Premium
Reply to comment by Maier and Kocabas on “A closed‐form analytical solution for thermal single‐well injection‐withdrawal tests”
Author(s) -
Jung Yoojin,
Pruess Karsten
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
water resources research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.863
H-Index - 217
eISSN - 1944-7973
pISSN - 0043-1397
DOI - 10.1029/2012wr012827
Subject(s) - thermal , environmental science , thermodynamics , physics
Reply to comment by Maier and Kocabas on “A closed-form analytical solution for thermal single-well injection-withdrawal tests” Yoojin Jung and Karsten Pruess Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA 1. Introduction We appreciate the comment by Maier and Kocabas (2012) on our research article (Jung and Pruess, 2012). In their comment, they raise the following issues: (1) their solutions presented in Kocabas (2010) and Maier and Kocabas (2012) are mathematically simpler and computationally more efficient than our analytical solutions and (2) the insensitivity of thermal breakthrough curve to the flow velocity, which is one of the important conclusions of our study, only holds for the special case where the injection and the withdrawal flow rate is identical. We address each of these comments, along with a few other relatively minor comments and suggestions, below. 2.1. Efficiency of the Analytical Solution Regarding the computational efficiency of the analytical solutions, we agree that the solutions developed by Kocabas (2010) and Maier and Kocabas (2012) using the iterated Laplace transform have a simpler form than our solutions and therefore need a shorter