Comparison between Lugeon with

Secondary Permeability Index obtained

of Water Pressure Test in Rock Masses
Abdolazim Azimian
Department of Engineering Geology, The University of Isfahan. Iran
e-mail: azim.azimian1366@gmail.com

Rassoul Ajalloeian
Department of Engineering Geology, The University of Isfahan. Iran
e-mail: rasajl@sci.ui.ac.ir

ABSTRACT
This paper describes relationships between Lugeon and Secondary Permeability Index (SPI)
that both were obtained from Water Pressure Test (WPT) in Nargesi and Cheshmeh-Asheq
damsite. This comparison was performed with 165 and 336 WPT in Nargesi and CheshmehAsheq damsite, respectively. Both damsite located in sedimentary rock include marl, marly
limestone, conglomerate, sandstone and etc. According to the finding of this work, SPI and
Lugeon are very similar in the principle but coefficient exist in its equations is different.
Based on these results, A, B, C, C.2 and D type flows in SPI method are equal with Laminar,
Wash Out, Hydro-fracturing, Hydro-jacking and Turbulent and Void filling Hydromechanical behaviors, respectively. Finally, an empirical equation suggested for correlation
between SPI and Lugeon Methods.
KEYWORDS: Lugeon, Secondary Permeability Index (SPI), Water Pressure Test (WPT),
Nargesi and Cheshmeh-Asheq Damsite, Hydro-mechanical Behaviors, Empirical Equation.

INTRODUCTION
Water leakage is a common problem in almost all dam sites. This may have a significant
impact on the environment, the construction, and the long-term operation of the project hence it
is important to have a good understanding of the groundwater regime and geological features of
a site at planning and design stage, so that the water leakage can be properly controlled
(Uromeihy A & Farrokhi R 2012). Recognition of Hydro-mechanical behaviors obtained WPT
in rock masses are necessary for prevent of water leakage of dam sites. Therefore, in this
research has been attempt for comparison flows acquired from Lugeon and SPI Methods sake
recognition of rock masses Hydro-mechanical behaviors. Lugeon and SPI data calculated of 501
WPT that performed in Nargesi and Cheshmeh-Asheq Damsite. Nargesi earth-fill dam with clay
core will be constructed with a crest length of about 600 m, a maximum height above the river
bed level of 77 m, and total storage capacity of about 113 million m3 on the Shirinrood river,
about 45 km southeast of Kazerun city in southwest of Iran with a geographical coordinate
29 N and 52 E . The under construction Cheshmeh-Asheq RCC dam with a crest length of
about 360 m, a maximum height above the river bed level of 60 m, and total storage capacity of
about 60 million m3 will be built on the Cheshmeh-Asheq River, about 100 km southeast of
Neyriz city in south of Iran with a geographical coordinate 28 N and 54 E.
- 1603 -

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. H

1604

GEOLOGY OF DAM SITES

Nargesi damsite is situated in the Zagros Mountain in southwest Iran. Nargesi damsite and
its reservoir are located on Quaternary deposits and sedimentary rocks of the Miocene to
Pliocene age that consist of the following stratigraphic formations: Bakhtiary formation,
Mishan formation and Gachsaran formation. Quaternary deposits are composed of alluvium,
colluvium materials, and alluvial terrace. Bakhtiary formations of Pliocene age consist of
massive conglomerate with medium strength and weak limey cement. Mishan formation of
Upper Miocene age consists of greenish-gray to light gray marlstone with interbeds of
fossiliferous limestone. Gachsaran formation of Lower Miocene age consists of multi-color
layers of marlstone, anhydrite, gypsum, gypsiferous marl, limeymarl, marly limestone,
sandstone, and limey sandstone with medium strength. In the Nargesi dam site, No main fault,
fold, and karstic phenomena were observed during the site exploration, except small scale
tension crack.
According to the classification of Iran tectonics aspects of structural-sedimentary by
different researchers, the Cheshmeh-Asheq dam is placed folded Zagros plain. The dam and
reservoir sites are located in a seismic region. The Cheshmeh-Asheq dam is located on
sedimentary rock with rugged terrain. The geological mapping revealed that the rocks exposed at
the dam site belong to the Kashkan formation Eocene age. The Kashkan Formation consist three
units, where include: hard conglomerate (Ec), weak conglomerate layer and coarse grain (Ecg)
and red sandstone with interbeded of conglomerate layers (Esc). In field observations, no main
fault, fold and karstic phenomena were observed during the site observation, except small scale
fault in left bank. Four small scale faults are identified in left bank and away dam axis
(Zeidabadi et al 2012).

THEORY OF RESEARCH
Water Pressure Test (WPT)
The hydraulic conductivity of the rock mass at the dam site was evaluated by conducting a
number of Lugeon tests. According to Lancaster-Jones (1975), one of the main objectives of
these tests is to determine the Lugeon Coefficient, i.e, water absorption measured in liters per
meter of test per minute at a pressure of 10 kg/cm2 (1MN/m2) that is defined as follows:

Lu

Q
L PT

10

(1)

where Q is the water take (lit), T is the injection time (s), Pe is the injection pressure used (bar)
and Le is the length of grout section (m).
The pressure of the test is usually adjusted to take account of the depth and the type of rock
mass. Houlsby (1990) suggested that when the Lugeon values are below three, no grouting is
necessary, when they are between 3 and 10, a single row of grouting holes is required while with
values of over 10, a grout curtain should include three rows of grouting holes.
The result of this test, aided with a diagram, introduced 5 behaviors: linear, Turbulent, Void
filling, wash out and dilation. Kutzner (1996) found 5 behaviors based on P-Q diagram, but it
was different from the viewpoint of Houlsby. However, Ewert did a geology interpretation
on Lugeon test, using P-Q diagrams. For the first time, Lugeon described water pressure
test and then other researchers did many interpretations on these tests. However, Houlsby
(1990) interpreted this and the hydro-jacking phenomenon.

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. H

1605

Secondary Permeability Index (SPI)

To describe and estimate the permeability of jointed rock, the result of water pressure
test should be transferred to k-value instead of Lugeon value. Much more effort had been
done to find correlation between the result of water pressure test and k-value. This
problem was solved by using Secondary Permeability Index method (SPI). The Secondary
Permeability Index (SPI) usually, expressed from the conversion of the take of water pressure
test into a permeability coefficient analogous to porous mass (Foyo et al 2005). Usually,
the grouting of the dam foundation requires that the rock mass be previously divided in zones
with different ground treatment. The Secondary Permeability Index (SPI), based on water
flow trough fissures, allows zoning the dam foundation regarding different quality classes.
The importance of the SPI method is possibility of distinguishing difference between dilation
and hydraulic fracturing. The dilation is occurred at elastic manner, but the hydraulic
fracturing is occurred at plastic manner (Ajalloeian and Moein 2009 ). Therefore, the
Secondary Permeability Index (SPI) is defined as follows:

SPI

Ln

2le
1 Q
r
2le
Ht

(2)

Where SPI Secondary Permeability Index, l/s per m2 of borehole test surface. C constant
depending upon viscosity for an assumed temperature of rock at 10 oC, 1.4910-10 (Snow, 1968).
le length of the test section (m), r borehole radius (m), Q water flow absorbed by fissured rock
mass (l), T duration of each pressure level (s) and H total pressure expressed as water column
(m).
The proposed index has the following features:
1. The index (SPI) is based on classical parameters such as water pressure and water
absorption. Also, the index does not require converting to Lugeon (convert to Kf).
2. The index unit is (l/s.m2); however, it is related to the rock mass that was used to
introduce a rock mass classification.
This index has the following two aspects:
1. A source for rock mass classification.
2. Expresses the permeability.
Based on SPI, rock is classified into four groups. The provided classification does not prove
the strength and geomechanical characteristic of a rock, but only classified it based on
permeability.
Class A If rock permeability (based on SPI) is 2.16 10-14 l/s.m2 or less, it is placed in class
A, which then makes the rock to become impermeable and the best class of rock, and so, it does
not need improvement. The rock permeability in this class is equivalent to less than one lugeon.
Class B If the permeability is in the following ranges, 2.16 10-14 SPI 1.7210-13 l/s.m2.
The rock permeability in this class is equivalent to the 1 to 8 lugeon, while the permeability is
relatively low or appropriate and so, need to be improved locally.
Class C Class C, 1.7210-13 SPI 1.7210-12 l/s m2, denotes the presence of rock mass
zones with a water take that is greater than 8 LU. The rock mass quality is defined as Poor and it
has been considered that the ground treatment is necessary. New water pressure tests to confirm
the improvement are recommended.
Class D If the permeability is in the following ranges, 1.7210-12 l/s.m2 SPI. The rock
permeability in this class is equivalent to over 80 lugeon. For this status, the rock needs to

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. H

1606

be widely improved. Under these conditions, the ground treatment must be extensive. New water
pressure tests to confirm the improvement obtained by ground treatment are obligatory.
During water pressure test, it is recognized that characteristics of fractures and
hydraulic routes are affected. These changes influence permeability of rock and rock
classification, respectively. Therefore to present a suitable classification of rock mass and
also its permeability, there is need to identify the changes that will happen during the test
Pressure-SPI (PT-SPI) diagrams which describe these changes, appropriately. According to the
Foyo et al. 2005 and Ajalloeian and Moein 2009 five type of Pt-SPI graph are recognized. These
graphs are as followed:
Type A In this type of diagram, a fixed amount of SPI is used to calculate the different
pressures of SPI, which means that the result of SPI for the increasing and decreasing
pressure steps are similar together. Thus, SPI in relation to the maximum pressure is used to
classify the rock mass.
Type B This type indicates the wash behavior of fractures. This process starts from the
beginning of the test. The resulted index of the decreasing pressure is higher than the increasing
pressure, while the higher SPI amount is applied to categorize the rock.
Type C Hydraulic fracturing manifested as splitting. The joint opening is irreversible and at
descending pressures the SPI value is higher than ascending pressures, It is very
important to consider this process is occurred because the rock mass quality of the test
section is reduced by the test development. As a result it is important that the test
reflects an important SPI increasing at descending pressures.
Type D This type shows the caulk of the existed fractures by means of the fillers in each
section. The filled cracks which cause the decrease of SPI along advanced pressure are
developed, and sometimes, the drop in the decreasing pressure disappears (turbulent current) and
the least SPI is used in the rock mass classification.
Type C.2 This type that proposed by Ajalloeian and Moein 2009 is indicate Hydro-jacking.
The joint opening is reversible and the SPI value is similar or lower so at descending as
at ascending pressures because the rock mass conditions are recovered when the pressure is
decreased. The test reflects an important increasing of the SPI value at higher pressure than
maximum pressure and the recovering of the initial conditions at the end of the test. Houlsby
1990 proposes the process of dilation when at the maximum pressure level the water
absorption is much higher than the remainders levels. The peak pressure produces a much
higher Lugeon value than before or after it. This pressure has been sufficient to locally
dilation cracks by compression of softer materials or by closure of adjacent parallel
cracks.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LUGEON AND SPI

According to the finding of this work Based on 501 Water Pressure Test that performed in
Nargesi and Cheshmeh-Asheq dam sites , SPI and Lugeon are very similar in the principle but
coefficient exist in the them equations is different. With a little change in SPI equation, we have
got below equation that is determined as follows:

SPI

1.49

10

Ln
2

2le
r

Q
le. H. T

With this assume that initial part of 3 equation is equal A. So, A defined as follows:

(3)

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. H

1607

1.49

10

Ln
2

2le
r

(4)

Hence, SPI value expressed as:

Q
le. H. T

SPI

(5)

With comparison 1 and 5 equations, it was concluded that Lugeon and SPI are oneness. In
the above equations, Q is the water take (lit), T is the injection time (s), Le is the length of grout
section (m) and Pe and H is the injection pressure used based on bar and meter respectively. The
boreholes were drilled step by step and water pressure tests were done in each section from top
to bottom. The radius of drilled boreholes in Nargesi and Cheshmeh-Asheq dam sites are
variable of 38 to 50.5 mm and test sections length are assuming 5 m. Below equations obtained
of comparison SPI and Lugeon, that expressed as follow:

For sections with 38 mm radius:

SPI

2.25

10

LU

(6)

2.44

10

LU

(7)

2.38

10

LU

(8)

For sections with 43 mm radius:

SPI
For sections with 50.5 mm radius:

SPI

The equivalent Lugeon for SPI classification is given in Table 1.

Table 1: Equivalent Lugeon for SPI classification

Class

A
B
C
D

Permeability Classification
Foyo et al 2005

Equivalent
Lugeon
Foyo et al 2005

2.16 10 -14
2.16 10 -14 1.72 10 -13
1.72 10 -13 - 1.72 10 -12
1.72 10 -12

1
1- 8
8 80
80

Equivalent Lugeon in this research

50.5 mm Radius

43 mm Radius

1
1- 7.22
7.22 72.22
72.22

1
1 7.05
7.05 70.50
70.50

38 mm
Radius
1
1 7.64
7.64 76.40
76.40

COMPARISON SPI AND LUGEON HYDROMECHANICAL BEHAVIORS

COMPARISON SPI WITH LUGEON DIAGRAMS
TYPE A: This behavior exactly is equivalent with laminar flow of Lu-Pe (Lugeon
Pressure) and P-Q (Pressure- water take). Therefore with change SPI vs. Pressure, Lugeon
changed too that predictable (FIG 1).

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. H

1608

Figure 1: Comparison A type with Laminar flow.

TYPE B: This behavior exactly is equivalent with Wash-Out flow of Lu-Pe (Lugeon
Pressure) and P-Q (Pressure- water take) (Fig 2).

Figure 2: Comparison B type with Wash-Out flow.

TYPE C: Hydraulic fracturing manifested as splitting. The joint opening is irreversible and
at descending pressures the SPI value is higher than ascending pressures, It is very important
to consider this process is occurred because the rock mass quality of the test section is
reduced by the test development. This type indicates hydraulic fracturing in Lu-Pe.
Occasionally, this diagram is equivalent with other behavior. Sometimes, this behavior to
mistake due to level differ caused for movement material in joint is indicates Wash out flow
based on Lu-Pe and P-Q. Hence, each kind of level differs doesn't show Hydro-fracturing (Fig
3).

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. H

1609

Figure 3: Comparison C type with Lugeon flow (Wash Out or Hydro-fracturing?).

TYPE D: The comparison this type with P-Q and Lu-Pe diagrams shows that typical D
behavior is equal with turbulent flow (Fig 4) and only descending D type is equal with void
filling (Fig 5).

Figure 4: Comparison D type and turbulent flow vs. pressure (A), perpendicular graph
of lugeon (B).

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. H

1610

Figure 5: Comparison D type and Void filling flow vs. pressure (A) , perpendicular
graph of lugeon (B).
TYPE C.2: The importance of this graph is possibility of distinguishing difference between
dilation and hydraulic fracturing. The comparison this type with P-Q and Lu-Pe diagrams shows
that typical C.2 behavior is equal with Hydro-jacking flow (Fig 6).

Figure 6: Comparison C.2 type and hydro-jacking flow vs. pressure.

IDENTIFICATION HYDRO-FRACTURING
OF WASH OUT
Sometimes, this behavior to mistake due to level differ caused for movement material in
joint is indicates Wash out flow based on Lu-Pe and P-Q. Hence, each kind of level differs
doesn't show Hydro-fracturing. Two methods are exist for prevent of mistake recognition hydrofracturing of wash out flow that include:
1- Draw all steps of WPT and restraint of each kind limitation of water take varying. In this
method, each water take and even steps of pressure transmission were recorded. In the state, was
identification varying cause between steps of pressure in the water pressure test.

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. H

1611

2- Other method is reading record with digital apparatus. In this method, distance between
readings must be several second until were recorded each kind of suddenly water absorption
(Fig 7).

Figure 7: Comparison drawn sequence of WPT with drawn selected WPT. (A) Wash
Out, (B) Hydro-fracturing.

CONCLUSION
In this research 501 WPT (165 tests Cheshmeh-Asheq and 336 tests Nargesi Dam sites)
carried out in the sedimentary rocks such as marl, marly limestone, conglomerate, sandstone and
etc. According to the finding of this work, SPI and Lugeon are very similar in the principle but
coefficient exist in its equations is different. Based on these results, A, B, C, C.2 and D type
flows in SPI method are equal with Laminar, Wash Out, Hydro-fracturing, Hydro-jacking and
Turbulent and Void filling hydro-mechanical behaviors, respectively.
Two methods exist for prevent of mistake recognition hydro-fracturing of wash out flow in
comparison C Type of SPI classification that includes:
1- Draw all steps of WPT and restraint of each kind limitation of water take varying.
2- Other method is reading record with digital apparatus.
The following empirical equations have been developed between SPI and Lugeon obtained
of WPT.
For sections with 38 mm radius:
SPI

2.25

10

LU

2.44

10

LU

For sections with 43 mm radius:

SPI

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. H

1612

For sections with 50.5 mm radius:

SPI

2.38

10

LU

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks are expressed to Isfahan University for research funding and to the Tamavan and
Ab-Niro Consulting Companies for access to the data.

REFERENCES
1. Ajalloeian, R. Moein, F (2009) Evaluation of Damsites Groutability Using
Secondary Permeability Index, Rock Classification (Case Studies), American
Journal of Applied Sciences 6, pp. 1235-1241.
2. Foyo A, Sanchez MA, Tomillo C (2005) A proposal for a Secondary Permeability
Index obtained from water pressure tests in dam foundations. Eng Geol 77:6982.
3. Houlsby AC (1990) Construction and design of cement grouting: a guide to grouting
in rock foundation. Wiley, New Jersey.
4. Kutzner C (1996) Grouting of rock and soil. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 271 pp.
5. Lancaster-Jones PF (1975) The interpretation of Lugeon water-test. Q J Eng Geol
Hydrogeol 8(2):151154.
6. Snow, D.T., (1968) Rock fractures spacings, openings and porosities. Am. Soc. Civ.
Eng. Proc. 94, 7391 (SM 1).
7. Uromeihy A, Farrokhi R (2012) Evaluating groutability at the Kamal-Saleh Dam
based on Lugeon tests, Bull Eng Geol Environ Vol. 64:382-387.
8. Zeidabadi Nezhad H, Ajalloeian R, Azimian A (2012) Evaluation of Geological
and Engineering Geological Properties of Cheshmeh-Asheq Dam Site. Electronic
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Vol. 17 Bund. T.; pp.2633-2644.

2013, EJGE