Advertisement

Lugeon Tests at Partial Saturation: Experimental and Empirical Contributions

  • Brendon R. Jones
  • J. Louis Van Rooy
  • Matthys A. Dippenaar
Original Paper

Abstract

Implications of improved understanding of variably saturated flow are numerous, especially given the complexity, heterogeneity, and anisotropy of the intermediate fractured vadose zone. One such an implication is the quantification of water movement for engineering purposes, as flow-through unsaturated discontinuities cannot be quantified through commonly applied saturated approaches. This paper presents an experimental study using geotechnical centrifuge modelling to investigate flow behaviour during Lugeon tests, through the fundamental concept of a smooth, clean, open fracture, at partial saturation. The study comprised flow visualisation experiments conducted on transparent replicas of horizontal and inclined fractures, with water injected under a consecutive series of ascending and descending pressures. Findings from the research proved that preferential flow occupied the minority of cross-sectional area despite the hydraulic pressure. Furthermore, the observed behaviour of these preferential pathways indicated non-linear flow. Deviation from linearity occurred at small fluxes and is likely as a result of inertial effects due to fluid bending at the inlet source into the fracture. To assess these non-linear results, the Forchheimer relationship was used to predict the flow rate at the imposed hydraulic heads. As the width of the fracture could not be used as input into the equation, due to the lack of saturation across its width, the width of the flow path was used instead. This resulted in the predicted results comparing well with the measured flow rates, and indicates that the Forchheimer relationship can potentially be used to describe unsaturated flow in discrete, open fractures.

Keywords

Forchheimer equation Reynolds number Water pressure test Geotechnical centrifuge Flow mechanism Unsaturated Packer 

List of Symbols

Q

Volumetric flow rate (L3/T)

P

Pressure gradient (M/L/T2)

w

Fracture width (L)

A

Linear Forchheimer coefficient (M/L5/T)

B

Non-linear Forchheimer coefficient (M/L8)

eh

Hydraulic aperture of idealised parallel smooth fracture (L)

µ

Dynamic viscosity of fluid (M/L/T)

k

Intrinsic permeability defined as e2/12 (L2)

ρ

Fluid density (M/L3)

Ah

Cross-sectional area (equal to ew) (L2)

β

Non-Darcy flow coefficient or Forchheimer coefficient (/L)

Re

Reynolds number (–)

v

Bulk velocity (L/T)

\({F_o}\)

Forchheimer number (–)

Lu

Lugeon number (L2/T/M)

L

Length of the Lugeon-test segment (L)

Pe

Effective pressure in the Lugeon-test segment (M)

P

Hydraulic pressure

T

Transmissivity (L2/T)

dH

Change in head (L)

ro

Radius of influence during the Lugeon test (L)

rw

Borehole radius (L)

Notes

Acknowledgements

Gratitude is extended to the South African Water Resource Commission (http://www.wrc.org.za) for their financial support by projects K5/2326, together with the National Research Foundation (NRF). The authors, furthermore, acknowledge the journal, its editors, and reviewers

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aydin A (2001) Fracture void structure: implications for flow, transport and deformation. Environ Geol Int J Geosci 40:672–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barry D, Lisle I, Li L, Prommer H, Parlange JY, Sander GC, Griffioen J (2001) Similitude applied to centrifugal scaling of unsaturated flow. Water Resour Res 37:2471–2479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bear J (1972) Dynamics of fluids in porous media. American Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkowitz B (2002) Characterizing flow and transport in fractured geological media: a review. Adv Water Resour 25:861–884.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1708(02)00042-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brouwers LB, Dippenaar MA (2018) Partially saturated flow from sand into a discrete smooth open vertical fracture at the soil-rock interface: experimental studies. Bull Eng Geol Environ.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-018-1258-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brush DJ, Thomson NR (2003) Fluid flow in synthetic rough-walled fractures: Navier-Stokes, Stokes, and local cubic law simulations. Water Resour Res 39(4):1085.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001346 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen Y-F, Liu M-M, Hu S-H, Zhou C-B (2015a) Non-Darcy’s law-based analytical models for data interpretation of high-pressure packer tests in fractured rocks. Eng Geol 199:91–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen Y-F, Zhou J-Q, Hu S-H, Hu R, Zhou C-B (2015b) Evaluation of Forchheimer equation coefficients for non-Darcy flow in deformable rough-walled fractures. J Hydrol 529(Part 3):993–1006.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.09.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cherubini C, Giasi CI, Pastore N (2012) Bench scale laboratory tests to analyze non-linear flow in fractured media. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:2511–2522.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-2511-2012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cook N (1992) Natural joints in rock: mechanical, hydraulic and seismic behaviour and properties under normal stress. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 29:198–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Croisé J, Schlickenrieder L, Marschall P, Boisson J, Vogel P, Yamamoto S (2004) Hydrogeological investigations in a low permeability claystone formation: the Mont Terri Rock laboratory. Phys Chem Earth Parts A/B/C 29:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Culligan P, Barry D (1998) Similitude requirements for modelling NAPL movement with a geotechnical centrifuge. Proc Inst Civ Eng Geotech Eng 131:180–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Culligan-Hensley PJ, Savvidou C (1995) Environmental geomechanics and transport processes. In: Taylor R (ed) Geotechnical centrifuge technology. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 201–271Google Scholar
  14. Della Volpe C, Maniglio D, Morra M, Siboni S (2002) The determination of a ‘stable-equilibrium’contact angle on heterogeneous and rough surfaces. Colloids Surf A 206:47–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dippenaar MA, van Rooy JL (2016) On the cubic law and variably saturated flow through discrete open rough-walled discontinuities. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 89:200–211.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2016.09.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dippenaar MA, van Rooy JL (2019) Vadose zone characterisation for hydrogeological and geotechnical applications. In: Shakoor A, Cato K (eds) IAEG/AEG annual meeting proceedings, San Francisco, California, 2018, vol 2. Springer, Cham.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93127-2_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doe TW (2001) What do drops do? Surface wetting and network geometry effects on vadose-zone fracture flow. Concept Models Flow Transp Fract Vadose Zone 2001:243–270Google Scholar
  18. Dragila MI, Weisbrod N (2003) Parameters affecting maximum fluid transport in large aperture fractures. Adv Water Resour 26:1219–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ewert F-K (1985) Rock grouting with emphasis on dam sites. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. Ewert F-K (1992) Evaluation and interpretation of water pressure tests. In: Bell AL (ed) Grouting in the ground. Thomas Telford, London, pp 141–162Google Scholar
  21. Ewert F-K (1997a) Permeability, groutability and grouting of rocks related to dam sites. Part 1: grouting examples and ground water flow in rock. Dam Eng 8:31–76Google Scholar
  22. Ewert F-K (1997b) Permeability, groutability and grouting of rocks related to dam sites. Part 2: permeability testing by means of water pressure tests. Dam Eng 8:123–176Google Scholar
  23. Forchheimer P (1901) Wasserbewegung durch boden. Zeitz Ver Duetch Ing 45:1782–1788Google Scholar
  24. Garnier J et al (2007) Catalogue of scaling laws and similitude questions in geotechnical centrifuge modelling. Int J Phys Model Geotech 7:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ghezzehei TA (2004) Constraints for flow regimes on smooth fracture surfaces. Water Resour Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gustafson G, Fransson Å (2006) The use of the Pareto distribution for fracture transmissivity assessment. Hydrogeol J 14:15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haimson BC, Doe TW (1983) State of stress, permeability, and fractures in the Precambrian granite of northern Illinois. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 88:7355–7371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hamm S-Y, Kim M, Cheong J-Y, Kim J-Y, Son M, Kim T-W (2007) Relationship between hydraulic conductivity and fracture properties estimated from packer tests and borehole data in a fractured granite. Eng Geol 92:73–87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2007.03.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heitfeld KH, Krapp L (1981) The problem of water permeability in dam geology. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol Bulletin de l’Association Internationale de Géologie de l’Ingénieur 23:79–83  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02594730 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Houlsby A (1976) Routine interpretation of the Lugeon water-test. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 9:303–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Iwai K (1976) Fundamental studies of fluid flow through a single fracture. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ., California, BarkeleyGoogle Scholar
  32. Jacobsz S, Kearsley E, Kock J (2014) The geotechnical centrifuge facility at the University of Pretoria. In: ICPMG2014-physical modelling in geotechnics: proceedings of the 8th international conference on physical modelling in geotechnics 2014 (ICPMG2014), Perth, Australia, 14–17 January 2014. CRC, Boca Raton, p 169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Javadi M, Sharifzadeh M, Shahriar K, Mitani Y (2014) Critical Reynolds number for nonlinear flow through rough-walled fractures: the role of shear processes. Water Resour Res 50:1789–1804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jones BR, Brouwers LB, Dippenaar MA (2017a) Partially to fully saturated flow through smooth, clean, open fractures: qualitative experimental studies. Hydrogeol J.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-017-1680-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jones BR, Brouwers LB, Van Tonder WD, Dippenaar MA (2017b) Assessing geotechnical centrifuge modelling in addressing variably saturated flow in soil and fractured rock. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:13203–13223.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-8333-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones BR, Van Rooy JL, Mouton DJ (2018) Verifying the ground treatment as proposed by the secondary permeability index during dam foundation grouting. Bull Eng Geol Environ.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-017-1219-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jones BR, Van Rooy JL, Dippenaar MA (2019) On the differing role of contact obstacles on variably saturated flow in vertical and horizontal fractures. In: Shakoor A, Cato K (eds) IAEG/AEG annual meeting proceedings, San Francisco, California, 2018, vol 4. Springer, Cham.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93133-3_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kayabasi A, Yesiloglu-Gultekin N, Gokceoglu C (2015) Use of non-linear prediction tools to assess rock mass permeability using various discontinuity parameters. Eng Geol 185:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.12.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Konzuk JS, Kueper BH (2004) Evaluation of cubic law based models describing single-phase flow through a rough-walled fracture. Water Resour Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2003WR002356 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ku C-Y, Hsu S-M, Chiou L-B, Lin G-F (2009) An empirical model for estimating hydraulic conductivity of highly disturbed clastic sedimentary rocks in Taiwan. Eng Geol 109:213–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kurikami H, Takeuchi R, Yabuuchi S (2008) Scale effect and heterogeneity of hydraulic conductivity of sedimentary rocks at Horonobe URL site. Phys Chem Earth Parts A/B/C 33:S37–S44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lancaster-Jones P (1975) The interpretation of the Lugeon water-test. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 8:151–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Le Borgne T, Bour O, Riley M, Gouze P, Pezard P, Belghoul A, Lods G, Le Provost R, Greswell RB, Ellis PA (2007) Comparison of alternative methodologies for identifying and characterizing preferential flow paths in heterogeneous aquifers. J Hydrol 345:134–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lee C-H, Farmer IW (1993) Fluid flow in discontinuous rocks, 1st edn. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Louis C (1969) Étude des écolements d’éau dans les roches fissurées et de leur influence sur la stabilité des massifs rocheurs. BRGM Bulletin de la Direction des Études et Récherches Serie A 3:5–132Google Scholar
  46. Macini P, Mesini E, Viola R (2011) Laboratory measurements of non-Darcy flow coefficients in natural and artificial unconsolidated porous media. J Petrol Sci Eng 77:365–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Maini YN (1972) In situ hydraulic parameters in jointed rock: their measurement and interpretation. University of London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Mejías M, Renard P, Glenz D (2009) Hydraulic testing of low-permeability formations: a case study in the granite of Cadalso de los Vidrios, Spain. Eng Geol 107:88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mollah MA, Sayed SA (1995) Assessment of in situ permeability with emphasis on packer testing in Kuwait. Eng Geol 39:217–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nappi M, Esposito L, Piscopo V, Rega G (2005) Hydraulic characterisation of some arenaceous rocks of Molise (Southern Italy) through outcropping measurements and Lugeon tests. Eng Geol 81:54–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Neuman SP (2005) Trends, prospects and challenges in quantifying flow and transport through fractured rocks. Hydrogeol J 13:124–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nicholl M, Glass R, Wheatcraft S (1994) Gravity-driven infiltration instability in initially dry nonhorizontal fractures. Water Resour Res 30:2533–2546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nicholl M, Rajaram H, Glass R, Detwiler R (1999) Saturated flow in a single fracture: Evaluation of the Reynolds equation in measured aperture fields. Water Resour Res 35:3361–3373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nonveiller E (2013) Grouting theory and practice, vol 57. Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  55. Öge İF, Çırak M (2017) Relating rock mass properties with Lugeon value using multiple regression and nonlinear tools in an underground mine site. Bull Eng Geol Environ.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-017-1179-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Or D, Ghezzehei TA (2007) Traveling liquid bridges in unsaturated fractured porous media. Transp Porous Media 68:129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Or D, Tuller M (2000) Flow in unsaturated fractured porous media: Hydraulic conductivity of rough surfaces. Water Resour Res 36:1165–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Palmstrom A, Stille H (2010) Rock engineering. Thomas Telford, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Patnaik V, Perez-Blanco H (1996) Roll waves in falling films: an approximate treatment of the velocity field. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 17:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pearson R, Money MS (1977) Improvements in the Lugeon or packer permeability test. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 10:221–239.  https://doi.org/10.1144/gsl.qjeg.1977.010.03.05 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Phillips R (1995) Centrifuge modelling: practical considerations. Geotech Centrif Technol 1995:34–60Google Scholar
  62. Pyrak LR, Myer LR, Cook NGW (1985) Determination of fracture void geometry and contact area at different effective stress. Eos Trans AGU 66:903Google Scholar
  63. Quinn PM (2009) High resolution packer testing in fractured sedimentary rock. University of Waterloo, WaterlooGoogle Scholar
  64. Quinn PM, Cherry JA, Parker BL (2011) Quantification of non-Darcian flow observed during packer testing in fractured sedimentary rock. Water Resour Res 47:W09533.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009681 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Quiñones-Rozo C (2010) Lugeon test interpretation, revisited. In: Collaborative management of integrated watersheds, 30rd annual USSD (United States Society on Dams) Conference. US Society on Dams, Denver, pp 405–414Google Scholar
  66. Ranjith P, Darlington W (2007) Nonlinear single-phase flow in real rock joints. Water Resour Res 43:W09502.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Raven KG, Gale JE (1985) Water flow in a natural rock fracture as a function of stress and sample size. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 22:251–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Royle MR, Sc MA (2002) Standard operating procedures for borehole packer testing, p 22. http://www.robertsongeoconsultants.com/hydromine/topics/Site_Assessment/Packer_testing.pdf
  69. Ruth D, Ma H (1992) On the derivation of the Forchheimer equation by means of the averaging theorem. Transp Porous Media 7:255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schrauf T, Evans D (1986) Laboratory studies of gas flow through a single natural fracture. Water Resour Res 22:1038–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Silberhorn-Hemminger A, Süß M, Helmig R (2005) Natural fractured porous systems. In: Dietrich P, Helmig R, Sauter M, Hótzl H, Kóngeter J, Teutsch G (eds) Flow and transport in fractured porous media. Springer, Berlin, pp 16–24Google Scholar
  72. Singhal BBS, Gupta RP (2010) Applied hydrogeology of fractured rocks, 2nd edn. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sisavath S, Al-Yaaruby A, Pain CC, Zimmerman RW (2003) A simple model for deviations from the cubic law for a fracture undergoing dilation or closure. Pure appl Geophys 160:1009–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Su GW, Geller JT, Pruess K, Wen F (1999) Experimental studies of water seepage and intermittent flow in unsaturated, rough-walled fractures. Water Resour Res 35:1019–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Taylor R (1995) Centrifuges in modelling: Principles and scale effects. In: Taylor R (ed) Geotechnical centrifuge technology. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 20–34Google Scholar
  76. Tokunaga TK, Wan J (1997) Water film flow along fracture surfaces of porous rock. Water Resour Res 33:1287–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tokunaga TK, Wan J (2001) Approximate boundaries between different flow regimes in fractured rocks. Water Resour Res 37:2103–2111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Van Tonder WD, Jacobsz SW (2017) Seepage column hydraulic conductivity tests in the geotechnical centrifuge. J S Afr Inst Civ Eng 59:16–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Weaver KD, Bruce DA (2007) Dam foundation grouting. ASCE, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wenzel LK (1936) The Thiem method for determining permeability of water-bearing materials and its application to the determination of specific yield; results of investigations in the Platte River valley, Nebraska. US Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, DenverGoogle Scholar
  81. Widmann R (1996) International society for rock mechanics commission on rock grouting. In: International journal of rock mechanics and mining sciences & geomechanics abstracts, vol 8. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 803–847Google Scholar
  82. Witherspoon PA (1986) Flow of groundwater in fractured rocks. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 34:103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Yihdego Y (2017) Hydraulic in situ testing for mining and engineering design: packer test procedure, preparation, analysis and interpretation. Geotech Geol Eng 35:29–44.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-016-0112-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zeigler TW (1976) Determination of rock mass permeability. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  85. Zeng Z, Grigg R (2006) A criterion for non-Darcy flow in porous media. Transp Porous Media 63:57–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zhou J-Q, Hu S-H, Fang S, Chen Y-F, Zhou C-B (2015) Nonlinear flow behavior at low Reynolds numbers through rough-walled fractures subjected to normal compressive loading. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 80:202–218.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2015.09.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zimmerman RW, Yeo IW (2000) Fluid flow in rock fractures: from the Navier-Stokes equations to the cubic law. Dyn Fluids fract Rock 122:213–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zimmerman RW, Al-Yaarubi A, Pain CC, Grattoni CA (2004) Non-linear regimes of fluid flow in rock fractures. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41(Supplement 1):163–169.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.03.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, Department of GeologyUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.GaGE ConsultingJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations