Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Senior Civil/Geotechnical Engineer, URS Corporation, 1333 Broadway Suite 800, Oakland, CA 94612,
camilo_quinones-rozo@urscorp.com
405
of a borehole. Water at constant pressure is injected into the rock mass through a slotted
pipe bounded by pneumatic packers (Figure 1). A pneumatic packer is an inflatable
rubber sleeve that expands radially to seal the annulus space between the drill rods and
the boring walls.
406
1 psi
ft
(1)
The test is conducted in five stages, with a particular water pressure magnitude associated
with each stage. A single stage consists of keeping a constant water pressure at the test
interval for 10 minutes by pumping as much water as required. The first stage is held at a
low water pressure, increasing the pressure in each subsequent stage until reaching PMAX.
Once PMAX is reached, pressures are decreased following the same pressure stages used
on the way up, thus describing a pressure loop. Table 1 shows the pressure magnitudes
customarily used during the five test stages.
Table 1. Pressure magnitudes typically used for each test stage
Test Stage
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Description
Low
Medium
Maximum (peak)
Medium
Low
Pressure Step
0.50PMAX
0.75PMAX
PMAX
0.75PMAX
0.50PMAX
During the execution of each stage, both water pressure (P) and flow rate (q) values are
recorded every minute. Subsequently, average values for P and q are then used to
compute the hydraulic conductivity for each stage. The hydraulic conductivity is
expressed in terms of the Lugeon value, which is empirically defined as the hydraulic
conductivity required to achieve a flow rate of 1 liter/minute per meter of test interval
under a reference water pressure equal to 1 MPa (Equation 2).
Lugeon Value =
q P0
L P
(2)
Classification
<1
1-5
5-15
15-50
50-100
>100
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Medium
High
Very High
Hydraulic
Conductivity
Range (cm/sec)
< 1 x 10-5
1 x 10-5 - 6 x 10-5
6 x 10-5 - 2 x 10-4
2 x 10-4 - 6 x 10-4
6 x 10-4 - 1 x 10-3
> 1 x 10-3
Reporting
Precision
(Lugeons)
<1
0
1
5
10
>100
407
Once a Lugeon value has been computed for each of the five test stages, a representative
value of hydraulic conductivity is selected based on the trend observed throughout the
test, as explained in the next two sections.
CURRENT LUGEON INTERPRETATION PRACTICE
The current Lugeon interpretation practice is mainly derived from the work performed by
Houlsby (1976). On his work, geared towards establishing grouting requirements,
Houlsby proposed that representative hydraulic conductivity values should be selected
based on the behavior observed in the Lugeon values computed for the different pressure
stages.
Houlsby (1976) classified the typical behaviors observed in practice into five different
groups, as follows:
-
Laminar Flow: The hydraulic conductivity of the rock mass is independent of the
water pressure employed. This behavior is characteristic of rock masses observing
low hydraulic conductivities, where seepage velocities are relatively small (i.e., less
than four Lugeons).
Turbulent Flow: The hydraulic conductivity of the rock mass decreases as the water
pressure increases. This behavior is characteristic of rock masses exhibiting partly
open to moderately wide cracks.
Dilation: Similar hydraulic conductivities are observed at low and medium pressures;
however, a much greater value is recorded at the maximum pressure. This behavior
which is sometimes also observed at medium pressures occurs when the water
pressure applied is greater than the minimum principal stress of the rock mass, thus
causing a temporary dilatancy (hydro-jacking) of the fissures within the rock mass.
Dilatancy causes an increase in the cross sectional area available for water to flow,
and thereby increases the hydraulic conductivity.
Wash-Out: Hydraulic conductivities increase as the test proceeds, regardless of the
changes observed in water pressure. This behavior indicates that seepage induces
permanent and irrecoverable damage on the rock mass, usually due to infillings wash
out and/or permanent rock movements.
Void Filling: Hydraulic conductivities decrease as the test proceeds, regardless of the
changes observed in water pressure. This behavior indicates that either: (1) water
progressively fills isolated/non-persistent discontinuities, (2) swelling occurs in the
discontinuities, or (3) fines flow slowly into the discontinuities building up a cake
layer that clogs them.
Table 3 presents a graphic summary of the five behavior groups defined by Houlsby
(1976), as well as the representative Lugeon value that should be reported for each group.
408
LAMINAR
BEHAVIOR
1st Stage
2nd Stage
3rd Stage
3rd Stage
4th Stage
th
4 Stage
5th Stage
Water Pressure, P
TURBULENT
DILATION
0.75PMAX
REPRESENTATIVE
LUGEON VALUE
Average of Lugeon
values for all stages
5th Stage
Lugeon value
corresponding to the
highest water
rd
pressure (3 stage)
Lowest Lugeon
value recorded,
corresponding either
to low or medium
st
water pressures (1 ,
nd
th
th
2 , 4 , 5 stage)
Highest Lugeon
value recorded
th
(5 stage)
Lugeons
1.00PMAX
1st Stage
1st Stage
2nd Stage
2nd Stage
3rd Stage
3rd Stage
4th Stage
4th Stage
5th Stage
5th Stage
Water Pressure, P
0.50PMAX
0.75PMAX
Lugeons
1.00PMAX
1st Stage
1st Stage
2nd Stage
2nd Stage
3rd Stage
3rd Stage
4th Stage
4th Stage
5th Stage
5th Stage
Water Pressure, P
0.50PMAX
WASH-OUT
DESCRIPTION
1st Stage
2nd Stage
0.50PMAX
0.75PMAX
Lugeons
1.00PMAX
1st Stage
1st Stage
2nd Stage
2nd Stage
rd
3 Stage
th
4th Stage
3 Stage
rd
4 Stage
5th Stage
5th Stage
Water Pressure, P
0.50PMAX
VOID
FILLING
LUGEON PATTERN
0.75PMAX
1st Stage
1st Stage
2nd Stage
2nd Stage
3rd Stage
3rd Stage
4th Stage
4th Stage
5th Stage
5th Stage
Water Pressure, P
0.50PMAX
0.75PMAX
Lugeons
1.00PMAX
Lugeons
1.00PMAX
409
q
1 P
= Lugeon Value
L
P0
(3)
If the product of the last two factors in Equation 3 is defined as a dimensionless pressure
factor (), then the flow loss could be ultimately expressed as shown in Equation 5.
=
1 P
P0
q
= Lugeon Value
L
(4)
(5)
In other words, the flow loss could be interpreted as the product of the Lugeon value and
the dimensionless pressure factor . According to this interpretation, if the results of the
410
15
ug
eo
ns
50
l
100 lu
geon
s
lug
eo
ns
Lugeon test are plotted in a flow loss vs. pressure space (q/L vs. ), sets of data having
the same Lugeon value will plot over a straight line (Points c and d in Figure 3).
Furthermore, this line which will start at the origin will have a slope equal to the
Lugeon value.
ns
eo
ug
l
5
2
1
eon
1 lug
Pressure Factor,
411
BEHAVIOR
DESCRIPTION
REPRESENTATIVE
LUGEON VALUE
LAMINAR
4
2
5
1
TURBULENT
Water Pressure, P
1
4
5
Water Pressure, P
DILATION
4
2
5
1
WASH-OUT
Water Pressure, P
2
1
VOID FILLING
Water Pressure, P
5
Water Pressure, P
412
Interpretation of Lugeon data when test does not proceed according to plan
In practice it is common to encounter situations where the five pressure stages required to
complete a pressure loop can not be completed (e.g., pump used was not able to
achieve the intended pressure at the maximum flow capacity, the drilling rods could not
be filled, etc). Although, it would be advisable to ignore these data points, there are
occasions where the amount of information at hand is so limited that disregarding data is
not an option. In such cases, it is advisable to interpret the Lugeon data as follows:
- If results from the test stages available describe a convex curve in the q/L vs.
space (i.e., slope decreases as increases), the maximum Lugeon value obtained
should be reported as an upper bound value (i.e., less than).
- If results from the test stages available describe a concave curve in the q/L vs.
space (i.e., slope increases as increases), the maximum Lugeon value obtained
should be reported as a lower bound value (i.e., greater than).
The procedure above allows using the limited information available to gain a better
understanding of the rock mass permeability. However, by reporting lower and higher
bound values rather than representative values , it assigns a lower level of reliability to
these results.
LIMITATIONS OF THE LUGEON TEST
One of the main drawbacks of the Lugeon test is that only a limited volume of rock
around the hole is actually affected by the test. It has been estimated that the effect of the
Lugeon tests with a test interval length of 10 feet - is restricted to an approximate radius
of 30 feet around the bore hole (Bliss and Rushton, 1984). This suggests that the
hydraulic conductivity value estimated from this test is only representative for a cylinder
of rock delimited by the length of the test interval and the radius given above. Although
the use of well-pumping tests with observation wells can overcome this limitation
(Cedergren, 1989), such tests are seldom conducted since they involve drilling several
holes which increases the exploration cost considerably.
Due to the spatial limitation of the Lugeon test it is not recommended to estimate the
hydraulic conductivity using closed-form analytical solutions that rely on the assumption
that a large portion of the rock mass is engaged during the test. Furthermore, such
analytical solutions usually require an adequate knowledge of the location of the ground
water table elevation. However, it is usually observed that ground water elevation
measurements while drilling can be artificially high due to the large amounts of water
pumped into the hole to circulate the cuttings.
As observed by Hoek and Bray (1974) many of the mathematical theories available in the
literature have gone beyond the bounds of practical application. In most practical cases,
the assumptions used by the analytical methods do not correspond to the actual
conditions of the rock mass to be studied (i.e., laminar flow through homogeneous,
isotropic, continuous media) or the parameters required in these equations can not be
413
Bliss, J., Rushton, K. (1984). The reliability of packer tests for estimating the hydraulic
conductivity of aquifers. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Vol. 17, pp. 81-91.
Cedergren, H. (1989). Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets. Third Edition. J. Wiley &
Sons. New York, N.Y.
Fell, R., MacGregor, P., Stapledon. D., Bell, G. (2005). Geotechnical Engineering of
Dams. Taylor & Francis. London. UK.
Goodman, R. (1980). Introduction to Rock Mechanics. First Edition. J. Wiley & Sons.
New York, N.Y. pp. 32-34.
Hoek, E., Bray, J. (1974). Rock Slope Engineering. Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
London. UK.
Houlsby, A. (1976). Routine Interpretation of the Lugeon Water-Test. Q. J. Eng. Geol.
Vol. 9, pp. 303-313.
Lugeon, M. (1933). Barrage et Gologie. Dunod. Paris
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R., Mesri, G. (1996). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. Third
Edition. J. Wiley & Sons. New York, N.Y. pp. 72-73.
414