4.7 Article

Performance analysis of short helical borehole heat exchangers via integrated modelling of a borefield and a heat pump: A case study

Journal

APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING
Volume 61, Issue 2, Pages 36-47

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.07.021

Keywords

Ground source heat pump systems; Ground heat exchanger; Helical pipe; Numerical simulation; Borehole; Heat pump

Funding

  1. University of Padova within the Senior Research Grant framework
  2. Italy's Ministry of Universities
  3. Scientific and Technological Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents a new simulation tool package that calculates the energy efficiency of an entire Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) system. The package consists of two detailed models of borehole heat exchangers and heat pump equipment coupled in a single well-integrated calculation tool. It was used to analyze two types of ground heat exchangers in the same operating conditions for two Italian climates. Research focused on comparing a short helical-shaped pipe configuration with the more widespread and longer double U-tube. Analysis was carried out at the same energy exchange rate with the ground and addressed the difference in total borehole depth. The package also took into account the effects of the weather on the heat transfer between the heat exchanger and the surrounding ground. Analysis found that a much shorter total borehole depth was needed for the helical-shaped pipe, which consequently reduces installation costs. Therefore, this configuration may be a suitable alternative to conventional U-shaped tubes, especially for new residential housing with low energy loads and where deep probe drilling is not possible. Finally, this paper also investigates the influence of the axial effects in the ground on the seasonal energy efficiency of the whole system. (C) 2013 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