Borehole Thermal Analysis for a Closed Loop Vertical

U-Tube DX Ground Heat Exchanger

Ali H Tarrad

To cite this version:

Ali H Tarrad. Borehole Thermal Analysis for a Closed Loop Vertical U-Tube DX Ground
Heat Exchanger. Mathematical Modelling of Engineering Problems, 2021, 8 (4), pp.501 - 509.
�10.18280/mmep.080402�. �hal-03336707�

HAL Id: hal-03336707

https://hal.science/hal-03336707
Submitted on 7 Sep 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés.
 Mathematical Modelling of Engineering Problems
Vol. 8, No. 4, August, 2021, pp. 501-509
Journal homepage: http://iieta.org/journals/mmep

Borehole Thermal Analysis for a Closed Loop Vertical U-Tube DX Ground Heat Exchanger
Ali H. Tarrad

Universitéde Lorraine, CNRS, LEMTA, Nancy F-54000, France

Corresponding Author Email: [email protected]

https://doi.org/10.18280/mmep.080402 ABSTRACT

Received: 6 September 2020 The borehole geometry configuration and its sizing represent great challenges to the
Accepted: 24 February 2021 thermal equipment designer in the field of geothermal energy source. The present work
represents a piece in that direction to avoid elaborate mathematical and computation
Keywords: schemes constraints for the preliminary design of the U-tube ground heat exchanger
borehole thermal resistance, sizing a U-Tube, operates under a steady-state condition. A correlation was built for the prediction of the
equivalent diameter, geothermal energy source, borehole thermal resistance. The U-tube diameter, leg spacing, borehole diameter, and
R-410A the offset configuration with respect to the center of the borehole were introduced in the
present correlation. An equivalent tube formula and borehole configuration were
postulated to possess the same grout volume as the original loop. A variety of
geometrical configurations were tested at different U-tube and borehole sizes. The
predicted total thermal resistance of the borehole was implemented into the thermal
design of the (DX) ground condenser to sizing the borehole U-tube heat exchanger. A
hypothetical cooling unit of (1) ton of refrigeration that circulates R410A refrigerant
was chosen for the verification of the present model outcomes. The predicted thermal
resistance revealed an excellent agreement with other previously published work in this
category.

1. INTRODUCTION the simulation of energy flow and temperature changes in and

around a ground U-tube heat exchanger was presented by
In a GSHP system, the ground-coupled heat exchanger Florides et al. [4]. They observed that the larger the U-tube
plays a major role in determining the thermal performance and diameter the higher the rate of dissipation of heat to the ground
installation cost of the heat pump utilized for such purposes. and the higher the soil thermal conductivity the higher the
Hence, numerous works has been directed towards the amount of heat that escapes the U-tube. A variety of numerical
modeling of the U-tube and borehole thermal resistance to solutions were implemented by many researchers to design the
exploit the ground for its energy harness purposes. Accurate ground heat exchanger such as [5-8].
prediction of the thermal resistance of the coupled-ground heat Koenig [9] presented a detailed analysis of the thermal
exchanger optimizes the dimensioning of the U-tube and resistance circuit between the fluid flowing inside the vertical
hence the effective installation, operating, and maintenance U-tube and the ground. The model was also extended to the
costs. multi-pipe loop geometries consisting of two-, three-, and
Liao et al. [1] presented a numerical study for the effective four-loop assemblies in a single borehole. The model
borehole thermal resistance of a vertical, single U-tube ground predictions were compared to reported results and showed
heat exchanger for a range of shank spacing. The non-uniform acceptable agreement over a range of pipe sizes and spacing.
temperature distributions along the perimeter of both borehole A 3-dimensional model to investigate the influence of
and outside diameter of the two pipes were taken into account underground soil thermal properties, grout materials, inlet
to evaluate effective borehole thermal resistance. They water temperature, and velocity, and groundwater seepage on
concluded that their study produced a correlation that showed heat transfer in the GSHE [10]. They concluded that the effect
better accuracy than available correlations. A 2-D numerical of thermal-seepage coupling in groundwater can enhance the
model for the steady-state heat conduction between the U-tube heat transfer in the GSHE.
and borehole configuration was postulated by Sharqawy et al. The technique of replacing the U-tube with an equivalent
[2]. They developed a correlation for the effective borehole single concentric tube inside the borehole was suggested by
thermal resistance and was also claimed that their correlation many researchers to model the U-tube heat exchanger. The
predicted the thermal resistance better than other available equivalent diameter of the single tube is a complex issue,
formulas. especially when dealing with the physical representation of
Haq et al. [3] analyzed numerically an existing 60 kW heat contact surface area and volume of the filling. The equivalent
pump system in an area of Finland with a ground source of diameter of U-tube can be presented in the form of:
250m borehole heat exchanger. They calculated the coefficient
of performance and an optimal length was estimated for the 𝑑𝑒 = 𝛽𝑑𝑜 (1)
heat capacity of the heat pump to enhance the performance of
the system. A 3-dimensional conduction numerical model for where, 𝛽 is a constant bigger than 1.0. Claesson [11]

501
postulated a value of √2 for the equivalency coefficient 𝛽 for of the borehole. The expression for the case of average
two buried horizontal pipes in direct contact. A scatter for the configuration was formulated as:
experimental data of the coefficient value was reported by Mei
and Baxter [12], it was ranged between 1.0 and 1.662 with a 1
𝑅𝑓 =
mean value of 1.28. This value was smaller than the √2 𝐷𝐵 −0.6052 (8)
17.44 𝑘𝑔 ( )
calculated by Claesson [11] and that stated as 1.84 by Fischer 𝑑𝑜
and Stickford Jr [13]. Gu and O’Neal [14] utilized a steady-
state heat transfer simulation based on the cylindrical source This expression didn’t show any response to the U-tube legs
model to produce a correlation for the grout resistance for a spacing variation between the two extreme cases, close
vertical U-tube ground heat exchanger in the form: together and along the outer wall of the borehole. Hence it
reveals constant grout thermal resistance for normal operation
of the U-tube ground heat exchanger regardless of the U-tube
𝐷𝐵 𝑑𝑜 legs spacing.
𝑙𝑛 ( )
𝑑𝑜 √ 𝑆𝑝 (2) In the present work, a model was suggested to predict the
𝑅𝑓= borehole thermal resistance for a U-tube ground-coupled heat
2 𝜋 𝑘𝑔 pump. A hypothetical 1 ton of refrigeration heat pump was
postulated for thermal assessment of the borehole that
This form of equation reveals that the equivalent diameter accommodates a single vertical U-tube. A direct exchange
was expressed as: (DX) geothermal heat pump was utilized, in which R410A
refrigerant is circulated through the copper tubing placed in
𝑑𝑒 = √𝑆𝑝 𝑑𝑜 (3) the ground.

Bose et al. [15] implemented a one-dimensional heat 2. PRESENT CORRELATION

transfer model for the U-tube and arrived at the same value of
equivalent diameter as that of Claesson [11] for a U-tube heat 2.1 Derivative
exchanger, the grout thermal resistance had the form:
The equivalent tube diameter technique has been utilized by
𝐷 references [11-16]. Each of these investigators had his
𝑙𝑛 ( 𝐵 )
√𝑛 𝑑𝑜 (4) physical interpretation and justification for the technique
𝑅𝑓= followed by those researchers. In the present work, a similar
2 𝜋 𝑘𝑔
idea is implemented for the representation of the U-tube by a
single equivalent tube. Consider a vertical U-tube ground heat
In which the equivalent diameter corresponds to:
exchanger as shown in Figure 1a is to be transformed to an
equivalent geometry configuration. The latter has an offset
𝑑𝑒 = √𝑛 𝑑𝑜 (5)
configuration with respect to the borehole center and possesses
the same volume of grout as illustrated in Figure 1b.
where, n is equal to 2 for a single U-tube system. A correlation
for the grout thermal resistance based on a mean value of the
equivalent diameter as √3 𝑑𝑜 was presented by Tarrad [16].
This value was deduced for fixed surface area and volume of
U-tube when deriving the concentric equivalent diameter
geometry. He showed the consistency of his correlation with
other published ones with an acceptable margin. Tarrad [17]
pointed out that the grout layer thickness and its thermal
conductivity have great impacts on the thermal performance
of the borehole. He reported a correlation for the equivalent
single tube diameter based on equal grout thermal resistances
for both of the U-tube and concentric equivalent single tube in
a. Single U-tube b. Equivalent geometry
a one-dimensional model. It has been represented as a function
of all of the geometry configurations of the U-tube and
Figure 1. A schematic presentation of the present model
borehole arrangements in the form:

𝐷𝐵 Therefore, an equivalent tube diameter to replace the two

𝑑𝑒 = (6) legs of the U-tube by keeping a constant volume of grout
(𝑥 + √𝑥 2 − 1) around the tube geometry was derived from:

where 𝜋 𝜋
{𝐷𝐵 2 − 2 𝑑𝑜 2 } 𝐿 = {𝐷𝐵 2 − 𝑑𝑒 2 } 𝐿 (9)
4 4
𝐷𝐵 2 + 𝑑𝑜 2 − 𝑆𝑝 2
𝑥= (7) Solving this equation yields to:
2 𝐷𝐵 𝑑𝑜

Remund [18] established a correlation to predict the 𝑑𝑒 = √2 𝑑𝑜 (10)

borehole thermal resistance for the three configurations of
GSHE pipes, close together, average, and along the outer wall The transaction of the equivalent diameter 𝑑𝑒 = √2 𝑑𝑜 to

502
the offset position was achieved by keeping the offset shoulder 𝑑
ln( 𝑜 )
defined by the following relation as a constant: 𝑅𝑝 =
1
+
𝑑𝑖
(17)
𝜋 𝑑𝑖 ℎ 2 𝜋 𝑘𝑝

𝐷𝐵 −𝑆𝑝 −𝑑𝑜
𝑦𝑜 = = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡. (11) The unsteady analytical model presented by Garbai and
2
Méhes [21] expressed the ground thermal resistance as follow:
This imposed condition was to ensure that the equivalent
tube has a geometrical representation as close as possible to 𝑅𝐵
𝑅𝑆 =
the original loop configuration. The offset distance of the 1 𝛾 (18)
2 𝑘𝑠 { − }
equivalent diameter then calculated from: ln 𝐹𝑂 − 2 𝛾 [𝑙𝑛(4 𝐹𝑂 − 2 𝛾)]2

𝑙𝑝,𝑒 =
1
(𝐷𝐵 − 2 𝑦𝑜 − 𝑑𝑒 ) (12) In which the parameter γ represents the Euler number and
2 equal to 0.57. Applying Eq. (18) for a ground thermal
conductivity of 2.42 W/m.K, they obtained the ground thermal
In which the equivalent tube offset distance lp,e obeys the resistance under the unsteady condition as shown in Table 1.
following condition:
Table 1. Unsteady ground thermal resistance changes with
𝑑𝑜 − 𝑟𝑒 ≤ 𝑙𝑝,𝑒 ≤ 𝑟𝐵 − 𝑟𝑒 (13) time
The offset distance of the equivalent tube is corresponding Ground Thermal Resistance
to (lp,e=do-re) when the U-tube legs are touching each other. Elapsed Time
(m. K/W)
The extreme case of the offset distance corresponds to (lp,e=rB- 10 Second 0.008
re) for the condition when the U-tube legs are touching the 1 hr 0.012
borehole wall. 1 day 0.022
Tarrad [19] found that the available one-dimensional 1 month 0.033
correlations well predicted the borehole thermal resistance of 1 year 0.053
a 3-dimensional borehole model with an accuracy margin of 10 years 0.06
5-18%. Hence, a one-dimensional heat transfer process
between the fluid inside the tube and soil may be justified for They concluded that a steady-state operation was attained
preliminary borehole thermal analysis. The thermal resistance after 1 year operation of a vertical U-tube ground heat
of an offset tube inside a cylindrical geometry with a length to exchanger. A value of 0.053 m.°C/W for ground thermal
be much bigger than the radius of the tube can be inferred with resistance was calculated for the steady-state conditions at a
the help of the shape factor cited in Holman [20] as: ground thermal conductivity of 2.42 W/m.K. Therefore, the
total thermal resistance per unit length is estimated by:
1
𝑅𝑓 = (14)
𝑆𝑓,𝑒 𝑘𝑔 𝐷𝐵 2 + 𝑑𝑒 2 − 4 𝑙𝑝 2
cosh−1 { }
2 𝐷𝐵 𝑑𝑒 (19)
2𝜋𝐿 𝑅𝑡 = + 𝑅𝑝 + +𝑅𝑆
𝑆𝑓,𝑒 = 𝐷 2 + 𝑑𝑒 2 −4 𝑙𝑝,𝑒 2 2 𝜋 𝑘𝑔
cosh−1 { 𝐵 }
(15)
2 𝐷𝐵 𝑑𝑒

Eq. (14) possesses the same tube loop and grout volumes, 3. A HYPOTHETICAL UNIT DESIGN
the mass flow rate of fluid inside the U-tube, and the same
borehole geometry. Further, the same temperature conditions The model was utilized to estimate the U-tubing required to
around the borehole will be kept constant as the original build a ground DX heat exchanger for 3.5 kW cooling load.
borehole geometry. This expression reveals that the grout Figure 2 depicts a layout of a heat pump to provide chilled
thermal resistance shows a declination as the distance of U- water for cooling purposes with the following operating
tube legs increases. It approaches a minimum for given conditions:
operating conditions and borehole configuration as the tubes • A useful superheat degree in evaporators of 3℃ and
are accommodated at the borehole wall where maximum heat subcool degree of 2℃ in condensers. Unuseful
absorption or dissipation would be expected. The heat superheat in piping at the suction line was assumed
conduction mode is the predominant factor in the thermal to be 1℃.
process of the borehole/soil combination. The grout layer that • A suction gas heat exchanger was utilized with a
covers the tubes will be minimal when these tubes are situated thermal efficiency of 30% to subcool the condensate
close to the borehole wall and thus minimize the thermal and heat the gas at the compressor suction.
resistance. • Evaporation temperature was set at -10℃ and a
pressure of 5.72 bar.
2.2 Ground and tube resistances • Condensing temperature and pressure were 30℃ and
18.76 bar respectively.
The equivalent diameter possesses the same convection
• The compressor is operating at 70% and 80%
resistance of the fluid flowing inside the original tube and its
isentropic and volumetric efficiencies respectively
conduction resistance through the tube wall. Hence, the
with 10% heat loss.
borehole thermal resistance is expressed as:
• A 3.5 kW to be extracted from a space throughout the
circulation of chilled water at 7℃ with a temperature
𝑅𝐵 = 𝑅𝑓 + 𝑅𝑝 (16)
rise of 5℃ in fan coils installed at the required points.

503
 • Rejected load to the ground by the copper tubing of thermodynamics for the evaporator, condenser, expansion
the condenser was estimated in the range of 4.4 kW device, and compressor. The energy loss from the evaporator
with COP of 3.57 for cooling. was assumed to be negligible for excellent thermal insulation.
The evaporator load is represented by:
The p-h diagram of this system is shown in Figure 2b where
the refrigerant is circulated through the on-ground and 𝑄̇𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑝 = 𝑚̇𝑟𝑒𝑓 (ℎ1 − ℎ6 ) (20)
underground parts with specified operating conditions.
The refrigerant enters the condenser as superheated gas; the
superheat value depends on the refrigerant type and operating
conditions. Thermodynamics yields the following relation:

𝑄̇𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 = 𝑚̇𝑟𝑒𝑓 (ℎ3 − ℎ4 ) (21)

The results showed that to accomplish 1 ton of refrigeration

in the evaporator, it requires about 0.98 kW to run the
compressor. The refrigerant volumetric flow rate of R-410A is
3.39 m3/h at the compressor suction conditions. The available
code known as CoolPack was implemented wherever it was
needed to collect the physical properties of the analyzed
refrigerants and assessment verification objectives [23].

3.2 Ground U-tubing

(a) A schematic diagram of the hypothetical heat pump The objectives of the present work were focused on the
system assessment of U-tube heat exchanger geometry, borehole
length to convey the condenser load and compare the results
with other available correlations. The U-tube length is
obtained for the general expression in the form:
𝐿 ∆𝑇
𝑄̇𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 = 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 𝑚 (22)
𝑅𝑡

∆𝑇𝑚 = 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑓,𝑚 − 𝑇𝑆 (23)

The depth of the borehole corresponds to the calculated tube

length from Eq. (22). In this context, the following issues were
(b) A (p-h) diagram of the hypothetical geothermal heat considered:
pump system [22] 1- The condensation takes place under an isothermal
process; this is true for pure refrigerants, azeotrope
Figure 2. A hypothetical Geothermal heat pump system [22] mixtures, and non-azeotrope mixtures of the
negligible boiling range such as R-410A.
3.1 Data analysis 2- The borehole wall experiences a homogeneous
circumferential isothermal boundary.
The controlling mathematical relations for the thermal The illustrated geometry configurations in Table 2 were
performance of the chiller were deduced from the first law of selected and assessed for condenser load of 4.4 kW.

Table 2. Geometry configurations for a single U-tube loop

Geo. do (mm) DB (mm) Sp/do (----) Sp (mm) Gref (kg/m2 s) de (mm) AU-tube (m2/m)
G1 9.525 65 3.3 31.43 371.43 13.47 0.0599
G2 12.7 75 2-4.5 25.4-57.2 199.27 17.96 0.0798

The mass flux density and fluid flow velocity were 3.3 Heat transfer coefficient
calculated from:
Huang et al. [24] has reported data for condensation of R-
𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑓 =
𝑚̇𝑟𝑒𝑓
(24) 410A/oil mixture at tube diameter of 5mm. The tests were
𝐴𝑐,𝑖 conducted at a mass flux density range of 200 to 600 kg/m2 s
and heat flux in the range of 4-19 kW/m2. The results showed
𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑓
𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 = (25) that for condensation at 40℃, the heat transfer coefficient of
𝜌𝑟𝑒𝑓
pure R-410A was ranged between 2.4 to 4.6 kW/m 2 ℃
measured for vapor quality range between 0.2 and 0.9
Eq. (25) could be used for both liquid and vapor phases with respectively. Kim and Shin [25] studied the condensation of
the utilization of the proper fluid density. R-410A in a 9.52mm outside diameter copper tube at a heat

504
flux of 11 kW/m2. The tests were conducted at condensation
temperature of 45°C, mass flux velocity of 273 to 287 kg/m 2
s, and vapor quality of 0.1–0.9. The data presented a range
between 2 and 3 kW/m2 ℃ for the heat transfer coefficient
depending on vapor quality. For the present work assessment,
a value of 3 kW/m2 ℃ was chosen for the condensation heat
transfer coefficient of R-410A.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

(a) G1, specific total thermal resistance at tube WF=12.5
4.1 Tube size

The predicted grout thermal resistance of the present work

as expressed in Eq. (14) is compared with the previous
correlations of references [14-18] in Figure 3.

(b) G2, specific total thermal resistance tube WF=14.29

Figure 4. Comparison of specific total thermal resistance at

(Sp/do) of 3.3

Bose et al. [15] correlation showed a response to the

(a) G1, grout specific resistance for tube WF=12.5 geometrical configuration and was higher for the small tube
diameter, G1, than that of G2 as shown in Figure 4. Further,
[15] correlation predicted the highest magnitudes for the
thermal resistances than those of other correlations and was
closer to those of [17]. The other tested correlations predicted
closer values to each other, the present correlation produced
close results to those of [14, 16, 18] and the discrepancy was
negligible.
Tarrad [16] correlation predicted higher total thermal
resistance than that of the present work for both U-tube
geometries. It was higher than those of the present work by 13-
17% and 13-16% for G2 and G1 configurations at Sp/do of 3.3
(b) G2, grout specific resistance for tube WF=14.29 respectively. On the contrary, the present work predictions
were higher than those of [18] by 4-5% and 11-15% for G2
Figure 3. Comparison of grout specific thermal resistance at and G1 configurations at a geometry ratio of 3.3 respectively.
(Sp/do) of 3.3 Gu and O’Neal [14] predicted higher total thermal resistance
than those of the present work by 2-4% for G2. On the contrary,
All correlations showed a similar data trend for the grout the present work predicted higher values than those of [14] by
thermal resistance variation with thermal conductivity of 2-3% for G1 configuration.
filling. The thermal resistance of the backfill showed a
reduction with grout thermal conductivity increase. The 4.2 Tube diameter at fixed (Sp/do)
response of the present correlation for the geometry
configuration variation is evident from Figure 3. The lowest The response of the present correlation to the effect of
thermal resistance was experienced at WF=14.29 whose tube different geometrical parameters was studied for the case
outside diameter is 12.7mm. The bigger tube diameter, G2 where a fixed value of Sp/do was chosen for different tube
revealed the lower thermal resistance. This condition was also diameters. In other words, for the case where different values
confirmed previously by [4, 16, 17, 26, 27]. The trend of the of DB/dp were selected at fixed borehole diameter as illustrated
prediction emphasized that increasing (d o) reduces the grout in Table 3.
thermal resistance and vice versa. Figure 5 depicts the response of the present correlation to
Figure 4 illustrates the comparison of specific total thermal the effect of the ratio defined by DB/do and its comparison with
resistance of the present work as presented in Eq. (18) with other available expressions derived by Gu [14], Bose et al. [15]
other investigators. These curves show that the total resistance and Tarrad [16, 17]. All of these correlations showed the same
decreases as the grout thermal conductivity increases. The trend of the predicted grout and total thermal resistance with
highest and lowest thermal resistances were experienced at DB/do. The general behavior of these curves was also
(kg) of 0.73 W/m.K and 1.9 W/m.K respectively. Remund [18] confirmed by the work of Sagia et al. [26] in his numerical
correlation resulted in the lowest thermal resistance; it is analysis and the prediction of ref. [27]. The trend of the data
independent of the U-tube geometry. showed that at fixed borehole diameter and geometry ratio,

505
increasing of DB/do, the thermal resistance exhibited an diameter results in the embedding of the tubes in a thicker
increase and vice versa. This is because decreasing the tube grout layer and hence higher thermal resistance.

Table 3. Characteristics of examined geometries for fixed Sp/do and DB

do (mm) DB (mm) Sp/do (----) Sp (mm) DB/do (----) de (mm)

9.52 75 2 19.04 7.88 13.47
12.7 75 2 25.4 5.91 17.96
15.88 75 2 31.75 4.724 22.46
19.05 75 2 38.1 3.937 26.94

(a) Borehole thermal resistance variation

Figure 6. Variation of grout thermal resistance with U-tube
legs spacing at fixed DB/do

The results for these borehole dimensions were compared

between different correlations under the same geometry
configuration. The correlations built [15, 16, 18] didn’t show
any response to the geometry dimension variation, therefore
they revealed constant values as straight horizontal lines as
illustrated in Figure 6. The present correlation exhibited a
good interaction with the geometry configuration and physical
(b) Total thermal resistance variation dimension of the borehole size. The thermal resistance of the
grout and hence the borehole is a strong function of the spacing,
Figure 5. A borehole and total thermal resistances variation U-tube size, and to some extent to the borehole diameter as
with DB/do at Sp/do of 2 and fixed DB confirmed by Bose [15] and Tarrad [17] and present work. The
correlations of Bose [15] and Tarrad [17] and the present work
The present model prediction for the borehole total thermal showed the response of the thermal resistance to the tube
resistance is bounded by Tarrad [16] data as a minimum of spacing and diameter. As the tube spacing increases, the grout
0.224 m.K/W and those of ref. [14, 15] as a maximum of thermal resistance, borehole resistance, and the total borehole
0.403 m.K/W for the test geometry configurations, Figure 5. resistance also decrease. Their values approaching a minimum
as the tubes reach closer to the borehole boundary, in this
4.3 Tube spacing at fixed DB/ do category the Sp/do equal to 4. This conclusion was also
confirmed by [18] for the case where the U-tube legs were
Table 4 shows the characteristics of the borehole geometries situated along the borehole surface. He found the minimum
assigned for this purpose. A borehole diameter and tube thermal resistance would be attained under these conditions.
outside diameter were chosen as 75mm and 12.7mm
respectively. Eq. (10) shows that the thermal resistance is 4.4 Borehole depth
geometry dependent and grout thermal conductivity. The tube
spacing was varied between 2 and 4 times the U-tube diameter. Figure 7 depicts a comparison of different model
predictions for the total U-tube length at different ground
Table 4. Characteristics of test geometries for fixed do and temperatures 10 and 15℃ for condensation at 30℃. The
DB higher the thermal conductivity of grout the shorter U-tube
length will be required. The lower ground temperature
do (mm) Sp (mm) Sp/do (----) DB (mm) Sp/DB (----) revealed smaller tube lengths for all of the tested correlations
12.7 25.4 2 75 0.339 and having the same data trend.
12.7 31.75 2.5 75 0.423
The assessment showed that the present work as illustrated
12.7 38.1 3 75 0.51
in Eq. (19) predicted a U-tube total length which is close to
12.7 41.91 3.3 75 0.559
that [14, 16, 18]. Bose et al. [15] and Tarrad [17] predicted the
12.7 50.8 4 75 0.677
highest range of U-tube total length and they were close to
Figure 6 was produced to illustrate the effect of the tube each other by a margin of 2-3%. The predicted tube length for
spacing on the grout specific thermal resistance and hence on G2 of the present work at grout thermal conductivity of 0.78
the total value which determines the ground heat exchanger W/m.K is compared with various correlations in Figure 8.
size.

506
 the lowest corresponding value, Figures 3, 4. The predicted
values of depths were higher than those of [18] by 24-33% and
27-29% [15, 17] respectively, Table 4. The present work has
also shown higher borehole depths than those of the [18]
model by the range of 6-14%. The other correlations predicted
a variety of U-tube lengths and were bounded by Tarrad [17]
and Remund [18] predicted numerical values. The present
correlation showed closer magnitudes of the U-tube length to
those of Gu and O'Neal [14] and Tarrad [16] ones. The
predicted depths by the present work were within the range of
(a) G2, total U-tube length for ∆𝑇𝑚 =20℃ ±3% when compared with Gu and O'Neal [14] and were lower
than those of Tarrad [16] by 1-6%. Whereas the predicted
design values of Tarrad [17] were closer to those obtained by
the model [15]. It should be pointed out that the size of the
vapor phase side for condensers is usually designed to have a
larger tube leg diameter than that of the liquid phase. This is
to secure a proper velocity of the refrigerant through the U-
tube ground heat exchanger. But the present work can give a
proper tool for the preliminary design of the ground heat
exchanger.

(b) G2, total U-tube length for ∆𝑇𝑚 =15℃

Figure 7. Comparison of predicted U-tube length between

different models at Sp/do of 3.3

The calculated geometrical configurations for both

geometries are compared in Table 5. High depths of boreholes
were predicted by Bose [15] and Tarrad [17], whereas Remund
[18] estimated the shortest U-tube length. This is due to the
fact the earlier correlations predicted the highest thermal
resistance of the borehole systems and the latter has predicted Figure 8. Comparison of U-tube length at kg of 0.78 W/m.K

Table 5. Borehole size and thermal resistances at kg=0.78 W/m.K, Sp/do of 3.3 and ΔTm =20℃

Model do (mm) DB (mm) Sp (mm) de (mm) Rf (m.°C/W) Rt (m.°C/W) Lt (m) As (m2)

9.52 65 31.43 13.47 0.2784 0.3448 76.1 2.277
Present Work
12.7 75 42.00 17.96 0.2302 0.293 64.8 2.585
9.52 65 31.43 17.3 0.270 0.3364 74.24 2.222
Gu & O’Neal [14]
12.7 75 42.00 23.1 0.2403 0.3032 66.9 2.669
9.52 65 31.43 13.47 0.3211 0.3875 85.6 2.561
Bose et al. [15]
12.7 75 42.00 17.96 0.2916 0.3544 78.25 3.122
9.52 65 31.43 16.50 0.280 0.3461 76.38 2.286
Tarrad [16]
12.7 75 42.00 21.99 0.2503 0.3131 69.12 2.758
9.52 65 31.43 12.544 0.3357 0.4020 88.72 2.655
Tarrad [17]
12.7 75 42.00 18.887 0.2813 0.3442 75.96 3.031
9.52 65 31.43 ------- 0.235 0.3014 66.52 1.991
Remund [18]
12.7 75 42.00 ------- 0.2153 0.2781 61.4 2.450

The tube length or the borehole depth of the ground heat dimension selection of a ground heat exchanger and a
exchanger represents a great challenge to the designer. This is compromise is approached with installation and operation
due to the many factors that have an inevitable impact on the costs.
heat transfer rate between the fluid that is flowing inside the
tube and ground conditions. Raising the discharge pressure of
the compressor increases the saturation temperature of the 5. CONCLUSION
refrigerant which increases the temperature difference
between the fluid and ground. Simultaneously, such action A model was built to predict the borehole thermal resistance
will increase the heat load to be dissipated through the U-tube by replacing the U-tube with an equivalent tube positioned in
ground heat exchanger. Improving the grout thermal an offset orientation with respect to the borehole center. The
conductivity minimizes the need for long tubes. Further, the thermal resistance correlation possessed all of the geometrical
tube size has its effect on the tube length as well, smaller tubes parameters of the original U-tube/borehole configuration. The
create a higher obstruction to heat flow than those of big sizes results showed that increasing of Sp/DB at fixed DB/do reduces
and hence the length of the tube. The U-tube leg spacing the borehole thermal resistance and hence the depth of
should also be taken into consideration when sizing the borehole for a specified heat load. The present work
borehole. Hence, optimization should be considered for the predictions were higher than those of [18] by 4-5% and 11-

507
15% for G2 and G1 configurations at geometry ratio of 3.3 [10] Chen, S., Mao, J., Han, X., Li, C., Liu, L. (2016).
respectively. Gu and O’Neal [14] predicted higher total Numerical analysis of the factors influencing a vertical
thermal resistance than those of the present work by 2-4% for u-tube ground heat exchanger. Sustainability, 8(9): 882.
G2 and it was lower than the present work by 2-3% for G1 https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090882
configuration. [11] Claesson, J. (1983). Heat extraction from the ground by
The predicted depths by the present work fell in the range horizontal pipes: a mathematical analysis. Document D1,
of ±3% when compared with that of [14] for configuration G2 Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm.
at Sp/do of 3.3. The work provides a good contribution to solve [12] Mei, V.C., Baxter, V.D. (1986). Performance of a
the design problem of the U-tube ground heat exchanger for ground-coupled heat pump with multiple dissimilar U-
preliminary sizing under steady-state operation. tube coils in series. ASHRAE Transactions, 92(2A): 30-
42.
[13] Fischer, R.D., Stickford Jr, G.H. (1984). Technical and
ACKNOWLEDGMENT economic feasibility of horizontal, multiple shallow-well,
and deep-well ground coupling for residential heat pump
The author expresses his sincere thanks to the applications. Final Report Battelle Columbus Labs.
administration of PAUSE program in France and the [14] Gu, Y., O'Neal, D.L. (1998). Development of an
University of Lorraine for their valuable support to complete equivalent diameter expression for vertical U-tubes used
this work. in ground-coupled heat pumps. Transactions-American
Society of Heating Refrigerating and air Conditioning
Engineers, 104: 347-355.
REFERENCES [15] Bose, J.E., Parker, J.D., McQuiston, F.C. (1985),
Design/Data manual for closed-loop ground-coupled
[1] Liao, Q., Zhou, C., Cui, W., Jen, T.C. (2012). Effective heat pump systems; American Society of Heating,
borehole thermal resistance of a single U-tube ground Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers
heat exchanger. Numerical Heat Transfer, Part A: (ASHRAE).
Applications, 62(3): 197-210. [16] Tarrad, A.H. (2020). A perspective model for borehole
https://doi.org/10.1080/10407782.2012.691061 thermal resistance prediction of a vertical U-tube in
[2] Sharqawy, M.H., Mokheimer, E.M., Badr, H.M. (2009). geothermal heat source. Athens Journal of Technology
Effective pipe-to-borehole thermal resistance for vertical and Engineering, 7(2): 73-92.
ground heat exchangers. Geothermics, 38(2): 271-277. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajte.7-2-1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2009.02.001 [17] Tarrad, A.H. (2019). A borehole thermal resistance
[3] Haq, H.M., Martinkauppi, B.J., Hiltunen, E. (2017). correlation for a single vertical DX U-tube in geothermal
Analysis of ground heat exchanger for a ground source energy application. American Journal of Environmental
heat pump: A study of an existing system to find optimal Science and Engineering, 3(4): 75-83.
borehole length to enhance the coefficient of https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajese.20190304.12
performance. WSEAS Transactions on Heat and Mass [18] Remund, C.P. (1999). Borehole thermal resistance:
Transfer, 12(2017): 38-47. laboratory and field studies. ASHRAE Transactions, 105:
[4] Florides, A.G., Christodoulides, P., Pouloupatis, P., 439-445.
(2012). An analysis of heat flow through a borehole heat [19] Tarrad A.H. (2021). A 3-Dimensional numerical thermal
exchanger validated model. Applied Energy, 92: 523-533. analysis for the configuration effect of a single and
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.11.064 double U-Tube on the borehole performance.
[5] Muraya, N.K. (1994). Numerical modeling of the Proceedings of the ASME 2021 15th International
transient thermal interference of vertical U-tube heat Conference on Energy Sustainability ES2021, Paper No:
exchangers. Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M ES2021-60659. https://doi.org/10.1115/ES2021-60659
University. [20] Holman, J.P, (2010), Heat Transfer, 10th edition,
[6] Rottmayer, S.P., Beckman, W.A., Mitchell, J.W. (1997). Published by McGraw-Hill. Chapter, 3: 83-86.
Simulation of a single vertical U-tube ground heat [21] Garbai, L., Méhes, S. (2008). Heat capacity of vertical
exchanger in an infinite medium (No. CONF-970668-). ground heat exchangers with single U-tube installation in
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air- the function of time. WSEAS Transactions on Heat and
Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA, United States. Mass Transfer, 3(3): 177-186.
[7] Zeng, H., Diao, N., Fang, Z. (2003). Heat transfer [22] Tarrad, A.H. (2019). The utilization of renewable energy
analysis of boreholes in vertical ground heat exchangers. source and environment friendly refrigerants in cooling
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 46(23): mode. Sustainable Energy, 7(1): 6-14.
4467-4481. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0017- https://doi.org/10.12691/rse-7-1-2
9310(03)00270-9 [23] Technical University of Denmark (DTU). (2001).
[8] Al-Khoury, R., Bonnier, P.G., Brinkgreve, R.B.J. (2005). CoolPack Software: A Collection of Simulation Tools
Efficient finite element formulation for geothermal for Refrigeration, Denmark.
heating systems. Part I: Steady state. International [24] Huang, X., Ding, G., Hu, H., Zhu, Y., Gao, Y., Deng, B.
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 63(7): (2010). Condensation heat transfer characteristics of
988-1013. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.1313 R410A–oil mixture in 5 mm and 4 mm outside diameter
[9] Koenig, A.A. (2015). Thermal resistance of borehole horizontal microfin tubes. Experimental Thermal and
heat exchangers composed of multiple loops and custom Fluid Science, 34(7): 845-856.
shapes. Geothermal Energy, 3(1): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2010.01.013
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40517-015-0029-1 [25] Kim, M.H., Shin, J.S. (2005). Condensation heat transfer

508
 of R22 and R410A in horizontal smooth and microfin Sf Geometry shape factor (m)
tubes. International Journal of Refrigeration, 28(6): 949- Sp U-tube leg spacing (m)
957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2005.01.017 ΔT Temperature difference (K)
[26] Sagia, Z., Stegou, A., Rakopoulos, C. (2012). Borehole V Fluid flow velocity (m/s)
resistance and heat conduction around vertical ground x Parameter defined by eq. (7)
heat exchangers. The Open Chemical Engineering yo Distance between the borehole wall and
Journal, 6: 32-40. tube (m)
http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874123101206010032
[27] Shonder, J.A., Beck, J.V. (1998). Determining effective Subscriptions
soil formation thermal properties from field data using a
parameter estimation technique. ASHRAE Transactions, B Borehole
105: 458-466. c Cross-sectional
cond Condenser
e Equivalent
NOMENCLATURE f Filling, grout
m Mean temperature difference between
Parameter Definition filling and ground
A Surface area (m2) g Grout
COP Coefficient of Performance i Inside
d Tube diameter (m) o Outside
D Diameter (m) p Pipe
FO Fourier number ref Refrigerant
G Mass flux density (kg/m2 s) s Surface
GSHP Ground source heat pump S Soil
H Depth (m) t total
k Thermal conductivity (W/m.K)
lp Offset tube distance (m) Greek letters
L Length (m)
𝑚̇ Mass flow rate (kg/s) 𝛽 Coefficient defined in Eq. (1)
𝑄̇ Heat transfer rate (kW) 𝛾 Euler number
r Radius (m) ρ Density (kg/m3)
R Thermal resistance (m.K/W)

509