Geocomposites For Drainage: Experiences and Applications

0.
03 m
1.5 m
Geocomposites for Drainage
Experiences and Applications
Dipl. Ing. Paolo Di Pietro

Maccaferri Deutschland GmbH
IGS – Helsinki, March 11, 2013
COMPONENTS
• Geotextile (1 or 2 sides)
• Drainage Core (4-20mm)
• Waterproofing membrane
(optional)
DRAINAGE CORE
MACDRAIN M
Polypropylene mat with cuspated profile
DRAINAGE CORE
MACDRAIN W
Polypropylene mat with waved profile (long. channel shape)
DRAINAGE CORE
MACDRAIN N
High Density Polyethylene Net
TYPICAL FUNCTIONS
• Drainage
• Separation
• Resistance to puncture
• Waterproofing
ADVANTAGES
Plastic core
Geotextile
Distributes Protects waterproofing

pressure from damage when trench
is backfilled
Retains its drainage

capacity even under high
earth pressure
Removes excess water

from the soil
Transports water
to the collector
drain Prevents the collector
drain from silting up
with fine soil particles
TRADITIONAL DRAINAGE LAYERS
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION WITH GCDs
GCD
0.03 m
1.50 m GCL
GCD
Geosynthetics save approx 1.5 m3 volume per m2 surface

ADVANTAGES
GCDs as opposed to granular layers have the following advantages:

• Need less material with required characteristics (cost effective);
• High environmental friendliness (low CO2 emission);
• Can provide geotechnical stability on sloped surfaces (engineered);
• In case of landfills, increase waste capacity (benefit to the municipality).
TECHNICAL COMPARISON
Technical comparison between gravel layers and GCDs
Q=kAi • K is permeability of the

granular layer
• A is area per m width of the
0.5 draining layer 0,5 m thk x 1
m width = 0.5 m2
0.5 • i is the gradient of the
draining layer
i=sin
The permeability of the granular layer is not defined.

We estimate it in the range of
5x10-4 < k < 10-2 l/m.sec (typically k = 10-3 l/m.sec).
Q GCD > Q gravel = K · e · i (Darcy)
Flow rate (l/m.sec) for a 50 cm gravel layer, according to different K values

K (l/m.sec) 1x10-3 5x10-3 1x10-2
20° (i=0.34) 0,17 0,85 1,70
25° (i=0.42) 0,21 1,06 2,11
30° (i=0.50) 0,25 1,25 2,50
35° (i=0.57) 0,28 1,43 2,86
The permeability is not constant and depends on
FLOW RATE / GRADIENT

Low gradients: Flow “less”
turbulent
High gradients: Flow “more” K(i=0,1)
turbulent.
With the same gravel, the K(i=0,3)
permeability at gradient i=0.1 is
higher than permeability at
gradient i=0.3.
Darcy Law is not applicable as it
is, to obtain flow rates in gravel
layers, as the flow is not laminar
but turbulent. .
For granular layers correction factors are required

GRANULAR LAYER
In this analysis the selected granular layer is assumed as sandy gravel
material, with a permeability of k = 5x10-3 [m/sec], and a hydraulic gradient of
3% (i=0.03).
The hydraulic capacity of this granular layer, using the Darcy Law equation,
may be obtained as
Q = k A i = (5x10-3) x (0.5x1) x 0.03 = 0.75x10-4 [m³/sec]
GCD
Assuming 8 m as a representative height for an embankment, and 20 kPa as
the fill unit weight, and assuming a safety factor of 2.5 to account for
uncertainties and variability of life loads, the vertical stress considered to act
on the geocomposite will be computed as follows:
h = (20x8) x 2.5 = 160 x 2.5 = 400 kPa

Reduction of the Flow Capacity of a drainage geocomposite

(in blue suggested values in Bibliography for Surface Water drains in cappings)
1) Clogging or blinding of the core due to:

chemical precipitation (1.0 – 1.2, according Koerner)
biological intrusion (1.5 - 3,5, according Koerner)
2) Long term compressive creep deformation of the core of the geocomposite due to the
constant load applied.
(it depends of the configuration of the product, raw material, gradient & pressure ; for
high quality products it ranges from 1.1 – 1.5)
3) Intrusion of the geotextiles into the core when loaded - reduction of the effective
cross draining section – (it depends of the core, pressure, gradient and stiffness of the
geotextile)
short -term intrusion (Transmissivity Test on Laboratory)
1 when is run hard/soft or soft/soft conditions
1.3 – 2.0 at least, when the tests are run in hard/hard conditions
long-term intrusion of the geotextile due his creep
1.3 – 1.6 according
From the nominal QSTreq short term value, the QLTreq long term design value may be
calculated under serviceability conditions, by means of adequate reduction factors,
in accordance with:
QLTreq = QSTreq RFin RFcr RFbc RFcc
Partial Reduction Factors:

RFin=1.10 Reduction factor for elastic deformation or geotextile intrusion;
RFcr=1.00 Reduction factor for creep deformation over time. Already considered
in the load applied by the embankment;
RFbc=1.20 Reduction factor for intrusion of biological material;
RFcc=1.10 Reduction factor by chemical clogging of the draining network.
The overall reduction factor will be RFtot=1.10 x 1.00 x 1.20 x 1.10 = 1.45
Assuming that the required discharge was:
QSTreq = Q = 0.75 x10-4 [m³/s], we have
QLTreq = QSTreq 1.45 = 0.11 x 10-3 [m³/s]

Parameters affecting long term performance of GCDs

• Long term properties of the core (crash test and compressive creep);
• Long term mechanical properties of the geofilter in relation to effects on the
core (depending the soil in contact and loads applied).
• Method for evaluating the flow capacity (hard or soft contact).
The soft contact is a more realistic simulation of the soil contact, as it measures the
partial (short term) penetration of the geotextile into the core.
The hard contact completely does not take into account this factor and provides
higher results for the drainage performance. This difference can be relevant.
In landfill (capping) applications the real working condition is a soft/hard contact to
simulate the membrane on one side and the soil on the other one. The hard/hard
contact is more suitable to the drainage composites placed between two
geomembranes.
Drainage Flow Capacity (l/m·s) ISO 12958 (Test run in SKZ Laboratory)
Config. 120 g/m2 gtx + HDPE geonet + 120 g/m2 / Thickness at 2 kPa: 5,45 mm
Contact hard/hard hard/soft soft/soft
Gradient 0.1 0.3 1 0.1 0.3 1 0.1 0.3 1
= 20 kPa
0.241 0.520 1.026 0.116 0.287 0.653 - - 0.505
capping RF=2.1 RF=1.8 RF=1.6 RF=2
= 100 kPa
Aprox. Slope New Landfill 0.221 0.462 0.909 0.086 0.204 0.453 - - -
hr=20 m ; ' r = 25º ; r =12 kN/m3 RF=2,6 RF=2,3 RF=2,0
= 200 kPa
Aprox. Slope New Landfill 0.198 0.400 0.839 0.045 0.094 0.259 - - -
hr=40 m ; ' r = 25º ; r =12 kN/m3
RF=4,4 RF=4,3 RF=3,2
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Drenaje convencional Cant. para Costo unitario Costo Total

Materiales 1m.l. US$ US$
Grava n. 1 3.30 m3 * 14,80 / m3 48.84 / ml Comparative analysis

Geotextil no-tejido 300g/m2 21.00 m2 ** 1.36 / m2 28.56 / ml
between a
Tubo-drén Ø 100 mm 1.00 m 3.25 / ml 3.25 / ml
Tabla 1’’ x 12’’ (5 reapr.) 0.30 m2 1.80 / m2 0.54/ ml

conventional drainage
Maestro (+ enc. sociales) 1.43 h 4.50 / h 6.43 / ml and the use of
Obrero (+ enc. sociales) 4.39 h 2.25 / h 9.88 / ml MACDRAIN behind a
Costo total por metro lineal 97.50 / ml wall:
Costo total+B.D.I. (30 %) 126.75 / ml
-35%
MacDrain® Cant. para Costo unitario Costo Total
Materiales 1m.l. US$ US$
Geocompuesto Macdrain® 2L 10.00 m2 5.65 /m2 56.50 / ml
Grava n. 1 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Geotextil no-tejido 300g/m2 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Tubo-drén Ø 100 mm 1.00 m 3.25 / ml 3.25 / ml
Maestro (+ enc. sociales) n.a. n.a. n.a.
Obrero (+ enc. sociales) 1.60 2.25 / h 3.60 / ml
Costo total por metro lineal 63.35 / ml
Costo total+B.D.I. (30 %) 86.35 / ml

COST EFFECTIVENESS
Grava + geotextil MacDrain® 2L

Costo unitário
Materiales Cant. para 1m2 Costo Total Cant. para 1m2 Costo Total
US$
US$ /m US$
Geocompuesto Macdrain® 2L 5.65 / m2 n.a. n.a. 1.0 m2 / m 5.65 / ml
Grava n°. 1 14.80 / m3 * 0.22 m3 / m 3.26 / ml n.a. n.a.
Geotextil no-tejido 300g/m2 1.36 / m2 ** 1.05 m2 / m 1.43 / ml n.a. n.a.
Tubo-drén Ø 100 mm 3.25 / m 0.40 m / m 1.30 / ml 0.40 m / m 1.30 / ml
Escavación y remoción de suelo (mec.) 4.50 / m3 0.40 m3 1.80 / ml 0.20 m3 / m 0.90 / ml
Maestro (encargos sociales inclusos) 4.50 / m2 0.10 h / m 0.45 / ml n.a. n.a.
Obrero (Encargos sociales inclusos) 2.25 / m2 0.85 h / m 1.91 / ml 0.08 h / m 0.18 / ml
Costo total por metro lineal 10.15 / ml 8.03 / ml
Costo total+B.D.I. (30 %) 13. 20 / ml 10.44 / ml
Comparative analysis between a conventional drainage and

the use of a MacDrain in a flat horizontal application:
-21%
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Siatema tradicional Costo unit. Costo total

Materiales
Cant. p/ 1 m.l.
Us$ Us$ Comparative analysis
Grava n. 1 0.33 m³ * 14.80 /m³ 4,88 / m
between a
Geotextil no tejido 300g/m2 2.73 m² ** 1.36 /m² 3.71 / m
conventional
Tubo-drén Ø 100 mm 1.00 m 3.25 /m 3.25 / m
drainage and the
M. de obra (+ enc. sociales) 0.15 h 2.29 /h 0.34 / m
use of a MacDrain
Obrero (+ enc. sociales) 1.81 h 2.25 /h 4.07 / m
composite in a
Costo total por metro lineal 16.59 / m
draining trench:
Costo total + B.D.I. (30%) 21.57 / m
-25%
MacDrain® Costo unit. Costo total

Cant. p/ 1 m.l.
Materiales US$ US$/m
Geocompuesto MacDrain® 2L TD 1.00 m2 * 5.65/m2 5.65
Tubo-drén Ø 100 mm 1.00 m 3.25 /m 3.25
Ajudante geral(+ enc. sociales) 1.76 h 2.25 /h 3.96
Costo total por metro lineal 12.86
Costo total + B.D.I. (30%) 16.72

INSTALLATION
Installation time and labor is less than with conventional granular layers
No waste due to “the overlapping flap”
overlapping
INSTALLATION
• Drainage blankets are light and easy to

handle;
• In vertical applications workers handle the

roll and keep it in place while fixing;
• No backfilling required (gravel, sand);
• Easy overlapping when joining rolls;
• No skilled labor or special tools required.

Cutters, nails and just a hammer.
MAIN FIELDS OF APPLICATION
• LANDFILLS
(1-Capping - soil veneer, 2-LCS)
• VERTICAL , SEMI-VERTICAL LAYERS
(1-RCC walls, 2-MSE walls, 3-Tunnels, 4-Others)
• HORIZONTAL LAYERS
(1-Embankments, 2-Roofing, 3-Sporting fields)
LANDFILLS
Gas ventilation & LC in landfills

Prot. layer against membrane puncture
Pipe
Clay layer
Drainage composite
Gas ventilation
Geotextile Leachate collection
Gravel layer
Pipe
LANDFILLS
LANDFILLS
LANDFILLS
LANDFILLS
Gas ventilation & LC in landfills

Prot. layer against membrane puncture
VERTICAL LAYERS
Drainage of RCC walls
Retaining wall
Drainage composite
A 20 mm thickness GCD is equivalent to a 200 mm traditional

vertical drain with high permeability confined between two
geotextiles filters
VERTICAL LAYERS
VERTICAL LAYERS

VERTICAL LAYERS

VERTICAL LAYERS

VERTICAL LAYERS

SEMI-VERTICAL LAYERS
Drainage of MSE walls
Soil reinforced
Steep slope
Drainage composite



Drainage in tunnel applications
Drainage composite
Tunnel
pipe

Drainage
Artificial tunnel composite
MacDrain
Gravel filling

Drainage in road applications

concrete Drainage composite with
Polyethylene membrane
pipe Drainage composite





Drainage geotechnical consolidation



HORIZONTAL LAYERS
Anticapillary & drainage layer
p=3%
HORIZONTAL LAYERS

HORIZONTAL LAYERS

S E Z IO N E T IP O IN A F F IA N C A M E N T O (R E T T IF ILO )
S c a la 1 :5 0
F A S I D I L A V O R A Z IO N E D E L R ILE V A TO :
1 1.5 3 m in.
2) R ealizz azio ne ca na le e sterno al corpo del rilevato 9 .0 2

3) T o m ba m ento e b onific a del foss o esistente 8 .6 0 7 .6 0 m in.
4) S co tic o pian o di p osa del rilevato
3 .0 1
5) S tab ilizz az io ne a c alce piano di posa C A N A L ET T A P O R T A CA V I
3 .15
2.4 0 4 .3 0
T E R R E N O V E G E T A LE
E M BR IC I O G NI 1 5 .0 0 m 1 .43 5
0 .1 2
0 .42
0 .5 0 0 .5 0
min 0.35
min 0.35
3% 3%
0.12
0.30
0.3
0
0.3
0
8 ) - S U B - B A L L A S T (H =1 2 c m )
0.30
1 .50 1 .00
0 .30 R I L E V A T O E S I S TE N T E
L IN E A L E N TA
7 ) - S T R A T O S U P E R C O M P A T T A T O (H =3 0 c m )
0 .1 0 3%
0.30
0.10
6 ) - M A T E R IA L E G R U P P O A 1 , A 2 , A 3 , A 4
0.50
Pian o camp agn a

0.20
0.45
5) - PU LIZ IA S CAR PATE
0.20
FO R M A Z IO N E S T R A D A D I S E R V IZIO :
1 ) S c ot ic o 2 0 c m ( q= -20 cm P .C .) 6 ) - S T R A T O S U P E R IO R E H = 3 0 cm , P E R PR O TE ZIO N E G E O D R E N O ,
4) - G E OD R E NO
C O N M A T E R IA L E D A R IL E V A T O D I P E ZZ A T U R A M A S SIM A 3 0 m m
3 ) S t ra to d i m a t er ia le ric ic la to da de m oliz io ni (20c m )
3 ) - T E R R E N O S T A B I LI ZZ A T O
A C A L C E H =4 5 c m 1 ) - S C O T IC O 2 0 c m
2 ) - B O N IFIC A FO S S O D I G U A R D I A N .B .1 ) Il m a teria le p ro ve n ien te d allo s co tico p uò e ss ere riutiliz za to
p e r l'ine rb im en to de lle sca rpa te
N .B .2 ) Su lla sc ar pa ta e siste n te so n o p re se n ti, in a lcu n i tratti,
c e p pi d i le g n o i q u a li n on verra nn o rim o ss i m a tag liati
alla b as e d u ra nte la g ra d on a tu ra d ella sc arp ata
Position of the
MacDRain drainage composite
HORIZONTAL LAYERS

HORIZONTAL LAYERS

HORIZONTAL LAYERS
Drainage layer in roofing applications

Garden
Pavimentation
Sand bed
MacDrain Concrete base

HORIZONTAL LAYERS

HORIZONTAL LAYERS

HORIZONTAL LAYERS

HORIZONTAL LAYERS
Drainage of sporting fields

HORIZONTAL LAYERS

HORIZONTAL LAYERS

THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ATTENTION!
Questions are welcome
paolo.dipietro@maccaferri.de

Geocomposites For Drainage: Experiences and Applications

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geocomposites For Drainage: Experiences and Applications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

0.

Dipl. Ing. Paolo Di Pietro

Distributes Protects waterproofing

Retains its drainage

Removes excess water

Geosynthetics save approx 1.5 m3 volume per m2 surface

GCDs as opposed to granular layers have the following advantages:

Technical comparison between gravel layers and GCDs

Q=kAi • K is permeability of the

The permeability of the granular layer is not defined.

Q GCD > Q gravel = K · e · i (Darcy)

Flow rate (l/m.sec) for a 50 cm gravel layer, according to different K values

The permeability is not constant and depends on

FLOW RATE / GRADIENT

For granular layers correction factors are required

Q = k A i = (5x10-3) x (0.5x1) x 0.03 = 0.75x10-4 [m³/sec]

h = (20x8) x 2.5 = 160 x 2.5 = 400 kPa

Reduction of the Flow Capacity of a drainage geocomposite

1) Clogging or blinding of the core due to:

QLTreq = QSTreq RFin RFcr RFbc RFcc

Partial Reduction Factors:

QLTreq = QSTreq 1.45 = 0.11 x 10-3 [m³/s]

Parameters affecting long term performance of GCDs

Contact hard/hard hard/soft soft/soft

Gradient 0.1 0.3 1 0.1 0.3 1 0.1 0.3 1

Drenaje convencional Cant. para Costo unitario Costo Total

Grava n. 1 3.30 m3 * 14,80 / m3 48.84 / ml Comparative analysis

Tabla 1’’ x 12’’ (5 reapr.) 0.30 m2 1.80 / m2 0.54/ ml

Geocompuesto Macdrain® 2L 10.00 m2 5.65 /m2 56.50 / ml

Grava n. 1 n.a. n.a. n.a.

Geotextil no-tejido 300g/m2 n.a. n.a. n.a.

Tubo-drén Ø 100 mm 1.00 m 3.25 / ml 3.25 / ml

Maestro (+ enc. sociales) n.a. n.a. n.a.

Obrero (+ enc. sociales) 1.60 2.25 / h 3.60 / ml

Costo total por metro lineal 63.35 / ml

Costo total+B.D.I. (30 %) 86.35 / ml

Grava + geotextil MacDrain® 2L

Geocompuesto Macdrain® 2L 5.65 / m2 n.a. n.a. 1.0 m2 / m 5.65 / ml

Grava n°. 1 14.80 / m3 * 0.22 m3 / m 3.26 / ml n.a. n.a.

Geotextil no-tejido 300g/m2 1.36 / m2 ** 1.05 m2 / m 1.43 / ml n.a. n.a.

Tubo-drén Ø 100 mm 3.25 / m 0.40 m / m 1.30 / ml 0.40 m / m 1.30 / ml

Escavación y remoción de suelo (mec.) 4.50 / m3 0.40 m3 1.80 / ml 0.20 m3 / m 0.90 / ml

Maestro (encargos sociales inclusos) 4.50 / m2 0.10 h / m 0.45 / ml n.a. n.a.

Obrero (Encargos sociales inclusos) 2.25 / m2 0.85 h / m 1.91 / ml 0.08 h / m 0.18 / ml

Costo total por metro lineal 10.15 / ml 8.03 / ml

Costo total+B.D.I. (30 %) 13. 20 / ml 10.44 / ml

Comparative analysis between a conventional drainage and

Siatema tradicional Costo unit. Costo total

MacDrain® Costo unit. Costo total

Geocompuesto MacDrain® 2L TD 1.00 m2 * 5.65/m2 5.65

Tubo-drén Ø 100 mm 1.00 m 3.25 /m 3.25

Ajudante geral(+ enc. sociales) 1.76 h 2.25 /h 3.96

Costo total por metro lineal 12.86

Costo total + B.D.I. (30%) 16.72

• Drainage blankets are light and easy to

• In vertical applications workers handle the

• No backfilling required (gravel, sand);

• Easy overlapping when joining rolls;

• No skilled labor or special tools required.

Gas ventilation & LC in landfills

Gas ventilation & LC in landfills

Drainage of RCC walls

A 20 mm thickness GCD is equivalent to a 200 mm traditional