Polymer Testing 23 (2004) 239–244

www.elsevier.com/locate/polytest
Product Performance
Analysis of the drainage performance of geotextile
composites under confined loads
Han Yong Jeon a,∗, Seong Hun Kim b, Youn In Chung c, Yeong Mog Park d,
Chin Gyo Chung e
a
Faculty of Applied Chemical Engineering, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, 500-757, South Korea
b
Department of Fiber and Polymer Engineering, Center for Advanced Functional Polymers, Hanyang University, Seoul, 133-791,
South Korea
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Keimyung University, Daegu, 704-701, South Korea
d
School of Civil, Urban & Environmental Engineering, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, 712-749, South Korea
e
Group-Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Pusan College of Information Technology, Busan, 616-737,
South Korea

Received 6 May 2003; accepted 16 July 2003

Abstract

In drainage applications, smart geotextiles containing polypropylene and polyester staple fibers, along with other
synthetic waste fibers (20–1000 denier) prepared by a special needle-punching mechanism, have been used as filling
materials. A three-layer non-woven/drainage layer/non-woven structure was adopted in the manufacture of these smart
geotextiles. Typical two or three-dimensional structured geonet composites having a similar thickness to the smart
geotextiles were used as reference materials to compare the drainage properties. The variation of thickness, in-plane
permeability, and transmissivity with compressive stress were evaluated, and the differences and similarities between
the smart geotextiles and geonet composites were interpreted.
 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Hydraulic application; Filling materials; 3-Layer composition structure; Smart geotextiles; Geonet composites; In-plane
permeability and transmissivity

1. Introduction mm, used as leachate drainage materials, will cause

Various types of geosynthetics can be used in civil and
environmental engineering structures, and in particular,
geonet and geotextile-related composites are widely used
for drainage purposes in various conditions [1–2]. Some
types of composite geosynthetics that have special func-
tions are used in waste landfills, and geonet composites
having a drainage function have been adopted as
materials to protect geomembranes [3]. However, in
waste landfills, marble stones with diameters over 50
∗
Tel.: +82-62-530-1775; fax: +82-62-530-1779.
E-mail address: hyjeon@chonnam.ac.kr (H.Y. Jeon).
intrusion to occur in geonet composites.
This intrusion into geonet composites is the cause of
a decrease in the drainage efficiency of waste landfills
[4–5]. Therefore, smart geotextiles are required that have
excellent drainage, and have added protection for the
geomembranes for applications on slopes and in the liner
systems of waste landfills.
We have designed and manufactured smart non-woven
geotextiles, which have a different composition, by
employing a special needle-punching method to prepare
the fibrous assembly. Changes in thickness, transmissiv-
ity, and in-plane permeability with compressive stress
were analyzed using constitutive equations of the drain-
age.

0142-9418/$ - see front matter  2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0142-9418(03)00100-4
240 H.Y. Jeon et al. / Polymer Testing 23 (2004) 239–244

2. Theoretical background
Transmissivity is evaluated by analyzing the volume
of water passing through a geotextile specimen flowing
under a confined normal stress and a specific hydraulic
gradient, in accordance with the ASTM D 4716 stan-
dard [6].
The principal mechanism of transmissivity in the
smart geotextiles developed in this study is shown in Fig.
1, and was analyzed using Eqs. (1)–(4). If water flows
horizontally along the surface of the geotextile, and the
volume of water flowing in is equal to the volume of
water flowing out, then the flow rate of the water, q, for
a drainage system can be described by Eq. (1), using
Darcy’s law.
⌬h
q ⫽ Kp ⫻ i ⫻ A ⫽ K p ⫻ w ⫻ t
L SMGT3, and the three types of geonet composites used:
The transmissivity of a geotextiles for drainage [7] is
described by
L q
q ⫽ Kp ⫻ t ⫽ q ⫽ (2)
⌬h ⫻ w i ⫻ w
where q is the transmissivity of the geotextile, i is the
hydraulic gradient, Kp is the in-plane permeability, q is
the flow rate, L and t are the length and thickness of the
geotextile, respectively, ⌬h is the total volume of water
loss, and A and W are the cross-sectional area and width
of the geotextile, respectively.
If water flows radially through the geotextile, and is
collected around the outer perimeter of the device, then
Eq. (1) can be adapted as
dh
q ⫽ Kp ⫻ (2p ⫻ r ⫻ t)
dr
and the radial drainage is calculated using
where r1is the inner radius of the geotextile test speci-
men, and r2 is the outer radius of the geotextile test
specimen.
3. Experimental
3.1. Preparation of the smart geotextiles
The smart geotextiles, which had an adjustable drain-
age function under confined loading conditions, had a
three-layer structure and were manufactured by a needle-
punching method. Three different needle-punching pat-
terns were applied in the manufacture of the geotextiles
using the two up paths and one down path needle punch-
ing mechanisms. Table 1 shows the specifications of the
(1) smart geotextiles used: Samples SMGT1, SMGT2, and
Samples GNC1, GNC2, and GNC3. The geonet com-
posites which had the same thickness as the smart geot-
extiles were examined for comparison of the drainage
functions. Fig. 2 shows a cross-sectional view of the
smart geotextiles and geonet composites.
4. Test of the drainage properties
4.1. Apparatus
A radial in-plane flow test apparatus in accordance
with the GRI Test Method, as shown in Fig. 3, was used
to evaluate the transmissivity and the in-plane per-
meability of the smart geotextiles and geonet composites.
The area of a test specimen was 100 cm2, and the con-
(3) fining load applied to the specimen was in the range 1–
240 kg.

冕 冕
h2 r2 4.2. Evaluation of transmissivity
dr qln(r2 / r1)
2p(Kp ⫻ t) dh ⫽ q q⫽ (4)
h1 r1 r 2p⌬h The transmissivity of the smart geotextiles and geonet
composites under confined loading conditions were
evaluated using Eq. (4). Before testing, the specimens
were immersed in distilled water to eliminate any gas
bubbles contained in the specimens.

5. Results and discussion

5.1. Thickness and compressive stress

Fig. 4 shows a schematic diagram of intrusion due to

Fig. 1. Schematic drawing of the transmissivity mechanism of
smart geotextiles.
the confined loading on a smart geotextile or geonet
composite. The upper non-woven section of the geonet
composite showed considerable intrusion under the con-
fining load, whereas the smart geotextile only showed
low intrusion. This is closely related to the variation in
 H.Y. Jeon et al. / Polymer Testing 23 (2004) 239–244 241

Table 1
Specifications of the smart geotextiles and geonets used

Geosynthetic for drainage Thickness (mm) Composition Drainage layer

Smartgeotextiles SMGT1 1.2 Non-woven/drainage layer/non-woven 20-1000 Denier waste PP or PET

fiber used
SMGT2 1.4 Accumulation by the web
SMGT3 1.7 Pre-punched non-wovens
Geonet composites GNC1 1.2 Non-woven/drainage core/non-woven Two-layer HDPE core
GNC2 1.5
GNC3 1.7

Fig. 4. Schematics of intrusion for smart geotextiles and

geonet composites under confined loading.

thickness under compressive stress of the materials. In

Fig. 2. Photographs of the cross-sectional area of: (a) SMGT3,
and (b) GNC3.
general, the thickness of a geotextile for installation in
soil decreases with compressive stress. In this case, the
transmissivity of the geotextile would be a function of
the thickness, and therefore, it is very important to evalu-
ate the variation in thickness with compressive stress.
The relationship between thickness and compressive
stress is described by Eq. (5), using the variation constant
of the geotextile
T / T0 ⫽ (s / s0)⫺a (5)
where T0, and T are the thickness of the geotextile with
and without compressive stress, respectively, a is the
variation constant of the geotextile, and s0 and s are the:
initial and compressive stress of the geotextile, respect-
ively (s 0 = 0.04 kg/cm2).
From Eq. (5), the variation constant, a, will increase
with thickness of the geotextile, and therefore, another
variation constant, b, needs to be introduced into Eq. (5)
to compensate for the variation constant, a. Therefore,
the variation of thickness with compressive stress can be
written as
s s
冉
T ⫽ T0⫺aln ⫽ T0 1⫺ln b ⫽ a / T0
s0 s0 冊 (6)

Fig. 5 shows the relative decrease in thickness with com-

Fig. 3. Schematic drawing of the radial flow transmissivity pressive stress of the geo-synthetics using Eq. (6).
apparatus. On confined loading, the geonet composites showed a
significant decrease in thickness compared with the smart
242 H.Y. Jeon et al. / Polymer Testing 23 (2004) 239–244

Fig. 6. Thickness and in-plane permeability with compressive

stress for smart geotextiles and geonet composites.
Fig. 5. Relative decrease of thickness with compressive stress
for smart geotextiles and geonet composites.

5.3. In-plane permeability and compressive stress

geotextiles, due to the considerable intrusion of the upper
non-woven layer.
5.2. Thickness and in-plane permeability
The constants in Eq. (6), T0, aT, bT, and the correlation
coefficient, R2, for the smart geotextiles and geonet com-
posites are given in Table 2.
The relationship between the in-plane permeability
and thickness of the smart geotextiles and geonet com-
posites is shown in Fig. 6. From Fig. 6, it can be seen
that a linear relationship between thickness and in-plane
permeability for the smart geotextiles and geonet com-
posites exists with compressive stress.
Fig. 7 shows the relationship between the relative
decrease of the in-plane permeability with compressive
stress on the smart geotextiles and geonet composites.
The smart geotextiles showed a lower rate of decrease
of in-plane permeability than the geonet composites,
which is similar to the case of the relationship between
the thickness and compressive stress. From these results,
it can be seen that this is due to the different intrusion
caused by the different structures of the smart geotextiles
and the geonet composites.

Table 2
Parameters related to the thickness of the smart geotextiles and
geonet composites

Geosynthetic for Coefficients related to thickness

drainage

T0 aT bT R2

GNC1 3.4634 0.3585 0.1035 0.9853

GNC2 4.3138 0.4946 0.1147 0.9923
GNC3 2.7448 0.3564 0.1298 0.9964
SMGT1 7.8463 0.3939 0.0502 0.9852
SMGT2 9.8557 0.5285 0.0536 0.9992
SMGT3 12.7900 0.4526 0.0354 0.9982 Fig. 7. Relative decrease of in-plane permeability and com-
pressive stress for smart geotextiles and geonet composites.
 H.Y. Jeon et al. / Polymer Testing 23 (2004) 239–244 243

冉 s
⫽ (T0 ⫻ K0)· 1⫺(b ⫹ bK)ln ⫹ b·bKln2
s0
s
s0 冊 (8)

冉
⫽ q0 1⫺(b ⫹ bK)ln
s
s0
⫹ b·bKln2
s
s0 冊
where, q0 and q are the transmissivity with and without
confined loading on the geotextile, respectively.
In Eq. (8), the value of b × bK = 0.02–0.03, which
is smaller than the value of b + bK, which is 0.3–0.4.
Therefore, if s/s0 is no greater than 0.02–0.03, then
the third term of Eq. (8) can be neglected to simplify the
equation. In this case, the transmissivity of the geotextile
can be written as

Fig. 8. Relative decrease of transmissivity and compressive
stress for smart geotextiles and geonet composites.
5.4. Transmissivity and compressive stress
Transmissivity is a parameter that describes the drain-
age properties of geotextiles, and is the product of the
sample thickness and the in-plane permeability of a geot-
extile. The in-plane permeability of a geotextile, derived
from Eq. (6), is
s s
冉
Kp ⫽ K0⫺aKln ⫽ K0 1⫺bKln bK ⫽ aK / K0
s0 s0 冊 (7)
where K0 is the initial in-plane permeability, Kp is the
in-plane permeability under confined loading, and aK and
bK are the variation constants of the geotextile.
From Eqs. (2) and (7), the transmissivity of geotextile
can be written as
冉
q ⫽ q0 1⫺bqln
s
s0 冊 (9)
where bq is the variation constant of the geotextile.
Fig. 8 shows the relationship between the transmissiv-
ity and the compressive stress. The solid line indicates
the theoretical values from Eq. (9) using the initial com-
pressive stress value of s 0 = 0.04 kg/cm2. The error
between the experimental and theoretical values of the
transmissivities for Sample GNC1 was larger than those
of the other materials. This means that the third term of
Eq. (8) cannot be neglected, because of the larger s/s0
values. However, the errors between the experimental
and theoretical values of the transmissivity of Sample
GNC1 would be smaller if the initial compressive stress
was larger than 0.04 kg/cm2. Then, the third term of Eq.
(8) can be neglected and, therefore, the initial compress-
ive stress applied should be larger if Eq. (9) is used to
evaluate the transmissivity of the geotextile.
Table 3 shows the parameters related to the in-plane
permeability and the transmissivity of the smart geotex-

冉 冊 冉 冊
tiles and geonet composites.
s s
q ⫽ T ⫻ Kp ⫽ T0 1⫺bln ⫻ K0 1⫺bKln
s0 s0

Table 3
Parameters related to the in-plane permeability and the transmissivity of smart geotextiles and geonet composites

Sample In-plane permeability Transmissivity

K0 aK bK R2 q0 aq bq R2

GNC1 0.023 0.003 0.155 0.982 0.741 0.146 0.198 0.998

GNC2 0.017 0.003 0.177 0.986 0.699 0.151 0.216 0.997
GNC3 0.019 0.004 0.223 0.979 0.485 0.123 0.253 0.930
SMGT1 0.026 0.002 0.085 0.993 2.023 0.239 0.118 0.994
SMGT2 0.027 0.002 0.090 0.996 2.618 0.328 0.125 0.992
SMGT3 0.028 0.001 0.052 0.996 3.581 0.286 0.080 0.997
244 H.Y. Jeon et al. / Polymer Testing 23 (2004) 239–244
6. Conclusions
We have evaluated the properties of smart geotextiles
that have different structural compositions manufactured
by a needle-punching method. The differences in thick-
ness and drainage properties, such as the in-plane per-
meability and transmissivity with compressive stress,
between the smart geotextiles and geonet composites
were evaluated using constitutive equations. The vari-
ation in thickness with compressive stress of the smart
geotextiles was smaller than that of the geonet com-
posites. This is due to the different levels of intrusion
under compressive stress between the smart geotextiles
and the geonet composites. The observed decrease of in-
plane permeability and transmissivity with compressive
stress of the smart geotextiles showed the same behavior
as that exhibited by the variation in thickness. The vari-
ations in thickness, in-plane permeability, and transmis-
sivity of smart geotextiles can be analyzed using the equ-
ation
s
冉
Kp ⫽ K0⫺aKln ⫽ K0 1⫺bKln
s0
s
s0 冊 b K ⫽ a K / K0 .
References
[1] R.D. Holtz, B.R. Christopher, R.R. Berg, Geosynthetic
Design and Construction Guidelines, US Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Publi-
cation No. FHWA HI-95-038, 1995, pp. 27–105.
[2] R.M. Koerner, Designing with Geosynthetics, Fourth ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1998.
[3] R.M. Koerner, Geosynthetic testing for waste containment
application, ASTM STP 1081, Philadelphia, PA, 1990.
[4] S.A. Hokanson, D.E. Daniel, G.N. Richardson, Require-
ments for hazardous waste landfill design, construction, and
closure, US EPA Seminar publication, 1989, pp. 53–74.
[5] FHWA, Geotextile design & construction guidelines, US
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Adminis-
tration, publication no. FHWA HI-90-001, 1989, pp. 24–46.
[6] ASTM Committee D-35, ASTM standard on geosynthetics,
Philadelphia, PA, 1995, pp. 53–56.
[7] H.Y. Jeon, S.H. Kim, Y.I. Chung, J. Mlynarek, Assess-
ments of long-term filtration performance of degradable
prefabricated geotextile drains, Polymer Testing, 22 (2003)
118–184.