LUGEON TEST INTERPRETATION, REVISITED

Camilo Quiñones-Rozo, P.E.1

ABSTRACT

The Lugeon test is widely used to estimate average hydraulic conductivity of rock
masses. Interpretation methods currently available in the literature were developed at a
time when measurements were made in an analogous fashion and data was subsequently
recorded by hand at rather large intervals of time. Current technology allows measuring
and digital recording of data in real time, thus granting us an opportunity to update the
interpretation procedures for Lugeon tests. This paper provides an interpretation method
that expands the current procedures to benefit from the recent advances in data
acquisition equipment.

INTRODUCTION

The extents of grouting and cut-off depths required in a dam foundation are directly
related to the hydraulic conductivity (permeability) of the rock masses involved. In
contrast to other geotechnical parameters for which variations can usually be measured in
percentage terms (e.g., shear strength, density, compressibility, etc.), variations in
hydraulic conductivity are usually measured in terms of magnitudes (e.g., 10-2 to 10-3).
Selecting a representative value of hydraulic conductivity becomes of the outmost
importance during design; especially, since under such a wide variation range, averaging
the measured values will not suffice.

Unlike soils, where seepage takes place through a series of small, closely spaced,
interconnected pore spaces, seepage through rock masses occurs mostly along discrete
planar discontinuities (e.g., joints, foliations, shears, etc.). Thereby, whereas in soils
hydraulic conductivity is mostly controlled by the size, shape and arrangement of its
voids (Terzaghi et al., 1996), in rock masses the conductivity depends on the aperture,
spacing and infilling characteristics of its discontinuities (Goodman, 1980).

Discontinuity aperture plays a particularly important role in the hydraulic conductivity of

a rock mass. Consequently changes in the stress condition of the rock mass can produce
significant changes on its hydraulic conductivity. The existence of an interrelation
between stress and hydraulic conductivity ultimately means that accurate estimates of the
hydraulic conductivity of a rock mass can only be obtained using in-situ tests.

The Lugeon Test

The most commonly in-situ test used to estimate hydraulic conductivity of rock masses is
the Lugeon test – also called the packer test. The test, which derives its name from
Maurice Lugeon (1933), is a constant head type test that takes place in an isolated portion
1
Senior Civil/Geotechnical Engineer, URS Corporation, 1333 Broadway Suite 800, Oakland, CA 94612,
camilo_quinones-rozo@urscorp.com

Lugeon Test Interpretation 1

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.

Figure 1. Lugeon test configuration

Prior to the beginning of the test a maximum test pressure (PMAX) is defined. PMAX is
chosen such that it does not exceed the confinement stress (σ3) expected at the depth
where the test is being conducted, thus avoiding the development of hydraulic fracturing
or hydraulic jacking. As a rule of thumb, PMAX is usually established using Equation 1,
where D is equal to the minimum ground coverage – depth in the case of a vertical boring
in a flat site or minimum lateral coverage in the case of a test conducted in a hillside.

1 psi
PMAX = D × (1)
ft

2 Collaborative Management of Integrated

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 Description Pressure Step
1 st Low 0.50·PMAX
2nd Medium 0.75·PMAX
Maximum (peak) PMAX
3rd
4th Medium 0.75·PMAX
5th Low 0.50·PMAX

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).

q
Lugeon P0 Value = α × (2)
× L
P

Since the Lugeon value is defined in SI units, it is required to introduce a dimensionless

factor α in Equation 2 to accommodate the use of different systems of units. This factor
takes a value of 1 when the SI units system is used (q [lt/min], L[m], and P [MPa]) and a
value of 12.42 when the English units system is used (q [gal/min], L[ft], and P [psi]). The
term P0 corresponds to a reference pressure equal to 1MPa or 145 psi.

Under ideal conditions (i.e., homogeneous and isotropic) one Lugeon is equivalent to
1.3 x 10-5 cm/sec (Fell et al., 2005). Table 2 describes the conditions typically associated
with different Lugeon values, as well as the typical precision used to report these values.

Table 2. Condition of rock mass discontinuities associated with different Lugeon values
Hydraulic Reporting
Lugeon Condition of Rock Mass
Classification Conductivity Precision
Range Discontinuities
Range (cm/sec) (Lugeons)
<1 Very Low < 1 x 10-5 Very tight <1
1-5 Low 1 x 10-5 - 6 x 10-5 Tight ±0
5-15 Moderate 6 x 10-5 - 2 x 10-4 Few partly open ±1
15-50 Medium 2 x 10-4 - 6 x 10-4 Some open ±5
50-100 High 6 x 10-4 - 1 x 10-3 Many open ± 10
>100 Very High > 1 x 10-3 Open closely spaced or voids >100

Lugeon Test Interpretation 3

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.

4 Collaborative Management of Integrated

 Table 3. Summary of current Lugeon interpretation practice
BEHAVIOR (as proposed by Houlsby, 1976)

REPRESENTATIVE
PRESSURE STAGES LUGEON PATTERN DESCRIPTION
LUGEON VALUE

1st Stage
LAMINAR

1st Stage
2nd Stage
2nd Stage All Lugeon values about
rd
3 Stage Average of Lugeon
3rd Stage
equal regardless of the
4th Stage 4th Stage values for all stages
5th Stage 5th Stage
water pressure
Water Pressure, P Lugeons
0.50PMAX 0.75PMAX 1.00PMAX
TURBULENT

1st Stage 1st Stage

Lugeon values decrease as
2nd Stage 2nd Stage the water pressures Lugeon value
3rd Stage 3rd Stage increase. The minimum corresponding to the
4th Stage
Lugeon value is observed at highest water pressure
th
4 Stage
5th Stage
5th Stage
Water Pressure, P
Lugeons
the stage with the maximum (3rd stage)
0.50PMAX 0.75PMAX 1.00PMAX
water pressure
1st Stage Lugeon values vary Lowest Lugeon value
DILATION

1st Stage
2nd Stage 2nd Stage proportionally to the water recorded,
3rd Stage 3rd Stage pressures. The maximum corresponding either
4th Stage 4th Stage
5th Stage
Lugeon value is observed at to low or medium
5th Stage
Water Pressure, P
Lugeons
the stage with the maximum water pressures (1st,
0.50PMAX 0.75PMAX 1.00PMAX
water pressure 2nd, 4th, 5th stage)
WASH-OUT

1st Stage 1st Stage Lugeon values increase as

2nd Stage
3rd Stage
2nd Stage
3rd Stage
the test proceeds. Highest Lugeon
4th Stage 4th Stage Discontinuities’ infillings value recorded
5th Stage 5th Stage
Lugeons
are progressively washed- (5th stage)
Water Pressure, P
0.50PMAX 0.75PMAX 1.00PMAX
out by the water

1st Stage 1st Stage

Lugeon values decrease as
the test proceeds. Either
FILLING

2nd Stage 3rd 2nd Stage

VOID

Stage 3rd Stage non-persistent Final Lugeon value

4th Stage 4th Stage discontinuities are (5th stage)
th
5th Stage
Water Pressure, P
5 Stage
Lugeons progressively being filled or
0.50PMAX 0.75PMAX 1.00PMAX swelling is taking place

PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO LUGEON INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE

Despite its inherent simplicity the interpretation procedure proposed by Houlsby (1976)
correctly captures the interaction between the different variables involved in the
phenomena of seepage through rocks. However, the procedure was devised at a time
when discrete readings were made using dial gages at rather large intervals of time. The
procedure proposed below, aims to update the Lugeon interpretation process to
incorporate the use of current technology. Furthermore, this procedure will not only
contribute to streamline the Lugeon interpretation process, but will also facilitate
interpretation in those occasions when the test does not proceed according to plan.

Use of Automated Data Acquisition Systems

Automated data acquisition systems capable of measuring, displaying and recording

Lugeon test and grouting data in real time have become available over the last years. This
equipment measures flow rate and pressure at regular intervals of time and displays the
information on an LCD display (Figure 2).

Lugeon Test Interpretation 5

 Figure 2. Data acquisition equipment for real time monitoring of
Lugeon tests and grouting (Photo by Atlas Copco)

Since this equipment is able to measure both pressure and flow rate in real time it is
possible to monitor the behavior of the Lugeon value as the test proceeds. In order to take
advantage of this possibility, it is proposed to analyze the Lugeon test results using the
flow loss vs. pressure space, with flow loss defined as the flow rate divided by the length
of the test interval (q/L).

Lugeon interpretation using the flow loss vs. pressure space

The terms in the equation defining the Lugeon value (Equation 2) can be rearranged such
that the flow loss (q/L) is expressed as shown below.
q
= Lugeon 1
L Value × ×
P (3)

P0

If the product of the last two factors in Equation 3 is defined as a dimensionless pressure
factor (ψ), then the flow loss could be ultimately expressed as shown in Equation 5.

1 P
ψ= × (4)
α P0
q
= Lugeon
L Value × (5)
ψ

6 Collaborative Management of Integrated

In other words, the flow loss could be interpreted as the product of the Lugeon value and
the dimensionless pressure factor ψ. According to this interpretation, if the results of the

Lugeon Test Interpretation 7

Lugeon test are plotted in a flow loss vs. pressure space (q/L vs. ψ), sets of data having
the same Lugeon value will plot over a straight line (Points  and  in Figure 3).
Furthermore, this line – which will start at the origin – will have a slope equal to the
Lugeon value.

3
4
Flow Loss,

2
1

Pressure Factor, ψ

Figure 3. Interpretation of Lugeon test data in the

flow loss v pressure space

If a set of Lugeon values corresponding to the five stages of a test are plotted in the
q/L vs. ψ space, a “pressure loop” will be observed. The shape of this loop describes the
behavior of the Lugeon value as the test proceeds, and thereby can be used for
interpretation purposes. For example, if all the points lie atop of a line crossing through
the origin it is known that the Lugeon value remained constant throughout the test,
implying that a laminar behavior was observed. The same type of analysis can be
performed for each of the behavior categories proposed by Houlsby, as summarized in
Table 4.

The proposed Lugeon interpretation procedure conserves the same behavior categories
proposed by Houlsby (1976), while using an approach that renders it compatible with the
use of automated data acquisition systems. It is expected that the use of this interpretation
procedure will allow real time monitoring and interpretation of test data. The choice of
the representative Lugeon value for each behavior category remains essentially
unchanged. However, in those cases where turbulent or dilation behaviors are observed, it
is recommended that the Lugeon value selected corresponds to those values observed at
the range of pressures expected during operation (e.g., after dam filling).

8 Collaborative Management of Integrated

 Table 4. Proposed Lugeon interpretation procedure
using the flow loss vs. pressure space
BEHAVIOR WATER LOSS VS PRESSURE REPRESENTATIVE
DESCRIPTION
PATTERN LUGEON VALUE

4
Flow Loss,

All Lugeon values about equal

LAMIN

Average of Lugeon values

regardless of the water
2 for all stages
5 pressure

Water Pressure, P

Range of Lugeon values

observed at water pressures
Lugeon values decrease as the
expected during operation. If
TURBULE

Flow Loss,

2 3 water pressures increase.

1 water pressure expected during
The minimum Lugeon value is
4 operation is unknown use the
observed at the stage with the
5 value corresponding to the
maximum water pressure
medium water pressure (2nd or
4th stage)

Water Pressure, P

Range of Lugeon values

observed at water pressures
Lugeon values vary
expected during operation. If
proportionally to the water
Flow Loss,

water pressure expected during

DILATI

pressures. The maximum

operation is unknown use the
Lugeon value is observed at
4 value corresponding to either
the stage with the maximum
low or medium water pressures
2 water pressure
5 (1st, 2nd, 4th, or 5th stage)
1

Water Pressure, P

5 4 3
Lugeon values increase as
Flow Loss,

the test proceeds. Highest Lugeon value

WASH-

Discontinuities’ infillings are recorded (5th stage)

progressively washed-out by
the water
2

Water Pressure, P

Use final Lugeon value (5th

3 Lugeon values decrease as the stage), provided that presence
2
test proceeds. Either non- of non-persistent
persistent discontinuities are discontinuities and/or
VOID

1
progressively being filled or occurrence of swelling is
swelling is taking place confirmed by observation of
4
rock core.
5

Water Pressure, P

Lugeon Test Interpretation 9

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. ψ
space (i.e., slope decreases as ψ 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. ψ
space (i.e., slope increases as ψ 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

10 Collaborative Management of Integrated

readily estimated or quantified. Due to these limitations it is recommended to avoid over
reliance on such analytical methods and limit their use to perform sensitivity analysis that
can be used to assess the validity of the results obtained from Equation 2.

SUMMARY

This article presents a modification to the Lugeon interpretation procedure proposed by

Houlsby (1976). Under this updated procedure data corresponding to different stages of
the test are plotted in the flow loss vs. pressure space and interpreted based on the shape
of the resulting “pressure loop”. Equations that can be used to automate this procedure
are provided to facilitate its use with automated data acquisition systems. It is expected
that the use of this method can contribute to focus the interpretation of hydraulic
conductivity exclusively on data collected in the field. This will avoid the use of
elaborate closed-form analytical solutions that rely on assumptions that seldom
correspond to the conditions observed in practice.

REFERENCES

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 Géologie. 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.

Lugeon Test Interpretation 11