Geotextiles and Geomembranes 11 (1992) 337-353

Geotextile Filtration Principles, Practices and Problems

B. R. Christopher
Technical Services, Polyfelt, Inc., 1000 Abernathy Road, Building 400, Suite 825, Atlanta,
Georgia 30328, USA
&
G. R. Fischer
Shannon and Wilson, Inc., 400 North 34th Street, Suite 100, PO Box 300303, Seattle,
Washington, USA

ABSTRACT

Geotextilefilters are rapidly replacing graded granular filters as the standard

of practice in geotechnical design. This paper reviews the current state of the
practice in designing with geotextiles including a listing of the most widely
recognized design criteria. Problems with the current practice are also
recognized that present challenges to the geotextile community in order to
increase the acceptance and utilization of geotextiles in this valuable
application.

INTRODUCTION

Geotextiles have been found to provide highly effective filters in

numerous applications. Due to their comparable performance, improved
economy, consistent properties and ease of placement, geotextiles have
been used successfully to replace graded granular filters in almost all
drainage applications. In most drainage and filtration applications, use
of a geotextile can be justified over a conventional graded granular filter
because of the cost advantages from (Christopher & Holtz, 1989):

Geotextiles and Geomembranes 0266-1144/92/$05.00 © 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers

Ltd, England. Printed in Great Britain.
338 B. R. Christopher, G. R. Fischer

1. The use of less or lower quality drainage aggregate;

2. The possible use of smaller sized drains;
3. The possible elimination of collector pipes;
4. Expediency of construction;
5. Lower risk of aggregate contamination and segregation;
6. Reduced excavation; and
7. Less wasted materials.

However, none of these potential initial cost savings are valid should the
filter not perform as anticipated. To be effective the geotextile must allow
water to flow through the filter into the drain over the life of the project
while retaining the soil particles in place and prevent their migration
('piping') through the filter. Numerous empirical methods have been
established to evaluate the potential to perform this primary function,
most of which include a retention component, a drainage or permeability
component and a clogging resistance criteria. The latter usually is not
supported by an empirical relation but instead requires an intuitive
evaluation of the potential for the soil to clog the geotextile and requires
support by laboratory testing for critical application and severe soil
conditions.
This paper provides a review of the design principles required to
achieve the desired performance, current practice in terms of the
empirical procedures available for effective evaluation, and problems
that are apparent in the current practice which limit the effective
evaluation and potential use of geotextiles as filters.
Current geotextile filtration design utilizes empirical methods based
primarily on retaining the soil to be filtered. Although most methods
include an initial hydraulic conductivity requirement, most methods do
not include relationships that are required to address one of the
fundamental requirements of filtration, that being the ability of the
geotextile to maintain flow over time without clogging. To identify this
clogging potential, the procedures usually, and somewhat idealistically,
require that the user run a soil filtration test. However in practice, such
tests are rarely performed except for the most critical projects.

PRINCIPLES

Designing with geotextiles for filtration is essentially the same as

designing graded granular filters. A geotextile is similar to a soil in that it
has voids (pores) and particles (filaments and fibers). However, with
geotextiles, the geometric relationships between filaments and voids is
 Geotextile filtration principles, practices a n d problems 339

more complex than in soils because of the shapes and compressibility of

the filaments. In geotextiles, one generally tries to measure the pore size
directly instead of, as with soils, using the particle size to estimate the
pore size. Since the pore size is directly measured, relatively simple
relationships between the pore sizes and the particle sizes of the soil to be
retained can be developed. Looking at particle retention while maintaining
a desired flow capacity, three simple filtration principles for an effective
filter are:
1. If the size of the largest pore in the geotextile filter is smaller than
the larger particles of soil, the soil will not pass the filter. As with
graded granular filters, the larger particles of soil will form a filter
bridge over the hole, which in turn, filters smaller particles of soil,
in turn, retaining the soil and preventing piping (Fig. 1).
2. If the majority of openings in the geotextile are sufficiently larger
than the smaller particles of soil, such that they are able to pass
through the filter, then the geotextile will not 'clog' or 'blind'
(see Fig. 2).
3. A large number of openings should be present in the geotextile so
that proper flow can be maintained even if a portion of the
openings become clogged during the design life of the filter.
These simple filtration principles are used to establish design criteria for
geotextiles. Specifically, the criteria are:

Filter bridge
/
/( ]llG~4~ ,'~ ",',.~:'¢1:..=" .
-

~ L h m~l~_,~ilg'¢,.. , , - ' - . " :'. ": .. -'~

• a'." -p- $ -~'~." • ;h.- "

.. - .,ta_..~. . o ~ -• . -,e .. ~
~ * . 4 1 1..
~
• if ) l ~ $ ~ ' ~ . ' , , . . . . . ~ .... . q [ m
IX... ] __--'~;t,.~,~...~..~ ~Oo..'.: • •

• .~.. ~.- ....;...

Geotextile Des(Soil)
Fig. 1. Filter bridge formation (Christopher & Holtz, 1989)
340 R R. Christopher, G. R. Fischer

Clogging by
particle deposition

Geotextile---'-

Fig. 2. Methods of clogging and blinding (Bell & Hicks, 1980)

• Retention criterion -- the geotextile must retain the soil.

• Permeability criterion ~ the geotextile must allow sufficient fluid to
pass without restricting flow.
• C l o g g i n g r e s i s t a n c e criterion - - flow requirements must be maintained
over the design life of the structure.
• S u r v i v a b i l i t y c r i t e r i o n ~ the geotextile must be sufficiently durable to
survive the installation process.
Each of these criteria will be reviewed in the following section with
respect to the current state of practice in setting requirements for each
criteria and selecting the most suitable geotextile. Numerous empirical
relations have been developed to select geotextiles that meet these criteria.

PRACTICES

Geotextile chmcterization

Currentgeotextile design, especially for soil retention, is generally based

upon relationships developed between an indicative pore size for the
geotextile and the grain size of the soil. In the US most geotextile filter
design methods use the apparent opening size (AOS) as the pore size that
controls retention, where the AOS is defined as the pore size at which
 Geotextile fiitration principles, practices and problems 341

95% of the pores are smaller than that size. It is evaluated by dry sieving
uniform glass beads through the geotextile and measuring the bead size
at which 5% or less pass in accordance with the ASTM D4751 standard
test method. Using terminology similar to grain size distribution, it is
expressed as 095. Practically, it is a measure of the largest particle that
will effectively pass through the geotextile under the test conditions and
thus, the apparent largest opening in the geotextile.
Numerous other methods have been used to obtain the characteristic
pore size(s) of geotextiles including wet sieving (the Swiss and German
Standard), hydrodynamic sieving (the Canadian, French and Belgium
Standard), mercury intrusion porosimetry, capillary liquid extrusion,
minimum bubble pressure technique, and image analysis. These
methods have been discussed in terms of their advantages and
disadvantages in Wates (1980), Faure et al. (1986), Dierickx and Van der
Sluys (1990) and Gourc and Faure (1990). Each method provides a
different interpretation of the characteristic pore size of the geotextile.
Therefore, each method provides a pore size distribution that is not
necessarily a unique property of the geotextile, but instead is a function
of the method of measurement. Filtration design based on empirical
relations between performance and characteristic pore size are equally
test method dependent.
Other characteristics of the geotextile include: its permeability (ASTM
D4491); porosity (the volume of the voids divided by the total volume);
and the percent open area (POA) which is a measure of the intrinsic
porosity in woven geotextiles. These methods are standardized in the US
and fairly standardized internationally.

Retention criteria

For the most part, retention design for geotextiles has been developed
from existing soil filter criteria. Like soil filters, the geotextile filter is
generally selected such that enough larger soil particles are retained to
develop a soil 'bridge' leading to the development of a stable soil structure
which is able to prevent further migration. Some soil particles may
actually be designed to pass to prevent clogging (Christopher & Holtz,
1985). For the most part, retention criteria have been developed from
existing granular soil filter criteria. Comparative review and summaries
of some of the more notable retention criteria are presented in Rankilor
(1981), Christopher and Holtz (1985), and Fischer et al. (1990). Some of
the more common geotextile retention criteria that have been proposed
for steady state flow are summarized in Table 1.
342 B. R. Christopher, G. R. Fischer

TABLE 1
Existing Geotextile Retention Criteria (after Fischer et al., 1990)

Source Criterion Remarks

Calhoun (1972) Oos/Dss < 1 Wovens, soils with <50% passing

no 200 sieve
O9s < 0.2 mm Wovens, cohesive soils
Zitscher (1975) from 05o/Dso < 1.7-2.7 Wovens, soils with Ca < 2,
Rankilor (1981) Ds0 = 0" 1 to 0'2 mm
05o/D5o < 25-37 Nonwoven, cohesive soil
Ogink (1975) 09oD9o < 1 Wovens
09o/D9o < 1.8 Nonwovens
Sweetland (1977) 015D85 < 1 Nonwovens, soils with Cu = 1.5
OisDi5 < 1 Nonwovens, soils with Cu = 4
Rankilor (1981) 05o/1985 < 1 Nonwovens, soils with
0-02 <Ds5 <0.25 mm
015/D15 < 1 Nonwovens, soils with
Dss > 0-25 mm
Schober & Teindl (1979) 09o/Dso < 2.5-4.5 Woven and thin nonwovens,
with no factor of safety dependent on Cu
09o/D5o < 4.5-7-5 Thick nonwovens, dependent
on C u
Silt and sand soils
MiUar et al. (1980) 05o/1)85 < 1 Wovens and nonwovens.
Giroud (1982) 0o5//950 < (9-18)/C~ Dependent on soil Ca and density
Assumes fines in soil migrate
for large CL.
Carroll (1983) 095/D85 < 2-3 Wovens and nonwovens
Christopher & Holtz (1985) 095/Ds5 < 1-2 Dependent on soil type and C u
095~Dis < 1 or Dynamic, pulsating and cyclic
0~o/D85 < 0.5 flow, if soil can move beneath
fabric
French Committee of Or/Ds5 < 0.38-1.25 Dependent on soil type,
Geotextiles and compaction, hydraulic and
Geomembranes (1986) application conditions
Fischer et al. (1990) 0soDas < 0.8 Based on geotextile pore size
05oD15 < 1-8-7.0 distribution, dependent on Ca of
05oD5o < 0.8-2.0 soil

Permeability criteria

A summary of the most widely used permeability criteria are listed in

T a b l e 2. All a r e b a s e d o n t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t t h e g e o t e x t i l e m u s t h a v e a
h i g h e n o u g h p e r m e a b i l i t y so t h a t e x c e s s p o r e w a t e r p r e s s u r e d o e s n o t
 Geotextile filtration principles, practices and problems 343

TABLE 2
Existing Geotextile Permeability Criteria

Source Criterion Remarks

e.g. Calhoun (1972); Schober & kf > k s Steady state flow. noncritical
Teindl (1979); Wates (1980); application and nonsevere
Carroll (1983); Haliburton et al. soil conditions
(1982); Christopher & Holtz
(1985) and numerous others
e.g. Carroll (1983); Christopher kf ~ 10 k s Critical applications and
& Holtz (1985) severe soil or hydraulic
conditions
Giroud (1982) k f > 0.1 k~ No factor of safety
French Committee of Based on Critical 105 k~
Geotextiles and permittivity Less critical 104 k~
Geomembranes (1986) with ~ > 103-5 ks Clean sand 103 k~
Koerner (1990) Igallow> FS-I//req,d Factor of safety FS based on
application and soil
conditions

build up behind it. Some design methodologies are based on the

argument that the geotextile needs to be no more permeable than the soil
it is retaining (for example, Schober & Teindl, 1979; Wates, 1980; Carroll,
1983, Christopher & Holtz, 1985). This assumption is simple and rational
as it is expected that flow should not be impeded at the soil/geotextile
interface if the permeabilities are at least equal.
Carroll (1983) and Christopher and Holtz (1985) further recommend
that the permeability of the geotextile be increased by a factor of safety
equal to 10 for critical projects (e.g. where failure could result in
significant damage or loss of life or where repair costs would approach
installation costs) and for severe soil and hydraulic conditions (i.e. soils
which are prone to piping and exposed to high hydraulic gradients). In
addition, for well designed geotextile filters used in severe soil and
hydraulic conditions, clogging has been shown to cause approximately
an order of magnitude decrease in the geotextile permeability. Therefore,
increasing the permeability initially will provide some assurance that the
geotextile has the required permeability over its life (Carroll, 1983).
Increasing the geotextile permeability by 10 or more over the soil also
agrees with the permeability requirements of granular soil filters which
will have a 16-25 times greater permeability than base soil by satisfying
the permeability criteria dis filter/dis base soil~ 4-5 (Taylor, 1948).
In a somewhat different approach, Rankilor (1981) recommended that
the average pore size opening of the geotextile filter should be greater
344 B. R. Christopher, G. R. Fischer

than the D~5 of the base soil. It can be shown that the pore opening in the
soil is approximately 1/5 of the diameter of the smaller particle (Fischer
et al., 1990). As the permeability of the soil can also be related to the
square of the particle size of the fines (Cedergren, 1989), given similar
porosities, this approach would essentially lead to a permeability in the
geotextile that should be an order of magnitude or greater than the
permeability of the soil.
A much less strict permeability requirement of only 10% of the soil
permeability has been proposed by Giroud, 1982. Since the soil can be
assumed to be much thicker than the geotextile and the length of the flow
path is directly related to the flow rate through a porous media, a
geotextile with only 10% of the permeability of the soil would still have a
much greater flow capacity than the soil. Of course, this assumption
assumes no decrease in the geotextile permeability in the soil over time, a
questionable assumption. However this approach does indicate the
conservatism of the aforementioned criteria.

Clogging resistance criteria

By definition, clogging is the result of fine particles penetrating into the

geotextile and blocking off pore channels or caking on the upstream side
of the geotextile thereby reducing its permeability. As such, clogging is
closely related to the permeability criteria. However, it was shown by
Carroll (1983) that satisfying retention and permeability criteria would
not necessarily provide for a complete filter design, as the system could
still fail by clogging.
The findings by Carroll are very rational considering the basis for
retention and permeability criteria and the mechanisms that would
cause clogging. Recall that the opening size to retain the soil is based
only on limiting the near largest opening size in the geotextile (i.e.
maximum opening size criterion) with no restriction on the smaller pore
openings or the percentage of the volume of openings (porosity) it should
represent. With regard to the permeability criteria, a geotextile with a very
small porosity can still achieve a permeability greater than that of the
soil, especially fine grain soils which tend to cause clogging problems.
Clogging potential is a function of the relation between the fines in the
soil and their ability to clog or block a majority of the openings in the
geotextile. The geotextile characteristics to prevent clogging are thus
controlled by relationships between the particle size to both the
diametric and volumetric pore size distribution. Neither of these
characteristics which ultimately control clogging potential are addressed
by the retention or permeability criteria. Although relationships between
 Geotextile filtration principles, practices and problems 345

clogging, porosity and pore size distribution have been clearly recognized
(e.g. Wates, 1980; Rollin et al., 1982, Gourc & Faure, 1990; Fischer et al.,
1990), these relationships have not been fully developed to the standard
of practice such that clogging can be thoroughly addressed by simple
criteria. Table 3 lists the current recommendations which attempt to
address clogging.
The basic criteria for clogging resistance commonly involves the
performance of a filtration test on the site specific soils in order to
evaluate the clogging potential. Several tests have been proposed, the
most popular of which is the gradient ratio test (Calhoun, 1972) for which
ASTM has established a standard (ASTM D5101). This procedure was
actually used for the selection of the first geotextiles in the early 1960s

TABLE 3
Clogging Criteria
A. Critical~severe applications a
Perform soil/fabric filtration tests.
(e.g. Calhoun, 1972; Haliburton et al., 1982: Haliburton & Wood, 1982: Giroud, 1982;
Carroll, 1983; Christopher & Holtz, 1985, 1989: Koerner, 1990)

B. Less critical/nonsevere applications

I. Perform soil/fabric filtration tests.
2. Minimum Pore Sizes Alternatives for soils containing fines, especially in a
noncontinuous matrix:
(a) 095 ) 3D15 for Cu ) 3
(Christopher & Holtz, 1985 and modified 1989)
(b) Of > 4D15
(French Committee of Geotextiles, 1986)
(c) Ois/Dl5 ) 0 . 8 to 1.2
05o/1)5o ) 0.2 to 1
(Fischer et al., 1990)
3. For Cu < 3, fabric with maximum opening size from retention criteria should be
specified.
4. Apparent open area qualifiers
Woven fabrics: Percent Open Area: )4% to 6%
(Calhoun, 1972; Koerner, 1990)
Nonwoven fabrics: Porosity )30% to 40%
(Christopher & Holtz, 1985; Koerner, 1990)

"Filtration tests are performance tests and cannot be performed by the manufacturer as
they depend on specific soil and design conditions. Tests to be performed by specifying
agency or his representative.
346 B. R. Christopher, G. R. Fischer

where numerous fabrics were evaluated for a range of soil conditions to

select the fabric with the best clogging resistance (Pollici, 1961; Barrett,
1966). Another test method includes the long-term flow tests, where flow-
rate versus time is measured (Koerner & Ko, 1982). This method has been
standardized by the Geosynthetics Research Institute (GRI GT1). One
other method is the fine-fraction filtration tests in which the ability of
fines to pass through the geotextile without clogging it are evaluated
(Hoover, 1982).
As an alternative to filtration tests for less critical applications, some
designers have suggested controlling the effective porosity and/or the
smaller pore sizes of the geotextile. The volume of voids in a soil is
typically designated by its porosity or void ratio. Similarly, porosity may
be an appropriate indicator of pore volume for geotextiles. For thicker
geotextiles, such as needled punched nonwoven geotextiles, where the
porosity is not dominated by the surficial porosity, a high porosity based
on the volume of the voids divided by the total volume can easily be
specified as an indicator of clogging resistance. However for thin
materials, such as woven geotextiles, the high surficial porosity can have
a significant influence on the porosity calculation. Therefore, an areal
opening, based on the percentage of surface area consisting of voids as
measured by direct light transmission through the geotextile and
designated as percent open area (POA) was suggested by Calhoun (1972)
as a means to identify pore volume. M i n i m u m values of 30% porosity
(Christopher & Holtz, 1985) and 4% POA (Calhoun, 1972) for nonwoven
and woven geotextiles, respectively, have been recommended as
qualifiers to reduce the risk of clogging. The 30% m i n i m u m porosity was
suggested since this value is approximately the lowest porosity for
successful granular soil filters and the m i n i m u m 4% open area was based
on test results.
A relation which could be used to establish a m i n i m u m opening size
for soils containing fines was proposed by Christopher and Holtz (1985).
Based on correlations from grouting criteria, they recommend that the
effective opening size which controls permeability should be greater
than 2 to 3 times the D~5 of the soil. Since the only opening size commonly
measured at that time was the AOS value, it was recommended that as a
m i n i m u m the 095 meet this requirement.
To develop criteria based on established practice, Fischer et al. (1990)
reviewed granular soil filter criteria. Based on geometrical relationships
between grain size and pore size, they recommended the m i n i m u m pore
openings for geotextiles listed in Table 3 along with the porosity
qualifiers previously reviewed.
 Geotextile fiitration principles, practices and problems 347

Survivability criteria

Regardless of the above criteria chosen for design, none of them will be
effective if the geotextile is damaged during construction. (Swiss cheese
does not make a good filter.) The geotextile strength and endurance
properties listed in Table 4 have been established to provide some

TABLE 4
Construction Survivability Physical Requirements °. b for Drainage and Erosion Control
Geotextiles (from AASHTO-AGC-ARTBA Task Force 25, 1986)

Drainage~erosion control"

Property Class A d Class B e Test method

Grab strength, N (lbf) 800/890 (180/200) 356/400 (80/90) ASTMD4632

Elongation, % na/I 5 na/l 5 ASTM D4632
Seam strength, N (lbf) 710/800 (160/180) 310/356 (70/80) ASTMD4632
Puncture strength, N (lbf) 356/356 (80/80) 110/180 (25/40) ASTM D4833
Burst strength, kPa (lbf/in 2) 2000/2210 (290/320) 896/965 (130/140) ASTM D3787
Trapezoid tear, N (lbf) 220/220 (50/50) 130/130 (30/30) ASTM D4533
Ultraviolet degradation 70% strength retained for ASTM D4355
at 150 h all classes

a Acceptance ofgeotextile material is to be based on TF 25 Acceptance/Rejection Guide-

lines (ASTM 134759).
b Contracting agency may require a letter from the supplier certifying that its geotextile
meets specification requirements.
c Minimum--use value in weaker principal direction. All numerical values represent
minimum average roll value (i.e. test results from any sampled roll in a lot shall meet or
exceed the minimum values in the table). Stated values are for noncritical, nonsevere
conditions. Lot sampled according to ASTM D4354.
d Class A drainage applications for fabrics where installation stresses are more severe
than Class B applications, i.e. very coarse sharp angular aggregate is used, a heavy
degree of compaction (>95% AASHTO T99) is specified or depth of trench is greater
than 3 m (10 ft). Class A Erosion Control applications are those where fabrics are'used
under conditions where installation stresses are more severe than Class B, i.e., stone
placement height should be less than l m (3 ft) and stone weights should not exceed
114 kg (250 lb).
e Class B drainage applications are those where fabric is used with smooth graded

surfaces having no sharp angular projections, no sharp angular aggregate is used;

compaction requirements are light, (<95% AASHTO T99), and trenches are less than
3 m (10 ft) in depth. Class B Erosion Control applications are those where fabric is used
in structures or under conditions where the fabric is protected by a sand cushion or by
'zero drop height' placement of stone.
YValues apply to both field and manufactured seams.
348 B. R. Christopher, G. R. Fischer

confidence that the geotextile will survive the anticipated construction

process. It should be recognized that these are m i n i m u m requirements
and are meant to serve as guidelines for inexperienced users in selecting
geotextiles for routine projects. They are not intended to replace site
specific evaluation, testing and design.

PROBLEMS

Although geotextile filters are well recognized as suitable alternatives to

granular soil filters and there are numerous successful applications to
support their use, the state of the practice is not without problems. The
numerous filter criteria listed in Tables 1 through 3 is confusing to many
engineers. In addition, the measurement of pore size characteristics on
which the designs are based have not been adequately standardized to
the satisfaction of many engineers. There have also been reported
failures, although not out of line with reported failures of graded
granular filters. The confusion and concern for misapplication certainly
discourages the use of geotextiles by many engineers. In this section, the
problems related to each of the selection criteria are reviewed along with
on-going work to resolve them. Interim solutions are also discussed.

Retention criteria problems

The first problem, as it would appear from Table 1, is that we are

inundated with retention criteria. The absence of a universal criterion
tends to confuse the user, especially when there is even disagreement on
the representative effective opening in the geotextile for retention (i.e. 095,
090,050 or O~5). Some of the variations exist due to a dependance of each
procedure on a specific test method. Variations in procedures also occur
from the variety of soil and hydraulic conditions that exist.
The solution to this problem lies in a better understanding by the user
as to the intent of the original method. In the US, the standard test
method is the AOS procedure, therefore, designs based on that procedure
should be considered first. If alternative methods are to be considered,
the user must obtain appropriate test values upon which that procedure
i s b a s e d to support the design. It should be recognized that it will be
difficult to specify a geotextile based on an alternate procedure since
correlations between procedures do not readily exist (see Dierickx & Van
der Sluys, 1990 for a comparison between methods). With the AOS or 095
value, design takes on the form 0fO95 < B (D85to D~5). Both the target soil
diameter and a modifying coefficient B vary to account for specific
 Geotextile filtration principles, practices and problems 349

conditions related to grain size distribution, density and nature of soil,

hydraulic conditions, construction conditions and geotextile application.
The user should carefully review the background of a procedure before
adopting it to check its compatibility with the specific project conditions.
Increased caution concerning clogging is advised when B values of below
one result from the method.
Another current problem exists in the determination of the effective
opening size. First of all, the AOS dry sieving method is time consuming,
requiring several hours to perform each test. This makes it impractical to
use the AOS as a quality control tool in the manufacturing facility and
discourages their use by the engineer. A more serious problem is the
reproducibility of the method. With the method of dry sieving glass
beads through the geotextile, the beads tend to break and must be resized
after each test. Static electricity and humidity as well as fabric coatings
can cause the beads to stick to the fabric. Fastening of the fabric to the
sieve without stretching also tends to be a problem. While all of these
factors are addressed in the procedure, they are often ignored. Another
problem, or actually a misconception, is that geotextiles are sufficiently
uniform such that their apparent pore size can be defined by a single
AOS value. The actual value for a given geotextile usually varies between
a few units of AOS due to variability in the product.
The solutions to these testing problems are relatively simple. Firstly,
the AOS test procedure needs to be reevaluated and either improved or
replaced by an alternate procedure that provides a more rapid and
reproducible result. The wet procedures tend to be more reproducible;
however, in their present form are even more time consuming than the
dry sieving procedure. Direct pore size distribution measurements can
be rapidly performed and would appear to offer the best solution;
however, an appropriate procedure has yet to be established and
relationships between the resulting values and performance need to be
developed. Work is currently ongoing at ASTM Committee D35 on
Geosynthetics to evaluate the above alternatives. In the interim, review
the test results and procedures with caution.
Problems are also related to design assumptions. External factors can
highly influence the development of the filter bridge upon which many
of the criteria rely. The formation of the filter bridge can only occur if the
geotextile is maintained in intimate contact with the soil. Loss of
confinement due to movement of the geotextile can compromise this
design assumption, especially in reversing flow (e.g., wave action
situations) and for dynamic conditions (e.g., edge drains for highways).
Movement of the geotextile between riprap or on a face of compressibility
drain, or a failure for the geotextile to conform with the ground surface
350 B. R. Christopher, G. R. Fischer

can result in a failure for the bridge to develop, such that fine grained
soils can move through the geotextile. The filter bridge assumption is
also invalid for soils that are internally unstable, such as gap-graded or
dispersive type soils.
The solution to these retention problems is to reduce the opening size
when the filter bridge development is in question, as recommended in
Table 1. For example, the procedure recommended by Giroud (1982)
would appear appropriate for unstable soil conditions. However, if a
reduced criterion to address such factors is used, then clogging
evaluation becomes more critical.

Permeability criteria problems

The main problem with this criteria is how permeable should the
geotextile be with respect to the soil. The solution involves judgement on
the part of the user. A simple assessment should be made in terms of
clogging potential and the factor of safety increased accordingly to
account for the critical nature of the project and the severity of
conditions. An increased permeability implies an increased porosity.
For critical projects, a thorough evaluation of clogging will determine the
permeability requirements.

Clogging resistance criteria problems

Clogging resistance is the least understood or defined design criteria.

One of the main problems is that current empirical methods do not
adequately address clogging potential and effective evaluation quite
often requires filtration tests to be performed. However, filtration tests
are not easily performed, are expensive, and only provide results for one
specific soil and geotextile system. Since the average designer often lacks
the capability of running these tests, he cannot prequalify or specify
geotextiles by this method. Such testing also poses problems for
contractors and manufacturers during bidding and pre-construction as
they are not usually equipped to run such tests. As a result, designers
often attempt to pre-qualify a limited number of geotextiles, specify 'or
equivalents', rely on past experience, or ignore the phenomenon of
clogging altogether.
The absence of empirical methods to address adequately clogging also
leads to other problems. Empirical values often indicate geotextiles will
perform equally when both field and performance testing strongly
indicate otherwise. Even when performance tests are conducted they
 Geotextile filtration principles, practices, and problems 351

provide a quantitative assessment of only one condition and thus the

geotextile's overall filter capabilities are only qualitatively evaluated. As
a result of both of these factors, improvements of the filtration
characteristics of a geotextile by the manufacturer are discouraged, as
such improvements cannot be recognized by the design community.
Manufacturers could make better filters if the characteristics of the
material that enhance filtration could be better defined.
The solution to these problems again are rather obvious. The
characteristics that control filtration, mainly pore size distribution,
porosity and filtration length need to be defined and a universal
geotextile filter criteria developed. Currently there are several ongoing
studies in the US to define these characteristics. Ongoing research is
currently in progress at the GRI, Syracuse University, University of
Illinois and University of Washington. These efforts need to be
coordinated so that truly universal geotextile filter criteria are developed.
In the interim, it would be advisable to run tests.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The problems reviewed in the previous section are not overly significant
considering the vast number of successful applications of these materials.
There is little doubt that geotextiles offer a cost effective, superior
alternative to graded granular filters. Improvements in design methods
and evaluation have improved significantly over the past decade. The
primary purpose of identifying problems with the state of the practice is
to identify the direction for the state of the art. Based on the state of the
practice review herein, future research should focus on defining
characteristics that are related to both clogging and retention rather than
focusing on one characteristic that happens to be easily measured.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is dedicated to the late Robert J. Barrett who personally

stimulated the interest of the first author concerning this subject,
consequently stimulating the interest of the second author. The authors
would also like to express their appreciation to Mark Wayne for proofing
the manuscript and hope that his thesis will resolve some of the problems
addressed in this paper.
352 B. R. Christopher. G. R. Fischer

REFERENCES

AASHTO (1986). Geotextile Specifications prepared by joint committee.

AASHTO-AGC-ARTBA Task Force 25, Washington, DC.
American Society of Testing and Materials (1990). Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Volume 04.08. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, Section 4.
Barrett, R. J. (1966). Use of plastic filters in coastal structures. In Proceedings of the
Tenth International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Tokyo. pp. 1048-67.
Bell, J. R. & Hicks, R. G. (1980). Evaluation of test method and use criteria for
geotechnical fabrics in highway applications. Interim report no. FHWA/
RD-80/021, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Calhoun, C.C. (1972). Development of design criteria and acceptance of
specifications for plastic filter cloth. Technical Report 5-72-7, US Army
Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Carroll, R. G. (1983). Geotextile filter criteria. Transportation Research Record,
916, 46-53.
Cedergren, H. R. (1989). Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets, John Wiley, Chichester,
UK.
Christopher, B. R. & Holtz, R. D. (1985). Geotextile engineering manual. Report
No. FHWA-TS-86/203, US Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
DC.
Christopher, B. R. & Holtz, R. D. (1989), Geotextile construction and design
guidelines. HI-89-050, prepared for Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC.
Faure, Y. H., Gourc, J. P., Millot, F. & Sunjoto, S. (1986). Theoretical and
experimental determination of the filtration opening size of geotextiles. In
Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Geotextiles, Vienna,
Austria, Vol. IV. Austrian Association of Engineers and Architects, Vienna,
Austria, pp, i275-80.
Fischer, G. R., Christopher, B. R. & Holtz, R. D. (1990). Filter criteria based on
pore size distribution. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Geotextiles, The Hague, The Netherlands, Vol. I. pp. 289-94.
French Committee of Geotextiles and Geomembranes (1986). Recommendations
for the Use of Geotextiles in Drainage and Filtration Systems. Institut Textile de
France, Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
Geosynthetics Research Institute (1987). Clogging Potential via Long Term Flow
Rate. GRI, Philadelphia, PA.
Giroud, J. P. (1982). Filter criteria for geotextiles. In Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on Geotextiles, Las Vegas, Nevada, Vol. I. Industrial
Fabrics Association International, St Paul, MN, pp. 103-8.
Gourc, J. P. & Faure, Y. H. (1990), Filter Criteria for Geotextiles. In Proceedings of
the Fourth International Conference on Geotextiles, The Hague, The Nether-
lands, Vol. 3, First Draft. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Haliburton, T. A. & Wood, P. D. (1982). Evaluation of the US Army Corps of
Engineers gradient ratio test for geotextile performance. In Proceedings of the
Second International Conference on Geotextiles, Las Vegas, Vol. I. International
Fabrics Association International, St Paul, MN, pp. 97-102.
Haliburton, T. A., Lawmaster, J. D. & McGuffey, V. E. (1982). Use of engineering
 Geotextilefiltration principles, practices and problems 353

fabric in transportation related applications. FHWA Training Manual - -

FHWA Contract No. DTFH-80-C-0094.
Hoover, T. P. (1982). Laboratory testing ofgeotextile fabric filters. In Proceedings
of the Second International Conference on Geotextiles, Las Vegas, Vol. III.
Industrial Fabrics Association International, St Paul, MN, pp. 839--43.
Koerner, R. M. (1990). Designing with Geosynthetics, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Koerner, R. M. & Ko, F. K. (1982). Laboratory studies on long term drainage
capability of geotextiles. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference
on Geotextiles, Las Vegas, Vol. I. Industrial Fabrics Association International,
St Paul, MN, pp. 91-6.
Millar, P. J., Ho, K. W. & Turnbull, H. R. (1980). A study of filter fabrics for
geotechnical applications in New Zealand. Ministry of Works and Develop-
ment, Central Laboratories Report No. 2-80/5, New Zealand.
Ogink, H. J. M. (1975). Investigations on the hydraulic characteristics of synthetic
fabrics. Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, Publication No. 146, Delft, The
Netherlands.
Pollici, S. J. (1961). Laboratory testing of filter cloth to determine permeability
and filtration properties in various soil media. Report to Carthage Mills,
Soil Testing Services, Northbrook, II.
Rankiior, P. R. ( 1981). Membranes in Ground Engineering, John Wiley, Chichester,
UK.
Rollin, A., Denis, R., Estaque, L. & Masounave, J. (1982). Hydraulic behavior of
synthetic nonwoven filter fabrics. Can. J. Chem. Engng. 226-34.
Schober, W. & Teindk H. (1979). Filter criteria for geotextiles. In Proceedings of
the Seventh European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Brighton, Vol. 2. pp. 123-9.
Sweetland, D. B. (1977). The performance of non-woven fabrics as drainage
screens in subdrains, MSc. thesis, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
Taylor, D. W. (1948). Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics, John Wiley, New York.
Van der Sluys, L & Dierickx, W. (1990). Comparative studies of different
porometry determination methods for geotextiles. Geotext. Geomemb., 9,
183-98.
Wates, J. A. (1980). Filtration, an application of a statistical approach to filters
and filter fabrics. In Proceedings of the Seventh Regional Conferencefor Africa
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
The Netherlands, pp. 433--40.