Sediment Retention and Clogging of Geotextile with High Water Content Slurries

  • N. Fatema
  • S. K. Bhatia
Original Paper


Over the past two decades, geotextile tube dewatering has been predominantly used for dewatering high-water content slurries, fly ash, and different types of sediments and sludges. The water content of these dredged sediments can be as high as 800% and their shear strength is very low before dewatering. The selected geotextile should be tight enough to allow for minimal, clog-free sediment piping and to maintain steady drainage through the geotextile tube. These steps ensure good sediment retention of high water content slurries and provide an adequate discharge capacity of geotextile tubes during dewatering. This study investigates the sediment retention and geotextile clogging of high water content slurries (232.56, 400 and 882.35%). A falling head test (FHT) was used to evaluate the dewatering performance of six pairs of woven and non-woven geotextiles with similar pore openings but different pore size distributions. FHT showed that the piping rate increases with decreasing water content in a slurry (232.56–882.35%) and the degree of clogging decreases with increasing pore sizes (both O50 and O98). In addition, a study was carried out to measure the pore size distribution of 51 geotextiles using capillary flow tests. The capillary flow test results are correlated to mass per unit area of geotextiles, a property of geotextiles which is easy to measure. It was found that O98, O50 and O10 of non-woven geotextiles decrease with the increasing mass per unit area. However, no such trend was found for woven geotextiles.


High water content slurries Sediment retention and geotextile clogging Geotextile tube 1-D falling head test Pore size distribution Capillary flow test 



This study was supported by National Science Foundation (NSF) Grant No. CMMI 1100131. The authors would like to express gratitude to Dr. Krishna Gupta and Dr. Akshaya Jena from Porous Materials, Inc. for providing the Capillary Flow device and geotextile manufacturing companies: Tencate, Texel, Propex and DuPont.


  1. 1.
    Barrington SF, El Moueddeb K, Jazestani J, Dussault M (1998) The clogging of nonwoven geotextiles with cattle manure slurries. Geosynth Int 5(3):309–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fowler J, Duke M, Schmidt ML, Crabtree B, Bagby RM, Trainer E (2002) Dewatering sewage sludge and hazardous sludge with geotextile tubes. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on geosynthetics, pp 1007–1012Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Henry KS, Walsh MR, Morin SH (1999) Selection of silt fence to retain suspended toxic particles. Geotext Geomembr 17(5–6):371–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mori H, Miki H, Tsuneoka N (2002) The geo-tube method for dioxin-contaminated soil. Geotext Geomembr 20(5):281–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moo-Young HK, Gaffney DA, Mo X (2002) Testing procedures to assess the viability of dewatering with geotextile tubes. Geotext Geomembr 20(5):289–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pilarczyk KW (2000) Geosynthetics and geosystems in hydraulic and coastal engineering. A.A. Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Austin D, Mlynarek J, Blond E (1997) Expanded anti-clogging criteria for woven filtration geotextiles. In: Proceedings of Geosynthetics’97, IFAI, Long Beach, March 1997, pp. 1123–1144Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Calhoun CC Jr (1972) Development of design criteria and acceptance specifications for plastic filter cloth, Technical Report F-72-7, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimental Station, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carroll RG (1983) Geotextile filter criteria. Mirafi IncorporatedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Christopher BR, Holtz RD (1985) Geotextile engineering manual, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, USA, Report No. FHWA-TS-86/203Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fischer GR, Christopher BR, Holtz RD (1990) Filter criteria based on pore size distribution. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on geotextiles, vol. 1. The Hague, pp 289–294Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fischer GR (1994) The influence of fabric pore structure on the behavior of geotextile filters. PhD Dissertation, University of Washington, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    French Committee of Geotextiles and Geomembranes (1986) Recommendations for the use of geotextiles in drainage and filtration systems. Institut Textile de France, Boulogne-BillancourtGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Giroud JP (1988) Review of geotextile filter criteria. In Proceedings of the 1st Indian geotextiles conference on reinforced soil and geotextiles, Bombay, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Millar PJ, Ho KW, Turnbull HR (1980) A study of filter fabrics for geotechnical applications in New Zealand. Ministry of works and development, Central Laboratories ReportGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ogink HJM (1975) Investigations on the hydraulic characteristics of synthetic fabrics. Delft Hydraulic Laboratory, Publication No. 146, 43Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schober W, Teindl H (1979) Filter criteria for geotextiles. In: Proceedings of the 7th European conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Brighton. vol 2, pp 121–129Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aydilek AH, Edil TB (2002) Filtration performance of woven geotextiles with wastewater treatment sludge. Geosynth Int 9(1):41–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aydilek AH, Edil TB (2003) Long-term filtration performance of nonwoven geotextile-sludge systems. Geosynth Int 10(4):110–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liao K, Bhatia SK (2005) Geotextile tube: filtration performance of woven geotextiles under pressure. In: Geosynthetics’05. Las VegasGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Montero CM, Overmann LK (1990) Geotextile filtration performance test, geosynthetic testing for waste containment applications. ASTM STP 1081:273–284Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moo-Young HK, Tucker WR (2002) Evaluation of Vacuum Filtration testing for geotextile tubes. Geotext Geomembr 20(3):191–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baker KB, Chastain JP, Dodd RB (2002) Treatment of lagoon sludge and liquid animal manure utilizing geotextile filtration. ASABE Paper No. 024128, St. JosephGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koerner GR, Koerner RM (2006) Geotextile tube assessment using a hanging bag test. Geotext Geomembr 24(2):129–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Huang CC, Luo SY (2007) Dewatering of reservoir sediment slurry using woven geotextiles: part I: experimental results. Geosynth Int 14(5):253–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Muthukumaran AE, Ilamparuthi K (2006) Laboratory studies on geotextile filters as used in geotextile tube dewatering. Geotext Geomembr 24(4):210–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gabr MA, Akram MH (1996) Sample preparation techniques for filtration testing of fly ash with nonwoven geotextiles. Sampling environmental media. ASTM InternationalGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mc Kelvey JA (1995) Filtration system design for sludge drying beds by gradient ratio performance, Geosynthetics’95, Nashville, TN, vol 1, pp 203–215Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lafleur J, Mlynarek J, Rollin AL (1989) Filtration of broadly graded cohesionless soils. J Geotech Eng 115(12):1747–1768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kutay ME, Aydilek AH (2004) Retention performance of geotextile containers confining geomaterials. Geosynth Int 11(2):100–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Satyamurthy R, Bhatia SK (2009) Effect of polymer conditioning on dewatering characteristics of fine sediment slurry using geotextiles. Geosynth Int 16(2):83–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Khachan MM, Bhatia SK, Smith JL (2012) Retention performance of woven geotextiles subjected to cyclic-flow conditions. Geosynth Int 19(3):200–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kiffle ZB, Bhatia SK, Khachan MM, Jackson EK (2014) Effect of pore size distribution on sediment retention and passing. In: Proceedings of 10th international conference on geosynthetics, ICG 2014 Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Geotechnik e. V., No. 3, pp 2366–2373Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Palmeira EM, Gardoni MG (2000) The influence of partial clogging and pressure on the behavior of geotextiles in drainage systems. Geosynth Int 7(4–6):403–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Palmeira EM, Trejos Galvis HL (2017) Opening sizes and filtration behaviour of nonwoven geotextiles under confined and partial clogging conditions. Geosynth Int 24(2):125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    ASTM D4751-16 (2016) Standard test methods for determining apparent opening size of a geotextile, ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    ASTM D6767-16 (2014) Standard test method for pore size characteristics of geotextiles by capillary flow test. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bhatia SK, Smith JL (1994) Comparative study of bubble point method and mercury intrusion porosimetry techniques for characterizing the pore-size distribution of geotextiles. Geotext Geomembr 13(10):679–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Blond E, Vermeersch OG, Diederich R (2015) A comprehensive analysis of the measurement techniques used to determine geotextile opening size: AOS, FOS, O 90, and ‘bubble point’. In: Geosynthetics, Portland, February 15–18, 2015Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Giroud JP (1996) Granular filters and geotextile filters. In: Proceedings of geofilters’96, Montreal, pp 565–680Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Koerner RM (1990) Designing with geosynthetics, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vermeersch OG, Mlynarek J (1996) Determination of the pore size distribution of nonwoven geotextiles by a modified flow porometry technique. In: Bhatia SK, Suits LD (eds) Recent developments in geotextile filters and prefabricated drainage geocomposites, ASTM STP 1281. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, pp 19–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Aydilek AH, D’Hondt D, Holtz RD (2006) Comparative evaluation of geotextile pore sizes using bubble point test and image analysis. Geotech Test J 30(3):173–181Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Elton DJ, Hayes DW (2007) The bubble point method for characterizing geotextile pore size. In: Geosynthetics in reinforcement and hydraulic applications. ASCE, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Przybylo L (2007) An investigation of the bubble point method and capillary flow porometry for geotextiles characterization. MS Thesis. Syracuse University, SyracuseGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fatema N (2017) An evaluation of capillary flow test for determining the pore size distribution of geotextiles and establishing correlations. MS Thesis. Syracuse UniversityGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    ASTM International (2008) ASTM D2035-08, standard practice for coagulation flocculation jar test of water. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Khachan MM (2016) Sustainable and innovative approaches for geotextile tube dewatering technology. PhD Dissertation. Syracuse UniversityGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations