Renewable Energy 182 (2022) 521e535

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Field-scale experimental and numerical analysis of a downhole coaxial

heat exchanger for geothermal energy production*
Sajjan Pokhrel a, Agus P. Sasmito b, Atsushi Sainoki c, Toshiyuki Tosha d, Tatsuya Tanaka e,
Chiaki Nagai e, Seyed Ali Ghoreishi-Madiseh a, *
a
NBK Institute of Mining Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
b
Department of Mining and Materials Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
c
Faculty of Advanced Science and Technology, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan
d
Department of Marine Electronics and Mechanical Engineering, Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, Tokyo, Japan
e
Obayashi Corporation, Tokyo, Japan

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

Article history: The experimental and computational analyses of a 500 m deep coaxial borehole heat exchanger system
Received 14 June 2021 for geothermal power generation are studied in this paper. The experiments are carried out on a high
Received in revised form temperature resourced well with an average thermal gradient of 0.38
C/m. The experiment lasts 456 h,
8 October 2021
and the findings are described in terms of fluid inlet and outlet temperatures, subsurface temperature
Accepted 10 October 2021
distribution profiles over time, and flowrate. The in-situ ground temperature distribution profile is
Available online 13 October 2021
measured using Distributed Temperature Sensing System for different hours of the experiment. A
detailed, three-dimensional, unsteady-state, finite volume-based computational model has been devel-
Keywords:
Wellbore heat exchanger (WBHX)
oped, which solves conjugate fluid-flow and heat transfer phenomena. The simulation outcomes are
Geothermal power experimental analysis compared to the results of the experiments. With validated numerical model, to determine the circle of
Coaxial borehole heat exchanger influence, temperature profile of the ground is observed at various radial distances from the borehole. A
Bayonet tube heat exchanger parametric study is performed by varying inlet temperature of the fluid, mass flow rate, and the thermal
Numerical simulation conductivity of the ground. The numerical model developed also predicts the temperature recovery
behavior of the ground. The results indicate that the average output thermal power for 456 h from the
geothermal system ranges from 172 kW to 262 kW based on operating condition chosen and the total
thermal energy generated changes between 82 MWh and 194 MWh from a single borehole. After the
extraction is terminated, around 86% of the initial ground temperature is restored after 456 h.
Crown Copyright © 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction research, the number of nations using direct geothermal energy

1.1. Geothermal energy development
To inhibit climate change and its consequences, priority should
be given to diversifying energy sources and exploring renewable
and clean technologies [1]. Geothermal energy is one of the most
promising of such technologies and has a reputation for its uni-
versal availability, higher utilization rate, and good reliability as
compared to other renewable sources. According to a recent
*
The short version of the paper was presented at HEFAT 2021, July 25e28, 2021.
This paper is a substantial extension of the short version of the conference paper.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ali.madiseh@ubc.ca (S.A. Ghoreishi-Madiseh).
grew from 72 to 88 between 2005 and 2020. From 2015 to 2020, the
amount of thermal energy consumed rose by 52% [2]. Karlsdottir
et al. [3] performed lie cycle assessment and concluded that
geothermal utilization of high-temperature resources can have low
environmental impacts compared to most other energy sources. In
addition to environmental advantages, geothermal system also
provides continuous energy supply unlike other renewable sources
like solar and wind. Enhanced geothermal systems with rock
stipulation and fluid injection have recently been developed to
collect geothermal energy from high heat and reduced perme-
ability rock [4].
Dry steam, flash steam, and binary cycle power plants are the
most widely adopted type of geothermal power generation systems
constituting more than 97% of 12.6 GW potential today [5]. All of
these systems are two-hole extraction-injection systems that use

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.038
0960-1481/Crown Copyright © 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Pokhrel, A.P. Sasmito, A. Sainoki et al.
Nomenclature
Cp specific heat (J kg1 k1)
T temperature (K)
T average wall temperature (K)
k thermal conductivity (W m1 k1)
Pr Prandtl number
!
v velocity (m s1)
Gk turbulent kinetic energy generation (J)
Greek letters
r density (kg m3)
V del operator
m molecular viscosity (m2 s1)
ε dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy (J)
q temperature recovery fraction
the subsurface fluid to operate the powerplant directly or indi-
rectly. Because of geofluid extraction and injection, these systems
alter the hydrological balance of groundwater and are less eco-
friendly. Besides, the corrosive and chemically aggressive nature of
geothermal fluid increases the operational cost of the power gen-
eration system. To overcome these shortcomings, a more eco-
friendly geothermal power generation system is developed which
only uses the heat instead of subsurface fluid with the use of a
borehole heat exchanger (BHE). BHE consists of a well in which a
system of pipes or tubes are suspended, from which heat transfer
fluid is pumped to exchange the heat energy with the subsurface
surrounding rock mass. This system is also known as a closed-loop
or recycling type geothermal power generation system. These
systems also eliminate the extra well required in conventional
geothermal power generation systems to reinject the geothermal
fluid, thus have a lower installation cost in addition to a higher life
cycle period of 20e25 years [6]. This technology can equally be used
in exploiting geothermal resources with low permeability rocks.
One of the most significant benefits of this method is that holes
drilled for other purposes, such as decommissioned oil and gas
wells, can be used for geothermal heat production [7e10].
The use of BHEs has been studied extensively for the past 30
years for direct and indirect applications from shallow to deep
ground and aquifers. Its direct applications include heating, cooling,
hot spring bathing, geothermal agriculture while indirect applica-
tions include geothermal power generation. Different types of BHEs
considered in the literature include thermosyphon heat pipe [11],
coaxial [12], U-tube [13], and concentric tube thermosyphon [14].
U-tube and coaxial are the most widely used BHEs according to
literature. A large volume of research is performed comparing the
performances of these different BHEs. An experimental investiga-
tion to compare U-tube and coaxial BHE (CBHE) for heat pump
application determined that the coaxial system needs less pumping
power, is less turbulent for the same flowrate, incurs less drilling
cost, and requires easier installation although the COP of both
systems are very close to each other [15]. Numerical analysis to
study the thermal behavior of the coaxial and U-tube BHE revealed
that for balanced thermal load and intermittent operating modes,
the coaxial configuration provides better thermal performance due
to the higher thermal capacitance [16]. A thermal response test
demonstrated that the local borehole resistance for the coaxial heat
exchanger is significantly lower than U-pipes [17]. A performance
comparison demonstrated that the coaxial collector has the most
522
Renewable Energy 182 (2022) 521e535
Acronyms
WBHX wellbore heat exchanger
BHE borehole heat exchanger
CBHE coaxial borehole heat exchanger
COP coefficient of performance
CFD computational fluid dynamics
DTS distributed temperature sensing system
OD outer diameter
ID inner diameter
HTF heat transfer fluid
TRT thermal response test
Subscripts
eff effective
t turbulent
F final temperature
I initial temperature
R recovered temperature
consistent thermal and hydraulic performance over the tested
range of power and flow conditions [18]. A comparison between
coaxial, single U-tube and double U-tube BHE concluded that the
most beneficial is the coaxial type [19]. Numerical analysis to
compare coaxial BHE with U-tube BHE found that with 500 m of
well depth, 117.21
C of temperature is reached with U-tube while
with coaxial 131.25
C is reached [20]. The reason was attributed to
the heat loss in the returning pipe for the BHE system. Over-
whelming majority of past research suggests coaxial BHE perform
better than U-tube BHE and hence are gaining more attention.
1.2. CBHE
1.2.1. Overview
Two pipes are arranged concentrically in a coaxial borehole heat
exchanger (CBHE), the outer layer is made of conducting material,
while the inner layer is made of insulating material. Cold fluid flows
down from the annulus region and the outer conducting pipe ex-
changes thermal energy with the surrounding rock mass to in-
crease the fluid temperature. This hot fluid is carried back to the
surface with minimum possible heat loss to its surroundings from
an inner insulated pipe. Recently, many experimental, analytical,
and numerical studies are performed to harness geothermal energy
via CBHE. The majority of the work that is done in research con-
cerning the CBHE system deal with space heating applications,
however very few analyses are performed for power generation
applications.
Early literature found on CBHE was presented by Horne in 1980
for space or process heating application barely based on conductive
heat transfer into the well with quasi-steady state consideration
[21], while the proof of concept for electrical power generation
application was first illustrated in 1985 [22]. Earliest experimental
work to prove the concept of the CBHE for power generation
application was carried out successfully in 1991 in Hawaii from a
depth of 876.5 m drills with a maximum output of 540 kWTH [23].
More recent work on CBHE is carried out in Iran [9], Mexico [20],
Ecuador [24], Italy [25], Turkey [26], United States [27], China [28],
and South Africa [29]. A thermodynamic exergy and energy analysis
of CBHE coupled to an Organic Rankine Cycle in Italy showed the
first and second law efficiency of 10.62% and 23.15% [25]. A thermo-
economic analysis of CBHE for geothermal power generation for a
2500 m deep existing geothermal well for a location in Turkey
predicted a payback period of 2.5 years [26]. Literature suggests
S. Pokhrel, A.P. Sasmito, A. Sainoki et al.
that there is a possibility that the CBHE can be operated without
pumping for a long duration because of gravity head arising in
CBHE [27]. Wide variety of research are performed focusing on
design characteristics and operational parameters of the system.
Design characteristics include optimum diameter ratio of internal
and external pipe for minimum pressure drop [29], insulation pipe
material and its role in performance of the system [25,30,31], and
rock fracturing and using high conductivity material to fill the
fractures [32]. Accordingly, operational parameters include flow
rate variation [33], inlet fluid temperature effects [10], and heat
transfer fluid chosen like CO2 or water [34].
1.2.2. Analytical and numerical research
Various analytical methods used in modeling the CBHE system
are composite cylindrical heat source method [35], finite line
source method [36,37] convolution theorem method [38], Fourier
equation of heat transport method [39], and infinite line source
method [40]. The common shortcoming of these proposed analyt-
ical models is that they try to assume a simplified conduction heat
transfer in the ground as thermal resistance, rather than taking a
conjugate approach in which transient convection in the well is
directly coupled with transient conduction in the ground. Besides,
several of these approaches assume a constant temperature along
the wall of the heat exchanger. This means the heat flux along the
depth of the borehole is constant which is not the true represen-
tation of the physics. In addition, the effect of turbulence in the heat
transfer process is not accounted for within these models. A better
approach to overcome these shortcomings is a numerical model.
Numerical methods used for CBHE analysis consist of finite differ-
ence [23,41,42], finite element [43e45], and finite volume method
[46e49]. A notable amount of work is done in the computational
study of CBHE in an attempt to develop different heat transfer and
thermal simulation models. Several of them consider axisymmetric
approach [50,51] and 2-D calculations [42,48,52e54] while some of
them consider a full 3D numerical analysis in their studies
[46,47,55]. Based on the available literature, k-ε model [43], SST k-
u[48], realizable k-ε model [52] can accurately predict the fluid flow
and heat transfer process in the CBHE due to turbulence. Theo et al.
[56] developed a CFD numerical model of CBHE of 2100 m depth for
power generation application. They assume an axisymmetric
approach reducing from 3D to 2D model. Henrik et al. [53] per-
formed the numerical evaluation of CBHE in 165 m of depth with a
maximum power output of 6.5 kW TH intended for ground source
heat pump application. They performed the 2D numerical approach
to model the heat transfer process around the borehole while the
borehole and heat transfer fluid are simulated as one-dimensional
features. Although several numerical works in CBHE based on a
single-dimensional or two-dimensional analysis can be cited, an
analysis to compare three different approaches: fully analytical,
semi-numerical, and fully numerical is performed by Hewei et al.
[57]. They conclude that the fully numerical model is the only ac-
curate model to predict the performance of the system. Hence,
three-dimensional behavior of fluid-flow, heat transfer, and tur-
bulence should be solved to accurately predict the heat transfer
phenomenon in such systems, which 2D simulations cannot predict
accurately.
A 3D heat transfer numerical simulation of geothermal power
production work is done by Younes et al. [46],for a bottom hole
temperature of 145
C and 3176 m depth from an abandoned pe-
troleum well [47].Zhihua et al. performed a fully three-dimensional
numerical analysis of 2000 m deep CBHE but assumed a soil con-
stant temperature and neglected the thermal conductivity of the
conductor pipe. Chao et al. [58] performed a full-scale three-
dimensional numerical model of a CBHE but were limited to a
shallow depth of 50 m due to the computational cost. Only a few
523
Renewable Energy 182 (2022) 521e535
full-scale numerical simulations are performed so far in this
domain. Although the heat transfer and fluid flow phenomenon in
the CBHE system are well known, more focus is needed in full-scale
numerical modeling of these physical phenomena.
1.2.3. Experimental research
Few of the lab-scale experiments are performed in CBHE,
however, the huge length of such systems is inconvenient to
replicate inside a laboratory. This lack of design standards and a
high capital cost result in very few field-scale experiments and are
worthy to mention here [47,59,60]. All of these are full-scale ex-
periments for heating applications with a low geothermal gradient.
However, the literature suggests that only a single field-test
experimental investigation is performed for a power generation
application [22].
1.3. Objective of this study
The objective of this study is to present a novel work both in
terms of experimental and numerical analysis of CBHE. The previ-
ous experiment on CBHE for power generation application was
performed in an existing well, while this study is based on the fresh
drilled well just before the experiment. Another novelty of current
research is that the change in subsurface temperature distribution
profile is presented over the time of the experiment which is not
witnessed in previous experimental research. Hence, this experi-
ment generates new set of data with the state-of-the-art experi-
mental methodology which are unavailable in the existing
literature and this set of data could be used as a reference for future
experimental and numerical works on CBHE. This experiment will
also help investors and engineers to forecast the reservoir potential
around the neighborhood of this experiment and make investment
decision. The key goal of this project is to see whether geothermal
power generation from the test site is technically feasible. Addi-
tional goals include determining the ground's in-situ temperature
distribution profile and the formation's heat transfer
characteristics.
This work also addresses shortcomings of previous numerical
studies in this domain. In this study, we present a fully three-
dimensional numerical model of a medium-depth (500 m) CBHE
to solve the conjugate fluid flow and heat transfer process with
accurate geometrical details, in-situ geological properties, and in-
situ subsurface temperature distribution. In this presented nu-
merical model, heat transfer in the subsurface is directly coupled to
the fluid temperature in the heat exchanger and its velocity profile.
In addition, continuous spatial variability of well temperature is
obtained at different time of simulation. The numerical results are
compared and validated with the experimental outcome and
parametric study is performed to evaluate the system performance
for the duration of the experiment with different design and
operating conditions. Temperature recovery period is also pre-
dicted based on the numerical model developed.
2. Experiment and experimental results
21. Methodology
The field test was performed near Beppu, Oita, Japan, at a height
of around 500 m and 1 km west of the Alum hot spring. The first
stage in the experiment was the drilling, which was carried out
using a drilling rig in 2017 as displayed in Fig. 1. (a). The total depth
of the drill is 500 m which was accomplished in a step-by-step
fashion as shown in Fig. 2. (a). Firstly, drilling was done for an
initial 50 m of length, followed by a steel pipe set. The diameter of
the initial excavation is 444.5 mm, while the outer and inner
S. Pokhrel, A.P. Sasmito, A. Sainoki et al. Renewable Energy 182 (2022) 521e535

Fig. 1. (a) Drilling equipment installation set-up for the experiment, (b) Schematics of the experiment [62], (c) Temperature control unit, and (d) Water circulation test.

Fig. 2. (a). Drilling procedure during the experiment and (b). Detailed dimension of the borehole.

diameters of the steel pipe set are 355.6 mm and 339.8 mm, depth which was again followed by a steel pipe set in the peripheral
respectively. After this step, drilling was extended to 200 m of boundary. The diameter of this drill is 311.3 mm while the internal

524
S. Pokhrel, A.P. Sasmito, A. Sainoki et al.
and external diameters of the steel setting for this depth are
244.5 mm and 224.4 mm, respectively. The last step excavates to
500 m deep which is followed by the steel pipe setting to complete
the drilling process. After this step, the innermost insulator pipe
was installed. This central tube has internal and external diameters
of 114.3 mm and 103.88 mm, respectively. This steel pipe has a
relatively high thermal conductivity as it is meant to exchange heat
with the surrounding rock mass, and hence this property plays a
vital role in defining the system performance. This is also the outer
layer of the CBHE. After drilling, the equipment necessary for the
experiment was installed. Fig. 1. (b) depicts the schematics of the
experimental setup. Similarly, Fig. 1. (c) and Fig. 1. (d) represent the
set-up of temperature control unit during the experiment and the
experiment, respectively. Different components of the experiment
include CBHE, flowrate regulating valve, water pump, water tank,
steam separator, Distributed temperature sensing system (DTS),
and a temperature sensor.
The required flow rate of water at a given temperature is
pumped into the CBHE during the water circulation test, where it
interacts with the ground through a forced convective heat transfer
mechanism to absorb heat energy from the annulus contact region.
The borehole's innermost pipe is of a minimum thermal conduc-
tivity material, which is also situated in the core, spews hot water to
the surface. The temperature of the outlet water is determined by a
temperature sensing sensor mounted at the CBHE's outlet. Hot
water from the CBHE has a higher temperature and gets evaporated
as it comes in contact with the atmospheric pressure which is lower
than that of the pressure inside the CBHE due to the hydrostatic
force. As a result, a steam separator is used to isolate the steam
generated by the machine. Thus, separated fluid is sent to the water
tank which is mixed with the cold water to make it of the desired
temperature. A water pump pumps the water from the tank to the
flowrate controlling mechanism, which also tests the overall mass
flow rate into the system. The DTS is installed through the depth of
the borehole which measures the temperature distribution of the
ground using optical fiber functioning as a linear sensor. This is an
important device to understand the depth and temperature change
over time after the circulating equipment comes into operation.
2.2. Experimental results
The water circulation test was performed to observe the
experimental outcome. A constant flow rate of 100 l/min or 1.67 kg/
s was maintained in a water circulation test with a constant inlet
temperature of 70
C. The experiment was carried out for 456 h
without any interruptions. Fig. 3. (a) represents the water circula-
tion test results in terms of water outlet temperature. A maximum
outlet temperature of 169.5
C was obtained after about an hour of
the start of the experiment. After reaching the peak temperature,
the outlet temperature decreased significantly, eventually falling
below 100
C after 240 h of testing. The lowest temperature
recorded was 98.0
C at the end of the experiment. Experimental
results also consist of the subsurface temperature distribution
variation over different times of the experiment. Subsurface tem-
perature refers to the temperature along the inner wall of the steel
pipe of CBHE. These results are presented in Fig. 3(a) and (b). Prior
to the experiment, the ground temperature ranged from 20
C near
the surface to 212.7
C at the bottom of the well, corresponding to
0.38
C/m or 380
C/km. This is a very good geothermal gradient
suitable for power generation applications. Generally, geothermal
gradient for such locations are found in between 0.03
C/m-0.10
C/
m based on available literature [7,23,42,46,52]. The bottom well
temperature decreased to 123.33
C, 113.70
C, 108.54
C, 107.97
C,
and 107.60
C at the end of days 1,5,10,15, and, 20 respectively.
525
Renewable Energy 182 (2022) 521e535
3. Numerical modeling
3.1. Geometry and meshing
To perform the numerical analysis, a full-scale three-dimen-
sional control volume in a cartesian coordinate system is devel-
oped. The top rectangular cross-section of the geometry is
100 m  100 m and the total depth of the domain considered is
600 m. Because the problem is symmetric, half of the total geom-
etry is taken into account, resulting in a symmetric plane for the
vertical y-axis. There are four distinct solid domains and one fluid
domain formed. Ground, conductor pipe, insulator pipe, and
cement filling are the four solid regions, while a fluid region is a
region inside the annulus and the inner pipe as shown in Fig. 4. (a).
The blue color of the fluid region represents the water in the heat
exchanger's entrance tube, while the red color represents the water
in the heat exchanger's outflow tube. Pure hexahedra mesh is
generated throughout the domain, and mesh is aligned perfectly
with the flow in the domain as depicted in Fig. 4. (b) and Fig. 4. (c).
Fig. 4. (b) is the magnified mesh at the surface of heat exchanger.
Here, red color represents the outlet, blue color is the inlet, orange
color represents the cement fillings while yellow color represents
the symmetry plane. The mesh element size is designed to have a
higher mesh density near the domain's center, which decreases in
the radial direction. The generated mesh is transferred to ANSYS
Fluent for simulation.
3.2. Initial conditions, boundary conditions, and material properties
Initial conditions in the simulation are based on the in-situ
initial temperature of the subsurface as determined by a temper-
ature sensor during the experiment. To enforce the initial temper-
ature distribution profile in the numerical model, a User Defined
Function (UDF) is generated and compiled. The numerical analysis
assigns a mass flow inlet boundary condition with a constant mass
flow rate and a pressure outlet boundary condition at the fluid exit.
Walls between cement filling and ground, conductor pipe and
cement filing, and conductor pipe and annulus region, and insu-
lator pipe with the annulus and inner pipe are modeled as coupled
walls. A boundary independence study was used to determine a
suitable distance of the walls from the heat exchanger's axis. The
findings show that for the duration of circulation test, there is not
an influence on walls temperature at 50 m from the center. Hence, a
Dirichlet boundary condition is used at side walls and bottom wall.
But this wall temperature is a function of depth and is identical to
the ground temperature profile implemented via a UDF code. The
initial temperature distribution of the rock is represented by
equation (1) while the far-field wall temperature is constant and is
represented by equation (2). Both of these equations are function of
depth. The initial temperature profile and wall temperature profile
is shown in Fig. 3(b).
Tðx; y; z; oÞ ¼ f ðyÞ (1)
Tðwalls; tÞ ¼ f ðyÞ (2)
Similarly, a Neumann boundary condition is used at the top
surface, from which either convective heat flux is escaped from or
gained into the system depending on the temperature difference
between the top surface and the ambient environment. Convective
heat transfer is represented by Equation (3), where Ta , and Tg are
the ambient and ground temperature, respectively.
S. Pokhrel, A.P. Sasmito, A. Sainoki et al. Renewable Energy 182 (2022) 521e535

Fig. 3. (a). Results of the water circulation test performed. (b). Time-varying temperature distribution profile of the subsurface.

 3.4. Heat transfer modeling

vTg 

kg  ¼ h Tg  Ta (3)
vn topwall Heat transfer during the process occurs in two different steps.
First, the conduction phenomenon governs the heat transfer pro-
Table 1 displays the physical properties of the various materials
cess in the rock mass, within the pipes, and the cement fillings,
used in the study. A thermal response test (TRT) was performed to
while forced convection mechanism is responsible for heat transfer
determine the thermo-physical properties of the ground. TRT was
from conductor and insulator pipes to fluid particles or vice versa.
carried out for different depths. The final values were obtained at by
Also, convection is responsible for the heat transfer phenomenon
averaging the rock's thermo - physical properties at different
within the fluid. Heat transfer phenomenon is governed by Equa-
depths. The properties of the conductor and insulator pipes match
tion (7) in solid region and Equation (8) in HTF. In Equation (8), keff
the user specifications provided by the manufacturer.
is an effective thermal conductivity given by Equation (9). In this
equation, mt and Prt are the turbulent viscosity and turbulent
3.3. Mathematical model and governing equations
Prandtl number respectively. Constant turbulent Prandtl number of
0.85 is used in the analysis, while Equation (9) calculates the tur-
The continuity, momentum, and energy equations are solved
bulent viscosity.
using the finite volume method for the geometry, which is repre-
sented in a cartesian coordinate system. The model used is an v
incompressible unsteady state, with gravitational force and tur- rCp T ¼ V:ðkVT Þ (7)
vt
bulence effects are taken into account. Equations for modeling fluid
flow properties in three-dimensional cartesian coordinates are v  
governed by continuity and momentum equations given by Equa- rCp T þ rCp !
v :V T ¼ V: keff VT (8)
vt
tion (4) and Equation (5) respectively. These equations are
responsible for calculating the velocity, pressure, and density of a Cp mt
moving fluid. keff ¼ k þ (9)
Prt
V:!
v ¼0 (4)

v !

¼ !
r v þ V: r !
v !
v ¼  Vp þ V:ð t Þ þ r g (5) 3.5. Turbulence modeling
vt
The density, velocity vector, static pressure, stress tensor, and The effect of turbulence is taken into consideration in the nu-
!
gravity vector are represented by, r, p, !v , t, and g in the above merical simulation model. Reynolds number in the annulus region
equations, respectively. The stress tensor is given by Equation (6), and inner pipe was obtained as 8660 and 23010, respectively.
where m is the molecular viscosity of the fluid. Similar to the study from Noorollahi et al. [46] and Cheng at al [2].
for similar range of Reynolds number is and annulus flow, K  ε
 T

t ¼ m V!
v þ V!
v (6) turbulence model with enhanced wall treatment is used in the
analysis. Equation (10) and Equation (11) are used in calculating the
k and ε.
526
S. Pokhrel, A.P. Sasmito, A. Sainoki et al. Renewable Energy 182 (2022) 521e535

Fig. 4. Numerical model construction: (a) Different domains considered in the analysis (geometry not to scale) and (b). Mesh magnified at the inlet and outlet of CBHE (c).
Generated hexahedral mesh of the whole domain.

Table 1
Material properties used in the simulation.

S.N. Material name Density (kg/m3) Specific heat (J/kg K) Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K)

1 Water 998.2 4182 0.6

2 Insulated inner pipe 5240 310 0.05
3 Conductor pipe 7850 470 46.1
4 Cement 1830 1900 1.0
5 Ground 2490 1100 2.0

The rock properties were assumed to be homogeneous in the domain, regardless of depth or radial distance from the borehole's core, in the numerical model. Since the
ground's porosity is ignored, the heat transfer mechanism in the rock is assumed to be solely conductive.

velocity of the fluid. The turbulent viscosity ðmt Þ, and production of

  
v
m turbulent kinetic energy ðGk Þ are computed from Equation (12) and
ðrkÞ þ V: r !
v k ¼ V: m þ t Vk þ Gk  rε (10)
vt sk Equation (13), respectively. Default values of constants in Fluent are
used for model constants C1ε ; C2ε ; Cm ; sk ; and sε .
  
v
mt ε
ðrεÞ þ V: r!
v ε ¼ V: mþ Vε þ ðC1ε Gk  C2ε rεÞ
vt sε k
k2
(11) mt ¼ rCm (12)
ε
Here, r, m, and !
v are the density, molecular viscosity, and
527
S. Pokhrel, A.P. Sasmito, A. Sainoki et al. Renewable Energy 182 (2022) 521e535

Table 2
Grid independence test.

Mesh 1 Mesh 2 Mesh 3

Total number of nodes 5,774,135 7,933,195 10,474,235

Total number of elements 4,631,456 6,720,888 9,569,485
Size of smallest element (m) 0.0032 0.00079 0.00032
Pressure difference between inlet and outlet (Pa) 8,512.73 8,666.29 8,693.11
The pressure difference between two consecutive meshes (Pa) 153.56 26.82 Reference
Pressure difference 1.77% 0.31% Reference
Outlet temperature (
C) 95.53 95.51 95.47
Temperature difference 0.06% 0.04% Reference


 Convergence criteria for each of the scalar species are set to 1e-6
Gk ¼ mt V!
v m þ V!
v : V!
v (13) and for the temperature to 1e-9. The fixed time-stepping method
was used to get the desired results over the anticipated timeframe.
The simulation was run on a high-performance computing system
given the large mesh count and the need to run several simulations.
3.6. Recovery period prediction
3.8. Mesh sensitivity analysis
The soil recovery period is predicted using the verified numer-
ical model. The flow rate inside the heat exchanger is kept at zero
To make results independent of the mesh size, the mesh inde-
for this analysis, and hence the simulation is only based on
pendency test is performed by varying the mesh size from coarse to
conductive heat transfer in the solid domains. The recovery period
fine. The pressure loss in the pipe and the outlet temperature from
is examined for the same amount of time as the experiment, which
the borehole are measured as a variable to check the mesh inde-
is 456 h. Average temperature profile of the grout wall adjacent to
pendence test. The mesh with a cell count of 6.7 million was chosen
the heat exchanger is obtained at different recovery times and re-
out of three meshes as presented in Table 2. The difference in
sults are presented in terms of non-dimensional number q, defined
pressure loss with this mesh count is 0.31% of the pressure loss
by equation (14). In this equation, TI ; TF ; and TR are the average from the most refined mesh. Similarly, change in outlet tempera-
initial wall temperature before the experiment, final average wall ture from the borehole after 456 h was within 0.04%. These ad-
temperature at the end of extraction period, and averaged recov- justments were deemed to be within the acceptable range.
ered wall temperature after the recovery period. Considering the computation time of the numerical model, the
LINUX-based High-Performance Computer was used in the
TR  TF
q¼ (14) simulation.
TI  TF
3.9. Numerical results validation

3.7. Numerical scheme
Pressure based solver and the SIMPLE algorithm is chosen for
pressure-velocity coupling available in Fluent. A second-order up-
wind discretization scheme is applied in both space and time.
The foremost numerical result observed is the outlet tempera-
ture of the water from the heat exchanger. As stated in the oper-
ating conditions of the experiment, inlet temperature to the CBHE
was maintained constant and at 70
C while the flow rate was
maintained at 100 l/min (1.66 kg/s). Outlet temperature

Fig. 5. Experimental vs numerical results comparison (a). Outlet water temperature (b). Total energy generated.

528
S. Pokhrel, A.P. Sasmito, A. Sainoki et al.
comparison between the experiment and numerical is presented in
Fig. 5 (a). As can be depicted from the figure, there is a close match
between the experiment and the numerical result with minimum
error. The maximum temperature during the numerical simulation
is obtained at 172
C, which is higher than the experimental
outcome by 2.5
C. Except for the peak temperature, the outlet
temperature from the experiment has a very close correspondence
to the numerical outcome. Numerical outcome is also compared
with the experimental result in terms of total energy generation
from the system over the period of experiment. This comparison is
depicted in Fig. 5 (b). 93.3 MWh of total energy is generated from
the simulation while 95.0 MWh of total energy is generated during
experimental test. Total energy generated from the simulation is
1.8% less than that of experiment.
Numerical results are also compared with the temperature
profile of the borehole at different times of experiment. This
comparison is presented in Fig. 6. During the experiment, these
temperature profiles were measured with the aid of Distributed
Temperature sensing system along the inner wall of the conductor
pipe. Numerical results are the temperature profile along the line
generated at the inner wall of the conductor pipe. As shown in the
figure, the experimental and numerical results are close to each
other. Numerical temperature profile in each of subplots in Fig. 6
are slightly lower than the experimental ones, but the tempera-
ture difference is limited to 5%.
4. Results
4.1. Effect on neighboring boreholes
In this section, effect of the borehole on the surrounding rock
mass is studied. Fig. 7. Presents the temperature contour of the
plane parallel to the ground surface and at the depth of 450 m at
different times of operation. In each of the subplots, centrally
located ring is the outlet pipe of the heat exchanger which is cir-
cumscribed by the annulus outflow, conductor pipe, and the
ground respectively in the radially outward direction. As seen from
the picture, at time 0, borehole does not have any effect on the
ground temperature. As the operation starts, surrounding rock
mass starts to get affected. As seen from the figure, at the end of
240 h (10 days) of continuous operation, noticeable change of
temperature at 1.25 m radius from borehole axis is observed.
Similarly, this effect is expanded to a radius of 2 m after 456 h (19
days) of operation. At the radial distance of 1 m, initial temperature
of the rock is 207.4
C, while this temperature decreased to 207.2
C,
200.2
C, 193.0
C, 188.2
C, and 174.3
C at the end of 24, 120, 240,
360, and 456 h respectively.
4.2. Parametric study results
More simulations are performed to study the design and oper-
ation parameters of the geothermal system to maximize the ther-
mal energy from the system. Parametric studies are performed for a
total duration of the experiment in each of the cases. Flow rate, inlet
water temperature, and ground thermal conductivity are studied in
three separate parametric analyses.
4.2.1. Flowrate variation
Here, the flowrate of the CBHE system is changed to observe the
529
Renewable Energy 182 (2022) 521e535
temperature and thermal power output from the system. All other
operating parameters during the simulation are kept constant
including inlet water temperature at 70
C. Four different flowrates
are considered, ranging from 75 lpm to 150 lpm with a step size of
25 lpm. Outlet temperature and output thermal power are
computed from the simulation. Fig. 8 represents the output of the
simulation in terms of outlet temperature and output thermal po-
wer. An increase in flow rate leads to a decrease in the outlet
temperature but thermal power from the system is found to in-
crease at the same time. The outlet temperature at the end of 456 h
is found as 102.3
C, 95.5
C, 91.0
C, and 87.8
C for flowrates of 75
lpm, 100 lpm, 125 lpm, and 150 lpm, respectively. The output
thermal power is observed to increase as the flowrate is increased.
Average thermal power output throughout the experiment in-
creases from 196 kW to 222 kW in increasing the flowrate from 75
lpm to 150 lpm. Also, for the same change in flow rate, the total
thermal energy generation over 456 is increased by 11.6 MWh
while pressure loss in the pipe is increased from 5.5 kPa to 16.5 kPa.
Although higher power output is obtained for higher flowrate, the
quality of thermal output power and pumping power required is
compromised at the same time. Hence, optimization is needed to
obtain the most suitable flowrate in terms of cost and application of
generated thermal energy.
4.2.2. Inlet temperature variation
Inlet temperature during the numerical analysis is changed from
40
C to 80
C and its effect is recorded in terms of outlet tem-
perature, total energy generation, average thermal output power,
and change in temperature in between the inlet and outlet. The
outlet temperature of the water is found higher when the inlet
temperature is higher as shown in Fig. 9. Hence, a change in the
temperature of the water is also presented to gain a better under-
standing of the system's performance. The maximum change in
temperature is obtained for the smallest inlet water temperature
and hence the power output is also the highest for this operating
condition. 23.2
C and 32.2
C of temperature difference are ob-
tained for inlet temperatures of 80
C and 40
C, respectively.
Similarly, higher average thermal power is obtained for smaller
inlet temperatures, but at the same time, the quality of thermal
energy has to be compromised. 262.4 kW of average power is ob-
tained for 40
C of inlet water temperature while 189.3 kW of
output power is obtained for inlet temperature of 80
C. This also
changes the total amount of thermal energy generated over thirty
years from 119.6 MWh to 86.3 MWh.
4.2.3. Thermal conductivity of the ground
The outcomes for this study are presented in Fig. 8. The thermal
conductivity of the ground is very sensitive to the performance of
the system in terms of power generation and the outlet tempera-
ture of the water. Higher the thermal conductivity, heat transfer
takes place easily in the rock formation towards the lower-
temperature borehole, hence more heat is received by the HTF
from the conductor pipe. This leads to the higher outlet tempera-
ture of HTF along with higher power and more energy. As shown in
Fig. 10, the total amount of thermal energy extracted from the
system reaches from 82.0 MWh to 124.4 MWh if the thermal
conductivity of the ground were increased from 1.5 W/m-K to
3.5 W/m-K. This corresponds to an increase in energy by 51% as
compared to the initial system. Similarly, the average power
S. Pokhrel, A.P. Sasmito, A. Sainoki et al. Renewable Energy 182 (2022) 521e535

Fig. 6. Experimental vs numerical ground temperature profile comparison: (a). Day 6, (b). Day 11, (c). Day 16, and (d). Day 21.

Fig. 7. Effect of borehole in the surrounding rock mass at different times of operation. (a), (b), (c).

530
S. Pokhrel, A.P. Sasmito, A. Sainoki et al.
Fig. 8. Parametric study on flowrate variation(a), (b), (c).
generated from the geothermal system is 180 kW, 207 kW, 233 kW,
254 kW, and 172 kW for 1.5 W/m-K, 2.0 W/m-K, 2.5 W/m-K, 3.0 W/
m-K, 3.5 W/m-K of ground thermal conductivities, respectively.
4.3. Recovery period
This section discusses the recovery rate of the geothermal field
based on the numerical simulation developed. The recovery length
is 456 h, which is also the same as the operation time. The simu-
lation was conducted with no flow within the heat exchanger for
this scenario. As a result, only heat is transferred within the solid
domains. Because the far-field vertical walls have a constant tem-
perature boundary condition, energy is transmitted towards the
borehole, causing borehole vicinity temperature to rise. Tempera-
ture recovery factor, q, shown in Fig. 11 and defined by equation (14)
represents the recovery pattern at different recovery time period.
About 17% of the temperature that was lost throughout the
experiment is restored in 2 h. The rate of recovery diminishes over
time. After 24 days, 47% of the temperature is restored, while after
120, 240, 360, and 456 h, 70%, 79%, 83%, and 86% of the temperature
is recovered, respectively.
531
Renewable Energy 182 (2022) 521e535
5. Discussion
This section is about the discussions on the results obtained in
section 4. With studied design and operating conditions, a thermal
power output of 180e262 kW can be obtained. However, to design
a larger geothermal power system, more numbers of drills are
needed from which the energy can be drawn simultaneously. The
influence of the current boreholes in surrounding rock mass can be
inferred from Fig. 7. This temperature profile is one of the important
parameters in geothermal power system design as it provides an
idea how much apart the drills should be made if the system was to
operate the power plant with multiple boreholes. Currently, at the
end of 456 h, the effect of extraction from current borehole is
noticed up to a radial distance of 2 m. Average operating life of a
geothermal power system is 30 years [61], hence simulation of
456 h is not sufficient for such long operating time, but the current
numerical model can be used further to obtain the results in the
future.
This section also discusses the sensitivity analysis results ob-
tained in section 4.2. Result of sensitivity analyses on different
operating conditions is depicted in Fig. 12. Operating parameters
during the experiment are considered as the reference case for this
S. Pokhrel, A.P. Sasmito, A. Sainoki et al.
Fig. 9. Parametric study on inlet water temperature (a), (b), (c), (d).
analysis. Out of three variables on which the parametric study is
performed, inlet temperature variation is the most sensitive factor
to the total energy generated from system. A 25% decrease in inlet
temperature leads to approximately 16% increase in total thermal
energy from the system, while 14%, and 6% change is observed for
similar change in ground thermal conductivity and the flowrate.
Depending on the application of the geothermal system, optimum
flowrate and inlet temperature can be determined from this
analysis.
The findings of past parametric studies of different CBHE design
and operational parameters are also compared. Holmberg et al. [53]
and Luo et al. [36] projected that CBHE would function better if
there was less heat loss between the inner tube and the annulus
region, which is supported by our findings. Increasing the injection
flowrate lowers the fluid's output temperature, whereas raising the
inlet temperature raises the injection temperature but reduces
geothermal power as per the research from Hu et al. [43]. Our
research backs up both of these ideas. Increasing the ground's
thermal conductivity improves the system's overall efficiency ac-
cording to Song et al. [42], which is also corroborated by current
findings.
532
Renewable Energy 182 (2022) 521e535
6. Conclusions
In this study, the field-test experimental demonstration and a
numerical investigation are performed to examine the power
generation potential of a 500 m deep coaxial borehole heat
exchanger system located in Oita, Japan. The experimental analysis
consists of drilling of the borehole with a drill rig, installation of
coaxial heat exchanger system, setting-up all the apparatus
required, water circulation test, and subsurface temperature mea-
surement. In situ temperature distribution of well is measured via
optical fiber temperature sensor at different times of experiment.
The experiment is performed for 456 h with 100 lpm of flowrate
and 70
C of inlet temperature. Ground temperature at the bottom
of the well reached 212.7
C, corresponding to a 0.38
C/m average
ground thermal gradient. The peak outlet temperature obtained
during the experiment is 169.5
C while 98.0
C outlet temperature
is obtained at the end of the experiment. This is equivalent to 695
kWTH and 195 kWTH of the highest and lowest recorded thermal
power from the system, respectively.
A three-dimensional conjugated fluid flow and heat transfer
numerical model is developed using a finite volume approach to
S. Pokhrel, A.P. Sasmito, A. Sainoki et al.
Fig. 10. Parametric study on the ground thermal conductivity.
Fig. 11. Temperature recovery at different periods.
533
Renewable Energy 182 (2022) 521e535
predict the system performance. Numerical results are validated
against the experimental outcomes in terms of outlet temperature
and ground temperature distribution profile. The model is used to
simulate the system for different operating conditions. Results
indicate that, the temperature of the surrounding rock mass was
affected up to a radial distance of 2 m at the end of experiment, i.e.
456 h. Higher mass flow rate leads to higher power output and thus
more energy generation. But simultaneously, more pumping power
is required, and the outlet temperature of the fluid is decreased.
Also, although higher inlet temperature leads to a higher outlet
temperature, at the same time, less power and less energy are
generated. The thermal conductivity of the ground is directly pro-
portional to the outlet temperature, power, and energy generated
from the geothermal system. A recovery test was also performed
with the numerical model for exact duration of the experiment, and
86% of the shrank temperature was restored.
In the current scenario, authors suggest that geothermal system
can be developed for direct energy use, and that a more compre-
hensive examination of power generation potential using Organic
Ranking Cycle and with multiple boreholes would be a desirable
path for this project.
S. Pokhrel, A.P. Sasmito, A. Sainoki et al.
Fig. 12. Sensitivity analysis on different operating conditions.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sajjan Pokhrel: Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Data
curation, Writing e original draft. Agus P. Sasmito: Conceptuali-
zation, Methodology. Atsushi Sainoki: Conceptualization, Meth-
odology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Project administration,
Writing e review & editing, Supervision. Toshiyuki Tosha:
Conceptualization, Investigation, Resources, Project administration,
Funding acquisition. Tatsuya Tanaka: Conceptualization, Investi-
gation, Resources, Project administration. Chiaki Nagai: Concep-
tualization, Project administration. Seyed Ali Ghoreishi-Madiseh:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal
analysis, Resources, Data curation, Writing e review & editing,
Supervision, Project administration.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] S. Pokhrel, A.F. Kuyuk, H. Kalantari, S.A. Ghoreishi-Madiseh, Techno-economic
trade-off between battery storage and ice thermal energy storage for appli-
cation in renewable mine cooling system, Appl. Sci. 10 (17) (2020).
[2] S.W.Y. Cheng, J.C. Kurnia, S.A. Ghoreishi-Madiseh, A.P. Sasmito, Optimization
of geothermal energy extraction from abandoned oil well with a novel well
bottom curvature design utilizing Taguchi method, Energy 188 (2019)
116098.
[3] M.R. Karlsdottir, J. Heinonen, H. Palsson, O.P. Palsson, Life cycle assessment of
a geothermal combined heat and power plant based on high temperature
utilization, Geothermics 84 (2020) 101727.
[4] S.-Y. Pan, M. Gao, K.J. Shah, J. Zheng, S.-L. Pei, P.-C. Chiang, Establishment of
enhanced geothermal energy utilization plans: barriers and strategies, Renew.
Energy 132 (2019) 19e32.
[5] R. Bertani, Geothermal power generation in the world 2010e2014 update
report, Geothermics 60 (2016) 31e43.
[6] G.E. Lockett, Single Borehole Geothermal Energy Extraction System for Elec-
trical Power Generation, 1986.
[7] A.P. Davis, E.E. Michaelides, Geothermal power production from abandoned
oil wells, Energy 34 (7) (2009) 866e872.
[8] M. Kharseh, M. Al-Khawaja, F. Hassani, Optimal utilization of geothermal heat
from abandoned oil wells for power generation, Appl. Therm. Eng. 153 (2019)
536e542. May.
[9] Y. Noorollahi, S. Mohammadzadeh Bina, H. Yousefi, Simulation of power
534
Renewable Energy 182 (2022) 521e535
production from dry geothermal well using down-hole heat exchanger in
sabalan field, northwest Iran, Nat. Resour. Res. 25 (2) (2016) 227e239.
[10] J.D. Templeton, S.A. Ghoreishi-Madiseh, F. Hassani, M.J. Al-Khawaja, Aban-
doned petroleum wells as sustainable sources of geothermal energy, Energy
70 (2014) 366e373. Jun.
[11] X. Wang, H. Liu, Y. Wang, Y. Zhu, CFD simulation of dynamic heat transfer
behaviors in super-long thermosyphons for shallow geothermal application,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 174 (2020) 115295.
[12] S. Pokhrel et al., “Evaluation of a novel integrated solar-borehole thermal
energy storage system for residential high-rise building heating applications,”
in International Conference on Applied Energy 2020 Paper ID: 235.
[13] A. Jahanbin, Thermal performance of the vertical ground heat exchanger with
a novel elliptical single U-tube, Geothermics 86 (2020) 101804.
[14] X. Han, Y. Wang, Experimental investigation of the thermal performance of a
novel concentric tube heat pipe heat exchanger, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 127
(2018) 1338e1342.
[15] C.J. Wood, H. Liu, S.B. Riffat, Comparative performance of ‘U-tube’ and ‘coaxial’
loop designs for use with a ground source heat pump, Appl. Therm. Eng. 37
(2012) 190e195.
[16] D. Quaggiotto, et al., Simulation-based comparison between the thermal
behavior of coaxial and double U-tube borehole heat exchangers, Energies 12
(12) (2019) 2321. Jun.
[17] J. Acun~ a, Distributed Thermal Response Tests : New Insights on U-Pipe and
Coaxial Heat Exchangers in Groundwater-Filled Boreholes, KTH, Applied
Thermodynamics and Refrigeration, 2013.
[18] S. Javed, Comparison of Performance and Effectiveness of Vertical Borehole
Heat Exchanger Collectors, 2018.
[19] T. Sliwa, M.A. Rosen, Efficiency analysis of borehole heat exchangers as grout
varies via thermal response test simulations, Geothermics 69 (2017)
132e138.
[20] J.A. Rangel Arista, J.J. Pacheco Ibarra, C. Rubio-Maya, O.J. Gonzalez Pedraza,
D. Alcantar Martinez, Numerical Analysis of Geothermal Heat Exchangers to
Be Implemented in a Geothermal-Solar Hybrid Power Plant for Electricity
Production in Mexico, 6B, 2016.
[21] R.N. Horne, Design Considerations of a Down-Hole Coaxial Geothermal Heat
Exchanger, 1980.
[22] K. Morita, W.S. Bollmeier, H. Mizogami, “An Experiment to Prove the Concept
of the Downhole Coaxial Heat Exchanger (DCHE) in Hawaii,”, 1992.
[23] K. Morita, F. Mizogami, W.S. Bollmeier, Analysis of the results from the proof
of concept experiment in Hawaii, J. Geotherm. Res. Soc. Japan 15 (3) (1993)
275e303.
[24] D. Siguenza, D. Wu, G. Soriano, Coaxial Borehole Heat Exchanger Simulation
with Power Generation Potential for Chachimbiro, Ecuador, 6A, 2016.
[25] A. C, C. P, S. E, A comprehensive exergy evaluation of a deep borehole heat
exchanger coupled with a ORC plant: the case study of Campi Flegrei, Energy
189 (2019) 116100.
[26] N. Yildirim, S. Parmanto, G.G. Akkurt, Thermodynamic assessment of down-
hole heat exchangers for geothermal power generation, Renew. Energy 141
(2019) 1080e1091.
[27] K. Morita, M. Tago, S. Ehara, Case studies on small-scale power generation
with the downhole coaxial heat exchanger, in: Proceedings Of the World
Geothermal Congress, Antalya, Turkey, 2005, pp. 1e8.
[28] C. Dai, Y. Shi, L. Zeng, J. Li, H. Lei, Heat extraction performance of a deep
S. Pokhrel, A.P. Sasmito, A. Sainoki et al.
downhole heat exchanger, Energy Procedia 158 (2019) 5602e5607.
[29] P.J. Yekoladio, T. Bello-Ochende, J.P. Meyer, Design and optimization of a
downhole coaxial heat exchanger for an enhanced geothermal system (EGS),
Renew. Energy 55 (2013) 128e137.
[30] Y. Feng, M. Tyagi, C.D. White, A downhole heat exchanger for horizontal wells
in low-enthalpy geopressured geothermal brine reservoirs, Geothermics 53
(2015) 368e378.
[31] Z. Wang, M.W. McClure, R.N. Horne, “A Single-Well EGS Configuration Using a
Thermosiphon,” in Workshop On Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford
University, Stanford, California, 2009.
[32] A. Dahi Taleghani, An improved closed-loop heat extraction method from
geothermal resources, J. Energy Resour. Technol. 135 (4) (2013).
[33] G. Nalla, G.M. Shook, G.L. Mines, K.K. Bloomfield, Parametric sensitivity study
of operating and design variables in wellbore heat exchangers, Geothermics
34 (3) (2005) 330e346.
[34] Z. Hu, et al., Thermal and fluid processes in a closed-loop geothermal system
using CO2 as a working fluid, Renew. Energy 154 (2020) 351e367.
[35] D. Gordon, T. Bolisetti, D.S.-K. Ting, S. Reitsma, Short-term fluid temperature
variations in either a coaxial or U-tube borehole heat exchanger, Geothermics
67 (2017) 29e39.
[36] Y. Luo, H. Guo, F. Meggers, L. Zhang, Deep coaxial borehole heat exchanger:
analytical modeling and thermal analysis, Energy 185 (2019) 1298e1313.
[37] S. Erol, B. François, Multilayer analytical model for vertical ground heat
exchanger with groundwater flow, Geothermics 71 (2018) 294e305.
[38] A. Pan, L. Lu, P. Cui, L. Jia, A new analytical heat transfer model for deep
borehole heat exchangers with coaxial tubes, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 141
(2019) 1056e1065.
[39] C. Alimonti, E. Soldo, Study of geothermal power generation from a very deep
oil well with a wellbore heat exchanger, Renew. Energy 86 (2016) 292e301.
[40] F.T. Adler, A.C. Ingersoll, L.R. Ingersoll, H.J. Plass, Theory of Earth Heat Ex-
changers for the Heat Pump, [National Emergency Training Center],
Emmitsburg, MD, 1950.
[41] D. Mottaghy, L. Dijkshoorn, Implementing an effective finite difference
formulation for borehole heat exchangers into a heat and mass transport
code, Renew. Energy 45 (2012) 59e71.
[42] X. Song, et al., Numerical analysis of heat extraction performance of a deep
coaxial borehole heat exchanger geothermal system, Energy 164 (2018)
1298e1310.
[43] X. Hu, J. Banks, L. Wu, W.V. Liu, Numerical modeling of a coaxial borehole heat
exchanger to exploit geothermal energy from abandoned petroleum wells in
Hinton, Alberta, Renew. Energy 148 (2020) 1110e1123.
[44] J.C. Choi, J. Park, S.R. Lee, Numerical evaluation of the effects of groundwater
flow on borehole heat exchanger arrays, Renew. Energy 52 (2013) 230e240.
[45] E.-J. Kim, J.-J. Roux, G. Rusaouen, F. Kuznik, Numerical modelling of
geothermal vertical heat exchangers for the short time analysis using the state
model size reduction technique, Appl. Therm. Eng. 30 (6e7) (2010) 706e714.
[46] Y. Noorollahi, M. Pourarshad, S. Jalilinasrabady, H. Yousefi, Numerical
535
Renewable Energy 182 (2022) 521e535
simulation of power production from abandoned oil wells in Ahwaz oil field in
southern Iran, Geothermics 55 (2015) 16e23.
[47] Z. Wang, F. Wang, J. Liu, Z. Ma, E. Han, M. Song, Field test and numerical
investigation on the heat transfer characteristics and optimal design of the
heat exchangers of a deep borehole ground source heat pump system, Energy
Convers. Manag. 153 (2017) 603e615.
[48] S. Iry, R. Rafee, Transient numerical simulation of the coaxial borehole heat
exchanger with the different diameters ratio, Geothermics 77 (2019)
158e165.
[49] F. Luo, R.-N. Xu, P.-X. Jiang, Numerical investigation of fluid flow and heat
transfer in a doublet enhanced geothermal system with CO2 as the working
fluid (CO2eEGS), Energy 64 (2014) 307e322.
[50] S. Pokhrel, et al., Thermal performance evaluation of integrated solar-
geothermal system; a semi-conjugate reduced order numerical model, Appl.
Energy 303 (2021) 117676.
[51] M.A. Alzoubi, A.P. Sasmito, Thermal performance optimization of a bayonet
tube heat exchanger, Appl. Therm. Eng. 111 (2017) 232e247.
[52] T. Renaud, P. Verdin, G. Falcone, Numerical simulation of a deep borehole heat
exchanger in the krafla geothermal system, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 143 (2019)
118496.
[53] H. Holmberg, J. Acun ~ a, E. Næss, O.K. Sønju, Thermal evaluation of coaxial deep
borehole heat exchangers, Renew. Energy 97 (2016) 65e76.
[54] E. Zanchini, S. Lazzari, A. Priarone, Improving the thermal performance of
coaxial borehole heat exchangers, Energy 35 (2) (2010) 657e666.
[55] T.Y. Ozudogru, C.G. Olgun, A. Senol, 3D numerical modeling of vertical
geothermal heat exchangers, Geothermics 51 (2014) 312e324.
[56] T. Renaud, P. Verdin, L. Pan, G. Falcone, Heat Transfer Modelling of an Un-
conventional, Closed-Loop Geothermal Well, 2020.
[57] H. Tang, B. Xu, A.R. Hasan, Z. Sun, J. Killough, Modeling wellbore heat ex-
changers: fully numerical to fully analytical solutions, Renew. Energy 133
(2019) 1124e1135.
[58] C. Li, Y. Guan, R. Yang, X. Lu, W. Xiong, A. Long, Effect of inner pipe type on the
heat transfer performance of deep-buried coaxial double-pipe heat ex-
changers, Renew. Energy 145 (2020) 1049e1060.
[59] C. Dai, J. Li, Y. Shi, L. Zeng, H. Lei, An experiment on heat extraction from a
deep geothermal well using a downhole coaxial open loop design, Appl. En-
ergy 252 (2019) 113447.
[60] Y. Huang, Y. Zhang, Y. Xie, Y. Zhang, X. Gao, J. Ma, Field test and numerical
investigation on deep coaxial borehole heat exchanger based on distributed
optical fiber temperature sensor, Energy 210 (2020) 118643.
[61] Y. Wang, Y. Du, J. Wang, J. Zhao, S. Deng, H. Yin, Comparative life cycle
assessment of geothermal power generation systems in China, Resour. Con-
serv. Recycl. 155 (2020) 104670.
[62] S. Pokhrel, et al., Field-scale experimental and numerical analyses of a
downhole coaxial heat exchanger; a closed loop solution for extraction ff
medium to high temperature geothermal energy, Fluid Mechanics and Ther-
modynamics (2021) 1036e1042.