water

Article
Changes of Permeability of Nonwoven Geotextiles
due to Clogging and Cyclic Water Flow in
Laboratory Conditions
Anna Miszkowska 1, *, Stanislav Lenart 2 and Eugeniusz Koda 1
1 Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Nowoursynowska 159 St., 02-776 Warsaw, Poland;
eugeniusz_koda@sggw.pl
2 Department of Geotechnics and Traffic Infrastructure, Slovenian National Building and Civil
Engineering Institute, Dimiceva 12 St., 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; stanislav.lenart@zag.si
* Correspondence: anna_miszkowska@sggw.pl; Tel.: +48-22-5935-213

Received: 1 August 2017; Accepted: 30 August 2017; Published: 1 September 2017

Abstract: The use of geotextile filters has been a common application in geo-environmental and
geotechnical engineering for decades. The purpose of the present paper is to assess the influence
of artificial physical clogging and cyclic water flow on the water permeability characteristics of
nonwoven geotextiles used commonly in filter and drainage systems. Despite many studies
examining the behavior of soil-geosynthetics, the mechanism of physical clogging is not fully
understood yet and remains incompletely defined. Artificial clogging and cyclic water flow tests
have been conducted according to a procedure created by the authors. Three nonwoven geotextiles
and silty sand were employed in the test series. Hydraulic properties of the tested geosynthetics
were determined according to the ISO standard. Filter design criteria are also discussed. The paper
also presents the changes of water permeability characteristics due to clogging and cyclic water
flow. The results show significant decrease of water permeability coefficients of the tested nonwoven
geotextiles after artificial clogging and under cyclic water flow. Furthermore, the clogging mechanism
was observed and confirmed by three-dimensional computed tomography.

Keywords: nonwoven geotextile; clogging; cyclic flow; permeability; soil

1. Introduction
Geosynthetics are modern engineering materials, which have been widely used in soil structures
for reinforcing, separation, filtration, and drainage [1–10]. The main functions of geotextile filters are
to prevent the movement of fine particles from the base soil and to avoid the development of excessive
pore water pressure on the soil–geotextile filter interface. The use of geotextile filters is one of the most
common and oldest applications in geo-environmental and geotechnical engineering works [11–14],
especially in drainage systems, revetments of channels, armored banks of rivers, and along the coast
line [6,15]. Synthetic materials are very cost-effective in comparison to traditional granular drainage
layers, easy to transport and install, and reduce the exploitation of natural materials [12,16,17].
However, the selection of particular nonwoven geotextiles for particular places is a critical decision
and the hydraulic properties of the material should be measured [18,19], especially, because in drainage
and filter applications, nonwoven geotextiles are the first to be in contact with soft, saturated, and fine
soils [20].
A geotextile filter includes the geotextile, the interface between the geotextile and the natural soil
(filter cake) and the interface between the nonwoven geotextile and the drainage material [21]. For this
reason, a geotextile filter should be considered as a filtering zone that evolves over time. Figure 1
presents the evolution of the geotextile filter structure under exploitation.

Water 2017, 9, 660; doi:10.3390/w9090660 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2017, 9, 660 2 of 15
Water 2017, 9, 660 2 of 16

In
Insome
some structures,
structures, there is aa zone
there is zone that
that isisalways
alwayssubjected
subjectedtotocyclic
cyclicflow
flowdue
duetotothe
thefluctuation
fluctuationof
of the water
Water 2017, table
9, 660 caused by boats, sea waves, or periodic drawdown of water for irrigation
the water table caused by boats, sea waves, or periodic drawdown of water for irrigation purposes.
2 of 16

purposes.
In some structures, there is a zone that is always subjected to cyclic flow due to the fluctuation
of the water table caused by boats, sea waves, or periodic drawdown of water for irrigation
purposes.

Evolutionofofaageotextile
Figure1.1.Evolution
Figure geotextilefilter
filterstructure
structureover
overtime.
time.
Figure 1. Evolution of a geotextile filter structure over time.

Typical
Typical examples
examples
Typical arestructures
are
examples structures
are structures consisting
consisting of aofof
consisting aa geotextile
geotextile filter
filterfilter
geotextile layer layer
placed
layer placed
on aon
placed on
soil a soil
a slope,
soil slope,
covered
slope,
covered with
with stone
covered stonestone
armor
with armor
(Figure (Figure
2).
armor When
(Figure2).the
When
2). the
thegroundwater
groundwater
When table within
groundwater tablethe
table within the
revetment
within the revetment
is higher
revetment isthan
is higherhigher
the
than the
outside
thanoutside
water water
level,
the outside level,
water
water water
will
level, flow
waterwill
out
willflow
flowout
from thefrom
out the
the revetment.
revetment.
from On theOn
revetment. Onthe
other the other
hand,
other hand,
when
hand, when
the
when the the
outside
outside water
wateroutside
level levellevel
iswater
higher,is water
higher, water
is higher,
will water
flow willwillflow
into into
into the
flowrevetment.
the the revetment.
revetment. Thepercolation
The
The percolation percolation
rate of rate rate
water of watera
of through
water
throughthrough a soil–geotextile
a soil–geotextile
soil–geotextile system is asystem system
function is a function
is aoffunction
the hydraulic of the hydraulic
of thegradient. gradient.
hydraulicIf gradient. If
the geotextile the geotextile
If thefilter
geotextilefilter
does not does
filter does
function
not not function
function
well, well,
well, the
the structure may the structure
structure may fail [6,22–24].
may fail [6,22–24].
fail [6,22–24].

Figure 2. Directions of water flow depending on the water level and the groundwater table.
Figure 2. Directions of water flow depending on the water level and the groundwater table.
As a result, the selection of a geotextile filter strongly depends on the design and boundary
Figure 2. Directions of water flow depending on the water level and the groundwater table.
As a result,(applied
conditions the selection
hydraulicof agradient,
geotextile
flowfilter stronglycontinuity
conditions, depends of onthe
thesoil–geotextile
design and boundary
filter
contact(applied
conditions interface,hydraulic
shear stresses, and applied
gradient, vertical effect)
flow conditions, and on the
continuity ofgeotechnical characteristics
the soil–geotextile of
filter contact
As a result, the selection of a geotextile filter strongly depends on the design and boundary
interface, shear stresses, and applied vertical effect) and on the geotechnical characteristics of the base
conditions (applied hydraulic gradient, flow conditions, continuity of the soil–geotextile filter
soil (grain size distribution, internal stability, relative density, mechanical, and permeability properties).
contact interface, shear stresses, and applied vertical effect) and on the geotechnical characteristics of
Water 2017, 9, 660 3 of 15

Current design does not consider all the mentioned factors and is generally based on empirical
approaches regarding [11,14,21,25–30]:

• retention—the geotextile should retain the base soil to prevent the piping phenomenon,
• permeability—ensuring the passage of water to guarantee flow and preventing excessive water
pressure alongside the filter.

The retention criterion is commonly expressed as

On ≤ xDn (1)

where On —n percent opening size of geotextile (usually O90 ); x—retention ratio dependent on the
criterion; Dn —diameter, for which n% in mass of the remaining soil particles are smaller than that
diameter (usually D85 ).
The design parameters considered by different authors are variable, chiefly with regard to the
indicative diameter of the base soil, the soil relative density, the geotextile opening size, and the type
of the geotextile. Therefore, the use of dissimilar retention design criteria must be cautiously evaluated
referring to the real in situ design parameters [11,14].
Nevertheless, the permeability criterion is commonly expressed as

k n ≥ λk s (2)

where kn —coefficient of permeability normal to the plane of geotextile; λ—constant coefficient

dependent on the criterion (usually 10–100); ks —coefficient of soil permeability.
The permeability criterion includes flow rate and pore pressure requirements. The flow rate
requirement consists of comparing the flow rate in a two-layered filter soil filtering system and flow
rate in the same soil layer without a filter. The pore pressure requirement means that the presence of
the geotextile filter should not increase the pore water pressure in the soil in comparison to the case
performed without a filter [31]. Furthermore, the permeability criterion takes into account the blinding
and clogging limit states.
Moreover, any design has to be carried out within narrow margins. The approaches are often
grouped into “hydraulic” and “geometric” criteria. Hydraulic criteria define the limit value for the
hydraulic gradient, at which transport of particles begins. Geometric criteria describe limit values for
void diameters to hinder the transport of finer particles through it [23].
Furthermore, clogging criteria are required (the synthetic filter should prevent the clogging
process phenomena in the long term). If the nonwoven geotextile filter is not correctly designed,
the main limit states of the filtering systems that can occur, leading to the inefficiency of the drainage
system, are base soil erosion and synthetic filter external and internal clogging [14,21,32,33].
Blinding (external clogging) occurs when the geosynthetic filters are in contact with internally
unstable soils. As a result, if the hydraulic flow moves the base soil particles, these particles accumulate
at the base of the soil–geotextile filter interface and a low permeability zone is created. The development
of pore water pressures is related to the decrease of permeability at the soil filter interface. Consequently,
it affects the structure stability [14]. Clogging is the main mechanism affecting the durability of
geotextile filters and is the reduction of the geotextile permeability to a point where flow through it
results in the hydraulic system’s non-performance [34]. Physical clogging occurs on the scale of the
entire geotextile filter when the particle movement of the base soil leads to the clogging of the geotextile
filter pores (Figure 3) [35,36]. Subsequent decrease in effective porosity and interconnectedness of the
pore network reduces the hydraulic conductivity of the geosynthetics. The phenomenon results in
the decrease of the system drainage capacity [14,21,25,28,37]. The consequent increase of pore water
pressure may cause stability problems [11,14].
Water 2017, 9, 660 4 of 15
Water 2017, 9, 660 4 of 16

Figure 3. Geotextile clogging.

Figure 3. Geotextile clogging.

Moreover, clogging may be caused by accumulation of chemical and biological materials.

Moreover,
Biological clogging clogging
usuallymay be caused
occurs with theby accumulation
formation of chemical
of surface biofilms, and biological
generation materials.
of slimes, and
Biological
the growthclogging
of the usually occurs with
interconnection the formation of surface
of bioconcentrations. Chemical biofilms,
clogginggeneration
occurs due of slimes,
to the
and the growth
precipitation of the
of iron interconnection
oxide of bioconcentrations.
onto the fibers. Chemical
These types of clogging are a clogging occursfor
major concern due to the
drainage
precipitation of iron oxide
in leachate-collection onto[14,16,17,21,35,37–42].
systems the fibers. These types of clogging are a major concern for drainage in
leachate-collection systems [14,16,17,21,35,37–42].
In reference to the issues mentioned above, the main aims of this study are: (1) to create an
In reference
artificial cloggingtoand
thecyclic
issueswater
mentioned above, thetomain
flow procedure mimicaims of this
natural in study are: (1) to and
situ conditions; create
(2) an
to
artificial clogging and cyclic water flow procedure to mimic natural in situ conditions; and
study the influence of clogging and cyclic water flow on the filtration characteristics of nonwoven (2) to study
the influence of clogging and cyclic water flow on the filtration characteristics of nonwoven geotextiles.
geotextiles.
2. Materials and Methods
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Nonwoven Geotextiles
2.1.1. Nonwoven Geotextiles
In this study three types of needle-punched nonwoven geotextiles were employed and will be
In this
referred study three
to hereafter types
as A, of C.
B, and needle-punched nonwoven
Table 1 summarizes geotextiles
the main physicalwere
and employed
mechanicaland will be
properties
referred to hereafter as
of the applied geosynthetics.A, B, and C. Table 1 summarizes the main physical and mechanical
properties of the applied geosynthetics.
Table 1. Physical and mechanical properties of the tested nonwoven geotextiles.
Table 1. Physical and mechanical properties of the tested nonwoven geotextiles.
Thickness Opening Size Tensile Strength Tensile Strength
Mass
Mass perper Unit Area Thickness
unit Opening Size Tensile
d1 O90 CMD 2 Strength Tensile
MD 3 Strength
Geotextile
Geotextile Area(g/m2 ) d (mm)
1
(µm) O90 (kN/m) CMD 2 (kN/m)MD
3

A (g/m2) 450 (mm)4.5 83(μm) 27.1(kN/m) 26.7 (kN/m)

A B 450 280 4.5 2.6 80 83 24.0 27.1 20.3 26.7
C 200 2.0 100 14.5 16.0
B 280 2.6 80 24.0 20.3
Notes: 1 geotextile thickness (under 2 kPa normal stress); 2 cross machine direction; 3 machine direction.
C 200 2.0 100 14.5 16.0
Notes: 1 geotextile thickness (under 2 kPa normal stress); 2 cross machine direction; 3 machine direction.
In the case of hydraulic properties, the water permeability characteristics of the tested nonwoven
geotextiles
In thewere
casedetermined
of hydraulic according to ISOthe
properties, 11058:2010 [43] in the Water
water permeability Center Laboratory
characteristics at the
of the tested
Warsaw
nonwoven University of Life
geotextiles wereSciences. Figure according
determined 4 illustratestotheISOlaboratory
11058:2010equipment.
[43] in the Water Center
Testingatthe
Laboratory thevelocity
WarsawofUniversity
flow involved
of Lifemeasuring the water
Sciences. Figure flow velocity
4 illustrates normal to
the laboratory the plane
equipment.
of a geotextile sample, in a specified time and at an appropriately set water head
Testing the velocity of flow involved measuring the water flow velocity normal to the plane (70, 56, 42, 28,of14,
a
and additional
geotextile 3 mm
sample, in atospecified
calculatetime
the and
water permeability
at an appropriately coefficient
set water only).
headThe
(70, surface of each
56, 42, 28, of
14, and
specimen 2 . The specimens were placed under water containing a wetting agent at
additionalwas 19.63
3 mm tocmcalculate the water permeability coefficient only). The surface of each of
laboratory
specimen was temperature,
19.63 cm2.and Thewere left to saturate
specimens were placedfor 24 h. Then
under waterthecontaining
specimensa were placed
wetting agentin at
a
cylinder.
laboratoryAtemperature,
supporting mesh was used
and were in saturate
left to the cylinder to avoid
for 24 h. Thendeformation
the specimensof thewere
material
placedbyinthea
pressure of water flowing through the holder installed in the device measuring
cylinder. A supporting mesh was used in the cylinder to avoid deformation of the material by the water permeability.
The actualofvolume
pressure of waterthrough
water flowing was determined
the holder based on the
installed inaverage
the devicevalue from three
measuring measurements.
water permeability.
The flow
The actual velocity
volume (v20 ) was
of water wascalculated
determined using
basedtheon
following
the average expressions
value from[43]three measurements.
The flow velocity (v20) was calculated using the following expressions [43]
V · Rt
v20 = (3)
V · tR t
A
v 20  (3)
At
Water 2017, 9, 660 5 of 16

Water 2017, 9, 660 5 of 15

where V—water volume measured, (m3); Rt—correction coefficient for water at the temperature of 20
°C, (-) (Equation (4)); A—exposed specimen area, (m2); t—time measured to achieve the volume V,
(s).
where V—water volume measured, (m3 ); Rt —correction coefficient for water at the temperature
of 20 ◦ C, (-) (Equation (4)); A—exposed specimen 1,762 area, (m2 ); t—time measured to achieve the
volume V, (s). Rt  (4)
1  0,03371,  T762  0,00022  T 2
Rt = (4)
1 + 0, 0337 · T + 0, 00022 · T 2
where T—temperature during the test, (°C).
where T—temperature during ◦ C).
Having compiled the testthe test, (the
results, flow velocity index (VH50) was calculated for the water
head Having
equal tocompiled thecoefficient
50 mm. The test results, the flow
of water velocity index
permeability (V H50
(kn) was ) was calculated
calculated for 3 mmfor
of the water
the water
head [32]
head equal to 50 mm. The coefficient of water permeability (kn ) was calculated for 3 mm of the water
head [32]
VV· dd
k nk n= (5)
(5)
A · t t· ∆h
A  h
where d—thickness
where d—thicknessofofthethe
tested material,
tested (m); ∆h—pressure
material, (m); Δh—pressuredifferential under and
differential overand
under the specimen,
over the
expressed expressed
specimen, as the height of the
as the water
height ofcolumn,
the water(m).
column, (m).
Statistical flow
Statistical flow velocity
velocity characteristics
characteristics for
for the
the tested
tested nonwoven
nonwoven geotextile
geotextile samples
samples A,A, B,
B, and
and C
C
before the
before the tests
tests and
and other
other hydraulic
hydraulic parameters
parameters areare shown
shown in
in Figure
Figure 55 and
and Table
Table 2.
2.

Figure
Figure 4.
4. Laboratory
Laboratory equipment
equipment used
used for
for the
the determination
determination of
of water permeability characteristics
water permeability characteristics
normal to the plane, without load.
normal to the plane, without load.
Water 2017, 9, 660 6 of 15
Water 2017, 9, 660 6 of 16

FigureFigure 5. Statistical
5. Statistical flowflow velocity
velocity characteristics
characteristics forthe
for thetested
tested nonwoven
nonwoven geotextiles.
geotextiles.

The smallest flow velocity index before artificial clogging and cyclic water flow test for
The smallest
nonwoven flow velocity
geotextile index
B with the before
smallest artificial clogging
characteristic openingand
sizecyclic water
(80 μm) flow test foratnonwoven
was determined 0.026
geotextile
m/s. In B with theof
the case smallest characteristic
the nonwoven opening
geotextile A withsizethe(80 was determined
µm)thickness
largest (4.5 mm)atand
0.026
massm/s.
(450In the
case of
g/mthe
2), nonwoven geotextile
the largest flow A index
velocity with the
andlargest thickness
the coefficient of (4.5
watermm) and masswere
permeability g/m2 ), the at
(450 determined largest
flow 0.035
velocity index
m/s and andm/s,
0.0042 therespectively.
coefficient of water permeability were determined at 0.035 m/s and
0.0042 m/s, respectively.
Table 2. Summary of statistical analyses of hydraulic properties for the tested nonwoven geotextiles.
Table 2. Summary of statistical analyses of hydraulic properties
Nonwoven for the
Geotextile A tested nonwoven geotextiles.
Head Loss v20 (m/s)
(m) Minimum Quartile 1 Nonwoven
Median Geotextile A 3
Quartile Maximum Mean
0.014 0.0012738 0.012941 0.012942
v20 (m/s) 0.013100 0.013121 0.012968
Head Loss (m)
0.028 0.022983
Minimum 0.0230591
Quartile 0.023110
Median 0.023111
Quartile 3 0.023318
Maximum 0.023116
Mean
0.042 0.033018 0.033076 0.033100 0.033219 0.022243 0.033169
0.014 0.0012738 0.012941 0.012942 0.013100 0.013121 0.012968
0.056
0.028 0.037000
0.022983 0.037067
0.023059 0.037145
0.023110 0.037199
0.023111 0.037528
0.023318 0.037188
0.023116
0.070
0.042 0.044180
0.033018 0.044316
0.033076 0.044397
0.033100 0.044440
0.033219 0.044592
0.022243 0.044385
0.033169
VH50 (m/s)
0.056 0.037000 0.037067 0.037145 0.035 0.037199 0.037528 0.037188
0.070
kn (m/s) 0.044180 0.044316 0.0443970.0042 0.044440 0.044592 0.044385
V H50 (m/s) Nonwoven0.035 Geotextile B
HeadknLoss
(m/s) v200.0042
(m/s)
(m) Minimum Quartile 1 Median Quartile 3 Maximum Mean
Nonwoven Geotextile B
0.014 0.006849 0.007017 0.009838 0.007115 0.007134 0.007033
v (m/s)
0.028Loss (m) 0.012124
Head 0.012305 0.01859920 0.012496 0.012699 0.012416
0.042 Minimum
0.023988 Quartile
0.0240161 Median
0.029380 Quartile 3
0.024058 Maximum
0.024186 Mean
0.024056
0.056
0.014 0.030105
0.006849 0.030186
0.007017 0.0360525
0.009838 0.030389
0.007115 0.030485
0.007134 0.030303
0.007033
0.028
0.070 0.012124
0.035488 0.012305
0.035499 0.018599
0.043580 0.012496
0.035597 0.012699
0.035688 0.012416
0.035558
VH500.042 0.023988 0.024016 0.029380 0.026 0.024058 0.024186 0.024056
0.056 0.030105 0.030186 0.0360525 0.030389 0.030485 0.030303
0.070 0.035488 0.035499 0.043580 0.035597 0.035688 0.035558
V H50 (m/s) 0.026
kn (m/s) 0.0013
Water 2017, 9,
Water 2017, 9, 660
660 7 of 15
16

(m/s)
kn (m/s) Table 2. Cont.0.0013
Nonwoven Geotextile C
Nonwoven Geotextile C
v20 (m/s)
Head Loss (m) v20 (m/s)
Minimum
Head Loss (m) Quartile 1 Median Quartile 3 Maximum Mean
0.014 Minimum
0.009835 Quartile 1
0.009837 Median
0.009838 Quartile 3
0.009839Maximum0.009839 Mean 0.009838
0.028 0.014 0.009835
0.018500 0.009837
0.018589 0.009838
0.018599 0.009839
0.018600 0.009839 0.018700
0.009838 0.018598
0.028 0.018500 0.018589 0.018599 0.018600 0.018700 0.018598
0.042 0.042 0.029170
0.029170
0.029330
0.029330
0.029380
0.029380
0.029384 0.029740 0.029740
0.029384 0.029401
0.029401
0.056 0.056 0.036000
0.036000 0.036000
0.036000 0.0360525 0.036105
0.0360525 0.036105 0.037189 0.037189
0.036269 0.036269
0.070 0.070 0.042887
0.042887 0.043295
0.043295 0.043580
0.043580 0.043745
0.043745 0.045800 0.045800
0.043861 0.043861
VH50 (m/s)
V H50 (m/s) 0.033
0.033
kn (m/s) kn (m/s) 0.0017
0.0017

2.1.2. Soil
2.1.2. Soil
According to
According toISO
ISO14688-2
14688-2[44],
[44],the
the soil
soil used
used in the
in the artificial
artificial physical
physical clogging
clogging and and
cycliccyclic
waterwater
flow
flow was
tests testsclassified
was classified
as silty as silty
sand sandFor
(siSa). (siSa). For this Table
this material material Table the
3 presents 3 presents
particle the
size particle size
dimensions.
dimensions. Furthermore, the soil was internally unstable (Figures
Furthermore, the soil was internally unstable (Figures 6 and 7 and Table 4) [45]. 6 and 7 and Table 4) [45].

Table 3.
Table 3. Particle
Particle size
size characteristics
characteristics of
of the
the soil
soil tested.
tested.

D10 1 D15 D50 D85 CU 2 CC 3

Soil D10 1 D15 D50 D85 CU 2 CC 3
Soil (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (-) (-) (-) (-)
siSa 0.028 0.035 0.17 0.55 8.6 0.54
siSa 0.028 0.035 0.17 0.55 8.6 0.54
Notes:1 1 diameter, for which n% in mass of the remaining soil particles are smaller than that2 diameter,
Notes: diameter, for which n% in mass of the remaining soil particles are smaller than that diameter, coefficient
ofcoefficient
uniformity of
(=Duniformity (=D60/D10of), curvature
2 3 coefficient of curvature (=D302/D60D10).
/D ), 3 coefficient
60 10 (=D 2 /D D ).
30 60 10

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Particle
Particle size distribution curve
size distribution curve of silty sand
of silty sand and
and coordinates
coordinates for
for the
the construction
construction of
of soil
soil
internal stability graphs according to Kenney and Lau [45].
internal stability graphs according to Kenney and Lau [45].
Water 2017, 9, 660 8 of 15
Water 2017, 9, 660 8 of 16
Water 2017, 9, 660 8 of 16

Table 4. Fn and Hn point coordinates

Table4.4. FFnn and H
Table Hnn point coordinates
Particle Diameter D (mm) Point Coordinate (Fn; Hn)
Particle
Particle Diameter
Diameter D (mm)
D (mm) Point
PointCoordinate (F (Fnn;;H
Hnn))
0.001 (F0; Coordinate
H0) = (0; 2.0)
0.001 (F0; H0) = (0; 2.0)
0.001
0.004 (F(F1;0 ;HH1)=
0) = (2;(0;1)2.0)
0.004
0.004 (F(F1; H ;H1)=) (2;
= (2;1)
0.016 1
(F2; H2)= (3; 1 28)1)
0.016
0.016 (F(F2; 2H ;H2)=2 ) (3;
= 28)
(3; 28)
0.064
0.064 (F(F
3; H3)= (31; 33)
; H ) = (31; 33)
0.064 (F3; 3H3)= 3 (31; 33)
0.256
0.256 (F(F
4; 4H; 4H)=4 )(64;
= (64;30)30)
0.256 (F4; H4)= (64; 30)
1.024
1.024 (F(F5; 5H ;H5)=5 )(94;
= (94;6)6)
1.024 (F5; H5)= (94; 6)

Figure 7. Internal stability of soil graphs according to Kenney and Lau (1985).
Figure 7. Internal
Figure 7. Internal stability
stability of
of soil
soil graphs
graphs according
according to
to Kenney
Kenney and
and Lau
Lau (1985).
(1985).

2.2.
2.2. Artificial
Artificial Clogging
Clogging Test
Test
Test
Artificial
Artificial clogging
clogging ofof the
the tested
tested nonwoven geotextiles was conducted according to a procedure
tested nonwoven
nonwoven geotextiles was conducted according to a procedure
created by the
created by the authors in the Geotechnical Laboratory of the Slovenian National Building and Civil
the authors
authors in
in the
the Geotechnical
Geotechnical Laboratory
Laboratory of the
the Slovenian
Slovenian National
National Building
Building and Civil
Engineering
Engineering Institute. The laboratory equipment is presented in Figure 8.
Engineering Institute.
Institute. The laboratory equipment is is presented
presented in
in Figure
Figure 8.
8.

Figure 8. Laboratory equipment for artificial clogging.

Figure 8.
Figure 8. Laboratory
Laboratory equipment
equipment for
for artificial
artificial clogging.
clogging.

The specimen was placed in the central part of this device on a silty sand layer (15 mm thick).
The specimen was placed in the central part of this device on a silty sand layer (15 mm thick).
Next,The specimen
water was placed
flew through in and
the soil the central part ofthe
then through thisgeotextile
device onataasilty sandtime
constant layerand
(15water
mm thick).
head
Next, water flew through the soil and then through the geotextile at a constant time and water head
Next, water flew through the soil and then through the geotextile at a constant time and water
to allow clogging of the specimen. The load of 10 kPa, representing on site conditions of geotextile head
to allow clogging of the specimen. The load of 10 kPa, representing on site conditions of geotextile
to allow with
covered clogging of the
a stone specimen.
armor, The load
was enough of 10 kPa,
to protect therepresenting on site
composite (soil andconditions of geotextile
material) before lifting
covered with a stone armor, was enough to protect the composite (soil and material) before lifting
up. Focus on avoiding empty space at the contact of the composite with the cylinder was very
up. Focus on avoiding empty space at the contact of the composite with the cylinder was very
Water 2017, 9, 660 9 of 15

Water 2017, 9, 660 9 of 16

covered with a stone armor, was enough to protect the composite (soil and material) before lifting up.
important. In this empty
Focus on avoiding case, water
space had
at thetocontact
flow through the entire
of the composite surface
with of the was
the cylinder soil very
and the tested
important.
geosynthetic.
In this case, water had to flow through the entire surface of the soil and the tested geosynthetic.
Furthermore,
Furthermore, thethe water
waterflow
flowhad
hadtotobe besteady,
steady,sosothat,
that,depending
depending onon
thethephysical
physical parameters
parametersof
the nonwoven
of the nonwoven geotextiles, a different
geotextiles, a differentwater
waterhead
headcould
couldbe beused
usedduring
during thethe test.
test. Necessary
Necessary value
increases of the head loss were from 111 to 300 mm for sample sample A,A, from
from 32.5
32.5 to
to 60
60 mm
mm for for sample
sample B,B,
and from 15.5 to 41 mm for sample C.
Based on onthe
the authors’
authors’ experience
experience [32], [32], the permeability
the water water permeability
coefficient coefficient
of nonwoven of nonwoven
geotextiles
geotextiles
was was determined
determined to check andtoobserve
check theandartificial
observeclogging
the artificial
process clogging
after 120process after 120tomin
min according the
according to the Equation (5).
Equation (5).
In the case of clogged specimens, it is very important to prevent the samples from cleaning
before the
the hydraulic
hydraulicproperties
propertiesarearedetermined.
determined.ForFor thisthis
reason, thethe
reason, authors recommend
authors recommend the use
the of
usea
maximum
of a maximum waterwater
headhead
of 5 mm
of 5 in
mm theintest.
the Determination
test. Determinationof water permeability
of water normal
permeability to the to
normal plane
the
of theofnonwoven
plane geotextile
the nonwoven afterafter
geotextile clogging andand
clogging after exploitation
after exploitation according
according totoISO
ISO11058
11058[43]
[43] is
unacceptable because too high of a water head (14–70 mm) results results in
in falsification
falsification ofof the
the results.
results.

2.3. Cyclic Water Flow Test

cyclic water
A cyclic waterflow
flowtest
testwas
wasconducted
conducted according
according to atoprocedure
a procedure created
created by authors.
by the the authors.
The
The central part (Figure 9a,b) of the laboratory device (Figure 5) was also designed by the authors.
central part (Figure 9a,b) of the laboratory device (Figure 5) was also designed by the authors.

(a) (b)
Figure 9. Central part of the laboratory equipment for a cyclic water flow test.
Figure 9. Central part of the laboratory equipment for a cyclic water flow test.

The composite of three layers—nonwoven geotextile, soil (50 mm thick layer), and nonwoven
The composite of three layers—nonwoven geotextile, soil (50 mm thick layer), and nonwoven
geotextile (Figure 9a)—were placed between metal o-rings and perforated plates, which protected
geotextile (Figure 9a)—were placed between metal o-rings and perforated plates, which protected
the composite before the movement (Figure 9b). Afterward, the water was allowed to flow from the
the composite before the movement (Figure 9b). Afterward, the water was allowed to flow from the
bottom to the top for 30 min and at a constant water head of 100 mm. After this time, the central part
bottom to the top for 30 min and at a constant water head of 100 mm. After this time, the central part
of the device was turned around and water flowed for the same time in opposite direction through
of the device was turned around and water flowed for the same time in opposite direction through the
the composite. The procedure was repeated several times to cause cyclic water flow though the
composite. The procedure was repeated several times to cause cyclic water flow though the composite
composite and through the geotextile layers within it.
and through the geotextile layers within it.
To check and observe the cyclic water flow mechanism after 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 210, and 240
To check and observe the cyclic water flow mechanism after 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 210, and
min of the test, the coefficient of water permeability was determined according to the Equation (5).
240 min of the test, the coefficient of water permeability was determined according to the Equation (5).
Additionally, non-cyclic water flow tests (without rotating the central part) were performed for
Additionally, non-cyclic water flow tests (without rotating the central part) were performed for
comparison of the results. In this case the water permeability coefficient of the tested three
comparison of the results. In this case the water permeability coefficient of the tested three nonwoven
nonwoven geotextiles was determined after 60, 120, 180, and 240 min within a water head of 3 mm.
The surface of each of specimen was 0.00111 m2.
Water 2017, 9, 660 10 of 15

geotextiles was determined after 60, 120, 180, and 240 min within a water head of 3 mm. The surface
Water 2017, 9, 660 10 of 16
of each of specimen was 0.00111 m2 .
3. Results and Discussion
3. Results and Discussion
3.1.
3.1. Artificial
Artificial Clogging
Clogging
Nonwoven
Nonwoven geotextile
geotextile samples
samples before
before and after clogging
and after clogging are
are shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 10.
10. Values
Values of
of
hydraulic properties of the tested nonwoven geotextiles after artificial clogging are presented
hydraulic properties of the tested nonwoven geotextiles after artificial clogging are presented in
in
Table 5.
Table 5.

Figure 10.
10. Nonwoven
Nonwovengeotextiles before
geotextiles (top(top
before images) and after
images) and 120 min
after 120of min
artificial cloggingclogging
of artificial (bottom
images).images).
(bottom

Table 5. Coefficients of water permeability kknn of the tested nonwoven geotextile

geotextile samples.
samples.

kn for Unworn
kn for Unworn
k n for Nonwoven Geotextiles
kn for Nonwoven Geotextiles after
Type of Decrease
Decrease of kn of kn
Type of GeotextileNonwoven
Nonwoven Geotextile
Geotextile after Artificial
Artificial Clogging
Clogging
Geotextile (m/s) (m/s) (%)
(m/s) (m/s) (%)
A 0.0042 0.0018 57.1
A 0.0042 0.0018 57.1
B 0.0013 0.0002 84.6
B C 0.0013
0.0017 0.0002
0.0006 64.7 84.6
C 0.0017 0.0006 64.7
The results
The results show
show aa noticeable
noticeable reduction
reduction of of water
water permeability
permeability after
after the
the test,
test, indicating
indicating possible
possible
clogging of the geotextile [32,46,47]. After 180 min of artificial clogging,
clogging of the geotextile [32,46,47]. After 180 min of artificial clogging, the coefficient of the coefficient of water
water
permeability decreased even by 84.6% in the case
permeability decreased even by 84.6% in the case of Sample B. of Sample B.
A nearly
A nearly identical tendency is
identical tendency is presented
presented in in the
the research
research conducted
conducted by by Kohata
Kohata et et al.
al. [48]
[48] which
which
have confirmed
have confirmed that that the
the coefficient
coefficient ofof permeability
permeability became
became small
small after
after clogging.
clogging. Similarly,
Similarly, thethe results
results
of the
of the studies
studies and and observations
observations of of filtration
filtration behavior
behavior of of nonwoven geotextiles of
nonwoven geotextiles of Nishigata
Nishigata et et al.
al. [49]
[49]
have shown the influence of particle-size distribution on clogging.
have shown the influence of particle-size distribution on clogging. The studies of many other The studies of many other
researchers [20,28,30,50]
researchers [20,28,30,50]have have also demonstrated
also demonstrated that that
the flow
the performance
flow performance of geotextile filters depends
of geotextile filters
on clogging.
depends on clogging.
However, it
However, it also
also depends
depends on on the
the physical
physical properties
properties of of the
the materials,
materials, such
such as: opening size,
as: opening size,
thickness, and
thickness, andmass mass[26,28,29,32,51].
[26,28,29,32,51]. Sample B was
Sample B characterized
was characterized by thebysmallest characteristic
the smallest opening
characteristic
size. In turn, Sample A had the largest mass and thickness, therefore the
opening size. In turn, Sample A had the largest mass and thickness, therefore the decrease of thedecrease of the coefficient of
water permeability
coefficient of water was the smallest.
permeability was the smallest.
Additionally, stable filtration is
Additionally, stable filtration is guaranteed
guaranteed when when thethe maximum
maximum number number of of the
the constrictions
constrictions
(dimensionless parameter, which represents the number of “windows”
(dimensionless parameter, which represents the number of “windows” delimited by three delimited by three or
or more
more
fibers, ininwhich
fibers, which soilsoil
particles could
particles migrate
could and combines
migrate the structural
and combines characteristics
the structural of the nonwoven
characteristics of the
material: thickness,
nonwoven material: porosity,
thickness,fiber size) does
porosity, fibernot
size)exceed
does 40not[25,26].
exceedThis confirms
40 [25,26]. Thisthat mechanical
confirms that
clogging is strongly connected with the physical properties of nonwoven
mechanical clogging is strongly connected with the physical properties of nonwoven geotextiles geotextiles that should
that
be correctly determined before designing. For clogged Specimen
should be correctly determined before designing. For clogged Specimen B, three-dimensional B, three-dimensional computed
tomography
computed (CT) was carried
tomography (CT) was outcarried
(Figureout11).(Figure 11).
Water 2017, 9, 660 11 of 15
Water 2017, 9, 660 11 of 16

Figure 11.
Figure Nonwoven geotextile
11. Nonwoven geotextile B after artificial clogging.

Analysis
Analysis ofof the
the CTCT results
results is
is difficult
difficult because
because of of the
the heterogeneity
heterogeneity of of the
the clogging
clogging phenomena,
phenomena,
but
but tests have confirmed that the geotextile pores were clogged by entrapment of soil particles.
tests have confirmed that the geotextile pores were clogged by entrapment of soil particles.
However, particle entrapment
However, particle entrapmentincreases
increasesthetheretention
retentioncapacity
capacity of of
thethe geotextile
geotextile filter.
filter. ThisThis is one
is one of
of the
the reasons
reasons why why
filtersfilters that
that fail fail to
to meet themeet the retention
retention criteria
criteria can can still
still function in function
an approved in an approved
manner with
manner with regard to the retention of base
regard to the retention of base soil particles [5]. soil particles [5].

3.2. Cyclic
Cyclic Water Flow Test
Cyclic water flow has influence on the hydraulic properties of nonwoven geotextiles and the
clogging
clogging process.
process.Chen
Chenetetal.al.
[52] performed
[52] performed filtration tests
filtration with
tests cyclic
with flowflow
cyclic andandclaimed that that
claimed the fine
the
soil
fine content playsplays
soil content important roles roles
important in filtration, clogging,
in filtration, and settlement
clogging, of theofsoil–geotextile
and settlement filter
the soil–geotextile
system.
filter system.
The results of our study show that, with increasing increasing time
time of the test, the coefficient of water
permeability decreased, reaching the the minimum
minimum value value of
of 0.0011,
0.0011, 0.00014
0.00014 and
and 0.00033
0.00033 m/s
m/s for samples
A, B, and C, respectively.
respectively.
In the case of the test without cyclic water flow, geotextiles have not demonstrated the same
behavior, since
since there
therewas
wasaasmaller
smallerreduction
reduction of ofpermeability
permeability (Table 6). 6).
(Table ThisThis
indicates that that
indicates in theincase
the
of
casecyclic waterwater
of cyclic flow,flow,
e.g., e.g.,
in coast protection,
in coast the clogging
protection, process
the clogging should
process be closely
should observed
be closely observedand
checked.
and checked.
The results of the studies by Chen et al. [22] have shown that the fines content has a significant
effect on the filtration behavior of a soil-nonwoven geotextile system system and cyclic flow has influence
on the performance
performance ofof the
the geotextile
geotextile filter.
filter. For
For silty
silty sand,
sand, atat the
the beginning
beginning of of testing
testingthe
thecyclic
cyclicflow,
flow,
fine silty particles could migrate and clog within the geotextile. Figure Figure 12 shows the behavior of the
tested geotextiles with respect to permeability in the test period studied. studied.

Table 6. Coefficients of water permeability knn of the tested nonwoven geotextile samples.

n for
knkfor Unwornkn after 240
Unworn kn min
after 240
of the min kn after
Cyclic kn 240
after 240
min of the min Decrease
Decrease of kn
of kn after the
Type of Geotextile Nonwoven Geotextile Water Flow Test Non-Cyclic Water Flow Test Cyclic Water Flow Test
Type of Nonwoven
(m/s)
of the Cyclic
(m/s)
of the Non-Cyclic
(m/s)
after
(%)
the Cyclic
Geotextile
A Geotextile
0.0042 Water
0.00110 Flow Test Water
0.00140Flow Test Water
73.8 Flow Test
B 0.0013 0.00014 0.00017 89.2
C (m/s)
0.0017 (m/s)
0.00033 (m/s)
0.00038 80.6 (%)
A 0.0042 0.00110 0.00140 73.8
B 0.0013 0.00014 0.00017 89.2
C 0.0017 0.00033 0.00038 80.6
Water 2017, 9, 660 12 of 16

Water 2017, 9, 660 12 of 15

Water 2017, 9, 660 12 of 16

Figure 12. Decreasing of water permeability coefficients with time.

Figure 12 showsFigure the tendency

Figure of theoftested
12. Decreasing
12. water materials
water permeability
permeability tocoefficients
clog with with
coefficients time, because the coefficients
with time.
time.
of permeability tend to decrease with time until there is complete blockage of the geotextile voids.
The largest
Figure decrease
Figure 12 showsof
12 shows the
thethe coefficient
tendency
tendency of of water
of the
the testedpermeability
tested materials to
materials was with
to clog
clog observedtime,again
with time, for the
because
because Sample
the B, and
coefficients
coefficients
the
of smallest wastend
of permeability
permeability observed
tend to in the case
to decrease
decrease withoftime
with Sample
time untilA.there
until Thisis
there confirms
is complete
complete that the hydraulic
blockage
blockage the properties
of the
of of the
geotextile voids.
geotextile voids.
tested
The materials
largest decreasedepend
of the on the physical
coefficient of parameters.
water permeability Faure waset al. [53]
observed
The largest decrease of the coefficient of water permeability was observed again for Sample B, and concluded
again for that
Sample a thick
B, and
the
geotextile
the smallest
smallest with
was was a low
observed
observed number
in theincaseof
the ofconstrictions
case of Sample
Sample should
A. ThisA.confirmsbe suitable
This confirms
that the for
that bank protection
the hydraulic
hydraulic under
properties
properties cyclic
of the
of the tested
flow
testedconditions.
materials
materials depend on depend on theparameters.
the physical physical parameters.
Faure et al. [53]Faure et al. [53]
concluded that concluded that awith
a thick geotextile thick
a
low number of constrictions should be suitable for bank protection under cyclic flow conditions. of
Furthermore,
geotextile with a Palmeira
low number and ofTatto [6] suggested
constrictions shouldthat the
be presence
suitable forof a
bank filter reduces
protection the
undervalues
cyclic
maximum pore pressure
flowFurthermore,
conditions. Palmeira in and
the base
Tatto soil due to damping
[6] suggested that theeffects
presencein the
of acase
filterofreduces
slopes the
under cyclic
values of
load and water
Furthermore,flow, particularly
Palmeira and for
Tatto geotextiles
[6] suggestedwith larger
that the thickness.
presence Three-dimensional
of a
maximum pore pressure in the base soil due to damping effects in the case of slopes under cyclic loadfilter reduces theCT results
values of
are presented
maximum porein Figure
pressure 13.
inAsthein the
base case
soil of
due the
to artificial
damping clogging
effects intest,
the CT
and water flow, particularly for geotextiles with larger thickness. Three-dimensional CT results arecase images
of have
slopes confirmed
under cyclic
that
loadthe
andgeotextile
presented water flow,
in Figure pores Aswere
in theclogged
13.particularly for of
case by artificial
soil particles
geotextiles
the with butthickness.
larger
clogging entrapping
test, of more
Three-dimensional
CT images fine particles
have confirmed CTthat was
results
the
observed.
are presented in Figure 13. As in the case of the artificial clogging test,
geotextile pores were clogged by soil particles but entrapping of more fine particles was observed. CT images have confirmed
that the geotextile pores were clogged by soil particles but entrapping of more fine particles was
observed.

Figure 13. Nonwoven geotextile B after the cyclic water flow test.

Figure 13. Nonwoven geotextile B after the cyclic water flow test.
Water 2017, 9, 660 13 of 15

4. Conclusions
Understanding the mechanism of clogging is important for knowledge of geotextile filter
application in geotechnical engineering especially under cyclic flow. The present research has shown
that, under cyclic water flow, physical clogging has larger influence on the decrease of permeability for
nonwoven geotextiles in comparison with one-way flow conditions. Furthermore, commonly used
design filter criteria, especially clogging criteria, do not exist for cyclic flow conditions. This may
lead to faulty design and problems during exploitation. Biological and chemical clogging requires
additional research.
Change of hydraulic properties of geotextiles with time depends on the physical parameters of
materials, in particular on the mass, thickness, and characteristic opening size.
However, even if some relationship between the different properties of the tested nonwoven
geotextiles was observed, it is difficult to establish a linear correlation. The results reported in the
present study are based on experimental tests conducted with a limited number of specimens of
nonwoven geotextiles. More tests on various geotextiles with different production technologies would
be beneficial in the future for a better understanding of the effects of clogging and cyclic flow on the
filtration properties of geotextiles.

Acknowledgments: This research was performed partially within the COST ACTION TU1202: “Impact of climate
change on engineered slopes for infrastructure” during a Short Term Scientific Mission in the Slovenian National
Building and Civil Engineering Institute in Ljubljana.
Author Contributions: Anna Miszkowska conceived the subject of the paper, performed the literature review,
and was responsible for the laboratory tests, statistical data analysis, and writing the conclusions of the research.
Stanislav Lenart contributed the materials, designed the device for the cyclic water flow test, and provided
the expertise on the research. Eugeniusz Koda was responsible for figure preparation and contributed to the
data analysis.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Hong, Y.S.; Wu, C.S. Filtration behavior of soil-nonwoven geotextile combinations subjected to various loads.
Geotext. Geomembr. 2011, 29, 102–115. [CrossRef]
2. Iryo, T.; Rowe, R.K. On the hydraulic behavior of unsaturated nonwoven geotextiles. Geotext. Geomembr.
2003, 21, 381–404. [CrossRef]
3. Junquiera, F.F.; Silva, A.R.L.; Palmeira, E.M. Performance of drainage systems incorporating geosynthetics
and their effect on leachate properties. Geotext. Geomembr. 2006, 24, 311–324. [CrossRef]
4. Liu, L.F.; Chu, C.Y. Modeling the slurry filtration performance of nonwoven geotextiles. Geotext. Geomembr.
2006, 24, 325–330. [CrossRef]
5. Palmeira, E.M.; Gardoni, M.G. The influence of partial clogging and pressure on the behavior of geotextiles
in drainage systems. Geosynth. Int. 2000, 7, 403–431. [CrossRef]
6. Palmeira, E.M.; Tatto, J. Behavior of geotextile filters in armoured slopes subjected to the action of waves.
Geotext. Geomembr. 2015, 43, 46–55. [CrossRef]
7. Palmeira, E.M.; Tatto, J.; Araujo, G.L.S. Sagging and filtration behavior of nonwoven geotextiles overlying
different bedding materials. Geotext. Geomembr. 2012, 31, 1–14. [CrossRef]
8. Park, J.B.; Park, H.S.; Kim, D. Geosynthetic reinforcement of sand-mat layer above soft ground. Materials
2013, 6, 5314–5334. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Raisinghani, D.V.; Viswanadham, B.V.S. Evaluation of permeability characteristics of a
geosynthetics-reinforced soil through laboratory tests. Geotext. Geomembr. 2010, 28, 579–588. [CrossRef]
10. Scholz, M. Water quality improvement performance of geotextiles within permeable pavement systems:
A critical review. Water 2013, 5, 462–479. [CrossRef]
11. Cazzuffi, D.; Ielo, D.; Mandaglio, M.C.; Moraci, N. Recent developments in the design of geotextile filters.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International GSI—Asia Geosynthetics Conference, Seoul, Korea, 24–26 June 2015.
12. Gardoni, M.G.; Palmeira, E.M. Microstructure and pore characteristics of synthetic filters under confinement.
Géotechnique 2002, 52, 405–418. [CrossRef]
Water 2017, 9, 660 14 of 15

13. Koda, E.; Szymański, A.; Wolski, W. Field and laboratory experience with the use of strip drains in organic
soils. Can. Geotech. J. 1993, 30, 308–318. [CrossRef]
14. Moraci, N. Geotextile filter: Design, characterization and factors affecting clogging and blinding limit states.
In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Geosynthetics, Guarujá, Brazil, 23–27 May 2010;
pp. 413–435.
15. Recio, J.; Oumeraci, H. Hydraulic permeability of structures made of geotextile sand containers; Laboratory
tests and conceptual model. Geotext. Geomembr. 2008, 26, 473–487. [CrossRef]
16. Palmeira, E.M.; Remigio, A.F.N.; Ramos, M.L.G.; Bernardes, R.S. A study on biological clogging of nonwoven
geotextiles under leachate flow. Geotext. Geomembr. 2008, 26, 205–219. [CrossRef]
17. Vieira, J.L.; Abramento, M.; Campos, M.V.W. Experimental study of clogging in drainage systems.
In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Geosynthetics, Guarujá, Brazil, 23–27 May 2010;
pp. 1145–1148.
18. Nahar, K.; Ferdous, W.; Mofiz, S.A.; Ferdous, K. A simplified mechanism for the vertical permeability test of
geo-textile. Int. J. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2010, 10, 29–33.
19. Paul, P.; Tota-Maharaj, K. Laboratory studies on granular filters and their relationship to geotextiles for
stormwater pollutant reduction. Water 2015, 7, 1595–1609. [CrossRef]
20. Faure, Y.H.; Baudoin, A.; Pierson, P.; Plé, O. A contribution for predicting geotextile clogging during filtration
of suspended solids. Geotext. Geomembr. 2006, 24, 11–20. [CrossRef]
21. Veylon, G.; Stoltz, G.; Mériaux, P.; Faure, Y.H.; Touze–Foltz, N. Performance of geotextile filters after 18 years’
service in drainage trenches. Geotext. Geomembr. 2016, 44, 515–533. [CrossRef]
22. Chen, R.H.; Ho, C.C.; Hsu, C.Y. The effect of fine soil content on the filtration characteristics of geotextile
under cyclic flows. Geosynth. Int. 2008, 15, 95–106. [CrossRef]
23. Heibaum, M. Geosynthetics for waterways and flood protection structures—Controlling the interaction of
water and soil. Geotext. Geomembr. 2014, 42, 374–393. [CrossRef]
24. Peng, R.; Hou, Y.; Zhan, L.; Yao, Y. Back-analyses of landfill instability induced by high water level: Case
study on Shenzhen landfill. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 126. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Giroud, J.P. Granular filters and geotextile filters. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference
Geofilters, Montréal, QC, Canada, 29–31 May 1996; pp. 565–680.
26. Giroud, J.P. Development of criteria for geotextile and granular filters. In Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Geosynthetics, Guarujá, Brazil, 23–27 May 2010; pp. 45–64.
27. Koerner, R.M.; Koerner, G.R. Lessons learned from geotextile filter failures under challenging field conditions.
Geotext. Geomembr. 2015, 43, 272–281. [CrossRef]
28. Palmeira, E.M.; Trejos Galvis, H.L. Opening sizes and filtration behavior of nonwoven geotextiles under
confined and partial clogging conditions. Geosynth. Int. 2017, 24, 125–138. [CrossRef]
29. Sousa, R.; Pinho–Lopes, M. Numerical tool for the design of granular and geotextile filters. In Proceedings
of the 5th European Geosynthetics Congress, Valencia, Spain, 16–19 September 2012; pp. 274–283.
30. Wu, C.S.; Hong, Y.S.; Yan, Y.W.; Chang, B.S. Soil-nonwoven geotextile filtration behavior under contact with
drainage materials. Geotext. Geomembr. 2006, 24, 1–10. [CrossRef]
31. Cazzuffi, D.; Moraci, N.; Mandaglio, M.C.; Ielo, D. Evolution in design of geotextile filters. In Proceedings of
the 6th European Geosynthetics Congress, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 25–28 September 2016; pp. 40–63.
32. Miszkowska, A.; Lenart, S.; Koda, E. Laboratory studies of artificial clogging of nonwoven geotextiles.
In Proceedings of the 6th European Geosynthetics Congress, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 25–28 September 2016;
pp. 1434–1440.
33. Segismundo, E.Q.; Kim, L.H.; Jeong, S.M.; Lee, B.S. A laboratory study on the filtration and clogging of the
sand-bottom ash mixture for stormwater infiltration filter media. Water 2017, 9, 32. [CrossRef]
34. Maheshwari, B.K.; Gunjagi, D.A. Filtration and clogging behavior of geotextiles with roorkee soils.
Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2008, 26, 101–107. [CrossRef]
35. Fannin, R.J. On the clogging of geotextile filters. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on
Geosynthetics, Guarujá, Brazil, 23–27 May 2010; pp. 401–412.
36. Wesołowski, A.; Krzywosz, Z.; Brandyk, T. Geosynthetics in Engineering Constructions; SGGW: Warsaw, Poland,
2000; p. 70.
37. Fleming, I.R.; Rowe, R.K. Laboratory studies of clogging of landfill leachate collection and drainage systems.
Can. Geotech. J. 2004, 41, 134–153. [CrossRef]
Water 2017, 9, 660 15 of 15

38. Adamcová, D.; Vaverková, M.D. New polymer behavior under the landfill conditions. Waste Biomass Valoriz.
2016, 7, 1459–1467. [CrossRef]
39. Koda, E.; Paprocki, P. Durability of leachate drainage systems of old sanitary landfills. In Proceedings of the
3rd International Conference Geofilters, Warsaw, Poland, 5–7 June 2000; pp. 215–222.
40. Correia, L.G.C.S.; Ehrlich, M.; Mendonca, M.B. The effect of submersion in the ochre formation in geotextile
filters. Geotext. Geomembr. 2017, 45, 1–7. [CrossRef]
41. Yaman, C.; Martin, J.P.; Korkut, E. Effects of wastewater filtration on geotextile permeability. Geosynth. Int.
2006, 13, 87–97. [CrossRef]
42. Xue, Q.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, L. Impact of high concentration solutions on hydraulic properties of geosynthetic
clay liner materials. Materials 2012, 5, 2326–2341. [CrossRef]
43. ISO 11058:2010—Geotextiles and Geotextile-Related Products—Determination of Water Permeability Characteristics
Normal to the Plane, Without Load; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.
44. ISO 14688-2:2004—Geotechnical Investigation and Testing—Identification and Classification of Soil—Part 2:
Principles for A Classification; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2004.
45. Kenney, T.C.; Lau, D. Internal stability of granular filters. Can. Geotech. J. 1985, 22, 215–225. [CrossRef]
46. Miszkowska, A.; Koda, E.; Krzywosz, Z.; Król, P.; Boruc, N. Change of hydraulic properties of nonwoven
geotextile after 22 years of exploitation in an earthfill dam. Acta Sci. Pol. 2016, 15, 119–126. (In Polish)
47. Koda, E.; Miszkowska, A.; St˛epień, S. Quality Control of Non-Woven Geotextiles Used in Drainage System
in an Old Remedial Landfill. In Proceedings of the Geo-Chicago 2016, Chicago, IL, USA, 14–18 August 2016;
pp. 254–263.
48. Kohata, Y.; Tanaka, M.; Sato, O.; Hirai, T. Clogging evaluation on cross-plane flow performance of
geotextile filter. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Geosynthetics, Yokohama, Japan,
18–22 September 2006; pp. 561–564.
49. Nishigata, T.; Fannin, R.J.; Vaid, Y.P. Blinding and clogging of a nonwoven geotextile. Soils Found. 2000, 40,
121–127. [CrossRef]
50. Lin, C.Y.; Yang, K.H. Experimental study on measures for improving the drainage efficiency of
low-permeability and low-plasticity silt with nonwoven geotextile drains. J. Chin. Inst. Civ. Hydraul. Eng.
2014, 26, 71–82.
51. Miszkowska, A. Tests of the influence of clogging on the filtration properties of nonwoven geotextiles.
In Outline of Selected Issues in Land Engineering; Bzówka, J., Ed.; Silesian University of Technology:
Gliwice, Poland, 2016; pp. 51–58. (In Polish)
52. Chen, R.H.; Ho, C.C.; Chung, W.B. The filtration mechanism and micro-observation of soil-geotextile systems
under cyclic flows. J. Geoeng. 2008, 3, 101–112.
53. Faure, Y.H.; Ho, C.C.; Chen, R.H.; Lay, M.; Blaza, J. A wave flume experiment for studying erosion mechanism
of revetments using geotextiles. Geotext. Geomembr. 2010, 28, 360–373. [CrossRef]

© 2017 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/).