Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment 25 (2021) 100208

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gete

Experimental and numerical investigation of the thermo-mechanical

behaviour of an energy sheet pile wall
∗
Marianna Adinolfi a , , Alessandro F. Rotta Loria b , Lyesse Laloui c , Stefano Aversa d
a
REgional Models and geo-Hydrological Impacts, Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti, Climatici, Italy
b
Northwestern University, Mechanics and Energy Laboratory, MEL, 2145 Sheridan Road, Evanston IL 60208, United States of America
c
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, EPFL, Laboratory of Soil Mechanics, LMS, Station 18, CH 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
d
University of Napoli ‘‘Parthenope’’, Engineering Department, DI, Centro Direzionale di Napoli, Isola C4, I-80143, Napoli, Italy

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: One-of-a-kind experimental and numerical investigation is provided in this paper about energy
Received 7 January 2020 sheet pile walls: earth retaining structures that embed heat exchanger probes within piles for the
Received in revised form 11 June 2020 exploitation of shallow geothermal energy. The study resorts to the results of full-scale in situ tests
Accepted 8 July 2020
and coupled three-dimensional thermo-mechanical finite element analyses of an energy sheet pile
Available online 16 July 2020
wall constructed in an underground station. In this context, an investigation about the influence of
Editors-in-Chief: thermal boundary and initial conditions on thermo-mechanical behaviour of the energy sheet pile
Professor Lyesse Laloui and Professor Tomasz wall is performed. The addressed thermal boundary conditions are associated with the thermal load
Hueckel imposed on the considered foundation by the field environment and the geothermal operation of
some energy piles constituting the wall. The addressed thermal initial conditions are associated with
Keywords:
the undisturbed ground temperature field of the considered site. Based on a comparison between the
Energy sheet pile wall
experimental and numerical results, and the development of numerical sensitivity analyses, criticalities
Full-scale experimental campaign
3-D finite element model associated with the analysis and modelling of the thermo-mechanical behaviour of energy sheet pile
Thermo-mechanical behaviour walls are denoted. The results highlight that: a marked non-uniformity of the temperature field can
Boundary conditions characterise real applications of energy sheet pile walls, representing a significant challenge to capture
Initial conditions numerically at all spatial locations; a comparable influence denotes thermal loads that derive from the
field environment and the geothermal operation of energy sheet pile walls, deserving attention when
modelling the behaviour of such geostructures; and a critical role of the initial thermal conditions is
connected to the satisfactory understanding and prediction of the thermo-mechanical behaviour of
energy sheet pile walls, requiring careful consideration for analysis and design purposes.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction compared to other energy geostructures. The previous aspect,

Over the last decades, ground coupled heat pump systems
have been increasingly applied worldwide because of their eco-
nomic and environmental advantages. As a specific type of ground
coupled heat pump systems, so-called energy geostructures are
progressively developed due to their capability of providing cou-
pled structural support and renewable energy supply to all types
of built environments.1 Among these geostructures, energy sheet
pile walls operate as earth retaining structures that embed heat
exchanger probes within piles for the exploitation of shallow
geothermal energy, following the principle of other geostructures
such as energy piles, energy tunnels and energy slabs. Despite
relying on the same functioning principle, energy sheet pile walls
are characterised by different heat transfer and static features
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: marianna.adinolfi@cmcc.it (M. Adinolfi).
along with the limited application of energy walls, motivates sci-
entific investigations for the development of competence serving
analysis and design purposes.
The number of energy wall installations is increasing world-
wide, although information about a few of them is reported in
the literature.2–8 Experimental datasets about full-scale energy
walls3–9 and model-scale energy walls10 are currently limited
in number and prevent a thorough understanding of the be-
haviour of such geostructures, despite the representing a key
ingredient for a number of related studies.11–13 Due to the lim-
ited experimental evidence about energy walls, numerical sim-
ulations are often employed to address aspects governing the
behaviour of such geostructures. Most of the currently avail-
able numerical investigations about energy walls focus on the
thermal behaviour of such structures.11,14–18 Some numerical in-
vestigations address the thermo-mechanical behaviour of the
considered structures,13,19–22 as Ref. 23 addresses their thermo-
hydro coupled behaviour. A few numerical investigations tackle

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gete.2020.100208
2352-3808/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 M. Adinolfi, A.F. Rotta Loria, L. Laloui et al. / Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment 25 (2021) 100208
their thermo-hydro-mechanical behaviour.24,25 While common
attention is devoted to energy diaphragm walls, scarce is the
knowledge about energy sheet pile walls.
Numerical analyses are powerful tools to study the behaviour
of energy walls at both short and long-term periods, as they
can consider a number of fundamental aspects governing the
geothermal and structural support operation of such geostruc-
tures. However, numerical studies may be considered of limited
representativeness of actual site conditions and behaviour if not
validated through experimental evidence.
This study has the opportunity to resort to the results of
a one-of-a-kind available full-scale experimental campaign to
validate numerical analyses of an energy sheet pile wall. Within
this context, the present work discusses the results of full-scale
in situ tests and coupled three-dimensional thermo-mechanical
finite element analyses of an energy sheet pile wall constructed
in an underground station (Piazza Municipio) located in Naples
(Italy). This work is specifically divided in two parts. In the
first part, a comparison between the experimental and numerical
results referring to a geothermal operation of the energy sheet
pile wall that occurred during the construction phase of the
station is presented, and the adequacy of the model to predict
reality is discussed. In the second part, building upon the previous
results, sensitivity numerical analyses are presented to expand
on the influence of thermal boundary and initial conditions on
thermo-mechanical behaviour of the energy sheet pile wall. In
this context, the addressed thermal boundary conditions are rep-
resented by the thermal load imposed on the considered site by
the field environment as well as by the geothermal operation
of some energy piles constituting the wall (such loads consid-
ered in conjunction and individually). Yet, the addressed thermal
initial conditions are associated with the undisturbed ground
temperature field that characterised the considered site.
In the following, the experimental testing performed on the
energy sheet pile wall is described first and then the numer-
ical modelling is detailed. Afterwards, a comparison between
the experimental and numerical results is proposed. Next, nu-
merical sensitivity analyses addressing the influence of thermal
boundary and initial conditions on thermo-mechanical aspects
governing behaviour of energy sheet pile walls are presented.
Finally, concluding remarks that can be drawn from this work are
summarised.
2. Experimental testing
2.1. General
In the context of the Metropolitana di Napoli, a demonstra-
tion project was proposed to convert six conventional piles into
energy piles within a sheet pile wall in an underground station.
The energy sheet pile wall was designed to support the excava-
tion for train platforms while hosting probes for heat exchange
with the ground.26 Full-scale in situ thermal response tests were
performed on this facility during the construction of the station
to simulate a geothermal operation of some energy piles consti-
tuting the wall. This section presents (i) the energy sheet pile wall
and site features, (ii) the characteristics of the equipment and (iii)
the testing procedure and chronology.
2.2. The energy sheet pile wall and site features
The test site is located in the underground station of Piazza
Municipio, Line 6, in Naples (Figs. 1(a) and (b)). Six among the
forty-five bored piles constituting the sheet pile wall (Figs. 1(c)
and (d)) were converted into energy piles (EP). All of the piles
have the same dimensions and are made of reinforced concrete.
The nominal diameter of the piles is 800 mm and the inter-axis
distance is 1.1 m (Fig. 1(e)). To support the excavation of 6.3 m
serving the future platform of the station, the total length of piles
is equal to 11.4 m. A reinforced concrete slab of 0.4 m overlies
the sheet pile wall with its uppermost surface at a depth of 5.0
m below ground surface (Fig. 1(f)).
Only the lower part of the sheet pile wall is completely em-
bedded in the ground. The upper portion is partly in contact with
the ground and the field environmental conditions. The testing
conditions are not representative of the actual operation of the
underground station (the profile at the end of the construction is
outlined in grey in Fig. 1(f)), which would involve the sheet pile
wall protected from the surface environmental conditions.
The ground layering is typical for the Neapolitan area. A super-
ficial 3.5 m-thick layer of granular pyroclastic products of volcanic
activity, called pozzolanas, overlies a lithified stratum of yellow
tuff that extends for many metres below the toe of the piles. The
soil layers are fully saturated with groundwater table very close
to the surface level (Fig. 1(f)).
2.3. Heat exchanger and instrumentation systems
High density polyethylene probes (characterised by a 32 mm
nominal diameter) are anchored to the reinforcing cage of the
energy piles (constituted by 24 bars of 20 mm in diameter).
Different probe configurations characterise the energy piles: a
spiral probe with pitches between the turns of 0.7 m is installed
in EP2; a spiral probe with pitches between the turns of 0.5 m is
installed in EP4; a double-U probe is installed in EP6 (Fig. 1(e));
EP9, EP24 and EP25 are characterised by a spiral probe with
pitches between the turns of 0.4 m, a double U, and a triple U con-
figuration, respectively. However, these piles were not monitored
and are not addressed in the present paper.
Optical Fibre Sensors (OFS) for strain and temperature mea-
surements within the energy piles are fixed to the reinforcement
cage. Approximately 180 m of OFS characterise the three en-
ergy piles (Fig. 1(e)). These fibres were installed via two meth-
ods: by anchoring continuously the cable along the length of
the reinforcement cage and by stringing the cable between the
top and bottom of the cage. The former method was used for
three fibres to record strain measurements (see section B-B of
Fig. 1(e)), installed at 120◦ over the cross-section of the pile. The
latter method is used for the optical cable to record temperature
measurements.
The monitoring system allowing for the measurement of the
environmental conditions and the relevant variables linked with
the thermal response tests is made of an optoelectronic reading
unit (including all the electronic and optical components and
cables) and a thermistor installed in the heat pump. Key mea-
sured variables include outside air temperature, inlet and outlet
temperature of the heat carrier fluid circulating in the pipes, flow
velocity and fluid pressure.
2.4. Testing procedure and chronology
Thermal response tests (TRTs) were conducted by successively
applying over time a constant thermal power of 1 kW to EP2, EP6,
EP9, EP24 and EP25. Data deriving from the thermal loading of
EP2 and EP6 are analysed in this study. The outside air temper-
ature observed during the TRTs was monitored using pipe-plug
thermocouples installed in the inlet and outlet of the manifold
and a data logger. Complementary measurements of temperature
were recorded using the OFS cable in proximity of EP2 head.
Thermal load control was imposed through manual switching.
The experimental campaign started on June 22nd 2016 and lasted
 M. Adinolfi, A.F. Rotta Loria, L. Laloui et al. / Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment 25 (2021) 100208 3

Fig. 1. The investigated site: (a) underground metro line 6 of Naples; (b) construction site in Piazza Municipio; (c) photograph of tested energy sheet pile wall; (d)
plan view (not to scale) of the tested energy sheet pile wall; (e) section A-A (not to scale) of experimental site; (f) section B-B (not to scale) of experimental site.

28 days, and was thus performed in the hot summer season of
Naples.
Fig. 2 (a) depicts the recorded trend of the outside air tem-
perature Tamb . Daily variations of the monitored air temperature,
through the TRT apparatus and the OFS in correspondence with
the head of EP2, are compared. The recorded data cover a time-
frame of 425 h: gaps between 90 and 120 h, and 171 and 315 h
are due to accidental cuts in OFS cables that occurred during the
construction site activities. The air temperature trends are typical
for summer days in the Neapolitan area. Maximum temperatures
ranging from 31 to 41 ◦ C are observed during the warmest
hours of the day. Despite initial differences, the temperature
data recorded through the OFS and thermistor become in close
agreement towards the end of the monitoring. Although the pile
head is relatively insulated by the slab, temperature fluctuations
caused by the influence of airflows are observed.
Figs. 2(b) and (c) show the chronology of the heat flow rates
imposed on EP2 and EP6 during the TRT campaign, respectively,
and the fluctuations of air temperature as reference. During
the thermal loading of EP2 and EP6, the thermo-mechanical
behaviour of EP2, EP4 and EP6 was monitored in terms of tem-
perature and strain variations. EP2 was heated for 90 h (starting
from July 1st) and monitored for 425 h. EP4 was not heated but
monitored for 305 h (starting on July 6th) from 120 to 425 h.
EP6 was heated for 144 h (starting from July 6th) and monitored
for 305 h from 120 to 425 h. The main peaks of air temperature
between 250 and 310 h happened towards the end of the TRT
campaign.
Based on the previous considerations, two thermal loads acted
on the energy sheet pile wall during the TRT campaign: the
thermal load associated with the field environmental conditions,
resulting from the outside air temperature variations, and the
thermal load imposed on EP2 and EP6 during the TRT activ-
ity, resulting from the imposed thermal power (and associated
temperature variations).
4 M. Adinolfi, A.F. Rotta Loria, L. Laloui et al. / Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment 25 (2021) 100208
Fig. 2. Test chronology: (a) the recorded trend of the outside air temperature
(Tamb ) in the surrounding of EP2 by OFS cable and thermistor installed in the
heat pump; (b) thermal power trend applied to EP2 and (c) thermal power trend
applied to EP6.
3. Numerical modelling
3.1. General
To obtain complementary information on the structural sup-
port and geothermal operation of the energy sheet pile wall
during the TRTs that may have been impossible to achieve other-
wise, three-dimensional (3-D) thermo-mechanical finite element
simulations were performed. This section presents (i) the mathe-
matical formulation and the assumptions of the numerical analy-
ses, (ii) the finite element model, boundary and initial conditions,
(iii) the material parameters employed in the analyses, and (iv)
the summary of the numerical simulations performed.
3.2. Mathematical formulation and modelling choices
The numerical analysis of the energy sheet pile wall is based
on the following assumptions:
• The displacements and deformations of all of the materials
can be representatively described through a linear kine-
matic approach under quasi-static conditions (i.e., negligible
inertial effects). This assumption can generally be consid-
ered valid for the description of the operation of energy
geostructures.
• The materials that constitute the sheet pile wall are consid-
ered to be isotropic with pores that are fully filled by air and
are assumed to be purely conductive domains with equiv-
alent thermo-physical properties determined as weighted
average of those of the fluid and of the solid phase. This
hypothesis may be approximate for some regions of the
energy sheet pile wall (e.g., close to the interface with the
saturated ground). However, it was driven by the availability
of laboratory test results for the constituting material under
dry conditions, and supported by the fact that at the time
the tests were performed the piles where exposed to direct
solar radiation, such an aspect suggesting the possibility to
deal with dry concrete instead of saturated concrete (to the
extent at which concrete can be considered dry, in all cases).
• The materials that make up the soil layers are assumed to
be isotropic, fully saturated by water and purely conductive
domains with equivalent thermo-physical properties that
are given by the fluid and the solid phases. This approach is
considered acceptable in view of the location of the water
table at the ground surface.
• The loads that are associated with this problem have a
negligible impact on the hydraulic field in the soil (e.g., the
analysis assumed fully drained conditions during the loading
process). This hypothesis is considered valid based on the
limited magnitude of thermal loading applied to the energy
piles, the high values of the consolidation coefficients char-
acterising the ground, and the arguments of Refs. 27, 28. As a
result, the definition of the effective stress29 coincides with
the one of total stress.
• All the materials are considered to be representatively de-
scribed by linear thermo-elastic behaviours. This assump-
tion is a marked simplification of reality due to the inca-
pability of accounting for the influence of the stress his-
tory (e.g., construction effects) on the actual mechanical be-
haviour of the sheet pile wall. Differences in the developed
numerical predictions over the non-monotonic temperature
variations involved in this problem may be involved with
respect to physical reality and attributed to this assumption.
However, such an assumption was chosen to run numerical
analyses that would have exceeded the available computa-
tional capabilities otherwise, due to the substantial number
of degrees of freedom associated with an already markedly
complex 3-D model.
Under the previous conditions, a thermo-mechanical mathemati-
cal formulation is employed. The equilibrium equation, assuming
positive compressive stresses, can be written as
∇ · σ + ρg = 0 (1)
where ∇· denotes the divergence operator; σ denotes the total
stress tensor; ρ = nρw + (1 − n) ρs represents the density of
the porous material, which is calculated referring to the density
of water ρw and the density of the solid particles ρs with the
porosity n; and g is the gravity vector. According to the effec-
tive stress principle,29 effective stresses are responsible of the
mechanical behaviour of soils and soft rocks. The effective stress
tensor σ ′ (which under fully drained conditions coincides with
the total stress tensor), assuming positive contractive strains, can
be expressed as
σ ′ = σ = De (ε + βI ∆T ) (2)
e
where D is the stiffness tensor that contains the material pa-
rameters (the Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the solid
skeleton), ε is the strain tensor, β is a vector that contains the
linear thermal expansion coefficient of the material α , I is the
identity matrix and ∆T = T − T0 is the temperature variation.
The energy conservation equation reads
∂T
ρ cp − λ∇ 2 T = 0 (3)
∂t
 M. Adinolfi, A.F. Rotta Loria, L. Laloui et al. / Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment 25 (2021) 100208
where ρ cp = (1 − n) ρs cp,s + nρw cp,w is the volumetric heat
capacity of the material, where cp,s and cp,w are the specific
heat of the solid particles and water, respectively, t is the time,
λ = (1 − n) λs + nλw is the thermal conductivity of the mate-
rial, where λs and λw are the thermal conductivity of the solid
particles and water, respectively, and ∇ 2 represents the Laplacian
operator. In the considered study, the thermal properties of the
foundation and surrounding soil are considered to be temperature
independent.
3.3. Finite element model, boundary and initial conditions
The 3-D finite element model of the site was built using
the software COMSOL Multiphysics.30 The model is composed
of 438’927 elements of different shapes, as shown in Fig. 3. It
simulates the sheet pile wall, the 0.4-m-thick slab, the excavation
and the surrounding ground.
The geometry as well as the mechanical and thermal boundary
conditions of the modelled sheet pile wall reproducing the field
conditions are detailed in Fig. 3. Restrictions are applied to both
the vertical and horizontal displacements on the base of the
model (i.e., pinned boundary) and to the horizontal displacements
on the sides (i.e., roller boundaries). The piles are considered as
perfectly jointed with the slab (full moment connection). Perfect
contact between the piles and the ground, as well as between
the slab and the ground, is considered (i.e., the pile-soil and slab-
soil interfaces are not modelled). The sheet pile wall is assumed
wished in place and the whole sequence of operations occurring
during construction is ignored. This approach involves that no
residual stresses from the installation of the piles are considered
in these elements and in the adjacent ground.
A radiation heat transfer boundary condition is imposed on the
surfaces of the numerical model in contact with the air to account
for the influence of solar radiation on the response of the sheet
pile wall. Accordingly:
−n̂ · (−λ∇ T ) = εe σSB (Tamb
4
− T 4)
where n̂ is the vector normal to the considered surface, εe is the
surface emissivity, σSB is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant and Tamb
is the ambient air temperature recorded during the experimental
test (Fig. 2(a)). The surface emissivity is assumed equal to 0.9
according to Ref. 31. The choice of a radiation boundary condi-
tion is supported by two physical observations. First, the torrid
climate that was observed at the considered site throughout the
development of the in situ tests, which during full sunny days
supported the consideration of a global heat transfer process
governed by radiation. Second, the minimal values of airflow
velocity that occurred in Naples and were specifically observed at
the considered construction site during the tests, which suggested
a minimal if present role of convection heat transfer in the global
heat exchange process of the energy sheet pile wall.
Thermal loading of the energy piles EP2 and EP6 is numerically
reproduced, when useful for the aim of the different simula-
tions performed, by applying to the volume of these piles a
time-dependent, step-wise evolution of thermal power with a
maximum of Q = 1 kW as in the TRTs (see evolution for EP2
and EP6 in Fig. 2(b) and (c), respectively). In other words, the
model neglects the presence of the pipes embedded in the energy
piles and the associated flow of the heat carrier fluid circulating
into them. Similar to the decision made with respect to the sim-
plified constitutive modelling of the ground, this approach was
chosen to run numerical analyses that would have exceeded the
available computational capabilities otherwise. While the choice
of the constitutive model could influence the predictions referring
to the mechanical behaviour of the energy sheet pile wall, the
5
choice of not modelling the pipes could influence the predictions
referring to the thermal behaviour of the considered geostructure.
The initial temperature of the model is set in all of its domains
to some relevant reference temperature, Tref , as appropriate for
the aim of the different simulations performed. This temperature
distribution is defined in different manners, depending on the
considered numerical simulation, through the measured temper-
ature along EP2 at the beginning of the experimental campaign.
Specifically, when addressing the simulation of the TRTs, Tref is
considered to coincide with the initial temperature profile mea-
sured in EP2 at the beginning of the experimental campaign, Tref ,m
(Fig. 3(a)). In other complementary simulations, Tref is considered
to coincide with a linear interpolation of the initial temperature
profile measured in EP2, Tref ,l (Fig. 3(b)), or a constant average
value of the initial temperature profile measured in EP2, Tref ,c =
27.3 ◦ C (Fig. 3(c)). Assuming the initial temperature of the nu-
merical model to be equal to some relevant distribution of one
measured in EP2 involves considering the temperature field uni-
form at the investigated site. Although this condition is unlikely
to thoroughly represent reality, it was the best available choice
from a numerical modelling perspective due to the availability of
data at the beginning of the TRT campaign for EP2 only.
As highlighted in Section 2.4, two thermal boundary loads are
thus applied to the considered energy sheet pile wall and the
surrounding ground in this study. From one side, the thermal
load associated with the solar radiation acting on the wall in
the field environment. From the other side, the thermal load
associated with the geothermal operation of the relevant energy
piles. Along with these loads, the initial thermal boundary condi-
tion characterising the considered energy sheet pile wall and the
surrounding ground corresponds to the temperature field that is
assumed representative of the in situ conditions at the beginning
of the TRT campaign.
3.4. Material properties
The thermal and mechanical properties of the reinforced con-
(4)
crete and ground characterising the modelled site are listed in
Table 1. The unit weight, thermal conductivity and specific heat
of the concrete characterising the sheet pile wall and slab were
determined through laboratory tests.32 The Young’s modulus of
the concrete was assumed to be the same at the one considered
by Ref. 13. The Poisson’s ratio and the coefficient of linear thermal
expansion of the concrete were taken from Ref. 33. The ground
properties were taken from the literature.28,34
3.5. Summary of numerical simulations
To simulate the experimental full-scale in situ tests, and ad-
dress the effects of varying thermal boundary and initial condi-
tions on the thermo-mechanical behaviour of the energy sheet
pile wall, four numerical runs are specifically performed in this
study:
• Run 1 considers the influence of the thermal loads arising
from the field environmental conditions (through the ap-
plication of Tamb on the surfaces of the model in contact
with the air) as well as from the geothermal operation of
the energy piles (through the application of Q to EP2 and
EP6). It employs the distribution of Tref ,m as thermal initial
condition for the model and it reproduces the conditions of
the experimental campaign.
• Run 2 only considers the influence of the thermal load
arising from the field environmental conditions to decouple
the effects caused by the geothermal operation of the energy
piles and the field conditions. It employs the distribution of
Tref ,m as thermal initial condition for the model.
6 M. Adinolfi, A.F. Rotta Loria, L. Laloui et al. / Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment 25 (2021) 100208

Fig. 3. Geometry, boundary and initial conditions of the finite element model of the energy sheet pile wall with considered evolution of Tref: (a) Tref ,m initial
temperature profile measured in EP2 at the beginning of the experimental test; (b) Tref ,l linear interpolation of the initial temperature profile measured in EP2 at
the beginning of the experimental test and (c) Tref ,c constant average value of the initial temperature profile measured in EP2 at the beginning of the experimental
test.

• Run 3 considers the influence of the same thermal loads 4. Comparison between experimental and numerical results

reproduced in Run 1. It employs, however, the distribution

of Tref ,l as thermal initial condition for the model.
• Run 4 considers the influence of the same thermal loads
reproduced in Run 1. It employs, however, the distribution
of Tref ,c as thermal initial condition for the model.
4.1. General
This section presents a validation of the numerical model by
means of the comparison between experimental measurements
and numerical results of temperature and vertical strain variation
along on EP2, EP4 and EP6. The numerical results refer to Run 1.
 M. Adinolfi, A.F. Rotta Loria, L. Laloui et al. / Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment 25 (2021) 100208
Table 1
Material properties used for the numerical predictions.
Young’s modulus Poisson’s ratio Porosity n
E [MPa] ν [-] [-]
Pozzolanas 520 0.30 0.525
Tuff 1500 0.25 0.550
Young’s modulus Poisson’s ratio Porosity
E [MPa] ν n
[-] [-]
Reinforced 40000 0.20 0.100
concrete
4.2. Approach of comparison between the experimental and numer-
ical results
The comparison between the experimental and numerical re-
sults is carried out with reference to the beginning of the ex-
perimental campaign. This fact involves that the influence of the
mechanical loads associated with the construction of the sheet
pile wall is not included in the results.
The focus of the analyses is on three selected time inter-
vals. These intervals are chosen to have the availability of both
experimental and numerical results:
• t = 90 h, corresponding at the end of the heating of EP2;
• t = 170 h, corresponding to an early stage of the heating of
EP6;
• t = 425 h, corresponding to the end of the monitored in situ
test.
As the monitoring system was active since the beginning of the
experimental campaign only for EP2, while after a time t = 120 h
for EP4 and EP6 (due to accidental electrical shortcuts in the OFS
(see Fig. 2)), a specific approach was used to overcome this issue.
The same approach is used to bridge the gap between 171 and
315 h, allowing the comparison between the experimental and
numerical results from t = 0 h. The variations of temperature
or vertical strain measured experimentally after t = 120 h and
t = 315 h for EP4 and EP6 were calculated by summing the
variation of the relevant variable calculated numerically from the
beginning of the tests until the two aforementioned times with
the variation of the relevant variable measured experimentally
in the remaining amount of time. In other words, a ‘‘numerical
offset’’ was applied to the experimental results when needed to
be able to compare all of the results from the beginning of the
experimental campaign. This approach assumes that the mod-
elled response of EP4 and EP6 is the same as the experimental
response, and agrees with the use of a uniform initial temperature
of the model that coincides with the one measured for EP2 at the
beginning of the experimental campaign.
4.3. Profiles of temperature variations
Fig. 4 presents the temperature variations along EP2, EP4
and EP6 at different stages of the geothermal operation. For all
energy piles, a notable variation in the values of temperature
variation with depth is observed. This result is associated with
the markedly fluctuating values of initial temperature at the
considered site with depth, as compared to the uniform values
of temperature induced by thermal loading of the energy piles.
The considered evidence highlights a significant role of the ther-
mal initial and boundary conditions on the thermal response of
energy sheet pile walls.
7
Unit weight of Specific heat of Thermal Linear thermal
saturated soils solid particles conductivity of expansion
γ [kN/m3 ] cp,s saturated soils coefficient
[J/(kg ◦ C)] λ α [1/◦ C]
[W/(m ◦ C)]
17 800 1.28 1.33–10−5
17 850 1.48 1.33–10−5
Unit weight Specific heat Thermal Linear thermal
γ [kN/m3 ] cp,s conductivity expansion
[J/(kg ◦ C)] λ coefficient
[W/(m ◦ C)] α [1/◦ C]
22 930 1.77 1.2–10−5
After t = 90 h, the geothermal operation of EP2 and the field
environmental conditions involved average temperature varia-
tions along this pile of ∆T = 9.6 ◦ C (with a maximum of 14.5 ◦ C)
according to the experimental results and 7.4 ◦ C (with a max-
imum of ∆T = 10.3 ◦ C) according to the numerical results. At
this stage, noteworthy discrepancies between the experimental
and numerical results were observed in the exposed portion of
the energy pile, while close agreement was found in the portion
of the energy pile embedded in the ground. The experimental and
numerical temperature variations decreased over time after the
end of the geothermal operation of EP2 and almost indistinguish-
ably resulted in an average value of ∆T = 2.4 ◦ C after t = 170
h for both the experimental and numerical results, and ∆T = -
0.7 ◦ C and ∆T = -0.1 ◦ C after t = 425 h for the experimental and
numerical results, respectively.
After t = 170 h, the field environmental conditions involved
average temperature variations along EP4 of ∆T = 1.3 ◦ C (with
a maximum of 5.5 ◦ C) according to the experimental results
and ∆T = 0.3 ◦ C (with a maximum of 3.5 ◦ C) according to
the numerical results. These temperature variations characterised
the considered energy pile even if it was not operating as a
geothermal heat exchanger, thus representing a significant con-
tribution played by the thermal boundary conditions. No relevant
temperature variations were observed in the embedded portion
of the energy pile, such an aspect corroborating the insurgence
of temperature variations in the exposed portion of this pile
only due to the field environmental conditions. At this stage,
limited discrepancies were observed between the experimental
and numerical results. After t = 425 h, the field environmental
conditions involved lower average temperature variations along
the exposed portion of EP4 according to both the experimental
and numerical results. At this stage, noteworthy discrepancies
between the experimental and numerical results were observed
close to the excavation level.
After t = 170 h, the geothermal operation of EP6 and the
field environmental conditions resulted in average temperature
variations along this pile of ∆T = 4.9 ◦ C (with a maximum of
8.0 ◦ C) according to the experimental results and 7.3 ◦ C (with a
maximum of ∆T = 10.7 ◦ C) according to the numerical results.
After t = 425 h, negligible average temperature variations were
observed along the energy pile by means of the experimental
and numerical results, except for slight negative temperature
variations occurring in correspondence of the excavation level.
At this stage, close agreement between the experimental and
numerical results was observed.
The discrepancy between the experimental and numerical
results at some stages of the investigation and in correspon-
dence of localised pile locations suggests differences in the actual
and modelled heat transfers. These differences are primarily at-
tributed to limitations in the modelling of the field environmental
conditions and may be caused by a different temperature field
8 M. Adinolfi, A.F. Rotta Loria, L. Laloui et al. / Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment 25 (2021) 100208

Fig. 4. Experimental and numerical variations in temperature along EP2, EP4 and EP6.

in the various piles compared to the one measured through the
TRT (equally set for all piles) as well as by a different value
of local radiation heat transfer coefficient. To expand on this
feature of the problem, the emissivity of the various surfaces was
varied depending on whether they were vertical or horizontal,
but no significant improvement of the results was obtained. In
particular, such improvement was not commensurate with the
efforts to achieve a closer comparison to reality. Complementary
simulations not presented herein were also run by considering
a convection heat transfer boundary condition – alone or in
conjunction with the radiation boundary condition – on the
exposed portions of the model to the field environmental con-
ditions, with a convection coefficient ranging between 1.5 and
5 W/(m2 ◦ C). Nevertheless, the obtained results further deviated
by the experimental measurements, such an aspect corroborating
the hypothesis made regarding the use of a radiation boundary
condition, and suggesting the presence of a significantly non-
uniform temperature field at the considered site, even within
vertical or horizontal surfaces subjected to heat transfer.
4.4. Profiles of vertical strain variations
Fig. 5 shows the thermally induced vertical strain variations
along EP2, EP4 and EP6 at different stages of the geothermal
operation (contractive strains are considered as positive). For all
 M. Adinolfi, A.F. Rotta Loria, L. Laloui et al. / Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment 25 (2021) 100208 9

Fig. 5. Experimental and numerical variations in thermally induced vertical strain along EP2, EP4 and EP6.

energy piles, a notable variation in the values of thermally in-
duced vertical strain variation is observed with depth. This result
is associated with the interplay between the markedly fluctuating
values of temperature variation with depth and the thermally
induced vertical strains. The considered evidence highlights a
significant role of the thermal initial and boundary conditions on
the mechanical response of energy sheet pile walls.
After t = 90 h, the geothermal operation of EP2 resulted in
an expansion of the pile. At this stage, a greater expansion was
predicted by the experimental results compared to the numerical
data, with a greater difference compared to the one observed
between the profiles of temperature variation responsible for
this strain change. This result is partly attributed to the greater
average temperature variation observed in the exposed portion of
the energy pile by means of the experimental results compared
to the numerical data. It explicates limitations of the numerical
model in predicting the mechanical response of the pile with
accuracy at the considered stage of the geothermal operation.
Average increases in vertical strain along EP2 of ∆εz = −80 µε
and ∆εz = −40 µε were observed according to the experimental
and numerical results, respectively. At subsequent stages of the
geothermal operation, limited average vertical strain variations
were observed along the EP2, with the development of both
expansive and contractive strains.
After t = 170 h, a noteworthy expansion of EP4 was observed,
even though this pile was not operating as a geothermal heat
10 M. Adinolfi, A.F. Rotta Loria, L. Laloui et al. / Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment 25 (2021) 100208
Fig. 6. Numerical trends of temperature variations at selected locations along EP2, EP4 and EP6 for different thermal boundary conditions.
exchanger. Average vertical strain variations along EP4 of approx-
imately ∆εz = −27 µε and ∆εz = −14 µε were observed through
the experimental and numerical results. At this stage, contractive
strains were locally observed along EP4 in addition to the expan-
sive strains, such an evidence being attributed to the influence of
the field environmental conditions. After t = 425 h, a variation
in the strain profile was highlighted, with differences between
the experimental and numerical results. These differences were
greater than those observed between the profiles of temperature
variation responsible for this strain change.
After t = 170 h and t = 425 h, a similar strain behaviour
characterised EP6 compared to EP4, with the main difference that
greater strain variations were observed at t = 170 h due to its
geothermal operation. An increase in the difference between the
experimental and numerical results was observed at t = 425 h.
The discrepancy between the experimental and numerical ver-
tical strain variations towards the end of the investigation sug-
gests differences in the actual and modelled strain behaviour of
the energy piles operating or not as geothermal heat exchangers.
The greater difference observed for the strain profiles compared
to the temperature profiles suggests a difference between the
actual and modelled interplay characterising the temperature and
thermally induced strain variations.
5. Influence of thermal boundary and initial conditions on the
thermo-mechanical behaviour of energy sheet pile walls
5.1. General
The developed 3-D finite element model is considered capable
of providing relevant information on key aspects governing the
thermo-mechanical behaviour of the considered energy sheet pile
wall, despite some previously discussed limitations. Accordingly,
the influence of the thermal boundary and initial conditions on
the thermo-mechanical behaviour of the energy sheet pile wall is
further addressed in the following through the numerical Run 2,
Run 3 and Run 4 described in Section 3.5.
Based on a comparison between the results of Run 1 and Run 2,
insights about the relative influence of the thermal boundary con-
ditions on the related thermo-mechanical behaviour is achieved,
with the possibility to expand on the sole contribution of the
thermal load applied to the energy piles as a consequence of
their geothermal operation. Through a comparison between the
results of Run 1, Run 3 and Run 4, insights about the influence of
the thermal initial conditions on the related thermo-mechanical
behaviour are achieved, with the possibility to expand on the con-
tribution of the initial ground temperature. This section presents
numerical evidence on the previous aspects.
5.2. Trends of temperature and vertical strain variations caused by
different thermal boundary conditions
Fig. 6 presents the trends of temperature variations at selected
locations in the exposed and embedded portions of EP2, EP4 and
EP6. These locations correspond to L/4 and 3L/4, respectively,
where L is the pile length. The grey fill in between the curves
of Run 1 and Run 2 represents the influence of the only thermal
load associated with the geothermal operation of the energy piles
on the related (localised) thermal response.
The geothermal operation of EP2 induced a progressive tem-
perature increase in correspondence of both the exposed (L/4)
and embedded (3L/4) portions of this pile. Although a uniform
thermal power was applied to the considered energy pile in
the numerical simulation, a greater temperature variation was
 M. Adinolfi, A.F. Rotta Loria, L. Laloui et al. / Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment 25 (2021) 100208
Fig. 7. Numerical trends of strain variations at selected locations along EP2, EP4 and EP6 for different thermal boundary conditions.
observed in the exposed portion of the pile compared to the
embedded one in the ground. This phenomenon is due to the
influence of the radiation heat transfer of the temperature field
in correspondence of the exposed pile portion. The greatest tem-
perature variation within EP2 was predicted at the end of the
respective heating phase in accordance with the influence of the
thermal boundary load associated with the geothermal operation
of the pile. The thermal boundary load associated with the field
environmental conditions caused almost no changes in temper-
ature when the air temperature level was close to the average
initial ground temperature. In contrast, a greater and significant
influence of the field environmental conditions was observed
when the air temperature level markedly differed (e.g., increased
between 250 and 310 h) from the average initial ground tem-
perature. The close temperature variations observed by means
of Run 1 and Run 2 in the exposed portion of EP2 towards the
end of the test highlights that no residual temperature variation
induced by the geothermal operation of this energy pile was
achieved. The thermal load associated with the field environ-
mental conditions resulted in a maximum temperature variation
along EP2 that is 50% the one induced by the geothermal oper-
ation. Greater differences between the temperature variations in
the embedded portion of EP2 were observed due to the lower
heat transfer occurring in the considered setting (thus involving
a more significant amount of residual heat within the pile).
The presence of EP4 located nearby operating energy piles did
not involve temperature variations along its exposed or embed-
ded portions over time due to the geothermal operation of these
heat exchangers. This result agrees with previous comments and
is corroborated by the almost coincidence between the numerical
results of Run 1 and Run 2. Temperature variations were observed
in correspondence of the exposed portion of EP4 due to the
11
influence of the field environmental conditions, while limited
temperature variations characterised the embedded pile portion
in the ground.
Comparable comments to those previously reported for EP2
can be highlighted for EP6, with the main difference that towards
the end of the test a more significant residual temperature varia-
tion induced by the geothermal operation of such energy pile was
observed due to the differences between the numerical results
of Run 1 and Run 2. The thermal load associated with the field
environmental conditions resulted in a maximum temperature
variation along EP6 that is 30% the one induced by the geother-
mal operation. This fact remarks a noteworthy influence of both
sources of thermal loading, i.e., thermal boundary loads associ-
ated with a geothermal operations and thermal boundary loads
associated with field environmental conditions. The foregoing
comments corroborate the considerations of Ref. 3 and Ref. 13.
Fig. 7 presents the trends of vertical strain variations at se-
lected locations in the exposed and embedded portions of EP2,
EP4 and EP6. These locations correspond to L/4 and 3L/4, re-
spectively. The grey fill between the curves of Run 1 and Run
2 represents the influence of the only thermal load associated
with the geothermal operation of the energy piles on the related
(localised) strain response.
A similar trend of the vertical strain variations characterising
EP2, EP4 and EP6 can be observed as compared to the trend of the
temperature variations. More significant vertical strain variations
are observed for the operating energy piles during the related
geothermal operation compared to the non-operating energy pile.
This result highlights the influence of the thermal boundary load
associated with the geothermal operation on the strain response
of the energy piles. More significant vertical strain variations are
observed in the exposed portion of all the energy piles compared
12 M. Adinolfi, A.F. Rotta Loria, L. Laloui et al. / Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment 25 (2021) 100208

Fig. 8. Numerical variations in temperature along EP2, EP4 and EP6 for different thermal initial conditions.

to their embedded portion. This result highlights the more pro-
nounced influence of the thermal boundary load associated with
the field environmental conditions along the exposed pile portion
compared to the embedded portion. The thermal load associated
with the field environmental conditions resulted in a maximum
vertical strain variation along EP2 that is almost coincident with
the one induced by the geothermal operation. The thermal load
associated with the field environmental conditions resulted in a
maximum strain variation along EP6 that is 50% the one induced
by the geothermal operation.
A noteworthy aspect of the foregoing result is that greater
differences between the trends of vertical strain variations are
observed as compared to the temperature variations. This result
highlights that the overall strain behaviour of energy piles is not
governed by the local temperature variations characterising such
foundations, but rather by the average temperature variations
observed along their length. This result further corroborates the
considerations of Ref. 35.
5.3. Profiles of temperature and vertical strain variations caused by
different thermal initial conditions
Figs. 8 and 9 present the temperature variations and the
thermally induced vertical strain variations along EP2, EP4 and
 M. Adinolfi, A.F. Rotta Loria, L. Laloui et al. / Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment 25 (2021) 100208 13

Fig. 9. Numerical variations in thermally induced vertical strain along EP2, EP4 and EP6.

EP6 at the previously selected stages of the geothermal operation.
A noteworthy difference in the predictions of the temperature
and strain variations is observed depending on the thermal initial
conditions considered for the simulation. This result is observed
for the same thermal boundary conditions applied to the model
and particularly characterises the exposed portions of the energy
piles to the air.
Although the average value of initial temperature resulting
from a linear and constant distribution of this variable along
the energy piles is the same, results embedding those that are
associated with the actual value of initial temperature occurring
in reality are found. In this context, predictions of temperature
and vertical strain characterised by an opposite sign than those
observed in reality can be highlighted. The considered result
remarks a critical role of the thermal initial conditions on the
thermo-mechanical behaviour of energy piles, especially from
analysis and design perspectives.
The significant role of thermal initial conditions in the
characterisation of energy sheet pile walls and other vertical
energy geostructures is considered particularly relevant for prob-
lems characterised by highly fluctuating temperature fields, such
as those analysed in this study as a part of an ongoing con-
struction site. This role would be less remarkable for general
energy sheet pile walls and other vertical energy geostructures
located in underground built environments. The reason for this
14 M. Adinolfi, A.F. Rotta Loria, L. Laloui et al. / Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment 25 (2021) 100208
is that, when dealing with relatively stable environmental con-
ditions, a relatively uniform temperature field along the vertical
direction of energy walls would likely be observed as the initial
condition. Therefore, considering that thermal loads associated
with geothermal operations typically result in relatively uniform
temperature variations along the vertical direction of energy
geostructures, superposition of the influence of these thermal
loads to the initial temperature field would likely result in a
uniform temperature distribution along the vertical direction. In
other words, for the sake of a numerical prediction, the choice
of linearly varying or constant temperature distributions for the
initial conditions of an energy wall in stable environmental con-
ditions would unlikely yield changes of sign in the distribution of
temperature variation when considering the influence of thermal
loads associated with geothermal operations. This feature of
the problem does not characterise the present energy wall, as
a highly fluctuating temperature field in the vertical direction
characterises the energy piles starting from any instant of time
after which an analysis will be performed (i.e., the relevant initial
condition).
Numerical results not presented herein show that the tem-
perature and vertical strain fields within the cross-section of the
energy piles were markedly non-uniform, irrespective of whether
they were operating or not as geothermal heat exchangers. There-
fore, not only these fields were non-uniform along the length
of the piles (i.e., in the vertical direction), but also across them
(i.e., in the horizontal direction). The marked non-uniformity of
the vertical strain field involves a difficult integration of the
interconnected vertical stress to assess flexural effects caused by
thermal loading. This aspect of the problem makes the determina-
tion of bending moments caused by thermal loads in energy piles
that constitute walls particularly challenging, not only from a
numerical perspective, but also from an experimental perspective
(as the profiles of vertical strains are typically limited in number
for each pile). The assumption of a linear distribution of normal
stresses over the cross-section of the considered geostructures,
which is typically considered to calculate the resultant force
that causes the bending of cross-sections, particularly appears
to be poorly justified in this context. This aspect of the prob-
lem deserves further investigations in the future. Only in this
manner representative distributions of bending moments will be
determined.
6. Concluding remarks
This study investigated thermo-mechanical aspects governing
the behaviour of energy sheet pile walls, based on the results
of full-scale in situ tests and coupled three-dimensional thermo-
mechanical finite element analyses of a real case study. The
paper presents the first investigation addressing the behaviour
of energy sheet pile walls by means of both experimental and
numerical analyses.
Based on the results of this work, the following concluding
remarks can be summarised:
• The thermo-mechanical behaviour of energy sheet pile walls
is markedly influenced by thermal boundary and initial con-
ditions. Thermal boundary conditions represented by the
thermal load applied to the energy piles and the field envi-
ronmental conditions influence the magnitude, spatial dis-
tribution and trend of the temperature and strain varia-
tions. Thermal initial conditions represented by the ini-
tial ground temperature influence the magnitude and spa-
tial distribution of the temperature and strain variations.
Comparable temperature variations along energy sheet pile
walls can be induced by thermal boundary loads associated
with geothermal operations and the field environmental
conditions.
• While thermally induced vertical strains are inherently
linked with temperature variations, local variations of ver-
tical strain along energy sheet pile walls depend on the
average rather than the local temperature variations charac-
terising the piles. Nevertheless, local vertical strain profiles
do differ in a significant manner over the cross-section of
energy piles that constitute walls, such an aspect making
the integration of the interconnected stresses to estimate
flexural actions difficult.
• A linear and constant profile of initial temperature, which
may reproduce an actual evolution of the same variable
along energy piles, can involve markedly different tempera-
ture and strain variations in such geostructures, also of the
opposite sign.
• The analysis and design of energy sheet pile walls, similar
to other energy geostructures such as energy retaining walls
and tunnels, should devote a considerable attention to the
selection of the thermal initial and boundary conditions to
achieve results that are representative of reality.
The analysis of complex three-dimensional problems involving
energy geostructures still poses marked challenges related to the
computational resources that are typically available for numerical
modelling purposes in science and engineering. These challenges
oblige to simplify even idealised situations and highlight the
value of analytical analysis approaches for the analysis and design
of energy geostructures.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Marianna Adinolfi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing
- original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Alessan-
dro F. Rotta Loria: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing -
original draft, Writing - review & editing, Supervision. Lyesse
Laloui: Review & editing, Supervision, Project administration,
Resources. Stefano Aversa: Review & editing, Supervision, Project
administration, Resources.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the GE-
OGRID Project, Italy (PON03PE_00171_1 SMART POWER SYSTEM
R&C 2007–2013, High Technology District, Energy field D.D.713/ric
of 29/10/2010) for the financial support of the experimental
campaign, Prof. N. Massarotti and his research group from De-
partment of Engineering of University Parthenope and the head
director of the construction site of underground station Piazza
Municipio.
References
1. Laloui L, Rotta Loria AF. Analysis and Design of Energy Geostructures.
Hardcover: Academic Press; 2019.
2. Suckling TP, Smith P. Environmentally friendly geothermal piles at keble
college. in oxford, UK. In: Proceedings of 9th Intl. Conf. on Piling and Deep
Foundations, Nice, France. Deep Foundations Institute; 2002:8, Article 1016.
3. Brandl H. Energy foundations and other thermo-active ground structures.
Geotechnique. 2006;56(2):81–122.
4. Amis T, Robinson CAW, Wong S. Integrating geothermal loops into the
diaphragm walls of the Knightsbridge Palace Hotel project. In: In Proc. 11th
DFI/EFFC Int. Conf. Geotechnical Challenges in Urban Regeneration; 2010.
5. Xia C, Sun M, Zhang G, Xiao S, et al. Experimental study on geothermal
heat exchangers buried in diaphragm walls. Energy Buil. 2012;52:50–55.
 M. Adinolfi, A.F. Rotta Loria, L. Laloui et al. / Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment 25 (2021) 100208
6. Katzenbach R, Leppla S, Ramm H, Seip M, et al. Design and construction of
deep foundation systems and retaining structures in urban areas in difficult
soil and groundwater conditions. Procedia Eng. 2013;57:540–548.
7. Amis T, McCartney JS, Loveridge F, Olgun CG, et al. Identifying best practice,
installation, laboratory testing and field testing. DFI J J Deep Found Inst.
2014;8(2):74–83.
8. Sterpi D, Tomaselli G, Angelotti A. Energy performance of ground
heat exchangers embedded in diaphragm walls: field observations and
optimization by numerical modelling. Renew Energy. 2018.
9. Sterpi D, Angelotti A, Habibzadeh-Bigdarvish O, Jalili D. Assessment of
thermal behaviour of thermo-active diaphragm walls based on monitoring
data. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng. 2018;10(6):1145–1153.
10. You S, Zhang CH, Cheng XH, Zhu M. Centrifuge simulation of the ther-
mal response of a dry sand-embedded diaphragm wall. Strength Mater.
2019;51(1):62–68.
11. Adam D, Markiewicz R. Energy from earth-coupled structures, foundations,
tunnels and sewers. Géotechnique. 2009;59(3):229–236.
12. Bourne-Webb P. Observed response of energy geostructures. Energy
Geostruct. 2013:45–77.
13. Bourne-Webb PJ, Freitas TB, da Costa Gonçalves RA. Thermal and mechan-
ical aspects of the response of embedded retaining walls used as shallow
geothermal heat exchangers. Energy Build. 2016;125:130–141.
14. Sun Meng, Xia Caichu, Zhang Guozhu. Heat transfer model and design
method for geothermal heat exchange tubes in diaphragm walls. Energy
Build. 2013;61:250–259.
15. Kürten S, Mottaghy D, Ziegler M. Design of plane energy geostruc-
tures based on laboratory tests and numerical modelling. Energy Build.
2015;107:434–444.
16. Rammal D, Mroueh H, Burlon S, Suryatriyastuti ME. Numerical study of the
performance of energy diaphragm walls. In: Energy Geotechnics: Proceedings
of the 1st International Conference on Energy Geotechnics, ICEGT 2016, Kiel,
Germany 29-31 August. CRC Press; 2016:163.
17. Di Donna A, Cecinato F, Loveridge F, Barla M. Energy performance of
diaphragm walls used as heat exchangers. Proc Inst Civ Eng Geotechn Eng.
2017;170(3):232–245.
18. Makasis N, Narsilio GA, Bidarmaghz A, Johnston IW, et al. The importance
of boundary conditions on the modelling of energy retaining walls. Comput
Geotech. 2020;120:103399.
19. Habert J, Burlon S. Modelling thermo-active diaphragm walls. In: Second
EAGE Workshop on Geomechanics and Energy; 2015.
20. Sterpi D, Coletto A, Mauri L. Investigation on the behaviour of a thermo-
active diaphragm wall by thermo-mechanical analyses. Geomech Energy
Environ. 2017;9:1–20.
15
21. Barla M, Di Donna A, Santi A. Energy and mechanical aspects on the thermal
activation of diaphragm walls for heating and cooling. Renew Energy. 2018.
22. Habert J, Mroueh H, Josifovski J, Bogusz W, et al. Synthesis of a benchmark
exercise for geotechnical analysis of a thermoactive pile. Environ Geotech.
2019:1–12.
23. Di Donna A, Loveridge F, Piemontese M, Barla M. The role of ground
conditions on the heat exchange potential of energy walls. Geomech Energy
Environ. 2020:100199.
24. Rui Y, Yin M. Thermo-hydro-mechanical coupling analysis of a thermo-
active diaphragm wall. Can Geotech J. 2017.
25. Sailer E, Taborda DM, Zdravković L, Potts DM. Fundamentals of the cou-
pled thermo-hydro-mechanical behaviour of thermo-active retaining walls.
Comput Geotech. 2019;109:189–203.
26. Adinolfi M, Mauro A, Maiorano RMS, Massarotti N, et al. Thermo-mechanical
behaviour of energy pile in underground railway construction site. In:
Energy Geotechnics: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Energy
Geotechnics, ICEGT 2016, Kiel, Germany 29-31. CRC Press; 2016:83.
27. Rotta Loria AF, Laloui L. Thermally induced group effects among energy
piles. Géotechnique. 2016;67(5):374–393.
28. Adinolfi M, Maiorano RMS, Mauro A, Massarotti N, et al. On the influence
of thermal cycles on the yearly performance of an energy pile. Geomech
Energy Environ. 2018;16:32–44.
29. Terzaghi KV. The shearing resistance of saturated soils and the angle
between the planes of shear. In: First international conference on soil
Mechanics, vol. 1; 1936:54–59.
30. Comsol Multiphysics, C. O. M. S. O. L. 2018. v. 5.2 a. www. comsol. com.
COMSOL AB, Stockholm. tes.
31. ASHRAE. American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning
Engineers Handbook. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE; 2012.
32. Cavuoto F, Massarotti N, Mauro A, Normino G. Recovery of freezing
probes for the exploitation of geothermal energy in urban environment:
A numerical analysis. In: International Conference on Computational Methods
for Thermal Problems; 2018.
33. Jeong S, Lim H, Lee JK, Kim J. Thermally induced mechanical re-
sponse of energy piles in axially loaded pile groups. Appl Therm Eng.
2014;71(1):608–615.
34. Aversa S, Evangelista A. Thermal expansion of neapolitan yellow tuff. Rock
Mech Rock Eng. 1993;26(4):281–306.
35. Murphy KD, McCartney JS. Seasonal response of energy foundations during
building operation. Geotech Geolog Eng. 2015;33(2):343–356.