We would like to thank Prof. Behzad Ataie-Ashtiani for his explanatory comment on our paper [Ataie-Ashtiani, 2015]. He notes that in confined aquifers with a vertical seaside boundary, a tidal overheight does not develop. This is in contrast to an unconfined aquifer for which a tidal overheight may develop when the tidal amplitude is significant relative to the saturated thickness, in particular in the presences of a sloping land surface. As Prof. Ataie-Ashtiani points out, the absence of a tidal overheight in the case of a confined aquifer makes that the difference in the model outcomes for a specified head and a specified flux at the inland boundary will be less pronounced than for an unconfined aquifer. Whilst we agree with this observation in principle, we do wish to add that Prof. Ataie-Ashtiani's assertion that our results are applicable to confined aquifers only may be perhaps too restrictive. We have in fact shown that the effect of tides on the development of the intruded wedge and the mixing zone depends critically on the aquifer storativity, with the highest values of this parameter having the greatest impact on the simulated salinity distribution. We attributed this to the fact that the interaction between the tidally driven circulation and local dispersion related to the spatially nonuniform time-dependent velocity field that strongly influences the mixing behavior. There is no tidally induced mixing and spreading when the flow response to the hydraulic perturbation is instantaneous. As the storativity of unconfined aquifers is much larger than that of confined aquifers, our findings have important implications for the modeling of unconfined systems. It is indeed true that our results are not directly transferable to aquifers in which a tidal overheight develops, or where complex flow cells due to a sloping beach develop, but indeed our models can be approximative of unconfined aquifers with a near-constant transmissivity. Flow conditions similar to those that we considered can potentially exist in unconfined aquifers that have a large saturated thickness relative to the tidal amplitude, or for those with an inland extent far enough so that small-scale complications arising from the beach morphology can be considered negligible. We would further like to point out here that while the differences between models with a specified head or specified freshwater flux at the inland boundary were small enough to make that our general findings and conclusions were independent of the inland boundary condition, differences could be observed. Figure 1 shows the numerical results for the salt mass fraction distribution and the diagnostics defined in Pool et al. [2014], considering a prescribed flux and a prescribed head along the inland boundary and for different storativity values. In the three tested scenarios, the horizontal component of the center of mass for the prescribed head models penetrates further inland than those to the prescribed flux (Figure 1c, top). Moreover, based on visual inspection of the salinity contours, a constant head landward boundary condition slightly increases the effects of tidal fluctuations on the interface, which is consistent with the results described by Ataie-Ashtiani et al. [1999]. However, although small differences are observed between the results, the salt mass fraction distributions for the inland prescribed flux models are quite similar to that obtained from the prescribed head models (Figure 1a) and the diagnosis follow an identical trend as a function of the tidal mixing number (Figures 1b and 1c). (a) Normalized salinity contours (25, 50, and 75%) for the numerical models under tidal conditions imposing the head (dashed lines) and a freshwater flux (solid lines) at the landward boundary for three different values of the storativity. (b) Numerical results for the width of the mixing zone, longitudinal mixing length, and (c) the components of the center of mass with respect to the nontidal situation, in terms of the dimensionless constant . Note that where the open circle is not visible it is overprinted by the solid circle. This difference in behavior is attributed to the fact that the freshwater inflow in the case of a prescribed head boundary is variable with time, whereas it is constant with time if the flux is specified. This effect is expected to be more pronounced for studies where the inland boundary is closer to the coast, and when the effect of tidal fluctuations on the horizontal head gradient increases. As such, and in line with Prof. Ataie-Ashtiani's observations, there is further scope for investigations of smaller-scale systems, both confined and unconfined, but these were not the focus of our Pool et al. [2014] study. The data used in this paper can be obtained upon request from the corresponding author.
Read full abstract