437
DISCUSSION / DISCUSSION
Discussion of ‘‘A procedure for the design of
protective filters’’1
Fernando Delgado and Jose M. Poyatos
Introduction
According to the International Commission of Large Dams
(ICOLD 1994), two fundamental functions are required for
the filters in embankment dams and other hydraulic struc-
tures: (i) retention function, in which the filter must prevent
the migration of base soil particles; and (ii) permeability
function, in which the filter must accept the seepage flows
from adjacent foundation or fill materials without the buildup
of excess hydrostatic pressure. Therefore, the filter must be
not only fine enough to prevent the erosion of the base soil
but also coarse enough to be many times more pervious than
the base soil. For this reason, two main criteria have been
used separately in the design of granular filters: the retention
criterion and the permeability criterion. Moreover, there are
other conditions that the filter must meet: (i) it must not seg-
regate, (ii) it must not change in gradation, (iii) it must not
have apparent or real cohesion, (iv) it must be internally sta-
ble, and (v) it must have sufficient discharge capacity.
Much research work has been done in relation to the re-
tention criterion, mainly based on laboratory tests. These
so-called empirical retention criteria usually compare the
filter and base soil particle-size distributions (PSDs)
(Sherard and Dunnigan 1989; Honjo and Veneziano 1989;
Foster and Fell 2001), but other empirical retention criteria
are based on a comparison between the filter permeability
and the base soil particle sizes (Vaughan and Soares 1982;
Delgado et al. 2006) because the permeability indirectly
takes into account not only the whole PSD of the filter, but
also other important characteristics such as compaction, par-
ticles shape, and porosity.
Recently, important results have been found for retention
criteria based on the fundamental physics of filtration. The
so-called analytical retention criteria have been developed
by Locke and Indraratna (2002), Lone et al. (2005), Indrar-
atna et al. (2007), and others. For example, Indraratna et al.
considered the constriction-size distribution (CSD) of the fil-
ter and also incorporated the effect of nonuniformity of the
cohesionless base soil. Their analytical model has been veri-
fied by experimental data.
Received 11 December 2007. Accepted 20 February 2008. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cgj.nrc.ca on 10 April
2008.
F. Delgado2 and J.M. Poyatos. University of Granada, Edificio Politécnico, Campus de Fuentenueva, 18071 Granada, Spain.
1Appears in Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 44: 490–495.
2Corresponding author (e-mail: fdelgado@ugr.es).
Can. Geotech. J. 45: 437–439 (2008) doi:10.1139/T08-029
In the case of permeability criterion, if the permeability of
the base soil is known, for example from a permeameter
test, the well-known theories of filtration indicate that the
filter permeability should be at least 25 or even 100 times
higher (ICOLD 1994). This criterion can be considered ana-
lytical, but sometimes the permeabilities of both the filter
and base soil are estimated from their PSD (e.g.,
k ¼ 0:35ðD215 Þ, Sherard et al. 1984), which is why the empir-
ical permeability criterion D15f > 4D15b is normally used
(ICOLD 1994; NRCS 1994).
The authors have presented a procedure for the design of
protective filters based on an analytical solution that takes
into account factors like pore size, permeability, and factor
of safety against soil boiling conditions. This analytical sol-
ution is offered as a single equation that would be able to
substitute both the traditional retention criterion and the per-
meability criterion.
Discussion
The authors have presented a brief and interesting review
of the state-of-the-art, but in the discussers’ opinion there is
a possible misunderstanding when they affirmed that Sher-
ard et al. (1984) indicated ‘‘Kf should be in the range of
0.35–0.60  (D15f)2 for successful filter functioning. . .’’ be-
cause Sherard et al. actually indicated that ‘‘the compacted
sand and gravel filters used in our tests. . . ranged from fairly
uniform to moderately graded, (Cu generally 1.5–8). Their
permeability generally is related to the D15 size in the ap-
proximate range of k ¼ 0:2ðD215 Þ to 0:6ðD215 Þ, in which k is
in centimetres per second and D15 is in millimetres. Their
average permeability was about 0:35ðD215 Þ. . .’’ Therefore, it
is very important to understand that they are describing the
filters used in their tests including both filters that were suc-
cessful and filters that failed, not just stating a condition for
a successful filter functioning.
In relation to the development of the analytical solution
presented by the authors, some important issues must also
be discussed.
# 2008 NRC Canada
438
The authors’ analysis is mainly based on the use of the
Kozeny–Carman equation (eq. [1] of the note) for both the
filter and base soil permeability.
 
 e3
½1 k ¼ C D2 w
 1þe
In the case of the filter, although it is always better to
measure the actual in situ filter permeability, eq. [2] (eq. [5]
of the note) is more accurate than the afore-mentioned
kf ¼ 0:35ðD215 Þ because the coefficient Cf takes into account
the shape of the filter particles and the placement and com-
paction characteristics and ef takes into account the porosity
of the filter. However, in the case of the base soil, eq. [3]
(eq. [6] of the note) assumes filtration through the porous me-
dia but is not valid for filtration through a crack unless the
crack is sealed. In any case, eq. [3] could be inaccurate for
clayey base soils, which commonly form imperivous cores in
embankment dams, where, for example, water content has a
major influence on permeability (Arya et al. 2003); and in ad-
dition, it is sometimes not possible to calculate D15b for a very
fine base soil, such as in example 26-1 of NRCS (1994).
   density of filter media, presenting several conclusions that
2 w e3f
½2 kf ¼ Cf ðD15f Þ
 1 þ ef
  3 
w 2eb
½3 kb ¼ Cb ðD15b Þ
 1 þ eb
In addition, the ratio kf / kb is given in eq. [4] (eq. [7] of
the note), and then it is assumed that Cf = Cb. This assump-
tion can be incorrect in many real situations where the filter
and base soil particles are completely different and the filter
and base soil placement methods are not similar, for exam-
ple, sand-size granular filters (more or less rounded particles
and roller compacted) and clayey base soils (laminar par-
ticles and tamping roller compacted).
  2  3
kf Cf D15f ef ð1 þ eb Þ
½4 ¼
kb Cb D15b eb ð1 þ ef Þ
The factor of safety against soil boiling conditions was in-
troduced in eq. [12] of the note (eq. [5] of the discussion). In
the discussers’ opinion, sand boiling can be very important in
some situations, such as piping in the foundation of a dam,
but not in others, such as piping in the embankment (Foster
et al. 2000), so it is not reasonable to propose that this factor
of safety must always be taken into account for the design of
every protective filter.
½5 FS ¼ icr =if
In eq. [14] of the note (eq. [6] of the discussion) a hy-
draulic condition was introduced (seepage flow continuity),
but in the whole process there was no reference indicating
that the filter must be able to retain the base soil particles;
in fact, the retention criterion was not taken into account.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 45, 2008
½6 q ¼ kf if
The analytical solution presented in eq. [16] of the note
(eq. [7] of the discussion) was used in a practical example.
The base soil PSD was taken from NRCS (1994) example
26-4, but kb, Gs, ðd Þb , and ðd Þf were estimated, FS was
imposed, and q was calculated by the authors, leading to
the result D15f = 0.75 mm, which lies within the range of
(D15f)max–(D15f)min given in NRCS (1994). The authors af-
firmed that the advantage of eq. [16] was that it avoids the
uncertainty associated with the determination of D15f using
the empirical approaches and results in a particular value of
D15f that can be used in the design. From the discussers’
point of view, even if the results from eq. [16] were correct,
the obtained D15f is only based on the permeability criterion,
so it can only be considered as a lower limit, and another
D15f upper limit is needed to meet the retention criterion.
 1=2
ðp  1Þ3 qm2 pFS
½7 D15f ¼ D15b
ðmp  1Þ3 ðGs  1Þkb
Once the results of the example have been presented, the
authors studied the effect of seepage discharge and relative
seem to be contradictory or possibly unreasonable:
(1) The higher the FS, the higher the D15f should be without
any upper limit (Fig. 1 of the note). In the discussers’
opinion, the proposed unlimited increase of D15f could
be very dangerous because it reduces the ability of the
filter to retain base soil particles.
(2) The higher the seepage discharge q, the higher the D15f
should be (Fig. 1). This result is reasonable in the case
of the permeability function of the filter, but again the
D15f should be limited by the retention criterion and
Fig. 1 does not show any upper limit to D15f.
(3) The value of m (dry unit weight of the base soil divided
by dry unit weight of the filter) should lie in a specific
range (0.70–0.97 in the example). From the discussers’
point of view, this condition seems to be quite unusual
in practical dam engineering.
Conclusions
The authors have presented a procedure for the design of
protective filters based on an analytical solution. This ana-
lytical solution is offered as a single equation that would be
able to substitute both the traditional retention criterion and
the permeability criterion.
As shown briefly in the introduction, the retention crite-
rion and the permeability criterion for a granular filter are
considered separately in current practice. Of course, it is
possible to use the filter permeability in both criteria (Del-
gado et al. 2006), but in that case the application of these
two different criteria will result in a filter permeability upper
limit for the retention function and a lower limit for the
drainage function, not a single value of filter permeability.
If the filter particle-size distribution (PSD) is used, (D15f)max
and (D15f)min will be necessary.
The analytical process followed by the authors is very in-
teresting, but in the discussers’ opinion the omission of a
# 2008 NRC Canada
Delgado and Poyatos
real retention criterion and the limitations of several of the
assumptions make the proposed procedure inadvisable for
general use without further improvement.
References
Arya, L.M., Leij, F.J., Shouse, P.J., and van Genuchten, M.T. 2003.
Relationship between the hydraulic conductivity function and
the particle-size distribution. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 63: 1063 (1999); Erratum, 67: 373.
Babu, G.L.S., and Srivastava, A. 2007. A procedure for the design
of protective filters. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 44: 490–
495. doi:10.1139/T07-005.
Delgado, F., Huber, N.P., Escuder, I., and De Membrillera, M.G.
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.
Foster, M., and Fell, R. 2001. Assessing embankment dams, filters
which do not satisfy design criteria. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 127: 398–407. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:5(398).
Foster, M., Fell, R., and Spannagle, M. 2000. The statistics of em-
bankment dam failures and accidents. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 37: 1000–1024. doi:10.1139/cgj-37-5-1000.
Honjo, Y., and Veneziano, D. 1989. Improved filter criterion for
cohesionless soils. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
115: 75–94.
ICOLD. 1994. Embankment dams: granular filters and drains. Re-
view and recommendations. Bulletin 95. International Commis-
sion on Large Dams (ICOLD), Paris.
Indraratna, B., Raut, A.K., and Khabbaz, H. 2007. Constriction-
based retention criterion for granular filter design. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 133:
266–276. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:3(266).
Locke, M., and Indraratna, B. 2002. Filtration of broadly graded
soils: the reduced PSD method. Géotechnique, 52: 285–287.
Lone, M.A., Hussain, B., and Asawa, G.L. 2005. Filter design cri-
teria for graded cohesionless bases. Journal of Geotechnical and
439
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 131: 251–259. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:2(251).
NRCS. 1994. Gradation design of sand and gravel filters. In Na-
tional engineering handbook. Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), US Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D.C. Chap. 26, Part 633.
Sherard, J.L., and Dunnigan, L.P. 1989. Critical filters for imper-
vious soils. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, 115: 927–947.
Sherard, J.L., Dunnigan, L.P., and Talbot, J.R. 1984. Filters for
silts and clays. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Divi-
sion, ASCE, 110: 701–718.
Vaughan, P., and Soares, H. 1982. Design of filters for clay cores
of dams. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, 108: 17–31.
List of symbols
C coefficient in the Kozeny–Carman equation that de-
pends on the method of placement or the compac-
tion technique; Cb for base soil, Cf for filter
material
D effective particle size
D15 diameter of PSD at which 15% soil particles are fi-
ner; D15b for base soil, D15f for filter material
e void ratio; eb for base soil, ef for filter material
FS factor of safety against soil boiling conditions
Gs specific gravity of soil particles
icr critical hydraulic gradient for filter media
if hydraulic gradient in filter media
k coefficient of permeability; kb for base soil, kf for
filter material
m ¼ ð d Þb
ð Þf
d
p ¼ Gðs Þwb
d
q discharge per unit area
 d dry unit weight; ðd Þb for base soil, ðd Þf for filter
material
 w unit weight of water
 viscosity of water
# 2008 NRC Canada