Journal Pre-proof

Influence of moisture on heat transfer of ground heat exchangers in unsaturated soils

Siyuan Li, Tiemeng Sun, Yufang Du, Min Li

PII: S0960-1481(22)00534-1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.04.073
Reference: RENE 16938

To appear in: Renewable Energy

Received Date: 29 September 2021

Revised Date: 20 March 2022
Accepted Date: 11 April 2022

Please cite this article as: Li S, Sun T, Du Y, Li M, Influence of moisture on heat transfer of ground
heat exchangers in unsaturated soils, Renewable Energy (2022), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2022.04.073.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Siyuan Li: Investigation, Writing - original draft, Formal analysis. Tiemeng Sun:

Methodology, Data Curation, Software. Yufang Du: Writing, Verification. Min Li:

Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing, Funding acquisition.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
1 Influence of moisture on heat transfer of ground heat exchangers in

2 unsaturated soils

5 Siyuan Lia, Tiemeng Sunb, Yufang Dua, Min Lia,*

a
7 School of Energy Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, 410083, China

f
oo
b
8 Li County Huacheng Hydropower Development Company, Aba, Sichuan, 623100, China

r
9 -p
re
10
lP

11

*
12 Corresponding author: Min Li
na

13 Email: cnlimin78@gmail.com
ur

14 Address: Energy building, School of Energy Science and

Jo

15 Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan,

16 China, 410083.

17

18
 Influence of moisture on heat transfer of ground heat exchangers in

unsaturated soils

Siyuan Lia, Tiemeng Sunb, Yufang Dua, Min Lia,*

a
School of Energy Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, 410083, China

of
b
Li County Huacheng Hydropower Development Company, Aba, Sichuan, 623100, China

ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur

Revision submitted to
Jo

Renewable Energy

1
 1 Abstract

2 The applications of ground heat exchangers (GHEs) in arid and semi-arid zones require

3 knowledge about the effects of moisture on heat transfer in the ground. To evaluate the

4 influence of moisture, this study integrates a finite line-source model, a normalized thermal

5 conductivity model, and a saturation degree model. A normalized temperature difference,

6 defined as a temperature-difference ratio (TDR) of unsaturated to saturated soils, is

of
7 proposed to characterize the reduction in heat transfer of GHEs in unsaturated soils.. The

ro
8 modeling results show that the effective thermal conductivity of soils increases with

9
-p
saturation degree in a nonlinear way, thus leading to the nonlinear effect of moisture on
re
10 heat conduction of GHEs: the influence of moisture on heat transfer is more significant in
lP

11 low-moisture soils (Sl < 0.5) than that in high-moisture soils (Sl > 0.5). This result implies
na

12 that the design length of borehole GHEs is highly sensitive to the degree of saturation in
ur

13 low-moisture soils.
Jo

14 Keywords: Ground heat exchanger; Moisture; Unsaturated soils; Ground heat storage;

15 Ground-coupled heat pump

16

2
17 1. Introduction

18 The increasing interest in ground heat storage (GHS) and ground-coupled heat pumps

19 (GCHPs) has heightened the need for heat-transfer computation of vertical U-tube ground

20 heat exchangers (GHEs) [1-3]. Of particular interest and complexity is the coupled heat-

21 moisture transfer in the surrounding soil because arid and semi-arid zones account for a

22 large proportion of the world. In these districts, unsaturated soils comprise a large portion

of
23 of the underground soils. In unsaturated soils, saturation degree varies with time and depth,

ro
24 which causes, in turn, the variation in soil thermal properties and heat transfer in the ground

25
-p
[3]. Therefore, understanding the intricate properties of soils and the coupled heat and
re
26 moisture transfer in the ground is important for achieving the optimum performance of
lP

27 GHS and GCHPs.

na

28 The heat transfer of GHEs is a long-term time-varying process, due to the low thermal
ur

29 diffusivity of the ground and time-varying heating/cooling loads [4-6]. Scale analysis has
Jo

30 shown that heat transfer in the ground can span over 8 orders of magnitudes [1]. Moreover,

31 imbalanced heating-cooling loads lead to long-term temperature variation in the ground.

32 For example, annual dynamic load simulations were performed for a detached residential

33 building in Bologna [7], which is mainly characterized by unbalanced cooling and heating

34 loads. The result shows that imbalanced loads are one of the factors causing temperature

35 drift. Liu et al. investigated a building in the cold area mainly dominated by heating loads

36 [8], which showed that cold accumulation reduces soil temperature and deteriorates the

3
37 performance of GCHPs. This study proposed that a hybrid GCHP with a boiler as an

38 auxiliary heat source can effectively solve the cold accumulation problem and reduce

39 traditional energy consumption. Emmi et al. also found that unbalanced ground load can

40 degrade the performance of solar-assisted GCHPs in cold climates and suggested using

41 appropriate control strategies to manage the solar thermal collectors and the borehole heat

42 exchangers [9]. These control and design strategies cannot eliminate the imbalance of loads.

of
43 Therefore, it is necessary to establish a heat transfer model with appropriate boundary

ro
44 conditions to describe long-term heat transfer and tackle the influence of load imbalance at

45
-p
the design stage. However, the existing heat source models treat the semi-infinite medium
re
46 surface as the constant temperature boundary condition [1, 10], which is only applicable to
lP

47 GCHPs but inapplicable to GHS using insulation on the ground surface.

na

48 For the diffusion of moisture, relating research can be grouped according to types of
ur

49 soils. In saturated soils, many researchers have established and studied the heat transfer
Jo

50 model considering groundwater seepage. Hu et al. presented an improved analytical model

51 which is used to analyze the temperature response for time-varying load [11]. Katsura et al.

52 proposed a fast method for computing the temperature in the ground, involving the

53 vibration of heat flow with time and different numbers of borehole GHEs [12]. Li et al.

54 explored groundwater flow problems associated with GCHPs performance and indicated

55 that the impact of groundwater level should be considered [13]. Meng et al. provided a

56 quantified evaluation of groundwater seepage and soil freezing with GCHPs, by a full-scale

4
57 dynamic simulation platform [14].

58 Studies have been performed to examine the impact of moisture in unsaturated soil on

59 the heat transfer of GHEs. Leong et al. found that moisture at 25% can produce a high heat

60 transfer rate [15], which is based on the simulation results of the GCHPs’ performance for

61 three types of soils at five different saturations. Liu et al. proposed a heat-moisture transfer

62 model and compared the model with a pure heat transfer model without moisture migration

of
63 [16], and they found that increasing the initial soil water content could improve the heat-

ro
64 transfer rate of the heat exchanger. Shang calculated the influence of soil water content and

65
-p
saturation rate on soil temperature and discussed some aspects of heat and mass transfer of
re
66 GCHPs, including moisture and wind speed, showing that heat transfer by GHEs depends
lP

67 strongly on soils moisture [17, 18]. Zhang et al. found that it can improve the reliability of
na

68 the design of GHE and GCHP systems to simultaneously consider the effects of heat and
ur

69 moisture transfer, seepage flow, and soil freezing [19]. Although coupled heat-moisture
Jo

70 transfer in the ground has been studied, little is known about the quantitative relationship

71 between the fluid temperature response and the saturation degree of the ground, especially

72 in the case of GHS with large temperature variations.

73 This paper first proposed a finite line heat source model with adiabatic boundary in

74 the semi-infinite medium, which is applicable to GHS applications using heat insulation on

75 the ground surface to reduce heat loss. The outstanding feature of the model is to consider

76 the influence of load imbalance on the ground surface temperature. In addition, the

5
77 superposition principle is used so that it can analyze the heat transfer between multiple

78 boreholes. Second, the line-source model is integrated with a mathematical model for

79 effective soil thermal conductivity, which is a function of moisture. Based on these models,

80 an expression for temperature difference ratio (TDR) is derived, which characterizes the

81 impacts of heat-moisture transfer, the adiabatic boundary condition on the ground surface.

82 The proposed model and TDR is helpful for enhancing the understanding of the influence

of
83 of moisture on the heat transfer of GHEs in unsaturated soils and for guiding the design of

ro
84 GHS and GCHPs.

-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

85

86 Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of vertical GHEs

87 2. Heat transfer model

88 2.1 Finite line-source solution with insulation boundary

89 Thermal insulation treatment on the ground surface can reduce heat loss from the

90 ground heat storage, thus increasing the efficiency of GHS systems. To better understand

6
 91 the long-term heat transfer in the ground, this section derives a finite line-source model for

92 GHE and GHE clusters with the insulation boundary condition on the ground surface.

93 The temperature field g(x, t) in an infinite medium, due to an instantaneous point

94 source of strength ρc generated at time t’ and at point (x’, y’, z’) is called Green function in

95 the infinite medium and given by [20]:

é 1
32
ù é r 2 + ( z - z ' )2 ù
96 g ( x, t ) = ê ú exp ê- ú (1)
êë4πa(t - t ' ) úû ê 4a(t - t ' ) ú

of
ë û

ro
97 where a denotes thermal diffusivity, r is defined as r 2 = ( x - x' )2 + ( y - y ' )2 .

-p
98 If there is a continuous line source of strength ql (W/m), releasing heat continuously
re
99 from t = 0 to t and z = 0 to z = D+H (Fig. 2). The temperature response in the infinite
lP

100 medium due to the finite line source can be obtained by integrating Eq. (1) over the time
na

101 and the length (i.e., z-coordinate) as follows:

t D+ H r 2 + ( z- z ') 2
ur

ql
ò dt ò
4 a (t- t ' )
102 T (r , z , t ) = '
dz '
3/2
e (2)
ρc éëê4πa(t - t ' )ù
ú
û
Jo

0 D

103 Here, z' denotes the integration variable in the height direction, H denotes the length

104 of the borehole, and D denotes the distance of the top of the buried pipe from the ground.

105 To model the influence of the ground surface, we can place a mirror-image line of

106 virtual heat source (see Fig. 2). This symmetrical distribution of the line source and virtual

107 line source can maintain the insulation boundary condition at the mirror surface (i.e., the

108 ground surface). Finally, we have

7
 of
ro
109

-p
110 Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of finite line-source
re
¥ D+ H
q 2
dz ' éêe- s ù
2 2 2
( z- z ')2 2
( z + z ')2
111 T (r , z , t ) = l ò ds ×e- r s × ò + e- s úû (3)
4πks 1/ 4 at π ë
lP

112 where d, d’, and s are defined as d = r 2 + ( z - z ' )2 , d ' = r 2 + ( z + z ' ) 2 , and
na

113 s = 1/ 4a(t - t ' ) . Using the definition of the complementary error function
ur

¥
- η2
114 òe dη , Eq. (3) can be rewritten as Eq. (4):
Jo

erfc( x) =
x

ql
D+ H
1 æ d ö 1 æ d' ö ÷
erfc çç ÷ çç
115 T (r , z , t ) =
4πks ò d ç
÷
÷
+
è 4at ø d '
erfc
ç
÷
÷
÷
è 4at ø
dz ' (4)
D

116 The integrated average temperature can be used as representative temperature by

117 integrating with respect to borehole depth z:

D+ H
1
118 Tm (r , t ) =
H ò T (r , z, t )dz (5)
D

119 Substituting Eq. (4) into Eq. (5) gives Eq. (6)

8
 ¥ D+ H D+ H
q 2
Tm (r , t ) = l ò ds ×e- r s × dz ò dz ' éêe- s ( z- z ') + e- s ( z + z ') ù
2 2

ò
2 2 2 2
120 ú (6)
4πks 1/ 4 at H π D ë û
144444444444444444
D 42 4444444444444444443
I

121 The double integral I in Eq. (6) can be simplified by variable substitutions

122 sz ' = sD + v and sz = sD + u [21]:

Hs Hs
1 1 2
× ×ò du ò dv éêe- (u- v ) + e- (2×Ds+ u+ v ) ù
2 2
123 I= ×Ils ( Hs, Ds) = ú (7)
Hs 2
Hs 2
π 0 ë û
0

x x

of
- u2
124 Using the definitions of erf( x) = òe du and ierf( x) = ò erf(u)du , Eq. (7)
0 0

ro
125 becomes:

126
-p
Ils ( Hs, Ds) = 2ierf ( Hs) - 2ierf (2 Ds + Hs) + ierf (2 Ds + 2 Hs) + ierf (2 Ds) (8)
re
127
lP

Therefore, the average temperature of the buried GHE can be simplified to:
¥
q I ( Hs, Ds) - r 2 s2
128 Tm (r , t ) = l × ò ×e ×ds (9)
na

4πks 1 4 at Hs 2
ur

129 2.2 Average temperature of GHEs cluster

Jo

130 For GHEs cluster, the average temperature in the ground can be obtained by the

131 method of the superposition principle. In this situation, the temperature response of

132 borehole i influenced by surrounding M–1 (i = 1 ...... M–1) borehole GHEs:

M- 1 ¥ D+ H
1
133 ΔT (t , z ) =
4πks
å ò ò {exp éëê- s ( z -
i= 1 1 4 at
2
z ' )ù é 2 ' ù
û}dzds
ú+ exp êë- s ( z + z )ú
û (10)
D

134 Similarly, the average temperature response of borehole wall at location ith bore is
M- 1 ¥ D+ H D+ H
1
135 ΔT (t ) =
4πHks
å ò i= 1 1 4 at
ds ò ò {exp éêë- s ( z -
2
z ' )ùúû+ exp éêë- s 2 ( z + z ' )ùúû}dzdz ' (11)
D D

136 Using the definition of erfc(x), Eq. (11) can be rewritten as:

9
 é æ 2 ' 2 ö æ r 2 + ( z + z ' ) 2 ö÷ù
ê çç ri + ( z - z ) ÷ ÷ ç ÷ú
êerfc çç ÷
÷ erfc çç i ÷
÷ú
1 M- 1
D + H D + H
ê çè 2 as t ÷
ø èçç 2 as t ø÷ú '
137 ΔG (t ) = å
4πHks i= 1 ò ò êê r 2 + ( z - z ' )2 + 2 ' 2
údz dz
ú (12)
D D ê i ri + ( z + z ) ú
ê ú
ê ú
ë û
138 Here, M denotes the total number of cluster boreholes, ri denotes the distance between

139 any borehole and the ith borehole. The double integral in Eq. (12) can be simplified by

140 using the similar procedure in Ref [21], and thus Eq. (12) becomes

of

e− Bi x
2 2
M −1
1
141 G(t ) =   x2 Ils ds (13)
i =1 4 Hks 1

ro
4 at

-p
142 where Ils is defined as in Eq. (8), and Bi denotes the distance from any borehole to the ith
re
143 borehole.
lP

144 The final G function expression for GHEs cluster reads:

na

 
e− rb x e− Bi x
2 2 2 2
M −1
1 1
145 G(t ) =
4 ks 1  Hs2 ls I ( Hs , Ds ) d s + 
i =1 4 Hk s 1
 x2 Ils d s (14)
4 at 4 at
ur

146 2.3 Temperature response of circulating water

Jo

147 The temperature of circulating fluid can be obtained using the concept of thermal

148 resistance [1]:

149 Tf (t ) - Ts,0 = ql [Rb + G(t )] (15)

150 Here, Ts,0 denotes the initial temperature of the soils, Tf(t) denotes the average temperature

151 of the circulating fluid, and Rb represents the thermal resistance in the borehole:
ì é σù
ïü
1 ïïï ê rb2 æ ç r 4 ö
÷ ú- ηïï + R p
152 Rb = í ê
ln ç b
÷ ý (16)
÷ú
÷
4πkb ïï ê2 Dro çè rb4 - D 4 ø ú ïï 2
îï ë û ïþ

10
153 where kb denotes the thermal conductivity of the soils, rb denotes the radius of boreholes,

154 D denotes half spacing of U-tube, and the thermal resistance of pipe Rp is evaluated by:

1  ro k p 
155 Rp =  ln +  (17)
2 k p  ri  ri 

156 Here, ro and ri represent the outer and inner diameters of the U-tube, respectively. Kp

157 denotes the thermal conductivity of the U-tube. Α denotes the convective thermal

158 conductivity.

of
ro
159 2.4 Soils thermal conductivity model

-p
160 The degree of saturation influences the thermal conductivity of soils and therefore the
re
161 heat transfer rate of GHEs. To model the influence of saturation degree, this paper used the
lP

162 concept of normalized thermal conductivity kn [3]:

na

k s − kdry
163 kn = (18)
k sat − kdry
ur

164 Here, ks denotes the thermal conductivity of the soils, kdry and ksat denotes the thermal
Jo

165 conductivity of dry and saturated soils. Various models have been proposed for relating kn

166 (ks) to the degree of saturation Sl. Table 1 summarizes some models using the concept of

167 normalized thermal conductivity.

168 Table 1 Normalized thermal conductivity models

Author Coarse sandy soils Fine sand soils

Johansen kn = 0.7log ( Sl ) + 1.0 kn = log ( Sl ) + 1.0

3.55  Sl 1.9  Sl
Cote and Konrad [22] kn = kn =
1 + 2.55  Sl 1 + 0.9  Sl

11
 Lu et al. [23] kn = exp 0.96 (1 − Sl−0.37 ) kn = exp 0.27 (1 − Sl−1.06 )

Square Root model k n = Sl k n = Sl

169 2.5 Temperature-difference ratio (TDR)

170 Eq. (15) indicates that given a heating load the temperature difference between Tf and

171 Ts,0 represents thermal resistances and heat transfer performance of GHEs; therefore, this

172 study proposes the following normalized temperature difference, a temperature-difference

of
173 ratio, to characterize heat transfer in unsaturated soils:

ro
174  =
(T − T )
f s ,0 unsat
(19)
(T − T )
f

-p
s ,0 sat
re
175 For a given heating/cooling load, the temperature-difference ratio can be written as
lP

176 for single borehole GHE:

(T − T ) G ( t , kunsat ) G t , ( ksat − kdry ) kn + kdry 

na

 =
f s ,0 unsat
177 = = (20)
(T − T )
f s ,0 sat
G ( t , ksat ) G ( t , ksat )
ur

178 And for a GHEs clusters, TDR reads:

Jo

G t , ( ksat − kdry ) kn + kdry  + G t , ( ksat − kdry ) kn + kdry 

179  = (21)
G ( t , ksat ) + G ( t , ksat )

180 The saturation degree of soils is associated with the matric suction (i.e., Pg – Pl [Mpa])

181 through the retention curve of the soil. This work used the Van Genuchten’s model to

182 determine the relation between saturation degree and matric suction [24]:
− 0
 1

  P − P  1− 0

Sl = ( Sls − Slr ) 1 +  g l
+ Slr (22)
  P0 T  0  
183
 

12
184 Here, Sls is the maximum saturation degree, Slr denotes the residual saturation degree,

185 Pg and Pl denote the gaseous and liquid pressure in the soils, respectively; λ0 is an empirical

186 parameter of the shape curve; P0 denotes the air entry value at a reference temperature; δT

187 and δ0 are the surface tension at a temperature T and the reference temperature at which P0

188 is determined. δT can be computed by Eq. (23) [3]:

 252.93 
189  T = 0.03059  exp   (23)
 273.15 + T 

of
190

ro
Finally, combining the square root model for kn and van Genuchten’s model for the
191

-p
water retention curve yields the TDR for a single borehole GHEs:
re
  1

− 0 

  −  1− 0 

G t , ( ksat − kdry )
1  P P 
( Sls − Slr ) 1 + 
lP

192  = g l
  + Slr + kdry  (24)
G ( t , ksat )  P 
  0 T 0   

 

na

193 Similarly, the expression of the TDR for GHEs clusters can be obtained by substituting
ur

194 the models for kn and Sl into Eq. (21). These analytical formulas provide a theoretical basis
Jo

195 for analyzing the influence of moisture degree on the performance of the GHEs and GCHPs.

196 3. Result and discussion

197 Fig. 3 shows the unit temperature response calculated by the finite line-source model

198 for the insulation boundary at the ground surface (i.e., Eq. (9)). For comparison, Fig. 3 also

199 indicates temperature responses given by an infinite composite-medium line-source model,

200 the conventional infinite line-source model, and the conventional finite line-source model.

201 The time sacle shown in Fig. 3 can be divided into three subintervals: a short-term (Fo <

13
202 10), a mid-term (10 < Fo < 1000), and a long-term (Fo > 1000) scale. The composite-

203 medium model includes the heat capacity effect of grouting material; thus, it yields

204 temperature lower than those given by other three models. This result illustrates that the

205 new model developed here is inapplicable to short time scales, which agrees with the

206 assumption used in the model for Rb (i.e., Eq. (16)). The four line-source models produce

207 temperatures identical to each other in the mid-term range (Fig. 3). This situation is typical

of
208 for long boreholes and forms the basis for developing full-time models [].

ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

209

210 Fig. 3. Comparison of unit-step temperature responses yielded by different line-

211 source models

212 For the long-term range, the models assuming borehole to be infinite give temperature

213 responses increasing to infinity. By contrast, the conventional finite line-source models

214 yield responses that approach to a steady state. The long-term responses predicted by this

215 model should be more logical than those given by infinite models and agree with the

14
216 physical insight, i.e., heat generated from GHEs is balanced by that transferred to air from

217 the ground surface. Since the finite line-source model Eq. (9) uses the insulation condition,

218 the corresponding temperature response will not reach a steady state, but the response is

219 lower than those of infinite models because of the end effects of the finite-length borehole.

220 Fig. 4 shows how thermal conductivity ke varies with moisture Sl and porosity ε, while

221 supposing quartz a = 0.3, the thermal conductivity of water kw = 0.6 W/(m·K) and quartz

of
222 thermal conductivity kq = 7.7 W/(m·K). This figure illustrates that ke increases with

ro
223 decreasing ε and increasing Sl. For the low porosity case (ε = 0.1), the increase in

224
-p
moisture by 0.2 results in the increase in thermal conductivity by a maximum amount
re
225 0.875 W/(m·K).The increasing magnitude of thermal conductivity decreases as porosity
lP
na
ur
Jo

226 increases.

227 Fig. 4 Variation of effective soils thermal conductivity with moisture and porosity

15
228 The variations of ke with ε and Sl can be attributed to the different thermal

229 conductivities of minerals, liquids, and gases in the soil. For high degree of moisture, water

230 with relatively high thermal conductivity plays a leading role in the thermal conductivity,

231 thus the effective thermal conductivity of the soil is relatively large. Similarly, large

232 porosity and high unsaturation degree lead to low effective thermal conductivity because

233 of the increased proportion of the gas phase with low thermal conductivity.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

234

235 Fig. 5 Variation of unit-step temperature response with time and saturation degree and

236 porosity

237 Fig. 5 shows how the unit-step temperature responses of circulating fluid vary with

238 soil moisture and porosity. Generally, the fluid temperature responses increase as soil

239 porosity increases and saturation degree decreases. The varying magnitude of fluid

16
240 temperature depends almost linearly on porosity. In contrast, the influence of Sl on fluid

241 temperature is nonlinear. When Sl increases from 0.5 to 1.0, the decreasing magnitude of

242 fluid temperature smaller greatly than that from 0.0 to 0.5, which implies that the variation

243 of saturation has a more significant influence on the heat transfer of GHEs when the degree

244 of saturation is low (e.g., Sl < 0.5). This nonlinear behavior should be contributed to the

245 nonlinear relationship between Sl and effective thermal conductivity of soils, as shown by

of
246 the models listed in Table 1.

ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

247

248 Fig. 6 The relation between moisture degree and matric suction

249 To further explore the influence of moisture on borehole GHEs, variation of soils

250 matric suction with moisture degree is shown in Fig. 6. The curve is obtained by supposing

251 P0 = 28 MPa, Pd = 1100 Mpa, λ0 = 0.18, and kd = 1.1. Fig. 6 indicates that soils matric

252 suction decreases with the moisture, but the decreasing rate decreases with Sl as illustrated

17
253 by the logarithmic scale of the y-coordinate. This is because the soil voids are mainly filled

254 by air in low moisture. The pressure difference between the gaseous and liquid is large,

255 resulting in a relatively high matrix suction of the soil. As the moisture increases, the air is

256 replaced by water, and the pressure difference in the soil gradually decreases. As the

257 moisture increases to a certain level, the soil voids are filled with water, and the decrease

258 of the soil matrix suction slows down.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

259

260 Fig. 7 Variation of TDR with time and matric suction

261 Fig. 7 shows the variation of normalized temperature difference ζ with time and soils

262 matric suction. As can be seen, the TDR increases gradually with time, which corresponds

263 to the variation of G function shown in Fig. 2. The normalized temperature difference

264 increases with matrix suction, and the influence of matrix suction on TDR is nonlinear and

265 similar to that of saturation on the temperature response shown in Fig. 5. This can be

18
266 explained by the direct proportion between moisture and matric suction: the larger the soil

267 matrix suction is, the lower the soil moisture.

of
ro
-p
re
lP

268
na

269 Fig. 8 Variation of TDR with normalized thermal conductivity

ur

270 Fig. 8 shows the variation of TDR with time and normalized thermal conductivity kn.
Jo

271 The normalized thermal conductivity has a great impact on the increasing rate and

272 magnitude of the normalized temperature difference. The increase in kn from 0 to 0.9

273 reduces the increasing magnitude of TDR by a factor close to 1.8. Since kn is proportional

274 to the degree of moisture of soil, the influence of kn on heat transfer can be understood as

275 that of moisture degree: The increase of moisture degree leads to an increase in effective

276 soil thermal conductivity, thus causing the decrease of fluid temperature and normalized

277 temperature difference.

19
278 A simple case study can illustrate the engineering implications of Fig. 8. Let’s

279 consider a GCHP or GHS system, which exerts a load ql = 40 W/m on borehole GHEs. The

280 temperature responses in saturated soils can be determined by the line-source models, for

281 example, according to Fig. 3 it would be 0.22×40 = 8.8 K at Fo = 10 (it’s about 10 to 50

282 hours). From Fig. 8, we can determine the temperature responses for unsaturated soils, i.e.,

283 TDRs are about 1.49, 1.26, and 1.12, respectively for kn = 0, 0.3, and 0.6 at Fo = 10, which

of
284 imply that the fluid temperatures for the unsaturated soils exceed that of the saturated soil

ro
285 by 4.3 K, 2.3 K, and 1.1 K. These excess temperature rises are closely relating to system

286
-p
temperatures (e.g., the condensing temperature in GCHPs), causing the degradation of
re
287 system performance (COP).
lP

288 Fig. 9 indicates how ζ depends on moisture and the number of boreholes in GHEs
na

289 clusters. The TDR of single GHE is always lower than those of GHE clusters at different
ur

290 moisture, indicating that the effect of moisture is more significant for GHEs clusters. In the
Jo

291 range of low moisture (Sl < 0.5), the difference in TDR between the single GHE and GHE

292 clusters is larger. However, in the range of Sl > 0.8, TDRs of single GHE and clusters are

293 almost identical to each other. The increased TDR in GHEs clusters is caused by the thermal

294 accumulation and interference between boreholes, which is modeled by ΔG function (Eqs.

295 (13) and (21)). Especially, the thermal accumulation becomes more severe with the

296 moisture degree decreasing.

20
 of
ro
297

-p
298 Fig. 9. Variation of TDR with moisture degree and borehole number
re
299 Figs. 10 and 11 show the time-varying average TDR of GHE clusters with matric
lP

300 suction and saturation degree as influencing parameters. The curves in the two figures are
na

301 similar to each other and contain essentially the same information because of the relation
ur

302 between the saturation degree and the matric suction. As can be seen, the normalized
Jo

303 temperature difference ζ increases with time and level off if time is large enough. Although

304 time-varying trend of ζ is comparable to that in the case of single GHE, the shape of the

305 TDR curves differs slightly from those shown in Fig. 7 and 8 in that the increasing rate of

306 TDR at late-time stage is larger than that at early-time stage.

21
 of
ro
307
-p
re
308 Fig. 10 Variation of the TDR with time and matric suction in GHEs clusters
lP
na
ur
Jo

309

310 Fig. 11 Variation of the TDR with time and moisture in GHEs clusters

311 The increase in the increasing rate of TDR is caused by the gradual development of

312 the thermal interaction between boreholes GHEs. The time scale depends on the distance

22
313 between boreholes, the arrangement of boreholes, and the thermal diffusivity of soils. Like

314 in Figs. 7 and 8, this figure shows that the impact of soils matric suction on TDR is

315 nonlinear. The increase of TDR is extremely sensitive to saturation degree in low-moisture

316 (high matric suction) range but relative insensitive in high-moisture range, a result of the

317 nonlinear relation between the soil moisture and thermal conductivity. The high sensitivity

318 in low-moisture soils deserves particular attention because the degraded heat transfer of

of
319 GHEs can result in substantial increase in the design length of boreholes.

ro
320 4. Conclusions

321
-p
In the world, the area of arid and semi-arid zones accounts for about 40%, and in
re
322 China, the figure is 50%. In these zones, the design of GCHP and GHS systems must
lP

323 consider heat transfer in unsaturated soils. To address this problem, this paper derives a
na

324 heat transfer model integrating a finite line-source model, a normalized thermal
ur

325 conductivity model, and a saturation degree model. We proposed using a normalized fluid
Jo

326 temperature difference (i.e., TDR) for characterizing the impact of moisture on heat transfer

327 of GHEs in the ground.

328 TDR has clear physical and engineering implications: TDR equal to 1 corresponds to

329 the heat transfer in saturated soils, and TDR greater than 1 represents heat transfer in

330 unsaturated soils, implying that increased temperature difference is generated by the

331 reduction of heat transfer. The reduced heat transfer stems from the decrease in thermal

332 conductivity of unsaturated soils. The effect of moisture on thermal conductivity is

23
333 nonlinear as shown in Figs. 7–11 and by the normalized thermal conductivity models listed

334 in Table 1.

335 This paper derives a finite line-source model for insulation boundary condition for the

336 ground surface, which is applicable to GHS with insulation treatment on the ground surface.

337 This model is necessary for predicting long-term temperature responses.

338 Although this study provides a theoretical foundation for guiding the applications of

of
339 GCHP and GHS systems in arid and semi-arid zones, it only considers the influence of

ro
340 moisture on heat transfer but ignores effects of heat transfer on moisture transfer. This is

341
-p
an important problem awaiting further clarification.
re
342
lP

343 Acknowledgement
na

344 This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
ur

345 Number: 51778626)

Jo

346

347 References

348 [1] Li M, Lai ACK. Review of analytical models for heat transfer by vertical ground heat exchangers

349 (GHEs): a perspective of time and space scales, Appl Energy 2015;151:178–191.

350 [2] Spitler JD, Gehlin SEA. Thermal response testing for ground source heat pump systems—An

351 historical review. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2015; 50:1125-1137.

352 [3] Akrouch GA, Sanchez M, Briaud J. An experimental, analytical and numerical study on the thermal

24
353 efficiency of energy piles in unsaturated soils. Computers and Geotechnics 2016; 71:207–220.

354 [4] Zhou K, Mao J, Li Y, Zhang H, Deng Z, Prediction and parametric analysis of 3D borehole and total

355 internal thermal resistance of single U-tube borehole heat exchanger for ground source heat pumps,

356 Energy and Built Environment 2022; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbenv.2021.11.001

357 [5] You T, Zeng W. Zoning operation of energy piles to alleviate the soil thermal imbalance of ground

358 source heat pump systems, Energy and Built Environment 2022;

of
359 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbenv.2021.08.001

ro
360 [6] Gondal I. Prospects of shallow geothermal systems in HVAC for NZEB, Energy and Built

361 Environment 2021; 2(4):425–435.

-p
re
362 [7] Grossi I, Dongellini M, Piazzi A, Morini GL, Dynamic modelling and energy performance analysis of an
lP

363 innovative dual-source heat pump system, Appl. Therm. Eng. 142 (2018) 745-759.
na

364 [8] Z. Liu, W. Xu, X. Zhai, C. Qian, X. Chen, Feasibility and performance study of the hybrid ground-source
ur

365 heat pump system for one office building in Chinese heating dominated areas, Renew. Energy 101 (2017)
Jo

366 1131-1140.

367 [9] G. Emmi, A. Zarrella, M. De Carli, A. Galgaro, An analysis of solar assisted ground source heat pumps

368 in cold climates, Energy Conversion And Management 106 (2015) 660-675.

369 [10] D. Marcotte, P. Pasquier, F. Sheriff, M. Bernier, The importance of axial effects for borehole design of

370 geothermal heat-pump systems, Renew. Energy 35(4) (2010) 763-770.

371 [11] Hu J, An improved analytical model for vertical borehole ground heat exchanger with multiple-layer

372 substrates and groundwater flow, Appl. Energy 202 (2017) 537-549.

373 [12] T. Katsura, Y. Shoji, Y. Sakata, K. Nagano, Method for calculation of ground temperature in scenario
25
374 involving multiple ground heat exchangers considering groundwater advection, Energy Build. 220 (2020).

375 [13] C. Li, P.J. Cleall, J. Mao, J.J. Munoz-Criollo, Numerical simulation of ground source heat pump systems

376 considering unsaturated soil properties and groundwater flow, Appl. Therm. Eng. 139 (2018) 307-316.

377 [14] X. Meng, Z. Han, H. Hu, H. Zhang, X. Li, Studies on the performance of ground source heat pump

378 affected by soil freezing under groundwater seepage, Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021).

379 [15] W.H. Leong, V.R. Tarnawski, A. Aittomaki, Effect of soil type and moisture content on ground heat

of
380 pump performance, International Journal of Refrigeration 21(8) (1998) 595-606.

ro
381 [16] Y. Liu, G. Huang, J. Lu, X. Yang, C. Zhuang, J. Qin, A novel 2-D ring-tubes model and numerical

382
-p
investigation of heat and moisture transfer around helix ground heat exchanger, Geothermics 85 (2020).
re
383 [17] Y. Shang, M. Dong, S. Li, L. Mu, Analysis of a ground source heat pump system using an unsaturated
lP

384 3-dimensional model, Appl. Therm. Eng. 112 (2017) 1083-1094.

na

385 [18] Y. Shang, M. Dong, L. Mu, X. Liu, X. Huang, S. Li, The analysis of the evaporation effect on moisture
ur

386 soil under intermittent operation of ground-source heat pump, Energy Procedia (2019) 1508-1513.
Jo

387 [19] H. Zhang, Z. Han, G. Li, M. Ji, X. Cheng, X. Li, L. Yang, Study on the influence of pipe spacing on the

388 annual performance of ground source heat pumps considering the factors of heat and moisture transfer,

389 seepage and freezing, Renew. Energy 163 (2021) 262-275.

390 [20] Carslaw HS, Jaeger JC. Conduction of heat in solids. 2nd ed. Oxford: Claremore Press; 1959.

391 [21] J. Claesson, S. Javed, An analytical method to calculate borehole fluid temperatures for time-scales from

392 minutes to decades. ASHRAE Trans 117 (2011) 279-288.

393 [22] J. Cote, J.M. Konrad, A generalized thermal conductivity model for soils and construction materials,

394 Canadian Geotechnical Journal 42(2) (2005) 443-458.

26
395 [23] S. Lu, T. Ren, Y. Gong, R. Horton, An improved model for predicting soil thermal conductivity from

396 water content at room temperature, Soil Science Society of America Journal 71(1) (2007) 8-14.

397 [24] V. Genuchten, M. Th, A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated

398 soils, Soil Science Society of America Journal 44(5) (1980) 892-898.

399

Nomenclature

of
a Thermal diffusivity (m2/s)

ro
B Distance between boreholes (m)
D Distance between the ground surface and the GHE starting depth (m)
H Heat source length (m)
-p
re
k Thermal conductivity (W/(mK))
lP

M The number of boreholes

na

P Pressure (MPa)
ql Heat load per unit length (W/m)
ur

r Radial distance (m)

Jo

R Thermal resistance (m·K/W)

s Soil matrix suction (MPa)

S Saturation degree
T Temperature (℃ or K)
z Borehole depth (m)

Greeks
 Proportion of quartz in a solid substance
 Porosity of soil

 Surface tension of soil (N/m)

 Temperature difference ratio

27
 Abbreviations
GHS ground heat storage
GCHPs ground-coupled heat pumps

GHEs ground heat exchangers

TDR Temperature-difference ratio
Subscripts and superscripts
0 Reference state or initial value

b Borehole

of
e effective values

ro
f Circulating fluid
i
-p
Sequence of surrounding boreholes
re
g Gaseous state in soil
lP

l Liquid state in soil

p U-shaped pipe
na

s Soil
ur

so Non-quartz solids
Borehole wall
Jo

w
ls Maximum saturation degree

lr Residual saturation degree

dry Dry soil
sat Saturated state
unsat Unsaturated state

400

401

28
Highlights:
This study evaluates the influence of moisture on heat transfer of GHEs.
Heat transfer of GHEs is highly sensitive to saturation in low-moisture soils.
A closed-form equation for temperature-difference ratio (TDR) is proposed.
TDR characterizes the reduction in heat transfer of GHEs in unsaturated soils.

f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 Declaration of interests
☒ 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.
☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be
considered as potential competing interests:

f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo