sustainability

Article
Study on the Coupled Heat Transfer Model Based on
Groundwater Advection and Axial Heat Conduction
for the Double U-Tube Vertical Borehole
Heat Exchanger
Linlin Zhang 1 , Zhonghua Shi 2 and Tianhao Yuan 1, *
1 School of Environmental and Municipal Engineering, North China University of Water Resources and
Electric Power, Zhengzhou 450046, China; zhanglinlin@ncwu.edu.cn
2 School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Zhengzhou Vocational University of Information and
Technology, Zhengzhou 450046, China; shizhonghua72@sohu.com
* Correspondence: ytianhao@ncwu.edu.cn




Received: 8 July 2020; Accepted: 28 August 2020; Published: 8 September 2020


Abstract: In this paper, a dynamic heat transfer model for the vertical double U-tube borehole heat
exchanger (BHE) was developed to comprehensively address the coupled heat transfer between
the in-tube fluid and the soil with groundwater advection. A new concept of the heat transfer
effectiveness was also proposed to evaluate the BHE heat exchange performance together with the
index of the heat transfer rate. The moving finite line heat source model was selected for heat transfer
outside the borehole and the steady-state model for inside the borehole. The data obtained in an
on-site thermal response test were used to validate the physical model of the BHE. Then, the effects of
soil type, groundwater advection velocity, inlet water flow rate, and temperature on the outlet water
temperature of BHE were explored. Results show that ignoring the effects of groundwater advection
in sand gravel may lead to deviation in the heat transfer rate of up to 38.9% of the ground loop design.
The groundwater advection fosters the heat transfer of BHE. An increase in advection velocity may
also help to shorten the time which takes the surrounding soil to reach a stable temperature. The mass
flow rate of the inlet water to the BHE should be more than 0.5 kg·s−1 but should not exceed a certain
upper limit under the practical engineering applications with common scale BHE. The efficiency
of the heat transfer of the double U-tube BHE was determined jointly by factors such as the soil’s
physical properties and the groundwater advection velocity.

Keywords: dynamic heat transfer model; borehole heat exchanger; groundwater advection; physical
properties of the soil

1. Introduction
Due to the advantages of high efficiency, energy-saving, and environmental friendliness, the ground
source heat pump (GSHP) system has been widely used in the world and become a hotspot in clean
energy study in recent years [1–6]. The GSHP system has a variety of applications such as obtaining the
hot water and heating/cooling the commercial and domestic space [7]. These systems have been applied
in military complexes, sports centers, institutional buildings, offices, hops, hotels, and schools [8]. The
structure of a GSHP system is typically divided into two main elements: a borehole heat exchanger
(BHE) and a heat pump system [9]. The schematic diagram of the GSHP system used for heating/cooling
is shown in Figure 1. The heat pump is a mechanical device that transfers heat energy from the ground
to a building, and vice versa. Vertical BHE with single or double U-tubes are the most widely adopted
forms of BHE in practice because they occupy less space and exhibit good performance [10,11]. The

Sustainability 2020, 12, 7345; doi:10.3390/su12187345 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 7345 2 of 19

depth of the vertical borehole is from 100 m to 150 m for the GSHP system [7,12]. The proper design of a
BHE in the GSHP system is vital because the BHE undertakes the important processes of heat rejection
to or extraction from the ground. Therefore, the heat transfer mechanism and mathematical models of
BHE have attracted the interest of numerous researchers in the field of GSHP systems. Numerous
numerical and analytical studies have been carried out to reveal the heat transfer processes of BHE.
Classical analytical solutions include a line and cylindrical heat source [13–17]. Numerical models
are based on finite volume, finite difference, or finite element methods [18–20]. The numerical model
can offer discrete solutions but it takes a relatively long computational time. The analytical model is
preferred in most practical applications because of its superior computational speed and flexibility for
parameterized design. Infinite and finite line source analytical models can be applied in the analysis of
ground temperature response, however, the heat transfer process inside the borehole is ignored.

Figure 1. A schematic diagram of the ground source heat pump (GSHP) system used for heating/cooling.

The heat transfer performance of BHE is determined by the parameters of the media inside
the tubes and the thermal physical properties of the surrounding soils. Assessing the heat transfer
performance of the BHE accurately is also crucial to the design optimization of the entire system [21].
Commercial tools have been developed for BHE design, including GHLEPRO, EED, RETScreen, etc. [22],
which are all based on the hypothesis of pure heat conduction in soils [13]. However, pure heat
conduction in soils may lead to a significant deviation in the entire design borehole depth from the
actual one required because of the neglect of groundwater advection in soil [23,24]. As a result, the initial
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7345 3 of 19

cost of the borehole drilling will increase in the case of groundwater advection in the soil, which may
have positive or negative effects on the operational performance of a GSHP system [8].
Therefore, we decided to establish a coupled analytical model for BHE after balancing the pros
and cons between numerical and analytical models to study the heat transfer process between the BHE
and ground soil considering its groundwater advection.

2. State of the Art

Groundwater advection can be commonly found in many geological environments and significantly
affects heat transfer performance around boreholes [25–27]. Existing literature has mostly analyzed the
thermal performance of BHE through numerical and analytical methods that take groundwater advection
into account and these studies have proved that it has a positive effect on heat transfer enhancement as
the temperature rises and reaches a steadier condition [9]. Gehlin et al. [28] explored the heat transfer
process between buried tubes and a fractured rock surrounding, wherein groundwater advection
played a role, in continuum and discrete approaches. Even very low groundwater flow rates have
been found to cause a significant enhancement in heat transfer ability. Fan et al. [29] set up a dynamic
mathematical model for a vertical dual-function BHE that considered the effects of groundwater
advection in the soil and concluded that the presence of groundwater had a significant effect on the
heat transfer between the BHE and the soil, which could lead to an improvement in the GSHP system
performance. Zanchini et al. [30] explored the effects of groundwater advection on the long-term
performance of large BHE fields with unbalanced loads in the summer and the winter using the
finite-element simulation method and found that even very low advection velocity could significantly
promote the long-term heat transfer performance of buried tubes. Zhang et al. [24] proposed an
analytical solution to soil temperature response to heat rejection from BHE with groundwater advection
and suggested that groundwater advection and borehole layout should be important considerations in
the design of the BHE configurations. You et al. [31] evaluated the heat exchange performance of a pile
heat exchanger in a groundwater-rich area and found that the growth rate of average inlet and outlet
temperatures decreased as groundwater flow velocity increased, and that the comprehensive thermal
conductivity coefficient also increased. Li et al. [32] built a 3D numerical model that considered ground
stratification and groundwater advection and determined that groundwater had positive effects on the
tubes in the upper stream rather than those in the lower stream. In summary, these studies indicate
that groundwater advection, even when not obvious in the soil, may cause a significant difference in
comparison to the null velocity case.
Thus, considering the effects of groundwater advection is important in the improvement of BHE
design accuracy and in the optimization of the system operation performance at the design stage
of a GSHP system. Although a considerable number of studies have been conducted, the ground
temperature response caused by the heat dissipation of buried tubes in the soil with groundwater
advection and its effects on the outlet water temperature from BHE have seldom been explored
qualitatively. Therefore, the current in-depth studies are not sufficient to reveal the effects of
groundwater advection on the heat transfer performance of BHE in different constructive forms
in soil under different hydrogeological conditions. With the existing BHE analytical models that use
the effects of groundwater advection, the coupled problem of heat transfer from the in-tube fluid to the
soil with groundwater advection cannot be solved comprehensively.
The rest of this study is organized as follows. Section 3 describes the methodology and model
validation. A set of mathematical models of BHE with double U-tube was developed based on the
Green’s function of the moving finite line source and the steady-state model inside the borehole, taking
the axial heat conduction and the effects of groundwater advection into consideration. In Section 4,
the heat transfer performance of the BHE under the effects of groundwater advection was assessed in
terms of the heat transfer efficiency of the BHE and the heat transfer rate to provide accurate theoretical
guidance for future BHE designers. Section 5 is the conclusions.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7345 4 of 19

3. Methodology
The thermal behavior of the BHE is complicated to model because of the various heat transfer
mechanisms inside and outside the BHE. Heat transfer outside the borehole can be mainly described
with heat conduction and advection between BHE and ground soil when the groundwater advection in
soil is considered. Heat transfer inside the borehole can be decomposed into the following mechanisms:
forced convection of circulating fluid inside the U-tube, conductive heat transfer in the tube wall and
the borehole filling material, and the thermally induced natural convection [33]. The main focus of this
study was the heat transfer of the double U-tube vertical BHE with groundwater advection based on
the coupled heat transfer model. The model coupled with the heat transfer inside and outside the
borehole was established through the value of the borehole wall temperature Tb by using MATLAB.
The geometry model shown in Figure 2 illustrates the dimensions and boundary conditions.

Figure 2. The geometric model of borehole heat exchanger (BHE).

3.1. Coupled Heat Transfer Model of Porous Medium inside and outside BHE
In general, heat is transferred from the water circulating in the U-tube to the tube wall by convection
and then conducted through the backfilling materials inside a borehole to the surrounding soil. The line
source heat transfer model was proposed by Ingersoll and Plass [34] as the design basis for the GSHP
system. The heat transfer process can be treated as a line heat source that rejects or extracts energy
along the vertical direction of the borehole at a constant rate only by heat conduction in a homogeneous,
isotropic infinite medium [35]. This model is simple and convenient to be used in designing BHE.
However, the ground surface temperature may affect the BHE heat transfer performance because the
diameter of a vertical borehole is far less than its depth, despite its limitations. The physical properties
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7345 5 of 19

of the soil considering groundwater advection have a significant effect on this process because they
will lead to a change in the outlet water temperature. In this paper, the outside BHE heat transfer
process is simplified as a moving finite line source in the semi-infinite soil medium to take the effects
of the ground surface temperature and the ground advection into account [13,24]. Thus, the moving
finite line source model (MFLS) is established based on the following assumptions:

(1) The soil is assumed to be a homogeneous and porous medium, which is initially at thermal
equilibrium and its thermal properties are independent of the temperature changes.
(2) The soil surface temperature remained constant at the initial value and its properties are
independent of vertical geothermal gradient and temperature variations.
(3) Heat transfer between two legs of U-tube is negligible and a constant heat flow rate of the borehole
is treated as a line source of finite length, which stretches along the z-axis down to a certain depth
H of borehole, as shown in Figure 2.
(4) All the material properties related to the BHE are temperature-independent and remain constant.

Heat transport in the porous medium soil with groundwater advection is mainly accomplished by
conduction through the fluid and solid phase and advection through the flowing water. Groundwater
advection was deemed as a one-dimensional uniform flow and the equivalent advection velocity U in
the soil was taken as the value of U = uρw cw /ρc, where u is the groundwater advection velocity which
flows along x-direction as in Figure 2 (m·s−1 ), ρw cw is volume specific heat capacity of water (J·m−3 ·K−1 ),
ρc is the volume specific heat capacity of porous medium soil (J·m−3 ·K−1 ). The temperature T0 (K) in
the coordinates is (ξ, η, µ) that moves with a fixed medium; the equation of heat conduction except the
domain where the heat source locates is indicated as [36]:

1 ∂T0 ∂2 T 0 ∂2 T 0 ∂2 T 0
!
= 2 + 2 + 2 (1)
a ∂τ ∂ ξ ∂ η ∂ µ

If the motionless coordinate is set as (x, y, z), the relevant expression about two different coordinates
are denoted as: x = ξ + uτ, y = η, z = µ, and the equation T0 (ξ, η, µ, τ) can be changed into T (x, y, z, τ).
The heat diffusion process of this finite line source with constant heat emission rate located along
the z-axis in the porous soil with groundwater advection can be depicted according to the partial
differential equation as follows [24]:

1 ∂T ∂2 T ∂2 T ∂2 T U ∂T
!
= 2 + 2 + 2 − (2)
a ∂τ ∂ x ∂ y ∂ z a ∂x

Subject to the initial and boundary conditions, it is as follows:

τ ≥ 0, z = 0 : T = T0



τ = 0, 0 < r < ∞ : T = T0




(3)

τ > 0, r → ∞ : T = T0 



cp M(Tin −Tout )
τ > 0, r0 → 0 : −λ ∂T


∂r
2πr = H


where τ is time (s); T0 , Tin , Tout are initial temperature, inlet water temperature, and outlet water
temperature (K); a = λ/ρc is the porous medium soil thermal diffusivity (m2 ·s−1 ); M is mass flow rate
of the water in the buried tubes (kg·s−1 ); cp is specific heat of the water (J·kg−1 ·K−1 ); H is borehole
q
depth (m); r0 = x2 + y2 is the radius of borehole section (m); r = x2 + y2 + (z − h)2 is distance of
p

any position (m); and h is an increase in the depth of borehole (m). The effective thermal conductivity
λ (W·m−1 ·K−1 ) and the volume specific heat capacity of porous medium soil ρc are weighted averages
of the saturated water and solid matrix, usually determined on basis of its porosity ε as follows [37]:
λ = ελw + (1 − ε)λs and ρc = ερw cw + (1 − ε)ρs cs . ρs cs is volume specific heat capacity of soil matrix
(J·m−3 ·K−1 ).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7345 6 of 19

The solution to the dynamic temperature variations in the soil can be obtained by using the
Green’s function and a fictitious line heat source method, expressed by reference [13]:

cp M(Tin − Tout ) "Z H Z 0 #

Ux

∆T (x, y, z, τ) = exp f (x, y, z, τ)dh − f (x, y, z, τ)dh (4)
2πλH 2a 0 −H

where " ! #
1 Ur r − Uτ Ur r + Uτ
f (x, y, z, τ) = exp(− ) × er f c √ + exp( ) × er f c( √ ) (5)
4r 2a 2 aτ 2a 2 aτ
As τ → ∞ , the temperature variation may reach a stable value expressed by

cp M(Tin − Tout )  "Z H Z 0  #

Ux 1 Ux 1 Ux
   
∆T (x, y, z) = exp × exp − dh − exp − dh (6)
4πλH 2a 0 r 2a −H r 2a

where the outlet water temperature of the buried U-tube, Tout , is determined by the coupled heat
transfer processes inside and outside the borehole.
The quasi-three-dimensional model for the inside BHE heat transfer with a double U-tube is
established to take into account the water temperature variation in the borehole. In order to keep the
problem analytically manageable, the simplifications are explained as follows [38]: the heat capacity of
the materials inside the borehole is neglected; the ground outside the borehole and backfilling material
in it are homogeneous, and all the thermal properties involved are independent of temperature; the heat
convection of the water inside and the heat conduction through the buried tubes and backfilling
material were considered to be steady processes because the dimensions and thermal capacity of the
U-tubes combined with the backfilling materials inside the borehole were relatively small compared
with those of the surrounding ground; the axial heat conduction of backfilling materials in the borehole
can be neglected and the borehole wall temperature along the borehole depth remains the same,
but may vary with time.
The average temperature of the borehole wall (Tb ) can be chosen as the reference temperature.
Number the tubes in the borehole clockwise as shown in Figure 3. The thermal resistance between
the water in each U-tube leg and the borehole wall is denoted as R011 (m·K·W−1 ), that between the
two adjacent legs is denoted as R012 (m·K·W−1 ), and that between two symmetric legs is denoted as
R013 (m·K·W−1 ). The circulating water temperature in four branch tubes (T f 1 , T f 2 , T f 3 , T f 4 , K) satisfies
the following equation [38]:

= R011 q1 + R012 q2 + R013 q3 + R012 q4




 T f 1 − Tb
= R012 q1 + R011 q2 + R012 q3 + R013 q4

 T f 2 − Tb


(7)
T f 3 − Tb = R013 q1 + R012 q2 + R011 q3 + R012 q4





 T −T = R012 q1 + R013 q2 + R012 q3 + R011 q4

f4 b

where q1 , q2 , q3 , q4 are the heat flux rate of each branch tube, respectively (W·m−1 ).
Hellström [39] analyzed the steady-state conduction problem in the borehole cross-section in
detail with the line source and multipole approximations. The line source assumption has resulted in
the following solution.

λ g −λs 4r2b −Du

  
r
R011 = 1
ln rbo − ln + 1
ln rro + 1


2πλ g λ g + λs 4r2b 2πλp 2πhi ri

i


√

 !
λ g −λs 16r4b −D4u

 0
 1 2rb
R12 = 2πλ g ln Du − ln (8)
2 ( λ g + λs ) 16r4b




λ g −λs 4r2b +Du
  
r

0 1
ln Dbu −

 R13 = ln

λ g + λs 4r2b
 2πλ g
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7345 7 of 19

where, λf , λg , λs and λp are heat conductivity of fluid, grout, soil, and tube, respectively (W·m−1 ·K−1 ).
rb , ri and ro are borehole radius, internal and external radius of U-tube, respectively (m). Du is spacing
between two legs of U-tube (m). hi is convection coefficient of the fluid inside tube (W·m−1 ·K−1 ).

Figure 3. Schematic of a double U-tube BHE: (a) Two-dimensional (b) Three-dimensional.

The heat flux rate of each branch tube has a connection with the vertical temperature gradient
of the fluid circulating in it. Assuming the vertical temperature of the tube in which the fluid flows
upward to be positive and downward to be negative, the heat equilibrium of the fluid in each branch
tube satisfies the following equations [38]:

∂T1
 h i h i h i



 q1 = −Mcp ∂z
= K1 T f 1 (z) − Tb + K12 T f 1 (z) − T f 2 (z) + K13 T f 1 (z) − T f 3 (z)
 h i
+K12 T f 1 (z) − T f 4 (z)




∂T2

 h i h i h i



 q2 = −Mcp ∂z
= K12 T f 2 (z) − T f 1 (z) + K1 T f 2 (z) − Tb + K12 T f 2 (z) − T f 3 (z)
 h i
+K13 T f 2 (z) − T f 4 (z)



(9)

∂T3
 h i h i h i



 q3 = Mcp ∂z
= K13 T f 3 (z) − T f 1 (z) + K12 T f 3 (z) − T f 2 (z) + K1 T f 3 (z) − Tb
 h i
+K12 T f 3 (z) − T f 4 (z)




∂T4

 h i h i h i
q4 = Mcp = K12 T f 4 (z) − T f 1 (z) + K13 T f 4 (z) − T f 2 (z) + K12 T f 4 (z) − T f 3 (z)


∂z



 h i

 +K1 T f 4 (z) − Tb

where  
K1 = 1/ R011 + R013 + 2R012



  
 K12 = R0 / R02 + R02 + 2R0 R0 − 4R02


(10)


  12 11 13 11 13
 h 12
  i
 K13 = R02 + R 0 R0 − 2R02 / R0 − R0 × R02 + R02 + 2R0 R0 − 4R02


13 11 13 12 11 13 11 13 11 13 12

To simplify the expression in Equation (9), define θ1 (z) = T f 1 (z) − Tb , θ2 (z) = T f 2 (z) − Tb ,
   
θ3 (z) = T f 3 (z) − Tb , θ4 (z) = T f 4 (z) − Tb , and denote S1 = K1 / Mcp , S2 = (K12 + K13 )/ Mcp .

3
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7345 8 of 19

The two U-tube loops’ temperature can be considered as equal for symmetry, that is, T f 1 (z) = T f 2 (z),
T f 3 (z) = T f 4 (z). Equation (9) can be written in dimensionless form as

∂θ

 − ∂z1 = (S1 + S2 )θ1 − S2 θ3


(11)
 ∂θ3 = (S1 + S2 )θ3 − S2 θ1


∂z

Solving the differential equations above, it yields,

 q q
S1 +S2 − (S1 +S2 )2 −S22 ( (S +S )2 −S2 )·z S1 +S2 + (S1 +S2 )2 −S22 −( (S +S )2 −S2 )·z
q q

θ
 1 2 1 2

 1
 ( z ) = C1 S2 e 2 + C2 S2 e 2
 q q (12)
2 2
 θ (z) = C ·e( (S1 +S2 ) −S22 )·z + C ·e−( (S1 +S2 ) −S22 )·z



3 1 2

Subject to the boundary conditions:

θ1 |z=0 = θ1 (0) = Tin − Tb

(
(13)
θ1 |z=H = θ3 |z=H = θ1 (H ) = θ3 (H )

Therefore, the values of C1 and C2 can be obtained:


B ·S ·θ (0)
 C = 4 2 1 2
 1

B1 B4 −B2 B3 B5


 B ·B2 ·S ·θ (0) (14)
 C2 = 3 5 22 1


 B2 B3 B −B1 B4 5

 q
B1 = S1 + S2 − (S1 + S2 )2 − S22





 q
B2 = S1 + S2 + (S1 + S2 )2 − S22






 q
B3 = S1 − (S1 + S2 )2 − S22

(15)




 q
B4 = S1 + (S1 + S2 )2 − S22





 q

(S1 +S2 )2 −S22 )·H

 (
B5 = e



As a result, the outlet water temperature of the double U-tube BHE can be expressed as

Tout = θ3 (0) − Tb = C1 + C2
B4 ·S2 ·θ1 (0) B3 ·B25 ·S2 ·θ1 (0)
= B1 B4 −B2 B3 B25
+ B2 B3 B25 −B1 B4 (16)
B3 ·B25 ·S2
 
B4 ·S2
= + ·θ1 (0)
B1 B4 −B2 B3 B25 B2 B3 B25 −B1 B4

θ1 (0) = Tin − Tb , it can be written further as

B3 ·B25 ·S2
 
 B4 ·S2 
Tout = (Tin − Tb )· 2
+ 2
 + Tb (17)
B1 B4 − B2 B3 B5 B2 B3 B5 − B1 B4


The outlet water temperature of the buried tube can be obtained based on an accurate estimation
of the borehole wall temperature Tb , which can be calculated using the model for the heat transfer
q
process outside the borehole expressed by Equation (6) when the r = r2b + (z − h)2 .
Based on the above, the coupled analytical model with the heat transfer inside and outside the
borehole can be solved through MATLAB programming. The flowchart of iterative solution procedure
is as follows in Figure 4. On the premise of the inlet water temperature and given mass rate of the
U-tube, a value for the outlet water temperature at a moment was assumed to be Tout 0 and inputted

to Equation (3). Then, an estimated value of borehole wall temperature Tb was obtained. The value
Tb was inputted into Equation (17), which yields an updated U-tube outlet water temperature Tout .
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7345 9 of 19

This process was repeated until the difference between the estimated value and the updated value of
the outlet water temperature meets the specified precision requirement. That is, by searching for the
 2
optimal solution, the actual Tout at a certain moment was obtained when the value of Tout − Tout 0

Sustainability
achieved the 2020, 12, x FOR PEER
minimum REVIEW
value by using the MATLAB software, approaching zero. 10 of 20

Figure 4. The flowchart of iterative solution procedure.

Figure 4. The flowchart of iterative solution procedure.
The heat transfer rate q (W·m−1 ) is one of the most important indices indicating the heat transfer
The
performance heatoftransfer
a BHE, rate q (W·m
and can
−1) is one of the most important indices indicating the heat
be taken as an index to evaluate the heat transfer performance of a
transfer
BHE andperformance
the operationalof efficiency
a BHE, andof a GSHPcan besystem.taken Itasis an definedindexasto
theevaluate the heat transfer
following:
performance of a BHE and the operational efficiency of a GSHP system. It is defined as the
following: cp ·M
q= (Tin − Tout ) (18)
H
cp ⋅ M
The heat transfer characteristics of a BHEHcan(be
q= Tin − Tout )
assessed
(7)
by the heat exchange effectiveness as
well. The heat transfer effectiveness of a BHE, φ, was defined as the ratio of the actual heat transfer
The heat transfer characteristics of a BHE can be assessed by the heat exchange effectiveness as
rate E to the ideal maximal value E0 , expressed as the following,
well. The heat transfer effectiveness of a BHE, φ , was defined as the ratio of the actual heat transfer
. .
rate E to the ideal maximal value EE′ , expressed mc(Tin −as the
Tout ) following,
T − Tout
φ= . = . = in (19)
E E mc
0  mc (Tin
( T −
− TT 0 )
) T T−inT − T0
φ=  = in out
= in out (8)
E
where T represents the initial soil temperature.
0
′ 
mc ( Tin − T0 ) Tin − T0

where T0 Validation
3.2. Model represents the initial soil temperature.

The data of the inlet and outlet water temperatures measured in an in situ geotechnical thermal
3.2. Model Validation
response test were used to validate the calculation results of the coupled model established.
The
The data of the inlet
geotechnical and outlet
thermal responsewater temperatures
tests measured
were conducted in an in situ
by constructing geotechnical
a double thermal
U-tube borehole.
response test were used to validate the calculation results of the coupled model established.
The basic parameters of the BHE are shown in Table 1 [40]. The LGGTP-1 type geotechnical thermal
The in
response geotechnical thermal
situ was used. response
The water flow tests were
rate and conducted
water by constructing
temperature were measured a double U-tube
by meters with
borehole.
deviationsThe basic
within parameters
±0.5% and ±0.2 of
◦ the BHE areThe
C, respectively. shown
pumpinwas Table 1 [40].
turned The LGGTP-1
on to circulate type
the water in
geotechnical thermal response in situ was used. The water flow rate and water temperature were
measured by meters with deviations within ±0.5% and ±0.2 °C, respectively. The pump was turned
on to circulate the water in the loop. The stable inlet and outlet circulating water temperatures were
measured. Their mean value was taken as the initial soil temperature at approximately 17 °C.
Thereafter, the heating equipment was turned on to heat the circulating water at the rated power.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7345 10 of 19

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20

the loop. The stable inlet and outlet circulating water temperatures were measured. Their mean value
was taken as the initial soil temperature at approximately 17 ◦ C. Thereafter, the heating equipment
Table 1. Basic parameters of the borehole with double U-tube tested.
was turned on to heat the circulating water at the rated power. The U-tube inlet and outlet water
temperatureParameter
were measured and recorded Valuesat a 10-min interval Parameters
during the testing period. Values
Borehole length/ H 103 m Density of water/ ρ 1000 kg·m−3
Borehole radius/ rb 1. Basic parameters
Table 0.055 mof the borehole with double
Specific heat ofU-tube c
water/ tested. 4200 J·kg−1·K−1
U-tube inner radius/ ri 0.010 m Water mass flow rate/ M 0.51 kg·s−1
Parameter Values Parameters Values
U-tube outer radius/ ro 0.0125 m U-tube spacing/ Du 0.07 m
−3
Borehole length/H 103 m Density of water/ρ 1000 kg·m
3.08m
Borehole radius/rb λ
Soil thermal conductance/ s
0.055 Specific
U-tube heatconductance/
thermal of water/c λp 4200
0.45
−1 −1
W·m·K−1·K−1
J·kg
U-tube inner radius/ri W·m −1·K−1
0.010 m Water mass flow rate/M 0.51 kg·s−1
U-tube outer radius/ro 1.19 m
0.0125 U-tube spacing/Du 0.07 m
Grout thermal conductance/ λ Thermal conductance of tube fluid/ λ f 0.48 W·m−1·K−1
Soil thermal conductance/λs g 3.08 W·m
W·m −1−1 −1 −1
·K·K U-tube thermal conductance/λp 0.45 W·m−1 ·K−1
Grout thermal conductance/λ g 1.19 W·m ·K−1
−1 Thermal conductance of tube fluid/λ f 0.48 W·m−1 ·K−1
There is no obvious groundwater advection in the geological report of the geotechnical thermal
response
Theretests.
is noItobvious
can only verify the analytical
groundwater advectionsolution model forreport
in the geological one working condition using
of the geotechnical the
thermal
experimental
response tests.data.
It canTheonlyadvection
verify thevelocity was
analytical set to model
solution zero whenfor onetheworking
calculation of theusing
condition coupled
the
analytical model
experimental data.was
Thecarried out.velocity
advection The values
wasofsetthe
to double U-tube
zero when inlet waterofmass
the calculation rate andanalytical
the coupled dynamic
inlet water
model temperature
was carried measured
out. The during
values of the experiment
the double were
U-tube inlet inputted
water intoand
mass rate the established
dynamic inletcoupled
water
model and the
temperature outlet water
measured duringtemperatures
the experimentcalculated correspondingly.
were inputted The calculated
into the established coupledvalues
modelwere
and
compared with the data obtained in the experiment, as shown in Figure 5. The
the outlet water temperatures calculated correspondingly. The calculated values were compared with figure shows the
deviations
the between
data obtained in the
the data monitored
experiment, and calculated
as shown in Figureare less than
5. The figure5% whenthe
shows thedeviations
experimental data
between
obtained
the in the initial
data monitored andeight hoursare
calculated were
lesstaken away.
than 5% whenThis
thefinding indicates
experimental datathat a goodinagreement
obtained the initial
was achieved
eight hours were between experiment
taken away. results indicates
This finding and calculation results
that a good of the analytical
agreement heat between
was achieved transfer
models.
experiment results and calculation results of the analytical heat transfer models.

30

28

26
T out/ ℃

24

22

20 Experimental inlet water temperature

Calculation outlet water temperature
Experimental outlet water temperature
18

16
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
time/ h
Figure
Figure 5. Comparison of
5. Comparison of the
the calculated
calculated and
and experimental
experimental values
values of
of the
the double
double U-tube
U-tube BHE.
BHE.
4. Results and Discussion
4. Results and Discussion
Groundwater advection velocity varies in a wide range because it is determined by the local
Groundwater advection velocity varies in a wide range because it is determined by the local
hydraulic gradient and hydraulic conductivity in soils, which vary from place to place. In general,
hydraulic gradient and hydraulic conductivity in soils, which vary from place to place. In general,
the Pelect number (hereafter referred to as Pe) can be taken as the criterion to determine whether the
the Pelect number (hereafter referred to as Pe) can be taken as the criterion to determine whether the
effect of the groundwater advection should be considered. Tan et al. [41] mentioned that when the
effect of the groundwater advection should be considered. Tan et al. [41] mentioned that when the Pe
Pe is in the range of 0.4–5, heat conduction and convection can be found in the soil; when the Pe is
is in the range of 0.4–5, heat conduction and convection can be found in the soil; when the Pe is
greater than 5, thermal convection dominates the heat transfer. However, the effects of groundwater
greater than 5, thermal convection dominates the heat transfer. However, the effects of groundwater
advection on the underground loop design should be considered when the Pe is greater than 1 in
advection on the underground loop design should be considered when the Pe is greater than 1 in
practical engineering. In the following, the effects of groundwater advection on the heat transfer
performance of BHE in several types of soils were analyzed based on the calculation results of the
proposed coupled model. The hydraulic gradient across most types of soils ranges between 0.0001
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7345 11 of 19
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 20

and 0.05 m·m

practical −1[42]; the advection velocity in several kinds of soils based on the hydraulic gradient of
engineering. In the following, the effects of groundwater advection on the heat transfer
0.01 m·m was
−1
performance of taken
BHE in inseveral
the following.
types ofThesoilscorresponding
were analyzed physical
based on parameters of the results
the calculation soils and the
of the
corresponding Pe are shown in Table 2 (Note: Pe = ρc(L/λ), L = 4.5 m, typical
proposed coupled model. The hydraulic gradient across most types of soils ranges between 0.0001 borehole spacing).
Groundwater
and 0.05 m·m−1advection velocities were
[42]; the advection found
velocity to differ
in several even
kinds ofifsoils
the based
hydraulic gradients
on the remain
hydraulic the
gradient
same
of 0.01inm·m
different
−1 wastypes
takenofinsoils. The effectsThe
the following. of groundwater
corresponding advection
physicalinparameters
the silt andofthe
thesandstone
soils and
can corresponding
the be ignored. Therefore, only in
Pe are shown theTable
heat2transfer
(Note: Pe performance
= ρc(L/λ), Lof BHE
= 4.5 m,intypical
sand borehole
gravel, limestone,
spacing).
coarse sand, and
Groundwater fine sand
advection were discussed
velocities were found in the following.
to differ even if the hydraulic gradients remain the same
in different types of soils. The effects of groundwater advection in the silt and the sandstone can be
Table 2. Physical
ignored. Therefore, only theparameters of several
heat transfer typical soils
performance within
of BHE thesand
samegravel,
hydraulic gradient.coarse sand,
limestone,
and fine sand were discussedVolume
Thermal in the following.
Heat Permeability Advection
Soil Porosity
Conductivity Capacity Coefficient Velocity Pe
Media
ρ c /J·m ·K ε
λ /W·m
Table 2. Physical
−1 ·K parameters
−1 −3 −1
K /m·s
of several typical soils with the usame
−1 /m·shydraulic gradient.
−1

sand
0.98Thermal 1.4Volume
× 106 Heat Permeability
3 × 10−3 Advection
3 × 10−5 0.31
Porosity 578.57
gravelSoil Media Conductivity Capacity Coefficient Velocity Pe
ε
limestone λ/W·m−1 ·K−1 1.34ρc/J·m
3.56 × 107−3 ·K−1 × 10−4−1
1 K/m·s 1 × −1
u/m·s 10−6 0.275 5.3
coarsesand gravel 0.98 6 10−5−3 3 × 10−5 −7 0.31
1.02 106× 10 7
1.4 ×1.4 7.33××10 7.3 × 10 0.385 578.57 13.53
sandlimestone 3.56 1.34 × 10 1 × 10−4 1 × 10−6 0.275 5.3
coarse sand
fine sand 1.03 1.02 106× 10
1.4 ×1.4
6 −6−5
6.3 × ×1010
7.3 × 10
7.36.3 −7
× 10−8 0.385 0.4 13.53 1.156
6 −6 −8
silt fine sand 2.07 1.03 1.4
2.85 × 10 ×
6 10 6.3 × 10
1.4 × 10−7−7 × 10
6.31.4 × 10−9 0.4 0.475 1.156 1.28 × 10−2
silt 2.07 2.85 × 106 1.4 × 10 1.4 × 10−9 −10 0.475 1.28 × 10−2
sandstone 4.5 3.56 × 106 4.2 × 10−8−8 4.2 × 10 0.18 1.76 × 10−3
sandstone 4.5 3.56 × 106 4.2 × 10 4.2 × 10−10 0.18 1.76 × 10−3
Pe—Pelect number
Pe—Pelect number.

In terms of the geometric and physical parameters of the double U-tube in BHE shown in Table
In terms of the geometric and physical parameters of the double U-tube in BHE shown in
1, the outlet water temperatures were calculated based on the coupled model. The inlet water
Table 1, the outlet water temperatures were calculated based on the coupled model. The inlet water
temperature was specified as 35 °C. The effects of the soil type, advection velocity, inlet water flow
temperature was specified as 35 ◦ C. The effects of the soil type, advection velocity, inlet water flow rate,
rate, and temperature on the outlet water temperature of the BHE were investigated in the
and temperature on the outlet water temperature of the BHE were investigated in the following.
following.
4.1. Effect of Soil Type
4.1. Effect of Soil Type
Table 2 shows that the groundwater advection velocities in different types of soils differ considerably
whileTable 2 showsgradients
the hydraulic that the are
groundwater
the same. Theadvection velocities
calculated in the
values of different types temperature
outlet water of soils differ
of
considerably while the hydraulic gradients are the same. The calculated values of the
the double U-tube BHEs in sandy gravel and other four kinds of soils with a hydraulic gradient of outlet water
temperature
0.01 m· m−1 are of illustrated
the double in U-tube
Figure 6.BHEs in sandy
The outlet watergravel and other
temperatures four
of the BHEkinds of soils
in every kindwith
of soila
hydraulic gradient of 0.01 m·m −1 are illustrated in Figure 6. The outlet water temperatures of the
tend to rise and then stabilize. However, the change rates of the outlet water temperatures and the
BHE invalues
stable everyachieved
kind of vary
soil tend to rise
greatly and then
in different stabilize.
kinds However, the change rates of the outlet
of soils.
water temperatures and the stable values achieved vary greatly in different kinds of soils.

Figure 6.
Figure Dynamic outlet water temperatures in different types of soils.
6. Dynamic

The heat transfer efficiency of different soil is commonly decided by the thermal diffusion
coefficient and the groundwater advection velocity. Figure 6 shows that the groundwater advection
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7345 12 of 19

The heat
Sustainability 2020,transfer
12, x FORefficiency
PEER REVIEW of different soil is commonly decided by the thermal diffusion 13 of 20
coefficient and the groundwater advection velocity. Figure 6 shows that the groundwater advection
hasnotnot
has played
played a major
a major role inrole in theheat
the initial initial heat dissipation
dissipation period andperiodthat theand outletthat the temperature
water outlet water
temperature from the BHE in soil with a small value of thermal
from the BHE in soil with a small value of thermal conductivity rise very rapidly. As time conductivity rise very rapidly.
elapses, As
time
the elapses,
outlet waterthe outlet water
temperature temperature
of the BHE in sand of the
gravelBHElevels
in sand gravel
off very levelsand
quickly off very
tendsquickly
to reachand a
small value compared with those in coarse sand and fine sand. This finding can be attributed to thebe
tends to reach a small value compared with those in coarse sand and fine sand. This finding can
attributed
small thermal toconductivity
the small thermal of sandconductivity
gravel whileof thesand gravel while
corresponding the corresponding
groundwater advection groundwater
velocity is
advection velocity is large, which can accelerate heat migration
large, which can accelerate heat migration further. For instance, the outlet water temperature further. For instance, theofoutlet
the
BHE in the limestone is the lowest, because its thermal conductivity is about four times the value of theis
water temperature of the BHE in the limestone is the lowest, because its thermal conductivity
about
sand four and
gravel, times thethe value of the
groundwater sand gravel,
advection velocityand thelimestone
in the groundwater advection
is not small, therebyvelocity in the
enhancing
limestone is not small, thereby enhancing the convective heat
the convective heat transfer (Pe ≈ 5). As a result, the temperature of the limestone surrounding thetransfer (Pe ≈ 5). As a result, the
BHE did not rise dramatically. It takes about 12 h, 36 h, 52 h, or 53 h for the outlet water temperatures36
temperature of the limestone surrounding the BHE did not rise dramatically. It takes about 12 h,
ofh,the
52BHE
h, orin 53sandh forgravel,
the outlet water temperatures
limestone, coarse sand, or of fine
the BHE
sand in to sand gravel,
stabilize, limestone,In
respectively. coarse sand,
addition,
an increase in groundwater advection velocity in the soils causes the outlet water temperature toin
or fine sand to stabilize, respectively. In addition, an increase in groundwater advection velocity
the soils
become causes
stable at athe outlettime.
shorter water temperature to become stable at a shorter time.
Figure
Figure 7 illustrates
7 illustrates thethe dynamic
dynamic change
change in heat
in heat transfer
transfer effectiveness
effectiveness of the
of the double
double U-tube
U-tube BHEBHE in
in several typical soils as shown in Table 2. The heat transfer effectiveness
several typical soils as shown in Table 2. The heat transfer effectiveness decreases gradually until decreases gradually until
it
it tends
tends to different
to different stablestable
valuesvalues in different
in different types oftypes
soils.ofInsoils.
Figure In7a,
Figure 7a, for instance,
for instance, the heat
the heat transfer
transfer effectiveness
effectiveness is 0.108, 0.17, is 0.108,
0.099,0.17,
and0.099, anda 0.1
0.1 after 24-hafter a 24-h continuous
continuous heat rejection heatofrejection
the BHEofinthe theBHE
fourin
the four typical types of soils, respectively. They become 0.107, 0.134,
typical types of soils, respectively. They become 0.107, 0.134, 0.064, and 0.06, respectively after 30 days 0.064, and 0.06, respectively
ofafter 30 daysheat
continuous of continuous
rejection. The heatheat
rejection.
transferThe heat transfer
effectiveness effectiveness
of the BHE in limestoneof the BHE is theingreatest
limestone andis
the greatest and has the largest value of thermal conductivity. The
has the largest value of thermal conductivity. The heat transfer effectiveness decreased faster in the soil heat transfer effectiveness
decreased
with faster in theadvection
small groundwater soil withvelocity
small andgroundwater advection
the stable value velocity
is affected and the stable
by groundwater value is
advection
affected
but by groundwater
also depended on thermal advection
physical but also depended
properties on thermal
of the soil. That is,physical
the soil withproperties
a largeofvalue
the soil.
of
That is, the soil with a large value of groundwater advection
groundwater advection velocity and a large thermal conductivity can alleviate the heat accumulation velocity and a large thermal
inconductivity
the soil and maintaincan alleviate the heatthe transfer
heat accumulation
effectiveness of in the
thedouble
soil and U-tubemaintain the heat attransfer
heat exchanger high
effectiveness
value for a long time. of the double U-tube heat exchanger at high value for a long time.

0.17 0.17
heat transfer effectiveness coefficient

0.16 sand gravel sand gravel (u=0)

0.16
heat transfer effectiveness coefficient

limestone limestone (u=0)

0.15 coarse sand 0.15 coarse sand (u=0)
0.14 fine sand 0.14 fine sand (u=0)
0.13 0.13
0.12 0.12
0.11 0.11
0.10 0.10
0.09 0.09
0.08 0.08
0.07 0.07
0.06 0.06
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
time/ day time/ day

(a) (b)
Figure7. 7.Transient
Figure Transientvariations
variationsofofheat
heattransfer
transfereffectiveness
effectivenessofofthe
thedouble-U
double-Utube
tubeBHE
BHEinindifferent
different
typical
typical soils.(a)(a)Effect
soils. Effectofofgroundwater
groundwater advection
advection (b)(b) Effect
Effect ofof groundwater
groundwater advection
advection ignored.
ignored.

Figure
Figure 7a,b
7a,bshows thatthat
shows the heat transfer
the heat effectiveness
transfer coefficient
effectiveness decreased
coefficient rapidly as
decreased time elapsed
rapidly as time
inelapsed
the sand in gravel
the sandwith gravel
groundwater advection in advection
with groundwater comparisoninwith soils without
comparison with groundwater
soils without
advection
groundwaterbecause the smaller
advection thethe
because heat conductivity
smaller the heatcoefficient
conductivityof the sand gravel,
coefficient of the the
sandgreater
gravel,the
the
advection velocity. As a result, heat convection dominated the heat transfer process.
greater the advection velocity. As a result, heat convection dominated the heat transfer process. Because the
limestone
Because has
the large advection
limestone velocity
has large and its heat
advection conductivity
velocity is not
and its heat small, the heat
conductivity convection
is not effect
small, the heat
generated
convectionbyeffect
advection did not
generated bydominate
advectionthe heat
did nottransfer
dominateprocess. Moreover,
the heat transfer the differences
process. in heat
Moreover, the
differences in heat transfer effectiveness in the soils with and without groundwater advection were
not significant because the advection velocities in coarse sand and fine sand are small and, thus, its
effect can be ignored.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7345 13 of 19

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 20

transfer effectiveness in the soils with and without groundwater advection were not significant because
the advection
Then, takingvelocities
the sandin coarse
gravelsandas anand fine sand
example, theare small and, thus,
groundwater its effect
advection can beisignored.
velocity the largest
among Then,
thetaking the sand
soils listed gravel2asand
in Table an example,
the outletthe groundwater
water temperatures advection
of thevelocity
double is the largest
U-tube were
among
compared the soils
withlisted
thosein Table
from 2the
and double
the outlet water temperatures
U-tube buried in sandy of the gravel
double U-tube
withoutwere compared
groundwater
with those from
advection, the double
as shown U-tube
in Figure 8. It buried
can be in sandy
seen thatgravel without
the outlet watergroundwater
temperatureadvection, as shown
rose comparatively
in Figure
faster 8. Itsand
in the can gravel
be seenwiththatgroundwater
the outlet water temperature
advection and the rose comparatively
temperature fasterbetween
difference in the sandthe
gravel with groundwater advection and the temperature difference between
in-tube water and the soil decreased rapidly at the initial stage because heat convection strengthened the in-tube water and
the
the soil
heatdecreased
transfer and rapidly at the the
alleviated initial
heatstage because heat
accumulation convection
around the BHE. strengthened
As a result,thetheheat
outlettransfer
water
and
temperatures were comparatively high in the sand gravel with groundwater advection. As were
alleviated the heat accumulation around the BHE. As a result, the outlet water temperatures time
comparatively high in the sand
elapsed, the temperature gravelbetween
difference with groundwater
the in-tubeadvection.
water andAsthe time
soilelapsed, the and
increased temperature
the heat
difference
transfer wasbetween the in-tube
enhanced, water
causing theand the soil
outlet increased and
temperature the heat transfer
to approach was enhanced,
a low stable value very causing
fast.
the outlet temperature to approach a low stable value very fast. After a 120
After a 120 h continuous heat rejection, the outlet water temperature of the double U-tube in theh continuous heat rejection,
the
sandoutlet water
gravel withtemperature
groundwater of theadvection
double U-tube was in the°C
0.54 sand gravel
lower withthe
than groundwater
value in the advection
case ofwas no
0.54 ◦ C lower than the value in the case of no
groundwater advection. Simultaneously, thegroundwater
heat transferadvection.
rate of theSimultaneously,
double U-tube the heat transfer
q increased by
rate of the double U-tube q increased by 22.63 W·m−1 to the value of 80.8 W·m−1 , which implies that a
22.63 W·m to the value of 80.8 W·m , which implies that a deviation in the heat transfer rate of up
−1 −1
deviation in the heat transfer rate of up to 38.9% would be achieved if the existence of groundwater
to 38.9% would be achieved if the existence of groundwater advection were ignored.
advection were ignored.

33.6 150
140
33.2 130
120
32.8 Tout
Tout/℃

110
q/W·m-1
Tout (u=0)
q
32.4 100
q(u=0)
90
32.0 80
70
31.6
60
31.2 50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
time/ h

Figure 8. Transient variations of outlet water temperature and heat transfer rate in sand gravel.
Figure 8. Transient variations of outlet water temperature and heat transfer rate in sand gravel.
4.2. Effect of Groundwater Advection Velocity
4.2. Effect of Groundwater Advection Velocity
The underground hydraulic characteristics vary dramatically in different types of soils, and, thus,
The underground
analyzing the heat transfer hydraulic characteristics
performance of a BHE invary dramatically
different in different
types of soils with thetypes of soils,
different and,
hydraulic
thus, analyzing the heat transfer performance of a
−1 BHE in different types of
gradients in the normal range (0.0001–0.05 m·m ) is important. Figure 9 reveals how the stable soils with the different
hydraulic
values gradients
of the in therates
heat transfer normal
varyrange (0.0001–0.05
with the groundwater m·madvection
−1) is important. Figure 9 reveals how the
velocity in various types of soils
stable values the
surrounding of the heat transfer
double U-tube. rates vary
A large with the velocity
advection groundwaterbringsadvection velocity
a large value in various
of the types
heat transfer
of soils surrounding the double U-tube. A large advection velocity brings a large value
rate, which means an increase in groundwater advection velocity will cause the heat transfer capability of the heat
transfer
to rate,
increase in which
certainmeans
soils. an
Theincrease in groundwater
increasing trends of theadvection
heat transfervelocity
rateswill
are cause the heat
consistent transfer
in the sand
capability to increase in certain soils. The increasing trends of the heat transfer
gravel, coarse sand, and fine sand with groundwater advection because the comprehensive thermal rates are consistent in
the sand gravel,
conductivity andcoarse sand, andspecific
the volumetric fine sand with
heat groundwater
of these three typesadvection
of soilsbecause
discussedtheare
comprehensive
roughly the
same, but their porosity and permeability are not the same in practice, leading to different valuesare
thermal conductivity and the volumetric specific heat of these three types of soils discussed of
roughly the same,
groundwater but velocity.
advection their porosity and permeability are not the same in practice, leading to
different values
Figure of groundwater
9 shows that the heatadvection velocity.
transfer rate of the double U-tube in limestone is greater than that
in silt when the groundwater advection velocity is less than 5 × 10−6 m·s−1 . It becomes greater in the
limestone than that in the silt when the groundwater advection velocities exceed 5 × 10−6 m·s−1 because
the heat conductivity of the limestone is greater than that of the silt, and heat conduction dominates the
heat transfer between the borehole and the surrounding soil when the groundwater advection velocity
is small. The increase in the advection velocity may enhance the convection heat transfer and the silt
has a greater value of thermal diffusivity than that of the limestone, and, thus, the heat can spread out
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7345 14 of 19

faster in the silt than it does in the limestone. Sandstone has the largest value of thermal conductivity
among all types of soils discussed. Heat conduction dominates the heat transfer in sandstone even if
the groundwater advection is obvious. As a result, the heat transfer rate in the sandstone is the largest
Sustainability
among 2020,
all soils 12, x FOR PEER
mentioned REVIEW
above. 15 of 20

34.5 160 sand gravel limestone coarse sand

fine sand silt sandstone
sand gravel limestone coarse sand
34.0 fine sand silt sandstone 140

33.5 120

q /W·m-1
33.0 100
Tout/℃

32.5 80

32.0 60

31.5 40

31.0 0.0 5.0x10

-6
1.0x10
-5
1.5x10
-5 -5
2.0x10
0.0 -6
5.0x10 1.0x10
-5
1.5x10
-5
2.0x10
-5
advection velocity /m·s
-1

advection velocity/m·s-1

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 9. 9. Variations
Variations of of outlet
outlet water
water temperature
temperature and
and heat
heat transfer
transfer rate
rate with
with groundwater
groundwater advection
advection
velocities
velocities in in different
different types
types of of soils.
soils. (a)(a) Outlet
Outlet water
water temperature
temperature (b)(b) Transfer
Transfer rate.
rate.

4.3. Effect of Water

Figure Massthat
9 shows Flow Rate
the heat transfer rate of the double U-tube in limestone is greater than that
in silt when the groundwater
When the other conditions are advection
the same,velocity is lesswater
the different than mass
5 × 10flow
−6 m·s−1. It becomes greater in the
rates will cause the dynamic
limestone
outlet water than that in the
temperature siltdouble
of the when U-tube
the groundwater
to vary in theadvection velocities exceed
same performance period.5 ×Figure
10−6 m·s
10
−1

because the
illustrates howheat
the conductivity
transient outlet of the
water limestone
temperatureis greater thantransfer
and heat that of rate
the silt, and
in the heat
sand conduction
gravel vary
dominates the heat transfer between the borehole and the surrounding
in the cases of different water mass flow rates when the inlet water temperature is fixed at 35 ◦ C.soil when the groundwater
Theadvection velocity
outlet water is small. The
temperature increase
reaches 30.48in◦ C,
the31.82
advection velocity
◦ C, 32.56 may ◦enhance
◦ C, 33.01 the convection
C, and 33.33 heat
◦ C after 24-h
transfer and the silt has a greater value of thermal diffusivity than that of the
continuous heat transfers, in the cases of the mass flow rate being maintained at 0.2 kg·s , 0.3 kg·s−1 , limestone,
−1 and, thus,
0.4the heat
kg·s −1 ,can
0.5 spread
kg·s−1 , out
andfaster in the
0.6 kg·s silt than it does
−1 , respectively. in the
This limestone.
finding implies Sandstone hasinlet
that a large the largest value
mass flow
rate causes an increase in the outlet water temperature of the U-tube. However, the amplitude heat
of thermal conductivity among all types of soils discussed. Heat conduction dominates the of
thetransfer
increases in sandstone
tends to beeven if theasgroundwater
smaller the increase advection
in the massisflow
obvious. As a result,because
rate continues the heatthe
transfer rate
increase
inin the
the sandstone
water is therate
mass flow largest among
shortens thealltime
soilsitmentioned
takes for the above.
water to flow through the U-tube loop.
Meanwhile, the in-tube heat transfer will increase as the water mass flow rate increases. As a result,
the4.3. Effect
heat of Water
transfer rateMass
will Flow Rate
be improved. The amplitude of the increment decreases as the water mass
flow rate increases.
When Thatconditions
the other is to say, the turbulence
are the same,becomes more intense
the different in the flow
water mass U-tube as the
rates inlet
will mass
cause the
flow rate increases,
dynamic outlet waterand the convectiveofheat
temperature thetransfer
double coefficient
U-tube to between
vary in the the same
water performance
in the tube and the
period.
borehole
Figure 10 wall will alsohow
illustrates increase and that outlet
the transient leads to an increase
water in heat
temperature exchange
and capacity.
heat transfer rate Therefore,
in the sand
ingravel
the design
vary in stage
the of BHE,
cases of the waterwater
different mass mass
flow rate
flowmust
rates be
whenchosen properly,
the inlet waterotherwise,
temperature theisheat
fixed
transfer
at 35 °C.rateThemay become
outlet water very low or thereaches
temperature pump power consumption
30.48 °C, 31.82 °C, 32.56will °C,
become
33.01large.
°C, andThus,
33.33the°C
mass flow rate should be as large as possible to generate or enhance turbulence in
after 24-h continuous heat transfers, in the cases of the mass flow rate being maintained at 0.2 kg·s−1,the tube to facilitate
the0.3heat
kg·stransfer.
−1, 0.4 kg·sIt −1
should not−1be
, 0.5 kg·s too0.6
, and large
kg·sso
−1,as control the power
respectively. consumption
This finding implies of
thatcirculating pumps
a large inlet mass
within
flow arate
reasonable
causes an range. In practical
increase engineering
in the outlet applications, of
water temperature thethe
size of the BHE
U-tube. given the
However, in this paper
amplitude
is of
a common size; the
the increases recommended
tends to be smaller inletas
water
the mass flowinrate
increase thethrough
mass flowthe double U-tube BHE
rate continues should
because the
beincrease
more than 0.5 kg·s −1 , but not exceed a certain upper limit otherwise the gain outweighs the gain.
in the water mass flow rate shortens the time it takes for the water to flow through the
U-tube loop. Meanwhile, the in-tube heat transfer will increase as the water mass flow rate increases.
As a result, the heat transfer rate will be improved. The amplitude of the increment decreases as the
water mass flow rate increases. That is to say, the turbulence becomes more intense in the U-tube as
the inlet mass flow rate increases, and the convective heat transfer coefficient between the water in
the tube and the borehole wall will also increase and that leads to an increase in heat exchange
capacity. Therefore, in the design stage of BHE, the water mass flow rate must be chosen properly,
otherwise, the heat transfer rate may become very low or the pump power consumption will become
large. Thus, the mass flow rate should be as large as possible to generate or enhance turbulence in
the tube to facilitate the heat transfer. It should not be too large so as control the power consumption
of circulating pumps within a reasonable range. In practical engineering applications, the size of the
BHE given in this paper is a common size; the recommended inlet water mass flow rate through the
 Sustainability2020,
Sustainability 2020,12,
12,7345
x FOR PEER REVIEW 1516ofof1920
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 20

140
33 140
33 130 M=0.2kg·s
-1

130 M=0.3kg·s
-1-1
M=0.2kg·s
32 120 -1-1
M=0.4kg·s
M=0.3kg·s
32 120 -1-1
M=0.5kg·s
M=0.4kg·s
31 110 -1-1
/℃

M=0.6kg·s
M=0.5kg·s

-1
31

m-1·m
110 -1
ToutT/℃

M=0.6kg·s
out

q/Wq·/W
30 100
M=0.2kg·s-1 100
30 -1
M=0.2kg·s·s-1
M=0.3kg
-1
90
29 M=0.3kg·s·s-1
M=0.4kg
90
-1
29 M=0.4kg·s·s-1
M=0.5kg
-1 80
M=0.5kg·s·s-1
M=0.6kg
28 80
M=0.6kg·s-1
28 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 70
0 4 8 12/ h 16 20 24 70 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
time 0 4 8 time12
/h 16 20 24
time/ h time/ h
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 10. Dynamic variations of outlet water temperature and transfer rate in the cases of different
Figure
Figure
in-tube 10.
10. Dynamic
Dynamic
water variations
mass variations
flow rates. of
(a)ofoutlet
outletwater
Outlet watertemperature
water temperatureand
temperature andtransfer
(b) transferrate
Transfer rateininthe
rate. thecases
casesofofdifferent
different
in-tube
in-tube water
water mass
mass flow
flow rates.
rates. (a)(a) Outlet
Outlet water
water temperature
temperature (b)(b) Transfer
Transfer rate.
rate.
4.4. Effects of Inlet Water Temperature
4.4.
4.4.Effects
EffectsofofInlet
InletWater
WaterTemperature
Temperature
Different inlet water temperatures of the U-tube will result in different dynamic outlet water
Different inlet
Different Figure water
inlet water temperatures ofofthe theU-tube will result inindifferent dynamic outlet
outletwater
temperatures. 11a,btemperatures
shows the dynamic U-tube
outlet will
water result different
temperatures anddynamic
heat transfer water
rates
temperatures.
temperatures. Figure
Figure11a,b11a,bshows
shows the dynamic
the dynamic outlet water
outlet temperatures
water and
temperatures heatandtransfer
heat rates
transfer under
under the conditions of different inlet water temperatures with the same water mass flow rate −1 ofrates
0.5
the conditions
under the of different
conditions of inlet water
different temperatures
inlet water with the same
temperatures with water
the masswater
same flow mass
rate offlow0.5 kg·s
rate ofto
0.5
kg·s−1 to the double U-tube BHE in the sand gravel. Figure 11a shows that the outlet water
the double U-tube
kg·s to the reached BHE in
double U-tube the sand gravel. Figure 11a shows that the outlet water temperatures reached
°C,BHE in°C,the sand °C,gravel.
or 35.73Figure 11a showsafter thata the24-houtlet water
−1
temperatures
◦ C, 30.38 ◦ C, 33.05 ◦27.70 30.38 33.05
◦ C, respectively, °C, respectively, continuous
27.70
temperatures reached C, or 35.73
27.70 °C, 30.38 °C, 33.05 °C,after
or a 24-h°C,
35.73 continuous
respectively,heat after
rejection
a of the
24-h BHE in
continuous
heat rejection of the BHE in the sand gravel when the inlet BHE
◦ C, 32 ◦ C,temperatures were 29 °C, 32 °C, 35
the sand
heat gravel when
of the the inlet BHEsand temperatures were 29inlet 35 ◦ C, or 38 ◦ C. Figure 11b32 shows35
°C, orrejection
38 °C. Figure BHE
11b in the
shows that the gravel when
corresponding the
−1 heat BHE temperatures
transfer −1 rates were were
54.03
−1
29W·m
°C, −1, °C,
67.53
−1 ,
that
°C, the
or corresponding
38 °C. Figure heat
11b transferthat
shows ratesthe were 54.03 W·m , heat
corresponding 67.53transfer
W·m , 80.04rates W·m
were , or 94.54
54.03 W·m W·m
−1, 67.53
W·m , 80.04 W·m , or 94.54 W·m , respectively. This result indicates that the rise in the inlet water
−1 −1 −1
respectively.
W·m−1, 80.04This W·m result
−1, or indicates that the rise in theThis inletresult
waterindicates
temperature causes
risethe temperature
the 94.54 W·m −1, respectively. that the in increase
the inlet while
water
temperature causes temperature difference between the inlet and outlet water to
difference between thetheinlet and outlet difference
water to increase while the water mass water
rate remains constant.
the water mass rate remains constant. As a result, the heat transfer rate increases. That is, highwhile
temperature causes temperature between the inlet and outlet to increase inlet
Asthea result,
water the
mass heat
ratetransfer
remains rate increases.
constant. As That
a is, high
result, the inlet
heat temperature
transfer rate causes a large
increases. That value
is, of heat
high inlet
temperature causes a large value of heat transfer rate. Moreover, the higher the inlet water
transfer
temperature rate. Moreover,
causes a the
largehigher
value the of inlet water
heat temperature,
transfer rate. the larger the
Moreover, the difference
higher thebetween
inlet the
water
temperature, the larger the difference between the water temperature inside U-tube and the initial
water temperature
temperature, the inside
larger U-tube
the heat and thebetween
difference initial soil temperature.
the water Thus, the heat transfer
temperature effectiveness
soil temperature. Thus, the transfer effectiveness of the BHE withinside double U-tube
U-tube and at the initial
different
ofsoil
the temperature.
BHE with double Thus, U-tube
the at
heat different
transfer inlet temperatures
effectiveness of is
the maintained
BHE with at about
double 0.108
U-tube inatthe cases
different
inlet temperatures is maintained at about 0.108 in the cases we studied. Thus, the effect of the inlet
we studied.
inlet Thus, the
temperatures effect
is U-tube of the at
maintained inlet water temperature ofweU-tube on heat transfer effectiveness
water temperature of on heatabout transfer0.108 in the cases
effectiveness studied.
is insignificant. Thus, the effect of the inlet
iswater
insignificant.
temperature of U-tube on heat transfer effectiveness is insignificant.

38
38 Tin=29℃ Tin=32℃ Tin=35℃ Tin=38℃ 150
Tin=29℃ Tin=32℃ Tin=35℃ Tin=38℃ 150
36 Tin=29℃ Tin=32℃
135
36 TTinin=35℃
=29℃ TTinin=38℃
=32℃
135
34 120 Tin=35℃ Tin=38℃
/℃

34 120
-1
m-1·m

105
ToutT/℃
out

32
q/Wq·/W

105
32 90
30 90
30 75
75
28
60
28
60
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
0 4 8 time12/ h 16 20 24 0 4 8 time12
/h 16 20 24
time / h time/ h
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure11.11.
Figure Dynamic
Dynamic outlet
outlet waterwater temperatures
temperatures and rates
and transfer transfer rates for
for different inletdifferent inlet water
water temperatures.
Figure 11.
temperatures. Dynamic outlet water temperatures and transfer rates for different inlet water
(a) Outlet water(a) Outlet water
temperature (b)temperature
Transfer rate.(b) Transfer rate.
temperatures. (a) Outlet water temperature (b) Transfer rate.
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7345 16 of 19

5. Conclusions
The current GHE analytical model that considers the effects of groundwater advection cannot
solve the coupled heat transfer problem from the in-tube fluid to the soil with groundwater advection
comprehensively. Hence, the proposed coupled model is an improvement of the previous analytical
solution for the double U-tube because it considers heat transfer inside a borehole. The coupled model
can be applied for a quick and easy estimation of the outlet temperature that considers the effects of
groundwater advection in some mediums. The following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The heat convection between the buried tube and soil is reinforced with the increase in groundwater
advection velocity in the soil. As a result, the outlet water temperature of the buried U-tube drops
and the heat transfer rate increases. Thus, clarifying the in situ groundwater flow conditions in
the soil is important before designing a BHE.
(2) The heat transfer process of the buried U-tube in several typical soils with groundwater advection
was discussed. The thermal conductivity of soil plays a leading role in heat transfer at the initial
early stage. The effect of groundwater advection appears gradually as time goes on. A large value
of advection velocity is brought about in the short time it takes for the outlet water temperature
of the buried U-tube to achieve stability. Hence, the length of the buried tube designed can be
reduced and the initial investment reduced if groundwater advection velocity can be larger than
a certain value.
(3) With the increase of inlet mass flow rate, the turbulence intensity in the tube increases and the
total heat transfer of double U-tube augment but the enlarge of the flow resistance leads to the
increase of pump power consumption. Therefore, the influence of heat exchange and power
consumption should be considered in the choice of inlet mass flow rate. The effects of the inlet
temperature to the buried U-tube on the heat transfer effectiveness of BHE can be neglected.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization and methodology, L.Z.; software and simulation, T.Y. and Z.S.; original
draft preparation, L.Z. and Z.S.; review and revision Z.L. and T.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China during the
Thirteenth Five-year Plan (grant No.2018YFD1100705-04).
Conflicts of Interest: All authors declare there is no conflict of interest. The MATLAB code of the heat transfer
model proposed in this paper can be obtained freely by the URL: https://github.com/yth0918/ground-heat-transfer-
with-groundwater-advection/blame/1c6f795357ff1c4e98572a8c5a1b51a0e15fbad2/README.md.

Nomenclature
cp Specific heat capacity, J·kg−1 ·K−1
Du Spacing between two legs of U-tube, m
E,E0 The ratio of the actual and the ideal heat transfer to the maximal heat transfer
H Borehole depth, m
hi Convection coefficient of the fluid inside tube, W·m−1 ·K−1
K Permeability coefficient, m·s−1
L Characteristic length, m
M Mass flow rate of water, kg·s−1
n Correction factor, heating n = 0.4, cooling n = 0.3
q Heat transfer rate, W·m−1
R011 Thermal resistance between the fluid in each U-tube leg and the borehole wall, m·K·W−1
R012 Thermal resistance between two adjacent U-tube legs, m·K·W−1
R013 Thermal resistance between two symmetric U-tube legs, m·K·W−1
rb ,ri ,ro Borehole radius, internal and external radius of U-tube, m
T Temperature, ◦ C
U Equivalent advection velocity, m·s−1
u Advection velocity, m·s−1
a Thermal diffusivity, m2 ·s−1
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7345 17 of 19

Nomenclature
ε Porosity
λ f λ g ,λs ,λp Heat conductivity of fluid, grout, soil and tube, W·m−1 ·K−1
ρ Density, kg·m−3
τ Time, s
ϕ heat transfer effectiveness coefficient
Subscripts
0 initial
s soil
w water
in inlet
out outlet
f1 , f2 the downward and upward U-tube legs

References
1. Yu, X.; Li, H.; Yao, S.; Nielsen, V.; Heller, A. Development of an efficient numerical model and analysis of
heat transfer performance for borehole heat exchanger. Renew. Energy 2020, 152, 189–197. [CrossRef]
2. Yang, W.; Zhou, J.; Xu, W.; Zhang, G. Current status of ground-source heat pumps in China. Energy Policy
2010, 38, 323–332. [CrossRef]
3. Han, C.; Yu, X. Performance of a residential ground source heat pump system in sedimentary rock formation.
Appl. Energy 2016, 164, 89–98. [CrossRef]
4. Li, W.; Li, X.; Wang, Y.; Du, R.; Tu, J. Effect of the heat load distribution on thermal performance predictions
of ground heat exchangers in a stratified subsurface. Renew. Energy 2019, 141, 340–348. [CrossRef]
5. Yuan, T.; Ding, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Zhu, N.; Yang, K.; He, Q. Thermodynamic and economic analysis for
ground-source heat pump system coupled with borehole free cooling. Energy Build. 2017, 155, 185–197.
[CrossRef]
6. Rey-Mahía, C.; Sañudo-Fontaneda, L.A.; Andrés-Valeri, V.C.; Alvarez-Rabanal, F.P.; Coupe, S.J.;
Roces-García, J. Evaluating the Thermal Performance of Wet Swales Housing Ground Source Heat Pump
Elements through Laboratory Modelling. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3118. [CrossRef]
7. Javadi, H.; Ajarostaghi, S.S.M.; Rosen, M.A.; Pourfallah, M. Performance of ground heat exchangers:
A comprehensive review of recent advances. Energy 2019, 178, 207–233. [CrossRef]
8. Samson, M.; Dallaire, J.; Gosselin, L. Influence of groundwater flow on cost minimization of ground coupled
heat pump systems. Geothermics 2018, 73, 100–110. [CrossRef]
9. Aranzabal, N.; Martos, J.; Steger, H.; Blum, P.; Soret, J. Temperature measurements along a vertical borehole
heat exchanger: A method comparison. Renew. Energy 2019, 143, 1247–1258. [CrossRef]
10. Haehnlein, S.; Bayer, P.; Blum, P. International legal status of the use of shallow geothermal energy.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 2611–2625. [CrossRef]
11. Dehghan, B.; Dehghan, B.B. Effectiveness of using spiral ground heat exchangers in ground source heat pump
system of a building for district heating/cooling purposes: Comparison among different configurations.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018, 130, 1489–1506. [CrossRef]
12. Angelotti, A.; Alberti, L.; La Licata, I.; Antelmi, M. Energy performance and thermal impact of a Borehole
Heat Exchanger in a sandy aquifer: Influence of the groundwater velocity. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 77,
700–708. [CrossRef]
13. Molina-Giraldo, N.; Blum, P.; Zhu, K.; Bayer, P.; Fang, Z. A moving finite line source model to simulate
borehole heat exchangers with groundwater advection. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2011, 50, 2506–2513. [CrossRef]
14. Carslaw, H.S.; Jaeger, J.C. Conduction of Heat in Solids; Claremore Press: Oxford, UK, 1959.
15. Gan, G. Dynamic thermal performance of horizontal ground source heat pumps–The impact of coupled heat
and moisture transfer. Energy 2018, 152, 877–887. [CrossRef]
16. Hu, J. An improved analytical model for vertical borehole ground heat exchanger with multiple-layer
substrates and groundwater flow. Appl. Energy 2017, 202, 537–549. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7345 18 of 19

17. Chen, J.; Xia, L.; Li, B.; Mmereki, D. Simulation and experimental analysis of optimal buried depth of the
vertical U-tube ground heat exchanger for a ground-coupled heat pump system. Renew. Energy 2015, 73,
46–54. [CrossRef]
18. Yoon, S.; Lee, S.-R.; Go, G.-H. A numerical and experimental approach to the estimation of borehole thermal
resistance in ground heat exchangers. Energy 2014, 71, 547–555. [CrossRef]
19. Kayaci, N.; Demir, H. Numerical modelling of transient soil temperature distribution for horizontal ground
heat exchanger of ground source heat pump. Geothermics 2018, 73, 33–47. [CrossRef]
20. Florides, G.; Christodoulides, P.; Pouloupatis, P. Single and double U-tube ground heat exchangers in
multiple-layer substrates. Appl. Energy 2013, 102, 364–373. [CrossRef]
21. Tang, F.; Nowamooz, H. Factors influencing the performance of shallow Borehole Heat Exchanger.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 181, 571–583. [CrossRef]
22. Choi, J.-C.; Park, J.; Lee, S.-R. Numerical evaluation of the effects of groundwater flow on borehole heat
exchanger arrays. Renew. Energy 2013, 52, 230–240. [CrossRef]
23. Zhang, W.; Yang, H.; Guo, X.; Yu, M.; Fang, Z. Investigation on groundwater velocity based on the finite line
heat source seepage model. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2016, 99, 391–401. [CrossRef]
24. Zhang, L.; Zhao, L.; Yang, L.; Songtao, H.; Linlin, Z.; Lei, Z.; Liu, Y. Analyses on soil temperature responses to
intermittent heat rejection from BHEs in soils with groundwater advection. Energy Build. 2015, 107, 355–365.
[CrossRef]
25. Katsura, T.; Shoji, Y.; Sakata, Y.; Nagano, K. Method for calculation of ground temperature in scenario
involving multiple ground heat exchangers considering groundwater advection. Energy Build. 2020,
220, 110000. [CrossRef]
26. Zhang, W.; Zhang, L.; Cui, P.; Gao, Y.; Liu, J.; Yu, M. The influence of groundwater seepage on the performance
of ground source heat pump system with energy pile. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2019, 162. [CrossRef]
27. Hua, J.; Li, G.; Zhao, X.; Wu, W.; Li, N.; Li, Q. The hot stack performance of the shallow geothermal heat
pump system with/without intensification state of groundwater seepage in Nanjing (China). Energy Build.
2017, 150, 558–566. [CrossRef]
28. Gehlin, S.; Hellström, G. Influence on thermal response test by groundwater flow in vertical fractures in
hard rock. Renew. Energy 2003, 28, 2221–2238. [CrossRef]
29. Fan, R.; Ma, Z. Heat transfer analysis of underground heat exchangers under coupled thermal conduction
and groundwater advection conditions. Heat. Vent. Air Cond. 2006, 36, 6–10.
30. Zanchini, E.; Lazzari, S.; Priarone, A.; Antonella, P. Long-term performance of large borehole heat exchanger
fields with unbalanced seasonal loads and groundwater flow. Energy 2012, 38, 66–77. [CrossRef]
31. You, S.; Cheng, X.; Yu, C.; Dang, Z. Effects of groundwater flow on the heat transfer performance of energy
piles: Experimental and numerical analysis. Energy Build. 2017, 155, 249–259. [CrossRef]
32. Li, W.; Li, X.; Peng, Y.; Wang, Y.; Tu, J. Experimental and numerical studies on the thermal performance
of ground heat exchangers in a layered subsurface with groundwater. Renew. Energy 2020, 147, 620–629.
[CrossRef]
33. Rees, S.; He, M. A three-dimensional numerical model of borehole heat exchanger heat transfer and fluid
flow. Geothermics 2013, 46, 1–13. [CrossRef]
34. Ingersoll, L.; Plass, H. Theory of the ground pipe heat source for the heat pump. ASHVE Trans. 1984, 47,
339–348.
35. Wagner, V.; Blum, P.; Kübert, M.; Bayer, P. Analytical approach to groundwater-influenced thermal response
tests of grouted borehole heat exchangers. Geothermics 2013, 46, 22–31. [CrossRef]
36. Zhang, W.; Yang, H.; Lu, L.; Fang, Z. The analytical on soil cylindrical heat source model of foundation pile
ground heat exchangers with groundwater flow. Energy 2013, 55, 417–425. [CrossRef]
37. Saito, H.; Simunek, J.; Mohanty, B. Numerical Analysis of Coupled Water, Vapor, and Heat Transport in the
Vadose Zone. Vadose Zone J. 2006, 5, 784–800. [CrossRef]
38. Zeng, H.; Diao, N.; Fang, Z. Heat transfer analysis of boreholes in vertical ground heat exchangers. Int. J. Heat
Mass Transf. 2003, 46, 4467–4481. [CrossRef]
39. Hellström, G. Ground Heat Storage, Thermal Analyses of Duct Storage Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Lund, Lund, Sweden, January 1991.
40. Zhu, H. Study on the insitu soil thermal response data processing methods of double U-Tube BHE. Master’s
Thesis, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an, China, May 2014.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7345 19 of 19

41. Tan, X.; Ding, L. Theoretical analysis of groundwater flow affecting design of ground-loop heat exchanger.
Refrig. Air Cond. Electr. Power Mach. 2003, 24, 14–16.
42. United States environmental protection agency. Filtr. Sep. 1999, 36, 41. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
 © 2020. This work is licensed under
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding
the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance
with the terms of the License.