Applied Energy 145 (2015) 163–171

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Experimental and computational investigation of multi U-tube boreholes

Murat Aydın, Altug Sisman ⇑
Istanbul Technical University, Energy Institute, 34469 Istanbul, Turkey

h i g h l i g h t s

 Effects of number of U-tubes on HTR value and cost of a borehole are investigated.
 Performance increases considerably for 2 and 3U-tube but negligible for 4 and 5U.
 2U-tube BHE is the best solution for countries like Turkey where pipe prices are high.
 If the cost of pipes decreases, then 3 or even 5U–tube can be the optimal solution.

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

Article history: In ground source heat pump (GSHP) applications, borehole drilling cost constitutes an important part of
Received 30 September 2014 the investment cost and it can be reduced by improving borehole performance. In vertical GSHP applica-
Received in revised form 5 February 2015 tions, usually double-U tube configurations are used to improve the heat transfer rate per unit length of a
Accepted 8 February 2015
borehole, (unit HTR value). To determine the optimal number of U-tubes which maximizes the commer-
Available online 28 February 2015
cial and engineering benefits of multi U-tube applications, cost and performance analyses of multi U-tube
boreholes are crucial. In this study, a triple U-tube is used in a borehole of 50 m depth. Time variation of
Keywords:
unit HTR value of the borehole is experimentally measured when single, double and triple U-tubes are in
Multi U-tube boreholes
Borehole performance improvement
operation separately. Furthermore a computational model is calibrated by fitting the computational
Long term performance prediction results to the experimental ones, and effects of using four and five U-tubes in a borehole are computa-
tionally investigated. The relations between number of U tubes and time variation of unit HTR value of
a borehole as well as investment cost are analyzed. Long term borehole performance predictions are
made and compared for multi U-tube applications. Both experimental and computational results showed
that performance improvements are remarkable for 2U-tube and 3U-tube configurations while it is
nearly insignificant for 4U and 5U ones. If the investment cost per thermal power is considered, 2U-tube
configuration is the optimal one if the prices of polyethylene pipes are relatively high, like in Turkey.
When the cost of pipes decreases, then 3U-tube or even 4U–tube configuration can be the cheapest
solution.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
High investment cost of GSHP systems causes a major barrier
for their wider spreading into the market, although they have some
definite advantages for operational cost in comparison with the
conventional systems. Especially in vertical applications, drilling
cost of a borehole is an important part of the total investment for
a GSHP application. Horizontal ground heat exchanger (GHE) is
cheaper than the vertical ones but it requires large application area
and its performance is not as good as vertical ones since heat trans-
fer is considerably effected by temperature changes of weather in
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 212 285 3939.
E-mail address: sismanal@itu.edu.tr (A. Sisman).
horizontal ones [1]. Initial cost of vertical GHE can be decreased
by increasing unit HTR value of a borehole. To increase heat
exchange between borehole and ground, different studies have
been done. Some studies have been focused on improving thermal
conductivity of boreholes [2–6] while some others have examined
the effects of different structural designs on performance of GHE
[7–11]. Ground heat exchangers with closed circuits (U-tube etc.)
were used widely after 1970s [11]. Although it is not known
exactly when it was first used, double U-tube is now used in most
of vertical GSHP applications. Many studies informed that double
U-tube is more efficient than single one [12,13]. Florides et al.
[12] showed that series connection of double U-tubes gives better
results than single U-tube while their parallel connections give
quite better results for a short time operation.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.036
0306-2619/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
164 M. Aydın, A. Sisman / Applied Energy 145 (2015) 163–171

Nomenclature

Qv volumetric flow rate (lt/min) q density (kg/m3)

v velocity (m/s)
T temperature (°C) Subscript
q_ heat transfer rate (W) in inlet
m _ mass flow rate (kg/s) out outlet
Cp heat capacity (J/(kg K)) 1 undisturbed, far field
L borehole-laboratory distance (m) pe polyethylene
r radius (m) ins insulation
t time (s) gr ground
Rd radius of domain gt grout
b borehole wall
Greek letters
k thermal conductivity (W/(mK))

Another design method to improve unit HTR value of a borehole since hundreds of thousands boreholes are drilled in worldwide
is the co-axial application [9,14–17]. In this application, two tubes annually.
are coaxially nested; water enters the outer tube and leaves the In this study, effect of number of U-tubes on time variation of
inner tube. However, it has been shown by Wood et al. [14] that unit HTR value of a borehole is both experimentally and computa-
co-axial application has lower performance than that of U-tube. tionally investigated. Furthermore cost analysis is performed for
On the contrary, Acuna and Palm in Ref. [15] reported that they multi U-tubes. The results can be used for both engineering and
got 100% better results with co-axial tubes than U-tube case. financial optimization of GSHP applications.
Furthermore Zanchini et al. [9] pointed out that diameters of
co-axial tubes are important and performance of co-axial borehole
2. Experimental study
could be increased by increasing the diameter of the inner tube
while the outer tube’s diameter kept constant. It has been shown
For experimental investigation, a borehole is drilled and a triple
by Choi et al. in Ref. [18] that multi-tube GHE, which is similar
U-tube GHE is inserted, (Fig. 1). Properties of the borehole are
to co-axial one, provides 2–12% better COP value for GSHP system.
given in Table 1. In practical application of vertical GHE, depths
In another multi-tube (also called complex co-axial) modelled by
of boreholes are generally in between 20 and 200 m [23]. For the
Jalaluddin and Akio [16], there are four tubes around the central
experimental study here, 50 m borehole is chosen to avoid the
tube and water enters four tubes and leaves the central tube and
effects of both temperature changes of weather in shallow bore-
it gives better performance in comparison with that of single
holes and temperature increment of ground in deep boreholes.
U-tube.
Therefore the considered borehole represents a mid-scale vertical
First multi U-tube applications were used in foundation piles
GHE. A drilling collar of 0.2 m diameter is used (Fig. 2a). Before
[19–21]. Bozis et al. [21] developed a line-source model for energy
piles and theoretically showed that performance of a pile can be
increased by increasing number of U-tubes inside of the pile when
200
keeping the diameter constant. Park et al. [20] used W type and
three U-tubes inside of a borehole. They did thermal response test
(TRT) for 72 h and have found that triple U-tube application gives Grout
better performance than that of W type one for short time opera- Outlet 3 Inlet 2
tions. However, longer borehole length than the foundations’
length is necessary for long time operations, as they mentioned
in their paper. The other significant study has been done by Zarrel-
la et al. [7]. They investigated helical-pipe and triple U-tube in
foundation pile with 12 m depth and they found that helical pipe 0
12
application is 9% better than triple U-tube in foundation Inlet 1
°

60
60

applications.
°

26,6
32

However foundation applications have different properties:

Their boreholes are wider diameter and shallower depth than the
88
conventional ones and they can be affected by seasonal variations
Outlet 1
of weather. On the other hand, use of helical-pipes is quite hard for
deep borehole applications. Although wider diameter boreholes
have better heating performance they have worse situation in eco-
nomic perspective [22].
In the studies referred above, it is shown that increment in
number of tubes in a borehole has positive effect on its perfor- Outlet 2 Inlet 3
mance (unit HTR value). On the other hand, there is no study in lit-
erature yet to analyses the effect of number of U-tubes on unit HTR
value of a borehole as well as its investment cost. The results of this
kind of analyses can be a crucial importance for GSHP applications Fig. 1. Cross section of borehole.
 M. Aydın, A. Sisman / Applied Energy 145 (2015) 163–171 165

Table 1 Table 2
Borehole properties. Specifications of Flow-meter and Temperature Sensors.

Borehole Flow meter

Depth 50 m Nominal diameter 15 mm
Diameter 200 mm Repeatability ±0.2 %
Accuracy – Standard ±1 %
U-tube
Number of U-tubes 3 unit Temperature sensor
U-tube material PE100 Type Pt1000
Pipe inner diameter 26.6 mm Precision ±0.15 K
Pipe outer diameter 32 mm
Pipe’s thermal conductivity 0.4 W/mK
Borehole-laboratory piping TRT. For many years, TRT is applied under constant heat flux con-
Borehole-laboratory distance 15 m
Insulation thickness 9 mm
dition and called as constant heat flux method. Another method is
Insulation’s thermal conductivity 0.036 W/mK the constant temperature method (CTM) [24,25]. CTM has some
important advantages like better accuracy, shorter time to achieve
drilling the borehole, triple U-tube GHE is prepared nearby the steady state regime and wide range of operating temperature, etc.
borehole. To avoid the contact of pipes to each other and prevent although test system is more expensive due to its precise tem-
thermal short cut in GHE, special spacers are used (Fig. 2b). Spacers perature control need. In this study, CTM is used due to its
are mounted at each meter of GHE (Fig. 2c). GHE is lowered inside advantages.
the borehole (Fig. 2d). Pipes are tested by high hydraulic pressure During test processes, volumetric flow rate, inlet and outlet
before the grout is filled into the gaps. As grout, Mix 111 proposed temperatures of fluid are measured and recorded in real-time for
by Allan M.L. [3] is used without bentonite. each pipe by liquid turbine flow-meters and Pt1000 temperature
Pipes from the GHE are connected to the test system at the sensors. Properties of temperature sensors and flow meters are
laboratory. This connection line is at 0.5 m depth from the surface. given in Table 2. Temperature sensors are calibrated in a calorimet-
Each inlet and outlet pipes is connected to the laboratory test sys- ric container to get the same results from each sensor for the tem-
tem separately. Connection pipes between the borehole and the perature range from 2 °C and 55 °C. Flow-meters are also calibrated
test system are insulated by elastomeric rubber insulation. by Siemens Mag5000 flow-meter.
After the pipes are connected to Thermal Response Test (TRT) Constant temperature TRT system mainly consists of a water
system, residual air inside the pipes is purged. tank with electrical heaters, hydraulic circulating pump, PID con-
trol unit and data logger (Figs. 3 and 4).
By using this system, each U-tube can be tested separately and
2.1. Thermal response test system
also test time can be keep longer to get more accurate results.
After the air purged from the system, undisturbed ground
To predict the long term performance (HTR value) of a borehole,
temperature has to be measured before the test is started. In TRT
thermal properties of the ground is experimentally determined by

Fig. 2. (a) Drilling collar, (b) spacer, (c) spacer used per GHE meter, (d) GHE in the borehole.
166 M. Aydın, A. Sisman / Applied Energy 145 (2015) 163–171

Expansion Tanký
Auto.Air Purge
5 PID
CONTROL
7 PANEL

1
Ground Inlet Collector
WATER TANK

Mini Pump

PT1000
SENSOR
TEMPERATURE

Boreh. 1 T

Boreh. 3 T
DATA

By pass line
2 3

Boreh. 2
LOGGER

Ground Return Collector

Electrical Resistance 3 x 6kw 4

Pump Filter

T
Flowmeter Ø25

Borehole 2
6

Borehole 3
Borehole 1
Valve with temp.sensor Ø25

Fig. 3. Constant temperature TRT system.

Fig. 4. Close-up views of some components of thermal response test system.

system, by closing the valves 3, 5, 6, 7 and running the pump, cir-
culating water temperature gives the information about the undis-
turbed ground temperature. Later, valves 2, 3, 7 and boreholes’
valves are closed, by-pass line is opened and mini pump and elec-
trical resistances with PID control are operated to heat the water in
the tank up to test temperature (in this study, 40 °C). When the
tank temperature achieves to test temperature, by-pass line is
closed, valve 7 is half-opened while the others are fully opened,
and then test is started. Mini pump on the tank provides homo-
geneity of tank water temperature. Inlet temperature is measured
and controlled by PID controller.
2.2. Experimental results
Tests are done between September 2th and November 27th,
2013. First, single U-tube configuration is tested and then the
borehole left alone for two weeks to recover the initial undisturbed
ground temperature. Undisturbed ground temperature
measurements verified the recovering period. Then, double U-tube
configuration is tested and then again waited for two weeks for
recovering. Finally triple U-tube configuration is tested. Test dura-
tion is 70 h for each test and the sampling rate is one datum per
minute. In the first hours of tests, temperature difference is too
high since borehole itself is absorbed heat instead of ground.
Therefore unit HTR values are too high for first 12 h as it is seen
in Fig. 7. Table 3 shows the averaged values of test variables
between 12 and 70 h.
During the experiments based on double and single U-tube
operations, other U-tube(s) contains stagnant (non-circulating)
water since their valves are closed. In order to see the possible
effect of natural convection in closed (idle) U-tubes on unit HTR
value of a single U-tube operation, a comparison is made between
 M. Aydın, A. Sisman / Applied Energy 145 (2015) 163–171 167

Table 3
Experimentally measured and averaged quantities besides unit HTR values for different U-tube applications.

1U-tube 2U-tube 3U-tube

Total volumetric flow rate Q_ v lt/min 16.1 32.0 46.7

Fluid velocity in pipes v m/s 0.48 0.48 0.47
Average fluid inlet temp. Tin °C 40.0 40.0 40.0
Average fluid outlet temp. Tout °C 35.8 37.3 37.8
Undisturbed ground temp. T1 °C 17.0 17.0 17.0
Ground temp. at z = 0.5 m Tz=0.5m °C 25.2 22.3 18.4
Total heat transfer rate q_ total W 4715 6025 7164
Heat loss borehole to lab. q_ loss W 186 479 902
Borehole heat transfer rate q_ W 4529 5546 6262
Unit heat transfer rate q_ 0 W/m 90.6 110.9 125.2
% difference in unit HTR with 0.0 22.4 38.3
respect to 1U tube

unit HTR values of borehole with single U-tube alone and the bore-
hole with triple U-tube while only one of them is in operation. It is
seen that a borehole with a single U-tube alone has 3.3% higher Insulation
unit HTR value in comparison with that of other one. This T2
difference is too small in comparison with the difference between
unit HTR values of a single and multi U-tube operations. Further-
T3 T1
more it cannot be only due to contribution of natural convection
but also due to differences in ground properties surrounding the r1
r2
boreholes. Therefore, in order to eliminate the effect of possible r3
differences in surrounding structure and conditions, it is chosen
to use the same borehole to see the pure effect of number of U-
tubes on unit HTR value of a borehole.
For EN14511-2 heat pump performance testing standard [26], Polietylen Pipe
the test temperatures for heat pumps have to be B0-5/W35-55.
In other words, temperature of circulating fluid in borehole has
to be in range of 0–5 °C for brine side and 35–55 °C for water side.
It has been shown by Signorelli et al. [27] that the difference Fig. 5. Cross section of pipeline between borehole and test system.

between the results of thermal response tests based on heat

extraction and heat injection is just 3%. In this study, heat injection
is performed during thermal response test and test temperature is
chosen as 40 °C. Flow velocity is 0.48 m/s. Heat transfer rate of GHE
is calculated by;
q_ total ¼ mC
_ p ðT in  T out Þ ð1Þ
where m _ and Cp are mass flow rate and heat capacity of fluid at con-
stant pressure respectively. Since temperatures are measured in the
laboratory instead of at top of the borehole, heat loss from the pipes
between borehole and laboratory should be considered. Inner and
outer temperatures of the pipes, properties of pipe materials and
insulation and pipe lengths are known quantities. Therefore this
loss is simply calculated by
ðT 1  T 3 ÞL
q_ loss ¼ lnðr =r Þ lnðr =r Þ ð2Þ
2 1
2pkpe
þ 2p3k 2
ins

where kpe and kins are thermal conductivities of polyethylene pipe

and insulation materials respectively, L is the length of the pipes
between borehole and laboratory, T1 is temperature of fluid inside
the pipe which is approximated as the temperature measured at
the laboratory, T3 is assumed to be equal to the ground temperature
at 0.5 m deep from the surface which is given in Table 3 for each
case. Cross section of pipeline is seen in Fig. 5. In Eq. (2), thermal
resistance of convective layer inside the pipes is neglected in com-
parison with those of polyethylene pipe and insulation.
Therefore heat transfer rate of borehole is easily determined by
q_ ¼ q_ total  q_ loss
Fig. 6. Pipelines between borehole and laboratory before closing the trench.
During this calculation of heat losses, each pipe is assumed to
be surrounded by soil, but in real application, pipes contact and
thermally interact each other (Fig. 6), therefore real heat losses
are even lower than the calculated heat losses given in Table 3.
Measured unit HTR values versus time for all three cases are
ð3Þ
shown in Fig. 7.
168 M. Aydın, A. Sisman / Applied Energy 145 (2015) 163–171
Fig. 7. Experimental results and fitted curves for 1U, 2U and 3U-tube
configurations.
Temperature distribution for outer region of a circular cylinder
has been given by Carslaw and Jeager [28] and the more explicitly
in Ozisik [29] for constant surface temperature of cylinder. This
distribution has been used to determine unit HTR value of a bore-
hole in Ref. [25]. To make long term predictions for unit HTR val-
ues, a mathematical model based on homogenous ground
properties is used. Unit HTR value is analytically given by
Z 1 2
at=r2b
eb ½Y 0 ðbÞJ 1 ðbÞ  J 0 ðbÞY 1 ðbÞ
q_ 0 ðtÞ ¼ 4kgr ðT b  T 1 Þ h i db
b¼0 b J 20 ðbÞ þ Y 20 ðbÞ
where Tb is the borehole wall temperature, T1 is undisturbed
ground temperature, rb is radius of borehole, kgr and a are thermal
conductivity and diffusivity of ground respectively. Eq. (4) is used
first to get thermal properties of ground by fitting the equation to
the experimental data obtained during thermal response test of
70 h and then it is used to make longer term performance predic-
tion. Thermal properties of ground are given in Table 4. Thermal
conductivity is determined as a result of fitting process. Fitted
curves for 70 h data are seen as solid curves on experimental data
in Fig. 7.
In Fig. 7, a comparison of experimental results is shown for
three cases. For triple U-tubes, unit HTR value goes to 113 W/m,
while it goes 102 W/m and 83 W/m for double U and single U tube
configurations respectively. Therefore double and triple U tube
configurations have 23% and 36% better performance in compar-
ison with that of single U tube configuration respectively at the
end of 70 h non-stop operation.
Although test duration is limited by 70 h, long term predictions
for three different cases can be made by Eq. (4) after it is fitted to
experimental data. Fig. 8 shows the long term (16 weeks) predic-
tions of unit HTR values for three cases. It seems that double and
triple U tube configurations have 13% and 25% better performance
in comparison with that of single U tube configuration respective-
ly. These percentages are nearly the same both for averaged and
last week values. Therefore advantage of multi-U tube configura-
tions decreases with operational time. This is an expected result
since multi-U tube configurations have higher heat exchange rates
Table 4
Thermal properties of ground. Thermal conductivity is determined by fitting Eq. (4) to
the experimental data.
SYMBOL Value Quantity
kgr,eff. 3.1 Thermal conductivity (W m1 K1)
cgr 800 Specific heat capacity (J kg1 K1)
qgr 2130 Density (kg m3)
Fig. 8. Long time prediction of unit HTR values of a borehole with 1U, 2U and 3U
tubes.
which cause rapid temperature change in ground temperature and
higher long term performance loss although they have higher unit
HTR values. These values are obtained in case of non-stop working
case for the borehole. An actual ground heat exchanger does not
work 24 h in a day, instead, it starts and stops all the day depend-
ing on the demand of the building. Therefore under real working
conditions, unit HTR values will be even better than in Fig. 8. In
other words, results in Fig. 8 represent the worst case results which
can be helpful for designing a reliable system.
ð4Þ
3. Computational analysis for the cases of 4U and 5U-tubes in a
borehole
During the application stage of triple U-tubes, it is seen that
there is enough space for 4U and even 5U-tubes. Therefore besides
experimental tests for 1, 2 and 3U-tube configurations, also 4U and
5U-tube configurations are computationally examined for a possi-
ble application. Cross sections of 4U and 5U-tube boreholes consid-
ered in computational model are seen in Fig. 9.
Computational analysis is done in COMSOL [30] environment
and the values of parameters used in the model are given in Table 5.
At the first stage of computational analysis, computational model
is calibrated by considering the experimental results of single, dou-
ble and triple U-tubes. In other words, by comparing the computa-
tional results for 1, 2 and 3U tube configurations with the
experimental ones, thermal properties of ground are iteratively
determined to minimize the mean absolute error (MAE) between
computational and experimental results. It should be noted that
computational model consists of two different domains, namely
grout and ground with different thermal properties, although ana-
lytical one, Eq. (4), considers only one domain which is ground.
Thermal properties of grout are already known while those of
ground are determined by minimization of MAE as mentioned
above. It is seen that this calibration procedure of computational
model gives the same values of thermal properties given in Table 4.
Both computational and experimental results are given in Table 6.
The relative differences between computational and experimental
results are 1.6%, 2.4% and 0.6% for 1U, 2U and 3U tube configura-
tions respectively. Therefore there is a good agreement between
experimental and computational results.
For all cases, fluid inlet temperature is set to 40 °C which is
experimentally controlled value. On the other hand, outlet tem-
peratures of fluid are measured by test system just for single, dou-
ble and triple U-tube configurations. Therefore it is a necessity to
make an approach for outlet temperatures of four and five U-tube
configurations. If the experimental values of temperature differ-
ence between inlet and outlet temperatures and the number of U
 M. Aydın, A. Sisman / Applied Energy 145 (2015) 163–171 169

Grout Grout
1 20

26,6

26,6
120

32

32
(a) (b)
Fig. 9. 4U-tubes (a) and 5U-tubes (b) placed borehole cross sections.

Table 5
Geometrical parameters, properties of solid materials and working conditions.

Symbol Value Quantity

Geometrical data of U-tube
r1 13.3 Internal radius of PE tube (mm)
r2 16 External radius of PE tube (mm)
rb 100 External radius of borehole (mm)
Rd 50 Radius of domain (m)
Thermal properties of grout
kgt 0.85 Thermal conductivity (W m1 K1)
cgt 900 Specific heat capacity (J kg1 K1)
qgt 1500 Density (kg m3)
Working conditions
Tin 40 Fluid inlet temperature (°C)
T1 17 Undisturbed ground temperature (°C)
Fig. 10. Computational HTR values versus time for different U-tube configurations.

where DT and NU are temperature difference between inlet and out-

Table 6 let temperatures and number of U tubes respectively. The value of
Temperature values used in computational calculations and the results for unit HTR R2 is 0.9966 for Eq. (5). For 4U and 5U cases, expected temperature
values. For 1U, 2U and 3U configurations, temperature values are the time averaged
values based on experimental data of 12–70 h while they are the predicted data by
difference can be predicted by Eq. (5) as 1.8 °C and 1.5 °C respec-
using Eq. (5) for 4U and 5U configurations. tively. Therefore, temperature values given in Table 6 are used for
computational calculations of the cases between 1U and 5U.
1U 2U 3U 4U 5U
Fig. 10 shows a comparison of unit HTR values predicted by
Tin 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 computational model for different U-tube configurations in case
Tout 35.8 37.3 37.8 38.2 38.5
DT 4.2 2.7 2.2 1.8 1.5
of non-stop working condition. It is seen that unit HTR value
Tavg 37.9 38.7 38.9 39.1 39.3 increases while the increment itself decreases with increasing
D(DT) 0 1.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 number of U-tubes. After 3U-tube configuration, increment of unit
Computational q_ 0c 88.4 112.8 124.4 129.7 133.0 HTR value with number of U-tubes is not considerable. This situa-
Experimental q_ 0exp 89.8 110.1 125.2 – –
tion is clearly seen in Fig. 11. Therefore, 3U-tube configuration
Relative difference between comp. 1.6 2.4 0.6 – –
seems to be enough solution to get high unit HTR values.
& exp. results (%)
Borehole resistance (K m/W) 0.136 0.087 0.069 0.063 0.059

4. Cost analysis

tubes are considered, the following exponential relation is Cost analysis of multi U-tube can be made for a sample borehole
obtained of a 100 m depth. Contents of a borehole cost are shown in Table 7
for different number of U-tube configurations. A borehole cost
DT ¼ 4:166N0:594
U ð5Þ includes borehole drilling, polyethylene pipes and grout costs. Unit
170 M. Aydın, A. Sisman / Applied Energy 145 (2015) 163–171

Fig. 12. Variations of initial cost and relative increment in unit HTR value with
Fig. 11. Variation of unit HTR value with number of U-tubes for 70 h non-stop number of U-tubes for 16 weeks non-stop operation.
operation.

prices represent the averaged prices in Turkey and they might cost (45%) is even higher than that of unit HTR value (36%) for 5U-
change from country to country. tube configuration.
In order to make a reasonable comparison between boreholes
with different number of U-tubes, unit HTR values of different con-
figurations are given in Table 8 for different non-stop operational 5. Conclusions
time periods (4, 8, 12 and 16 weeks) as well as their averaged
values. Effects of number of U-tubes on both time variation of borehole
A ratio of cost per unit borehole length to unit HTR value can be performance (unit HTR value) and initial cost are experimentally
defined as a good indicator to choose the optimum configuration to and computationally examined. Experimental results show that
minimize the initial (investment) cost. In Fig. 12, variations of this 2U and 3U-tube configurations have 14% and 25% better perfor-
ratio (cost per thermal power) with number of U-tubes are shown. mance in comparison with that of 1U-tube configuration respec-
The values are calculated by considering 16 weeks averaged unit tively for the averaged values of 16 weeks non-stop operation (as
HTR values in Table 8 as well as total cost values in Table 7. It is a worst case). Computational model is calibrated by considering
seen that investment cost (cost per thermal power) takes its mini- the experimental results and then 4U-tube and 5U-tube configura-
mum value for 2U-tube configuration. On the other hand, 5U-tube tions are computationally investigated. Performance increments
configuration requires the minimum application field. Therefore, are remarkable for 2U-tube and 3U-tube configurations while it
optimum solution seems 2U-tube configuration to minimize initial is nearly insignificant for 4U and 5U ones.
cost while it is 5U-tube configuration to minimize the application When the initial cost per thermal power of a borehole is consid-
field. Furthermore, the values in Tables 7 and 8 show that relative ered, the optimal configuration is 2U-tube configuration if the
increment in total cost for 4U-tube configuration (34%) is the same prices in Turkey are taken into account. 2U-tube configuration is
with that of unit HTR value. On the other hand, increment in total 8% cheaper than 1U-tube one. On the other hand, this percentage
depends on the ratio of cost of polyethylene pipes to the total cost.
If the cost of polyethylene pipes decreases, then 3U-tube or even
4U–tube configuration can be the cheapest solution.
Table 7 When the application area is considered, 3U-tube configuration
Calculated costs of 100 m depth boreholes for different number of U-tubes. constitutes an optimum solution since increments in unit HTR val-
ues are too small for 4U and 5U-tube configurations. Furthermore,
Borehole Drilling U- PE Gap Grout Total Relative
type cost ($) tube pipe (m3) (200 $/ cost change in it is seen that advantage of multi-U tube configurations decreases
(m) (4.9 $/ m3) ($) ($) total cost with increasing operational time period due to faster change in
m) ($) (%) temperature of ground surrounding borehole. Therefore, it is nec-
1U-tube 3000 100 490 2.981 596.1 4086 – essary to keep longer distance between boreholes in case of multi
2U-tube 3000 200 980 2.820 564.0 4544 11 U-tube configurations to allow recovering undisturbed ground
3U-tube 3000 300 1470 2.659 531.8 5002 22 temperature during non-operational time period.
4U-tube 3000 400 1960 2.498 499.6 5460 34
5U-tube 3000 500 2450 2.337 467.5 5917 45
The results can be helpful to find the optimal and reliable engi-
neering solutions for GSHP applications.

Table 8
Computational results for different number of U-tubes.

Borehole q_ 0 @ 4th week q_ 0 @ 8th week q_ 0 @ 12th week q_ 0 @ 16th week q_ 0 16 weeks averaged Relative increment of unit HTR Unit cost
Type (W/m) (W/m) (W/m) (W/m) (W/m) value (%)* ($/W)

1U-tube 69.0 65.9 64.7 64.3 68.0 – 0.60

2U-tube 83.3 78.6 77.0 76.5 81.9 20 0.55
3U-tube 89.3 84.0 82.2 81.6 87.9 29 0.57
4U-tube 91.9 86.6 84.8 84.2 90.7 34 0.60
5U-tube 94.1 88.3 86.4 85.8 92.6 36 0.64
*
Relative values are calculated by considering the averaged values of 16 weeks.
 M. Aydın, A. Sisman / Applied Energy 145 (2015) 163–171
Acknowledgement
This project is supported by Baymak Mak. San. ve Tic. A.S ß . and
SAN-TEZ program of Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Science, Indus-
try and Technology under contract number of 01276.STZ.2012-1.
References
[1] Banks D. An introduction to thermogeology: ground source heating and
cooling. Blackwell Publishing; 2008.
[2] Allan ML, Kavanaugh SP. Thermal conductivity of cementitious grouts and
impact on heat exchanger length design for ground source heat pumps. Int J
HVAC&R Res 1999;5(2):87–98.
[3] Allan ML. Materials characterization of superplasticized cement-sand grout.
Cem Concr Res 2000;30:937–42.
[4] Koyun A, Demir H, Torun Z. Experimental study of heat transfer of buried
finned pipe for ground source heat pump applications. Int Commun Heat Mass
Trans 2009;36:739–43.
[5] Erol S, François B. Efficiency of various grouting materials for borehole heat
exchangers. Appl Therm Eng 2014;70:788–99.
[6] Borinaga-Treviño R, Pascual-Muñoz P, Castro-Fresno D, Blanco-Fernandez E.
Borehole thermal response and thermal resistance of four different grouting
materials measured with a TRT. Appl Therm Eng 2013;53:13–20.
[7] Zarrella A, Carli MD, Galgaro A. Thermal performance of two types of energy
foundation pile: helical pipe and triple U-tube. Appl Therm Eng
2013;61:301–10.
[8] Zarrella A, Capozza A, De Carli M. Analysis of short helical and double U-tube
borehole heat exchangers: a simulation-based comparison. Appl Energy
2013;112:358–70.
[9] Zanchini E, Lazzari S, Priarone A. Improving the thermal performance of coaxial
borehole heat exchangers. Energy 2010;35:657–66.
[10] Congedo PM, Colangelo G, Starace G. CFD simulations of horizontal ground
heat exchangers: a comparison among different configurations. Appl Therm
Eng 2012;33–34:24–32.
[11] Focaccia S, Tinti F. An innovative borehole heat exchanger configuration with
improved heat transfer. Geothermics 2013;48:93–100.
[12] Florides GA, Christodoulides P, Pouloupatis P. Single and double U-tube ground
heat exchangers in multiple-layer substrates. Appl Energy 2013;102:364–73.
[13] Zeng H, Diao N, Fang Z. Heat transfer analysis of boreholes in vertical ground
heat exchangers. Int J Heat Mass Trans 2003;46:4467–81.
171
[14] Wood CJ, Liu H, Riffat SB. Comparative performance of ‘U-tube’ and ‘coaxial’
loop designs for use with a ground source heat pump. Appl Therm Eng
2012;37:190–5.
[15] Acuña J, Palm B. Distributed thermal response tests on pipe-in-pipe borehole
heat exchangers. Appl Energy 2013;109:312–20.
[16] Jalaluddin, Miyara A. Thermal performance investigation of several types of
vertical ground heat exchangers with different operation mode. Appl Therm
Eng 2012;33–34:167–74.
[17] Beier RA, Acuña J, Mogensen P, Palm B. Borehole resistance and vertical
temperature profiles in coaxial borehole heat exchangers. Appl Energy
2013;102:665–75.
[18] Choi JM, Park Y, Kang SH. Heating performance verification of a ground source
heat pump system with U-tube and double tube type GLHEs. Renew Energy
2013;54:32–9.
[19] Brandl H. Energy foundations and other thermo-active ground structures.
Geotechnique 2006;56(2):81–122.
[20] Park H, Lee S-R, Yoon S, Choi J. Evaluation of thermal response and
performance of PHC energy pile: field experiments and numerical
simulation. Appl Energy 2013;103:12–24.
[21] Bozis D, Papakostas K, Kyriakis N. On the evaluation of design parameters
effects on the heat transfer efficiency of energy piles. Energy Build
2011;43:1020–9.
[22] Luo J, Rohn J, Bayer M, Priess A. Thermal performance and economic evaluation
of double U-tube borehole heat exchanger with three different borehole
diameters. Energy Build 2013;67:217–24.
[23] Yang H, Cui P, Fang Z. Vertical-borehole ground-coupled heat pumps: a review
of models and systems. Appl Energy 2010;87:16–27.
[24] Wang H, Qi C, Du H, Gu J. Improved method and case study of thermal
response test for borehole heat exchangers of ground source heat pump
system. Renew Energy 2010;35:727–33.
[25] Aydin M, Sisman A, Gultekin A. Long term performance prediction of a
borehole and determination of optimal thermal response test duration. In:
Proceedings of 39th geothermal reservoir engineering workshop, Stanford
University, California, USA, 24–26 February; 2014.
[26] European Committee for Standardization, Air conditioners, liquid chilling
packages and heat pumps with electrically driven compressors for space
heating and cooling. No. EN 14511-2.
[27] Signorelli S, Bassetti S, Pahud D, Kohl T. Numerical evaluation of thermal
response tests. Geothermics 2007;36:141–66.
[28] Carslaw HS, Jaeger JC. Conduction of heat in solids. Oxford, UK: Claremore
Press; 1959. Chapter XIII.
[29] Ozisik N. Heat conduction second edition. USA: A Wiley Interscience
Publication John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1993. Chapter III.
[30] COMSOL AB, COMSOL Version 4.2, COMSOL AB, Stockholm, Sweden; 2013.