Advertisement

Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 29–44 | Cite as

Hydraulic In situ Testing for Mining and Engineering Design: Packer Test Procedure, Preparation, Analysis and Interpretation

  • Yohannes Yihdego
State-of-the-Art Review

Abstract

Hydraulic in situ measurement of rock mass permeability by packer (Lugeon) testing is an inherent and integral element of many engineering, hydrogeological and mining investigation. This paper describes and discusses geotechnical testing in the design process from a consulting practitioner’s perspective. This study focuses on the Packer testing planning, procedure, results & interpretation. Packer test system is an optimum method for obtaining values of hydraulic conductivity in wells that are difficult to analyse using conventional slug test systems. Packer tests are carried out to assess the variability of a borehole as it intersects various hydrogeological units. It gives vertical distribution of hydraulic properties and water quality in the aquifer and usually cheaper than a nest of wells and gives more continuous record and this knowledge can often be essential for a proper design. The role, objectives, types and interpretation of testing, limitations and recommended good practices as part of the geotechnical design process are outlined through the examination of test data from a case record.

Keywords

Packer test Lugeon Hydraulic conductivity Rock mass permeability Mining Infrastructure Geotechnical engineering 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks to anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedbacks to improve the manuscript.

References

  1. Becker DE (2001) Site characterization. In: Rowe RK (ed) Chapter 4 in Geotechnical and geo-environmental engineering handbook. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell Massachusetts, pp 69–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker DE (2010) Testing in geotechnical design. Geotech Eng J SEAGS AGSSEA 41(1). ISSN 0046-5828Google Scholar
  3. Benson HC, Gunter AJ, Boutwell PG, Trautwein JS, Berzanskis HP (1997) Comparison of four methods to assess hydraulic conductivity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 123(10):929–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CFEM (2006) Canadian foundation engineering manual (4th edn). Published by Canadian Geotechnical Society. BiTech Publishers, Vancouver, BCGoogle Scholar
  5. Cilona A, Aydin A, Johnson NM (2014) Permeability of a fault zone crosscutting a sequence of sandstones and shales and its influence on hydraulic head distribution in the Chatsworth Formation California, USA. Hydrogeol J 23(2):405–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. El-Daly AA, Farag ON (2006) Hydraulic conductivity: comparison between field testing and indirect techniques. GeoCongress. doi: 10.1061/40803(187)16 Google Scholar
  7. Gellasch CA, Bradbury KR, Hart DJ, Bahr JM (2013) Characterization of fracture connectivity in a siliciclastic bedrock aquifer near a public supply well (Wisconsin, USA). Hydrogeol J 21(2):383–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jacob CE (1947) Drawdown test to determine the effective radius of artesian wells. Trans ASCE 112:1047Google Scholar
  9. Jembere D, Yihdego Y (2016) Engineering rock mass evaluation for a multi-purpose hydroelectric power plant: case of genale dawa (GD-3), Ethiopia. J Geotech Geol Eng 34(5):1593–1612. doi: 10.1007/s10706-016-0068-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Levy BS, Pannel LJ, Dadoly JP (1993) A pressure-packer system for conducting rising head tests in water table wells. J Hydrol 148:189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Maini YNT (1971) In situ hydraulic parameters in jointed rock; their measurement and interpretation, PhD Dissertation, Imperial College, London, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  12. Mayne PW, Coop MR, Springman SM, Huang A, Zornberg JG (2009) Geomaterial behaviour and testing. Geotech Eng J SEAGS AGSSEA 41(1) ISSN 0046-5828 11. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Alexandria, EgyptGoogle Scholar
  13. Meyer JR, Parker BL, Cherry JA (2008) Detailed hydraulic head profiles as essential data for defining hydrogeologic units in layered fractured sedimentary rock. Environ Geol 56(1):27–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Price M, Williams A (1993) The influence of unlined boreholes on groundwater chemistry: a comparative study using pore-water extraction and packer sampling. J Inst Water Environ Manag 7(6):651–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Quinn P, Parker B, Cherry J (2011a) Using constant head packer tests to determine apertures in fractured rock. J Contam Hydrogeol 126(1–2):85–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Quinn PM, Cherry JA, Parker BL (2011b) Quantification of non-Darcian flow observed during packer testing in fractured sedimentary rock. Water Resour Res 47(9):W09533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Quinn PM, Cherry JA, Parker BL (2012) Hydraulic testing using a versatile straddle packer system for improved transmissivity estimation in fractured rock boreholes. Hydrogeol J 20:1529–1547. doi: 10.1007/s10040-012-0893-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Quinn PM, Parker BL, Cherry JA (2013) Validation of non-Darcian flow effects in slug tests conducted in fractured rock boreholes. J Hydrol 486:505–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Quinn P, Parker LB, Cherry AJ (2016) Blended head analyses to reduce uncertainty in packer testing in fractured-rock boreholes. Hydrogeol J 24:59–77. doi: 10.1007/s10040-015-1326-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Royle BM, Sc MA (2002) Standard operating procedures for borehole packer testing, p 22. http://www.robertsongeoconsultants.com/hydromine/topics/Site_Assessment/Packer_testing.pdf
  21. Thiem G (1906) Hydrologische Methoden. Gebhardt, Leipzig, p 56Google Scholar
  22. Thomas RH (1982) Permeability testing during wire-line drilling—a new system. Technical paper. Ground Engineering. Wimpey LaboratoriesGoogle Scholar
  23. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (1963) Earth manual (1st edn), U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (1965) Design of small dams, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Yihdego Y (2016) Evaluation of flow reduction due to hydraulic barrier engineering structure: case of urban area flood, contamination and pollution risk assessment. J Geotech Geol Eng 34(5):1643–1654. doi: 10.1007/s10706-016-0071-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zeigler TW (1976) Determination of rock mass permeability. Technical report S-76-2. Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Zheng L, Guo JQ, Lei Y (2005) An improved straight-line fitting method for analyzing pumping test recovery data. Ground Water 43(6):939–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC)SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations