mit Schaum. Diss. Ruhr-Universität Bochum 1994. Technisch-Wissenschaftliche-Mitteilungen des Instituts für konstruktiven Ingenieurbau 1995Google Scholar
  30. Maidl B, Herrenknecht M, Maidl U, Wehrmeyer G (2012) Mechanised Shield tunneling. Ernst & Sohn Verlag, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mair R, Merritt A, Borghi X, Yamazaki H, Minami T (2003) Soil conditioning for clay soils. Tunn Tunn Int 35(4):29–33Google Scholar
  32. Merritt A (2004) Conditioning of clay soils for tunnelling machine screw conveyors. PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge, Department of EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  33. Mishra AK, Ohtsubo M, Li LY, Higashi T (2012) Influence of various factors on the difference in the liquid limit values determined by Casagrande´s and fall cone method. Environ Earth Sci 65:21–27.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-011-1061-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nagaraj HB, Sridharan A, Mallikarjuna HM (2012) Re-examination of undrained Strength at Atterberg limits water contents. Geotech Geol Eng 30:727–736.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-011-9489-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peila D, Picchio A, Martinelli D Dal, Negro E (2016) Laboratory tests on soil conditioning of clayey soil. Acta Geotech 11:1061–1074.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-015-0406-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Picchio A, Boscaro A (2013) Soil conditioning of clays: a laboratory feasibility study. In: Kim SH, Yoo C, Jeon S, Park IJ (eds) Tunnelling and underground space construction for sustainable development. CIR Publishing Co., pp 35–38Google Scholar
  37. Polidori E (2007) Relationship between the Atterberg limits and clay content. Soils Found Jpn Geotech Soc 47(5):887–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rosenqvist IT (1960) The influence of physico-chemical factors upon the mechanical properties of clays. In: Symposium on the engineering aspects of the physico-chemical properties of clays: clays and clay minerals, vol 9, pp 12–27Google Scholar
  39. Seed HB, Woodward RJ, Lundgren R (1964) Fundamental aspects of the Atterberg limits. J Soil Mech Found Div 90(6):75–106Google Scholar
  40. Sherwood PT (1970) The reproducibility of the results of soil classification and compaction tests. TRRL Report LR339. Transport and Road Research Laboratory, CrowthorneGoogle Scholar
  41. Sivapullaiah PV, Sridharan A (1985) Liquid limit of soil mixtures. Geotech Test J 8(3):111–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spagnoli G, Feinendegen M, Stanjek H, Azzam R (2011a) Soil conditioning for clays in EPBMs – part one. Tunn Tunn Int 43:56–58Google Scholar
  43. Spagnoli G, Feinendegen M, Stanjek H, Azzam R (2011b) Soil conditioning for clays in EPBMs—part two. Tunn Tunn Int 43:59–61Google Scholar
  44. Tattersall GH (1991) Workability and quality control of concrete. E&FN Spon, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Terzaghia K (1926) Simplified soil tests for subgrades and their physical significance. Public Roads 7(8):153–170Google Scholar
  46. Terzaghib K (1926) Determination of the consistency of soils by means of penetration tests. Public Roads 7:230–247Google Scholar
  47. Thewes M (1999) Adhäsion von Tonböden beim Tunnelvortrieb mit Flüssigkeitsschilden. Ph.D. Thesis, Bericht aus Bodenmechanik und Grundbau, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Fachbereich BauingenieurwesenGoogle Scholar
  48. Thewes M (2004) Schildvortrieb mit Flüssigkeits-oder Erddruckstützung in Bereichen mit gemischter Ortsbrust aus Fels und Lockergestein. Geotechnik 27:214–219Google Scholar
  49. Thewes M, Budach C, Bezuijen A (2012) Foam conditioning in EPB tunnelling. In: Geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft ground, Viggiani. Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vinai R (2006) A contribution to the study of soil conditioning techniques for EPB TBM applications in cohesionless soils. Ph.D. Thesis, Politecnico di Torino, Department of Environment, Land and Infrastructure EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  51. Vinai R, Oggeri C, Peila D (2008) Soil conditioning of sand for EPB applications: a laboratory research. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 23(3):308–317.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2007.04.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zumsteg R (2014) Optimization of clay polymer mixtures for soil conditioning. Ph.D. Thesis. ETH Zurich, DISS. ETH N° 20434Google Scholar
  53. Zumsteg R, Plötze M, Puzrin AM (2012) Effect of soil conditioners on the pressure and rate-dependent shear strength of different clays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000681 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geological Sciences and Geological EngineeringQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  2. 2.Institute for Tunnelling and Construction ManagementRuhr Universität BochumBochumGermany
  3. 3.Normet International Ltd.HünenbergSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations