See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258256390

Design of granular filters: Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory

testing

Article · January 2000

CITATIONS READS

11 1,894

2 authors:

Fernando Delgado-Ramos Mark Locke

University of Granada GHD Pty Ltd
40 PUBLICATIONS   174 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   197 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mathematics educational project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fernando Delgado-Ramos on 28 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Design Of Granular Filters: Guidelines And Recommendations for
Laboratory Testing
Fernando Delgado Ramos
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Granada, Spain
Mark Locke
PhD Candidate, Civil Engineering Division, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia

ABSTRACT: There are several stages during the planning, design, construction and operation phases of an
embankment dam project where the design of granular filters must be considered. From sourcing potential
materials right through to verification testing during construction and operation. Various methods have been
proposed for filter design, such as the use of empirical criteria, developed by other authors (Sherard and Dun-
nigan, 1985), mathematical modelling (Indraratna and Locke, 2000) and direct laboratory examination of the
proposed materials (Sherard et al., 1984). It is often difficult to decide which style of filter design method to
apply in each situation. This paper presents recommendations on these distinct methods of filter design and
suggests which method is appropriate for various stages of a dam project. Additionally the paper recommends
a detailed procedure for NEF tests, and describes some common problems with NEF testing and methods to
combat these problems. These recommendations are based on the authors’ experience of over 400 NEF tests
on materials from dams in Spain and Australia.

1 INTRODUCTION 2 USE OF EMPIRICAL CRITERIA

During the distinct project phases of planning, de-
sign, construction and operation of an embankment
dam, the provision of granular filters for protection
of erodible materials must be considered. There are
three main classes of design methods for these fil-
ters: empirical criteria, mathematical modelling and
simulation through direct experimentation. In each
project phase one or more of these methods could be
used. Each method has distinct advantages and dis-
advantages which will be discussed in the paper.
Direct experimentation provides greater confidence
in filter design than other non-direct methods. The
No Erosion Filter (NEF) test, introduced by Sherard
and Dunnigan (1985), is recognised as a suitable la-
boratory experiment for designing granular filters
for important structures such as embankment dams.
Problems encountered and overcome by the authors
when applying the NEF test have lead to several
suggestions and a detailed procedure for the test.
Since the 1920’s there have been many investiga-
tions into stability of base and filter soils, employing
materials of diverse nature. These studies had the
objective of determining general design criteria
through a simple and logical expressions, containing
a prudent factor of safety. An extensive list of em-
pirical design criteria can be found in Schuler and
Brauns (1993). The most widely accepted empirical
criteria are those of Sherard and Dunnigan (1989).
The authors’ recommend the use of these criteria,
with a modification for coarse soils (with less than
15% by mass passing the 75µm sieve), proposed by
Honjo and Veneziano (1989), and a modification of
the boundary between soil groups 2 and 4 proposed
by Foster and Fell (1999). These criteria are shown
in ¡Error! Argumento de modificador descono-
cido..
Criteria developed through these empirical methods
are simple to apply when designing granular filters.
They have the advantage of indirectly taking account
of all the factors affecting filtration. However, these
rules are only applicable to the range of soils tested
in the laboratory. When applied to soils beyond this
range, the criteria may lead to inappropriate filters.
As there are many criteria available, which ones to
use in a particular situation is a difficult decision for
a design engineer. These different criteria may have
a laboratory bias due to different testing methods,
definitions of failure etc. Moreover, most empirical
criteria only relate to selected points on the grada-
tion curve rather than the entire particle size distri-
bution, and hence, may not apply to unusually grad-
ed materials. They also do not describe the
mechanisms involved with base soil - filter interac-
tion. Therefore, they do not give the designer a con-
Table ¡Error! Argumento de modificador desconocido. Recommended Filter Retention Criteria
Base Soil Type Base Soil % Passing 75µm Sieve
(of portion passing 4.75mm)
Fine Silt or Clay >85%
Sandy Silts / Clays 35% - 85%
and Silty / Clayey Sands
Sands, Sandy Gravels with <15% and d95B/d75B ≤ 7
few fines
Soils intermediate between previ- 15% - 35%
ous two categories
3 MATHEMATICAL MODELS
In recent years, several mathematical models have
been developed to examine internal erosion and fil-
tration of soils (Indraratna and Locke, 2000). The
basis of the numerical analysis is:
1. to represent the filter by some form of pore mod-
el, usually based on the particle size distribution
of the filter material. This provides a geometric
restraint to movement, particles larger than the
pores or pore constrictions cannot move through
the filter.
2. to simulate the movement of base soil particles,
usually through an analysis of the movement of
individual base soil particles through the pores of
the filter. The particles move due to the influence
of seepage forces, up to a point where the parti-
cle passage is blocked by a pore constriction, or
the seepage forces are insufficient to move the
particle further.
These analytical methods provide detailed models
of what may be occurring at the base soil - filter in-
terface. They give an idea of the thickness of filter
required and also can estimate a probability of fail-
ure. Models have been produced which are capable
of determining time dependent changes in the im-
fident picture of what may occur within the dam and
the level of safety involved with the adoption of dif-
ferent criteria.
Empirical criteria are very useful during the inves-
tigation and design phases of a project. Filters can be
quickly assessed to determine their suitability. Em-
pirical criteria have been used to design filters for
most major dam projects throughout the world, with
success. Hence they can be relied upon to determine
safe filters, provided the materials are suitable for
the criteria being used.
Filter Criterion
D15F/d85B ≤ 9
D15F ≤ 0.7mm
D15F/d85B ≤ 5.5 - 0.5 d95B/d75B
extrapolate between the two previous
values based on %passing 75µm sieve.
portant properties involved with filtration, such as
permeability, porosity, flow rate and mass transport
rate. Mathematical models require a number of as-
sumptions and simplifications in order to reasonably
model real soils. These assumptions can limit the
applicability of the models and reduce their accura-
cy. The models to date do not consider inter-particle
forces and erosion resistance and hence are con-
servative for cohesive base soils. Models should be
calibrated against laboratory data or expected results
from empirical criteria.
Mathematical modelling can be very useful during
the design phase of a dam project to determine re-
quired filter thickness, time rate of change of materi-
al properties and expected seepage rates through the
base soil and filter. General predictions of the math-
ematical models can give the designer a more confi-
dent picture of what may occur during the life of the
structure. This information can also be very useful
during the operation of the structure to determine
whether the behaviour is as expected. Often internal
erosion is initially shown by changes in flow rate or
turbidity, which could be checked against the predic-
tions of the model.
4 DIRECT TESTING
Direct experimentation permits simulation in the la-
boratory of internal erosion and definitive determi-
nation of whether a granular filter is an efficient bar-
rier to erosion of a base soil. By testing the actual
materials to be employed within the structure, a
much higher level of confidence is obtained in the
selection of appropriate filter materials. Direct test-
ing is particularly useful for unusual or problematic
materials, such as broadly graded or gap graded base
soils, dispersive clays and unusual, natural filter ma-
terials. Current empirical criteria are not necessarily
adequate for these materials and laboratory testing is
essential for confidence in filter design. Direct ex-
perimentation can be useful during the design and
construction phases as well as during operation of
the structure. Additionally, direct testing is essential
for filter research. Different testing methods are re-
quired depending on the objective of the experiment.
4.1 Design Phase
Often filter materials must be processed to meet the
requirements of the sometimes conservative empiri-
cal design criteria, involving a high manufacturing
cost. Natural materials may require washing to re-
move fines to meet limitations on fines content, or
screening and blending to remove or add certain par-
ticle size fractions so that the material meets the de-
sign criteria, adding significantly to the cost. In
many cases there may be a natural source of filter
material which either directly or after some minor
treatment will be close to meeting the design criteria.
Laboratory testing can determine whether this mate-
rial is adequate for the application. Structures where
hydraulic gradients are expected to be small, eg.
low height and broad core dams, may not require fil-
ters complying with stringent empirical criteria.
In the case of uncertainty about material behaviour
it is essential to carry out a series of direct filter
tests. It is important to remember to apply an appro-
priate factor of safety to the safe filter boundary de-
termined by laboratory testing.
In summary, it is recommended that empirical cri-
teria be used for design of granular filters to deter-
mine a range for suitable materials. Mathematical
modelling can also be applied to give greater confi-
dence in the expected outcomes and estimate the
time dependent changes in material properties, par-
ticularly seepage rates. In general it is useful to also
consider direct experimentation during the design
phase. It may not be necessary to conduct a large
program of experiments, simply targeting the most
critical representative sample of base soil (usually
the finest sample) to find the necessary filter. Com-
paring the results of these experiments with those of
other authors and empirical criteria can alert the de-
signer to particular problems with the proposed ma-
terials. These problems may require further attention
and testing, or selection of a different source for ma-
terials.
4.2 Construction Phase
During the construction of a large structure it is rec-
ommended that direct experiments always be em-
ployed, for various reasons:
− the tests are simple and not expensive and can
easily verify the filter design.
− Direct experiments permit adaptation to the con-
ditions encountered during construction for real
soils.
− The laboratory results produce a source of very
important data for future projects.
− Unforeseen problems may be identified during
testing.
4.3 Filter Research
The preceding sections indicate that despite mathe-
matical models representing an interesting and im-
portant method to investigate the behaviour of gran-
ular filters, it is essential to perform experiments to
verify the predictions and calibrate these models.
The development of empirical criteria requires ex-
tensive, well controlled laboratory testing. We can
offer the following recommendations:
− The test method should be very versatile so that it
is valid for many distinct types of soils and test
conditions.
− It is useful to install piezometers or pressure
transducers in the apparatus, to measure flow
conditions across the base and filter materials.
− Okita and Nishigaki (1993) have employed gam-
ma rays to measure the variation in density and
moisture content of the filter during the test.
Through these measurements it is possible to see
the phenomenon of interception of base soil parti-
cles within the filter. This is a fundamental tool
for comparing the results of mathematical models
with real filter behaviour.
− It is very useful to obtain samples of effluent wa-
ter from the test apparatus, and measure the tur-
bidity and the particle size distribution of the sol-
ids within the effluent. In this way it is possible to
examine the quantity and size of particles which
erode through the filter.
5 RECOMMENDATIONS ON TESTING

Many laboratory procedures have been developed to

examine different aspects of filtration. It is not pos-
sible here to describe each of the distinct tests for
granular filters. Only one test will be described in
detail, the NEF test, which is commonly used to de-
termine suitable filters for cohesive soils. However,
it is interesting to point out that most of the modern
test methods fall into some general categories: those
using a slurry of base soil forced against the filter by
high pressure water (Sherard et al. 1984), or those
having the base soil compacted against the filter and
often simulating the formation of a crack by a pin-
hole or slot through the base soil (Sherard and Dun-
nigan 1985). For non-cohesive base soils, this pin-
hole is not necessary (Lafleur et al. 1989).

5.1 No Erosion Filter Test

The No Erosion Filter (NEF) test was proposed by
Sherard and Dunnigan (1985), for testing cohesive
base soils. The typical apparatus is shown in ¡Error!
Argumento de modificador desconocido.. In this
test a sample of base soil is compacted on top of the
filter. A pinhole is pushed through the base soil to
simulate a concentrated leak through a crack. Water
is forced through the pinhole under high pressure,
which is sufficient to erode the base soil. The test is
considered successful if no visible erosion occurs
before the filter interface seals, and unsuccessful if
some erosion is necessary to reach steady filtration.
Section 6 outlines a detailed procedure for the NEF
test proposed by the authors, based on the recom-
mendations of Sherard and Dunnigan (1985). The
following paragraphs outline some recommenda-
tions regarding the apparatus, and preparation and
interpretation of the NEF test.
The No Erosion Filter test is commonly accepted as
a standard test for determining suitable filters for
embankment dams. Foster and Fell (1999) describe a
coarser filter, the Continuing Erosion Boundary fil-
ter, which corresponds to a filter which will seal af-
ter some acceptable amount erosion of the base soil
(0.25g/cm2 was adopted). Coarser filters than the
continuing erosion boundary allow unacceptable or
continuing erosion to occur. The continuing erosion
boundary is determined using the same test appa-
ratus and method as the NEF boundary. This criteria
can be used to design filters for structures with less
stringent design criteria or estimate the potential ero-
sion due to piping in an existing dam during a re-
view of dam safety.
Figure ¡Error! Argumento de modificador
desconocido. Typical NEF Apparatus (Sherard and
Dunnigan (1985)
5.2 NEF Apparatus
The apparatus is typically a cylinder of 100-200mm
diameter and 200-300mm high, capable of handling
pressures up to 600kPa or more. Top and bottom
plates are connected to the cylinder, possibly with
continuous rods running between both plates exter-
nal to the cylinder. The plates should be machined to
provide a locating lip and a recess for an o-ring,
which provides a water tight seal. As well as an inlet
valve it is recommended to install a second valve in
the top plate to allow air out of the top of the cylin-
der as it is filled with water. The details of the appa-
ratus are shown in ¡Error! Argumento de modifi-
cador desconocido.. If there is a concern with the
quality of water supply it is recommended that some
form of water filter be used to ensure no particles
enter the test cylinder. A geotextile could be used for
this purpose. If the water supply pressure is either
insufficient (<200kPa) or highly variable then it can
be necessary to use a holding tank of 150litres ca-
pacity. Water is drawn from this tank and pumped at
the desired pressure into the apparatus. It may be
convenient to use the NEF apparatus for measuring
the permeability of the filter material. In this way the
compaction of the filter in both tests is identical and
the same apparatus can be utilised.

Figure ¡Error! Argumento de modificador
desconocido. Schematic diagram of apparatus
5.3 Filter Preparation
Except in the case where real filter materials are
sourced from the proposed stockpile or deposit, it is
necessary to produce a filter material to a particular
grading. The required grading is usually determined
from the D15 size and coefficient of uniformity, alt-
hough other factors such as maximum and minimum
particle size may also control the grading. In order to
prepare such a sample, the material should be split
into distinct fractions by sieving and washed on a
75µm sieve to remove any cohesive fines. Fujisawa
et al. (1997) have shown that increased fines content
greatly improves the filter effectiveness, and to re-
move these fines produces a more conservative test.
If the required filter gradation requires some fines
content, this fraction can be re-blended, ensuring the
fines are non-cohesive. Sufficient material for only
one test should be produced in each batch, in this
way problems of segregation due to excessive split-
ting of samples is avoided.
Compaction of the filter material can lead to break-
down of particles, which produces finer particles
than the original grading. This is very dangerous as
it produces false results, predicting success whereas
the real filter will fail. To control this the particle
size distribution (PSD) of a filter sample after com-
paction should be measured and compared with the
original sample.
After completion of a test, the filter material can be
recovered, washed and separated into size fractions
again, to provide material for another filter test. The
filter particles should be examined to ensure they
have not broken down during this process to differ-
ent sizes and shapes, as particle shape has been
shown to effect filtration efficiency.
Many authors employ a “side material” of sand fin-
er than the filter to avoid the formation of preferen-
tial flow paths down the side of the material (Sher-
ard et al. 1984, Khor and Woo 1989). The authors
have found that compaction of the filter by vibration
can lead to migration of these fine particles through
the filter with a subsequent improvement in the fil-
tration efficiency. It is recommended that a strip of
modelling clay (air drying clay has been found to
work well) be placed around the edge of the appa-
ratus, approximately 15mm high, such that it is cen-
tred over the base - filter boundary. This material
will prevent erosion down the side of the apparatus.
5.4 Preparation of the Base Soil
The base soil should only contain the fraction pass-
ing the 4.75mm sieve, as the coarser fraction has no
influence on filtration. It is important to determine
the complete PSD of the base soil with and without a
chemical dispersant. This demonstrates the tendency
of the base soil to form flocs or aggregates of many
cohesive particles. If the soil is found to be disper-
sive, distilled water is often used in the NEF test to
ensure conservative testing conditions. Distilled wa-
ter is not necessary for non-dispersive materials.
Although no published research has yet related the
influence of clay mineralogy to filtration efficiency,
the mineralogy could be determined as this infor-
mation provides some insight into the expected be-
haviour of the material.
In order to obtain the desired moisture content in a
cohesive base soil, it is important to leave the sam-
ple in a moist environment (such as a sealed plastic
bag or a humidifier), after mixing, for at least 24
hours to ensure the moisture is distributed homoge-
neously throughout the sample. It is often easier to
prepare many samples at the one time to ensure ho-
mogeneity and because the process is time consum-
ing.
5.5 Preparation and Execution of the NEF Test
Details of the proposed NEF test method can be
found in Section 6. A few recommendations will be
given here.
It is important that coarse particles are not present on
the filter surface after compaction, as these particles
may block the pinhole through the base soil. Some
authors suggest the pinhole should be formed by
compacting the base soil around a needle, however
the sample is more homogeneous, and it is certainly
easier, if the pinhole is formed after compaction by
pushing a needle or fine wire through the base soil.
The needle should penetrate about 5mm into the fil-
ter material to avoid obstructing the exit. The surface
of the base soil should be protected with a solid disc
to prevent the gravel, which is placed on top, pene-
trating the sample.
Erosion of the base soil occurs during the first mo-
ments of flow. In a successful test the filter usually
seals and clear water flows within the first few
minutes. Hence a duration of 20 minutes is sufficient
for the test. Several tests of longer duration have
been performed by the authors with no change in re-
sults. Because successful filtration occurs rapidly, it
is recommended to take measurements of flow rate
and turbidity every 30 seconds during the first five
minutes, this can be relaxed to once per minute for
the following five minutes and at two minute inter-
vals during the final 10 minutes. Turbidity can be
measured using a turbidimeter. This must be cali-
brated to the particular base soil and can then give
good estimates of turbidity at each time interval. It is
very interesting to analyse the particle size distribu-
tion of the particles in the effluent water, a laser par-
ticle size analyser can do this quickly and accurately.
To save time the effluent water could be analysed
only for the two samples on the borderline between
success and failure.
5.6 Interpretation of Results
On completion of the test, the apparatus should be
dismantled and the filter material recovered careful-
ly with a spatula, so as to not disturb the base soil.
The final part of filter material can be washed away
from the base soil with a gentle stream of water. The
base soil should then be gently removed so that the
pinhole remains intact. A disc which closely fits the
inside diameter of the apparatus (the surcharge
weight is ideal) can be used to press the block of
base soil out.
The NEF test is considered a success when there is
no visible erosion of the 1mm pinhole, and failure if
the pinhole erodes to more than 2mm diameter. The
hole can be examined with a magnifying glass to
confirm these measurements. In intermediate cases,
with a final diameter between 1mm and 2mm it is
recommended to consider the effluent water flow
rate and turbidity and perhaps the mass of eroded
material, to judge the test. In these cases the authors
give a result of “intermediate” and judge the NEF
boundary based on the results of other tests using
slightly coarser and finer filters.
The NEF test is very sensitive, the border between
success and failure often being detected over a varia-
tion of 0.1mm in the D15 size of the filter. Erratic re-
sults are often encountered, this may be because
there is a large filter particle blocking the pinhole, or
large eroded aggregates or surface slaking of base
soil block the pinhole before significant erosion can
occur. These erratic results can generally be noticed
because they do not comply with the results of the
next coarser or finer filter test. If this is the case the
erratic result should be discarded and the test repeat-
ed.
6 PROPOSED METHOD FOR NEF TEST
Sherard and Dunnigan (1985, 1989) briefly describe
the NEF test procedure used to determine their de-
sign criteria. However, these papers do not describe
in detail the preparation of materials and problems
encountered with testing. This section outlines a de-
tailed procedure for the NEF test, as followed by
Delgado (2000) and Locke and Indraratna (2000).
6.1 Compaction of Filter
1. Divide the filter into fractions by sieving. Wash
and remix to produce 1.5kg of material.
2. Add 3% water by weight, mix so that the materi-
al is homogeneous.
3. Divide into 4 parts of equal weight, taking care
to remove all the material which may have ad-
hered to the apparatus or containers.
4. Place a close fitting cylindrical block to act as a
spacer at the base of the apparatus, and a filter
paper on top of this spacer. Then place a disc of
wire mesh, approximately 1.2mm opening size.
Weigh the apparatus and record the height above
the wire mesh.
5. Place the apparatus on a vibrating table and at-
tach it firmly. Place filter material in the cylinder
to approximately 2.5cm height (approximately
260g). Apply a 9kg surcharge to the filter mate-
rial and vibrate for 1 minute.
6. Remove the surcharge carefully so that no mate-
rial adheres to it. Repeat the process for the next
two layers of filter material.
7. Mould and attach a strip of modelling clay or
plastacine to the sides of the cylinder. This
should be approximately 15mm deep and located
so that the compacted final layer of filter materi-
al will reach approximately the middle of the
strip.
8. Place the 4th fraction of filter material, and com-
pact by vibration again.
9. Use the remaining filter material from the 4 frac-
tions to determine the moisture content of the
material.
10. Remove the apparatus from the vibrating table
and weigh.
11. Measure the height of the filter material, using a
minimum of 4 readings over the surface.
12. Determine the density and moisture content of
the filter material.
6.2 Compaction of the Base Soil
1. Take a representative sample of the base material
to determine the moisture content.
2. Place approximately 140g of base material on
top of the filter and smooth the surface with a
spatula. Put the surcharge weight on top without
pressing on it.
3. Compact the base soil with 25 blows of a stand-
ard compaction hammer on top of the surcharge.
Remove the surcharge and scarify the surface.
4. Place another layer of base soil so that the sam-
ple is approximately 2.5cm deep in total. Repeat
the process, without scarifying the final surface.
5. Lift off the surcharge and remove any material
adhering to the walls of the cylinder.
6. Perforate the base soil with a 1mm diameter
needle or wire, until it reaches 5mm into the fil-
ter material. Remove the needle, taking care not
to deform the hole.
7. Weigh the entire apparatus again and measure
the height of the base soil with a minimum of
four readings. Determine the density and mois-
ture content of the base soil.
6.3 Final Preparation of the Apparatus
1. Put a disc or mesh on top of the base soil and
place gravel, of 2-5mm diameter that has been
washed and sieved, inside the cylinder without
affecting the base soil. Place another disc on top
of the gravel and place the top plate on the cell.
2. Turn the apparatus over and remove the base
plate and spacer. Remove the filter paper with
tweezers. Fill this gap with washed and sieved
gravel of 2-5mm diameter. This diameter may
have to be significantly smaller for fine filters.
Adopt a conservative ratio such as
D15Gravel/d85Filter<4 to determine the size of gravel
to use. Replace the base plate and firmly bolt the
top and bottom plates in place.
6.4 Execution of the Test
1. Fill the cylinder with water, without pressure,
until the apparatus is completely full, ensuring
all the air has been removed from the cylinder.
Connect the water supply hose to the inlet valve.
2. Apply the required pressure, as rapidly as possi-
ble, controlling it with the valve at the inlet to
the apparatus.
3. Record the time interval, turbidity of water, en-
trance pressure, and flow rate or volume. Repeat
this for the 20 minute test, taking measurements
every 30 seconds in the first 5 minutes, then eve-
ry minute for the next 5 minutes and every 2
minutes for the final 10 minutes. This describes
the behavior of the base-filter interface.
4. Finish the test, open the apparatus without dis-
turbing the base soil and observe the pinhole en-
trance and exit. Record the diameter of the pin-
hole and any other items of interest.
5. Determine the success or failure of the test fol-
lowing the advice of Section 5.6.
7 CONCLUSIONS
There are three broad categories to describe methods
to design and assess granular filters: empirical crite-
ria, mathematical models and direct experiments.
Each have particular applications during a major
project. Empirical methods can quickly determine
safe filters during project investigation and design.
However they have some limitations in application
and conservatism. Mathematical models describe in
greater detail the processes occurring within the fil-
ter, and can predict time dependent changes in mate-
rial properties and seepage rates. Direct experiments
are essential for unusual materials, provide cheap
verification of the design and can often identify po-
tential problems before they are encountered in the
field. A combination of all three categories of design
methods should be adopted during a large dam pro-
ject.
The NEF test is recommended for laboratory exam-
ination of suitable filters for fine base soils. Details
of problems encountered with NEF tests and rec-
ommendations to alleviate these problems have been
described. A detailed procedure for the NEF test has
been proposed. The NEF test is often difficult to
conduct and interpret, because it deals with quite
variable material. Also, inconsistent results are
sometimes obtained. This may be due to poor exper-
imental method and poor quality control of materials
and methods, preferential erosion paths - particularly
down the edges of the apparatus, clogging of the
pinhole due to swelling, slaking etc. before erosion
can occur, or large filter particles blocking the pin-
hole. A consistent, well tested experimental proce-
dure can alleviate some of these problems. Also,
comparison of the results published by various au-
thors is easier if a similar procedure is followed.
Khor C. and Woo H. (1989) “Investigation of Crushed Rock
Filters For Dam Embankment” Jour. Geotech. Engng, Vol.
115(3), pp. 399-412.
Lafleur J., Mlynarek J., Rollin A. (1989) “Filtration of Broadly
Graded Cohesionless Soils” Jour. Geotech. Engng, ASCE,
Vol. 115(12), pp. 1747-1768.
Locke M. and Indraratna B. (2000) “Erosion and Filtration of
Cohesive Soils”, This Volume.
Okita Y. and Mishigaki M. (1993) “Filtration Process Ob-
served with γ-ray Density Meter”, Filters in Geotechnical
and Hydraulic Engineering, Brauns, Heibaum & Schuler
(eds.), Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 57-63.
Schuler U. and Brauns J. (1993) “Behavior of Coarse and
Well-Graded Filters”, Filters in Geotechnical and Hydrau-
lic Engineering, Brauns, Heibaum & Schuler (eds.), 1993
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 3-18.
Sherard J., Dunnigan L. and Talbot J. (1984) “Filters for Silts
and Clays” Jour. Geotech. Engineering Div. ASCE, Vol
110, No. GT6, June 1984, pp 701-718.
Sherard J. and Dunnigan L. (1985) “Filters and Leakage Con-
trol in Embankment Dams” Proceedings, Symposium on
Seepage and Leakage from Dams and Impoundments, R.L.
Volpe and W.E. Kelly eds., ASCE 1985, pp 1-30.
Sherard J. and Dunnigan L. (1989) “Critical Filters for Imper-
vious Soils” Jour. Geotech. Engineering, ASCE, Vol 115,
No. GT7, pp 927-947.

REFERENCES

Delgado Ramos F. (2000) Laboratory Simulation of the Inter-

nal Erosion Phenomenon to determine the Variables which
Influence the Efficiency of Filters for Cohesive Soils. PhD
Thesis, University of Granada, Spain (in Spanish).
Foster M. and Fell R. (1999) “Filter Testing for Dams - No
Erosion and Continuing Erosion Boundaries”, Proc. 8th
Aust/NZ Conf. on Geomechanics, Hobart, Australia.
Fujisawa T., Nakamura A., Yamaguchi Y., Kawasaki M.
(1997) “Effectiveness of Granular Filters For Embankment
Dams Against Soil Suspension” Proc. 19th ICOLD Conf.,
Florence, pp. 283-305.
Honjo Y., Veneziano D. (1989) “Improved Filter Criterion for
Cohesionless Soils”, Jour. Geotechnical Engineering Div.,
ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 1, pp 75-94.
Indraratna B. and Locke M. (1999) “Design methods for granu-
lar filters - critical review”, Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs Ge-
otech. Engng, Vol. 137, pp. 137-147.
Indraratna B. and Locke M. (2000) “ Analytical Modelling and
Experimental Verification of Granular Filter Behaviour”
This Volume.

View publication stats