See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309739430

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

Article  in  Geotechnical and Geological Engineering · November 2016

DOI: 10.1007/s10706-016-0112-9

CITATIONS READS

11 576

1 author:

Dr-Yohannes Yihdego Woldeyohannes

Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC) & La Trobe University
80 PUBLICATIONS   545 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Snowy 2.0 Feasibility Study-Australia’s large scale Pumped Hydro-Energy Storage ($ 6 Billion budget) View project

Mine dewatering feasibility study View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dr-Yohannes Yihdego Woldeyohannes on 03 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

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

Yohannes Yihdego

Geotechnical and Geological

Engineering
An International Journal

ISSN 0960-3182
Volume 35
Number 1

Geotech Geol Eng (2017) 35:29-44

DOI 10.1007/s10706-016-0112-9

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
International Publishing Switzerland. This e-
offprint is for personal use only and shall not
be self-archived in electronic repositories. If
you wish to self-archive your article, please
use the accepted manuscript version for
posting on your own website. You may
further deposit the accepted manuscript
version in any repository, provided it is only
made publicly available 12 months after
official publication or later and provided
acknowledgement is given to the original
source of publication and a link is inserted
to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng (2017) 35:29–44
DOI 10.1007/s10706-016-0112-9
STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW
Hydraulic In situ Testing for Mining and Engineering
Design: Packer Test Procedure, Preparation, Analysis
and Interpretation
Yohannes Yihdego
Received: 1 November 2015 / Accepted: 20 October 2016 / Published online: 1 November 2016
 Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
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 per-
spective. 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 prac-
tices 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
Y. Yihdego (&)
Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC),
Sydney, NSW 2060, Australia
e-mail: yohannesyihdego@gmail.com
1 Introduction
Hydraulic testing is an inherent and integral part of the
site characterization and geotechnical design process;
it should not be viewed as an entity in isolation from
analysis and design. Also it is essential in design
improvement and efficiency of design, design perfor-
mance verification for geo-structural elements such as
ground anchors, micro-piles, driven steel piles, bored
cast-in-place piles, jet grouted columns and other
ground improvement technologies and processes and
quality Assurance and Quality Control for earthworks,
foundations, ground improvement, retaining walls,
etc. Previous works discussed on economical differ-
ences and comparison between hydraulic conductivity
tests (Benson et al. 1997; El-Daly and Farag 2006).
The commonly performed tests in practice include
laboratory tests, in situ tests, field performance tests;
physical modelling tests; and tests as part of instru-
mentation and monitoring. In-situ testing is a category
of field testing corresponding to the cases where the
ground is tested in place by instruments that are
inserted in or penetrate the ground. In-situ tests are
normally associated with tests for which a borehole
either is unnecessary or is only an incidental part of
the overall test procedure, required only to permit
insertion of the testing tool or equipment. The
applicability of in situ and common field tests together
with their advantages and disadvantages are summa-
rized by Becker (2001), CFEM (2006) and Mayne
et al. (2009).
123
 Author's personal copy
30
A primary objective of geotechnical testing is to
assist in obtaining information for geotechnical site
characterization and in developing the geotechnical
model in terms of ground conditions and engineering
parameters and properties. The key requirement for
testing in geotechnical engineering is driven by the
need to suitably and adequately characterize natural
materials that are highly variable and subject to high
degrees of uncertainty. Unlike other civil engineering
disciplines such as structural and materials engineer-
ing, the ground at a given site is generally not specified
and manufactured to achieve desired engineering
properties within a known degree of certainty or
confidence. In geotechnical engineering state-of-prac-
tice, the geotechnical engineer’s foremost role and
responsibility are to adequately characterize the site to
provide sufficient, reliable information of the ground
conditions to facilitate good engineering decisions to
be made during assessment, design and construction
phases of a project.
A relevant code and guidelines of practice normally
outline the design process and assist engineers in
making appropriate design decisions, including testing
requirements. From an interpretation of the results
from site characterization and testing programs, a
geotechnical model is developed in terms of ground
and groundwater conditions and engineering proper-
ties. The analyses, calculation procedures and design
equations for geotechnical resistance are based on
relevant theoretical frameworks or on the basis of
empirical correlations against a variety of laboratory,
in situ and field tests. A sound design approach
requires a thorough understanding of the key design
issues, of the geological setting and geotechnical
conditions, and of the interaction between them. In
most cases, a good understanding of these factors is as
important, if not more so, as the methods used for
analysis and calculation. The results from the testing
(including Lefrance, Pulse, Slug, drill stem, packer
test) and analysis, when appropriately tempered or
modified by engineering judgement and experience,
are then used in the decision making process as to what
constitutes the most appropriate designs (Cilona et al.
2014; Gellasch et al. 2013; Price and Williams 1993;
Quinn et al. 2011b, 2012, 2013, 2016). Uncertainties
in engineering properties and geotechnical predictions
need to be considered collectively in achieving an
adequate level of safety in the design and recognizing
the inherent limitations in geotechnical testing
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2017) 35:29–44
methods (Levy et al. 1993; Becker 2010; Jembere
and Yihdego 2016).
Packer or Injection testing methods, otherwise
known as Lugeon 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
which is usually cheaper than a nest of wells and gives
more continuous record. This knowledge can often be
essential to the proper design of the hydrogeological
program (Meyer et al. 2008; Quinn et al. 2011a;
Yihdego 2016).
The paper aims on in situ testing on hydraulic tests
between packers, discusses packer testing in the
design process from a consulting practitioner’s per-
spective of the mining and engineering current state-
of-practice and outline the procedures for operating a
wireline packer testing assembly and set work plan for
the packer test from a case record focusing on Lugeon
test. It covers the general operating procedures, testing
methods, and basic troubleshooting based on U.
S. Bureau of Reclamation 1963; Maini 1971; Zeigler
1976; Levy et al. 1993; CFEM 2006; Becker 2010).
2 Material and Methodology
The design and implementation of packer test of a
successful testing program require a thorough under-
standing and knowledge of the factors that control or
significantly affect engineering properties. The pre-
sented packer test detail is a considered as useful
framework that provides linkage between the various
components of geotechnical design and captures its
iterative nature.
2.1 Type of Test Apparatus
Packer testing is carried out in either open boreholes
or through the wireline drilling rods. The latter
situation allows for the packer equipment to be used
in unstable boreholes where unstable wall rock
conditions would likely cause the tool to become
jammed by falling rock or sand. It also allows for the
drill rods to be used as the test water supply line, thus
making it far easier to deal with the equipment
involved in deep testing scenarios. The packer
assemblies used in open boreholes and through
wireline rods have different configurations. For this
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng (2017) 35:29–44
Fig. 1 Single packer test assemblies. a Single packer test-open borehole; b double packer test- open borehole; c double packer test-
wireline assembly
study, the type of test apparatus (Fig. 1a) is referred
to as Single Packer tests and the test is carried out in
open boreholes (Fig. 1b) and through the wireline
drill rods (Fig. 1c).
2.2 Type of Test
Packer tests consist of measuring the rate of flow and/
or pressure build-up/decay in the test interval over a
period of time. The upper range of hydraulic conduc-
tivity that can be measured using packer systems will
be limited by the hydraulics of the injection system
(rate and pressure output limit of pump, supply line
(friction losses), water availability, etc.). Therefore, it
31
is important to determine before finalising equipment
what the expected testing range of the zones of interest
will be, before starting the testing program.
2.2.1 Injection Tests
Injection testing methods (Lugeon) tests, are carried
out in drill holes with static water levels below ground
surface. Water is injected at specific pressure ‘‘steps’’
and the resulting pressure is recorded when the flow
has reached a quasi-steady state condition. The steps
are used to ‘‘ramp’’ up and down through the expected
pressure range. The behaviour of the system to the
increasing and recovery injection can render useful
123
 Author's personal copy
32
information on the rock and fracture behaviour, as
well as packer and injection performance.
2.2.2 Discharge Tests
Discharge tests are carried out in drill holes with
flowing artesian conditions. In these Drill holes, the
natural formation pressure response is monitored after
the equilibrated shut-in is allowed to decay with
respect to time. The data are plotted logarithmically
and analysed using standard Jacob straight line
techniques (JACOB 1947; Zheng et al. 2005).
2.2.3 Shut-in Recovery Tests
Shut-In recovery tests are usually run immediately
following a Discharge Test. The shut-in pressure
build-up over time is monitored and plotted against
log10(t/t’), where t is the time elapsed since the start of
the discharge test, and t’ is the time since the recovery
test was started.
3 List of Equipment and Principle of Schemes
of the Equipment
The general list of equipment required for carrying out
wireline packer testing is given below for an HQ sized
wireline system. Any equipment listed as HQ will
need to be duplicated as PQ or NQ if using different
sized systems. Note that most of the actual packer
assembly components are usually made of stainless
steel. The reader is referred to Royle and Sc (2002), for
the detail of the packer testing equipment and standard
operating procedures.
Recommended list (this list may not be fully
inclusive and should only be used as a guide):
1. HQ size wireline straddle packer unit;
2. Spare HQ sized glands;
3. Spare o-rings for unit;
4. HQ sized stuffing box;
5. Spare o-rings for stuffing box
6. HQ sized seating cone;
7. Lifting bail and top supply tube for packer
assembly;
8. Pipe couplings for connecting packer assembly
(with spares);
9. Packer End cap (for blocking flow through bottom
of straddle packers)
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2017) 35:29–44
10. Dampened gauges able to measure L/s or m3 to
within 5 % accuracy;
11. Pump capable of up to 3.75 L/s at 120 psi (flow
rate and pressure specified may be greater if
testing in high permeability environments);
12. Require minimum of 2 spares for all glands,
gauges, regulators, and meters;
13. Regulator (if using gas) or hydraulic packer
inflation pump (if using water) and all lines and
fittings, capable of maintaining 2000 psi or 500 psi
pressure respectively;
14. Composite inflation line and support cable;
15. Reel (motorized if tests planned for greater than
200 m in depth);
16. Lifting Sheave or Pulley block for running
composite cable through.
In addition, equipment must be tested prior to
starting program. The following testing criteria are
recommended
• All inflation equipment must be pressure tested to
2000 psi (for pneumatic systems) or 500 psi
pressure (for hydraulic systems);
• All packers must be tested to maximum design
pressure;
• Require ability to calibrate friction losses in
pumping system and packer system prior to
testing;
• Will need to have bypass valves installed before
and after the pressure gauge/flow meter assembly
in order to control pressure/flow and to protect
flow meter from back-pressure;
• Pressure gauges should be calibrated if possible
(plumbing in spare gauges and comparing mea-
surements may be only means available on site);
and
• Flow gauges should be calibrated using a container
of known volume (should exceed 100 L).
4 Packer Inflation
When packers are inflated down hole, the inflation line
pressure is a combination of the pressure required to:
• stretch the packer gland to where it will contact the
drill hole wall;
• overcome the hydrostatic pressure (i.e. pressure
exerted by the overlying water column), and
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng (2017) 35:29–44 33

• inflate it to the working pressure. is normally in the range of 250 psi. As mentioned
above, when the packers are inflated downhole,
The inflation pressure will therefore change based
allowances for the hydrostatic pressure must also be
on the equipment used and the height of the overlying
accounted for.
column of water above the packer. The various aspects
If the water column is assumed to be approximately
of the inflation pressure determination are discussed
1.4 psi/m of water (based on density of fresh water),
below.
then the inflation pressure (gauge pressure at surface)
required will be:
4.1 Hydraulic Versus Pneumatic: Overcoming
Hydrostatic Head Pi ¼ Pw þ Hwc  1:4 psi=m ð1Þ
where: Pi = packer inflation pressure, Pw = packer
Packers are commonly inflated with compressed gas.
working pressure, Hwc = Height (vertical) of water
Generally, an inert gas such as nitrogen is used for
column above packer (adjust for inclined holes)
safety reasons. A disadvantage of compressed gas in
It is important to note that in a drill hole with water
deep testing applications is the inherent safety concern
levels close to, or at surface, such as in a flowing
of bursting inflation lines or fittings at surface due to
artesian hole, the water column in the inflation line and
the high working pressures required.
in the drill hole will be essentially equal; therefore Hwc
Alternatively, for deeper applications, water or
will be approximately equal to 0 m. This is not the
hydraulic fluid/antifreeze can be used to inflate the
case for pneumatically inflated packers, which require
packers. The advantage is that water is essentially
extremely high inflation line pressures, presenting a
inelastic, and so burst lines do not have the same
significant safety and gas usage problem. This infla-
degree of stored potential energy that an elastic gas
tion line pressure would then need to be increased to
filled line does. Therefore, burst hydraulic lines pose a
approximately 1250 psi to inflate the packers to the
lower risk than pneumatic lines. A further advantage
required working pressure.
to a hydraulic (water) system in deep test situations in
that the natural hydrostatic pressure of the water in the
4.3 Hydraulic Versus Compressed Gas Inflation
inflation line will equal, or exceed that of the adjacent
in Deep Drill Holes
water in the formation, and therefore, the only pressure
required is to inflate the packer itself.
In a packer system equipped with hydraulically
It should be noted that both pneumatic and water
inflated packers, it is common to have a dual inflate/
inflated systems are prone to freezing in cold conditions.
deflate line. This apparatus allow for water to be
Antifreeze or hydraulic fluid can be used to overcome
pumped down one line when inflating the packer, and
this problem, but may pose an unacceptable environ-
allows water to be returned up the second line when
mental risk. Brine solutions can also be used to reduce
deflating the packers. The packer gland, and both the
freezing susceptibility, but this can cause corrosion
inflate and the deflate lines, can also be evacuated
issues that are just as problematic. Inflation fluids must
using compressed gas to push the water out.
be assessed for compatibility with the packer gland
However, for very deep testing systems, the dual
material as well. Use of antifreeze or brine solutions
inflate/deflate line is prohibitively expensive and
could also affect permeability results if interactions with
bulky. Therefore, a single line cable system is used.
clay gouge in open fractures causes these materials to
This then requires that the single line acts as both the
swell, thus reducing the apparent permeability of the
inflation line and the deflation line. For a compressed
rock being tested. This can be assessed by inspecting
gas system this does not pose a problem. However, for
gouge material in the rock core and carrying out surface
a hydraulic system, the water in the line can cause
tests with the expected test fluid.
unwanted packer inflation as the equipment is lowered
and raised in the un-submerged portion of the drill hole
4.2 Packer Inflation Pressure if the water level is significantly below ground surface.
The water volume of the inflation line will be of
The testing unit packers must be inflated to the limited capacity, and therefore, will not supply
working pressure to ensure a proper seal. This pressure significant inflation fluid. However, it can be enough

123
 Author's personal copy
34
to distort the packer gland if the depth to water is
significant. If water levels are more than 25 m below
ground surface, the hydraulic packer system should be
equipped with an inflation activation valve as part of
the inflation line that prevents inflation when lowering
the tool into a drill hole where the water level is below
ground surface. To prevent this, the pressure valve is
set to a predetermined opening pressure (i.e.: 100 psi;
equal to *70 m of hydrostatic head) to compensate.
Alternately, it is possible to use compressed gas.
However, ‘‘pressure compensation’’ will likely be
required in deep tests as the gas filled gland can distort
due to the hydrostatic pressure during tripping in and
out of the drill hole. This procedure will require that
the packer glands to be pressurized during lowering,
and depressurised during raising, to compensate for
the applied hydrostatic pressure. The line pressure
used will be dependent on the hydrostatic pressure and
will, therefore, need to be calculated based on drill
hole conditions, and depth of test, and tested by trial
and error. Great care must be taken in the initial
tripping in and out as incorrect pressures could cause
the tool to jam.
5 Packer Test: Preparation
This section has been written for wireline, hydrauli-
cally inflated packer systems, but is similar to
pneumatic system operation. The basic steps for
preparing for a packer test are outlined below.
1. Prepare packer assembly: two packers with open
bottom for single test or three packers with
perforated middle pipe section and closed cap on
the bottom for straddle packer test (see Fig. 1);
2. Check inflation line connecting the packers and
fittings—do not over tighten as you might strip the
threads;
3. Check packer assembly for any leakage. Inflate to
maximum gland working pressure in appropriate
length and diameter of drill casing or drilling rods;
4. Check wire line connectors on packer assembly
and stuffing box components (especially seals);
5. Prepare and check water feeding system: tank,
supply, pump, connection hoses, pressure gauges,
valves and flow-meter;
6. Design test parameters: depth and length of tested
zone, drilling bit depth (double check drillers
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2017) 35:29–44
count of rods in drill hole), position of packers,
inflation pressure and water pressure for three
stages
7. Drill hole preparation: removal of drilling mud
and cuttings (flush with clear water);
8. Pull rods up to locate drill bit at selected depth;
9. Prepare wire line winch;
10. Install stuffing box on drill rods;
11. Measure groundwater level prior to installing
packer system several times to assess static
groundwater level (or measure pressure, if flowing
artesian, once packer assembly and stuffing box
are installed);
12. Lift the packer assembly using the wireline and
lower to landing ring at drill bit– check if seats on
landing ring by ‘‘listening’’ to rods using wrench,
etc. If possible, check depth marking on wire line
if this has been marked for the expected depth;
13. If hole is flowing artesian, install stuffing box
seals around wireline and inflation lines—if not,
go to step 15;
14. Measure shut-in pressure if hole is flowing
artesian;
15. Inflate packer slowly (by 50 psi steps) until
working pressure has been reached.
16. This will require filling to working pressure plus
calculated hydrostatic pressure (see below for
calculation);
17. After inflation is complete, monitor packer infla-
tion line pressure for 2 min minimum to see if
system is leaking. If no leaks apparent, then;
18. Seal stuffing box cap and attach water feed
system;
19. If flowing artesian conditions exist, wait for
pressure to stabilize and record pressure.
20. Note: a shut-in test can be carried out during the
pressure stabilization (this will be described
below);
21. Check inflation lines and inflation pressure to
ensure no leaks occur, check water feeding
system, prepare stop-watch and field test form;
22. Packer system is now ready for testing.
5.1 Work Plan for the Packer Test Program: Case
Study
Hydraulic conductivity tests were carried out in
underground bore holes in a confidential underground
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng (2017) 35:29–44
mine project dominated by fractured metamorphic host
rock. There was two phases of testing. The first was in
the shallow, oxidized section of the hole and the second
was in the bottom, fresh rock section. With packer
inserted, a static pressure of a few kPa only was
measured in some of the bores. The height of collar
above static groundwater head was calculated from the
pressure which would correspond to zero flow in the
water injection test. The results are quite variable,
probably due to the superimposed effects of drilling
water, water injection in other holes and progressive
drainage of the rock mass by the adit. The tests were
carried out after the holes was completed, using single
NQ size inflatable inserted meters into the hole on
19 mm pipe extension rods. Some holes had collapsed
and could not be tested. After, setting the packer, water
was pumped into the hole at several different constant
pressures, generally in the range of 100–600 kPa and the
flow rate measured. Correction pressures applied in the
hole. A linear relationship between flow and pressure
was obtained and the ratio ranging from 2.3 to 430
L/min/kPa. From this ratio and the test length (20–60 m),
hydraulic conductivity of the rock mass intersected by
the test section was calculated. The average permeability
from the underground holes was from 0.06 9 10-7 m/s
to 23 9 10-7 m/s (2.6 9 10-7 m/s, on average). A
packer test was not able to be conducted in the upper
weathered zone. The result of the previous packer testing
showed the hydraulic conductivity in the bore holes site
and along the entire length of the boreholes to be
relatively consistent. No clear aquitard was noted from
either the core inspection or from the packer testing. This
will have an implication for the current packer testing
program in selecting the test length intervals.
5.2 Proposed Works Schedule
It was planned to conduct packer test in five boreholes
after the diamond drilling has been completed. There
were five testing depths in each of the boreholes. Test
depths will be provided after inspection of core
recovered. The drilling rig was on each of the boreholes
during the testing and assisted with the insertion and
removal. The drilling rig had an adequate clean water
supply and pumping capability. Onsite drillers (deep
core) would set up over the completed holes and run
roads at each test. Here are few points taken into
consideration while planned to carry out the packer
test:
35
• The packers were placed in position through the
HQ drilling rods at the required depth. The testing
for this depth was carried out. The packer assem-
bly was removed. The drill rod was then with-
drawn to the next test depth and the packer
assembly reinserted and the next test undertaken.
• The depth interval was determined after core
review from the selected holes. The packer was set
to the desired depths and inflated the packers to a
pressure above the maximum test pressure.
• A maximum test length was five meters.
• There was five testing depths, five tests and each
test duration was from 30 min–1 h (Packer
deployed, inflated, formation tested, packer
deflated and withdrawn) and the drill holes are
inclined (46–72) and hence anisotropic perme-
ability was estimated given the test boreholes were
oriented in different directions.
• Measuring of the water flow rates and pressure
being applied to the formation was done according
to the information provided in this document.
• It was also planned to collect groundwater sam-
pling (using bailing) that fairly represent the test
6 Packer Test Procedure
Procedure for the packer testing method is described
below.
The following procedure was implemented for the
packer testing program:
• The contractor was provided with test intervals for
nine of the eleven drill holes at the site; seven to
twelve test intervals were provided for the drill
holes, allowing the contractor contingency inter-
vals should packer testing fail at a certain interval.
• Previous study indicated that the standard proce-
dures and recommendations for packer testing in
fractured rock can be expected to produce results in
the non-linear range when testing small intervals
(i.e. \3 m). Such tests underestimate transmissiv-
ity values by as much as an order of magnitude
(Quinn et al. 2011a). Therefore, a fixed packer
straddle (or test length) of 5 m (i.e. [3 m) was
selected for the first drill hole. This length worked
successfully for the first drill hole and was therefore
adopted for the remainder of the program.
123
 Author's personal copy
36
• The driller was advised of the deepest packer test
interval, and the drill rods were inserted to a depth
which allowed testing at this depth.
• The packer equipment was ‘reeled’ down to the
planned depth and the packers were inflated to the
required pressure.
• The water injection flow was set at a selected
pressure (generally starting at 100 kPa, and
increasing to pressures of up to 1100 kPa, depend-
ing on the measured flow rate). If little to no water
flow was recorded, the test would generally be
terminated at a gauge pressure of approximately
500 kPa. Water flow was recorded as litres/minute.
• After completion of a test, the packers were
deflated and the driller would remove the required
number of drill rods to enable testing of the next
interval. The packer equipment would be reeled up
to the required interval, reinflated, and the testing
procedure was repeated.
6.1 Test QA/QC
To ensure that the data collected during the test is
accurate, and more importantly, representative of the
zone of interest, the tester must verify that the test
assembly is not leaking. Leaks through the supply line
or rods, or past the packers might have the effect of
apparently increasing the permeability of the test zone.
This is because water pumped during the test was
assumed to be flowing into the test zone, but was
instead a combination of zone uptake and leakage.
This becomes more significant as permeability of the
zone decreases and/or the injection pressure increases.
Potential areas where leaks can occur are mainly
through packers (bypass), injection pipe joints and
drill rods. Also it is suggested by Quinn et al. (2016),
to minimize error using trial and error procedures to
determine the short-circuiting flow rate to account for
the head conditions in the open–hole segments during
each hydraulic test. Understanding open-hole flow
dynamics gives insight about the potential for vertical
cross connection of chemical constituents caused by
the open holes.
6.2 Packer Bypass Leakage
A common area where a leak can occur is past the
packer, between the expanded gland and the drill hole
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2017) 35:29–44
wall. Incomplete inflation, irregularities on the drill
hole wall, tears in the outer gland material, etc. are
likely reasons for this to happen. Leakage of this type
is difficult to assess as flow past the packer and that
into the zone cannot be distinguished at surface. In
order to determine if the packers are sealing properly,
various information is available to the operator:
1. Check for a drop in packer inflation pressure
during the test. A drop in pressure indicates that
the packer is deflating;
2. Check for bubbles if using a pneumatic system
and the water level is visible at the top of the drill
rods; and
3. Note unexpected flow versus pressure perfor-
mance either within a single test or as compared to
other test zones of similar rock (as determined
from the drill core). This indicates that more water
is being ‘‘taken’’ by the zone, whereas it is in fact
leakage.
It is probably necessary to remove the packer
assembly, test it, and re-run the test in order to verify
that the data collected is representative and accurate.
This is time consuming, but overestimating the zone
permeability due to poor data collection could have
serious consequences on later engineering design
considerations.
6.3 Drill Rods Leaks
The joints in the drill rods should be ‘‘wicked’’ in order
to reduce leakage. Wicking consists of wrapping a
string or wicking material around the rods threads
prior to connecting rods. The leakage may be greatly
reduced, but may still have a significant effect when
the cumulative leakage is taken into account. To test
for the apparent leakage, it is recommended that at
‘‘blind’’ packer assembly is lowered to just above the
bit and inflated. Water is then pumped into the rods
and the flow versus pressure response is recorded. If it
is assumed that the packers are sealing the rods, and
that water is not flowing through the bit, then any flow
is the cumulative joint leakage. The pump pressure
should correspond to the expected test pressures, with
a 150% increase in order to test the system (note: do
not exceed 80% of packer inflation pressure as this
potentially force water past the gland, regardless of
proper inflation or not).
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng (2017) 35:29–44 37

6.4 Supply Pipe Leaks Table 1 Pressure step versus pressure

Pressure step Pressure (psi)
Testing an independent supply line can be done on
surface. The only modification required is to block the A 20
water injection pipe at the bottom of the upper packer B 40
using a plug threaded to fit. Testing pressures should C 60
be the same, except that allowance for packer inflation D 80
pressure is not required. E 100
Dr 80
6.5 Injection (Lugeon) Tests Cr 60
Br 40
Injection (Lugeon) tests consist of isolating a section Ar 20
of borehole and injecting water under pressure into the
rock to determine the effective transmissivity (T) of
straight-line match can indicate hydro-fracturing (if
the zone. The transmissivity can be related to the
decreasing data is above the line) or non-Darcian flow
hydraulic conductivity (K) of the rock or hydrogeo-
(if decreasing data is below the line; Quinn et al.
logical features (fractures, etc.) by means of K = T/L,
2011a).
where L = length of test zone). The data recorded
Note that it was assumed that injection losses due to
during the test simply consists of the flow rate and the
friction losses in the drill rods were not significant
corresponding pressure when ‘‘steady-state’’ condi-
because of the large diameter. Friction losses through
tions were achieved. These data were recorded over a
the packer assembly flow pipe would be significant,
number of increasing and decreasing steps, as
but the short length involved reduces this impact and
explained below.
so it was ignored in subsequent calculations (U.
S. Bureau of Reclamation 1965).
6.5.1 Test Description
6.5.2 Basic Testing Procedures
Observations of flow are made every minute until
three consecutive, consistent readings are taken. This
Data should be plotted on a flow rate versus pressure
should represent steady-state flow. The pressure is
graph, for each pressure step. The shape of the plot,
then increased, usually for 5 equal increments,
especially with regard to the decreasing pressure curve
followed by 3 decreasing pressures. The steady-state
match, was used to assess the test results. The test
flow at each pressure is recorded.
usually consists of 3–5 ascending pressure steps, and
To begin the test, the tester needs to have an idea of
2–4 recovery pressure steps, as illustrated in the
the pressures to be tested (these are referred to as
example below.
pressure steps A, B, and C in Table 1). The expected
Note that step ‘‘Br’’ refers to recovery pressure B,
pressure range will be based on the estimated perme-
which should equal, or be similar, to ascending
ability of the rock and the expected intake of injected
pressure step B.
water. These were assessed based on previous expe-
Using the expected initial pressure and estimated
rience in the drill hole(s), and correlated to the
range of steps as a starting point, the following
pumping equipment available. If insufficient, or
procedures were followed. If pressures and/or required
excessive, pressures were used for Pressure A, the
pumping rates were not as expected, the tester had to
test can be extended (more pressure steps for the
adjust the pressure steps as required.
former) or stopped and restarted for the latter at a
The basic test procedures were as listed below:
lower initial pressure.
It is common practice to ‘‘ramp up’’ over at least 4. Open water feeding system valve and maintain
three (3) ‘‘increasing’’ steps in the test, and to ‘‘ramp constant initial pressure A until it appears to have
back down’’ two or three decreasing steps (at pressures stabilized (often about 10–15 min);
that match the ramping up pressures). This was done to 5. During this time, record the elapsed time and total
test for hysteresis in the plotted data. Deviation from a volume of consumed water every 0.5 min or so,

123
 Author's personal copy
38
for the first 2–3 min of the test stage, then every
minute;
6. After pressure A has stabilized for approximately
3 min, increase the pressure to pressure B;
7. Record time versus flow rate as for A
8. Increase the pressure, after pressure B has stabi-
lized for approximately 3 min, to pressure C;
9. Test can be carried out for pressures D and E if the
pump system has sufficient range left. The final
pump rate should not be more than 80% of the
maximum rate if possible;
10. Repeat pressure stage B (or last ascending pres-
sure, D or C, if more than 3 steps used in test)—if
formation is tight, release pressure by bypass
valve on water feeding system to decrease pres-
sure from C to B quickly;
11. Repeat pressure stage A—if formation is tight,
release pressure by bypass valve on water feeding
system to decrease pressure from B to A quickly;
12. After repeating stage A, perform recovery test:
shut the feed valve and record pressure decrease
versus time for about 10–15 min, or until 90%
recovery has occurred;
13. Deflate packer assembly and remove stuffing box
cap and seal;
14. Wait until all nitrogen escapes from the packer
cells, wait an additional 5 min and then pull the
assembly carefully to top of drill rods, watching
for the marker flag to prevent pulling assembly
into overhead sheave; and
15. Measure groundwater level after the test several
time to assess level recovery and static level.
Test can be modified and made shorter or longer.
One option is to perform only a constant head test with
water level maintained near the head of drilling rods.
When steady state occurs, measure flow-rate using
calibrated bucket. Constant head test can be followed
by simple falling head test with duration about 10–15
min.
6.5.3 Data Interpretation
The graphs in Fig. 2 illustrate a selection of type
curves, which are commonly observed. The following
describes each curve.
16. Ideal result where flow is laminar, probably on clean
fractures, discharge proportional to pressure head.
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2017) 35:29–44
17. Tight fractures, impermeable material
18. Highly permeable, large open fractures. Water
acceptance exceeds capacity of the test system
and pressure recorded is due to friction in supply
system.
19. Fairly high permeability with a decrease in flow
with time due partially to a change from laminar to
turbulent flow, as well as partial clogging of
fractures with time.
20. Low permeability, but washing out of gouge
material from the fractures, increasing the
permeability.
21. Laminar flow, moderate permeability but with an
increase in flow with pressure. Increasing packer
pressure brings the flow back to a linear relation-
ship with pressure, indicating increased flow was
previous leakage past the packer.
22. Increase in permeability with increased pressure
and the recovery curve follows the same path.
This indicates that fractures have been opened up
due to excess pressure (hydro-fracturing).
23. Progressive decrease in permeability with pres-
sure (and time) indicating incomplete blocking of
the fractures by transported material.
24. Moderate permeability and flow rate is not linear.
The down turned curve and similar recovery curve
indicate that turbulent flow conditions exist beyond
15 bars (U. S. Bureau of Reclamation 1965).
The data from the injection test can be used to
determine the effective transmissivity (T) by means of
Thiem equation (Thiem 1906):
 
Qln rRb
T¼ ð2Þ
2pPi
where: T = transmissivity (m2/day); Q = injection
rate (m3/day); R = radius of influence (m); rb = ra-
dius of borehole (m); and Pi = net injection pressure
(m). ln = natural logarithm
Similarly, transmissivity can be calculated using
Eq. 4 (i.e. permeability (K) 9 test length) through
packer pressure testing data.
6.5.4 Effective Radius or Radius of Influence; R
Determining a reasonable value for R, the effective
radius or radius of influence is not a simple matter.
This is because the parameter is a function of the
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng (2017) 35:29–44
Fig. 2 Typical flow versus pressure curves. The flow (L/s) and pressure (kPa) are shown at the Y and X axis respectively
hydraulic conductivity of the test zone, heavily
influenced on variations in primary and secondary
(fractures, etc.) permeability within the zone, specific
storage of the rock mass and fractures, test interval
length, pump pressure, and time of test period.
However, as the parameter occurs within a natural
logarithmic function, a reasonable value can be
substituted. For example, if the drill hole radius is
assumed to be approximately 0.04 m, or approxi-
mately HQ wireline size, then values of R equal to 1, 5,
10, and 100 m would result in values of ‘‘ln (R/rb)’’
equal to 3.3, 4.9, 5.6, and 7.9, respectively. Conse-
quently, it can be seen that the R value used in the
equation above will have a less effect on the value of
T calculated using the equations for analysing the
packer data. This is especially true when all the
possible variables and potential cumulative errors in
39
the testing process are taken into account. Therefore, it
is considered that an R value of between 5 and 10 is
reasonable and yields a reasonable value for Hydraulic
conductivity (Becker 2001; Meyer et al. 2008; U.
S. Bureau of Reclamation 1965).
6.5.5 Net Injection Pressure; Pi
The net injection pressure is calculated as the
combined pressure head (m) that is exerted on the test
zone. It is calculated as follows:
Pi ¼ Pg þ hg þ hshf ð3Þ
where: Pi = net injection pressure (m); Pg = gauge
pressure (m); hg = height of gauge above ground
level (m); hs = depth to pre-test water level (m); and
hf = friction losses (m).
123
 Author's personal copy
40
The sum of hg and hs is usually referred to as the
column height. Both components of the column height
should be measured before the test is carried out. The
value for hg should be the same for each test if the
testing apparatus is not changed, but hs will varying
depending on the hydrogeologic zone penetrated by
the drill hole.
6.6 Approach Followed in the Current Packer
Testing
Packer pressure testing was performed at 5 m intervals
in the boreholes to determine the hydraulic conductivity
of each interval. The packer pressure testing equipment
consisted of an injection pump, a source of potable wa-
ter, high-pressure water feed hose/piping, an impeller-
type calibrated flow meter (range 1–100 gallon per
minute (gpm), pressure gages (range 10–100 lb per
square inch (psig), inflatable packers, 10—foot perfo-
rated piping section, and a water—level indicator. The
test procedure is based on the protocol developed by the
United States department of the Interior Bureau of
reclamation (U. S. Bureau of Reclamation 1963 and U.
S. Bureau of Reclamation 1965).
Fig. 3 Standard wireline packer frictional head loss chart (Thomas 1982)
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2017) 35:29–44
The pressure test was initiated by pumping water at
a rate that developed a suitable injection pressure. The
suitable injection pressure is a function of the size of
the injection piping, test interval depth, and ground-
water elevation in the well bore. Upon reaching the
desired injection pressure, pumping was conducted
until the flow rate becomes steady. This was deter-
mined by monitoring and recording flow rate at 1-min
intervals for a 3–5-min period while maintain a
constant injection pressure. The diameter and length
of the perforated piping, diameter of the high-pressure
hose/piping and elevation of the pressure gage and
groundwater were also recorded. After 3–5-min
injection at a steady flow rate was completed, the test
was repeated within the same interval at a different
injection pressure and flow rate, and the average
hydraulic conductivity was calculated for each test
interval. Upon completion of the tests in one test
interval, the packers were deflated and the test set-up
was moved to another pressure test interval and the test
procedures were repeated.
Using the packer pressure testing data (The U. S.
Bureau of Reclamation 1965), the hydraulic conduc-
tivities were calculated using the following formula:
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng (2017) 35:29–44 41

q L standard wire line packer frictional head loss

k¼ ln when L  10r ð4Þ
2pLH r b chart (Fig. 3). This could include historicity effect
and skin effect. The problem of accurately determin-
where: K = hydraulic conductivity (m/s); Q = con-
ing the excess pressure head, H, is best solved by
stant rate of inflow into test interval (m3/s);
measuring water pressure within the test section. Maini
L = length of test interval (m); H = differential head
(1971) used an electric transducer to record water
of water at test interval (m); rb = radius of the well
pressures in fissured rock. An electric transducer
bore (cm); ln = natural logarithm
within the test section would provide a measure of
The excess pressure head (or injection head) at the
total pressure head. Consequently for tests conducted
centre of the test section, H, must be calculated from
below the water table, the height of the water
the pressure test data. The U. S. Bureau of Reclama-
table above the centre of the test section must be
tion (1963, 1965) assumes ‘‘H’’ to equal the pressure
subtracted from the measured total pressure to give the
measured at the surface gage in units of height of
excess head, H (Zeigler 1976).
water, plus an excess pressure head due to the height of
water in the flow pipe (In tests above the water table, it
is equal to the height of water in the flow pipe from the 7 Result and Analysis
centre of the test section to the ground surface. In tests
b below the water table, it is measured from the The data collected in borehole water pressure test were
groundwater table to the ground. entered into spreadsheet and hydraulic conductivity
A more accurate estimate of ‘‘H’’ is attained by values were calculated for each test in a selected
considering head loss in the flow pipe using the interval (Table 2). Average hydraulic conductivity

Table 2 Packer testing Bore ID Depth interval (m bgl) Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)
results: hydraulic
conductivity From To

BH51 203 208 5.73391E-08

167 172 6.0823E-08
105 112 4.68662E-07
72 77 3.92243E-07
BH55 181 285 4.3353E-07
161 165 3.18798E-08
117 122 3.06508E-06
87 92 3.12115E-07
BH56 226 231 1.48099E-07
207 212 3.72436E-07
188 193 1.43021E-07
161 165 8.24794E-08
126 131 1.41491E-08
BH57 255 260 2.82602E-07
239 244 1.36965E-06
196 201 1.19126E-07
114 119 1.72158E-07
61 66 3.70292E-07
BH60 273 278 1.59491E-07
223 228 2.95235E-07
182 187 1.68983E-07
128 133 1.54579E-06
84 89 3.3093E-07

123
 Author's personal copy
42 Geotech Geol Eng (2017) 35:29–44

values was calculated for each test interval in the well with an increase in flow with pressure. Increasing
bore and repeated for additional well bores. The packer pressure brings the flow back to a linear
results of the interpretation of the test data are relationship with pressure, indicating increased flow
presented in Table 2. was previous leakage past the packer (matches with
A representative data obtained from the packer tests the type curve 6: Fig. 2). On the other hand, BH51 and
is presented in Fig. 4. BH55, BH56, BH57 is inter- BH60 are interpreted as low permeability, but washing
preted as a laminar flow, moderate permeability but out of gouge material from the fractures, increasing
the permeability (fairly matches with the type curve 5:
Fig. 2). The limitations of each test type must also be
BH51 known, including interval at each hole, which is
Flow rate (m3/min)

0.01
specific to the site condition and cannot be replicated
0.005
or up scaled from other area.
0
0 200 400 600 800
- 0.005
Pressure (kPa)
8 Discussion and Conclusion
BH55
Flow rate (m3/min)

0.015
Geotechnical testing is also a key integral part of
0.01 achieving design improvement, design efficiencies
0.005 and verifying performance of geotechnical structures
0 and geo-structural components. The use of specialized
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 in situ testing in geotechnical engineering practice is
Pressure (kPa) rapidly gaining increased popularity. Improvements in
apparatus, instrumentation, technique of deployment,
BH56 data acquisition and analysis procedure have been
Flow rate (m3/min)

0.004
significant. The description and applicability of wide
0.002 range of geotechnical in situ tests for rocks have been
summarized by numerous researchers.
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 This paper focuses on the packer test (including its
Pressure (kPa) procedure, preparation, analysis, interpretation) which
is commonly used for the hydraulic conductivity
0.02 BH57 parameter estimate in the geotechnical and mining
Flow rate (m3/min)

engineering works. The role, objectives, types and

0.015
interpretation of packer testing, limitations and rec-
0.01 ommended good practices as part of the geotechnical
0.005 design process are outlined. Implementation of testing
in design is shown through the examination of test data
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
from a case record. Although the procedures presented
Pressure (kPa) in this paper can be very useful and insightful towards
establishing consistency and reliability of project
0.008 BH60 specific packer test data, care must be taken as
Flow rate (m3/min)

0.006
described in this paper to ensure that appropriate
analysis and interpretation used. The basis and limi-
0.004 tations of the numerous empirical correlations that
0.002 Series1 exist in the technical literature should also be under-
stood. It is recommended that performance tests such
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
pore pressure tests be taken to maximize design
Pressure (kPa)
refinements and packer test efficiencies. The tests
should be described to clients in terms of an invest-
Fig. 4 Flow versus pressure curves ment. Packer/Lugeon tests are carried out to assess the

123
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng (2017) 35:29–44
variability of a borehole as it intersects various
hydrogeological units. Open hole water levels and
pumping tests can give misleading results in fractured
rock mass environments. Therefore, packer testing is
often utilized to help understand the detailed hydro-
geological properties of the various horizons. It gives
vertical distribution of hydraulic properties and water
quality in the aquifer. Also, packer testing is usually
cheaper than a nest of wells and gives more continuous
record considered as an important input to the proper
design of the geotechnical program. Recently the
versatile packer testing equipment and procedure has
substantially improved the reliability of hydraulic
parameters measured in fractured rock boreholes in an
effort to enhance contaminant plume and remediation
designs. Packer test system is a preferred method for
obtaining values of hydraulic conductivity in wells
that are difficult to analyse using conventional slug test
systems. Pumping testing also provides insightful and
beneficial results to projects if packer test limitations
are understood. The results from packer test and group
pumping tests when used together with numerical
modelling provide an improved understanding of
rock- geological structure interaction and failure
mechanisms at a larger scale of the aquifer response,
unlike the packer test which is suited to a defined
interval of the water earing strata within a limited area
of influence. They also assist in refining analysis and
geotechnical engineering design.
Acknowledgements The author thanks to anonymous
reviewers for their valuable feedbacks to improve the
manuscript.
References
Becker DE (2001) Site characterization. In: Rowe RK (ed)
Chapter 4 in Geotechnical and geo-environmental engi-
neering handbook. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell
Massachusetts, pp 69–105
Becker DE (2010) Testing in geotechnical design. Geotech Eng
J SEAGS AGSSEA 41(1). ISSN 0046-5828
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):929–937
CFEM (2006) Canadian foundation engineering manual (4th
edn). Published by Canadian Geotechnical Society. BiTech
Publishers, Vancouver, BC
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
43
Chatsworth Formation California, USA. Hydrogeol J
23(2):405–419
El-Daly AA, Farag ON (2006) Hydraulic conductivity: com-
parison between field testing and indirect techniques.
GeoCongress. doi:10.1061/40803(187)16
Gellasch CA, Bradbury KR, Hart DJ, Bahr JM (2013) Charac-
terization of fracture connectivity in a siliciclastic bedrock
aquifer near a public supply well (Wisconsin, USA).
Hydrogeol J 21(2):383–399
Jacob CE (1947) Drawdown test to determine the effective
radius of artesian wells. Trans ASCE 112:1047
Jembere D, Yihdego Y (2016) Engineering rock mass evalua-
tion 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
Levy BS, Pannel LJ, Dadoly JP (1993) A pressure-packer sys-
tem for conducting rising head tests in water table wells.
J Hydrol 148:189–202
Maini YNT (1971) In situ hydraulic parameters in jointed rock;
their measurement and interpretation, PhD Dissertation,
Imperial College, London, England
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: Pro-
ceedings of the 17th international conference on soil
mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Alexandria,
Egypt
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):27–44
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):651–659
Quinn P, Parker B, Cherry J (2011a) Using constant head packer
tests to determine apertures in fractured rock. J Contam
Hydrogeol 126(1–2):85–99
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):W09533
Quinn PM, Cherry JA, Parker BL (2012) Hydraulic testing using
a versatile straddle packer system for improved transmis-
sivity estimation in fractured rock boreholes. Hydrogeol J
20:1529–1547. doi:10.1007/s10040-012-0893-8
Quinn PM, Parker BL, Cherry JA (2013) Validation of non-
Darcian flow effects in slug tests conducted in fractured
rock boreholes. J Hydrol 486:505–518
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
Royle BM, Sc MA (2002) Standard operating procedures for
borehole packer testing, p 22. http://www.robertsongeo
consultants.com/hydromine/topics/Site_Assessment/Packer_
testing.pdf
Thiem G (1906) Hydrologische Methoden. Gebhardt, Leipzig,
p 56
Thomas RH (1982) Permeability testing during wire-line dril-
ling—a new system. Technical paper. Ground Engineer-
ing. Wimpey Laboratories
123
 Author's personal copy
44 Geotech Geol Eng (2017) 35:29–44

U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (1963) Earth manual (1st edn),
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (1965) Design of small dams, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
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
Zeigler TW (1976) Determination of rock mass permeability.
Technical report S-76-2. Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army
office, Washington, DC
Zheng L, Guo JQ, Lei Y (2005) An improved straight-line fitting
method for analyzing pumping test recovery data. Ground
Water 43(6):939–942

123

View publication stats