Publications: Water Resources Research

PUBLICATIONS
Water Resources Research

RESEARCH ARTICLE Estimating hydraulic conductivity of fractured rocks from
10.1002/2014WR016458
high-pressure packer tests with an Izbash’s law-based
Key Points: empirical model
The Q-P curves by HPPTs were
divided into Darcy, non-Darcy, and Yi-Feng Chen1, Shao-Hua Hu1, Ran Hu1, and Chuang-Bing Zhou1,2
fracking phases
The characteristics of Q-P curves 1
State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China,
were correlated with the intactness 2
School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China
of rocks
The permeability in different phases
was evaluated with an analytical
model Abstract High-pressure packer test (HPPT) is an enhanced constant head packer test for characterizing
the permeability of fractured rocks under high-pressure groundwater flow conditions. The interpretation of
Correspondence to: the HPPT data, however, remains difficult due to the transition of flow conditions in the conducting struc-
Y.-F. Chen, tures and the hydraulic fracturing-induced permeability enhancement in the tested rocks. In this study, a
csyfchen@whu.edu.cn number of HPPTs were performed in the sedimentary and intrusive rocks located at 450 m depth in central
Hainan Island. The obtained Q-P curves were divided into a laminar flow phase (I), a non-Darcy flow phase
Citation: (II), and a hydraulic fracturing phase (III). The critical Reynolds number for the deviation of flow from linearity
Chen, Y.-F., S.-H. Hu, R. Hu, and
C.-B. Zhou (2015), Estimating hydraulic into phase II was 25266. The flow of phase III occurred in sparsely to moderately fractured rocks, and was
conductivity of fractured rocks from absent at the test intervals of perfect or poor intactness. The threshold fluid pressure between phases II and
high-pressure packer tests with an III was correlated with RQD and the confining stress. An Izbash’s law-based analytical model was employed
Izbash’s law-based empirical model,
Water Resour. Res., 51, 2096–2118, to calculate the hydraulic conductivity of the tested rocks in different flow conditions. It was demonstrated
doi:10.1002/2014WR016458. that the estimated hydraulic conductivity values in phases I and II are basically the same, and are weakly
dependent on the injection fluid pressure, but it becomes strongly pressure dependent as a result of
Received 26 SEP 2014 hydraulic fracturing in phase III. The hydraulic conductivity at different test intervals of a borehole is remark-
Accepted 1 MAR 2015 ably enhanced at highly fractured zone or contact zone, but within a rock unit of weak heterogeneity, it
Accepted article online 10 MAR 2015
decreases with the increase of depth.
Published online 9 APR 2015
1. Introduction
The permeability or transmissivity of fracture rocks is a hydraulic property of great importance for under-
standing the groundwater flow and transport phenomena in a rock aquifer system. In situ hydraulic tests
have been considered as a reliable technique for obtaining the permeability of rocks in field conditions
[Neuman, 2005; Hamm et al., 2007]. The conventional hydraulic tests, such as constant head step test [Aiban
and Znidarčić, 1989; Markle et al., 1995; Yang and Yeh, 2006; Chang and Yeh, 2009; Chen et al., 2009; Wen
et al., 2011; Quinn et al., 2011a], constant-flux test [Butler and Liu, 1993; Yeh and Liu, 2000; Yang et al., 2006;
Neuman et al., 2007; Wang and Yeh, 2008], step-drawdown test [Clark, 1977; Kawecki, 1995; van Tonder et al.,
2001; Shekhar, 2006; Jha et al., 2006; Mathias and Todman, 2010], and slug test [Lee and Lee, 2000; Audouin
and Bodin, 2007; Quinn et al., 2013], are typically performed at sufficiently low injection pressure (P) or flow
rate (Q), such that the permeability of rocks could be estimated using mathematical models based on the
assumption of Darcy flow in the fractured rocks [e.g., Quinn et al., 2011a]. These conventional permeability
tests, however, may fail to apply for rocks of extremely low permeability or in the circumstances where the
pressure sensitivity of permeability becomes an issue of interest [Rutqvist and Stephansson, 2003]. This limi-
tation can fortunately be addressed by the enhanced high-pressure packer test (HPPT), in which a large vol-
ume of fluid is injected into the rocks at high flow rates.
The HPPT is commonly conducted in a single borehole for the determination of the hydro-mechanical prop-
erties of low-permeability fractured rocks under high water pressure and deeply buried environment [Rutqv-
ist et al., 1998]. This technique was first proposed by Londe and Sabarly [1966] and has been extensively
employed to examine the pressure-sensitive permeability of fractured rocks [Cornet and Morin, 1997; Cornet
C 2015. American Geophysical Union.
V et al., 2003; Cappa et al., 2006; Derode et al., 2013]. In a complete HPPT, however, the flow in the tested rocks
All Rights Reserved. is particularly prone to become non-Darcy as a result of high flow velocities and hydraulic gradients in the
CHEN ET AL. ESTIMATING HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM HPPTS 2096

Water Resources Research 10.1002/2014WR016458
cracks or fractures [Derode et al., 2013; Klepikova et al., 2013], and the interpretation of the experimental
data becomes quite difficult because the flow path geometry is in nature complex and full of uncertainties,
even being altered under high fluid pressures due to hydraulic fracturing [Doe and Geier, 1990]. Hydraulic
fracturing is an effective stimulation technique for oil and gas production in low-permeability reservoirs
[Yang et al., 2004; Adachi et al., 2007; Gu and Mohanty, 2014], but this process should generally be avoided
in hydraulic engineering for reducing the risks of cracking, tensile failure, permeability enhancement, and
leakage in rocks [Fehler et al., 1987; Rubin, 1993; Jiang et al., 2007].
The flow rate (Q) versus injection pressure (P) curves obtained from the HPPTs are commonly divided into a
low-pressure stage and a high-pressure stage, depending on whether the fracture dilation or hydraulic frac-
turing effect is manifested, with the dividing point between these two stages being determined either by
the characteristics of the curves [Huang et al., 2014] or by the change in the fracture aperture simulated
with a coupled hydro-mechanical model [Rutqvist et al., 1998]. The characteristics of the Q-P curves, how-
ever, have not yet been sufficiently clarified in rock formations of different intactness. The Reynolds number
(Re) has been widely used to identify the deviation of flow from linearity through fractures in laboratory
conditions [e.g., Schrauf and Evans, 1986; Zimmerman and Bodvarsson, 1996; Brush and Thomson, 2003], but
only a very few field studies have focused on estimating the critical Reynolds number (Rec) from the in situ
permeability tests [Kohl et al., 1997; Quinn et al., 2011a, 2011b, 2012, 2013]. Furthermore, the injection pres-
sure in a HPPT is commonly controlled to a moderate value to avoid hydraulic fracturing in the tested rocks
[Rutqvist et al., 1998], but there is a case where the HPPTs are intentionally designed to include the effect of
hydraulic fracturing, with a purpose for roughly estimating the amount of leakage out of concrete rein-
forced tunnels subjected to high water pressure and evaluating the induced environmental effects [e.g.,
Tondevold, 1971; Wong et al., 1988]. The threshold injection pressure (Pc) at which the hydraulic fracturing
occurs becomes an issue of interest and a simple formulation related to the intactness of rocks and the in
situ stress condition is desirable for practical use [Hossain et al., 2000; Adachi et al., 2007; Zhou et al., 2008].
In the HPPT data interpretation, the Darcy’s law-based equations are still widely employed to calculate the
hydraulic conductivity (k) for their ease of implementation and computational efficiency [Cornet and Morin,
1997; Rutqvist et al., 1998; Evans et al., 2005; Huang et al., 2014], disregarding the non-Darcy nature of fluid
flow in fractured rocks at high flow rates or hydraulic gradients. Some Forchheimer’s [1901] law-based mod-
els are available in the literature for characterizing the flow regimes in homogeneous and isotropic aquifers
[Choi et al., 1997; Wu, 2002; Wen et al., 2006; Mathias et al., 2008; Moutsopoulos et al., 2009; Eck et al., 2012;
Mijic et al., 2013], but not targeted for HPPT data interpretation and leaving the flow path geometry varia-
tions induced by hydraulic fracturing aside as an unsolved issue. The aquifer heterogeneity and the flow
network alteration, even can be hopefully addressed with proper inverse modeling approaches [Le Goc
et al., 2010; Derode et al., 2013; Klepikova et al., 2013] or numerical simulations of coupled deformation and
fluid flow processes [Rutqvist et al., 1998], remain difficult in the analytical model development.
This study presents the HPPT observations performed in fractured sedimentary and intrusive rocks located
at about 450 m depth in Qiongzhong County, Hainan Province, China, where an underground tunnel sys-
tem is to be constructed for a pumped-storage power station and high-pressure groundwater flow is
expected to occur in the surrounding rocks during the operation stage. Different from other HPPTs reported
in the literature, the Q-P curves obtained in our HPPTs can be typically divided into three phases: the lami-
nar flow phase (I), the non-Darcy flow phase (II), and the hydraulic fracturing phase (III), based on the char-
acteristics of the curves. It is found from the digital borehole images and the acoustic velocities of the
tested rocks that hydraulic fracturing mostly occurs in the sparsely to moderately fractured rocks, and this
phase of flow is generally absent at the test intervals of perfect or poor intactness. The critical Reynolds
number (Rec) for the deviation of flow from linearity is estimated with the field data, and is found to vary
around a magnitude of 48 (between 25 and 66). The threshold fluid pressure (Pc) that initiates the hydraulic
fracturing phase depends on the intactness of the tested intervals and the magnitude of the confining
stress, and can be well approximated with an empirical function of the rock quality designation (RQD) and
the minor principal compressive stress (r3). Motivated by the characteristics of the Q-P curves, an Izbash’s
[1931] law-based analytical model [Yamada et al., 2005] is employed for HPPT data interpretation and
hydraulic conductivity calculation. The results demonstrate that the hydraulic conductivity in phase II is
basically the same with that in phase I, implying that the variation in hydraulic conductivity (k) is below the
resolution of the test method before fracking is induced. In phase III, however, the hydraulic conductivity

r r r

1
r 4XDWHUQDU\EDVDOW
7HUWLDU\
3DOHR]RLF
0HVR]RLF
$FWLYHIDXOW
r
)DXOW
6WXG\DUHD
+DLQDQ,VODQG
&KLQD
r r r
5LGJHOLQH
8SSHU5HVHUYRLU
P /RZHU5HVHUYRLU
P
3RZHUKRXVH
+\GUDXOLF7XQQHO
'DIHQJ5HVHUYRLU
/LWLDQ5LYHU
6DQTXOLQJ0RXQWDLQ
*XOO\
Figure 1. Regional geological background and geomorphological feature of the test site.
becomes pressure dependent and increases with the injection pressure. Also discussed is the variation in
the hydraulic conductivity with the depth of the boreholes.
2. Site Description
The testing site is located in Qiongzhong County, Hainan Province, China, where a pumped-storage power
station has been planned to be built for load balancing, as shown in Figure 1. The project consists of an
upper reservoir, a lower reservoir, and an underground tunnel and cavern system for water diversion and
power generation. The normal pool levels of the upper and lower reservoirs are 567.0 and 253.0 m, respec-
tively. The diversion tunnel, 8.4 m in diameter and 1425.0 m in length, is composed of an upper horizontal
section, a middle horizontal section, a lower horizontal section and two inclined sections that connect the
horizontal ones, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. At the lower horizontal section, the hydraulic tunnel is
branched into three smaller tunnels of 3.8 m in diameter (see Figure 2), which carry water to operate three
reversible turbine/generator assemblies installed in the underground plant. The tunnels are concrete rein-
forced, and at the lower horizontal section, they are subjected to a maximum hydrostatic pressure of 3.85
MPa and an extra surge pressure up to 1.45 MPa on the inner surface. The water pressure will inevitably

/RZHU 3'
,QWDNH
KRUL]RQWDO
VHFWLRQ P
ˤˠ 1
8SSHU ./P
KRUL]RQWDO 0LGGOH
VHFWLRQ KRUL]RQWDO 3RZHUKRXVH
VHFWLRQ
/RZHU
/HJHQG =. UHVHUYRLU
=.

5RFNGLYLGH
7UDQVIRUPHUFKDPEHU
=.
=. 'LVFKDUJH
8SSHU ˤˠ *UDQLWH

UHVHUYRLU =.
./P 6DQG\FRQJORPHUDWH

6VFJ 6DQGVWRQHDQGFRQJORPHUDWH
=. 1XPEHU
%RUHKROH
'HSWKP
3' 1XPEHU

([SORUDWRU\DGLW
)ORRUHOHYDWLRQP ˤˠ
) )DXOWDQGLWVRULHQWDWLRQ
6VFJ
I 6SHFXODWHGIDXOWDQGLWVRULHQWDWLRQ 8QLWP
Figure 2. Layout of the Qiongzhong pumped storage power station.

1r(

/HJHQG
5RFNGLYLGH
ˤˠ *UDQLWH
8QLWP

- ./P 6DQG\FRQJORPHUDWH
ˤˠ
r

=. 1XPEHU
%RUHKROH (
)ORRUHOHYDWLRQP 1
:
r )
1
) r )DXOW DQGLWVRULHQWDWLRQ
r

./P

6(
I r 6SHFXODWHG IDXOW DQGLWVRULHQWDWLRQ

r

r(
I

r

1

( 6(
6 (
( =. =. r I
r I 1 =.
1

=. =.

=. =.

Figure 3. Geological map at cross section I-I.

Pressure meter induce tensile cracks in the concrete linings,

High-pressure and consequently, there is an urgent need
pump Data in understanding the high-pressure
recorder Data
Flowmeter acquisition groundwater flow behaviors in the sur-
Ground surface Water tank rounding rocks for optimization design and
performance assessment of the tunnel sys-
tem [Tondevold, 1971; Wong et al., 1988].
Control section
As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the bedrocks
in the study area mainly contain sedimen-
Inflatable packer
tary rocks of the Cretaceous Lumuwan
group (K1Lm) and Indosinian granites
Test interval (gc123
5 ), with K1Lm nonconformably overly-
ing gc123
5 . The Cretaceous Lumuwan group
Inflatable packer
(K1Lm) mainly consists of sandstone and
Borehole conglomerate, and the Indosinian granites
(gc123
5 ) mainly consist of chloritization gran-
ite, biotite granite and medium-grained
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of the HPPT equipment.
granite. The main structures at the site con-
sist of two subvertically oriented faults, F48
and F49, and a number of smaller-scale
faults, such as f17, f18, f20, f25, and f27. Besides the faults, three groups of moderately to steeply dipping
structural joints are developed, striking toward N55–75 W, N10–30 W, and N30–50 E, respectively. The frac-
ture frequency measured in the exploratory adits is about 2–4 fractures/m. This fracture system plays a
dominant role in evaluating the flow dimension of the packer tests.
The study area is rich in groundwater, with the phreatic surface being of minor seasonal fluctuations and
located in the eluvial deposits or the heavily weathered zone typically 10230 m below the ground surface.
The groundwater is recharged by precipitation and discharged to streams by springs. At a result of the
extremely low permeability of the intact sedimentary and intrusive rocks, the groundwater at the site
mainly moves through the faults and fractures. Two sets of in situ geostress measurements were performed
at the branching area of the diversion tunnel using the three borehole hydraulic fracturing method at
depths ranging from 385.0 to 427.9 m and from 373.2 to 426.1 m, respectively, one in boreholes ZK124,
ZK124-1, and ZK124-2, and the other in boreholes ZK119, ZK119-1, and ZK119-2. To obtain both the magni-
tude and orientation of the in situ stresses, the boreholes ZK119-1 and ZK119-2 were drilled around ZK119
with inclination angles of about 45 and 60 toward the upstream and downstream sides (Figure 3), respec-
tively, and the same layout was arranged for boreholes ZK124-1 and ZK124-2 around ZK124. The test results
show that the major principal compressive stress r1 at the test site is 6.628.4 MPa in magnitude, trending
toward N11.5235.1 W and with a plunge angle between 68 and 84 . The intermediate and minor principal
compressive stresses, r2 and r3, are subhorizontally plunging (0.7219.2 ), with the magnitudes ranging in
4.826.2 and 4.425.7 MPa, respectively. The stress measurements indicate that the regional stress field is
dominated by vertical stress (gravity stress) due to the fact that, as shown in Figure 1, no active faults are
developed in most parts of Hainan Island and the NE-trending regional faults release most of the tectonic
stress.
3. High-Pressure Packer Tests

3.1. HPPT Equipment and Procedure
As shown in Figure 4, the HPPT equipment was modified from the regular system for constant head pres-
sure tests, for achieving high injection pressure over a wide range of flow rates. The equipment consisted of
two assemblies, i.e., a downhole component for conducting the injection and an aboveground component
for monitoring the procedure and recording the data. The downhole component consisted of a control seg-
ment and two inflatable packers. To isolate a test interval around 5 m in length from the rest parts of a bore-
hole, the inflatable packers were pressurized and then expanded against the borehole wall. The inflatable
packers were 80 cm in length, which was considered long enough to prevent the flow from leaking through

Table 1. Characteristics of Four Test Boreholes

Number of
Borehole Collar Elevation (m) Depth (m) Test Intervals Axis Direction Rock Formation
ZK124 278.66 142.1 13 Vertical K1LM/gc123
5
ZK126 281.5 130.0 16 Vertical K1LM/gc123
5
ZK129-1 278.86 33.4 6 Slanted/45 K1LM
ZK129-2 278.86 45.2 7 Slanted/60 K1LM
the interface between the packers and the inner wall of the borehole. A 3D1-SZ high-pressure piston pump
was used to achieve high injection pressure up to 8 MPa, with a maximum flow rate of 135 L/min. The vol-
ume of water discharging from the pump was measured through a flowmeter, with a measuring range up
to 127.2 L/min and an accuracy of 0.1 L/min. To hold the injection water pressure, a YF-L20K pressure relief
valve was installed, with an adjusting capacity of 0.628.0 MPa and a resolution of 0.01 MPa. All the mea-
surement data (flow rate, pressure, and temperature) were recorded using the RDXL121-D data acquisition
and logger system.
Details of the HPPT procedures have been described in the literature [Cattadori et al., 1995; Rutqvist et al.,
1998; Evans et al., 2005; Huang et al., 2014]. A complete HPPT included inflation and deflation of the packers,
and the testing procedure typically lasted over 1202240 min. The HPPTs were conducted by a stepwise
increase (0.320.5 MPa) of the injection pressure until the maximum injection pressure (Pmax) up to 7.0 MPa
was attained, which was followed by a stepwise release (0.320.5 MPa) of the injection pressure down to 0.3
MPa. At each step, water was injected into the test interval and the flow rate (Q) and water pressure (P)
were measured. The injection pressure was kept constant until the flow was at a steady or quasi-steady
state, and this process typically took 4 min for low injection pressures (P < 1 MPa) and over 5 min for higher
injection pressures. The tests might fail if leakage through inflatable packers took place or the boreholes
were not properly flushed.
It is worthy of discussing here that if the steady or quasi-steady state of flow, as commonly assumed in the
model development for test data interpretation, could be really achieved at increasing injection pressure. A
HPPT performed by Cornet et al. [2003] in deformable rocks showed that a steady or quasi-steady state was
obtained rapidly within 1 min of injection, whereas the test conducted in a 3.6 km deep borehole by Evans
et al. [2005] indicated that such a state would take as long as 2 days. The results of the HPPTs by Cornet and
Morin [1997], Rutqvist et al. [1998], and Huang et al. [2014] are similar to either Cornet’s data or Evans’ data.
Braester and Thunvik [1984] announced that the quasi-steady state flow could be achieved relatively quick
following water injection because the storativity of the test section is usually insignificant. The test results
by Bliss and Rushton [1984] showed that the sections containing minor fractures reached a steady state
within 5 min, whereas the sections containing major fractures with lower hydraulic conductivity of intact
rocks took a longer time to reach the steady state. It remains an open issue, therefore, to answer how long
the HPPTs should last for actually reaching a steady or quasi-steady state condition, because various factors,
such as the fracture network and its connectivity, the phreatic surface, the initial water pressure before test-
ing, and the storage of the tested rocks, may influence this process. But fortunately, the test site is located
in the tropical climate zone, rich in groundwater and with a high phreatic surface above the testing zone.
Consequently, the obtained raw data presented in the following section showed that most of the test inter-
vals in the test boreholes seemed to be able to reach a steady or quasi-steady state, within the test time at
each pressure step, acceptable for engineering purpose.
3.2. HPPT Results

A total of 129 HPPTs were performed in eight boreholes of 91 mm in diameter located in the surrounding
rocks of the diversion tunnel system, as plotted in Figure 2. Of the eight boreholes, ZK124 and ZK126 were
drilled from the exploratory adit PD1 in the branched section of the tunnel, with the upper part of the bore-
holes in the Lumuwan formation (K1Lm) and the lower part in the Indosinian formation (gc51–3); and ZK129-1
and ZK129-2 were drilled in the powerhouse area in the Lumuwan formation (K1Lm). Descriptions of the
above four test boreholes are listed in Table 1. The HPPT raw data for each test interval of the four bore-
holes are listed in Tables 2–5. The flow rate (Q) and injection pressure (P) records obtained at some typical
test intervals in the above four boreholes are depicted in Figure 5. Figure 6 replots the above curves as the

Table 2. HPPT Data Obtained in ZK124

Fracture
Interval Depth (m) Frequency (1/m) RQD (%) Kv Pmax (MPa) Qmax (L/min) Rec Pc (MPa) Qc (L/min) Type
1 45.6–50.6 0.2 81 0.85 7.19 10.6 / 5.47 5.1 B-1
2 50.6–55.6 0.9 37 0.77 6.52 10.8 / 3.51 3.8 B-1
3 55.6–60.6 0.4 64 0.95 7.01 5.3 45 / / A-1
4 74.5–79.7 1.2 37 0.57 7.11 16.0 37 3.51 2.6 B-2
6 90.0–95.0 1.6 29 0.26 7.23 25.5 / / / A-2
7 100.5–105.0 1.0 68 0.65 6.43 34.5 51 5.09 8.4 B-2
8 110.0–115.6 0.7 52 0.66 7.05 99.1 / 4.04 8.5 B-2
9 115.6–121.6 0.2 80 0.83 7.12 10.0 49 5.04 4.9 B-1
10 121.6–127.6 0.4 75 0.81 7.05 37.6 49 4.96 4.9 B-1
11 127.6–132.5 0.4 78 0.81 7.02 5.0 49 5.08 1.7 B-1
13 137.2–142.1 0.6 62 0.77 6.97 3.3 37 4.54 0.8 B-1
flow rate versus injection pressure (Q–P) curves, where Q is the volumetric flow rate obtained as the steady
or quasi-steady state condition was achieved at each step of the injection pressure (P). The tests at intervals
5 in ZK124 and 3 in ZK126 were not successful due to improper installation of the double packers, and the
test at interval 12 in ZK124 failed due to a leakage through the lower inflatable packer. The flow rates (Q) at
the maximum pressure step in boreholes ZK124, ZK126, ZK129-1, and ZK129-2 ranged rather widely in 3.3–
99.1, 2.6–32.2, 7.0–45.8, and 5.2–73.9 L/min, respectively.
It has been recognized that the borehole packer test results are highly dependent on the development pat-
tern of fractures, the length of test intervals, the diameter of boreholes, and the pressure of the injected
fluid [Evans et al., 2005; Hamm et al., 2007; Ku et al., 2009]. In this study, acoustic borehole-televiewer imag-
ing was used after the HPPTs to obtain the frequency, orientation, and opening of fractures for identifying
the preferential flow channels as well as the rock quality designation (RQD) and intactness index (Kv) for rep-
resenting the intactness of the tested rocks. Specifically, RQD is defined as the ratio of the cumulative length
of the individual pieces exceeding 10 cm in length to the total length of the core, and Kv is defined as the
square of the ratio of longitudinal wave velocity of a fractured rock mass to that of the intact rock block.
Parts of the acoustic televiewer images taken from the above four boreholes are plotted in Figure 7. The
fracture frequency and the RQD and Kv values were calculated for each test interval of the boreholes, as
listed in Tables 2–5. The maximum fracture frequencies were 1.6, 1.8, 2.0, and 2.4 m21 observed at sections
of 90.0–95.0, 108.7–114.2, 5.0–10.2, and 15.6–20.6 m below the collars of boreholes ZK124, ZK126, ZK129-1,
and ZK129-2, respectively. The corresponding minimum RQD values were 29%, 25%, 15%, and 11% at the
same intervals in the above four boreholes, respectively.
4. Characteristics of Flow Patterns in a Complete HPPT

The characteristics of the Q-P curves obtained from the HPPTs are important for understanding the flow
behaviors in the fractured rocks under increasing injection fluid pressure. In the literature [Rutqvist et al.,
Table 3. HPPT Data Obtained in ZK126

Fracture
1 41.0–46.3 0.8 75 0.73 7.00 2.6 63 5.52 1.6 B-1
2 46.3–51.3 1.3 36 0.97 7.07 14.5 41 / / A-1
4 56.4–61.3 0.8 50 0.94 6.83 6.6 58 / / A-1
5 61.3–66.3 0.5 80 0.92 6.81 8.4 61 / / A-1
6 66.3–71.4 0.6 83 0.85 6.99 13.4 45 6.44 9.6 B-1
7 71.4–76.6 0.4 87 0.96 7.01 13.0 65 / / A-1
8 76.6–82.0 0.8 80 0.95 7.07 7.0 61 / / A-1
9 82.0–87.0 0.7 60 0.91 7.02 6.6 31 / / A-1
10 87.0–92.4 0.6 69 0.84 6.99 4.7 25 4.65 2.2 B-1
11 92.4–97.8 0.2 73 0.53 7.10 7.5 49 5.00 2.4 B-2
12 97.8–103.0 0.9 62 0.62 7.04 32.2 / 4.02 2.4 B-2
13 103.0–108.7 1.4 35 0.53 7.23 25.5 / 3.69 15.8 B-2
14 108.7–114.2 1.8 25 0.75 7.03 15.8 41 3.56 6.2 B-1
15 114.2–119.4 0.5 73 0.68 7.08 9.0 62 5.57 6.7 B-2
16 119.9–124.4 0.8 71 0.78 7.00 12.1 43 5.52 10.1 B-1

Table 4. HPPT Data Obtained in ZK129-1

Fracture
1 5.0–10.2 2.0 15 0.27 7.02 18.8 54 / / A-2
2 7.0–12.2 1.5 27 0.21 7.00 16.0 49 / / A-2
3 12.2–17.5 1.8 25 0.55 7.08 14.3 26 3.88 5.3 B-2
4 17.5–22.6 0.7 69 0.82 6.92 7.0 44 5.43 4.1 B-1
5 22.6–28.0 0.7 67 0.75 7.09 12.0 / 4.54 3.0 B-1
6 28.0–33.4 0.5 74 0.62 7.06 45.8 41 5.48 3.8 B-2
1998; Huang et al., 2014], a Q-P curve is commonly partitioned into two phases using the turning point on
the curve. In phase I, the injection pressure is rather low and the induced deformation of the fractures is
negligible. The permeability of the rock formations can be approximated with a constant and can be con-
sidered as the original hydraulic conductivity of the test sections. In phase II, the increase of the injection
pressure results in growth and progressive coalescence of existing cracks and/or initiation and propagation
of new cracks within the rock formations, and consequently, the crack network and the permeability are
enhanced due to hydraulic fracturing. In this section, the characteristics of the Q-P curves obtained in our
HPPTs are comprehensively examined and related to the intactness of the tested rocks, the flow conditions
in the fractures, and the hydraulic fracturing phenomenon occurring in the rock masses.
4.1. Flow Regimes of a Complete HPPT

According to the Q-P curves plotted in Figure 6, the flow conditions in the surrounding rocks of the bore-
holes associated with a compete HPPT can be best described with the conceptual model shown in Figure 8,
which typically contains the following three phases:
1. Phase I (laminar flow phase). This phase occurs in the early regime of a HPPT, in which the flow rate
increases linearly with the injection water pressure
Q5aI P ð0 < P Pe Þ (1a)
where aI is a proportional coefficient and Pe the upper bound of the injection pressure in this phase.
Equation (1a) indicates that the flow in the tested rocks follows the Darcy’s law and is dominated by the
viscous forces. The test data from different test intervals show that aI varies between 0.3 and 46.1 for P
and Q in units of MPa and L/min, respectively (Tables 6–9), depending on the intactness of the tested
rocks. The value of aI actually represents the initial permeability of the tested rocks, and it is larger for
highly fractured test intervals. For example, the maximum value of aI appears at interval 3 in ZK129-2,
where a highly fractured zone with RQD 5 11% and Kv 5 0.19 is developed. The value of Pe is about
0.321.0 MPa for all of the measurements (Figure 6), which is consistent with the results obtained in other
geohydrology tests and is considered to be sufficiently low to ensure Darcy’s flow during the tests [Rutqv-
ist et al., 1998; Quinn et al., 2012].
2. Phase II (non-Darcy flow phase). As the injected flow rate increases and especially the Reynolds number
(Re) increases up to a critical value (Rec), the Darcy’s law breaks down with the convective acceleration
and/or the transient effects becoming dominated until the onset of true turbulence. As shown in Figure
6, the Q-P curves in this phase can be best fitted with the following function, with the coefficient of deter-
mination R2 much close to 1 (R2 5 0.96820.999):
Table 5. HPPT Data Obtained in ZK129-2

Fracture
1 5.0–10.2 1.0 39 0.56 7.07 48.6 66 3.49 12.3 B-2
2 10.2–15.6 0.9 36 0.55 7.10 73.9 40 4.46 7.7 B-2
3 15.6–20.6 2.4 11 0.19 7.06 63.5 44 / / A-2
4 20.6–26.1 2.2 20 0.67 7.04 29.5 / 5.37 11.5 B-2
5 26.1–31.1 0.8 45 0.87 7.08 10.7 40 3.88 4.2 B-1
6 30.0–35.0 0.4 83 0.93 7.09 5.2 55 / / A-1
7 40.0–45.2 0.4 85 0.83 6.93 20.2 66 5.1 3.7 B-1

(a) 6 8 (b) 40 8
ZK124 ZK124
Interval 55.6–60.6 m Interval 100.5– 105.0 m
5
6 30 6
4
Q (L/min)
Q (L/min)
P (MPa)
P (MPa)
3 4 20 4
2
2 10 2
1 Flow rate
Injection pressure Flow rate
Injection pressure
0 0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (min) Time (min)
(c) 8 8 (d) 20 8
ZK126 ZK126
Interval 56.4– 61.3 m Interval 108.7– 114.2 m
16
6 6 6
12
Q (L/min)
Q (L/min)
P (MPa)
P (MPa)
4 4 4
8
2 2 2
4
Flow rate Flow rate
Injection pressure Injection pressure
0 0 0 0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 0 40 80 120 160 200
(e) 20 8 (f) 8 8
ZK129-1 ZK129-1
16
6 6 6
12
Q (L/min)
Q (L/min)
P (MPa)
P (MPa)
4 4 4
8
Flow rate 2 2 2
4 Injection pressure
Flow rate
Injection pressure
0 0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 30 60 90 120 150 180
(g) 50 8
(h) 75 8
ZK129-2 ZK129-2
40 60
6 6
45
Q (L/min)
30
P (MPa)
Q (L/min)
P (MPa)
4 4
20 30
2 Flow rate 2
10 Flow rate 15 Injection pressure
Injection pressure
0 0 0 0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 0 50 100 150 200 250
Figure 5. Flow rate (Q) and injection pressure (P) versus time (t) curves.

Re Re P
Q P
Q P R R
Q
Q Q P R
Q P
Q P
P P
Re Re P
Q P R
Q P
R
Q
Q
Q P R
Q P Q P
P P
Re Re P
Q P R
Q P
Q
Q
R
Q P R
Q P Q P
P P
Re P Re
Q P Q P R
R
Q
Q
Q P R Q P
Q P
P P
Figure 6. Typical Q versus P curves.

Figure 7. Typical acoustic televiewer images at intervals of (a) 50.6–55.6 m in ZK124, (b) 56.4–61.3 m in ZK126, (c) 12.2–17.5 m in ZK129-1,
and (d) 15.6–20.6 m in ZK129-2.
Q5aII PbII ðPe < P Pc Þ (1b)
where aII and bII are fitting coefficients, with bII denoting the slope of the lnQ2lnP plots. As listed in
Tables (6–9), the value of aII varies between 0.3 and 25.5 in our tests, and similar to aI in phase I, it is
dependent on the intactness of the tested rocks. bII varies in 0.5020.96, indicating a remarkable deviation
of flow from linearity in this phase.
3. Phase III (hydraulic fracturing phase). As the injection water pressure increases up to a threshold fluid pres-
sure (Pc), remarkable fracture dilation and hydraulic fracturing take place in the near zone of the borehole.
As a result of the opening, growth
and propagation of fractures, the
volume of the injected fluid
increases and becomes dependent
on the injection pressure. The Q-P
curves in this phase can be
adequately approximated with the
following function, with
R2 5 0.92720.999 (Figure 6):
Q5aIII ðP2Pc ÞbIII 1Qc ðP > Pc Þ (1c)
where aIII and bIII are fitting coeffi-

cients, Pc the injection fluid pres-
sure that initiates the hydraulic
fracturing, and Qc the correspond-
ing flow rate at Pc. The curve-fitting
results (Tables 6–9) show that the
Figure 8. Characterization of flow regimes in a complete HPPT. value of aIII varies in the range
between 0.2 and 24.2, and bIII takes

Table 6. Hydraulic Conductivity Estimated From HPPT Data in ZK124

Interval aI aII bII aIII bIII m kI (cm/s) kII (cm/s) kIII at Pmax (cm/s)
26
1 / 1.1 0.90 2.5 1.51 1.11 / 1.8 3 10 3.0 3 1026
2 / 1.4 0.80 1.5 1.45 1.25 / 2.4 3 1026 4.2 3 1026
3 1.1 1.1 0.81 / / 1.23 2.8 3 1026 1.9 3 1026 /
4 0.9 1.0 0.73 0.8 2.23 1.37 2.1 3 1026 1.7 3 1026 6.4 3 1026
6 / 9.0 0.50 / / 2.00 / 2.2 3 1025 /
7 2.1 2.0 0.87 12.1 2.63 1.15 5.6 3 1026 3.7 3 1026 1.3 3 1025
8 / 3.4 0.66 24.2 1.21 1.52 / 5.9 3 1026 4.8 3 1025
9 2.6 1.9 0.58 1.7 1.22 1.72 5.6 3 1026 3.1 3 1026 4.7 3 1026
10 0.8 1.0 0.95 6.2 2.25 1.05 1.7 3 1026 1.1 3 1026 5.9 3 1026
11 0.8 0.7 0.51 0.5 2.97 1.96 2.0 3 1026 1.4 3 1026 3.5 3 1026
13 0.3 0.3 0.79 0.2 1.85 1.49 7.6 3 1027 5.3 3 1027 9.6 3 1026
values between 1.03 and 2.97, depending on the slope of the curves in this stage. Here, it is interesting to
find that in our tests, bII 5 0.521 and bIII 5 123.
4.2. Types of the HPPT Q-P Curves

With the above conceptual model, the Q-P curves shown in Figure 6 can be broadly classified into two
types. The first type (denoted by type A) contains only two phases (phases I and II) in the Q-P curves and no
hydraulic fracturing is observed during the tests, as shown in Figures 6a, 6c, 6e, and 6h. This type of the
HPPTs is characteristic of the overlap of the Q-P curve at the rising stage of the injection pressure with that
at the releasing stage, implying that no remarkable irreversible deformation of the fractures is induced by
the injection pressure. Type A may occur in the test intervals of perfect intactness typically with Kv > 0.9
(denoted by type A-1) or in highly fractured rocks of poor intactness with RQD < 30% and Kv < 0.3 (denoted
by type A-2). Examples of type A-1 are the tests at the test intervals 3 in ZK124, 6 in ZK129-2, and 2, 4, 5,
and 729 in ZK126 (see Figures 6a and 6c and Tables 2, 3, and 5). A representative digital borehole image is
shown in Figure 7b for the test interval 4 in ZK126, in which no opening fractures cut across the tested rock
and the high injection pressure up to 7 MPa does not lead to opening and propagation of the preexisting
cracks due to the perfect intactness of the rock mass and the magnitude of the in situ stress. Typical exam-
ples of type A-2 are the tests at the test intervals 6 in ZK124, 1 and 2 in ZK129-1, and 3 in ZK129-2 (see Fig-
ures 6e and 6h and Tables 2, 4, and 5). Figure 7d shows a representative digital borehole image at the test
interval 3 in ZK129-2. In these test intervals, the maximum injection pressure (Pmax) could only be attained
with a high-volume pump and the pressure could only be maintained in a quite short time, implying that
the fracture storage has a significant effect on the flow behavior and the test data may be less reliable. As
shown in Tables 2, 4, and 5, the injected flow rate at Pmax reached 16263.5 L/min at the above four test
intervals. It is to be noted that in this type of tests, the nonlinearity of the Q-P curves in phase II may include
the coupled hydro-mechanical effect possibly induced by the increasing injection pressure in the highly
fractured rocks.
Table 7. Hydraulic Conductivity Estimated From HPPT Data in ZK126

25 25
1 6.6 4.6 0.50 1.3 1.05 2.00 1.6 3 10 1.3 3 10 2.5 3 1025
2 2.9 3.8 0.67 / / 1.49 7.2 3 1026 5.7 3 1026 /
4 1.6 1.5 0.72 / / 1.39 3.9 3 1026 2.8 3 1026 /
5 5.0 2.6 0.57 / / 1.76 1.2 3 1025 4.7 3 1026 /
6 3.4 2.2 0.85 3.4 2.16 1.18 8.4 3 1026 3.6 3 1026 3.7 3 1026
7 3.2 3.2 0.71 / / 1.40 7.7 3 1026 5.1 3 1026 /
8 2.5 1.8 0.79 / / 1.27 5.8 3 1026 2.8 3 1026 /
9 6.3 3.0 0.51 / / 2.00 1.6 3 1025 6.5 3 1026 /
10 1.6 1.0 0.50 0.8 1.38 2.00 3.7 3 1026 2.3 3 1026 4.1 3 1026
11 0.8 0.8 0.72 1.7 1.30 1.37 1.9 3 1026 1.4 3 1026 3.1 3 1026
12 / 0.5 0.91 2.2 2.40 1.10 / 1.0 3 1026 8.6 3 1026
13 / 9.5 0.51 1.1 1.67 1.96 / 1.9 3 1025 2.1 3 1025
14 6.5 3.4 0.51 0.9 1.91 1.96 1.5 3 1025 7.6 3 1026 1.4 3 1025
15 2.6 2.5 0.50 1.4 1.27 2.00 6.2 3 1026 5.9 3 1026 7.1 3 1026
16 1.6 1.5 0.50 1.3 1.03 2.00 4.3 3 1026 3.8 3 1026 4.0 3 1026

Table 8. Hydraulic Conductivity Estimated From HPPT Data in ZK129-1

26 26
1 3.3 3.1 0.93 / / 1.08 8.0 3 10 5.2 3 10 /
2 2.2 2.5 0.96 / / 1.04 5.2 3 1026 7.5 3 1026 /
3 1.8 1.8 0.77 2.0 1.30 1.30 4.3 3 1026 4.6 3 1026 7.9 3 1026
4 1.1 1.1 0.80 1.5 1.65 1.25 2.6 3 1026 1.5 3 1026 2.4 3 1026
5 / 1.0 0.74 2.0 1.61 1.35 / 1.5 3 1026 4.3 3 1026
6 1.0 1.0 0.82 14.2 2.37 1.22 2.3 3 1026 1.6 3 1026 1.5 3 1025
The second type of the Q-P curves (denoted by type B) is plotted in Figures 6b, 6d, 6f, and 6g. Type B curves
contain all the three phases during the tests and are characteristic of a hysteresis loop between the pressure
rise section and the pressure release section. This type of HPPTs frequently occurs in sparsely to moderately
fractured rocks and can be further classified into a fracture dilation type (type B-1) and a fracture dilation-
propagation type (type B-2), depending on the intactness of the tested rocks. Type B-1 occurs in the rock
masses of good intactness (Kv 5 0.720.9), with some typical examples shown in Figures 6d and 6f and
Tables 2–5. A representative digital borehole image is shown in Figure 7a for the test interval 2 in ZK124. In
this type of HPPTs, the dilation of fractures or cracks is induced as the injection pressure is increased beyond
the threshold value Pc, and the injected flow rate increase significantly with the increase of the injection
pressure. At the pressure release stage, the irreversible deformation of the fractures results in a higher flow
rate than that at the pressure rise stage at the same magnitude of the injection pressure. The Q-P curves at
the pressure release stage only display minor nonlinearity and can be roughly approximated with a linear
curve. Type B-2, on the other hand, generally occurs in the tested rocks of moderate intactness
(Kv 5 0.520.7). Figures 6b and 6g show two examples of type B-2, and Figure 7c shows a representative dig-
ital borehole image at the test interval 3 of ZK129-1. For this type of HPPTs, not only the preexisting frac-
tures undergo dilation and propagation, but also new cracks may be initiated when the injection pressure
exceeds the threshold value (Pc). Consequently, the fracture networks are enhanced and better connected,
as evidenced by the drastic increase of the injected flow rate with the increase of the injection pressure in
phase III. But at the pressure release stage, the recovery of the dilation and opening of the preexisting frac-
tures and fresh cracks leads to a drastic decrease of the injected flow rate until Pc, and below Pc, the injected
flow rate decreases almost linearly with P.
4.3. The Critical Reynolds Number Rec

The Reynolds number (Re) has been commonly employed to predict the termination of laminar flow and
the onset of non-Darcy flow behavior [e.g., Schrauf and Evans, 1986; Zimmerman and Bodvarsson, 1996;
Brush and Thomson, 2003]. For fluid flow in fractures, the Reynolds number can be estimated by the follow-
ing equation:
eqv qQ
Re5 5 (2)
l lw
where e is the fracture aperture [L], v the fluid flow velocity in the fracture [L/T], q the fluid density [M/L3],
and l the dynamic viscosity of the fluid [M/L T]. However, direct measurement of the fracture aperture and
flow velocity is quite complicated and necessitates the use of sophisticated instrumentation. Therefore, use
of Q 5 wev is made for deriving the second term of equation (1) [Zimmerman et al., 2004; Ranjith and
Table 9. Hydraulic Conductivity Estimated From HPPT Data in ZK129-2

25 25
1 8.7 5.9 0.57 4.0 1.71 1.75 2.1 3 10 1.1310 3.1 3 1025
2 2.2 2.3 0.81 16.0 1.47 1.23 5.1 3 1026 4.831026 3.2 3 1025
3 46.1 25.5 0.50 / / 2.00 1.1 3 1024 5.331025 /
4 / 4.1 0.62 3.9 2.95 1.61 / 6.831026 1.5 3 1025
5 1.3 1.4 0.81 1.8 1.18 1.23 3.2 3 1026 2.531026 4.0 3 1026
6 0.9 0.9 0.85 / / 1.17 2.2 3 1026 1.531026 /
7 0.8 0.9 0.88 3.4 2.64 1.14 1.8 3 1026 1.531026 6.4 3 1026

Darlington, 2007], which yields a form of the Reynolds number absent from the joint aperture (e). Here, Q is
the volumetric flow rate and w is the length of the fracture trace on the borehole wall.
The determination of the critical Reynolds number, Rec, for the deviation from the linear relationship
between the flow rate and pressure drop in fractures can be found in a large quantity of laboratory
experimental data. This deviation may occur either as a result of considerable inertial losses or due to
the turbulence induced by velocity fluctuations [Louis, 1969; de Marsily, 1986; Zimmerman and Bodvars-
cı et al., 2014]. Before the onset of turbulence, non-Darcy flow will hap-
son, 1996; Qian et al., 2007; Bag
pen at low Re, when the inertial effects due to tortuous flow paths become significant [Coulaud et al.,
1988; Zimmerman and Bodvarsson, 1996; Fourar et al., 2004; Lo Jacono et al., 2005; Nazridoust et al.,
2006; Zhang and Nemcik, 2013]. Consequently, a critical value at a number around 10 obtained from
single-phase flow experiments through natural rock fractures was generally accepted in the literature
[Hassanizadeh and Gray, 1987; Coulaud et al., 1988; Nicholl et al., 1999; Konzuk and Kueper, 2004; Ranjith
and Viete, 2011; Javadi et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2014]. But much different threshold values, even up to
6021500, were also reported based on the experimental observations [Ji et al., 2008; Qian et al., 2005;
Zhou et al., 2008].
It is rarely reported, however, for the critical Reynolds number Rec estimated from field testing data. In
field conditions, the critical Reynolds number depends mainly on the aperture, width and roughness of
fractures, the type of fracture infillings, and the connectivity of the fractures in the direction of flow [Neu-
man, 2005]. At each test interval, even the number and the orientation of fractures could be obtained
from the acoustic televiewer image (Figure 7), the critical Reynolds number for each fracture could not
yet be determined because the details of the flow geometry in the near zone of the borehole are
unavailable for numerical modeling. Given that the fractures cutting across each test interval are gener-
ally parallel to each other, it is fortunately possible to calculate an equivalent critical Reynolds number
by equation (2), in which the length of the fracture trace on the borehole wall, w, is estimated by (see
Figure 7):
2prw
w5 (3)
cos h
where rw is the radius of the borehole [L] and h the dip of the fracture.
Tables 2–5 list the estimated values of Rec at each interval of the tests for representing the deviation of flow
from linearity, showing that the transition of flow conditions from phase I to phase II mostly occurs at
Rec 5 25–66, with a mean value around 48. This value generally agrees with the in situ estimates by Kohl
et al. [1997] and the numerical simulation results by Zimmerman et al. [2004].
4.4. The Threshold Fluid Pressure Pc

The step rise of the injection water pressure would eventually lead to dilation and growth of preexisting
fractures or initiation and propagation of new fractures at the test intervals [Adachi et al., 2007]. This phe-
nomenon is characterized by a threshold fluid pressure Pc, which separates the flow regimes into phases
II and III, with the flow rate growing much quickly in phase III (Figure 6), and can be quite well deter-
mined from the turning points on the Q-P curves [Louis and Maini, 1970; Huang et al., 2014; Develi and
Babadagli, 2015]. The values of Pc for each test interval of the boreholes are listed in Tables 2–5, showing
that the threshold fluid pressure Pc varies in 3.4926.44 MPa. It has been well understood that the thresh-
old pressure Pc depends mainly on the properties of fractures (toughness, length, orientation, and tensile
strength, etc.) and the magnitude of in situ stresses in the formations [Hossain et al., 2000; Adachi et al.,
2007; Zhou et al., 2008]. For decades, a larger number of fracture mechanics models have been developed
for Pc since the first simplified theoretical model published in the 1950s, such as the PKN, KGD, and P3D
models [Adachi et al., 2007]. Based on these models [Guo et al., 1993], a general form of Pc can be written
as:
KIC
Pc 5f ðl; rw ÞrH 1gðl; rw Þrh 1hðl; rw Þ pffi (4)
l
where l is the fracture length [L], rH and rh the maximum and minimum horizontal stresses, KIC the fracture
toughness, and f, g and h the functions of l and rw, respectively. The first and second terms on the right-

hand side represent the influence of

in situ stresses at the test intervals,
while the third term represents the
resistance to crack propagation [Nas-
seri and Mohanty, 2008], with KIC
being scale dependent and difficult
to measure accurately [Balme et al.,
P 2004].
In most practical cases, however, the
prediction of the threshold pressure
P RQD
Pc remains within engineering accu-
R
racy whatever the field conditions are
assumed. Given the great uncertainty
and complexity of the field condi-
tions, it is of particular importance to
RQD
identify some simple dimensionless
Figure 9. The dependence of the threshold pressure Pc on RQD and r3. parameters that can be related to the
hydraulic fracturing process [Savitski
and Detournay, 2002]. Despite its limi-
tations, RQD is in many cases the only parameter available for characterizing the degree of jointing or the
intactness of the rock masses. Therefore, a new empirical relation developed for estimating the threshold
pressure Pc based on RQD, and the confining stress is important and worthy of discussion [Zhang, 2010].
Using the data listed in Tables 2–5 and recalling the form of equation (4), fortunately, we found that the
threshold pressure Pc can be represented as an empirical function of RQD and the minor principal compres-
sive stress r3 with a sufficiently high correlation coefficient (R2 5 0.879). As shown in Figure 9, the best fitted
equation is given by:
Pc 50:67r3 14:19RQD2:68 (5)
Given the limited number of the in situ stress data, the accuracy of the stress measurements and the range
of r3 (4.425.7 MPa) obtained at the test site, a mean value of r3 5 5.0 MPa is used for curve-fitting equa-
tion (5). The second term on the right-hand side represents the overall resistance of fractured rocks to
hydraulic fracturing, and is hence correlated to the intactness of the rocks [Lee et al., 2006], with the coeffi-
cient 4.19 in units of MPa. It should be noted that this equation just gives an empirical or statistical criterion
for judging at what fluid pressure the hydraulic fracturing may occur in HPPTs, but not enough for under-
standing the fluid-driven growth and propagation of fractures. The latter issue could be addressed by
inverse modeling of the tests with proper numerical tools [Adachi et al., 2007], but out of the scope of this
study.
5. An Analytical Model for HPPT Data Interpretation

5.1. Model Development
The HPPT data obtained in this study clearly illustrate that there exist three, or in some situations two, dis-
tinct flow regimes in the process of a complete HPPT, and therefore, the classical Darcy’s law-based equa-
tions for estimating the hydraulic conductivity of the tested rocks, e.g., the Hvorslev [1951] and Moye [1967]
equations, are not adequate for HPPT data interpretation. A number of Forchheimer’s [1901] law-based
equations [Choi et al., 1997; Wu, 2002; Wen et al., 2006; Mathias et al., 2008; Moutsopoulos et al., 2009; Eck
et al., 2012; Mijic et al., 2013] have been proposed for the non-Darcy flow in homogeneous and isotropic
aquifers with prescribed boundary conditions at infinity and one-dimensional (1-D) linear or radial axisym-
metrical (2-D) flow path geometry. Yamada et al. [2005] developed an Izbash’s [1931] law-based equation
for calculating permeability in coarse river beds from conventional packer tests by assuming three-
dimensional (3-D) spherical flow out of the test section. To develop or choose an appropriate model for
HPPT data interpretation, two fundamental issues deserve further discussion: one concerns the flow geome-
tries around a borehole and the other, as discussed in section 3.1, concerns the appropriateness of the
steady or quasi-steady state assumption.

z It has been understood that choosing an appro-

priate flow geometry for the fractured rock is key
v to data interpretation of such a test, and if the
,z dimension of flow geometry in the aquifers is dif-
ferent from the one assumed in the mathemati-
r
cal model, the obtained hydraulic parameters
can be highly erroneous [Doe and Geier, 1990].
An idealized geometry in homogeneous, infinite
domains is commonly assumed in the develop-
z L P y ment of the interpretive models, such as the lin-
ear flow model of Miller [1962] and the radial
flow model of Theis [1935]. Barker [1988] found
r x
that if the fracture density is low or the fracture
system is highly anisotropic, a 1-D or 2-D flow
model would probably be preferred, whereas if
Figure 10. Conceptual model for the derivation of permeability from the fractures tend to be densely and isotropically
HPPT. distributed, then a 3-D spherical flow geometry
might be considered appropriate. Although it
has also been recognized that the flow in fractured rocks under high injection fluid pressure condition are
prone to the 3-D spherical flow [Doe and Geier, 1990; Rutqvist et al., 1998], the appropriateness of this con-
sideration eventually depends on the geometry of the fracture network.
Site characterization results (section 2) show that at the test site, there are three groups of moderately to
steeply dipping structural joints, typically being closed, extending around 5.0 m and with a mean spacing
between 25 and 50 cm. This, together with the orientations of the fracture groups, indicates that the frac-
tures are moderately developed at the site, and the anisotropy of the fracture network could be sufficiently
weak. As a first approximation with engineering accuracy of the reality of flow geometry in the field condi-
tion, therefore, the 3-D spherical flow geometry assumption seems to be more appropriate than the 1-D or
planar flow assumptions. It should be mentioned, however, that when hydraulic fracturing occurs, the direc-
tional growth of fractures might increase the anisotropy of the flow geometries, which makes the estimate
of k less reliable in phase III of the HPPTs. This is also the case for the second issue concerning the steady or
quasi-steady state assumption, because the varying storage capacity of fractures in phase III may prolong
the time to a steady or quasi-steady state. A transient flow model seems naturally to be more appropriate,
but as usually assumed, the quasi-steady state condition simplifies the model development and yields a
solution acceptable for engineering purpose.
In this study, the analytical model developed by Yamada et al. [2005] is employed for the interpretation of
the HPPT data. This model assumes that: (1) the fractured rocks are homogeneous and isotropic, as is mostly
assumed in the literature; (2) at any given point (f) on the interval, the volumetric flow rate injected into the
infinitesimal section (df) is linearly proportional to the total volumetric flow rate (Q) injected into the test
interval (L), as shown in Figure 10; (3) the flow out of the borehole is a 3-D spherical flow following the
empirical Izbash’s [1931] law; and (4) the water pressure (p) in the fractured rocks around a borehole is to
distribute in the form of p 5 cr21, where c is an arbitrary constant and r the distance from the point source
(f) on the borehole axis along the flow path [L]. Note that in this section, the injection water pressure (P)
on the borehole wall and the water pressure (p) in the fractured rocks should be understood as pressure
heads [L].
In assumption (3), the Izbash’s [1931] law represents the relationship between the volumetric flow velocity
(v) and fluid pressure head (p) in the fractured rocks, which reads:
@p
2 5kv m (6)
@r
where k and m are empirical coefficients. For laminar flow (m 5 1), the Izbash’s law reduces to the Darcy’s
law, and for m 5 2, equation (6) represents a fully turbulent flow. In transitional flow condition, the value of
m ranges from 1 to 2 [Bordier and Zimmer, 2000].
1
By defining k5k2m , equation (6) can be rewritten as

1
@p m
v5k 2 (7)
@r
where k is called the hydraulic conduc-

pP r
tivity of the fractured rocks [L/T] [Izbash
R
and Leleeva, 1971; Yamada et al., 2005],
with its unit being independent of the
pP values of m.
pP r
R pP r In assumption (4), a more general sub-
R stitute can be made for the distribution
of p:
p5cr 2n (8)
where n is a fitting parameter. This

r assumption has been partially sup-
ported by in situ multiple-well aquifer
Figure 11. Distribution of water pressure p (normalized by the injection pressure test data [Liu et al., 1996; Wei et al.,
P) in the surrounding rocks of injection boreholes obtained by in situ multiple-
well hydraulic tests.
2006; Jiang et al., 2007], with the best
fitted values of n varying between 0.52
and 1.06, as plotted in Figure 11.
Starting from equations (7) and (8) and following the procedure proposed by Yamada et al. [2005], one
obtains the following equation for the estimate of k from the HPPTs:
ðL " 2 #122m
2m
Q 2 L
k5 1=m
rw 1 2f df (9)
4pðPnÞ L 2
0
where L is the length of the test interval [L]. Here, it is easy to verify that k is consistently in units of L/T by
regarding P as a pressure head [L].
It is worthy of noting that in the model development, a general assumption has been made on the distribu-
tion of water pressure in the fractured rocks surrounding a borehole, i.e., p/r2n in equation (8), showing
that the larger the value of n is, the quicker the water pressure decays with the distance away from the
borehole. But equation (9) indicates that the water pressure distribution assumption only influences the
solution of the hydraulic conductivity k by the term n21/m for any given values of borehole radius rw, test
interval length L, injection pressure P, and flow rate Q. For fully turbulent flow, m 5 2 and as n varies in
0.523.0, k varies in a rather narrow range in 1.420.6 times. This implies that the value of n 5 1 would yield
an accurate enough solution to the magnitude of k. Hence, equation (9) reduces to the model developed
by Yamada et al. [2005]:
ðL " 2 #
122m
2m
Q 2 L
k5 rw 1 2f df (10)
4pP1=m L 2
0
5.2. Hydraulic Conductivity Calculation From HPPT Data

Equation (10) is valid for different flow conditions, no matter laminar or non-Darcian. For laminar flow at
low injection pressures (phase I in the Q-P curves obtained from the HPPTs), m 5 1 and equation (10)
becomes identical with the Hvorslev [1951] equation:
0 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1
2ffi
Q L L
kI 5 1n@ 1 11 A (11)
2pPL 2rw 2rw
where kI is the hydraulic conductivity in phase I of the HPPTs [L/T].

Substituting equation (1a) into (11) yields the relationship between kI and aI, indicating that kI can be
directly calculated from the slope of the Q-P plots:

0 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1
2ffi
aI L L
kI 5 1n@ 1 11 A (12)
2pL 2rw 2rw
For non-Darcy flow (phase II), the value of m exceeds 1, and in this case the integral term in equation (10)
can be efficiently computed using numerical methods such as the Gauss-Legendle method [Yamada et al.,
2005]. In phase II, the value of 1/m and the hydraulic conductivity kII in equation (10) can be evaluated from
the slope and y intercept, respectively, of the lnQ versus lnP plots. To illustrate the correlation between kI
and kII, we substitute equation (1b) into (10) and make use of bII 5 1/m (both represent the slope of the
lnQ2lnP plots):
ðL " 2 #
122m
2m
aII 2 L
kII 5 rw 1 2f df (13)
4pL 2
0
Equation (13) implies that the hydraulic conductivity kII in phase II is not directly dependent on the injection
fluid pressure P. Furthermore, it can be inferred from equations (12) and (13) that kI and kII do not make
much difference in magnitude, given that the value of aI is rather close to the value of aII for each test inter-
val, as shown in Tables 6–9. This phenomenon has been observed by Rutqvist et al. [1998] and Quinn et al.
[2011b].
5.3. A Discussion on the Hydraulic Conductivity in Phase III

As previously stated, some HPPTs avoid hydraulic fracturing in the tested rocks with Pmax < Pc, but others
may be intentionally designed to include the hydraulic fracturing phase (III). The test data obtained in this
phase may be less reliable because of a longer time required to achieve the quasi-steady state and the
influence of varying fracture storativity, and the application of equation (10) may be of lower confidence
due to the possible change in flow geometries and the more pronounced transient nature of flow. How-
ever, a rough estimate of k (kIII) in this phase, with engineering accuracy, is still useful for the risk assess-
ment and prediction of the leakage out of concrete reinforced tunnels with high water pressure on the
inner surface, commonly encountered in the pumped storage power station [Tondevold, 1971; Wong et al.,
1988].
In phase III, the flow condition may keep the same with that in phase II (m remaining unaltered) or become
fully turbulent (m 5 2). If we assume that the flow condition in phase III is the same with that in phase II
(with m in equation (10) being the value calculated from phase II), it is not hard to derive the following
equation for the hydraulic conductivity kIII in phase III by substituting equation (1c) into (10):
1=m
kIII Pc aIII
5 11 ðP2Pc ÞbIII (14)
kII P Qc
Equation (14) clearly shows that as the injection fluid pressure P is increased over the threshold pressure Pc
that initiates the hydraulic fracturing, the hydraulic conductivity of the tested rocks becomes pressure
dependent.
5.4. Results
Tables 6–9 list the estimated values of k (kI, kII, and kIII) in the three phases and the best fitted values of m in
the second phase of the HPPTs in the four test boreholes, in which kIII is estimated at the maximum injec-
tion pressure Pmax 5 7 MPa. Note that in the tables, the values of kI and aI are unavailable for some test
intervals because of unreliability of the test data at low injection pressure. Figure 12 show comparisons of
kI, kII, and kIII at different depths along the borehole axis. The values of m fall within 1.0422.0, showing the
non-Darcy flow nature and the degree of deviation from linearity in phase II. The estimated hydraulic con-
ductivity at most of the test intervals ranges in 102621025 cm/s, and higher hydraulic conductivities of the
order of 102521024 cm/s is observed in the highly fractured zone or the contact zone between the sedi-
mentary and granitic rocks, such as the test intervals 6 in ZK124, 1 and 13 in ZK126, and 1 and 3 in ZK129-2.
It can also be inferred from the results listed in Tables 229 that the obtained hydraulic conductivity values
are hard to be correlated to the intactness of the tested rocks (such as RQD or Kv) observed from the bore-
holes, and this phenomenon has been clarified by Ku et al. [2009].

As mentioned previously, Figure

12 confirms that no significant
differences exhibit between kI
and kII estimated from phases I
and II of the tests, respectively
(with the ratio of kII to kI varying
between 0.38 and 1.43), implying
that the hydraulic conductivity is
weakly dependent on the flow
regimes or the fluid pressure-
induced variation in k is below
the resolution of the test method
before fracking is induced during
the hydraulic tests. This finding is
consistent with the conclusions
reached by Rutqvist et al. [1998]
and Quinn et al. [2011b]. In other
words, in these two phases, k is
largely determined by the frac-
ture network and the physical
property of the fluid (e.g., viscos-
ity), and it is expected to be con-
stant as long as the applied
pressure is small enough to avoid
fracture dilation and/or hydraulic
fracturing. The above results sup-
port that the Izbash’s law could
properly describe the non-Darcy
flow behaviors in fractured rocks
and the presented analytical
model is applicable for the inter-
pretation of the HPPT data.
Figure 12. Variation of hydraulic conductivities (kI in phase I, kII in phase II, and kIII in
Figure 12 also demonstrates that
phase III at Pmax) with depth obtained in boreholes (a) ZK124, (b) ZK126, (c) ZK129-1, and
(d) ZK129-2. in a rock unit with relatively
homogeneous structures, the
hydraulic conductivity decreases
with the increase of depth, which has been observed in other rock formations [Zhao, 1998; Saar and Manga,
2004; Cardenas and Jiang, 2010]. This phenomenon could be interpreted by the mechanical compaction of
deformable media caused by the increase in lithostatic stress with depth. It is difficult, however, to establish
a unique relationship between permeability and depth in the fields because permeability measurements at
a given depth typically show a remarkable variation [Jiang et al., 2009]. Figure 13 shows that in phase III of
the tests, the hydraulic conductivity becomes pressure dependent and increases with P as a result of tensile
cracking and fracture dilation induced by hydraulic fracturing. At the maximum pressure step (Pmax 57
MPa), the estimated hydraulic conductivity, kIII, is generally 1.2–9.8 times larger than the values obtained in
phase II. This result is basically consistent with the observations by Huang et al. [2014], who predicted a ratio
of hydraulic conductivities between 2 and 5.
It should be mentioned, however, that the above estimates of k from the HPPT data are to some extent full
of uncertainties. The sources of uncertainties involved in estimating hydraulic conductivity from in situ
hydraulic tests are not only from the data acquisition and processing errors, but also from the assumptions
of quasi-steady state flow condition and spherical flow geometry made for development of the analytical
model. As pointed out by Fl€ uhler et al. [1976], the former includes the reading and instrument errors (i.e.,
Q 6 0.1 L/min and P 6 0.01 MPa in obtaining the Q-t and P-t curves in Figure 5), the random errors involved
in the data selecting and smoothing procedures (i.e., replotting the Q-P curves in Figure 6 from Figure 5

and curve-fitting equation (1) to the

data points) as well as the errors of
the calculations by integrating and
differentiating the data. Even though
the uncertainty from the above errors
could be hopefully analyzed with the
method outlined by Johns [1998],
which is optimistically expected to be
rather low, the uncertainty originated
K
from the model assumptions are hard

to be estimated, as discussed in sec-
tions 3.1, 5.1, and 5.3. The confidence
in the results is their engineering
accuracy for practical purpose and a
basis for further development.
P
Figure 13. Variation of the hydraulic conductivity kIII in phase III with the injection 6. Conclusions
pressure P.
In this study, high-pressure packer
tests (HPPTs) with the maximum
injection pressure up to 7 MPa were performed in the sedimentary and intrusive rock formations located at
about 450 m depth in central Hainan Island, for understanding the high-pressure groundwater flow behav-
iors in the surrounding rocks of an underground tunnel system that is to be constructed for Qiongzhong
pumped storage power station. The characteristics of the obtained Q-P curves and the manifested flow
regimes were analyzed, and related to the jointing and intactness of the tested rocks observed by borehole
wall imaging and acoustic wave monitoring. An Izbash’s law-based analytical model was employed for
hydraulic conductivity estimation and HPPT data interpretation, by assuming a spherical flow with a power
law distribution of fluid pressure in the tested rocks away from the test intervals. The major contributions of
this study are summarized as follows:
1. Three distinct regimes of flow (phases I, II, and III) were identified according to the characteristics of the
obtained Q-P curves. The laminar flow in phase I generally occurs in the early stage of the HPPT tests at
low injection fluid pressure below 0.321.0 MPa. The critical Reynolds number for the deviation of flow
from linearity was estimated to be 25266. The non-Darcy flow in phase II was found to follow the Izbash’s
law, with the coefficient m varying in 1.0422.0. The threshold fluid pressure that initiates the flow in
phase III in which hydraulic fracturing occurs varies in 3.4926.44 MPa, and could be well approximated
with an empirical function of the rock quality designation (RQD) at the test intervals and the minor princi-
pal compressive stress (r3) at the test site.
2. It was found that in a complete HPPT, the flow in phase III mostly appears in sparsely to moderately frac-
tured rocks (with the intactness index Kv 5 0.520.9), and the better the rock quality is, the more pro-
nounced recovery of the fracture opening induced by fracking is observed at the releasing stage of the
injection fluid pressure. This phase of flow, however, may be absent in the tested rocks of perfect intact-
ness (Kv > 0.9), where fracking is hard to be initiated or of poor intactness (Kv < 0.3) where the fractures
are highly connected. The HPPT results are less reliable in the latter case.
3. The predictions by the Izbash’s law-based empirical model show that the hydraulic conductivity in phase
I of the HPPTs makes little difference with that in phase II, implying that the hydraulic conductivity is
weakly dependent on the flow regimes or its variation is below the resolution of the test method before
the hydraulic fracturing effect is manifested. The hydraulic conductivity in phase III, however, becomes
injection pressure dependent, and its value at the maximum injection fluid pressure is 1.229.8 times
larger than the hydraulic conductivity value obtained in phase II. The calculated hydraulic conductivity is
in general weakly correlated with the RQD or Kv value of the tested rocks, with higher hydraulic conduc-
tivity in the highly fractured zone or contact zone between the rock formations. It is also observed that
the permeability in a rock unit of relatively weak heterogeneity observed at the same borehole generally
decreases with the increase of depth.

Acknowledgments References
The authors gratefully thank H.
Aiban, S. A., and D. Znidarčić (1989), Evaluation of the flow pump and constant head techniques for permeability measurements, Geotech-
Rajaram at University of Colorado at
nique, 39(4), 655–666, doi:10.1680/geot.1989.39.4.655.
Boulder, R.L. Detwiler at University of
Adachi, J., E. Siebrits, A. Peirce, and J. Desroches (2007), Computer simulation of hydraulic fractures, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 44(5), 739–
California, Irvine, and the anonymous
757, doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2006.11.006.
reviewers for their valuable and
Audouin, O., and J. Bodin (2007), Analysis of slug-tests with high-frequency oscillations, J. Hydrol., 334(1), 282–289, doi:10.1016/
constructive comments in improving
j.jhydrol.2006.10.009.
this study, and greatly appreciate € N. Dukhan, and M. Ozdemir
€
Bagcı, O., (2014), Flow regimes in packed beds of spheres from Pre-Darcy to turbulent, Transp. Porous Media,
Zhongnan Engineering Co., Ltd. for
104(3), 501–520, doi:10.1007/s11242-014-0345-0.
providing the raw data of HPPTs
Balme, M. R., V. Rocchi, C. Jones, P. R. Sammonds, P. G. Meredith, and S. Boon (2004), Fracture toughness measurements on igneous rocks
performed in central Hainan Island,
using a high-pressure, high-temperature rock fracture mechanics cell, J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 132(2), 159–172, doi:10.1016/S0377-
which are freely accessible in Excel
0273(03)00343-3.
format by contacting the first author
Barker, J. A. (1988), A generalized radial flow model for hydraulic tests in fractured rock, Water Resour. Res., 24(10), 1796–1804, doi:10.1029/
(Y.-F. Chen) at Wuhan University at
2003WR002436.
csyfchen@whu.edu.cn. The financial
Bliss, J. C., and K. R. Rushton (1984), The reliability of packer tests for estimating the hydraulic conductivity of aquifers, Q. J. Eng. Geol.
supports from the National Natural
Hydrogeol., 17(1), 81–91, doi:10.1144/GSL.QJEG.1984.017.01.10.
Science Foundation of China
Bordier, C., and D. Zimmer (2000), Drainage equations and non-Darcian modelling in coarse porous media or geosynthetic materials, J.
(51222903 and 51179136) and the
Hydrol., 228(3), 174–187, doi:10.1016/S0022–1694(00)00151-7.
National Basic Research Program of
Braester, C., and R. Thunvik (1984), Determination of formation permeability by double-packer tests, J. Hydrol., 72(3), 375–389, doi:10.1016/
China (2011CB013503) are gratefully
0022-1694(84)90090-8.
acknowledged.
Brush, D. J., and N. R. Thomson (2003), Fluid flow in synthetic rough-walled fractures: Navier-Stokes, Stokes, and local cubic law simulations,
Water Resour. Res., 39(4), 1085, doi:10.1029/2002WR001346.
Butler, J. J., and W. Liu (1993), Pumping tests in nonuniform aquifers: The radially asymmetric case, Water Resour. Res., 29(2), 259–269, doi:
10.1029/92WR02128.
Cappa, F., Y. Guglielmi, J. Rutqvist, C. F. Tsang, and A. Thoraval (2006), Hydromechanical modelling of pulse tests that measure fluid pres-
sure and fracture normal displacement at the Coaraze Laboratory site, France, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 43(7), 1062–1082, doi:10.1016/
j.ijrmms.2006.03.006.
Cardenas, M. B., and X. W. Jiang (2010), Groundwater flow, transport, and residence times through topography-driven basins with expo-
nentially decreasing permeability and porosity, Water Resour. Res., 46, W11538, doi:10.1029/2010GL042387.
Cattadori, G., L. Galbiati, L. Mazzocchi, and P. Vanini (1995), A single-stage high pressure steam injector for next generation reactors: Test
results and analysis, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 21(4), 591–606, doi:10.1016/0301-9322(94)00086-Y.
Chang, Y. C., and H. D. Yeh (2009), New solutions to the constant-head test performed at a partially penetrating well, J. Hydrol., 369(1), 90–
97, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.02.016.
Chen, Y. J., H. D. Yeh, and S. Y. Yang (2009), Analytical solutions for constant-flux and constant-head tests at a finite-diameter well in a
wedge-shaped aquifer, J. Hydraul. Eng., 135(4), 333–337, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2009)135:4(333).
Choi, E. S., T. Cheema, and M. R. Islam (1997), A new dual-porosity/dual-permeability model with non-Darcian flow through fractures, J. Pet.
Sci. Eng., 17(3), 331–344, doi:10.1016/S0920-4105(96)00050-2.
Clark, L. (1977), The analysis and planning of step drawdown tests, Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol., 10(2), 125–143, doi:10.1144/
GSL.QJEG.1977.010.02.03.
Cornet, F. H., and R. H. Morin (1997), Evaluation of hydromechanical coupling in a granite rock mass from a high-volume, high-pressure
injection experiment: Le Mayet de Montagne, France, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 34(3–4), 207, doi:10.1016/S1365-1609(97)00185-8.
Cornet, F. H., M. L. Doan, and F. Fontbonne (2003), Electrical imaging and hydraulic testing for a complete stress determination, Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci., 40(7), 1225–1241, doi:10.1016/S1365–1609(03)00109-6.
Coulaud, O., P. Morel, and J. P. Caltagirone (1988), Numerical modelling of nonlinear effects in laminar flow through a porous medium, J.
Fluid Mech., 190, 393–407, doi:10.1017/S0022112088001375.
de Marsily, G. (1986), Quantitative Hydrogeology: Groundwater Hydrology for Engineers, Academic, San Diego, Calif.
Derode, B., F. Cappa, Y. Guglielmi, and J. Rutqvist (2013), Coupled seismo-hydromechanical monitoring of inelastic effects on injection-
induced fracture permeability, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 61, 266–274, doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2013.03.008.
Develi, K., and T. Babadagli (2015), Experimental and visual analysis of single-phase flow through rough fracture replicas, Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci., 73, 139–155, doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2014.11.002.
Doe, T. W., and J. E. Geier (1990), Interpretation of fracture system geometry using well test data, Stripa Project Tech. Rep. 91-03, Swed.
Nucl. Fuel and Waste Manage., Stockholm.
Eck, B. J., M. E. Barrett, and R. J. Charbeneau (2012), Forchheimer flow in gently sloping layers: Application to drainage of porous asphalt,
Water Resour. Res., 48, W01530, doi:10.1029/2011WR010837.
Evans, K. F., A. Genter, and J. Sausse (2005), Permeability creation and damage due to massive fluid injections into granite at 3.5 km at
Soultz: 1. Borehole observations, J. Geophys. Res., 110, B04203, doi:10.1029/2004JB003168.
Fehler, M., L. House, and H. Kaieda (1987), Determining planes along which earthquakes occur: Method and application to earthquakes
accompanying hydraulic fracturing, J. Geophys. Res., 92(B9), 9407–9414, doi:10.1029/JB092iB09p09407.
Fl€
uhler, H., M. S. Ardakani, and L. H. Stolzy (1976), Error propagation in determining hydraulic conductivities from successive water content
and pressure head profiles, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 40(6), 830–836, doi:10.2136/sssaj1976.03615995004000060013x.
Forchheimer, P. (1901), Wasserbewegung durch boden, Z. Ver. Dtsch. Ing., 45, 1782–1788.
Fourar, M., G. Radilla, R. Lenormand, and C. Moyne (2004), On the nonlinear behavior of a laminar single-phase flow through two and three
dimensional porous media, Adv. Water Resour., 27, 669–677, doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2004.02.021.
Gu, M., and K. K. Mohanty (2014), Effect of foam quality on effectiveness of hydraulic fracturing in shales, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 70(9),
273–285, doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2014.05.013.
Guo, F., N. R. Morgenstern, and J. D. Scott (1993), Interpretation of hydraulic fracturing breakdown pressure, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geo-
mech. Abstr., 30(6), 617–626, doi:10.1016/0148-9062(93)91221-4.
Hamm, S. Y., M. Kim, J. Y. Cheong, J. Y. Kim, M. Son, and T. W. Kim (2007), Relationship between hydraulic conductivity and fracture proper-
ties estimated from packer tests and borehole data in a fractured granite, Eng. Geol., 92(1), 73–87, doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2007.03.010.
Hassanizadeh, S. M., and W. G. Gray (1987), High velocity flow in porous media, Transp. Porous Media, 2(6), 521–531, doi:10.1007/
BF00192152.

Hossain, M. M., M. K. Rahman, and S. S. Rahman (2000), Hydraulic fracture initiation and propagation: Roles of wellbore trajectory, perfora-
tion and stress regimes, J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 27(3), 129–149, doi:10.1016/S0920-4105(00)00056-5.
Huang, Z., Z. Jiang, S. Zhu, Z. Qian, and D. Cao (2014), Characterizing the hydraulic conductivity of rock formations between deep coal and
aquifers using injection tests, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 71, 12–18, doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2014.06.017.
Hvorslev, M. J. (1951) Time lag and soil permeability in groundwater observations, Waterw. Exp. Stn. Bull. 36, U.S. Army Corps Eng., Vickburg,
Miss.
Izbash, S. (1931), O Filtracii Kropnozernstom Materiale, Leningrad, Russia, USSR.
Izbash, S. V., and N. M. Leleeva (1971), Aspects of turbulent seepage flow in a fill, Power Tech. Eng., 5(5), 462–465.
Javadi, M., M. Sharifzadeh, K. Shahriar, and Y. Mitani (2014), Critical Reynolds number for nonlinear flow through rough-walled fractures:
The role of shear processes, Water Resour. Res., 50, 1789–1804, doi:10.1002/2013WR014610.
Jha, M. K., A. Kumar, G. Nanda, and G. Bhatt (2006), Evaluation of traditional and nontraditional optimization techniques for determining
well parameters from step-drawdown test data, J. Hydraul. Eng., 11(6), 617–630, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2006)11:6(617).
Ji, S. H., H. B. Lee, I. W. Yeo, and K. K. Lee (2008), Effect of nonlinear flow on DNAPL migration in a rough-walled fracture, Water Resour. Res.,
44, W11431, doi:10.1029/2007WR006712.
Jiang, X. W., L. Wan, X. S. Wang, S. Ge, and J. Liu (2009), Effect of exponential decay in hydraulic conductivity with depth on regional
groundwater flow, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L24402, doi:10.1029/2009GL041251.
Jiang, Z. M., S. Fu, S. G. Li, D. K. Hu, and S. R. Feng (2007), High pressure permeability test on hydraulic tunnel with steep obliquity faults
under high pressure, Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng., 26(11), 2318–2323.
Johns, R. (1998), Pressure solution for sequential hydraulic tests in low-transmissivity fractured and nonfractured media, Water Resour. Res.,
34(4), 889–895, doi:10.1029/97WR03620.
Kawecki, M. W. (1995), Meaningful interpretation of step-drawdown tests, Ground Water, 33(1), 23–32, doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.1995.tb00259.x.
Klepikova, M. V., T. Borgne, O. Bour, and J. R. Dreuzy (2013), Inverse modeling of flow tomography experiments in fractured media, Water
Resour. Res., 49, 7255–7265, doi:10.1002/2013WR013722.
Kohl, T., K. F. Evan, R. J. Hopkirk, R. Jung, and L. Rybach (1997), Observation and simulation of non-Darcian flow transients in fractured rock,
Water Resour. Res., 33(3), 407–418, doi:10.1029/96WR03495.
Konzuk, J. S., and B. H. Kueper (2004), Evaluation of cubic law based models describing single-phase flow through a rough-walled fracture,
Ku, C. Y., S. M. Hsu, L. B. Chiou, and G. F. Lin (2009), An empirical model for estimating hydraulic conductivity of highly disturbed clastic sed-
imentary rocks in Taiwan, Eng. Geol., 109(3), 213–223, doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.08.008.
Le Goc, R., J. R. de Dreuzy, and P. Davy (2010), Statistical characteristics of flow as indicators of channeling in heterogeneous porous and
fractured media, Adv. Water Resour., 33(3), 257–269, doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2009.12.002.
Lee, H. S., D. H. Lee, H. Y. Kim, and Y. T. Choi (2006), Design criteria for thermo-mechanical stability of rock mass around lined rock cavern
for underground LNG storage, Tunnelling Underground Space Technol., 21(3), 337–337.
Lee, J. Y., and K. K. Lee (2000), Use of hydrologic time series data for identification of recharge mechanism in a fractured bedrock aquifer
system, J. Hydrol., 229(3), 190–201, doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00158-X.
Lee, S. H., K. K. Lee, and I. W. Yeo (2014), Assessment of the validity of Stokes and Reynolds equations for fluid flow through a rough-walled
fracture with flow imaging, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 4578–4585, doi:10.1002/2014GL060481.
Liu, S. M., H. L. Hu, and D. Chen (1996), High pressure permeability test at Tianhuangping pumped storage power station, Chin. J. Rock
Mech. Eng., 18(6), 31–38.
Lo Jacono, D., F. PlouraboueÇ, and A. Bergeon (2005), Weak inertial flow between two rough surfaces, Phys. Fluids, 17, 063602, doi:10.1063/
1.1923347.
Londe, P., and F. Sabarly (1966), La distribution des perm eabilit
es dans la fondation des barrages vo^
ut
es en fonction du champ de contra-
inte, in Proceedings of 1st Congress on Rock Mechanics, vol. 25, pp. 517–522, Lab. Nac. Eng. Civ., Lisbon.
Louis, C. (1969), A study of groundwater flow in jointed rock and its influence on the stability of rock masses, Rock Mech. Res. Rep. 10, Imp.
Coll., London, U. K.
Louis, C., and Y. N. Maini (1970), Determination of in-situ hydraulic parameters in jointed rock, in Proceedings of 2st Congress on Rock
Mechanics, pp. 235–243, Inst. Dev., Water Resour., Belgrade.
Markle, J. M., R. K. Rowe, and K. S. Novakowski (1995), A model for the constant-head pumping test conducted in vertically fractured media,
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 19(7), 457–473, doi:10.1002/nag.1610190702.
Mathias, S. A., and L. C. Todman (2010), Step-drawdown tests and the Forchheimer equation, Water Resour. Res., 46, W07514, doi:10.1029/
2009WR008635.
Mathias, S. A., A. P. Butler, and H. Zhan (2008), Approximate solutions for Forchheimer flow to a well, J. Hydraul. Eng., 134(9), 1318–1325,
doi:10.1061/ASCE0733-94292008134:91318.
Mijic, A., S. A. Mathias, and T. C. LaForce (2013), Multiple well systems with non-Darcy flow, Groundwater, 51(4), 588–596, doi:10.1111/
j.1745-6584.2012.00992.x.
Miller, F. G. (1962), Theory of unsteady-state inflow of water in linear reservoirs, J. Inst. Pet., 48, 467–477.
Moutsopoulos, K. N., I. N. Papaspyros, and V. A. Tsihrintzis (2009), Experimental investigation of inertial flow processes in porous media, J.
Hydrol., 374(3), 242–254, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.06.015.
Moye, D. G. (1967), Diamond drilling for foundation exploration, Civ. Eng. Trans., 9(1), 95–100.
Nasseri, M. H. B., and B. Mohanty (2008), Fracture toughness anisotropy in granitic rocks, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 45(2), 167–193, doi:
10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.04.005.
Nazridoust, K., G. Ahmadi, and D. H. Smith (2006), A new friction factor correlation for laminar, single-phase flows through rock fractures, J.
Hydrol., 329(1), 315–328, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.02.032.
Neuman, S. P. (2005), Trends, prospects and challenges in quantifying flow and transport through fractured rocks, Hydrogeol. J., 13(1), 124–
147, doi:10.1007/s10040-004-0397-2.
Neuman, S. P., A. Blattstein, M. Riva, D. M. Tartakovsky, A. Guadagnini, and T. Ptak (2007), Type curve interpretation of late-time pumping
test data in randomly heterogeneous aquifers, Water Resour. Res., 43, W10421, doi:10.1029/2007WR005871.
Nicholl, M. J., H. Rajaram, R. J. Glass, and R. Detwiler (1999), Saturated flow in a single fracture: Evaluation of the Reynolds equation in meas-
ured aperture fields, Water Resour. Res., 35(11), 3361–3373, doi:10.1029/1999WR900241.
Qian, J., H. Zhan, W. Zhao, and F. Sun (2005), Experimental study of turbulent unconfined groundwater flow in a single fracture, J. Hydrol.,
311(1), 134–142, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.01.013.

Qian, J., H. Zhan, S. Luo, and W. Zhao (2007), Experimental evidence of scale-dependent hydraulic conductivity for fully developed turbu-
lent flow in a single fracture. J. Hydrol., 339(3–4), 206–215, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.03.015.
Quinn, P., J. A. Cherry, and B. L. Parker (2012), Hydraulic testing using a versatile straddle packer system for improved transmissivity estima-
tion in fractured-rock boreholes, Hydrogeol. J., 20(8), 1529–1547, doi:10.1007/s10040-012-0893-8.
Quinn, P. M., B. L. Parker, and J. A. Cherry (2011a), Using constant head step tests to determine hydraulic apertures in fractured rock, J. Con-
tam. Hydrol., 126(1), 85–99, doi:10.1016/j.jconhyd.2011.07.002.
Quinn, P. M., J. A. Cherry, and B. L. Parker (2011b), Quantification of non-Darcian flow observed during packer testing in fractured sedimen-
tary rock, Water Resour. Res., 47, W09533, doi:10.1029/2010WR009681.
Quinn, P. M., B. L. Parker, and J. A. Cherry (2013), Validation of non-Darcian flow effects in slug tests conducted in fractured rock boreholes,
J. Hydrol., 486, 505–518, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.02.024.
Ranjith, P. G., and W. Darlington (2007), Nonlinear single-phase flow in real rock joints, Water Resour. Res., 43, W09502, doi:10.1029/
2006WR005457.
Ranjith, P. G., and D. R. Viete (2011), Applicability of the ‘cubic law’ for non-Darcian fracture flow, J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 78(2), 321–327, doi:
10.1016/j.petrol.2011.07.015.
Rubin, A. M. (1993), Tensile fracture of rock at high confining pressure: Implications for dike propagation, J. Geophys. Res., 98(B9), 15,919–
15,935, doi:10.1029/93JB01391.
Rutqvist, J., and O. Stephansson (2003), The role of hydromechanical coupling in fractured rock engineering, Hydrogeol. J., 11(1), 7–40, doi:
10.1007/s10040-002-0241-5.
Rutqvist, J., J. Noorishad, C. F. Tsang, and O. Stephansson (1998), Determination of fracture storativity in hard rocks using high-pressure
injection testing, Water Resour. Res., 34(10), 2551–2560, doi:10.1029/98WR01863.
Saar, M. O., and M. Manga (2004), Depth dependence of permeability in the Oregon Cascades inferred from hydrogeologic, thermal, seis-
mic, and magmatic modeling constraints, J. Geophys. Res, 109, B04204, doi:10.1029/2003JB002855.
Savitski, A. A., and E. Detournay (2002), Propagation of a penny-shaped fluid-driven fracture in an impermeable rock: Asymptotic solutions,
Int. J. Solids Struct., 39(26), 6311–6337, doi:10.1016/S0020-7683(02)00492-4.
Schrauf, T. W., and D. D. Evans (1986), Laboratory studies of gas flow through a single natural fracture, Water Resour. Res., 22(7), 1038–1050,
doi:10.1029/WR022i007p01038.
Shekhar, S. (2006), An approach to interpretation of step drawdown tests, Hydrogeol. J., 14(6), 1018–1027, doi:10.1007/s10040-005-0016-x.
Theis, C. V. (1935), The relation between lowering the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using ground
water storage, Trans. AGU, 16, 519–524.
Tondevold, E. (1971), Pumped storage in norway, in Pumped Storage Development and Its Environmental Effects: Proceedings, vol. 15, pp.
838, American Water Resources Association, Milwaukee.
van Tonder, G. J., J. F. Botha, and J. van Bosch (2001), A generalised solution for step-drawdown tests including flow dimension and elastic-
ity, Water SA, 27(3), 345–354, doi:10.4314/wsa.v27i3.4978.
Wang, C. T., and H. D. Yeh (2008), Obtaining the steady-state drawdown solutions of constant-head and constant-flux tests, Hydrol. Proc-
esses, 22(17), 3456–3461, doi:10.1002/hyp.6950.
Wei, N., J. D. Li, and X. D. Fu (2006), Numerical simulation of high-pressure injection experiment, Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng., 25(5), 1037–1042.
Wen, Z., G. Huang, and H. Zhan (2006), Non-Darcian flow in a single confined vertical fracture toward a well, J. Hydrol., 330(3), 698–708, doi:
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.05.001.
Wen, Z., H. Zhan, G. Huang, and M. Jin (2011), Constant-head test in a leaky aquifer with a finite-thickness skin, J. Hydrol., 399(3), 326–334,
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.01.010.
Wong, K. L., R. G. Oechsel, and D. T. Wafle (1988), Bath county pumped storage project tunnel system-Evaluation of remedial measures,
ISRM International Symposium, International Society for Rock Mechanics, Salkems, Rotterdam.
Wu, Y. S. (2002), An approximate analytical solution for non-Darcy flow toward a well in fractured media, Water Resour. Res., 38(3), 1023,
doi:10.1029/2001WR00713.
Yamada, H., F. Nakamura, Y. Watanabe, M. Murakami, and T. Nogami (2005), Measuring hydraulic permeability in a streambed using the
packer test, Hydrol. Processes, 19(13), 2507–2524, doi:10.1002/hyp.5688.
Yang, S. Y., and H. D. Yeh (2006), A novel analytical solution for constant-head test in a patchy aquifer, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geo-
mech., 30(12), 1213–1230, doi:10.1002/nag.523.
Yang, S. Y., H. D. Yeh, and P. Y. Chiu (2006), A closed form solution for constant flux pumping in a well under partial penetration condition,
Yang, T. H., L. G. Tham, C. A. Tang, Z. Z. Liang, and Y. Tsui (2004), Influence of heterogeneity of mechanical properties on hydraulic fractur-
ing in permeable rocks, Rock Mech. Rock Eng., 37(4), 251–275, doi:10.1007/s00603-003-0022-z.
Yeh, T. C. J., and S. Liu (2000), Hydraulic tomography: Development of a new aquifer test method, Water Resour. Res., 36(8), 2095–2105, doi:
10.1029/2000WR900114.
Zhang, L. (2010), Estimating the strength of jointed rock masses, Rock Mech. Rock Eng., 43(4), 391–402, doi:10.1007/s00603-009-0065-x.
Zhang, Z., and J. Nemcik (2013), Fluid flow regimes and nonlinear flow characteristics in deformable rock fractures, J. Hydrol., 477(16), 139–
151, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.11.024.
Zhao, J. (1998), Rock mass hydraulic conductivity of the Bukit Timah granite, Singapore, Eng. Geol., 50(1), 211–216, doi:10.1016/S0013-
7952(98)00021-0.
Zhou, J., M. Chen, Y. Jin, and G. Q. Zhang (2008), Analysis of fracture propagation behavior and fracture geometry using a tri-axial fracturing
system in naturally fractured reservoirs, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 45(7), 1143–1152, doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.01.001.
Zimmerman, R. W., and G. S. Bodvarsson (1996), Hydraulic conductivity of rock fractures, Transp. Porous Media, 23(1), 1–30, doi:10.1007/
BF00145263.
Zimmerman, R. W., A. Al-Yaarubi, C. C. Pain, and C. A. Grattoni (2004), Non-linear regimes of fluid flow in rock fractures, Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci., 41, 163–169, doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.03.036.

Publications: Water Resources Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Publications: Water Resources Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PUBLICATIONS

Water Resources Research

CHEN ET AL. ESTIMATING HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM HPPTS 2096

CHEN ET AL. ESTIMATING HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM HPPTS 2097

r r r

r r r

CHEN ET AL. ESTIMATING HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM HPPTS 2098

6VFJ 6DQGVWRQHDQGFRQJORPHUDWH 

Figure 2. Layout of the Qiongzhong pumped storage power station.

 5RFNGLYLGH 

 ./P 

I r 6SHFXODWHG IDXOW DQGLWVRULHQWDWLRQ

Figure 3. Geological map at cross section I-I.

CHEN ET AL. ESTIMATING HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM HPPTS 2099

Pressure meter induce tensile cracks in the concrete linings,

3. High-Pressure Packer Tests

CHEN ET AL. ESTIMATING HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM HPPTS 2100

Table 1. Characteristics of Four Test Boreholes

3.2. HPPT Results

CHEN ET AL. ESTIMATING HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM HPPTS 2101

Table 2. HPPT Data Obtained in ZK124

4. Characteristics of Flow Patterns in a Complete HPPT

Table 3. HPPT Data Obtained in ZK126

CHEN ET AL. ESTIMATING HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM HPPTS 2102

Table 4. HPPT Data Obtained in ZK129-1

4.1. Flow Regimes of a Complete HPPT

Table 5. HPPT Data Obtained in ZK129-2

CHEN ET AL. ESTIMATING HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM HPPTS 2103

CHEN ET AL. ESTIMATING HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM HPPTS 2104

Figure 6. Typical Q versus P curves.

CHEN ET AL. ESTIMATING HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM HPPTS 2105

Q5aII PbII ðPe < P Pc Þ (1b)

Q5aIII ðP2Pc ÞbIII 1Qc ðP > Pc Þ (1c)

where aIII and bIII are ﬁtting coefﬁ-

CHEN ET AL. ESTIMATING HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM HPPTS 2106

Table 6. Hydraulic Conductivity Estimated From HPPT Data in ZK124

4.2. Types of the HPPT Q-P Curves

Table 7. Hydraulic Conductivity Estimated From HPPT Data in ZK126

CHEN ET AL. ESTIMATING HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM HPPTS 2107

Table 8. Hydraulic Conductivity Estimated From HPPT Data in ZK129-1

4.3. The Critical Reynolds Number Rec

Table 9. Hydraulic Conductivity Estimated From HPPT Data in ZK129-2

CHEN ET AL. ESTIMATING HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM HPPTS 2108

4.4. The Threshold Fluid Pressure Pc

CHEN ET AL. ESTIMATING HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM HPPTS 2109

hand side represent the inﬂuence of

Pc 50:67r3 14:19RQD2:68 (5)

5. An Analytical Model for HPPT Data Interpretation

CHEN ET AL. ESTIMATING HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM HPPTS 2110

z It has been understood that choosing an appro-

CHEN ET AL. ESTIMATING HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM HPPTS 2111

where k is called the hydraulic conduc-

where n is a ﬁtting parameter. This

5.2. Hydraulic Conductivity Calculation From HPPT Data

where kI is the hydraulic conductivity in phase I of the HPPTs [L/T].

CHEN ET AL. ESTIMATING HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM HPPTS 2112

5.3. A Discussion on the Hydraulic Conductivity in Phase III

CHEN ET AL. ESTIMATING HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM HPPTS 2113

As mentioned previously, Figure

CHEN ET AL. ESTIMATING HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM HPPTS 2114

and curve-ﬁtting equation (1) to the

from the model assumptions are hard

r r r

r r r

6VFJ 6DQGVWRQHDQGFRQJORPHUDWH

5RFNGLYLGH

./P

I r 6SHFXODWHG IDXOW DQGLWVRULHQWDWLRQ