Geotech Geol Eng

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0453-7

STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW

A Critical Review on Filter Design Criteria for Dispersive

Base Soils
Amir Hossein Vakili . Mohamad Razip bin Selamat . Parsa Mohajeri .
Hossein Moayedi

Received: 19 January 2016 / Accepted: 8 January 2018

Ó Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract Dispersive soils have become common
materials for the construction industry. Highly sus-
ceptible to internal erosion and piping, dispersive soils
must only be used with specific engineering measure
in order to avoid failures that were often catastrophic.
In an earth dam, clayey soils are used for the core and
sandy materials are used for the filter to retain the
eroded core soils and prevent their migration. In the
absence of first-rate core material, dispersive soils
have been used instead. This paper provides a review
of the current knowledge and experiences regarding
filtration of core soils, particularly the dispersive ones.
The engineering problems associated with the use of
A. H. Vakili (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Zand Institute of Higher Education, Shiraz, Iran
e-mail: amirhoseinvakili@gmail.com
A. H. Vakili
Young Researcher and Elite Club, Estahban Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Estahban, Iran
M. R. Selamat  P. Mohajeri
School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia,
14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia
e-mail: cemrs@eng.usm.my
P. Mohajeri
e-mail: parsa.mohajeri@yahoo.com
H. Moayedi
Department of Civil Engineering, Kermanshah University
of Technology, Kermanshah, Iran
e-mail: h.moayedi@kut.ac.ir
dispersive soils are discussed and significant findings
from previous studies on protective filters are sum-
marized. It is worthy to note that the current review
considers both, the conventional, rather empirical
filter design criteria based on particle sizes and the
current, quite theoretical state-of-the-art filter design
criteria based on constriction sizes, with discussion
given on the advantages and disadvantages of both.
The information provided by this review should be
handy for the study, design, construction, and opera-
tion of related geotechnical and geo-environmental
projects.
Keywords Dispersive base soils  Earth dams 
Erosion  Piping  Filter design criteria
List of symbols
PSD Particle size distribution
Dif Diameter of filter particle at which i%
of the filter material is smaller than in
mm
di Diameter of base soil particle at which
i% of the material is smaller than in mm
i The percentage passing diameter di
d85regard d85 size of base soil, in mm, recalculated
by excluding the fraction retained by
the 4.75 mm sieve
d85fine d85 size of the fine portion of base soil
materials

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

d15coarse d15 size of the coarse portion of base soil Due to shortage in first-rate clayey soils, the
materials dispersive ones often made their way to construction
d85reduced The d85 size, in mm, calculated using sites. Of particular concern is when these soils are used
reduced particle size distribution curve for the core of an earth dam where serious geotech-
d85m d85 size of base soil, in mm, recalculated nical problems could take place such as the internal
by excluding the fraction retained by tunneling erosion or piping. When the soils are used
the 0.075 mm sieve for an embankment, problems such as suffusion that
dR Size of the smallest particles of the base leads to foundation failure and general subsidence
materials in lm could also occur if the necessary technical procedures
PI Plasticity index have not been carried out (Indraratna et al. 2012a, b;
pp% Percent passing through the 0.075 mm Vinod et al. 2010; Paige-Green 2008; Burns and
0.075 mm size Ghataora 2007; Richards and Reddy 2007).
Fines pp% 0.075 mm Protective filter layers are used to minimize the
content occurrence of piping failure in embankment dams
F Fine content (Indraratna and Locke 1999). In a core-filter system,
NEF No erosion filter the potentially erodible core particles are retained
kf Permeability coefficient of filter among the filter materials (Indraratna and Raut 2006).
materials in cm/s However, designing a suitable filter for the given core
kbase soil Permeability coefficient of base soil requires knowledge of the interaction between the
materials in cm/s base clayey soil making up the core and the corre-
Dc35 Constriction size, in mm, whereby 35% sponding sandy material making up the filter. Thus
of the filter constriction are finer than complex analyses have been employed in assessing
Dc95 Constriction size, in mm, whereby 95% the behavior of the appointed granular filter materials
of the filter constriction are finer than for the given base soils due to the conflicting
Dm Mean constriction size in mm requirements expected of the filter zone (Lone et al.
c
d85 The d85 size, in mm, calculated using 2005).
modified particle size distribution curve The main matter discussed in this paper is on the
by neglecting the base soil particles development of various filter design criteria for
larger than Dc95 controlling base soils with dispersivity problems.
The paper mainly intends to comprehensively review
published literature on the required filtration of
dispersive soils in the pursuit of enhancing the design
1 Introduction criteria for the filters. The wider aim is to mitigate the
destructive circumstances surrounding the use of
Deposits of dispersive soils can be found in various dispersive soils in geotechnical engineering.
climates and locations, such as in Iran, South Africa,
Thailand, India, United States, Australia, and many
other places (Goodarzi and Salimi 2015; Vakili et al. 2 Internal Erosion and Piping Processes
2013a, b, c; Abbasi and Nazifi 2013; Umesh et al.
2011; Ouhadi and Goodarzi 2003, 2006; Sherard et al. Internal erosion and piping can be differentiated in the
1976a, b). Dispersive soils are clayey soils that rapidly sense that the latter is a large scale and more serious
deflocculates in waters with low salt concentration, version of the former. Internal erosion can lead to the
even when the waters are still (Vakili et al. 2017; piping phenomenon and consequently the failure of
Paige-Green 2008). These soils are significantly rich levees and dams. There are four dominant mechanisms
in sodium ions and as a consequence the internal by which a water-retaining structure or its foundation
structures have become quite unstable (Umesh et al. can get affected by the internal erosion hazard:
2011; Zorluer et al. 2010). suffusion, backward erosion, contact erosion, and
concentrated leak erosion. These different means
initiate the internal erosion, although by different

123
Geotech Geol Eng
procedures, that lead to the eventual breach of
structural safety (Fell et al. 2003). Internal erosion
and piping phenomena are widespread in many
different localities, climates, and geological settings
throughout the world and the mechanisms involved
can be quite complex (Romero Diaz et al. 2007;
Hagerty 1991). The catastrophic damage and irre-
versible failure of such events could be traced back to
the dispersive behavior of the construction soils (Savas
2015; Richards and Reddy 2007; Romero Diaz et al.
2007; Gutierrez et al. 2003).
As given in Fig. 1, internal erosion and piping have
been the main causes of failure in earth dams, while
the other major cause being the overtopping (ICOLD
2013; Regazzoni and Marot 2011; Flores-Berrones
et al. 2010; Fell and Fry 2007; Minguez et al. 2006;
Foster et al. 1998). Foster et al. (2000b) stated that 9
out of 51 piping failures that occurred in the embank-
ments of large dams that they studied have involved
dispersive clays that were used as the base soils. Foster
et al. (2000a) also said that piping and internal erosion
Fig. 1 Possible locations of initiation of internal erosion
(ICOLD 2013). Note (1) spillway wall interface; (2) adjacent
to conduit; (3) crack associated with steep abutment profile; (4)
were the main reasons for 48% of all dam failures with
approximately 42% of these occurred during the early
or first fillings. Gutierrez et al. (2003) also have
attributed piping process to the presence of dispersive
clays in the cores of earth dams.
Foster and Fell (1999, 2000) have identified four
sequential phases involving erosion that lead to the
failure of an earth dam, which are as follows:
(a) Initiation of erosion: in this stage, erosion is
initiated by the concentrated leaks running
through cracks in the core. Cracks in cores
and embankments are formed because of sev-
eral factors, such as shrinkages, differential
settlements, seismic movements, hydraulic
fractures, construction deficiencies, and tension
stresses (Indraratna et al. 1996; Indraratna and
Vafai 1997; Arulanandan and Perry 1983). The
likelihood of having an initiation of erosion is
increased with increasing presence of dispersive
clays and erodible silts (Gutierrez et al. 2003;
Indraratna and Vafai 1997).
desiccation on top of core; (5) embankment to foundation; (6)
foundation (if the foundation is soil or erodible rock); (7)
embankment through poorly compacted layer and or crack
123

(b) Continuation of erosion: this phase could pro-
long in case of an inappropriate filter material
being used. The continuation of the erosion
phase depends on the core–filter zone condi-
tions. According to Foster and Fell (2001), the
continuing erosion could also be influenced by
the particle size distributions (PSDs) of the base
soil and the filter material.
(c) Progression of piping: in this phase, the con-
centrated leak is progressively enlarged, and the
pipe is gradually formed.
(d) Formation of breach mechanism: the breach
mechanism and failure are the ultimate culmi-
nation of piping and the related progression. A
piping failure could rapidly develop into failure
even for as short as 6–12 h after the concen-
trated leaks first appear (Fell et al. 2003; Foster
et al. 2000a, b; Sherard et al. 1972). The failure
could be in the form of downstream slope
collapse and crest settlement (Fell et al. 2003).
The scenarios described above are given in Fig. 2.
For a new dam, the potential development of
internal erosion and piping can be avoided through a
good design and close supervision during construction
especially of the core, and the provision of an
appropriate filter to intercept the formation of any
concentrated leak (Benahmed and Bonelli 2012; Fell
and Fry 2007). Thus suitable filters are designed and
emplaced to control internal erosions and to minimize
the likelihood of piping failures (Indraratna and Locke
1999). The appointment of an appropriate filter in
protecting the core has become a critical aspect of
design because insufficient filters were found to be the
main cause of 26% of all piping failures (Richards and
Reddy 2007).
Fig. 2 Sequential phases of erosion that lead to piping failure in an earth dam (Wan and Fell 2004)
123
Geotech Geol Eng
3 Engineering Properties of Dispersive Clays
The dispersive behavior of soil depends on its clay
mineralogy, sodium absorption ratio, and the total
dissolved salts concentration in the pore water of the
soil or in the eroding water (Goodarzi and Salimi
2015; Abbasi and Nazifi 2013; Ouhadi et al. 2012;
Penner and Lagaly 2001; Sherard and Decker 1977).
Dispersive clay minerals have significant amounts
of dissolved sodium (Zorluer et al. 2010; Arulanandan
and Heinzen 1977) and the dispersion and cracking
potentials enhance in a Na-rich environment (Gutier-
rez et al. 2003). The exchangeable sodium percentage
(ESP) is the most important chemical factor affecting
the dispersive behavior of clays (Premkumar et al.
2015; Zorluer et al. 2010; Elges 1985). In the general
literature, soils with ESP values of more than 15 have
been called dispersive and were classified as highly
erodible (Mcintyre 1979). However, in the Australian
literature, any soil with ESP greater than 6 is deemed
susceptible to dispersion and thus is known as sodic
soil (Premkumar et al. 2015; Raine and Loch 2003;
Isbell 2002).
Clays containing sodium montmorillonite have the
highest dispersivity when compared with other soils
containing kaolinite or halloysite (Fell et al. 2010;
Nevels Jr 1993). Dispersive soils were found to have
thicker diffused double layers relative to non-disper-
sive ones thus describing the montmorillonite miner-
als makeup. Under saturated condition, for dispersive
soils, the repulsive forces between particles are more
than the attractive forces, causing separation and
suspension of the particles (Premkumar et al. 2015;
Umesh et al. 2011; Paige-Green 2008; Burns and
Ghataora 2007; Mitchell 1993; Nevels Jr 1993;
Arulanandan and Heinzen 1977).
Geotech Geol Eng
4 Laboratory Test Procedures
Standardized laboratory procedures are available for
the assessment of soil dispersivity. Dispersive soils are
recognizable from the results of Emerson crumb tests,
double hydrometer tests, pinhole tests, and the various
chemical tests (Premkumar et al. 2015; Umesh et al.
2011; Burns and Ghataora 2007).
The natural water content of the specimens in a test
procedure should be maintained because the charac-
teristics of dispersive soils may change due to the
drying process (Paige-Green 2008; Knodel 1991).
Dispersivity verification tests should be carried out
using distilled water because the results could be
different if other types of water are used instead, such
as tap or river water (Vakili et al. 2016). Using water
with a high concentration of dissolved salts would
cause misleading results because dispersivity could
significantly be reduced by the increasing dissolved
salts in the pore water (Paige-Green 2008). In the
dispersivity identification tests, dispersive soils could
be wrongly identified as non-dispersive if the water
used, in terms of its TDS, is changed from distilled
water to any water with high dissolved salt concen-
tration, such as river water (Fernando 2010).
5 Precautions and Considerations
Attentive supervision should be paid during construc-
tion of a geotechnical structure, particularly if the
project is involved with dispersive soils. Dispersive
soil should be compacted well, especially around rigid
abutments and conduits as poorly compacted ones are
prone to rapid erosion, regardless of the types of soil
(Fell et al. 2003).
To reduce the risk of piping, dispersive soils should
be compacted at moisture content between optimum
and 2% above optimum to achieve a dry unit weight of
at least 98% of the maximum dry unit weight by
standard Proctor method (Bell and Bruyn 1997; Elges
1985). Such measures are also recommended to avoid
formation of cracks due to brittleness (Fell et al. 2010).
To achieve sufficient compaction in the field, the use
of sheep foot roller is recommended. The compaction
requirement for dispersive soils is normally greater
than those of other soils (Mcdonald et al. 1981;
Sorensen 1995).
Soil permeability and soil porosity decrease with
increasing compaction. Thus with increasing com-
paction, the likelihood of having salts leaching from
the soil matrix decreases. With increasing compaction,
water movement within the soil matrix decreases,
leading to reduction of dispersivity related hazard
(Raine and Loch 2003).
The dispersivity of soils can be reduced by mixing
dispersive soils with chemical additives such as lime,
cement, and pozzolan (Vakili et al. 2013a, 2015a,
2017; Savas 2015; Indraratna et al. 1991). However,
the dispersivity of soils could also be controlled by
well-designed and well-constructed filter structures
out of select materials which are positioned either
downstream or both upstream and downstream of the
core. Nevertheless this paper dwells only on the
protection of the dispersive core against internal
erosion by having a downstream filter zone.
5.1 Design of Suitable Filters
Probable concentrated leaks within the impervious
core of dams can be successfully and effectively
sealed by designing an appropriate filter zone (Foster
and Fell 2001; Khor and Woo 1989; Sherard 1985).
The downstream filter zone is known as an essential
defensive part of a dam, whether the core is con-
structed out of dispersive or normal clay soils.
Therefore, preventing dam failure by providing ade-
quate filter materials is possible, even if the core is
constructed using erodible, dispersive clay (Arulanan-
dan and Perry 1983).
A filter must be sufficiently fine to perform the
retention function and control the migration of
impervious core particles caused by internal erosion.
At the same time, the filter must be sufficiently coarse
and having adequate permeability to drain seepage
water (Indraratna et al. 2004; Indraratna and Locke
1999; Arulanandan and Perry 1983).
5.2 Concepts in Filter Designing
Designing a suitable filter is a complex process. The
interaction between filter and base soil could be
influenced by geometric factors, physical factors,
chemical factors, and hydraulic factors among others
(Indraratna et al. 2008; Indraratna and Locke 1999).
Relative PSD of filter material and base soil, base soil
123

cohesion, base soil dispersion, pore water and eroding
water properties, and pressure gradient of seepage
water are all considered in a filter design (Indraratna
and Locke 1999). However, to simplify a design,
certain aspects may have been ignored in the modeling
of filter behavior. With the consideration of the above
factors and circumstances, a filter is usually simply
designed in terms of the PSD in fulfilling the required
criterion.
Filter retention criteria are usually expressed in two
forms—the geometric grading criterion and the
hydraulic criterion. The design of a filter based on
geometric grading criterion basically involves PSDs of
the base soil and the filter, and is presented in the form
of filter-base soil grain size ratios (Indraratna et al.
2008; Locke et al. 2001; Indraratna and Locke 1999;
Indraratna and Vafai 1997; Reddi and Bonala 1997).
In response to the usage of geometric grading
criteria, some researchers such as Vaughan and Soares
(1982) and Delgado et al. (2006) stated that these
grading criteria alone cannot adequately express the
retention capacity of a filter material. Instead, the
behavior of the filter material could only be assessed
more truly through the hydraulic criteria by which the
main concern would be filter permeability and not
particle sizes of the filter. Thus in this regard, the
general relationships between filter permeability and
PSD of base materials were created (Delgado and
Poyatos 2008; Indraratna et al. 1996).
However, in the state of the art filter design criteria,
the constriction size of filter materials are used instead
of either the PSD or the permeability of the filter
material. In other words, the constriction size criterion
would already incorporates the effects of filter PSD,
filter compaction, filter grading, filter surface area,
filter porosity, and uniformity coefficient of the filter
material, thus most limitations associated with the
conventional design criteria could be removed by this
new design method (Raut and Indraratna 2008;
Indraratna et al. 2008). Thus, the conventional way
of relating the PSD’s of filter and base soil materials or
between filter permeability and base soil PSD is now
changed to the new way of relating the filter constric-
tion size distribution (CSD) to base soil PSD which is
the more inherently correct approach to designing the
filter-base system.
In the most conventional filter design criteria, the
filter size is represented by D15f where voids in the
filter must be adequately small until the filter system
123
Geotech Geol Eng
can perform its expected responsibility in terms of
sealing the concentrated leaks of the core. Previous
studies have put D15f as the acceptable specification
that defines the void size (Foster 1999; Honjo and
Veneziano 1989; Sherard et al. 1984a). However, the
constriction size of a performing filter seems to be
governed by filter particles in the range of D5 to D15
(Indraratna et al. 2008; Kenney et al. 1985). Never-
theless, the controlling constriction size of Dc35 and
the self-filtering constriction size of Dc95 have been
taken as filter representative sizes in the new method
(Raut and Indraratna 2008; Indraratna et al. 2007).
For the base soil, the acceptable representative is
the d85 (Indraratna et al. 2008; Kwang 1990; Vaughan
and Soares 1982). Several studies have shown that
considerable particle loss takes place when the filter
opening size is greater than d90 while very little
particle loss occurs when the filter opening size is less
than d80. This phenomenon is the reason for d85 being
used as the base soil representative in the conventional
filter design (Indraratna and Locke 1999; Honjo and
Veneziano 1989). The experimental results obtained
by Sherard et al. (1984a, b) and the statistical analyses
performed by Honjo and Veneziano (1989) showed
that the grain size ratios involving other representa-
tives, i.e., D15f/d15 and D50f/d50, must not be used in
filter design because these ratios do not show any
suitable correlation with filter performance. These
findings have also been corroborated by Indraratna and
Vafai (1997). However, not all researchers have
agreed to the stereotype of appointing a filter criterion
based on a given d85 of a base soil (Raut and Indraratna
2008; Indraratna et al. 2007; Khor and Woo 1989). To
cite an example, the current design practice by NRCS
(1994) recommends the use of d85 of base soil, but
recalculated it by excluding the coarse fraction
retained by the 4.75 mm sieve size, termed as the
regarded d85 size. By using the same design practice,
Lafleur (1984) has introduced some filters with
retention ratios even lower than 4, i.e. D15f/(regarded
d85) \ 4, for the broadly graded base soils that had
become ineffective. Hence, a modification of the
retention ratio or an adjustment of the PSD of base soil
materials has been called for in cases of the broadly or
well graded base materials. Thus for the broadly
graded base soils, as the regarded d85 would not be as
representative as for normal ones, it has also been
considered unsuitable for use in filter designing.
Researchers then suggested an even lower size
Geotech Geol Eng

because the regarded d85 size is still larger than the kf [ 20 kbasesoil ð1Þ
actual self-filtering size (Raut and Indraratna 2008;
Locke and Indraratna 2002; Khor and Woo 1989). D15f [ 4d15 ð2Þ
Accordingly, the filter materials would be effective
Furthermore, Vaughan and Soares (1982) proposed
if at least 15% of the base soil particles are retained
the ‘‘perfect filter’’ approach on the basis of the
(Indraratna et al. 2007). But if the filter materials of the
relationship between the floc sizes of the base soil and
broadly graded base soils are designed based on actual
the permeability of the filter material. Here, filter
d85, the confidence would be lesser. Even if the filter
effectiveness is related to filter permeability and size
materials are designed based on regarded d85, the
of flocculated clay particles (Indraratna et al. 1996;
confidence would still be insufficient.
Vaughan 1978). Vaughan and Soares (1982) held to
the notion that the behavior of the filter materials
5.3 Widely Accepted Filter Design Criteria
would be more truly assessed through hydraulic
criteria by which the main concern would be filter
Some filter design criteria as introduced by researchers
permeability and not the particle sizes of the filters and
such as Sherard and Dunnigan (1989), Foster and Fell
thus in the perfect filter approach the filter materials
(2001), Raut and Indraratna (2008), Shourijeh and
are designed for the required permeability and not for
Soroush (2009) and Vakili et al. (2015b) are given in
the required PSD. With evidences, Sherard (1983)
Table 1. The majority of these design criteria is based
pointed out that this approach might be too conserva-
on the relationships between the PSDs of base soil and
tive, particularly for general use, because the criterion
filter materials. However, there are also established
requires that the designed filter must be able to retain
criteria based on the filter permeability and PSD of
the smallest clay size. In addition, in the case of base
base soil.
soil made of fine-grained clay, laboratory studies have
Terzaghi (1926) suggested a retention ratio of D15f/
indicated that filters with D15f = 1 mm are able to seal
d85 B 4–5 for non-cohesive uniform base soil and
concentrated leaks, whereas filters with
filter materials. Although the veracity of criterion has
D15f = 0.5 mm would have a considerable factor of
been repeatedly verified for cohesionless base soils
safety and therefore could be considered conservative
and the factor of safety was deemed sufficient (Honjo
(Sherard 1984). Bases on the results of a large scale
and Veneziano 1989; Townsend et al. 1987; Bertram
filter test carried out by Hillis and Truscott (1982), the
1940), it could be too conservative in the case of
‘‘perfect filtering’’ method was judged to be realistic
cohesive base soil because the cohesion factor has not
by Truscott (1983). In addition, Vakili and Selamat
been considered in the initial derivation (Indraratna
(2014) have carried out tests on some dispersive base
and Vafai 1997). The retention ratio should therefore
soils and found that the perfect filter approach is
be increased when the base soil is having considerable
credible and is not unduly conservative for use in
cohesion (Indraratna and Vafai 1997; Sherard and
designing filters for such materials. Hence Vakili and
Dunnigan 1985). In fact Sherard and Dunnigan (1985)
Selamat (2014) recommended the perfect filter
and Indraratna and Vafai (1997) stated that a criterion
approach for base samples with a high degree of
must be intentionally derived to protect all clays,
dispersion instead of the other traditional indirect filter
including the dispersive ones. Note that no failure was
design criteria.
recorded in the filter testing performed on cohesive
Several dam failures were thought to have occurred
base materials when the criterion applied was D15f/
due to using filter design criteria without considering
d85 B 4 (Pinto 1989). It is worthy to note that
erodibility of the base soil making up the core. This
according to Bertram (1940), the D15f/d85 ratio is not
aspect was studied by Arulanandan and Perry (1983)
related to the shape of soil particles.
resulting in the consideration of base soil erodibility in
In addition, according to Terzaghi (1926), as
every filter designing. The same authors introduced a
reported by Fannin (2008), the following equations
classification system for base soils based on erodibility
on filter coarseness should be applied at the same time
related properties. Critical shear stress, which is the
to cater for the permeability function:
minimum shear stress required to initiate erosion, is
featured prominently in the system as described here:

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 1 Some widely accepted filter design criteria

Filter design criteria Type of base soil Criteria for non dispersive base soil Criteria for highly dispersive base
proposed by soil

Terzaghi (1926) Non cohesive uniform D15f B 4.0–5.0 d85 Not recommended
soil
Bertram (1940) Silt and fine sand D15f B 6.0 d85 Not recommended
Vaughan and Soares (1982) Clay base soils kf = 6.7 * 10-6 * d1.52
R Not recommended
Sherard and Dunnigan F C 85 D15f B 9 d85 D15f B 9 d85
(1989) F = 40–85 D15f B 0.7 mm D15f B 0.7 mm
Khor and Woo (1989) F = 40–85 D15f B 12 d85m Not recommended
Lafleur et al. (1993) Cohesive base soils D15f B 0.4 mm D15f B 0.2 mm
Indraratna et al. (1996) d85s = 50–60 lm D15f B 5–5.5 d85 Not recommended
d85s = 60–80 lm D15f B 4–5 d85
Indraratna et al. (1996) d85s = 40–100 lm kf = 6.3 * 10-4 * d1.25
85 Not recommended
Foster and Fell (2001) F C 85 D15f B 9 d85 D15f B 6.4 d85
F = 35–85 D15f B 0.7 mm D15f B 0.5 mm
Locke and Indraratna (2002) F C 85 D15f B 12 d85reduced Not recommended
F = 40–85, PI [ 10 D15f B 9 d85reduced
F = 40–85, PI \ 10 D15f B 4 d85reduced
Fell et al. (2005) F C 85 D15f B 9 d85 D15f B 6.0 d85
F = 35–85 D15f B 0.7 mm D15f B 0.5 mm
Delgado et al. (2006) F C 40 kf = 59.738 9 exp (- 0.102 9 F) Not recommended
Raut and Indraratna (2008) All base soils Dc35/d85 B 1 Dc35/d85 B 1
Shourijeh and Soroush F C 85 D15f B 9 d85 D15f B 7.5 d85
(2009) F = 80–85 D15f B minimum of (0.7 mm and D15f B 0.5 mm
6.4 d85)
F = 35–80 D15f B 0.7 mm D15f B 0.5 mm
Vakili et al. (2015b) F C 85 – D15f/d85 B 5.5
F = 40–85 – D15f B 0.28 mm
Vakili et al. (2015b) F C 85 D15f/d85 = 10.0 exp (- 0.009 D15f/d85 = 10.0 exp (- 0.009
D) C 4.0. D) C 4.0.
Vakili et al. (2015b) F C 85 D15f/d85 = 0.6037 (d85)-0.66 D15f/d85 = 0.6037 (d85)-0.66
Vakili et al. (2015b) F = 40–85, D \ 20% D15f B 0.6 mm D15f B 0.6 mm
F = 40–85, D15f B 0.5 mm D15f B 0.5 mm
20% B D \ 65%
F = 40–85, D C 65% D15f B 0.28 mm D15f B 0.28 mm
Vakili et al. (2015b) F C 85 Dc35/d85 B 1.25 Dc35/d85 B 1.25
F = 40–85 Dc35/d85 B 1.0 Dc35/d85 B 0.5

1—Soils with pinhole classification D1 or D2 or Emerson class 1 or 2 are known as highly dispersive soils; 2—F = fine content (%);
3—kf = permeability coefficient of filter materials; 4—dR = size of the smallest particles of the base materials in lm; 5—
PI = plasticity index; D = percent dispersion

1. Erodible base soils are defined as soils with
critical shear stress less than or equal to 4 dynes/
cm2. Dams constructed using these soils have 2.
experienced piping failure. Other than dispersive
soils, some non-dispersive soils have shown high
erodibility property. Note that 1 dyne equals to
10-5 N.
Base soils with moderate erodibility are defined as
soils with critical shear stress between 4 and
9 dynes/cm2.

123
Geotech Geol Eng
3. Erosion resistant base soils are defined as those
with critical shear stress of more than or equal to
9 dynes/cm2.
By and large, the filter design criteria could be used
only in designing filter for protecting erosion resis-
tance core. Filter testing should be performed for the
other aforementioned base soils. The capability of the
filter materials to prevent probable erosion through a
dam core constructed using highly to moderately
erodible materials must be separately inspected.
One of the widely accepted filter design criteria was
that proposed by Sherard and Dunnigan (1989). As
given in Table 1, the criteria do not differentiate
between cases of dispersive and non-dispersive clays.
Out of using only two dispersive samples, the authors
suggested that the dispersivity of the base soil does not
have significant influence on the no-erosion filter
boundary (Sherard and Dunnigan 1985, 1989). The
adequacy of the criteria was later challenged by
Lafleur et al. (1993) and Foster and Fell (2001) who
put forth a finer no erosion filter boundary for the
dispersive base soils. In agreement with latter
researchers, Vakili and Selamat (2014) stated that
the dispersivity property of the base soils decreases the
no erosion filter boundary and noted that although the
criteria by Foster and Fell (2001) has a reasonable
factor of safety for soils with a moderate degree of
dispersion, the widely used filter design criteria are not
reliable in the case of base soils with a high degree of
dispersion.
The adequacy of the filter design criteria as
proposed by Sherard and Dunnigan (1989), or the
lack of it, became subject of further researches.
According to Fell et al. (2005), the filter design
criteria are applicable for base soils of Groups 1 and
Group 2. The criteria were further challenged when
Locke and Indraratna (2002) introduced some broadly
graded base soils that had finer no erosion filter
boundaries in terms of D15f. Note that dispersive soils
could have broad gradation.
Thus, certain laboratory investigations, such as by
Locke and Indraratna (2002) and Soroush et al. (2006)
have resulted in outcomes suggesting the inadequacy
of the widely used filter design criteria. By performing
36 experiments, the widely used filter design criteria
proposed by Sherard and Dunnigan (1989) were
evaluated by Vakili and Selamat (2014) to be only
50% compatible with the NEF test results. Thus
satisfying the filter design criteria as proposed by
Sherard and Dunnigan (1989) would not necessarily
mean success in laboratory filter testing.
Khor and Woo (1989) studied protective filters
required to seal the concentrated leak through the dam
core constructed using tropical residual soils from
Malaysia. The results from their investigations show
that, in addition to the D15f size, the grading below
15% size also has significant influence on filter
performance. Different performances were found
from filter materials with similar D15f sizes and
grading above the 15% size, but with different grading
below the 15% size. Generally, the flow increased
substantially with increasing coarseness of grains
below the D15f size. Thus, the permeability of the filter
materials, which is influenced by the fine portion of the
grading, has remarkable effect on filter performance.
Furthermore, based on Khor’s and Woo’s (1989)
observation, a similar filter boundary was recorded for
broadly graded base soils with similar fine content but
with different sand or gravel contents. Therefore, the
extent of the fine content of base soils has a significant
effect on the behavior of base soil–filter systems. No
marked correlation has been determined between the
D15f size of filter materials and the d85 size of base soil
materials. Thus, the d85 size is not an appropriate
parameter to represent a base soil with broadly graded
characteristics in the design of a filter. Designing filter
using d85 size derived from the actual gradation of
broadly graded base soils would result in a filter with a
grading too coarse.
Material would be lost if the actual d85 size of the
broadly graded base soil is used in filter designing
(Lafleur et al. 1989). Thus, the actual or the regarded
d85 size is larger than the one required for formation of
self-filtering in which the finer particles would be
retained by the retained coarser particles (Raut and
Indraratna 2008; Locke et al. 2001). A stable self-
filtration zone would be formed by an effective filter
by retaining the eroded base soil particles within the
filter (Indraratna and Raut 2006).
Knowing that the coarse portion of a base soil does
not affect much on the filtration mechanism, splitting
the PSD curve in designing appropriate filter for the
broadly graded base soil has been recommended by
Sherard (1979). In this splitting method, the PSD
curve is divided into two separate portions: fine
portion and coarse portion, as shown in Fig. 3. The
main difference between the various criteria is on the
123

Fig. 3 Coarser and finer frictions of PSD curve (Indraratna
et al. 2011)
position of the separation point. The d15 of the coarse
portion of the PSD is denoted as d15coarse, and the d85
of the fine portion of the PSD is denoted as d85fine.
Consequently, the modified PSD of base soil materials
by ignoring all particles larger than d15coarse has
become the basis of the filter design. Thus, base soil
particles coarser than d15coarse are excluded because
the particles are deemed as not affecting the filtration
mechanism (Indraratna and Raut 2006). d15coarse is the
base soil size by which base soil particles coarser than
this size would not enter the filter or base soil particles
finer than this size would participate in the self-
filtration mechanism by entering the self-filtration
zone (Raut and Indraratna 2008). The splitting or
modification of base soil PSD is strongly recom-
mended in the industry particularly in the case of
broadly or well-graded material (Li and Fannin 2008).
Investigations by Khor and Woo (1989) have
determined that the d85m size is a proper representative
of the base soil in a filter design criteria. The d85m size
is the d85determined from the new gradation curve
(modified PSD) using mostly particles finer than 75
micron. Khor and Woo (1989) recommended the filter
criterion of D15/d85m B 12 for broadly graded base
soil with 40–85% particles finer than 0.075 mm.
Sherard and Dunnigan (1989) proposed the criterion of
D15f B 0.7 mm for this group of soils. The study
carried out by Khor and Woo (1989) uncovered some
ambiguities in designing appropriate filter materials
for broadly graded base soils.
Locke and Indraratna (2002) presented the reduced
PSD method for designing sandy filters for broadly
graded, fine base soils though not fully addressing the
dispersivity problems. Nevertheless, in the case of
123
Geotech Geol Eng
broadly graded base soils, Lafleur et al. (1989) and
Sherard and Dunnigan (1989) have proposed the
relatively fine downstream filter to allow self-filtering
circumstances to prevail through the retention of finer
particles by the coarser particles.
In the reduced PSD method, Locke and Indraratna
(2002) proposed the following filter criteria for base
soils of Groups 1 and 2:
(a) D15bdy/d85reduced B 12 for base soils of Group 1,
when PI [ 10 and d98/d85 [ 2
(b) D15bdy/d85reduced B 9 for base soils of Group 2,
when PI [ 10
(c) D15bdy/d85reduced B 4 for base soils of Group 2,
when PI \ 10.
Here, instead of the regarded d85 size, the d85reduced
is considered as the new representative base size for
self-filtering circumstance and is calculated from the
reduced gradation curve, the definition of which is
described by Locke and Indraratna (2002). Basically,
the reduced gradation curve is a redrawn gradation
created by disregarding the coarse portion of the
material, i.e., anything coarser than d15coarse is
excluded in the new gradation. The remaining amount
is all that is effectively considered of the material.
The procedure of determining d15coarse is as
follows:
1. Determine the gradation curve of the base soil.
The curve of Fig. 4 is given for illustration
purposes and as an example of a general situation.
2. Determine a point on the curve which more or less
marks the boundary between fine and coarse
materials. In Fig. 4, this point corresponds to n
and Dn. The curve to the right of the boundary
represents the coarse portion of the soil, whereas
the curve to the left represents the fine portion of
the soil.
3. The final position of the point is obtained by
applying Eqs. 3–5, where n is the percentage of
the overall material passing diameter dn. If
necessary, trial and error is employed to achieve
the largest diameter of d15coarse that agrees with
Eq. 5. An example of PSD curve of a given base
soil and its corresponding reduced PSD curve is
shown in Fig. 5.
d15coarse ¼ dnþ0:15ð100nÞ ð3Þ
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 4 Method to assess
self-filtration of a soil
(Locke and Indraratna 2002)
Percent passing (%)
n +0.15(100-n)
n
0.85n
Fig. 5 An example of PSD curve of a given base soil sample
and its reduced PSD curve (Vakili and Selamat 2014)
d85fine ¼ d0:85n
ðd15coarse =d85fine Þ  5
The study carried out by Vakili and Selamat (2014)
revealed that the reduced PSD method could be
considered credible, as long as the broadly graded base
materials do not have any considerable degree of
dispersion. In other words, the reliability of the
reduced PSD method could become questionable if
the base soils involved are of high dispersivity type.
The applicability of the reduced PSD method was
further studied by Vakili et al. (2015b). They reported
that the reduced PSD method were found to be
compatible with those coming from the NEF tests for
base soils with percent dispersion less than 40%.
Consequently, the following reduced PSD criteria
were recommended when dealing with dispersive
soils:
PSD
d85fine dn d15coarse
Particle size (mm)
1. D15f/d85reduced \ 9 for dispersive soils of Group 1,
without significant silt content, when PI [ 10, and
when d98/d85 [ 2.
2. D15f/d85reduced \ 7 for dispersive soils of Group 2,
without significant silt content, and when PI [ 12.
3. D15f/d85reduced \ 2 for dispersive soils of Group 2,
with significant silt content, and when PI \ 12.
A D15f B 0.2 mm was recommended by Lafleur et al.
(1993) for dispersive cohesive soils. This recommen-
dation is not in agreement with the conclusion
obtained by Sherard and Dunnigan (1985, 1989). Note
that soils with different dispersion degrees are con-
sidered just the same by Lafleur et al.’s (1993)
ð4Þ approach while for the other cohesive soils, the
D15f B 0.4 mm was recommended. Sherard and Dun-
ð5Þ nigan (1989) suggested D15f B 9 d85 and D15f -
B 0.7 mm for soil of Groups 1 and 2, respectively.
The design criteria as proposed by Lafleur et al. (1993)
apparently have suggested finer filter materials in
comparison to Sherard’s and Dunnigan’s (1985, 1989)
and therefore could be considered relatively conser-
vative, particularly for soils with low dispersivity. No
differences exist between the recommended filters for
soils of Groups 1 and 2 in the design approach of
Lafleur et al. (1993).
A filtration mechanism for the cohesive lateritic
base soil of Southeast Asia was tested with high
pressured slurry by Indraratna et al. (1996). From
experimental results, the following filter criteria were
suggested:
123

(a) D15f/d85 B 5–5.5 for d85 = 0.050–0.060 mm
(b) D15f/d85 B 4–5 for d85 = 0.060–0.080 mm.
Following Indraratna et al.’s (1996) criteria would
mean filter materials finer in comparison to Sherard’s
and Dunnigan’s (1989). In addition, Indraratna et al.
(1996) pointed out that the reservoir water chemistry
has significant effects on the re-flocculation of
dispersive clay particles thus should be considered in
a filter design. Reddi and Bonala (1997) agreed that
the accumulation of fine particles in the filter zone
could be affected by the pore fluid compositions.
Delgado Ramos and Locke (2000) ruled that
distilled water must be used in any NEF test procedure
whenever the base soils are dispersive. Note that
Vakili et al. (2015b) have also used distilled water in
their NEF testing programs. The main reason for this is
that the quality of water, in terms of total dissolved
salt, could determine dispersivity characteristics of
soils (Fernando 2010). Sherard et al. (1984a, b)
showed that fine filter materials—about 0.1 mm
diameter—are required to protect non-dispersive base
soils of similar PSD as in the case of dispersive soils
when distilled water is used in filter test procedure.
Although the quality of water was found to have
significant effects on the dispersivity characteristics of
base soils, the extent of its effects on no erosion filter
boundary is not entirely clear, reflecting the need for
further investigation.
The filter design criteria proposed by Sherard and
Dunnigan (1989) were slightly modified by Shourijeh
and Soroush (2009) for dispersive clay base soils, as
given in Table 1. This proposed filter reflects the
effects of dispersivity on the required filter materials.
Based on the results of an extensive NEF testing,
Delgado et al. (2006) stated that the filter criteria
derived from the permeability value of a filter and the
PSD of the corresponding base soil are more appro-
priate than those derived from the PSDs of a filter and
the corresponding base soil, the latter being the criteria
set by Sherard and Dunnigan (1989). Thus, Delgado
et al. (2006) suggested the filter design criterion of
Kf \ 59.738 9 exp (- 0.102 9 pp% \ 0.075), but
Kf should not be less than 0.004 cm/s.
The applicability of filter design criterion by
Delgado et al. (2006) was revisited by Delgado Ramos
et al. (2016) by using the results published by Vakili
and Selamat (2014) where the base soils involved were
broadly graded and dispersive. Delgado Ramos et al.
123
Geotech Geol Eng
(2016) stated that the NEF test results carried out by
Vakili and Selamat (2014) and Vakili et al. (2015b) on
dispersive soils were completely compatible with the
filter design criterion of Delgado et al. (2006). Thus
the criterion was found to be credible enough for base
soils collected from tropical origin, even for samples
with high dispersivity.
Delgado et al. (2012) found that the D15f size of the
required filter decreases with increasing water content
of the base soil. Therefore, clay zones with high
moisture content are more susceptible to internal
erosion as compared to those with low moisture
content. As a consequence, the clay core must be
compacted at the optimum moisture content (Delgado
et al. 2012).
Delgado et al. (2012) also stated that no significant
relationship exists between the D15f size of the
required filter and the clay mineralogy of base
materials. However, base soil plasticity was found to
have a significant effect on the D15f of the required
filter. Delgado et al. (2012) further found that the D15f
size of the required filter tends to decrease with
increasing base soil plasticity. Note that in the study on
base soils by Delgado et al. (2012), there was a direct
correlation produced relating base soil plasticity index
to base soil fines content. The further discussion by
Delgado et al. (2012) stated that a high base soil
plasticity index corresponds to high base soil fines
content and thus the D15f size of the required filter
must be smaller. Delgado et al. (2012) concluded that
the base soil plasticity has influence in determining the
boundary filter, but not as much as the base soil
particle size distribution has. However, studies per-
formed by a number of researchers showed that the
Atterberg limits of base soils have no apparent
influence on base soil resistance to internal erosion
and on D15f/d85 ratio (Leonards et al. 1991; Sherard
and Dunnigan 1985; Sherard et al. 1984b). In addition,
Zomorodian and Moghadam (2011) stated that filter
behavior is not influenced by the plasticity of base
soils.
Delgado et al. (2012) also studied the effects of
treating or improving base soils on the required D15f
size of the filter. In this case, aluminum sulfate was
used as a base soil stabilizer. The D15f size of the
required filter was found increased with increasing
content of aluminum sulfate in the base soil. There-
fore, the flocculation and aggregation of base soils
could change the required filter. In this case coarser
Geotech Geol Eng
filters could be used instead, due to improvement
among the clay particles of the base soil that inhibits
dispersivity (Delgado et al. 2012).
Vakili et al. (2015b) studied the filtration mecha-
nisms of broadly graded, cohesive, dispersive base
soils. They reported that the criteria of D15f/d85 B 5.5
and D15f B 0.28 mm, each with a reasonable factor of
safety, were found applicable for the broadly graded,
highly dispersive soils from Group 1 and Group 2,
respectively.
The study performed by Vakili et al. (2015b) also
revealed that the no erosion lower boundary could be
estimated by simultaneously considering the d85 size
and the dispersion percent of base soils of Group 1 by
using the relationship of D15f/d85 = 10.0 exp
(- 0.009 D) C 4.0. The D15f/d85 derived from this
lower bound no erosion filter boundary varies from 4
to 10 with dispersion changing from 100 to 0%. In
addition, it was found that the correlation between D15f
size of filter and d85 size of base soils could be
predicted by a power function of D15f/d85 = 0.6037
(d85)-0.66. Note that almost all widely used filter
design criteria have proposed linear function between
D15f and d85. Because there was no apparent correla-
tion between D15f size of the required filter and d85 size
of base soils of Group 2, the designs of filter
boundaries based on percent dispersion of base soils
of Group 2 were recommended to be as follows:
1. D15f B 0.6 mm when D \ 20%;
2. D15f B 0.5 mm when 20% B D \ 65%;
3. D15f B 0.28 mm when D C 65%.
Based on the results obtained by Vakili et al.
(2015b), a filter material can also be designed by
considering the percent dispersion of base soil by the
criterion of D15f = - 0.0039 D ? 0.5902 for base
soils of Group 1 and the criterion of D15f = - 0.005
D ? 0.7297 for base soils of Group 2.
Finally, filter design can also be achieved with the
direct method instead of the indirect methods. Accept-
ing the established criteria in designing constitutes the
indirect method, while carrying out actual tests, such
as the NEF test, constitutes the direct method (Vakili
and Selamat 2014). From Goldsworthy’s (1990) point
of view, when vigorous erosion of the core material is
anticipated in the field, it is essential that the designing
of filter material be based on the direct method. The
indirectly predicted filter size is sometimes coarser
than the required size. In that case, instead of using an
indirect method, conducting experimental filter tests is
strongly recommended by authors to protect the
dispersive core against internal erosion. The actual
condition of core materials, such as dispersivity and
erodibility, could be simulated in the experimental
equipment. Consequently, to reduce the risks of
appointing inappropriate filter criteria for a project,
the predicted filter based on the indirect method should
always be verified against the outcomes of the NEF
tests (Vakili and Selamat 2014).
5.4 The Current State of the Art in Filter Design
In mitigating the deficits of design by size ratios,
researchers have introduced the constriction-based
design criteria with Dc35 and Dc95 respectively defin-
ing the controlling constriction size and self-filtering
constriction size (Raut and Indraratna 2008; Indrar-
atna et al. 2007). The procedure however is more
involved as measuring the constriction size is not as
easy as appointing D15f and d85. Nevertheless, the
criterion is considered an enhancement as it takes into
account the effects of compaction, PSD, and surface
area of filter material (Raut and Indraratna 2008).
Eventually, based on the PSD and given relative
density, the curve of constriction size distribution
(CSD) of the filter is created from which Dc35 and Dc95
are determined. The computational procedures and
subroutines have been made available by Raut (2006).
An example of PSD curve of given filter and its CSD
curves for different relative density are shown in
Fig. 6. As observed in Fig. 6, same filter materials in
terms of PSD could have different CSD due to having
different degrees of compaction, demonstrating the
Fig. 6 an example of PSD curve of given filter and its CSD
curves for different relative density (RD) (Indraratna et al.
2012a)
123

significant effects of compaction level on voids sizes
and voids distributions.
Consequently, the PSD of base soil materials is
modified in the constriction-based technique by
ignoring all particles coarser than Dc95, resulting in
the determination of a new self filtration size for the
base soil and denoted as d85 . Thus, the behavior of
base soil–filter combination is considered successful if
Dc35/d85 B 1. This method has been suggested for a
large array of base soil–filter combinations (Raut and
Indraratna 2008). Nevertheless, further research was
needed in determining the applicability of the criterion
in controlling dispersive base soils with broad
gradation.
The reliability of constriction-based filter design
criterion of Raut and Indraratna (2008) were experi-
mentally examined by Vakili et al. (2015b) for base
soils with high dispersion degree and broad gradation
curve. The results showed that the constriction-based
criterion of Dc35/d85 B 1.25 was found to be accept-
able for base soils of Group 1 with high dispersivity,
with the corresponding filter having a relative density
of 75%. However, for base soils of Group 2, the
criterion of Dc35/d85 B 1.0 was found to be accept-
able if the broadly graded base soils had a percent
dispersion of less than 80% and for the highly
dispersive type and broadly graded soils, i.e. soils
with dispersion degree more than 80% and with
Cu C 20, the required criterion was Dc35/d85 B 0.5.
5.5 Filter Hydraulic Conductivity
Filter materials must be designed to fulfill both, the
PSD and permeability coefficient requirements. In
other words, since measuring the filter permeability in
the laboratory or field would be time-consuming, it is
imperative to make a logical correlation between a
particle size and the corresponding permeability of a
filter material (Indraratna et al. 2012a; Boadu 2000). In
fact, the PSD, porosity, particles shape, and relative
density of a filter material are all indirectly implicated
when evaluating the filter permeability of any new
filter design. Thus, the coefficient of permeability of a
filter from compacted sand and gravel can be related to
its PSD and porosity (Indraratna and Vafai 1997;
Indraratna et al. 1996). However, the porosity would
be mainly influenced by filter finer size fraction
123
Geotech Geol Eng
instead of filter coarser fraction (Indraratna et al. 1996;
Honjo and Veneziano 1989; Kenney et al. 1984).
The permeability of a filter can be estimated based
on the sizes of its fines, i.e., D5, D10, or D15 as given by
Sherard et al. (1984a, b) and Indraratna et al. (1996), as
given respectively in Eqs. 6 and 7:
kf ¼ 0:35ðD15 Þ2 ð6Þ
kf ¼ 1:02ðD5 D10 Þ0:934 ð7Þ
Delgado et al. (2006) however pointed out that, in
addition to the sizes or PSD, the particles shape and the
compaction degree of the filter materials must also be
considered in the correlations for predicting filter
permeability. Thus the following equations for pre-
dicting permeability of the granular filters were given,
which simultaneously incorporate the compaction
measure or degree and the PSD:
Tv ¼ 0s kf ¼ 0:349ðD15 Þ1:388 ð8Þ
Tv ¼ 15s kf ¼ 0:179ðD15 Þ2 ð9Þ
Tv ¼ 60s kf ¼ 0:118ðD15 Þ2 ð10Þ
Tv ¼ 120s kf ¼ 0:0808ðD15 Þ2 ð11Þ
where Tv is compaction time in (s) and kf is
permeability coefficient in (cm/s). Note that the
compaction times of 0, 60, and 120 s respectively
correspond to the relative densities of 63.2, 78.5, and
85.2%.
However Indraratna et al. (2012a), in a later
statement, stated that the hydraulic conductivity of
granular soils such as permeability of a filter material
would be better predicted using the constriction size
technique. In other words, predicting the hydraulic
conductivity of a filter material by solely considering
the particle size distribution would lead to a signifi-
cantly inaccurate value, as mentioned by Odong
(2007). The effects of density, gradation curve, and
particle size distribution on filter hydraulic conduc-
tivity could actually be taken into account by the
constriction size technique. Thus, as given in Eq. 12,
in predicting the hydraulic conductivity of granular
soils, Indraratna et al. (2012a) provided a new semi
empirical equation using the constriction size distri-
bution instead of using the particle size distribution,
where Dm c is the mean constriction size and is
Geotech Geol Eng
calculated from the constriction size distribution curve
of filter material.

1:644
kf ¼ 36:91 Dm c ð12Þ
Finally, Delgado Ramos et al. (2016) noted that the
permeability values of filter materials tested by Vakili
and Selamat (2014) and Vakili et al. (2015b) to be
higher than those that had been estimated using the
existing empirical correlations as given in Eqs. 6–11.
Delgado Ramos et al. (2016) thus proposed that the
filter design criteria by Vakili et al. (2015b) should be
further analyzed by carrying out the NEF tests on the
same base soil–filter material systems but with the
filter materials compacted to a higher relative density.
In other words, Delgado Ramos et al. (2016) suggested
a measurement of the filter permeability by laboratory
test and by simulating real dam condition, i.e. with a
higher compaction degree of the filter material.
5.6 General Properties of the Filter
Given that filter materials must not sustain cracks, the
filter zone should generally be constructed out of non-
cohesive materials. Problems associated with the
adverse effects of fine particles on filter performance
have been extensively reported by Cedergren (1977).
According to Fell et al. (2005), the amount of fine
content in a filter should be limited to 7% in order to
retain the self-healing and collapsibility properties.
The self-healing and collapsibility of a filter
material can be evaluated using the sand castle test,
which was recommended by Vaughan and Soares
(1982). Generally, carrying out the sand castle test
in situ during filter construction has been strongly
proposed (Soroush et al. 2011). Any cohesive behavior
within the filter material, which is unwanted, could be
sensitively detected using the sand castle test (Fell
et al. 2005).
By comparing the existing dam filters against filters
that were considered good and poor, as given in
Table 2, Foster and Fell (1999) and Foster (1999)
found that dams with D15f [ 1.0 mm have generally
displayed poor filter performance, whereas dams with
an average D15f B 0.5 mm have shown good filter
performance.
However, the literature has also reported that filters
with low D15f size could be poor in performance that
the D15f should not be the only considered property of
a filter. The textbook by Terzaghi (1996) put it that a
filter should also not to be widely, broadly, or gap
graded as such filters would be prone to clogging
(Indraratna and Locke 1999). Dams with poor filter
performance have been constructed using broadly
graded core materials, generally (Foster and Fell
2001). Filter materials should also not susceptible to
segregation or internal instability (Foster and Fell
2001). In comparison to the widely graded filters, the
uniformly graded filters have a lesser susceptibility for
segregation and are also more economical (Hadj-
Hamou et al. 1990). A good filter must be durable
under the wetting and drying processes, under the
chemical action of water, and against mechanical
actions, such as occurring during placement and
compaction (Fell et al. 2005).
6 Summary, Conclusions, and Future Directions
This review paper focuses on dispersive base soils and
their filtration requirements. Due to the damaging
properties of dispersive soils, using them in civil and
geotechnical structures without considerable precau-
tions would be problematic and risky. The two
foremost problems associated with using dispersive
soils in earthen structures are surface and internal
erosions. The dispersivity properties of base soils are
reason for piping in earth dams and embankments.
There are filter design criteria already existing in
the literature with the original concepts initiated by
Terzaghi (1926) then evaluated and expanded by
others (Vakili et al. 2015b; Indraratna et al.
2004, 2008; Raut and Indraratna 2008; Delgado
et al. 2006; Indraratna and Vafai 1997). The indirect
but handy filter criteria are largely empirical in nature
thus practical and could be easily applied in designs.
The complex factors affecting filtration process are
actually already taken care of by these criteria
(Indraratna and Locke 1999). In the presence of the
various criteria however, attention should be paid as to
which of these are suitable to be used for any given
base soil and the circumstances in the field. The
constriction–based criteria on the other hand can be
considered as more theoretical, quantifiable, and
comprehensive where the limitations associated with
the particle-based criteria such as due to the effects of
filter gradation, filter compaction, and filter PSD can
be removed.
123

Table 2 Comparison of dam filter against good and poor filters (Foster and Fell 2001)
Characteristic of filter Dams with poor filter performance
D15f Average D15f [ 1.00 mm
Coarsest D15f = 7–40 mm
Maximum particle size C 100 mm
Percent finer than 4.75 mm \ 40%
Susceptibility to segregation High
The overall knowledge of filtration undoubtedly
has been enhanced by the developments made in both,
the conventional particle size-based and the state-of-
the-art constriction size-based criteria nevertheless
there are still gaps and unknowns particularly when
the dispersive, broadly graded base soils are consid-
ered. For example, the effects of particle uniformity of
base soils have not been researched, either for the
particle-based criteria or the constriction-based crite-
ria. In addition, the effects of water quality on the no
erosion filter boundary should be examined, especially
when the base soils involved are dispersive. Consid-
ering the fact that the veracity of some of the
established criteria has been compromised, as struc-
tural safety has been breached in various cases, further
investigations have become necessary in order to
enhance the designers’ intuition and to achieve a more
reliable and economical filter design. The NEF test
nevertheless should be considered the conclusive test
in demonstrating that a certain filter design is having
the required performance.
The information provided by this review should be
applicable for the study, design, construction, and
operation of related geotechnical and geo-environ-
mental projects. Nevertheless, this review may also
require updating due to the progresses made in the
field.
Acknowledgements This study has been fully funded by
Universiti Sains Malaysia through various research,
postgraduate, and postdoctoral grants.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that there is no con-
flict of interests regarding the publication of this article.
123
Geotech Geol Eng
Dams with good filter performance
Average D15f B 0.5 mm
Coarsest D15f = 0.5–1.5 mm
B 75 mm
[ 40%
Low
References
Abbasi N, Nazifi MH (2013) Assessment and modification of
Sherard chemical method for evaluation of dispersion
potential of soils. Geotech Geol Eng 31:337–346
Arulanandan K, Heinzen R (1977) Factors influencing erosion
in dispersive clays and methods of identification. Int Assoc
Sci Hydrol Publ 122:75–81
Arulanandan K, Perry EB (1983) Erosion in relation to filter
design criteria in earth dams. J Geotech Eng 109:682–698
Bell F, Bruyn ID (1997) Sensitive, expansive, dispersive and
collapsive soils. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 56:19–38
Benahmed N, Bonelli S (2012) Investigating concentrated leak
erosion behaviour of cohesive soils by performing hole
erosion tests. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 16:43–58
Bertram GE (1940) An experimental investigation of protective
filters. Soil mechanics series, vol 7. Graduate School of
Engineering, Harvard University, Cambridge
Boadu FK (2000) Hydraulic conductivity of soils from grain-
size distribution: new models. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
126(8):739–746
Burns B, Ghataora G (2007) Internal erosion of Kaolin. In:
Puppala AJ, Hudyma N, Likos WJ (eds) Problematic soils
and rocks and in situ characterization. ASCE, Denver,
pp 1–8
Cedergren HR (1977) Evaluation of seepage stability of dams.
In: Proceedings of the conference on evaluation of dam
safety, Asilomar, California. ASCE
Delgado F, Poyatos JM (2008) Discussion of ‘‘A procedure for
the design of protective filters’’ appears in Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 44: 490–495. Can Geotech J
45:437–439
Delgado Ramos F, Locke M (2000) Design of granular filters:
guidelines and recommendations for laboratory testing.
Filters Drain Geotech Environ Eng Geofilters
2000:115–122
Delgado Ramos F, Escudero Merino D, Olalla C (2016) The
importance of permeability in granular filter design and
control. In: Scour and Erosion—Harris, Whitehouse and
Moxon (Eds) Ó 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, London,
pp 979–985. ISBN: 978-1-138-02979-8
Delgado F, Huber N, Escuder I, De Membrillera M (2006)
Revised criteria for evaluating granular filters in earth and
rockfill dams. In: Transactions of the 22nd international
congress on large dams (ICOLD), Barcelona, Spain, 18–23
June 2006. International Commission on Large Dams
(ICOLD), Paris, vol 3, pp 445–456
Geotech Geol Eng
Delgado F, Poyatos M, Osorio F (2012) Internal erosion of
clayey soils protected by granular filters. In: 6th interna-
tional conference on Scour and Erosion, Paris, pp 871–878
Elges HFWK (1985) Dispersive soils: problem soils in South
Africa-state of the art. Civ Eng S Afr 27:347–353
Fannin J (2008) Karl Terzaghi: from theory to practice in
geotechnical filter design. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
134:267–276
Fell R, Fry J (2007) Internal erosion of dams and their founda-
tions. Taylor and Francis, London
Fell R, Wan CF, Cyganiewicz J, Foster M (2003) Time for
development of internal erosion and piping in embankment
dams. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 129:307–314
Fell R, Macgregor P, Stapledon D, Bell G (2005) Geotechnical
engineering of dams. Balkema, Leiden
Fell R, Macgregor P, Stapledon D, Bell G (2010) Geotechnical
engineering of dams. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Fernando J (2010) Effect of water quality on the dispersive
characteristics of soils found in the morwell area, Victoria,
Australia. Geotech Geol Eng 28:835–850
Flores-Berrones R, Ramirez-Reynaga M, Macari EJ (2010)
Internal erosion and rehabilitation of an earth-rock dam.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137:150–160
Foster MA (1999) The probability of failure of embankment
dams by internal erosion and piping. University of New
South Wales, Sydney
Foster MA, Fell R (1999) Assessing embankment dam filters
which do not satisfy design criteria. University of New
South Wales, School of Civil Engineering, Sydney
Foster M, Fell R (2000). Use of event trees to estimate the
probability of failure of embankment dams by internal
erosion and piping. In: Proceeding of the 20th international
congress on large dams, Beijing, International Commission
on Large Dams (ICOLD), Paris, Question 76, vol 1,
pp 237–260
Foster M, Fell R (2001) Assessing embankment dam filters that
do not satisfy design criteria. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
127:398–407
Foster MA, Spannagle M, Fell R (1998). Analysis of embank-
ment dam incidents. UNICIV Rep. No. Re—347, Univer-
sity of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Foster M, Fell R, Spannagle M (2000a) A method for assessing
the relative likelihood of failure of embankment dams by
piping. Can Geotech J 37:1025–1061
Foster M, Fell R, Spannagle M (2000b) The statistics of
embankment dam failures and accidents. Can Geotech J
37:1000–1024
Goldsworthy M (1990) Filter tests—direct or indirect?
Geotechnique 40:281–284
Goodarzi A, Salimi M (2015) Stabilization treatment of a dis-
persive clayey soil using granulated blast furnace slag and
basic oxygen furnace slag. Appl Clay Sci 108:61–69
Gutierrez F, Desir G, Gutierrez M (2003) Causes of the catas-
trophic failure of an earth dam built on gypsiferous allu-
vium and dispersive clays (Altorricón, Huesca Province,
NE Spain). Environ Geol 43:842–851
Hadj-Hamou T, Tavassoli MR, Sherman WC (1990) Laboratory
testing of filters and slot sizes for relief wells. J Geotech
Eng 116:1325–1346
Hagerty D (1991) Piping/sapping erosion. I: basic considera-
tions. J Hydraul Eng 117:991–1008
Hillis SF, Truscott EG (1982). Magat dams-design of internal
filter and drain zones. In: 35th Canadian geotechnical
conference
Honjo Y, Veneziano D (1989) Improved filter criterion for
cohesionless soils. J Geotech Eng 115:75–94
ICOLD (2013) Internal erosion of existing dams, levees and
dikes and their foundations. In: Bulletin 164, International
Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD)
Indraratna B, Locke M (1999) Design methods for granular
filters—critical review. Proc ICE Geotech Eng
137:137–147
Indraratna B, Raut AK (2006) Enhanced criterion for base soil
retention in embankment dam filters. J Geotech Geoenvi-
ron Eng 132:1621–1627
Indraratna B, Vafai F (1997) Analytical model for particle
migration within base soil–filter system. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 123:100–109
Indraratna B, Nutalaya P, Kuganenthira N (1991) Stabilization
of a dispersive soil by blending with fly ash. Q J Eng Geol
Hydrogeol 24:275–290
Indraratna B, Dilema E, Vafai F (1996) An experimental study
of the filtration of a lateritic clay slurry by sand filters. Proc
ICE Geotech Eng 119:75–83
Indraratna B, Raut A, Locke M (2004) Granular filters in
embankment dams: a conceptual overview and experi-
mental investigation. In: Geo Jordan conference 2004,
Irbid, Jordan. ASCE, pp 15–34
Indraratna B, Raut AK, Khabbaz H (2007) Constriction-based
retention criterion for granular filter design. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 133:266–276
Indraratna B, Trani LDO, Khabbaz H (2008) A critical review
on granular dam filter behaviour—from particle sizes to
constriction-based design criteria. Geomech Geoeng Int J
3:279–290
Indraratna B, Nguyen, VT, Rujikiatkamjorn C (2011) Assessing
the potential of internal erosion and suffusion of granular
soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137:550–554
Indraratna B, Nguyen VT, Rujikiatkamjorn C (2012a) Hydraulic
conductivity of saturated granular soils determined using a
constriction-based technique. Can Geotech J 49:607–613
Indraratna B, Athukorala R, Vinod J (2012b) Estimating the rate
of erosion of a silty sand treated with lignosulfonate.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139(5):701–714
Isbell R (2002) The Australian soil classification. CSIRO Pub-
lishing, Clayton
Kenney T, Lau D, Ofoegbu G (1984) Permeability of compacted
granular materials. Can Geotech J 21:726–729
Kenney T, Chahal R, Chiu E, Ofoegbu G, Omange G, Ume C
(1985) Controlling constriction sizes of granular filters.
Can Geotech J 22:32–43
Khor CH, Woo HK (1989) Investigation of crushed rock filters
for dam embankment. J Geotech Eng 115:399–412
Knodel PC (1991) Characteristics and problems of dispersive
clay soils. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation, Denver Office, Research and Laboratory
Services Division, Materials Engineering Branch, Denver
Kwang T (1990) Improvement of dam filter criterion for cohe-
sionless base soil. MEng thesis, Asian Institute of Tech-
nology, Bangkok, Thailand
Lafleur J (1984) Filter testing of broadly graded cohesionless
tills. Can Geotech J 21:634–643
123

Lafleur J, Mlynarek J, Rollin AL (1989) Filtration of broadly
graded cohesionless soils. J Geotech Eng 115:1747–1768
Lafleur J, Mlynarek J, Rollin AL (1993) Filter criteria for well
graded cohesionless soils. In: Braun J, Helbaum M, Schuler
U (eds) Filters in geotechnical and hydraulic engineering.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 97–106
Leonards G, Huang A, Ramos J (1991) Piping and erosion tests
at Conner Run Dam. J Geotech Eng 117:108–117
Li M, Fannin RJ (2008) Comparison of two criteria for internal
stability of granular soil. Can Geotech J 45:1303–1309
Locke M, Indraratna B (2002) Filtration of broadly graded soils:
the reduced PSD method. Geotechnique 52:285–287
Locke M, Indraratna B, Adikari G (2001) Time-dependent
particle transport through granular filters. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 127:521–529
Lone M, Hussain B, Asawa G (2005) Filter design criteria for
graded cohesionless bases. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
131:251–259
Mcdonald L, Stone P, Ingles O (1981) Practical treatments for
dams in dispersive soils. In: Proceedings of the 10th
international conference on soil mechanics and foundation
engineering, pp 355–366
Mcintyre D (1979) Exchangeable sodium, subplasticity and
hydraulic conductivity of some Australian soils. Soil Res
17:115–120
Minguez R, Delgado F, Escuder I, Membrillera M (2006)
Reliability assessment of granular filters in embankment
dams. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 30:1019–1037
Mitchell J (1993) Fundamentals of soil behavior. Wiley, New
York
Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) (1994) Gra-
dation design of sand and gravel filters. In: Mattinson M
(ed) National engineering handbook, chap 26, Part 633.
USDA, Washington
Nevels Jr J (1993) Dispersive clay embankment erosion: a case
history. Transportation Research Record
Odong J (2007) Evaluation of empirical formulae for determi-
nation of hydraulic conductivity based on grain-size anal-
ysis. J Am Sci 3(3):54–60
Ouhadi V, Goodarzi A (2003) Pore fluid characteristics effect on
the dispersivity behaviour of soils from macro and micro
structure aspects. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international
symposium on contaminated sediments, 2003, pp 200–206
Ouhadi V, Goodarzi A (2006) Assessment of the stability of a
dispersive soil treated by alum. Eng Geol 85:91–101
Ouhadi V, Bayesteh H, Pasdarpour M (2012) Analysis of dis-
persivity behavior of clay minerals by fuzzy computational
system and experimental methods. J Dispers Sci Technol
33:420–428
Paige-Green P (2008) Dispersive and erodible soils—funda-
mental differences. In: SAIEG/SAICE problem soils con-
ference. Midrand, pp 59–65
Penner D, Lagaly G (2001) Influence of anions on the rheo-
logical properties of clay mineral dispersions. Appl Clay
Sci 19:131–142
Pinto SE (1989) Filters for clay cores of embankment dams. In:
The 12th international conference on soil mechanics and
foundation engineering, Rio de Janeiro, pp 1689–1692
Premkumar S, Piratheepan J, Arulrajah A, Disfani M, Rajeev P
(2015) Experimental study on contact erosion failure in
123
Geotech Geol Eng
pavement embankment with dispersive clay. J Mater Civ
Eng 28:04015179
Raine SR, Loch RJ (2003) What is a sodic soil? Identification
and management options for construction sites and dis-
turbed lands. In: Workshop on soils in rural Queensland,
2003, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
Raut AK (2006) Mathematical modelling of granular filters and
constriction-based filter design criteria. PhD thesis,
University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia
Raut AK, Indraratna B (2008) Further advancement in filtration
criteria through constriction-based techniques. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 134:883–887
Reddi LN, Bonala MV (1997) Analytical solution for fine par-
ticle accumulation in soil filters. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 123:1143–1152
Regazzoni PL, Marot D (2011) Investigation of interface ero-
sion rate by Jet Erosion Test and statistical analysis. Eur J
Environ Civ Eng 15:1167–1185
Richards KS, Reddy KR (2007) Critical appraisal of piping
phenomena in earth dams. Bull Eng Geol Environ
66:381–402
Romero Diaz A, Marin Sanleandro P, Sanchez Soriano A,
Belmonte Serrato F, Faulkner H (2007) The causes of
piping in a set of abandoned agricultural terraces in
southeast Spain. Catena 69:282–293
Savas H (2015) Consolidation and swell characteristics of dis-
persive soils stabilized with lime and natural zeolite. Sci
Eng Compos Mater. https://doi.org/10.1515/secm-2014-
0202
Sherard J (1979) Sinkholes in dams of coarse, broadly graded
soils. In: 13th international congress on large dams, New
Delhi, Q47, R2, Paris, pp 325–334
Sherard J (1983) Discussion of ‘‘Design of filters for clay cores
of dams’’ by Peter R. Vaughan and Hermusia F. Soares
(January, 1982). J Geotech Eng 109:1195–1197
Sherard J (1984) Trends and debatable aspects in embankment
dam engineering. Int Water Power Dam Constuction
36:26–32
Sherard JL (1985) Hydraulic fracturing in embankment dams.
Seepage and leakage from dams and impoundments.
ASCE, New York, pp 115–141
Sherard JL, Decker RS (1977) Dispersive clays, related piping,
and erosion in geotechnical projects. ASTM Special
Technical Publication, Philadelphia
Sherard JL, Dunnigan LP (1985) Filters and leakage control in
embankment dams. Seepage and leakage from dams and
impoundments. ASCE, New York, pp 1–30
Sherard J, Dunnigan LP (1989) Critical filters for impervious
soils. J Geotech Eng 115:927–947
Sherard JL, Decker RS, Ryker NL (1972) Hydraulic fracturing
in low dams of dispersive clay. In: Performance of earth
and earth-supported structures. ASCE, pp 653–689
Sherard JL, Decker RS, Dunnigan LP (1976a) Identification and
nature of dispersive soils. J Geotech Eng Div 102:287–301
Sherard JL, Steele EF, Decker RS, Dunnigan LP (1976b) Pin-
hole test for identifying dispersive soils. J Geotech Eng Div
102:69–85
Sherard JL, Dunnigan LP, Talbot JR (1984a) Basic properties of
sand and gravel filters. J Geotech Eng 110:684–700
Sherard JL, Dunnigan LP, Talbot JR (1984b) Filters for silts and
clays. J Geotech Eng 110:701–718
Geotech Geol Eng
Shourijeh PT, Soroush A (2009) Statistical study of no-erosion
filter (NEF) test results. Proce ICE Geotech Eng
162:165–174
Sorensen S (1995) Dispersive soils: guide for use in farm dam
construction. DNRQ96017, Rural Water Advisory Ser-
vices, Department of Natural Resources Queensland,
Brisbane
Soroush A, Shourijeh PT, Disfani MM (2006) Filter testing: an
essential aspect in designing filters for embankment dams.
In: Proceedings of the 7th international congress on civil
engineering, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran
Soroush A, Shourijeh P, Mohammadinia A (2011) Controlling
internal erosion in earth dams and their foundations: case
studies. In: Proceedings of the Indian geotechnical con-
ference, pp 64–71
Terzaghi K (1926) Soil physical basis of mechanics of earth
structures. F. Deuticke, Wien (in German)
Terzaghi K (1996) Soil mechanics in engineering practice.
Wiley, New York
Townsend F, Shiau J-M, Pietrus T (1987) Piping susceptibility
and filter criteria for sands. In: Symposium on engineering
aspects of soil erosion, dispersive clays, and loess, Atlantic
City, New Jersey, USA, 29 Apr 1987. ASCE
Truscott EG (1983) Discussion of ‘‘Design of filters for clay
cores of dams’’ by Peter R. Vaughan and Hermusia F.
Soares (January, 1982). J Geotech Eng 109:1197–1198
Umesh T, Dinesh S, Sivapullaiah PV (2011) Characterization of
dispersive soils. Mater Sci Appl 2:629–633
Vakili AH, Selamat MR (2014) An assessment of veracity of
filter criteria for earth dams. Proc ICE Geotech Eng
167(6):574–584
Vakili AH, Selamat MR, Moayedi H (2013a) Effects of using
pozzolan and Portland cement in the treatment of disper-
sive clay. Sci World J 1–10
Vakili A, Selamat M, Moayedi H, Amani H (2013b) Stabiliza-
tion of dispersive soils by pozzolan. In: Forensic engi-
neering 2012. ASCE, pp 726–735
Vakili A, Selamat MR, Moayedi H (2013c) An assessment of
physical and mechanical properties of dispersive clay
treated with lime. Casp J Appl Sci Res 2:197–204
Vakili AH, Davoodi S, Arab A, Selamat MR (2015a) Use of
artificial neural network in predicting permeability of dis-
persive clay treated with lime and pozzolan. Int J Sci Res
Environ Sci 3(1):23–37
Vakili A, Selamat MR, Abdul Aziz H (2015b) Filtration of
broadly graded cohesive dispersive base soils. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 141(5):04015004
Vakili AH, Selamat MR, Mohajeri P (2016) Discussion of
‘‘Experimental study on contact erosion failure in pave-
ment embankment with dispersive clay’’ by S. Premkumar,
J. Piratheepan, A. Arulrajah, M. Disfani, and P. Rajeev.
J Mater Civ Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.
1943-5533.0001452
Vakili AH, Selamat MR, Abdul Aziz H, Mojiri A, Ahmad Z,
Safarzadeh M (2017) Treatment of dispersive clay soil by
ZELIAC. Geoderma 285(2017):270–279
Vaughan PR (1978) Design of filters for the protection of
cracked dam cores against internal erosion. American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston
Vaughan P, Soares HF (1982) Design of filters for clay cores of
dams. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 108:17–31
Vinod J, Indraratna B, Mahamud MA (2010) Internal erosional
behaviour of lignosulfonate treated dispersive clay. In:
Geotechnical society of Singapore—international sympo-
sium on ground improvement technologies and case his-
tories, ISGI’09, pp 549–554
Wan CF, Fell R (2004) Investigation of rate of erosion of soils in
embankment dams. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
130:373–380
Zomorodian SA, Moghadam MJ (2011) Investigation of effec-
tive parameters on the embankment dam filter behavior in
simultaneous cracking in the core and filter. Geotech Geol
Eng 29:637–644
Zorluer I, Icaga Y, Yurtcu S, Tosun H (2010) Application of a
fuzzy rule-based method for the determination of clay
dispersibility. Geoderma 160:189–196
123