Geothermics 44 (2012) 23–32

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Geothermics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geothermics

Vertical temperature profiles and borehole resistance in a U-tube borehole heat

exchanger
Richard A. Beier a,∗ , José Acuña b , Palne Mogensen c , Björn Palm b
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering Technology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, United States
b
Department of Energy Technology, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Brinellvägen 68, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
c
Palne Mogensen AB, Emblavägen 29, 182 67 Djursholm, Sweden

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

Article history: The design of ground source heat pump systems requires values for the ground thermal conductivity
Received 29 March 2011 and the borehole thermal resistance. In situ thermal response tests (TRT) are often performed on vertical
Accepted 6 June 2012 boreholes to determine these parameters. Most TRT analysis methods apply the mean of the inlet and
Available online 10 July 2012
outlet temperatures of the circulating fluid along the entire borehole length. This assumption is conve-
nient but not rigorous. To provide a more general approach, this paper develops an analytical model of
Keywords:
the vertical temperature profile in the borehole during the late-time period of the in situ test. The model
Ground-source heat pump
also includes the vertical temperature profile of the undisturbed ground. The model is verified with dis-
Borehole heat transfer
Ground thermal conductivity
tributed temperature measurements along a vertical borehole using fiber optic cables inside a U-tube for
Thermal response test the circulating fluid. The borehole thermal resistance is calculated without the need for the mean tem-
Borehole thermal resistance perature approximation. In the studied borehole, the mean temperature approximation overestimates
the borehole resistance by more than 20%.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Ground-source heat pump (GSHP) systems have been devel-
oped to increase energy efficiency for the heating and cooling of
buildings. GSHP systems often use vertical boreholes as ground
heat exchangers, which couple heat pumps to the ground. A com-
mon design uses a circulating fluid in a closed loop to carry heat
between the heat pump and the ground heat exchanger with a U-
tube (Fig. 1a). In the United States the space around the U-tube in
the borehole is often filled with grout to prevent water and con-
taminants from migrating along the vertical borehole. In Sweden
the common practice is to allow groundwater to fill the borehole
around the U-tube (Gustafsson et al., 2010).
The design of the ground heat exchanger requires values for
the ground thermal conductivity and the borehole thermal resis-
tance, which is the thermal resistance between the borehole wall
and the circulating fluid. An in situ thermal response test (TRT) on
a borehole is a method to estimate both parameters as proposed
and demonstrated by Mogensen (1983). Early analysis methods for
determining the ground thermal conductivity are based on meth-
ods by Carslaw and Jaeger (1959) and Ingersoll and Plass (1948).
Eklöf and Gehlin (1996) and Austin et al. (2000) built early portable
units for field tests. Gehlin and Spitler (2003) and Sanner et al.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 4057449371; fax: +1 4057447399.
E-mail address: rick.beier@okstate.edu (R.A. Beier).
(2005) review the history of in situ TRTs. Hellström (1991) pre-
sented analytical solutions for determining the thermal resistance
of the borehole if the placement of the U-tube is known.
During a typical in situ thermal response test a pump circulates
a fluid through a controlled heat source and the U-tube in a closed
loop. The equipment on the ground surface includes the pump, elec-
tric heater as the heat source, flow meter, temperature sensors, and
data acquisition system. In an ideal test, the electric heater supplies
heat to the fluid at a constant rate. The temperatures of the fluid
are measured at the inlet and outlet locations of the U-tube. Some-
times, as an alternative to the electric heater, a reversible heat pump
is used to heat or cool the fluid (Witte et al., 2002).
In another variation of a TRT, Raymond et al. (2010) place heating
cables inside the pipes as the heat source. Thermistors are placed
along the cables to measure temperatures at specified depths.
Monitoring the temperatures continue after the heat injection is
stopped. The ground thermal conductivity and borehole thermal
resistance are determined by using data during both the heat injec-
tion and recovery periods (Raymond et al., 2011a,b).
Most analysis methods for the in situ test use the mean of the
inlet and outlet fluid temperatures, (Tin and Tout , respectively) at
each time increment to represent the average temperature along
the length of the ground heat exchanger. This mean temperature is
an approximation to the true average temperature of the circulating
fluid. The difference between this average loop temperature and the
undisturbed ground temperature, Ts , represents the temperature
difference driving the heat transfer between the circulating fluid

0375-6505/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2012.06.001
24 R.A. Beier et al. / Geothermics 44 (2012) 23–32

Nomenclature

a constants
A constants
B constant
c volumetric heat capacity, J/(K m)
C constants
cosh−1 (x) inverse hyperbolic function with argument x
d diameter, m
h convective film coefficient, W/(K m2 )
k thermal conductivity, W/(K m)
L length of borehole, m
Fig. 1. (a) Borehole geometry and (b) thermal resistance model.
N dimensionless thermal conductance
p power in p-linear average
Q heat input rate, W effects of the thermal storage of the circulating fluid, finite borehole
r radius, m diameter, location of the U-tube, and the grout (or water) outside
R thermal resistance, (K m)/W the U-tube.
T temperature, ◦ C Marcotte and Pasquier (2008) argue that the use of the mean
w volumetric fluid flow rate, m3 /s temperature under some conditions may lead to an overestimation
xs distance between center of pipe and center of bore- of the borehole resistance. They introduce a p-linear approximation
hole, m where the circulating fluid temperature varies linearly along the
z vertical depth coordinate, m flow path between |Tin − Ts |p and |Tout − Ts |p . Marcotte and Pasquier
suggest a value of p approaching −1 be used. They base their argu-
Greek symbols ment on calculations with a finite element model to generate the
˛ij constants entire vertical temperature profiles of the circulating fluid. Du and
˛s thermal diffusivity, m2 /s Chen (2011) and Lamarche et al. (2010) modify the p-linear approx-
ˇ constant imation by using the borehole wall temperature, Tb , as a reference
ıi constants temperature instead of the undisturbed ground temperature, Ts .
Tp p-linear average temperature, K Thus, the specific value of p used by Marcotte and Pasquier does
Ts temperature difference from undisturbed ground not apply to the different equations used by Du and Chen, and
temperature, K Lamarche et al. The version by Marcotte and Pasquier is easier to
T1 temperature change along segment in pipe 1, K apply to a TRT test data set, because Tb is not usually measured. Du
T2 temperature change along segment in pipe 2, K and Chen and Lamarche et al. use borehole models to estimate Tb
 density, kg/m3 in their applications of the p-linear approximation. Until recently
 position along fluid path in U-tube, m vertical temperature profiles have not been measured in the cir-
culating fluid along the borehole to check such models with field
Subscripts data.
b borehole Acuña et al. (2009) and Acuña (2010) have measured the entire
D dimensionless vertical temperature profile of the circulating fluid during a TRT.
f circulating fluid In addition, they measure the vertical temperature profile in the
in borehole entrance undisturbed rock. The temperature measurements are made with
m mean temperature approximation fiber optic cables placed inside the U-tube. Laser light is guided
out borehole exit down the cables, and an optical method based on Raman scattering
po outside of pipe gives the temperatures along the cables. Fujii et al. (2009) have also
pi inside of pipe applied this measurement technique to ground heat exchangers.
pw pipe wall To help interpret this new vertical temperature data set, the
rs reference value for ground or soil present paper develops an analytical model of the borehole to cal-
s ground or soil culate the vertical temperature profiles of the circulating fluid and
w water heat transfer rates to the ground. The vertical temperature profile
1,2 pipe number

and the undisturbed ground. The mean temperature approximation

simplifies the calculations, but the method implicitly assumes the
heat transfer rate is uniform along the length of the borehole, which
does not strictly occur.
The mean temperature during an in situ test is often graphed
with the logarithm of time as shown in Fig. 2 for a data set from
the borehole described in Section 3. The late-time data follow a
linear trend, which is consistent with a model representing the
borehole as a line-source (Carslaw and Jaeger, 1959; Ingersoll and
Plass, 1948). The ground thermal conductivity is inversely propor-
tional to the late-time slope. A change in the input heat rate causes
the jump in the temperature at 2.1 h. Even without this jump the
early-time data would not follow the late-time trend due to the Fig. 2. Circulating fluid temperatures during an in situ thermal response test.
 R.A. Beier et al. / Geothermics 44 (2012) 23–32 25

of the undisturbed ground serves as input into the model. Unlike entering and the fluid leaving the element. The first term on the
the proposed model in the present paper, previous models by Beier right side accounts for the shunt heat transfer between the fluids
(2011), Yang et al. (2009), and Zeng et al. (2003) assume a uni- in the pipes. The second term on the right side takes into account
formly distributed undisturbed ground temperature. Furthermore, the heat transfer between the fluid and the surrounding ground.
the theoretical temperature profiles in these earlier papers have not A similar energy balance on the second pipe (from which the
been verified by field data. The data set in the present paper pro- fluid exits at the surface) gives:
vides such verification. The proposed model provides an estimate of
dT2 1 1
the borehole resistance without requiring the usual mean temper- −wc = (T1 − T2 ) + (Ts − T2 ) (2)
dz R12 Rb2 + Rs2
ature approximation. Many previous models of thermal response
tests assume the U-tube legs are symmetrically placed with respect Note that the direction of the circulating flow is important in deter-
to the center of the borehole. The model does not require symmetry mining the algebraic sign on each term.
and can check if the assumption of symmetry provides a reasonable The temperature of the entering fluid, Tin , is one boundary con-
match to the measured vertical temperature profiles. dition:

2. Model of borehole heat transfer T1 (0) = Tin (3)

At the bottom of the U-tube (z = L), the temperatures of the circu-

During the TRT the heat transfer in the borehole is easier to lating fluid in both pipes are set equal. That is:
model in the late-time period when the linear logarithmic trend
applies. During this period the temperature at any point in the T1 (L) = T2 (L) (4)
borehole, including the circulating fluid, increases at the same
instantaneous rate, if the heat input and volumetric flow rate are Dimensionless variables and parameters are introduced to form a
constant. This period can be described as a steady-flux period. Beier set of equations with the least number of independent parameters.
(2011), Yang et al. (2009), and Zeng et al. (2003) have presented Dimensionless temperature, TD , and depth, zD , are defined as:
analytical models for the vertical temperature profiles of the cir- T − Trs
culating fluid during this period. The models treat the undisturbed TD = (5)
Tin − Trs
ground temperature as constant with depth. They ignore any heat
z
conduction in the vertical direction within the pipe wall, the grout, zD = (6)
and the ground. During the duration of a thermal response test, the L
assumption of no vertical heat conduction is reasonable based on In general, the undisturbed ground temperature, Ts , is a function of
the results presented by Diao et al. (2004). the depth, z. The temperature, Trs , is a reference ground tempera-
The model developed in this paper adopts the steady-flux ture. The introduction of these variables into Eqs. (1) and (2) gives
approach, which restricts the model to the late-time period. The the dimensionless equations:
restriction of uniform ground temperature with depth is relaxed so
dTD1
that the model can handle a known vertical temperature profile for = N12 (TD2 − TD1 ) − Ns1 TD1 + Ns1 TDs (7)
dzD
the undisturbed ground. The thermal resistance model of the bore-
hole in Fig. 1b is applied to quantify the heat transfer between the dTD2
= N12 (TD2 − TD1 ) + Ns2 TD2 − Ns2 TDs (8)
circulating fluid in each leg and the undisturbed ground. Also, heat dzD
exchange occurs between the two pipes. Heat transfer from the first
pipe to the borehole wall must pass through a borehole resistance, N12 , Ns1 , and Ns2 are dimensionless conductances as explained
Rb1 . The borehole resistance includes all the thermal resistances below.
between the fluid and the borehole wall, such as the inner-pipe The vertical profile of the dimensionless ground temperature
film resistance, pipe wall resistance, grout (or water) resistance, is represented by a third-degree polynomial in zD with the coef-
and any contact resistances. The temperature of the borehole wall, ficients A1 , A2 , and A3 obtained from distributed temperature
Tb , is treated as being uniform around the borehole circumference measurements along an existing borehole. (See next section for
at a given depth. The heat transfer from the borehole wall to the details about our test case.) The equation is written as:
distant, undisturbed ground passes through the ground resistance, Ts (zD ) − Trs 2 3
Rs1 . Corresponding resistances apply for the second pipe. The heat TDs (zD ) = = A1 zD + A2 zD + A3 zD (9)
Tin − Trs
transfer between the fluids in the two pipes passes through the
thermal resistance R12 . The inlet fluid temperature at any given The reference ground temperature, Trs , is set equal to the ground
time is measured in the test and is an input to the model. The temperature at z = 0, Ts (0). The difference between Tin and Trs pro-
ground thermal resistance does change with time slowly, but this vides a temperature difference for the dimensionless profile in Eq.
resistance can be evaluated at any given time the model is applied. (9). As a reference temperature, Trs may be set equal to any value
The thermal resistances do not change with depth. The model cal- within the ground temperature profile.
culates the vertical temperature profile at a given time under the Three dimensionless thermal conductances appear in Eqs. (7)
above assumptions. and (8) and are defined as:
An energy balance on an elemental length of the first pipe L
(where the fluid enters) gives an equation for the fluid tempera- N12 = (10)
wcR12
ture in the pipe at depth z as presented by Hellström (1991). The
energy balance is written as: L
Ns1 = (11)
wc(Rb1 + Rs1 )
dT1 1 1
wc = (T2 − T1 ) + (Ts − T1 ) (1) L
dz R12 Rb1 + Rs1 Ns2 = (12)
wc(Rb2 + Rs2 )
where w is the fluid volumetric flow rate, c is the fluid volumetric
heat capacity, T1 and T2 are the fluid temperatures in the first and The conductance N12 corresponds to the heat transfer between the
second pipes, respectively. The term on the left side of the equa- two legs of the U-tube. The conductances Ns1 and Ns2 correspond
tion takes into account the difference in thermal energy of the fluid to the heat exchange between the ground and the circulating fluid
26 R.A. Beier et al. / Geothermics 44 (2012) 23–32

in the respective leg. The boundary conditions in terms of dimen- Table 1

Parameters used in verification case of borehole.
sionless variables are:
Parameter Symbol Value
TD1 (0) = 1 (13)
Borehole radius rb 70 mm
TD1 (1) = TD2 (1) (14) Active U-tube length L 251.5 m
Pipe outer radius rpi 20 mm
Eqs. (7) and (8) are two first-order ordinary differential equations. Pipe inner radius rpo 17.6 mm
Solving the equations simultaneously (Spiegel, 1967), one identifies Pipe wall thermal conductivity kpw 0.40 W/(K m)
the solution as: Thermal conductivity of water in borehole kw 0.57 W/(K m)
Ground thermal conductivity ks 3.08 W/(K m)
TD1 (zD ) = C1 ea1 zD + C2 ea2 zD + ˛10 + ˛11 zD + ˛12 zD
2 3
+ ˛13 zD (15) Ground density s 2700 kg/m3
Ground specific heat Cs 830 J/(kg K)
TD2 (zD ) = C3 ea1 zD + C4 ea2 zD + ˛20 + ˛21 zD + ˛22 zD
2 3
+ ˛23 zD (16) Fluid volumetric heat capacity c 4,260,000 J/(K m3 )
Fluid volumetric flow rate w 0.50 l/s
where Convective heat transfer coefficient inside pipes hi 1200 W/(K m2 )
1/2
Heat input rate Q 9450 W
2
−(Ns1 − Ns2 ) + [(Ns1 − Ns2 ) + 4[(N12 + Ns1 )(N12 + Ns2 ) − N12
2
]] Reference ground surface temperature Trs 10.05 ◦ C
a1 = (17) Average ground temperature Ts 9.1 ◦ C
2
2 1/2
−(Ns1 − Ns2 ) − [(Ns1 − Ns2 ) + 4[(N12 + Ns1 )(N12 + Ns2 ) − N12
2
]]
a2 = (18)
2
where
[Ns1 + N12 + a1 ]
C3 = C1 (19) Q (Rb1 + Rs1 )
N12 QD = (28)
(Tin − Ts )L
[Ns1 + N12 + a2 ]
C4 = C2 (20) Substituting Eqs. (15) and (16) for the dimensionless temperatures
N12
into Eq. (27) and integrating, ones finds:
The constants written as ˛ij are listed in Appendix A.
To evaluate the remaining two constants C1 and C2 in Eqs. (15) QD = C5 + C6 + C7 (29)
and (16), one applies the boundary conditions in Eqs. (13) and (14) where
to find:  Ns2
 N + N + a  (ea1 − 1)
12 s1 1
(1 − ˛10 )(ı2 − 1) + ı3 e−a2 C5 = C1 1 + (30)
C1 = (21) Ns1 N12 a1
−e(a1 −a2 ) (ı1 − 1) + (ı2 − 1)   N + N + a  (ea2 − 1)
Ns2 12 s1 2
C2 = 1 − C1 − ˛10 (22) C6 = C2 1 + (31)
Ns1 N12 a2
where
Ns1 + N12 + a1 ˛11 − A1 ˛12 − A2 ˛13 − A3
ı1 = (23) C7 = ˛10 + + +
N12 2 3 4
Ns2
 ˛21 − A1 ˛22 − A2 ˛23 − A3

Ns1 + N12 + a2 + ˛20 + + + (32)
ı2 = (24) Ns1 2 3 4
N12
ı3 = ˛20 + ˛21 + ˛22 + ˛23 − ˛10 − ˛11 − ˛12 − ˛13 (25) Like the dimensionless temperature profiles the dimensionless
heat transfer rate also depends on the 3 dimensionless parame-
The dimensionless temperature profiles in Eqs. (15) and (16) are ters: Ns1 , Ns2 , and N12 . Again, if the U-tube is symmetrically placed
dependent on 3 dimensionless parameters: Ns1 , Ns2 , and N12 . If in the borehole, Rb1 equals Rb2 , and Rs1 equals Rs2 . Then, Ns1 is equal
the 2 U-tube legs are not symmetrically placed from the center to Ns2 , and the dimensionless heat transfer rate depends on the 2
of the borehole, Ns1 and Ns2 have different values, because Rb1 dimensionless parameters Ns1 and N12 .
does not equal Rb2 . Previous studies, Hellström (1991), Yang et al.
(2010), often make the simplifying assumption that the 2 U-tube
3. Experimental setup
legs are located in symmetric positions. In the symmetric case Rb1
equals Rb2 , and Rs1 equals Rs2 . Then, Ns1 is equal to Ns2 , and the
The borehole model has been applied to a Distributed Thermal
dimensionless temperature profiles depend on the 2 dimension-
Response Test (DTRT) in a vertical borehole with a polyethylene
less parameters Ns1 and N12 . Under the symmetry assumption, one
U-tube, i.e., a distributed temperature sensing system (DTS) has
can write Rb1 = Rb2 = 2Rb . Here Rb represents the thermal resistance
been installed in the tested borehole to obtain vertical tempera-
between the circulating fluid in both pipes taken together and the
ture profiles during the thermal response test (Acuña et al., 2009).
borehole wall.
The borehole is located in Stockholm, Sweden. The borehole is filled
With the temperature profiles in Eqs. (15) and (16), one can find
with groundwater, which is common practice in Sweden. The total
an expression for the heat transfer rate between the circulating
U-tube length is 257 m, but the groundwater level is about 5.5 m
fluid in the U-tube and the surrounding ground. The heat transfer
below the surface. Thus, the active U-tube length is 251.5 m. Param-
rate is found by integrating along the vertical borehole and using
eters for the tested borehole are listed in Table 1. The circulating
the thermal resistances in Fig. 1. The heat transfer rate, Q, is written
fluid in the U-tube is a water solution with 20% ethanol by volume
as:
to provide a freezing point of −8 ◦ C based on the properties listed
 L  L
1 1 by Melinder (2007).
Q = (T1 − Ts )dz + (T2 − Ts )dz (26) Through an optic fiber cable installed along the depth of the
Rb1 + Rs1 0
Rb2 + Rs2 0
borehole, DTS provides the temperature profile without the need
In terms of dimensionless variables Eq. (26) becomes of many individual temperature sensors. A cable is installed as a
 1  1 loop inside both legs of the U-tube to measure the fluid temper-
Ns2
QD = (TD1 − TDs )dzD + (TD2 − TDs )dzD (27) ature profile of the circulating fluid with depth. The same cable
0
Ns1 0 provides the undisturbed ground temperature profile, measured
 R.A. Beier et al. / Geothermics 44 (2012) 23–32 27

expected. Also, the influence of the unknown lateral position of the

10 m fiber optic cable inside the U-pipe was considered in the analysis
secon 1 of systematic errors. The pattern along the U-pipe pipe is turbu-
30 m lent during the test (Reynolds number between 6500 and 8900),
secon 2 and the boundary layer thickness is between 0.3 and 0.4 mm (heat
50 m conduction is the only heat transfer mechanism in this region). The
secon 3 temperature difference between the pipe wall and the fluid bulk
70 m F4 F23 temperature is calculated to be about 0.15 K for the conditions of
secon 4 this test, and the temperature drop in the laminar layer is about
90 m F5 0.14 K, meaning it occurs mainly in this thin layer and that the rest
secon 5 of the temperature profile is flat. Given the diameter of the fiber
110 m optic cable of 3.8 mm, it can be stated that the systematic error due
secon 6 to the cable position inside of the pipe is negligible. Details of these
130 m F7 measurements have been reported earlier by Acuña et al. (2009)
secon 7 and Acuña (2010).
150 m F8 F19 Additional equipment for the DTRT consisted of a circulation
secon 8 pump, an inductive flow and energy meter, flow regulation valve
170 m F9 and an electric heater with an adjustable heating power between
secon 9 3 and 12 kW. The DTRT lasted approximately 160 h and consisted
190 m of 4 phases Acuña et al. (2009) and Acuña (2010). The first phase
secon 10 of the DTRT focused on measuring the undisturbed ground tem-
210 m F16 perature with no fluid circulation in the U-tube. This period lasted
secon 11 65 h. During the second phase, the fluid was circulated through the
230 m U-tube for 24 h without any heating. The temperatures along the
secon 12 entire borehole length become nearly uniform due to the circula-
250 m F13 tion, with the mean value equal to the mean temperature of the
undisturbed ground temperature profile (9.1 ◦ C, shown in Table 1).
Fig. 3. Sections along borehole depth. During the third phase of 48 h, a nearly constant heat input rate
to the circulating fluid was maintained. The rising temperature
response of this period can be used to estimate the ground ther-
before the test was carried out during undisturbed ground condi- mal conductivity and borehole resistance. Finally, during the fourth
tions. Short light pulses from a laser are directed through the optic phase, temperature measurements continued without any heat-
cable. A nonlinear part of the back-scattered light has a different fre- ing or circulation in an effort to observe the temperature recovery,
quency from the input light and travels back from the temperature and to determine the ground thermal conductivity, while taking
measurement location to the input location. The light scattering advantage of the small temperature gradients inside the borehole
process that produces the frequency shift is called Raman scatter- during this period. The resulting thermal conductivity value was
ing. The temperature and the position of any measured section are 3.08 W/(K m), as tabulated in Table 1.
estimated by analyzing the ratio between the intensities of the up-
shifted and down-shifted light over a time window corresponding
to the delay time for the light to travel to the measured section and 4. Vertical temperature profiles
back.
The measurements have been taken with an instrument of the The detailed temperature measurements of the DTRT provide
type HALO from Sensornet which, according to the specifications a data set to test the vertical profile model. As mentioned earlier,
from the manufacturer, has a minimum spatial resolution of 2 m the model is valid for the late-time (steady-flux period) during the
and temperature accuracy depending on the averaging time and constant heating phase (phase 3). For this reason the model is com-
distance from the instrument. The instrument data sheet presents pared to the measured vertical temperature profiles near the end
temperature uncertainties within the range 0.05–0.45 K corre- of the constant heating phase.
sponding to measurement times from 60 min to 15 s. It is important Before applying the model, information is needed about the
to keep in mind that this type of measurement depends on inte- undisturbed ground temperature. For convenient input into the
gration time, the measuring length interval, the laser features, the model, the ground temperatures are normalized using Eq. (9) with
distance between the measured section and the instrument (cable Trs set equal to the ground temperature (10.05 ◦ C) at 5.5 m (the
length) and the calibration procedure, among others. groundwater level) below the surface. In the model, the vertical
For this specific test, these optic cables provide temperature coordinate z is set equal to zero at 5.5 m below the surface. Fig. 4
measurements at 52 segments (10 meter long each) that were later shows a graph of the normalized ground temperature. A third-order
simplified into 26 locations, which are delimited and numbered polynomial fit to the temperature profile obtained from the data
F1 through F26 and illustrated in Fig. 3. Temperature measure- measured during the DTRT is also shown. This polynomial fit serves
ments are averaged over a segment of the cable for each numbered as input into the model and assigns values to the coefficients in Eq.
temperature location. The measurements are averaged over a time (9). The average temperature of the undisturbed ground is 9.1 ◦ C,
window of 5 min and the standard deviation during a 3-day period with the minimum temperature at 110 m below the surface. The
of measurements under undisturbed ground conditions is 0.03 K applications of the model below use either the average tempera-
(the instrument data sheet gives a maximum deviation of 0.1 K for ture uniformly applied along the depth or the polynomial fit to the
a 5 min integration time). Regarding systematic errors, the cable detailed temperature profile. As Fig. 4 indicates, the measured tem-
was carefully calibrated using an ice bath and the signal offset perature data are extrapolated (over a 5 m distance) to estimate the
was corrected, allowing to adjust for accurate absolute temperature surface (zD = 0) and bottom-tube (zD = 1) temperatures.
values along the whole cable length (±0.1 K). Since most calcula- Conventional analysis methods based on a line-source model
tions are based on temperature differences, no significant errors are (Ingersoll and Plass, 1948) provide an estimate for the ground
28 R.A. Beier et al. / Geothermics 44 (2012) 23–32
Fig. 4. Vertical profile of normalized undisturbed ground temperature.
thermal conductivity and borehole resistance. The model uses
the average of the inlet and outlet fluid temperatures at a given
time, and applies this mean temperature along the entire borehole.
According to Acuña et al. (2009), the application of this technique to
the test data, gives a ground thermal conductivity of 3.08 W/(K m)
and a borehole resistance of 0.079 (K m)/W. The line-source model
does not match the early-time data, because the model does not
fully account for the thermal storage of the circulating fluid, loca-
tion of the U-tube, and the thermal properties of the water-filled
borehole. For this reason, the first 15 h of the data are ignored
in the analysis. The average temperature of 9.1 ◦ C is used for the
undisturbed ground temperature.
Within the line source model, the mean temperature approxi-
mation implicitly assumes the heat transfer rate is uniform along
the length of the borehole. The resulting temperature profiles
within the U-tube legs appear as straight lines, which do not agree
with the measured temperatures in Fig. 5. These measured temper-
atures correspond to 48 h into the constant heating rate phase of the
test. Indeed, the estimated bottom-loop temperature of the circu-
lating fluid is substantially larger than the measured bottom-loop
temperature.
As a more general approach, the vertical temperature profile
model is applied to estimate the borehole resistances correspond-
ing to each leg, Rb1 and Rb2 . Eq. (29) for the heat transfer rate is
a nonlinear equation with three unknowns: Rb1 , Rb2 and R12 . The
heat input rate, Q, and the temperatures Tin and Ts (or the ground
0
50
100
Depth (m)
150
200
Measured temp.
250 Mean temp. approx.
Unifrom ground temp.
Ground temp. profile
300
14 16 18 20
Temperature (ºC)
Fig. 5. Calculated temperatures of the circulating fluid compared to measured tem-
peratures. In the calculations the U-tube is symmetrically placed in the borehole.
50
100
Depth (m)
150
200
Measured temp.
Tubes together
250 Bottom temp. fit
Tubes apart
300
14 16 18 20
Temperature (ºC)
Fig. 6. Calculated temperatures of the circulating fluid compared to measured tem-
peratures. In the calculations the U-tube is symmetrically placed in the borehole
and the undisturbed ground temperature is uniform.
temperature profile) are measured and are input to the model. The
rock thermal conductivity estimate from the line-source model is
also used as input. Below Eq. (29) is used to estimate the borehole
resistances Rb1 and Rb2 over a possible range of values for R12 .
The exact locations of the U-tube legs within the borehole are
unknown and probably vary with depth. A typical assumption is a
symmetrically placed U-tube within the borehole where the posi-
tion does not vary with depth. A logical starting approach is to apply
Eq. (29) assuming a symmetrically placed U-tube, and the average
ground temperature applied uniformly over the depth, to see if a
reasonable fit can be obtained. Under these conditions Rb1 = Rb2 .
Using one equation and two unknowns (Rb1 and R12 ), one needs
to determine the value of R12 independently of Rb1 . The practical
range of R12 is generated using the equations in Appendix B.
The measured vertical temperature profiles of the circulating
fluid in the U-tube are shown in Fig. 6 with the model results
for a symmetrically placed U-tube after 48 h into the constant
heating rate phase. The proposed model has been validated with
measured temperature profiles at other times during the steady-
flux period of the TRT with matches similar to the shown profiles
at 48 h. The profiles corresponding to the minimum and maxi-
mum values of R12 are shown for reference. For the minimum
R12 the tubes are next to each other with no separation. For
maximum R12 the tubes are spread apart and touching opposite
sides of the borehole. The bottom temperature is matched for a
value of R12 equal to 0.307 (K m)/W. The corresponding value of
Rb1 is 0.129 (K m)/W. Note the value of the borehole resistance
Rb is equal to Rb1 /2 for a symmetrically placed U-tube. Thus, the
corresponding estimate of Rb based on the vertical temperature
profile model is 0.064 (K m)/W. The earlier value of 0.079 (K m)/W
by conventional TRT methods is 23% greater, based on the mean
temperature approximation. A previous analysis (Beier, 2011) indi-
cates that the error in the conventional estimate increases if the
circulating fluid flow rate decreases or the U-tube length increases.
Furthermore, the mean temperature approximation systematically
overestimates the thermal resistance.
Proposing an alternative to the mean temperature approxima-
tion, Marcotte and Pasquier (2008) assume a fluid temperature
variation at power p, |T()|p , varies linearly within the U-tube
between |Tin |p and |Tout |p . Here T represents the temperature
difference from the undisturbed ground temperature, Ts . Under this
assumption the vertical temperature profiles are given by:
  1/p
|T ()| = |Tin |p + (|Tout |p − |Tin |p ) (33)
2L
 R.A. Beier et al. / Geothermics 44 (2012) 23–32 29

0 0.35
Uniform ground temperature
Ground temperature profile
50 0.3
Rb2
100

Rb1 or Rb2 (Km)/W)

Depth (m)

0.25

150
200 Measured temp.
p=1
p → -1
250 p = -2
p = -3
300
14 16 18
Temperature (ºC)
Fig. 7. Calculated temperatures of the circulating fluid based on the p-linear average
approximation compared to measured temperatures.
Note the variable  represents the position along the full pathway in
the U-tube from the inlet to outlet connections. Temperature pro-
files for various values of p are compared to the measured profiles
in Fig. 7. The profile with p = 1 is identical to the mean temperature
approximation. Marcotte and Pasquier recommend using p → −1,
based on comparisons with numerical models of a borehole. How-
ever, the corresponding profile does not agree with the measured
data in Fig. 7. The profile with p = −3 matches the bottom tempera-
ture, but the shape of the profile does not match the other measured
temperatures.
For a calculation of borehole resistance, Marcotte and Pasquier
(2008) recommend the use of the p-linear average temperature
along the U-tube. This average temperature is obtained from inte-
gration of Eq. (33) along the U-tube path to give:
p(|Tin |p+1 − |Tout |p+1 )
|Tp | =
(1 + p)(|Tin |p − |Tout |p )
This average temperature is used in the line-source model in place
of Tm . The borehole resistance with p → −1 is 0.074 (K m)/W, which
is a smaller estimate than the value stated above from the mean
temperature approximation. The estimates for borehole resistance
with p = −2 and p = −3 are smaller values of 0.068 (K m)/W and
0.063 (K m)/W, respectively. These last 2 estimates are close to the
0.064 (K m)/W estimate from the proposed model based on Eq. (29).
The best choice of p is different from the value of p → −1 suggested
Marcotte and Pasquier.
The proposed model using Eq. (29) also allows one to study
how Rb1 varies as a function of the input value for R12 as shown in
Fig. 8. Again, the smallest value of R12 corresponds to the tube legs
0.16
0.15
Rb1 ((Km)/W)
0.2
0.15
0.1
Rb1
20
0.05
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
R12 ((Km)/W)
Fig. 9. Borehole resistances, Rb1 and Rb2 , corresponding to separate legs of an asym-
metrically placed U-tube as a function of the shunt resistance, R12 .
touching each other, and the largest value corresponds to the legs
against opposite walls of the borehole. At first glance, one may
expect Rb1 to decrease in Fig. 8 as R12 increases (shanks spreading
apart), which is opposite of the results. However, simultaneously
increasing R12 (smaller shunt effects) and decreasing Rb1 would
increase the heat transfer rate to the rock and the measured heat
input rate to the circulating fluid. Because all the calculations for
Fig. 8 are made with the measured heat input rate fixed, a differ-
ent trend appears. The estimated range of R12 has a substantial
uncertainty, and the range used is probably too wide because con-
vection effects for the groundwater in the borehole are not taken
into account.
(34) The vertical temperature model has been applied using a uni-
form ground temperature (9.1 ◦ C) as one case, and the measured
ground temperature profile (Fig. 4) as a second case. The tempera-
ture profiles are nearly identical for both cases as shown in Fig. 5,
where the bottom-tube temperature is forced to match the mea-
sured value. Also, the estimated borehole resistances in Fig. 8 are
nearly the same. For this borehole, using the average ground tem-
perature applied along the entire borehole depth gives good results.
Of course, it is not known if the uniform average ground tempera-
ture approximation gives such good results in all other applications.
If the measured bottom temperature is used as input, the model
handles the case of an asymmetrically placed U-tube, where Rb1
may differ from Rb2 . Using Eq. (15), one sets the circulating fluid
temperature at the bottom of the loop to the measured tempera-
ture. Again the value of R12 is varied over a range determined by the
equations in Appendix B. The range of calculated values of Rb1 and
Rb2 are graphed in Fig. 9. For each value of R12 the values of Rb1 and
Rb2 are unique. If the model uses the ground temperature profile
(Fig. 4) as input, the results are nearly the same as the results with
the averaged uniform ground temperature.

0.14 For an asymmetrically placed U-tube, the calculated tempera-

ture profiles in Figs. 10 and 11 have a rather narrow range as R12
is varied with the bottom-loop temperature fixed at its measured
0.13 value. The average error between the calculated and measured tem-
peratures is shown in Fig. 12 as the value of R12 is varied. The
Uniform ground temperature average error is the average magnitude of the differences between
0.12
Ground temperature profile these temperatures along the borehole. The symmetric case (with
Rb1 = Rb2 = 0.129 K m/W) has an average error of 0.027 ◦ C, while the
0.11
minimum error of 0.022 ◦ C occurs at a slightly larger value of R12 .
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
In practice, these differences are beyond the resolution of the mea-
R12 ((Km)/W)
sured temperatures. Thus, the symmetric case fits the measured
temperatures, as well as any of the other cases, within the uncer-
Fig. 8. Borehole resistance, Rb1 , corresponding to each leg of a symmetrically placed
U-tube as a function of the shunt resistance, R12 . tainty of the measured temperatures.
30 R.A. Beier et al. / Geothermics 44 (2012) 23–32

0 et al. (2009) and Acuña (2010) have applied the line-source model
(Ingersoll and Plass, 1948) to each section. The heat rate input, Q,
50 into a segment can be estimated using the sum of the heat rates at
each of the U-pipe legs as:
100
Depth (m)

Q = wc(|T1 | + |T2 |) (35)

150

200 The fluid temperature difference across the segment, T1 or T2 ,
Measured temp. is evaluated from the measured fluid temperatures at the entrance
Tubes together
250 Symmetric tubes
and exit of the section.
Tubes apart This detailed DTRT analysis by Acuña et al. (2009) provides
300 another comparison for the vertical temperature model. From
14 16 18 20 the DTRT analysis the borehole thermal resistances over the
Temperature (ºC) 20 m sections vary between 0.054 and 0.078 (K m)/W. This vari-
ation suggests the pipe positions in the borehole change along
Fig. 10. Calculated temperatures of the circulating fluid compared to measured tem-
the borehole length. The mean value of Rb over all sections is
peratures. In the calculations the U-tube is asymmetrically placed in the borehole,
the bottom-loop temperature is fixed, and the undisturbed ground temperature is 0.062 (K m)/W. The vertical profile method with a symmetrically
uniform. placed U-tube gives a borehole resistance of 0.064 (K m)/W, which
is nearly the same value as found with the DTRT analysis. For the
0 DTRT analysis, the thermal conductivity values range from 2.60 to
3.62 W/(K m) among the sections. The mean thermal conductivity
50 is 3.10 W/(K m), which agrees with the estimate from the conven-
tional analysis [3.08 W/(K m)].
The above agreement between the proposed model and the
100
DTRT analysis is obtained by using the inlet temperature and the
Depth (m)

bottom-loop temperature as input in the proposed model. Thus,

150
adding the bottom-loop temperature measurement during the
thermal response test enhances the estimate of borehole resistance.
200
Without the bottom-loop measurement in the proposed model, one
Measured temp.
Tubes together could estimate the value of Rb by dividing the median value of Rb1
250 in Fig. 8 by 2 to estimate Rb as 0.068 (K m)/W. In Fig. 8 the value of
Symmetric tubes
Tubes apart Rb1 (and thus Rb ) varies by ±12% from its median value when R12
300 is varied. In a previous study of thermal response tests on grout-
14 16 18 20
filled boreholes, Beier (2011) found the estimate of Rb changes by
Temperature ( C) ±2% from its mean value when R12 is varied. The much wider range
of the Rb estimate in the water-filled borehole is partially due to
Fig. 11. Calculated temperatures of the circulating fluid compared to measured tem-
the difficulty in representing the convection effects and to a lower
peratures. In the calculations the U-tube is asymmetrically placed in the borehole,
the bottom-loop temperature is fixed, and the undisturbed ground temperature U-tube pipe wall resistance, which determine the lower bound for
follows the measured vertical profile. R12 in Fig. 8.

5. Analysis on each vertical section

6. Borehole resistance in design tools
The temperature history of each section in the DTRT provides
sufficient data to evaluate the rock thermal conductivity and bore- Often the results from TRT analysis are used as input into design
hole resistance in each 20 m section of the borehole (Fig. 3). Acuña software for a GSHP system. Estimates for both ground thermal
conductivity and borehole thermal resistance are required by the
design calculations. The mean temperature approximation, the p-
0.08
Uniform ground temperaturre linear approximation and the proposed vertical temperature profile
Ground temperature profile model have been used in this paper to estimate borehole resistance
from TRT data set. Each method is based on different assumed ver-
Average difference (ºC)

tical temperature profiles in the borehole fluid. In the ideal case,

0.06 the assumption about the vertical temperature profile should be
the same in both the TRT analysis and the design software. Under
limited circumstances, an overestimated borehole resistance from
the mean temperature approximation in the TRT data analysis may
0.04 have little impact, if the design program is based on the same
approximation. Then both calculations are using the same equation
for the heat transfer rate. As an example, little error is expected to
be carried over to the design, if the circulating fluid rate and bore-
hole length are nearly the same in the TRT and the design. On the
0.02
other hand, the proposed vertical temperature profile model allows
0 0.5 1 1.5
the borehole resistance from a test to be rigorously carried over
R12 ((Km)/W)
to the design software under different circulating rates and bore-
hole depths. Of course, the design software must include the same
Fig. 12. Average difference between the calculated and measured temperatures as
the shunt resistance, R12 , varies. vertical profile model in order to be consistent.
 R.A. Beier et al. / Geothermics 44 (2012) 23–32 31

7. Conclusions B23
˛23 = (A.5)
ˇ
A steady-flux model has been developed for the vertical temper-
B22 − 3(Ns1 − Ns2 )˛23
ature profile of the circulating water through a U-tube in a borehole ˛22 = (A.6)
heat exchanger. This analytical model applies during the steady- ˇ
flux period of an in situ thermal response test. Most current analysis B21 − 2(Ns1 − Ns2 )˛22 − 6˛23
methods use the mean of the inlet and outlet temperatures of the ˛21 = (A.7)
ˇ
circulating water, which is assumed to be a representative tem-
perature for the average fluid temperature along the depth of the B20 − (Ns1 − Ns2 )˛21 − 2˛22
˛20 = (A.8)
borehole. The proposed model does away with the need for this ˇ
mean temperature approximation. The proposed model also han-
dles a vertical temperature profile for the undisturbed ground, if The additional constants ˇ and the Bij have values of:
known from independent measurements.
ˇ = −(Ns1 + N12 )(Ns2 + N12 ) + N12 N12 (A.9)
The model has been verified using measured vertical tempera-
ture profiles in a borehole equipped with a distributed temperature C8 = Ns1 Ns2 + Ns1 N12 + Ns2 N12 (A.10)
sensing (DTS) system. The system uses optic fiber cables installed
inside the U-tube pipes along the length of the borehole. These B10 = A1 Ns1 (A.11)
temperature measurements provide much more information than
typically obtained from measuring only the inlet and outlet fluid B11 = 2A2 Ns1 − C8 A1 (A.12)
temperatures.
B12 = 3A3 Ns1 − C8 A2 (A.13)
The analytical model provides a method to estimate the
borehole thermal resistance taking into account the vertical tem- B13 = −C8 A3 (A.14)
perature profile instead of relying on the mean temperature
approximation. For the borehole studied, the borehole resistance B20 = −A1 Ns2 (A.15)
is 23% less than the value estimated from the mean temperature
approximation. In this borehole the proposed model gives nearly B21 = −2A2 Ns2 − C8 A1 (A.16)
identical results whether the average undisturbed ground temper-
B22 = −3A3 Ns2 − C8 A2 (A.17)
ature or the actual measured vertical ground temperature profile
is used as input. B23 = −C8 A3 (A.18)
The p-linear approximation gives a better estimate of borehole
resistance in the field case than the mean temperature approxima-
Appendix B. Thermal resistances
tion. However, the best value to use for the exponent p in Eqs. (33)
and (34) is unknown for a specific case unless the fluid temperature
The thermal shunt resistance between the two legs is evaluated
at the bottom of the U-tube is measured. Then, the bottom temper-
based on an approach similar to the one used earlier by Kavanaugh
ature can be used as an additional constraint in Eq. (33) to set the
(1985). Due to convection effects in the water-filled borehole and
value of p.
the complicated geometry, no rigorous analytical estimate of R12
The proposed model fits the measured vertical temperature pro-
is available. The intent is to provide an expected range of R12 ,
files, if the U-tube legs are treated as if they are symmetrically
while seeking a better estimate from the model fits in Figs. 5–11.
placed around the borehole center. This simplified approach gives
The shunt resistance is estimated as the sum of two pipe wall
good results even though a previous DTRT analysis indicates the
resistances, Rpw , the film resistances, Rf , and the water (or grout)
pipe positions inside the borehole change with depth. The results
resistance, Rw :
suggest that on average each pipe may be about the same distance
from the borehole wall. R12 = 2Rpw + 2Rf + Rw (B.1)

Acknowledgements
The International Ground Source Heat Pump Association
(IGSHPA) provided support to R.A. Beier. The Swedish Energy
Agency and all sponsors within the EFFSYS2 and EFFSYSPLUS
research programs are also greatly acknowledged for financing the
project at KTH.
The water (or grout) resistance between the two pipes is evaluated
based on a heat conduction shape factor between two isothermal
cylinders in an infinite medium. From Schneider (1985) the con-
duction heat transfer rate per unit length between two parallel
cylinders of equal size is:
Q 2kw Ts
= (B.2)
L cosh−1 ((2xs2 /rpo
2 ) − 1)

Appendix A. Expressions for constants The shank distance, xs , is the distance between the center of the
pipe and the center of the borehole. Eq. (B.2) is an approximation
The expressions for the constants ˛ij are listed below as: to our case, because the equation does not take into account the
B13 interaction of the two pipes with the borehole wall or any convec-
˛13 = (A.1) tion effects. Then, the water (or grout) resistance is approximated
ˇ
as:
B12 − 3(Ns1 − Ns2 )˛13
˛12 =
ˇ
(A.2) cosh−1 ((2xs2 /rpo
2 ) − 1)
Rw = (B.3)
2kw
B11 − 2(Ns1 − Ns2 )˛12 − 6˛13
˛11 = (A.3) In this water-filled borehole, the thermal conductivity kw is set
ˇ
equal to the thermal conductivity of water. This approach ignores
B10 − (Ns1 − Ns2 )˛11 − 2˛12 the convection effects in the water-filled borehole and overesti-
˛10 = (A.4)
ˇ mates the resistance Rw .
32 R.A. Beier et al. / Geothermics 44 (2012) 23–32
The pipe wall resistance is calculated for only one-half of the
tube wall area, which represents the section of wall area facing the
neighboring pipe:
ln(rpo /rpi )
Rpw = (B.4)
(1/2)2kpw
Similarly, the convective film resistances are calculated for only
one-half of the pipe wall area, which represents the section facing
its neighbor. Thus,
1 OK, USA.
Rf = (B.5)
(1/2)dpi hpi
Eqs. (B.2) to (B.5) are substituted into Eq. (B.1) to get an expression
for the shunt resistance, R12 . To obtain a minimum (lower bound)
value for R12 , the value of Rw is set equal to zero in Eq. (B.1) to rep-
resent the two pipe walls touching. For a maximum (upper bound)
value of R12 , the value of Rw is evaluated using Eq. (B.3) at the max-
imum shank spacing, where each tube is against opposite sides of
the borehole wall.
References
Acuña, J., Mogensen, P., Palm, B., 2009. Distributed thermal response test on a U-pipe
borehole heat exchanger. In: Proceedings of 11th International Conference on
Energy Storage EFFSTOCK, Stockholm, Sweden, June 14–17, Paper 18, 8 pp.
Acuña, J., 2010. Improvements of U-pipe borehole heat exchangers. Licentiate Thesis.
School of Industrial Engineering and Management, Royal Institute of Technol-
ogy, Stockholm, Sweden.
Austin, W.A., Yavuzturk, C., Spitler, J.D., 2000. Development of an in situ system
for measuring ground thermal properties. ASHRAE Transactions 106 (Part 1),
365–379.
Beier, R.A., 2011. Vertical temperature profile in ground heat exchanger during
in situ test. Renewable Energy 36, 1578–1587.
Carslaw, H.S., Jaeger, J.C., 1959. Conduction of Heat in Solids, second ed. Oxford
University Press, New York, NY, USA, pp. 261–263.
Du, C., Chen, Y., 2011. An average fluid temperature to estimate borehole thermal
resistance of ground heat exchanger. Renewable Energy 36, 1880–1885.
Diao, N.R., Zeng, H.Y., Fang, Z.H., 2004. Improvement in modeling of heat transfer in
vertical ground heat exchangers. HVAC&R Research 10, 459–470.
Eklöf, C., Gehlin, S., 1996. TED – a mobile equipment for thermal response test. Master
Thesis. Luleå University of Technology, Strömsund, Sweden.
Fujii, H., Okubo, H., Nishi, K., Itoi, R., Ohyama, K., Shibata, K., 2009. An improved
thermal response test for U-tube ground heat exchanger based on optical fiber
thermometers. Geothermics 38, 399–406.
Gehlin, S., Spitler, J.D., 2003. Thermal response test for BTES applications – state of
the art 2001. In: Proceedings of 9th International Conference of Thermal Energy
Storage, September 1–4, Warsaw, Poland, pp. 381–387.
Gustafsson, A.M., Westerlund, L., Hellström, G., 2010. CFD-modeling of natural
convection in groundwater-filled borehole heat exchanger. Applied Thermal
Engineering 30, 683–691.
Hellström, G., 1991. Ground heat storage; thermal analysis of duct storage systems.
PhD Thesis. University of Lund, Lund, Sweden, 310 pp.
Ingersoll, L.P., Plass, H.J., 1948. Theory of ground pipe heat sources for the heat pump.
ASHVE Transactions 54, 339–348.
Kavanaugh, S.P., 1985. Simulation and experimental verification of vertical ground-
coupled heat pump systems. PhD Thesis. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater,
Lamarche, L., Kajl, S., Beauchamp, B.A., 2010. A review of methods to evaluate bore-
hole thermal resistances in geothermal heat-pump systems. Geothermics 39,
187–200.
Marcotte, D., Pasquier, P., 2008. On the estimation of thermal resistance in borehole
thermal conductivity test. Renewable Energy 33, 2407–2415.
Melinder, Å., 2007. Thermophysical properties of aqueous solutions used as
secondary working fluids. Doctoral Thesis. Royal Institute of Technology, Stock-
holm, Sweden.
Mogensen, P., 1983. Fluid to duct wall heat transfer in duct system heat storages. In:
Proceedings of the International Conference on Subsurface Heat Storage in The-
ory and Practice, Swedish Council for Building Research, June 6–8, Stockholm,
Sweden, pp. 652–657.
Raymond, J., Robert, G., Therrien, R., Gosselin, L., 2010. A novel thermal response test
using heating cables. In: Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress, April
25–29, Bali, Indonesia, 8 pp.
Raymond, J., Therrien, R., Gosselin, L., 2011a. Borehole temperature evolution during
thermal response tests. Geothermics 40, 69–78.
Raymond, J., Therrien, R., Gosselin, L., Lefebvre, R., 2011b. A review of thermal
response test analysis using pumping test concepts. Ground Water 49, 932–945.
Sanner, S., Hellström, G., Spitler, J., Gehlin, S., 2005. Thermal response test – current
status and world-wide application. In: Proceedings of the World Geothermal
Congress, April 24–29, Antalya, Turkey, 9 pp.
Schneider, P.J., 1985. Conduction. In: Rohsenow, W.M., Harnett, J.P., Ganić, E.N. (Eds.),
Handbook of Heat Transfer Fundamentals. , second ed. McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY, USA, pp. 162–165.
Spiegel, M.R., 1967. Applied Differential Equations, second ed. Prentice Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ, USA.
Witte, H.J.L., van Gelder, G.J., Spitler, J.D., 2002. In situ measurement of ground
thermal conductivity: a Dutch perspective. ASHRAE Transactions 108 (Part 1),
263–272.
Yang, H., Cui, P., Fang, Z., 2010. Vertical-borehole ground-coupled heat pumps: a
review of models and systems. Applied Energy 87, 16–27.
Yang, W., Shi, M., Liu, G., Chen, Z., 2009. A two-region simulation model of vertical
U-tube ground heat exchanger and its experimental verification. Applied Energy
86, 2005–2012.
Zeng, H., Diao, N., Fang, Z., 2003. Heat transfer analysis of boreholes in vertical ground
heat exchangers. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 46, 4467–4481.