Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 102e115

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Filtration behaviour of soil-nonwoven geotextile combinations subjected

to various loads
Yung-Shan Hong*, Cho-Sen Wu 1
Department of Civil Engineering, Tamkang University, Tamsui, Taipei 25137, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Geotextiles are often subject to different load types in their filtration applications. The load action can
Received 2 November 2009 cause changes in soil density, geotextile stretching and flow interaction at the soil-geotextile interface.
Received in revised form All of these load-induced changes to a geotextile may affect the filtration behaviour of the soil-geotextile
3 September 2010
system. The impact of load type on the filtration behaviour of soil-nonwoven geotextile combinations has
Accepted 16 October 2010
been studied through a series of tests using an experimental apparatus designed specially for the
Available online 10 November 2010
laboratory tests. In these tests, the soil-geotextile combination was fabricated by inserting a piece of
nonwoven geotextile between a 50 mm thick soil layer and a layer of steel beads. Two chemical-bonded
Keywords:
Sustained load
nonwoven geotextiles were employed in this study. One of the three load types, namely sustained,
Pulsatory load pulsatory and a combination of both was applied to the combination prior to each filtration test. The
Filtration test frequency of the pulsatory load was 0.1 Hz and a total of 5000 cycles of repeated load applied to the
Nonwoven geotextile combination for each load type test. After applying this specific type of load on a soil-geotextile
Hydraulic conductivity combination, water was allowed to flow down through the combination from the soil into a drainage
Soil combination layer set at various hydraulic gradients. The flow rates corresponding to elapsed times were measured
and the average hydraulic conductivity value was extracted by using Darcy’s law to characterize the
filtration performance of the entire soil-geotextile combination. Variations in the average hydraulic
conductivity value with respect to the soil void ratio, magnitude and type of normal load were examined.
The experimental results revealed that the void ratio of soil decreased with the increase of total load.
Although two parent geotextiles under study, namely GT1 and GT2, have similar filtration characteristics,
soil-geotextile combinations composed of these two geotextiles exhibited different filtration responses
to the normal load. Soil-GT1 combinations exhibited a normal relationship between the average
hydraulic conductivity and the normal load applied; the average hydraulic conductivity increased with
an increase in the total load. Soil-GT2 combinations exhibited different load-dependent responses to
a normal load with the average hydraulic conductivity depending on the magnitude and type of load.
Such load-dependent hydraulic conductivity changes are attributed mainly to the geotextile in-plane
strain and the pumping action in the combination.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction edge drainage system can also perform a filtration function.

Geotextiles have been widely used as a substitute for mineral
materials to provide separation and filtration functions in roadway
systems. Geotextiles placed horizontally between subgrade fine
soils and subbase aggregates can perform the separation function
by preventing them from mixing together. A geotextile lining the
inside of a trench filled with coarse mineral particles that form an
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ886 2 26260433; fax: þ886 2 26209747.
E-mail addresses: yshong@mail.tku.edu.tw (Y.-S. Hong), cswu@mail.tku.edu.tw
(C.-S. Wu).
1
Tel.: þ886 2 26222796; fax: þ886 2 26209747.
Furthermore, the drainage system formed by mineral materials and
a lining geotextile can be replaced by a geocomposite made of
a core of quasi-rigid plastic sheet protected by a geotextile on one or
both sides.
In filtration applications the wrapping geotextile is used as
a filter to prevent the undue migration of fine particles and allow
adequate seepage to flow through the geotextile plane. The primary
concerns of a geotextile used for filtration applications are its
seepage and particle retention capabilities.
A geotextile serving as a filter or separator in roadway applica-
tions is subject to earth pressure and dynamic or impact load
caused by highway vehicles, railroad trains or landing aircraft.

0266-1144/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.10.010
 Y.-S. Hong, C.-S. Wu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 102e115
Therefore, the success of these applications depends on the
retention and seepage capabilities of geotextiles, and the preven-
tion of undue clogging as the geotextiles are subjected to in-plane
stress/strain and dynamic load. An in-plane strain can change the
geotextile pore size with an associated reduction in its particle
retention capability or a change in hydraulic conductivity (Fourie
and Kuchena, 1995; Fourie and Addis, 1997, 1999; Wu et al.,
2008). The fine particles in the subgrade may be pumped into the
subbase by the dynamic load action. This action increases subbase
course contamination (Bell et al., 1982; Hoare, 1982; Snaith and
Bell, 1978; Lafleur et al., 1990, 1996; McMorrow, 1990). Thus, the
current filter criteria may not be effective because the current filter
criteria or the selection of suitable geotextiles is based on the pore
size and hydraulic conductivity of a plain geotextile. The clogging
potential is also evaluated for an unloaded soil-geotextile system.
A change in hydraulic conductivity for a soil-geotextile system
subjected to dynamic load was studied and reported in the literature
(Saxena and Hsu, 1986; McMorrow, 1990). McMorrow (1990) esti-
mated that the fall in hydraulic conductivity for geotextiles
submitted to pulsatory load could be about one to two orders of
magnitude. In a hydraulic conductivity test on a geotextile-subbase
system under dynamic load conditions, Hoare (1982) defined the soil
contamination value (S. C. V.), as the weight of subgrade soil passing
through per unit area of fabric (in g=m2 ), to portray particle
entrapment and passage. He suggested that reducing the size of
aggregate could result in a more uniform stress between subbase
particles and fabric and a decrease in contamination. Lafleur et al.
(1996) also concluded that a smaller subbase aggregate size would
produce a more uniform contact pressure distribution, that led to
a reduction in the time to stabilization. Lafleur et al. (1990) reported
that a subbase built with smaller spheres could produce uniform
fibre spacing that is similar to that induced by homogeneously
applied stress (plate applied). They concluded that the most signif-
icant factors dictating the fine particle migration are the nature and
the size of subgrade particles, and the size of subbase aggregates.
For a soil-geotextile system subjected to dynamic loading, the
filtration behaviour of the system depends on the natures of the soil
and geotextile, the size of the downstream drainage material, and
pumping action. In this study, laboratory tests were conducted to
evaluate the performance of two nonwoven geotextiles subjected
to various load conditions. The influences of soil and the drainage
material on filtration behaviour were excluded. A special apparatus,
capable of applying various types of normal load to a soil-
geotextile-steel bead system with geotextile as filter, was built to
simulate a drainage system for the study. This paper presents the
experimental results that leads to the identification of factors
dictating the seepage characteristics of soil-geotextile combination.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Motivation for new load test apparatus
Aggregate or stones are usually placed downstream of a geo-
textile to perform the drainage function for a geotextile filter
employed in drainage or erosion control applications. In coastal or
river revetment applications, stones or aggregate also protect the
geotextile from being swept along. The filtration system thus
consists of in-situ soil, geotextile, and drainage or armour material.
The effectiveness of a filtration system depends on its particle
retention and seepage capabilities and the prevention of excessive
system clogging.
The gradient ratio test (GR test) has been widely used to eval-
uate the clogging potential of soil-geotextile systems. The GR value
is defined as the ratio of the hydraulic conductivity of the soil layer
and of the soil-geotextile interface. Hydraulic conductivity for a soil
103
layer between 25.4 mm and 75.4 mm above the geotextile spec-
imen is adopted to characterize the hydraulic conductivity of the
soil. The hydraulic conductivity for a combination of 25.4 mm thick
soil immediately above the geotextile and the geotextile thickness
represents the hydraulic conductivity of the soil-geotextile layer.
One of the advantages of GR test is that it can evaluate the
conductivity of the soil at different sections by measuring the pore
water pressure along the seepage path. Therefore, this test method
also provides a good approach to determine the hydraulic
conductivity of pure soil free of interference from any downstream
material. The GR test results can be used to investigate the cause of
water flow change. Using the soil layer hydraulic conductivity as
a benchmark, changes (increase/decrease) in the GR value could be
tied to occurrence of piping/clogging on soil-geotextile layer.
To study the filtration behaviour of a soil-geotextile system
subjected to normal loads, the primary proposal was to apply
a normal load to the top of soil layer and place a porous plate
beneath a geotextile sheet to support the loaded soil-geotextile
combination. However, the load applied on the top of a 120 mm
thick soil layer was incapable of being transmitted fully to the
geotextile sheet. The transmission efficiency was calibrated by
measuring the loads on the top and bottom plates sandwiching soil
specimen. Because the commonly used rubber member may block
the piezometer ports on the permeater wall and silicone grease
may contaminate the seepage water, no lubrication along per-
meater wall was used. The calibration was made for dry soil due to
the limit of the apparatus (the load in the bottom plate can not be
measured while the chamber was filled with water). Results from
the transmission efficiency calibration showed that the soil layer
hindered load transmission to the geotextile. Only 20%e29% of the
normal load applied to the dry soil top was transmitted to the
geotextile for normal loads ranging between 100 kPa and 1000 kPa.
The greater the normal load, the higher the transmission
percentage in these tests. Moreover, an inconsistent normal load
along the sample height could also produce non-uniform soil
density and hydraulic conductivity. Therefore, the GR test appa-
ratus was abandoned from the load test experiment due to its
inefficiency in transmitting normal load to a geotextile sheet and
inconsistent soil hydraulic conductivity along the seepage path.
A new experimental apparatus was designed to overcome the
deficiencies of GR test apparatus for this experimental program.
This new apparatus improves the load transmission efficiency to
the geotextile specimen by reducing the soil layer thickness to
50 mm. However, this thin soil layer arrangement sacrifices the GR
test advantage in monitoring soil conductivity along the seepage
path. The combination of the 50 mm soil layer and the geotextile
sheet is conceived as a unit. The relative hydraulic conductivity
between the soil and soil-geotextile layers is ignored.
Two series of filtration tests namely, load tests and GR-tests,
were conducted on two geotextiles. A series of wet sieving tests
were also conducted with the stretched plain geotextile samples to
characterize the pore size distribution and mean flow velocity
using the apparatus described in Wu et al. (2008).
2.2. Test apparatus
A schematic diagram and picture of the experimental apparatus
are presented in Figs. 1 and 2. It consists of a pneumatic loading
device and a permeameter chamber. Two 100 mm internal diam-
eter and 120 mm outer diameter acrylic tube sections and a clam-
ped specimen mounted between two tube sections constitute the
permeameter chamber. A clamp made of two steel rings with an
internal diameter of 100 mm is employed to secure the geotextile
specimen. The chamber is arranged by allowing the clamped geo-
textile specimen to be inserted between a 50 mm soil layer and
104 Y.-S. Hong, C.-S. Wu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 102e115

and secure the chamber. The lower acrylic section, 45 mm in height,

Piston
is inserted inside the rim. This section houses stainless steel beads
Water inlet Vent valve to support the test geotextile and to drain seepage water. A
perforated plate fitted within a steel tube, adjustable along the
Top platen
vertical direction, is placed beneath the steel beads to support the
geotextile and the soil above. The adjustable perforated plate,
regulated by screwing the plate against the steel tube wall, ensures
that the steel beads are level with the geotextile specimen. The
upper acrylic section, 95 mm in height, contains the test soil and
a porous steel plate placed on the top of soil to distribute the
Fixed rod applied load. A top platen is mounted on top of the acrylic section,
O-ring leaving holes for water inlets, a vent valve and a loading piston to
intrude into the permeameter chamber. Three steel rods are used to
fix and secure the entire assembly; the steel base, two acrylic
Perforated plate
sections, clamped geotextile and the top platen. O-rings are placed
Soil
Fixed screw at several positions to seal off water flow where the seals are
Geotextile needed.
A layer of steel beads,15.85 mm in diameter, is placed beneath the
Perforated plate
Stainless beads geotextile sheet to provide support. The steel beads are arranged in
a specific pattern such that the opening area for water flow is the
same for each test. Therefore, the contact area between the geotextile
and drainage layer will not be a variable for the seepage flow in this
Base test series (Wu et al., 2006). Porous filter plates made of different
particle sizes were used to imitate confining soil in a hydraulic
Water outlet conductivity test for geosynthetics under load and resulted in
(Unit : mm) different hydraulic conductivities (Hufenus and Schrade, 2006).

2.3. Experimental procedure

The geotextile specimen under test was secured by clipping two

Fig. 1. Schematic of the apparatus for loaded soil-geotextile filtration test.
a layer of steel beads. The steel beads were placed beneath
(downstream) the geotextile specimen to simulate a drainage layer
and to support the combination.
The permeameter chamber seats on a steel base. The base has
a 100 mm diameter perforated area to allow water to flow through,
and a 120 mm internal diameter and 5 mm height rim to position
Fig. 2. Picture of the test apparatus.
steel rings onto a part of geotextile sheet. The clamped geotextile
specimen was then cut free from the remaining sheet at the outer
edge of the clamping rings, leaving a circular geotextile sheet
secured by the clamp. The test setup assembly started with
inserting the lower acrylic tube section into the base rim. A steel
tube with an adjustable perforated plate was then placed inside the
lower acrylic tube. Steel beads were placed on the perforated plate
and adjusted to level with the geotextile specimen. The top acrylic
tube was installed with the clamped geotextile specimen mounted
on between the two tube sections. A 5-cm thick layer of soil was
then filled into the top acrylic section on top of the geotextile
specimen layer by layer. The density of soil sample was checked for
each 1-cm thick increment of soil layer. Finally, a perforated plate
was placed on top of the soil layers and the entire assembly secured
by using three steel rods. The entire chamber setup was moved
underneath the pneumatic loading device. Carbon dioxide was
introduced to expel oxygen and other gases in the permeameter
and the soil system prior to application of load. In addition,
procedures suggested in ASTM (D5101-01) were followed to satu-
rate the system. An LVDT (linear variable differential transformer)
was attached to the top of chamber setup to measure the vertical
displacement of the soil-geotextile combination during loading and
filtration periods.
A different type of normal load could be applied to the soil-
geotextile combination via a loading piston. There are three types of
loads acting on the combination, namely sustained load, pulsatory
load and compound load of pulsatory and sustained load. The
frequency of the pulsatory load was 0.1 Hz with 5000 cycles of
repeated load applied. The sustained load was applied for 14 h
which is equivalent to the duration of pulsatory load. Following the
completion of normal loading, water was allowed to flow through
the combination under test using hydraulic gradients of 1, 5 and 10.
These three hydraulic gradients were designated as low, medium
and high hydraulic gradients, respectively. There was no load
applied to the system during the filtration test.

The water flow started from a hydraulic gradient of 1 and ended
with hydraulic gradient of 10. The subsequent hydraulic gradient
was applied to the system as the discharge flow from the previous
hydraulic gradient reached a relatively stable value. The flow rates at
various elapsed times were measured and the corresponding
hydraulic conductivity values, using Darcy’s law for the entire
combination length (50 mm soil and geotextile thickness), were
calculated. Soil particles remaining in the chamber were collected,
dried and weighed after the completion of a filtration test to
determine the weight of soil particles washed through the geotextile
specimen. A total of 10 and 16 tests for GT1 and GT2 geotextiles,
respectively, were carried out to study the effect of load type on the
filtration characteristics of a soil-geotextile combination.
2.4. Materials used
The soil used had a specific gravity of Gs ¼ 2.60, mean diameter
d50 ¼ 0.19 mm, maximum unit weight gd,max ¼ 18.05 kN/m3,
minimum unit weight gd,min ¼ 13.15 kN/m3, with the particle size
distribution curve shown in Fig. 3. The maximum and minimum
unit weights of soil were determined through relative-density
determination test (ASTM: D4253 and D4254). The soil is classified
as poorly graded sand with silt with letter symbols SP-SM as per the
Unified Soil Classification System. The soil has an unstable grada-
tion using the method suggested by Kenney and Lau (1985) to
evaluate its grading stability. The soil specimen filled in the per-
meameter was controlled to a unit weight of gd ¼ 15.70 kN/m3.
Two chemically bonded nonwoven geotextiles made of poly-
propylene were employed in this study and designated as GT1 and
GT2 geotextiles. The mass per unit area and thickness of the test
geotextiles are 210 g/m2 and 337 g/m2, and 1.0 mm and 2.6 mm,
respectively. A wet sieving test used by Wu et al. (2008) was
employed to determine the pore size distribution and the results
are presented in Fig. 3. The apparent opening sizes (AOS) for the
geotextiles determined from the distribution curves are 0.112 mm
and 0.122 mm, respectively. The mean flow velocities for the plain
geotextiles are 0.151 m/s and 0.153 m/s for GT1 and GT2, respec-
tively. The procedures suggested by Wu et al. (2008) were adopted
100
Passing percentage and retaining percentage (%)
Test soil
GT1 geotextile
80 GT2 geotextile
60
40
20
0
0.0 001 0.00 1
Grain size and bead size (mm)
Fig. 3. Particle size distribution of the test soil and pore size distributions of the test
geotextiles.
Y.-S. Hong, C.-S. Wu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 102e115 105
to determine the mean flow velocity for geotextile, whereas the
water level drop height per second (m/s) for the water level
dropped from 270 mm to 20 mm above the geotextile was defined
as the mean flow velocity. The tensile forceestrain relations of both
geotextiles were obtained using a wide-width tensile test with the
results depicted in Fig. 4. Geotextile GT2 is thicker and stronger
than GT1 but with a similar pore size distribution, apparent
opening size and mean flow rate.
3. Experimental results
The load conditions and test results for 10 and 16 tests for GT1
and GT2 combinations respectively are tabulated in Tables 1 and 2.
3.1. Hydraulic conductivity of the pure soil and soil-geotextile layers
using GR test apparatus
The test soil hydraulic conductivity was evaluated using
a gradient ratio (GR) test apparatus. Fig. 5 depicts the GR test results
for combinations composed of each geotextile and the test soil. The
GR value and the hydraulic conductivity values for the soil layer and
soil-geotextile layer are presented in the figure. The hydraulic
conductivity value of the soil layer under different hydraulic
gradients (i ¼ 1, 5 and 10) ranges between 1:41  105 m/s and
1:52  105 m/s for the soil-GT1 system, and ranges between
1:30  105 m/s and 1:56  105 m/s for the soil-GT2 system. These
results indicate that the test soil hydraulic conductivity has a stable
value and is not significantly affected by the hydraulic gradient and
geotextile type.
In the GR test using the GT1 geotextile, the hydraulic conductivity
value of the soil-geotextile layer decreases from 1:14  105 m/s for
the low hydraulic gradient (i ¼ 1) to 0:49  105 m/s for the high
hydraulic gradient (i ¼ 10). This indicates that clogging or blinding
might have occurred in the soil-geotextile layer when the system
was subjected to a higher hydraulic gradient. The decrease in
hydraulic conductivity value of the soil-geotextile layer could result
in an increase in the GR value as shown in Fig. 5(a).
20
GT1
GT2
16
Tensile force (kN/m)
12
8
4
0.0 1 0.1 1 0
0 20 40 60 80
Tensile strain (%)
Fig. 4. Tensile force-strain relations for test geotextiles.
106 Y.-S. Hong, C.-S. Wu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 102e115

Table 1
Filtration test results for the loaded soil-GT1 combinations. a 4 2.5E-5
GR value
Sustained Pulsatory Soil Soil loss Void Average hydraulic Soil-geotextile layer (GR test)
load (kPa) load (kPa) settlement (g/m2) ratio conductivity Soil layer (GR test)

Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)

(mm) (105 m/s) Soil-geotextile combination (load test apparatus)
2E-5
i¼1 i¼5 i ¼ 10 3
i=1 i=5 i = 10
0 0 0.00 372 0.63 1.52 1.25 0.94
0 24.5 0.38 97 0.62 1.59 1.44 1.13

GR value
0 98 1.73 267 0.59 2.43 1.86 1.59 1.5E-5
0 196 3.43 461 0.54 2.84 2.28 1.97
24.5 0 0.28 160 0.62 1.81 1.43 1.14 2
49 49 2.02 327 0.58 3.19 2.86 2.23
98 0 1.94 392 0.58 2.24 1.61 1.28 1E-5
98 24.5 2.48 341 0.56 2.66 2.61 2.32
98 98 3.36 332 0.54 4.03 3.26 2.54
196 0 2.95 372 0.55 2.47 1.63 1.37 1
5E-6

For the combination using GT2 geotextile, the soil-geotextile

layer hydraulic conductivity value decreases from 1:33  105 m/s 0 0
for the low hydraulic gradient (i ¼ 1) to 1:26  105 m/s for the high 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
hydraulic gradient (i ¼ 10). This results in only an insignificant Elapsed time (min)
increase in the GR value, as shown in Fig. 5(b).
b 5 3E-5
GR value
3.2. Average hydraulic conductivity of the unloaded soil-geotextile Soil-geotextile layer (GR test)
combinations using the load test apparatus Soil layer (GR test)

Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)

4 Soil-geotextile combination (load test apparatus) 2.5E-5
The combination of 50 mm soil layer and a geotextile sheet is
treated as a soil-geotextile unit. The hydraulic conductivity value,
calculated by Darcy’s law for the entire length that consists of
GR value

3 2E-5
50 mm soil and the geotextile thickness, is adopted to represent the i=1 i=5 i = 10
filtration characteristics of the entire combination. The test results
obtained from the GR test and the load test apparatus were
2 1.5E-5
compared to assess the validity of the load test apparatus.
The variations in average hydraulic conductivity values for soil-
geotextile combinations tested by using the load test apparatus for
different elapsed time are plotted in Fig. 5. It shows that average 1 1E-5
hydraulic conductivity values decrease with the elapsed time and
they reach stable values for each different hydraulic gradient.
For the combination using geotextile GT1, the stable average
0 5E-6
hydraulic conductivity values are 1:52  105 m/s, 1:25  105 m/s, 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
and 0:94  105 m/s, respectively for low, medium and high
Elapsed time (min)
hydraulic gradient cases. For the combination using geotextile GT2,
the stable average hydraulic conductivity values are 1:42  105 m/s, Fig. 5. GR value and hydraulic conductivity of soil layer and soil-geotextile combina-
tions: (a) soil-GT1 combination; (b) soil-GT2 combination.

Table 2
Filtration test results for the loaded soil-GT2 combinations. 1:46  105 m/s and 1:46  105 m/s, respectively for low, medium
Sustained Pulsatory Soil Soil loss Void Average hydraulic and high hydraulic gradient cases. These results reveal that some
load (kPa) load (kPa) settlement (g/m2) ratio conductivity clogging or blinding occurred at the GT1 soil-geotextile interface at
(mm) (105 m/s) a high hydraulic gradient. In contrast, the GT2 soil-geotextile
i¼1 i¼5 i ¼ 10 combination exhibited only an insignificant change in hydraulic
0 0 0.00 261 0.63 1.42 1.46 1.46 conductivity with the increase in hydraulic gradient. Both GT1 and
0 49 1.61 420 0.59 1.14 0.91 0.71 GT2 test results are similar to the GR test findings.
0 98 1.83 230 0.58 0.70 0.62 0.48 By averaging the hydraulic conductivity values for the soil-
0 147 2.24 284 0.57 0.15 0.12 0.06 geotextile layer (the combination of 25 mm soil length and the
0 196 2.44 383 0.57 0.39 0.20 0.08
49 0 1.31 232 0.59 1.27 1.08 0.94
geotextile thickness) and the soil layer (50 mm soil length) from
49 49 1.95 204 0.58 0.79 0.75 0.65 the GR test, the average values for the soil-GT1 system are
49 98 2.21 271 0.57 0.36 0.35 0.32 1:33  105 m/s, 1:03  105 m/s, and 0:95  105 m/s for low,
49 196 3.06 789 0.56 0.75 0.71 0.67 medium and high hydraulic gradient cases respectively. For the
98 0 1.71 129 0.58 0.78 0.67 0.61
soil-GT2 system, the average values are 1:31  105 m/s,
98 49 2.16 267 0.57 0.41 0.29 0.30
98 98 2.53 357 0.57 1.13 0.75 0.71 1:39  105 m/s and 1:41  105 m/s. for low, medium and high
98 196 3.48 904 0.55 1.68 1.24 0.92 hydraulic gradient cases respectively. These values are close to
147 0 2.16 206 0.58 0.17 0.12 0.11 those hydraulic conductivity results for the soil-geotextile combi-
196 0 2.29 51 0.57 0.24 0.16 0.16 nation made of 50 mm thick soil layer and a geotextile sheet
196 98 3.52 980 0.55 1.79 1.52 1.22
collected by using the load test apparatus. This result indicates that
 Y.-S. Hong, C.-S. Wu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 102e115 107

the new load test apparatus could generate hydraulic conductivity
result for an unloaded soil-geotextile system comparable to the
result from GR test.
3.3. Hydraulic conductivity of soil-geotextile combinations
subjected to various sustained loads
Variations in the average hydraulic conductivity value against
the elapsed time for soil-geotextile combinations subjected to
various sustained loads are presented in Fig. 6. The sustained loads
applied to the soil-geotextile combinations in the experiments are
24.5 kPa, 98 kPa and 196 kPa for soil-GT1 combinations and 49 kPa,
98 kPa, 147 kPa and 196 kPa for soil-GT2 combinations. The results
for the same soil-geotextile combinations free of load were used as
a reference. While water flows through the combinations with
a low hydraulic gradient, the hydraulic conductivity values for all
a 3.5E-5
Sustained load
0 kPa
3E-5 24.5 kPa
Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)
combinations tend to decrease with the elapsed time for a very
short period of time at first. After that, the hydraulic conductivity
value trend varies depending on the magnitude of the sustained
load.
3.3.1. Soil-GT1 combinations
For a soil-GT1 combination subjected to high normal load
(98 kPa and 196 kPa) at i ¼ 1, the hydraulic conductivity value
increases with the elapsed time and reaches a stable value close to
or higher than the initial hydraulic conductivity value. For the
combination subjected to low (24.5 kPa) or free of normal load, the
hydraulic conductivity value continues to decrease with elapsed
time and reaches a stable value. The filtration behaviour for
a combination subjected to low sustained load is similar to that of
the soil-geotextile layer in the GR test free of a normal load.
For all soil-GT1 combinations subjected to sustained load only,
the average hydraulic conductivity value decreases with the
increase in hydraulic gradient. At a specific hydraulic gradient, the
average hydraulic conductivity value of a soil-geotextile combina-
tion increases with an increase in sustained load. Variations in the
average hydraulic conductivity value with sustained load for soil-
GT1 combinations subjected to various hydraulic gradients are

i=1 98 kPa presented in Fig. 7(a). A soil-GT1 combination subjected to a higher

196 kPa sustained load tends to produce a larger average hydraulic
2.5E-5 conductivity value. However, this increase trend subsides at high
i=5 sustained load, especially for a combination subjected to a high
hydraulic gradient.
2E-5
i = 10 3.3.2. Soil-GT2 combinations
At low hydraulic gradient, the soil-GT2 combination exhibits
1.5E-5 a greater variation in average hydraulic conductivity while sub-
jected to high sustained load. In contrast with the soil-GT1
combination, at a specific hydraulic gradient the average hydraulic
1E-5 conductivity value of soil-GT2 combination decreases with an
increase in sustained load up to 147 kPa (Fig. 6(b)). The trend
reverses for the combination subjected to 196 kPa load.
5E-6 Variations in the average hydraulic conductivity value with sus-
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 tained load for soil-GT2 combinations under various hydraulic gradi-
Elapsed time (min) ents are presented in Fig. 7(b). The results in Fig. 7(a) and (b) exhibit
a significant difference in the effect of sustained load on two combi-
nations composed with different geotextile, namely GT1 and GT2.
b 3.5E-5
Sustained load
0 kPa 3.4. Hydraulic conductivity for the soil-geotextile combinations
49 kPa subjected to various pulsatory loads
Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)

2.8E-5 98 kPa
147 kPa Two series of pulsatory load tests were conducted to study the
influence of pulsatory load on the soil-geotextile combinations. A
196 kPa
series of tests were carried out on soil-geotextile combinations free
2.1E-5 i=1 i=5 i = 10 of sustained loads while the other series were conducted on soil-
geotextile combinations subjected to sustained loads.

1.4E-5 3.4.1. Soil-GT1 combinations

The variations in average hydraulic conductivity value with the
elapsed time for soil-GT1 combination samples under different load
combinations are shown in Fig. 8. These test results indicate that
7E-6 a greater hydraulic gradient tends to produce a lower average
hydraulic conductivity value. For a combination subjected to
a specific sustained load and hydraulic gradient, the average
hydraulic conductivity value increases with the increase of pulsa-
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 tory load. The relationship between the average hydraulic
conductivity and the pulsatory load is presented in Fig. 9. Note that
Elapsed time (min) for the combinations subjected to identical pulsatory loads, the
Fig. 6. Variations in average hydraulic conductivity with elapsed time for soil-geo-
combination tested under 98 kPa sustained load exhibits higher
textile combinations subjected to various sustained loads: (a) soil-GT1 combination; average hydraulic conductivity value than that tested free of sus-
(b) soil-GT2 combination. tained load.
108 Y.-S. Hong, C.-S. Wu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 102e115

3.4.2. Soil-GT2 combinations 6E-5

The variations in average hydraulic conductivity value with the Sustained load Pulsatory load
0 kPa 0 kPa
elapsed time for soil-GT2 combination samples under different load 0 kPa 24.5 kPa
combinations are shown in Fig. 10. All test results show that 5E-5 0 kPa 98 kPa

Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)

a greater hydraulic gradient produces a lower average hydraulic 0 kPa 196 kPa
98 kPa 0 kPa
conductivity value. The test results exhibit that the increase in 98 kPa 24.5 kPa
pulsatory load reduces the average hydraulic conductivity of the 4E-5 98 kPa 98 kPa
combinations, however the trend reverses for the combinations
subjected to higher pulsatory loads, e.g. the average hydraulic
conductivity value for combination subjected to 49 kPa sustained
3E-5
load decreases with an increase in pulsatory load up to 98 kPa
pulsatory load, but the combination subjected to 196 kPa pulsatory
load shows higher average hydraulic conductivity than the
2E-5
combination subjected to 98 kPa pulsatory load (Fig. 10(b)). The
relationship between the average hydraulic conductivity value and
the additional pulsatory load is presented in Fig. 11. Note that for
the combination samples subjected to 196 kPa pulsatory load, those
1E-5
i=1 i=5 i = 10

a 2.5E-5 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Elapsed time (min)
Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)

2E-5 Fig. 8. Variations in average hydraulic conductivity with elapsed time for soil-GT1
combinations subjected to various pulsatory loads.

1.5E-5 samples tested under a higher sustained load have higher average
hydraulic conductivity values.
Results from Fig. 9 shows that a higher pulsatory load produces
a higher average hydraulic conductivity for the soil-GT1 combina-
1E-5 tions. However, soil-GT2 combinations have different responses to
the pulsatory load dependent on the magnitude of the total load
(the sum of sustained load and pulsatory load). The results from
i=1 Fig. 11(aec) shows that the average hydraulic conductivity value
5E-6
i=5 decreases with the increase in pulsatory load when the total load is
i = 10 lower than 147 kPa. The trend reverses for the combination sub-
jected to a total load exceeding 147 kPa. Some of the tests, espe-
0 cially for the combinations subjected to 147 kPa total load and
0 40 80 120 160 200 two adjacent load conditions, were repeated in order to verify the
Sustained load (kPa)
5E-5
b 1.6E-5
i=1
i=5
Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)
Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)

i = 10 4E-5
1.2E-5

3E-5

8E-6

2E-5

4E-6
1E-5

0 0
0 40 80 120 160 200 0 40 80 120 160 200
Sustained load (kPa) Pulsatory load (kPa)
Fig. 7. Variations in average hydraulic conductivity with sustained load for soil- Fig. 9. Variations in average hydraulic conductivity with pulsatory load for soil-GT1
geotextile combinations: (a) soil-GT1 combination; (b)soil-GT2 combination. combinations.
 Y.-S. Hong, C.-S. Wu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 102e115 109

consistency of the data. There is a reasonably good match between

a 3.5E-5
the repeated tests.
Pulsatory load
0 kPa
3E-5 3.5. Soil loss, geotextile displacement and soil void ratio
49 kPa
Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)

98 kPa
2.5E-5 147 kPa A normal load can cause a thickness reduction in the soil layer
196 kPa and a downward displacement in the clamped geotextile specimen,
i=1 which results in a denser soil specimen and in-plane geotextile
2E-5 i=5
i = 10 strain. To evaluate the density of soil layer under a normal load
application, the combination settlement and the geotextile down-
1.5E-5 ward displacement should both be measured.
During a test, the present apparatus is incapable of measuring
1E-5 the downward displacement in a clamped geotextile specimen. The
geotextile downward displacement corresponding to different
normal load should be calibrated separately for dried combination.
5E-6 Two cycles (loaded-unloaded) of a normal load up to 440 kPa were
applied to the top of a dry soil-geotextile combination for the
0 calibration. The downward displacements at the centre of a geo-
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 textile specimen corresponding to the normal loads were measured
Elapsed time (min) with the results shown in Fig. 12. The measurement was made by
protruding the probe of an LVDT through the porous bottom plate.
b 3.5E-5 The downward displacement increases with an increase in
Pulsatory load normal stress, however, no significant rebound was found for both
0 kPa geotextiles when the combination specimen was unloaded.
49 kPa Reloading the combinations produced only a negligible displace-
Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)

2.8E-5
98 kPa ment response. Although GT2 is stronger and stiffer than GT1
196 kPa (Fig. 4), both geotextiles showed little difference in displacement
response to a normal load. The downward displacement reveals
2.1E-5 that normal stress produces an in-plane tensile strain for the
i=1 i=5 i = 10 clamped geotextile specimen.
The measured soil mass loss of soil-GT1 combinations ranges
1.4E-5 between 0.76 g (97 g/m2) and 3.62 g (461 g/m2); no consistent or
well-defined relationship was found between the mass loss and the
load magnitude (see Table 1). The measured soil mass loss for soil-
GT2 combinations ranges between 0.40 g (51 g/m2) and 7.70 g
7E-6
(980 g/m2); the soil mass loss increased with the increase in pul-
satory load when the combinations were subjected to 98 kPa sus-
tained load. All combinations lost less than 3.30 g (420 g/m2) soil
0 particles when subjected to a total load lower than 196 kPa. The
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 soil-GT2 combinations subjected to the highest three total loads
Elapsed time (min) lost much more soil mass than the others (see Table 2). However,
the soil-GT1 combinations had not been tested under such load
c 3.5E-5 magnitudes.
Pulsatory load The soil particle mass loss and the soil-geotextile combination
0 kPa thickness were used to evaluate the final soil void ratio. Because the
Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)

2.8E-5 49 kPa geotextile specimen could deform unevenly when subjected to

i=1 98 kPa a normal load, the specimen tends to deform mainly in the blank
196 kPa area between the steel beads. For simplicity, one half of the
measured geotextile’s downward displacement from the calibra-
2.1E-5 i=5 tion test is used as the value for the average geotextile downward
displacement.
i = 10
The final void ratios for different combinations are presented in
1.4E-5 Tables 1 and 2. The final soil void ratio varies from 0.54 to 0.63 for
the soil-GT1 combinations and from 0.55 to 0.63 for the soil-GT2
combinations. The relation between the soil void ratio and the total
7E-6 load is depicted in Fig. 13. The experimental results show that the
degree of soil density increases with the increase of total load; the
load type exhibits no significant effect on the soil void ratio (see
Tables 1 and 2). Fig. 13 indicates that the soil void ratio in
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 a combination decreases with the increase of total load.

Elapsed time (min) 4. Discussion

Fig. 10. Variations in average hydraulic conductivity with elapsed time for soil-GT2
combinations subjected to various pulsatory loads: (a) sustained load ¼ 0; (b) sustained The void ratio is one of the factors that affect the hydraulic
load ¼ 49 kPa; (c) sustained load ¼ 98 kPa. conductivity of soils. A denser soil specimen produces a lower
110 Y.-S. Hong, C.-S. Wu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 102e115

hydraulic conductivity value. In this experimental program,

a dynamic loading may change soil density and geotextile pore size,
and cause a pumping action at the soil-geotextile interface.
a 2E-5 Therefore, the soil-geotextile combination hydraulic conductivity
i=1 as presented in the previous sections is a quantitative indicator that
i=5 reflects the combined effects caused by the void ratio decrease in
Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)

1.6E-5 i = 10 the soil specimen and the load on the soil-geotextile interface as
the combination is subjected to various loads. The test results
presented in the previous sections are reassessed in this section to
1.2E-5 study the effect of a normal load on the filtration behaviour of
a soil-geotextile combination by excluding the hydraulic conduc-
tivity change due to void ratio reduction.
8E-6 The KozenyeCarman equation (Kozeny, 1927; Carman, 1938,
1956) has been incorporated into an empirical relationship to
estimate the hydraulic conductivity of sandy soils (Carrier, 2003;
4E-6 Chapuis, 2004). This estimation gives a fairly good result for
a laminar flow seeping through a sandy soil. This relationship
suggests that
0
0 40 80 120 160 200 e3
kf (1)
Pulsatory load (kPa) 1þe

b 2E-5 Variations in the average hydraulic conductivity with e3 =ð1 þ eÞ

i=1 for soil-geotextile combinations tested under low hydraulic
i=5 gradient are presented in Fig. 14. The hydraulic conductivity values
Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)

1.6E-5 i = 10 of pure soil at void ratios of 0.63, 0.59 and 0.55, taken from the soil
layer in GR-tests, are also presented in the figure. The linear func-
tion appears to be appropriate in describing the relationship
1.2E-5 between the hydraulic conductivity and e3 =ð1 þ eÞ for the pure soil.
The average hydraulic conductivity value of soil-geotextile
combinations obtained from the load test contradicts the calculated
8E-6 value for pure soil as estimated by using Eq. (1). For soil-GT1
combinations, the average hydraulic conductivity values are above
the pure soil value, the deviation from the pure soil value increases
4E-6 with the increase in total load and is coincident with the decrease
in void ratio (see the dotted line in Fig. 14(a) and (b)).
Except for the cases of 49 kPa (sustained and normal) load, the
0 sustained or pulsatory load alone acting on the soil-GT2 combina-
0 40 80 120 160 200 tion produces an average hydraulic conductivity value that is lower
Pulsatory load (kPa) than that for pure soil at the same void ratio. The deviation from the
pure soil value increases with an increase in total load up to
c 2E-5 147 kPa. The relationship trend is reversed for combinations sub-
i=1 jected to 196 kPa load (see the dotted line in Fig. 14(a)). For the soil-
i=5 GT2 combinations subjected to a combination of sustained and
Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)

1.6E-5 i = 10 pulsatory loads, the average hydraulic conductivity decreases with

an increase in total load for a total load less than 147 kPa. The
relationship trend is reversed for combinations subjected to a total
1.2E-5 load exceeding 147 kPa (see the dotted line in Fig. 14(b)).
The results presented in Fig. 14 demonstrate that a normal load
can change soil density, soil hydraulic conductivity and filtration
8E-6 behaviour at soil-geotextile interface, that lead to a change on the
filtration characteristics of a soil-geotextile combination. The
literature on the filtration behaviour of a soil-geotextile combina-
4E-6 tion subjected to cyclic load reported that a cyclic load could
contribute to the increase of soil contamination (shown as soil mass
passing through a unit geotextile area) due to the pumping action
0 (Snaith and Bell, 1978; Hoare, 1982; Saxena and Hsu, 1986). The
0 40 80 120 160 200 change in the pore size of a geotextile due to in-plane strain may
Pulsatory load (kPa) change the soil-geotextile system filtration characteristics is
another finding reported in literature (Fourie and Kuchena, 1995;
Fig. 11. Variations in average hydraulic conductivity with pulsatory load for soil-GT2 Fourie and Addis, 1997, 1999; Wu et al., 2008).
combinations: (a) sustained load ¼ 0; (b) sustained load ¼ 49 kPa; (c) sustained In this study, the effect between an in-plane strain and a pulsa-
load ¼ 98 kPa. tory load on geotextile combination specimens in terms of the
hydraulic conductivity change have been investigated to distin-
guish the impact of different load types.
 Y.-S. Hong, C.-S. Wu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 102e115 111

a 6 a 0.64
Soil top, the first loading-unloading (a,b)
Soil top, the second loading-unloading
(0,0) a:Sustained load (kPa)
Geotextile specimen, the first loading-unloading
(24.5,0) b:Pulsatory load (kPa)
Vertical displacement (mm)

Geotextile specimen, the second loading-unloading

(0,24.5)

4 0.6

Void ratio
(0,98)
(98,0)
(49,49)
(98,24.5)
0.56 (196,0)
2

(0,196)
(98,98)

0.52
0 0 40 80 120 160 200
0 100 200 300 400 500
Total load (kPa)
Sustained load (kPa)
b 6 b 0.64
Soil top, the first loading-unloading (a,b)
Soil top, the second loading-unloading (0,0) a:Sustained load (kPa)
Geotextile specimen, the first loading-unloading b:Pulsatory load (kPa)
Vertical displacement (mm)

Geotextile specimen, the second loading-unloading

0.6 (49,0)
4 (98,0)
Void ratio

(0,98) (147,0)
(0,49) (0,147) (0,196)
(49,49) (196,0)
(98,49) (49,196)
0.56 (49,98) (196,98)
(98,98)
2
(98,196)

0.52
0 100 200 300
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 Total load (kPa)
Sustained load (kPa) Fig. 13. Relationship between soil void ratio and total load acted on soil-geotextile
combinations: (a) soil-GT1 combination; (b) soil-GT2 combination.
Fig. 12. Downward displacements for soil-geotextile combinations under normal
loads: (a) soil-GT1 combination; (b) soil-GT2 combination.

An increase in sustained load up to 147 kPa could result in

4.1. The effect of in-plane strain
A sustained normal load can compress a soil layer and stretch
the geotextile specimen. The effect of geotextile pore size change on
soilegeotextilte combinations due to in-plane strain was studied by
using the results from soil-geotextile combination samples sub-
jected to various sustained loads ranging between 0 and 196 kPa.
For soil-GT1 combinations, the average hydraulic conductivity
value increases with an increase in sustained load (as the void ratio
decreased (Figs. 7(a) and 13(a))). Such results can be attributed to
the change of in-plane strain of geotextile. An increase in geotextile
strain could result in an increase in hydraulic conductivity for the
soil-geotextile layer that could offset the hydraulic conductivity
decrease in the soil layer due to increasing soil density.
Combinations composed of GT2 geotextile exhibit a different
response to a sustained load when compared to GT1 combinations.
a decrease in the average hydraulic conductivity value (Fig. 7(b)).
The results shown in Fig. 14(a) illustrate that the average hydraulic
conductivity value for the soil-GT2 combination subjected to 49 kPa
sustained load is slightly higher than the value calculated for the
pure soil case, yet the average hydraulic conductivity values are
lower than those for the pure soil cases when a higher sustained
loads (98 kPa, 147 kPa and 196 kPa) are applied to the combination.
The 147 kPa sustained load introduces a greater deviation from
calculated hydraulic conductivity value for pure soil than the 98 kPa
sustained load, but the 196 kPa sustained load produces less
deviation from calculated hydraulic conductivity value for pure soil
than the 147 kPa sustained load. This result shows that the pore size
change due to geotextile strain could produce a lower hydraulic
conductivity for the soil-geotextile layer than the hydraulic
conductivity for an un-strained geotextile.
Fig. 12 shows that both geotextiles have a comparable down-
ward displacement corresponding to the same magnitude of
112 Y.-S. Hong, C.-S. Wu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 102e115

hydraulic conductivity value of the combination when the combi-

a 3.5E-5
3E-5
Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)
Soil alone nation is free of sustained load or subjected to 98 kPa sustained
GT1,Sustained load = 0 kPa load. The increase in the average hydraulic conductivity may be
(0,196)
GT1,Pulsatory load = 0 kPa
attributed to a combination of in-plane strain and the pumping

GT2,Sustained load = 0 kPa

GT2,Pulsatory load = 0 kPa action.
2.5E-5 In all but one of the tests reported (i.e. the combination sub-
(196,0) (0,98)
(98,0) jected to 24.5 kPa load), the combinations subjected to pulsatory
loads exhibited higher hydraulic conductivity than those subjected
2E-5 (24.5,0) to sustained loads of the same value (Fig. 14(a)). Fig. 13 shows that
(0,0) load type exhibits no significant effect on the soil void ratio,
1.5E-5 (0,24.5) therefore, variations in average hydraulic conductivity for the
(49,0) (0,0)
combination could be attributed to pumping action if the load type
(0,49) influence on in-plane strain is assumed to be insignificant. Thus,
1E-5
(98,0) these results reveal that pumping does reduce the blocking or
(0,98) clogging potential of the soil-geotextile combination. However, the
5E-6 (a,b)
(0,196) a:Sustained load (kPa) assumption of insignificant load type influence on in-plane strain
(196,0) (147,0) b:Pulsatory load (kPa) for geotextile specimen has not been validated in this study.
0 (0,147)
0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 4.2.2. Soil-GT2 combinations
e3/1+e For combinations subjected to 0, 49 kPa and 98 kPa sustained
loads, the average hydraulic conductivity decreases with an
b 5E-5
Soil alone
increase in pulsatory load up to the level of 147 kPa total load
(Fig. 11). A reverse on the decrease trend of average hydraulic
GT1,Sustained load = 98 kPa
GT2,Sustained load = 49 kPa conductivity reveals that the effect of pumping and in-plane
Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)

4E-5 (98,98) GT2,Sustained load = 98 kPa strain could counteract the effect of soil density at higher total
loads. Except for combinations subjected to 49 kPa sustained load,
(a,b) the results in Fig. 14 show that an increase in total load could
a:Sustained load (kPa)
3E-5 b:Pulsatory load (kPa)
(98,24.5)
(98,0)

2E-5 (98,196)

(49,0)
(98,98)
1E-5 (49,49)
(49,196)
(98,0)
(98,49)
(49,98)
0
0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
e3/1+e
Fig. 14. Variations in average hydraulic conductivity with e3 =ð1 þ eÞ ati ¼ 1: (a)
combination subjected to sustained or pulsatory load only; (b) combination subjected
to sustained and pulsatory loads.

normal load. However, soil-geotextile combinations made of

different geotextile could have a distinct response to a sustained
normal load, even if the two geotextiles are stretched by a similar
strain. Experimental results reported by Wu et al. (2008) on two
nonwoven geotextiles showed that tensile strain has a more
pronounced effect on the pore size of the thinner nonwoven geo-
textile than the thicker one.

4.2. The combined effect of in-plane strain and pumping

In addition to soil density and hydraulic conductivity changes,

pulsatory load application to soil-geotextile combination entails
both pumping and in-plane strain effects on the filtration charac-
teristics of the soil-geotextile layer. The experimental results show
that soil-geotextile combinations composed of different geotextiles
exhibit distinct responses to different pulsatory loads.

4.2.1. Soil-GT1 combinations

The experimental results for the soil-GT1 combinations (see Fig. 15. Pictures of geotextile specimens upon completion of filtration tests: (a) GT1
Fig. 9) show that an increase in pulsatory load increases the average geotextile; (b) GT2 geotextile. (sustained load ¼ 98 kPa, pulsatory load ¼ 98 kPa).
 Y.-S. Hong, C.-S. Wu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 102e115 113

a 4E-5 b 5E-5
Sustained load Pulsatory load Sustained load Pulsatory load
0 kPa 98 kPa 0 kPa 196 kPa
i=1 49 kPa 49 kPa i=1 98 kPa 98 kPa
3.5E-5

Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)

Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)

98 kPa 0 kPa 196 kPa 0 kPa

i=5 4E-5
i=5
3E-5
i = 10
i = 10
2.5E-5 3E-5

2E-5
2E-5
1.5E-5

1E-5 1E-5
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Elapsed time (min) Elapsed time (min)

c 1.4E-5
Sustained load Pulsatory load
d 2.5E-5
Sustained load Pulsatory load
0 kPa 98 kPa 0 kPa 196 kPa
49 kPa 49 kPa 98 kPa 98 kPa
i=1
Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)

Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)

1.2E-5 i=1 98 kPa 0 kPa 2E-5 196 kPa 0 kPa

1E-5 i=5 1.5E-5 i=5

i = 10 i = 10

8E-6 1E-5

6E-6 5E-6

4E-6 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Elapsed time (min) Elapsed time (min)

Fig. 16. Variations in average hydraulic conductivity with elapsed time for combinations subjected to different types of load: (a) soil-GT1 combination subjected to 98 kPa total load;
(b) soil-GT1 combination subjected to 196 kPa total load; (c) soil-GT2 combination subjected to 98 kPa total load; (d) soil-GT2 combination subjected to 196 kPa total load.

result in an average hydraulic conductivity for combinations
lower than that for pure soil when the combination specimen
subjected to lower than 147 kPa total load. These results indicate
that the effect of pumping and in-plane strain due to the pulsa-
tory load can not offset the decrease in soil hydraulic conductivity
due to the soil density (Fig. 14). Moreover, the pumping and in-
plane strain could cause blocking or blinding of geotextile pores.
Further increase in total load produces a higher average hydraulic
conductivity for the combination than that for pure soil. Such an
increase in average hydraulic conductivity could be attributed to
the combination of in-plane strain and pumping action due to the
pulsatory load.
Fig. 15 shows the downstream face pictures of GT1 and GT2
geotextile specimens for soil-geotextile combinations subjected to
a combination of 98 kPa sustained and 98 kPa pulsatory loads upon
the completion of filtration testing. Both geotextile specimens
exhibit a scraggly surface due to normal load, nevertheless,
a normal load does produce a greater indentation in a GT1 spec-
imen than in a GT2 specimen.
4.3. The influence of load type on the average hydraulic
conductivity
To study the influence of load type on the average hydraulic
conductivity of soil-geotextile combination; combinations sub-
jected to identical total loads of various types were investigated.
One of three load types was applied to a combination under study
prior to the filtration test. These three load types are: sustained
load, pulsatory load, and a compound load of pulsatory and sus-
tained load, designated as load Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 respec-
tively. The experimental results exhibit that the load type has
incurred different effects on the average hydraulic conductivity for
soil-geotextile combination samples composed of two different
tested nonwoven geotextiles.
4.3.1. Soil-GT1 combinations
The variations in average hydraulic conductivity value against
the elapsed time for combinations subjected to total loads of 98 kPa
and 196 kPa are depicted in Fig. 16(a) and (b) respectively. The
114 Y.-S. Hong, C.-S. Wu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 102e115
results for combinations tested under these two total loads reveal
that the combination subjected to Type 3 load produces the highest
average hydraulic conductivity value, while Type 1 load produces
the lowest value.
4.3.2. Soil-GT2 combinations
The variations in average hydraulic conductivity value against
the elapsed time for combinations subjected to total loads of 98 kPa
and 196 kPa are depicted in Fig. 16(c) and (d) respectively. Results in
Fig. 16(c) exhibit a slight discrepancy in average hydraulic conduc-
tivity among soil-GT2 combinations subjected to three load types.
However, the Type 3 load still produces the highest value and Type 2
load now produces the lowest value. Fig. 16(d) reveals that soil-GT2
combinations subjected to sustained or pulsatory load alone
produce average hydraulic conductivity with values close to each
other. A combination subjected to a compound sustained and pul-
satory load produces higher average hydraulic conductivity value
than the other two load types (Type 1 and 2). In general, the Type 3
load produces the highest average hydraulic conductivity values for
combinations subjected to total loads of 98 kPa and 196 kPa.
5. Concluding remarks
This paper studied the effect of different load types on the
filtration characteristics of soil-geotextile combinations. Two
chemical-bonded nonwoven geotextiles, namely GT1 and GT2,
were employed in this study. Both geotextiles have similar filtration
characteristics (i.e. pore size distribution, apparent opening size
and mean flow rate), but GT2 geotextile is thicker and stronger than
GT1. However, soil-geotextile combinations composed of these two
geotextiles exhibit different filtration response under different
normal load conditions.
A new experimental apparatus was designed and built to
conduct the filtration tests on soil-geotextile combinations with
various types of normal load applied to the combination under test.
One of the three load types, which were sustained load, pulsatory
load, and pulsatory load acting together with a sustained load, was
applied to the combination prior to the filtration test. The frequency
of the pulsatory load was 0.1 Hz and the combinations tested were
all subjected to 5000 cycles of repeated load for the test. The main
conclusions obtained are summarised below.
By averaging the hydraulic conductivity values for the soil-
geotextile layer (the combined 25 mm soil length and geotextile
thickness) and the soil alone layer (25 mm) from the GR test, this
average value is close to the hydraulic conductivity value of 50 mm
thick soil and geotextile combination obtained from a new load test
apparatus reported in this paper. This result indicates that the new
load test apparatus could generate hydraulic conductivity results
for an unloaded soil-geotextile system comparable to the result
from a GR test.
Tests carried out on a soil-geotextile combination with a rela-
tively thin nonwoven geotextile GT1 showed a marked increase in
the average hydraulic conductivity as the normal load was
increased. However, tests on a combination with a thicker
nonwoven geotextile GT2 showed the opposite behaviour; the
average hydraulic conductivity value decreases with an increase in
load up to the level of 147 kPa total load. This trend reverses when
the combinations are subjected to a total load exceeding 147 kPa.
The reasons for this difference in behaviour are unclear at present
because only two geotextiles are employed in this study, but could
be ascribed to the influence of tensile strain on the nonwoven
geotextiles. Wu et al. (2008) have observed that tensile strain has
greater effects on AOS and mean flow rate for thinner heat bond
nonwoven geotextile. In addition, an identical load will produce
less local deformations for the thicker geotextile specimen in the
gaps between steel beads used to support the tested geotextile
specimen.
Different load types could produce different results in the
average hydraulic conductivity for the soil-geotextile combinations
under study. For combinations subjected to a certain magnitude of
total load, the compound pulsatory and sustained load (Type 3
load) produces the highest average hydraulic conductivity value
among all three load types.
Different amounts of soil particles could be washed through the
geotextile, however, no consistent or well-defined relation between
the soil mass loss, the magnitude of normal load and geotextile type
could be found.
For the combinations made of both geotextiles, the soil density
increases with the increase in total load. The soil void ratio in the
combination is decreased with the increase in total load. Soil-GT1
combinations have a well-defined relationship between the
average hydraulic conductivity and normal load where the average
hydraulic conductivity increases with the increase in total load,
which contradicts the pure soil characteristics. Soil-GT2 combina-
tions have different responses to the normal load of various types.
Geotextile in-plane strain and pumping action were introduced to
define the relationship between the average hydraulic conductivity
and normal load. However, it remains to carry out tests for wider
range of nonwoven geotextile products and for a better under-
standing of retention capacity of geotextiles under normal load.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the National Science Council of
the Republic of China for financially supporting this research under
Contract no. NSC96-2221-E-032-039-MY3. The contribution of J.H.
He and H.H. Yang in the laboratory tests is gratefully acknowledged.
References
ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials), 2004. Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, D 5101e01, Section 4, vol. 04.13.
ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials), 2006. Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, D 4253, Section 4, vol. 04.08.
ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials), 2006. Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, D 4254, Section 4, vol. 04.08.
Bell, A.L., McCullough, L.M., Snaith, M.S., 1982. An experimental investigation of
sub-base protection using geotextiles. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Geotextiles, Las Vegas, vol. 2, pp. 435e440.
Carman, P.C., 1938. The determination of the specific surface of powders. Trans-
actions, Journal of the Society of Chemical Industries 57, 225e234.
Carman, P.C., 1956. Flow of Gases through Porous Media. Butterworths Scientific
Publications, London.
Carrier III, W.D., 2003. Goodby, Hazen; Hello, Kozen-Carman. Journal of Geotech-
nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 129 (11), 1054e1056.
Chapuis, R.P., 2004. Predicting the saturated hydraulic conductivity of sand and
gravel using effective diameter and void ratio. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 41
(5), 787e795.
Fourie, A.B., Addis, P.C., 1997. The effect of in-plane tensile loads on the retention
characteristics of geotextiles. Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ 20 (2), 211e217.
Fourie, A.B., Addis, P.C., 1999. Changes in filtration opening size of woven geotextiles
subjected to tensile loads. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 17 (5e6), 331e340.
Fourie, A.B., Kuchena, S.M., 1995. The influence of tensile stresses on the filtration
characteristics of geotextiles. Geosynthetics International 2 (2), 455e471.
Hoare, D.J., 1982. A laboratory study into pumping clay through geotextiles under
dynamic loading. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
Geotextiles, Las Vegas, vol. 2, pp. 423e428.
Hufenus, R., Schrade, U., 2006. An optimized method to measure the hydraulic
conductivity of geosynthetics under load. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24
(4), 243e253.
Kenney, T.C., Lau, D., 1985. Internal stability of granular filters. Canadian Geotech-
nical Journal 22 (2), 215e225.
Kozeny, J., 1927. Ueber kapillare Leitung des Wassers im Boden. Sitzungsberichte
der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien vol. 136 (Suppl. 2a), pp. 271e306.
Lafleur, J., Assi, M., Mlynarek, J., 1996. ASTM, STP 1281. In: Bhatia, Suits (Eds.),
Behavior of Nonwoven Geotextiles under Pumping Loads. Recent Developments
in Geotextile Filters and Prefabriced Drainage Geocomposites. American Society
for Testing and Materials, pp. 211e221.
 Y.-S. Hong, C.-S. Wu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 102e115 115

Lafleur, J., Rollin, A.L., Mlynarek, J., 1990. Clogging of geotextiles under pumping loads.
In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Geotextiles, Geo-
membranes and Related Products, The Hague, Netherlands, vol. 1, pp. 189e192.
McMorrow, J.,1990. Filtering action of non-woven geotextiles under dynamic loading.
In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Geotextiles, Geo-
membranes and Related Products, The Hague, Netherlands, vol. 1, pp. 233e238.
Saxena, S.K., Hsu, T.S., 1986. Permeability of geotextile-included railroad bed under
repeated load. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 4 (1), 31e51.
Snaith, M.S., Bell, A.L., 1978. The filtration behavior of construction fabrics under
conditions of dynamic loadings. Geotechnique 28, 466e468.
Wu, C.S., Hong, Y.S., Wang, R.H., 2008. The influence of uniaxial tensile strain on the
pore size and filtration characteristics of geotextiles. Geotextiles and Geo-
membranes 26 (3), 250e262.
Wu, C.S., Hong, Y.S., Yan, Y.W., Chang, B.S., 2006. Soil-nonwoven geotextile filtration
behavior under contact with drainage materials. Geotextiles and Geomembranes
24 (1), 1e10.