IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-2

Research article
erd

Evaluation of Sediment Trapping Capacity by Geotextile forErosion Control
SARVESH MASKEY
Faculty of Regional Environment Science, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo, Japan

TAKANORI KANEKO
Faculty of Regional Environment Science, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo, Japan

HIROMU OKAZAWA*
Faculty of Regional Environment Science, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo, Japan
Email: h1okazaw@nodai.ac.jp

ANTONIO PEREZ FUENTES
Graduate School of Agriculture, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo, JapanSACHIKO WATANABE
Maeda Road Construction Co. Ltd., Tokyo, JapanKAZUHIRO TAZAKI
Maeda Road Construction Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan

TAKAHIRO SASAKI
Maeda Road Construction Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan
Received 30 January 2022

Accepted 18 July 2022(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Heavy precipitation events induce sediment transport resulting in soil loss,
aggravating erosion. Geotextile for erosion control, offers environmentally friendly benefits
and have lower costs than other physical structures. Recently, there has been interest in highperformance and multifunctional geotextiles. In this study, evaluation was made toinvestigate the capacity of geotextile in sediment trapping. A runoff experiment wasconducted, using a runoff plot using two types of geotextiles, having dimensions of 100 and10 cm length and breadth respectively. Slope for the runoff plot was created at 0.859
degrees. Four treatments, for each geotextile were made. The treatments were, 1) no folds,
2) folds for 25 cm of the runoff plot, 3) folds for 50 cm of runoff plot, 4) folds for 100 cmof the runoff plot. Muddy water suspension having Suspended Solid (SS) of 25000 mg/L
was discharged on the treatments. SS of runoff and infiltered suspension were analyzed.
According to the results, both geotextiles were effective in sediment trapping. For Sample
A, SS decreased by 88.1%, 97.16%, 99.14% and 99.15% in no folds, 25 cm fold, 50 cm
fold and 100 cm fold treatment respectively from the initial SS of the muddy watersuspension. Whereas, for Sample B, SS decreased by 87.3%, 91.87%, 98.74% and 98.34%
in no folds, 25 cm fold, 50 cm fold and 100 cm fold treatments respectively. Additionally,SS significantly decreased in folded treatments for both geotextiles. Accordingly, it wasestablished that geotextile can function for erosion controlling with increase in folds.
However, further research is required to understand the intensity of discharge on geotextiles
for sediment trapping capacity for future applications.
Keywords geotextile, sediment trap, erosion control, suspended solidⒸ ISERD

99

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-2

INTRODUCTION
Precipitation and heavy precipitation events are amongst the most significant weather parameters
inducing sediment transport aggravating soil erosion. Soil erosion is one of the biggest concerns ofland`s surface as it has many impacts in agriculture, engineering, and construction industries.
Various physical measures have been developed and used for controlling soil erosion. Geotextiles
are permeable fabrics which functions in separation, filtration, drainage, reinforcement,stabilization, barrier, and erosion protection (Agrawal, 2011). Geotextiles helps in reducing soil
erosion by reducing runoff velocity (Balasubramanian, 2017). Physical erosion measures such as
gabions, riprap, drop structures, chutes, check dams etc., which works on principal of reducing
runoff velocity (Balasubramanian, 2017) are expensive to construct and maintain, also it takes
considerable time for construction. However, geotextiles are environmentally friendly, costeffective measure and are easy to install. Geotextiles, like mulches control soil erosion by imitating
the salient properties of vegetation (Rickson, 1990). Geotextiles can improve the surface
microclimate, retains soil moisture which promotes seed germination and vegetation growth(Bergado and Soralump, 1999). Additionally, geotextiles can control soil erosion by affecting thequantity and volume of runoff that detaches and transports the sediments. The erosion control
geotextiles are directly applied on the exposed surface which provides an immediate protection
against soil erosion by reducing flow velocity and detaching forces by impact of raindrops (GEO,2011). In recent years, there has been interest in high performance and multifunction geotextiles.
Therefore, in this study, two geotextiles which functions in inhibiting weed growth were subjectedto determine its sediment trapping capacity potential for erosion control.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
Characteristics of Geotextile Used
The geotextiles used in this study are made up of polyester fibers having high tensile strength,elongation capacity, water and air permeability and maintains the natural conditions of the soil. As
can be observed from the Table 1, Sample A has lower mass, thickness, tensile strength, andhorizontal elongation compared to Sample B. Whereas, water permeability and light resistance forboth the geotextiles are similar.
Table 1 Characteristics of geotextile testedParameters
Mass (g/m2)
Thickness (mm)Tensile strength (N/5 cm)
Vertically
HorizontallyElongation (%)
VerticallyHorizontally
Water permeability (cm/sec)
Light resistance (%)

Sample A
1300.5

Sample B
300
1.0343
196882686

32.0
28.0
1.010-2 above
9.0

35.0
40.0
1.010-2 above
9.0

Note: Data obtained from Toyobo Corp., Japan

Experiment Settings and Conditions
In this research, sediment trapping capacity of two geotextiles Sample A and Sample B wereevaluated. For this, runoff experiment was conducted using a runoff plot of 100 cm and 10 cm
length and breadth respectively having a slope gradient of 0.859 degrees (Fig. 1).
Three different treatments for each geotextile were made as shown in Table 2: 1) Control, 2)
Folds for 25 cm of the plot, 3) Folds for 50 cm of the plot, 4) Folds for 100 cm of the plot. This wasⒸ ISERD

100

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-2

done to see the effectiveness of having folds on reducing the sediment flow. Runoff experiment on
the geotextile was conducted using 500 ml of muddy water suspension having Suspended Solid(SS) value of 25000 mg/L. The muddy suspension water was poured at inlet in 10 seconds. The
runoff and percolated suspension were collected, and SS was analyzed between geotextiles andtheir groups.

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of runoff plot
Table 2 Treatments for the geotextiles used for this research
Sample A

Sample B

1.

Control (plain surface)Control (plain surface)2.

Folds for 25 cm of the plot

3.
4.

Folds for 50 cm of the plot
Folds for 100 cm of the plot

Folds for 25 cm of the plot
Folds for 50 cm of the plot
Folds for 100 cm of the plot

Note: Each fold was made of 2cm length1234Fig. 2 Treatments made for runoff experiment
Determination of Suspended Solid and Soil Loss Reduction EffectivenessSuspended Solid of the runoff was analyzed using glass fiber filter method. In this method ameasured volume of sample (less than 1L) is passed through pre-weighted filter paper which isdried at 104C  1. After drying, the filter paper is weighed, and SS was calculated using Equation
1.
Eq. 1

Ⓒ ISERD101

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-2To see the difference of soil loss created by runoff in each treatment with those of the control
plots, ratios between treatments and control (Ogbobe et al., 1998) and effectiveness indexes(Sutherland, 1998) was used. For this, in this experiment, soil loss reduction effectiveness(SLRE, %) was used (Sutherland, 1998), which was calculated using Equation 2.
Eq. 2
Where, t, c, SL are treatment, control, and soil loss respectively. A positive effectivenessindicates geotextile reduces soil loss, whereas a negative effectiveness indicates geotextiles
produces more soil loss. In this experiment the value of SS is used for soil loss.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Comparison of Runoff SS between Geotextiles and Sediment Trapping Capacity
The sediment trapping capacity of the geotextiles were evaluated by the difference in initial SS of
muddy water suspension with the SS of runoff for each geotextile. Fig. 3 shows the comparisons
between the treatments. As can be observed from Fig. 3, all the treatments were effective in
reducing runoff SS. Additionally, it was observed that treatments with folds could reduce SS
significantly compared to control. However, no significant difference was seen between thegeotextiles for each treatment. Rickson, 1992, states that the random roughness of fibers
contributes to decrease in runoff velocities, thereby reducing the transport capacity and leading todeposition of particles within the geotextile fibers. It can be argued that both geotextiles may havechanged the hydraulic flow properties, trapping the sediments.

Fig. 3 Comparison of SS of runoff suspension between geotextile treatments
Comparison of Runoff and Percolated SS between in Sample A
The result for runoff SS and percolated SS is shown in Figs. 4 and 5 respectively for Sample A. As
can be observed from the results, SS for all the treatments including control decreased significantly.
In addition, it was clarified that having folds in the treatment reduced SS. This can be explained aswith increase in folds, the kinetic energy of the runoff decreases due to obstacles and friction.
Further, it was observed during the experiment that, muddy suspensions got trapped in the folds.
This deposited the sediments in the folds, significantly reducing the runoff SS. In given conditionof the experiment, folds 50 and folds 100 were more effective compared to 25 cm fold. It was also
Ⓒ ISERD

102

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-2

clarified that Sample A had filtration function. The SS of percolated suspension had very low SS
for all the treatments.

Fig. 4 Difference SS of runoff suspension
for Sample A geotextile treatments

Fig. 5 Difference in SS percolated suspension
for Sample B geotextile treatments

Comparison of Runoff and Percolated SS between in Sample BThe results for runoff and percolated SS in geotextile Sample B showed similar results to that ofSample A. The surface runoff SS decreased significantly compared to initial muddy watersuspension in all the treatments. As can be observed from Fig. 6, having folds in the textile
increased sediment trapping capacity decreasing runoff SS. Similar arguments can be made for thesediment trapping capacity as made for geotextile Sample A. Figure 7 shows the result ofpercolated SS for geotextile Sample B. Unlike Sample A, percolated SS was not observed in thisgeotextile. Geotextile Sample B is 0.5 mm thicker than geotextile Sample A (Table 1), which madethe runoff faster, resulting in less time for saturation of geotextile and percolation. On the other
hand, in folds the suspension was trapped, resulting in percolation. The percolated SS for thisgeotextile was also very low showing filtration function.

Fig. 6 Difference SS of runoff suspension
Sample B geotextile treatments

Fig. 7 Difference in SS percolated suspension
for Sample B geotextile treatments

Suspended Solid Reduction (%) and Soil Loss Reduction Effectiveness (SLRE, %)Table 3 shows the SS runoff decrease percent compared to SS of initial muddy water suspension.
For Sample A, SS decreased by 88.1%, 97.16%, 99.14% and 99.15% in no folds, 25 cm fold, 50
cm fold and 100 cm fold treatment respectively from the initial SS of the muddy water suspension.
Whereas, for geotextile Sample B, SS decreased by 87.3%, 91.87%, 98.74% and 98.34% in nofolds, 25 cm fold, 50 cm fold and 100 cm fold treatments respectively. SLRE (%) had positiveeffectiveness, showing folds in geotextiles was effective in reducing soil loss for both thegeotextiles.
Ⓒ ISERD

103

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-2

Table 3 Suspended solid reduction (%) and SLRE (%)
Sample A
Treatment

SS (mg/L)

Initial sample

25000

Control
25 cm folds
50 cm folds
100 cm folds

2974
711
213
221

% Decrease
88.1
97.16
99.14
99.15

Sample B
SS (mg/L)
SLRE (%)

25000

76.09
97.31
97.67

3193
2032
315
416

% Decrease
87.23
91.87
98.74
98.34

SLRE (%)
36.36
90.13
86.97

CONCLUSION
A runoff experiment was conducted to examine sediment trapping capacity of two geotextiles. Theresults showed that both geotextiles significantly decreased the runoff and percolated SS. It wasalso observed that having folds in the geotextile increased sediment trapping capacity. In addition,soil loss reduction efficiency had high positive values for indicating soil loss reduction. Soil loss
reduction efficiency increased with increase in folds in the geotextile. With outcomes of this study,
it can be concluded that geotextiles A and B had sediment trapping capacity and can function in
reducing soil erosion. However, for future application, further studies are required with varying
runoff intensity and slope for sediment trapping capacity.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge Maeda Road Construction Co. Limited, Tokyo, Japan forproviding the geotextiles used in this study.
REFERENCES
Agrawal, B.J. 2011. Geotextile, Its application to civil engineering, Overview. In proceedings of the National
Conference on Recent Trends in Engineering and Technology, 1-6, Retrieved from https://
bvmengineering.ac.in/misc/docs/published-20papers/civilstruct/struct/101052.pdf
Balasubramanian, A. 2017. Methods of controlling soil erosion. Report No. 2, University of Mysore, India,Retrieved from DOI 10.13140/RG.2.2.22542.97609
Bergado, D.T. and Soralump, S. 2003. Geosynthetics for erosion control and preservation of environment.
International Symposium and Short Course on Soil/Ground Improvement and Geosynthetics in Waste
Containment Structures, 2003, AIT, Thailand, Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237834251_GEOSYNTHETICS_FOR_EROSION_CONTROL_AND_PRESERVATION_OF_ENVIRONMENT
Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO). 2011. Technical guidelines on landscape treatment for slopes. GEO
Publication No. 1, Retrieved from https://cedd.gov.hk/filemanager/eng/content_151/ep1_2011.pdf
Ogbobe, O., Essien, K.S. and Adebayo, A. 1998. A study of biodegradable geotextiles used for erosion
control. Geosynthetics International, 5 (5), 545-553, Retrieved from DOI https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.
5.0131
Rickson, R.J. 1990. The role of simulated vegetation in soil erosion control. In Thornes, J.B. (Ed.),
Vegetation and Erosion, Processes and Environments, 99-112, Wiley, Chichester, USA.
Rickson, R.J. and Vella, P. 1992. The application of geotextiles in the protection of grassed waterways inerosion, conservation and small-scale farming. In Hurni, H. and Tato, K. (Eds.), 415-421, Geographia
Bernesia, Bern, Switzerland.
Sutherland, R.A. 1999. Rolled erosion control systems for hillslope surface protection, A critical review,synthesis and analysis of available data, I. background and formative years. Land Degradation andDevelopment, 9 (6), 465-486, Retrieved from DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-145X(199811/12)
9:6<487::AID-LDR312>3.0.CO;2-UⒸ ISERD104