IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v12y2019i8p1504-d224703.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investigation of Steady-State Heat Extraction Rates for Different Borehole Heat Exchanger Configurations from the Aspect of Implementation of New TurboCollector™ Pipe System Design

Author

Listed:
  • Tomislav Kurevija

    (Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Adib Kalantar

    (Faculty of Textiles, Engineering and Business, University of Borås, SE-501 90 Borås, Sweden)

  • Marija Macenić

    (Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Josipa Hranić

    (Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

Abstract

When considering implementation of shallow geothermal energy as a renewable source for heating and cooling of buildings, special care should be taken in the hydraulic design of the borehole heat exchanger system. Laminar flow can occur in pipes due to the usage of glycol mixtures at low temperature or inadequate flow rates. This can lead to lower heat extraction and rejection rates of the exchanger because of higher thermal resistance. Furthermore, by increasing the flow rate to achieve turbulent flow and satisfactory heat transfer rate can lead to an increase in the pressure drop of the system and oversizing of the circulation pump which leads to impairment of the seasonal coefficient of performance at the heat pump. The most frequently used borehole heat exchanger system in Europe is a double-loop pipe system with a smooth inner wall. Lately, development is focused on the implementation of a different configuration as well as with ribbed inner walls which ensures turbulent flow in the system, even at lower flow rates. At a location in Zagreb, standard and extended thermal response tests were conducted on three different heat exchanger configurations in the same geological environment. With a standard TRT test, thermogeological properties of the ground and thermal resistance of the borehole were determined for each smooth or turbulator pipe configuration. On the other hand, extended Steady-State Thermal Response Step Test (TRST) incorporates a series of power steps to determine borehole extraction rates at the defined steady-state heat transfer conditions of 0/−3 °C. When comparing most common exchanger, 2U-loop D32 smooth pipe, with novel 1U-loop D45 ribbed pipe, an increase in heat extraction of 6.5% can be observed. Also, when the same comparison is made with novel 2U-loop D32 ribbed pipe, an increase of 18.7% is achieved. Overall results show that heat exchangers with ribbed inner pipe wall have advantages over classic double-loop smooth pipe designs, in terms of greater steady-state heat extraction rate and more favorable hydraulic conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Tomislav Kurevija & Adib Kalantar & Marija Macenić & Josipa Hranić, 2019. "Investigation of Steady-State Heat Extraction Rates for Different Borehole Heat Exchanger Configurations from the Aspect of Implementation of New TurboCollector™ Pipe System Design," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:8:p:1504-:d:224703
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/8/1504/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/8/1504/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louis Lamarche & Jasmin Raymond & Claude Hugo Koubikana Pambou, 2017. "Evaluation of the Internal and Borehole Resistances during Thermal Response Tests and Impact on Ground Heat Exchanger Design," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Borja Badenes & Miguel Ángel Mateo Pla & Lenin G. Lemus-Zúñiga & Begoña Sáiz Mauleón & Javier F. Urchueguía, 2017. "On the Influence of Operational and Control Parameters in Thermal Response Testing of Borehole Heat Exchangers," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-15, September.
    3. Aresti, Lazaros & Christodoulides, Paul & Florides, Georgios, 2018. "A review of the design aspects of ground heat exchangers," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 757-773.
    4. Tomislav Kurevija & Kristina Strpić & Sonja Koščak-Kolin, 2018. "Applying Petroleum the Pressure Buildup Well Test Procedure on Thermal Response Test—A Novel Method for Analyzing Temperature Recovery Period," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-22, February.
    5. Pasquier, Philippe, 2018. "Interpretation of the first hours of a thermal response test using the time derivative of the temperature," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 56-75.
    6. Angelo Zarrella & Giuseppe Emmi & Samantha Graci & Michele De Carli & Matteo Cultrera & Giorgia Dalla Santa & Antonio Galgaro & David Bertermann & Johannes Müller & Luc Pockelé & Giulia Mezzasalma & D, 2017. "Thermal Response Testing Results of Different Types of Borehole Heat Exchangers: An Analysis and Comparison of Interpretation Methods," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    7. Sang Mu Bae & Yujin Nam & Jong Min Choi & Kwang Ho Lee & Jae Sang Choi, 2019. "Analysis on Thermal Performance of Ground Heat Exchanger According to Design Type Based on Thermal Response Test," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-16, February.
    8. Javier F. Urchueguía & Lenin-Guillermo Lemus-Zúñiga & Jose-Vicente Oliver-Villanueva & Borja Badenes & Miguel A. Mateo Pla & José Manuel Cuevas, 2018. "How Reliable Are Standard Thermal Response Tests? An Assessment Based on Long-Term Thermal Response Tests Under Different Operational Conditions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-24, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adriana Greco & Edison Gundabattini & Darius Gnanaraj Solomon & Raja Singh Rassiah & Claudia Masselli, 2022. "A Review on Geothermal Renewable Energy Systems for Eco-Friendly Air-Conditioning," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Finn Richter & Peter Niemann & Matthias Schuck & Jürgen Grabe & Gerhard Schmitz, 2021. "Comparison of Conventional and Variable Borehole Heat Exchangers for Use in a Desiccant Assisted Air Conditioning System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-12, February.
    3. Luka Boban & Dino Miše & Stjepan Herceg & Vladimir Soldo, 2021. "Application and Design Aspects of Ground Heat Exchangers," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-31, April.
    4. Abdelazim Abbas Ahmed & Mohsen Assadi & Adib Kalantar & Tomasz Sliwa & Aneta Sapińska-Śliwa, 2022. "A Critical Review on the Use of Shallow Geothermal Energy Systems for Heating and Cooling Purposes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-22, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joanna Piotrowska-Woroniak, 2021. "Determination of the Selected Wells Operational Power with Borehole Heat Exchangers Operating in Real Conditions, Based on Experimental Tests," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-21, April.
    2. Joanna Piotrowska-Woroniak, 2021. "Assessment of Ground Regeneration around Borehole Heat Exchangers between Heating Seasons in Cold Climates: A Case Study in Bialystok (NE, Poland)," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-32, August.
    3. Tomasz Sliwa & Kinga Jarosz & Marc A. Rosen & Anna Sojczyńska & Aneta Sapińska-Śliwa & Andrzej Gonet & Karolina Fąfera & Tomasz Kowalski & Martyna Ciepielowska, 2020. "Influence of Rotation Speed and Air Pressure on the Down the Hole Drilling Velocity for Borehole Heat Exchanger Installation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-18, May.
    4. Hans Schwarz & Borja Badenes & Jan Wagner & José Manuel Cuevas & Javier Urchueguía & David Bertermann, 2021. "A Case Study of Thermal Evolution in the Vicinity of Geothermal Probes Following a Distributed TRT Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, May.
    5. Alessandro Franco & Paolo Conti, 2020. "Clearing a Path for Ground Heat Exchange Systems: A Review on Thermal Response Test (TRT) Methods and a Geotechnical Routine Test for Estimating Soil Thermal Properties," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-21, June.
    6. Oliver Suft & David Bertermann, 2022. "One-Year Monitoring of a Ground Heat Exchanger Using the In Situ Thermal Response Test: An Experimental Approach on Climatic Effects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-15, December.
    7. Magraner, Teresa & Montero, Álvaro & Cazorla-Marín, Antonio & Montagud-Montalvá, Carla & Martos, Julio, 2021. "Thermal response test analysis for U-pipe vertical borehole heat exchangers under groundwater flow conditions," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(P1), pages 391-404.
    8. Aneta Sapińska-Sliwa & Marc A. Rosen & Andrzej Gonet & Joanna Kowalczyk & Tomasz Sliwa, 2019. "A New Method Based on Thermal Response Tests for Determining Effective Thermal Conductivity and Borehole Resistivity for Borehole Heat Exchangers," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-22, March.
    9. Davide Menegazzo & Giulia Lombardo & Sergio Bobbo & Michele De Carli & Laura Fedele, 2022. "State of the Art, Perspective and Obstacles of Ground-Source Heat Pump Technology in the European Building Sector: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-25, April.
    10. Borja Badenes & Miguel Ángel Mateo Pla & Teresa Magraner & Javier Soriano & Javier F. Urchueguía, 2020. "Theoretical and Experimental Cost–Benefit Assessment of Borehole Heat Exchangers (BHEs) According to Working Fluid Flow Rate," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-29, September.
    11. Xuedan Zhang & Tiantian Zhang & Bingxi Li & Yiqiang Jiang, 2019. "Comparison of Four Methods for Borehole Heat Exchanger Sizing Subject to Thermal Response Test Parameter Estimation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-30, October.
    12. Paul Christodoulides & Ana Vieira & Stanislav Lenart & João Maranha & Gregor Vidmar & Rumen Popov & Aleksandar Georgiev & Lazaros Aresti & Georgios Florides, 2020. "Reviewing the Modeling Aspects and Practices of Shallow Geothermal Energy Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-45, August.
    13. Yongjie Ma & Yanjun Zhang & Yuxiang Cheng & Yu Zhang & Xuefeng Gao & Hao Deng & Xin Zhang, 2022. "Influence of Different Heat Loads and Durations on the Field Thermal Response Test," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-17, November.
    14. Luka Boban & Dino Miše & Stjepan Herceg & Vladimir Soldo, 2021. "Application and Design Aspects of Ground Heat Exchangers," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-31, April.
    15. Lazaros Aresti & Paul Christodoulides & Gregoris P. Panayiotou & Georgios Florides, 2020. "The Potential of Utilizing Buildings’ Foundations as Thermal Energy Storage (TES) Units from Solar Plate Collectors," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, May.
    16. Tomasz Sliwa & Aneta Sapińska-Śliwa & Andrzej Gonet & Tomasz Kowalski & Anna Sojczyńska, 2021. "Geothermal Boreholes in Poland—Overview of the Current State of Knowledge," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-21, June.
    17. Zhang, Changxing & Song, Wei & Liu, Yufeng & Kong, Xiangqiang & Wang, Qing, 2019. "Effect of vertical ground temperature distribution on parameter estimation of in-situ thermal response test with unstable heat rate," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 264-274.
    18. Wang, Gaosheng & Song, Xianzhi & Shi, Yu & Yang, Ruiyue & Yulong, Feixue & Zheng, Rui & Li, Jiacheng, 2021. "Heat extraction analysis of a novel multilateral-well coaxial closed-loop geothermal system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 974-986.
    19. Adel Eswiasi & Phalguni Mukhopadhyaya, 2021. "Performance of Conventional and Innovative Single U-Tube Pipe Configuration in Vertical Ground Heat Exchanger (VGHE)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-15, June.
    20. Wilke, Sascha & Menberg, Kathrin & Steger, Hagen & Blum, Philipp, 2020. "Advanced thermal response tests: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:8:p:1504-:d:224703. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.