Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1537–1550

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

A computational capacity resistance model (CaRM) for vertical

ground-coupled heat exchangers
Michele De Carli, Massimo Tonon, Angelo Zarrella*, Roberto Zecchin
Department of Applied Physics – DFT, University of Padova, Via Venezia 1 – 35131, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Several models are available in literature to simulate ground heat exchangers. In this paper an approach
Received 2 June 2009 based on electrical analogy is presented, for this reason named CaRM (CApacity Resistance Model). In
Accepted 18 November 2009 some cases several information are needed during design: both the borehole and the surrounding
Available online 4 December 2009
ground are affected by thermal exchange. The model here presented allows to consider the fluid flow
pattern along the classical vertical ground heat exchangers as a single U-tube, a double U-tube or
Keywords:
coaxial pipes. Besides, ground temperature at different distances from borehole are calculated, taking
Ground heat pump systems
into account also the thermal interference between more boreholes. Starting from the supply
Low enthalpy geothermal systems
Vertical ground heat exchangers temperature to the heat exchanger, the outlet fluid temperature is calculated and the ground
Ground numerical simulation temperature in each node, step by step. The model has been validated by means of a commercial
Borehole software based on the finite differences method. Further comparisons have been carried out against
Borefield data from a ground thermal response test and from the survey of an office building equipped with
a ground coupled heat pump and vertical double U-tube heat exchangers. The agreement of results
validates the model here presented.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Energy saving and emissions reduction require to improve the
energy efficiency of systems. For this purpose, the renewable
energy technology is in continuous development. Heat pumps for
space heating and cooling are an interesting example. To improve
their performances, namely the COP (Coefficient of Performance) or
EER (Energy Efficiency Ratio), low temperature in heating and high
temperature in cooling operation are required. On the other hand
a suitable source or sink temperature is necessary. Frequently,
external air is used but in this case the energy performance is
affected by climatic variations. If available and allowed, ground
water is optimal, thanks to its constant temperature condition.
Another possibility is to use the ground as a heat source or sink,
since its temperature is almost constant all over the year, thus
allowing smaller temperature variations than external air during
both heating and cooling season. The coupling with the ground can
be attained by means of closed loops, and needs special design
attention.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ39 049 827 6871; fax: þ39 049 827 6896.
E-mail address: angelo.zarrella@unipd.it (A. Zarrella).
In the last decades, several design tools have been developed to
simulate ground heat exchangers. The basic ones rest on some
analytical solutions for line source [1] and cylindrical source [2].
Using these approaches, Kavanaugh and Rafferty [3] proposed
a method to design vertical ground heat exchangers; in their solu-
tion, two equations are given for calculating the required length in
heating and in cooling mode, respectively, taking into account also
the effect of thermal interference between adjacent boreholes by
means of a ‘‘ground penalty temperature’’. Another approach is
presented by Eskilson [4] who calculated the borehole wall
temperature making use of transient finite difference method; he
proposed dimensionless parameters, so-called g-functions, to
describe the performance of a borehole in homogenous ground. Each
borehole field configuration is represented by the corresponding
g-functions. Eskilson’s model was implemented into the simulation
tools EED [5] and GLHEPRO [6,7], where several configurations of
bore field are considered: starting from monthly heating and cooling
loads and monthly peak heating and cooling demands, simulation
over a number of years is feasible. GLHEPRO includes also a heat
pump model that allows the user to enter loads on the heat pump
rather than loads on the ground.
Hellström [8] combined analytical and numerical methods
based on the line source concept for a composite region to calculate
the borehole thermal resistance and used the solution for cylin-
drical source outlined by Carslaw and Jaeger [2] to determine the

0960-1481/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2009.11.034
1538 M. De Carli et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1537–1550

Nomenclature Rpp thermal resistance between pipes in single U-tube per

unit length (m K/W)
a thermal diffusivity (m2/s) RppA thermal resistance between adjacent pipes in double
ag ground thermal diffusivity (m2/s) U-tube per unit length (m K/W)
c specific heat (J/(kg K)) RppB thermal resistance between opposite pipes in double
cpw fluid specific heat (J/(kg K)) U-tube per unit length (m K/W)
C volume thermal capacity (J/(m3 K)) T temperature (K)
D pipe inside diameter (m) T0 borehole wall temperature (K)
d borehole spacing (m) Tg undisturbed ground temperature (K)
i ground discretization index in radial direction Tp pipe wall temperature (K)
j ground discretization index in vertical direction Tw fluid temperature (K)
L pipe length (m) TDs temperature at previous time step (K)
m _w fluid flow rate (kg/s) V volume (m3)
m maximum discretization index in vertical direction
n maximum discretization index in radial direction Greek symbols
Nu Nusselt number a convective heat transfer coefficient (W/(m2 K))
Pr Prandtl number l thermal conductivity (W/(m K))
q heat flux (W) r density (kg/m3)
q0 heat flux per unit length (W/m) s time (s)
Re Reynolds number Ds discretization time step (s)
rm barycentric radius (m) Dz length of control volume of ground in vertical
rb borehole radius (m) direction (m)
rmax radius from axis borehole beyond which the
undisturbed ground temperature is assumed (m) Subscripts
R thermal resistance (K/W) b borehole
Rconv convective thermal resistance per unit length (m K/W) g ground
Rp0 thermal resistance between pipe inside surface and i inside
borehole wall per unit length (m K/W) o outside
p pipe

thermal resistance between borehole wall and the surrounding
ground.
These models are often not suitable to analyse the borehole
short time behaviour. For example, in his model Eskilson [4]
proposed to apply no variations of the heat extraction–injection
rate on a time-scale below the following limit:
In this paper a model developed by the authors is presented. It is
based on the electrical analogy, making use of lumped capacities
and thermal resistances.
2. Mathematical model

s ¼ 5 rb2 =ag (1) According to Fourier’s law, the general heat conduction equation
with no internal heat generation is:
For a borehole in typical applications this time step might lie
between 2 and 6 h. In many cases, this may be not important since vT
the time of interest is in the order of months or even years. In some ¼ a,V2 T (2)
vs
applications, short time simulations of ground coupled systems are
where a ¼ l=ðcp ,rÞ is the thermal diffusivity of the material. For
needed for a more accurate model dealing with small time intervals
a solid without heat storage capacity, homogeneous and with
(e.g., hourly intermittent operation). Yavuzturk and Spitler [9]
analysed this problem and they solved the numerical heat diffusion
problem in the ground taking into account the heat capacity of the
pipe and the grout; their numerical results were expressed in term
of short-time g-functions. Sutton et al. [10] and Young [11] proposed
some solutions for this problem.
Based on the infinite line source model, Zeng et al. [12] derived
an analytical solution of the transient temperature response in
a semi-infinite medium with a finite line source taking into account
the axial effects. Over this approach Lamarche and Beauchamp
[13,14] presented a new analytical method to solve the exact
solution for concentric cylinders with a good approximation for the
U-tube configuration for long and short time analyses. Some
authors extended the finite line source model for considering also
inclined borehole [15,16].
Another different approach is to use three-dimensional finite
volumes models, which may require high computational time,
due to complexity of equations used and high number of
elements. Fig. 1. Conduction heat transfer principle.
 M. De Carli et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1537–1550
constant properties, the heat flux from surface 1 to surface 2 at
temperatures T1 and T2, respectively (Fig. 1), can be written via the
thermal resistance between surfaces 1 and 2 (R12) in this way:
T1  T2
q ¼
R12
A typical steady state problem is the heat conduction through
a circular pipe wall, which can be solved by the well-known
formula:
 
1 r2
R12 ¼ ,ln
2p,L,l r1
where L is the length of the cylinder, l is the thermal conductivity of
the pipe material, r1 and r2 are the inner and the outer pipe radius,
respectively.
By means of Eq. (3) the thermal resistance R can be calculated
also when its analytic equation is not known. In fact, it is sufficient
to know the heat flux q and the temperature at surfaces 1 and 2 (or
the temperature difference) to determine R by solving Eq. (3).
If the body can store heat, neglecting temperature gradients
within the solid, the heat flux q exchanged at its surface is related to
the rate of change of the internal energy:
dT
q ¼ r,c,V,
ds
where r c V is the heat capacity of the body. To discretize the heat
conduction differential equation, the control volume approach can
be used. Referring to Fig. 2, by applying the energy balance to the
control volume of the i-th node, Eq. (5) can be written as:
dTðiÞ
qði  1; iÞ þ qði; i þ 1Þ ¼ rðiÞ,cðiÞ,VðiÞ,
ds
In terms of finite time steps Ds, Eq. (6) becomes:
Tði1ÞTðiÞ Tðiþ1ÞTðiÞ rðiÞ,cðiÞ,VðiÞ  annual mean temperature as boundary condition at the ground
þ ¼ TðiÞTðiÞDs
Rði1; iÞ Rði; iþ1Þ Ds
where R is the thermal resistance between the nodes and T(i)Ds is
the temperature of the i-th element at the previous time step. By
the application of this analysis one can calculate the temperature at
any point, at any time, within the given body.
Fig. 2. Control volume for one dimensional conduction.
1539
2.1. Ground modelling
In the model here presented, the heat transfer within the ground
takes place solely by heat conduction. Another heat transfer
contribution can be brought about by ground water movement due
(3)
to convection: there may be both regional flow, caused by hydraulic
gradients at the site, and natural convection induced by the
increased temperatures in the storage region [8].
The thick layer between heat exchanger and borehole wall is
usually filled with an appropriate material to improve the thermal
contact between the fluid and the ground. The thermal conductivity
(4) of the borehole backfill material is critical because of the relatively
high heat flux rates that normally occur near the U-tube [3]. The
thermal capacity of the grout is small if compared to the thermal
capacity of the ground, for this reason it is considered negligible; this
hypothesis is considered also in other models [4]. The thermal
capacity of the borehole is important when the simulation time step
is relatively short with reference to the time dependence of the heat
flux.
The ground is composed of several subregions, each of them
characterized by different thermophysical properties, assumed
independent of time, mainly determined by mineral composition,
porosity content and degree of water saturation. Usually they are
considered altogether in the so-called equivalent thermal conduc-
tivity of the ground system [17–20] which can be determined by
(5)
a ‘‘thermal response test’’ (TRT).
Usually the part of the ground close to outside air is affected by
weather conditions changes. The disturbance due to air temperature
penetrates to a depth of some meters and, considering that usually
borehole length is close to hundred meters, its influence may be
considered negligible; on the other hand, if the borehole length is
limited (50 m or less) the axial effects cannot be ignored. In this
(6)
model, the heat flux between the fluid inside the first part of the
borehole near the ground surface level and the outside air is not
considered: other models, as EED [5] and GLHEPRO [7], consider the
(7) surface. Also heat transfer between the fluid inside the lowest part
of borehole and the ground underneath its end is not considered:
this should be dealt with as a 3-D problem.
A maximum radius rmax, from the borehole axis, has to be fixed
(Fig. 3a). At a distance r > rmax, from the borehole axis, the temper-
ature is considered equal to the undisturbed ground temperature Tg.
The value of this maximum radius rmax is related to the ground
thermal diffusivity and to the overall time of operation or simulation.
For a heating and/or cooling system, it could be determined
according to the line source solution [1], considering the heat flux
and the time span of simulation: the yearly net average heat rate
exchanged with the ground and a time period of ten years can be
used [3]. However, the heat is normally diffused at distances of
8–10 m regardless of ground water movement [3]; on the other
hand, the water movement allows the stored heat to be transferred
away from the borehole field.
The model allows to consider different compositions of soil
(subregions), each of them with a given undisturbed ground
temperature; in this way it is possible to consider a vertical profile of
temperature, which can be relevant for geothermal sites. These
values of undisturbed ground temperatures are assumed indepen-
dent of time.
The model takes into account three different types of ground
heat exchangers, which are the most used: single U-tube, double
U-tube, coaxial pipes.
For modelling purposes, the ground surrounding the borehole is
divided into m overlapped slices, as it can be seen in Fig. 3b. The
borehole is divided into m slices as well. Heat transfer in vertical
direction between two overlapped slices is not taken into account
1540 M. De Carli et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1537–1550

a b c

Fig. 3. Approach of the model.

(only heat flux along the radial direction is considered). Therefore
the temperature within any annular region is assumed to depend
on radius and time. The cylindrical symmetry around the single
vertical borehole is assumed: local disturbances due to the position
of the pipes in the borehole are neglected.
Each slice is consequently divided in n annular regions at
different distances from the axis of the borehole (Fig. 3b and c).
Under this hypothesis, for the generic j-th ground layer the
following equation can be written for the i-th (i ¼ 1, ., n-1) annular
region (Fig. 4):
Tðj;i1ÞTðj;iÞ Tðj;iþ1ÞTðj;iÞ Tðj;iÞTDs ðj;iÞ
þ ¼ Cðj;iÞ,
Rðj;i1Þ Rðj;iÞ Ds
while for the last annular region (i ¼ n), taking into account the
boundary condition of the undisturbed ground temperature for the
ground layer, the equation is:
Tðj;n  1Þ  Tðj;nÞ Tg ðjÞ  Tðj;nÞ Tðj;nÞ  TDs ðj;nÞ
þ ¼ Cðj;nÞ, (9)
Rðj;n  1Þ Rðj;nÞ Ds
where, referring to the i-th annular region and to the j-th slice: C(j, i)
is the thermal capacity, R(j, i) is the thermal resistance between two
adjacent annular regions, T(j, i) is the current mean temperature,
TDs(j, i) is the mean temperature at the previous time step, Tg(j) is
the undisturbed ground temperature.
To calculate the heat capacity the following equation is used:
h i
Cðj; iÞ ¼ r,c,p, r 2 ðiÞ  rði  1Þ2 ,DzðjÞ (10)
(8)
where, in reference to the annular region, r(i) and r(i  1) are the
radii, r and c are the density and the specific heat of the ground
layer, respectively. The thermal capacity of the i-th annular region is
lumped at barycentric radius rm(i) which is equivalent to:

Fig. 4. Modelling of the surrounding ground.

 M. De Carli et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1537–1550 1541

Table 1 For pipe 2:

Coefficients for evaluating thermal resistance of bore.

Configuration Tw2 ðjÞ  Tp;2 ðjÞ Tp;1 ðjÞ  Tp;2 ðjÞ T0 ðjÞ  Tp;2 ðjÞ
þ þ ¼ 0 (14)
Rconv ðjÞ Rpp ðjÞ Rp0 ðjÞ

For borehole wall:

Tðj; 1Þ  T0 ðjÞ Tp;1 ðjÞ  T0 ðjÞ Tp;2 ðjÞ  T0 ðjÞ

þ þ ¼ 0 (15)
Rðj; 0Þ Rp0 ðjÞ Rp0 ðjÞ
(A) (B) (C)
b0 20.10 17.44 21.91
b1 0.9447 0.6052 0.3796
2.2.2. Double U-tube (Fig. 5b)
For pipe 1:

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  Tw1 ðjÞTp;1 ðjÞ Tp;3 ðjÞTp;1 ðjÞ Tp;2 ðjÞTp;1 ðjÞ Tp;4 ðjÞTp;1 ðjÞ
rm ðiÞ ¼ r 2 ðiÞ þ r 2 ði  1Þ = 2 (11) þ þ þ
Rconv ðjÞ RppA ðjÞ RppB ðjÞ RppA ðjÞ
The values of the thermal resistances R(j, i) are calculated by Eq. T0 ðjÞTp;1 ðjÞ
(4), making use of Eq. (11). þ ¼0 (16)
Rp0 ðjÞ

2.2. Borehole modelling

For pipe 2:
The heat transfer between the pipe wall of the heat exchanger
Tw2 ðjÞTp;2 ðjÞ Tp;1 ðjÞTp;2 ðjÞ Tp;3 ðjÞTp;2 ðjÞ Tp;4 ðjÞTp;2 ðjÞ
and the borehole wall depends on the position of the pipes, the þ þ þ
Rconv ðjÞ RppB ðjÞ RppA ðjÞ RppA ðjÞ
thermal properties of filling material, especially thermal conduc-
tivity, the thermal properties of pipes. If also convective thermal
T0 ðjÞTp;2 ðjÞ
resistance inside pipes is taken into account, these effects are þ ¼0 (17)
Rp0 ðjÞ
assembled into a single parameter, the so-called thermal resistance
of borehole, denoted in literature with Rb. The evaluation of Rb
mainly depends on the configuration of heat exchanger and the For pipe 3:
thermal conductivity of grout. To calculate the thermal resistance of
Tw3 ðjÞTp;3 ðjÞ Tp;1 ðjÞTp;3 ðjÞ Tp;4 ðjÞTp;3 ðjÞ Tp;2 ðjÞTp;3 ðjÞ
backfill, the two major approaches used are the one proposed by þ þ þ
Paul and Remund [21,22] and by Hellström [8]. The first one makes Rconv ðjÞ RppA ðjÞ RppB ðjÞ RppA ðjÞ
use of a shape factor, as shown in Eq. (12):
" !b1 #1 T0 ðjÞTp;3 ðjÞ
þ ¼0 (18)
rb Rp0 ðjÞ
Rbackfill ¼ lgrout ,b0 , (12)
routside of pipes
For pipe 4:
The parameters b0 and b1 are obtained from curve fitting of
effective borehole resistance determined by measurements and Tw4 ðjÞ  Tp;4 ðjÞ Tp;1 ðjÞ  Tp;4 ðjÞ Tp;2 ðjÞ  Tp;4 ðjÞ Tp;3 ðjÞ  Tp;4 ðjÞ
they are summarized in Table 1 [22]. þ þ þ
Rconv ðjÞ RppA ðjÞ RppA ðjÞ RppB ðjÞ
By a different approach, Hellström [8] derived two-dimensional
analytical solutions of the borehole thermal resistances in the cross T0 ðjÞ  Tp;4 ðjÞ
þ ¼0 (19)
section perpendicular to the borehole with arbitrary number of Rp0 ðjÞ
pipes, using line sources theory and suitable developments called
multipoles [23].
In CaRM, the thermal resistances of the borehole are an input for For the borehole wall:
the model and they can be calculated, for example, by resorting to
Tðj; 1Þ  T0 ðjÞ Tp;1 ðjÞ  T0 ðjÞ Tp;2 ðjÞ  T0 ðjÞ Tp;3 ðjÞ  T0 ðjÞ
a finite elements numerical model. The different contributions are þ þ þ
considered with more thermal resistances assumed independent of Rðj; 0Þ Rp0 ðjÞ Rp0 ðjÞ Rp0 ðjÞ
time: between pipe and pipe, and between pipe and borehole wall, Tp;4 ðjÞ  T0 ðjÞ
as it can be seen in Fig. 5.
þ ¼ 0 (20)
Rp0 ðjÞ
Hereafter, referring to Fig. 5, the equations of heat balance
between the fluid and the borehole wall are described for the three
types of ground heat exchangers. In this balance the convective and
2.2.3. Coaxial pipes (Fig. 5c)
conduction heat transfer are considered. The balance equation is
For pipe 1:
written for each pipe and for borehole wall. Since the borehole
thermal capacity is neglected, a local steady state is considered. Tw1 ðjÞ  Tp;1 ðjÞ
!
1 1 ro;1
2.2.1. Single U-tube (Fig. 5a) þ ,ln
For pipe 1: 2,p,ri;1 ,ap;1 ,DzðjÞ 2,p,DzðjÞ,lp;1 ri;1
Tw2 ðjÞ  Tp;1 ðjÞ
Tw1 ðjÞ  Tp;1 ðjÞ Tp;2 ðjÞ  Tp;1 ðjÞ T0 ðjÞ  Tp;1 ðjÞ þ ¼ 0 (21)
þ þ ¼ 0 (13) 1
Rconv ðjÞ Rpp ðjÞ Rp0 ðjÞ 2,p,ro;1 ,ap;2 ,DzðjÞ
1542 M. De Carli et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1537–1550

a b c

Fig. 5. Modelling scheme of borehole and different types of heat exchangers.

For pipe 2: For borehole wall:

Tp;2 ðjÞ  T0 ðjÞ Tðj; 1Þ  T0 ðjÞ

Tw2 ðjÞ  Tp;2 ðjÞ  þ ¼ 0 (23)
! 1 rb Rðj; 0Þ
1 1 ro;2 2,p,DzðjÞ,lgrout
,ln
ro;2
þ ,ln
2,p,ri;2 ,ap;2 ,DzðjÞ 2,p,DzðjÞ,lp;2 ri;2

T0 ðjÞ  Tp;2 ðjÞ 2.3. Fluid modelling

þ
1   ¼ 0 (22)
,ln rro;2b
2,p,DzðjÞ,lgrout The convective heat transfer coefficient can be evaluated via the
equations taking into account the Reynolds number. At flow
 M. De Carli et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1537–1550 1543

The model neglects the fluid thermal capacity, consequently the

thermal balance inside each pipe for the j-th layer may be written in
the following way:
   
_ w ,cpw , Tw; in ðjÞ  Tw; out ðjÞ ¼ 2 p ri ,a,DzðjÞ, Tw ðjÞ  Tp ðjÞ
m
(27)
where m _ w is the fluid flow rate in considered pipe, cpw is the fluid
specific heat, Tw,in and Tw,out are the inlet and the outlet tempera-
tures, respectively, Tw is the mean temperature of the fluid in the
Fig. 6. Modelling of a field of boreholes. considered pipe, Tp is the mean internal surface temperature of
the pipe, a is the convective heat transfer coefficient. In this case the
mean temperature of fluid Tw is considered equal to the outlet
temperature for the layer taken into account: this hypothesis is the
velocities with a Reynolds number below 2100–2300 the flow is
more accurate when subdivisions in depth are close, anyway error
usually considered to be laminar. As the velocity increases there
is limited since the temperature difference between inlet and outlet
will be gradual change to turbulent flow, which is considered to be
at borehole is usually limited. In vertical direction also the conti-
fully developed at Re greater than 10 000. Between these two
nuity condition is applied.
values the flow condition is in the so-called transition zone. For this
As for the coaxial pipes two possibilities are enabled: in the first
reason, in the proposed model the convective heat transfer coeffi-
the inlet is from the inner one (pipe 1), while in the second the
cient is calculated by Eqs. (24)–(26) [24]; the last one is the Dittus-
outer one (pipe 2) is the supply. The analyses with the model here
Boelter correlation [25]:
presented do not show differences between these two configura-
  tions under the same boundary conditions.
D 1=3
Nu ¼ 1:61, Re,Pr, ðRe < 2000Þ (24)
L
2.3.1. Case pipe 1 supplied, pipe 2 returned
 2=3 #
" In this case for the fluid in pipe 1 the following equation can be
  D written:
Nu ¼ 0:116, Re2=3  125 ,Pr1=3 , 1 þ
L
_ w ,cpw ,½Tw1 ðj  1Þ  Tw1 ðjÞ
m
 ð2000 < Re < 10000Þ ð25Þ
Tp;1 ðjÞ  Tw1 ðjÞ
þ ! ¼ 0 ð28Þ
0:8 1=3
1 1 ro;1
Nu ¼ 0:023,Re ,Pr ðRe > 10000Þ (26) þ ,ln
2p,ri;1 ,ap;1 ,DzðjÞ 2p,DzðjÞ,lp;1 ri;1

where D is the pipe inside diameter and L is the length of the pipe. while for the fluid in pipe 2:

Fig. 7. Modelling exemplification of different types of boreholes.

1544 M. De Carli et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1537–1550

Table 2 For coaxial pipes in case pipe 1 supplied and pipe 2 returned:
Coefficients for evaluating the effective thermal resistances and capacities.

Type k1 k2 k3 k4 Tw1 ðmÞ ¼ Tw2 ðm þ 1Þ (35)

1 2 2 – – For coaxial pipes in case pipe 2 supplied and pipe 1 returned:
2A 2 4 1.5 2
2B 2 4 – –
Tw2 ðmÞ ¼ Tw1 ðm þ 1Þ (36)
3 2 6 1 2
4 2 8 – –
2.4. Borehole layout modelling

The model for a borehole field can be implemented, taking into

  account the influence between adjacent boreholes. If two boreholes
_ w ,cpw ,½Tw2 ðjþ1ÞTw2 ðjÞþ2p,ro;1 ,ap;2 ,DzðjÞ, Tp;1 ðjÞTw2 ðjÞ
m
are close and at distance d, an adiabatic surface at distance d/2 can
Tp2 ðjÞTw2 ðjÞ be assumed (Fig. 6). In a more general way, assuming a certain
þ ! ¼0 (29)
1 1 ro;2 distribution in the borehole field it is possible to assume some
þ ,ln adiabatic surfaces at mid way between adjacent boreholes if
2p,ri;2 ,ap;2 ,DzðjÞ 2p,DzðjÞ,lp;2 ri;2
d < r(n). For modelling these surfaces, the adiabatic (q ¼ 0)
boundary condition is used. This assumption is approximate when
2.3.2. Case pipe 2 supplied, pipe 1 returned the boreholes are connected in series.
In this case for the fluid in pipe 1 the equation is: In this way a possible model has to take into account the effective
amount of ground which is responsible for the thermal storage. For
_ w ,cpw ,½Tw1 ðj þ 1Þ  Tw1 ðjÞ
m this purpose six types of boreholes are considered (Fig. 7):
Tp;1 ðjÞ  Tw1 ðjÞ
þ ! ¼ 0 ð30Þ
1 1 ro;1  type ‘‘0’’, borehole in free field;
þ ,ln  type ‘‘1’’, borehole in proximity of one borehole;
2p,ri;1 ,ap;1 ,DzðjÞ 2p,DzðjÞ,lp;1 ri;1
 type ‘‘2A’’, borehole close to two boreholes on adjacent sides;
while for the fluid in pipe 2:  type ‘‘2B’’, borehole close to two boreholes on opposite sides;
   type ‘‘3’’, borehole surrounded by three boreholes;
_ w ,cpw ,½Tw2 ðj1ÞTw2 ðjÞþ2p,ro;1 ,ap;2 ,DzðjÞ, Tp;1 ðjÞTw2 ðjÞ
m  type ‘‘4’’, borehole surrounded by four boreholes.
Tp;2 ðjÞTw2 ðjÞ
þ ! ¼0 (31) Until the mean radius rm(i)  d/2, maximum whole annular
1 1 ro;2 region (broken line in Fig. 7), the resistances and the capacities are
þ ,ln
2p,ri;2 ,ap;2 ,DzðjÞ 2p,DzðjÞ,lp;2 ri;2 calculated as shown before; beyond this limit for their calculation
the Eqs. (37) and (38) are used. In this case the effective angle sector
For the last layer, also the congruence conditions, represented in a is considered; it depends on the borehole type and it is calculated
Eqs. (32)–(36), are applied, with reference to Fig. 5. The congruence by Eqs. (39) and (40) using Eq. (41) and coefficients of Table 2. In
is applied also when considering the series coupling between two Fig. 7, a representation of several borehole types are shown. Their
pipes of double U-tube at the top of borehole. combination allows to obtain any borehole field.
For a single U-tube:

Tw1 ðmÞ ¼ Tw2 ðm þ 1Þ (32) Rðj; iÞcorrected ¼ Rðj; iÞ$2,p=a (37)

For a double U-tube:
Cði; jÞcorrected ¼ Cði; jÞ$a=ð2,pÞ (38)
Tw1 ðmÞ ¼ Tw2 ðm þ 1Þ (33)
pffiffiffi
a ¼ k1 ,p  k2 ,b when d=2 < rm ðiÞ  d= 2 (39)
Tw3 ðmÞ ¼ Tw4 ðm þ 1Þ (34)
pffiffiffi
a ¼ k3 ,p  k4 ,b when d= 2 < rm ðiÞ  rmax (40)

d 1
cosðbÞ ¼ , (41)
Table 3 2 rm ðiÞ
Input data for the sensitivity analysis.

Description Value
Undisturbed ground temperature [ C] 13.3 Table 4
Thermal conductivity of the pipe [W/(m K)] 0.4 Influence of the parameter m (number of vertical subdivisions of the ground).
Outside diameter of pipe [mm] 32
Time step 350 h 700 h 1050 h
Inside diameter of pipe [mm] 26
simulation [h]
Borehole diameter [mm] 120
Length [m] 120 m layers T out q0 T out q0 T out q0
Thermal conductivity of the grout [W/(m K)] 2 [ C] [W/m] [ C] [W/m] [ C] [W/m]
Maximum radius rmax [m] 10 120 3.411 31.47 3.319 29.42 3.270 28.33
Total water flow rate [kg/s] 0.64 60 3.410 31.45 3.319 29.42 3.269 28.30
Connection Parallel 30 3.409 31.43 3.318 29.40 3.269 28.30
Inlet fluid temperature [ C] 2 15 3.408 31.40 3.317 29.37 3.267 28.26
Ground 6 3.403 31.29 3.313 29.29 3.264 28.19
Thermal conductivity [W/(m K)] 2 3 3.396 31.14 3.306 29.13 3.257 28.04
Thermal capacity [MJ/(m3 K)] 2.1
The number of annular regions is 10 and rmax is 10 m.
 M. De Carli et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1537–1550 1545

Table 5 For double U-tube the choice between a series or parallel

Influence of the parameter n (number of annular regions of the ground). connection between the two U-tubes inside the same grout is
Time step 350 h 700 h 1050 h available, considering as inlet at the borehole the pipes 1 and 3
simulation [h] (Fig. 5). If the two U-tubes are connected in series, the inlet for the
n annuli T out q0 T out q0 T out q0 second U-tube (pipes 3 and 4) is the outlet of the first one (pipes 1
[ C] [W/m] [ C] [W/m] [ C] [W/m] and 2); nevertheless, in this case, the pressure drops increase and
10 3.411 31.47 3.319 29.42 3.270 28.33 the thermal benefits are limited.
5 3.370 30.56 3.297 28.93 3.254 27.97 The outputs of model are the temperatures in each node T(j, 1),
2 3.226 27.34 3.206 26.90 3.188 26.50
.., T(j, i), .T(j, n) and consequently the heat flux for each slice q(1),
1 3.095 24.42 3.091 24.33 3.087 24.24
.q(j), .q(m). Also the return temperature of the fluid from the
The number of depth slices is 120 and rmax is 10 m. borehole is calculated. In this way the total thermal power
exchanged with the surrounding ground can be predicted.
2.5. Overall system of equations
3. Tuning of the model with HEAT2
Considering all the different problems already discussed, for
a single U-tube n þ 3 þ 2 equations can be written for each j-th layer Before testing CaRM against numerical models and measure-
and the overall amount of equations is therefore m * (n þ 5). For ments, a sensitivity analysis has been carried out to investigate the
a double U-tube m * (n þ 5 þ 4) equations can be written. Coaxial influence of some parameters; in particular of m, the number of
pipes case has the same amount of equations of single U-tube the ground slices in depth, and n, the number of annular regions.
problem. In any case, the final model involves a matrix problem: The input data are reported in Table 3. For the double U-tube the
results are reported in the Tables 4 and 5. As it can be seen, the
½AfXg ¼ fBg (42)
number of annular regions affects the simulation results more than
where [A] is the matrix of the coefficients, {X} is the vector of the the number of layers in vertical direction.
unknown temperatures and {B} the column vector of the known Taking into account these results, CaRM has been tuned with
terms; the system of linear equations can be easily solved by using a detailed two dimensions finite differences calculation method,
inversion of the matrix [A]. The implicit rather than explicit method namely HEAT2 [26], in order to check the accuracy of the mathe-
is employed to avoid instability problems. matical model.
Each type of borehole has its own system of linear equations; for The temperature value given by CaRM has been compared with
the borehole types present in the field considered, the systems are the mean values on the same area (annular region) of temperatures
solved one by one: in this way no much storage capacity of given by the detailed program HEAT2.
computer is required and calculation time is shorter. Through the simulation performed by CaRM the temperature
Since the problem is of transient type, the temperature of each trend in time domain at the edge of the grout has been derived. Such
node must be assigned at the start of the simulation and the temperatures have been given as input in simulation with HEAT2: in
undisturbed ground temperature is the usual assumption. this case a transient calculation has been carried out. The mean value
Summarizing, the required input data for CaRM are: of temperatures in the annular region given by HEAT2 has been
compared with the values given by CaRM at different time steps: after
 soil properties for each subregion: thickness, thermal 600, 800 and 1000 h. For a single U-tube, the results are reported in
conductivity, specific heat, density, undisturbed ground Table 6. As it can be observed, the values are practically coincident.
temperature;
 fluid properties: mass flow rate, specific heat, density, viscosity, 4. Field measurements of boreholes
thermal conductivity;
 borehole characteristics: heat exchanger type, external diam- In this study the aim is to evaluate real behaviour of boreholes in
eter of the borehole, dimensions of pipes, thermal resistance the ground as well as to check the accuracy of prediction of the
between pipe and pipe and between pipes and external surface proposed model. For this purpose two different sets of measure-
of borehole (for single and double U-tube); ments have been carried out: a classical ground response test and
 borehole field: spacing and borehole types; measurements in a pilot building [27] in the first season of the
 operation mode: time span of simulation, supply fluid running period, from May to July.
temperature for each time step, plant system status (on/off),
connection of boreholes. 4.1. Comparison against a ground response test
 discretizing variables: simulation time step and mesh
(maximum radius rmax, number of depth subdivisions, number The first comparison for checking the model has been done on
of radial subdivisions). measurements of ground thermal response. For this purpose the

Table 6
Comparison of temperatures [ C] in the ground between HEAT2 and CaRM.

Mean radius of the annular region [m]

Time step simulation 0.060 0.527 1.059 1.980 2.941 3.570 4.325 5.231 6.318 7.623
[h]
600 HEAT2 7.8 11.2 12.0 12.6 12.9 12.9 12.9 13.0 13.0 13.0
CaRM 7.8 11.2 12.1 12.7 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 13.0 13.0
800 HEAT2 10.6 11.1 11.8 12.5 12.8 12.9 12.9 12.9 13.0 13.0
CaRM 10.6 11.2 11.9 12.6 12.8 12.9 12.9 12.9 13.0 13.0
1000 HEAT2 7.4 11.4 11.8 12.4 12.7 12.8 12.9 12.9 13.0 13.0
CaRM 7.4 11.4 11.9 12.5 12.7 12.8 12.9 12.9 13.0 13.0
1546 M. De Carli et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1537–1550
Table 7
Characteristics of ground heat exchanger.
Type double U-tube
(high density polyethylene)
Thermal conductivity of pipe [W/(m K)] 0.4
Outside diameter of pipe [mm] 32
Inside diameter of pipe [mm] 26
Borehole diameter [mm] 140
Length [m] 100
Filling material Mixture of bentonite and quartzite
Connection Parallel
site of an office building under renovation in Mestre–Venice (Italy),
has been used. The HVAC system consists of ceiling radiant panels
and primary air. The design required power is 100 kW in heating
and 120 kW in cooling. The new plant consists of a heat pump
coupled with the ground by a closed loop of vertical double U-tube
heat exchangers. The boreholes are in number of 30 for a depth of
100 m; all boreholes and the two U-tubes are coupled in parallel
with the same inlet temperature. In Table 7 the characteristics of
the heat exchanger are reported.
To evaluate the equivalent thermal conductivity and the undis-
turbed temperature of the ground, a thermal response test has been
carried out. Indeed the ground thermal properties can be estimated
by resorting to available literature values, but the range of possible
values for a specific soil type is very wide. A more accurate method is
therefore to make use of a thermal response test [17–20].
In this case, the test has been done in cooling mode (on building
side), therefore the system makes use of an electrical resistance
only heating the water supplied to the borehole (Fig. 8); if instead of
electrical resistance a heat pump is used, both heat extraction as
well as heat injection experiments are possible [28] but with this
last method the stability control of the input power involves much
more attention. The fluid moves through the heater and the inlet
and the outlet temperatures are recorded by a data-logger (Fig. 8b).
To determine the undisturbed ground temperature the fluid was
initially circulated through the system without heat injection. The
mean fluid temperature along the piping was recorded, and this
one corresponds to the temperature of the undisturbed ground
[20]. In this procedure it is necessary to pay attention to the
disturbance of the circulation pump because its heat can appre-
ciably increase the fluid temperature.
When the heater was switched on, the power injected into the
ground per unit length was set to 36 W/m, close to the design rate.
The time span of test was four days. By continuous line source
model, which releases a constant heat flux per unit time, the eval-
uation of the equivalent thermal conductivity of soil is possible. The
mean fluid temperature (between supply and return) is plotted
against natural logarithm of time and a linear relation is yielded
Fig. 8. The thermal response test equipment used in this case.
(Fig. 9). Using the slope k of this linear equation and the constant
power rate per unit length (q0 ), thermal conductivity can be calcu-
lated by relationship Eq. (43).
q0
lground ¼ (43)
4pk
The fluid used during the test was water with a flow rate of
0.31 kg/s. As a result of the test, the undisturbed ground tempera-
ture was 15.7  C and the equivalent thermal conductivity was
1.75 W/(m K).
In test conditions, assuming for soil thermal capacity the value
of 2.4 MJ/(m3 K) (equivalent to a combination of layers of clay and
sand), also the thermal resistance of borehole Rb was evaluated
according to the line source approach; its value was 0.08 m K/W.
Making use of the data from the response test, the inlet fluid
temperature has been used as input for CaRM and the outlet
temperature of the simulation tool has been compared with the
measured value. For this purpose, 20 layers, each one of 5 m in
depth, have been considered; maximum radius has been set to 10 m
and 20 annular regions from the axis of borehole, with an expansion
factor of 1.2, have been taken. The expansion factor is the ratio
between the thickness of the considered annular region and the
previous one. In the CaRM simulation the case of a borehole in free
field (type ‘‘0’’ of Fig. 7) has been used. Time step of simulation has
been set to 600 s.
Since the model needs also the thermal resistances between
pipes (RppA and RppB in Fig. 5b) inside the borehole, these values have
been calculated (in steady state) by a simulation tool based on finite
elements [29], considering symmetrically placed pipes: their values
are 0.6 (m K)/W and 2.5 (m K)/W for RppA and RppB, respectively; for
this purpose the thermal conductivity of the grout has been set to
1.75 W/(m K) so as to tie in with the measurement results. Outputs
are not much affected by these thermal resistances, since the fluid
temperature difference between the channels is low: in this case,
fluid temperature difference between inlet and outlet at borehole is
3  C. Much more important is the thermal resistance Rp0 (Fig. 5b).
For this reason, the value of the thermal resistance between pipes
and borehole wall has been set using the value of Rb via measure-
ments, decreased by convective thermal resistance between carrier
fluid and pipe, since this is considered in a separate way; in any case
if the flow is not laminar, the thermal resistance due to convection
has small influence. In test conditions the Reynolds number is 5428,
consequently falling in transition zone; it follows that the convective
heat transfer coefficient is 1052 W/(m2 K). The Rb is the equivalent
thermal resistance of the circuit of the ground heat exchanger with
four symmetrical heat transfer channels (Rb  Rconv/4 ¼ Rp0/4); for
this reason the value of Rp0 has been set to 0.32 (m K)/W (its value
via finite elements is 0.35 (m K)/W).
 M. De Carli et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1537–1550
b Fig. 11. Vertical fluid and borehole wall temperature after two and four simulated days.
Fig. 9. Thermal response test: measurements (a) and processing (b).
The outlet temperature of simulation and the measured value
are reported in Fig. 10; the relative error on the temperature
difference between inlet and outlet, simulated and measured, is
11%. In Fig. 11 the vertical temperature profile of the fluid in the
pipes and of the borehole wall obtained with CaRM after two and
four simulated days are shown.
4.2. Measurements over long period
The system which has been measured is a heated and cooled
office building located in Padua (Italy) (Fig. 12). The ground coupled
system consists of a heat pump (nominal power of 80 kW) for both
heating and cooling, 16 boreholes (95 m in depth and 7 m of
spacing) with L shape distribution (Fig. 13); supplemental boreholes
Fig. 10. Comparison of outlet temperature between measurements and simulation.
1547
are taken into account if the energy need of the building will
increase in future. The hydraulic coupling between the boreholes is
in parallel. The overall system takes into account a supplementary
heater; this choice has been taken for avoiding the use of anti-
freezing in the ground circuit, thus the water flowing in the ground
has a fixed minimum allowed temperature of about 4  C. The heat
pump, equipped with electronic throttling valve, has been specifi-
cally designed to work at two different temperature levels (on the
building side): in cooling conditions 5  C during day-time (for air
handling) and 15  C during night-time, due to TABS (Thermal Active
Building Systems); in heating conditions 35  C during both the day
and the night. In this way the COP of heat pump, depending on the
temperature of the water coming from ground heat exchanger, may
vary from 3.5 to 5.5 during the day and from 4.4 to 6.9 during the
night in summer period and from 3.7 to 4.7 in heating conditions.
Soil properties of the area are reported in Table 8, based on
geological analysis and on thermal properties of the ground
obtained from literature data. In this case no ground response test
was done. No significant aquifer movement is reported in that area
within the proposed borehole depth. The undisturbed ground
temperature is 13.3  C (evaluated as yearly average external air
temperature). Pipes of double U-tube have an external diameter of
32 mm and the water flow rate is 0.32 kg/s for each borehole.
Energy flow in the ground has been measured every 5 min and it
considers both the vertical boreholes as well as the horizontal loop
coupling to the heat pump. Measurements have been carried out
from the end of May to end of July, at the beginning of operation of
the building. For considering the effect of the horizontal piping,
which in this case is not negligible, simulations with HEAT2 have
Fig. 12. Building used for long period evaluation.
1548 M. De Carli et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1537–1550

Fig. 13. Lay-out of the boreholes in the ground.

been carried out. The outdoor conditions on the ground have been
imposed in terms of sol–air temperature (both temperature and
radiation have been measured). This contribution has been sub-
tracted from the measured values, thus estimating the temperature
of supply and return water at the boreholes. The supply tempera-
ture determined in this way has been set as input for CaRM. The
heat exchange calculated has been then compared to measured
energy minus contribution of horizontal piping. In Figs. 14 and 15
comparison between experimental and calculated data are shown
during the whole period and in one day in July, respectively.
Looking at the overall period of investigation, measured energy
released into the ground has been 738 MWh, while with the model
the calculated value has resulted in 764 MWh, i.e., 3.6% error. In
Fig. 14 some peaks can be observed, especially in the first period of
operation. These values are due to non-perfect operation of the
heat pump and on–off operations due to testing.
5. Discussion
measured values is 0.35  C. This value is not ascribable to the
uncertainties of the measurements so it is to be explained otherwise.
The first possible reason of this difference could be an over-
estimated undisturbed ground temperature. In the first step of
simulation at each node of the mesh the undisturbed ground
temperature is assigned, besides this value is used as boundary
condition at radius rmax. The ground is disturbed by drilling opera-
tion; this may result in a heating and a wetting or drying depending
on drilling techniques [20]. A convenient time period has to elapse
between the end of the borehole boring and the start of thermal test
so that the ground returns to an undisturbed state. In this case
drilling with pressurised fluid was done and only ten days were
elapsed since boring; for this reason the undisturbed ground
temperature could be overestimated.
The second possible reason lies probably in the evaluation of
thermal resistances inside the borehole. Here the thermal capacity is
neglected and steady state equations are considered: only thermal
resistances are used to take into account the thermal short circuit

The good agreement between CaRM results and HEAT2 bears out
the correct simulation of heat conduction into the ground. On the
other hand, the comparison with the ground response test shows
that the model reproduces the return temperature from borehole
with a slight shift. The average difference between simulated and

Table 8
Characteristics of the ground considered.

Type of ground Thickness [m] l [W/(m K)] r [kg/m3] cp [J/(kg K)]

Clay and sand 8 1.9 1920 1110
Sand 7 2.1 1920 1005
Clay and sand 10 1.9 1920 1110
Sand 13 2.1 1920 1005
Clay 22 1.7 1920 1530
Sand 18 2.1 1920 1005
Clay and sand 42 1.9 1920 1110
Fig. 14. Detailed comparison between measured and calculated results during whole
Total length 120
period (the simulation time step is 5 min).
 M. De Carli et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1537–1550
Fig. 15. Detailed comparison between measured and calculated results on 17th July
(the simulation time step is 5 min).
between pipes of the heat exchanger and the effect of the grout.
These thermal resistances can be calculated by finite elements
methods or formulae available in literature: RppA and RppB are less
important than Rp0 (between pipes and borehole wall) which has
been obtained from the borehole thermal resistance Rb (decreased
by convection contribution). In turn Rb has been calculated by line
source model making use of undisturbed ground temperature,
equivalent thermal conductivity and average temperature of the
fluid entering and leaving the borehole, all of them from the test.
Another possible explanation of the shift could be an overestimation
of Rb and consequently of Rp0. In fact, when this last value is
decreased the model results lay upon the measurements. Another
procedure for ground response test (beside the one described in
paragraph 4.1) is to use different power levels; in this way it is
possible to improve the accuracy of the estimation of any parameter
of interest, in particular of ground thermal conductivity and borehole
thermal resistance. For example with two pulses, for the second one
a higher power can be applied. Moreover, the combination of heating
and cooling pulses could allow to evaluate the effect of convection
[30]. This approach is possible only when multiple electric resis-
tances are available or with a heat pump. The average between the
entry and exit fluid temperature at the top of the borehole can be
different from mean fluid temperature [31]; they are coincident only
if the heat flux is constant along the borehole. In Fig. 16 a case study
where a constant thermal power is injected into the ground with
different mass fluid rate is reported; as it can be seen, at low flow
rates, when the flow is laminar, the heat flux is not constant along the
Fig. 16. Vertical total fluid heat flux. (Parameters used in the simulation are the same
of the case of TRT, with exception of thermal power and mass fluid rate).
1549
borehole. The use of the average temperature between supply and
return, as representative of the fluid temperature in heat transfer
calculations, involves an overestimation of borehole thermal resis-
tance [31].
The difference between the model and measurements could be
caused by a combination of both factors, undisturbed ground
temperature and borehole thermal resistance.
Another possible reason of the shift could be due to the
assumption of negligible grout and fluid thermal capacities. These
physical quantities are relevant in the initial transient period and
they could affect the results.
The comparison between CaRM and survey data of an office
building shows that the simulation data over a long period have the
same trend of the measured power exchanged with the ground; the
error on energy amount is kept down to 5%. However, the pattern of
the ground heat load is not perfectly rendered by the model (Fig. 15).
Neglecting of borehole thermal capacity (grout and fluid) could be an
explanation: this is important when the simulation time step is
relatively short and the heat extraction-injection rate is time
dependent.
The model requires the inlet temperature at the borehole. Usually
for purpose design, the building heat loads and the production
temperature of the heat pump, depending on the type of terminal
devices, are known. An improvement of model here presented could
be considering also the heat pump with a suitable modelling which
receives as input the building heat loads and the inlet temperatures,
on the building and ground side. In this way the two models,
regarding the borehole and the heat pump respectively, can be
coupled. In a general way also the building could be considered: in
this case the whole system building-heat pump-ground heat
exchanger could be analysed. If the heat load on the ground side is
known, the inlet temperature to the borehole can be calculated from
the outlet temperature at the previous time step and the current heat
load; at the beginning of the simulation, inlet and outlet tempera-
tures are set to the undisturbed ground temperature.
Another improvement of CaRM would be a better modelling of
the inside of the borehole, considering both the thermal capacity of
the grout and of the fluid. This approach would allow better short-
time analyses.
Also the axial heat transfer could be taken into account so to
investigate the effect of the first part and of the end of the borehole.
Besides, this development would allow a better mapping of the
ground temperatures and the investigation of short boreholes.
A further improvements for CaRM could be considering the heat
transfer process due to the lateral ground water flow. In this way it
would be possible to analyse the effect of the thermal fluctuations
on the aquifer and to evaluate their potential consequences.
The temperature map of the ground can be very important for
a more comprehensive analysis of the different aspects of such
a complex system. For example, it is possible to analyse the change
of the ground temperature due to the heat injection–extraction rate
on the long term; since CaRM does not consider the heat transfer
due to the movement of aquifer in the soil, this evaluation is pres-
ently overestimated.
The calculation time depends on the mesh; considering 20
layers in depth and 20 annular regions and the borehole field of
Fig. 13, the time span of a yearly simulation on hour by hour basis,
performed on a Pentium 4–2 GHz, is 16 min. CaRM is slower than
models based on line source analytical–numerical solution, but its
computation time is lower than finite volumes models.
6. Conclusions
A model to simulate the thermal behaviour of vertical ground
heat exchangers has been developed. It makes use of the electrical
1550 M. De Carli et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1537–1550
analogy with lumped capacities and thermal resistances to solve the
heat transfer in unsteady state. The model, called CaRM (CApacity
Resistance Model), allows to simulate three different types of
vertical heat exchangers: single U-tube, double U-tube and coaxial
pipes. The detail level allows to investigate the fluid profile and
ground temperature at different depths and distances from axis of
borehole. In this evaluation the thermal capacity of borehole is not
considered. The model is relatively flexible in the construction of
different borehole field configurations. Some comparisons between
measured and simulated values show good agreement, within the
requirements of design calculations.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Manutencoop company and
TiFS Engineering for making available the measurements of their
ground coupled systems.
References
[1] Ingersoll LR, Zobel OJ, Ingersoll AC. Heat conduction: with engineering and
geological applications. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co; 1954.
[2] Carslaw HS, Jaeger JC. Conduction of heat in solids. Oxford: Claremore Press;
1959.
[3] Kavanaugh SP, Rafferty K. Ground source heat pumps – design of geothermal
systems for commercial and institutional buildings. Ashrae Applications
Handbook 1997.
[4] Eskilson P. Thermal analysis of heat extraction boreholes. Doctoral Thesis,
Department of Mathematical Physics and Building Technology, University of
Lund, Sweden, 1987.
[5] Hellström G, Sanner B. Earth energy designer: software for dimensioning of
deep boreholes for heat extraction. Sweden: Department of Mathematical
Physics, Lund University; 1994.
[6] Yavuzturk C. Modeling of vertical ground loop heat exchangers for ground
source heat pump systems. Doctoral Thesis, Oklahoma State University, 1999.
[7] Spitler JD. GLHEPRO – a design tool for commercial building ground loop heat
exchangers. In: Proceedings of 4th international heat pumps in cold climates
conference, Aylmer, Quebec, 17th–18th August, 2000.
[8] Hellström G. Ground heat storage. Thermal analysis of duct storage systems:
theory. Doctoral Thesis, Department of Mathematical Physics, University of
Lund, Sweden, 1991.
[9] Yavuzturk C, Spliter JD. A short time step response factor model for vertical
ground loop heat exchangers. Ashrae Transactions 1999;105(2).
[10] Sutton MG, Couvillion RJ, Nutter DW, Davis RK. An algorithm for approxi-
mating the performance of vertical bore heat exchangers installed in a strati-
fied geological regime. Ashrae Transactions 2002;108(2):177–84.
[11] Young TR. Development, verification, and design analysis of the borehole fluid
thermal mass model for approximating short term borehole thermal response.
Master’s thesis, Oklahoma State University, USA, 2001.
[12] Zeng H, Diao N, Fang Z. A finite line-source model for boreholes in geothermal
heat exchangers. Heat Transfer – Asian Research 2002;31:558–67.
[13] Lamarche L, Beauchamp B. A new contribution to the finite line-source model
for geothermal boreholes. Energy and Buildings 2006;39:188–98.
[14] Lamarche L, Beauchamp B. New solutions for the short-time analysis of
geothermal vertical boreholes. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer
2007;50:1408–19.
[15] Cui P, Yang H, Fang Z. Heat transfer analysis of ground heat exchangers with
inclined boreholes. Applied Thermal Engineering 2006;26:1169–75.
[16] Marcotte, D., Pasquier, P. The effect of borehole inclination on fluid and ground
temperature for GLHE systems. Geothermics, doi: 10.1016/j.geothermics.
2009.06.001.
[17] Austin WA. Development of an in situ system for measuring ground thermal
properties. Master Science thesis, Oklahoma State University, USA, 1998.
[18] Gehlin S. Thermal response test: in situ measurements of thermal properties
in hard rock. Licentiate thesis, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, 1998.
[19] Kavanaugh SP. Field tests for ground thermal properties – Methods and impact
on ground-source heat pump design. Ashrae Transactions 2000;106. pt. 1,
Atlanta.
[20] Gehlin S. Thermal response test: method, development and evaluation.
Doctoral thesis, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, 2002.
[21] Paul ND. The effect of grout thermal conductivity on vertical geothermal heat
exchanger design and performance. Master’s thesis, South Dakota State
University, USA, 1996.
[22] Remund CP. Borehole thermal resistance: laboratory and field studies. Ashrae
Transactions 1999;105(1).
[23] Bennet J, Claesson J, Hellström G. Multipole method to compute the
conductive heat flows to and between pipes in a composite cylinder. Technical
Report, University of Lund, Department of Building Technology and Mathe-
matical Physics. Sweden, 1987.
[24] Schlünder EU. HEDH – Heat exchanger design handbook, vol. 2. New York,
USA: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation; 1983.
[25] Dittus FW, Boelter LMK. Univ Calif (Berkeley) Pub Eng 2, p. 443, 1930.
[26] Blomberg T. Heat2 – A PC-program for heat transfer in two dimensions.
Manual with brief theory and examples. Sweden: Lund Group for Computa-
tional Building Physics; 1999.
[27] Currò Dossi F, De Carli M, Del Bianco R, Fellin F, Tonon M, Zecchin R. A pilot
project for a low energy building equipped with thermal slabs, heat pump
and ground heat storage. In: Proceedings of 8th International IBPSA
Conference ‘‘Building Simulation 2003’’. 11st–14th August. vol. 1, pp. 275–282.
Eindhoven (NL).
[28] Witte HJL, Geldervan GJ, Spitler JD. In-situ measurement of ground thermal
conductivity: The Dutch perspective. Ashrae Transactions 2002;108(1).
[29] Meeker D. Mirage – Steady-State Finite Element Heat Conduction Solver. 2005.
[30] Witte HJL, Gelder GJ van. Geothermal Response Tests using controlled multi-
power level heating and cooling pulses (MPL–HCP): Quantifying ground water
effects on heat transport around a borehole heat exchanger. In: Proceedings of
10th International Conference on Thermal Energy Storage, Ecostock 2006. 31st
May–2nd June, 2006, Stockton College New Jersey (USA).
[31] Marcotte D, Pasquier P. On the estimation of thermal resistance in borehole
thermal conductivity test. Renewable Energy 2008;33:2407–15.