Site investigation for groundwater lowering 155

or removed from a borehole in a controlled manner, observation of the

resulting changes in water level in the borehole can be used to estimate the
permeability of the surrounding ground.
Common forms of in situ permeability tests in boreholes include

1. Rising, falling, and constant head tests in boreholes (Section 6.7.7)

2. In situ tests in boreholes in rocks (Section 6.7.8)
3. In situ tests in observation wells (Section 6.7.9)

Because these tests add or remove relatively small quantities of water to or

from the borehole, they can only influence the soil or rock locally around
the borehole. Therefore these tests can, at best, produce “small scale” val-
ues of permeability representative of conditions around the borehole. Such
tests may be unduly influenced by any effects of soil disturbance caused by
drilling of the borehole or by local variations in geology close to the bore-
hole. In contrast to in situ tests in boreholes, pumping tests (Section 6.7.11)
typically influence a much larger volume of soil or rock and give more rep-
resentative “large-scale” permeability values but are more time consuming
and expensive to carry out.
The test methods described in the following sections are those which are
applicable to conventional civil engineering and groundwater control proj-
ects. In recent decades, more sophisticated methods of permeability test-
ing have been developed in related fields, including shaft sinking for deep
mining (Daw 1984), investigations for deep geological disposal of nuclear
waste (Sutton 1996), and carbon sequestration and storage (Wiese et al.
2010). These methods are not addressed here but use exactly the same prin-
ciples as the tests described here, carried out at greater depths, at higher
background pore water pressures, and in lower permeability rocks than is
common for conventional tests.

6.7.7 Rising, falling, and constant

head tests in boreholes
This group of tests includes

1. Rising and falling head tests (collectively known as variable head

tests)
2. Constant head tests

These tests are carried out in the field on the soil in situ. They therefore avoid
the problems of obtaining representative undisturbed samples that limit the
usefulness of laboratory testing. Tests in boreholes are those carried out
during pauses in the drilling or boring process. When the test is complete,
drilling recommences—this allows several tests at different depths to be
156 Groundwater lowering in construction

carried out in one borehole. These tests are distinct from tests carried out
in observation wells (Section 6.7.9) after the completion of the borehole,
where tests can be carried out only at the fixed level of the response zone.
Execution of variable head tests is straightforward and requires only basic
equipment. The borehole is advanced to the proposed depth of the test, and
the original groundwater level is noted. It is essential that a representative
groundwater level is obtained. If necessary, the start of the test should be
delayed until readings show that the pretest groundwater level has stabilized.
The upper portion of the borehole is supported by a temporary casing
(which should be sealed into the upper strata to exclude groundwater from
those levels). The “test section” of exposed soil is between the bottom of
the casing and the base of the borehole.
For a falling head (or inflow) test (Figure 6.8a) water is rapidly added to
increase the water level in the borehole. Once the water has been added,
the water level in the borehole is recorded regularly to see how the level
falls with time as water flows out of the borehole into the soil. The neces-
sary equipment includes a dipmeter, bucket, stopwatch, and a supply of
clean water (perhaps from a tank or bowser). It is essential that any water
added is absolutely clean, otherwise any suspended solids in the water will
clog the base of the borehole test section and significantly affect results.
Particular attention should be given to the cleanliness of tanks and buckets
so that the water does not become contaminated by those means. It can be
difficult to carry out falling head tests in very permeable soils (greater than
about 10 −3 m/s) because water cannot be added quickly enough to raise
the water level in the borehole. If the natural groundwater level is close to
ground surface, it may be necessary to extend the borehole casing above
ground level to allow water to be added.

(a) Water was added at the start of (b) Water was removed at the start of
the test to raise the water level the test to lower the water level
in the borehole in the borehole

Ho Original
groundwater
H level Casing of H Original
cross-sectional Ho groundwater
Casing of area A level
cross-sectional
area A
L Test section Test section
L

D
D

Figure 6.8 Variable head tests in boreholes. (a) Falling head (inflow) test. (b) Rising head
(outflow) test.
 Site investigation for groundwater lowering 157

A rising head (or outflow) test (Figure 6.8b) is the converse of a fall-
ing head test. It involves rapidly removing water from the borehole and
observing the rate at which water rises in the borehole. The test does not
need a water supply (which can be an advantage in remote locations) but
does require a means of removing water rapidly from the borehole. The
most obvious way to do this is using a bailer, which is adequate in soils of
moderate permeability but it can be surprisingly difficult to significantly
lower water levels if soils are highly permeable. Alternatives are to use air-
lift equipment or suction or submersible pumps.
An alternate form of variable head test is the “slug test.” Again, this involves
applying rapid changes to the water level in a borehole and then observing the
rate at which the water level returns to the background or natural water level.
However, in a slug test, no water is added to or removed from the borehole.
Instead, a heavy rod (termed a slug) is quickly lowered below water level in the
borehole to displace water and hence rapidly raise water levels (analogous to a
falling head test). At the end of the falling head stage, when water levels have
equilibrated, rapid removal of the slug from the water level will cause a sud-
den lowering of water level (analogous to a rising head test). Slug tests have the
advantage that no water supply or equipment to pump or bail water is needed.
For the relatively permeable soils of interest in groundwater lowering
problems, variable head tests can be analyzed using the work of Hvorslev
(1951), which is the basis of the methods given in BS 5930:1999, amended
2010. Hvorslev assumed that the effect of soil compressibility on the perme-
ability of soil was negligible during the test, and this is a tolerable assump-
tion for most water-bearing soils. If in situ permeability tests are carried
out in relatively compressible silts and clays, different test procedures and
analyses may be required; see the work of Brand and Premchitt (1982).
For the Hvorslev analysis, permeability k is calculated using

A
k= (6.3)
FT

where A is the cross-sectional area of the borehole casing (at the water levels
during the test), T is the basic time lag, and F is a shape factor dependent on
the geometry of the test section. T is determined graphically from a semiloga-
rithmic plot of H/Ho versus elapsed time as shown in Figure 6.9. Ho is the
excess head in the borehole at time t = 0 and H is the head at time t (both H
and Ho are measured relative to the original groundwater level). Additional
notes on the analysis of variable head tests are given in Appendix 2.
Values of shape factor F for commonly occurring borehole test section
geometries were prepared by Hvorslev (1951) and are shown in Figure 6.10.
Shape factors for other geometries are given in BS 5930:1999, amended
2010. The simplest test section is when the temporary casing is flush with
the base of the borehole, allowing water to enter or leave the borehole
158 Groundwater lowering in construction

Data points

Best straight line

through the data points

H/Ho = 0.37
H/Ho

Basic time lag T is the

time at which the straight
line through the data points
intercepts H/Ho = 0.37

0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Elapsed time (minutes)

Figure 6.9 Analysis of variable head tests.

through the base only. If soil will stand unsupported, it may be possible to
extend the borehole ahead of the casing to provide a longer test section. If
the soil is not stable, the borehole could be advanced to the test depth, and
the test section could be backfilled with filter sand or gravel as the casing is
withdrawn to the top of the test section.
Constant head tests (Figure 6.11) involve adding or removing water from
a borehole at a known rate to maintain a constant head, which is recorded.
Constant head tests are most often carried out as inflow tests, but outflow
tests can also be carried out. The equipment required is rather more com-
plex than for variable head tests, as some form of flow measurement (typi-
cally by the timed volumetric method) is required. In the simplest form of
the test, appropriate to relatively permeable soils, the flow rate is adjusted
until a suitable constant head is achieved, and the test is allowed to continue
until a steady flow rate is established. A consistent supply of clean water is
required for tests, and this can be a disadvantage in remote locations.
 Site investigation for groundwater lowering 159

(a) (b)

Casing Casing
D
D

F = 2D F = 2.75D

(c) (d)

Casing Casing

D D
L L

F= 2πL F= 2πL
1n (2L/D) + (1 + (2L/D)2) 1n (L/D) + (1 + (L/D)2)

Figure 6.10 Shape factors for permeability tests in boreholes. (a) Soil flush with the bottom
of the casing at the impermeable boundary. (b) Soil flush with the bottom of the
casing in uniform soil. (c) Open section of the borehole that extended beyond
the casing at the impermeable boundary. (d) Open section of the borehole that
extended beyond the casing in uniform soil. (After Hvorslev, M.J., Time Lag and
Soil Permeability in Groundwater Observations. Waterways Experimental Station,
Corps of Engineers, Bulletin No. 36, Vicksburg, MS, 1951.).

Permeability k is calculated from

q
k= (6.4)
FH c
where q is the constant rate of flow, Hc is the constant head (measured relative
to original groundwater level), and F is the shape factor (from Figure 6.10).
It is well known (for example, see the work of Black 2010) that variable
and constant head tests in boreholes have a number of limitations and may
160 Groundwater lowering in construction

For the inflow test, water is

continuously added
to maintain a constant
Flow rate q head in the borehole

Hc Original groundwater
level

Casing of cross-sectional
area A

L Test section

Figure 6.11 Constant head inflow test in boreholes.

be subject to a number of errors. When carrying out these tests (and when
reviewing the results), it is essential that these factors are considered

1. Tests in boreholes only involve a relatively small volume of soil around

the test section. If the soil is heterogeneous or has significant fabric,
such tests may not be representative of the mass permeability of the soil.
Large-scale tests (such as pumping tests) may give better results.
2. The conventional Hvorslev method of analysis is based on the assump-
tion that the initial increase/decrease in water level in the borehole
occurs instantaneously. Obviously, in practice, the change in water
level will not be instantaneous but will require a finite period. All
possible steps should be taken to keep to a minimum the period of
adding/removing water at the start of the test. If this is not done, for
example, where a hose pipe is used to continuously add water to a
well over several minutes, the water level response will be different
from the Hvorslev assumptions, and erroneous permeability values
may result.
3. Results of inflow tests (falling head and constant head tests) can be
significantly affected by clogging or silting up of the test section as
water is added. It is vital that only totally clean water is added but,
even then, silt already in suspension may block flow out of the bore-
hole. It is not uncommon for inflow tests to underestimate permeabil-
ity by several orders of magnitude.
4. In loose granular soils, outflow tests (rising head and constant head
tests) may cause piping or boiling of soil at the base of the borehole.
This could lead to overestimates of permeability.
 Site investigation for groundwater lowering 161

5. The drilling of the borehole may have disturbed the soil in the test
section, changing the permeability. Potential effects include particle
loosening, compaction, or smearing of silt and clay layers.
6. Reliable analysis of test results requires that the original groundwater
level be known (this is discussed in Appendix 2). A key issue is that
where tests are carried out during pauses in drilling, it is likely that
the drilling process will have affected groundwater levels. It is neces-
sary to wait until monitoring has shown that groundwater levels have
stabilized before commencing the test.
7. If the natural groundwater level varies during the test (because of
tidal or other influences) the test may be difficult to analyze. If signifi-
cant groundwater level fluctuations are anticipated during a test of,
for example, 1- or 2-h duration, tests in boreholes are unlikely to be
useful.
8. If the drilling casing does not provide an effective seal to isolate the
test section, then leakage of water into or out of the test section may
occur from other strata. This will affect the water level response dur-
ing the test and may lead to erroneous results.

Although these tests have a number of limitations, they are inexpensive to

execute and are widely used. It is good practice to carry out both rising and
falling head tests in the same borehole to allow results to be compared. In
any event, results from in situ tests in boreholes should be reviewed against
the anticipated conceptual model (Section 7.4) for the site and treated with
caution until supported by permeability estimates from other sources.

6.7.8 In situ tests in boreholes in rock

The borehole testing techniques used in soil can also be applied to boreholes
in rock. However, in practice, a different approach is often taken to the
in situ testing of boreholes drilled through rock strata. This is because the
flow of groundwater will be mostly along joints, fissures, or other discon-
tinuities. A borehole drilled through a stratum of rock may pass through
relatively unfissured zones (which will be of low-permeability) and through
more fissured zones (of higher permeability). It is important that the level
and extent of these zones are identified. Two of the most useful approaches
are geophysical logging of boreholes and packer permeability testing.
Geophysical formation logging of unlined boreholes in rock can help
identify the presence of more or less fissured zones. Fluid logging methods
(including flowmeter and fluid conductivity and temperature logging) can
be used to determine specific levels at which groundwater is entering the
well; see the work of Beesley (1986) and BS 7022:1988. The results from
geophysical surveys can be used to specify the levels at which permeability
testing should be carried out.
162 Groundwater lowering in construction

The packer test is one of the most common types of permeability tests
used in boreholes drilled in rock, provided the borehole is stable without
casing. The method is a form of constant head test, carried out within
a discrete test section isolated from the rest of the borehole by inflatable
“packers” (Figure 6.12). Water is pumped into or out of the test section and
the change in water pressure or level noted. Because discrete sections of
borehole at various depths can be tested, the method can help identify any
fissured permeable zones. The packer test was originally developed in the
1930s to assess the permeability of grouted rock beneath dam foundations
and is sometimes known as a Lugeon test, after the French engineer who
pioneered the method. Strictly speaking, a true Lugeon test is one particu-
lar form of packer test, carried out using specific equipment and injection
pressures, and the term should not be used for packer tests in general.

Supply pump

Delivery pipe

Borehole
of radius r

Top packer
(at least 10r
in length)

Perforated
Test section isolated
pipe
between packers
Test section at least
10r in length

(Bottom packer Bottom packer

omitted for (at least
single packer 10r in length)
tests)

Cap

Figure 6.12 Packer test. (From Preene, M., Roberts, T.O.L., Powrie, W., and Dyer,
M.R., Groundwater control—Design and practice, CIRIA Report C515.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London,
2000. Reproduced by kind permission of CIRIA: www.ciria.org.)
 Site investigation for groundwater lowering 163

The test method is described in Walthall (1990) and BS 5930:1999,

amended 2010. In the double packer test, inflatable packers are used to
isolate a test section between two packers (Figure 6.12). For a single packer
test, the test section is between a packer and the base of the borehole.
The most common type of packer test is an inflow test, in which water is
injected into the test section and the flow rate and head recorded. Outflow
tests can also be carried out, although the test equipment is more compli-
cated (Price and Williams 1993); nevertheless, a number of studies (includ-
ing Brassington and Walthall 1985) have concluded that outflow tests are
preferable to inflow tests.
Packer tests are most suited to rocks of moderate to low-permeability. If
permeability is greater than 10 −7 m/s, friction losses in the pipework become
significant and need to be included in the calculations. When packer tests
are carried out in highly permeable zones (greater than about 10 −5 m/s), it
is difficult to inject sufficient water to maintain the test pressure, and the
test may have to be aborted. Analysis of packer tests is described in Clayton
et al. (1995) and BS 5930:1999, amended 2010. Tests can be carried out at
various depths in an unlined borehole and may allow permeability depth
profiles to be obtained. The following factors must be considered when car-
rying out packer tests (and when reviewing test results)

1. In most rocks, the overall permeability is dominated by flow via fis-

sures. Measured permeability values will be affected if the drilling
process has blocked or enlarged natural fissures. Walthall (1990)
states that, before a packer test, the borehole should be cleaned
out to remove all drilling debris and also recommends that the
borehole be developed by airlifting. Even without drilling-related
effects, the  mere  presence of the borehole may lead to stress relief
and stress  redistribution around the borehole, changing the local
permeability.
2. As with any inflow test, it is vital that the injected water is absolutely
clean so that the risk of siltation of the test section is reduced.
3. Care must be taken to ensure that injection pressures are not so high
as to cause hydraulic fracturing or uplift of the ground. Even with-
out hydraulic fracturing, high water pressures may artificially dilate
existing fissures.
4. Problems sometimes occur if packers do not form an effective seal
with the borehole walls. This will lead to leakage from the test section
and can give completely misleading results. It is good practice to select
the test sections based on the drilling records of the test hole and to
try and locate packers in sections that are likely to give good seating
for packers. If obtaining high-quality test results is important, it may
be worthwhile to perform a caliper survey before packer testing and
selecting packer setting depths on that basis.