The Filter Design Tightrope

By: Danny K. McCook, Civil Engineer, National Design, Construction, and Soil
Mechanics Center, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Fort Worth, TX

Introduction
This paper discusses problems encountered in employing standard readily
available gradations of aggregates for filter designs with a two-stage filter. Designs with
two filters may be needed when a perforated collector pipe is used to collect and convey
seepage to a controlled outlet. Two-stage filters may also be required to transition from
fine base soils to coarse zones such as riprap or bedding.
Designers should know which aggregate gradations are readily available and
should attempt to use them when possible to minimize costs and have sound technical
filter designs. However, readily available aggregates may not meet some filter design
requirements. This paper discusses several ways to evaluate filter design from a
practical standpoint and suggests several acceptable standard filter designs for
common base soil types.

Background

History
Filter design criteria and methods have become standardized with the publication
of various agency design guidelines such as those published in the National
Engineering Manual of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, part 633, Chapter
26. Using the recommended criteria and the gradation of the soils to be protected with
a filter, engineers can design acceptable filter materials with confidence. However, if
the designed filter gradations are not readily available the specified filter may be more
costly than expected. Suppliers may not be willing to produce special aggregate
gradations in the small quantities that may be needed for embankment drainage and
filter systems. A small dam that uses only a filter diaphragm may require a small
quantity of processed aggregate.

Standard Gradations
Concrete production uses standard specified gradations of aggregate. The
American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) has standard gradations that are
published in Standard Specification C33, “Standard Specification for Concrete
Aggregates”. It includes a specified range of gradation for 15 different coarse
aggregates and one fine aggregate gradation. The fine aggregate specified in ASTM
C33 is commonly available from concrete manufacturers. However, all 15 of the coarse
aggregates are not as readily available. The most commonly available gradations
based on a telephone poll were gradations number 57 and 67. Number 89 is available
but less commonly than number 57 or 67 gradations. It is available because it is
frequently specified in manufacture of concrete blocks and asphalt (Georgia Concrete
and Products Association).
C33 Fine Filter
A satisfactory filter for many base soil types is ASTM C33 fine concrete
aggregate. It is an ideal gradation for a filter designed for soils in category 2 of the
NRCS filter design criteria (NRCS, 1994). Many embankment soils and central core
zone soils are in base soil category 2 because they have from 40 to 85 percent finer
than the # 200 sieve (after regrading for any gravel present).
• A filter criterion for this category of base soils is that the filter has a maximum
D15 size of 0.7 mm. ASTM C33 concrete sand has a range of D15 sizes of
from about 0.18 to 0.4 mm, thus satisfying the filter criterion to protect
category 2 soils.
• The requirement for permeability is that the filter has a D15 larger than 0.1
mm, and the standard C33 gradation also meets that requirement.
ASTM C33 fine concrete aggregate specifications meet the filter criteria designed
to protect a category 2 base soil type, but requiring this exact range of gradation for the
design may be needlessly restrictive. Figure 1 shows the ASTM C33 sand gradation
plotted and it also shows control points that would be used for a filter design to meet the
criteria for category 2 base soils. The design control points include a maximum D15 size
of 0.7 mm and a minimum D15 size of 0.15 mm. Gradations of sand that plotted within
this entire band, not just the C33 band, would satisfy filter criteria.
Figure 1. ASTM C33 Fine Aggregates (Red Hatched Area) with Control Points
for Category 2 Base Soil Filter Design also shown.

#4 3
100 #200 "
90

80

70
Percent Finer

60 Category 2
Base Soil
50

40
ASTM C33 Sand
30

20

10 Control Points
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Grain Size, millimeters
Coarse Filter Design for Perforated Pipe
Many designs use a perforated collector pipe embedded in the drain system to
collect seepage water and convey it to a controlled outlet. Because perforations in the
pipe are typically about ¼ inch (6.4-mm) in diameter, fine concrete aggregate (ASTM
C33 sand) should not be used surrounding the pipe. The finer particles in the sand
would readily move through the perforations in the pipe. Some designs use a geotextile
to wrap perforated pipe to prevent this, but geotextiles have a potential for clogging.
NRCS designs typically employ a coarse gravel aggregate in a “box” surrounding the
perforated pipe rather than geotextile wrapping.
Filter criteria require that material surrounding a perforated pipe have a D85 that
is larger than the perforations in pipe. Perforated collector pipe typically has
perforations that are ¼ inch in diameter (6.4 mm). Slotted pipe has slots that are
typically 1/8 inch wide (3.2 mm). ASTM C33 sand has a minimum D85 size of about
1.2-mm, which is much smaller than the 6.4-mm size of standard perforations in
drainage pipe and is also too small to use next to 1/8-inch dimension slotted pipe.
Consequently, a coarse gravel gradation is needed between the fine sand filter and the
perforated or slotted pipe. The coarse filter must be filter compatible with the fine filter
to provide a system that is stable. Figure 2 shows the control points for a coarse
aggregate that meets filter criteria for protecting C33 fine sand. The designed coarse
filter has a maximum D15 of 4.8 mm (the # 4 sieve) and a minimum D15 of about 1 mm.
It also has D85 size that is larger than the perforations or slots in standard drainage pipe.

Figure 2. Design Control Points for Coarse Filter to Protect ASTM C33 Fine
Aggregate.
#4 3
100 #200 "
90

80

70 Coarse Filter for ASTM C33 Sand

Percent Finer

60

50

40 ASTM C33 Sand

30

20 Max D15 = 4 x d85

10

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Grain Size, millimeters
 The dilemma faced by designers is that a coarse aggregate that meets strict filter
criteria for the Standard C33 fine sand gradation is often finer than standard readily
available gravel gradations. Figure 3 shows C33 coarse aggregate number 57
gradation in relation to the control points established for protection of fine sand
gradation. The number 57 aggregate is much coarser than the design protecting C33
sand allows. Number 57 gravel has a maximum D15 size of about 10 mm, which is over
twice the allowable coarse filter D15 size of 4.8 mm. Gradation 67, another commonly
available coarse aggregate gradation also does not meet the filter design requirements.
Number 67 gravel has a maximum D15 size of about 8.5-mm, which also exceeds the
maximum allowable value for the D15 size of a proper filter of 4.8 mm.
Figure 3. ASTM C33 Coarse Aggregate Gradation Number 57 Plotted with
Control Points for Filter Designed to Protect C33 Fine Aggregate.
#4 3"
100 #200

90
ASTM C33, No. 57 Gravel
80

70
Percent Finer

60

50 ASTM C33

40

30 Coarse Filter for ASTM C33

20

10 Max D15 = 4 x

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Grain Size, millimeters

Using a gravel filter that is overly coarse could result in sand migrating into the
gravel and perforated pipe, leaving voids in the fine filter section. Filter criteria have
sound technical basis and rarely should deviations be considered acceptable. The
criterion that the gravel filter protecting against particle movement from the fine filter is
that the gravel has a D15 size that is less than or equal to 4 times the d85 size of the
sand. The NRCS criterion is based on filter studies performed at the Lincoln NE
laboratory reported in a paper by Sherard and Dunnigan (1984). That study concluded
that the ratio of particle sizes of 4 was a conservative criterion. Some criteria, such as
those of the Corps of Engineers, allow a ratio of 5 for designs where no surging flow is
expected. The ratio of the maximum D15 size of number 57 gravel to the minimum d85
size of C33 sand, however, is as high as 8.5.
 The only readily available coarse aggregate that strictly meets the criterion for
filtration for concrete sand is number 89 gravel. This specified gradation results in a
maximum D15 size of about 4.5-mm and a minimum D85 size of about 7.5-mm. The fine
side of C33 sand has a d85 size of 1.2 mm, which would require a coarse filter with a
maximum D15 size of 4.8 mm. Thus, number 89 gravel meets the requirements of
filtering C33 sand and it is also large enough to protect against movement into ¼ inch
(6.4-mm) perforations. Figure 4 shows the C33 filter (red dashed), the coarse filter
band that is designed to be compatible with C33 (blue dashed), and the gradation of
ASTM C33, Number 89 gravel (green shading).

Figure 4. Coarse Aggregate Design Meeting Filter Requirements for C33 Fine
Aggregate.
#4 3"
100 #200

90

80
Coarse Filter for ASTM C33
70
Percent Finer

60

50

40 ASTM C33

30
ASTM C33, No. 89 Gravel
20 Max D15 = 4 x d85

10

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Grain Size, millimeters

Specifying an Acceptable Filter.

A Designer has two options for specifying filter gradations. One is to specify the
acceptable gradation of filter by referencing one or more standard ASTM C33
gradations. For example, to satisfy filtration requirements for ASTM C33 fine sand,
based on Figure 4, a Designer could specify ASTM C33, Number 89 as a coarse
aggregate. However, limiting acceptable coarse aggregates strictly to the Number 89
gradation is needlessly restrictive, particularly in the upper range of particle sizes. A
Designer that wanted to provide more leeway in the specified gradation would use the
broader design band for the specification shown in Figure 4, and only note perhaps that
ASTM C33, Number 89, would meet the required limits for the furnished coarse filter.
Fine Filter Gradation Compatible with Standard Gravels.

Another approach to the filter tightrope dilemma is to begin with a standard

readily available coarse gradation and then determine a fine filter gradation that would
meet filter criteria in relation to the gravel. The fine filter must also be filter compatible
with the base material it is to protect. This approach is demonstrated with Figure 5.
This design assumes that number 57 gravel is readily available and the goal is to
determine a fine filter gradation that is compatible with this gradation of coarse filter.

One might regard this as a filter design in reverse. One must be sure the fine
filter also protects a given base soil with which it is in contact. For this example, it is
assumed that the fine filter must meet requirements for a category 2 base soil. This
means the filter must have a maximum D15 size of 0.7-mm. The C33 fine aggregate is
shown in dashed lines in Figure 5. Note in Figure 5 that rather than simply specifying
the standard gradation for number 57 gravel, that a wider band is used that allows more
flexibility by suppliers. The wider band meets all filter criteria and still encompasses the
range of 57 specifications. The problem with specifying this alternative for the fine sand
gradation is that no standard ASTM C33 gradations fall within this band. In Figure 5,
the red hatched line represents ASTM C33 fine concrete aggregate, the green shading
represents the fine filter designed to be compatible with Number 57 aggregate, and the
blue shading represents a coarse filter band that contains Number 57 aggregate.

Figure 5. Fine Filter Designed to be Compatible with Number 57 Aggregate

100
90 Design Band including ASTM C33,
80 No. 57 Gravel
70
Percent Finer

60
50
Fine Filter Compatible with
ASTM C33
40 ASTM C33 No. 57 Gravel
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Grain Size, millimeters
Summary
This discussion shows that the more commonly available coarse aggregate
gradations, numbers 57 and 67, are too coarse to meet filtration criterion when they are
used with C33 fine concrete aggregate. Designers should consider which of the
following options are better for a particular site. One option is to specify C33 sand for
the fine filter (provided it protects against the base soils at the site), and then obtain a
finer gravel such as number 89 that will be compatible with the C33 sand. The other
option is specify the more readily available number 57 or 67 gravel and then design a
fine filter to be compatible with the gravel. That fine filter will be coarser than the
standard C33 sand in the upper part of the curve. Filter criteria must be checked to
ensure that the designed filter protects against the base soils against which the fine filter
is placed.

Other Filter Design Problems

Another filter design problem occasionally arises when the base soils at a site
are category 1 soils, according to Chapter 26 criterion. These soils have more than 85
percent by dry weight finer than the Number 200 sieve. The filter criterion for these
soils is that the filter’s D15 must be less than 9 times the d85 of the base soils, but not
less than 0.2 mm. Example 26-6 in Part 633 Chapter 26, the NRCS filter design
guidance document, has an example of this situation. Figure 6 shows the fine base soil
and the D15 control points for the design filter band for this soil, along with the gradation
band for C33 fine aggregate.

Figure 6. Example of Fine Base Soil for which ASTM C33 filter is Inadequate

100
90
80
Category 1Base
70
soil d85 = .016 mm
Percent Finer

60
50
40 max D15 = 0.2
30
20 ASTM C33 Sand

10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Grain Size, millimeters
 In this example, the filter requirement is that the maximum D15 of an acceptable
fine filter is 0.2 mm. ASTM C33 fine aggregate has a D15 size of as high as 0.4 mm. If
ASTM C33 fine concrete sand is overly coarse to meet the filter requirements, a
designer must locate a suitable finer available gradation. One possibility is ASTM
D1073, Bituminous Mixtures, Gradation No. 3. Figure 7 shows the gradation of Number
3 bituminous mixture, and it can be seen that this gradation meets the filter
requirements for the category 1 soil of the example.

Figure 7. ASTM D 1073 Bituminous Mixtures, Gradation Number 3.

#200 #4
100

90

80

70
Percent Finer

60

50 Max D15 = 0.2 mm

40 ASTM D1073,
No. 3 Sand
30

20

10

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Grain Size, millimeters

The question then becomes how readily one could locate and purchase such a
gradation. A call to several producers showed that this finer gradation is not frequently
used. The cost of obtaining specialty sand such as this may be significant. Another
problem will be designing a coarse filter to protect this finer gradation that still satisfies
the criterion for perforations. Figure 8 shows an example of such a design. The coarse
filter needed to filter the finer sand has a maximum D15 size of about 2-mm.
 Figure 8. Coarse Filter Designed to be Compatible with ASTM D1073
Bituminous Mixture, Gradation Number 3.

100
90
80
ASTM
70
D1073, No. 3
Percent Finer

60 Sand
50
40
30 Coarse Filter for
ASTM D1073,
20 No. 3 Sand
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Grain Size, millimeters

The design gradation for the coarse aggregate designed to be compatible with
the ASTM D 1073 Bituminous Sand Mixture Number 3 is not a standard gradation. This
gradation will have to be obtained by blending. An example of a blend that might be
satisfactory is one using 25 percent C33 sand and 75 percent No. 89 gravel.

Quality Control Experience

Quality control personnel should closely monitor the gradation and other qualities
of aggregates. The NRCS obtained samples of C33 fine concrete aggregate in a study
of 28 different construction projects in a study several years ago. Though suppliers
asserted that the supplied sands met the gradation requirements of ASTM C33, tests by
NRCS laboratories found that about one-third of all the samples did not plot within the
C33 band. In some cases, the deviations did not adversely affect the probable
performance as a filter, but in several cases; the supplied filters were much finer than
desirable.
 Figure 9 shows samples from the NRCS Study that were purportedly ASTM C33
sand but the tested gradations plotted outside the C33 band. Most samples failed to
plot in the C33 band because they were finer than the specified gradation in the upper
portions of the gradation curves. For these sands, if a coarse gravel such as number 57
were used in the design, a clear filter incompatibility problem exists.
Figure 9. NRCS ASTM C33 Sand Gradation Study. Green shaded area is
specified ASTM C33 band. About 1/3 of soils from the Study plotted outside band.

#4
100 # 200
90
80
70 Samples
Percent Finer

60 Failing
Specified
50 Band Limits
40
30
20 ASTM C33
10 Sand

0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain Size, millimeters

Two problems are important for sands that are finer than the specified C33 fine
aggregate gradation, particularly in the upper part of the gradation curves. If supplied
sands are finer than specified the coarse filter at the project may be far too coarsely
graded to properly filter the overly fine filter sands. Figure 10 shows an example of a
filter delivered to a site that was to be used in a filter diaphragm. It was purportedly C33
fine aggregate, but was much finer than the specified band. Note that the d85 of the
filter is much smaller than that of the C33 band. .
 Figure 10. Example of Fine Filter not Meeting C33 Requirements

#4 #4
100 # 200

90
Filter Sand
80
Delivered
70
Percent Finer

60
50
40
30 C-33 Sand

20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Grain Size, millimeters

If sand such as that shown in Figure 10 were used in a drain, readily available
gradations of gravel would probably be too coarse to filter the sand. Fine sands like
these will probably be prone to bulking and have poor self-healing behavior. Poorly
graded, finer sands are probably not self-healing, as more broadly graded sands would
be. Vaughan (1982) describes a test for evaluating the self-healing properties of filter
sands. The following description is from the article:

A simple test, suitable for use in a field laboratory, has been devised to
examine filter cohesion. It consists of forming a cylindrical or conical sample of
moist compacted filter, either in a compaction mould, or in a small bucket such as
is used by a child on a beach; standing the sample in a shallow tray… and
carefully flooding the tray with water. If the sample then collapses to its true
angle of repose as the water rises and destroys the capillary suctions in the filter,
then the filter is noncohesive. ... This test is, in effect, a compression test
performed at zero effective confining pressure and a very small shear stress, and
it is a very sensitive detector of a small degree of cohesion.

The test is also described in the Corps of Engineers Engineering Manual EM

1110-2-1901 (1986).
Figure 11 illustrates a sample with poor self-healing performance.

Figure 11. Vaughan Self-Healing Test on Soil with Poor Performance.

Figure 12 illustrates a sample with good self-healing performance.

Figure 12. Vaughan Self-healing Test on Sand with Good Performance.

Filter Compaction

Specifying compaction of drain aggregates according to relative density is

common. Because vibratory tables are not available at small job sites, the NRCS
developed an alternate method for specifying compaction of fine drain material several
years ago. This was based on studies performed in NRCS laboratories that related
relative density minimum and maximum index density testing to a one-point field Proctor
test on the sand performed on dry sand. That study was reported in a technical note in
the ASCE Geotechnical Journal (McCook, 1996). The finding of the study is that the dry
density obtained on a sample of air-dried sand compacted with ASTM D698A energy is
approximately equal to that of sand compacted to a relative density condition of 70
percent. By measuring the compacted density of filter sands using a nuclear meter,
NRCS engineers verify the adequacy of placement of the zone. A poll of construction
personnel showed that all the engineers contacted were pleased with the specification
and were confident that the quality control process was easily performed and accurate.
The correlation obtained in that study is shown as Figure 13, below:

130
125 Line of
70 % Relative Density

120 Equality

115
110
105
100 Best Fit Linear
95 Regression Line for
Data
90
90 100 110 120 130
Field 1 Point Proctor Test Dry Density, pcf

Figure 13. Correlation between One-Point Air Dry Proctor Dry Density (ASTM
D698A) and 70 % Relative Density
 Summary
Designers must know which gradations of filter aggregates are commonly
available in the area of projects they are designing. By using commonly available
aggregates, designs will be most economical. At the same time, sacrificing sound filter
design principles is seldom advisable without additional filter tests or other justifications.
Compacting fine filters is important to avoid bulking and collapse settlement of filter
zones, and shortcut methods suggested in the paper may be helpful in quality control.

Acknowledgement
Portions of this paper were suggested from a memo prepared by Karl Myers,
Senior Consultant with Piedmont Geotechnical Consultants, Roswell, GA. His
discussion of the incompatibility of number 57 gravel with C33 sands created an interest
in further pursuing the topic.

References

1. Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA. National Engineering Handbook,

Part 633, Chapter 26, “Gradation Design of Sand and Gravel Filters,” 1994.

2. Vaughan, Peter and Hermosia Soares. “Design of Filters for Clay Cores of Dams,
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, No. GT1,
January 1982, pp. 17-31.

3. American Society of Testing Materials, Designation C33-02. “Standard Specification

for Concrete Aggregates.” ASTM, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.

4. American Society of Testing Materials, Designation D1073-01. “Standard

Specification for Fine Aggregate for Bituminous Paving Mixtures.” ASTM, PO Box
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.

5. McCook, Danny. “Correlations Between a Simple Field Test and Relative Density
Test Values,” Technical Note, American Society of Civil Engineering, Journal
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 122, No. 10, October, 1996. Pp 860-862.