Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMolz, F. J.
dc.contributor.authorParr, Alfred D.
dc.contributor.authorAndersen, P. F.
dc.date.accessioned2015-11-17T15:36:52Z
dc.date.available2015-11-17T15:36:52Z
dc.date.issued1981-06
dc.identifier.citationMolz, F. J., A. D. Parr, and P. F. Andersen. "Thermal Energy Storage in a Confined Aquifer: Second Cycle." Water Resources Research Water Resour. Res. 17.3 (1981): 641-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/WR017i003p00641en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1808/18925
dc.descriptionThis is the published version. Copyright 1981 American Geophysical Unionen_US
dc.description.abstractDuring the first 6-month injection-storage-recovery cycle of the Auburn University Aquifer Thermal Energy Storage Project, water pumped from an upper supply aquifer was heated to an average temperature of 55°C with an oil-fired boiler and then injected into a lower storage aquifer. Injection and recovery temperatures, flow rates, and temperatures at six depths in 10 observation wells and hydraulic heads in seven wells were recorded twice daily. The second-cycle injection, which was performed in a manner similar to the first, began on September 23, 1978, and continued until November 25, 1978, when 58,010 m3 of water had been pumped into the storage aquifer. The major problem experienced during the first cycle, a clogging injection well, was reduced by regular backwashing. This was done 8 times during injection and resulted in a 24% average injection rate increase compared to the first cycle. A 63-day storage period ended on January 27, 1979, and production of hot water began with an initial temperature of 54°C. By March 23 this temperature had dropped to 33°C, with 66,400 m3 of water and 76% of the injected thermal energy recovered. This compares to 66% recovery during the first cycle over the same drop in production temperature. Production of hot water continued until April 20, at which time 100,100 m3 of water and 89% of the injected thermal energy was recovered at a final production temperature of 27.5°C. During the second cycle, measurements were made of relative land subsidence and rebound to a precision approaching 0.1 mm. The surface elevation near the injection well rose 4 mm during injection, fell during storage, and fell more rapidly toward its original elevation during production. This movement was due to thermal expansion and contraction rather than to effects caused by head changes in the storage aquifer.en_US
dc.publisherAmerican Geophysical Unionen_US
dc.titleThermal energy storage in a confined aquifer: Second cycleen_US
dc.typeArticle
kusw.kuauthorParr, Alfred D.
kusw.kudepartmentCivil/Environ/Arch Engineeringen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1029/WR017i003p00641
kusw.oaversionScholarly/refereed, publisher version
kusw.oapolicyThis item does not meet KU Open Access policy criteria.
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record