4.7 Article

Evaluation of estimation method of ground properties for the ground source heat pump system

Journal

RENEWABLE ENERGY
Volume 35, Issue 9, Pages 2123-2130

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2010.01.028

Keywords

Ground-source heat pump; Energy pile system; Ground property; Geotechnical investigation; Thermal response test

Funding

  1. New Energy and Industrial technology Development Organization, Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Technology directed at geothermal energy, one of our renewable energy sources, to heat and air-condition buildings has become very attractive in recent years following the significant developments in ground-source heat pump (GSHP) systems. In general, although the energy efficiency of GSHP systems is far superior to conventional air-source heat pump (ASHP) systems, GSHP system is still expensive. Therefore, GSHP system employs the foundation pile of buildings as heat exchanger is introduced in order to reduce the initial cost. When designing a GSHP system (especially in case of the energy pile system), it is necessary to accurately predict the heat extraction and injection rates of the heat exchanger. The thermal and hydraulic properties of the ground are very important to accurately predict heat transfer between the ground heat exchanger and the ground. In particular, those are the most important design parameters because energy pile system is installed only a few tens of meters deep. In this paper, an estimation method is suggested in order to determine the thermal and hydraulic properties of the ground for design the heat exchanger of energy pile system base on geotechnical investigation for the design the building's foundations. The use of results from generally applied geotechnical site investigation methods to estimate ground thermal and hydraulic properties was evaluated. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available