Geosynthetics International

Hydraulic compatibility of geotextile-compost

systems in landfill covers
S. C. Ryoo1 and A. H. Aydilek2
1
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA, E-mail: sung.ryoo@gmail.com
2
Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park,
Maryland, USA, E-mail: aydilek@umd.edu (corresponding author)

Received 13 June 2019, revised 09 October 2019, accepted 05 November 2019

ABSTRACT: Landfill covers are required by federal regulations to cap municipal solid waste and
prevent leachate formation. The use of compost as part of a vegetative layer in landfill final covers is one
way to improve the sustainability of landfills. In order to successfully use compost in landfill cover
applications, hydraulic compatibility of the compost and underlying geotextile filters must be adequate.
The hydraulic compatibility of various composts and geotextiles have been explored through laboratory
long-term filtration (LTF) tests. Upon completion of the LTF tests, particle size analyses, permittivity
tests, piping measurements, and image analyses were conducted to evaluate clogging and retention
performances. When the clogging ratios and piping measurements were considered, all compost-
geotextile combinations yielded acceptable clogging and retention performance. A parametric study
was conducted to determine if different characteristic pore sizes and grain sizes influenced the
laboratory clogging ratios and showed no apparent relationship. Existing filter selection criteria
successfully predicted the observed retention behavior but failed to predict the clogging behavior. Based
on limited LTF data, compost is not likely to promote clogging in geotextiles; however, additional
soil-geotextile filtration tests are necessary to propose a new filter criterion for clogging.

KEYWORDS: Geosynthetics, Geotextile, Compost, Permittivity, Physical clogging, Landfill

REFERENCE: Ryoo, S. C. and Aydilek, A. H. (2019). Hydraulic compatibility of geotextile-compost

systems in landfill covers. Geosynthetics International. [https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.19.00055]

ultimately provision of sustainable construction and

1. INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA
2015) reported that the annual generation of municipal
solid waste (MSW) was increasing by 500 000 t per
year within the last decade; the last reported annual
amount generated was 258.5 million tons. With increasing
amounts of waste generation and number of waste
containment facilities, the infusion of sustainable prac-
tices into landfills is necessary. One potential sustainable
practice is the use of compost in lieu of topsoil as an
erosion control layer in landfill covers and highway slopes.
Reuse of compost can promote sustainable construction
practices by diverting this industrial by-product and
limiting the amount of natural soils (topsoils) required
for construction. Compost usage promotes reduction in
solid waste disposal costs incurred by industry, reduction
in landfill requirements, minimization of damage to
natural resources caused by excavating earthen materials
for construction, creation of added value from waste
materials, conservation of production energy, and
economic growth (Ryoo et al. 2018).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines
compost as ‘the product of controlled biological decom-
position of organic material that has been sanitized to the
point that it is beneficial to plant growth’ (US EPA 2012).
Compost can be defined based on the source materials,
known as feedstocks, which include manure from agricul-
tural operations, yard trimmings, biosolids from wastewater
treatment plants, food by-products, industrial by-products,
and municipal solid waste. Yard trimming composts, also
known as source-separated compost, and biosolids com-
post are two commonly encountered composts in eastern
parts of the United States and can be preferred in reuse
applications due to their low odor (Ryoo et al. 2018).
Existing work indicates that compost is a superior
material compared to topsoil for promoting the vegetative
growth and decreasing erosion (Faucette and Risse 2002;
Faucette et al. 2007, 2009; Curtis et al. 2009; Chaganti
and Crohn 2014). The compost layer, over time, encour-
ages the establishment and growth of vegetation, brings

1072-6349 © 2020 Thomas Telford Ltd 1

Geosynthetics International
 2 Ryoo and Aydilek

Table 1. Physical properties of the materials tested

Material Fines (%) Sand (%) Gravel (%) Cc Cu PI Gs ωnatural (%) OM (%) k (cm/s)

B 1.2 90.2 8.6 1.0 5.5 NP 1.76 59 75 8 × 10−2

S 1.7 79.8 18.6 1.0 9.5 NP 1.75 7.2 51 4 × 10−2
T 15.3 84.7 15.3 1.1 11.4 NP 2.51 0.6 3.7 8 × 10−3
P 0.5 79.7 19.8 0.8 1.8 NP 2.65 0 0 7 × 10−3

Notes: Cc: coefficient of curvature, Cu: coefficient of uniformity, PI: plasticity index, NP: non-plastic, Gs: specific gravity, ωnatural: natural moisture
content, OM: organic matter, k: permeability, NA: not applicable.

biological and chemical benefits by rendering the necess-
ary nutrients, provides an excellent substrate for soil biota,
suppresses plant diseases, and modifies and stabilizes the
pH of the soil environment (US EPA 2012). The addition
of compost to soil improves soil permeability and hence
reduces the amount of stormwater runoff and erosion
(Ryoo et al. 2018). Faucette and Risse (2002) showed that
100% soil surface coverage (essential for weed control and
limiting root freezing) could be achieved with compost
compared with only 70–75% coverage using traditional
methods. Faucette et al. (2009) showed that vegetated com-
post blanket treatments reduced runoff by 52–94% and soil
erosion by 29–99% in the laboratory, performing better
than many of the other erosion control products tested.
A criterion implemented for the final cover system of
landfills, per U.S. EPA Title 40 Section 258, recommends
a minimum 150-mm thick soil layer beneath the vegetative
layer (topsoil) in order to provide protection from wind
and water erosion (US EPA 1997). The thickness of the
protection layer is dependent on the site location and is
used for a variety of purposes, including frost protection
and prevention of human or animal intrusion. Qian et al.
(2002) outlines a typical landfill cover having 152 mm of
topsoil underlain by a 610-mm protective layer, and
indicates that drainage and filtration are key components
in assuring the proper functionality of the hydraulic
barrier layer.
Traditionally, topsoil is used as the erosion control
layer material in landfill covers. However, compost can
be an alternative erosion control product in these systems,
mostly due to its internal skeletal structure, water retent-
ion capability, and nutrient content, which allows for
superior vegetative facilitation (Kirchhoff et al. 2003;
Faucette et al. 2007, 2009). In a rainfall event, raindrop
impact is a significant contributor to soil erosion. Due to
the presence of larger particles in its structure, compost
absorbs the impact of energy from raindrops; in certain
hydraulic compatibility of geotextile layers in landfill final
covers with two commonly used composts. Physical
clogging behavior of geotextile-compost systems was inves-
tigated through long-term filtration (LTF) tests. The influ-
ence of particle size of the compost as well as the existence
of a granular protective layer adjacent to the geotextile in
drainage systems in landfill final covers were evaluated.
The post-filtration test analysis included permittivity tests,
sieve analyses, piping measurements, and image-based
pore size characterization.
2. MATERIALS
Three different geomaterials were tested: biosolid compost
(B) was produced by the City of Aberdeen, Maryland;
the source-separated compost (S) and the protective cover
material (P) were gathered from a landscape company,
in Severn, Maryland; the topsoil (T) was obtained from
a local store in Perryville Maryland, and was used as a
control variable. The physical properties of all materials
are shown in Table 1. A mechanical soil splitting test
method (ASTM C702) was used to collect characteristic
samples of each material prior to subjecting them to
physical analysis, which is in line with the Maryland
Department of Transportation minimum requirement
values outlined in the Special Provisions Insert (SPI 2017).
The source-separated compost (S) contained elongated
gravel-sized (>4.75 mm) wooden chips. An insignificant
T (Topsoil)
S (Source separated compost)
100 B (Biosolids compost)
P (Protective cover material)
80
Finer by weight: %

cases, up to 834 J/m2 (Fernández-Raga et al. 2010).

60
In contrast, smaller particles of compost can absorb
the inflow of water and increase the infiltration capacity
through their large surface areas (Faucette et al. 2007; 40
Seelsaen et al. 2007). Kirchhoff et al. (2003) describes
moisture retention in compost as an important parameter 20
in determining the efficiency of erosion control.
Utilization of compost can enhance sustainable con-
struction practices in landfills; however, despite the 0
10 1 0.1 0.01
benefits of compost, its interaction with underlying geo- Particle size: mm
textile drainage/filter layers in a landfill cover is unknown.
The objective of the current study was to evaluate the Figure 1. Grain size distributions of the materials tested
Geosynthetics International

Geosynthetics International
 Hydraulic compatibility of geotextile-compost systems in landfill covers 3

Table 2. Minimum average roll values (MARV) for properties of the geosynthetics tested

Geotextile Structure Mass/unit area Thickness POA Permittivity Water flow rate AOS
(g/m2) (mm) (%) (s−1) (L/min/m2) (mm)

W1 W, MF, PP 207 0.82 3 0.2 611 0.30

W2 W, MF, PP 271 0.86 8 1.5 4685 0.60
W3 W, MF, PP 271 0.66 10 2.1 5907 0.425
NW1 NW, NP, PP 163 0.81 NA 1.7 5500 0.212
NW2 NW, NP, PP 115 0.75 NA 2.1 6315 0.30

Notes: NA: not applicable, NW: nonwoven, NP: needle punched, PP: polypropylene, W: Woven, MF: monofilament, POA: Percent Open Area,
AOS: Apparent Opening Size.

Water inlet

0–25 mm Compost
25 mm
25–75 mm Protective cover
75 mm
75–100 mm Geotextile

Water outlet

Figure 2. LTF specimen of compost-to-protective cover

Table 3. Summary of LTF tests performed on compost-geotextile systems

Material Geotextile Piping (g/m2) Hydraulic gradient Ksystem (cm/s) Ksoil (cm/s) KR (ksoil/ksystem) GR

Source separated compost (S) W1 249 i = 1.0 1.9 × 10−2 2.0 × 10−2 1.09 2.06
i = 2.5 1.1 × 10−2 1.3 × 10−2 1.18 2.34
W2 242 i = 1.0 8.5 × 10−3 2.2 × 10−2 2.62 8.14
i = 2.5 3.8 × 10−3 1.3 × 10−2 3.44 11.6
W3 264 i = 1.0 5.2 × 10−2 5.5 × 10−2 1.06 1.58
i = 2.5 3.6 × 10−2 4.1 × 10−2 1.13 1.92
NW1 234 i = 1.0 1.6 × 10−2 2.0 × 10−2 1.30 2.69
i = 2.5 1.0 × 10−2 1.3 × 10−2 1.23 2.47
NW2 162 i = 1.0 2.6 × 10−3 3.4 × 10−3 1.29 2.89
i = 2.5 6.9 × 10−4 1.2 × 10−3 1.77 5.06
Biosolid compost (B) W1 239 i = 1.0 6.8 × 10−2 6.5 × 10−2 0.96 1.30
i = 2.5 3.2 × 10−2 3.3 × 10−2 1.03 1.50
W2 240 i = 1.0 4.4 × 10−2 7.8 × 10−2 1.78 3.29
i = 2.5 2.2 × 10−2 4.5 × 10−2 2.05 4.13
W3 248 i = 1.0 5.6 × 10−2 5.3 × 10−2 0.95 1.29
i = 2.5 4.8 × 10−2 4.5 × 10−2 0.98 1.39
NW1 188 i = 1.0 8.6 × 10−3 1.2 × 10−2 1.44 3.49
i = 2.5 1.0 × 10−2 1.6 × 10−2 1.62 4.21
NW2 144 i = 1.0 2.3 × 10−2 2.3 × 10−2 1.03 2.04
i = 2.5 1.2 × 10−2 1.4 × 10−2 1.14 2.40
Topsoil (T) W1 77 i = 1.0 1.2 × 10−2 9.0 × 10−3 0.74 0.92
i = 2.5 9.2 × 10−3 6.4 × 10−3 0.69 0.69
W2 759 i = 1.0 1.2 × 10−2 8.5 × 10−3 0.69 0.70
i = 2.5 5.4 × 10−3 3.5 × 10−3 0.65 0.52
W3 793 i = 1.0 1.2 × 10−2 1.2 × 10−2 0.98 1.79
i = 2.5 5.1 × 10−3 4.3 × 10−3 0.84 1.31
NW1 267 i = 1.0 7.3 × 10−3 5.4 × 10−3 0.75 0.82
i = 2.5 3.3 × 10−3 2.2 × 10−3 0.68 0.54
NW2 231 i = 1.0 5.0 × 10−3 3.3 × 10−3 0.66 0.59
i = 2.5 2.2 × 10−3 1.3 × 10−3 0.59 0.34

Notes: Bold indicates unacceptable clogging based on clogging criteria set (GR, KR > 3), Ksystem and Ksoil are the stabilized values at the end of the
imposed gradient.

Geosynthetics International

Geosynthetics International
 4 Ryoo and Aydilek

amount of impurities was found in S but not in T or B. S is
a manufactured material from collected yard waste, and
it is not unreasonable to find impurities. All impurities
were removed by hand before the filtration tests. B and P
were classified as poorly graded sand, S was classified
as well-graded sand with gravel, and T was classified
as silty sand with gravel according to the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS). The grain size distributions
of the materials are given in Figure 1.
Compost and topsoil are vegetative facilitation
materials and field installation of these materials is often
performed without a target density (Ryoo et al. 2018).
Therefore, the density during LTF testing was low but
consistent; the maximum particle size for all test speci-
mens was reduced to 19 mm and a target dry density of
4.9 kN/m3, 4.9 kN/m3, 11.8 kN/m3, and 17.7 kN/m3 was
chosen for S, B, T, and P, respectively. Previous studies also
indicated that the installation of compost in field erosion
control studies involved placement of compost in a
relatively loose state, and the material was not tamped
or compacted (Persyn et al. 2005; Birt et al. 2007; Beighley
et al. 2010; Bakr et al. 2012; SPI 2017).
Permeability of the composts ranged from 4 × 10−2 to
8 × 10−2 cm/s, while the average was 8 × 10−2 cm/s for
the topsoil (Table 1). The difference in permeabilities was
attributed to the fines content of the materials (1.2%,
1.7%, and 15.3% for B, S, and T, respectively). Attempts
were made to measure the Atterberg limits of the com-
posts and the topsoil; however, none of the materials were
plastic and there was very little to no clay. Two nonwoven
and three woven geotextiles with a range of permittivities
were employed in the testing program. Physical and
hydraulic properties of the geotextiles are listed in Table 2.
3. METHODS
3.1. Long term filtration test
Long Term Filtration (LTF) tests were conducted to deter-
mine the interaction between the composts/topsoil and the
geotextiles, following the procedures outlined in ASTM
D5101, with some deviations. Rollin and Lombard
(1988), Rao et al. (1992), Aydilek and Edil (2003), and
Aydilek and Kutay (2005) showed that the 24-h period
recommended in D5101 was inadequate for evaluating
the long-term performance of the system and extended
the duration of the testing based on the stability of the
clogging ratios determined through the LTF test. Once a
stabilized trend was present in the current LTF tests, a
termination criterion of 25% deviation of the last four
permeability measurements from the mean permeability
defined the stability of the top soil- or compost-geotextile
systems, as per ASTM D5084. When the stability of
system permeability and clogging ratio were achieved, the

Table 4. Summary of LTF tests performed on compost-protective cover-geotextile systems

Material Geotextile Piping (g/m2) Hydraulic gradient Ksystem (cm/s) Ksoil (cm/s) KR (ksoil/ksystem) GR

Source separated compost with W1 1159 i = 1.0 1.0 × 10−2 9.2 × 10−3 0.93 0.49
protective cover (SP) i = 2.5 3.8 × 10−3 3.3 × 10−3 0.87 0.20
W2 673 i = 1.0 8.3 × 10−3 5.1 × 10−3 0.62 0.42
i = 2.5 4.5 × 10−3 2.5 × 10−3 0.56 0.22
W3 677 i = 1.0 3.5 × 10−3 2.8 × 10−3 0.79 0.25
i = 2.5 1.3 × 10−3 8.0 × 10−4 0.62 0.08
NW1 229 i = 1.0 1.1 × 10−3 8.2 × 10−4 0.76 0.17
i = 2.5 8.2 × 10−4 4.5 × 10−4 0.54 0.07
NW2 177 i = 1.0 1.4 × 10−3 8.1 × 10−4 0.57 0.11
i = 2.5 9.7 × 10−4 5.0 × 10−4 0.52 0.06
Biosolid compost with W1 1263 i = 1.0 7.4 × 10−3 8.6 × 10−3 1.16 1.01
protective cover (BP) i = 2.5 3.6 × 10−3 2.6 × 10−3 0.72 0.40
W2 769 i = 1.0 2.1 × 10−3 1.4 × 10−3 0.70 0.28
i = 2.5 1.1 × 10−3 6.3 × 10−4 0.56 0.11
W3 678 i = 1.0 2.0 × 10−3 1.1 × 10−3 0.54 0.16
i = 2.5 1.5 × 10−3 7.9 × 10−4 0.52 0.10
NW1 289 i = 1.0 1.8 × 10−3 1.0 × 10−3 0.58 0.21
i = 2.5 1.8 × 10−3 1.0 × 10−3 0.56 0.19
NW2 156 i = 1.0 2.1 × 10−3 1.2 × 10−3 0.58 0.23
i = 2.5 2.2 × 10−3 1.3 × 10−3 0.56 0.19
Topsoil with protective W1 484 i = 1.0 1.2 × 10−2 9.5 × 10−3 0.78 0.91
cover (TP) i = 2.5 1.3 × 10−2 1.0 × 10−3 0.80 1.09
W2 1185 i = 1.0 2.1 × 10−3 3.4 × 10−3 1.62 0.95
i = 2.5 3.4 × 10−3 5.4 × 10−3 1.58 0.94
W3 539 i = 1.0 2.9 × 10−3 3.9 × 10−3 1.37 1.07
i = 2.5 3.3 × 10−3 4.2 × 10−3 1.26 1.03
NW1 296 i = 1.0 1.1 × 10−2 7.5 × 10−3 0.66 0.64
i = 2.5 1.0 × 10−2 7.2 × 10−3 0.69 0.72
NW2 184 i = 1.0 1.0 × 10−2 8.1 × 10−3 0.80 0.68
i = 2.5 1.1 × 10−2 8.4 × 10−3 0.79 0.71

Notes: Ksystem and Ksoil are the stabilized values at the end of the imposed gradient.

Geosynthetics International

Geosynthetics International
 Hydraulic compatibility of geotextile-compost systems in landfill covers 5

Table 6. Percent increase in weight at the soil-geotextile interface

NW2
due to densification

NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Geotextile BP SP TP B S T
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
NW1

NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
POA ratio (POAR)

NW1 11 17 7 0 18 16
NW2 14 −2 4 28 9 24
0.94
0.91
0.92
0.88
0.93
0.88
W3

W1 75 43 9 −1 26 9
W2 13 42 29 0 −2 11
W3 54 38 23 −3 0 12
0.93
0.87
0.97
0.94
0.91
0.93
W2

0.99
0.84
0.93
0.77
0.99
0.81
W1
NW2

5.06
0.06
2.40
0.19
0.34
0.71
NW1

2.47
0.07
4.21
0.19
0.54
0.72
Gradient ratio (GR)

1.92
0.08
1.39
0.10
1.31
1.03
W3

0.22
4.13
0.11
0.52
0.94
W2

11.6
2.34
0.20

0.40
0.69
1.09
W1

1.5
NW2

1.77
0.52
1.14
0.56
0.59
0.79

Figure 3. Photo of densification at SP-W1. Arrow depicts the gap

that forms within the column
Permeability ratio (KR)

NW1

1.23
0.54
1.62
0.56
0.68
0.69

test was either terminated or the imposed gradient was

1.13
0.62
0.98
0.52
0.84
1.26
W3

increased.
Notes: The values shown are the end of stability under i = 2.5, NM = Not measured.

The LTF test used constant-head imposed gradients

of 1.0 and 2.5 to test the filtration of the systems. In order
3.44
0.56
2.05
0.56
0.65
1.58
W2

to mimic the conditions in a landfill cover system, a

three-layer cover was implemented in the LTF columns
1.18
0.87
1.03
0.72
0.69
0.80

(Figure 2). Qian et al. (2002) stated that a typical landfill

W1

cover consists of an erosion control layer, a protective

cover layer, and a drainage layer; therefore, each test
NW2

consisted of either pure compost or compost plus a pro-

NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM

tective cover. A compost-to-protective cover ratio of 1 : 4,

by weight, was utilized during the specimen preparation in
Permittivity ratio (ΨR)

NW 1

scope with Qian et al. (2002) and US EPA (1997). The

NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM

water was slowly introduced to the specimen from the

bottom until full saturation was achieved. All specimens
Table 5. Summary of clogging ratios

0.98
0.98
0.96
0.98
0.97
1.00
W3

were held for at least 24 h upon saturation. This process

allowed trapped air bubbles to be dissolved back into the
deaired water. A 5-micron filter was replaced every other
0.96
0.98
0.95
0.97
0.97
0.99
W2

month to collect suspended particles from the water

supply. A nano-membrane deairing unit under a vacuum
0.91
0.94
0.96
0.87
0.99
0.98

pressure of 0.7 bars was used. The total dissolved oxygen

W1

averaged from 0.2 to 3.0 ppm.

Due to the high organic content of the compost,
Material

microorganisms (such as algae) could cause a decrease

in system permeability. Ochre, a microorganism, was also
BP

TP
SP
B

T
S

present in the preliminary tests due to the high iron

Geosynthetics International

Geosynthetics International
 6 Ryoo and Aydilek

content in the water. Ochre is a gelatinous substance from this may have increased the dissolved oxygen content
a microbial colonization of bacteria consortia and is red in when in contact with metals present in the compost
color due to its high iron oxide content. Mendonca and (Kjellerup 2018 (personal communication)). The most
Maurício (2006) and Veylon et al. (2016) both encoun- effective method was to cover the columns and reservoirs
tered ochre formation during long-term filtration evalu- to prevent the ingress of light to the algae (the primary
ation of geotextiles. Fannin et al. (1994) used chlorine source of energy for algae).
tablets to control microorganism growth; however, during Manometer readings and the flow rate and temperature
the current tests, the use of chlorine tablets was not of the deaired water, as well as the dissolved oxygen
effective, possibly due to their high oxidizing capacity; content, were recorded every 24 h. Upon completion of the

Table 7. Changes in the O95, O50, and POA of the geotextiles subjected to filtration tests

Geotextile Percent reduction in POA Pore Pore size Percent reduction in measured pore
of geotextile (%) size of virgin size of geotextile (%)
geotextile (mm)
B BP S SP T TP B BP S SP T TP

NW1 NM NM NM NM NM NM O95 0.38 21 30 25 27 NM NM

O50 0.28 20 23 30 16 NM NM
NW2 NM NM NM NM NM NM O95 0.18 16 27 36 13 NM NM
O50 0.12 46 54 57 46 NM NM
W1 8.4 13 6.6 9.2 7.6 13 O95 0.31 0.1 13 0.6 1.0 4.5 8.2
O50 0.30 7.0 16 1.8 16 5.1 14
W2 3.1 5.7 7.7 14 9.7 7.6 O95 0.60 0.5 2.3 6.0 6.0 5.4 2.8
O50 0.57 0.9 2.9 0.2 5.9 4.8 5.8
W3 7 25 1.4 18 0.5 21 O95 0.43 4.4 5.6 3.4 3.6 3.7 6.9
O50 0.41 0.1 6.9 3.7 5.4 4.2 7.2

Notes: NM: Not measured.

3.0

S
2.5 SP
B
Permeability ratio, KR

BP
2.0
T
TP
1.5

1.0

0.5

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (hours)
(a)

101
System permeability (cm/s)

100

10–1

10–2

10–3

10–4
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (hours)
(b)

Figure 4. Temporal characteristics of (a) KR and (b) system permeability for NW1
Geosynthetics International

Geosynthetics International
 Hydraulic compatibility of geotextile-compost systems in landfill covers 7

LTF tests, the columns were dismantled, the soil samples
were collected at 0–25 mm, 25–75 mm, and 75–100 mm,
and dried and wash-sieved to determine changes in the
original grain size distributions. The geotextiles were
extracted from the columns, and were cleaned, brushed,
and dried for post-LTF tests. Piping is a phenomenon
where the soil erodes from the soil matrix and is transported
through the geotextile. The soil eroding from the geotextile
and accumulating in the bottom chamber was collected
and weighed to determine the amount of piping.
Gradient ratio (GR = isoil-geotextile/isoil ) was calculated
following the procedures outlined in ASTM D5101.
However, the GR values are significantly influenced by
fluctuations in manometer readings; thus, permeability
ratio (KR) was preferred to define the clogging conditions,
following the recommendations of Aydilek and Edil
(2003), Sabiri et al. (2017), and Abbaspour et al. (2018)
ksoil
KR ¼ ð1Þ
ksystem
where ksoil was determined through the manometer read-
ings at the 25 mm and 75 mm manometer ports and
ksystem was determined through the applied hydraulic
gradient (Figure 2). Fischer (1994), Aydilek and Kutay
(2005), and Narejo et al. (2013) also showed that GR may
not be representative due to the analysis of a relatively
small soil-geotextile contact zone in the LTF test appa-
ratus, and recommended the use of alternative ratios.
Moreover, the use of flow rate in KR calculations was
advantageous since flow impediment (whether through
clogging or otherwise) would be directly related to
decreases in flow rates at the soil-geotextile interface
caused by clogging of the geotextile or formation of a
bridging layer above the interface.
3.2. Permittivity test
Permittivity (Ψ) is a ratio of geotextile permeability to
geotextile thickness and defines the volumetric flow rate of
water per unit cross sectional area per unit head (ASTM
D4491). A series of permittivity tests were conducted on
virgin as well as post-LTF geotextiles, and a ratio of these
two permittivities, called the permittivity ratio (ΨR ), was
calculated. This ratio is another indicator of clogging,
along with KR and GR, and can be used to explain if there
is any deviation between the permittivities of the virgin
and post-LTF geotextiles. The permittivity tests were
conducted following the procedures outlined in ASTM
D4491, and a 50-mm imposed gradient (Method 1 in
ASTM D4491) was selected due to the expected flow rates
being too high. To determine the average permittivity,
five flow readings were collected, and the average of these
values was reported as the geotextile permittivity.
3.3. Image analysis
Image-based pore size characterization was conducted
on both woven and nonwoven geotextiles. While the

3.0
S
SP
2.5
B
Permeability ratio, KR

BP
2.0 T
TP

1.5

1.0

0.5

0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
Time (hours)
(a)

101

100
System permeability (cm/s)

10–1

10–2

10–3

10–4
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
Time (hours)
(b)

Figure 5. Temporal characteristics of (a) KR and (b) system permeability for NW2
Geosynthetics International

Geosynthetics International
 8 Ryoo and Aydilek

woven geotextiles required no specimen preparation,
planar thin sections of the nonwovens were prepared
following the procedures listed in Aydilek et al. (2002).
An optical light microscope with a workstation platform
of 45 mm × 25 mm and a 2.5 to 100× macro zoom lens
coupled with an image-capturing software was employed
to capture the pore structure images of the geotextile
samples. A digital camera mounted on the microscope
sent the 6000 × 4000 pixel images of the samples to the
computer software. Magnification (objective) ratio was
2.5× and 2.5–5×, and the corresponding pixel size was
1.6–2.4 × 10−3 mm for the planar thin-sections The speci-
mens were illuminated from the bottom, as suggested by
Franks et al. (2015).
An image processing software, ImageJ, was used to
convert the captured images into 8-bit (black and white)
photos. The white pixels represented open pore spaces
shown through light and the black pixels represented fibers
and the soil samples clogging the pore spaces, and the
information was utilized to calculate the percent open area
(POA) of the virgin as well as post-LTF test geotextiles,
which was then used to define the percent open area ratio
POAPost Test
POAR ¼
POAVirgin
Pore size distribution (PSD) was calculated with a
published procedure outlined by Aydilek et al. (2002).
PSD indicates a range of pore size distributions by com-
parison of a circular shaped area fitted in each pore.
The percentage of the pore sizes that were smaller than the
set diameter in the geotextile were calculated. For a given
geotextile, images of all samples were subjected to the
same procedure and the average pore size diameter was
determined. The changes in geotextile pore opening sizes
of the virgin and post-LTF test geotextiles were used to
assess the clogging of the geotextiles. The details of the
image analysis and PSD determination procedures are
provided in Aydilek et al. (2002).
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1. Clogging behavior
The physical clogging behavior of the tested systems was
evaluated using the permeability ratio (KR), permittivity
ratio (ΨR), percent open area ratio (POAR), and gradient
ratio (GR). For this study, a clogging limit of KR = 3 was
adopted following the suggestions of Aydilek and Edil
(2003), Aydilek and Kutay (2005), Narejo et al. (2013),
and Abbaspour et al. (2018).
ð2Þ Tables 3 and 4 summarize the ksoil, ksystem, KR, and GR.
A decrease in ksystem with increasing applied hydraulic
gradient could be observed in most cases. A similar
phenomenon was observed by Fischer (1994), who

3.0
S
SP
2.5
B
Permeability ratio, KR

BP
2.0 T
TP
1.5

1.0

0.5

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time (hours)
(a)

101
System permeability (cm/s)

100

10–1

10–2

10–3

10–4
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time (hours)
(b)

Figure 6. Temporal characteristics of (a) KR and (b) system permeability for W1

Geosynthetics International

Geosynthetics International
 Hydraulic compatibility of geotextile-compost systems in landfill covers
associated the decreases in flow rates and ksystem with
densification of the soil, not clogging of the geotextile,
where loose soil would be densified under an imposed
gradient. Considering the soil placement methodology in
LTF columns and relatively low unit weights of the
geomaterials tested (4.9 kN/m3 for compost, 11.8 kN/m3
for topsoil and 17.7 kN/m3 for the protective cover),
densification would be expected under the imposed
gradients (Table 5).
KR and GR values increased with increasing applied
gradient for S and B; in most cases, consistent with
the findings reported in past studies (Aydilek and Edil
2003; Aydilek and Kutay 2005; Hong and Wu 2011; Sabiri
et al. 2017). However, similar observations could not be
made during testing of the topsoil or compost-geotextile-
protective cover systems. Instead, a decrease in KR with
increasing hydraulic gradient was seen for T, TP, SP, and
BP, suggesting that densification may have had an impact
on the KR and GR values. Table 6 outlines the percent
change by weight of the soil-geotextile interface. This
percentage change by weight of the soil-geotextile inter-
face layer, determined via post-filtration sieve analysis,
was used to quantify densification, which suggested that
densification had occurred more substantially with the
presence of the protective cover. Figure 3 is a typical gap
that formed in all the tests with protective covers; this type
of gap was also observed by Fischer (1994). The gap is an
indicator of P settling under the imposed hydraulic
4.0
3.5
3.0
Permeability ratio, KR
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
0 100
101
System permeability (cm/s)
100
10–1
10–2
10–3
10–4
0 100
Figure 7. Temporal characteristics of (a) KR and (b) system permeability for W2
Geosynthetics International
9
gradient, which accounts for BP and SP having higher
values of densification than B and S. The higher den-
sification at the soil-geotextile interface for BP and SP
could be the cause of a decrease in KR values as the
hydraulic gradient increases. Densification for T (when
comparing percent change at the soil-geotextile interface)
was less than that for BP, SP, and TP; however, it was
greater than that for S and B in most soil-geotextile com-
binations and was minimal in all, except S-NW1, S-W1,
and B-NW2. The higher densification could be due to
specific gravity; T and P have comparable specific gravity
values of 2.51 and 2.65, respectively, while the specific
gravities of B and S are close (1.76 and 1.75, respectively).
Huang et al. (2009) noted lower Gs values with increasing
organic matter content in soils, consistent with the obser-
vations made for T, P, B, and S in the current study. Per
volume, soils with low specific gravity are lighter than soils
with high specific gravity; this could indicate why higher
degrees of densification in T and P occurred compared to
B and S, as more force would be applied at the soil-
geotextile interface of T and P compared to B and S
yielding to self-weight compression.
If GR values of the compost-only tests are to be ana-
lyzed with the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE
1986) limit of 3.0, S-W2, S-NW2, B-W2, and B-NW1
would be considered clogged. The highest values were
recorded for S-W2 with a GR value of 8.14 at i = 1.0 and a
GR value of 11.6 at i = 2.5. If the KR values were to be
S
SP
B
BP
T
TP
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time (hours)
(a)
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time (hours)
(b)
Geosynthetics International
 10 Ryoo and Aydilek

analyzed, S-W2 would be the only one considered
clogged, with a KR value of 3.44 at i = 2.5.
When protective cover was implemented, four out of the
30 tests had GR values greater than or equal to 1.0. When
KR values were considered, five out of the 30 tests had
values greater than or equal to 1.0. However, both KR and
GR values stayed below the limit of 3.0. The highest GR
value was 1.09 (TS-W1) and the lowest GR value was 0.06
(S-NW2), suggesting an acceptable range of values per
ASTM D5101.
The majority of the compost-geotextile systems would
be considered not clogged based on the KR values, which
could be confirmed by the measured POAR and ΨR
(Table 7). For instance, stabilized end-of-test KR and GR
(at i = 2.5) were lower than 3.0, except for S-W2, S-NW2,
B-W2, and B-NW1. The majority of the POAR and ΨR
values were close to 1.0, suggesting no change in the flow
capacity of the geotextiles. More importantly, the greatest
reductions in Ψ (0–13%) and POA (1–23%) were observed
with BP-W1, SP-W1, and TSP-W1; however, these
systems had low GR (0.2–1.09) and KR (0.56–1.58)
values, which indicated that the permeability of the
system was not impeded by clogging of the geotextile or
blockage of the geotextile pores by soil particles.
Temporal characteristics of KR and ksystem are given in
Figures 4–8. The data depicted good compatibility based
on the low KR (0.52–2.0), except for the tests on W2
conducted with S and B. When KR was plotted against the
imposed gradient for B and S, all geotextiles except NW1,
showed an increase in KR values as the imposed hydraulic
gradient was increased. A majority of the BP, SP, T,
and TP tests yielded up to 20% decrease or no change in
KR. Inclusion of a protective cover decreased the system
permeability in many of the cases as a result of densifica-
tion and material intermixing at the material interface;
however, the changes in the stabilized permeabilities
were less than one order of magnitude (Tables 3 and 4).
The accompanying KR values also slightly decreased
or remained unchanged, yet the stabilized values stayed
between 0.5 and 1.0 (Figures 4–8). Most of the KR values
were lower than the limit of 3.0, except in the case of
S-W2, indicating that partial clogging of the geotextiles
did not have a significant impact on the overall filtration
performance of the geotextile-compost and geotextile-
compost-protective cover systems.
Clogging ratios (KR, POAR, and ΨR) are plotted versus
the permittivity of the virgin geotextiles in Figure 9. POAR
and ΨR values were minimally affected from an increase
in permittivity of the virgin geotextiles. A parametric
study was conducted to relate the clogging ratios to several
characteristic geotextile pore size-to-characteristic grain
size ratios (O95/D85, O90/D15) and characteristic geotextile
pore size (O95, O90, O50, and O30), but no clear trends were
observed (Ryoo and Aydilek 2019).

3.0
S
2.5 SP
B
BP
Permeability ratio, KR

2.0 T
TP
1.5

1.0

0.5

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time (hours)
(a)

101

100
System permeability: cm/s

10–1

10–2

10–3

10–4
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time (hours)
(b)

Figure 8. Temporal characteristics of (a) KR and (b) system permeability for W3

Geosynthetics International

Geosynthetics International
 Hydraulic compatibility of geotextile-compost systems in landfill covers 11

4.2. Retention behavior
Retention was characterized by measuring the amount of
piped material per geotextile area during the LTF testing.
According to ASTM D5101, piping is ‘the tendency of the
geotextile to let a quantity of soil pass through its plane
which could potentially lead to stability’. All woven and
nonwoven geotextiles, tested with topsoil or compost,
yielded insignificant piping (Tables 3 and 4). The highest
piping was measured as 1262 g/m2 for B-W1, and all
piping amounts remained below 2500 g/m2, an internal
stability limit typically used for granular and geotextile
filters (Lafleur et al. 1989; Bhatia et al. 1996; Aydilek and
Edil 2002; Aydilek and Kutay 2005; Huang and Luo
2007; Palmeira and Tatto 2015). The use of protective
cover increased the overall piping rate when compared to
tests conducted on compost only.
However, piping was inconsequential to the perme-
ability. Manometer head value change can dramatically
influence the GR and KR values; thus, piping was not the
cause of GR and KR significantly dropping below 1.0,
inconsistent with the observations made by Odabasi and
Aydilek (2018). Accordingly, the shifts in GSD of the
compost-geotextile and topsoil-geotextile combinations
did not show any trends with measured piping amounts
or clogging ratios (not shown herein).
Two common retention ratios, O95/D85 and O50/D50, are
plotted versus piping in Figure 10. O50/D50 versus piping
showed a general increasing trend, with some scatter in

3.5 3.5

3.0 ψR
3.0

2.5 KR 2.5
Clogging ratio

2.0 POAR Clogging ratio 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12
Virgin geotextile POA Virgin geotextile POA
(a) (b)

3.5 3.5

3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5
Clogging ratio

Clogging ratio

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12
Virgin geotextile POA Virgin geotextile POA
(c) (d)

3.5 3.5

3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5
Clogging ratio

Clogging ratio

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12
Virgin geotextile POA Virgin geotextile POA
(e) (f)

Figure 9. Clogging ratios versus virgin geotextile percent open area for (a) S, (b) SP, (c) B, (d) BP, (e) T, and (f) TP
Geosynthetics International

Geosynthetics International
 12 Ryoo and Aydilek

data. Although O95/D85 criteria set by Calhoun (1972),
Carroll (1983), and Christopher and Holtz (1985) relate to
retention performance, a similar conclusion could not be
made in the current study, possibly due to limited number
of test data. Increase in virgin geotextile POA (which
is directly related to permittivity) also did not depict
an expected trend of increase in piping. Aydilek and Edil
(2002) reported similar findings where O50/D50 correlated
with piping; however, O95/D85 did not.
4.3. Post long-term filtration test analysis of geotextile
pore structure
Image analysis was used to determine shifts in the pore
size distributions (PSD) and changes in POA of the virgin
geotextiles upon filtration. Table 7 summarizes the results.
The percent reduction in POAs ranged from 3% to 25%.
The highest percent reduction in the POA came from the
compost-geotextile and topsoil-geotextile combinations
with protective coverings, possibly due to densification
observed in these systems. The movement of the soil
particles through the protective layer could be a con-
tributor to the higher percent reduction. This was contrary
to the trend suggested by Odabasi and Aydilek (2018)
where soils with lower fines content were attributed to the
smaller changes in POA.
PSD shifts are plotted in Figures 11 and 12.
Characteristic pore opening sizes from post-filtration
geotextiles showed a decrease in all soil-geotextile com-
binations. Percent reduction in O95 and O50 was small
(<16%) for the woven geotextiles. However, nonwoven
geotextiles had a higher percent reduction in their O95
and O50 (13–57%) with the O50 value for NW2 having
the greatest reduction out of all the geotextiles tested
(Table 7). No correlations could be found between the
clogging results and the shifts in PSD or POA.
100

Virgin
80 B W1
1400 S BP BP
Percent finer (%)

S
1200 SP T
SP
B TP 60 T
Piping (g/m2)

1000 TP
800
40
600
400 20
200
0 0
0.4 0.3 0.2
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Pore size (mm)
O95/D85 (mm)
100
(a)

1400 80 W2
1200
Percent finer (%)

60
Piping (g/m2)

1000
800
40
600
400
20
200
0 0
0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 0.6 0.5
O95/D85 (mm) Pore size (mm)

(b) 100

1400
80 W3
1200
Percent finer (%)
Piping (g/m2)

1000 60
800
600 40
400
200 20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0
0.5 0.4 0.3
Virgin geotextile POA (%) Pore size (mm)
(c)
Figure 11. Changes in pore size distribution (PSD) of the woven
Figure 10. Piping versus (a) O95/D85, (b) O50/D50, and (c) POA geotextiles filtering compost and topsoil
Geosynthetics International

Geosynthetics International
 Hydraulic compatibility of geotextile-compost systems in landfill covers
4.4. Application of the existing filter selection criteria
Clogging ratios, piping amounts, and PSD were used to
test the predictive capability of the common existing filter
selection criteria listed in Table 8. The criteria 25 years
or older were selected due to extensive experience with
them. Existing retention criteria aligned with the labora-
tory performance of all compost-geotextile and topsoil-
geotextile combinations (i.e. 100% successful prediction).
All combinations exhibited a successful anti-clogging
performance in the laboratory, except S-W1, which
experienced clogging in the laboratory considering a KR
limit of 3.0. As seen in Figure 13, most of the existing
clogging criteria failed to predict the laboratory perform-
ance. Among the criteria tested, the Fischer et al. (1990)
criterion most accurately matched with the laboratory
performance, where it used O15 values, consistent with the
observations noted by Odabasi and Aydilek (2018).
Aydilek (2006), through laboratory-based measurements
and analytical modeling, also found that the controlling
geotextile pore size for clogging ranged from O15 to O50.
4.5. Limitations of the study
The research findings were limited to only the two
nonwoven and three woven geotextiles and two types of
composts and one topsoil analyzed. The existing geo-
textile filter selection criteria were unable to accurately
predict clogging performances of the organic soil-
geotextile combinations. Existing filter selection criteria
100
80
Percent finer (%)
60
40
NW1
20
0 blends of topsoil and compost, rather than pure compost,
0.5 0.3 0.1 0.08
Pore size (mm)
100
80
Percent finer (%)
60
40
20
NW2
0 of two composts (biosolids and source separated) and
0.2 0.1 0.08
Pore size (mm)
Figure 12. Changes in pore size distribution (PSD) of the
nonwoven geotextiles filtering compost
Geosynthetics International
13
are empirical and have been developed for inorganic
soils. Due to the high organic content of compost, some of
the existing filtration criteria may not be applicable and
as such, the predictions may not necessarily match
the laboratory performance. Conducting LTF tests with
additional combinations is recommended to create a filter
selection criterion for compost-geotextile systems.
The current research focused primarily on the geotextile
filter performance against physical clogging. As stated
earlier, biological activity was observed during the current
laboratory tests, even though it was not quantified, and
steps were taken to minimize biological activity. A case
study done by Koerner and Koerner (2015) showed ochre
leading to excessive clogging of nonwoven filters, some
which reduced flow capacity by 99.5%. Palmeira et al.
(2008) observed ‘great reductions’ in geotextile perme-
ability due to biological clogging, which was reported to
occur when biological activity formed a bacterial bio-film
that impeded flow. Mendonca and Maurício (2006) and
Veylon et al. (2016) showed that, while the formation
of biological products resulted in the loss of filter per-
formance, minimal changes in filter performance were
present. These studies, along with many others, showed
that organic matter can play a major role in the flow
characteristics of soil-geotextile systems and an increase in
microbiological activity can cause a decrease in per-
meability. Compost is highly organic, biological activity
is expected, and future work is needed to study the
impact of this activity, including biofilm growth, on filter
performance.
Past research has shown that compost increases the
Virgin
porosity and decreases the bulk density of the medium,
B which can lead to high infiltration rates but also high
BP nutrient load (extractions of nitrogen, phosphorus,
S
SP and potassium). The findings of the current study have
focused on the physical characteristics of compost and its
hydraulic compatibility with geotextile filters, and no tests
were conducted to assess the nutrient leaching perform-
ance. It is strongly advised to run such leaching tests
before incorporating compost into landfill covers.
Due to possible high nutrient leaching from composts,
0.06
may be of interest as such a mixture can act as biocover
and minimize potential fugitive methane emissions while
performing as vegetation cover as well. In this case, the
physical and geotechnical (e.g. frictional properties,
hydraulic conductivity, soil-water retention) properties of
topsoils with varying silt and clay contents and topsoil-
compost blends, and their hydraulic compatibility with
underlying geotextiles need to be studied.
5. CONCLUSIONS
This research study evaluated the filtration performance
0.06
a control variable (topsoil) with three woven geotextiles
(W1, W2, W3) and two nonwoven geotextiles (NW1,
NW2). Laboratory long-term filtration (LTF) tests were
conducted to assess the hydraulic compatibility of the high
Geosynthetics International
 14 Ryoo and Aydilek

organic content geomaterials and geotextiles with and

O15/D15 > 0.8–1

without protective coverings. Upon completion of LTF

Fischer et al.
tests, a series of sieve analysis, permittivity tests, imaging,

(1990)
and piping measurements were conducted to evaluate the
filtration performance. The following conclusions are
derived from the results of the research study.
Millar et al.

O50/D15 > 1
(1980)

(1) KR may not be sufficient in determining clogging,

and ΨR, POAR and changes in PSD should also be
Clogging

used to confirm the clogging behavior. KR values

indicated that all the tested soil-geotextile
GM (CFGG
French Comm
on GT and

combinations, except S-W2, remained unclogged,

O90/D15 > 4

which was verified by the measured the ΨR and

1986)

POAR values. KR for S-W2 indicated clogging

while the ΨR and POAR values did not.
(2) Inclusion of a protective cover beneath the compost
and Holtz
Christopher

layer decreases the clogging potential but promotes

O95/D15 > 3
(1985)

piping. The highest piping was measured at

1185 g/m2 for TP-W2. The LTF tests showed that
none of the soil-geotextile combinations exceeded
2500 g/m2, indicating that all the soil-geotextile
Millar et al.

O50/D85 ≤ 1

combinations evaluated in the current study

(1980)

performed satisfactorily for retention.

(3) Most of the existing geotextile filter criteria for
clogging were unable to predict the laboratory
O85/D75 ≤ 2

performance, except for Fischer et al. (1990),

(1994)
Fischer

which used small pore opening sizes of O15 and

successfully predicted the performance of 83% of
the soil-geotextile combinations. The existing
O95/D50 ≤ (9–18)/Cu

geotextile filter criteria were able to predict the

retention behavior of all the organic soil-geotextile
Giroud (1988)

systems tested.
(4) Topsoil had a lower KR than compost in all
soil-geotextile combinations (excluding protective
covers). Topsoil-geotextile combinations performed
less well in 81% of clogging values compared to the
O95/D85 ≤ 1.8
and Holtz

compost-geotextile combinations. However, the

Christopher

overwhelming majority of the compost-geotextile

(1985)

combinations performed within the filtration criteria

Retention

(KR < 3), which indicates acceptable use of compost

material in landfill applications.
O90/D50 ≤ 2.5–4.5
Teindl (1979)
Table 8. Existing retention and clogging criteria evaluated

Compost has been shown to serve as an effective erosion

Schober and

control layer material in steep areas due to its large par-

ticle structure, resilience against raindrop impact, ability
to mitigate sediment loss, increase in water retention
and thus decrease in stormwater runoff, outperforming
O90/D90 ≤ 1

topsoil. Compost has increasingly been used as an

(1975)

erosion/stormwater control layer in geotechnical infra-

Ogink

structure to reduce runoff volume and to improve water

quality. Even though compost use in landfill covers is not
O95/D85 ≤ 2–3

very common, this geomaterial has great potential to

replace topsoil due its superior hydraulic and plant growth
(1983)
Carroll

characteristics and increasing trends towards infusing sus-

tainable practices into construction. The current study is
an attempt to show that compost can be hydraulically
O95/D85 ≤ 1

compatible with underlying geotextiles in landfill covers

(1972)
Calhoun

and may be preferred over topsoil. However, laboratory

leaching tests need to be conducted to assess nutrient
leaching from compost before incorporating this material
Geosynthetics International

Geosynthetics International
 Hydraulic compatibility of geotextile-compost systems in landfill covers 15

% Success in prediction of clogging performance

100 S
B
SC
BC
T
80 TP

60

40

20

0
Christopher and
Holtz (1985)

French Comm. on
GT and GM (1986)

Millar et al. (1986)

Fischer et al. (1990)

Figure 13. Predictions of the existing clogging criteria

into landfills, even though some studies suggest that leach- Oxx characteristic geotextile pore sizes (m)
ing in the field may be mitigated by vegetative growth Oxx/Dxx characteristic geotextile pore sizes to
(Caltrans 2012). The focus in the current study was on characteristic grain size ratios
pure compost but blends of topsoil and compost may act (dimensionless)
as a biocover and minimize potential fugitive methane POA percent open area (dimensionless)
emissions while performing as vegetation layer material POAPost Test percent open area (post test)
in final cover systems, and further analysis may be (dimensionless)
necessary to understand the hydraulic compatibility of POAR percent open area ratio (dimensionless)
such blends with underlying geotextiles using the meth- POAVirgin percent open area (pre test) (dimensionless)
odology described in this paper. ΨR permittivity ratio (dimensionless)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ABBREVIATIONS
Financial assistance for this research was provided by
Geosynthetic Institute (GSI), which is gratefully acknowl- ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
edged. The summary, conclusions, and recommendations B Biosolid compost
stated in this article are those of the authors and are not BP Biosolid compost with protective cover
influenced by GSI. The materials used in this study were EPA Environmental Protection Agency
supplied by the geosynthetic manufacturers and various GSD Grain size distribution
soil providers without financial assistance. The authors LTF Long-term filtration
thank these companies and groups for the assistance MSW Municipal solid waste
provided. NW Nonwoven geotextile
P Protective cover
PSD Pore size distribution
NOTATION S Source-separated compost
SP Source-separated compost with protective cover
Basic SI units are shown in parentheses. TS Topsoil
TSP Topsoil with protective cover
GR gradient ratio (dimensionless) USCS Unified Soil Classification System
i imposed hydraulic gradient W Woven geotextile
(dimensionless)
isoil hydraulic gradient of soil (dimensionless)
isoil-geotextile hydraulic gradient of soil-geotextile REFERENCES
(dimensionless)
Abbaspour, A., Tanyu, B. F. & Aydilek, A. H. (2018). Methodology to
KR permeability ratio (dimensionless)
evaluate hydraulic compatibility of geotextile and RCA in under-
ksoil permeability of soil (cm/s) drain systems. Geosynthetics International, 25, No. 1, 67–84.
ksystem permeability of soil-geotextile system ASTM C702-11 Standard Practice for Reducing Samples of Aggregate to
(cm/s) Testing Size. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.

Geosynthetics International

Geosynthetics International
 16
ASTM D4491-14 Standard Test Methods for Water Permeability
of Geotextiles by Permittivity. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM D5084-16 Standard Test Methods for Measurement of Hydraulic
Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using a Flexible Wall
Permeameter. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM D5101-12 Standard Test Methods for Measuring the Filtration
Compatibility of Soil-Geotextile Systems. ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Aydilek, A. H. (2006). A semi-analytical methodology for development
of woven geotextile filter selection criteria. Geosynthetics
International, 13, No. 2, 59–72.
Aydilek, A. H. & Edil, T. B. (2002). Filtration performance of woven
geotextiles with wastewater treatment sludge. Geosynthetics
International, 9, No. 1, 41–69.
Aydilek, A. H. & Edil, T. B. (2003). Long-term filtration performance of
nonwoven geotextile-sludge systems. Geosynthetics International,
10, No. 4, 110–123.
Aydilek, A. H. & Kutay, M. E. (2005). Filtration performance of
two-layer geotextile systems. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 28,
No. 1, 1–13.
Aydilek, A. H., Oguz, S. H. & Edil, T. B. (2002). Digital image analysis
to determine pore opening size distribution of nonwoven geo-
textiles. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 16, No. 4,
280–290.
Bakr, N., Weindorf, D. C., Zhu, Y., Arceneaux, A. E. & Selim, H. M.
(2012). Evaluation of compost/mulch as highway embankment
erosion control in Louisiana at the plot-scale. Journal of Hydrology,
468–469, No. C, 257–267.
Beighley, E. R., Scholl, B., Faucette, B. L. & Governo, J. (2010). Runoff
characteristics for construction site erosion control practices.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 136, No. 6,
405–413.
Bhatia, S. K., Smith, J. L. & Christopher, B. R. (1996). Geotextile
characterization and pore-size distribution: part III. Comparison of
methods and application to design. Geosynthetics International, 3,
No. 3, 301–328.
Birt, L., Persyn, R. & Smith, P. (2007). Evaluation of Texas compost
specifications for stormwater erosion control. American Society of
Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 50, No. 3, 955–960.
Calhoun, C. C. (1972). Development of Design Criteria and Acceptance
Specifications for Plastic Filter Cloths, Technical Report, S-72-7.
U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MI, USA,
p. 107.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation) (2012). Standard
Specifications, California Department of Transportation,
Sacramento, CA, USA.
Carroll, R. G. (1983). Geotextile filter criteria. Transportation Research
Record, 916, 46–53.
CFGG (French Committee of Geotextiles and Geomembranes) (1986).
Recommendations for the use of Geotextiles in Drainage and
Filtration Systems, Instiut Textile de France, Boulogne-
Bilancourt, France.
Chaganti, V. N. & Crohn, D. M. (2014). Evaluation of compost blankets
for erosion control and runoff water quality on a constructed
hillslope in Southern California. Society of Agricultural and
Biological Engineering, 57, No. 2, 403–416.
Christopher, B. R. & Holtz, R. D. (1985). Geotextile Engineering
Manual, Report FHWA-TS86/203. US Federal Highway
Administration, Arlington, VA, USA, p. 1044.
Curtis, M. J., Rider, D. E., Fristensky, A. & Claassen, V. P. (2009).
Cumulative sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus losses from bare
and compost amended fill slopes. Compost Science & Utilization,
17, No. 1, 25–30.
Fannin, R. J., Vaid, Y. P. & Shi, Y. (1994). A critical evaluation of the
gradient ratio test. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 17, No. 1, 35.
Faucette, B. & Risse, M. (2002). Controlling erosion with compost and
mulch. BioCycle, 26–28.
Faucette, L. B., Governo, J., Jordan, C. F., Lockaby, B. G., Carino, H. F.
& Governo, R. (2007). Erosion control and storm water quality
from straw with PAM, mulch, and compost blankets of varying
Geosynthetics International
Geosynthetics International
Ryoo and Aydilek
particle sizes. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 62, No. 6,
404–413.
Faucette, L. B., Scholl, B., Beighley, R. E. & Governo, J. (2009).
Large-scale performance and design for construction activity
erosion control best management practices. Journal of
Environmental Quality, 38, No. 3, 1248–1254.
Fernández-Raga, M., Fraile, R., Keizer, J. J., Varela Teijeiro, M. E.,
Castro, A., Palencia, C., Calvo, A. I., Koenders, J. & Da Costa
Marques, R. L. (2010). The kinetic energy of rain measured
with an optical disdrometer: an application to splash erosion.
Atmospheric Research, 96, No. 2, 225–240.
Fischer, G. R. (1994). The Influence of Fabric Pore Structure on the
Behavior of Geotextile Filters, PhD dissertation, University of
Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Fischer, G. R., Holtz, R. D. & Christopher, B. R. (1990).
Filter criteria based on pore size distribution. In Geotextiles,
Geomembranes, and Related Products, Den Hoedt, G., Editor,
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, pp. 289–294.
Franks, C., Koebler, J., Myers, R., Hatipoglu, M., Davis, A. P. &
Aydilek, A. H. (2015). Field evaluation of a geotextile filter for
stormwater runoff control. Geosynthetics International, 22, No. 4,
288–300.
Giroud, J. P. (1988). Review of geotextile filter criteria. Proceedings of the
1st Indian Geotextiles Conference on Reinforced Soil and
Geotextiles, Mandal, J. N., Editor, Bombay, India, pp. 1–6.
Hong, Y. & Wu, C. (2011). Filtration behaviour of soil-nonwoven
geotextile combinations subjected to various loads. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 29, No. 2, 102–115.
Huang, C. C. & Luo, S. Y. (2007). Dewatering of reservoir sediment
slurry using woven geotextiles. Geosynthetics International, 14,
No. 5, 253–263.
Huang, P. T., Patel, M., Santagata, M. C. & Bobet, A. (2009).
Classification of Organic Soils, Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2008/2.
US Federal Highway Administration, West Lafayette, IN, USA,
p. 67.
Kirchhoff, C. J., Malina Jr., J. & Barrett, M. (2003). Characteristics of
Compost Enhanced Topsoils: Moisture Holding and Water Quality
Improvement, Project Summary Report. Center for Transportation
Research, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Koerner, R. M. & Koerner, G. R. (2015). Lessons learned from geotextile
filter failures under challenging field conditions. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 43, No. 3, 272–281.
Lafleur, J., Mlynarek, J. & Rollin, A. L. (1989). Filtration of broadly
graded cohesionless soils. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 115,
No. 12, 1747–1768.
Mendonca, M. & Maurício, E. (2006). Column test studies of ochre
biofilm formation in geotextile filters. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132, No. 10, 1284–1292.
Millar, P. J., Ho, K. W. & Turnbull, H. R. (1980). A Study of Filter
Fabrics for Geotechnical Applications in New Zealand, Central
Laboratories Report, 2-80(5). Ministry of Works and Development,
Wellington, New Zealand.
Narejo, D., Mengjia, L., Zimmel, E. & Wu, Y. (2013). A monolithic
layered nonwoven–woven geotextile for use with drainage geocom-
posites in coal combustion residual projects. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 37, 16–22.
Odabasi, E. & Aydilek, A. H. (2018). Hydraulic Compatibility of
Geotextiles with Recycled Materials, Environmental Geotechnics
Report, 18-1. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA,
118p.
Ogink, H. J. M. (1975). Investigations on the Hydraulic Characteristics of
Synthetic Fabrics, Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, Delft, Netherlands.
Palmeira, E. M. & Tatto, J. (2015). Behaviour of geotextile filters in
armoured slopes subjected to the action of waves. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 43, No. 1, 46–55.
Palmeira, E. M., Remigio, A. F., Ramos, M. L. & Bernardes, R. S.
(2008). A study on biological clogging of nonwoven geotextiles
under leachate flow. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 26, No. 3,
205–219.
Persyn, R., Glanville, T., Richard, T., Laflen, J. & Dixon, P. (2005).
Environmental effects of applying composted organics to new
 Hydraulic compatibility of geotextile-compost systems in landfill covers
highway embankments. American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, 48, No. 5, 1765–1772.
Qian, X., Koerner, R. M. & Gray, D. H. (2002). Geotechnical Aspects of
Landfill Design and Construction, Prentice Hall, Borough, NJ,
pp. 399–405.
Rao, G., Gupta, K. & Pradhan, M. (1992). Long-term filtration
behaviour of soil-geotextile system. Geotechnical Testing Journal,
15, No. 3, 238.
Rollin, A. & Lombard, G. (1988). Mechanisms affecting long-term
filtration behaviour of geotextiles. Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
7, No. 2, 119–145.
Ryoo, S. C. & Aydilek, A. H. (2019). Hydraulic Compatibility of
Geotextile-Compost Systems in Landfill Covers, Environmental
Geotechnics Report, 19-1. University of Maryland, College Park,
MD, USA, 133p.
Ryoo, S. C., Umanzor, M., Forgione, E. R., Davis, A. P., Aydilek, A. H.
& Felton, G. K. (2018). Using Vegetated Compost Blankets to
Achieve Highway Runoff Volume and Pollutant Reduction, NCHRP,
Washington, DC, USA, NCHRP 14-39, Quarterly Report 18-1, 61p.
Sabiri, N. E., Caylet, A., Montillet, A., Le-Coq, L. & Durkheim, Y.
(2017). Performance of nonwoven geotextiles on soil drainage
and filtration. European Journal of Environmental and Civil
Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2017.1415982.
Schober, W. & Teindl, H. (1979). Filter criteria for geotextiles. Proceedings
of the 7th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
The Editor welcomes discussion on all papers published in Geosynthetics International. Please email your contribution to
discussion@geosynthetics-international.com
Geosynthetics International
Geosynthetics International
17
Engineering, Brighton, UK, British Geotechnical Society, London,
UK, pp. 121–129.
Seelsaen, N., McLaughlan, R., Moore, S. & Stuetz, R. M. (2007).
Influence of compost characteristics on heavy metal sorption from
synthetic stormwater. Water Science and Technology: A Journal of
the International Association on Water Pollution Research, 55,
No. 4, 219–226.
SPI (Special Provisions Insert) (2017). Landscaping Materials, Maryland
DOT, State Highway Administration, Baltimore, MD, vol. 900,
(920), pp. 1–27.
US ACE (US Army Corps of Engineers) (1986). Geotextiles Used as
Filters, Civil Works Construction Guide Specification, CW-02215,
US ACE, Washington, DC, USA.
US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (1997). Cover Material
Requirements, Title 40 CFR, 258.21, US EPA, Washington, DC,
USA.
US EPA (2012). Stormwater Best Management Practice: Compost
Blankets, EPA: Office of Water: NPDES, Washington, DC, USA.
US EPA (2015). National Overview: Facts and Figures on Materials,
Wastes and Recycling, US EPA, Washington, DC, USA, see www.
epa.gov.
Veylon, G., Stoltz, G., Mériaux, P., Faure, Y. H. & Touze-Foltz, N.
(2016). Performance of geotextile filters after 18 years’ service in
drainage trenches. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 44, No. 4,
515–533.