FILTRATION PERFORMANCE OF GEOTEXTILES IN CYCLIC FLOW

CONDITIONS: A LABORATORY STUDY

By

R A S H M I

A.

H A W L E Y

B . S c . E n g . (Civil E n g i n e e r i n g ) - University of N e w B r u n s w i c k , F r e d e r i c t o n , C a n a d a , 1 9 9 8

T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D

T H E

IN P A R T I A L

F U L F I L M E N T

R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E

M A S T E R

O F

A P P L I E D

O F

S C I E N C E

in

T H E

F A C U L T Y

D E P A R T M E N T

O F

G R A D U A T E

O F

CIVIL

S T U D I E S

E N G I N E E R I N G

W e a c c e p t this t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g
to the required s t a n d a r d

T H E

U N I V E R S I T Y

O F

B R I T I S H

C O L U M B I A

M a y 2001
R a s h m i H a w l e y , 2001

O F

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the
University of British Columbia, I agree that the library shall make it freely available for reference and
study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may
be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives.

It is understood that

copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written
permission.

Department of Civil Engineering

The University of British Columbia

Vancouver, Canada

R. Hawley

Authorization

ABSTRACT

Geotextile filters are often used as a replacement for, or in combination with, traditional granular
filters in many engineering works. Conventional design criteria, which are largely empirical, are
generally sufficient for applications where flow is unidirectional and the soil is internally stable.
However, for conditions including reversing flow regimes and potentially internally unstable soils,
these criteria may not be adequate and performance tests may be necessary. The gradient ratio test
is a performance test that assesses soil-geotextile compatibility under an applied hydraulic gradient.
The gradient ratio device developed at UBC is a modified version of the ASTM apparatus, which
allows the application of both unidirectional and reversing flow to soil-geotextile systems at varying
hydraulic gradients and confining pressures. In this research work, three soils were tested in
combination with seven geotextiles, using the modified gradient ratio device. Two of the geotextiles
were nonwoven materials and 5 were woven, with AOS values ranging from 0.212 mm to 0.600 mm.
The soils were a Fraser River sand, a copper mine-waste tailings and a Port Coquitlam silty sand.
The mine-waste tailings and Port Coquitlam silty sand were recognized as potentially 'problematic'
from a filtration standpoint. The soils had a relatively narrow range of D s (from 0.330 mm to 0.215
8

mm), and a moderate range of coefficient of uniformity, C (from 1.8 to 5.8). The tests therefore
u

provided results for AOS/D values ranging from 0.6 to 2.8. The intent was to gain insight to (i) the
85

influence of geotextile type (woven versus nonwoven), (ii) the influence of flow regime (unidirectional
versus cyclic), and (iii) the validity of existing design guidance for the range of soil and geotextile
combinations used in testing.
Based on the very limited comparison of three geotextiles of the same opening size, it appears there
is little difference in behaviour of these woven and nonwoven geotextiles. All tests were relatively
stable, with insignificant quantities of soil passing through the geotextiles.

Results for the Port

Coquitlam silty sand, which yielded the most soil passing through the geotextile, showed a small
difference in the grain size distribution of the passing soils. It appeared that more of the finer material
passed through the woven geotextile, than the corresponding nonwoven.
The influence of flow regime was studied from tests in unidirectional flow, and cyclic flow with and
without confining stress. No significant influence of the frequency was found in testing for the flow
reversal at frequencies of 0.02 Hz and 0.1 Hz. The Fraser River sand is stable in all tests and
therefore, the influence of flow regime does not appear to be significant. The mine waste tailings are
stable in all unidirectional flow, and generate a very subtle trend towards piping instability in cyclic
flow as the AOS/D approaches 2.0. The G R
85

S T M

and

G R

O D

values correspondingly are less than

unity thus indicating the onset of piping. The Port Coquitlam silty sand behaved slightly differently

R. H a w l e y

II

Abstract

than the other two soils, in that it is stable in both unidirectional flow and confined cyclic flow, but
experienced significant piping and collapse of the soil structure with unconfined cyclic flow. The soil
yielded catastrophic piping during sample preparation when the AOS/D was 2.8.
85

The results were used to evaluate the design criteria of CGS (1992) and Luettich et al. (1992) in
unidirectional flow, and CGS (1992), Luettich et al. (1992) and Holtz et al. (1997) in cyclic flow. The
CGS (1992) and Luettich et al. (1992) guidance were found to be slightly conservative for soilgeotextile filtration compatibility in unidirectional flow. For cyclic flow, all three criteria were again
found to be reasonable, but somewhat overly conservative.

R. Hawley

Abstract

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

ABSTRACT

ii

LIST OF TABLES

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ix

1.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Purpose of Study

1.2

Scope of Study

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1

Basic Principles in Filter Design

2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3

4
6
7

2.0

2.2

2.3

3.0

Soil Retention
Permeability
Strength/Survivability and Durability

Current Design/Specification Guidance

2.2.1
2.2.2

9
10

Unidirectional Flow
Cyclic Flow

Filtration Testing

13

2.3.1
2.3.2

13
18

Unidirectional (Steady State) Flow

Cyclic (Dynamic) Flow

APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES

23

3.1

Modified Gradient Ratio Device

23

3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3

23
26
26

3.2

R. Hawley

Apparatus
Data Acquisition System
X-ray Particle Analysis

Procedures

27

3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4

27
28
29
31

Sample Preparation
Test Set-Up
Multi-Stage Testing Procedure
Particle Size Analysis

iv

Table of Contents

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

TEST MATERIALS

32

4.1

Geotextiles

32

4.2

Soils

34

TEST RESULTS

38

5.1

Head Losses in the Permeameter

38

5.2

Particles Passing Through the Geotextile

39

5.3

Pre-test and Post-test Gradations

41

5.4

Water Head Distributions

44

5.5

Permeability

46

5.6

Gradient Ratio

54

5.7

Repeatability

55

ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS

58

6.1

Influence of Geotextile Type

58

6.2

Influence of Flow Regime

59

6.3

Design Criteria

65

6.3.1
6.3.2

66
68

Unidirectional Flow
Cyclic Flow

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

71

7.1

Design Guidance

71

7.2

Limitations of Testing

71

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

LIST OF REFERENCES

76

APPENDIX A - Internal Stability of Test Soils and Calculation of Design Criteria

APPENDIX B - Pre-test and Post-test Gradations
APPENDIX C - Water Head Distributions
APPENDIX D - Tabulation of Key Results

R. Hawley

73

80
87
108
129

Table of Contents

LIST OF T A B L E S
Page

Table 2.1

Summary of Permeability Criteria (after Christopher and Fischer, 1992)

Table 2.2.

Typical Hydraulic Gradients (after Giroud, 1996)

Table 2.3.

Cyclic load and related period (after Mouw et. al., 1986)

Table 2.4.

Existing geotextile retention criteria (modified after Hameiri, 2000)

Table 2.5.

Filtration criteria that include cyclic flow conditions (after Hameiri, 2000)

10

Table 3.1.

Multi-stage testing sequence

29

Table 3.2.

Data collection set-up

30

Table 4.1.

Physical Properties of Geotextiles Tested

32

Table 4.2.

Test soil properties

35

Table 4.3.

Test codes (and A O S / D ) of soil-geotextile combinations

Table 5.1.

Summary of mass of soil passing during each test stage (g/m )

39

Table 5.2.

Summary of gradations of mass of soil passing (where adequate sample)

43

35

85

Table 5.3a. Average permeabilities (x 10" cm/s) for unidirectional and post cyclic stages:
F R S tests

50

Table 5.3b. Average permeabilities (x 10" cm/s) for unidirectional and post cyclic stages:
M W T tests

51

Table 5.3c. Average permeabilities (x 10" cm/s) for unidirectional and post cyclic stages:
P C S tests

52

Table 5.4.

Summary of sample length after each stage of P C S tests (mm)

53

Table 5.5.

Summary of gradient ratio test results

54

Table 5.6a. Test results: Test F160(a)

56

Table 5.6b. Test results: Test F160(b)

56

Table 6.1.

Comparison of filter performance: nonwoven versus woven

58

Table 6.2.

Design criteria used in this study

65

R. Hawley

VI

List of Tables

LIST OF FIGURES
Page

Figure 2.1. Filter bridge formation (after Holtz et al., 1997)

Figure 2.2. Giroud, 1982 soil retention criteria for steady state flow conditions (after
Luettich et al., 1992)

12

Figure 2.3

14

Heerton, 1982 soil retention criteria for dynamic flow conditions (after
Luettich etal., 1992)

Figure 2.4. Gradient ratio permeameter set up diagram, ASTM D 5101

(after ASTM, 1996)

15

Figure 2.5. UBC modified gradient ratio device (after Fannin et al., 1996)

17

Figure 2.6. Cyclic flow test: Italian device (after Tondello, 1998)

20

Figure 2.7. Cyclic flow test: Singapore bi-directional flow apparatus

(after Chew et al., 2000)

21

Figure 3.1. UBC modified gradient ratio device (after Hameiri, 2000)

24

Figure 3.2. The permeameter and port locations

24

Figure 3.3. Modeling the reversing flow regime in the permeameter

(after Hameiri, 2000)

25

Figure 3.4. Differential pressure transducer and manometer setup

(modified after Hameiri, 2000)

26

Figure 4.1a. SEM photograph: Nonwoven geotextile, AOS = 0.212 mm (Mirafi 140N)

33

Figure 4.1b. SEM photograph: Woven geotextile, AOS = 0.212 mm (FW700)

33

Figure 4.1c. SEM photograph: Woven geotextile, AOS = 0.600 mm (HP570)

33

Figure 4.2. Soil gradations

34

Figure 4.3a. SEM photograph of FRS: subangular to subrounded particles

36

Figure 4.3b. SEM photograph of MWT: angular to subangular particles

37

Figure 4.3c. SEM photograph of PCS: subrounded particles

37

Figure 5.1. Flow Rate, Q, dependent response of total head loss, h

38

17

Figure 5.2. Preferential channeled type piping as observed during tests

P404 and P402.

40

Figure 5.3a. Pre- and post-test gradations, example of Scenario 1 (a, b):
D constant (test F402)

41

50

Figure 5.3b. Pre- and post-test gradations, Scenario 2: D increases (test M700)

42

Figure 5.3c. Pre- and post-test gradations, Scenario 3: D decreases (test P404)

42

Figure 5.4a. Water Head Distributions: Test F402 (i = 2)

45

Figure 5.4b. Water Head Distributions: Test M570 (i = 4)

45

Figure 5.4c. Water Head Distributions: Test P402 (i = 5)

45

Figure 5.5a. Cumulative Head Loss Between Ports During Stage CYC50S: Test F402

47

Figure 5.5b. Cumulative Head Loss Between Ports During Stage CYC10S: Test F402

47

Figure 5.6a. Cumulative Head Loss Between Ports During Stage CYC50S: Test M570

48

50

50

17

17

17

R. Hawley

VII

List of Figures

Figure 5.6b. Cumulative Head Loss Between Ports During Stage CYC 10S: Test M570

48

Figure 5.7a. Cumulative Head Loss Between Ports During Stage CYC50S: Test P402

49

Figure 5.7b. Cumulative Head Loss Between Ports During Stage CYC10S: Test P402

49

Figure 5.8a. Water head distribution of unidirectional stages: Test F160(a)

57

Figure 5.8b. Water head distribution of unidirectional stages: Test F160(b)

57

Figure 6.1a. Influence of flow regime: FRS tests, i = 2

60

Figure 6.1b. Influence of flow regime: MWT tests, h = 4

61

Figure 6.1c. Influence of flow regime: PCS tests, i = 5

61

Figure 6.2a. Unidirectional results:

62

17

17

Figure 6.2b. Cyclic results:

GR

GRMOD

62

OD

Figure 6.3a. Test P404: Failure pattern during stage CYC10N

64

Figure 6.3b. Test P402 Failure pattern during stage CYC10N

64

Figure 6.4a. Unidirectional results: CGS (1992) guidelines

67

Figure 6.4b. Unidirectional results: Luettich et al. (1992) guidelines

67

Figure 6.5a. Cyclic results: CGS (1992) guidelines

69

Figure 6.5b. Unidirectional results: Luettich et al. (1992) guidelines

69

Figure 6.5c. Cyclic results: Holtz et al. (1997) guidelines

70

R. Hawley

VIM

List of Figures

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. R. J. Fannin, P.Eng., whose patience,
support, enthusiasm and continual encouragement made the submission of this thesis possible.
Also, for your development of a university-industry partnership in support of the research, I am deeply
grateful. The National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada provided core funding
for this project. TC Mirafi Inc. manufactured the geotextiles and also provided industry funding.
I would like to thank Mr. Harald Schrempp and Mr. Doug Smith of the UBC Civil Engineering
workshop for their precision and expediency in making modifications to the gradient ratio device.
Many thanks also to Mr. Scott Jackson and Mr. John Wong for their advice and help regarding the
computer and electrical systems used in this project. Thanks also to Dr. Avikam Hameiri for your
guidance and for answering my many questions.
I would also like to thank Mr. Dal Scott of Highland Valley Copper and Ms. Karen Thompson of KlohnCrippen Consultants Ltd. for providing the mine-waste tailings for testing.
I also wish to express love and many thanks to my family in New Brunswick, who have always been a
solid foundation supporting me through every part of my life. Finally, I am deeply thankful to my
husband, Hugh, for his constant love and encouragement across the 6000 km that separated us for
two years.

R. Hawley

ix

Acknowledgements

1.0

INTRODUCTION

Geotextile filters are often used as a replacement for, or in combination with, traditional granular
filters in many engineering works including earth dams, coastal erosion protection, and waste
containment facilities.

They offer comparable performance, improved economy, consistent

properties, and ease of placement (Christopher & Fischer, 1992).

It is imperative, where the

consequences of poor performance are critical, to provide proper design guidance for such filters.
Conventional design criteria, which are largely empirical, are generally sufficient for routine
applications. In such applications, flows are unidirectional and soils are internally stable. However,
for more demanding conditions, such as reversing flow regimes and potentially internally unstable
soils, these criteria may not be adequate and performance tests may be required (Fannin & Pishe,
2001).
The underlying problem remains that drainage systems employing geotextile filters are based on
empirical design guidance that is fashioned after traditional granular filters. Being a relatively new
material, there are few long-term performance data on which to evaluate the applicability and success
of these criteria for geotextiles. Consequently, there can be difficulty in designing with confidence
and hence a reluctance to use these materials. This causes a reversion to the use of traditional
granular filters, which themselves can be constructed with poor quality materials, depending largely
on availability, and improper construction practices.
Many factors influence the performance of geotextile filters, including (i) type of application, (ii) soil
properties, (iii) filter properties, (iv) fluid properties, (v) hydraulic conditions, (vi) confining stresses
and (vii) construction practices (Fannin & Pishe, 2001). Specification of a compatible soil-geotextile
system is based on strength, soil retention and consideration of relative permeability. Retention
criteria limit the amount of piping through the geotextile while promoting the development of a filter
bridge above the geotextile (Lawson, 1982). Retention criteria also include mitigation of long term
clogging of the geotextile pores. Relative permeability criteria, however, only require that the
permeability of the composite layer of the geotextile, soil bridge and immediate upstream filter zone
be compatible with that of the base soil.
Performance tests, such as the gradient ratio test as first proposed by Calhoun (1972) and
standardized by ASTM (1992), are used to assess directly the compatibility of soils and geotextiles
under different imposed hydraulic gradients (Fannin et al., 1994a,b). There does exist a reasonably
large body of test data to support the specification criteria for geotextiles in unidirectional flow.
However, cyclic flow has not been extensively studied due to the very few laboratory test devices that
simulate cyclic flow conditions. The gradient ratio device developed at UBC is a modified version of
the ASTM apparatus, which allows the application of both unidirectional and reversing flow to soil-

R. Hawley

Chapter 1

geotextile systems at varying hydraulic gradients and confining pressures. The objective of this
research work is to test various soils that are recognized to be challenging in filtration applications,
with geotextiles, using this modified gradient ratio device.

1.1

P u r p o s e of Study

The purpose of the work is to evaluate the performance of seven geotextiles in

combination with three different soils, in severe flow conditions, using the UBC Modified gradient ratio
device. The soils are identified, by the experience of industry leaders, as having the potential to be
problematic and hence present a challenge to many geotextile filters. The geotextiles comprise both
nonwoven and woven materials provided by TC Mirafi Inc. This study serves three main purposes,
namely to perform gradient ratio tests using problematic soils to assess empirical design guidance
and make recommendations to industry regarding these soils, to quantify the relative performance of
woven and nonwoven geotextiles having similar apparent opening sizes (AOS) in a comparative
study, and to determine the influence of flow regime on soil-geotextile filtration compatibility.
Additionally, findings of the study will contribute to the data bank of gradient ratio test results using
this apparatus, on woven and nonwoven geotextiles, with 'real' and challenging soils.
1.2

S c o p e of Study

The thesis is based on an interpretation of gradient ratio test results for seven
geotextiles tested against three soils, yielding a total of 21 tests. Repeatability tests were also
conducted, and those results are presented. A multi-stage testing procedure allows the imposition of
either steady state (unidirectional) flow, or unsteady (cyclic) flow at a selected frequency of flow
reversal (0.02 Hz or 0.1 Hz). The vertical confining stress (unconfined or 25 kPa) is also controlled
during the test. The geotextiles have AOS values ranging from 0.212 mm to 0.600 mm. The soils
have a D in the range 0.330 mm to 0.215 mm, and a C between 1.8 and 5.8. Interpretation of the
85

results is based on measurements of sample height, head loss along the sample, flow rate, mass of
soil passing through the geotextile, gradation of the soil passing through the geotextile and visual
observations of piping or clogging behaviour.

The analysis of results addresses not only the gradient ratio values, but also examines their changes
associated with the mass of soil passing through the geotextile and the permeability values deduced
from flow rates through the soil-geotextile system. The synthesis of results provides a basis on which
to draw conclusions on the filtration compatibility of these problematic soils, in unidirectional and
cyclic flow, and to determine the relative performance of nonwoven and woven geotextiles.

R. Hawley

Chapter 1

Specifically, the intent therefore is to perform tests using the UBC Modified Gradient Ratio device to
determine (i) the influence of geotextile type (woven versus nonwoven), (ii) the influence of flow
regime (unidirectional versus cyclic), and (iii) the validity of existing design guidance for the range of
soil and geotextile combinations used in testing.

R. Hawley

Chapter 1

2.0

LITERATURE REVIEW

Geotextiles are now routinely used in many filtration and drainage applications, as an alternative to
granular filters. They have proven a reliable alternative to granular filters for many reasons, including
improved economy, consistent properties and ease of placement (Christopher & Fischer, 1992).
Potential cost advantages include an expedient construction, reduction of maintenance costs, the
ability to use less or lower quality drainage aggregate, reduction of excavation volume by using
smaller drains, and elimination of collector pipes (Holtz et al., 1997). Geotextiles were once placed
as a simple 'filter cloth' with little or no regard for design and specification of compatible materials.
However, there is a growing confidence in these materials in routine applications due to the many
design criteria that now exist in the literature. These criteria, however innumerable for steady state or
unidirectional flow, have not yet fully addressed severe conditions such as cyclic flow with very high
gradients.
This review describes the basic principles of filtration and geotextile filter design. Many of the
available design criteria are presented for both steady state (unidirectional) and non-steady state
(cyclic or dynamic) flow conditions. As filtration testing is a key factor in determining these criteria,
the most common methods used are then briefly described. Specifically, the theory behind gradient
ratio (GR) testing "is presented and the developments of GR testing for unidirectional and reversing
flow are reviewed. The objective is to summarize relevant research and design guidance and thereby
outline the factors contributing to the need for this study.
2.1

Basic Principles in Filter Design

Filter design is predicated on one major principle: it must allow unimpeded flow of
water across the system while providing adequate retention of soil particles and preventing their
migration. This function must be maintained throughout the design life of the project, which means
that the filter cannot become unacceptably blocked (i.e. blinded) or clogged. This principle leads to
three major design criteria that must be satisfied: (i) soil retention, (ii) permeability and (iii) strength
(or survivability) and durability. These are briefly described in the following sections.
2.1.1

Soil Retention

Generally, retention criteria for geotextile filters are based on traditional

granular filter design whereby a characteristic geotextile opening size (O ) is specified to be less than
n

a characteristic grain size of the soil to be retained (D ). This criterion is established such that some
n

of the finer particles may pass (or wash through) without disturbing the integrity of the base soil, while

R. Hawley

Chapter 2

still promoting the development of a filter bridge This bridge is formed with the coarser particles of
soil filtering the smaller particles next to the geotextile, which will serve to retain the base material
(Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1. Filter bridge formation (after Holtz et al., 1997)

Lawson (1982) states that the geotextile only serves as a catalyst for forming the filter bridge after
which point, it is the bridge that maintains the function of the system. The geotextile, however, must
be chosen properly in order for optimal formation of the bridge or self-filtering layer. This is also
reinforced by Giroud (1996), who observes that the migration of all soil particles need not be
prevented for proper retention of the base soil, but rather, the soil behind the filter must remain
'stable'. This means, that after the initial washout of fines, a steady state is achieved whereby the soil
bridge is intact and flow is unimpeded. This phenomenon is examined and a 'washout model' is
presented by Lafleur et al. (1989) and Lafleur (1998). Lafleur et al. (1989) have shown that for
broadly graded cohesionless soils, a particle migration of 2.5 kg/m is a threshold above which
2

instability can occur, based on test soils with Cu values greater than 8 and D values from 1.8 to 19.
85

This, however, may be too large a soil mass migrating into a downstream drain (Lafleur, 1999).
Bhatia and Huang (1995) found that anything below approximately 3 kg/m was relatively
2

insignificant. Lawson (1998), on the other hand, suggested the use of rate of soil passing through the
geotextile as an index for piping since, with time, continuous piping could lead to loss of serviceability
and potential collapse. For internally unstable soils, however, Kenney and Lau (1985) recommend a
maximum opening size for retention of soils as well as a minimum opening size in order to prevent
clogging near the base/filter interface caused by internal migration of fines within the soil skeleton.
This recommendation is based on work with granular filters.

R. Hawley

Chapter 2

Given the intent of specifying a geotextile with openings small enough to retain the base soil and
promote the formation of a filter bridge, the geotextile should not be so tight as to yield clogging or
blinding of the geotextile. Piping has been known to manifest itself quickly whereas clogging may
occur quickly or gradually over the long term.
As Holtz et al. (1997) have stated, it is the life of the structure that must be considered. A retention
criterion ensures that the geotextile provides adequate flow during the design life of the structure. So,
even if some openings become plugged, the flow rate will be maintained at an operable level. This
criterion sometimes requires the use of long-term filtration tests to ensure compatibility between sitespecific soils and the geotextiles used. For example, for clogging resistance, a Gradient Ratio value
of 3 is recommended as an upper bound (US Army Corps of Engineers, 1977). Also as additional
qualifiers, Christopher & Holtz (1985) recommend that a 30% porosity minimum be maintained for
nonwoven geotextiles, and Calhoun (1972) recommends a percent open area of 4% for woven
geotextiles in order to reduce the risk of long term clogging or blinding of the geotextile. This is
especially important for silty soils where clogging is a definite possibility. These recommendations on
clogging resistance have been subsequently incorporated in more recent documentations, including
the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CGS, 1992) and Holtz et al. (1997). The existing
design guidance for both unidirectional and cyclic flow regimes is further discussed in section 2.2.
2.1.2

Permeability

This criterion in based on the premise that the permeability of the geotextile
(kg) must be larger or equal to that of the soil against which it is placed (k ) in order to provide
s

unimpeded flow through the soil-geotextile system and therefore avoid any build up of excess pore
water pressures in that soil. This criterion often conflicts with the retention criterion in that the
openings must be small enough to retain the soil, yet large enough to allow free passage of water.
Permeability is generally specified directly using the relationship, k > C k , where the constant C
g

depends on the severity of the flow conditions. Carroll (1983), Holtz et al. (1997) and the CGS (1992)
recommend that C should be equal to 10 for critical applications and for severe soils and hydraulic
conditions. Critical applications are defined by a high risk of loss of life and/or structural damage due
to drain failure, very high repair costs versus installation costs of drain and no evidence of drain
clogging before potential catastrophic failure.

Severe conditions are defined by a gap-graded,

pipable or dispersible soil to be drained, a high hydraulic gradient and/or dynamic, cyclic, or pulsating
flow conditions. A summary of the permeability criteria is presented in Table 2.1

R. Hawley

Chapter 2

Table. 2.1. Summary of Permeability criteria (after Christopher and Fischer, 1992)
Source

Criterion

Remarks

Calhoun (1972), Schober &

Teindl (1979), Wates (1980),
Carroll (1983), Haliburton et
al. (1982), Christophers
Holtz(1985), USFHWA
(1985), CGS (1992)

kg > k

Steady state flow

Noncritical applications
Nonsevere soil conditions

Carroll (1983), Christopher &

Holtz(1985), USFHWA
(1985), CGS (1992)

k > 10 k

Giroud (1982)

k > 0.1 k

No factor of safety

French Committee of
Geotextiles and
Geomembranes (1986)

Based on
permittivity,
4>> 10 " k

Critical 10 k
Less critical 10 k
Clean sand 10 k

Koerner (1990)

fallow > FS x
^req'd

2.1.3

Critical applications
Severe soil or hydraulic conditions

with

Factor of safety, FS, based on

application and soil conditions

Strength/Survivability and Durability

The issue of survivability, see AASHTO (1998), is addressed to ensure the

geotextile is sufficiently durable to withstand stresses from installation and placement. These
guidelines are given in the form of minimum average roll values of grab strength, burst strength,
seam strength, puncture strength and trapezoidal tear strength for high and moderate survivability.
However, since this is a not a hydraulic issue, it will not be expanded upon in this review. Durability,
or endurance, is also a prominent issue as it pertains to the long-term integrity of the material. As
stated by Holtz et al. (1995), geotextiles have been shown to be basically inert materials for most
environments and applications. However, certain applications may expose the geotextile to chemical
or biological activity that could drastically influence its filtration properties or durability.

Again, this

issue is beyond the scope of this paper and is not further discussed here.
2.2

Current Design / Specification Guidance

Many factors must be considered when selecting a geotextile for compatibility in a

soil-geotextile filtration application. These comprise four categories (Bhatia et al., 1991): (a) soil
properties, (b) geotextile properties, (c) hydraulic conditions, and (d) external conditions. Relevant
soil conditions include particle size gradation, relative density, particle shape and permeability. The

R. Hawley

Chapter 2

geotextile properties of concern are opening size, porosity, mass per unit area and permittivity.
Hydraulic conditions include gradients, flow directions and frequencies, while external conditions
include type and function of earth structure, type of loading and nature of adjacent soils. Designing
for proper hydraulic conditions requires the knowledge or estimation of representative gradient values
and in the case of cyclic flows, the characteristic frequency of flow reversal. Typical values for these
latter two conditions, namely hydraulic gradients and frequency, are provided in Tables 2.2 and 2.3
respectively.
Table 2.2. Typical Hydraulic Gradients (after Giroud, 1996)

Standard dewatering trench

Typical Hydraulic
Gradient
1.0

Vertical wall drain

1.5

Pavement edge drain

1.0

Landfill leachate collection/detection removal system

1.5

Landfill leachate collection removal system

1.5

Landfill closure surface water collection removal system

1.5

Dam toe drains

2.0

Dam clay cores

3.0to>10

Inland channel protection

1.0

Shoreline protection

10

Liquid impoundment with clay liners

>10

Drainage Application

Note: Critical applications may require designing for higher gradients than those given.
Table 2.3. Cyclic load and related period (after Mouw et. al., 1986)
Phenomenon
Storm surges,
Tidal waves
Seiches (waves
resulting from
atmospheric or
seismic disturbances),

Frequency (Hz)
1Q

Remark
to be considered stationary for geotextiles

-6

^Q-3

Translation waves,
Swell

transition area

Wind waves

0.1

Ship waves

0.5

Turbulence Dynamic
impact

100

R. Hawley

cyclic

Chapter 2

Soil properties, geotextile properties, and hydraulic conditions have been the subject of various
studies from which many geotextile design criteria have been established. The following sections
present these criteria divided into those that pertain to unidirectional flow (section 2.2.1) and those
that pertain to cyclic flow (section 2.2.2).
2.2.1

Unidirectional Flow

A significant body of test data exists to describe soil/geotextile interaction for

unidirectional (steady state) flow, and validate design criteria for soil retention (Faure and Mylnarek,
1998). Some of the more common criteria using the filtration opening size (FOS) of the geotextile, as
well as the Giroud (1982) criterion using O , are shown in Table 2.4.
g5

Table 2.4. Existing geotextile retention criteria (modified after Hameiri, 2000)
Source

Criterion

Remarks

FCGG (1986)

FOS/D < 0.38-1.25

FOS/D >4

- Dependent on soil type, compaction,

hydraulic and application conditions
- For soils from which fines can easily be put
in suspension

FOS/D < 1.5

FOS/D < 3

- Uniform soils
- Broadly graded soils

85

15

CGS (1992)

85
85

OMT (1992)

FOS/D < 1
and FOS > 0.5D or
FOS > 0.040 mm
85

85

FOS/D < 1.5

FOS/D < 1.8
FOS/D < 0.2

1<Cu<2

85

50

UBC
(Fannin et al., 1994a)

3<Cu<7, and where D ,i is the mean

particle size of the soil fraction smaller than
the FOS of the geotextile

85

50

FOS/D50 < 2

FOS/D | <2.5
FOS/D < 4
50

15

Lafleur (1998, 1999)

- For internally stable soils, where the

indicative grain size diameter (Dj) is a
function of C and the gradation shape
profile
- For internally unstable soils

FOS/D, < 1
1 < FOS/D < 5

30

Giroud (1982)

R. Hawley

0 /D o<(9-18)/C
95

- Dependent on soil C and density,

assumes fines in soil migrate for large C
u

Chapter 2

In addition to the design criteria presented above, the Giroud (1982) criteria are presented in the form
of a flow chart leading step by step to the dimensioning of geotextiles under steady state flow (see
Figure 2.2).
2.2.2

Cyclic F l o w

Cyclic flow conditions may occur in highway applications due to

traffic loading or in coastal applications due to wind, ship and tidal activity. It is for these types of
situations that the geotextile filter must be designed properly and according to applicable hydraulic
conditions. As stated by Holtz et al. (1997), if the geotextile is not properly weighted down and in
intimate contact with the soil to be protected, and the dynamic, cyclic or pulsating loading conditions
produce high localized hydraulic gradients, the soil particles can move behind the geotextile. Thus,
the use of 0 /D 5 = 1 (unidirectional criterion) is not conservative, because the bridging network will
95

likely not develop and the geotextile will be required to retain even-finer particles. In contrast to the
unidirectional criteria provided in section 2.2.1, there are few design criteria for cyclic flow conditions
that have been validated by test data. Hameiri (2000) has provided a summary of filtration criteria
that include cyclic flow conditions, together with comments on the validity of these criteria. Inspection
of Table 2.5 reveals a considerable variation in the empirical relationships used for design of
geotextiles subject to cyclic loading (Fannin & Hameiri, 1999).
Table 2.5. Filtration criteria that include cyclic flow conditions (after Hameiri, 2000)
Source
0

., .
Criterion

Schoberand
.
,
Teindl (1979)

The grain diameter that must be

._
retained is set equal to the
_
. .
- For nonwoven
Sand
opening size. This diameter is
^ ' ^ ' H " ?
n mm
,
? .
.,
., ,
with sand (acc. 0.01 mm < D < 0.3
dependent on the intensity of
, _ . , } -. .
.
~
r,j, n
ui
* t to Ogink, 1975) and1.5<C<5
flow and the allowable amount of
'
soil loss.

M r i 7 n

Characteristic
pore size

'J*!

fl

Dry sieving
with glass
beads

Lawson(1982)

D >. O > D

FCGG(1986)

C*D > 0
C = a function of grain size
distribution, soil density,
hydraulic flow, and geotextile
function

50

90

85

R. Hawley

_
,
Remarks

15

9 5

10

50

- Have been used in

design and limited
number of erosion
control structures and
appears to validate the
criterion

. ,
Hydro-dynamic
sieving

Chapter 2

U.S. D.O.T
FHWA (1995)

lngold(1985)

0.5*D > Og

Dry sieving
with glass
beads

- A revised Christopher
and Holtz (1985) criterion
(see Holtz et al., 1997)

O , /D o < 1

Very similar to
the wet sieving
using sand,
developed by
Heerton (1982)

- Semi-empirical

Wet sieving
with sand

- Based on field
investigations.
- In the case of
dispersive soil it may be
necessary to employ a
more stringent design
(Heerton & Wittmann,
1985).
- In case of silt it can be
very hard to meet.
- These criteria formed
the base to Luettich et al.
(1992) criteria, which in
turn is the source to
Koerner (1998) criteria.

85

90 w

Cyclic Loading:
D > Ogo.w*
* based on Heerton (1982)
criterion for dynamic flow
50

Heerton &
Wittmann
(1985)

Static load conditions:

5 < Cu O < 10D and
O90 < D o
Cy< 5 O < 2.5D and
50

90

50

90

O90 < D90

Fine grained cohesive material:

10D > O , and D ^ O ,
50

90

and 0.1 mm > O ,

90

90

90 w

< 50% passing #200 D > 0 (if

the soil can move beneath the
fabric) or 0.5D > O
>50% passing #200
0.5D > O

Dry sieving
with glass
beads

0.7D >O > 0.05 mm for 5 > C

Suspected Wet
sieving.

- Proposed as a general
guideline for the design
of flexible revetments

Hydrodynamic
sieving

- Should not be used for

pulsing loads such as in
highways and railways
where the flow are small
and cyclic loads are large

15

Christopher &
Holtz (1985)

85

85

PIANC (1990)

90

>O

90

90

> 0.05 mm for Cu>5

< 50% passing #200

0 (FOS)<D
>50% passing #200
take lesser of the following
criteria: 0 (FOS) < 0.5D
0 (FOS) < 0.3 mm.
95

CGS (1992)

50

- For dynamic, pulsating

and cyclic flow

50

90

9 5

15

95

15

95

Klein Breteler
(1994)

Published preliminary design

criteria for geometrically open
geotextile constructions on sand
and cohesive soils for
geotextiles with
0.1 mm < O < 0.3 mm

- Reported results shows

scattering (Berensen &
Smith, 1996)
- Not clear whether this
criteria can be used for
cross section cyclic flow

90

0 < A*D, or 0 < B mm and

0 > C*D) or 0 > D mm
A, B, C and D are determined
according to the nature of the
retained soil and the severity of
the hydraulic conditions
9 5

Mlynarek et al.
(1999)

R. Hawley

95

9 5

95

11

Hydrodynamic
sieving

- Semi - empirical

Chapter 2

CN
CD
CC
CD
_C
O

o
V

Q)
_l

CD

4^

ro
to
c
o
o
o
CD

-*

ro
to

ro
CD

W
LU
>
W

ro
Q)

a:

co

o
c

LU
Q

CD

o
CO
CN
CO
a>
T3

o
1

CN

csi
CD
1_

_ , LU
5

W LU

o o

a: _

LL CL H

R. Hawley

12

Chapter 2

In the same fashion as the Giroud (1982) criteria, the Heerton (1982) criteria are presented in a flow
chart as shown in figure 2.3. Notably, these criteria distinguish between severe dynamic conditions
(severe wave attack) and mild dynamic conditions (mild water currents) by consideration of flow type.
Severe conditions are given by high turbulent flow, wave attack or pumping phenomenon.
Conversely, mild conditions are given by laminar flow including the change of flow direction (Heerton,
1982).
2.3

Filtration Testing

Performance testing is not only necessary to assess the behaviour of the soilgeotextile system in critical applications, but is necessary to provide a basis on which to develop and
validate any of the design criteria reported in section 2.3.
Currently, the suite of test procedures for geosynthetic drainage products is derived from three
primary sources: the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Geosynthetics Research
Institute (GRI), and the US Army Corps of Engineering (COE). International standards include the
International Organization of Standardization (ISO), Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB),
British Standards (BS) and West German Institute of Normalization (DIN), as reported in Boschuk &
Zhou (1992). From all of the available standards, the tests applicable to filtration and specifically
geotextile filtration are relatively limited.
Bertram (1940), who performed permeability tests on graded granular filters and recognized the need
to used de-aired water in such tests, has provided the fundamental basis for performance testing of
filter materials. To this day, however, there does not exist general acceptance of a single test that
best evaluates soil-geotextile compatibility and performance. It is not the intent of this review to
describe the details of these tests. Rather, a brief mention is provided together with references from
which the reader may obtain more information.
2.3.1

Unidirectional (Steady State) Flow

For unidirectional flow conditions, Koerner and Ko (1982) and Siva and Bhatia
(1993) have used the Long Term Flow (LTF) test along with others. This test is intended to simulate
soil-geotextile interaction, but does not reproduce field stress conditions. It does allow the collection
of soil passing through the geotextile, but does not provide water head distributions and has a very
small sample size.

The Hydraulic Conductivity Ratio (HCR, ASTM D5567) test is intended to better

simulate field conditions as it is performed in a triaxial cell, thereby allowing application of effective
stresses to the sample (Luettich and Williams, 1989, Williams and Abouzakhm, 1989). However, it is

R. Hawley

13

Chapter 2

i<

< co

CO <
LU LU

CM

LU CO

cn
CD

ro
"S
o

<

o wu.

LU LULUi
CO X :
=> r- I
CO

'4;

Q)
=3
cu

co
o

LU
Q

T5

c
o
o

CD

>_J
cc
o

Al
O

m
v
O

"E
ro
a
T3
i

ro

cu

CO

o
O
V

h-

A
CC
X

cc

X
Q

o
c
cu

CO

0.

'.4'

A
CL

-II

cu
o

CO
CN
CO

<

cn

>fi

X
\
LU
CC

o
v

R. Hawley

CO | _

IT)

< a:

o
d
v

CD

E
E E
E ro
m
o
d S
v

8_i

^1

LU

14

7 3

o Q

<

o
c

CU

HAN

<

^<
s^

CO >
CO <
U
IT) L
_ CC

_l

WE

E
E

cu

cri

h- cf
LU CD

CN

o oCD

g>

CC

cu
i
ZJ

LL

Chapter 2

best suited to soils with relatively low permeability, typically less than 5 x 10" cm/s. The Fine
2

Fraction Filtration (F ) test, as researched by Hoover (1982), Legge (1990), Montero and Overmann
3

(1990), Sansome and Koerner (1992), operates on the evaluation of different fractions of the
upstream soil under the least desirable installation conditions. This test can be performed rapidly and
its interpretation is relatively simple. It is appropriate for situations where intimate contact of the
upstream soil and the geotextile cannot be assured.
The Gradient Ratio (GR) test, initiated by Calhoun (1972) of the US Army Corps of Engineers, was
adopted as a standard test method used to assess soil-geotextile compatibility in unidirectional flow
conditions by ASTM in 1990. According to ASTM D5101, measurements of hydraulic head are taken
and specified port locations to establish the water head distribution and hence, the variation of
hydraulic gradient across the soil-geotextile system. Figure 2.4 shows a schematic diagram of the
permeameter used in testing.

MAKE FLOW RATE

READINGS FROM
THIS OUTFLOW
PORT

MANOMETERS

PERMEAMETER

CONSTANT HEAD DEVICES

Figure 2.4. Gradient ratio permeameter set up diagram, ASTM D 5101 (after ASTM, 1996)

R. Hawley

15

Chapter 2

With reference to Figure 2.4, the gradient ratio is defined as the ratio of the hydraulic gradients
measured in the soil-geotextile section, i , to that of the soil itself, i . It is defined by:
s

sg

GRASTM =

isg/is

= ise/ias =

(Ah /^ )/(Ah3 /^ 35)

56

56

[Eqn. 2.1]

Where Ah

56

= differential head between ports 5 and 6 (soil-geotextile)

Ah

35

= differential head between ports 3 and 5 (soil)

56

= vertical distance between ports 5 and 6

^35

= vertical distance between ports 3 and 5

If GR = 1, the distribution of water head is linear, and therefore the soil geotextile system is
unchanged by flow through the system; in other words, it is stable. If GR < 1, then some particles of
soil have migrated through the geotextile, thereby leaving a less permeable zone close to the
geotextile. In contrast, if GR > 1, a less permeable zone has developed close to the geotextile due to
clogging and/or blinding of the filter.
Haliburton & Wood (1982) reported that a GR of 3 is the limit above which clogging will likely occur in
the field.

Additional work in this area by Dierickx (1986), Scott (1980) and others has contributed to

the improvement of the GR test and to the body of available test data.

However, the

recommendation of GR < 3, despite being cited by several agencies (FHWA, 1985, CGS, 1992), is
founded on few test data and is therefore under careful examination by others.
Fisher et al. (1999) conducted a systematic study of the influence of procedural variables on the
ASTM gradient ratio test. They demonstrated that the methods used to prepare samples and the use
of the optional procedures as recommended by ASTM, can cause large variations in gradient ratio
test results.

They concluded that microfilters due to recirculated water can lead to unstable

permeability values during testing and this effect is dependent on the quality of water used. They
also confirmed earlier work of Fannin et al. (1994a) that a chlorine algaecide reduces biological
growth and consequently improves the repeatability of tests.

With regard to saturation, they

recommend that the permeameter must always be filled slowly with C 0 treatment as per ASTM
2

guidelines to ensure saturation. Conversely, presoaking the geotextiles had no observable effect on
filtration behaviour.

Also, compaction of the sample produces lower permeabilities that stabilize

earlier than with the loose samples recommended by ASTM. Finally, early disturbances produce
marked changes in the gradient ratio values and therefore extreme care in avoiding disturbance
during testing, especially in the initial stages, must be exercised.

R. Hawley

16

Chapter 2

Fannin et al. (1994a, 1994b, 1996) have contributed to the development of the G R device and the
interpretation of its test results in a number of ways. A series of modifications to the existing ASTM
device have led to the design of the UBC modified gradient ratio device (see Figure 2.5). Fannin et
al. (1994a) first contributed by the addition of an energy dissipator to the water inlet to prevent
localized disturbances of the top of the soil specimen at high flow rates. Also, the use of a
commercial liquid bleach is recommended as an algaecide to mitigate the development of any
internal clogging. Water pluviation for uniformly graded soils, as opposed to back saturation with C 0

is also used to reconstitute a completely saturated, replicable homogeneous sample. In the case of
broadly graded soils, a slurry deposition technique is used. Finally, three additional ports (2, 4, 6)
were included to better define the variation of head loss across the sample. With these additional
ports, top blinding was more easily distinguishable (port 2) as was the behaviour close to the
geotextile (port 6). The latter serves to provide an enhanced index, i , and hence a modified
sg

gradient ratio,

G R

D ,

that is a more sensitive indicator of soil-geotextile performance than

G R

T M

(Fannin et al., 1994b).

i - ports 1 to 7
j - water inlet
k - perforated rigid base plate
I - permeameter cell wall
m - reservoir bath
n - constant head overflow tube
P - vertical load
Q - inlet flow rate

a - soil sample
b - geotextile
c - perforated rigid top plate
d - piston
e - cell top
f - cell base
g - collection trough
h - LVDT

Figure 2.5. UBC modified gradient ratio device (after Fannin et al., 1996)

R. Hawley

17

Chapter 2

Subsequent modifications by Fannin et al.

(1996)

introduced the ability to apply a target normal stress

through a top loading plate, however, it was found that no significant variation in gradient ratio with
normal stress was observed. Also, the flow regime was controlled either by a constant head or by
the imposition of a constant volumetric rate.

A flow pump enabled the application of either

unidirectional or cyclic flow conditions. Finally, the mass of soil passing through the geotextile was
collected thus providing a better ability to monitor piping of soil during sample preparation and testing.
With reference to Figure

2.5,

GRASTM =

is calculated as:

GRASTM

isg/is = i 7/i 5 = ( A I W ^ ^ A I W ^ )

[Eqn.

2.2]

isg/is = Whs = (Ah /4 )/(Ah /^35)

[Eqn.

2.3]

35

The G R M O D is defined by:

GRMOD =

2.3.2

67

35

Cyclic (Dynamic) Flow

The methods presented in section 2.2.1 are some of those available to test
soil-geotextile filtration performance in unidirectional flow. For cyclic flow, two devices have been
used to represent these more extreme conditions. The Dynamic Filtration (DF) test is a very severe
and accelerated test to be used to assess filter compatibility under dynamic conditions (Narejo &
Koerner,

1992).

The DF test is basically a flow rate (or permittivity) test that is conducted after the

application cycles of dynamic pulsing. This relatively new method represents the worst hydraulic
conditions that a geotextile filter can probably sustain and the authors are uncertain as to its ultimate
applicability.
The G R device and similar variations have also been modified to accommodate cyclic flow, where the
choice is either to use flow-control or head-control. Fannin et al.
(1996),

in Italy and Chew et al.

(2000),

(1996),

in Vancouver, Cazzuffi et al.

in Singapore have all developed flow-control systems of

gradient ratio testing.

In Italy, Cazzuffi et al.

(1999)

and Tondello ( 1 9 9 8 ) impose a cyclic flow perpendicular to the interface,

a cyclic flow parallel to the interface, and vary the boundary conditions of effective stress and contact
geometry between the geotextile and filter material (i.e. cover layer). The test apparatus is based on
flow-control, using a pump with 'pushing units' dependent on the amount of 'discharge' required.
Periods ranging from 2 to 1 0 sec, but a maximum of 2 0 sec, are possible. The maximum volume

R. Hawley

18

Chapter 2

allowable for each loading cycle is approximately 12 litres for the large unit and 0.5 units for smaller
unit (discharge type). A deformable or non-rigid cylinder is used to enable the application of a known
and uniform effective stress to the interface. The non-rigid wall moves with the soil (virtually no side
friction) and therefore very little shear stress is mobilized. This allows the base soil to transfer the
vertical stress to the interface. An effective stress up to 150 kPa is possible in this system. Three
small pore pressure transducers are inserted into the specimen, and any soil passing through the
geotextile is collected. Cobbles represent a cover layer (as in embankment protection rip rap), placed
on a rigid grid. The geotextile is placed on top of the cobbles and the base soil placed using either
pluviation (uniformly-graded soil) or aerial deposition in thin strata (well-graded soil). Tondello (1998)
claims that the latter method is successful in avoiding segregation of broadly graded soils. The
system is back-saturated using de-aired water and the application of cycles of flow to remove the air
bubbles.

Figure 2.6 shows this a schematic diagram of this apparatus.

To determine the number of cycles required to properly simulate long-term behaviour of the system, a
battery of preliminary tests is performed with different soils, geotextiles, gradients and periods. In
those tests, it was observed that after 1000/1200 loading cycles, the average interface gradient
becomes constant with time. Therefore the number of cycles is set to 1500. The results are
analyzed by determining the ratios of gradients i to i
int

ratio procedures.

In this case, i

int

ref

in a similar manner to the ASTM gradient

represents the gradient across the soil-geotextile interface

comprising the geotextile and 10 cm of the base soil, while i represents the gradient across 18.6 cm
ref

of the base soil. The latter gradient is measured across the middle section of the soil sample and is
used as a reference gradient assumed to be unaffected by interface action.
Results of this study (Tondello, 1998) show that, in almost all cases, stable interfaces can become
unstable with an increase in gradient, or a decrease in effective stress. This was characterized by a
proposed erosion limit state (i.e. piping failure) envelope. Tests on unstable soils at low effective
stresses showed that lack of confinement results in internal migration of the fines to the top of the
sample, producing unreliable test results. Findings from the Cazzuffi et al. (1996) and Tondello
(1998) studies for reversing flow can be expected to guide our understanding for unidirectional flow.
The apparatus described by Chew, S.H. et al. (2000) is a 'bi-directional' apparatus very similar to that
developed by Cazzuffi et al. (1996). It is also a flow-controlled system that consists of three parts: a
steel sample chamber, a two-way waved generator, and a water reservoir and washout collector. A
pneumatic loading device is attached to the sample chamber to provide a constant overburden load
during the test. The sample setup is also the same as that of Cazzuffi et al. (1996). It comprises a
supporting steel grid, aggregate layer simulating protective stone layer (rip rap), geotextile filter and
subsoil layer to be protected. A two-way wave generator used to apply cyclic bi-directional wave load

R. Hawley

19

Chapter 2

of varying amplitude and period. The period during this particular study was 2 - 1 5 sec and a total
vertical pressure of 110 kPa was applied. Fines that wash out are collected in a water reservoir and
washout collector. Three pore pressure transducers are used: one just below geotextile sample, a
second located 60 mm above the first, and a third 215 mm above the second. The gradient ratio is
given by the ratio of i to i |, which represent the gradients at the interface and of the subsoil
int

soi

respectively. At the interface, i is defined as the gradient between transducers one and two in the
int

subsoil, i | is the gradient between transducers two and three. In total, 1000-1500 cycles were found
soi

adequate to achieve dynamic equilibrium therefore, 1750 cycles were imposed.

The apparatus is

shown schematically in Figure 2.7.

Figure 2.6. Cyclic flow test: Italian device (after Tondello, 1998)

R. Hawley

20

Chapter 2

. Steel Sample Chamber

N7/

Loading Device

Load Cell
LVDT

. Subsoil

. Geotextile
Filter

Two-way Wave
Generator

Stone Layer
Steel Grid

Water Reservoir and

Washout Collector

Figure 2.7. Cyclic flow test: Singapore bi-directional flow apparatus (after Chew et al., 2000)

The method of flow-control as described above is one of the two alternatives for modeling filtration
applications in the laboratory, the second being the method of head-control. Head-control offers a
direct comparison with field conditions in a manner that flow-control does not. Often, in the field, it is
the head distribution that is known and the volumetric flow rate is a predicted quantity. The UBC
Modified Gradient Ratio device was initially conceived as a flow-control device (Fannin et al., 1996),
but was later modified to include the option of head-control (Fannin & Hameiri, 1999; Hameiri, 2000).
The desire was to simulate those common situations where head difference or hydraulic gradient is
the governing factor in filtration applications. The pump-controlled system, as discussed in section
2.2.1, is here replaced with a series of constant head tanks and a valve that allows a reversal of flow
direction at any frequency and duration (see Figure 3.1). The operation is based on three tanks: an
inlet tank (I), an outlet tank (O) and a tank that serves both purposes (l-O) depending on the direction
of flow.
This apparatus is automated using differential pressure transducers and a computerized system for
process control as well as data acquisition. The automated data collection allows for readings during

R. Hawley

21

Chapter 2

the critical p h a s e after flow r e v e r s a l , w h i c h is b e l i e v e d k e y to u n d e r s t a n d i n g the

d e v e l o p m e n t of stability ( F a n n i n & H a m e i r i , 1 9 9 9 ) .

potential

for

A s this d e v i c e w a s u s e d in this s t u d y , further

details o n the testing a p p a r a t u s are reported in C h a p t e r 3.

H a m e i r i (2000) p e r f o r m e d a n e x t e n s i v e s e r i e s of t e s t s , u s i n g g l a s s b e a d s (uniform, b r o a d l y g r a d e d
a n d g a p g r a d e d ) a n d n o n w o v e n g e o t e x t i l e s in o r d e r to c o m m i s s i o n the d e v i c e , e v a l u a t e e x i s t i n g
d e s i g n criteria a n d i n v e s t i g a t e filtration p h e n o m e n a u n d e r both static a n d d y n a m i c c o n d i t i o n s .

Glass

b e a d s w e r e s e l e c t e d for that investigation s i n c e they a r e e s s e n t i a l l y s p h e r i c a l . H i s o b s e r v a t i o n s led

to

many

recommendations

for

future

work

including

multi-stage

test

sequence

whereby

unidirectional s t a g e s a r e u s e d after the c y c l i c s t a g e s to ' c h a r a c t e r i z e s a m p l e h o m o g e n e i t y ' ,

and

additionally to c o n d u c t tests o n w o v e n g e o t e x t i l e s to e n a b l e a direct c o m p a r i s o n with n o n w o v e n

geotextiles.

T h e s e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s , a n d the n e e d to e x t e n d the s t u d y to ' r e a l ' a n d p r o b l e m a t i c

s o i l s , led to the o b j e c t i v e s of this current study.

R. Hawley

22

Chapter 2

3.0

APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES

3.1

Modified Gradient Ratio Device

The apparatus used in this study is the Modified Gradient Ratio device that was
designed at UBC (Hameiri, 2000). It is a modified version of the ASTM device in that it allows for the
application of unidirectional or cyclic loading, imposition of a normal stress to simulate in-situ
confining pressures, collection of particles passing through the geotextile, and has additional
measurements of water head along the sample length for a more detailed analysis of soil/geotextile
compatibility.

In addition, the system is completely automated using a process control and data

acquisition system, through a personal computer and applicable software. The equipment and set-up
are described briefly in the following sections. However, for more information, the reader is referred
to Fannin et al. (1996), Fannin & Hameiri (1999) and Hameiri (2000) for details on the development
and design.
3.1.1.

Apparatus

Figure 3.1 shows a schematic diagram of the UBC modified gradient ratio
device. A rigid-wall permeameter holds the soil and geotextile specimens and is made of 8 mm thick
Plexiglas, which facilitates visual observation during testing. It accommodates a specimen of 102
mm diameter and a length of approximately 125 mm. The base and top plates are made of anodized
aluminum and the loading piston is placed on top of the soil through which the normal stress is
applied. Underneath, is a collection trough, which collects the soil that passes through the geotextile
sample. The collection trough is made up of upper and lower section, where the upper section is
made of a Plexiglas funnel with an internal slope of 45 that directs the particles passing through the
geotextile into the lower section. The lower section is made of a flexible silicon tube with a diameter
of 19.1 mm to facilitate the acquisition of discrete samples at any time during the test.
Measurements of water head are taken at port locations as shown in Figure 3.2. Port 1 is located on
the top plate to establish the water head at the top of the sample. Ports 2, 3, 5 and 6 are located 101
mm, 75 mm, 25 mm and 8 mm above the geotextile. Port 7, which establishes the water head below
the sample, is located on the upper part of the collection trough.
GRASTM

With reference to Figure 3.1,

is calculated as:
GRASTM

i /is = kil'hs = (Ah / )l(Ah / )

sg

57

57

35

35

[Eqn. 3.1]

and G R M O D is calculated as:

GRMOD

R. Hawley

= i /i = 'Uhs = (Ah /^ )/(Ah /^35)

sg

67

67

35

23

[Eqn. 3.2]

Chapter 3

Axial load
LVDT

Permeameter

Flow
measurement
Geotextile
Pressure
transducer

Collection
trough

Figure 3.1. U B C modified gradient ratio device (after Hameiri, 2000)

Axial load
T o p c o v e r plate

Rigid wall
permeameter

Geotextile
flipper collection
trough
,

plate

Figure 3.2. The permeameter and port locations

R. Hawley

24

Chapter 3

The hydraulic system was designed to model the behaviour of a soil element, where the geotextile is
placed on a revetment face and is subject to steady or alternating wave action while the opposite side
is subject to relatively stable hydraulic head (Hameiri, 2000). This is illustrated schematically in
Figure 3.3.

The hydraulic supply system comprises three constant head tanks to impose the

hydraulic gradient that is controlled by H and L (see figure 3.1). De-aired water is supplied by a
peristaltic pump to the top (I) tank that overflows into the middle (l-O) tank during unidirectional flow,
which is subsequently driven by gradient, H/L, through the sample into the bottom (0) tank to be
recirculated. During cyclic flow, a solenoid valve (Valve 1) is used to switch the direction of flow in
the upward direction by driving the water from the top (I) tank to the middle (l-O) reservoir. The valve
is switched at predetermined frequencies depending on imposed conditions. A collection trough
captures the soil particles passing through the geotextile during the test for further analysis.

Figure 3.3. Modeling the reversing flow regime in the permeameter (after Hameiri, 2000)

Also shown in Figure 3.1 is the flow measurement system. It uses the overflow from the O tank
during downward flow to establish the volumetric flow rate, Q, during the test. Valve 2 is used to
route the water to the flow measurement tube at discrete intervals. A differential pressure transducer
is used to record the volume of water passing through the sample over predetermined time intervals.
Also, a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) is used to measure any change in sample

R. Hawley

2 5

Chapter 3

height during the test by monitoring the displacement of the top loading plate. Again, for details on
apparatus design and technical specs of all hardware, refer to Hameiri (2000).
3.1.2

Data Acquisition System

Differential pressure transducers (DPT) are used to measure directly the

differential water heads between ports. Each port is also connected to a manometer, which is used
only to calibrate the DPTs to allow for automated data collection. Figure 3.4a shows the set-up of the
transducers to the manometers as designed by Hameiri (2000). However, during this study, the
setup in Figure 3.4b was used for data collection.

The data acquisition system comprises a DAS board, a desktop computer, a signal conditioning unit
and a data acquisition program (LabTech Notebook). The DAS board is a multifunctional board with
12-bit high speed Analog to Digital converters, digital counters and digital Input/Output. All data are
written directly to output files and are stored on the PC. Depending on the phase and its frequency of
flow reversal, the frequency of readings is varied (see section 3.2.3).
3.1.3.

X-ray Particle Size Analysis

A Sedigraph 5100 X-ray particle size analyzer from Micromeritics Instrument

Corporation was used to obtain gradations of the soil passing through the geotextile. The system
comprises a particle size analyzer, a PC compatible computer and a printer. The machine operates
on Stokes' Law and can therefore be used in-lieu of the traditional hydrometer method of particle size

R. Hawley

26

Chapter 3

analysis for fine-grained soils. This machine offers many advantages over the hydrometer method,
including excellent repeatability, speed and very small sample requirements.

In addition, continuous

gradations are provided and data are available directly in digital format. The mass of soil required for
analysis is approximately 2 to 5 grams, depending on the specific gravity of the soil. While it is
claimed to provide gradations for soils up to a maximum diameter of 300 pm, experience in this study
suggests the analysis of soils with a maximum particle size greater than 150 pm is challenging. To
obtain a full grain size distribution for those soils including a maximum particle size exceeding 150
pm, the soils were sieved and split between those particles passing the no. 200 sieve and those
particles retained on the no. 200 sieve. Those particles passing were analyzed using the Sedigraph
machine, while those retained were analyzed using dry sieving. The results of both analysis
techniques were then combined to produce the complete grain size distribution.

3.2

Procedures

The test procedure consists of preparing the geotextile and soil samples, setting up
the apparatus, running the multi-stage test, and finally analyzing the soil, if any, that passed through
the geotextile. The following sections describe these procedures in detail. The procedure followed is
adapted from Hameiri (2000), with a few modifications for this specific study.
3.2.1

Sample Preparation

The geotextile is first cut into a 109 mm diameter circle. This is slightly larger
than the inside diameter of the permeameter to ensure a proper seal and no possibility of preferential
flow paths along the edge of the sample. Following this, the sample is placed in a bath of de-aired
water and squeezed manually until there is no visual observation of air bubbles. Then the geotextile
is left to soak in the bath overnight to further ensure saturation.
Two methods of sample reconstitution are used in this study. Water pluviation is used for one soil
that is relatively uniform, whereas a slurry deposition technique is used for the more broadly graded
soils (see section 4.2). Water pluviation is a technique that has been found by many researchers,
including Lee & Seed (1967), Finn et al. (1971), Chaney & Mullis (1978) and Vaid & Negussey (1986)
to replicate a saturated, homogeneous sample. This technique simulates the deposition of sand
through water found in many natural environments and mechanically placed hydraulic fills (Kuerbis &
Vaid, 1988). Slurry deposition, on the other hand, is more appropriate for broadly graded soils as it
minimizes the propensity for particle segregation and inhomogeneity within the sample.

R. Hawley

27

Chapter 3

The soil samples are first prepared by measuring a known dry mass of the soil (approximately 1800
g) into 500 mL flasks. Then, water is added and the resultant soil slurry is boiled to remove any of
the entrapped air. The saturated soil is then allowed to cool to room temperature, which in the
laboratory is consistently 23 - 24C.
3.2.2

Test Set-Up

The next step is to set up the apparatus by assembling the frame and the
permeameter, connecting the ports to the manometers and transducers, pluviating or depositing (as
appropriate) the soil in a slurry form into the permeameter, and finally attaching the top cover plate
and the hydraulic supply system (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2). A more detailed description is given in
the following paragraphs.
The collection trough is filled with de-aired water and a perforated plate and wire mesh are placed on
the frame. The geotextile sample is then placed on top of the wire mesh. This is done as quickly as
possible to prevent any desaturation of the geotextile. The permeameter is immediately placed on
top of the geotextile and frame and clamped down using three wing nuts. The permeameter is then
filled with de-aired water. The reader is referred to Fannin et al. (1994) for a complete description of
the test set up.
The next step is to connect the ports to the manometers and transducers in sequence ensuring airfree connections. The purpose of the manometers here are only to provide a small amount of flow,
which facilitates the air-free connection and allows the system to come into hydrostatic equilibrium
under atmospheric pressure. It is important to note that the manometers are not used for any
measurements of water head following the calibration of the transducers. The transducers are used
for all water head measurements. Once the ports are connected, the soil samples are pluviated or
deposited into the permeameter until a height of approximately 120 mm is reached. The transparent
permeameter allows for visual observation of potential segregation that may occur in more broadly
graded soils. During the pluviation process, the side of the manometer is tapped with a rubber
hammer so as to provide some compaction as according to Fisher et al. (1999): compaction of the
sample produces higher densities and therefore lower permeabilities. The technique allows any
targeted initial density to be obtained.
Once the soil is placed, a siphon is used to level the top surface to approximately 100 mm height.
This action also eliminates some of the finer particles that might otherwise settle on top following
pluviation. Thereafter, the top cover plate assembly, including loading plate and LVDT, is attached.
In addition, the top port (No. 1) is connected to the corresponding manometer and transducer, while

R. Hawley

28

Chapter 3

the inlet-outlet tank is connected to the top cover plate assembly, again, ensuring air-free
connections. After these connections, the solenoid valve (valve 1, see Figure 3.1) is connected to the
permeameter by running water out of the outlet tank to ensure an air free connection. Once all
connections are made, the test is ready to begin.
3.2.3

Multi-Stage Test Procedure

The test is run in stages: one hydrostatic (HYD) stage to gauge initial
conditions, four unidirectional (UNI) stages and three cyclic (CYC) stages giving a total of eight
stages. The imposed system gradient in all tests, / , is approximately four to represent the worst
17

condition given the physical geometric limitations of the equipment. Also, as Bertram (1940) argued,
using large gradients may compensate for the short time scale of laboratory experiments over the
design life of a filter. The variables in each stage are the applied normal stress, the frequency of flow
reversal and the duration or the limiting condition of the stage. The limiting condition is reached once
the water head measurements are observed to become stable. The applied normal stress is either
zero (unconfined) or 25 kPa. If the soil is unconfined and subjected to a gradient of 4, quick
conditions may manifest and lead to a loosening of the soil and an increase in permeability. The
confining stress of 25 kPa was chosen to prevent quick conditions from occurring, and conversely, it
was removed in the expectations that quick conditions will occur. The frequency of flow reversal is
either zero (unidirectional), 0.02 Hz, or 0.1 Hz. Table 3.1 shows the testing program, sequence of
each stage and the test variables. The duration of each stage was selected to provide sufficient
opportunity for the sample to yield a characteristic response as evident from the measurements of
water head distribution.
Table 3.1. Multi-stage testing sequence
Stage 1
HYD

Stage 2
UNI1

Stage 3
CYC50S

Stage 4
UNI2

Stage 5
CYC10S

Stage 6
UNI3

Stage 7
CYC10N

Stage 8
UNI4

Type

Hydrostatic

Unidirectional

Cyclic

Unidirectional

Cyclic

Unidirectional

Cyclic

Unidirectional

Normal
Stress
(kPa)

25

25

25

25

Frequency
(Hz)

0.02
(T= 50
sec)

0.1
(T=10
sec)

0.1
(T=10
sec)

Duration/
Limiting
Condition

5
minutes
or until
stable

90
minutes
or until
stable

1080
cycles
(15
hours)

30
minutes
or until
stable

260
cycles
(43.3
min)

30
minutes
or until
stable

260
cycles
(43.3
min)

30
minutes
or until
stable

R. Hawley

29

Chapter 3

The data collection is also varied depending on the frequency of flow reversal. There are three
different data collection set-ups used in this study as shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2. Data collection set-up

STAGE

HYDROSTATIC

UNIDIRECTIONAL

CYCLIC
(0.02 Hz)

CYCLIC
(0.1 Hz)

SubStage
(1-4)

Frequency, f
(Hz)

Duration, d
(sec)

Elapsed
Time, t (sec)

1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4

1
0.1
0.0033
0.00167
1
0.1
0.0033
0.00167
1
0.02
0.001
1
2
0.2
0.005
2

10
50
1740
3600
10
50
1740
3600
522.5
2500
54,000
577.5
104.5
400
2000
95.5

10
60
1800
5400
10
60
1800
5400
522.5
3022.5
57,022.5
57,600
104.5
504.5
2504.5
2600

Applicable
Stages
(1-8)

HYD

UNI1, UNI2,
UNI3, UNI4

CYC50S

CYC10S
CYC10N

The hydrostatic stage is used to define the initial condition, and confirm system saturation. A duration
of five minutes was found to be more than adequate, as defined by water head readings that are
constant with time. The first unidirectional stage (Stage 2) establishes the homogeneity of the
sample, permeability, and the gradient ratio results under a hydraulic gradient of approximately 4 and
zero normal stress. This stage is run for 90 minutes or until the readings are stable. Stage three is
the first cyclic stage with a frequency of 0.02 Hz. One cycle takes 50 seconds, therefore, the
direction of flow is switched every 25 seconds. A 25 kPa normal stress is applied prior to this stage,
which runs for 1080 cycles, or 15 hours. Stage four is a unidirectional stage that is run for 30 minutes
or until stable under the same normal stress of 25 kPa. This stage is used to characterize the post
cyclic response immediately following the influence of the 0.02 Hz cyclic stage.
Stage five is the second cyclic stage, which is run at the higher frequency of 0.1 Hz. One complete
cycle takes 10 seconds, therefore, the direction of flow is switched every five seconds. This stage is
run for 260 cycles, or 43.3 minutes. Stage six is another unidirectional stage, which again is run for
the same purpose of characterizing the sample immediately after cyclic flow. Stage seven is the third

R. Hawley

30

Chapter 3

and last cyclic stage. It is run at the same frequency and duration as its precursor (0.1 Hz for 260
cycles), however, the normal stress is set at zero to yield unconfined conditions. The final stage is
another unidirectional stage with zero normal stress that is used to determine effect of the preceding
cyclic stage and the post-test condition of the sample.
The three cyclic stages (Stages 3, 5 and 7) are selected to impose conditions that are progressively
more severe with each subsequent stage. Therefore, if a sample fails in the first cyclic stage with a
normal stress, it can be assured to fail in the next higher frequency stage (with normal stress). If it
fails in the second cyclic stage (Stage 5), then it can be assured to fail once the sample is unconfined
in the final cyclic stage (Stage 7) and the test need not be continued. The unidirectional stages
simply 'punctuate' these cyclic stages in order to establish the post-disturbance conditions.
3.2.4

Particle Size Analysis

At any interval during the test, the lower collection trough (Figure 3.1) is

clamped at discrete intervals to separate and collect the soil passing through the geotextile. Upon
completion of the test, the soil is removed and its mass is determined. It is then taken to the X-ray
particle analyzer (Sedigraph 5100 as described in Section 3.1.3) to determine the grain size analysis
of the soil particles passing through the geotextile. This information provides the basis of evaluating
soil retention criteria for filter design for that specific geotextile/soil combination.

R. Hawley

31

Chapter 3

4.0

TEST MATERIALS

Various combinations of soils and geotextiles were tested in order to assess their compatibility in
filtration and drainage applications. Three soils were tested against seven geotextiles. The soils and
geotextiles used are described in the following sections.
4.1

Geotextiles
The geotextiles consisted of two needle-punched nonwoven and five woven

materials.

All are made of polypropylene fibers.

They were tested at the request of the

manufacturer, TC Mirafi Inc. The Apparent Opening Size (AOS) ranges from 0.212 mm to 0.600 mm.
These and other physical properties are reported in Table 4.1, where it is noted that geotextiles of the
same AOS values can have very different permittivity values. For example, the geotextiles with
codes 140, 160 and 700 all have an AOS of 0.212 mm, but their permittivity values are 1.310, 1.192
and 0.511 sec" respectively. Notably, the smallest value corresponds to the woven geotextile (700).
1

Table 4.1. Physical Properties of Geotextiles Tested (sources: IFAI, 1999; TC Mirafi, personal
correspondence; laboratory measured)
a

PermOJ Mass / A O S .... ., b ,-,

o. ,
ittivity
Perm Unit ASTM
Area D4751
'"
a

~ . ...
Geotextile
(code)

A O T M

U 4 4 y i

NW/ . . 2 ,
v , -u
>A/ (g/m ) (mm) (sec )
W
'
'
'
v

t y

K a t e

T r a

e z o i d

U 4 H >

v a

P
Grab
Tearing
Tensile/
,
./fa _.
,.
Strength Elongation
*_J.J!
ASTM
ASTM
"
D4533
D4632
, . > (gal/
...
(kN)
(kN)
(cm/s)
. ,_2 (kN) _,. ^
min/ft )
' CMD x MD CMD x MD

e a b

Punc* a
ture

,-,
Flow

Xv

Mirafi HON
(140)

NW

287

0.212

1.310

0.290

97

0.31

0.22x0.22

0.53x0.53

Mirafi 160N
(160)

NW

185

0.212

1.192

0.134

88

0.42

0.27x0.27

0.71x0.71

218

0.212

0.511

0.021

38

0.60

0.45x0.27

1.65x1.11

225

0.300

0.769

0.049

57

0.60

0.47x0.62

1.22x1.74

282

0.425

0.881

0.080

65

0.67

0.67x0.89

1.78x1.40

304

0.425

2.003

0.194

148

0.47

0.51x0.33

1.62x0.89

453

0.600

0.366

0.061

27

0.87

0.80x0.80

2.12x1.95

Mirafi
Filterweave 700
(700)
Mirafi
Filterweave 500
(500)
Mirafi
Filterweave 404
(404)
Mirafi
Filterweave 402
(402)
Geolon HP570
(570)

R. Hawley

32

Chapter 4

se 140 N 2mm

at

se140N 700um

Figure 4.1a. S E M photograph: Nonwoven geotextile, A O S = 0.212 mm (Mirafi 140N)

se FW 700 2mm

se FW 700 700um

Figure 4.1b. S E M photograph: Woven geotextile, A O S = 0.212 mm (FW700)

se HP 570 5mm

Figure 4.1c. S E M photograph: Woven geotextile, A O S = 0.600 mm (HP570)

R. Hawley

33

Chapter 4

In Figure 4.1a, the random pattern of opening sizes is evident due to the needle-punching process in
geotextile Mirafi MON. The characteristic opening size (AOS) of this geotextile is 0.212 mm:
inspection of the image confirms it is representative of the 0

9 5

of the material (the opening size

through which 95% of the particles during dry sieving passes through the geotextile). Figures 4.1b
and 4.1c show two different types of woven geotextile with different weaves and opening sizes. The
former, Mirafi Filterweave 700, has a single weave pattern and an AOS of 0.212 mm as in Figure
4.1a. Figure 4.1c shows the Geolon HP570 geotextile with an AOS of 0.600 mm. This is a different
type of weave altogether, which can also influence its hydraulic and mechanical behaviour. Notably,
this particular geotextile has the largest opening size and the largest strength values (see Table 4.1).

4.2

Soils
Three soils were used with varying gradations and particle shapes. The gradations

are shown in Figure 4.2.

fr =*t=

\\\\
\v

60

il

50

Iiii:::

FRS (Cu = 1.8)

MWT (Cu =3.3)

\\\
\

PCS (Cu = 5.8)

- -4
10.000

1.000

0.100
Diameter (mm)

4 -<
0.010

= ^ ^

>

X
0.001

Figure 4.2. Soil gradations

The Fraser River Sand (FRS), is a naturally occurring river deposit (alluvial soil). It is a subrounded
fine sand with little silt: the grain size distribution is uniform with a coefficient of uniformity (C ) of 1.8
u

and a D of 0.330 mm. The Mine Waste Tailings material (MWT), from the Highland Valley copper
85

mine located in the Interior of British Columbia, is an angular to subangular deposit with a C of 3.3
u

and a similar D of 0.290 mm. The Port Coquitlam Silty sand (PCS), river-deposited material, is a
85

silty sand having a C of 5.8, and a significantly smaller D of 0.215 mm. Two of the soils, MWT and
u

R. Hawley

85

34

Chapter 4

PCS,

were identified through discussion

with geotechnical

consultants

as

being

potentially

'problematic' from a filtration standpoint and, as such, are compared against the FRS. A summary of
soil gradation properties is given in Table 4.2.

Also, the grain shapes are discussed in the following

sections.

Given the D
AOS/D

85

8 5

values of these soils and the geotextile AOS ranges as reported in section 4.1, the

ratio for the geotextile-soil combinations range from 0.6 to 1.8 for the FRS, 0.7 to 2.1 for the

MWT and 1.0 to 2.8 for the PCS.

This information along with the test codes used for reporting

purposes is summarized in Table 4.3.

Table 4.2 Test soil properties

Soil Code

Soil
Description

8 5

6 0

50

3 0

D15

D-io
(mm)

(D /D o)

(mm)

(mm)

(mm)

(mm)

(mm)

0.330

0.280

0.260

0.220

0.170

0.155

1.8

2.50

MWT

Uniformly
Graded
Fine Sand,
some silt

0.290

0.200

0.178

0.126

0.081

0.060

3.3

2.50

PCS

Broadly
Graded
Silty Sand

0.215

0.185

0.178

0.126

0.074

0.032

5.8

2.75

60

Uniformly
Graded
Fine Sand,
trace silt

FRS

Table 4.3. Test codes (and AOS/D ) of soil-geotextile combinations

85

Geotextile
Soil

Mirafi
140N

Mirafi
160N

Mirafi
Filterweave
700

Mirafi
Filterweave
500

Mirafi
Filterweave
404

Mirafi
Filterweave
402

Geolon
570

FRS

F140
(0.6)

F160
(0.6)

F700
(0.6)

F500
(0.9)

F404
(1.3)

F402
(1.3)

F570
(1.8)

MWT

M140
(0.7)

M160
(0.7)

M700
(0.7)

M500
(1.0)

M404
(1.5)

M402
(1.5)

M570
(2.1)

PCS

P140
(1.0)

P160
(1.0)

P700
(1.0)

P500
(1.4)

P404
(2.0)

P402
(2.0)

P570
(2.8)

R. Hawley

35

Chapter 4

In order to ascertain the internal stability of these soils, the Kenney and Lau (1985, 1986) method
was applied and all soils were found to be internally stable. Appendix A contains gradations with this
method applied to all three soil gradations.

Some Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) images of the soils are shown in Figure 4.3 in order to
visually observe the difference in grain shape.

Figure 4.3a shows the Fraser River Sand (FRS).

Inspection shows the particles have nearly plane sides with unpolished surfaces but have rounded to
well-rounded corners and edges. Therefore, according to the ASTM D2488, criteria for describing
angularity of coarse-grained particles, the FRS soil is identified as being subangular

to

The mine waste tailings (MWT) are shown in Figure 4.3b and are classified as angular to

subrounded.
subangular.

Angular particles have sharp edges and relatively plane sides with unpolished surfaces, while
subangular particles are similar to the angular description but have rounded edges.
Coquitlam (Figure 4.3c) is classified as subrounded

The Port

according to ASTM D2488, where subrounded is

again defined as having nearly plane sides and well-rounded corners and edges.

se

FRS

1mm

Figure 4.3a. SEM photograph of FRS: subangular to subrounded particles

R. Hawley

36

Chapter 4

se MW11 mm
Figure 4.3b. SEM photograph of MWT: angular to subangular particles

se PCS 1mm
Figure 4.3c. SEM photograph of PCS: subrounded particles

R. Hawley

37

Chapter 4

5.0

TEST RESULTS

Given the objectives of the study, namely to compare the performance of nonwoven and woven
geotextiles, investigate the influence of unidirectional versus cyclic flow and assess the results
against existing design guidance, the results are reported in such a manner as to facilitate these
objectives. Firstly, the mass of soil passing through the geotextiles for all tests is summarized and
presented. Based on these results, selected pre-test and post-test soil gradations as well as water
head distributions are reported. The significant permeability values are summarized and reported, as
are the values of both GR
and GR . Two identical tests were performed in order to
demonstrate the repeatability of the test procedure. Those results are also presented. A complete
set of results for the pre- and post-test gradations is provided in Appendix B, together with the water
head distributions in Appendix C. A tabulation of key results for each test is given in Appendix D.
ASTM

5.1

M0D

Head Losses in the Permeameter

Observations of water head distribution across each of the three soils used in testing
have shown that as the flow rate, Q, changed, so did the total head loss across the sample (h ).
This change in h caused the targeted system gradient (i ) also to vary, depending on the
permeability of the soil. Hameiri (2000) measured this effect with a previous study, and found that as
the flow rate increased (through soils of higher permeability), h decreased. Results of both studies
are presented in Figure 5.1. The findings of this study confirm the observation that an increase in
flow rate (associated with a higher permeability) yields a lower total head loss across the sample, h .
Consequently, for tests conducted with a constant head difference (H, see Figure 3.1), the actual
system hydraulic gradient, i (= h /L), is different for each soil. It is lower for soils of greater
permeability. The phenomenon is attributed to flow-induced head losses in the permeameter.
17

17

17

17

17

]7

17

0 Hz (this study)
^0.02 Hz
0)

A 0.1 Hz

c
tu

Q0 H Z (Hameiri, 2000)
a

<>0.02 Hz

ro
a

n0.2 Hz

ro

o
2

Flow Rate, Q (cm /sec)

3

Figure 5.1. Flow Rate, Q, dependent response of total head loss, h

R. Hawley

38

17

Chapter 5

5.2

Particles Passing Through the Geotextile

The mass of the particles passing through the geotextile during sample preparation
and each stage of a test and each stage of the test was collected. These results are summarized in
Table 5.1.
Table 5.1. Summary of mass of soil passing during each test stage (g/m )
2

Test
(kPa)

Sample
Preparation

f(Hz)

UNI1
0
0

CYC50S
25
0.02

UNI2
25
0

CYC10S
25
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
115
17
0
0
0
0
0
165
0
NP

UNI3
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NP

CYC10N
0
0.1

F140
0
0
0
0
0
F160
0
0
0
0
0
F700
0
0
0
0
0
F500
0
0
0
0
0
F404
0
0
0
0
0
F402
83
0
6
0
0
F570
213
0
40
0
0
M140
0
0
26
0
0
M160
0
0
13
7
0
M700
154
0
4
0
2
M500
163
0
60
0
0
M404
374
21
313
9
128
M402
214
23
162
0
53
M570
721
37
1246
0
88
P140
635
0
34
0
39
P160
33
0
56
0
0
P700
754
15
49
0
28
P500
732
65
55
0
51
P404
1270
75
239
0
4953
P402
1614
106
95
0
4349
NP
NP
NP
P570
17756
NP
Note: NP = test not performed due to continuous piping during sample preparation

UNI4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
92
0
240
217
NP

These results show that, for all tests on the Fraser River sand (FRS), no significant quantity of soil
passed through the geotextiles. This observation recognizes the exception of a negligible amount
passing through the two geotextiles with larger opening sizes, tests F402 and F570. Here, negligible
is defined in terms of engineering consequences where a loss of a significant quantity of fines leads
to catastrophic piping failure. Lafleur et al. (1989) set a value of 2500g/m as a boundary for initiation
2

of this piping failure. Therefore, significant is defined as being a mass of soil passing greater than
2500 g/m . The FRS sand tests were therefore relatively stable in all cases.
2

R. Hawley

39

Chapter 5

With the Mine Waste Tailings (MWT), results show a negligible to moderate amount of soil passing,
with the exception of the cyclic stage (0.02 Hz) for the test M570. Given the Lafleur et al. (1989)
threshold of 2500 g/m for 'significant' piping, these results are relatively stable for all tests with some,
2

although insignificant amount of piping in the latter test (M570). This test, however, soon stabilized
after the first cyclic stage (CYC50S) as no further significant piping was observed. It can be noted
that no additional soil passed during stages UNI2, UNI3, UNI4, or CYC10S, while a negligible amount
passed during the unconfined cyclic stage, CYC10N.
The Port Coquitlam silty sand (PCS) showed insignificant piping occurring with those geotextiles
having smaller opening sizes (tests P140, P160, P700 and P500), see Table 5.1. Tests P404 and
P402 (AOS of 0.425 mm) showed a different behaviour in that minor quantities of soil passed during
the first unidirectional and cyclic stages, but significant piping took place in the later unconfined, 0.1Hz frequency cyclic stage (CYC10N). Again, 'significant' piping is defined as greater than 2500 g/m
as stated by Lafleur et al. (1989).

Notably, for these two tests, the unidirectional stages, UNI2 and

UNI3 yielded zero soil passing, whereas following the instability caused by piping during CYC10N,
the UNI4 stage did show some additional movement to have occurred. The mass of soil passing
during stage CYC10N in tests P404 and P402 represents 2.9 % and 2.3 % of the original samples
respectively. Visual observation through the permeameter in these two tests revealed some minor
loss of fines that was followed by a sudden collapse of the sample structure and large amounts of soil
passing through the geotextile. It did not occur as a gradual loss of fines near the geotextile that left
the remainder of the sample relatively intact. The piping action was actually preferentially located on
one side of the sample. The collapse occurred in the middle third of the sample leaving a horizontal
gap and a vertical channel that continued to draw soil particles preferentially down the channel
through the geotextile (shown schematically in Figure 5.2). The P570 test could not be prepared, as
the soil particles continuously fell through the geotextile during pluviation.

p p o

Figure 5.2. Preferential channeled type piping as observed during tests P404 and P402

R. Hawley

40

Chapter 5

5.3

Pre and Post Test Gradations

The soil gradations before and after testing provide valuable information on the
fraction of soil passing through the geotextile during the test. All pre- and post-test gradations as well
as the gradation of the passing soil (where available) are provided in Appendix B. Figures 5.3a, 5.3b
and 5.3c represent three scenarios of pre- and post-test gradations observed in this study.
Figure 5.3a shows Scenario 1, where the plots lie essentially on top of one another. In this scenario,
two explanations are valid. In the first case (Scenario 1a), the mass of soil passing is equal to zero
and the sample remains unchanged. In the second case (Scenario 1b), the mass of soil passing is
not zero and there is a loss of a portion of the entire size distribution.

Figure 5.3b, Scenario 2,

represents gradations for a sample that loses all fines below a certain size. This necessarily results
in an increase in D after testing due to the loss of its finer fraction. Figure 5.3c shows a Scenario 3,
50

where D decreases likely due to a loss of fines (< 75 um) and some of the matrix (75 to greater than
50

200 urn).
Table 5.2 shows the C , D , D and D values for the mass of soil passing for those tests in which a
u

85

15

50

significant amount of soil passed (during sample preparation and permeation) to facilitate using the
Sedigraph X-ray analyzer to determine the grain size distributions. It was found by experience with
the X-ray analyzer that any less than 3 g (400 g/m ) would not provide an adequate sample for the
2

machine. An exception was test M570, where the particles were too coarse to analyze in the
Sedigraph machine and therefore a sieve-shaker was used. Notably, in tests M404 and M402, the
particles were too coarse for the Sedigraph machine and there was also insufficient sample for a
sieve analysis.

<D
C

C
O

u
0-

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10.000

F R S (Cu = 1.8)

- K - Post Test Gradation

IM

1.000

0.100

4*

0.001

0.010

Diameter (mm)

Figure 5.3a. Pre- and post-test gradations, example of Scenario 1 (a, b): D constant (test F402)
50

R. Hawley

41

Chapter 5

Figure 5.3b. Pre- and post-test gradations, Scenario 2: D increases (test M700)
50

Based on the scenarios described and the mass of soil passing data as reported in Table 5.2, the
pre- and post-test gradations can be categorized. All the Fraser River sand tests had zero mass of
soil passing during permeation and therefore behaved as in Scenario 1a (Figure 5.2a). The same
scenario applies to tests M140 and M160. Tests M700 and M500 behaved as in Scenario 2 with a
larger post-test D . Tests M404, M402 and M570 show pre- and post-test gradations like Scenario
50

1b, however, it is noted that in M404 and M402, some additional fines are lost thereby causing a

R. Hawley

42

Chapter 5

slight increase in D . In test M570, the soil passing through the geotextile basically represented the
50

entire soil sample. In fact, it was the larger fraction of soil of the parent sample that appeared to have
migrated through the geotextile. All Port Coquitlam silty sand tests behaved as in Scenario 3, where
the D decreases due to a loss in fines and some of the soil matrix. In tests P140 to P402, where
50

there was adequate sample for analysis, the mass of soil passing represented a slightly finer fraction
of the parent soil. However, the gradation of the soil passing during the sample preparation of test
P570 is virtually identical to the parent soil. Notably, the post-test gradations where a significant
mass of soil did pass through the geotextile are average distributions and do not represent the spatial
variations with depth, but the overall change in particle size distributions.
Table 5.2. Summary of gradations of mass of soil passing (where adequate sample)
Test

Mass passing

Mass passing

(sample
preparation)

(during
permeation)

g/m

0
0
154
163
374
214
721

85

50

Di

(mm)

(mm)

(mm)

0.330

0.260

0.170

. -

3.3

0.290

0.178

0.081

1.8

0
0
0
0
0
83
213

0
0
0
0
0
6
40

Parent Soil MWT

M140
M160
M700
M500
M404
M402
M570

g/m

Parent Soil FRS

F140
F160
F700
F500
F404
F402
F570

26
20
6
60
606
255
1371

2.9

0.310

0.230

0.110

5.8

0.215

0.178

0.074

P140
635
73
4.4
0.067
0.033
P160
33
56
P700
754
184
10.5
0.076
0.033
P500
732
171
8.8
0.086
0.040
P404
1270
5672
6.1
0.119
0.056
P402
1614
4767
14.9
0.090
0.022
P570
17756
NP
5.9
0.210
0.180
Note: NP = test not performed due to continuous piping during sample preparation

0.012

Parent Soil PCS

R. Hawley

43

0.007
0.006
0.011
0.005
0.076

Chapter 5

5.4

Water Head Distributions

The resolution of measurement using the differential pressure transducers was

determined to be 0.5 mm of water for a range of 0 to 60 cm of differential water head. A primary
objective of the study is to characterize the response of tests that exhibited a significant quantity of
piping versus those that did not. Additionally, the response to frequency of flow reversal during the
cyclic stages for those tests where piping occurred is of interest. These issues are now examined
with reference to the variation of water head distribution with time. For purposes of demonstration,
three tests are selected that illustrate a characteristic response (F402, M570 and P402). Recall, as
shown in Table 5.1, test F402 was stable throughout testing. Test M570 showed a moderate,
although insignificant (Lafleur et al., 1989), amount of soil passing during the 0.02 Hz cyclic stage
(CYC50S).

In contrast, test P402 piped significantly during the unconfined 0.1 Hz cyclic stage

(CYC10N), with additional moderate quantities passing during the UNI1 and CYC10S stages. In the
interests of brevity, the water head distributions for stages of unidirectional flow in all tests are
reported in Appendix C.
Figures 5.4a, 5.4b and 5.4c show the respective water head distributions during the unidirectional
stages (UNI1, UNI2, UNI3, UNI4) that punctuate the cyclic stages. Three different responses are
represented in the plots. In Figure 5.4a (Test F402), stability is apparent in that the head distributions
lie on top of one another throughout the entire testing sequence. The nearly linear shape implies a
homogeneous sample. In Figure 5.4b (test M570), where some 1250 g/m passed during the
2

CYC50S stage (see Table 5.1), the water head distribution for stage UNI2 has changed from that
observed initially. Thereafter it remains constant. The final distribution is as expected with a gradient
ratio (GR) value less than unity (both ASTM and MOD) that is associated with a loss of soil through
the geotextile: the GR values are provided in section 5.5.
Figure 5.4c shows test P402 where some material was observed to pass through the geotextile the
first unidirectional stage (106 g/m ) as well as during the first cyclic stage (95 g/m ). In this case, this
2

soil passing is indicative of a short-duration wash through of material associated with establishing
stability as opposed to the piping phenomenon indicative of instability. This is reflected in the slightly
smaller head losses observed adjacent to the geotextile in the UNI2 and UNI3 stages. After the final
and faster cyclic stage with no confining stress (UNI4), the significant piping is shown by the
extremely steep water head distribution in the lower third of the sample. Notably, this plot does not
follow the classic shape of a 'piping' scenario as in Figure 5.4b. The response is attributed to the
manner in which the PCS soil piped and subsequently failed, a point that is further discussed in
Chapter 6.

R. Hawley

44

Chapter 5

14
?
o

--

10

UNI1
- - UNI2
_x-UNI3
-#-UNI4
B

o
C3

//

E
o

10

15

20

25

Head (cm)

Figure 5.4a. Water Head Distributions: Test F402 (i = 2)

17

14
E

o>

10

UNI1
UNI2
- - UNI3
UNI4

ID

o
E
o

0)

u
c

<0
*-

u>

10

20

30

40

50

Head (cm)

Figure 5.4b. Water Head Distributions: Test M570 (i = 4)

17

14
12
10
8
E

UNI1
-UNI2
_ K _ UN 13
- - UNI4

7//

-<>

6
4
2
"

0
10

20

30

40

50

60

Head (cm)

Figure 5.4c. Water Head Distributions: Test P402 (i = 5)

17

R. Hawley

45

Chapter 5

In cyclic flow, the Fraser River sand (Figure 5.5) shows the distribution of water heads with time for
the 0.02 Hz and 0.1 Hz stages respectively (both confined at 25 kPa). Flow reversal is controlled by
the constant head tanks (see Figure 3.1), and occurs with change in direction of head loss. A
positive head loss results in downward flow and, conversely a negative head loss results in upward
flow (see Figure 3.3). The two distributions are very similar, implying frequency is not a dominant
issue. The soil is coarse enough to allow for the pore pressures to stabilize to its steady state value.
At the higher frequency (Figure 5.5b) this takes a little longer for Ah (curve Dh67), defined in Eqh.
67

3.2. With the Mine Waste Tailings (Figure 5.6b), there is a similar response in that the Ah also
67

exhibits a slight time lag and the head difference just attains a constant value as the direction of flow
is reversed.
With the Port Coquitlam silty sand (Figure 5.7), the same behaviour is present, but perhaps to a
greater extent due to the finer grain size distribution of this soil. The phenomenon of a time lag to
stabilize the water head distribution in cyclic flow has been observed in previous studies (Hameiri,
2000). Due to this time lag, it can be said that the values are not actually in 'real time' and therefore
values of gradient ratio used for analysis and interpretation of results will be based on the
observations of head distribution in the stages of unidirectional flow (UNI2, UNI3, and UNI4)
immediately following the imposed stages of cyclic flow (CYC50S, CYC10S, CYC10N). It is noted
that flexibility of differential transducers can also cause a time lag when the flow is reversing. Also, in
Figure 5.7a, Ah and Ah appear to be equal during upward flow (negative head losses) during
17

37

stage CYC50S. This phenomenon was also observed during a similar test P404.
5.5

Permeability

Based on the measurements of water head and volume of water as measured by the
flow measurement system, the coefficients of permeability are reported with a resolution of 0.4 x 10"

cm/s. The coefficients of permeability were calculated using Darcy's law. The measurements of
head loss along the sample (Ah , Ah , Ah and Ah ) allow the corresponding permeabilities to be
67

56

35

13

deduced knowing the volumetric flow rate (Q) during any point of downward flow. Specifically, the
values of interest are k 5, ks and k@, which describe the permeability of the soil sample, the soil3

geotextile zone (ASTM procedure) and the soil-geotextile zone (UBC Modified procedure)
respectively. Additionally, k is of interest as it represents the average permeability of the sample.
17

These values are summarized in Tables 5.3a, 5.3b and 5.3c, for the FRS, MWT and PCS tests
respectively.

It is noted in the PCS series tests, a small variation in local gradients did exist,

however, these small variations did not appear to significantly affect the permeability values in table
5.3c or overall sample behaviour.

R. Hawley

4 6

Chapter 5

Dh17

Dh37

Dh57

Dh67

30
s

20

10

E
o
CO

_l

ro
o

L_

Lr L
>

-10

If-

-20

1043

in

-30

CO

1044

1045

L
I

1046

1047

1048

Time (min)

Figure 5.5a. Cumulative Head Loss Between Ports During Stage CYC50S: Test F402
Dh17

Dh37

Dh57

Dh67

30

20

10

E
CO
CO

o
_l

1 r

o
ro
CD

-10
i

-20

fl

>

Ld

jLilT

Hr

Tl

' ' ',

"Ti

jl

1
********

-30
1138

1138.2

1138.4

1138.6

1138.8

1139

Time (min)
Figure 5.5b. Cumulative Head Loss Between Ports During Stage CYC 10S: Test F402

R. Hawley

47

Chapter 5

925

926

927

928

929

930

Time (min)
Figure 5.6a. Cumulative Head Loss Between Ports During Stage CYC50S: Test M570
Dh17 - -Dh37 ^ - D h 5 7

Dh67

80
60

I!

40

20

\\
h-

cn

S
TJ
CO

o
-20

y
j
I fl
ri | 5 n
|

> .*
*

r'

-40
-60

J!

-80
1044

1044.2

1044.4

1044.6

1044.8

1045

Time (min)
Figure 5.6b. Cumulative Head Loss Between Ports During Stage CYC10S: Test M570

R. Hawley

48

Chapter 5

^Dh17 -

Dh37

k - Dh57 _ _ D h 6 7

80
60

40
?

20

o
CO

S o

1
x

11m

*I f

-20

./

-40
M

-60

-80
927

928

929

930

931

932

Time (min)
Figure 5.7a. Cumulative Head Loss Between Ports During Stage CYC50S: Test P402
Dh17

1081.5

1081.7

-Dh37

1081.9

Dh57 _ . _ Dh67

1082.1

1082.3

1082.5

Time (min)
Figure 5.7b. Cumulative Head Loss Between Ports During Stage CYC 10S: Test P402

R. Hawley

49

Chapter 5

Since in general, the first unidirectional stage (UNI1) did not induce any significant loss of soil (see
Table 5.1), the value of k during this stage will be used as a characteristic or 'baseline' value for
35

comparative purposes in subsequent stages. In effect, it is taken to represent the 'initial' soil
permeability. Using this rationale, the average initial permeability of the FRS is approximately 25 x
10" cm/s (for a range of 21.9 to 27.4 x 10~ cm/s). The average initial permeability of the MWT is
3

approximately 1.5 x 10~ cm/s (range of 1.0 to 2.3 x 10" cm/s) and that of the PCS is approximately
3

0.1 x 10" cm/s (for a range of 0.04 to 0.12 x 10" cm/s). In all cases, the narrow range of k values
3

35

measured in the UNI1 stage is indicative of the homogeneity of the reconstituted soil samples.
Table 5.3a. Average permeabilities (x 10" cm/s) for unidirectional and post-cyclic stages: FRS tests
3

Stage
Normal Stress (kPa)
Frequency (Hz)

UNI1

UNI2

UNI3

UNI4

0
0

25
0

25
0

0
0

Elapsed Time: (min)

Test
F140

81

1075

1161

1254

21.8
22.0
26.9
28.8
20.6
22.2
21.2
23.8
21.6
21.9
26.6
27.6
24.1
26.5
23.0
19.3
25.1
25.5
27.5
23.4
22.7
28.2
21.0
18.9
25.1
27.4
29.1
26.9

23.1
24.6
25.2
28.5
22.2
25.7
20.2
24.6
23.7
24.6
27.7
28.5
24.4
26.8
23.5
19.1
26.6
27.7
29.0
27.9
25.5
30.8
22.6
22.6
28.2
30.7
32.4
34.7

23.1
24.8
24.6
29.3
22.3
26.0
19.9
25.3
23.7
24.7
27.3
29.4
24.3
26.7
23.7
20.3
26.5
27.7
28.7
28.1
25.5
30.6
22.6
23.2
28.3
30.9
32.2
34.7

23.5
24.9
25.5
29.7
22.7
26.2
20.4
25.6
24.2
24.9
28.6
29.9
24.0
26.6
23.3
19.9
26.5
27.8
28.8
28.2
25.3
30.4
22.6
23.6
28.5
30.9
32.6
35.1

k5
3

k57
k67

F160

k^
k5
3

k57

F700

k?
k^
6

k35
k57
k67

F500

k^
k35
k57
k67

F404

k^
k35
k57
k67

F402
k35
k57
k67

F570

ki7

ks
3

57

k67

R. Hawley

50

Chapter 5

Thereafter, in each test Table 5.3a shows a nearly constant value of permeability during the
respective stages of unidirectional flow. This is indicative of the relative compatibility of the materials
(see Table 5.1). Virtually no soil passed through the geotextile, and therefore no significant change
occurred in permeability. The greatest change was in test F570 where some, albeit negligible, loss of
particles took place during stage CYC50S. In this case, the permeability of the soil adjacent to the
geotextile (k ) increased by approximately 30%, from 26.9 to 34.7 x 10" cm/s, and remained
3

67

relatively constant thereafter.

Table 5.3b. Average permeabilities (x 10" cm/s) for unidirectional and post-cyclic stages: MWT tests
3

Stage
Normal Stress (kPa)
Frequency (Hz)

UNI1

UNI2

UNI3

UNI4

0
0

25
0

25
0

0
0

Elapsed Time: (min)

81

1075

1161

1254

1.4
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.9
1.6
1.9
1.6
0.9
1.2
1.0
1.2
0.9
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.4
2.0
2.5
2.1
2.3
2.2
3.1

2.5
2.4
2.7
3.2
2.1
2.1
1.4
1.6
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.0
2.6
2.2
1.8
4.0
10.6
2.4
2.2
3.8
4.7
3.2
2.9
8.3
11.1

2.5
2.4
2.6
3.3
2.0
2.0
1.2
1.5
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.1
1.8
1.9
1.5
2.5
2.0
1.6
3.9
9.3
2.3
2.1
3.7
4.6
3.2
2.8
8.0
10.4

2.5
2.4
2.6
3.3
1.9
2.0
1.2
1.6
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.2
1.9
1.9
1.5
2.6
2.0
1.5
4.5
11.0
2.2
2.2
3.4
5.1
3.0
2.7
7.2
12.7

Test
M140

kn

k35

57

k67

M160

k-|7

k35
k57
k67

M700

k^
k35

57

k67

M500

k^
k35

57

k7
6

M404

17

k5
3

k57

M402

k67
ku

ks
k7
3

k67

M570

k^
k5
3

k57
k67

R. Hawley

51

Chapter 5

Upon inspection of Table 5.3b, it is evident that the changes in permeability of the MWT are more
pronounced than with the FRS.

In tests M140 and M160, the permeability of the soil-geotextile zone,

k , behaved as the rest of the sample. In the remainder of the tests (M700, M500, M404, M402 and
67

M570) where a small but insignificant mass of soil was lost, the change in k
of the sample.

67

is greater than the rest

In all cases, the change took place during the CYC50S stage and appears as an

increase in permeability for the UNI2 values, and is essentially constant throughout the remainder of
the test. Tests M404 and M570 show the most significant increase in k . Typically, the sensitivity of
67

the k value to change is much greater than that of the k value (as per ASTM).
67

57

Table 5.3c. Average permeabilities (x 10" cm/s) for unidirectional and post-cyclic stages: PCS tests
3

Stage
Normal Stress (kPa)
Frequency (Hz)

UNI1
0
0

UNI2
25
0

UNI3
25
0

UNI4
0
0

Elapsed Time: (min)

81

1075

1161

1254

k-i

0.12

0.06

0.08

0.06

k35

0.12

0.05

0.08

0.06

0.09

0.05

0.07

0.06

k67

0.13

0.07

0.10

0.07

kl7

0.04

0.05

0.08

0.06

k35

0.04

0.04

0.06

0.04

k57

0.03

0.04

0.06

0.04

k67

0.04

0.05

0.08

0.06

0.05

0.03

0.06

0.07

ks
3

0.06

0.03

0.07

0.07

k57

0.03

0.02

0.04

0.06

k67

0.04

0.02

0.04

0.03

ki7

0.06

0.09

0.06

0.05

k5
3

0.06

0.08

0.06

0.05

k57

0.04

0.06

0.05

0.03

k67

0.04

0.05

0.03

0.03

ki7

0.04

0.03

0.04

0.13

ks

0.04

0.03

0.04

0.14

Test
P140

P160

57

P700

P500

P404

P402

P570

0.03

0.02

0.03

0.08

k67

0.03

0.02

0.04

0.03

ki7

0.05

0.05

0.06

0.18

k5
3

0.04

0.06

0.07

0.10

k57

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.71

k67

0.03

0.06

0.06

0.26

k-i7

NP

NP

NP

NP

k35

NP

NP

NP

NP

k57

NP

NP

NP

NP

57

NP
NP
NP
NP
k7
Note: NP = not performed due to continuous piping during sample preparation.
6

R. Hawley

52

Chapter 5

In the P C S test series (Table 5.3c), the P140 test showed an early decrease in permeability between
stages UNI1 and UNI2.

A s shown in Table 5.4, this and other samples experienced an early

decrease in sample length, which remained constant throughout the remainder of the test.
P160, P700 and P500 showed essentially no change in permeability.

Tests

The small variations can be

attributed to the insignificant quantities of soil passing (see Table 5.1) and the consolidation during
the C Y C 5 0 S stage (see Table 5.4). P404 and P402 experience an increase in permeability, together
with a significant loss of soil during stage C Y C 1 0 N (see Table 5.1). Test P570 piped continuously
during sample preparation and thus was not performed. All samples, except P160, gave a sufficient
mass of soil passing through the geotextile to enable collection and subsequent particle size analysis
as shown in Table 5.2.

In the F R S tests and the M W T tests, observations of sample length indicated no change during
testing.

In contrast, with the P C S , there was a notable change in sample length (see Table 5.4).

Note that the strain values for tests P404 and P402 represent the change in length until stage
C Y C 1 0 N , at which point the severe piping prevents any further comparison with the other tests. Due
to localized piping experienced in these tests, as noted in section 5.1, it was not possible to quantify
the behaviour after this point. In the absence of any significant loss of soil particles, the axial strain
observed in tests P140, P160, P700 and P500 are attributed to consolidation induced during the
C Y C 5 0 S stage.

Table 5.4. Summary of sample length after each stage of P C S tests (mm)
Test

(kPa)

f(Hz)

Sample
Preparation

UNI1

CYC50S

UNI2

CYC10S

UNI3

CYC10N

UNI4

25

25

25

25

0.02

0.1

0.1

Axial
Strain
(%)

P140

90

89

87

87

87

87

87

87

3.3

P160

104

101

98

98

98

98

98

97

6.7

P700

104

101

100

100

100

100

97

97

6.7

P500

100

98

93

93

93

93

92

92

8.0

P404

95

92

90

90

89

89

n/a

n/a

6.3

P402

110

107

104

104

104

104

n/a

n/a

5.5

P570

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Note: n/a = not available due to excessive piping

R. Hawley

53

Chapter 5

Gradient Ratio

5.6

It

is of

interest

to

c h a r a c t e r i z e the

filtration compatibility

in t h r e e

states:

(1)

u n i d i r e c t i o n a l flow, (2) c y c l i c flow with s u r c h a r g e , with interest in flow f r e q u e n c y i n f l u e n c e s (if a n y ) ,

a n d (3) c y c l i c flow with no s u r c h a r g e .

T h e r e f o r e , the gradient ratio results a r e r e p o r t e d for s t a g e s

U N I 1 , U N I 3 a n d U N I 4 , thus r e p r e s e n t i n g the t h r e e s t a t e s r e s p e c t i v e l y ( s e e T a b l e 5.5).

T h e empirical

d e s i g n criteria for c y c l i c flow u s u a l l y c a r r y the qualifier that the geotextile b e held d o w n a n d in g o o d

c o n t a c t with the s o i l .

In this r e g a r d , it c o u l d b e a r g u e d that they a p p l y to the C Y C 5 0 S a n d

s t a g e s ( c y c l i c flow with s u r c h a r g e ) .
CYC10N
AOS/D

5 0

CYC10S

T h e s e results a r e reflected in the U N I 3 d a t a , w h e r e a s

( c y c l i c flow with no s u r c h a r g e ) results a r e reflected in the U N I 4 d a t a .

The A O S / D

8 5

the
and

v a l u e s a r e m o s t c o m m o n l y u s e d in d e s i g n criteria for unidirectional flow, t h e r e f o r e , they a r e

a l s o i n c l u d e d for r e f e r e n c e .
conditions. T h e G R

A S

S i m i l a r l y , the A O S / D

and A O S / D

1 5

5 0

v a l u e s a r e r e p o r t e d for c y c l i c flow

T M v a l u e s a r e d e f i n e d by E q n . 2.2 a n d the G R O D v a l u e s by E q n . 2 . 3 .
M

T a b l e 5 . 5 . S u m m a r y of gradient ratio test results

Unidirectional Flow

Post Cyclic Flow

UNI1
Test

AOS/
D

8 5

AOS/
D

5 0

AOS/
is

UNI3

UNI4

GRASTM

GRMOD

GRASTM

GRMOD

GRASTM

GRMOD

F140

0.6

0.8

1.2

0.8

0.8

1.0

0.8

1.0

0.8

F160

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.0

1.0

1.3

1.0

1.3

1.0

F700

0.6

0.8

1.2

0.8

0.8

0.9

0.8

0.9

0.8

F500

0.9

1.2

1.8

1.2

1.4

1.1

1.3

1.1

1.3

F404

1.3

1.6

2.5

0.9

1.1

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

F402

1.3

1.6

2.5

1.3

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.3

F570

1.8

2.3

3.5

0.9

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.9

M140

0.7

1.2

2.6

1.1

1.2

0.9

0.8

0.9

0.7

M160

0.7

1.2

2.6

1.4

1.1

1.6

1.3

1.6

1.2

M700

0.7

1.2

2.6

1.2

2.0

0.9

1.1

0.9

1.0

M500

1.0

1.7

3.7

0.9

1.1

1.2

0.8

1.2

0.7

M404

1.5

2.4

5.2

0.9

0.9

0.4

0.2

0.3

0.1

M402

1.5

2.4

5.2

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.6

0.4

M570

2.1

3.4

7.4

1.0

0.7

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.2

P140

1.0

1.2

2.9

1.2

0.9

1.0

0.8

1.0

0.8

P160

1.0

1.2

2.9

1.3

0.9

1.0

0.7

1.0

0.7

P700

1.0

1.2

2.9

1.6

1.2

1.5

1.7

1.2

2.0

P500

1.4

1.7

4.1

1.3

1.5

1.4

1.9

1.4

1.9

P404

2.0

2.4

5.7

1.4

1.2

1.3

1.1

1.7

4.7

P402

2.0

2.4

5.7

1.4

1.3

2.2

1.2

0.1

0.4

P570

2.8

3.4

8.1

NP

NP

NP

NP

NP

NP

'

N o t e : N P = not p e r f o r m e d

R. Hawley

54

Chapter 5

Visual inspection of Table 5.5 allows for comparison of

geotextile compatibility.

In general, when

In most cases when

GRMOD-

was less than

GRMOD

G R

GR STMA

1,

Hence,

GR

and

= 1, it was found that

G R

GRASTM

OD

GRMOD

was greater than

GR

GRASTM

GRASTM-

OD

as an index of soil-

was essentially equal to

Also, when

G R

1, then

is considered a more sensitive index of both change

and compatibility.

The F R S test results show that in unidirectional flow (UNI1), G R values are approximately equal to
unity and the tests are therefore stable.

In the case of cyclic flow with surcharge (UNI3), the

G R

values again are approximately equal to one and the tests are stable. In cyclic flow with no surcharge
(UNI4), the same trend is apparent and tests are stable. This is confirmed by the essentially zero
mass of soil passing data in Table 5.1.

The M W T results show that in unidirectional flow (UN11), the G R values are close to unity and the
tests are again stable. In cyclic flow with surcharge (UNI3), the G R values decrease with increasing
A O S / D ratios. Therefore, it appears that there is an increasing instability with geotextile A O S . In
n

cyclic flow with no surcharge (UNI4), the same trend exists as in UNI3 and there is little difference in
G R values. Therefore, the removal of the surcharge appears to have little effect on the response of
the M W T tests under cyclic flow. The data in Table 5.1 confirm these results as most of the loss of
soil occurred during stage C Y C 5 0 S .

The P C S test results indicate that in unidirectional flow (UNI1), the tests are stable with G R values
close to unity.

In cyclic flow with surcharge (UNI3), the tests are relatively stable, with most

values greater than one.

G R

Data in Table 5.1, however, show that there is some soil loss in the

C Y C 5 0 S stage. In cyclic flow with no surcharge (UNI4), there appears to be a variable response with
no strong pattern like that in the M W T tests. In Table 5.1, soil does pass during the C Y C 1 0 N stage;
therefore, it appears that with the P C S tests, removal of surcharge does significantly

affect

performance especially with the larger A O S / D values.

n

5.7

Repeatability

In order to demonstrate that the test results are repeatable and therefore reliable with
respect to sample preparation and quality of data, two separate tests with identical conditions were
performed. The results of these tests, the F160, are summarized in Tables 5.6a and 5.6b. Figures
5.7a and 5.7b show the water head distributions of both tests F160(a) and F160(b) respectively.

It is evident from the results shown in Tables 5.4a and 5.4b as well as Figures 5.7a and 5.7b, that the
gradient ratio test is repeatable and the tests are therefore reliable.

R. Hawley

55

It is noted, however, that the

Chapter 5

permeability values reported during the cyclic stages are measured only during downward flow. As
mentioned previously, the time lag phenomenon that occurs during these transient conditions do not
allow for reliable determination of water heads in real time and therefore these measurements (during
stages CYC50S, CYC10S and CYC10N) are mainly for comparison purposes for assessment of
repeatability.

Table 5.6a. Test results: TestF160(a)

El.
Time
(min)

Ah
(cm)

0.8

2.5

7.5

9.9

5.0

ASTM

MOD

UNI1

81

1.6

5.5

15.9

22.3

2.3

10.5

1.0

0.9

2.1

CYC50S

941

1.5

2.4

11.7

17,7

1.8

6.0

0.8

1.6

2.9

UNI2

993

1.5

5.9

15.2

21.3

2.2

9.3

1.3

1.0

2.2

CYCIOs

1052

1.6

6.0

15.2

21.0

2.1

9.2

1.3

1.1

3.0

UNI3

1076

1.5

6.0

15.3

21.3

2.2

9.2

1.3

1.0

2.2

CYC10N

1137

1.6

6.0

15.2

21.1

2.1

9.2

1.3

1.1

3.0

UNI4

1160

1.5

5.9

15.1

21.0

2.1

9.2

1.3

1.0

2.3

Ah
(cm)

Ah
(cm)

Stage
Distance from
Geotextile,
cm

67

Ah
(cm)
57

Ah
(cm)
37

Ah
(cm)

Ah
(cm)

17

35

Gradient
Ratio

Permeability
(x 10"
cm/sec), k
3

17

Table 5.6b. Test results: Test F160(b)

El.
Time
(min)

Ah
(cm)

0.8

2.5

7.5

10.0

5.0

ASTM

MOD

UNI1

81

1.6

5.5

16.0

23.1

2.3

10.5

1.0

1.0

2.1

CYC50S

941

1.6

2.3

12.2

19.5

2.0

7.3

0.6

1.4

2.8

UNI2

993

1.6

5.9

16.2

22.3

2.2

10.3

1.1

0.9

2.2

CYCIOs

1052

1.6

5.9

15.5

24.1

2.4

9.6

1.2

1.0

3.0

UNI3

1076

1.5

6.0

15.3

23.2

2.3

9.3

1.3

1.0

2.1

CYC10N

1137

1.6

6.1

15.5

22.2

2.2

9.4

1.3

1.1

3.0

UNI4

1160

1.5

5.9

15.2

22.1

2.2

9.3

1.3

1.0

2.2

Stage
Distance from
Geotextile,
cm

R. H a w l e y

67

Ah
(cm)
57

37

Ah
(cm)

17

35

Gradient
Ratio

Permeability
(x 10"
cm/sec), k
3

17

56

Chapter 5

14

UNI1
12

UNI2
-x-UNI3

10

-.-UNI4

O
o

CJ

10

15

20

25

Head (cm)

Figure 5.8a. Water head distribution of unidirectional stages: Test F160(a)

14

12

UNI1
.

UNI2
-x-UNI3

10

_ _UNI4

*/

0>

C5

E
o

re

y
4

10

15

20

25

Head (cm)

Figure 5.8b. Water head distribution of unidirectional stages: Test F160(b)

R. Hawley

57

Chapter 5

6.0

ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS

The test results presented in Chapter 5 are used to address two issues of filtration compatibility: the
influence of geotextile type and the influence of flow regime. Additionally, the results are compared
with selected design criteria for both unidirectional and cyclic flow conditions, in order to examine
their success in characterizing the behaviour of the soil-geotextile combinations used in testing.
6.1

Influence of Geotextile T y p e

Three of the geotextiles, one woven and two nonwoven, have the same AOS value of
0.212 mm. Therefore the results of nine tests are examined, comprising the three geotextiles and
three soils (FRS, MWT, PCS). The results are summarized for the stages of initial unidirectional flow
(UNI1) and post-cyclic unidirectional flow (UNI4) in Table 6.1. The mass of soil passing is the
cumulative quantity throughout the tests (excluding sample preparation).
Table 6.1. Comparison of filter performance: nonwoven versus woven
Unidirectional Flow (UNI1)
Test
(Geotextile
Type)

AOS/ AOS/ AOS/

D
D
D
85

50

15

Soil
Passing,
mp
g/m

ASTM

F140
(NW)
F160
(NW)
F700
(W)
M140
(NW)
M160
(NW)
M700
(W)
P140
(NW)
P160
(NW)
P700
(W)

Post Cyclic Flow

(UNI4)

MOD

So/7
Passing,
mp
g/m

ASTM

MOD

Gradient Ratio

Gradient Ratio

0.6

0.8

1.2

0.8

0.8

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.0

1.0

1.3

1.0

0.6

0.8

1.2

0.8

0.8

0.9

0.8

0.7

1.2

2.6

1.1

1.2

26

0.9

0.7

0.7

1.2

2.6

1.4

1.1

20

1.6

1.2

0.7

1.2

2.6

1.2

2.0

0.9

1.0

1.0

1.2

2.9

1.2

0.9

73

1.0

0.8

1.0

1.2

2.9

1.3

0.9

56

1.0

0.7

1.0

1.2

2.9

15

1.6

1.2

184

1.2

2.0

The FRS test series, where AOS/D and AOS/D are 0.6 and 0.8 respectively, yields a similar
85

50

behaviour regardless of geotextile type. No soil was lost during either unidirectional or cyclic flow. In
the MWT test series, M140, M160 and M700 also resulted in no loss of soil during unidirectional flow,

R. Hawley

58

Chapter 6

and subsequent cyclic loading yielded an insignificant amount of wash through (26, 20 and 6 g/m

respectively).
The PCS test series, which had a larger ratio of AOS/D , reveals a slight difference between the
85

nonwoven and woven geotextiles. The nonwoven tests (P140 and P160) showed no soil passing in
the UNI1 stage and a small amount passing by the end of the test (UNI4). In the woven test (P700),
the quantity of soil lost was moderately greater (15 g/m and 184 g/m ) than that in the two
2

companion tests. Grain size curves of the soil passing are available for tests P140 and P700 (see
Appendix B). Inspection shows the maximum size and size distribution for P140 (D
D

5p

95]P

= 0.095 mm,

= 0.007 mm) to be smaller than that for P700 (D , = 0.140 mm, D , = 0.002 mm).
95 p

5 p

The results of this comparison, therefore, indicate that these particular woven and nonwoven
geotextiles behave similarly in that the filtration compatibility is equally satisfied. In all tests, the
quantity of soil passing is not considered significant, based on the criterion of Lafleur et al. (1989).
There is a trend with the results that suggests increasing washout of soil with greater AOS/D ratio,
85

which is to be expected (see section 6.3). The limited data on the size distribution of these soils
indicate the woven geotextile has potential to pass more soil than the nonwoven of equal AOS, and
that both the maximum particle size and the size distribution of the passing soils are larger.
6.2

Influence of Flow Regime

Four flow regimes are sequentially imposed in testing: unidirectional flow, cyclic flow

with surcharge (0.02 Hz and 0.1 Hz) and cyclic flow with no surcharge (0.1 Hz). Comparison of the
results allows an assessment of the influence of flow regime on soil-geotextile compatibility. The
variation of mass of soil passing with AOS/D , for each of these stages is illustrated in Figures 6.1a,
85

6.1b and 6.1c for the FRS, MWT and PCS soils respectively. The values of modified gradient ratio
are reported in Figure 6.2 from the corresponding unidirectional stages (UNI1 to UNI4).
For the Fraser River Sand (Figure 6.1a), the mass of soil passing for all AOS/D combinations is
85

negligible.

The GR values (Figure 6.2) show no change between the unidirectional (UNI1) and post-

cyclic responses (UNI2, UNI3, UNI4). In conjunction with the permeability data (see Table 5.3a), the
relatively consistent values of k indicate that neither piping nor clogging were prominent issues.
67

Filtration compatibility exists in all stages of testing for the Fraser River Sand.
Results for the Mine Waste Tailings are given in Figure 6.1b. The response is stable in all stages
except the 0.02 Hz stage (CYC50S). As the AOS/D increases, so does the mass of soil passing
85

through the geotextile. Notably, the gradation of the mass of soil passing is similar to that of the

R. Hawley

59

Chapter 6

parent soil, therefore, it is the soil structure that passed through the geotextile. This loss of material
does not continue in the subsequent unidirectional or cyclic stage with no surcharge. This result is
supported by reduction in gradient ratio (see Figure 6.2b) for the UNI2 stage, and an increase in
permeability that is consistent throughout the remainder of the test (Table 5.3b, test M570).

It

appears counter intuitive that in this test, soil passed during the CYC50S stage but not the CYC 10S
or CYC 10N stages.

Upon inspection of permeability data (see Appendix D), it appears that the

overall sample permeability (k ) was higher during stage CYC50S by a factor of 3 as compared to
17

stages CYC10S and CYC10N.

The permeability (k ) was higher by a factor of 5.

67

Perhaps the

slower frequency of flow reversal (0.02 Hz) allowed enough time for the matrix material to migrate out
of the sample during downward flow and hence, increase the permeability of the soil-geotextile zone
and the sample overall. During the faster frequency stages (0.1 Hz), there was perhaps insufficient
time for the matrix soil to get carried out of the geotextile before the flow direction was reversed.

The Port Coquitlam Silty Sand behaves differently (Figure 6.1c). A relatively insignificant amount of
soil passed in all stages but CYC10N, during which the cyclic flow was unconfined at 0.1 Hz, and a
significant piping failure took place.

The response appears consistent, since it is observed in two

tests (P404 and P402, see Table 5.1), each with the same A O S / D

ratio.

85

The quantity of soil

passing was the greatest observed of all tests performed. In contrast to other tests, the onset was
relatively sudden once the A O S / D

85

exceeded a value of 1.4. The corresponding modified GR values

for these two tests do not show a consistent behaviour (see Table 5.5 and Figure 6.2b).

In test

P402, the value of 0.4 indicates piping (post-cyclic). However, test P404 gave a value of 4.7, which
theoretically, indicates a tendency towards clogging behaviour.
5600
|

CN

E
oi
a
E

4800

^4^UNI2
_#_UNI3

4000

c
CO
CO

rc

-H-UNI1

UNI4

3200

Q_
O

2400

CO

1600

co
co
ro

800

0.0

1.0

0.5

1.5

2.0

AOS/D85
Figure 6.1a. Influence of flow regime: FRS tests, i

R. Hawley

60

1 7

=2

Chapter 6

5600

T|
E

4800

H__UNI2
-0-UNI3

Q.

UNI1

4000 | | U N I 4

cn
cn
ro
D.
o

o
cn
cn
ro

ro
o

3200
2400
1600

4
800

0.0

0.5

1.0

ft

1.5

2.0

2.5

AOS/D85

Figure6.1b. Influence of flow regime: MWT tests, i = 4

17

5600

CL
E

4800

1-

4000

LJNI2

LJNI3

C
/

JNI4

cn
c

cn
cn
ra

JNI1

)
)

//

3200

CL
O
CO

2400

ccnn
ro

1600

ro
o

800

/
/

+->

t
0.0

0.5

1.0

ii

1.5

2.0

2.5

AOS/D85

Figure 6.1c. Influence of flow regime: PCS tests, i = 5

17

R. Hawley

61

Chapter 6

7000

CXI

I
Q.
E

6000
-

4,

FRS-UNI1

PCS-UNI1

C b g g i n g Criteria: G R < 3

Piping/Clogging Threshold: G R = 1

CO
CO

4000

O
CO

3000

ro
0_

to
ro

- L a f l e u r Piping Limit: < 2500 g/m2

5000

ro
c

CO

MWT-UNI1

2000

--

I
1000

!
GRMOD
Figure 6.2a. Unidirectional results: G R

MOD

9000

CN

E
ro

8000

7000

Q.
E
ro
C
CO
CO

ro

o
CO

CO
CO
CO

6000

FRS-UNI2

PCS-UNI2

MWT-UNI3

FRS-UNI4

PCS-UNI4

MWT-UNI2

FRS-UNI3

PCS-UNI3

MWT-UNI4

L a f l e u r Piping Limit: 2500 g/m2

Piping/Clogging Threshold: G R = 1

C l o g g i n g Criteria: G R < 3

5000

4000

3000

2000

I-

1000

A
1

3
GRMOD

Figure 6.2b. Cyclic results:

R. Hawley

62

GR OD
M

Chapter 6

The two tests appear to have a minor anomaly (based on the GR values, which in turn are based on
measurement of head loss). Yet, both tests yield very similar quantities of passing soil for each stage
(see Table 5.1 and Figure 6.1c). From this point of view, they seem quite 'reproducible', given the
same AOS values. Upon comparison of the pre- and post-test gradations as well as the gradation of
the soil passing (see Table 5.2), it appears that P402 passes a finer soil (D , = 0.022 mm)
50

compared with test P404 (D ,p = 0.055 mm). This explains the GR < 1 for test P402, where k
50

67

increased significantly. The GR > 1 in test P404 occurs due to a dramatic increase of k while k
35

remained virtually unchanged.

67

Both tests are similar with respect to the overall sample

permeabilities (k ), the quantity of soil passing and the flow rate measurements. The difference lies
17

in the subtlety of the locations of head measurement since both the gradient ratio and permeability
values are determined based on head measurements.
As described in section 5.1, a horizontal gap and vertical channel type failure was observed in both
tests, where the channel occurred preferentially to one side. It is reasonable to speculate that in test
P404, the horizontal gap occurs between ports 3 and 5, thus resulting directly in an increase in
permeability k of a factor of approximately 3.5. It also seems reasonable that the vertical channel
35

did not occur on the side where port 6 is located, which incidentally is located on the opposite side of
the permeameter to ports 3 and 5. This would result in the somewhat misleading measurement of a
head values, and hence permeability value (k ) that remains unchanged. This failure pattern is
67

shown schematically in Figure 6.3a. It also seems reasonable that in test P402, the horizontal gap is
located slightly higher (note that the sample height is also greater than in test P404), leading to a
smaller increase in permeability (k ) by a factor of 1.3. In contrast to test P404, the vertical channel
35

may have developed where port 6 is located and hence results in the measurement of a dramatic
increase in head and hence permeability (k ) by a factor of approximately 4.3. This is shown
67

schematically in Figure 6.3b. Therefore, despite the overall reproducibility of the two tests with
respect to mass of soil passing and volumetric flow rate, the head measurements are perhaps not
capturing the true behaviour of the sample thereby resulting in misleading GR and permeability
values.

R. Hawley

63

Chapter 6

14

k = 1.3 x 10 cm/s
Q = 0.05 cm /s
17

12

10

Port 3

Port 5
Port 6

Figure 6.3a. Test P404: Failure pattern during stage CYC1 ON

14

k = 1.8 x 10'' cm/s

Q = 0.06 cm /s
v

12 ^

Port 3

Port 5

20

30

40

50

Head (cm)

Figure 6.3b Test P402 Failure pattern during stage CYC1 ON

R. Hawley

64

Chapter 6

6.3

Design Criteria

The results are used to assess existing design criteria, namely the CGS (1992),
Luettich et al. (1992), and Holtz et al. (1997) which are representative of those most widely used in
practice. Table 6.2 shows the design criteria as they apply to the soils in this study, for both
unidirectional and cyclic flow. The CGS (1992) criteria for unidirectional flow, based on the C of the
u

soil, are extracted from previous Christopher & Holtz (1985) work and are the same as the Holtz et al.
(1997) guidance for steady state flow conditions. The Luettich et al. (1992) criteria are obtained using
Figure 2.2, which originate from the Giroud (1982) soil retention criteria for steady state flow. The
criteria are calculated based on the D , D and D values (see Table 4.2) of each soil and the
10

60

30

assumptions that the application favours retention, the soil is stable and is medium dense. For cyclic
flow, the CGS (1992) guidance states that soil with < 50% passing the No. 200 sieve be designed
simply with the criterion O < D . The Luettich et al. (1992) criterion is determined based on Figure
g5

15

2.3, which originates from the work of Heerton (1982). The criterion is based on the D of the soils
10

and assumes severe wave attack. The Holtz et al. (1997) guidance considers that if the geotextile is
not properly weighted down and in intimate contact with the soil to be protected, or if dynamic, cyclic,
or pulsating loading conditions produce high localized hydraulic gradients, then soil particles can
move behind the geotextile. Thus, the use of B = AOS/D = 1 is not conservative, because the
n

bridging network will not develop and the geotextile will be required to retain even finer particles.
When retention is the primary criteria, B should be reduced to 0.5. The calculations for all criteria
used in this study are provided in Appendix A. Figures 6.4 and 6.5 summarize the mass of soil
passing against the appropriate AOS/D value, for unidirectional and cyclic flow respectively.
n

Table 6.2. Design criteria used in this study

Soil

FRS

Cu

Unidirectional Flow
CGS
Luettich et al.
(1992)
(1992)

1.8

AOS < 1.0 D

85

AOS < 1.9 D

MWT 3.3

AOS < 1.7 D

85

AOS < 2.4 D

PCS

AOS < 1.4 D

85

5.8

Cyclic Flow
Luettich et al.
(1992)

CGS
(1992)

Holtz et al.
(1997)

AOS < 1.0 D

15

AOS < 1.0 D

50

AOS < 0.5 D

85

AOS < 1.0 D

15

AOS < 1.0 D

50

AOS < 0.5 D

85

AOS < 2.2 D5o AOS < 1.0 D

15

AOS < 1.0 D

50

AOS < 0.5 D

50

50

85

The results are assessed on two bases: (i) test performance and (ii) conformance to specification.
Test performance, or filtration compatibility, is based on the mass of soil passing where perfect
compatibility includes the necessary action of a little 'wash-through' the geotextile in order to set-up a
bridging zone immediately upstream of the geotextile. The intersection of the criterion and the mass
of soil passing provides an indication of the overall conformance to design guidance.

R. Hawley

65

Chapter 6

6.3.1

Unidirectional Flow

For unidirectional flow (UNI1) results, the mass of soil passing is plotted
against the appropriate AOS/D value for the CGS (1992) guidelines and Luettich et al. (1992)
n

guidelines in Figures 6.4a and 6.4b respectively.

The Fraser River sand has been shown to have a perfect filtration compatibility with all of the
geotextiles used in testing. From Figure 6.4a, four of these tests conformed to the CGS criteria and
three did not, namely those where the AOS/D was 1.3 and 1.8 (see Table 4.3).
85

The absence of

soil passing suggests that the CGS guidance may be slightly conservative. The Luettich et al. (1992)
criteria, see Figure 6.4b, show all combinations but one (AOS/D of 2.3) to be in conformance.
50

Therefore, the Luettich et al. (1992) guidance may also be slightly conservative.
In the case of the mine waste tailings (Figure 6.4a), 6 results conform to CGS criteria, and one does
not (AOS/D of 2.1). The intersection of the CGS criterion with the data occurs at a mass of soil
85

passing of approximately 30 g/m . Figure 6.4b shows that all tests conform to Luettich et al. (1992)
2

criterion, except one test (AOS/D of 3.4), which is associated with approximately 20 g/m of soil
2

50

passing. Therefore, the criteria again appear to be slightly conservative.

The Port Coquitlam silty sand yielded 4 tests in conformance with CGS (1992) criteria and 3 that did
not, including one not shown that resulted in catastrophic piping during the sample preparation stage
(test P570: AOS/D = 2.8 and AOS/D = 3.4). From Figure 6.4a, the intersection of the criterion
85

50

with the data occurs at approximately 50 g/m of soil passing. It therefore appears the criterion may
2

be slightly conservative. Similarly, Figure 6.4b shows all tests except the same three as above
conformed to Luettich et al. (1992) specifications. The intersection of the criterion and experimental
data occurs at approximately 80 g/m of soil passing. Therefore, the criterion appears very suitable
2

for characterizing the filtration compatibility of the Port Coquitlam silty sand under unidirectional flow.
All 'best fit' lines in Figures 6.4a and 6.4b are established by inspection.

R. Hawley

66

Chapter 6

FRS
MWT
PCS
C G S (1992) Criterion: F R S
C G S (1992) Criteria: M W T
-

- C G S (1992) Criteria: P C S

4.0

Figure 6.4a. Unidirectional results: CGS (1992) guidelines

120

Figure 6.4b. Unidirectional results: Luettich et al. (1992) guidelines

R. Hawley

67

Chapter 6

6.3.2

Cyclic Flow

For three stages of cyclic flow (CYC50S, CYC 10S and CYC10N), the mass of
soil passing is plotted against the appropriate AOS/D value for the CGS (1992), Luettich et al.
n

(1992), and Holtz et al. (1997) guidelines in Figures 6.5a, 6.5b and 6.5c respectively. Most design
guidance in cyclic flow emphasizes the need for 'contact' (confining stress) between the geotextile
and the soil. Holtz et al. (1997) includes this as rational for a more conservative design guidance for
cyclic flow as noted earlier in section 6.3.
The cyclic flow regime is divided into three stages, two stages with surcharge, CYC50S and CYC10S
and cyclic flow with no surcharge (CYC10N). The stages CYC50S and CYC 10S are grouped
together as being 'confined' and CYC10N is 'unconfined'. Based on these test results, a confined
envelope and an unconfined envelope are shown in Figures 6.5a, 6.5b, and 6.5c to allow for
interpretation of the data.
Figure 6.5a shows that all confined data exceed the CGS (1992) criterion. The confined envelope
suggests that AOS/D < 5 for a very conservative limit of mp < 250 g/m . Figure 6.5b shows that
2

15

most data, except three FRS tests with an AOS/D of 0.8, exceed the Luettich et al. (1992) criterion.
50

Again, for mp < 250 g/m , the confined data suggest AOS/D
2

50

< 2. Similar to the CGS (1992)

criterion, Figure 6.5c shows that all data exceed the Holtz et al. (1997) criterion and for mp < 250
g/m , the data suggest AOS/D < 1.
2

85

Figures 6.5a, 6.5b and 6.5c show the proposed 'unconfined envelope' for this series of tests.
However, interpretation of this envelope is difficult since the PCS is the only test series that yielded
significant quantities of soil passing, and only one test (P500) falls between the AOS/D lower and
n

upper limits of the other tests. It is noted, however, that none of the three design guidances claim to
address unconfined conditions aside from the mention of ensuring adequate weight and providing
intimate contact between the soil and geotextile.

R. Hawley

68

Chapter 6

6000

5000

FRS
MWT

CYC50S

PCS

FRS

MWT

PCS

FRS

MWT

PCS

/
/

CYC10S

UNCONFINED
ENVELOPE

CYC10N

C G S (1992) Criterion
CONFINED
ENVELOPE

a R
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

AOS/D-

Figure 6.5a. Cyclic results: CGS (1992) guidelines

6000
FRS

MWT

PCS

MWT

FRS

' o

UNCONFINED
ENVELOPE

CYC50S

PCS

FRS

MWT

CYC10S

CYC10N

PCS
L e u t t i c h et a l . ( 1 9 9 2 ) C r i t e r i o n

CONFINED
ENVELOPE

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0
A0S/D

2.5

3.0

3.5

5 n

Figure 6.4b. Cyclic results: Luettich et al. (1992) guidelines

R. Hawley

69

Chapter 6

4.0

6000

FRS
fl MWT
J

5000

ED

a.

4000

in

S.

3000

o
CO
10

PCS

FRS

MWT

PCS

FRS

MWT

PCS

o
UNCONFINED
ENVELOPE

Holtz et al. (1997) Criterion

2000

CONFINED
ENVELOPE

w
ro

1000

fl
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5
AOS/D

2.0

2.5

Figure 6.5c. Cyclic results: Holtz et al. (1997) guidelines

R. Hawley

70

Chapter 6

7.0

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The implications of this study for the application of geotextiles in geotechnical filters lie in assessing
the results against existing design guidance. Additionally, the results contribute to a very limited
database of existing studies. The limitations of testing must also be addressed in this section, as it is
important that the practitioner understand the applicability of these results.
7.1

Design Guidance

Results from testing were assessed against several commonly-used design guidance
for unidirectional and cyclic flow: the C G S (1992), Holtz et al. (1997), and Luettich et al. (1992). The
guidance is assessed using three soils, all of which are internally stable, which represent a wide
range of gradations (Cu = 1.8, 3.3, 5.8) and AOS/D values (0.6 to 2.8).
85

In unidirectional flow, the CGS (1992) criteria are acceptable in most cases, but since the quantities
of soil passing are so small, they appear somewhat conservative. Luettich et al. (1992) guidance is
also acceptable and, similar to CGS (1992) appears somewhat conservative given comparably small
quantities of soil passing.
In cyclic flow (with surcharge), all guidance appear very conservative, being associated with
negligible to very small amounts soil passing. Therefore, they are acceptable as the results support
their use. There may be reason to permit an increase to the AOS/D ratio, and still expect an
n

adequate compatibility. From this study, there is no clear evidence to assess whether it is more
advantageous to select D , D , or D for design purposes.
15

50

85

Cyclic flow (with no surcharge) results in a greater passage of soil that appears to develop very
significantly over small increments of AOS/D . This is immediately apparent from the much steeper
n

unconfined envelope in comparison to the confined envelope (see Figure 6.5). The results confirm
this scenario to be problematic in design.
Generally, the guidance is suitable for both nonwoven and woven geotextiles, recognizing the subtle
variation in gradation of the soil that passes. Additionally, the frequency of cyclic flow was not found
to be influential for the range examined in this study (0.02 Hz to 0.1 Hz).
7.2

Limitations of Testing

Cazzuffi et al. (1999) and Tondello (1998) have published test results using a similar
gradient ratio apparatus (see section 2.2.2). They were able to directly apply a known effective stress

R. Hawley

71

Chapter 7

to the interface by using a deformable cylinder and a non-rigid wall at the interface. Therefore, they
were able to vary the effective stress systematically and assess its influence on soil-geotextile
compatibility. They applied effective stresses ranging from 0 to 150 kPa. At zero effective stress, the
soil reached instability much more quickly and at effective stresses above 100 kPa, regardless of
applied gradient, the soil was stable.

However, it is noted that only two soils were tested in their

study. These findings are similar to the relatively limited data presented in this study, where the lower
the 'applied stress', the greater the tendency toward instability in cyclic flow.
With respect to frequency effects in cyclic flow, Tondello ( 1 9 9 8 ) and Cazzuffi et al. ( 1 9 9 9 ) state that
they were able to vary the frequency between 0.02 Hz and 0.5 Hz; however, they did not quantify the
frequency effects on soil-geotextile compatibility. In general, in this study, it appeared that for one
soil (MWT) the slower frequency stage (0.02 Hz) was more disturbing than the subsequent higher
frequency stages (0.1 Hz). However, the results clearly indicate that for the PCS soil, the higher
frequency is more detrimental to soil-geotextile compatibility. The relative stability of most tests does
not facilitate the thorough quantification of frequency effects on soil-geotextile compatibility.
Another consideration in this study is one of the duration of unidirectional flow
influence the quantity of soil passing. Lafleur et al. ( 1 9 8 9 ) and Lafleur

(1999)

(UNI1),

where it may

use a mass of

2500

kg/m as the limit for undesirable piping, given that enough time is allowed for the phenomenon to
2

develop. The limit was proposed based on tests with durations of

3000

to

8000

minutes. This is a

potential concern when assessing the significance of the mass of soil passing through the geotextile
in this current study, since the test stages are much shorter (UNI1 is 9 0 minute duration). However,
the results have shown either a wash-out phenomenon of very small quantities of soil or catastrophic
piping, therefore, this consideration is not viewed as a limitation.
Finally, the variation of applied system gradient (i ) between the three soils is another potential
17

limitation recognized in this study. However, due to the very small range of gradients, this is not
believed to be a significant limitation.

R. Hawley

72

Chapter 7

8.0

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

The modified gradient ratio device was used in filtration testing of 21 soil-geotextile combinations,
comprising 7 geotextiles and 3 soils. Two of the geotextiles were nonwoven materials and 5 were
woven, with AOS values ranging from 0.212 mm to 0.600 mm.

The soils included two broader

gradations that were identified by industry as being potentially 'problematic' from a filtration
standpoint. They each had a relatively narrow range of D 5 (from 0.330 mm to 0.215 mm), and a
8

wide range of coefficient of uniformity with C (from 1.8 to 5.8). The tests therefore provided results
u

for AOS/D values ranging from 0.6 to 2.8.

85

Water pluviation was used to prepare saturated, homogeneous samples for the more uniform soil,
while a slurry deposition technique was used to prepare similar samples of the two soils with broader
gradations.

A multi-stage testing procedure was used in which unidirectional and cyclic flow

conditions were imposed. The test variables included frequency of flow reversal (0.02 Hz, 0.1 Hz),
and confining stress (25 kPa, zero). The hydraulic gradient applied to the sample varied with soil
type, in the range of 2 to 5. The results describe the relative performance of nonwoven and woven
geotextiles in different hydraulic conditions, and allow for an evaluation of criteria for unidirectional
and cyclic flow as they exist in commonly used design guidance.
The influence of geotextile type was examined from results for 2 nonwoven geotextiles and a woven
geotextile, each with the same AOS of 0.212 mm. Based on this very limited comparison, it appears
there is little difference in behaviour of these woven and nonwoven geotextiles. All tests were
relatively stable, with < 200 g/m of material passing through the geotextiles. Results for the Port
2

Coquitlam silty sand, which yielded the most soil passing through the geotextile, showed a small
difference in the grain size distribution of the passing soils. It appeared that more of the finer material
passed through the woven geotextile, than the corresponding nonwoven.
The influence of flow regime was studied from tests in unidirectional flow, and cyclic flow with and
without confining stress. No significant influence of the frequency was found in testing for the flow
reversal at a frequency of 0.02 Hz and 0.1 Hz.
The Fraser River sand is stable in all tests and therefore, the influence of flow regime does not
appear to be an issue. The mine waste tailings are stable in unidirectional flow, and generate a very
subtle trend towards a piping potential in cyclic flow as the AOS/D approaches a value of 2.0. The
85

Port Coquitlam silty sand behaved slightly differently than the other two soils, in that it is stable in
both unidirectional flow and confined cyclic flow, but experienced significant piping and collapse of

R. Hawley

73

Chapter 8

the soil structure with unconfined cyclic flow. The soil yielded catastrophic piping during sample
preparation when the AOS/D was 2.8.
85

The results were used to evaluate the design criteria of CGS (1992) and Luettich et al. (1992) in
unidirectional flow, and CGS (1992), Luettich et al. (1992) and Holtz et al. (1997) in cyclic flow. The
CGS (1992) and Luettich et al. (1992) guidance were found to be slightly conservative for soilgeotextile filtration compatibility in unidirectional flow. For cyclic flow, all three criteria were again
found to be reasonable, but overly conservative.
Based on these conclusions, the following recommendations are made for additional studies:
1. Due to the flow-related head losses in the system, the gradient across the sample, i varied.
17

Tests should be performed such that i remains constant so as to ensure identical severity of flow
17

for all soils.

2. The influence of geotextile type was studied here for three geotextiles with the same AOS of 212
um. The limited data suggest a similar response. It is recommended that more coupled tests be
performed with nonwoven and woven geotextiles at different AOS values, to obtain further data on
this issue.
3. Also, with respect to cyclic flow, it is recommended that longer stage durations be imposed,
especially for stages of a higher frequency. It is important to know whether a piping action would
have established had there been more time. A longer duration of cyclic flow might allow for more
soil to pass, and therefore the mass of soil passing over time during the stage could be better
resolved.
4. The results of this study show that there appears to be no significant influence of frequency on
filtration behaviour, where 0.02 Hz and 0.1 Hz were imposed. However, in other studies, the
influence of frequency has been found to be significant. For example, Chew et al. (2000) used
frequencies ranging from 0.07 Hz to 0.5 Hz and found the washout of fines to be highly dependent
on this frequency. Tondello (1998) used frequencies ranging from 0.1 Hz to 0.5 Hz, however, the
frequency dependence is not clearly quantified.

On this basis, it is recommended that the

frequency of flow reversal be systematically varied over a much broader range in order to better
determine and quantify its effect.
5. For greater certainty in design practice, there is a need to establish an acceptable rationale for
filtration compatibility concerning the use of the gradient ratio values or the measurement of the

R. Hawley

74

Chapter 8

mass of soil passing, mp. Lafleur et al. (1989) suggest a limit of 2500 g/m for mass for soil
2

passing, however, it must be determined whether this value is appropriate. This will assist to
'unify' the empirical design criteria for unidirectional and cyclic flow.

In any case, it is

recommended that the mass of soil passing should be measured in all studies as it provides
valuable and sometimes critical information on filter behaviour that the gradient ratio values alone
cannot provide.

R. Hawley

75

Chapter 8

LIST OF REFERENCES
Akram, A.H., and Gabr, M.A. (1997) Filtration of Fly Ash Using Nonwoven Geotextiles: Effect of
Sample Preparation Technique and Testing Method, ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTODJ,
Vol. 20, No. 3, September, pp. 263 - 271.
ASTM. (1992) Standard Test Method for Measuring the Soil-Geotextile System Clogging Potential
by the Gradient Ratio (D5101), in 1992 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, sect. 4, vol. 04.08. ASTM,
Philadelphia, PA, pp.1090-1196.
ASTM. (1996) Standard Test Method for Measuring the Soil-Geotextile Clogging Potential by the
Gradient Ratio (D5101-96), in the Annual Book of ASTM standards, Vol. 04.09, ASTM Philadelpia.
Bertram, G.E. (1940) An Experimental Investigation of Protective Filters, Soil Mechanics Series No.
7, Graduate School of Engineering, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Bhatia, S.K. and Huang, Q. (1995) Geotextile Filters for Internally Stable/Unstable Soils,
Geosynthetics International, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 537-565.
Bhatia, S.K., Mlynarek, J., Rollin, A.L., and Lafleur, J. (1991) Effect of Pores Structure of Nonwoven
Geotextiles on Their Clogging Behavior, Proceedings, Geosythetics '91, Atlanta, GA, February 26-28,
Vol. 2, pp. 629-642.
Boschuk, J, Jr. & Zhou, Y. (1992) Existing Test Methods for Design of Geosynthetics for Drainage
Systems, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Elsevier, England, No. 11, pp. 461 - 478.
Calhoun, C C , Jr. (1972) Development of Design Criteria and Acceptance Specifications for Plastic
Filter Cloths, Technical Report, S-72-7, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS, June, 83 pp.
Canadian Geotechnical Society. (1992) Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 3 ed.,
Canadian Geotechnical Society, Richmond, BC, pp. 447-451.
rd

Carroll, R.G. (1983) Geotextile Filter Criteria, Transportation Research Record, No. 916, pp. 46-53.
Cazzuffi, D.A,, Mazzucato, A., Moraci, N., and Tondello, M. (1996) A New Test Apparatus For The
study of Geotextile Behavior As Filters In Unsteady Flow Conditions, Proceedings of Geofilters'96
Conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, May 29-31, pp.183-191.
Cazzuffi, D.A., Mazzucato, A., Moraci, N., & Tondello, M. (1999) A new test apparatus for the study
of geotextiles behaviour as filters in unsteady flow conditions: relevance and use, Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, Elsevier, England, Vol. 17, No. 5-6, pp. 313 - 329.
Chaney, R. and Mullis, P.J. (1978) Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 107-108.
Chang, D. T.-T., Hsieh, C , Chen, S.Y., Chen, Y.Q. (2000) Review Clogging Behaviour by the
Modified Gradient Ratio Test Device with Implanted Piezometers, Testing and Performance of
Geosynthetics in Subsurface Drainage ASTM STP 1390, J.B. Goddard, L.D. Suits, and J.S. Baldwin,
Eds., ASTM. West Conshochocken, PA.
Chew, S.H., Zhao, Z.K., Karunaratne, G.P., Tan, S.A, Delmas, Ph., and Loke, K.H. (2000)
Revetment Geotextile Filter Subjected to Cyclic Wave Loading, Advances in Transportation and
Geoenvironmental Systems Using Geosynthetics, Proceedings of Sessions of Geo-Denver 2000,
August 5-8, Denver, CO, pp. 162 - 175.

R. Hawley

76

References

Christopher, B.R. and Fischer, G.R. (1992) Geotextile Filtration Principles, Practices and Problems,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Elsevier, England, No. 11, pp. 337-353.
Craig, R.F. (1997) Soil Mechanics, 6 Edition. E & FN Spon, London, UK.
DeBerardino, S.J. (1992) Drainage Principles and the Use of Geosynthetics, Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, Elsevier, England, No. 11, pp. 449-459
th

Dierickx, W. (1986) Model research on geotextile blocking and clogging in hydraulic engineering,
Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Geotextiles, Vienna, IGS, pp. 775-777.
Fannin, R.J. and Hameiri, A. (1999) A Gradient Ratio Device for Compatibility Testing in Cyclic
Flow, Proceedings, Geosynthetics '99, April 28-30, Boston, MA, pp. 1033 - 1042.
Fannin, R.J. and Pishe, R. (2001) Testing and specifications for geotextile filters in cyclic flow
applications, Proceedings, Geosynthetics 2001, February 12-14, Portland, OR, pp. 423-435.
Fannin, R.J., Vaid, Y.P. and Shi, Y. (1994a) A Critical Evaluation of the Gradient Ratio Test, ASTM
Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 17, No. 1, March, pp. 35-42.
Fannin, R.J., Vaid, Y.P. and Shi, Y.C (1994b) Filtration testing of nonwoven geotextiles, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, No. 31, pp. 555 - 563.
Fannin, R.J., Vaid, Y.P., Palmeira, E.M. and Shi, Y.C. (1996) A Modified Gradient Ratio Device,
Recent Developments in Geotextile Filters and Prefabricated Drainage Geocomposites, ASTM STP
1281, S.K Bhatia and L.D. Suits, Eds., ASTM, Philadelphia, pp. 100 - 112.
Faure, Y. and Mylnarek, J. (1998) Geotextile Filter Hydraulic Requirements, Geotechnical Fabrics
Report, Vol. 16, No. 4, May, pp. 30-33.
Finn, W.D.L., Pickering, D.J. and Bransby, P.L. (1971) Sand liquefaction in triaxial and simple shear
tests, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol. 97, No. SM4, pp. 639-659.
Fischer, G.R., Mare, A.D. and Holtz, R.D. (1999) Influence of Procedural Variables on the Gradient
Ratio Test, ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 22, March, pp. 22 - 31.
Gabr, M.A., Akram, M.H., and Zayed, A.M. (1998) Field versus laboratory filtration performance of a
nonwoven geotextile with fly ash, Technical Note, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Elsevier,
England, No. 16, pp. 247 - 255.
Giroud, J.P. (1982) Filter Criteria for Geotextiles, Second International Conference on Geotextiles,
Las Vegas, USA, August 1-6, Vol. 1, pp. 103 - 108.
Giroud, J.P. (1996) Granular Filters And Geotextiles Filters, Proceedings of Geofilters'96
Conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, May 39-31, pp. 565-680.
Hameiri, A. (2000) Soil Geotextile Filtration Behavior Under Dynamic Conditions of Vibration and
Cyclic Flow. PhD Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Heerton, G. (1982) Dimensioning the Filtration Properties of Geotextiles Considering Long-Term
Conditions, Proceedings, Second International Conference on Geotextiles, Las Vegas, USA, August
1-6, Vol. 1, pp. 115-120.
Holtz, R.D, Christopher, B.R., and Berg, R.R. (1997) Geosynthetic Engineering, BiTech Publishers,
Richmond, BC, pp.29-68.

R. Hawley

77

References

Holtz, R.D., Christopher, B.R., and Berg, R.R. (1995) Geosynthetic Design & Construction
Guidelines, Participant Notebook, Publication No. FHWA-HI-95-xxx, Federal Highway Administration,
McLean, Virginia.
Hoover, T.P. (1982) Laboratory testing of geotextile fabric filters, Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on Geotextiles, Las Vegas, Vol. Ill, Industrial Fabrics Association
International, St. Paul, MN, pp. 839-843.
Industrial Fabrics Association International, IFAI (1999) Geotechnical Fabrics Report: Specifier's
Guide 2000, J. Swedberg (Ed.), Vol. 17, No. 9.
Kenney, T.C. and Lau, D. (1985) Internal stability of granular filters, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
No. 22, pp. 215-225.
Koerner, R.M, and Ko, F.K. (1982) Laboratory studies on long-term drainage capability of
geotextiles, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Geotextiles, Las Vegas, NV, Vol.
I, pp. 91-95.
Kuerbis, R.H., and Vaid, Y.P. (1988) Sand Sample Preparation - the Slurry Deposition Method, Soils
and Foundations, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 107-118.
Lafleur J., Mlynarek J., and Rollin A. L. (1989) Filtration of Broadly Graded Cohesionless Soils,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 12, pp. 1747-1768.
Lafleur, J. (1984) Filter testing of broadly graded cohesionless tills, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
No. 21, pp. 634-643.
Lafleur, J. (1998) Particles Washout Associated with the Retention of Broadly Graded Soils by
Geotextiles, Proceedings, Sixth International Conference on Geosynthetics, Atlanta, GA, March 2529, Vol. 2, pp. 1001 - 1004.
Lafleur, J. (1999) Selection of geotextiles to filter broadly graded cohesionless soils, Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, Vol. 17, No. 5-6, pp. 299-312.
Lawson, C. R. (1998) Retention Criteria and Geotextile-Filter Performance, Geotechnical Fabrics
Report, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 26-29.
Lawson, C R . (1982) Geotextile Requirements for Erosion Control Structures, Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Recent Developments in Ground Improvement Techniques, AIT,
Bankok, Nov. 29 - Dec. 3, pp. 177-192.
Lawson, C R . (1992) Geotextile Revetment Filters, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Elsevier,
England, No. 11, pp. 431 -448.
Lee, K.L. and Seed, H.B. (1967) Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 93, No. SM1, pp. 47-70.
Legge, K.R. (1990) A new approach to geotextile selection, Proceedings of the Fourth Internatioinal
Conference on Geotextiles, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 269-272.
Luettich, S.M., and Williams, N.D. (1989) Design of vertical drains using the hydraulic conductivity
ratio analysis, Proceedings of Geosynthetics '89, San Diego, USA.
Luettich, S.M., Giroud, J.P., and Bachus, R.C (1992) Geotextile Filter Design Guide, Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, Elsevier, England, No. 11, pp. 355 - 370.

R. Hawley

78

References

Mannsbart, G. and Christopher, B.R. (1997) Long-Term Performance of Nonwoven Geotextile

Filters in Five Coastal and Bank Protection Projects, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Elsevier,
England, No. 15, pp. 207-221
Mlynarek, J. (1998) Hydraulic behavior of geotextile filters in the field, Geotechnical Fabrics Report,
Oct/Nov., Vol. 16, No. 8, pp. 30 - 35.
Mlynarek, J., and Lombard, G. (1997) Significance of Percent Open Area (POA) in the Design of
Woven Geotextile Filters, Proceedings, Geosynthetics '97, Long Beach, CA, March 11-13, Vol. 2, pp.
1093-1106.
Molenkamp, F., Calle, E.O.F., Heusdens, J.J., and Koenders, M.A. (1979) Cyclic filter tests in a
triaxial cell, Proceedings, 7th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Brighton, England, September, pp. 97-101.
Montero, C M . and Overmann, L.K. (1990) Geotextile Filtration Performance Test, Proceedings of
the Fourth International Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and related products,
Netherlands, Vol. 1, pp. 318.
Mouw, K. A., Nederlof, K. D. C , Stuip, J., and Veldhuijzen, V. Z. R. (1986) Geotextiles in Shore and
Bed Protection Works, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Geotextiles, Vienna,
Austria, April 7-11, Vol. 2, pp.349-354.
Narejo, D.B. and Koerner, R.M. (1992) A Dynamic Filtration Test for Geotextile Filters, Technical
Note, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Elsevier, England, No. 11, pp. 395-400.
Sansome, L.J. and Koerner, R.M. (1992) Fine fraction filtration test to assess geotextile filter
performance, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 11, pp. 371-393.
Scott, J.D. (1980) The Filtration-Permeability Test, Proceedings of the First Canadian Symposium
on Geotextiles, Canadian Geotechnical Society, Rexdale, ON, pp. 176-186.
Shi, Y.C. (1993) Filtration behaviour of nonwoven geotextiles in the gradient ratio test. MASc
Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Siva, U. and Bhatia, S.K. (1993) Filtration Performance of Geotextiles with Fine-Grained Soils,
Proceedings of Geosynthetics' 93 Conference, Vancouver, Canada, March 30 - April 1. Vol. 1, pp.
483-499.
Tondello, M. (1998) Geotextile filters in unsteady flow conditions, Rivista Italina di Geotecnica,
Associazione Geotecnica Italiana, Via Badini, Bologna, October-December, No. 4,, pp. 18 - 29.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. (1977) Plastic Filter Cloth, Civil Works Construction Guide
Specification No. CE-02215, Office Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C., 16 p.
Vaid, Y.P. and Negussey, D. (1988) Preparation of Reconstituted Sand Specimens, Advanced
Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock, ASTM STP 977, R.T. Donaghe, R.C. Chaney, and M.L. Silver,
Eds., ASTM, Philadelphia, pp. 405 - 417.
Williams, N.D. and Abrusakhm, M.A. (1989) Evaluation of Geotextile/soil Filtration Characteristics
Using the Hydraulic Conductivity Ratio Analysis, Journal of Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 8,
No. 1, pp. 1-26.

R. Hawley

79

References

APPENDIX A
Internal Stability of Test Soils
Calculation of Design Criteria

R. Hawley

Appendix A

INTERNAL STABILITY OF TEST SOILS

FRASER RIVER SAND:

25.0

<i
20.0

*K

10.0

2F = 5.0
F = 2.5

0.0
10.000

1.000

4D = 0.4

>-->--

D = 0.1

- f >
0.010

0.001

Diameter (mm)

H F

.-.

F R S is INTERNALLY S T A B L E

R. Hawley

81

Appendix A

MINE WASTE TAILINGS:

an n

H>F

.-.

MWT is INTERNALLY S T A B L E

R. Hawley

82

Appendix A

H F

.-.

P C S is INTERNALLY S T A B L E

R. Hawley

83

Appendix A

CALCULATION OF DESIGN CRITERIA

Test soil properties

Soil Code

r? '' . ,.
Description
0

Dio

(mm)

(mm)

(mm)

(D /D )

0.260

0.220

0.170

0.155

1.8

2.50

0.200

0.178

0.126

0.081

0.060

3.3

2.50

0.185

0.178

0.126

0.074

0.032

5.8

2.75

D60

(mm)

(mm)

(mm)

0.280

0.290

0.215

Uniformly
Graded
Rounded Fine 0.330
Sand

F R S

Pis

^85

50

30

60

10

Uniformly
MWT

G r a d e d

Anqular
Sand Fine
Broadly
Graded
Rounded
Sandy Silt

PCS

(1) UNIDIRECTIONAL FLOW:

(a) Design Guidance: CGS (1992):

AOS < B D

85

FRS:

Cu = 1.8

Cu<2

.-. B = 1

=>

AOS < 1.0 D

85

MWT:

Cu = 3.3

2 < Cu < 4

.-. B = 0.5 Cu = 1.7

=>

AOS < 1.7 D

85

PCS:

Cu = 5.8

4 < Cu < 8

.-. B = 8/Cu= 1.4

=>

AOS < 1.4 D

85

(b) Design Guidance: Luettich et al. (1992):

FRS:

D = 0.155 mm
10

Figure 2.2

.-. less than 10% fines & less than 90% gravel

Application favours retention

Stable soil
Cu = D /D = 0.280/0.220 = 1.27 < 3
60

.-. uniformly graded

30

Medium dense
0

R. Hawley

95

<1.5CuD = 1.5 (1.27)D o = 1.9D o

50

84

=>

AOS < 1.9 D

50

Appendix A

MWT:

D = 0.060 mm

.-. less than 20% clay & more than 10% fines

10

Non-plastic
Application favours retention
Stable soil
Cu = D /D = 0.200/0.126 = 1.59 < 3
60

30

.-. uniformly graded

Medium dense
0
PCS:

95

< 1.5 C u D

5 0

= 1.5 (1.59) D = 2.4 D

D = 0.032 mm
10

50

50

=>

AOS < 2.4 D

50

.-. less than 20% clay & more than 10% fines

Non-plastic
Application favours retention
Stable soil
Cu = D o/D o = 0.185/0.126 = 1.47 < 3
Medium dense
6

0 5
9

<1.5CuD = 1.5 (1.47)D o =

50

.'. uniformly graded

2.4D5o

=>

AOS < 2.2 D

50

(I) CYCLIC FLOW:

(a) Design Guidance: CGS (1992):

FRS:

Soil with < 50% passing No. 200 sieve

=>

AOS < 1.0 D15

MWT:

Soil with < 50% passing No. 200 sieve

=>

AOS < 1.0 D

15

PCS:

Soil with < 50% passing No. 200 sieve

=>

AOS < 1.0 D

15

(b) Design Guidance: Luettich et al. (1992):

FRS:

D = 0.155 mm
10

Figure 2.3

.-. less than 50% fines & less than 90% gravel

Severe wave attack

MWT:

D = 0.060 mm
10

=>

AOS < 1.0 D50

.-. less than 30% clay & more than 50% fines

Non-Plastic
Severe wave attack
MWT:

D = 0.032 mm
10

=>

AOS < 1.0 D50

.-. less than 30% clay & more than 50% fines

Non-Plastic
Severe wave attack

R. Hawley

=>

85

AOS < 1.0 D50

Appendix A

(c)

D e s i g n G u i d a n c e : Holtz et a l . (1997)

D y n a m i c Flow conditions:

If the geotextile is not properly w e i g h t e d d o w n a n d in

c o n t a c t with the soil to b e p r o t e c t e d , or if d y n a m i c , c y c l i c or p u l s a t i n g l o a d i n g

intimate

conditions

p r o d u c e high l o c a l i z e d h y d r a u l i c g r a d i e n t s , then the soil particles c a n m o v e b e h i n d

geotextile.

the

T h u s , the u s e of B = 1 is not c o n s e r v a t i v e , b e c a u s e the bridging n e t w o r k will not

d e v e l o p a n d the geotextile will b e required to retain e v e n finer p a r t i c l e s .

W h e n retention is

the primary criteria, B s h o u l d b e r e d u c e d to 0 . 5 , or:

=>

R. Hawley

86

A O S < 0.5 D

8 5

Appendix A

APPENDIX B
Pre-test and Post-test Gradations

R. Hawley

87

Appendix B

Pre-Testing and Post Testing Gradations

TestF140

100.0

10.000

1.000

0.100

0.010

0.001

Diameter (mm)

R. Hawley

88

Appendix B

Pre-Testing and Post Testing Gradations

Test F160

FRS (Cu = 1.8)

Post Test Gradation

10.000

0.100

1.000

0.010

0.001

Diameter (mm)

R. Hawley

89

Appendix B

Pre-Testing and Post Testing Gradations

Test F700
100.0

90.0

FRS (Cu = 1.8)

Post Test Gradation

80.0

70.0

60.0

cu

LI
c
U

50.0

S. 40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0".

0.0
10.000

1.000

0.100

0.010

0.001

Diameter (mm)

R. Hawley

90

Appendix B

Pre-Testing and Post Testing Gradations

Test F500
100.0
FRS (Cu = 1.8)
90.0

Post Test Gradation

80.0

70.0

60.0

CD

il

50.0

a>
o

i_

cu

40.0

30.0

20.0
Si

10.0

0.0
10.000

1.000

0.100

0.010

0.001

Diameter (mm)

R. Hawley

91

Appendix B

Pre-Testing and Post Testing Gradations

Test F404

FRS (Cu = 1.8)

Post Test Gradation

10

0.1

0.01

0.001

Diameter (mm)

R. Hawley

92

Appendix B

Pre-Testing and Post Testing Gradations

Test F402
100.0

I
FRS (Cu = 1.8)

90.0

Post Test Gradation

80.0

70.0

60.0

il

50.0

a>
o

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
10.000

1.000

0.100

0.010

0.001

Diameter (mm)

R. Hawley

93

Appendix B

Pre-Testing and Post Testing Gradations

Test F570
100.0
FRS (Cu = 1.8)
90.0

. Post Test Gradation

80.0

70.0

60.0

CD

il

.*'

50.0

tu
o

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
10.000

1.000

0.100

0.010

0.001

Diameter (mm)

R. Hawley

94

Appendix B

Pre-Testing and Post Testing Gradations

TestM140

MWT

( C u = 3.3)

-jiPost Test Gradation

10.000

1.000

0.100

0.010

0.001

Diameter (mm)

R. Hawley

95

Appendix B

Pre-Testing and Post Testing Gradations

TestM160

- - M W T ( C u = 3.3)
#

P o s t Test Gradation

10.000

1.000

0.100

0.010

0.001

Diameter (mm)

R. Hawley

96

Appendix B

Pre-Testing and Post Testing Gradations

Test M700

R. Hawley

97

Appendix B

Pre-Testing and Post Testing Gradations

Test M500

R. Hawley

98

Appendix B

Pre-Testing and Post Testing Gradations

Test M404

10.000

1.000

0.100

0.010

0.001

Diameter (mm)

R. Hawley

99

Appendix B

Pre-Testing and Post Testing Gradations

Test M402
100.0
- - - MWT (Cu = 3.3)
90.0

xPost Test Gradation

80.0

70.0

60.0

tu

50.0
c

CD
O

S. 40.0
30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
10.000

1.000

0.100

0.010

0.001

Diameter (mm)

R. Hawley

100

Appendix B

Pre-Testing and Post Testing Gradations

Test M570

100.0
MWT (Cu = 3.3)
Post Test Gradation
Soil Passing

10.000

1.000

0.100

0.010

0.001

Diameter (mm)

R. Hawley

101

Appendix B

Pre-Testing and Post Testing Gradations

Test P140

R. Hawley

102

Appendix B

Pre-Testing and Post Testing Gradations

Test P160

R. Hawley

103

Appendix B

Pre-Testing and Post Testing Gradations

Test P700

R. Hawley

104

Appendix B

Pre-Testing and Post Testing Gradations

Test P500

10.000

1.000

0.100

0.010

0.001

Diameter (mm)

R. Hawley

105

Appendix B

Pre-Testing and Post Testing Gradations

Test P404

10.000

1.000

0.100

0.010

0.001

Diameter (mm)

R. Hawley

106

Appendix B

Pre-Testing and Post Testing Gradations

Test P402

R. Hawley

107

Appendix B

APPENDIX C
Water Head Distributions

R. Hawley

1 0

Appendix C

Water Head Distribution

Test F140

10

15

20

25

Head (cm)

R. Hawley

109

Appendix C

Water Head Distribution

TestF160

UNI1
--UNI2
HK-UNI3
^ U N I 4

10
?
o

o
o>
O
E
o

-t

0
0

10

15

20

25

Head (cm)

R. Hawley

110

Appendix C

Water Head Distribution

Test F700

R. Hawley

111

Appendix

Water Head Distribution

Test F500

UNI1
-B-UNI2
12

_*_UNI3
_t_UNI4

10

O
E
o

10

15

20

25

Head (cm)

R. Hawley

112

Appendix C

Water Head Distribution

Test F404

R. Hawley

113

Appendix C

Water Head Distribution

Test F402

R. Hawley

114

Appendix C

W a t e r Head Distribution
T e s t F570

R. Hawley

115

Appendix C

Water Head Distribution

Test M140

R. Hawley

116

Appendix C

W a t e r Head D i s t r i b u t i o n
T e s t M160

R. Hawley

117

Appendix

Water Head Distribution

Test M700

R. Hawley

118

Appendix C

Water Head Distribution

Test M500

Head (cm)

R. H a w l e y

119

Appendix C

Water Head Distribution

Test M404

R. Hawley

120

Appendix C

Water Head Distribution

Test M402

R. Hawley

121

Appendix

Water Head Distribution

Test M570

R. Hawley

122

Appendix C

Water Head Distribution

Test P140

R. Hawley

123

Appendix C

Water Head Distribution

Test P160

UNI1
__UNI2
_*_UNI3
I UNI4

10

_o
x
<D
*^

CD

o
E
o

10

20

30

40

50

60

Head (cm)

R. Hawley

124

Appendix C

Water Head Distribution

Test P700

14

10

20

30

40

50

Head (cm)

R. Hawley

125

Appendix C

Water Head Distribution

Test P500

10

20

30

40

50

Head (cm)

R. Hawley

126

Appendix C

Water Head Distribution

Test P404

R. Hawley

127

Appendix C

Water Head Distribution

Test P402

R. Hawley

128

Appendix C

APPENDIX D
Tabulation of K e y R e s u l t s

R. Hawley

1 2

Appendix D

FRASER RIVER SAND (FRS) TESTS:

Sample:
Stage
Distance

F140
El. Time

Dh67

Dh57

Dh37

Dh17

System

Dh35

(minutes)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

Gradient

(cm)

Gradient

Ratio

0.8

2.5

7.5

9.9

i17

5.0

ASTM

MOD

81.000

1.3

4.3

14.8

21.0

2.1

10.5

0.8

0.8

CYC50S

941.497

1.3

0.9

10.6

16.5

1.7

5.9

0.3

1.4

UNI2

993.705

1.3

4.8

14.5

20.5

2.1

9.7

1.0

0.9

CYC10S

1052.163

1.4

4.8

14.4

20.2

2.0

9.6

1.0

0.9

UNI3

1076.583

1.3

4.9

14.6

20.5

2.1

9.7

1.0

0.8

CYC10N

1137.373

1.4

4.8

14.5

20.3

2.1

9.7

1.0

0.9

UNI4

1160.643

1.3

4.7

14.4

20.2

2.0

9.6

1.0

0.8

Stage

El. Time

Flow Rate

Permeability

i67

Permeability

i35

Permeability

i57

Permeability

(minutes)

cm3/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

Q(avg)

k(avg)

k67

k35

UNI1

cm/sec
k57

UNI1

81.000

3.777

0.022

1,603

0.029

2.097

0.022

1.717

0.027

CYC50S

941.497

4.046

0.030

1.626

0.030

1.183

0.042

0.371

0.133

UNI2

993.705

3.911

0.023

1.678

0.029

1.942

0.025

1.901

0.025

CYC10S

1052.163

5.248

0.031

1.699

0.038

1.926

0.033

1.911

0.034

UNI3

1076.583

3.921

0.023

1.635

0.029

1.937

0.025

1.948

0.025

CYC10N

1137.373

4.933

0.029

1.693

0.036

1.934

0.031

1.929

0.031

UNI4

1160.643

3.925

0.024

1.618

0.030

1.928

0.025

1.886

0.025

Gradient

Ratio

ASTM

MOD
1.0

Sample:
Stage
Distance

F160
El. Time

Dh67

Dh57

Dh37

Dh17

System

Dh35

(minutes)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

Gradient

(cm)

0.8

2.5

7.5

10.0

i17

5.0

81.000

1.6

5.5

16.0

23.1

2.3

10.5

1.0

CYC50S

941.497

1.6

2.3

12.2

19.5

2.0

7.3

0.6

1.4

UNI2

993.705

1.6

5.9

16.2

22.3

2.2

10.3

1.1

0.9

CYC10S

1052.163

1.6

5.9

15.5

24.1

2.4

9.6

1.2

1.0

UNI3

1076.583

1.5

6.0

15.3

23.2

2.3

9.3

1.3

1.0

CYC10N

1137.373

1.6

6.1

15.5

22.2

2.2

9.4

1.3

1.1

UNI4

1160.643

1.5

5.9

15.2

22.1

2.2

9.3

1.3

1.0

Stage

El. Time

Flow Rate

Permeability

i67

Permeability

i35

Permeability

i57

Permeability

(minutes)

cm3/sec

cm/sec

Q(avg)

k(avg)

81.000

3.900

0.021

2.025

0.024

2.100

0.023

2.200

0.022

CYC50S

941.497

4.500

0.028

1.975

0.028

1.460

0.038

0.920

0.060

UNI2

993.705

3.900

0.021

1.938

0.025

2.060

0.023

2.360

0.020

CYC10S

1052.163

5.500

0.028

1.950

0.035

1.922

0.035

2.356

0.029

UNI3

1076.583

4.000

0.021

1.875

0.026

1.860

0.026

2.400

0.020

CYC10N

1137.373

5.400

0.030

1.988

0.033

1.888

0.035

2.424

0.027

UNI4

1160.643

4.000

0.022

1.900

0.026

1.856

0.026

2.368

0.021

UNI1

UNI1

R. Hawley

cm/sec

cm/sec

k67

130

cm/sec

k35

k57

Appendix D

Sample:
Stage

F700
El. Time

Dh67

Dh57

Dh37

Dh17

System

Dh35

(minutes)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

Gradient

(cm)

0.8

2.5

7.5

9.9

i17

UNI1

81.000

1.3

4.4

15.0

21.3

2.1

CYC50S

941.497

1.3

0.5

10.3

16.1

1.6

Distance

Gradient

Ratio

5.0

ASTM

MOD

10.6

0.8

0.8

5.9

0.2

1.4

UNI2

993.705

1.3

4.3

14.1

20.0

2.0

9.7

0.9

0.9

CYC10S

1052.163

1.4

4.3

14.0

19.7

2.0

9.6

0.9

0.9

UNI3

1076.583

1.3

4.4

14.1

20.0

2.0

9.7

0.9

0.8

CYC10N

1137.373

1.3

4.3

14.0

19.8

2.0

9.7

0.9

0.9

UNI4

1160.643

1.3

4.2

13.8

19.7

2.0

9.6

0.9

Stage

El. Time

Flow Rate

Permeability

i67

Permeability

i35

Permeability

i57

(minutes)

cm3/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

Q(avg)

k(avg)

k67

k35

UNI1

81.000

3.790

0.022

1.681

0.028

2.121

0.022

1.746

0.027

CYC50S

941.497

4.110

0.031

1.632

0.031

1.175

0.043

0.211

0.238

UNI2

993.705

3.911

0.024

1.679

0.029

1.947

0.025

1.728

0.028

CYC10S

1052.163

5.468

0.034

1.695

0.039

1.930

0.035

1.727

0.039

UNI3

1076.583

3.921

0.024

1.630

0.029

1.940

0.025

1.758

0.027

CYC10N

1137.373

4.933

0.030

1.682

0.036

1.936

0.031

1.727

0.035

UNI4

1160.643

3.925

0.024

1.606

0.030

1.929

0.025

1.679

0.029

Gradient

Ratio

ASTM

MOD

Sample:
Stage
Distance

0.8 .
Permeability
cm/sec
k57

F500
El. Time

Dh67

Dh57

Dh37

Dh17

System

Dh35

(minutes)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

Gradient

(cm)

0.8

2.5

7.5

9.5

i17

5.0

81.000

2.1

5.5

14.9

19.8

2.1

9.5

1.2

1.4

CYC50S

2355.300

1.7

2.1

11.0

16.1

1.7

8.9

0.5

1.2

UNI2

1107.668

2.1

5.3

14.6

19.4

2.0

9.3

1.1

1.4

CYC10S

2410.534

2.0

5.1

14.0

19.1

2.0

8.9

1.1

1.4

UNI1

UNI3

1225.081

2.0

5.3

14.7

19.6

2.1

9.4

1.1

1.3

CYC10N

2455.298

2.0

5.0

14.0

19.0

2.0

9.0

1.1

1.4

UNI4

1299.032

2.0

5.4

14.9

20.0

2.1

9.5

1.1

1.3

i67

Permeability

i35

Permeability

i57

Permeability

Stage

El. Time

Flow Rate

Permeability

(minutes)

cm3/sec

cm/sec

Q(avg)

k(avg)

81.000

4.093

0.024

2.591

0.019

1.891

0.026

2.180

0.023

CYC50S

2355.300

4.130

0.030

2.141

0.024

1.789

0.028

0.823

0.061

UNI2

1107.668

4.080

0.024

2.613

0.019

1.863

0.027

2.126

0.023

CYC10S

2410.534

4.161

0.025

2.561

0.020

1.779

0.029

2.043

0.025

UNI3

1225.081

4.090

0.024

2.461

0.020

1.876

0.027

2.115

0.024

CYC10N

2455.298

4.173

0.026

2.528

0.020

1.799

0.028

2.010

0.025

UN14

1299.032

4.129

0.024

2.539

0.020

1.901

0.027

2.173

0.023

UNI1

R. Hawley

cm/sec

cm/sec

k67

131

cm/sec

k35

k57

Appendix D

Sample:
Stage

F404
El. Time

Dh67

Dh57

Dh37

Dh17

System

Dh35

(minutes)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

Gradient

(cm)

0.8

2.5

7.5

9.5

i17

81.000

1.7

4.5

14.3

18.9

2.0

CYC50S

1067.749

1.5

1.8

11.1

15.8

UNI2

1102.410

1.5

4.5

13.8

CYC10S

1161.356

1.5

4.5

13.8

UNI3

1183.448

1.5

4.5

CYC10N

1234.151

1.5

UNI4

1256.783

Stage

Distance
UNI1

UNI1

Gradient

Ratio

5.0

ASTM

MOD

9.8

0.9

1.1

1.7

9.3

0.4

1.0

18.5

1.9

9.3

1.0

1.0

18.4

1.9

9.3

1.0

1.0

13.8

18.5

2.0

9.3

1.0

1.0

4.4

13.7

18.3

1.9

9.3

1.0

1.0

1.5

4.5

13.8

18.6

2.0

9.3

1.0

1.0

El. Time

Flow Rate

Permeability

i67

Permeability

i35

Permeability

i57

Permeability

(minutes)

cm3/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

Q(avg)

k(avg)

k67

k35

81.000

4.079

0.025

2.132

0.023

1.960

0.025

1.814

0.028

cm/sec
k57

CYC50S

1067.749 '

4.138

0.030

1.838

0.028

1.868

0.027

0.721

0.070

UNI2

1102.410

4.229

0.027

1.853

0.028

1.866

0.028

1.787

0.029

CYC10S

1161.356

4.164

0.026

1.908

0.027

1.865

0.027

1.782

0.029

UNI3

1183.448

4.221

0.026

1.841

0.028

1.864

0.028

1.798

0.029

CYC10N

1234.151

4.182

0.027

1.887

0.027

1.856

0.028

1.764

0.029

UNI4

1256.783

4.228

0.026

1.835

0.028

1.860

0.028

1.799

0.029

Gradient

Ratio

ASTM

MOD

Sample:
Stage
Distance

F402
El. Time

Dh67

Dh57

Dh37

Dh17

System

Dh35

(minutes)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

Gradient

(cm)

0.8

2.5

7.5

9.6

i17

5.0

81.000

2.0

5.8

14.4

20.5

2.1

8.6

1.3

1.5

CYC50S

1044.834

1.8

2.2

10.6

15.8

1.6

8.4

0.5

1.3

UNI2

1078.839

1.8

5.7

14.1

19.4

2.0

8.4

1.4

1.4

CYC10S

1139.534

2.2

5.5

14.0

19.1

2.0

8.4

1.3

1.6

UNI3

1167.600

1.8

5.7

14.1

19.4

2.0

8.4

1.4

1.3

CYC10N

1222.067

2.3

5.6

14.0

19.2

2.0

8.5

1.3

1.7

UNI4

1254.046

1.7

5.7

14.1

19.5

2.0

8.4

1.3

1.3

i67

Permeability

i35

Permeability

i57

Permeability

UNI1

Stage

El. Time

Flow Rate

Permeability

(minutes)

cm3/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

Q(avg)

k(avg)

k67

81.000

3.952

0.023

2.555

0.019

1.717

0.028

2.306

0.021

CYC50S

1044.834

4.077

0.030

2.188

0.023

1.674

0.030

0.884

0.056

UNI2

1078.839

4.216

0.026

2.285

0.023

1.675

0.031

2.282

0.023

CYC10S

1139.534

4.138

0.025

2.720

0.019

1.684

0.030

2.214

0.023

UNI3

1167.600

4.209

0.026

2.219

0.023

1.684

0.031

2.275

0.023

CYC10N

1222.067

4.121

0.025

2.934

0.017

1.693

0.030

2.231

0.023

UNI4

1254.046

4.191

0.025

2.170

0.024

1.687

0.030

2.273

0.023

UNI1

R. Hawley

132

cm/sec

cm/sec

k35

k57

Appendix D

Sample:
Stage
Distance
UNI1

F570
El. Time

Dh67

Dh57

Dh37

Dh17

System

Dh35

(minutes)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

Gradient

(cm)

0.8

2.5

7.5

9.6

i17

Gradient

Ratio

5.0

ASTM

MOD

81.000

1.5

4.3

13.4

19.1

2.0

9.1

0.9

1.0

CYC50S

1039.802

1.2

1.6

10.2

15.4

1.6

8.6

0.4

0.9

UNI2

1074.502

1.2

4.1

12.7

18.0

1.9

8.6

0.9

0.9

CYC10S

1134.530

1.3

4.0

12.6

17.7

1.8

8.5

0.9

1.0

UNI3

1161.295

1.2

4.1

12.7

18.0

1.9

8.6

1.0

0.9

CYC10N

1217.161

1.4

4.0

12.6

17.7

1.8

8.6

0.9

1.0

UNI4

1253.538

1.2

4.1

12.7

17.9

1.9

8.6

0.9

0.9

El. Time

Flow Rate

Permeability

i67

Permeability

i35

Permeability

i57

Permeability

(minutes)

cm3/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

Q(avg)

k(avg)

k67

k35

81.000

4.081

0.025

1.859

0.027

1.822

0.027

1.716

0.029

CYC50S

1039.802

4.214

0.032

1.549

0.033

1.715

0.030

0.633

0.081

UNI2

1074.502

4.321

0.028

1.526

0.035 .

1.723

0.031

1.631

0.032

CYC10S

1134.530

4.239

0.028

1.672

0.031

1.709

0.030

1.606

0.032

UNI3

1161.295

4.333

0.028

1.527

0.035

1.717

0.031

1.647

0.032

CYC10N

1217.161

4.230

0.028

1.751

0.030

1.715

0.030

1.606

0.032

UNI4

1253.538

4.334

0.028

1.510

0.035

1.718

0.031

1.628

0.033

Stage

UNI1

R. Hawley

133

cm/sec
k57

Appendix D

MINE WASTE TAILINGS (MWT) TESTS:

Sample:
Stage

M140
El. Time

Dh67

Dh57

Dh37

Dh17

System

Dh35

(minutes)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

Gradient

(cm)

0.8

2.5

7.5

8.5

i17

81.0

4.5

13.2

36.9

43.4

5.1

CYC50S

1043.3

3.1

4.1

29.6

34.5

4.1

UNI2

1083.5

3.1

11.6

36.9

42.0

CYC10S

1143.1

5.9

11.6

37.7

42.0

UNI3

1169.2

3.1

11.7

37.2

CYC10N

1219.5

6.2

11.3

37.5

UNI4

1241.4

3.0

11.5

Stage

El. Time

Flow Rate

Permeability

(minutes)

cm3/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

Q(avg)

k(avg)

k67

k35

81.0

0.587

0.001

5.612

0.001

4.744

0.002

CYC50S

1043.3

0.856

0.003

3.813

0.003

5.100

UNI2

1083.5

1.007

0.002

3.823

0.003

CYC10S

1143.1

1.540

0.004

7.324

UNI3

1169.2

1.014

0.002

CYC10N

1219.5

1.595

UNI4

1241.4

0.990

Distance
UNI1

UNI1

Gradient

Ratio

5.0

ASTM

MOD

23.7

1.1

1.2

25.5

0.3

0.7

4.9

25.3

0.9

0.8

4.9

26.0

0.9

1.4

42.2

5.0

25.4

0.9

0.8

41.6

4.9

26.1

0.9

1.5

36.8

41.8

4.9

25.3

0.9

0.7

i67

Permeability

i35

Permeability

i57

Permeability
cm/sec
k57

5.263

0.001

0.002

1.649

0.006

5.063

0.002

4.625

0.003

0.003

5.208

0.004

4.651

0.004

3.815

0.003

5.081

0.002

4.698

0.003

0.004

7.769

0.003

5.223

0.004

4.536

0.004

0.002

3.715

0.003

5.053

0.002

4.611

0.003

c
Sample:
Stage

M160
El. Time

Dh67

Dh57

Dh37

Dh17

System

Dh35

(minutes)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

Gradient

(cm)

0.8

2.5

7.5

9.6

i17

5.0

81.0

4.2

16.1

39.8

44.4

4.6

CYC50S

1048.2

4.9

6.6

29.2

32.3

3.4

UNI2

1079.6

4.9

17.6

39.9

43.2

CYC10S

1141.6

13.3

17.8

39.9

UNI3

1166.0

4.7

18.0

CYC10N

1220.7

14.0

17.7

UNI4

1247.2

4.4

El. Time
(minutes)

Gradient

Ratio

ASTM

MOD

23.6

1.4

1.1

22.5

0.6

1.4

4.5

22.4

1.6

1.4

43.1

4.5

22.0

1.6

3.8

40.3

43.4

4.5

22.3

1.6

1.3

39.7

43.1

4.5

22.0

1.6

4.0

18.0

40.2

43.4

4.5

22.2

1.6

1.2

Flow Rate

Permeability

i67

Permeability

i35

Permeability

i57

Permeability

cm3/sec

cm/sec

Q(avg)

k(avg)

81.0

0.381

0.001

5.229

0.001

4.730

0.001

6.445

0.001

CYC50S

1048.2

0.681

0.002

6.106

0.001

4.508

0.002

2.647

0.003

UN!2

1079.6

0.783

0.002

6.140

0.002

4.479

0.002

7.021

0.001

CYC10S

1141.6

1.256

0.003

16.680

0.001

4.405

0.003

7.139

0.002

UNI3

1166.0

0.721

0.002

5.819

0.002

4.456

0.002

7.220

0.001

CYC10N

1220.7

1.293

0.004

17.515

0.001

4.399

0.004

7.076

0.002

UNI4

1247.2

0.711

0.002

5.481

0.002

4.431

0.002

7.211

0.001

Distance
UNI1

Stage

UNI1

R. Hawley

cm/sec

cm/sec

k67

134

cm/sec

k35

k57

Appendix D

Sample:
Stage

M700
El. Time

Dh67

Dh57

Dh37

Dh17

System

Dh35

(minutes)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

Gradient

(cm)

0.8

2.5

7.5

9.6

i17

UNI1

81.0

6.3

11.6

30.8

43.7

4.6

CYC50S

939.8

4.3

6.7

28.9

38.8

4.0

10.0

UNI2

963.1

4.4

10.6

32.6

42.8

4.5

22.0

1.0

1.3

CYC10S

1023.7

7.5

10.3

33.8

42.9

4.5

23.5

0.9

2.0

Distance

Gradient

Ratio

5.0

ASTM

MOD

19.2

1.2

2.0

1.4

2.7

UNI3

1049.2

4.1

10.5

33.3

43.2

4.5

22.8

0.9

1.1

CYC10N

1104.9

10.0

10.1

33.9

43.0

4.5

23.9

0.8

2.6

UNI4

1135.1

3.8

10.4

33.4

43.2

4.5

23.0

0.9

1.0

Stage

El. Time

Flow Rate

Permeability

i67

Permeability

i35

Permeability

i57

Permeability

(minutes)

cm3/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

Q(avg)

k(avg)

k67

k35

UNI1

81.0

0.601

0.002

7.835

0.001

3.849

0.002

4.630

0.002

CYC50S

939.8

0.823

0.002

5.320

0.002

1.997

0.005

2.696

0.004

cm/sec
k57

UNI2

963.1

0.945

0.003

5.518

0.002

4.400

0.003

4.235

0.003

CYC10S

1023.7

1.385

0.004

9.342

0.002

4.694

0.004

4.136

0.004

UNI3

1049.2

0.890

0.002

5.069

0.002

4.563

0.002

4.205

0.003

CYC10N

1104.9

1.397

0.004

12.441

0.001

4.772

0.004

4.028

0.004

UNI4

1135.1

0.852

0.002

4.735

0.002

4.605

0.002

4.153

0.003

Gradient

Ratio

Sample:
Stage

M500
El. Time

Dh67

Dh57

Dh37

Dh17

System

Dh35

(minutes)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

Gradient

(cm)

0.8

2.5

7.5

9.2

i17

5.0

ASTM

MOD

UNI1

81.0

4.2

10.6

35.1

37.4

4.1

24.5

0.9

1.1

CYC50S

928.5

3.0

-5.9

-10.4

-11.3

-1.2

-4.5

2.6

-4.1

UNI2

985.4

3.2

13.2

35.2

41.6

4.5

22.0

1.2

0.9

CYC10S

1050.9

3.2

14.1

36.7

42.1

4.6

22.6

1.2

0.9

UNI3

1080.2

2.8

14.1

36.8

42.2

4.6

22.7

1.2

0.8

CYC10N

1133.5

3.4

14.0

36.6

42.1

4.6

22.5

1.2

0.9

UNI4

1158.0

2.7

14.1

36.8

42.2

4.6

22.7

1.2

0.7

i67

Permeability

i35

Permeability

i57

Permeability

Distance

Stage

El. Time

Flow Rate

Permeability

(minutes)

cm3/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

Q(avg)

k(avg)

k67

k35

81.0

0.401

0.001

CYC50S

928.5

0.690

UNI2

985.4

0.861

CYC10S

1050.9

UNI3

UNI1

cm/sec
k57

5.214

0.001

4.907

0.001

4.241

0.001

-0.007

3.731

0.002

-0.901

-0.009

-2.347

-0.004

0.002

4.034

0.003

4.408

0.002

5.268

0.002

1.224

0.003

4.058

0.004

4.526

0.003

5.623

0.003

1080.2

0.691

0.002

3.442

0.002

4.548

0.002

5.624

0.002

CYC10N

1133.5

1.233

0.003

4.257

0.004

4.506

0.003

5.610

0.003

UNI4

1158.0

0.708

0.002

3.393

0.003

4.535

0.002

5.632

0.002

R. Hawley

135

Appendix D

Sample:
Stage
Distance
UNI1

M404
El. Time

Dh67

Dh57

Dh37

Dh17

System

Dh35

(minutes)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

Gradient

(cm)

0.8

2.5

7.5

8.9

i17

3.5 '

10.5

33.9

44.1

5.0

0.9

3.6

33.4

39.5

4.4

0.0

Gradient

Ratio

5.0

ASTM

MOD

23.4

0.9

0.9

6.1

1.2

0.9
0.2

CYC50S

904.0

UNI2

958.4

0.8

6.6

36.1

42.6

4.8

29.6

0.4

CYC10S

1017.4

17.4

7.3

38.3

43.8

4.9

31.0

0.5

3.5

UNI3

1043.7

0.8

6.2

36.9

42.8

4.8

30.8

0.4

0.2

CYC10N

1097.2

21.5

6.8

38.9

44.1

5.0

32.1

0.4

4.2

UNI4

1260.7

0.7

5.5

37.5

43.1

4.8

32.1

0.3

0.1

Stage

El. Time

Flow Rate

Permeability

i67

Permeability

i35

Permeability

i57

Permeability

(minutes)

cm3/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

Q(avg)

k(avg)

k67

k35

0.0

0.556

0.001

4.421

0.002

4.675

0.001

CYC50S

904.0

0.846

0.002

1.078

0.010

1.211

UNI2

958.4

0.854

0.002

0.989

0.011

5.910

CYC10S

1017.4

1.836

0.005

21.692

0.001

UNI3

1043.7

0.782

0.002

1.030

CYC10N

1097.2

1.811

0.004

UNI4

1260.7

0.803

0.002

UNI1

Sample:
Stage

cm/sec
k57
4.190

0.002

0.009

1.446

0.007

0.002

2.624

0.004

6.204

0.004

2.924

0.008

0.009

6.150

0.002

2.460

0.004

26.850

0.001

6.420

0.003

2.701

0.008

0.892

0.011

6.414

0.002

2.184

0.005

Dh57

Dh37

Dh17

System

Dh35

Gradient

Ratio

(cm)

M402
El. Time

Dh67

(minutes)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

Gradient

0.8

2.5

7.5

8.3

i17

5.0

ASTM

MOD

UNI1

81.0

2.4

8.9

34.5

44.1

5.3

25.6

0.7

0.6

CYC50S

933.4

2.2

3.2

32.1

37.9

4.6

5.7

1.1

2.4

UNI2

960.2

2.1

8.2

36.3

42.7

5.1

28.1

0.6

0.5

CYC10S

1019.2

8.1

7.9

36.8

42.6

5.1

28.9

0.5

1.7

UNI3

1041.5

2.1

8.2

36.3

42.9

5.2

28.1

0.6

0.5

CYC10N

1103.1

5.2

8.4

35.6

42.6

5.1

27.2

0.6

1.2

UNI4

1125.2

1.8

8.5

34.8

43.1

5.2

26.3

0.6

. 0.4

i67

Permeability

i35

Permeability

i57

Distance

Stage

El. Time

Flow Rate

Permeability

(minutes)

cm3/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

Q(avg)

k(avg)

k67

81.0

0.591

0.001

2.952

0.002

5.128

0.001

3.564

0.002

CYC50S

933.4

0.847

0.002

2.713

0.004

1.149

0.009

1.277

0.008

UNI2

960.2

1.014

0.002

2.646

0.005

5.619

0.002

3.264

0.004

CYC10S

1019.2

1.443

' 0.003

10.087

0.002

5.781

0.003

3.169

0.006

UNI3

1041.5

0.984

0.002

2.600

0.005

5.615

0.002

3.278

0.004

CYC10N

1103.1

1.710

0.004

6.528

0.003

5.440

0.004

3.340

0.006

UNI4

1125.2

0.947

0.002

2.267

0.005

5.253

0.002

3.397

0.003

Distance
UNI1

R. Hawley

136

cm/sec

Permeability
cm/sec

k35

k57

Appendix D

Sample:
Stage

M570
El. Time

Dh67

Dh57.

Dh37

Dh17

System

Dh35

(minutes)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

Gradient

(cm)

0.8

2.5

7.5

10.8

i17

UNI1

81.0

2.2

9.6

28.3

43.7

4.0

CYC50S

930.3

0.9

3.5

26.6

42.1

3.9

UNI2

985.5

0.9

3.8

26.1

42.3

CYC10S

1045.6

1.9

3.9

27.1

42.6

UNI3

1068.9

1.0

3.9

26.3

CYC10N

1128.9

1.9

4.2

27.1

Distance

Gradient

Ratio

5.0

ASTM

MOD

18.7

1.0

0.7

15.5

0.4

0.4

3.9

22.3

0.3

0.3

3.9

23.2

0.3

0.5

42.5

3.9

22.4

0.3

0.3

42.5

3.9

22.9

0.4

0.5

UNI4

1162.3

0.8

4.2

26.5

42.5

3.9

22.3

0.4

0.2

Stage

El. Time

Flow Rate

Permeability

i67

Permeability

i35

Permeability

i57

Permeability

(minutes)

cm3/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

Q(avg)

k(avg)

k67

k35

81.0

0.694

0.002

2.768

0.003

3.749

0.002

3.826

0.002

CYC50S

930.3

0.976

0.003

1.169

0.010

3.099

0.004

1.383

0.009

UNI2

985.5

1.041

0.003

1.151

0.011

4.458

0.003

1.533

0.008

CYC10S

1045.6

0.382

0.001

2.434

0.002

4.647

0.001

1.566

0.003

UNI3

1068.9

1.024

0.003

1.201

0.010

4.485

0.003

1.569

0.008

CYC10N

1128.9

0.392

0.001

2.434

0.002

4.587

0.001

1.684

0.003

UN14

1162.3

0.974

0.003

0.939

0.013

4.468

0.003

1.667

0.007

UNI1

R. Hawley

137

cm/sec
k57

Appendix D

PORT COQUITLAM SILTY SAND (PCS) TESTS:

Sample:
Stage

P140
El. Time

Dh67

Dh57

Dh37

Dh17

System

Dh35

(minutes)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

Gradient

(cm)

0.8

2.5

7.5

9.0

i17

81.0

3.5

15.6

40.9

44.8

5.0

CYC50S

961.3

3.6

4.8

32.4

35.1

3.9

27.5

UNI2

1014.5

3.4

14.2

41.7

44.8

5.0

CYC10S

1082.8

18.2

26.4

44.0

45.1

5.0

UNI3

1105.8

3.5

14.4

41.9

44.9

CYC10N

1160.4

16.5

25.1

44.1

Distance
UNI1

Gradient

Ratio

5.0

ASTM

MOD

25.4

1.2

0.9

0.4

0.8

27.5

1.0

0.8

17.5

3.0

6.5

5.0

27.5

1.0

0.8

45.1

5.0

19.0

2.6

5.4

UNI4

1195.3

3.5

14.1

43.1

44.9

5.0

28.9

1.0

0.8

Stage

El. Time

Flow Rate

Permeability

i67

Permeability

i35

Permeability

i57

Permeability

(minutes)

cm3/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

Q(avg)

k(avg)

UNI1

81.0

0.048

1.18E-04

4.410

1.33E-04

5.075

1.16E-04

6.227

9.45E-05

CYC50S

961.3

0.152

4.78E-04

4.537

4.11E-04

5.504

3.39E-04

1.940

9.61 E-04

UNI2

1014.5

0.023

5.65E-05

4.277

6.58E-05

5.494

5.12E-05

5.685

4.95E-05

CYC10S

1082.8

0.457

1.12E-03

22.793

2.45E-04

3.509

1.59E-03

10.575

5.29E-04

UNI3

1105.8

0.034

8.38E-05

4.314

9.70E-05

5.501

7.61 E-05

5.757

7.27E-05

CYC10N

1160.4

0.688

1.68E-03

20.661

4.07E-04

3.800

2.22E-03

10.033

8.39E-04

UNI4

1195.3

0.026

6.42E-05

4.343

7.37E-05

5.783

5.54E-05

5.658

5.66E-05

Gradient

Ratio

Sample:
Stage
Distance

k67

k35

k57

P160
El. Time

Dh67

Dh57

Dh37

Dh17

System

Dh35

(minutes)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

Gradient

(cm)

0.8

2.5

7.5

10.4

i17

5.0

ASTM

MOD

81.0

3.9

17.4

45.0

49.9

4.8

27.6

1.3

0.9

CYC50S

906.4

19.9

23.5

44.5

50.0

4.8

21.0

2.2

5.9

UNI2

943.7

3.8

16.7

46.8

50.3

4.8

30.1

1.1

0.8

CYC10S

1008.9

34.2

35.4

46.0

49.1

4.7

10.5

6.7

20.3

UNI3

1031.4

3.7 .

16.1

46.9

48.9

4.7

30.8

1.0

0.7

CYC10N

1098.0

37.3

35.9

44.9

47.6

4.6

9.0

8.0

25.8

UNI4

1125.7

3.4

15.3

45.5

47.3

4.5

30.2

1.0

0.7

Stage

El. Time

Flow Rate

Permeability

i67

Permeability

i35

Permeability

i57

Permeability

(minutes)

cm3/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

Q(avg)

k(avg)

k67

k35

k57

UNI1

UNI1

81.0

0.017

4.41 E-05

4.836

4.37E-05

5.529

3.82E-05

6.942

CYC50S

906.4

0.133

3.39E-04

24.934

6.54E-05

4.201

3.88E-04

9.381

1.74E-04

UNI2

943.7

0.020

5.09E-05

4.775

5.15E-05

6.024

4.09E-05

6.665.

3.69E-05

CYC10S

1008.9

0.560

1.45E-03

42.693

1.61 E-04

2.106

3.26E-03

14.178

4.84E-04

UNI3

1031.4

0.030

7.72E-05

4.569

7.95E-05

6.168

5.89E-05

6.431

5.65E-05

CYC10N

1098.0

0.616

1.65E-03

46.588

1.62E-04

1.803

4.18E-03

14.359

5.25E-04

UNI4

1125.7

0.021

5.75E-05

4.223

6.20E-05

6.032

4.34E-05

6.139

4.26E-05

R. Hawley

138

3.05E-05

Appendix D

Sample:
Stage

P700
El. Time

Dh67

Dh57

Dh37

Dh17

System

Dh35

(minutes)

(cm)

. (cm)

(cm)

(cm)

Gradient

(cm)

0.8

2.5

7.5

10.2

i17

81.0

3.7

15.1

33.7

46.3

4.5

CYC50S

934.5

10.6

12.7

30.5

41.2

4.0

UNI2

971.9

4.5

13.8

32.9

45.0

4.4

CYC10S

1043.7

31.2

33.7

39.6

44.6

4.4

5.9

UNI3

1066.3

5.1

13.8

32.3

44.0

4.3

18.5

1.5

1.7

CYC10N

1120.0

19.0

30.0

37.2

43.5

4.3

7.2

8.4

16.5

Distance
UNI1

Gradient

Ratio

5.0

ASTM

MOD

18.6

1.6

1.2

17.7

1.4

3.7

19.1

1.4
..11.4

1.5
32.9

UNI4

1154.8

7.2

13.5

35.3

42.9

4.2

21.9

1.2

2.0

Stage

El. Time

Flow Rate

Permeability

i67

Permeability

i35

Permeability

i57

Permeability

(minutes)

cm3/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

Q(avg)

k(avg)

k67

k35

UNI1

81.0

0.017

4.52E-05

4.615

CYC50S

934.5

0.120

3.63E-04

UNI2

971.9

0.010

2.80E-05

CYC10S

1043.7

0.451

1.26E-03

UNI3

1066.3

0.020

5.73E-05

CYC10N

1120.0

0.855

2.45E-03

UNI4

1154.8

0.024

7.03E-05

Sample:
Stage
Distance

cm/sec
k57

4.45E-05

3.718

5.52E-05

6.042

3.40E-05

13.195

1.11E-04

3.548

4.13E-04

5.095

2.87E-04

5.609

2.20E-05

3.824

3.23E-05

5.527

2.24E-05

38.965

1.42E-04

1.183

4.67E-03

13.471

4.1 OE-04

6.399

3.86E-05

3.694

6.69E-05

5.535

4.46E-05

23.691

4.42E-04

1.432

7.31 E-03

12.015

8.71 E-04

8.939

3.31 E-05

4.374

6.77E-05

5.381

5.50E-05

Gradient

Ratio
MOD

P500
El. Time

Dh67

Dh57

Dh37

Dh17

System

Dh35

(minutes)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

Gradient

(cm)

0.8

2.5

7.5

10.0

i17

5.0

ASTM

UNI1

81.0

5.4

14.6

37.2

45.6

4.6

22.6

1.3

1.5

CYC50S

930.9

18.7

19.4

39.6

46.5

4.7

20.1

1.9

5.8

23.0

1.4

1.8
18.1

UNI2

963.5

6.8

15.7

38.6

45.6

4.6

CYC10S

1025.6

30.4

29.8

40.3

45.7

4.6

10.5

5.7

UNI3

1048.1

7.0

15.9

38.6

45.6

4.6

22.7

1.4

1.9

CYC10N

1102.9

30.0

28.4

39.0

45.0

4.5

10.6

5.3

17.6

UNI4

1129.6

7.0

15.9

38.3

45.5

4.6

22.4

1.4

1.9

Stage

El. Time

Flow Rate

Permeability

i67

Permeability

i35

Permeability

i57

Permeability

(minutes)

cm3/sec

cm/sec

Q(avg)

k(avg)

81.0

0.021

5.64E-05

6.770

3.80E-05

4.516

5.69E-05

5.837

4.41 E-05

CYC50S

930.9

0.179

4.70E-04

23.358

9.36E-05

4.023

5.43E-04

7.777

2.81 E-04

UNI2

963.5

0.032

8.53E-05

8.486

4.58E-05

4.592

8.47E-05

6.270

6.20E-05

CYC10S

1025.6

0.480

1.28E-03

38.030

1.54E-04

2.104

2.79E-03

11.909

4.93E-04

UNI3

1048.1

0.023

6.30E-05

8.757

3.28E-05

4.543

6.33E-05

6.366

4.51 E-05

CYC10N

1102.9

0.523

1.42E-03

37.469

1.71 E-04

2.125

3.01 E-03

11.362

5.63E-04

UNI4

1129.6

0.018

4.84E-05

8.711

2.53E-05

4.489

4.90E-05

6.347

3.47E-05

UNI1

R. Hawley

cm/sec

cm/sec

k67

139

cm/sec

k35

k57

Appendix D

Sample:
Stage
Distance

P404
El. Time

Dh67

Dh57

Dh37

Dh17

System

Dh35

(minutes)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

Gradient

(cm)

Gradient

Ratio

. 0.8

2.5

7.5

9.3

i17

5.0

ASTM

MOD

UNI1

81.0

4.6

16.1

39.7

46.9

5.0

23.6

1.4

1.2

CYC50S

932.0

12.4

13.5

36.9

43.6

4.7

23.4

1.2

3.3

UNI2

1013.3

4.3

15.3

38.4

45.3

4.9

23.1

1.3

1.2

CYC10S

1082.6

32.5

27.1

39.1

45.7

4.9

12.0

4.5

17.0

38.8

45.6

4.9

23.3

1.3

1.1
30.8

UNI3

1110.8

4.2

15.5

CYC10N

1165.8

28.3

27.2

33.0

36.9

4.0

5.7

9.5

UNI4

1209.3

18.0

20.1

43.9

48.6

5.2

23.9

1.7

4.7

Stage

El. Time

Flow Rate

Permeability

i67

Permeability

i35

Permeability

i57

Permeability

(minutes)

cm3/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

Q(avg)

k(avg)

k67

k35

UNI1

81.0

0.018

4.39E-05

5.733

CYC50S

932.0

0.199

5.19E-04

UNI2

1013.3

0.014

3.48E-05

CYC10S

1082.6

0.466

UNI3

1110.8

CYC10N
UNI4

k57

3.86E-05

4.719

4.69E-05

6.443

3.44E-05

15.555

1.56E-04

4.670

5.21 E-04

5.406

4.50E-04

5.385

3.15E-05

4.619

3.67E-05

6.112

2.77E-05

1.16E-03

40.615

1.40E-04

2.390

2.38E-03

10.852

5.25E-04

0.016

3.93E-05

5.260

3.66E-05

4.651

4.14E-05

6.203

3.11 E-05

1165.8

0.500

1.54E-03

35.364

1.73E-04

1.148

5.33E-03

. 10.895

5.62E-04

1209.3

0.055

1.28E-04

22.557

2.96E-05

4.776

1.40E-04

8.023

8.34E-05

Gradient

Ratio
MOD

Sample:
Stage

cm/sec

P402
El. Time

Dh67

Dh57

Dh37

Dh17

System

Dh35

(minutes)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

Gradient

(cm)

0.8

2.5

7.5

10.9

i17

5.0

ASTM

UNI1

81.0

4.8

16.0

39.4

46.4

4.3

23.3

1.4

1.3

CYC50S

932.0

12.6

15.6

38.3

45.9

4.2

22.7

1.4

3.5

Distance

UNI2

1013.3

3.4

20.0

40.2

50.6

4.6

20.2

2.0

1.1

CYC10S

1082.6

13.5

20.4

41.6

45.9

4.2

21.2

1.9

4.0

UNI3

1110.8

3.5

20.0

38.6

48.6

4.5

18.6

2.2

1.2

CYC1ON

1165.8

16.6

19.1

43.3

43.3

4.0

24.3

1.6

4.3

UNI4

1209.3

2.4

2.7

42.3

46.2

4.2

39.6

0.1

0.4

El. Time

Flow Rate

Permeability

i67

Permeability

i35

Permeability

i57

Permeability

(minutes)

cm3/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

Q(avg)

k(avg)

k67

81.0

0.016

4.54E-05

6.021

3.21 E-05

4.665

4.15E-05

6.414

3.02E-05

CYC50S

932.0

0.121

3.52E-04

15.714

9.44E-05

4.533

3.27E-04

6.243

2.38E-04

UNI2

1013.3

0.020

5.31 E-05

4.277

5.76E-05

4.045

6.09E-05

7.990

3.08E-05

CYC10S

1082.6

0.463

1.34E-03

16.907

3.35E-04

4.244

1.33E-03

8.160

6.94E-04

UNI3

1110.8

0.023

6.23E-05

4.372

6.36E-05

3.720

7.47E-05

8.018

3.47E-05

CYC10N

1165.8

1.058

3.26E-03

20.756

6.24E-04

4.850

2.67E-03

7.624

1.70E-03

UNI4

1209.3

0.063

1.82E-04

2.970

2.60E-04

7.919

9.74E-05

1.090

7.08E-04

Stage

UNI1

R. Hawley

140

cm/sec

cm/sec

k35

k57

Appendix D

Sample:
Stage

P570
El. Time

Dh67

Dh57

Dh37

Dh17

System

Dh35

(minutes)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

Gradient

(cm)

Distance

Gradient

Ratio

ASTM

MOD

UNI1
CYC50S
Continuous Piping During S a m p l e Preparation, therefore no test
performed

UNI2
CYC10S
UNI3
CYC10N
UNI4
Stage

E l . Time

Flow Rate

Permeability

i67

Permeability

(minutes)

cm3/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

cm/sec

Q(avg)

k(avg)

k67

k35

k57

i35

Permeability

i57

Permeability

UNI1
CYC50S
UNI2
Continuous Piping During S a m p l e Preparation, therefore no test
performed

CYC10S
UNI3
CYC10N
UNI4

R. Hawley

141

Appendix D