Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sediment Retention and Clogging of Geotextile with High Water Content Slurries

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barrington SF, El Moueddeb K, Jazestani J, Dussault M (1998) The clogging of nonwoven geotextiles with cattle manure slurries. Geosynth Int 5(3):309–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 1007–1012

  3. Henry KS, Walsh MR, Morin SH (1999) Selection of silt fence to retain suspended toxic particles. Geotext Geomembr 17(5–6):371–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mori H, Miki H, Tsuneoka N (2002) The geo-tube method for dioxin-contaminated soil. Geotext Geomembr 20(5):281–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Moo-Young HK, Gaffney DA, Mo X (2002) Testing procedures to assess the viability of dewatering with geotextile tubes. Geotext Geomembr 20(5):289–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Pilarczyk KW (2000) Geosynthetics and geosystems in hydraulic and coastal engineering. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam

    Google Scholar 

  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. 1123–1144

  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, Vicksburg

  9. Carroll RG (1983) Geotextile filter criteria. Mirafi Incorporated

  10. Christopher BR, Holtz RD (1985) Geotextile engineering manual, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, USA, Report No. FHWA-TS-86/203

  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 289–294

  12. Fischer GR (1994) The influence of fabric pore structure on the behavior of geotextile filters. PhD Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle

  13. French Committee of Geotextiles and Geomembranes (1986) Recommendations for the use of geotextiles in drainage and filtration systems. Institut Textile de France, Boulogne-Billancourt

    Google Scholar 

  14. Giroud JP (1988) Review of geotextile filter criteria. In Proceedings of the 1st Indian geotextiles conference on reinforced soil and geotextiles, Bombay, pp 1–6

  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 Report

  16. Ogink HJM (1975) Investigations on the hydraulic characteristics of synthetic fabrics. Delft Hydraulic Laboratory, Publication No. 146, 43

  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 121–129

  18. Aydilek AH, Edil TB (2002) Filtration performance of woven geotextiles with wastewater treatment sludge. Geosynth Int 9(1):41–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Aydilek AH, Edil TB (2003) Long-term filtration performance of nonwoven geotextile-sludge systems. Geosynth Int 10(4):110–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Liao K, Bhatia SK (2005) Geotextile tube: filtration performance of woven geotextiles under pressure. In: Geosynthetics’05. Las Vegas

  21. Montero CM, Overmann LK (1990) Geotextile filtration performance test, geosynthetic testing for waste containment applications. ASTM STP 1081:273–284

    Google Scholar 

  22. Moo-Young HK, Tucker WR (2002) Evaluation of Vacuum Filtration testing for geotextile tubes. Geotext Geomembr 20(3):191–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Baker KB, Chastain JP, Dodd RB (2002) Treatment of lagoon sludge and liquid animal manure utilizing geotextile filtration. ASABE Paper No. 024128, St. Joseph

  24. Koerner GR, Koerner RM (2006) Geotextile tube assessment using a hanging bag test. Geotext Geomembr 24(2):129–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Huang CC, Luo SY (2007) Dewatering of reservoir sediment slurry using woven geotextiles: part I: experimental results. Geosynth Int 14(5):253–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Muthukumaran AE, Ilamparuthi K (2006) Laboratory studies on geotextile filters as used in geotextile tube dewatering. Geotext Geomembr 24(4):210–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gabr MA, Akram MH (1996) Sample preparation techniques for filtration testing of fly ash with nonwoven geotextiles. Sampling environmental media. ASTM International

  28. Mc Kelvey JA (1995) Filtration system design for sludge drying beds by gradient ratio performance, Geosynthetics’95, Nashville, TN, vol 1, pp 203–215

  29. Lafleur J, Mlynarek J, Rollin AL (1989) Filtration of broadly graded cohesionless soils. J Geotech Eng 115(12):1747–1768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kutay ME, Aydilek AH (2004) Retention performance of geotextile containers confining geomaterials. Geosynth Int 11(2):100–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Satyamurthy R, Bhatia SK (2009) Effect of polymer conditioning on dewatering characteristics of fine sediment slurry using geotextiles. Geosynth Int 16(2):83–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Khachan MM, Bhatia SK, Smith JL (2012) Retention performance of woven geotextiles subjected to cyclic-flow conditions. Geosynth Int 19(3):200–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 2366–2373

  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):403–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):125–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. ASTM D4751-16 (2016) Standard test methods for determining apparent opening size of a geotextile, ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  37. ASTM D6767-16 (2014) Standard test method for pore size characteristics of geotextiles by capillary flow test. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  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):679–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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, 2015

  40. Giroud JP (1996) Granular filters and geotextile filters. In: Proceedings of geofilters’96, Montreal, pp 565–680

  41. Koerner RM (1990) Designing with geosynthetics, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  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 19–34

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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):173–181

    Google Scholar 

  44. Elton DJ, Hayes DW (2007) The bubble point method for characterizing geotextile pore size. In: Geosynthetics in reinforcement and hydraulic applications. ASCE, pp 1–10

  45. Przybylo L (2007) An investigation of the bubble point method and capillary flow porometry for geotextiles characterization. MS Thesis. Syracuse University, Syracuse

  46. Fatema N (2017) An evaluation of capillary flow test for determining the pore size distribution of geotextiles and establishing correlations. MS Thesis. Syracuse University

  47. ASTM International (2008) ASTM D2035-08, standard practice for coagulation flocculation jar test of water. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  48. Khachan MM (2016) Sustainable and innovative approaches for geotextile tube dewatering technology. PhD Dissertation. Syracuse University

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Syracuse University, 151 Link Hall, Syracuse, NY, 13244, USA

    N. Fatema & S. K. Bhatia

Authors
  1. N. Fatema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. K. Bhatia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. Fatema.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fatema, N., Bhatia, S.K. Sediment Retention and Clogging of Geotextile with High Water Content Slurries. Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. 4, 13 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-018-0131-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-018-0131-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation