Geosynthetics 2013

April 1-4, Long Beach, California

Geosynthetics in Drainage Systems

Barry R. Christopher, Ph.D., P.E., Christopher Consultants, barryc325@aol.com

ABSTRACT
This paper provides an overview of the historical uses of geosynthetics in drainage systems, including: trench drains,
cutoff drains, retaining wall and building wall drains including toe drains, base drains and chimney drains, and roadway
edge drains. The paper includes a brief description of each application of geotextile filters and prefabricated
geocomposite drains used as alternates to graded granular materials. Design methods are reviewed for both
geosynthetics and conventional drains and these systems are compared on the basis of performance, cost benefit and
sustainability based on actual project cost data, case histories and past synthesis national practice.

1. BACKGROUND

In the United States, the use of geotextiles as filters can trace its development back to the late 1950s when Mr. Robert
Barrett developed the concept of using geotextiles to replace graded aggregate filters beneath rip-rap along the coast of
Florida. The first filtration tests and design criteria were developed around the successful performance of these early
applications (Calhoun 1972; and Carroll1983). The author was fortunate to directly evaluate the performance of several
of these early applications (Christopher 1983) and has revisited one of the sites in the late 1980s and again in the 1990s
(Christopher and Valero 1999) to confirm the performance of these materials. Because of these early successes as well
as their comparable performance, improved economy, consistent properties, and ease of placement, the use of
geotextile filters has extended to almost all drainage applications as a replacement for graded granular filters.
Geotextiles are used as filters in trench and interceptor drains, blanket drains, pavement edge drains, structure drains,
and beneath permeable roadway bases. In addition to geotextile filters, geocomposites consisting of a drainage core
surrounded by a geotextile filter are often used as the drain itself in these applications. Geotextiles also continue to be
used as filters beneath hard armor erosion control systems.

1.1 Geotextile Filter Applications

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Geosynthetics Design and Construction Guidelines (Holtz et al. 2009)
schematically presents the following geotextile filter applications.

Figure 1. Filters around trench drains and edge drains – Figure 2. Filters beneath pavement permeable bases, blanket
to prevent soil from migrating into the drainage drains and base courses.
aggregate or system, while allowing water to exit from (Prefabricated geocomposite drains are also used as
the soil horizontal drains in pavement systems.)

928
Figure 3. Geotextile filters and prefabricated geocomposite pavement edge drain applications (NCHRP 1-37A).

Figure 4. Drains for structures such as retaining walls and
bridge abutments. (They separate the drainage aggregate
or system from the backfill soil, while allowing free
drainage of ground and infiltration water. Geocomposite
drains are especially useful in this application.)
Figure 5. Interceptor, toe drains, and surface drains -- to
aid in the stabilization of slopes by allowing excess pore
pressures within the slope to dissipate, and by preventing
surface erosion. (Again, geocomposites have been
successfully used in this application.)

Figure 6. Chimney and toe drains for earth dams and levees to Figure 7. Hydraulic structures such as culverts, drop
provide seepage control. inlets, and artificial stream channels may require
protection from erosion. (In such applications, if
vegetation cannot be established or the natural soil is
highly erodible, a geotextile can be used beneath armor
materials to increase erosion resistance.)

a)
b) c)

Figure 8. Geotextiles have been successfully used as a filter below: a) riprap for coastal and river bank protection; b)
precipitation runoff collection, high-velocity diversion ditches, and slope protection; and, c) scour protection around structures.

929
1.2 Prefabricated Geocomposite Drains

The in-plane drainage ability of prefabricated geocomposite drains is potentially quite effective in several of the
previously noted drainage applications. Virtually all of the drainage applications have a lateral transmission component
(i.e., gravel is required to collect and drain infiltration water out of the system). Specific lateral drainage applications
include interceptor trench drains on slopes, drains behind abutments and retaining structures, transmission of seepage
water below pavement base course layers, pavement edge drains, vertical drains to accelerate consolidation of soft
foundation soils, dissipation of pore water pressures in embankments and fills, dissipation of seepage forces in earth and
rock slopes, chimney drains in earth dams, leachate collection and gas venting systems for waste containment systems,
etc.

Thick nonwoven geotextiles alone can also provide suitable in-plane drainage for some of these applications; however, it
should be realized that the flow quantities transmitted by in-plane flow of typical geotextiles (on the order of 2 x 10-5
m3/s/linear meter width of geotextile under a pressure equivalent to 0.6 m of soil) are relatively small when compared to
the flow capacity of only 0.15 to 0.3 m of filter sand. Therefore, geotextiles alone should only be used to replace sand or
other drainage layers in situations with small seepage quantities. Also the in-plane seepage quantities of geotextiles are
highly affected by compressive forces, incomplete saturation, and hydraulic gradients. These considerations have led
engineers to use geocomposite drains in most lateral drainage applications.

During the past 20 years or so, a large number of geocomposite drainage products have been developed, which consist
of cores of extruded and fluted plastics sheets, three-dimensional meshes and mats, plastic waffles, and nets and
channels to convey water, and geotextiles on one or both sides to act as a filter. Geocomposite drains may be fabricated
on site although most are manufactured. They generally range in thickness from 5 mm to 25 mm or greater and have
transmission capabilities of between 0.0002 and 0.01 m3/sec/linear meter width of drain.

Probably the most common uses for geocomposite drains in highways are pavement edge drains and drains behind
retaining walls and abutments. However, the use prefabricated geocomposite edge drains (PGED) in pavements
appears to have actually decreased over the past two decades. As noted in a national synthesis of practice on edge
drains (Christopher, 2000), this reduction is attributed to a decrease in retrofit edge drain applications and reported
problems that have discouraged the continued use of PGEDs by some agencies including "J" bending and crushing of
the drain. These reports are somewhat contrary to the PGED research as reported in NCHRP Report 367 (Koerner et
al., 1994), which found good performance of these materials and reported that most failures were predictable and related
to either the absence of design, misapplication, or improper construction techniques. Extensive evaluation of
installations in Canada (Raymond et al., 1999) also led to similar conclusions as the NCHRP Report 367. The industry
has responded to the bending and crushing issue through the development of ASTM standard test methods (ASTM
D6244 - 06(2011) Standard Test Method for Vertical Compression of Geocomposite Pavement Panel Drains) and a
detailed guide specification for edge drain installation and specifications requirements (ASTM D6088 - 06(2011)
Standard Practice for Installation of Geocomposite Pavement Drains and ASTM D7001 - 06(2011) Standard
Specification for Geocomposites for Pavement Edge Drains and Other High-Flow Applications).

There are also issues with any type of edge drain that have discouraged their use, including confirmation of improved
pavement performance, rigorous construction quality control to achieve performance (e.g., the use of video inspection),
and maintenance requirements, especially at outlets to maintain flow (see Christopher et al., 2010 for a complete
discussion of these issues). Another issue discouraging the use of edge drains is a perception by many of the northern
agencies that edge drains do not work in cold regions. However, edge drain studies in Maine, Minnesota, Michigan,
Ontario, and Wisconsin tend to strongly refute this claim. To the contrary, edge drains may have their greatest benefit in
cold regions to rapidly remove water from the pavement during spring thaw. Separate studies of edge drains in
Minnesota (Hagen and Cochran, 1996) and Maine (Christopher et al., 1999) found that more water comes out of the
pavement section during the spring thaw than any rain event during the year.

Several states (e.g., Maine, Wisconsin, and Virginia) have also experimented with the use of horizontal geocomposite
drains selected to be able to handle the estimated flow and support traffic loads. They are placed either below or above
a dense graded base, used as a drainage layer beneath full depth asphalt, or placed between a “crack and seat”
concrete surface and a new asphalt layer (e.g., see Christopher et al., 1999). In these applications, the drainage path is
significantly reduced (i.e., vertically to the horizontal geonet composite versus laterally to the edge of the road), thus
allowing the use of a lower drainage quality, lower cost, denser graded aggregate while maintaining very good to
excellent drainage.

930
2. ADVANTAGES OF GEOSYNTHETICS

In most drainage and filtration applications, geosynthetic use can be justified over conventional graded granular filters
and drainage aggregate material use because of cost advantages from:

the use of less-costly drainage aggregate;

the possible use of smaller-sized drains;
the possible elimination of collector pipes;
expedient construction;
lower risk of contamination and segregation of drainage aggregate during construction;
reduced excavation.

In addition, geosynthetics often increase drainage system reliability and, considering the value of drainage in
geotechnical engineering, a significant cost-benefit can result when the designer is assured of a properly performing
drain.

2.1 Cost Considerations

Determining the cost effectiveness of geotextile filters versus graded granular filters in drainage systems is a
straightforward process. Simply compare the cost of the geotextile with the cost of a conventional granular filter layer,
while keeping in mind the following:

Overall material costs including a geotextile versus a conventional system - For example, the geotextile system
will allow the use of poorly graded (less-select) aggregates, which may reduce the need for a collector pipe,
provided the amount of fines is small (Q decreases considerably if the percent particles passing the No.200
(0.075 mm) sieve is greater than 5%, even in gravel).
Construction requirements - There is, of course, a cost for placing the geotextile; but in most cases, it is less
than the cost of constructing dual-layered, granular filters, for example, which are often necessary with fine-
grained soils.
Possible dimensional design improvements - If an open-graded aggregate is used (especially with a collector
pipe), a considerable reduction in the physical dimensions of the drain can be made without a decrease in flow
capacity. This size reduction also reduces the volume of the excavation, the volume of filter material required,
and the construction time necessary per unit length of drain.

Geotextile filters in drainage applications will typically cost in the range of $.80 to $1.50 per square meter, depending
upon the type specified and quantity ordered. Installation costs will depend upon the project difficulty and contractor's
experience; typically, they range from $0.50 to $1.50 per square meter of geotextile. 2012 bid prices obtained from the
web sites of several state agencies in preparation of this paper strongly support these costs. Higher costs should be
anticipated for below-water placement. Labor installation costs for the geotextile are easily repaid because construction
can proceed at a faster pace, less care is needed to prevent segregation and contamination of granular filter materials,
and multilayered granular filters are typically not necessary. It should be noted that geotextile prices have not risen
significantly in the last 20 years, however gravel cost has. The same web pages used for the cost of geotextiles also
showed prices of select granular materials ranging from $3.00 to $10.00 in place for a 75 mm to 150 mm thick per sq
meter layer (i.e., on the order of $20 to $30/metric ton) without consideration for special construction and dimensional
requirements indicated above. This is typically the volume of gravel that will be replaced with the geosynthetic.

Prefabricated geocomposite drains are used to replace or support conventional drainage systems. According to Hunt
(1982), prefabricated drains offer a readily available material with known filtration and hydraulic flow properties; easy
installation, and, therefore, construction economies; and protection of any waterproofing applied to an adjacent
structure's exterior. Cost of prefabricated drains typically ranges from $7.50 to $10.00 per square meter. The high
material cost is usually offset by expedient construction and reduction in required quantities of select granular materials.
For example, geocomposites used for pavement edge drains typically cost $3.00 to $10.00/linear meter installed while a
conventional geotextile wrapped gravel drain with a pipe is on the order of $30.00/linear meter installed.

Geotextile selection should not be based on cost alone. The cost of the geotextile is usually minor in comparison to
the other components and the construction costs of a drainage system. Also, do not try to save money by eliminating
laboratory soil-geotextile performance testing when such testing is required by the design procedure.

3. DESIGN

Geotextiles, like graded granular filters, require proper engineering design or they may not perform as desired. Unless

931
flow requirements, piping resistance, clogging resistance and constructability requirements (defined later) are properly
specified, the geotextile/soil filtration system may not perform properly. In addition, construction must be monitored to
ensure that materials are installed correctly. Thus, the geosynthetic materials must perform the same functions as
graded granular filters that they replace:

allow water to flow through the filter into the drain, and to continue doing this throughout the life of the project;
and
retain the soil particles in place and prevent their migration (piping) through the filter (if some soil particles do
move, they must be able to pass through the filter without blinding or clogging the downstream media during the
life of the project).

Designing with geotextiles for filtration is essentially the same as designing graded granular filters. A geotextile is similar
to a soil in that it has voids (pores) and particles (filaments and fibers). However, because of the shape and
arrangement of the filaments and the compressibility of the structure with geotextiles, the geometric relationship between
filaments and voids is more complex than in soils. In geotextiles, pore size is measured directly, rather than using
particle size as an estimate of pore size, as is done with soils. Since pore sizes can be directly measured, at least in
theory, relatively simple relationships between the pore sizes and particle sizes of the soil to be retained can be
developed. Three simple filtration concepts are used in the design process:

1. If the size of the largest pore in the geotextile filter is smaller than the larger particles of soil, soil particles that tend
to move will be retained by the filter. As with graded granular filters, the larger particles of soil will form a filter
bridge over the hole, which in turn filters smaller particles of soil, which then retain the soil and prevent piping.
2. If the smaller openings in the geotextile are sufficiently large enough to allow smaller particles of soil to pass
through the filter, then the geotextile will not blind or clog.
3. A large number of openings should be present in the geotextile so that water flow can be maintained even if some
of the openings later become plugged.

These simple concepts and analogies with soil filter design criteria are used to establish design criteria for geotextiles.
Specifically, these criteria are the geotextile must retain the soil particles (retention criterion), while allowing water to
pass (permeability criterion), throughout the life of the structure (clogging resistance criterion and durability
requirements). To perform effectively, the geotextile must also survive the installation process (survivability or
constructability criterion).

Specific criteria to meet these design requirements, design details and construction requirements are provided in the
FHWA Design and Construction Guidelines (Holtz et al. 2009) and the text book by Koerner (2012). A National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) study by Koerner et al. (1994) of the performance of geotextiles in
drainage systems indicated that the FHWA design criteria developed by Christopher and Holtz (1985) were an excellent
predictor of filter performance, particularly for granular soils (<50% passing a No.200 (0.075 mm) sieve). The hydraulic
design requirements for geotextile filters used in pavement systems can also be evaluated using the FHWA computer
program DRIP. The software was developed to evaluate the effectiveness of a drainage system in terms of the quality of
drainage. It also provides tools for determining the design requirements for the permeable base, separator layers (i.e.,
geotextile or subbase), and edge drains, including the geotextile retention and permeability requirements for given
natural and imported soil characteristics. The software can be purchased from http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu.

3.1 Design Criteria for Geocomposite Drainage Systems

For the design and selection of geotextiles with in-plane drainage capabilities and geotextile filters for geocomposite
drainage systems, there are four basic design considerations:

1. Adequate filtration without clogging or piping.

2. Adequate inflow/outflow capacity under design loads and field boundary conditions to provide maximum
anticipated seepage during design life.
3. System performance considerations.
4. The two geotextile filters on the sides of geocomposites should not contact under load for capillary break
applications.

Consideration should be given to system performance factors such as distance between drain outlets, hydraulic gradient
of the drains, potential for blockage due to vegetation and siltation, small animals, freezing, etc. When using
geosynthetics to drain earth retaining structures and abutments, drain location and pressures on the wall or abutment
must be properly accounted for. It is important that the drain be located away from the back of the wall and be
appropriately inclined so it can intercept seepage before it impinges on the back of the wall. Placement of a thin vertical
drain directly against a retaining wall may actually increase seepage forces on the wall due to rainwater infiltration

932
(Terzaghi et al. 1996; and Cedergren 1989). For further discussion of this point, see Christopher and Holtz (1985).

4. SPECIFICATIONS

Guide specifications for geotextile filters can be found in AASHTO M288 (2006) geotextile material specification and its
accompanying construction/installation guidelines; developed for routine drainage and filtration applications. For
geocomposite edge drains, as previously mentioned, ASTM D7001 - 06(2011) provides detailed guide specifications.
The actual hydraulic and physical properties of the geotextile filter or geocomposite drain must be selected by
considering the nature of the project (critical/less critical), hydraulic conditions (severe/less severe), soil conditions at the
site, and construction and installation procedures appropriate for the project.

5. CONCLUSIONS

After 50 years of successful practice, the author must conclude that geotextiles can effectively replace graded granular
filters in drainage applications and beneath riprap or other hard armor materials in revetments and other erosion control
systems. Numerous case histories have shown geotextiles to be very effective compared to graded granular filters in
preventing fines. Furthermore, geotextiles and geocomposite drains have proven to be very cost effective in these
applications. Indeed geotextile filters have become the standard of practice and geocomposite drainage systems are not
too far behind, especially considering the recent increases in the cost of gravel.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper presents the state of the practice in geosynthetics used in drainage applications, a portion of which was
extracted from the Federal Highway Administration Geosynthetics Design and Construction Guidelines Manual (Holtz et
al. 2009). The author wishes to thank his co-authors of the FHWA manual, Dr. Robert Holtz and Ryan Berg for
permitting the use of this material and, of course, their efforts in its development.

REFERENCES

AASHTO (2006). Standard Specifications for Geotextiles - M 288, Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials
and Methods of Sampling and Testing, 26th Edition, American Association of State Transportation and Highway
Officials, Washington, D.C.
ASTM (2012). Annual Books of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken,
PA:
Volume 4.08 (I), Soil and Rock
Volume 4.09 (II), Soil and Rock; Geosynthetics
Carroll, R.G., Jr. (1983). Geotextile Filter Criteria, Engineering Fabrics in Transportation Construction, Transportation
Research Record 916, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., pp. 46-53.
Calhoun, C., 1972, Development of Design Criteria and Acceptance Specifications for Plastic Filter Cloths, Technical
Report S-72-7,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA, 105 p.
Cedergren, H.R. (1989). Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets, Third Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 465 p.
Christopher, B.R. (1983). Evaluation of Two Geotextile Installations in Excess of a Decade Old, Transportation Research
Record 916, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 79-88.
Christopher, B.R. and Holtz, R.D. (1985). Geotextile Engineering Manual, FHWA-TS-86/203, 1044 p.
Christopher, B.R. and Valero, S.N. (1999). Thirty Year Performance Evaluation of a Geotextile Filter, Proceedings of
Geosynthetics '99, Vol. 2, Boston, Massachusetts, March 1999, pp. 977-990.
Christopher, B.R., Hayden, S.A., and Zhao, A. (1999). Roadway Base and Subgrade Geocomposite Drainage Layers,
Testing and Performance of Geosynthetics in Subsurface Drainage, ASTM STP 1390, J.S. Baldwin and L.D. Suits,
Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
Christopher, B.R. (2000) Maintenance of Highway Edgedrains, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Synthesis of Highway Practice 285, Transportation Research Board, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 62
p.
Christopher, B.R., Schwartz, C., and Boudreau, R., (2010) Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC, FHWA-NHI-10-092 (update of FHWA-NHI-05-
037), 568 p.
Hagen, M.G., and Cochran, G.R. (1996) Comparison of Pavement Drainage Systems, Transportation Research Paper
#960203, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Hunt, J.R. (1982). The Development of Fin Drains for Structure Drainage, Proceedings of the Second International

933
 Conference on Geotextiles, Las Vegas, NV, Vol. 1, pp. 25-36.
Koerner, R.M., Koerner, G.R., Fahim, A.K. and Wilson-Fahmy, R.F. (1994). Long Term Performance of Geosynthetics in
Drainage Applications, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report No. 367, 54 p.
Raymond, G.P., Bathhurst, R.J. and Hajek, J. (1999). Evaluation and Suggested Improvements to Highway Edgedrains
Incorporating Geotextiles, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, vol 17, No. 5.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., and Mesri, G. (1996). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Third Edition, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, pp 330-332.

934