Applied Thermal Engineering 90 (2015) 1061e1071

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Research Paper

Constructability and heat exchange efficiency of large diameter cast-

in-place energy piles with various configurations of heat exchange
pipe
Sangwoo Park a, Chihun Sung a, Kyoungsik Jung b, Byonghu Sohn c, Alexis Chauchois a, d,
Hangseok Choi a, *
a
School of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, Korea University, South Korea
b
S-TECH Consulting Group, Seoul, South Korea
c
Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology (KICT), South Korea
d
Department of Applied Science, University of Artois, France

h i g h l i g h t s

Various heat exchange pipe configurations were installed in large-diameter cast-in-place concrete piles.

The 8-pair- and 10-pair-parallel U-type energy piles demand more time and effort for installation.

Relative heat exchange efficiency is not directly proportional to the pipe length due to thermal interference.

The coil-type energy pile shows sufficient heat exchange capacity, compared with a closed-loop vertical GHEX.

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

Article history: A new ground heat exchanger (GHEX) assembled in a ground source heat pump (GSHP) system has been
Received 5 January 2015 devised, which is equipped in a structural pile, and thus called an “energy pile”. In this study, six large-
Received in revised form diameter cast-in-place energy piles that encased various types of heat exchange pipes (i.e., three parallel
15 May 2015
U-types with 5 pairs, 8 pairs and 10 pairs; two coil-types with 200 mm coil pitch and 500 mm coil pitch;
Accepted 21 May 2015
and S-type) were constructed in a test bed, and the constructability of each type of the energy pile was
Available online 30 May 2015
compared. Additionally, a 30 m-deep closed-loop vertical GHEX was separately constructed to compare
the thermal performance and economic feasibility with the energy piles. A series of in-situ thermal
Keywords:
Closed-loop vertical ground heat exchanger
response tests (TRTs) was performed to evaluate the relative heat exchange efficiency of each energy pile
Energy pile according to the various heat exchange pipe configurations. The relative heat exchange efficiency ob-
In-situ thermal response test tained in the cast-in-place energy piles and the down-sized 30 m-deep closed-loop vertical GHEX was
Constructability of energy pile normalized by the pile length (or borehole length) and the total heat exchange pipe length. The result
Relative heat exchange efficiency from the in-situ tests indicates that the longer the heat exchange pipe installed, the higher heat exchange
efficiency per pile length. However, in the case of tight layouts of the heat exchange pipe, thermal
interference occurs between adjacent pipe loops, which decreases heat exchange efficiency. Economic
feasibility of the energy piles was evaluated, considering the material and installation costs for assem-
bling the heat exchange pipe with consideration of the heat exchange efficiency. It is concluded that the
coil-type cast-in-place energy pile can achieve sufficient capacity for heat exchange, compared with the
closed-loop vertical GHEX.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Interest in new and renewable energy sources has increased all

* Corresponding author. 5 ga, Anam-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 136-701, South over the world in order to overcome the energy crisis caused by
Korea. Tel.: þ82 2 3290 3326; fax: þ82 2 928 7656. fossil fuel depletion and to resolve climate changes. Particularly due
E-mail address: hchoi2@korea.ac.kr (H. Choi).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.05.044
1359-4311/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1062 S. Park et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 90 (2015) 1061e1071
to the post-Kyoto Protocol implementation, uses of new and
renewable energy and changes in industrial structures into lower-
carbon industries have become major issues in recent years. The
South Korea government has also focused on a low-carbon and
“green” growth development strategy. In civil engineering and
construction field, “the law of development, utilization, and pro-
motion plan of new and renewable energy”, revised in 2012, reg-
ulates that new or renewable energy sources should cover more
than 11% of the total energy consumption in any new public
building with an area of more than 1000 m2.
Among the new and renewable energy sources, geothermal
energy could be a desirable alternative for energy security and a
promising way to contribute to reducing emissions of greenhouse
gases and improving the effectiveness of energy utilization. Ac-
cording to the final product, the use of geothermal energy can be
classified into two parts: direct utilization (produces thermal en-
ergy) and indirect utilization (produces electricity). Direct utiliza-
tion uses the constant underground temperature as a heat source
for energy conversion equipment, such as a heat pump, and con-
tributes to saving energy in the heating/cooling of a building. The
most significant technology for the direct utilization is a ground-
source heat pump (GSHP) system. With the aid of a ground heat
exchanger (GHEX), this technology stores indoor heat in the ground
in cooling operation and extracts ground heat to the interior or to a
hot-water supply system in heating operation.
The GHEX, where heat exchange occurs with the ground for-
mation, is a significant component when designing a GSHP system
because it determines the performance and initial installation cost
of the GSHP system. Generally, a closed-loop vertical GHEX is
widely used in the field. This type of GHEX is about 150e200 m in
depth and 100e150 mm in diameter, and allows heat transfer be-
tween a working fluid circulating in the inserted pipe, grout, and
ground [1,2]. However, the necessities of sufficient area for con-
structing a closed-loop vertical GHEX and large installation costs
(boring costs) make wide dissemination of GSHP systems difficult.
Thus, in this study, energy pile is introduced as the alternative
technology to the closed-loop vertical GHEX. The energy pile is a
foundation structure that induces heat exchange between the pile
and ground by circulating fluid in a heat exchange pipe encased
inside of a concrete pile or steel pile. This energy pile system can
function not only as a structural foundation, but also as a heat
exchanger. Because the energy pile is fabricated in an existing
structural foundation, it does not require an extra working area and
boring cost that accounts for more than 50% of the total construc-
tion cost of a closed-loop vertical GHEX. However, unlike a closed-
loop vertical GHEX, the performance of energy piles is greatly
affected by the air temperature. Moreover, energy piles have a
shorter borehole length (the embedded depth of piles is about
30e60 m on average) than a conventional closed-loop vertical
GHEX, which should be complemented by a larger cross section.
Several researches have been conducted to evaluate the effect of
heat exchange pipe configurations and heating/cooling operational
conditions on the overall performance of energy pile systems [3,4].
In addition, the effect of heating and cooling operations on the
subsurface thermal environment has been studied, by carrying out
in-situ thermal performance tests [5e7]. Considering coupled
thermo-mechanical loads exerted on energy piles, a combination of
thermodynamic and geotechnical performance has been studied
[8e10]. Besides, pioneering researches of energy piles were mainly
concentrated on PHC (pretensioned spun high strength concrete)
energy piles, which possess relatively small hollow space for
inserting heat exchange pipes [11e13].
A large-diameter cast-in-place concrete pile was introduced as a
promising energy pile type with the high thermal storage capacity
of concrete materials and with the large borehole surface for
enhancing the exchange of thermal energy between heat exchange
pipe and surrounding medium [14]. Therefore, the large-diameter
cast-in-place energy piles have been recently adopted in many
public buildings [15,16].
In this study, full-scale energy piles were constructed in a test
bed with different configurations of heat exchange pipe. Six types
of cast-in-place concrete energy piles were constructed: three
parallel U-type energy piles (5 pairs, 8 pairs and 10 pairs), two coil-
type energy piles (500 mm and 200 mm coil pitch), and one S-type
energy pile. The relative constructability of each energy pile was
evaluated by considering working conditions and installation time.
The NX-core-sized boring hole for the boring investigation was
used for constructing a down-sized closed-loop vertical GHEX with
a diameter of 55 mm and depth of 30 m in order to compare the
thermal performance with the cast-in-place energy piles.
In-situ thermal response tests (TRTs) were carried out to
compare the relative heat exchange efficiency of the energy piles
and the down-sized closed-loop vertical GHEX. The relative heat
exchange efficiency is normalized by the pile (or borehole) length
and by the total length of heat exchange pipes. The estimated
relative heat exchange efficiency of energy piles was compared
with that of the down-sized closed-loop vertical GHEX to evaluate
the applicability of cast-in-place energy piles. Finally, economic
feasibility of the cast-in-place energy piles was compared with
consideration of the installation cost for assembling the heat ex-
change pipe and the heat exchange efficiency.
2. Summary of construction conditions
2.1. Configuration of heat exchange pipe
The performance of a GSHP system is closely related to the heat
exchange capacity between the working fluid circulating in the
heat exchange pipe and the surrounding complex medium, such as
concrete, rebar frame, and soil formation. As thermal conductivity
of the complex medium is higher, or the contact surface between
the heat exchange pipe and complex medium is larger, the more
heat exchange occurs, and thus its performance is enhanced.
However, it is very difficult to significantly increase the thermal
conductivity of the complex medium because it is affected by
various factors such as the soil or rock type, ground water location
or velocity, and concrete mixing ratio. Therefore, this study exam-
ines a means for increasing the contact area between the heat ex-
change pipe and the complex medium in order to improve the
thermal performance of GHEXs. Unlike depth of a closed-loop
vertical GHEX, which is typically constructed as deep as
150e200 m, the embedded depth of a cast-in-place piles is usually
about 30e60 m on average. Therefore, energy piles can use only a
limited quantity of geothermal source due to the influence of air
temperature. In addition, energy piles utilize relatively smaller
volume than a closed-loop vertical GHEX for installing heat ex-
change pipes due to its shorter length.
Thus, in this study, heat exchange pipes with various configu-
rations were installed in cast-in-place concrete piles with a diam-
eter 10 times larger than that of a closed-loop vertical GHEX. Six
configurations were considered in order to examine the relation-
ships among available heat exchange area, constructability and
thermal interference. First, a 5-pair-parallel U-type heat exchange
pipe, one of the most popular types, was installed. Additionally, 8-
pair- and 10-pair- parallel U-type heat exchange pipes were
considered to evaluate the constructability and effect of thermal
interference with consideration of the density of heat exchange
pipe. Second, to make effective use of the large circumference, a
coil-type heat exchange pipe was considered, which is wound
around a rebar frame with spiral shape. In the coil-type heat
 S. Park et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 90 (2015) 1061e1071 1063

exchange pipe, a 500 mm coil pitch and a 200 mm coil pitch were the residual silty sand was examined by laboratory experiments,
selected, respectively. Finally, a factory-fabricated S-type heat ex- and summarized in Table 3.
change pipe was developed to fasten the heat exchange pipe onto According to the geotechnical investigation, six 1500-mm-
the curved rebar frame with ease. diameter cast-in-place concrete energy piles were designed to
The material of the heat exchange pipe should have enough penetrate 14 m below the ground surface. However, the 500 mm
strength, flexibility, corrosion resistance and acid resistance to not pitch coil-type energy pile was embedded to only 12.5 m below the
become damaged during concrete curing. High-density poly- ground surface because the fresh bedrock appears at relatively
ethylene (HDPE) pipe was selected because it is light and control- shallower depth. The specifications of the cast-in-place energy piles
lable along with high strength, corrosion resistance, and cold are indicated in Table 4. A plan view of the cast-in-place energy pile
resistance as well as ease of connection [10,17]. The diameter of a is represented in Fig. 1, and the configurations of six cast-in-place
heat exchange pipe has to be determined considering not only the energy piles are schematically illustrated in Fig. 2. A down-sized
heat transfer between the circulating fluid and the complex me- closed-loop vertical GHEX with the diameter of 55 mm and the
diums, but also energy loss to circulate the fluid. If the pipe diam- depth of 30 m was separately installed in the NX-core-sized boring
eter is small, a turbulent flow arises inside the pipe, thus making hole, which was drilled for the boring investigation.
heat exchange capacity increase, while more pump power is
required. In contrast, if the pipe diameter is large, the energy
needed for operating the pump decreases while the heat exchange
capacity lessens and the material cost increases. Moreover, the Table 3
flexibility or constructability should be considered according to the Results of laboratory experiment for residual silty sand.
radius of the curvature. Thus, The HDPE pipe with 27-mm-external Water Specific Liquid/ Grain size analysis (%) Unified soil
diameter and 21-mm-internal diameter was chosen as the opti- content gravity plastic limit classification
mum heat exchange pipe. The specification and configuration of (%)
LL (%) PI (%) No.4 No.10 No.40 No.200
the heat exchange pipes are summarized in Table 1.
9.5 2.66 NP NP 32.7 27.0 17.3 8.1 GW-GM

2.2. Overview of test bed

The test bed for constructing the cast-in-place energy piles is

located in Yongin city, South Korea. In the northeast of the site, a Table 4
Specification of cast-in-place energy piles.
long mountain ridge is elongated towards the site. Thus, the bed
rock is composed of fresh gneiss and appears at shallow depths. Type Diameter Embedment Number Configuration of heat
Gneiss is a high grade metamorphic rock, which is subjected to (mm) depth (m) exchange pipe
extremely high temperatures and pressures. It is formed by the Large F1,500 mm 14.0 m 5 Parallel U-type
metamorphosis of granite or sedimentary rock. Gneiss is one of the diameter (5 pairs, 8 pairs, 10 pairs)
cast-in-place Coil-type (pitch 200 mm)
common metamorphic rock types widely spread out the Korean
energy pile S-type
Peninsula. A boring investigation was conducted to identify F1,500 mm 12.5 m 1 Coil-type (pitch 500 mm)
geological features around the test bed. The results of the boring
investigation are indicated in Table 2.
As a result of the boring investigation, the bedrock is defined as
fresh gneiss with a 100% core recovery rate and 61e100% rock
quality designation (RQD). The fundamental physical properties of

Table 1
Specification and configuration of heat exchange pipes.

Type Specifications

Material of pipe High density polyethylene (HDPE)

Diameter of pipe Inner diameter 21 mm
Outer diameter 27 mm
Configuration 5-pair-parallel U-type 130 m
and total length 8-pair-parallel U-type 208 m
10-pair-parallel U-type 260 m
Coil-type 500 mm coil pitch 101 m
Coil-type 200 mm coil pitch 240 m
S-type 160 m

Table 2
Summary of boring investigation.

Depth Type of soil N value Characteristic

0.0 m ~ 6.0 m Residual silty sand 5/30 ~ 18/30 Wet and loose or
with gravel (Blow count/cm) dense soil layer
(medium relative
density)
6.0 m ~ 8.5 m Weathered rock 50/10 ~ 50/4 Very high relative
(Blow count/cm) density
8.5 m ~ 30.5 m Bed rock (gneiss) e Rock quality
designation (RQD)
of 61~100%
Fig. 1. Plan view of test bed with six cast-in-place energy piles.
1064 S. Park et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 90 (2015) 1061e1071

Fig. 2. Configurations of six cast-in-place energy piles.

 S. Park et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 90 (2015) 1061e1071 1065

Fig. 2. (continued).

3. Constructability of cast-in-place energy piles
A hot plate bonding operation should be conducted to form the
heat exchange pipe into the designed shape for the parallel U-type
and coil-type heat exchange pipe because a raw HDPE pipe is
usually produced as a roll or long straight bundles in a factory.
Special attention should be paid to the bonding operation since any
repair is not possible after the installation of energy pile. A heat
plate was inserted into a socket to melt to some extent of the inner
surface of the socket. Then, the heat exchange pipes are connected
to each other by slotting pipes into the socket.
After marking designated locations at which the heat exchange
pipe should be laid on the rebar frame, the parallel U-type and S-
type heat exchange pipes were fixed by cable ties or steel wire. The
5-pair-parallel U-type heat exchange pipe was installed exclusively
on the outer circumference of the rebar frame. On the other hand,
for the 8-pair-parallel U-type, 5 pairs were set up on the outer
circumference and the rest 3 pairs were inside the rebar frame due
to the limited surface area. For the 10-pair-parallel U-type, each of 5
pairs was installed on the outer and inner circumference of the
rebar frame, respectively. Two factory-fabricated S-type heat ex-
change pipes were designed to cover the whole outer circumfer-
ence of the rebar frame; that is, each of the S-type heat exchange
pipe was attached on a half of the outer circumference (refer to
Fig. 2 (d)). The attachment process for the parallel U-type and the S-
type heat exchange pipe is presented in Fig. 3, and the final
assemblage of energy piles is shown in Fig. 4.
The assembling process for the coil-type heat exchange pipes is
presented in Fig. 5. Lifting up the rebar frame by crane, a roll of
factory-fabricated HDPE pipe was manually wound around the
rebar frame, which demands more laborers compared to the 5-pair-
parallel U-type or S-type heat exchange pipe.
The parallel U-type heat exchange pipes possess the number of
inlets and outlets identical to the number of pairs, which results in
intricate line connection to a pipe header at pile heads. It is
important to distinguish the inlets and outlets of each pair of
U-type heat exchange pipe when fixing it to the rebar frame. With
consideration of installation conditions, the 8-pair- and 10-pair-

Fig. 3. Attachment process of heat exchange pipe to energy pile (U-type and S-type).
1066 S. Park et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 90 (2015) 1061e1071

Fig. 4. Assemblage of energy piles (U-type and S-type).

Fig. 5. Assembling process for coil-type heat exchange pipe.

parallel U-type heat exchange pipe demand more working time and
effort compared to the other types because the heat exchange pipe
should be installed not only on the outer circumference, but also on
the inner circumference of the rebar frame due to the limited sur-
face area. In contrast, the S-type heat exchange pipe shows signif-
icant constructability and firm assemblage with the least working
time. The coil-type heat exchange pipes provide excellent assem-
blage quality and moderate constructability on the requisition of
more workers and a crane. The attachment procedure for each of
the heat exchange pipes is summarized in Table 5 along with the
number of demanded workers and working time.
After assembling the heat exchange pipes to the rebar frame,
the remaining construction procedure is identical to that of cast-in-
place concrete pile as being summarized step by step in Fig. 6.
4. Evaluation of heat exchange efficiency
4.1. Overview of in-situ thermal response test (TRT)
Performing an in-situ TRT in a conventional vertical closed-loop
GHEX, ground thermal conductivity can be estimated by continu-
ously monitoring the temperature of the inlet and outlet fluid with
a constant heat injection rate in accordance with the infinite line
source model [18e20]. This approach adopts the analytical solution
for the response to an infinite constant-strength line source within
a homogeneous, isotropic, infinite medium. When constant lateral
heat flow is maintained from the line source with negligible vertical
heat flow along the borehole, the temperature field around the
GHEX is only dependent on time and radial distance from the
borehole axis. From the TRT results carried out in closed-loop
vertical ground GHEXs, the slope of the relationship between the
average of the inlet and outlet temperatures and natural logarithm
of time can be obtained to calculate the ground thermal
conductivity.
However, one of the fundamental assumptions of the infinite
line source model is that the borehole should be a sufficiently
thread-like shape, which is not satisfied in case of the large-
diameter energy piles that are relatively short compared with the
large diameter [21]. It is theoretically impossible to estimate the
ground thermal conductivity from the results of TRTs performed in
energy piles, but they do indirectly provide overall thermal
performance of energy piles instead. Thus, the relative heat
exchange efficiency (eff) is introduced in this paper to compare the
heat exchange capacity of the energy piles and the down-sized

Table 5
Summary of attachment procedure of heat exchange pipe.

Type Working time Workers Installation procedure Note

(time per pile length)

U-type 75 min (5.36 min/m) 2 people - Marking installation position - Necessary to identify both inlet and outlet
(5 pairs) - Fixing-up heat exchange pipe - Required installation time increase when attaching to
U-type 135 min (9.64 min/m) to outside rebar frame inside rebar frame
(8 pairs) (cable tie and wire)
U-type 175 min (12.5 min/m) - Fixing-up heat exchange pipe
(10 pairs) to inside rebar frame
Coil-type 60 min (4.80 min/m) 5 people - Lifting-up rebar frame by crane - Need of sufficient worker and crane
pitch 500 mm - Winding heat exchange pipe to - Assemblage quality is excellent
Coil-type 100 min (7.14 min/m) outside surface of rebar frame
pitch 200 mm - Fixing-up heat exchange pipe
S-type 60 min (4.28/m) 2 people - Mark installation position - Assemblage quality and constructability are excellent
- Fixing-up heat exchange pipe
to outside rebar frame
 S. Park et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 90 (2015) 1061e1071 1067

Fig. 6. Overall construction procedure for cast-in-place energy pile.

closed-loop vertical GHEX. The eff is defined as Eq. (1) in terms of
the borehole length (i.e., Lborehole) and the heat exchange pipe
length (i.e., Lpipe), respectively.
Q Q
effborehole ¼ ; effpipe ¼
slope  Lborehole slope  Lpipe
Q is the constant heat injection rate and slope is the relationship
between the average of the inlet and outlet temperatures and
natural logarithm of time.
In this study, in-situ thermal response tests (TRTs) were carried
out to compare the relative heat exchange efficiency of the energy
piles and the down-sized closed-loop vertical GHEX with the
diameter of 55 mm and the depth of 30 m.
4.2. Relative heat exchange efficiency
The experimental conditions for the in-situ TRTs are summa-
rized in Table 6 along with the configuration of heat exchange
pipes. During the TRTs, the flow rate and the inlet/outlet fluid
temperature were measured with the measurement accuracy of
±0.05%. The applied heat injection rate (Q) is calculated by Eq. (2)
_  DT ¼ c  m
Q ¼cm _  ðTin  Tout Þ
where Tin and Tout are the inlet and outlet fluid temperatures, m _ is
the mass flux and c is the specific heat of the circulating fluid. The
average applied heat injection rate during the in-situ tests was
summarized in Table 6.
After performing the TRTs, the relationship between the average
of the inlet and outlet temperatures and natural logarithm of time
is compared in Fig. 7 for the six energy piles and in Fig. 8 for the
down-sized closed-loop vertical GHEX, respectively. In addition,
Table 7 compares the values of eff calculated by Eq. (1). The relative
heat exchange efficiency is also expressed as the ratio of eff's for
each case to that of the 5-pair-parallel U-type energy pile.
In comparison to TRTs on the coil-type energy piles, the coil
pitch 200 mm energy pile shows higher effborehole than that of the
(1)
coil pitch 500 mm energy pile. This result indicates that for the
same borehole length, the denser the coil pitch installed, the
higher effborehole obtained due to the greater contact area for heat
exchange from the heat exchange pipe. However, even though the
coil pitch 200 mm energy pile encases a 2.4 times longer heat
exchange pipe than the coil pitch 500 mm energy pile, the eff-
borehole ratio is only 1.2. This result mentions that effborehole is not
directly proportional to the installed pipe length because the tight
coil pitch leads to thermal interference between each loop of the
heat exchange pipe. Thermal interference is also evident in
comparing effpipe, where the coil pitch 500 mm energy pile has 1.8
times higher value than that of the coil pitch 200 mm energy pile.
When comparing the coil pitch 200 mm energy pile with the 8-
pair-parrallel U-type energy pile, the 8-pair-parrallel U-type en-
ergy pile shows greater effborehole, even though the coil pitch
200 mm energy pile encases more heat exchange pipe volume.
This means that the coil-type energy pile is prone to cause greater
thermal interference than the U-type energy pile. Consequently, in
(2) case of the same length of heat exchange pipe installed in an
energy pile, the U-type energy pile carries out higher heat ex-
change than the coil-type energy pile due to the thermal inter-
ference phenomenon.
With regard to the U-type energy piles, there is no doubt the
5-pair-parallel U-type energy pile indicates effpipe fairly higher than
the 8-pair- or 10-pair-parallel U-type energy pile with the tight
layout, while the 8-pair- and 10-pair-parallel U-type energy piles
have almost identical effpipe, and the value of effborehole are
proportional to the pipe length, which means the 8-pair- and

Table 6
Experimental conditions for in-situ TRTs.

Type Heat exchange pipe length Borehole length Applied heat injection rate Applied flow rate

Coil-type pitch 500 mm 101 m 12.5 m 5100 W 1.75 m3/h

Coil-type pitch 200 mm 240 m 14 m 5066 W 1.22 m3/h
10-pair-parallel U-type 260 m 14 m 8776 W 3.67 m3/h
8-pair-parallel U-type 208 m 14 m 8757 W 3.78 m3/h
5-pair-parallel U-type 130 m 14 m 5215 W 1.85 m3/h
S-type 160 m 14 m 8885 W 2.04 m3/h
Down-sized closed-loop vertical GHEX 60 m 30 m 3800 W 1.54 m3/h
1068 S. Park et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 90 (2015) 1061e1071

Fig. 7. Result of TRT for cast-in-place energy piles.

10-pair-parallel U-type energy piles own a similar level of thermal
interference.
When comparing with a closed-loop vertical GHEX with energy
pile systems, the down-sized closed-loop vertical GHEX has a
relatively higher value of effpipe than the energy piles because the
closed-loop vertical GHEX encases a single U-type heat exchange
pipe in a borehole. Thus, the thermal interference between each
pipe loop can be minimized by comparing it to the energy piles.
However, the energy piles show a higher value of effborehole than the
closed-loop vertical GHEX by means of increasing a total length of
heat exchange pipe embedded in the much larger borehole, which
increases the contact area for heat exchange. Note that the draw-
back of relatively short borehole length of energy piles can be
complemented by enlarging heat exchange area with the signifi-
cantly longer heat exchange pipe installed in the larger borehole
with a diameter at least 10 times larger than that of the closed-loop
vertical GHEX.

5. Comparison of economic feasibility

Economic feasibility of the energy piles was analyzed by esti-

mating the material cost and installation cost for assembling heat

Table 7
Relative heat exchange efficiency of various GHEXs.

Type Heat exchange Relative heat Relative heat

pipe length exchange exchange
efficiency per efficiency per
borehole length pipe length

Length Ratio effborehole Ratio effpipe Ratio

Coil-type with 101 m 0.78 81.11 0.97 10.20 1.12

coil pitch 500 mm
Coil-type with 240 m 1.85 98.83 1.19 5.76 0.64
coil pitch 200 mm
10-pair-parallel U-type 260 m 2.00 122.95 1.47 6.62 0.73
8-pair-parallel U-type 208 m 1.60 100.49 1.20 6.76 0.74
5-pair-parallel U-type 130 m 1.00 83.86 1.00 9.03 1.00
S-type 160 m 1.23 87.05 1.04 7.62 0.84
Down-sized closed-loop 60 m 0.46 41.52 0.50 20.76 2.30
vertical GHEX
Fig. 8. Result of TRT for down-sized closed-loop vertical GHEX.
 S. Park et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 90 (2015) 1061e1071
exchange pipes with consideration of relative heat exchange effi-
ciency determined from the in-situ TRTs. The total construction
cost of the cast-in-place energy piles is summarized in Table 8. The
pile is a necessary foundation for transmitting a superstructure
load to firm underground bedrock when constructing a building.
Because the energy pile utilizes pile foundations bored for the
structural purpose, it does not impose boring and grout costs on the
total expense for construction unlike the conventional GHEXs. In
this way, the total construction cost assessed in Table 8 exclusively
includes the material cost of HDPE pipes, and the installation cost
including the labor charge corresponding to the number of workers
and working time, not considering the boring cost.
The material cost is calculated as 1.0 USD per pipe length
according to the Korean market standard (at the exchange rate of
1100 Korean Won to the U.S. dollar). However, the S-type heat ex-
change pipe imposes additional plastic shaping charge on the
material cost (i.e., 5.0 USD/m) which is factory-fabricated in
advance. The installation cost for the parallel U-type heat exchange
pipes is increased due to the additional charge for welding
U-shaped pipe connections and hot plate bonding sockets. In
assessing the labor cost, the number of necessary works and
working time from Table 5 are used along with the man-hour of
10.0 USD/hour.
The construction cost normalized by the borehole length and
the relative heat exchange efficiency are compared in Fig. 9. Overall,
the coil-type energy piles with enough length of heat exchange
pipe provide economic superiority over the parallel U-type energy
piles along with comparable relative heat exchange efficiency. In
Table 8
Estimation of total construction cost of cast-in-place energy piles.
Type Material cost
Coil-type with coil pitch 500 mm 101 m  1.0 USD/m
¼ 101.0 USD
Coil-type with coil pitch 200 mm 240 m  1.0 USD/m
¼ 240.0 USD
10-pair-parallel 260m  1.0 USD/m
U-type ¼ 260.0 USD
8-pair-parallel 208m  1.0 USD/m
U-type ¼ 208.0 USD
5-pair-parallel 130m  1.0 USD/m
U-type ¼ 130.0 USD
S-type 160m  5.0 USD/m
¼ 800.0 USD
Fig. 9. Comparison of economic feasibility.
1069
addition, as indicated in Table 5, when increasing the number of
U-type pairs more than 5 pairs to secure larger heat exchange area,
the workability is significantly reduced because the heat exchange
pipe should be installed on the inner circumference of the rebar
frame. Although the constructability of the S-type is excellent, the
significantly higher material cost due to pre-fabrication may lessen
economics. Therefore, it can be concluded that the optimum
configuration for a cast-in-place energy pile is the coil-type heat
exchange pipe in consideration of both the economic feasibility and
heat exchange efficiency.
In order to show the economic feasibility of energy pile
systems, the relative heat exchange efficiency per each energy pile
(efftotal¼effboreholeLborehole) was introduced in this paper,
comparing with that of the down-sized 30 m-deep closed-loop
vertical GHEX. In general, a closed-loop vertical GHEX is known
to generate a heat exchange amount as much as 1 RT (¼3.516 kW)
per 50 m borehole length. In other words, the down-sized 30 m-
deep closed-loop vertical GHEX constructed in the test bed is
assumed to produce about 0.6 RT corresponding to the efftotal of
1245.6. Comparing the values of efftotal, the heat exchange amounts
for each energy pile was relatively evaluated and summarized in
Table 9. In addition, cost-benefits of saving electricity were
calculated according to the commercial electricity cost of 0.06 USD/
kWh in Korea along with the corresponding investment payback
periods with consideration of the construction costs (refer to
Table 9).
As a result, the average investment payback period of the coil-
type and the parallel U-type energy piles is about 1.68 year while
Installation cost Construction cost
Cost Note
50.0 USD
Labor cost 151.0 USD
85.0 USD
Labor cost 325.0 USD
240.0 USD
Labor cost 500.0 USD

Welding cost for U-shaped pipe connection
170.0 USD
Labor cost 378.0 USD

Welding cost for U-shaped pipe connection
110.0 USD
Labor cost 240.0 USD

Welding cost for U-shaped pipe connection
20.0 USD
Labor cost 820.0 USD
1070 S. Park et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 90 (2015) 1061e1071

Table 9
Estimation of investment payback period of cast-in-place energy piles.

Type efftotal Heat exchange amount Saving of electricity for one year Cost-benefit by saving electricity for one year Investment payback period

Coil-type with 1013.9 0.49 RT 2,308 kWh/yr 138 USD/yr 1.09 year
coil pitch 500 mm (¼ 1.72 kW)
Coil-type with 1383.6 0.67 RT 3,149 kWh/yr 189 USD/yr 1.72 year
coil pitch 200 mm (¼ 2.34 kW)
10-pair-parallel 1721.3 0.83 RT 3,918 kWh/yr 235 USD/yr 2.13 year
U-type (¼ 2.92 kW)
8-pair-parallel 1406.9 0.68 RT 3,202 kWh/yr 192 USD/yr 1.97 year
U-type (¼ 2.38 kW)
5-pair-parallel 1174.0 0.57 RT 2,672 kWh/yr 160 USD/yr 1.50 year
U-type (¼ 1.99 kW)
S-type 1218.7 0.59 RT 2,774 kWh/yr 166 USD/yr 4.93 year
(¼ 2.06 kW)
Down-sized 1245.6 0.60 RT e e e
closed-loop (¼ 2.11 kW)
vertical GHEX

the S-type energy pile shows 3 times longer investment payback
period due to its high material cost. In addition, the investment
payback becomes longer as the distance of pipe loops becomes
shorter because thermal interference reduces the heat exchange
efficiency while the material cost increases.
6. Conclusions
In this paper, six types of cast-in-place concrete energy piles
were constructed in a test bed to compare the constructability and
thermal performance. The relative heat exchange efficiency of the
energy piles is compared with that of the down-sized closed-loop
vertical GHEX to show the applicability of cast-in-place energy
piles. Finally, economic feasibility analyses were performed to
select the optimum configuration of heat exchange pipe. The
important findings are listed as follows:
[1] Compared with the other heat exchange pipes, the 8-pair-
and 10-pair-parallel U-type heat exchange pipe demand
more working time and effort because the pipe should be
installed not only on the outer circumference, but also on the
inner circumference of the rebar frame. In contrast, the S-
type heat exchange pipe shows significant constructability
and firm assemblage with the least working time. The coil-
type heat exchange pipes provide excellent assemblage
quality and moderate constructability.
[2] According to the in-situ TRT results, for the same length of
energy pile, the denser the configuration of heat exchange
pipe installed, the higher relative heat exchange efficiency
per borehole length (effborehole) is obtained due to enlarged
heat exchange area. However, effborehole is not directly pro-
portional to the installed pipe length because the tight coil
pitch leads to thermal interference between each loop of the
heat exchange pipe.
[3] The energy piles show a higher value of effborehole than the
closed-loop vertical GHEX by means of increasing the total
length of heat exchange pipe embedded in the larger
borehole with a diameter at least 10 times larger than that
of the closed-loop vertical GHEX, which allows for the cast-
in-place energy pile to achieve sufficient capacity for heat
exchange, compared with the conventional closed-loop
vertical GHEX.
[4] The coil-type energy piles with enough length of heat ex-
change pipe show economic superiority over not only the S-
type, but also the parallel U-type energy piles with compa-
rable heat exchange efficiency. According to the current field
constructions and experiments, the optimum configuration
for a cast-in-place energy pile is the coil-type heat exchange
pipe in consideration of economic feasibility along with
thermal performance.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Korea Institute of Energy
Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP), Ministry of Knowl-
edge Economy (Grant No. 20113030110010 and Grant No.
2013T100200057).
References
[1] IGSPHA, Grouting for Vertical Geothermal Heat Pump Systems: Engineering
Design and Field Procedures Manual, International Source Heat Pump Asso-
ciation, Stillwater. US, 2000.
[2] D. Pahud, B. Matthey, Comparison of the thermal performance of double
U-pipe borehole heat exchangers measured in situ, Energy Build. 33 (2001)
503e507.
[3] J. Gao, X. Zhang, J. Liu, K. Li, J. Yang, Numerical and experimental assessment of
thermal performance of vertical energy piles, an application, Appl. Energy 85
(2008) 901e910.
[4] L. Jun, X. Zhang, J. Gao, J. Yang, Evaluation of heat exchange rate of GHW in
geothermal heat pump system, Renew. Energy 34 (2009) 2898e2904.
[5] X. Li, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, J. Zhao, Thermal performances of different types of
underground heat exchangers, Energy Build. 38 (2006) 543e547.
[6] C.J. Wood, H. Liu, S.B. Riffat, Use of energy piles in a residential building, and
effects on ground temperature and heat pump efficiency, Geotechniques 59
(3) (2009) 287e290.
[7] Jalaluddin, A. Miyara, K. Tsubaki, S. Inoue, K. Yoshida, Experimental study of
several types of ground heat exchanger using a steel pile foundation, Renew.
Energy 36 (2) (2011) 764e771.
[8] L. Laloui, M. Moreni, L. Vulliet, Behavior of a dual-purpose pile as foundation
and heat exchanger, Can. Geotechnical J. 40 (2) (2003) 388e402.
[9] L. Laloui, M. Nuth, L. Vulliet, Experimental and numerical investigations of the
behavior of a heat exchanger pile, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomechanics
30 (2006) 763e781.
[10] P.J. Bourne-Webb, B. Amatya, K. Soga, T. Amis, C. Davidson, P. Payne, Energy
pile test at Lambeth College, London: geotechnical and thermodynamic as-
pects of pile response to heat cycles, Geotechniques 59 (3) (2009) 237e248.
[11] K. Morino, T. Oka, Study on heat exchanged in soil by circulating water in a
steel pile, Energy Build. 21 (1) (1994) 65e78.
[12] Y. Hamada, H. Saitoh, M. Nakamura, H. Kubota, K. Ochifuji, Field performance
of an energy pile system for space heating, Energy Build. 39 (2007) 517e524.
[13] K. Nagano, Energy pile system in new building of Sapporo City University,
Therm. Energy Storage Sustain. Energy Consum. 234 (2007) 245e253.
[14] M. Moel, P.M. Bach, A. Bouazza, R.M. Singh, J.L.O. Sun, Technological advances
and applications of geothermal energy pile foundations and their feasibility in
Australia, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (9) (2010) 2683e2696.
[15] D. Pahud, M. Hubbuck, Measured thermal performances of the energy pile
system of the duck midfield as Zurick Airport, in: Proceedings European
Geothermal Congress, Unterhaching, Germany, 30 May-1 June, 2007.
[16] K. Sekine, Y. Shiba, R. Ooka, S.H. Hwang, M. Yokoi, Development of a ground-
source heat pump system with ground heat exchanger utilizing the cast-in-
place concrete pile foundations of buildings, ASHRAE Trans. (2007) 558e566.
 S. Park et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 90 (2015) 1061e1071 1071

[17] H. Brandl, Energy foundation and other thermo-active ground structures,
Geotechniques 56 (2) (2006) 81e122.
[18] S.H. Carslaw, J.C. Jaeger, Conduction of Heat in Solids, second ed., Oxford
Science Publication, 1959.
[19] R. Wagner, C. Clauser, Evaluating thermal response tests using parameter
estimation for thermal conductivity and thermal capacity, J. Geophys. Eng. 2
(2005) 349e356.
[20] M.H. Sharqawy, E.M. Mokheimer, M.A. Habib, H.M. Badr, N.A. Said, S.A. Al-
Shayea, Energy, exergy and uncertainty analyses of the thermal response test
for a ground heat exchanger, Int. J. Energy Res. 33 (2009) 582e592.
[21] C. Lee, M. Park, S. Park, J. Won, H. Choi, Back-analyses of in-situ thermal
response test (TRT) for evaluating ground thermal conductivity, Int. J. Energy
Res. 37 (11) (2013) 1397e1404.