Geothermics 69 (2017) 132–138

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geothermics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geothermics

Efficiency analysis of borehole heat exchangers as grout varies via thermal MARK
response test simulations
⁎
T. Sliwaa, , M.A. Rosenb
a
AGH University of Science and Technology in Krakow, Drilling, Oil and Gas Faculty, Mickiewicz Ave. 30, 30-059 Krakow, Poland
b
University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, 2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, Ontario L1H 7K4, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Grout is normally used in borehole heat exchangers, in part for separating different water layers. Grout can also
Borehole heat exchanger enhance heat transfer with the ground when it has high thermal conductivity. In this article, thermal response
Geoenergetics test results from simulations of borehole heat exchangers are presented. The work is undertaken to enhance
Thermal response test understanding and predictions of the heat transfer effectiveness and energy efficiency of borehole heat ex-
Borehole grout
changers as grout varies. The following borehole heat exchanger types are considered: coaxial, single U-tube and
Energy efficiency
double U-tube. The results quantitatively describe the effect of grout on energy efficiency and indicate if it is
reasonable to incur the higher costs of using grouts of high thermal conductivity to enhance borehole heat
exchanger performance.

1. Introduction
The borehole heat exchanger (BHE) is being applied increasingly to
manage energy and heat in buildings (Dincer and Rosen, 2011). Un-
derground thermal energy storage (UTES) is the subject of much recent
research made (Kizilkan and Dincer, 2015; Kurevija et al., 2012; Li
et al., 2014a; Jaszczur et al., 2015; Sliwa and Rosen, 2015). Heat ex-
traction can often be more easily accomplished from boreholes than
from geothermal waters (Tomaszewska and Pająk, 2012).
The main geological parameters of a BHE are the characteristics of
the local ground (at the surface and including all layers drilled through
to creating the borehole). Such characteristics affect BHE energy ef-
fectiveness and include (Sliwa and Kotyza, 2003):
• geothermal gradient,
• heat flux of natural earth,
• thermal conductivity and density of rocks,
• anisotropy of thermal conductivity of orogenic belt,
• thermal capacity, porosity, saturation and hydrodynamic
acteristics of layers,
• type of deposit material filling pore and fracture spaces,
• natural speed of deposit medium filtration.
The energy flux reaching the surface of the earth due to BHE op-
eration is largely dependent on its construction, which requires
equipment for reaching the desired well location and use of thermal
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sliwa@agh.edu.pl (T. Sliwa), marc.rosen@uoit.ca (M.A. Rosen).
energy. Construction characteristics are set largely during the design
and implementation of a BHE. Typical BHE construction types include:
• single U-tube,
• multi U-tube,
• coaxial (Sliwa and Rosen, 2015),
• helical BHE (Zarrella and De Carli, 2013; Zarrella et al., 2013), and
• BHE in piles (Li and Lai, 2012).
The construction can carried out in vertical boreholes, using the
same approach for BHEs as used in the technology of Geothermal Radial
Drilling (GRD), which permit the installation of directional (oblique)
wells (Knez, 2014).
A borehole heat exchanger can also be developed from abandoned
wells originally used for other tasks (oil and gas wells, for example).
Existing wells can be converted to deep BHEs (Sapinska-Sliwa et al.,
2015). Some important construction and design characteristics follow
(Sliwa and Kotyza, 2003):
char-
• depth of packer or insulation cork in wells,
• diameters of wells,
• internal and external diameters and lengths of insulation casings,
• number, length and diameter of casings,
• quality and condition of material insulating casings,
• heat resistance of material of the internal column,
• drill axis,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2017.05.004
Received 20 December 2016; Received in revised form 15 April 2017; Accepted 22 May 2017
Available online 07 June 2017
0375-6505/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Sliwa, M.A. Rosen Geothermics 69 (2017) 132–138

Nomenclature Rb BHE thermal resistance (m K W−1)

Rtr Contact heat transfer resistance (associated with material
Cp Specific heat at constant pressure (J kg−1 K−1) discontinuity) (m K W−1)
Db Borehole diameter (m) T Temperature (K)
din Inside diameter of U-tube (m) t Time (s)
dout Outside diameter of U-tube (m) αin Heat convection coefficient (W m−2 K−1)
H Depth of BHE (m) λ Thermal conductivity (W m−1 K−1)
k Theoretical directional factor of TRT λg Thermal conductivity of grout (W m−1 K−1)
kTRT Empirical directional factor of TRT λp Thermal conductivity of U-tube material (W m−1 K−1)
P Thermal power of TRT (W) ρ Density (kg m−3)
q Unit thermal power (W m−1) γ Euler constant (γ = 0.5772156)
r Radius (m)

• centricity of internal column,
• distances separating BHEs.
These parameters are affected by the geological and construction
characteristics already noted, and influence the profitability of using
drills to make BHEs. Exploitation parameters include the following
(Sliwa and Kotyza, 2003):
• mean annual heat production,
• heating power (maximum instantaneous and long-term),
• type, temperature and volume flux of heat carrier,
• flow resistance of heating medium,
• time for ground temperature restoration (i.e., energy resource re-
newal),
• temperature of compressed heat carrier (which depends on carrier
cooling in receiving installation),
• time of usage,
• distance between heat consumer and well,
• consumer type, heat rate, operating time and heat consumption,
• local climate.
The mean BHE energy efficiency for depths up to approximately
200 m is about 50 W m−1 or, conversely, the depth required per unit
power is approximately 20 m kW−1. However the value of the BHE
energy efficiencies deviate significantly from case to case, with values
typically within the range 20–100 W m−1. This value range is mainly
representative of the thermal conductivity of rocks, and applies mainly
to properly constructed BHEs. An important factor in BHE design and
construction, which affects significantly the energy transfer between
the working fluid in the BHE (e.g., propylene glycol) and the rock mass,
is the kind of grout used and its connection with heat exchanger U-tube
and borehole wall. Yet, the quantitative information available on the
effect of grout is sparse. The purpose of this article is to analyse the
effects of grout type on effective thermal conductivity λeff of a BHE, for
various kinds of grout, so as to improve understanding of the heat
transfer and efficiency of BHEs and thereby help enhance the design of
BHE systems.
Grout has an impact on thermal resistivity. Many types of sealing
materials have been investigated in drilling research (Stryczek and
Gonet, 1998; Stryczek et al., 2013).
2. Thermal response test
Numerous nations have experienced in the last decade significant
increases in the use of heat pumps and BHEs for heating and cooling.
The thermal response test (TRT) provides an accurate means of evalu-
ating BHE thermal properties. TRTs are usually performed on the first
hole, especially for large installations with thermal capacities exceeding
100 kW. TRT results for a BHE determine the number of boreholes re-
quired to satisfy heating and/or cooling demands. A variant of the TRT
is described by Acuña and Palm (2013).
The TRT methodology is founded on the thermal interaction as
determined by the partial differential equation for the dynamic re-
lationship T = T (r , t ) , where r denotes the radius extending from the
center of the BHE, and t the test duration. The form of the expression
follows:
∂ 2T
+
1 ∂T
=
ρCp ∂T
,
∂r 2 r ∂r λ ∂t (1)
This expression corresponds mathematically to the Theis equation,
which in hydrogeology considers the distribution of pressure
p = p (r , t ) , instead of the distribution of temperature T = T (r , t ) . This
type of partial differential equation can be solved with the method of
substitution, reducing to an ordinary differential equation the partial
differential of Eq. (1). The following terms are substituted:
r 2ρCp
u=
4tλ (2)

Table 1
Technical parameters for BHEs at Laboratory of Geoenergetics, Drilling, Oil and Gas Faculty, AGH University of Science and Technology, in Krakow, Poland.

BHE type and construction Parameter symbol Parameter Value(s)

BHE construction Db Borehole diameter 0.143 m

H Borehole depth 78.0 m
λt BHE tube conductivity (polyethylene) 0.42 W m−1 K−1
Coaxial Dout Outer tube outer diameter 0.0582 m
Din Outer tube inner diameter 0.053 m
dout Inner tube outer diameter 0.04 m
din Inner tube inner diameter 0.0348 m
λg Grout (filling) material conductivity 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 W m−1 K−1
Single U-tube dout U-tube outer diameter 0.04 m
din U-tube inner diameter 0.0352 m
λg Grout (filling) material conductivity BHE-2 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 W m−1 K−1
Double U-tube dout U-tube outer diameter 0.032 m
din U-tube inner diameter 0.0272 m
λg Grout (filling) material conductivity 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 W m−1 K−1

133
T. Sliwa, M.A. Rosen Geothermics 69 (2017) 132–138

Fig. 1. Variation with time of temperature of heat

carrier exiting BHE, for a grout thermal conductivity
of 2.5 W m−1 K−1 and for several BHE construction
types.

Fig. 2. Variation with logarithm of time of tem-

perature of heat carrier exiting BHE, for a grout
thermal conductivity of 2.5 W m−1 K−1 and for
several BHE construction types.

Table 2 r2
u=
Dependence on grout thermal conductivity and heat exchanger type of BHE effective 4αt (4)
thermal conductivity (Sliwa and Rosen, 2013).
We evaluate the partial derivatives of the function T = T (r , t ) in Eq.
Borehole heat exchanger Thermal conductivity of grout (W m−1 K−1) (1). This permits the function u = u (r , t ) in Eq. (4) to be substituted
type with the following relation:
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
∂T ∂T ∂u r ∂T
BHE effective thermal conductivity, λeff, W m−1 K−1 = = ,
∂r ∂u ∂r 2αt ∂u (5)
Coaxial 1.071 1.163 1.211 1.24
Single U-tube 1.338 1.404 1.438 1.46 ∂ 2T ∂2T ∂u r ∂T 1 r 2 ∂ 2T 1 ∂T
Double U-tube 1.409 1.473 1.505 1.525 = + = + ,
∂r 2 ∂u2 ∂r 2αt ∂u 2αt 4α 2t 2 ∂u2 2αt ∂u (6)
BHE effective thermal resistivity, Reff = λeff−1, m K W−1
Coaxial 0.934 0.860 0.826 0.806 ∂T ∂T ∂u r 2 ∂T
Single U-tube 0.747 0.712 0.695 0.685
= =− .
∂t ∂u ∂t 4αt 2 ∂u (7)
Double U-tube 0.710 0.679 0.664 0.656
Inserting these equations into Eq. (1), we obtain:
∂ 2T 1 ∂T 1 ∂T
and + = ,
∂r 2 r ∂r α ∂t (8)
λ This relation leads to:
ρCp = .
α (3)
r2 ∂ 2T 1 ∂T 1 r ∂T 1 −r 2 ∂T
+ + = ,
With 4α 2t 2 ∂u 2 2αt ∂u r 2αt ∂u α 4αt 2 ∂u (9)

134
 T. Sliwa, M.A. Rosen Geothermics 69 (2017) 132–138

Fig. 3. Variation with grout thermal conductivity of

BHE effective thermal conductivity for several BHE
construction types.

0,95 Fig. 4. Variation with grout thermal conductivity of

BHE effective thermal resistivity for several BHE
construction types.
0,9
EīeĐƟve thermal resisƟvity, R eī mKW-1

0,85

0,8

0,75

0,7

0,65

0,6
1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2 2,2 2,4
Grout`s heat transfer coeĸcient, Wm -1K-1

Coaxial Single U-tube Double U-tube

0.20 Fig. 5. Variation with grout thermal conductivity of

effective thermal resistivity for a single U-tube BHE
0.18 for several tube separation distances (Hellström,
1998).
Thermal resistance, R b, mKW -1

0.16

0.14
position
of U-tube
0.12

0.10
0.08

0.06

0.04
0.02

0.00
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Grout`s heat transfer coefficient, Wm-1K-1

135
T. Sliwa, M.A. Rosen Geothermics 69 (2017) 132–138

which can be rewritten as we can show that

∞
r2 ∂ 2T 1 ∂T r2 ∂T e−x
4α 2t 2 ∂u2
+
αt ∂u
+
4α 2t 2 ∂u
= 0.
(10) T0 = A ∫ x
dx + B
0 (24)
After applying the appropriate transformation with Eq. (4), Eq. (10)
Accounting for Eqs. (4) and (5), we can write
becomes:
∂T 2u ∂T
∂ 2T ∂T = ,
(25)
u + (1 + u) = 0. ∂r r ∂u
∂u2 ∂u (11)
This with Eq. (22) yields the following equality:
Note that this substitution reduces the partial differential equation
in Eq. (1) to a second-order ordinary differential equation, as follows: ∂T 2u e−u e−u
=A = 2A ,
∂r r u r (26)
d 2T dT
u + (1 + u) = 0. From this, it follows that
du2 du (12)
q
which in turn can be reduced to a first-order equation by separation of − = 2Ae−u,
2πλ (27)
variables, if we invoke the following substitution:
dT After accounting for the boundary conditions, the following results:
= y, q
du (13)
A=− .
4πλ (28)
Here, y = y (u) and
Then, Eq. (24) becomes:
d 2T dy
= . ∞
du2 du (14) q e−x
T0 = −
4πλ
∫ x
dx + B,
Then, Eq. (12) becomes: 0 (29)
dy It can thus be concluded that
u + (1 + u) y = 0.
du (15) ∞
q e−x
which is a homogeneous linear differential equation that can be ex-
B = T0 +
4πλ
∫ x
dx .
0 (30)
pressed after applying separation of variables as follows:
Substituting this result into Eq. (23) results in
1 1+u
dy = − du, u ∞
y u (16) q e−x q e−x
T (u) = −
4πλ
∫ x
dx + T0 +
4πλ
∫ x
dx
From this, we obtain the following 0 0
∞ u ∞
1 1 q ⎡ e−x e−x ⎤ q e−x
∫ y
dy = − ∫ ⎛ + 1⎞ du,
⎝u ⎠ (17)
=
4πλ ⎢
∫ x
dx − ∫ x
dx ⎥ + T0 = T0 +
4πλ
∫ x
dx .
⎣ 0 0 ⎦ u

or (31)
ln y = −ln u − u + C, (18) Furthermore, by substituting Eq. (4) into Eq. (31) we find:
∞
where C denotes a constant. Hence q e−x
T (r , t ) = T0 +
4πλ
∫ x
dx .
y = e−ln u − u + C , (19) r2
(32)
4αλ
and Eq. (32) is founded on interpreting the thermal response test for a
e −u borehole heat exchanger. An approximate solution to the integral in Eq.
y= ± eC · .
u (20) (32) follows:
If we let A = ± e , for A ≠ 0, we can solve the equality as follows:
C
q ⎡ 4αt
T (r , t ) ≅ T0 + ln ⎛ ⎞ − γ ⎤.
e−u 4πλ ⎣ ⎝ r 2 ⎠ ⎦ (33)
y = A· ,
u (21) A calculation of the slope results in the distance k in T = f (ln(t ))
After accounting for Eq. (13), we obtain the differential equation and determines the thermal conductivity of the ground (rock):

dT e−u P q
=A . λ= =
du u (22) 4⋅π⋅H ⋅k 4⋅π⋅k (34)

which has a general solution of the form Zhang et al. (2014) present various methods of interpreting TRT
u
results. The impact of parameters of such tests on results is described by
Ae−x Li et al. (2014b). The main parameters of the test are: TRT duration,
T (u) = ∫ x
dx + B,
heating power, heat carrier flow rate and type of heat carrier.
0 (23)
The TRT is based on Fourier’s conductivity law. The value of λ
where A and B denote constants.
identifies only the reservoir conductivity. But measured values are also
Utilizing the boundary conditions,
influenced by the resistance to heat transfer between the rock mass
T → T0 for r → ∞, t ≥ 0, (orogeny) and the heating medium flowing in the BHE. This resistance
depends on the following:
and
∂T
q = −2πrλ ∂r for r → 0, t > 0, • A heat convection coefficient (α in), which accounts for the ability of
heat to be transferred from the heating medium to a material
as well as the initial condition T = T0 at t = 0, it can be can observed (usually a U-tube), and which depends on the type, the flow rate and
with Eq. (4) that u→ ∞ for r→ ∞ or t → 0, and also that T = T0. Then, the viscosity of the agent;

136
T. Sliwa, M.A. Rosen
• Conduction across the material (U-tube) which depends on its
thermal conductivity (for example, is 0.42 W m−1 K−1 for poly-
ethylene tube);
• The heat flow between the material, the U-tube and the grout in the
BHE (or any filling and/or sealing material), between which contact
resistances may lead to discontinuities in the temperature profile;
• the thermal conductivity of the grout,
• The heat flow between the BHE grout and the orogen, where a
temperature discontinuity can also exist.
Heat transport can be significantly impeded by resistances result
from poor interface contact for the pipe/grout and grout/rock. The total
thermal resistance can be evaluated generally as follows:
1 1 d 1 D minor way. The weighted mean conductivity of the overall rock mass in
Rb ≈ + ln out + ln b + Rtr
α in πdin 2πλp din 2πλp dout (35)
The borehole thermal resistance is a significant parameter for de-
termining the number of drilled wells necessary for an underground
thermal energy storage. The type of grout and its adhesion to both the
pipes and the borehole wall determine the thermal resistance of a BHE
(Beier et al., 2013).
One must distinguish between the thermal conductivity of the rock
mass λ, which derives from the theoretical model (Eq. (34)), and the
BHE thermal conductivity λeff, commonly called the effective con-
ductivity. For TRTs in practice, the following is normally assumed:
P
λ eff =
4⋅π⋅kTRT ⋅H (36)
3. Numerical model
The three-dimensional unsteady heat transfer governing equations
for the geothermal system are solved in both the ground (domain 1) and
the BHEs (domain 2) (Sliwa and Gonet, 2005; Jaszczur and Sliwa,
2012). The three-dimensional unsteady governing equation, which re-
presents an energy balance, can be written for the ground portion of the
geothermal system as follows:
∂T ∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞ ∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞ ∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞
ρcp = λx + λy⎜ + ⎟ λz +s
∂t ∂x ⎝ ∂x ⎠ ∂y ⎝ ∂y ⎠ ∂z ⎝ ∂z ⎠ (37)
where ρ, λ, and cp are the soil density, the thermal conductivity and the
specific heat at constant pressure, respectively. The source term s ac-
counts for other ground effects such as natural heat sources and/or
underground water flow and/or phase change.
Assuming the working fluid experiences neither chemical reaction
nor phase change, an energy balance for the BHE domain (domain 2)
can be expressed as follows:
∂T
ρCp + ρCp v⋅∇T = ∇⋅(λi ∇T ) + s
∂t (38)
Applying the mathematical model developed above along with nu-
merical methods (Gonet et al., 2011), the system performance can be
investigated. The performance is dependent on soil properties, the total
power and the type of borehole heat exchanger (single U-tube, double
U-tube, coaxial). The ground surface temperature varies with time and
is dependent on average weather conditions. The BHE tubes are in
thermal equilibrium with the ground, and are of height H = 78 m and
contain a working fluid comprised of a 30% water solution of glycol.
The volumetric flow rate of the working fluid is q = 20 l/min. The
material properties of the U-tube are as follows: density 912 kg/m3,
specific heat at constant pressure 1200 J/(kg K) and thermal con-
ductivity 0.45 W/(m K) (Sliwa, 2012). The gap between the ground and
the wall of the U-tube is fully filled with cement. Various values of the
cement thermal conductivity care considered: λg = 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and
2.5 W/(m K).
A control volume approach with a Cartesian grid is employed to
137
Geothermics 69 (2017) 132–138
solve Eqs. (37) and (38). To approximate unsteady terms, the Adams-
Bashforth method is utilized. A local grid refinement method with an
iterative convergence procedure is utilized to establish the grid. The
convective/diffusive terms are addressed via a central difference
scheme or a hybrid method. A varying time step is employed for the
computations to permit an optimal computation approach at all times.
A validation test is carried out for several cases. For the case of an
unsteady infinite linear source for which an analytical solution can be
obtained, the temperatures differ by under 0.1% between the compu-
tational and analytical solutions.
The variabilities in the thermal conductivities of the subsurface
regions, due to the each formation having a different lithology, affect
the heat carrier temperature exiting the heat exchanger Tout only in a
the ground is adequate for most cases and can used with reasonable
accuracy for a range of heat carriers. In one analysis, for instance, the
effect of groundwater filtration on the heat carrier temperature in a
BHE (Sliwa et al., 2010) demonstrated that the water flow rate is ap-
proximately 20 m year−1 and has an insignificant effect on the tem-
perature of the heat carrier. In that analysis, the aquifer extends for
about 20% of the BHE length. But this observation is not general. For
example, increasing the groundwater movement rate to 200 m year−1
causes in a notable change in the temperature at the bottom of the rock
region, for rock of low conductivity (Sliwa et al., 2010). For compre-
hensiveness, the use of sealing materials should be considered, de-
pending on geological conditions and properties (e.g., thermal con-
ductivity of rock).
4. Results and discussion
The numerical TRTs are performed for the following parameter
values:
• a heating power of 4 kW
• a volumetric flow rate for the heat carrier of 20 dm 3
min−1
• a heating period of 100 h.
A wide range of results are obtained:
• the temporal variation of the heat carrier temperature exiting the
borehole heat exchanger for various types of BHE (see Table 1), and
for grout having a thermal conductivity of 2.5 W m−1 K−1 (see
Figs. 1 and 2),
• the BHE effective thermal conductivity variation with grout thermal
conductivity and BHE type (see Table 2), and with thermal re-
sistivity (i.e., the inverse of the thermal conductivity), and
• the BHE effective thermal conductivity variation with grout thermal
conductivity and type of borehole heat exchanger (see Fig. 3).
The temperature dependence of the logarithm of time is presented
in Fig. 2 for three BHEs. Also shown are a linear regression of the re-
lation for each BHE and the corresponding linear equation. Fig. 4 pre-
sents the dependence on grout thermal conductivity of the effective
thermal resistivity Reff (i.e., λeff −1). The dependence on grout thermal
conductivity of the borehole thermal resistivity Rb is shown for three U-
tube BHE cases of in Fig. 5, and can be used for comparative purposes.
The curves in Figs. 4 and 5 are observed to exhibit similar variations,
but the values of the resistances differ due to the fact that Reff≠Rb
(Eskilson, 1987).
Coaxial construction is often considered the most advantageous
approach, but is the least commonly used since it has a higher con-
struction cost relative to single or double U-tube configurations.
The coaxial system is preferred for deep BHEs. This is particularly so
when a BHE is based on an existing well. The main reasons for this
preference are that this configuration involves the large heat exchange
surface area and the small pressure losses of the flowing heat carrier.
T. Sliwa, M.A. Rosen
The present analyses indicate, however, that such a design is the least
beneficial in terms of efficiency. The values determined for the effective
thermal conductivity are lower than would be the case for a BHE with
U-tubes. The efficiency of coaxial construction is strongly dependent on
flow characteristics (flow velocity, Reynolds number), and inner pipe
parameters, dimensions, material and thickness (which affect heat
losses to the annulus).
TRTs performed under identical conditions on the BHE in the
Laboratory of Geoenergetics of the Drilling, Oil and Gas Faculty, AGH
University of Science and Technology in Cracow determined that λeff is
1.94 W m−1 K−1 for the coaxial BHE, 1.78 W m−1 K−1 for the single U-
tube construction and 2.02 W m−1 K−1 for the double U-tube (Sliwa,
2012). The grout in that BHE is made from common cement and water
and has a thermal conductivity of 1.2 W m−1 K−1.
Empirical values also demonstrate that a coaxial construction is not
always the best approach in terms of efficiency. The difference between
numerically evaluated and empirical effective conductivities can lead to
inadequate BHE designs. The reason for this difference can be observed
in the expression for Rb (see Eq. (35)) by noting that an actual BHE
cannot be constructed ideally, which is an assumption in the mathe-
matical simulations.
5. Conclusions
The effective thermal conductivity and resistivity of a borehole heat
exchanger are affected by the thermal conductivity of the grout in the
borehole, and the effect is more pronounced when the grout thermal
conductivity is low. It is demonstrated via numerical simulation, for
three BHE types (coaxial, single U-tube and double U-tube), that values
of the thermal parameters (e.g., λeff) influence the design of double U-
tubes. The most beneficial BHE type normally is coaxial. The calcula-
tions are somewhat limited, being based BHE dimensions matching
those of the system in the Geoenergetics Laboratory of the Drilling, Oil
and Gas Faculty, AGH University of Science and Technology, Cracow,
Poland (i.e., a coaxial BHE with an external tube diameter of 60 mm
and an internal tube diameter of 40 mm). The effective thermal con-
ductivity is observed via a TRT to be the lowest based on the existing
laboratory BHE.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted under the Statutory Research Program
at the Faculty of Drilling, Oil and Gas AGH-University of Science and
Technology in Krakow, AGH-UST no. 11.11.190.555.
References
Acuña, J., Palm, B., 2013. Distributed thermal response tests on pipe-in-pipe borehole
heat exchangers. Appl. Energy 109, 312–320.
Beier, R.A., Acuña, J., Mogensen, P., Palm, B., 2013. Borehole resistance and vertical
temperature profiles in coaxial borehole heat exchangers. Appl. Energy 102,
665–675.
Dincer, I., Rosen, M.A., 2011. Thermal Energy Storage: Systems and Applications, 2nd ed.
Wiley, London.
Eskilson, P., 1987. Thermal Analysis of Heat Extraction Boreholes. Doctoral Thesis.
University of Lund, Sweden.
Gonet, A., Sliwa, T., Stryczek, S., Sapinska-Sliwa, A., Jaszczur, M., Pająk, L., Złotkowski,
A., 2011. Metodyka identyfikacji potencjału cieplnego górotworu wraz z technologią
wykonywania i eksploatacji otworowych wymienników ciepła (Methodology for the
Identification of Potential Heat of the Rock Mass Along with Technology
138
Geothermics 69 (2017) 132–138
Implementation and Operation of the Borehole Heat Exchangers). In: Gonet, A. (Ed.),
AGH University of Science and Technology Press, Kraków.
Hellström, G., 1998. Thermal performance of borehole heat exchangers. In: Proceedings
of the Second Stockton International Geothermal Conference. Pomona, NJ. p. 11.
Jaszczur, M., Sliwa, T., 2012. Long-term analysis of the borehole heat exchangers system.
In: Nowak, A.J., Białecki, R.A. (Eds.), Proceedings of Numerical Heat Transfer 2012
International Conference. Institute of Thermal Technology, Silesian University of
Technology, Gliwice–Wrocław, Poland. pp. 478–485.
Jaszczur, M., Polepszyc, I., Sapinska-Sliwa, A., 2015. Numerical analysis of the boundary
conditions model impact on the estimation of heat resources in the ground. Pol. J.
Environ. Stud. 24 (5A), 60–66.
Kizilkan, O., Dincer, I., 2015. Borehole thermal energy storage system for heating ap-
plications: thermodynamic performance assessment. Energy Convers. Manage. 90,
53–61.
Knez, D., 2014. Stress state analysis in aspect of wellbore drilling direction. Arch. Min. Sci. 59
(1), 71–76 Available 24 Aug 2015 at: http://mining.archives.pl/index.php/index.php?
option=com_remository& Itemid=0 & func=fileinfo & id=705 & lang=pl.
Kurevija, T., Vulin, D., Krapec, V., 2012. Effect of borehole array geometry and thermal
interferences on geothermal heat pump system. Energy Convers. Manage. 60,
134–142.
Li, M., Lai, A.C.K., 2012. Heat-source solutions to heat conduction in anisotropic media
with application to pile and borehole ground heat exchangers. Appl. Energy 96,
451–458.
Li, M., Li, P., Chan, V., Lai, A.C.K., 2014a. Full-scale temperature response function (G-
function) for heat transfer by borehole ground heat exchangers (GHEs) from sub-hour
to decades. Appl. Energy 136, 197–205.
Li, Y., Mao, J., Geng, S., Han, X., Zhang, H., 2014b. Evaluation of thermal short-circuiting
and influence on thermal response test for borehole heat exchanger. Geothermics 50,
136–147.
Sapinska-Sliwa, A., Rosen, M.A., Gonet, A., Sliwa, T., 2015. Deep borehole heat ex-
changers – a conceptual review. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2015.
Melbourne, Australia, 19–25 April.
Sliwa, T., 2012. Badania podziemnego magazynowania ciepła za pomocą kolektorów
słonecznych i wymienników otworowych (Research on Underground Thermal Energy
Storage by Use Solar Collectors and Borehole Heat Exchangers). AGH University of
Science and Technology Press, Kraków.
Sliwa, T., Gonet, A., 2005. Theoretical model of borehole heat exchanger. J. Energy Res.
Technol. 127 (2), 142–148.
Sliwa, T., Kotyza, J., 2003. Application of existing wells as ground heat source for heat
pumps in Poland. Appl. Energy 74, 3–8.
Sliwa, T., Rosen, M.A., 2013. Heat transfer effectiveness of borehole heat exchangers for
various grouts: analysis based on numerically simulated thermal response tests. In:
Proceedings EIC Climate Change Technology Conference. Montreal, Quebec,
Concordia University. pp. 1–12 (Paper N0E2-3).
Sliwa, T., Rosen, M.A., 2015. Natural and artificial methods for regeneration of heat re-
sources for borehole heat exchangers to enhance the sustainability of underground
thermal storages: a review. Sustainability 7 (10), 13104–13125.
Sliwa, T., Jaszczur, M., Gonet, A., 2010. Analiza numeryczna wpływu własności
górotworu na transport ciepła wokół otworowego wymiennik ciepła (Numerical
analysis of the rock properties effect on the heat transport around borehole heat
exchanger). In: SWCIM – 2010, Proceedings of XIV Symposium on Heat and Mass
Transfer. Polish Academy of Sciences, Committee of Thermodynamics and
Combustion, Department of Thermal Engineering of West Pomeranian University of
Technology in Szczecin, University Press of West Pomeranian, University of
Technology in Szczecin, Szczecin. pp. 551–562.
Stryczek, S., Gonet, A., 1998. Predicting rheological parameters of slang-alkaline slurries.
Arch. Min. Sci 1, 97–104.
Stryczek, S., Wiśniowski, R., Gonet, A., Złotkowski, A., Ziaja, J., 2013. Influence of
polycarboxylate superplasticizers on rheological properties of cement slurries used in
drilling technologies. Arch. Min. Sci. 58 (3), 719–728. Available 24 Aug 2015 at:
http://mining.archives.pl/index.php/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=
0&func=fileinfo&id=645&lang=pl.
Tomaszewska, B., Pająk, L., 2012. Geothermal water resources management–economic
aspects of their treatment. Miner. Resour. Manage. (Gospodarka Surowcami
Mineralnymi) 28 (4), 59–70 Available 24 Aug 2015 at: https://www.min-pan.kra-
kow.pl/Wydawnictwa/GSM284/tomaszewska-pajak.pdf.
Zarrella, A., De Carli, M., 2013. Heat transfer analysis of short helical borehole heat ex-
changers. Appl. Energy 102, 1477–1491.
Zarrella, A., Capozza, A., De Carli, M., 2013. Analysis of short helical and double U-tube
borehole heat exchangers: a simulation-based comparison. Appl. Energy 112,
358–370.
Zhang, L., Zhang, Q., Huang, G., Du, Y., 2014. A p(t)-linear average method to estimate
the thermal parameters of the borehole heat exchangers for in situ thermal response
test. Appl. Energy 131, 211–221.