1

Verification and validation of hydraulic packer

test results in a deep lying tunnel project

Ulrich Burger1, Paolo Perello2, Sacha Reinhardt3, Riccardo Torri4

1
Galleria di Base del Brennero - Brenner Basistunnel BBT SE, Amraser Straße 8, A-6020
Innsbruck, ulrich.burger@bbt-se.
2
GDP Consultants (I-Torino), perello@gdpconsultants.eu
3
Solexperts (CH-Mönchaltorf), sacha.reinhardt@solexperts.com
4
SEA consulting srl (I-Torino), torri@seaconsult.eu

1 Abstract

For the deep lying, trans boundary Brenner Base Tunnel several packer tests
have been carried out in deep boreholes for a hydrogeological characterisation of
metamorphic rocks. For permeability testing (expected range from K = 10-7m/s to
10-12m/s) Pulse-, Slug-, Drill stem and active flow tests were applied. Due to the
importance of the hydraulic parameters for the technical design of the tunnel sys-
tem and the environmental risk assessment, the testing results were methodologi-
cally verified. The verification method and the final result of the evaluation are
shown. Calibrate numerical models of built tunnel sections are used to validate the
hydraulic testing results, first experiences and results in a granite tunnel section
are shown.

Keywords: tunnel, packer tests, verification, hydraulic conductivity, metamorphic

rocks

2 Overview BBT Project

The trans-boundary Brenner Base Tunnel is a 55,6km long railway base tunnel
project with a max. overburden of 1.850m. As part of the Transeuropean network
axes 1 (TEN1 Helsinki-Valetta) the base tunnel will connect Austria (Innsbruck)
with Italy (Franzensfeste / Fortezza). The procedure project has been worked out
from 2004 until 2008, since 2008 the tunnel is under construction. Until 2013 ap-
proximately 28km of tunnels (3 access tunnels, exploration tunnels and first main
2

tunnel-sections) have been built. It is planned that the excavations of the tunnel
system (total length: 200km due to the 3-tube tunnel system: 1 exploration tunnel,
2 tubes for the main tunnels) will be finished in 2021.

3 Hydraulic Testing

3.1 General procedure

The hydraulic tests were carried out after finalizing the deep core borings (200m
to 1.320m). On the basis of the core logging and results of the borehole geophys-
ics the borehole sections to be tested and the corresponding depth and length of
the packed-off test intervals were defined. The hydraulic tests were carried out
from borehole bottom upwards and covered usually the whole borehole. The test
interval length of the double packer tests ranged from 5m to 35m, the single pack-
er tests were made usually in the deepest testing interval or as long testing section
(even > 100m).

3.2 Methodology of testing

Hydraulic tests were carried out using a straddle packer system, which consisted
of an upper and lower inflatable packer in order to confine a test interval section in
the borehole. The test section between the packers comprises a perforated rod al-
lowing formation water to enter the riser pipe or, conversely, allowing injecting
water through the test rods into the formation. Three pressure transducers were
measuring the pressures below, within (interval pressure) and above the test inter-
val (annulus pressure). The test system was installed to the specific depth by
means of a test tubing (pipe). A downhole shut-in valve, mounted between the
system and the test tubing, enabled to close and open the connection between the
test interval and the test tubing instantaneously. All parameters including pressure
(pressures down-hole, atmospheric pressure), temperature in the borehole, flow
rate and other parameters were recorded by means of an automated data acquisi-
tion system and displayed real-time on the PC-screen of the test engineer.
The reliability of estimated formation parameters is increased by carrying out
several test procedures (methods) for the same test interval (Quinn 2012). After
packer positioning and inflation, a test series starts with an initial pressure recov-
ery phase with closed downhole shut in valve, which allows the test zone pressure
to recover toward the static formation pressure.
The following test sequences depend on the estimated transmissivity and the
pressure potential of the specific test zone. With a pulse test or a slug test a first
transmissivity estimate of the test zone can be provided. A pulse test is conducted
by exposing the test interval to a short under or overpressure and monitoring the
pressure response as it recovers toward the formation pressure. The over- or under
pressure is produced by emptying or filling the test tubing with closed downhole
shut-in valve. The pulse is transmitted to the test zone by opening and closing the
 3

downhole shut-in valve for around 3 to 10 seconds. The penetration depth into the
formation of a pulse test is considerably small (in the range of dm to m). Pulse
tests are also used to determine the compressibility of the test zone. The imple-
mentation of a slug test is similar to a pulse test, but the imposed pressure pulse in
a slug test recovers towards formation pressure with open downhole shut-in valve.
During the open shut-in valve-period, the water level in the test tubing corre-
sponds to the current pressure in the test interval and active in- or outflow from
the formation to the test tubing (or vice versa) takes place. This phase is also re-
ferred to as slug flow phase.
In tight formations, the slug flow phase is normally interrupted by closing the
downhole shut-in valve. The following accelerated pressure recovery with closed
shut-in valve may also be analysed, if the pressure recovery during the previous
slug flow phase is small in relation to the initial pressure pulse. The Drill stem test
derives from the petroleum industry and consists roughly of two consecutive slug
withdrawal tests, which are interrupted after a certain time by closing the down-
hole shut-in valve.
The recovery behaviour of pulse and slug tests are influenced by skin effects
(diminished or enhanced permeability in the vicinity of the borehole). Therefore, a
test sequence should contain an active flow test as a constant head injection test or
a constant rate test, if feasible. Flow tests are less sensitive to skin effects. Con-
stant head and constant rate tests are performed by extracting or injecting water
for a certain time span (usually 20-30 minutes) and by maintaining constant either
i) the injected/extracted flow rate, with a consequent variations of the head, or ii)
the head with a consequent variation of the injected/extracted flow rate. These
tests provide a larger scale permeability value (larger penetration depth into the
formation), depending on the transmissivity and the storage coefficient of the for-
mation. In low permeable formations, the radius of investigation ranges to a few
meters and is still relatively small. Constant rate and recovery phases after shut-in
(downhole valve closed) allow the use of transient pressure analysis methods
(Bourdet et al. 1989) based on the analysis of the derivative of pressure versus the
appropriate time function (natural logarithmic or Agarwal /Horner superposition
time) in a diagnostic plot. The method facilitates the diagnostic of the different
flow phases of a test which supports the correct use of the straight-line analysis
method and provides information of flow behaviour in the formation.
Test analysis was conducted using type curve, straight-line analysis methods
together with diagnostic log-log pressure plots. The Cooper-Bredehoeft-
Papadopulos type-curves were used to analyse both slug and pulse tests (Cooper et
al. 1967, Bredehoeft and Papadopulos 1980). Constant head injection tests were
analysed according to Jacob and Lohman (1952) and Doe and Geier (1990), re-
covery tests after Agarwal (1980) and Horner (1951).
4

3.3 Overview Output of testing

All the tests were focused on fractured metamorphic rocks of various nature,
where the primary permeability related to porosity is very low. It was considered
that in these rocks, the permeability is mainly governed by fractures and faults and
their aperture, spacing and infilling. The tested rocks are all characterised by low
to high grade metamorphic conditions (greenschist to amphibolite facies) and have
been grouped in the following classes: 1 – Phyllites (30 tests); 2 – Metabasites and
serpentinites (2 tests); 3 - Calcschists with prevalent carbonatic composition (8
tests); 4 – Calcschists with prevalent phyllosilicatic composition (37 tests); 5 –
Quartzites (3 tests); 6 – Gneissic rocks (7 tests); 7 – Granites (14 tests); 8 – Mar-
bles (8 tests); 9 – Mixed successions including interlayered anhydrites, anhydritic
schists, phyllites and quartzo-micaschists (17 tests). A total of 126 tests have been
executed; 78 of these have been done in boreholes located in Austria and 48 in Ita-
ly. A general overview of the executed tests is shown in the two diagrams of Fig-
ure 1, irrespective of the tested rock-type. The same diagrams also show the gen-
eral results of the verification works that will be discussed in detail in the
following paragraphs.

K (m/s) K (m/sec)
1E-12

1E-10

1E-09

1E-08

1E-07

1E-06

1E-05

1E-04
1E-11
1E-12

1E-10

1E-09

1E-08

1E-07

1E-06

1E-05

1E-04
1E-11

0 0

-100
-100
-200
-200
-300
-300
-400

-400 -500

-500 -600
Depth (m)

-700
Depth (m)

-600

-800
-700
-900
-800
-1000
-900
-1100

-1000
-1200

-1100 -1300

-1200 -1400

Class 1 = high Class 1 = high

Reliability degree Class 2 = medium Reliability degree Class 2 = medium
Class 3 = low Class 3 = low

Figure 1 – Total distribution of hydraulic conductivity vs. depth for the tests
executed in Austria (left) and Italy (right), irrespective of the tested rock-type.

4 Verification of the testing results

The verification analysis has been carried out with the aim to evaluate the reli-
ability degree of the hydraulic test results in relation to the geological and struc-
tural setting of the test interval. The study consists of a comparative analysis of the
 5

rock sampled at the depth of the hydraulic test and the result of the hydraulic test-
ing. It is necessary to specify that a test with low or very low degree of reliability
does not indicate that the test is to be rejected but the output seems to be anoma-
lous with respect to the geological setting.

4.1 Rock mass classification

As a first step, the completeness of the input data has been verified in order to give
a first evaluation of the verification process quality. Then, the core drill sample
analysis has been carried out regarding i) lithotype, ii) depth of the test and iii)
rock mass conditions. The rock mass of each tested interval has been geologically
classified on the basis of visual inspections of the drill cores, BHTV analysis and
RQD values. The following categories have been defined:
1. rock mass without tectonisation characterized by standard fracturing de-
gree;
2. fault zones distinct in cataclasite or tectonic breccias; it is also reported
the presence of “gouge “ (core zone) and/or lateral damage zone;
3. rock mass affected by dissolution phenomena with the development of
karst morphologies; this concerns mainly carbonatic and evaporitic rocks;
4. rock mass with enlarged fractures owing to gravitational collapse phe-
nomena regarding the shallow portion of the rock mass (until about 300
metres deep).

4.2 Evaluation sheet format

Data have been stored in a database management system specifically designed,

from which an “Evaluation sheet” could be extracted directly. The sheet includes
several sections as i) general framework, ii)characteristics and results of the hy-
draulic test, iii)description of the geological features of the tested section, iv) rep-
resentation of the borehole logs, core drill photographs and hydrogeological map
of the test site and v) the results of the verification process. The results of the
study are formulated in terms of (a) “overall evaluation” which consists in a quali-
tative description and (b) “reliability degree” defined as:
 Class 1 = High
 Class 2 = Medium
 Class 3 = Low
 Class 4 = Very low

The results of the reliability analysis have been also presented in tables and graphs
that allow visualizing the distribution and the range of variation of the data.
6

4.3 Verification results

The evaluation of 126 hydraulic tests carried out in testing intervals lying from
180 to 1320 meters depths and with K-values ranging from 10-6m/s to 10-12m/s
shows that:
 more than 60% of the testing results belongs to the class 1, 30% to the
class 2, 10% to the class 3;
 no test result showed a very low reliability (class 4);
 the reliability of the test results doesn’t depend from the rock types. All
different rock types are even part of class 1.

Methodological verification analysis shows that borehole hydraulic testing,

even applied in deep boreholes and for different rock types provide valuable data
for rock mass characterization. It can be observed that homogeneous and low
permeability rock mass conditions have a greater degree of reliability. Regarding
the granite lithotype, more than 75% of the hydraulic tests have been evaluated
with high and medium reliability degree (classes 1 and 2). The permeability rang-
es from very low degree (less than 1x10-8 m/s) and medium to high degree (be-
tween 1x10-6 and 1x10-8 m/s) in relation to the fracturing degree. A low degree of
reliability has been recognized for a high degree of fracturing: in these cases the
tests results gave a low permeability values, probably due to a reduced connectivi-
ty of the fractures network.

5 Validation

5.1 Methodology

Using calibrated numerical models for excavated tunnel sections back analysis
are performed. The hydraulic conductivity for the different rock masses obtained
by the numerical models is compared to the verified values derived from the hy-
draulic packer tests.

5.2 Result of the validation in the Granite area

The Aica-Mules exploration tunnel was excavated in granitic rocks. In this case
feedbacks on rock permeability have been obtained from hydrogeological numeri-
cal modelling (Feflow 6.0; DHI-WASY GmbH). In the granite not affected by
faulting and characterised by a simple fracture network, the hydraulic conductivi-
ties obtained by borehole tests ranges from 1x10-7 m/s to 1x10-8 m/s. These test re-
sults were classified as “Class 2: medium reliability”. The permeability as output
from the numerical hydrogeological model is approximately 1x10-9 m/s, therefore
1 to 2 orders of magnitude lower than the conductivity obtained by in situ testing.
This incongruence is probably related to the fact that small scale hydraulic con-
 7

ductivities with locally high importance for the hydraulic condition are not rele-
vant for the conductivity at a large, pluri-decametric scale, due to the poor hydrau-
lic connectivity among fractures related to a low fracturation density.
As far as fault zones are concerned, a large variability has to be taken into ac-
count for the hydraulic conductivity, due to the presence of products deriving from
cataclastic fragmentation having mechanical characteristics and granulometric
composition ranging over a wide range. The in situ hydraulic testings demonstrate
these hydraulic conductivity variations along fault zones, with values spanning
over the range from 5x10-6 to 5x10-9 m/s. The lower value has been observed in a
single case and is related to a core zone where the granite is reduced to a fine
grained fault gouge, comparable to a silty clay. The higher values are representa-
tive for fault damage zones where the fracture density is high to very high (indica-
tively 5 to 30 joint/m3) and where decimetric to metric layers of tectonic breccias
are locally present. The packer tests, despite their number is rather limited, seem
to indicate that in fault zones high hydraulic conductivities are by far the most
common condition. The prevalent large hydraulic conductivity observed at the
small scale seems to be mostly confirmed at the great scale by the numerical mod-
els with conductivities ranging from 1x10-6 to 8x10-7 to m/s.

References

Agarwal, R.G. (1980): A New Method to Account for Producing Time Effects
When Drawdown Type Curves Are Used to Analyze Pressure Buildup and Other
Test Data, Soc. of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Paper 9289, presented at SPE-AIME
Meeting, Dallas, Texas, September 21-24
Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J.A., Pirard, Y.M. (1989): Use of Pressure Derivative in
Well-Test Interpretation, SPE Formation Evaluation, Vol.4, pp 293 – 302
Bredehoeft J.D. and Papadopulos, S.S. (1980): A Method for Determining the
Hydraulic Properties of Tight Formations. Water Resour. Res. Vol. 16 (1). 233-
238.
Cooper, H.H. JR., Bredehoeft, J.D. & Papadopulos, S.S. (1967): Response of a
Finite-Diameter Well to an Instantaneous Charge of Water, Water Resour. Res.,
First Quarter 1967, 263-269.
Doe, T.W. and Geier, J.E. (1990): Interpretation of fracture system geometry
using well test data, Technical Report 91-03, Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste
Management Co. (STRIPA), Stockholm, Sweden.
Horner, D.R. (1951): Pressure Build-Up in Wells, Third World Pet. Congress,
E.J. Brill, Leiden II, pp. 503-521
Jacob, C.E. and Lohman, S.W. (1952): Nonsteady Flow to a Well of Constant
Drawdown in an Extensive Aquifer, Transactions, American Geophysical Union,
Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 559-569
Quinn, P. Cherry, J. A., Parker, B. L. (2012): Hydraulic testing using a versatile
straddle packer system for improved transmissivity estimation in fractured-rock
boreholes. Hydrogeology Journal (2012) 20: 1529–1547