Using the Slump Test to Assess the Behavior of

Conditioned Soil for EPB Tunneling

DANIELE PEILA

CLAUDIO OGGERI

LUCA BORIO
Department of Land, Environment and Geoengineering, Tunnelling and Underground
Space Center, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli, Abrutzi, 24, 10129, Torino, Italy

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

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XV, No. 3, August 2009, pp. 167–174 167
 Peila, Oggeri, and Borio

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

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

168 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XV, No. 3, August 2009, pp. 167–174
 Soil Conditioning for EPB Tunneling

and mass behavior of a conditioned soil. The test

involves mixing the soil with the foreseen amount of
foam and water in a concrete mixer and then
pounding it inside two slump cones. After 1 minute,
without stroking or mixing the soil with the tamping
rod, the cone is lifted up. The fall value and the global
behavior of the mix are observed.
Peron and Marcheselli (1994) described the appli-
cation of an EPBS to excavate a twin tube tunnel in
Milan (Italy) in an alluvium containing 75 percent Figure 2. Photo (a) and schematic drawing (b) with the principal
dimension (mm) of the slump test cone used in the study.
sand, 20 percent gravel and cobbles, and less than 5
percent clay. They reported that, for a correct
excavation procedure, it was necessary to maintain
slump cone test was systematically applied to
the slump between 50 mm and 100 mm. When
different cohesionless soils, varying the amount of
tunneling above the water table, a FIR (ratio between
conditioning foam and the water content, to investi-
the volume of foam and the volume of conditioned
gate the applicability and feasibility of slump tests to
soil) ranging from 50 percent to 80 percent and 5
characterize conditioned soil and to study the
percent water were added to the bulk chamber, while
below the water table it was necessary to inject foam influence of the soil granulometry, moisture, and
with a FIR of 50 percent. Quebaud (1996) and foam content on the behavior of the conditioned soil.
Quebaud et al. (1998) carried out tests on a The foam was produced using a foam generator
homogeneous fine sand with a grain size distribution that is able to control precisely the quantities of air,
curve ranging from 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm and on a sand water, and foaming agent in a generation cylinder full
with a grain size distribution curve ranging from of glass fragments; a commercial foaming agent was
0.01 mm to 4 mm. Quebaud et al. stated that the used with a surfactant concentration of 2.5 percent.
optimal slump value was 120 mm and that, in order The foam was produced with a FER (ratio of the
to obtain this result, when the water content varied obtained volume of foam and the volume of the
between 6 percent and 23 percent, it was necessary to generator fluid: water + foaming agent) of 16, which
use a FIR ranging between 5 percent and 35 percent is an average value that is usually used in tunnelling,
for both soil types. and it had a half-time life of 390 seconds with an
Peña (2003) compared the effects of different average bubble size of 0.50 mm. Since a great
foaming agents to condition a reference sand with a variability of FIR can be observed in real tunnel
grain size distribution curve ranging from 0.002 mm excavation (ranging from 10 percent to 80 percent),
to 2 mm. He observed that with a water content of the tests were carried out using a FIR range of 10–60
22 percent, a concentration of foaming agent ranging percent.
from 1.5 percent to 2.5 percent, and a FIR of 65 The slump cone test was performed following the
percent, the slump was 100–150 mm (which he Standard Test Method for Slump, as suggested by
considered the correct range for EBPS application), ASTM 143C (ASTM, 2003), and the test was carried
while with a FIR of 80 percent, the slump rose to out as follows: the soil was mixed with the desired
150–200 mm. Similar results were obtained by amount of foam and water in a concrete mixer and it
Leinala et al. (2000), who carried out tests on the was then poured inside two slump cones (see
different types of soil encountered during excavation Figure 2). After 1 minute the cone was lifted, without
of the Toronto Sheppard Subway Project. For the stroking or mixing the soil with a tamping rod. The
studied silty sand with an initial water content from 8 fall value and the mass behavior of the mix were then
percent to 11 percent, it was necessary to use a FIR observed. The shape and eventual rupture of the soil
of 50 percent to obtain a slump of 100 mm. Vinai et cone and the drainage of water and foam were
al. (2007) carried out tests on a homogeneous sand to observed and taken into account in order to define
obtain a workable mix, and they found that there is a the behavior of the material, and the following
close correlation between the water content and the features were identified:
FIR.
All the presented research shows that the slump N failure to form a plastic ‘‘paste,’’ as defined by
cone test can offer a good indication of the irregular collapse of the cone (not suitable), due to
workability of the conditioned soils and that there is insufficient water or foam content or both (dry
a close correlation between the water content and the mix) or too much foam but not enough water. A
necessary FIR. For this reason, in this research, the loss of foam was observed, the grain size distribu-

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XV, No. 3, August 2009, pp. 167–174 169
 Peila, Oggeri, and Borio

RESULTS
The tests were carried out on soils that were
artificially prepared in the laboratory by mixing
different percentages of silt, sand, and gravel to
obtain the grain size distribution curves shown in
Figure 3. The most relevant results for the various
soils are here presented and discussed.

Results of Tests on Soil 1

The results of the tests on soil 1, classified, using the
Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM, 2009), as
Figure 3. Grain size distribution of the conditioned soils: soil 1: a ‘‘SP,’’ are summarized in Figure 4, and they indicate
medium-size sand, with D10 5 0.12 mm and D60 5 0.5 mm; soil
that the conditioned soil only showed suitable
2: a mix with the same sand as soil 1 and gravel with a grain size of
4 to 8 mm, with D10 5 0.2 mm and D60 5 5 mm; soil 3: a mix behavior and a slump within the 150–200-mm range,
with the same sand as soil 1 and gravel with a grain size of 8– for specific combinations of water and FIR contents,
15 mm, with D10 5 0.2 mm and D60 5 9 mm; soil 4: a mix with and this FIR range (20–50 percent) is quite close to
47 percent sand, 45 percent gravel (4 to 8 mm), and 8 percent silt, the values suggested in EFNARC (2005) for sand
with D10 5 0.2 mm and D60 5 3.5 mm.
(20–40 percent).
Referring to the water content, it can be observed
tion curve was not suitable for the creation of the that with a water content below 3 percent, the
paste (i.e., not enough sand, silt, or clay in the mix); conditioned soil is too dry, even though large foam
N a stiff behavior with a reduced slump value but with injection ratios were used, while with a water content
the creation of a plastic paste (borderline behavior), of more than 18 percent, the conditioned soil was
mainly due to an insufficient foam content; usually too wet, even though low foam injection ratios
N a too-fluid mix with a relevant loss of water and/or were used. The suitable mixes are therefore restricted
foam (not suitable behavior) due to the presence of to a limited area that defines, respectively, the upper
too much water and/or foam; threshold over which the material is too wet and fluid
N a plastic behavior with a reduced water loss from and a lower threshold under which the material is too
the soil (borderline behavior); and dry and does not show the required plastic and pulpy
N a correct behavior of the mix (suitable behavior) that features. The central position of this area indicates the
consisted of a slump cone fall of 140–200 mm with a ‘‘optimum’’ conditioning parameters, in which FIR 5
regular shape of the mass and little or no water loss. 40 percent and water content 5 10 percent.

Figure 4. Tests carried out on soil 1 (clean sand—SP) and definition of the suitable area.

170 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XV, No. 3, August 2009, pp. 167–174
 Soil Conditioning for EPB Tunneling

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

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

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

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XV, No. 3, August 2009, pp. 167–174 171
 Peila, Oggeri, and Borio

Figure 7. Tests carried out on soil 4 (gravel–sand–silt mixture—GM) and definition of the suitable area.

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

172 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XV, No. 3, August 2009, pp. 167–174
 Soil Conditioning for EPB Tunneling

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

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

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XV, No. 3, August 2009, pp. 167–174 173
 Peila, Oggeri, and Borio

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

174 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XV, No. 3, August 2009, pp. 167–174