applied

sciences
Article
Dynamic and Static Investigation of Ground Heat
Exchangers Equipped with Internal and External Fins
Atefeh Maleki Zanjani 1 , Kobra Gharali 1,2, * , Armughan Al-Haq 2 and Jatin Nathwani 2,3, *
1 School of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran 11155-4563, Iran;
atefeh.malekiz@ut.ac.ir
2 Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Energy (WISE), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada;
armughan.al-haq@uwaterloo.ca
3 Department of Management Sciences, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
* Correspondence: kgharali@ut.ac.ir or kgharali@uwaterloo.ca (K.G.); nathwani@uwaterloo.ca (J.N.)




Received: 1 November 2020; Accepted: 30 November 2020; Published: 4 December 2020


Abstract: Using fins on the inner and outer surfaces of pipes is one method to improve the heat
transfer rate of ground heat exchangers (GHEs), thereby reducing the borehole depth and construction
and operation costs. Results of 3D numerical studies of simple and finned U-tubes with outer and
inner fins are evaluated for GHEs under similar physical conditions. Dynamic and static simulations
show the effects of longitudinal fins on the thermal performance of borehole heat exchangers (BHEs)
and heat transfer rate between circulating fluid and soil around pipes, while the dynamic tests
include short timescale and frequency response tests. The results indicate that the maximum fluid
temperature change is about 2.9% in the external finned pipe and 11.3% in the internal finned pipe
compared to the finless pipe. The effects of the inlet velocity on temperature profiles, the patterns of
the velocity and temperature contours due to the borehole curvature and the response times of the
systems under various frequencies are also investigated in detail.

Keywords: ground heat exchanger; 3D simulation; finned U-tube; external fin; internal fin;
dynamic simulation

1. Introduction
Ground source heat pump systems (GSHPs) offer the potential for significant energy savings,
through low maintenance costs and contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. GSHPs are used
for heating/cooling residential and commercial buildings and for providing domestic hot water [1,2].
The use of GSHPs proved to be a technically feasible and economically viable solution as compared to
other heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems in cooling dominated environments
such as the Arabian Peninsula where the air conditioning (A/C) systems account for 65% of the energy
consumption strictly from fossil fuels [3]. The GSHPs are fully capable of meeting the cooling demands
of buildings in hot climates, specifically, in the Middle East [4]. The most common type of ground heat
exchangers is the vertical ground heat exchanger with the length of 100–150 m [5,6]. The empty space
between pipe and borehole wall is usually filled with grout which helps to improve the heat transfer
rate between circulating fluid inside pipes and ground [7]. Since the initial costs of vertical borehole
heat exchangers (BHEs) are relatively high due to the limitations of drilling and manpower, efforts are
being made to increase the heat transfer rate between fluid and soil around the pipes in various ways,
and thus reducing the borehole depth [8].
Several methods have been proposed to calculate and reduce borehole resistance. In most thermal
response test (TRT) analyses, the average of inlet and outlet temperatures of the fluid is used to

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8689; doi:10.3390/app10238689 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8689 2 of 19

calculate the fluid temperature along the ground heat exchanger (GHE). Some researchers have shown
that the average of inlet and outlet temperatures can cause significant errors in results and suggested
alternative methods for estimating the average fluid temperature [9–15].
Grout materials are used to fill spaces between pipes and the soil around the borehole which can
play a key role in the heat transfer rate between the fluid and undisturbed ground. Some researchers
have worked on the effects of different grout materials on the thermal performance of the GSHP systems
and found the best option for grout materials [16]. Borinaga et al. [17] used four different boreholes
with the same geometric and geological characteristics but different grout materials to determine the
appropriate thermal conductivity. They reported a proper type of grout for the thermal response test.
Erol et al. [18] evaluated the performance of various grout materials and tested the effects of adding
graphite on the thermal properties of grout material.
Various numerical and analytical models have been developed based on linear source or cylindrical
source theory. Using these models, the influences of different geometric and thermal properties on
the static and dynamic behavior of a BHE has been investigated. Eskilson [19] proposed a G-function
to describe borehole performance. G-function curves based on borehole geometry were reported by
calculating the soil temperature using the finite difference method. Beier [20] developed an analytical
solution for calculating the vertical temperature profile of the fluid inside the pipe and the ground
temperature distribution by using Laplace transforms.
There are several studies about GSHPs based on the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
method. Pu et al. [21] investigated the effects of Reynolds number, pipe diameter, and U-tube shank
spacing on the thermal performance of GHEs. The results showed that by increasing the Reynolds
number and the pipe diameter in laminar flow, better performance can be achieved. Esen et al. [22]
performed a numerical and experimental study to evaluate the temperature distribution in GHE using
three U-tube BHEs with the same diameters and different depths. Li et al. [23] compared the thermal
performance of U-tube heat exchangers with four different standard diameters. Zhu et al. [24] studied
the thermal performance of a double U-tube GHE and the effects of parameters such as inlet velocity,
temperature, and operating distance on the temperature distribution of the soil. Lee and Lam [25]
performed computer simulations of borehole heat exchanger to determine ground and borehole the
temperature along depth using a finite difference model.
Yang and Lee [26] performed a dynamic thermal analysis on a 4-ton residential GSHP and
observed a design trade-off between cooling and heating modes. They obtained the optimal value of
the evaporator area fraction in both cooling and heating modes.
Kharseh et al. [3] studied the energy savings by using GSHP systems in the residential buildings
sector in cooling-dominated environments. It was found out that the energy savings by using
GSHPs when compared to the conventional air source heat pump system are much higher. Similary,
Beckers et al. [27] performed a techno-economic analysis on a hybrid ground-source heat pump systems
for cooling-dominated applications. The results of their simulation showed that a ground-source
heat pump-based system helped the owner to save up to 30% of lifetime electricity consumption as
compared to an air-source heat pump-based system. In contrast, the air-source heat pump-based
system can have up to 10% lower total cost of ownership due to the lower upfront capital cost. A study
by Salem and Hashim [4] discussed that the commercial buildings in Dubai have fairly high occupancy,
fluctuating demands, and extensively diverse cooling requirements within individual zones, which are
difficult to meet effectively and efficiently with conventional HVAC systems. They concluded that
there is potential for the efficient use of ground couple heat pumps (GCHPs) in Dubai commercial
buildings leading to significant savings in energy usage and operating costs and substantial reduction
in CO2 and NOx emissions over a 20 year life cycle as opposed to other HVAC options.
The performance of fins for enhancing heat transfer of heat exchangers generally has been
considered previuosly [28] and Bouhucina et al. [29] investigated the influence of internal fins on the
dynamic and thermal performance of U-tube GHEs. Using fins increased heat transfer rate up to 7%.
Saeidi et al. [30] performed a numerical simulation of GSHPs with a spiral pipe and investigated the
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8689 3 of 19

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19

effects of a fin on the outer surface of the spiral pipes. The results showed that fins can improve thermal
conductivity duestudies
Previous to increased surface
have been area. to find a method to increase the thermal efficiency of
conducted
GSHP systems.
Previous These
studies methods
have were based
been conducted on borehole
to find a methodconfiguration,
to increase thethermal
thermalproperties
efficiency of GSHP
the
groundThese
systems. and grout materials,
methods were and
basedgenerally finding
on borehole suitable solutions
configuration, thermalto reduce the of
properties borehole depth.and
the ground
To the
grout best of and
materials, the generally
authors’ knowledge, the impacts
finding suitable solutions of to
internal
reduceand
theexternal
boreholefins on the
depth. thermal
To the best of
performance of U-tube GHEs have not been compared yet which is the aim of the
the authors’ knowledge, the impacts of internal and external fins on the thermal performance of U-tube current study.
Moreover,
GHEs have notboth dynamic
been and static
compared behavior
yet which is theofaim
simple andcurrent
of the finned study.
U-tubeMoreover,
GHEs willboth be evaluated
dynamictoand
obtain
static the best
behavior of efficiency.
simple andFor the dynamic
finned tests, various
U-tube GHEs conditionsto
will be evaluated such as short
obtain timescale
the best response
efficiency. For the
and sinusoidal response tests will be investigated for the BHE equipped with fins.
dynamic tests, various conditions such as short timescale response and sinusoidal response tests The velocity of the
will
inlet flow with the resultant flow filed patterns and the frequency of the input temperature with its
be investigated for the BHE equipped with fins. The velocity of the inlet flow with the resultant flow
effects on the response time and amplitudes are other important parameters that are added to this
filed patterns and the frequency of the input temperature with its effects on the response time and
investigation.
amplitudes are other important parameters that are added to this investigation.
2. Case Study
2. Case Study
The geometry of the simple U-tube ground heat exchanger consists of a U-tube, grout materials,
The geometry of the simple U-tube ground heat exchanger consists of a U-tube, grout materials,
and soil around the borehole, Figure 1. The grout materials and the surrounding soil are considered
and soil around the borehole, Figure 1. The grout materials and the surrounding soil are considered as
as two cylinders with different radii, the radius of the ground is approximately 16 times the radius
two cylinders with different radii, the radius of the ground is approximately 16 times the radius of
of the borehole.
the borehole.

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of a single U-tube borehole heat exchanger.

Figureof1. simple
The cross-sections Schematic
anddiagram of U-tubes
finned a single U-tube borehole heat
are illustrated inexchanger.
Figure 2. The details of the
geometry of U-tube GHE are provided in Table 1. The borehole has a diameter of 128 mm and a depth
The cross-sections of simple and finned U-tubes are illustrated in Figure 2. The details of the
of 25 m, which includes a vertical U-tube with a thickness of 2 mm. The ground around the borehole is
geometry of U-tube GHE are provided in Table 1. The borehole has a diameter of 128 mm and a depth
a cylinder of 2 m in diameter with the same depth as the borehole. In finned pipes, six longitudinal fins
of 25 m, which includes a vertical U-tube with a thickness of 2 mm. The ground around the borehole
with dimensions of 2 × 6 mm2 (2 mm thickness and 6 mm length) are used in each leg of the U-tube.
is a cylinder of 2 m in diameter with the same depth as the borehole. In finned pipes, six longitudinal
The fins
fins aredimensions
with placed in aofsymmetrical
2 × 6 mm arrangement
(2 mm thicknessrelative
and 6tomm thelength)
horizontal axis.in each leg of the U-
are used
tube. The fins are placed in a symmetrical arrangement relative to the horizontal axis.
Table 1. Geometric properties of U-tube ground heat exchanger (GHE).
Table 1. Geometric properties of U-tube ground heat exchanger (GHE).
Parameters Value
Parameters
Borehole diameter (mm) Value
128
Inner diameter
Boreholeof pipe (mm)
diameter (mm) 12830
Outer diameter
Inner of pipe
diameter (mm)(mm)
of pipe 3034
Distance between
Outercenters of U-tube
diameter pipes
of pipe (mm)(mm) 3455
Borehole length (m) 25
Distance between centers of U-tube pipes (mm) 55
Ground diameter (m) 2
Borehole length (m) 25
Ground diameter (m) 2
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8689 4 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19

(a) (b) (c)

Figure
Figure 2. 2. Cross-sectionsofofsmooth
Cross-sections smoothand
and finned
finned U-tubes:
U-tubes: (a)
(a)simple
simpleU-tube;
U-tube;(b)
(b)U-tube
U-tubewith
withouter fins;
outer fins;
(c) (c) U-tube
U-tube with
with innerfins.
inner fins.

3. Numerical Setup
3. Numerical Setup

3.1.3.1.
Mesh Generation
Mesh Generation
TheThemeshmeshgeneration
generation is performed
is performed based on both
based on structured
both structured and unstructured
and unstructuredgrids. grids.
After defining
After
thedefining
boundaries and edges of different parts of the geometry as lines or curves,
the boundaries and edges of different parts of the geometry as lines or curves, a two- a two-dimensional grid
is created
dimensional in Cartesian coordinates
grid is created and then
in Cartesian this 2D grid
coordinates andisthen
extended
this 2Dingridtheisdirection
extendedofindepth. The cells
the direction
areofequally
depth. The or exponentially
cells are equally distributed in different
or exponentially parts in
distributed ofdifferent
the geometry.
parts ofFor
thethis purpose,
geometry. For athis
high
purpose,
number a high
of cells arenumber
consideredof cells
forare considered
places with steepfor places with steep
temperature temperature
slope, for example, slope,
near forthe
example,
borehole
andnear
pipe thewalls.
boreholeForandthe pipe
areaswalls.
where For thetemperature
the areas where slope
the temperature
is low, the slope
size of is the
low,cells
the size of the
is increased.
cells is
Figure increased.
3 shows theFigure 3 shows the
computational meshcomputational
of the simple mesh of theGHE.
U-tube simpleThe U-tube
upper GHE.andThe upper
lower and
surfaces
lower surfaces around the borehole are made up of 600 cells, which have
around the borehole are made up of 600 cells, which have bigger sizes in the middle part. The borehole bigger sizes in the middle
part. Thevertically
is divided borehole isinto divided vertically
70 layers withinto 70 layers
different with different
distances. The distances.
curved area Theof curved area of at
the U-tube thethe
U-tube at the bottom of the pipe requires finer and different mesh from
bottom of the pipe requires finer and different mesh from the other domains of the geometry due to the the other domains of the
geometry of
complexity due
thetogeometry.
the complexity
Around ofthe
thecurved
geometry. Around
edges, usingthe curved edges,
unstructured meshesusing unstructured
is more practical.
meshes is more practical.
Although the accuracy of the calculations increases with the number of cells, the higher computation
Although the accuracy of the calculations increases with the number of cells, the higher
time should also be considered. As a result, by examining the grid independency test, it is possible
computation time should also be considered. As a result, by examining the grid independency test,
to obtain a suitable and optimal mesh with the necessary accuracy to achieve the final results and
it is possible to obtain a suitable and optimal mesh with the necessary accuracy to achieve the final
to avoid increasing computation time. Grid independency of simple and finned U-tube GHE has
results and to avoid increasing computation time. Grid independency of simple and finned U-tube
been
GHE investigated by varyingby
has been investigated thevarying
number theofnumber
cells from coarse
of cells frommesh to finer
coarse meshmesh.
to finerTable
mesh. 2 shows
Table 2the
outlet fluid temperature in the simple U-tube GHE under the steady-state
shows the outlet fluid temperature in the simple U-tube GHE under the steady-state condition for condition for different grid
3 is used for smooth U-tube GHE since no temperature change is
different grid cells. A total cell number of 330 × 10 is used for smooth U-tube GHE since no
cells. A total cell number of 330 × 10
observed
temperatureafter increasing the number
change is observed afterofincreasing
cells. Gridtheindependency
number of cells. for finned U-tube GHEs for
Grid independency is presented
finned
in U-tube
Table 3.GHEs Due to the small dimensions of the fins used on the inner and outer
is presented in Table 3. Due to the small dimensions of the fins used on the inner and surfaces of the pipes,
theouter
numerical
surfaces models
of the require
pipes, the a finer grid size
numerical thanrequire
models a simple pipe.grid
a finer The number
size than aof cells specified
simple pipe. The in
GHEs
numberwithof external and internal
cells specified in GHEsfins is × 103 and
500 external
with 420internal
and fins is 500 × 10 and 420 × 10 ,
× 103 , respectively.
respectively.
Table 2. Grid-independency test of smooth U-tube GHE.
Table 2. Grid-independency test of smooth U-tube GHE.
Mesh 1 Mesh 2 Mesh 3
Mesh 1 Mesh 2 Mesh 3
Elements number (×103 ) 174 330 500
Elements
Fluid outlet number
temperature (× 10 )
(◦ C) 174
24.86 330
24.85 500 24.85
Fluid outlet temperature (℃) 24.86 24.85 24.85
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8689 5 of 19

Table 3. Grid-independency test of finned U-tube GHEs.

Mesh 1 Mesh 2 Mesh 3

U-tube with Element number (×103 ) 300 500 600
external fins Fluid outlet temperature (◦ C) 24.64 24.71 24.72
U-tube with Element number (×103 ) 300 420 600
internal fins Fluid outlet temperature (◦ C) 24.64 24.67 24.67

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19

(a) (b)
Figure3. 3. Three-dimensional
Figure Three-dimensional mesh: (a)
(a) computational
computationalmesh
mesharound
aroundborehole;
borehole;(b)(b)half
halfof of
computational
computational domain.
domain.

3.2. Solver Table 3. Grid-independency test of finned U-tube GHEs.

The physical properties of circulating fluid, U-tube, backfillMesh

material, soil, and
1 Mesh aluminum
2 Mesh 3 fins
Element number (× 10 )
are demonstrated in Table 4. For pipes, high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
300 material
500 is
600 considered.
U-tube with external fins
The selected grout material is a combination oftemperature
Fluid outlet silica sand and
(℃) bentonite.
24.64 Water
24.71 is used
24.72as the fluid
inside the pipes. Element number (× 10 ) 300 420 600
U-tube with internal fins
Fluid outlet temperature (℃) 24.64 24.67 24.67
Table 4. Physical properties of materials.
3.2. Solver
Density Specific Heat Capacity Thermal Conductivity
Material 3)
The physical properties of(kg/m
circulating (J/kg·K)
fluid, U-tube, backfill material, soil, (W/m·K)
and aluminum fins
are demonstrated
Fluid in Table 4. For997pipes, high-density polyethylene
4148 (HDPE) material 0.6 is considered.
The selected grout material is a combination
U-tube 950 of silica sand
1500and bentonite. Water is0.44used as the fluid
Grout
inside the pipes. 1800 840 0.73
Soil 2200 2000 2.5
Aluminum fin Table 4. Physical properties904
2700 of materials. 237

Density Specific Heat Capacity Thermal Conductivity

Material
(𝐤𝐠/𝐦𝟑 ) (𝐉/𝐤𝐠 ∙ 𝐊) (𝐖/𝐦 ∙ 𝐊)
Fluid 997 4148 0.6
U-tube 950 1500 0.44
Grout 1800 840 0.73
Soil 2200 2000 2.5
Aluminum fin 2700 904 237
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8689 6 of 19

The undisturbed ground temperature is defined as the initial temperature of the entire simulation
domain, including fluid, U-tube, grout, and soil. This study is performed for the cooling mode of the
system; therefore, the fluid is warmer than the surrounding soil. The constant temperature boundary
condition is applied to the outer boundary of the simulation domain where there is no heat flux along
this boundary and its temperature should not change until the end of the simulation.
According to the previous studies [29], since the fluid velocity is an important parameter in the
heat transfer and the temperature change of the fluid along the borehole length, the same mass flow
rate in pipes as a boundary condition is not a proper condition and the same inlet velocity is applied
for the inlet condition of the pipes. The focus is on investigating the effects of the inner and outer fins
on ground heat exchangers with the same physical dimensions and same inlet velocity; so, finding the
more effective fin cannot be based on the same flow rate or the same hydraulic diameter. Comparing
the simple and finned pipes with the same mass flow rate at the inlet of pipes showed that the axial
velocity in the finned U-tube (inner surface) will be higher than the simple U-tube because of the
hydraulic diameter reduction which changes the heat transfer rate significantly.
The incompressible Newtonian fluid is used inside the pipes. The soil is considered homogeneous
and the physical properties of the fluid, pipe, grout material, and soil are assumed to be constant.
The temperature of the ground’s surface boundaries is constant and uniform, and any changes in the
temperature of the ground over depth and time are ignored. The flow rate is constant along the pipe.
A laminar flow is considered for all the simulations. The continuity and momentum equations are
solved with the energy equation which is considered as [21,31]:

∂ ∂  ∂ µ ∂ui
!

(ρT ) + ρTu j = · (1)
∂t ∂x j ∂x j Pr ∂x j

where u is velocity vector, ρ is fluid density, µ is dynamic viscosity, T is temperature vector and Pr
represents the molecular Prandtl number. The heat conduction in grout and ground is illustrated in
Equation (2),
∂T
= α∇2 T (2)
∂t
where α is the thermal diffusivity of grout and ground.

4. Validation
The experimental results of Beier et al. [32] have been used for validation. TRT analysis was
performed to evaluate the thermal performance of an 18.3 m borehole including a U-shaped pipe.
An aluminum cylindrical pipe with an inner diameter of 126 mm was considered as the borehole wall.
The borehole was located in a large sandbox. The square cross-section box with sides of 1.8 m used as
the ground around the well was filled with wet sand. The geometric and physical configurations of the
borehole are listed in Table 5.

Table 5. Geometric and thermal properties for the experimental test of Beier et al. [32].

Parameters Value
Borehole diameter (mm) 126
Inner diameter of pipe (mm) 27.33
Outer diameter of pipe (mm) 33.40
Distance between centers of U-tube pipes (mm) 53
Borehole length (m) 18.3
Pipe thermal conductivity (W/m·K) 0.39
Grout thermal conductivity (W/m·K) 0.73
Ground thermal conductivity (W/m·K) 2.82
Average volumetric flow rate (L/s) 0.197
Initial temperature of ground and grout (◦ C) 22
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8689 7 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19

Figure
Figure44shows
shows thethe comparison between the
comparison between theinlet/outlet
inlet/outletflow
flowtemperatures
temperatures from
from thethe current
current
numerical
numerical simulation and the experimental data of Beier et al. [32]. The inlet temperature of both 2D 2D
simulation and the experimental data of Beier et al. [32]. The inlet temperature of both
and
and3D3Dmodels
modelsarearethe
thesame
sameasasthat
thatofofexperimental
experimentalresults.
results.The
The3D 3Doutlet
outlettemperature
temperature is
is closer
closer to
to the
experimental
the experimental results. The maximum temperature difference between the present 3D model and the
results. The maximum temperature difference between the present 3D model and
experimental results
the experimental is 1.2%,
results providing
is 1.2%, providingacceptable agreement.
acceptable agreement.

(a) (b)
Figure4.4. Temperature
Figure Temperature changes
changes fromfrom 2D 2D and
and 3D 3D simulation
simulationresults
resultsvs.
vs.temperature changes
temperature of of
changes
experimental data of Beier et al.
experimental data of Beier et al. [32]: (a) inlet; (b) outlet temperature.
(a) inlet; (b) outlet temperature.

5.5.Results
Resultsand
andDiscussions
Discussions

5.1.
5.1.Long
LongTimescale
TimescaleResponse
Response
Initially,
Initially,the
thestatic
staticbehavior
behaviorfor forthe
thesmooth
smoothandandthethefinned
finnedU-shaped
U-shapedGHEs GHEsisisinvestigated.
investigated. All All the
results presented
the results presentedin this section
in this areare
section obtained
obtainedfrom
fromsteady-state
steady-state simulations [33].The
simulations [33]. The fluid
fluid inletinlet
◦ C and far-field temperature is considered to be 15 ◦ C. In addition,
temperature has value of 30 ℃ and far-field temperature is considered to be 15 ℃. In addition, the
temperature has a value of 30
initial
the temperature
initial temperature of of
thethe
whole
wholesimulation
simulationdomains
domainsis assumed
is assumed to be
to equal
be equalto the soilsoil
to the temperature
temperature
aroundthe
around theborehole.
borehole. Different
Different fluid velocities
velocitiesare
areconsidered
consideredasas0.02,
0.02,0.04, 0.06
0.04, m/s.
0.06 m/s.TheTheresults are are
results
shown in Table 6. The selected velocities keep the laminar flow condition
shown in Table 6. The selected velocities keep the laminar flow condition inside the pipes. inside the pipes.
Usinginternal
Using internalfinsfins to
to the
the mentioned
mentioned dimensions
dimensionshave havereduced
reduced the cross-section
the cross-section area by by
area about
about
1.11times
1.11 timescompared
compared to to the
thesmooth
smoothpipe. Therefore,
pipe. Therefore,the the
massmass
flowflow
rate in thein
rate pipe
thewith
pipeinternal fins
with internal
hashas
fins decreased
decreased compared
compared to thetoother two models
the other by theby
two models same
the ratio.
sameAratio.
comparison of the outlet
A comparison of thefluid
outlet
temperatures between three pipes shows that the fluid temperature change
fluid temperatures between three pipes shows that the fluid temperature change of the pipe with of the pipe with the inner
fins is greater than that of the pipe with the outer fins. According to the values listed in Table 6, the
the inner fins is greater than that of the pipe with the outer fins. According to the values listed in
temperature change of the fluid in the pipe with external fins at velocities of 0.06, 0.04, and 0.02 m/s
Table 6, the temperature change of the fluid in the pipe with external fins at velocities of 0.06, 0.04,
has increased up to 2.9%, 2.2%, and 0.5% compared to that of the simple pipe. These values are
and 0.02 m/s has increased up to 2.9%, 2.2%, and 0.5% compared to that of the simple pipe. These
increased to 11.3%, 9% and 5% for the pipe with internal fins.
values are increased to 11.3%, 9% and 5% for the pipe with internal fins.
Table 6. Numerical results of simple and finned U-tube GHEs.
Table 6. Numerical results of simple and finned U-tube GHEs.
Velocity (𝐦/𝐬) 0.06 0.04 0.02
Velocity (m/s) Flow rate (kg/s) 0.06
0.042 0.04 0.014 0.02
0.028
Reynolds
Flow number
rate (kg/s) 2049
0.042 1366
0.028 683 0.014
Simple U-tube Reynolds number 2049 1366 20.88 683
Simple U-tube Outlet fluid temperature (℃) 25.20 23.73
Outlet fluid wall
Borehole temperature (◦ C) (℃)
temperature 25.20
20.46 23.73 18.72 20.88
19.93
Borehole wall temperature (◦ C) 20.46 19.93 18.72
U-tube with outer fins Flow rate (kg/s) 0.042 0.028 0.014
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8689 8 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19

Reynolds number 2049 1366 683

Table 6. Cont.
Outlet fluid temperature (℃) 25.06 23.59 20.83
Borehole wall temperature (℃) 20.67
Velocity (m/s) 0.06 20.080.0418.78 0.02
Flow rate (kg/s) 0.038 0.025 0.013
Flow rate (kg/s) 0.042 0.028 0.014
Reynolds number 1945 1297 648
U-tube with inner fins Reynolds number 2049 1366 683
U-tube with outer fins Outlet fluid temperature (℃) 24.66 23.13 20.42
Outlet fluid temperature (◦ C) 25.06 23.59 20.83
Borehole
Borehole wallwall temperature
temperature (◦ C) (℃) 20.67
20.50 19.89
20.0818.55 18.78

5.2. Short Timescale Response Flow rate (kg/s) 0.038 0.025 0.013
Reynolds number 1945 1297 648
U-tube withsimulations
inner fins of BHE show the dynamic behavior
Transient Outlet fluid temperature (◦ C) of the 24.66 system in a 23.13
short timescale
20.42[33].
Transient simulation results ofBorehole
simple andwallfinned U-tube(◦ GHE
temperature C) are20.50
shown in19.89Figure 5. The
18.55inlet
velocity in three numerical models (simple, inner finned and outer finned U-tube) is 0.053 m/s. The
inlet fluid
5.2. Short temperature
Timescale Response is 30 ℃ and the far field temperature (the soil temperature) is considered 15
℃, which has been used as the initial temperature of whole simulation domains (including the pipe,
Transient
the simulations
fluid, grout materialsof BHE
and the show theoutlet
soil). The dynamic behavior
temperature of three
of all the system in a short
pipes reached timescale
a steady state [33].
Transient
after simulation
330 min andresults of simple
no change and finned
was observed U-tube
in the GHE
graphs arethis
after shown
time. in Figure
The 5. Theisinlet
simulation velocity
for the
cooling
in three mode ofmodels
numerical the system, and the
(simple, innerinlet temperature
finned of the
and outer fluid U-tube)
finned is higheristhan
0.053 them/s.
temperature
The inlet of fluid
the initial ◦
temperature and that of the soil around the borehole. The fluid temperature
temperature is 30 C and the far field temperature (the soil temperature) is considered 15 C, which ◦
decreases as it has
passes through the pipe.
been used as the initial temperature of whole simulation domains (including the pipe, the fluid, grout
The outlet fluid temperature has reached 24.86 ℃ in a simple pipe, 24.71 ℃ in a pipe with
materials and the soil). The outlet temperature of all three pipes reached a steady state after 330 min
external fins and 24.28 ℃ in a pipe with internal fins. The difference between the inlet and outlet
and no change was observed in the graphs after this time. The simulation is for the cooling mode of the
temperatures of the fluid in the simple U-tube is 5.14 ℃ and in the finned U-tube on the outer and
system, and
inner the inlet
surfaces temperature
is 5.29 ℃ and 5.72of℃, therespectively.
fluid is higher than the temperature
The temperature reduction inofthe the initial
fluid temperature
in the outer
and that
and inner finned U-tube has increased, respectively, 2.9% and 11% compared to the simple pipe. the pipe.
of the soil around the borehole. The fluid temperature decreases as it passes through

Figure
Figure 5. Outlettemperature
5. Outlet temperature of
of fluid
fluid in
insimple
simpleand
andfinned U-tube
finned GHE.
U-tube GHE.

The outletResponse
Frequency fluid temperature
Test has reached 24.86 ◦ C in a simple pipe, 24.71 ◦ C in a pipe with external
fins and 24.28 ◦ in a pipe with internal fins. The difference between the inlet and outlet temperatures
BHEs C are affected by temperature fluctuations at different ranges of time scales. Therefore,
of theapplying
fluid inathe simple U-tube of
is the ◦ C and in the finned U-tube on the outer and inner surfaces is
5.14fluid
periodic condition inlet temperature instead of constant value is a useful way
5.29 ◦toCdescribe ◦ C, respectively. The temperature reduction in the fluid in the outer and inner finned
and 5.72the thermal response of the borehole heat exchangers in short timescales [33]. To evaluate
U-tubeandhas increased,
compare respectively,
the thermal responses2.9% and 11%
of three compared
numerical models,tothe
theinlet
simple
fluidpipe.
temperature is applied

Frequency Response Test

BHEs are affected by temperature fluctuations at different ranges of time scales. Therefore,
applying a periodic condition of the fluid inlet temperature instead of constant value is a useful way to
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8689 9 of 19

describe the thermal response of the borehole heat exchangers in short timescales [33]. To evaluate and
compare the thermal responses of three numerical models, the inlet fluid temperature is applied as a
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19
sinusoidal function with the same amplitude and different frequencies. The inlet velocity for all three
pipesasisa0.053 m/s.function
sinusoidal The masswithflow
the rates
same for the simple
amplitude and external
and different finnedThe
frequencies. U-tube
inlet are 0.038for
velocity kg/s
all and
three pipes is 0.053 m/s. The mass flow rates for the simple and external finned U-tube are 0.038 kg/s[33]:
for the U-tube with internal fins is 0.034 kg/s. The inlet fluid temperature is applied as follows
and for the U-tube with internal fins is 0.034 kg/s. The inlet fluid temperature is applied as follows
2π
 
[33]: T = T + a sin(2π f t) = T + a sin t (3)
in 1 in 1 in
B
2𝜋 (3)
𝑇 = 𝑇 + 𝑎 𝑠𝑖𝑛(2𝜋𝑓𝑡) = 𝑇 + 𝑎 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝑡
where ain is the inlet wave amplitude, T1 is the mean of the wave, 𝐵f is the frequency and B is the period.
The outlet 𝑎 istemperature
where fluid the inlet waveby variation𝑇of is
amplitude, amplitude (aout
the mean of the) wave, 𝑓 is the
and mean number (T2 )and
frequency 𝐵 is theas:
is defined
period. The outlet fluid temperature by variation of amplitude (𝑎 ) and mean number (𝑇 ) is defined
2π 2π
 
as:
Tout = T2 + aout sin(2π f t + ϕ) = T2 + aout sin t+ (4)
2𝜋 B 2𝜋 ∆B (4)
𝑇 = 𝑇 + 𝑎 𝑠𝑖𝑛(2𝜋𝑓𝑡 + 𝜑) = 𝑇 + 𝑎 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝑡+
𝐵 ∆𝐵
where ϕ is the phase shift and ∆B is the time shift of outlet wave that shows delay in the system
responses. 𝜑 isoutlet
where The the phase
temperature ∆𝐵the
shift and of is the time
fluid shift of from
obtained outletthe
wave
3D that shows delay
simulation in the system
in response to the inlet
responses.
temperature as The outlet
a sine wave temperature
with 80 andof 40
themin
fluidperiods
obtained from the 3D
(frequency simulation
of 1/4800 in response
Hz and to the
1/2400 Hz) and the
inlet temperature
◦ as a sine wave with 80 and 40 min periods (frequency of 1/4800 Hz and
amplitude of 8 C for three simple and finned U-tubes are shown by Figures 6 and 7. By increasing the 1/2400 Hz)
and the amplitude of 8 ℃ for three simple and finned U-tubes are shown by Figures 6 and 7. By
wave frequency (1/2400 Hz), the output wave amplitude decreases due to the reduction in the system
increasing the wave frequency (1/2400 Hz), the output wave amplitude decreases due to the
response time compared to the first mode (1/4800 Hz).
reduction in the system response time compared to the first mode (1/4800 Hz).

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 6. Fluidinlet
6. Fluid inletand
and outlet
outlettemperatures
temperatureswithwith
a frequency of 1/4800
a frequency of Hz: (a) simple
1/4800 U-tube;
Hz: (a) (b) U-
simple U-tube;
tube with outer fins; (c) U-tube with inner fins; (d) comparison of fluid outlet temperatures
(b) U-tube with outer fins; (c) U-tube with inner fins; (d) comparison of fluid outlet temperatures in three in
threesimple
simpleand
andfinned
finnedU-tubes.
U-tubes.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8689 10 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 7. Fluid
7. Fluid inlet
inlet andandoutlet
outlet temperatures
temperatures with
with a frequency of 1/2400
a frequency Hz: (a)
of 1/2400 Hz: simple U-tube; U-tube;
(a) simple (b) U- (b)
tube
U-tube withouter
with outerfins;
fins;(c)
(c) U-tube
U-tube with
withinner
innerfins;
fins;(d)
(d)comparison
comparisonof fluid outlet
of fluid temperatures
outlet in three
temperatures in three
simple
simple and and finned
finned U-tubes.
U-tubes.

According
According to Table
to Table 7, the
7, the differencebetween
difference between the theaverage
averagevalue
valueof of
thethe
input andand
input output waves,
output waves,
with a frequency of 1/4800 Hz, in the simple pipe is 4.46 ◦ ℃, in the pipe with external fins is 4.59 ℃
◦
with a frequency of 1/4800 Hz, in the simple pipe is 4.46 C, in the pipe with external fins is 4.59 C and
and in the internally finned pipe is 4.97 ℃. The use of external fins increases temperature reduction
in the internally finned pipe is 4.97 ◦ C. The use of external fins increases temperature reduction in the
in the fluid by 2.9% compared to a simple U-tube and the internal fins increase temperature reduction
fluidinbythe2.9%
fluidcompared
by 11%. By to a simple
doubling the U-tube and
frequency, thethe internal
average fins
value increase
of the outputtemperature reduction in
wave has not changed
the fluid by 11%.
compared Byfirst
to the doubling the frequency,
frequency, but the wave the averagehas
amplitude value of the output
decreased by 35% wave has notpipe,
in the simple changed
compared
39% into the
the first
pipe frequency,
with the outerbut
finsthe
andwave
49% inamplitude has decreased
the inner finned pipe. by 35% in the simple pipe, 39%
in the pipe It with the outerthat
was expected finsfinned
and 49% GHEsin the
haveinner finned
faster pipe.
thermal responses than the smooth one. A
comparison of the phase shift between the inlet and outlet temperature of the fluid in the three U-
tubes shows that Tablethe
7. thermal
Input andresponse
output of the characteristics
wave three numerical models
with is almost
different simultaneous. The
frequencies.
time shift of the outlet temperature of the simple and the externally finned pipes is 1200 s and in the
internally finned pipe is 1320 s in a frequency of 1/4800 Amplitude of Wave
Hz. The time Mean
shift values of Wave
at the second
frequency of 1/2400 HzTemperature
Inlet for simple and externally finned pipes is 900 8 s and in pipes with internal
28 fins
is 1020 s.
Simple U-tube 2.62 23.54
Outlet temperature (◦ C)
U-tube with outer fins 2.40 23.41
with a frequency of 1/4800
U-tube with inner fins 2.06 23.03
Simple U-tube 1.69 23.54
Outlet temperature (◦ C)
U-tube with outer fins 1.46 23.41
with a frequency of 1/2400
U-tube with inner fins 1.04 23.03
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19

Table 7. Input and output wave characteristics with different frequencies.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8689 11 of 19

Amplitude of Mean of
Wave Wave
It was expected that finned GHEs have faster thermal responses than the smooth one. A comparison
Inlet Temperature 8
of the phase shift between the inlet and outlet temperature of the fluid in the three U-tubes shows 28 that
the thermal response of the three numerical models Simple U-tube
is almost simultaneous.2.62
The time shift of23.54
the outlet
temperature of the simple and the externally U-tube
finned with
pipesouter
is 1200 s and in the internally finned
Outlet temperature (℃) with a frequency 2.40 23.41 pipe
is 1320 s in a frequency of 1/4800 Hz. The time shift fins
values at the second frequency of 1/2400 Hz for
of 1/4800
U-tube with inner
simple and externally finned pipes is 900 s and in pipes with internal fins2.06 is 1020 s. 23.03
fins
Simple U-tube
5.3. Fluid Velocity Effects with Sinusoidal Inlet Temperature 1.69 23.54
U-tube with outer
A comparison
Outlet temperatureof(℃) thewith
fluida outlet temperature at different velocities1.46
frequency with the Reynolds of 1200,
23.41
fins
1800, 2300 for simple and finned U-tubes is illustrated in Figure 8 and the outlet values are listed in
of 1/2400
U-tube with inner
Table 8. For all cases, the laminar flow condition is considered. The inlet temperature 1.04 is considered
23.03 the
fins
same as the previous section with a period of 80 min.
In Table 8, as the inlet velocity increases, the mean and amplitude values of the fluid outlet
5.3. Fluid Velocity Effects with Sinusoidal Inlet Temperature
temperature increase for the cooling purpose; increasing the velocity reduces the difference between
A comparison
the inlet and outlet of the fluid outlet
temperatures temperature
of the fluid (dT). at Bydifferent velocities
increasing with the
the velocity, the Reynolds of 1200,
heat transfer rate
1800, 2300the
between forpipe
simple
andandthefinned U-tubessoil
surrounding is illustrated
increases, in Figure
but 8 and
the fluid the outlet values
temperature change are listed in
decreases.
Table
At low8.velocities,
For all cases, the laminar
the fluid remainsflow
longercondition is considered.
in the pipe, The inlet
which increases the temperature change
is considered
of the
the same
fluid [34].as the previous section with a period of 80 min.

(a)

Figure 8. Cont.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8689 12 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19

(b)

(c)
Figure 8. Cont.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8689 13 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19

(d)
Fluid temperature
Figure 8. Fluid temperature trends
trends under
under different
different velocities: (a) simple
simple U-tube;
U-tube; (b) U-tube
U-tube with
with outer
outer
fins; (c) U-tube with inner fins; (d) comparison of simple and finned
finned pipes.
pipes.

Table 8. Output wave parameters with a frequency of 1/4800 Hz at different velocities.

Table 8. Output wave parameters with a frequency of 1/4800 Hz at different velocities.
Velocity Amplitude of Wave Mean of Wave
Velocity Amplitude of Wave Mean of Wave dT
(m/s) (◦ C) (◦ C) 𝒅𝑻
(𝐦/𝐬) (℃) (℃)
0.035 1.59 22.10 26.7%
0.035 1.59 22.10 26.7%
Simple U-tube 0.053 2.62 23.54 19%
Simple U-tube 0.053
0.070 2.62
3.24 23.54
24.26 19%
15.4%
0.070 3.24 24.26 15.4%
0.035 1.40 21.98 27.4%
U-tube with outer fins 0.035
0.053 1.40
2.40 21.98
23.41 27.4%
19.6%
U-tube with outer fins 0.070
0.053 2.40
3.00 23.41
24.14 19.6%
16%
0.070
0.035 3.00
1.12 24.14
21.57 16%
29.8%
U-tube with inner fins 0.035
0.053 1.12
2.06 21.57
23.03 29.8%
21.5%
U-tube with inner fins 0.070
0.053 2.68
2.06 23.81
23.03 17.6%
21.5%
0.070 2.68 23.81 17.6%
According to Figure 8, as the velocity of flow decreases, the phase shift of the fluid outlet
In Tableincreases
temperature 8, as thewhich
inlet velocity
means a increases,
delay in the thethermal
mean and amplitude
response valuesOutput
of the BHE. of the temperature
fluid outlet
temperature
time shift for the simple U-tube for the first velocity (v = 0.07 m/s) is 960 s, for the secondbetween
increase for the cooling purpose; increasing the velocity reduces the difference velocity
the
(v =inlet
0.053and
m/s) outlet temperatures
is 1200 s and for theof the fluid
third (𝑑𝑇). By
velocity (v increasing
= 0.035 m/s) theisvelocity,
1680 s. the heatvalues
These transfer
forrate
the
between
externallythe pipe pipe
finned and the
are surrounding
1020 s, 1200 s soil
andincreases,
1680 s andbut forthe
thefluid temperature
internally finned pipechangeare decreases.
1080 s, 1320 Ats
low velocities, the fluid
and 1740 s, respectively. remains longer in the pipe, which increases the temperature change of the
fluid Figure
[34]. 9 shows a comparison of borehole wall temperature for the simple and finned pipes at
According
different to Figure
velocities. 8, as to
According the
thevelocity of flow decreases,
results obtained the phase
in the previous shift
section, as of
thethe fluid outlet
velocity of the
temperature increases which means a delay in the thermal response of the BHE.
fluid decreases, the difference between the inlet and outlet temperatures of the fluid increases and Output temperature
time shift fortemperature
the average the simple U-tube
of thefor thedecreases
fluid first velocity
in the 0.07 m/s)
(v =cooling is 960As
mode. s, a
forresult,
the second velocitythe
by reducing (v
0.053 m/s) difference
=temperature is 1200 s and for the third velocity (v = 0.035 m/s) is 1680 s. These
between the fluid and the soil around the GHE, the heat transfer rate will values for the
externally
be reduced. finned pipe are 1020 s, 1200 s and 1680 s and for the internally finned pipe are 1080 s, 1320
s and 1740 s, respectively.
Figure 9 shows a comparison of borehole wall temperature for the simple and finned pipes at
different velocities. According to the results obtained in the previous section, as the velocity of the
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19

fluid decreases, the difference between the inlet and outlet temperatures of the fluid increases and
the average
Appl. temperature
Sci. 2020, 10, 8689 of the fluid decreases in the cooling mode. As a result, by reducing14the of 19
temperature difference between the fluid and the soil around the GHE, the heat transfer rate will be
reduced.
Table
Table99shows
shows borehole
borehole temperature trends under
temperature trends under different
different velocities.
velocities.The Thefourth
fourthcolumn
columnshows
shows
the borehole wall temperature changes in three modes
the borehole wall temperature changes in three modes of pipes (𝑑𝑇 bore of pipes (dT ). The problem that
). The problem that should beshould
be considered
considered in in
thethe comparison
comparison between
between simple
simple and
and internally
internally finnedpipes,
finned pipes,with
withthe
thesame
samefluid
fluid
velocities, is the reduction in mass flow rate in the finned pipe due to the reduction
velocities, is the reduction in mass flow rate in the finned pipe due to the reduction in the cross- in the cross-section.
By comparing
section. three numerical
By comparing models,models,
three numerical the increase in borehole
the increase wall temperature
in borehole wall temperaturefor the
forpipe with
the pipe
outer fins isfins
with outer more is than
moretwothanother
two pipes
other in applied
pipes velocities.
in applied This temperature
velocities. change
This temperature for thefor
change simple
the
simple U-tube for the velocity of 0.035 m/s is more than that of the internally finned U-tube, but by
U-tube for the velocity of 0.035 m/s is more than that of the internally finned U-tube, but by increasing
the fluid velocity,
increasing the fluidthevelocity,
bore wallthetemperature change for the
bore wall temperature finned
change for pipe is more
the finned than
pipe is the
moresmooth one
than the
with
smooththe one
velocity
with ofthe0.07 m/s. of 0.07 m/s.
velocity

(a)

(b)
Figure 9. Cont.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8689 15 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19

(c)
Figure9.9.Borehole
Figure Boreholewall
walltemperature
temperature trends
trends under
under different
differentvelocities:
velocities:(a)
(a)simple U-tube;
simple (b)(b)
U-tube; U-tube
U-tube
withouter
with outerfins;
fins;(c)
(c)U-tube
U-tubewith
withinner
inner fins.
fins.

Table 9. Borehole wall temperature with a frequency of 1/4800 Hz at different velocities.

Table 9. Borehole wall temperature with a frequency of 1/4800 Hz at different velocities.
Velocity Amplitude of Wave Mean of Wave
Velocity
(𝐦/𝐬) Amplitude
(℃) of Wave Mean
(℃)of Wave 𝒅𝑻𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒆
dTbore
(m/s) (◦ C) (◦ C)
0.035 0.59 19.09 27%
Simple U-tube 0.035
0.053 0.59
0.85 19.09
19.61 30.7%27%
Simple U-tube 0.053 0.85 19.61
0.070 0.99 19.87 32%30.7%
0.070 0.99 19.87 32%
0.035 0.62 19.21 28%
U-tube with outer fins 0.035
0.053 0.62
0.89 19.21
19.80 32% 28%
U-tube with outer fins 0.053 0.89 19.80 32%
0.070 1.04 20.07 34%
0.070 1.04 20.07 34%
0.035 0.56 19.04 26%
0.035 0.56 19.04 26%
U-tube with inner fins 0.053 0.82 19.64 30.9%
U-tube with inner fins 0.053 0.82 19.64 30.9%
0.070
0.070
0.97
0.97
19.93
19.93
33% 33%

5.4. Axial Velocity and Temperature Contours

5.4. Axial Velocity and Temperature Contours
The effects of longitudinal internal fins on the incompressible fluid flow inside U-tube GHE are
The effectsThe
investigated. of longitudinal internal fins
results are presented on the incompressible
for different fluid velocitiesfluid flow
under inside U-tube
steady-state GHE are
conditions.
investigated.
Figure 10 shows Theaxial
results are presented
velocity for two
contours for different
cases fluid velocities
of a smooth under
U-tube and steady-state conditions.
internally finned U-
Figure 10 shows axial velocity contours for two cases of a smooth U-tube and internally finned
tube at different velocities. The two selected cross-sections of the pipe, in which the velocity contours U-tube
atare
different
drawn,velocities.
are locatedThe two
in the selectedof
curvature cross-sections
the inlet and of the legs
outlet pipe,ofinthe
which theatvelocity
U-tube a depth contours
of 24.94 mare
drawn,
under are
the located
groundin the curvature of the inlet and outlet legs of the U-tube at a depth of 24.94 m under
surface.
the ground surface.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8689 16 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 19

V = 0.02 V = 0.02

V = 0.04 V = 0.04

V = 0.06 V = 0.06

V = 0.1 V = 0.1

V=1 V=1

(a) N=0 N=6 (b) N=0 N=6

Figure
Figure 10.10. Axial
Axial velocitycontours
velocity contoursfor
forsmooth
smooth(left)
(left)and
andfinned
finnedU-tube
U-tube(right)
(right)at
atdifferent
differentvelocities;
velocities; (a)
inlet inlet pipe;
(a)pipe; (b) outlet
(b) outlet pipe.pipe.

Initially,
Initially, thethe fluidvelocity
fluid velocityisisuniform
uniformat at the
the inlet of the
the pipe.
pipe.Then
Thenthe thefluid
fluidvelocity
velocityis is
increased
increased
at at
thethe center
center ofofthe
thepipe
pipecross-section,
cross-section, while
while the velocity
velocity ofofthe
thefluid
fluidattached
attachedtotothethewall
wallof of
thethe
pipe
pipe
approaches zero because of the viscous
approaches zero because of the viscous effects effects [21]. The flow contours are symmetric until
The flow contours are symmetric until the flow the flow
passes
passes thethe
endend
of theof straight
the straight
pipe.pipe. Figure
Figure 10 shows
10 shows thatsymmetric
that the the symmetric
patternspatterns of the velocity
of the velocity contours
contours both in simple and finned pipes are changed according to the curvature
both in simple and finned pipes are changed according to the curvature of the pipes similar to the of the pipes similar
to the previous
previous studies of studies of heat exchangers
heat exchangers [28,35]. [28,35]. The velocity
The velocity contourscontours
of the of thepipe
inlet inletare
pipe
lessare less
affected
by the curvature of the pipe than those of the outlet pipe. As the fluid velocity increases, thethe
affected by the curvature of the pipe than those of the outlet pipe. As the fluid velocity increases, flow
flow field pattern becomes more complex and the high-velocity flow is pushed to one side of the pipe.
field pattern becomes more complex and the high-velocity flow is pushed to one side of the pipe.
The presence of internal fins attenuates the effects of secondary flow and makes the flow patterns
The presence of internal fins attenuates the effects of secondary flow and makes the flow patterns close
close to the straight pipes.
to the straight pipes.
Figure 11 shows the temperature contours at three different velocities with the same method
Figure 11 shows the temperature contours at three different velocities with the same method and
and selected cross-sections of the pipe mentioned in velocity contours (Figure 10). 𝜃 ∗ is a
selected cross-sections of the pipe mentioned in velocity contours
dimensionless temperature parameter which is illustrated in Equation (5):
(Figure 10). θ ∗ is a dimensionless

temperature parameter which is illustrated in Equation (5):

𝑇−𝑇 (5)
𝜃∗ =
𝑇 −
T −𝑇T min
θ∗ = (5)
Similar to the velocity contours, with the increase Tmax − Tinminfluid velocity, because of strong secondary
flow effects in curved pipes [28,35] the temperature field patterns become more complex.
Similar to the velocity contours, with the increase in fluid velocity, because of strong secondary
flow effects in curved pipes [28,35] the temperature field patterns become more complex.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8689 17 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 19

V = 0.04 V = 0.04

V = 0.1 V = 0.1

V=1 V=1

(a) N=0 N=6 (b) N=0 N=6

Figure
Figure Temperature
11.11. Temperaturecontours smooth(left)
contours for smooth (left)and
and finned
finned U-tube
U-tube (right)
(right) at different
at different velocities;
velocities; (a)
(a) inlet
inlet pipe;
pipe;(b)
(b)outlet
outletpipe.
pipe.

6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions
The influence
The influence ofof
using
usingfinsfinsinininner
innerandandouter
outer surfaces
surfaces ofof U-tube
U-tubeGHEs GHEswas wasinvestigated
investigated under
under
thethe
cooling mode. Internal fins increase the heat transfer rate more effectively.
cooling mode. Internal fins increase the heat transfer rate more effectively. A GHE equipped with A GHE equipped with
internal
internalfins experiences
fins experiencesenhanced
enhancedfluid fluidtemperature
temperature changes alongthe
changes along theborehole.
borehole.For For more
more details,
details,
under
under steady
steady conditions
conditions(long
(longtimescale
timescale responses),
responses), when
when thethe fluid
fluid outlet
outlettemperature
temperaturedifference
difference
between
between a simple
a simple U-tube
U-tubeand anda aU-tube
U-tubewith with external
external fins waswas 0.14 ◦ C,the
0.14 °C, thetemperature
temperaturedifference
difference
between
between a simple
a simple U-tube
U-tube andand a U-tube
a U-tube with with internal
internal finsfins reached
reached ◦
0.6 0.6C, °C, showing
showing moremore
thanthan
fourfour
times
times increase.
increase. Increasing Increasing the inlet
the inlet fluid fluidcan
velocity velocity
make thecan differences
make the differences
more noticeable;more bynoticeable;
changingbythe
changing
inlet the inlet
fluid velocity in fluid velocity
the range in the range
of 0.02–0.06 m/s, ofthe
0.02–0.06 m/s, the fluid
fluid temperature temperature
change change infinned
in the internally the
internally finned U-tube is increased by 5–11.3%, compared to the simple
U-tube is increased by 5–11.3%, compared to the simple U-tube, while the fluid temperature change is U-tube, while the fluid
justtemperature
increased by change is just
0.5–2.9% increased
when by 0.5–2.9%
the external fins arewhen theFor
used. external fins are behavior,
the dynamic used. For the the dynamic
priority of
the inner fins is obvious too; for the short timescale response, with the inlet velocity of 0.053the
behavior, the priority of the inner fins is obvious too; for the short timescale response, with inletthe
m/s,
velocity of 0.053 m/s, the temperature change of the fluid in the outer and inner finned U-tube was
temperature change of the fluid in the outer and inner finned U-tube was increased up to 2.9% and 11%
increased up to 2.9% and 11% compared to the simple pipe. Short timescale responses by applying
compared to the simple pipe. Short timescale responses by applying sinusoidal function boundary
sinusoidal function boundary condition to the inlet fluid temperature show that the thermal
condition to the inlet fluid temperature show that the thermal responses of the smooth and finned
responses of the smooth and finned GHEs are almost simultaneous by a considerable time shift.
GHEs are almost simultaneous by a considerable time shift. Simple and external finned pipes react up
Simple and external finned pipes react up to two minutes faster than the pipe with internal fins. The
to two minutes faster than the pipe with internal fins. The fast, thermal response of the BHE helps to
fast, thermal response of the BHE helps to better fluid and ground temperature recovery which affects
better
the fluid and ground
performance of thetemperature
ground source recovery whichsystem.
heat pump affects the performance of the ground source heat
pump system.
Using fins has a positive effect on the fluid temperature changes inside the pipe and heat transfer
Using
rate fins fluid
between has aand
positive effect
borehole on By
wall. theusing
fluid fins,
temperature changes
in particular, inside
internal fins,the
it ispipe and heat
possible transfer
to increase
ratethe
between fluid and borehole wall. By using fins, in particular, internal fins,
GSHP system’s efficiency, decrease the length of the tubes and reduce the initial costs of the it is possible to increase
thesystem.
GSHP system’s efficiency, decrease the length of the tubes and reduce the initial costs of the system.

Author Contributions:
Author Contributions:Investigation,
Investigation,A.M.Z.;
A.M.Z.;methodology,
methodology, A.M.Z.; projectadministration,
A.M.Z.; project administration,K.G.;
K.G.; supervision,
supervision,
K.G.
K.G. and J.N.; writing—review and editing, A.A.-H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
and J.N.; writing—review and editing, A.A.-H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8689 18 of 19

References
1. Zeng, H.; Diao, N.; Fang, Z. Heat transfer analysis of boreholes in vertical ground heat exchangers. Int. J.
Heat Mass Transf. 2003, 46, 4467–4481. [CrossRef]
2. Soltani, M.; Kashkooli, F.M.; Dehghani-Sanij, A.; Kazemi, A.R.; Bordbar, N.; Farshchi, M.J.; Elmi, M.;
Gharali, K.; Dusseault, M.B. A comprehensive study of geothermal heating and cooling systems. Sustain.
Cities Soc. 2019, 44, 793–818. [CrossRef]
3. Kharseh, M.; Al-Khawaja, M.; Suleiman, M.T. Potential of ground source heat pump systems in
cooling-dominated environments: Residential buildings. Geothermics 2015, 57, 104–110. [CrossRef]
4. Salem, A.; Hashim, H. Feasibility of Geothermal Cooling in Middle East. In Latest Trends in Sustainable and
Green Development, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Urban Sustainability, Cultural Sustainability,
Green Development, Green Structures and Clean Cars (USCUDAR’12), Barcelona, Spain, 17–19 October 2012;
Zahran, M., Ed.; WSEAS Press: Athens, Greece, 2012; pp. 105–112. ISBN 978-1-61804-132-6.
5. Biglarian, H.; Abbaspour, M.; Saidi, M.H. Evaluation of a transient borehole heat exchanger model in dynamic
simulation of a ground source heat pump system. Energy 2018, 147, 81–93. [CrossRef]
6. Angelotti, A.; Alberti, L.; La Licata, I.; Antelmi, M. Energy performance and thermal impact of a Borehole
Heat Exchanger in a sandy aquifer: Influence of the groundwater velocity. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 77,
700–708. [CrossRef]
7. Beier, R.A.; Acuña, J.; Mogensen, P.; Palm, B. Transient heat transfer in a coaxial borehole heat exchanger.
Geothermics 2014, 51, 470–482. [CrossRef]
8. Keshavarzzadeh, A.H.; Zanjani, A.M.; Gharali, K.; Dusseault, M.B. Multi-objective evolutionary-based
optimization of a ground source heat exchanger geometry using various optimization techniques. Geothermics
2020, 86, 101861. [CrossRef]
9. Hellström, G. Ground Heat Storage: Thermal Analyses of Duct Storage Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Lund, Lund, Sweden, 1991.
10. Zhang, L.; Zhang, Q.; Huang, G.; Du, Y. A p(t)-linear average method to estimate the thermal parameters of
the borehole heat exchangers for in situ thermal response test. Appl. Energy 2014, 131, 211–221. [CrossRef]
11. Zhang, L.; Zhang, Q.; Acuña, J.; Ma, X. Improved p(t)-linear Average Method for Ground Thermal Properties
Estimation during in-situ Thermal Response Test. Procedia Eng. 2015, 121, 726–734. [CrossRef]
12. Beier, R.A.; Spitler, J.D. Weighted average of inlet and outlet temperatures in borehole heat exchangers.
Appl. Energy 2016, 174, 118–129. [CrossRef]
13. Marcotte, D.; Pasquier, P. On the estimation of thermal resistance in borehole thermal conductivity test.
Renew. Energy 2008, 33, 2407–2415. [CrossRef]
14. Beier, R.A.; Acuña, J.; Mogensen, P.; Palm, B. Vertical temperature profiles and borehole resistance in a U-tube
borehole heat exchanger. Geothermics 2012, 44, 23–32. [CrossRef]
15. Sharqawy, M.H.; Mokheimer, E.M.; Badr, H.M. Effective pipe-to-borehole thermal resistance for vertical
ground heat exchangers. Geothermics 2009, 38, 271–277. [CrossRef]
16. Sliwa, T.; Rosen, M. Efficiency analysis of borehole heat exchangers as grout varies via thermal response test
simulations. Geothermics 2017, 69, 132–138. [CrossRef]
17. Borinaga-Treviño, R.; Pascual-Muñoz, P.; Castro-Fresno, D.; Blanco-Fernandez, E. Borehole thermal response
and thermal resistance of four different grouting materials measured with a TRT. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2013, 53,
13–20. [CrossRef]
18. Erol, S.; François, B. Efficiency of various grouting materials for borehole heat exchangers. Appl. Therm. Eng.
2014, 70, 788–799. [CrossRef]
19. Eskilson, P. Thermal Analysis of Heat Extraction Boreholes. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Lund, Lund,
Sweden, 1987.
20. Beier, R.A. Transient heat transfer in a U-tube borehole heat exchanger. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2014, 62, 256–266.
[CrossRef]
21. Pu, L.; Qi, D.; Li, K.; Tan, H.; Li, Y. Simulation study on the thermal performance of vertical U-tube heat
exchangers for ground source heat pump system. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015, 79, 202–213. [CrossRef]
22. Esen, H.; Inalli, M.; Esen, Y. Temperature distributions in boreholes of a vertical ground-coupled heat pump
system. Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 2672–2679. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8689 19 of 19

23. Li, Y.; An, Q.; Liu, L.; Zhao, J. Thermal Performance Investigation of Borehole Heat Exchanger with Different
U-tube Diameter and Borehole Parameters. Energy Procedia 2014, 61, 2690–2694. [CrossRef]
24. Zhu, L.; Chen, S.; Yang, Y.; Sun, Y. Transient heat transfer performance of a vertical double U-tube borehole
heat exchanger under different operation conditions. Renew. Energy 2019, 131, 494–505. [CrossRef]
25. Lee, C.K.; Lam, H.N. Computer simulation of borehole ground heat exchangers for geothermal heat pump
systems. Renew. Energy 2008, 33, 1286–1296. [CrossRef]
26. Yang, S.; Lee, S. Dynamic thermal analysis of a residential ground-source heat pump. Sustain. Energy Technol.
Assess. 2020, 37, 100608. [CrossRef]
27. Beckers, K.F.; Aguirre, G.A.; Tester, J.W. Hybrid ground-source heat pump systems for cooling-dominated
applications: Experimental and numerical case-study of cooling for cellular tower shelters. Energy Build.
2018, 177, 341–350. [CrossRef]
28. Nobari, M.R.H.; Gharali, K.; Tajdari, M. A Numerical Study of Flow and Heat Transfer in Internally Finned
Rotating Curved Pipes. Numer. Heat Transfer Part A Appl. 2009, 56, 76–95. [CrossRef]
29. Bouhacina, B.; Saim, R.; Oztop, H.F. Numerical investigation of a novel tube design for the geothermal
borehole heat exchanger. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015, 79, 153–162. [CrossRef]
30. Saeidi, R.; Noorollahi, Y.; Esfahanian, V. Numerical simulation of a novel spiral type ground heat exchanger
for enhancing heat transfer performance of geothermal heat pump. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 168,
296–307. [CrossRef]
31. Patankar, S. Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow; Hemisphere Publishing: Washington, DC, USA; McGraw
Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
32. Beier, R.A.; Smith, M.D.; Spitler, J.D. Reference data sets for vertical borehole ground heat exchanger models
and thermal response test analysis. Geothermics 2011, 40, 79–85. [CrossRef]
33. Rees, S.J.; He, M. A three-dimensional numerical model of borehole heat exchanger heat transfer and fluid
flow. Geothermics 2013, 46, 1–13. [CrossRef]
34. Noorollahi, Y.; Saeidi, R.; Mohammadi, M.; Amiri, A.; Hosseinzadeh, M. The effects of ground heat exchanger
parameters changes on geothermal heat pump performance—A review. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018, 129,
1645–1658. [CrossRef]
35. Nobari, M.R.H.; Gharali, K. A numerical study of flow and heat transfer in internally finned rotating straight
pipes and stationary curved pipes. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2006, 49, 1185–1194. [CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).