**Author details**

geotextile composites, the permittivity and loss rates of hydraulic pressure are represented in Table 6. The lower the coefficient values of cross-plane permeability and permittivity, the larger the loss rate of hydraulic pressure. This was why the inlet forms of inner interface of

Bell mouth

**Pressure (fi )**

= 0.01�0.06

= 0.1�0.2 *fi*

) Loss Rate of

**Permittivity (sec–1) Loss Rate of Hydraulic**

Hydraulic Pressure (*fi*

The inlet forms of inner interface of laminar geotextile composites to be related to the loss rate of hydraulic pressure are shown in Figure 2.3. In case of various porous areas of laminar geotextile composites, the permittivity and loss rates of hydraulic pressure are represented in Table 2.4. The lower the coefficient values of cross-plane permeability and permittivity, the larger the loss rate of hydraulic pressure. This was why the inlet forms of inner interface of laminar geotextile composites

laminar geotextile composites were bell mouth or soft tube structures.

= 0.5 *fi* = 0.25 *fi*

Layer

Layer Composite

**Figure 2.3. Inlet forms of inner interface of laminar geotextile composites.** 

**Table 2.4. Loss rate of hydraulic pressure of laminar geotextile composites.** 

) Upper

Layer Composite

Permittivity (sec<sup>1</sup>

Lower

A–B 1.173 1.258 0.578 0.095 A–C 1.086 0.743 0.411 0.111 A–E 1.193 0.020 0.018 0.087 E–A 0.020 1.193 0.017 0.144 A–F 1.193 0.042 0.038 0.066 D–A 0.881 0.956 0.434 0.105 D–C 1.118 0.714 0.412 0.085 C–D 0.714 1.118 0.419 0.091

A–B 1.173 1.258 0.578 0.095 A–C 1.086 0.743 0.411 0.111 A–E 1.193 0.020 0.018 0.087 E–A 0.020 1.193 0.017 0.144 A–F 1.193 0.042 0.038 0.066 D–A 0.881 0.956 0.434 0.105 D–C 1.118 0.714 0.412 0.085 C–D 0.714 1.118 0.419 0.091

For laminar geotextile composites having different fiber-packing densities, water permeability was decreased with the smaller fiber-packing densities and this was due to the more bulky and less compacted structure of fibers. It was reasonable to apply the permittivity to interpret the water

For laminar geotextile composites having different fiber-packing densities, water permeability was decreased with the smaller fiber-packing densities and this was due to the more bulky and less compacted structure of fibers. It was reasonable to apply the permittivity to interpret the water permeability of laminar geotextile composites instead of the coefficient of cross-plane permeability. The experimental values of water permeability exhibited the smaller values than theoretical values due to the loss rate of hydraulic pressure and inlet forms of inner interface. From these results, it was known that the hybrid structure of geotextiles to perform the smart drainage function could be manufactured by the variation of the fiber-packing density.

were bell mouth or soft tube structures.

*fi* = 1.0 *fi*

**Laminar Geotextile Composite**

314 Non-woven Fabrics

Upper Layer

**5. Conclusion** 

**2.5. Conclusion**

Laminar Geotextile Composite

**Figure 19.** Inlet forms of inner interface of laminar geotextile composites.

Lower

**Table 6.** Loss rate of hydraulic pressure of laminar geotextile composites.

Han-Yong Jeon\*

Address all correspondence to: hyjeon@inha.ac.kr

Department of Applied Organic Materials Engineering, Inha University, Incheon, South Korea
