ARTICLE IN PRESS

Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 1120

www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

A contribution for predicting geotextile clogging during

ltration of suspended solids
Y.H. Faure, A. Baudoin, P. Pierson, O. Ple
LIRIGM, University Joseph Fourier, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble cedex 9, France
Received 8 December 2004; received in revised form 4 June 2005; accepted 5 July 2005
Available online 21 October 2005

Abstract
Predicting geotextile clogging by ne particles in suspension in water is possible by the use of an empirical model describing the
increase of head loss in the geotextile due to clogging. The present paper describes this model and shows that it is possible to t the model
parameters and nd their physical signicance by means of geotextile clogging tests. This work makes it possible to estimate a maximum
acceptable quantity of injected particles to the geotextile, before clogging. The model results are in good agreement with experimental
results obtained for different geotextiles and soils, as well as for different concentrations of ne particles in water.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Geotextile; Clogging; Model investigation; Filtration test

1. Introduction
In many ltration applications, non-woven geotextiles
are rst in contact with soft, saturated and ne soils.
Therefore, as long as this soil is not consolidated, water
easily erodes this soil and gets charged with ne particles in
suspension when passing through the geotextile.
The consequence of ne particles accumulation in the
geotextile is a progressive increase of the water head loss in
the geotextile. This increase must not reach a critical value
which will make it difcult for the water to ow through
the lter (corresponding to geotextile clogging). During the
ltration process, the surrounding soil consolidates and
reduces the water velocity and consequently the erosion.
Then clear water may reach the geotextile. The critical
water head loss must not be reached until the soil
consolidation occurs.
Predicting such a critical value of the water head loss
(corresponding to a critical quantity of retained particles in
the geotextile) should then be of great interest.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 4 76 82 80 56; fax: +33 4 76 82 80 70.

E-mail address: yhfaure@ujf-grenoble.fr (Y.H. Faure).

0266-1144/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2005.07.002

Therefore, clogging criterion may correspond to a

maximum water head loss acceptable in the geotextile,
which has to be determined. Dening this criterion requires
a good knowledge of the variation of water head loss as
well as the variation of retained particles quantity with
time, depending on dispersed particles quantity, soil
granulometry, geotextile porometry and water ow.
Some theoretical models (Faure et al., 1990; Giroud,
1996) describe the porometry of non-woven geotextiles and
allow the determination of the granulometry of particles
passing through the lter but, to the authors knowledge,
no model allows a simulation of particles accumulation in
the geotextile for clogging prediction.
Le Coq (1996) studied retention for oil ltration with
mineral bres and proposes an empirical model describing
the increase of head loss through the lter, due to clogging.
The question is: is this model adaptable to geotextile
clogging and then can it be used to predict geotextile
clogging?
To answer such a question, a specic test adapted to the
study of geotextile clogging has to be designed making it
possible to change the clogging parameters.
Usual gradient ratio tests such as ASTM D-5101-01
(2003) are conducted with consolidated soils and cannot

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y.H. Faure et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 1120

12

Nomenclature

a, b
Co
df
k~p

p0

k~s
L
m
m1

n
N
Oo, Of

Le Coqs model parameters (dimensionless)

concentration of the dispersed particles (g/l)
ber diameter (m)
equivalent permeability coefcient in the case
of accumulation of particles in parallel
equivalent permeability coefcient in the case
of accumulation of particles in series
length of the lter media (m)
mass of injected particles (g/m2)
Le Coqs model parameters representing mass
of injected particles which produces ineluctably
the geotextile clogging (g/m2)
geotextile porosity (dimensionless)
fraction of excess pressure due to accumulation
in series (dimensionless)
smallest and largest geotextile ltration opening
sizes according to Girouds formulas (Giroud,
1996)

reproduce clogging appearance in accordance with the

problem considered here.
Therefore, a ltration test was specially designed at the
Lirigm (Faure et al., 1993) allowing the measurement of the
cumulative mass of injected particles in the geotextile, as
well as the water head loss through the geotextile tested.
This paper rst presents the Le Coqs model (Section 2),
second summarizes the characteristics of the ltration test
as well as results obtained on geotextile clogging (Section 3)
and third proposes an evaluation of model parameters to
dene the empirical clogging law for the prediction of a
critical quantity of retained particles in the geotextile
(Section 4).
2. Le Coqs model
2.1. Mechanism of particles accumulation
In a lter material, open pores constitute a pipe net
where water charged with ne particles can ow.
As long as clogging does not occur, the total ow rate of
water circulating through the lter is the sum of the
different ow rates in each pipe: it is a parallel circulation.
In doing so, particles in suspension progressively settle in
each pipe, leading to an accumulation of particles in
parallel (Fig. 1a).
Such an accumulation occurs at different velocities,
depending on the size of the pipe. Some pipes may be
obstructed, leading to a progressive accumulation of
particles which pile up in the pipe: it is an accumulation
in series (Fig. 1b).
The two types of accumulation occur simultaneously
but, while particles accumulate in pipes, less and less pipes
are open to water ow, and the accumulation in series

S
Tg
V
Dp
Dp0

dp
gw
mg
rf

water pressure measured on the upstream side

of the geotextile during the test (kPa)
water pressure measured on the upstream side
of the geotextile at the beginning of the test
with clear water (kPa)
lter media area (m2)
geotextile thickness (m)
water velocity (m/s)
water pressure difference on both side of the
geotextile during the test (kPa)
water pressure difference on both side of the
geotextile at the beginning of the test with clear
water (kPa)
excess pressure during the test, Eq. (8)
specic water weight (kN/m3)
mass per unit area of the geotextile (g/m2)
density of the ber (g/m3)

becomes predominant (Fig. 1c). Furthermore, some pipes

may be completely lled with particles which accumulate
under the form of cakes above the fully blocked pipes
(Fig. 1d).
During such a process, the lter head loss increases
faster. Therefore, predicting lter clogging means predicting the phase when accumulation in series is the leading
mechanism.
2.2. Theoretical simulation
If Darcys law is supposed to be applied in a thin lter,
the pressure loss Dp in this lter can be expressed as follows
(Dp
head loss):
Dp

gw VL
,
k~

(1)

where V is the ow rate per unit of specimen area, gw the

specic weight of water, L is the length of the ow in the
lter, and k~ the equivalent permeability which must be
dened depending on the accumulation type, in parallel
(k~p ) or in series (k~s ) schematized in Fig. 2:
Accumulation of particles in parallel:
P
X
ki S i
~
~
k kp Pi
with
S i S.
(2)
i Si
i
Accumulation of particles in series:
P
X
i Li
~
~
P
k ks
with
Li L.
i Li =ki
i

(3)

Si, Li and ki are, respectively, the area, the length and

the permeability of elementary element number i of the
lter media.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y.H. Faure et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 1120

13

Eqs. (2) and (3) can be considered when particles

accumulation occurs either in parallel or in series. But, as
said before, the two types of accumulation occur simultaneously. Combining both expressions of k~ (Eqs. (2) and
(3)) is impossible. Therefore, the pressure loss Dp is here
assumed to be the sum of the pressure loss due to
accumulation in parallel (Dp)p and in series (Dp)s,
respectively, weighted by coefcients (1N) and N in the
form

(a)

Dp 1  NDpp NDps ,

where (Dp)p and (Dp)s are functions of, respectively, (k~p )

and (k~s ) in the form of Eq. (1).
Amneus (1965) and more recently Le Coq (1996)
propose to express the relative pressure loss Dp=Dp0 as a
function of the mass m of accumulated particles in the
lter, depending on the accumulation type:


m
Dp=Dp0 p exp
for an accumulation in parallel;
m1
(5)

Obstructed pipe

(b)

(4)

Dp=Dp0 s exp

m
m1

a
for an accumulation in series;
(6)

where Dp0 is the initial pressure loss in the lter and

quantity m1 represents a critical value of the mass of
accumulated particles so that: mom1 is related to the phase
when accumulation in parallel is the leading mechanism,
m4m1 is related to the phase when accumulation in series
is the leading mechanism, corresponding to a very fast
increase of Dp, leading to inevitable clogging.
The weighting coefcient N is suggested to be also
expressed as a function of ratio (m=m1 ):



m
N tanh b
,
(7)
m1

Obstructed pipes

(c)
cake

Obstructed canals
Obstructed canals

(d)

Obstructed pipes

Fig. 1. Mechanism of particles accumulation: (a) all pipes are opened (no
one is obstructed), (b) few pipes are obstructed, (c) Most of the pipes are
obstructed and (d) Appearance of )cakes* above completely obstructed
pipes.

Flow

ki
L

Si

(a)

ki

(b)

Li

Fig. 2. Diagrammatic representation of accumulation: (a) in parallel and

(b) in series.

where b is a parameter to be tted as parameter a in

Eq. (6).
Practically, the user and experimenter are more concerned by the cumulative mass of injected particles than by
the mass of accumulated particles in the lter, since the
rst quantity is much easier to measure: the experimental
device does not allow removing the clogged specimen at the
end of the test without modifying the mass of the retained
particles. Therefore, the authors propose to consider m
in previous equations as the mass of injected particles,
supposing that this change acts upon parameters a and b,
and not upon mathematical functions (5) and (6).
The relative pressure loss Dp=Dp0 in the lter can then be
represented as a function of the mass m of injected
particles as shown in Fig. 3.
Since predicting the moment when accumulation in
series gets predominant means predicting clogging phenomenon in the lter, it would be very useful to determine
rst the function Dp=Dp0 f m and the mass m1 from

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y.H. Faure et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 1120

14

prior knowledge of dispersed particles quantity, soil

granulometry and lter porometry.
Such anticipation requires that parameters a and b
are correctly tted and that the representation of Fig. 3 is
in good agreement with experimental results. This is the
goal of the following sections.


3. Filtration test
The test assembly consists of the following components
(Faure et al., 1993):





two upstream reservoirs, one for supplying water

loaded with soil particles in suspension (no. 2, Fig. 4),
and one constant-level reservoir (no. 3, Fig. 4) to
ensure the circulation of clear water (a three-way
valve is used to switch from one reservoir to the
other),
a constant discharge pump (no. 1, Fig. 4) to provide a
quasi constant solid and liquid ow even when clogging
occurs,
a ltration cell (no. 8, Fig. 4) with the specimen holder
(no. 5, effective diameter: 50 mm, Fig. 4),
a pressure sensor (no. 4, Fig. 4) which is connected at
0.15 m above of the geotextile.
a constant-level downstream reservoir (no. 6, Fig. 4).

3.1. Test procedure

p/p0

Once the test specimen has been installed and the

system is saturated, soil particles are tipped into the
reservoir lled with water (capacity 25 l). The concentration Co of dispersed particles in water is 0.5 or 1 or 2 g/l. A
mechanical stirrer (no. 9, Fig. 4) ensures that Co remains
homogeneous at all times. The pressure sensor gives the
time-dependent pressure u during experimentation.
First, the pump imposes a ow rate of clear water and
initial water pressure p0 is measured. At the time t 0,
the three-way valve is switched to change the clear water
ow into a ow with dispersed particles and p pressure

1
m1
m
Fig. 3. Evolution of the pressure loss as a function of m.

3
1

0501
0501

5
6
8

p
elbow

t
PC

1 : pump
2 : suspension
3 : clear water
4 : pressure sensor
5 : geotextile
6 : piped soil in constant water level tank
7 : safety valve
8 : filtration cell
9 : stirrer

Fig. 4. Diagram of the test assembly used for ltering soils in suspension.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y.H. Faure et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 1120

recording starts. Since this pressure shows a gradual

increase, the ow velocity is not really constant and has
to be evaluated according to the characteristics of the
pump.
When the mass of accumulated particles reaches the
critical value m1 (Fig. 3) the pressure suddenly increases
until the safety valve (Fig. 4) is tripped. Since downstream
pressure is constant during the test, excess pressure is
dened by the difference
dp p  p0 Dp  Dp0 .

(8)

During the tests, the ow rate per unit area V is 40 mm/s.

Preliminary tests were conducted at V equal to 34 and
60 mm/s. Fig. 5 shows that parameter V has negligible
effect on the excess pressure in the considered range
(3060 mm/s). It should be noted that higher velocities are
not representative of site conditions and lower velocities
cannot be applied with the experimental device.

3.2. Soils tested

The retention criteria for geotextile lters are based on
the characteristic geotextile ltration opening size, Of
(Giroud, 1996). If the value of Of has been correctly
chosen, the granular skeleton of the soil is retained
(Giroud, 1996) and the risk of clogging during the initial
operating period of the lter is only due to the ne particles
in the soil.
Fig. 6 shows the grain size distribution of the different
tested soils. Such distributions were measured without any
deocculant (not used during the tests).
3.3. Characteristics of geotextiles tested
All the geotextiles tested are made of non-woven
polypropylene. The characteristic parameters (Table 1)
are the mass per unit area mg, the thickness Tg and the
bre diameter df. The porosity can then be calculated
from

2000

n1

p / V (kPa/(m/s))

1800
1600

V=34 mm/s, Co=1.0 g/l

1400

V=60 mm/s, Co=1.0 g/l

15

mg
,
rf T g

(9)

where rf is the density of the bres.

SF geotextiles are made of short bres while CF and HB
materials are made of continuous laments. The HB
geotextiles are heat bonded.

1200
1000
800
600

3.4. Preliminary experimental measurements

400
200
0
0

500

1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Cumulative mass of injected particles (g/m2)

4000

Fig. 5. Excess pressure dp=V versus cumulative mass of injected particles

for two velocities (geotextiles CF150, soil C40).

Preliminary tests were conducted to check if the

empirical model (leading to the curve of Fig. 3) ts the
real geotextile behaviour under different experimental
conditions (different geotextiles and different concentrations of dispersed particles).

100
K35

90

C40

80
Finer by mass (%)

S40
70

S50

60

S80

50
40
30
20
10
0
0.1

10
Diameter (microns)

100

Fig. 6. Particle size range of the soil for ltration tests of soil in suspension.

1000

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y.H. Faure et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 1120

16
Table 1
Characteristics of geotextiles tested
Geotextile

Structure

mg (g m2)

Tg (mm)

df (mm)

n (%)

Ooa (mm)

Ofa (mm)

CF150
CF300a
CF300b
HB300
SF300
CF600
CF800

Needle punched
Needle punched
Needle punched
Heat bonded
Needle punched
Needle punched
Needle punched

150
292
286
294
269
633
816

1.4
2.6
2.8
0.8
3.9
4.5
5.9

36
26
37
42
31
26
26

88
87.8
88.9
60.1
92.5
84.7
85

68
48
74
24
82
40
41

136
67
113
58
113
49
48

Of, ltration opening and Oo ( Of,

min)

according to Girouds theoretical formulas (Giroud, 1996).

very important as shown in Fig. 8 where a large range of

the clogging rate is observed between 0.1 and 1 g/l. Both
geotextiles show the same behaviour for high concentrations
(0.5 and 1 g/l) whereas the effect of the geotextile thickness
Tg is not negligible at low concentration (0.1 g/l). Here
again the excess pressure measured shows similar variations
when compared to the empirical model results.

40
HB300

35
Overpressure (kPa)

1 g/l
CF300a

30
25
20
15
10

CF300b

4. Applicability of Le Coqs model and evaluation of

parameters

SF300

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (s)

Fig. 7. Examples of pressure measures versus time (soil C40).

3.4.1. Influence of geotextile structure

Fig. 7 shows the excess pressure increase (dp, Eq. (8))
with time for different kinds of geotextiles (same mass per
unit area: 300 g/m2) tested with dispersed particles of
different sizes (soil C40, Faure et al., 2000). Different
behaviours can be observed according to the type of
geotextile structure: the open geotextiles CF300b and
SF300, whose opening size Oo and Of of which are greater
than (or equal to) the coarsest particles of the soil, do not
clog after a relatively long period, compared to the other
tested geotextiles. In contrast the geotextile HB300, which
has a porosity of only 60% and where Oo is the smallest
(only 24 mm), clogs the fastest. The small constrictions
facilitate the retention of the particles, series accumulation
occurs earlier, as well as cake formations.
It should be noted that clogging does not seem to be a
problem in the case of CF300b and SF300 geotextiles. Those
are the reasons why the results concerning CF300b and
SF300 geotextiles are not considered in the next sections.
Only the measured excess pressure variation corresponding
to CF300 and HB300 geotextiles is similar to that predicted
by the empirical model: same shape of the curves as in Fig. 3.
3.4.2. Influence of concentration of the dispersed particles
Non-woven needle-punched geotextiles CF600 and
CF800 were tested with the soil K35 and various
concentrations of dispersed particles. This parameter is

In the present paper, Le Coqs model is applied only to

non-woven geotextiles to reduce the number of parameters
that are involved in the ltration mechanism. Le Coqs
model parameters are evaluated considering the inuence
of dispersed particles concentration and soil granulometry.
They are evaluated from the experimental results using Eq.
(10) obtained from Eqs. (4)(6) and 8:


dp Dp0

1  N exp

m
m1

N

m
m1

a
1


m
with N tanh b
.
m1

(10)
Results are presented considering dp=V so that the
results might not be affected by the velocity variations
during the test. Before considering the inuence of
the main parameters, characterizing the particles and the
geotextile, the following section proposes to analyze the
physical signicance of the model parameters.
4.1. Physical significance of model parameters
Three parameters are involved in the model: m1, a
and b. It is interesting to give a physical signicance of
each parameter, obtained from its denition (Section 2).

parameter m1 was clearly dened in Section 2.2 as the

critical mass of injected particles before geotextile
clogging: for a given mass ow rate, smaller the m1
value, earlier the geotextile clogging.
parameter a is dened in Eq. (6) and characterizes the
way head loss increases during the accumulation in
series. Higher values of a correspond to a quicker
accumulation of particles in series leading to quicker

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y.H. Faure et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 1120

17

20
soil K35
18

1 g/l

0.5 g/l

0.25 g/l

CF800

16

CF600

overpressure (kPa)

14
12
Co = 0.1g/l
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

time (s)

Fig. 8. Inuence of the concentration Co of the suspension.

b arctanhN

1
0.9
0.8
b = 0.7

0.7
0.6
N

clogging. It will be shown in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 that

this parameter depends mainly on geotextile structure
and a bit on the concentration of particles.
parameter b is dened in Eq. (7) and characterizes the
relative contribution of accumulation in series and in
parallel. If b increases, the proportion of accumulation in series will increase as well. It has to be reminded
that parameter b is directly linked to the fraction N of
excess pressure due to accumulation in series (Eq. (7)
and Fig. 9): when the injected mass reaches the critical
value m1 (m=m1 1), b can be written as function of
N, as follows:

b = 0.5

0.5
0.4
0.3

b = 0.3

0.2
b = 0.1

0.1
0
0.1

(11)

10

100

m/m1

corresponding to b N when bo0:5.

Fig. 9. Variation of N versus m=m1 .

4.2. Influence of concentration on model parameters

Fig. 10 shows the excess pressure variations with the
cumulative mass of injected particles, obtained from the
test conducted on CF600 geotextile, the results of which are
given in Fig. 8. Fig. 11 shows the excess pressure obtained
from the test conducted on CF800 geotextile.
It is interesting to observe that clogging occurs for nearly
the same amount of injected particles corresponding to
similar values of the quantity m1 dened in Section 2.2.
m1 values are given in Table 2 which also gives the values
of the other parameters of Le Coqs model: a and b:

Coefcient a, related to accumulation in series,

depends little on concentration and seems to be
independent of the thickness of the geotextile if the
structure is the same (non-woven CF600 and CF800) for
a given soil,
Coefcient b can be considered as constant (b 0:1)
whatever the geotextile (CF600 or CF800) and the
concentration.

The fact that m1 parameter is nearly independent of

the concentration Co is interesting for three reasons:




m1 can be determined from one test at a specic

concentration,
it allows one to compare test results performed with
different concentrations, to evaluate the inuence of
other physical parameters (thickness, ltration opening
size, soil granulometry, etc.)
it allows one to evaluate the time before clogging for a
given concentration and a given pair geotextilesoil
granulometry.

4.3. Influence of geotextile structure on model parameters

The model is applied to the experimental results (Fig. 7)
obtained with geotextiles HB300 and CF300a. The values
of the model parameters are given in Table 3 and the
corresponding model results are given in Fig. 12.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y.H. Faure et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 1120

18

CF800 - Soil K35

2000
theoretical model

1800

0.1 g/l

1600

0.25 g/l

p / V (kPa/(m/s))

1400

0.50 g/l
1 g/l

1200
1000
800
600

m1

400
200
0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Cumulative mass of injected particles (g/m2)

Fig. 10. Experimental and theoretical results for various particle concentrations with soil K35 and geotextile CF600.

CF800 - Soil K35

2000
1800
theoretical model

p / V (kPa/(m/s))

1600

0.1 g/l

1400

0.25 g/l

1200

0.50 g/l
1 g/l

1000
800
600

m1

400
200
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Cumulative mass of injected particles (g/m2)

Fig. 11. Experimental and theoretical results for various particle concentrations with soil K35 and geotextile CF800.

Table 2
Coefcients m1, b and aof Le Coqs modelsoil K35
Geotextile

Co (g/l)

m1 (g/m2)

CF600

1
0.5
0.25
0.1

3200
3200
3400
3500

7.5
6.0
5.5
5.1

0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10

CF800

1
0.5
0.25
0.1

2980
3400
2900
2900

7.2
6.7
5.5
6.2

0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10

CF300a is a needle-punched geotextile, with a similar

structure as CF600 and CF800 but thinner. The corresponding m1 value is 1100 g/m2 to be compared (with similar
soils) to the one for CF600 (3200 g/m2) and for CF800
(2980 g/m2). It shows that the moment when accumulation
in series becomes predominant, less soil is injected in CF300a
than in CF600 or CF800, corresponding to a very small
accumulation in series in a thinner geotextile when mom1 .
This is conrmed by the comparison of parameter b:
b 106 for CF300a,
b 0:1 for CF600 and CF800.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y.H. Faure et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 1120

HB 300 is a heat-bonded and thin geotextile, characterized

by a small porosity and smaller opening sizes than CF300a
geotextile. The difference of behaviour between HB300 and
Cf300a is very similar to the one previously observed.
As for thinner geotextiles of the same structure, the
accumulation in series becomes predominant earlier for

19

heat-bonded geotextiles than for needle-punched geotextiles. This leads to the same conclusions concerning m1
as for CF300a compared to CF600 and CF800.
However, no signicant difference can be observed
concerning other parameters a and b: the accumulation in series is very small when mom1 for both geotextiles.
4.4. Influence of soil particles granulometry on model
parameters

Table 3
Inuence of geotextile structure on model parameterssoil C40
Geotextile

Co (g/l)

m1 (g/m2)

HB300
CF300a

1
1

355
1100

15
15

105
106

The granulometry of the injected particles plays a major

role on clogging for a given geotextile as shown in Fig. 13
(CF300a with soils S80 and S50). The coarsest the particles,
the earliest the occurrence of the accumulation in series.
The m1 value corresponding to the soil S80 is then

2000
1800
theoretical model

P / V (kPa/(m/s))

1600

CF300a

1400

HB300

1200
1000
800
600
m1

400

m1

200
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Cumulative mass of injected particles (g/m )

Fig. 12. Experimental and theoretical results for ltration behaviour of geotextiles CF300a and HB300 with soil C40.

CF300a_0.5g/l
2000
1800

Soil S80

Soil S50

1600

p/V (kPa/m/s)

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400

m1

m1

200
0
0

500

1000

1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Mass of injected particles (g/m2)

4000

4500

5000

Fig. 13. Experimental and theoretical results for ltration behaviour of geotextile CF300a with soils S50 and S80.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y.H. Faure et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 1120

20

Table 4
Inuence of particle size distribution on model parameters
Geotextile CF300a

Co (g/l)

m1 (g/m2)

Soil S50
Soil S80

0.5
0.5

1560
260

6.7
3.2

0.10
0.30

Comparison of test results with model results suggests

that the model can be used to study geotextile clogging.
A parametric study is needed to correlate parameters m1,
a and b to physical parameters like ltration opening
size, soil grain size and geotextile structure.

References
smaller than the one corresponding to the soil S50
(Table 4). If the particle size of soil increases (S50S80)
parameter b increases (0.10.3).
5. Conclusion
This study showed that it is possible to simulate the
accumulation of ne particles in a geotextile lter with the
help of an empirical model combining accumulation in
parallel and in series.
The model gives the increase in head loss as a function of
the quantity, m, of injected particles and there is a rapid
increase in head loss after a quantity, m1, has been injected
and is related to accumulation of particles in series. A
knowledge of m1 allows one to predict lter clogging
provided that one also knows all the other parameters in
the empirical model.
The geotextile clogging tests allow us to obtain these
parameters as a function of the number of dispersed
particles and soil grain size distribution and provide insight
regarding the physical signicance of all these parameters.

Amneus, J.S., 1965. A new pulp drainage model, its application and
verication. Tappi Journal 48 (11), 641647.
ASTM D-5101-01, 2003. Standard test method for measuring the soil
geotextile clogging potential by the gradient ratio. In: Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, vol. 4.13 Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Faure, Y., Gourc, J.P., Gendrin, P., 1990. Structural study of porometry
and ltration opening size of geotextiles. In: Geosynthetics, Microstructure and Performance, ASTM STP 1076, pp. 102119.
Faure, Y.H., Elamir, A., Farkouh, B., Gendrin, P., Reisinger, P., 1993.
Geotextile lter behaviour with critical ltration conditions. In:
Proceedings of the First International Conference Geo-Filters,
Karlsruhe, pp. 209116.
Faure, Y.H., Kehila, Y., Olivier, F., Paillez, S., 2000. Behaviour of nonwoven geotextiles for ltrating particles in suspension. In: Wolski, W.,
Mlynareck, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Geolter2000, Filters and
drainage in geotechnical engineering, pp. 5966.
Giroud, J.P., 1996. Granular lters and geotextile lters. In: Proceedings
of the Second International Conference Geo-Filters, Montreal,
pp. 565680.
Le Coq, 1996. Mise en oeuvre et modelisation de medias ltrants a` base de
bres minerales pour la ltration des huiles en avionique. The`se de
Doctorat de lInstitut national polytechnique de Grenoble, Ecole
Franc- aise de Papeterie et Industries Graphiques de Grenoble,
Novembre 1996, 280p (in French).