Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

A review on the performance of geothermal energy pile foundation, its

design process and applications
⁎
Abubakar Kawuwa Sania, , Rao Martand Singha, Tony Amisb, Ignazio Cavarrettaa
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK
b
GI, Chicago, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Geothermal energy piles (GEPs) are an environmentally friendly energy source which utilise the low-grade heat
Thermal pile energy present in the shallow earth surface to provide heating and/or cooling to the supported structures e.g.
Pile heat exchanger buildings. The heat is extracted from or injected into the ground through the circulation of heat carrier fluid that
Ground source heat pump flows in energy loops attached to the reinforcement cage of the pile foundation elements. Utilising the GEP
Renewable energy
system to achieve building thermal comfort need has proven to be environmentally sustainable, economically
viable, and with great social benefits. This paper presents an extensive review of literature on the principles
behind the different design considerations, current available design standards, and government legislation for
installing the GEP system. Furthermore, the behaviour of the energy pile under working loads was found to be
influenced by the magnitude of the heat energy extraction and injection rate. In addition, case studies from
several countries around the world including Austria, Switzerland, Australia, UK, Spain, Hong Kong, USA, Japan,
China and South Korea which highlights the practicality of the system installation, its associated benefits,
limitations and overall energy performance were presented and discussed. Moreover, factors such as thermal
conductivity, thermal diffusivity, specific heat capacity, groundwater flow, soil moisture content, number and
configuration of energy loops, pile length and diameter have positive implication on the energy performance of
the system. This paper found that the GEP system, if appropriately designed and carefully installed, provides a
viable alternative in terms of an energy source with a positive energy footprint on the environment.

1. Introduction
The issue of climate change and its associated effects (global tem-
perature increase, extreme weather events, etc.) arises due to emission
of greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere [1,2]. In order to mi-
tigate this, several policies were implemented by governmental and
non-governmental organisations. Some of these policies include the
Climate Change Act passed by the UK parliament in 2008 [3,4], the
California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) of 2006 [5–9], the
Climate Change Authority Act and the Clean Energy Act of 2011 in
Australia [10]. Recently, 195 countries met in Paris, and signed an
agreement to ensure that the global temperature increase associated to
GHG emission is kept below 1.5 °C [1].
For example, Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
systems, account for the major share of energy consumed in the do-
mestic and commercial buildings. In the UK, space and water heating
account for 79% of the total energy used in a normal residential
building, with the remaining 21% for non-heating use (Fig. 1a). In
addition, fossil fuels are the major source of energy in the UK. They
account for about 83% of the total energy produced, whereas only 17%
is generated from renewable energy sources (Fig. 1b) [11]. Thus, re-
newable heating and cooling systems should be utilised to lower the use
of fossil fuels and its associated GHG emission. One of such systems
developed within the last few decades is known as the geothermal en-
ergy system.
The thermal energy present within the shallow earth surface, 1 m
onward up to 200 m, can be used for building heating and cooling in
most places around the world. This technology also known as Ground
Source Heat Pumps (GSHP), was first developed and built by Robert
Webber in 1940 [12]. The GSHP system provides an environmentally
friendly solution for meeting building heating and cooling energy re-
quirement. Similarly, it provides significant energy savings and con-
sumes about 75% less energy compared to electrical resistance heating
elements [12,13].
The GSHP system basically comprises of the heat exchanger, the
heat pump unit and the heat transfer pipes. Generally, the heat

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: a.sani@surrey.ac.uk (A.K. Sani).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.008
Received 28 July 2018; Received in revised form 5 February 2019; Accepted 11 February 2019
A.K. Sani, et al.

Nomenclature εM Induced strain

εT Total strain
A Area (m2) εth Thermal strains
Cv Specific heat capacity of water vapour (J/kgK) εth, C Unrestrained thermal strain
Cw Specific heat capacity of soil water (J/kgK) εth, measured Measured thermal strains
Cs soil specific heat capacity (J/kgK) εth, rest . Restrained thermal axial strain
Dbar steel bar diameter (mm) λ Thermal conductivity (Wm−1K−1)
DGEP Pile diameter (m) λs Soil thermal conductivity (Wm−1K−1)
Dhelix Helix diameter (m) ρs soil density (kg/m3)
dT
Temperature gradient (K m−1) ρv vapour densities (kg/m3)
dx
E Young's modulus or material stiffness (kN/m2) ρw water density (kg/m3)
k slope σM Stress developed due to a mechanical load (kN/m2)
L Original pile length (m) σth Thermal stresses (kN/m2)
L0 Latent heat of vaporisation (J/kg)
m is the mass flowrate (kg/s) Chemical formulae
PM Axial mechanical load (kN)
PT Total thermal load induced (kN) CO2 Carbon dioxide
Pth Thermal load (kN) FeH4MnO4 Iron manganese hydroxide
Q Amount of heat flowing through a body in one dimension
(W) Acronyms used
qcond Heat transfer by conduction (W/m)
qlat Heat transfer due to latent heat (W/m) Axisym. Axisymmetric
ql, convec Heat transfer by convection through liquid (W/m) bgl Below ground level
qtotal Total heat flow (W/m) CFA Contiguous flight auger
qv, convec Heat transfer by convection via vapour (W/m) CFG Cement Fly-ash Gravel
T Applied temperature (K) COP Coefficient of Performance
t Time (seconds) DST Duct storage
Tf Average fluid temperature (K) FEM Finite element modelling
Tin Outlet fluid temperature (K) GEPs Geothermal energy piles
Tout Outlet fluid temperature (K) GHEADS Ground Heat Exchanger Analysis, Design and Simulation
Tr Reference temperature (K) GHG Greenhouse gases
Uv Velocity vector of vapour GSHP Ground source heat pumps
Uw Velocity vector of water GSHPA Ground source heat pump association
α Thermal diffusivity (m2/s) HCF Heat carrier fluid
αC Coefficient of thermal contraction/expansion of the pile HDPE/HDPP High-Density Poly-Ethylene/Poly-Propylene
(K−1) HVAC Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning
γ Intercept RHI Renewable Heat Incentive
δlM Deformation due to mechanical load application (m) TPT Thermal performance test

∆T
δlth, C Incremental length due to cooling (m) TRNSYS Transient Systems Simulation Program
Temperature drop (K) TRT Thermal response test

Average household consumption (ECUK 2015) Source of energy generation (ECUK 2015)

Space
and
water Fossil
heating fuels
79% 83% Renewable
energy
Non- 17%
heating
use
21%

(a) (b)
Fig. 1. (a) average household consumption (b) source of energy generation in the UK [11].

exchanger could be incorporated in two ways, either as an open loop or
closed loop [14,15], to extract/inject thermal energy from/to earth.
The open loop solution draws water from a water source (aquifer or
river), circulates it through the heat pump system, and then pumps it
back preferably to the source from where it came from, but at some
distance apart to avoid any interaction. Open loop solutions have high
maintenance costs largely due to the likelihood of pollution and clog-
ging [14]. Clogging may occur by the injection of minerals e.g. iron
manganese hydroxides (FeH4MnO4) because of changes in temperature
and precipitation [16]. While the closed loop system circulates constant
A.K. Sani, et al.
fluid volume in a closed pipe circuit network, laid either vertically,
horizontally or in a slanting form [12,14,17,18]. Owing to the high
seasonal temperature variability allied to the other closed loop types
and limited available land area, vertical closed loop heat exchangers
(traditional boreholes or piles) are preferred. They are installed to a
depth, of 10–25 m below ground level (in case of piles) and depth of up
to 300 m (in case of boreholes), where the temperature is relatively
constant, throughout the year [16].
More recently, the foundation elements of buildings are being used
to harness the earth shallow energy, to help satisfy the building
heating/cooling need, also known as energy or thermo-active founda-
tions. The practice of using foundation elements for achieving building
energy need began in Austria and Switzerland: utilising base slabs in
the 1980's, piles in 1984, diaphragm walls in 1996 and energy tunnels
in early 2000 [16,19–23]. However, in the UK, the practice of installing
geothermal energy piles (GEPs) began in early 2000, with about 150
GEPs installed as at 2005. Higher gas prices and planning requirements
helped increase the popularity of this solution. By December of 2016,
there were about 5891 GEPs installed in the UK, providing an annual
carbon dioxide savings of about 7545 t as shown in Fig. 2.
Energy Foundations have continued to gain global acceptance [24],
with distinct advantages over conventional solutions. They eliminate
the initial drilling cost, associated soil removal and the land area re-
quired for the installation of traditional boreholes [25]. Additionally,
they possess a larger cross-section which allows for flexible and di-
versified pipes arrangement compared to a typical traditional boreholes
of 75–150 mm in diameter, resulting in high possibility of pipe to pipe
thermal interaction [26], thus, making them less advantageous.
This paper provides a review on factors that influences the planning,
design and construction stages of a GEP, its behaviour under coupled
thermal and mechanical load, and its thermal performance. The study
investigated myriad of literature covering field tests, laboratory ex-
periments and numerical analysis reported.
2. Technological background of GEP
This section presents the components of a GEP system along with
the description of its working principles when providing the building
heating/cooling energy demand.
2.1. Components of GEP
The GEP system, shown in Fig. 3, is categorised into three units
[16], namely:
• the primary unit which consists of heat exchanging loops installed in
piles,
• the secondary unit comprised the underfloor pipe network that de-
livers the heat energy in or out of the building, and
• the heat pump system.
The GEP system has also been characterised according to the
function of its components: the load side, the source side and the heat
transfer section of the system [27]. The load and source sides alternate
based on the system mode of operation during heating and cooling
process.
2.1.1. Primary unit
The primary unit comprise of the vertical cylindrical, rectangular or
square foundation elements [26] embedded in a soil mass that are
primarily needed to support and transfer the load of the superstructure
to a more stable ground below. Correspondingly, they are fitted with
energy exchange loops and held in place by concrete [28] to fulfil the
energy need of the building above or a different one.
2.1.1.1. Pile material. The pile members can be constructed from either
of the following materials as reported by [19,29–31]
• Mass concrete;
• Reinforced concrete or
• Steel
The most common material used in GEP construction is the mass/
reinforced concrete [16] because of its high heat conducting property
and high thermal storage capability. Similarly, the concrete mix should
conform with that specified in Eurocode 7 for the design of pile foun-
dation [32]. However, a concrete mix with higher aggregate content
and lower cement ratio results in higher heat transfer of the concrete
pile, due to the poor heat conductivity of cement [33].
Steel piles were first used as heat exchangers in 1994 by Morino and
Oka [29] to explore its good heat conductive properties and lower
thermal resistance [30]. In 1998, two steel piles were utilised for floor
heating and cooling of a low energy house at Hokkaido university
Japan [34]. Since their successful installation, over 300 buildings were
reported to have adopted them for building heating and cooling need as
at 2002 [35]. Nagano proposed that the heat energy can be exchanged
by circulating water in the steel pile directly or through equipping the
steel piles with energy loops. The latter offers a more cost friendly so-
lution and requires less maintenance [36].
2.1.1.2. Construction technique. The GEP installation technique is
generally either hammer driven or auger bored method depending on
the pile type and geology. Precast concrete heat exchangers with central
voids can be installed into the soil before incorporating the energy
loops in the hollow spacing provided and filled with cement mortar to
ensure contact between loops and the pile [37,38], shown in Fig. 4.
Similarly, steel piles can be driven or drilled and filled with concrete.
In the auger boring technique, holes are dug in the ground and
supported by a casing, followed by installing the reinforcement cage
with the energy loops attached prior to concreting, which is referred to
as bored piles. However, in contiguous flight auger (CFA) piles, the
energy loops are attached to a central steel bar for rigidity when they
are being pushed into fresh concrete after concreting. Additionally,
coring technique could also be employed to fit in energy loops into heat
exchangers in the case of hardened concrete piles already installed in
the ground. However, this would likely be very expensive and a more
economical solution should always be opted for.
2.1.1.3. Geometrical size. The length and diameter of GEPs are largely
governed by the imposed mechanical load of the superstructure rather
than the building energy demand. However, pile length is of
significance because of the high-temperature fluctuations at shallow
depth. Thus, efficient system performance is achieved if the pile length
extends beyond the earth heterothermal zone. This effect is mitigated
2000
Energy Piles per year
Total energy piles installed 8000
Carbon dioxide savings
7000
Total energy piles installed & CO
1600 1495 1467
6000
Energy piles per year
Savings (Tonnes)
1200 5000
4000
800 3000
440 458 466
415 372 2000
400
150
215 240
145 1000
28
0 0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Year
Fig. 2. GEPs Installed in the UK and their resultant annual CO2 Savings as at
December 2016.
A.K. Sani, et al.

Fig. 3. Geothermal energy pile system.

once the construction of the building is completed. Additionally, piles

with larger diameter greatly influence the heat transfer and storage
capabilities of the GEP due to the enhanced pile contact surface area
with the ground, thereby, resulting in higher thermal performance [39],
and allowing a higher number of energy loops to be incorporated within
the foundation [33].
Loveridge [33] reported that the diameter of GEPs generally ranges
from < 300–1500 mm. Whereas, its length should extend beyond the
soil heterothermal zone [14]. Furthermore, Nagano et al. [30,36] re-
ported to have installed 51 steel piles with diameter of 600–800 mm
and an average effective length of 4.7 m. They observed that the system
could supply 40 kW of daily heating load.

2.1.1.4. Energy loops. The heat transfer pipes also known as energy
loops or absorber pipes are the plastic pipes that contain the heat
carrier fluid within the GEP. They are made from High-Density Poly-
Ethylene/Poly-Propylene (HDPE/HDPP), Polyvinyl-chloride,
Polybutylene pipes [33,38,40,41]. The HDPE diameter in the range of
between 20 and 44 mm has been reported by other researchers
[16,42–47]. However, the GEP system design and installation guide
recommended the nominal pipe diameter to pipe wall thickness ratio of
11. This is to ensure the pipe is durable enough to withstand a nominal
pressure of 160 psi [48].
The pipes are pressurised and maintained at a nominal pressure,
Fig. 4. Typical precast GEPs.
during the pre-installation test [16]. This is done for the purpose of
integrity check and also to prevent collapse because of imposed load
due to wet concrete. The pipes are attached to the inner or outer surface

Fig. 5. Typical GEP cross-section.

A.K. Sani, et al.

of the steel cage, and their length is generally governed by the length of
the GEP steel cage and the design thermal load in bored piles (Fig. 5).
Whereas in CFA piles, the loops could be extended beyond the steel
cage by attaching them to a central steel bar, of adequate strength and
plunged into the centre of the pile after concreting (Fig. 5).
2.1.1.5. Pipe configuration. The pipes can be installed in various forms
within the GEP. Some common shapes reported are single U-shape,
double U-shape, triple U-shape, W-shape, spiral or helical shape, direct
double-pipe type and indirect double-pipe type configurations
[31,38,41,45,49–55]. The different typical configurations are shown
in Fig. 6. Careful consideration should be taken to ensure the best pipe
shape is chosen to result in effective system performance [41].
Similarly, the pipes from one or multiple piles can be connected in
series, parallel or a combination of the two cases [56].
Laloui et al. [57] and Singh et al. [44] reported the use of U-shape
loops installed within pile foundation element of a building and in a test
pile. Similarly, Gao et al. [31,50] reported having equipped the foun-
dation elements of a building complex in Shanghai with single U,
double U, triple U and W-shape pipe configurations.
2.1.1.6. Heat carrier fluid (HCF). The heat carrier fluid (HCF) is the
liquid that circulates within the pipes which extract and transfer heat
from the ground to the heat pump system or vice versa. The HCF can be
made of pure water [31,50] or water plus either a biocide and or an
antifreeze based solution. The antifreeze could be ethylene or propylene
glycol, saline solution etc. [16]. Adding antifreeze to the HCF decreases
its freezing point, increases its viscosity and resulting in higher input
energy for pumping. Ethylene glycol possesses a better heat conductive
property, however, it is toxic compared to propylene glycol [33].
Hamada et al. [41] reported the use of a fluid mixture containing 40%
propylene glycol solution by weight.
2.1.2. Secondary unit
The secondary unit comprises of closed circuit network of pipes
embedded beneath the floor of buildings, walls and ceilings. It delivers
the heat extracted from the ground for space heating or removing the
heat from the building and transferring it back to the ground for sto-
rage. Also, loops can be installed in bridge decks, roads, airport run-
ways for de-icing purposes [18].
3. Environmental factors affecting the performance of a GEP
system
Environmental factors play a significant role on the performance of
a GEP system. These factors include soil heat flow mechanism, heat
transfer within concrete GEP, ground water flow and ground initial
temperature. It is highly important that they are carefully and accu-
rately determined, when designing a GEP system, to ensure an effective
and efficient system is achieved at a minimum installation cost. These
factors are discussed here.
3.1. Ground heat flow mechanism
The GEP, embedded in a soil mass or rock, exchanges heat with its
surrounding environment. The heat flow process occurs due to the
temperature gradient, between the pile and the surrounding soil, until
an equilibrium is attained. However, the difference in the inlet and
outlet HCF temperature ensures an effective and continuous heat flow
process. The amount and time taken for heat exchange between GEP
and surrounding soil depend on factors such as groundwater flow,
geological soil properties, geographical location, initial soil tempera-
ture, soil type and soil moisture content. Heat transfer mechanism in
soils is very complex. It occurs through the following transfer me-
chanisms including conduction, convection and radiation. Other me-
chanisms that are of great significant to heat movement includes va-
porisation and condensation, freezing and thawing, and ion exchange
[16,20].
3.1.1. Heat conduction
Heat conduction refers to heat movement between bodies in con-
tact, or from one face of a solid block to another face, because of the
difference in kinetic energy of the atomic particles. This is the most
predominant heat flow mechanism in soils [16,24,58] and other solids
because of the particles are closely compacted.
For example, if heat is applied to one face of a solid block the atomic
particles at the heated end gain kinetic energy and begin to vibrate,
causing the neighbouring atoms to follow the same pattern and transfer
the energy. This transfer process keeps going on within the solid block,
if the heat is constantly and continuously applied, until all the particles

2.1.3. Heat pump system

A heat pump is a mechanical device that is used to raise the tem-
perature of the heat extracted from the ground, by circulating HCF
through pipes, to a temperature suitable for space heating and vice
versa. Its working mechanism is comparable to that of a refrigerator in a
reverse order. Four components make up the heat pump: Evaporator,
Condenser, Compressor and Expansion valve shown in Fig. 3.
During a heating operation, the HCF (water plus antifreeze) is
pumped and circulated through the pipes enclosed in a GEP. The HCF
absorb heat from the ground and is fed into the evaporator which
contains refrigerant (heat transfer fluid). Within the evaporator, the
refrigerant absorbs the heat energy from the HCF thereby raising the
temperature of the refrigerant. The high-temperature refrigerant cir-
culates through the compressor that compresses and turns it into a high-
pressure and high-temperature fluid. At the condenser, the vapour
(refrigerant) transfer its heat to the heating system or secondary unit to
heat the building. The refrigerant cools down at the condenser level and
is fed through the expansion valve which lowers its pressure and tem-
perature. After leaving the expansion valve, it then passes through the
evaporator for the cycle to start again. Similarly, to achieve cooling, the
whole process is reversed [12]. Fig. 6. Different configurations of energy loops within a GEP.
A.K. Sani, et al.

are in exact same motion or in other terms have gained exact same heat
energy. The amount of heat, Q, flowing through a body in one di-
mension can be quantified using the Fourier's law, Eq. (1), while the
time taken for heat to be transferred from one face of the block to
another depends on the thermal conductivity of the material.
Q = λA
dT
dx
Where λ – thermal conductivity (Wm−1K−1), A – Area (m2), dT –
dx
temperature gradient (K m−1)
The conductive heat flux (qcond ), defined as the heat energy Q,
flowing through a given surface per unit time t, is given as
both liquid and vapour phases should be accounted for in soils. The heat
flow through liquid water can be mathematically expressed as
ql, convec = Cw ρw Uw (T − Tr )
(3)
Whereas, heat flow via vapour phase is mathematically defined as
qv, convec = Cv ρv Uv (T − Tr )
(4)
(1)
Where Cw and Cv are the specific heat capacities of soil water and water
vapour, ρw & ρv are the water and vapour densities; T is the applied
temperature, Tr is the reference temperature. Uw & Uv are the velocity
vector of water and vapour respectively.

qcond =
Q 3.1.3. Heat radiation
At (2)
Heat flow through a soil mass occurs in the same process to that of a
solid block, except that soil has pore spaces filled with either water, air
or both. This gives rise to the heat transfer mechanism by convection
and radiation. In addition to the above transfer processes, Rees et al.
[59] mentioned that heat flow due to changes in the water phase is
possible known as latent heat of vaporisation. But, these transfer pro-
cesses are only relevant where the grain and pore sizes are large [58].
However, in concrete, heat transfer occurs via conduction only [16].
3.1.2. Heat convection
Heat transfer by convection in soil occurs by the movement of fluid
from one point to another through the pore space that exist within the
soil mass. It is caused by the changes in fluid density as a result of
change in temperature. The rate at which the fluid moves within the
pores is largely governed by the soil granularity. Farouki [58] reported
that heat transfer by convection is negligible in soils with grain sizes
smaller than sand. However, in larger grain soils, fluids are allowed to
easily flow through the pore space because of their large hydraulic
conductivity [60].
The fluid in partially saturated soil media exists in two phases: li-
quid water and vapour water. For example, upon applying heat to a
partially saturated soil, heat transfer by conduction through the static
solid soil skeleton occurs. However, when the fluid in the pores is he-
ated, its density decreases due to an increase in temperature and
pressure. The heated fluid molecules thereby move to areas of lower
temperature to displace the denser fluid molecules. The denser mole-
cules consequently move towards the location of higher temperature.
This process continues until an equilibrium is reached.
Thus, the combined effect of heat transfer by convection through
Heat radiation is the heat propagation through electromagnetic
waves. In soils, heat transfer via radiation is very negligible [16]. Its
effect in sandy soils, under normal atmospheric temperature, contribute
to less than 1% of the total heat flow mechanism [58]. However, in
coarse aggregates with larger particle size, radiation effect becomes
significant. Wakao and Kato [61] showed that, at normal temperature,
radiation contribute to 10% of the total heat transfer in coarse ag-
gregates of 20 mm size. Therefore, in soils, heat transfer by radiation
can be neglected.
3.1.4. Vaporisation and condensation
The increase in temperature at a particular location, in partially
saturated soils, result in evaporation of the liquid water. The water
absorbs a latent heat of vaporisation of 586 Cal/g (at 20 °C) [58] and
turns into a vapour, which consequently increases in pressure, and
diffuses through the pore space to the regions of lower vapour pressure.
Heat transfer through water phase change (vaporisation and con-
densation) largely depend on the quantity of vapour transfer in the soil
pores and it decreases the soil water content [16]. It is expressed
mathematically as
qlat = L0 ρw Uv
(5)
Where qlat is the heat flux due to latent heat, L0 is the latent heat of
vaporisation at reference temperature (Tr ) .
Therefore, the total heat flow in soil can be expressed mathemati-
cally as
qtotal = qcond + ql, convec + qv, convec + qlat (6)
In addition to the above processes, freezing and thawing could
significantly have an effect on the total heat transfer in soils. During
freezing or thawing, a great amount of heat is removed or absorbed by

Fig. 7. Heat transfer within a GEP and soil.

A.K. Sani, et al.

the soil-water mixture to undergo a phase transition into ice or liquid.
This is attributed to the crystalline nature of ice having a systemic ar-
rangement of atoms which are characterised with intermolecular forces
that are much stronger than when in liquid form. This ultimately results
in higher effective thermal conductivity of ice (2.18 W/m−1K−1) as
compared to that of water (0.6 W/m−1K−1) [12,62]. However, it
should be noted that in soils, freezing occur at a temperature well below
0 °C [58]. Systems installed in such conditions should be carefully de-
signed to ensure the efficiency is not affected.
It should be borne in mind that in dry fine soils, heat transfer purely
takes place due to conduction because of the tiny or negligible pore
sizes, while in saturated medium, both advection and conduction con-
tribute to total heat transfer. However, in partially saturated soils, the
heat transfer mechanism becomes complex because of the vapour and
liquid water presence in the void spaces. Thus, in addition to the pri-
mary heat transfer mechanisms (conduction and convection via liquid
water – Eqs. 2 and 3), Eqs. 4 and 5 need to be considered in determining
the total heat flow in unsaturated soils.
due to groundwater flow is insignificant due to their impervious nature
[66].
Janssen et al. [68,69] showed that the heat transfer due to vapour
flow alone in soil is insignificant, however, the bulk liquid water flow
increases the total heat transfer by 5%. This signifies the vital impact
groundwater flow has on pile performance. Correspondingly, during
heat injection in summer, there is a possibility of heat build-up in the
soil surrounding the GEP [67]. Groundwater flow could help in alle-
viating the problem by distributing the temperature around the pile, to
other locations of lower temperature within the soil, and thus ensuring
effective system performance. Additionally, groundwater flow could
potentially lower the number of piles to be equipped with heat ex-
changing loops and the GEP length, due to their contributing factor in
heat transfer, thus reducing the initial investment cost of the system
[70].
3.4. Ground initial temperature

3.2. Heat flow mechanism across the GEP
Within the concrete GEP, conduction is the dominant heat transfer
mechanism across the concrete pile (qpile ) and the HDPE pipe (qpipe ) as
shown in Fig. 7. During heat extraction or heating mode heat is trans-
ferred from the pile surface to the HDPE pipes. This is due to the
temperature gradient between the particles at the pile surface and that
close to the plastic pipes. This occurs via the vibration and interaction
of the more energetic concrete particles at the pile surface, with the
subsequent less energetic neighbouring ones towards the pipe, owing to
increase in kinetic energy. Still, the fine and coarse aggregates in the
concrete pile are bonded closely together by the cement paste. This
ensure that the void spaces, which depends on water–cement ratio, are
minimised [63]. The rate of heat transfer across the concrete and pipe
depends on the thermal conductivity and the geometry of both the pile
and HDPE pipes [26].
Inside the plastic pipes, which contain the HCF, heat transfer pro-
cess occurs due to convection (qfluid ) as shown in Fig. 7. This occurs
when the fluid molecules collide with each other, after gaining energy,
and thus go into random motion. This inter-molecular collisions,
transfer or absorb heat from the pipe wall during HCF flow. The HCF
flow is pumped driven, hence commonly referred to as forced convec-
tion [33].
3.3. Groundwater flow
The level and movement of groundwater greatly influence the per-
formance of GEPs, when partially or fully embedded in saturated soils.
The ground temperature at a shallow depth up to 10 m below
ground level (bgl), is affected by the daily and seasonal weather cycles
[71]. The former occurs due to solar radiation, ranging between 40 and
80 W/m2 in Europe [72], which penetrates to few centimetres of the
topmost earth surface and the latter penetrating to greater depths of up
to 15 m [73] depending on the soil thermal diffusivity [72].
However, at depths greater than 10 m bgl, the soil temperature re-
mains relatively constant as shown in Fig. 8 which depicts the calcu-
lated temperature distribution versus depth for London clay, based on
air temperature data measured in Guildford, Surrey. This relatively
constant temperature permits sustainable heat utilisation for efficient
building heating and cooling process. Similarly, it should be noted that
at larger depths well below 10 m downward, there is a minor increase
in temperature with depth. This is due to small amount of heat being
conducted from the earth crust towards the surface [72]. The average
temperature gradient with depth is around 2.5 °C per 100 m across the
UK [74–76]. At a depth of between 20 and 60 m bgl, observed during a
thermal response test carried out in East London and reported by
Ground temperature (oC)
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
2
4
Depth below ground surface (m)

6
In large granular soils, the groundwater table or level line separates the
fully and partially saturated soil media [64]. Above the water table line,
8
the soil voids are filled with both air and water (held under capillary
action). Whereas below the water table line, the soil pores are fully
filled with water. However, in very fine soils e.g. clay, the fully satu- 10
rated zone in the soil mass could be located at a height well above the January February
water table level [65]. 12 March April
The water table depth differs from one location to another de- May June
pending on soil profile, soil cover, topography, surface runoff, evapo- July August
14
transpiration, evaporation and precipitation etc. [66]. The rate at which September October
water flow through the soil pores varies, from meter per year to several November December
meters per day, dependent upon the soil grain size and hydraulic gra- 16
dient [64].
During the groundwater flow mechanism, heat is transferred by the 18
moving fluid due to advection. This may alter the soil temperature
distribution, which lower the soil temperature, and eventually, result in 20
a steady condition [67]. This flow process is only applicable to soils
with high permeability because of their porous nature to allow water Fig. 8. Ground temperature variations with depth for London clay calculated
flow through their voids. However, in low permeability soils, advection based on air temperature data measured at Guildford, Surrey.
A.K. Sani, et al.
Loveridge et al. [75], the soil temperature remains relatively constant.
This could be attributed to groundwater movement or due to heat losses
from the urban environment.
During the summer season, the mean ground temperature below
10 m depth exhibit lower temperature compared to the air temperature
above the ground surface. Thereby allowing heat rejection, to achieve
building cooling [27,67]. However, in winter, the air temperature be-
comes cooler. The heat stored in the ground during summer is extracted
and used for heating. This maximises efficiency and ensures effective
GEP system design, by preventing high/low temperature build-up in the
soil mass surrounding the GEP.
Additionally, it is highly important to ensure that the long-term
effect of heat injection/extraction does not degrade the system effi-
ciency [77], due to the continuous accumulation/loss of heat, in the
long run. This is generally not a problem where the system delivers
equal energy for heating and cooling purpose. The heat extracted
during winter for heating is restored back during summer and vice-
versa, a phenomenon known as natural thermal recharging or natural
thermal recovery [44,78]. Similarly, in a monotonic system (designed
for purely heating or cooling) natural recovery could be used to restore
the soil back to its initial state, but the output of the system will gen-
erally be lower compared to balanced system.
However, in an unbalanced system (where either heating or cooling
load is greater), other recovery methods should be employed to equate
and balance the heat energy expended by the system. Integrating and
hybridising the GEP systems, by equipping them, with solar collectors
and cooling towers to forcefully recharge the ground was found to be
effective in alleviating the energy imbalance within the system
[79–81].
3.5. Soil thermal properties
The thermal properties of soil are significantly important for GEP
system design to accurately estimate the amount of heat that can be
extracted/injected into the soil. These properties are the thermal dif-
fusivity and thermal conductivity. This section describes these para-
meters and how they are measured.
3.5.1. Soil thermal diffusivity and conductivity
Soil thermal diffusivity (α) is the measure of how easily heat dis-
perses or diffuses through the soil mass. The thermal diffusivity is
computed as the thermal conductivity of the material divided by the
product of its density and specific heat capacity. Whereas the soil
thermal conductivity (λs) relates to the rate or degree at which the soil
mass transfer heat from one area to another per unit time. It can be
determined either through field measurements or laboratory test. The
former is measured through the thermal response test (TRT), while the
latter is further classified into steady and unsteady state methods.
3.5.1.1. Thermal response test (TRT). The test is conducted by
circulating a heated fluid (water or water + antifreeze) through the
energy loop(s) enclosed inside a ground heat exchanger, generally a
borehole having a length of at least 100 m [82]. The fluid circulation
process is maintained for 2–3 days or more until a steady state is
reached. The inlet and outlet temperature are monitored over time
along with the input heating power. This method assumes the heat
exchanger to be a heat source of an infinite length. The soil thermal
conductivity (λs) is computed using Eq. (7), by obtaining a slope (k) of
the graph of the changes in average fluid temperature (Tf) versus
natural logarithm of time. The heat exchanger thermal resistance (RGEP)
is obtained as the intercept (γ) of the plotted graph using Eq. (8). More
details about this method can be found in [75].
λs =
Q This section describes the design standards currently available and
(4πkL)
(7)
1 ⎞ ⎛ ⎛ 16 λs ⎞ ⎞
RGEP = ⎛ ⎞ m − ⎛ ⎞ Tf − ⎛ ⎜ln ⎜ 2 ⎟ − γ
⎟
L L
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ s ) ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ DGEP ρs Cs ⎠ ⎠
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
Q Q (4πλ (8)
where Q is heat exchange rate (W), m is the mass flowrate (kg/s), L is
the GEP length (m), DGEP is the GEP diameter (m), ρs is soil density, Cs is
soil specific heat capacity.
This method of estimating thermal conductivity is only suitable for
boreholes, because of their greater length to diameter ratio than the
GEPs. Nevertheless, Loveridge et al. [82] connected 3 GEPs, having a
length of 18.3 m each, in series to increase the fluid circulation length.
This was found to provide a solution to pile overheating in single GEPs
due to their shorter length. This is especially crucial where oversized
heaters are used to supply heat to the HCF and consequently the GEP
unit(s).
In addition to the TRT test, the thermal performance test (TPT) can
be used to determine the heat exchanging rate of a GEP and its sur-
rounding soil. The test is carried out by circulating water at constant
temperature through the inlet pipe of the GEP (Tin). This can be
achieved through the use of heaters attached to dedicated temperature
controllers to monitor and maintain the temperature at the inlet pipe.
The outlet water temperature (Tout) and the HCF velocity are then
monitored throughout the test [83]. The GEP's heat exchange rate (Q)
in watts (W) and the average heat exchange rate (q) per meter length of
the GEP are given below:
Q = mCw (Tout − Tin )
(9)
q=
Q
H (10)
The difference between the TRT and TPT test is that the TRT
maintains a constant heat flux and allow the inlet fluid temperature to
vary, whereas TPT maintains a constant inlet fluid temperature and
allow the heat flux to vary.
3.5.1.2. Steady state method. The steady state method is measured by
applying heat to a soil specimen in one Dimension. The input power and
temperature change across the specimen is monitored and measured
after a steady state is reached. The Fourier's law of heat conduction is
used to calculate the thermal conductivity for the applied heat flux and
temperature change monitored. This method is also referred to as
divided bar method. Other techniques that can be employed in
determining thermal conductivity via the steady state include the
guarded hot plate test in accordance with ASTM 1963; heat meter;
cylindrical configuration method; thermal cell [58,84–87].
3.5.1.3. Unsteady state method. This method is also known as a
transient method. It is carried out by applying heat to a soil specimen
and observing the change in temperature over time. The thermal
conductivity is then computed using the analytical solution of the
diffusion equation. This method is like TRT but at a much smaller scale.
Other transient methods include the needle probe method; periodic
temperature waves and thermal shock method [58,84,85,87]. The
simple and most widely used transient method is the needle probe
method. It also goes by the name hot wire method, probe method or
line source method [67]. It measures the rate of temperature change in
a soil specimen by assuming the soil to be an infinite homogeneous
medium along a line heat source.
4. Design considerations
their limitations if any. It further highlights the design procedure and
the environmental factors influencing the design of the GEP system.
A.K. Sani, et al.
4.1. Available standards for GEP design
The design of simple ground heat exchanger system can be carried
out in accordance with the Rule of Thumb method [16,33]. These
simple design guidelines, published by Verein Deutscher Ingenieure
(VDI 1998), are founded on assumptions that certain amount of heat
can be extracted based on the ground heat exchanger geometrical di-
mension. These assumptions are tabulated below
For the detailed analysis and design of a larger scale and complex
ground heat exchanger system, the rule of thumb method is not
Fig. 9. GEP design flowchart.
recommended [89]. Nevertheless, they could still be useful for carrying
out preliminary design studies. Some of the widely-used design guides
are as follows
• In the UK, the GSHP association has published a standard for the
design, installation and materials standards for GEP construction
[90]. The design guide covers the preliminary design stage speci-
fying the various roles and responsibilities each party has towards
achieving a successful project design and implementation. Similarly,
it has also covered both the thermal and mechanical analysis and
A.K. Sani, et al.
design of the GEP.
• In Germany, the Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI) 4640 technical
guidelines Part 1–4, published by the German Association of
Engineers, provide detailed information regarding heat pump
system [91]. PART 1: discusses the required approvals, principles of
system design and environmental considerations to take note of.
PART 2: gives a detailed account of the design and installation
procedure of groundwater wells, horizontal loops and borehole heat
exchangers. However, it only mentioned that piles can be used as
boreholes but failed to capture the design and installation steps for
the thermal piles. This is being reconsidered and most likely the next
version of the VDI will account for the GEP analysis and design [92].
PART 3: cover the aspect of using the ground for energy storage,
while PART 4: deliberates on the direct use of the underground
systems without the heat pump connected. This includes utilising air
as the heat carrier medium rather than fluid, generally used for
preheating or cooling of ventilation air [91].
Other design guides include: the guidelines for geo-exchange sys-
tems in British Columbia, Canada; the Swiss guideline SIA D0190; EN
15450 - Heating systems in buildings - Design of heat pump heating
systems; (ÖNORM M 7755-1) Electrically driven heat pumps - part 1:
General requirements for design and construction of heat pump heating
systems; ASHRAE Standard 90.1: Geothermal System design etc.
[91–96]. It is important to note that the SIA D0190 covers general
construction guide such as pipe arrangement, and take into cognisance
additional thermal load and the possibility of differential settlement.
The SIA D0190 refers to the use of a numerical tool ‘’PILESIM’’, for
calculating the thermal performance of GEP systems [92]. However, it
does not account for other ground energy structures.
4.2. GEP design steps
The design of any GEP system needs to take into consideration both
the geotechnical and thermal interactions of the system at the early
design stages, as shown in Fig. 9. This is carried out to fully represent
the coupled Thermo-hydro-mechanical behaviour of the system during
service life. Firstly, the impact of some vital factors, recognised in past
application [95], which could have adverse consequences on the overall
system performance, should be carefully investigated. This will avert
future refurbishment and renovation works that could significantly
make the system costly and less viable. These factors include, but are
not limited to the following:
• Determine the desired building hourly heating and cooling load
• Building usage
• Type of occupancy
• Also, the possibility of heat losses that may occur in the system
should be accounted for. This is usually factored into the heating/
cooling loads.
• Similarly, the sustainability of various components and sub-com-
ponents in the system should be considered.
The above factors will play a key role in determining the mode of
operation of the system, whether for monodirectional (only heating or
cooling operation) or bidirectional mode (heating and cooling opera-
tion) [67]. Furthermore, they aid in achieving an optimised overall
system design at a lower installation and running cost, as against an
inefficient one which could consume more energy and lead to a higher
operational cost in the long run [16,20].
In addition to the above factors, an extensive geotechnical in-
vestigation of the construction site should be conducted to determine
the following parameters, of which some of them may be already re-
quired if the GEPs are primarily needed for structural stability
[19,97,98]. They are:
• Hydrogeological properties (include groundwater level, direction of
groundwater flow and its velocity etc.)
• Geothermal properties such as thermal conductivity, ground tem-
perature gradient, initial ground temperature etc.
• Geotechnical properties of soil e.g. water content, density, void
ratio, shear strength parameters, hydraulic properties etc.
• Buildings structural properties e.g. foundation depth, pile arrange-
ment and spacing, installation method, pile type and size etc.
• Soil minerals and chemical composition
Furthermore, emphasis should be placed in making sure that the
foundation elements are not imposed with an excessive thermal load
that is beyond the design capacity, rather it should be maintained
within acceptable limits. Through a controls system, acceptable tem-
perature limits should be set to enable a system switch off to guarantee
long-term system performance, thereby protecting longevity and effi-
ciency of the GEP system for the life of the building.
As part of the design process, an evaluation of the system should be
carried out to confirm the amount of heating and cooling the GEPs can
supply. At the same time the design will need to identify the level of
top-up heating and cooling that is needed from conventional heating
and cooling systems. It is generally a good practice to allow for some
margin of error, between the needed energy demand and the predicted
system capacity, in the GEP system design, as shown in the design flow
chart in Fig. 9. A recommended practice reported by Bourne-Webb et al.
[99] is to allow for 10% margin between the required amount and the
predicted output capacity of the system. This is then reviewed as the
project progresses towards completion.
Additionally, a numerical modelling and simulation of the project,
particularly projects of larger scale, comprising of the components of
the GEP unit (pile, pipes and HCF) should be carried out [16] with the
total energy demand superimposed on the GEPs. This could be done
with numerical tools like “Thermo-pile” [100]. This will aid in giving a
clear picture of how the system will perform under working condition.
Similarly, it helps in figuring out possible issues which were overlooked
during the design stages.
4.3. GEP implementation issues
GEPs if analysed, designed and installed correctly provide an ideal
renewable solution to the building heating and cooling need. However,
there are some issues that still exist which could arise during the pre-
liminary design and installation stages that can significantly impact on
the GEP performance. These issues include pipe installation and its
technique, pipe defects, shortage of skilled experts and understanding
individual and collective roles between different parties involved
[67,101]. Among the possible solutions to minimise these issues is to
ensure that experts in this field are consulted. Also, early coordination
between all parties that will be involved in the GEP design and in-
stallation, whether directly or indirectly, is of paramount importance
[97,101]. This will ensure that the design and construction process
occurs smoothly and is unaffected by any additional costs. On the issue
of skilled expert shortage, the Ground Source Heat Pump Association
(GSHPA), UK have urged consultants to train their engineers and clo-
sely monitor the project as it progresses [88].
5. Thermo-mechanical behaviour of GEPs
This section describes the effect of temperature application on me-
chanically loaded piles. The section first presents the general theoretical
mechanism of the GEP behaviour under thermo-mechanical loading,
and its interaction with the surrounding soil. The descriptions of var-
ious field tests, laboratory experiments and numerical studies along
with their corresponding conclusions are then reported.
Furthermore, some of the studies were reported on both the thermo-
mechanical and thermal performance of the GEPs. In such a case, the
A.K. Sani, et al.
thermo-mechanical performance is discussed here while the findings on
the thermal performance are presented in Section 7.
5.1. Theoretical mechanism
The process of heat application on GEP alter its loading character-
istics compared to an ordinary mechanically loaded pile. These coupled
thermal and mechanical characteristics were reported in various field,
laboratory and numerical studies [16,44,49,57,102–107]. They all re-
ported that the process of heat extraction and injection cycle causes
nominal changes to load profiles, stresses and strains in the GEP and
surrounding soil.
In theory, when a GEP is heated, it expands and contracts about a
central line known as neutral axis or null point. The null point is the
point where the positive and the negative thermal strains are equal. The
expansion and contraction induce additional thermal strains (εth) and
stresses (σth) in the GEP, dependent upon end and boundary restraints.
These complex behaviours were described in the literature [42,102]
and are also described below, considering different boundary and end
restraint conditions.
i. Under purely mechanical loading (PM ), the pile gets compressed and
Fig. 10. Axial load and shear stress profiles, under Mechanical, Cooling and Heating loads (after Bourne-Webb et al. [42] and Amatya et al. [102]).
moves downward into the soil in the direction of the load applied.
The pile is prevented from sinking into the soil due to skin friction
(shaft resistance at the pile and soil interface) in floating piles, or a
combination of shaft and pile-toe resistance in the case of non-
floating or end bearing piles. Therefore, the pile surface resistance
remains constant, and the strains and load developed decreases with
depth linearly Fig. 10a. Mathematically expressed as
σM =
PM
(11)
A
εM =
δlM
L (12)
PM = −
EAδlM
L (13)
Where σM – stress developed due to a mechanical load (PM ); E –
Young's modulus or material stiffness; δlM – deformation due to
mechanical load application; L – Original pile length; εM – Induced
strain; A – Pile cross-sectional area. The negative sign (−) indicates
the effect of counter force provided by the surrounding soil to
A.K. Sani, et al.
prevent pile sinking.
ii. Under pure cooling load without end restraints (Pth, C ) , the pile will
contract but the soil mass surrounding the pile-surface will pull the
pile and oppose the contraction, hence, leading to the development
of tensile strains and stresses in the GEP. The shear stress pattern
mobilised at the top half of the pile is similar to that developed by a
pile under pure mechanical load application, while opposite at the
pile lower half. The stress and strain profiles are shown in Fig. 10b.
The thermal load developed in the pile due to pile contraction is
mathematically defined as
Pth, C = −EAεth, C (14)
εth, C = = αC ∆T
δlth, C
L (15)
Where εth, C – the thermal strain developed due to temperature
change (under cooling load) in an unrestrained GEP; δlth, C – the
contraction/expansion of the pile; and ∆T – the temperature drop.
incremental length due to cooling; αC – the coefficient of thermal
iii. Under pure heating load without end restraint (Pth, H ) , the pile expands
but the expansion is restricted by the soil mass surrounding the pile,
hence, subjecting the pile in compression and leading to compres-
sive strains and stresses development. The shear stresses developed
in the top half of the pile is opposite to that mobilised under pure
mechanical load. On the other hand, the pile lower half possess
similar shear stress/strain pattern with that acting under pure me-
chanical load. The shear stress/strain pattern of a pile under pure
heating load is directly opposite to that of the pile under cooling as
shown in Fig. 10c. It can be similarly expressed mathematically as in
Eqs. 10 and 11.
iv. Under coupled mechanical and cooling load, the applied load pushes
down the pile into the soil, while the cooling load is contracting the
pile simultaneously. The surrounding soil will counter and pull the
pile to resist these coupled actions and keep the pile in place,
Fig. 11. Axial load and shear stress profiles under coupled thermo-mechanical loads (after Bourne-Webb et al. [42] and Amatya et al. [102]).
thereby increasing the mobilised pile surface resistance at the pile
top half and decreases at the lower half. The axial loads developed
within the pile becomes less compressive and may likely turn to
tensile. The load and strain profiles are shown in Fig. 11a.
v. Under coupled mechanical and heating load, the pile will be pushed
downward due to the imposed mechanical load at the pile head and
at the same time being subjected to both radial and longitudinal
expansion because of the heating load. The surrounding soil keeps
the pile in place by resisting these dual actions. Therefore, the pile
surface resistance developed at the top half of the pile decreases
while it increases at the pile lower half. The axial load induced
within the pile becomes more compressive. The load and shear
stress profiles are shown in Fig. 11b.
The two scenarios (under thermal and mechanical load) can be
mathematically expressed by considering the restraint effect on the GEP
and the mechanical load. The strains measured (εth, measured ) in a pile
lower than that developed in a free-standing pile (εth, C ≤ εth, measured ). The
bounded by a soil mass and a mechanical load at the head is equal or
εth, rest . = εth, H − εth, measured = εth, C − εth, measured
restrained thermal axial strain (εth, rest .) in a pile is defined as:
(16)
The thermal load (Pth ) developed due to temperature change ( ∆T ) in
a restraint pile, without mechanical load is given as:
Pth = −EAεth, rest . = −EA(εth, C − εth, measured)
(17)
Pth = −EA(αC ∆T − εth, measured)
(18)
Therefore, the total strain (εT ) and the total thermal load induced
(PT ) in a GEP under coupled thermo-mechanical load application are
given as
εT = εM + εth, rest .
(19)
εT = [δlM + δlth, C − εth, measured L]
1
L (20)
And,
A.K. Sani, et al.
PT = PM + Pth (21)
PT = −EA ⎡ M + αC ∆T − εth, measured ⎤
⎣ L ⎦
δl
(22)
5.2. Field scale experiments on the thermo-mechanical behaviour of a GEP
Over the years, numerous field scale GEPs have been installed in
various buildings and some as test piles. The installed thermo-active
elements provide additional insight into the geotechnical and energy
performance of GEPs under coupled mechanical and thermal loading.
The pioneering projects on GEPs were reported by Brandl [16] on the
effect of temperature on GEP bearing capacity. Later on, the influence
of thermal constraint and cyclic temperature response GEP mechanical
behaviour were investigated by Laloui et al. [103], Amis et al. [105]
and Bourne-Webb et al. [42] respectively.
Using the above mentioned studies, Amatya et al. [102] developed a
mechanism for the interaction between the GEP and its surrounding soil
under coupled thermo-mechanical load action. (Table 1)
The effect of heating and cooling cycles on the radial thermal strain
and shaft capacity were reported by Wang et al. [45,104] and Singh
[44]. In addition, You et al. [49] investigated the effect heating modes
on Cement Fly-ash Gravel (CFG) piles. Their findings discuss the axial
stress distribution in the pile and creep rate of GEPs installed in stiff
high plasticity clays due to associated effect of temperature increase.
Furthermore, the influence of coupled thermo-mechanical load on the
load redistribution, axial strain changes and induced vertical displace-
ments in a GEP were reported by Akrouch et al. [40], McCartney and
Murphy [46] and Santiago et al. [108] respectively. Their respective
key findings are summarised in Table 2.
5.3. Laboratory scale experiments on the thermo-mechanical behaviour of a
GEP
Laboratory experiments offer an economically viable alternative to
investigating GEP behaviour at a scaled down model. This approach
allow for the rescaling of the GEP geometrical dimensions and the ap-
plied mechanical load. Thermal loading is then superimposed and the
associated changes monitored. For example, McCartney and Rosenberg
[107] investigated the settlement and shear distribution in a pile, while
the effect of strain, temperature changes and vertical displacements in
semi-floating and end bearing piles due to thermal load are reported by
Goode and McCartney [109]. Similarly, the type of applied thermal
loading governs the strain distribution of a GEP under rigid stratum.
This mechanism was investigated by Stewart and McCartney [110] with
the GEP subjected to heating and cooling cycles.
In addition, the effect of heating and cooling cycles of GEPs em-
bedded in clays and that of their settlement patterns and capacities in
saturated Toyoura sand were reported by Ng et al. [111,112]. On the
other hand, the GEP behaviour subjected to thermal cyclic loading in
dry Nanjing sand was investigated by Wang et al. [113]. Similarly,
Ahmadipur and Basu [114] showed that subjecting a GEP to thermal
cycles increases and decreases its shaft and base resistances. Also, in-
fluence of mechanical load increment and the behaviour of an axially
loaded GEP under thermal cycles, isothermal conditions and its long
term performance were reported by Kalantidou et al. [115], Yavari
et al. [116] and Nguyen et al. [117] respectively as shown in Table 3.
5.4. Numerical studies on the thermo-mechanical behaviour of a GEP
In addition to the field and laboratory experiments reported, nu-
merical tools offer an alternative approach for investigating the geo-
technical and energy performance of GEPs under coupled thermal and
mechanical loadings. Recently, Fadejev et al. [118] carried out a review
on the GEP design, sizing and modelling using analytical and numerical
tools, categorised based on mesh discretisation criteria i.e. finite ele-
ment method, finite difference method and finite volume method,
which are commonly used for pile geotechnical and energy perfor-
mance design.
In this study, we highlight the findings from some numerical studies
and the numerical tools used to achieve them which are detailed in
Table 4. In the table, the first study was reported by Rotta-Loria et al.
[119] investigating the effects different magnitude and combination of
thermal and mechanical loading superimposed on a GEP. Also, the
changes in horizontal stresses and that of the influence of non-uniform
distribution of thermal strains and stresses were reported by Ng et al.
[120] and Abdelaziz and Ozudogru [121] respectively.
In addition, the effect of induced cyclic temperature changes on the
hardening and softening at the GEP-soil was reported by Suryatriyastuti
et al. [122]. The phenomenon was found to result in either perfect or
sliding contact by Suryatriyastuti et al. [14]. This could ultimately lead
to an adhesion or de-bonding between the GEP and its surrounding soil
as reported by Arson et al. [123]. Lastly, the response of GEPs in a
group under different thermo-mechanical loading conditions and their
associated effects when used for heat storage reported by Di Donna
et al. [124] and Dupray et al. [125].
6. Thermal performance of a GEP system
The thermal performance of a GEP system can be assessed by re-
lating the amount of useful energy obtained to the input power used in
running the system, measured through one of the following methods:
• Field testing also known as thermal response test (TRT) or thermal
performance test (TPT) described in Section 3.5.1.1.
• Mathematical and numerical methods, and
• Coefficient of Performance (COP) of the system
Numerous mathematical approaches and numerical tools are
available for estimating the ground temperature response of a GEP. One
of these common methods is the finite line source model, developed by
Eskilson [39,126]. It assumes that the GEP is a line heat source having a
finite length. It is suitable for estimating the ground temperature
change of borehole. However, because of the larger diameter of GEPs,
the method will underestimate the ground response at smaller timescale
[127]. Similarly, another model is the hollow cylindrical heat source
model, which is analogous to the finite line model but assumes the heat
source to be at the pile radius and that heat flow outward from the pile
surface, because of its hollow geometry. Additionally, a new model
(solid cylinder model) was developed, which accounts for heat inflow
and outflow from the heat exchanger [128]. However, the above-
mentioned models failed to fully capture the exact complex features of
the GEP, particularly in a situation where different pipe arrangements
and at least 2-loops or higher are installed.
Numerical tools such as Transient Systems Simulation Program
(TRNSYS), Ground Heat Exchanger Analysis, Design and Simulation
(GHEADS), energy-exergy analysis tool etc. developed based on the
cylindrical source model theory are used for determining the perfor-
mance of heat exchanger systems [31,67,129,130]. Similarly, PILESIM,
developed based on the duct storage (DST) model, solves the heat
transfer equations of boreholes placed uniformly in a cylindrical heat
energy system. The tool has the capability of calculating the thermal
Table 1
Rule of Thumb for GEP energy output.
GEP dimension Heat extraction rate Source
300–500 mm in diameter 40–60 W/m run [16,33]
≥ 600 mm diameter 35 W/m2
Pile foundations 15–80 W/m [88]
A.K. Sani, et al.

Table 2
Key findings of field studies on the thermo-mechanical behaviour of GEPs.
Location (Source(s)) Key findings

Bad Schallerbach, Austria • The heat developed during hydration of fresh concrete pile imposed residual stresses within the pile.
(Brandl [16]) • Heat extraction (winter mode) result in pile contraction, thus, decreasing the base pressure at the pile toe.
• Excessive heat extraction could lead to ground freezing which results in heave development around the pile.
• Thermal strain-induced cracking of the GEP could occur due to shrinkage and during hydration of fresh concrete.
• Heating/cooling piles as a group induces lower axial thermal stresses at the pile head, compared to heating/cooling
a single pile in the group.
• The axial load transmitted to the pile toe remained constant during thermal load application.
EPFL, • Increase in temperature results in additional friction mobilisation.
Lausanne,
Switzerland
• Thermal variation affects the mechanical behaviour of the GEP in two ways: (i) increase in friction mobilisation due
to temperature increase; and (ii) addition of thermal compressive stresses in the GEP.
(Laloui et al. [57,103], Bourne-Webb et al. [41], Amatya • The vertical stress developed due to coupled thermo-mechanical load is twice that due to pure mechanical loading.
et al. [95]) • Thermal cyclic loading result in the expansion and contraction of the GEP. Thus causing the development of strains
which are thermo-elastic in nature.
• Axial load induced in a GEP under thermal load depends on the end restraint at the pile-head and pile-toe.
• Axial load induced in a GEP fully restrained at the top and bottom (e.g. Lausanne test-pile), under thermal load,
increase uniformly over full depth.
• Stiff silty/clayey soils (i.e. lower part of Lausanne soil profile) exhibit larger mobilisation of shaft resistance per unit
temperature change in comparison to that mobilised in soft clayey soil (i.e. upper part of Lausanne soil).
Lambeth college, London, UK
(Amis et al. [105], Bourne-Webb et al. [42], Amatya et al.
• The extreme cooling phase was unable to lower the wholistic pile temperature below freezing, however, the local
temperature close to the loops was below freezing.
[102]) • The extreme cooling phase increased the test-pile settlement by about 2 mm.
• The extreme heating phase resulted in the recovery of the pile-head after it was displaced during the extreme
cooling phase.
• About 50% and 80% temperature reduction at the borehole and anchor pile location, i.e. 0.5 m and 2.15 m from the
test-pile, were observed relative to that in the test-pile during the heating and cooling phases.
• Thermal cyclic loading increases and decreases the shaft resistance mobilised at the pile surface.
• Axial load developed in a partially restrained GEP (London test-pile) increases non-uniformly with depth.
• Tensile forces induced due to extreme cooling cycle are unlikely to cause cracking in mass/plain concrete piles.
• Atheoretical
GEP subjected to a thermal load induces thermal axial stress in the pile that was between about 50–100% of the
fully restrained values.
• The type of restraint at the pile head and the toe, i.e. load of super structure and stiff ground or rock, could alter the
magnitude of the stresses developed within the GEP.
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia • Radial expansion and contraction of the GEP was observed during the heating and cooling phases.
(Wang et al. [45,104], Singh et al. [44]) • Pile shaft shear capacity increases due to heating and regains back to its initial state after cooling.
• The radial thermal strains are found to be uniform and do not change with depth.
Shunyi, Beijing, China
(You et al. [49])
• Thermal axial stress distribution along the pile is non-uniform due to partial restraint at the pile head (gravel-
cushion) and toe (sandy-silt).
• Cooling cycle induces pronounced pile settlement and a decrease in its bearing capacity. Thus, CFG energy piles
should be carefully designed for cooling purposes.
Texas A&M University, USA • Increase in soil temperature results in an increase in pile creep rate.
(Akrouch et al. [40]) • Heat extraction in cooling-dominated climates increases the viscous mechanism of clays, resulting in long-term pile
displacement effect.
• The displacement of an energy pile is 2.35 times that of a non-energy pile after 50 years of continuous heat injection
operation.
• Long-term energy pile displacement can be minimised by limiting the initial settlement.
Denver, Colorado, USA • During heating and cooling operations, the thermal axial strains observed were within acceptable limits.
(McCartney and Murphy [46]) • Total strains measured due to thermo-mechanical loading were well within the range acceptable in the industry.
• The trends and magnitude of induced axial strains and stresses, in the piles, are unlikely to cause any structural
failure.
Valencia, Spain
(Santiago et al. [108])
• An uplift heave was observed at the pile head during the heat injection process which nearly returned to its initial
state after the test has ended.
• The pile thermal strain and its resistance indicated that the GEP behaved in a thermo-elastic way and is greatly
influenced by the surrounding soil.
• Using precast piles as GEPs would not cause any structural problem to the overall pile capacity.
analysis of a large number of piles installed and arranged in a regular power, this phenomenon is termed as free cooling.
array [92]. Maximising the system performance will result in higher cost sav-
The coefficient of performance of a system is mathematically de- ings, consequently lowering the overall cost of the GEP system. This can
fined as [16]: be achieved through optimising the individual components and the sub-
components of the system. Improving and modifying the heat transfer
COP=
Energy output obtained after HCF circulation[kW] rate of the pile-concrete, heat carrier fluid, the number of installed
Energy input to drive the system[kW] (20′) pipes, flow velocity, pipe configurations, heat pump speed etc. could
lead to higher performance. Similarly, utilising nanofluids as heat car-
A heat pump system should be designed to aim at a COP value of 4 rier fluids circulating in the pipes, and highly thermally conductive
in heating and 6 in cooling, for economic reasons i.e. to achieve higher fillers in pipe manufacturing and concrete mix, were shown to sig-
performance at the lowest possible cost. Similarly, the COP value was nificantly improve the convective and conductive heat transfer process
found to range between 3 and 5, for closed loop heat pump systems of the liquid, the energy loops and the concrete pile [131].
[130]. For example: if a system has a COP value of 3.5. It means that Enhancing and improving the thermal properties of the materials
1 kW of electricity used in operating the system could result into 3.5 kW that form the GEP could go a long way towards achieving a higher COP,
of heating. In terms of cooling, Brandl [16] reported to have used 1 and ultimately resulting in the quick recovery of the initial installation
kWh of electricity as an input and obtained about 50 kWh of cooling
A.K. Sani, et al.
Table 3
Key findings of laboratory studies on the thermo-mechanical behaviour of GEPs.
Location (Source(s))
University of Colorado, USA
(McCartney & Rosenberg [107], Goode & McCartney [109],
Stewart & McCartney [110])
HKUST, Hong Kong.
(Ng et al. [111,112])
Chongqing University, China
(Wang et al. [113])
University of Paris-Est, France
(Kalantidou et al. [115], Yavari et al. [116], Nguyen et al. [117])
The Pennsylvania State University, USA
Ahmadipur and Basu [114]
cost. Brandl [16] reported that the payback time for the heat exchanger
system is between 2 and 10 years, depending on the climate, ground
conditions and system size. Similarly, the system requires less main-
tenance, hence significantly lower the recovery time of the initial in-
vestment cost. Additionally, in an effort to make renewable energy
source more appealing, the United Kingdom government introduced a
Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme. This greatly increased their
(energy piles) patronage within the UK. In 2017 the RHI tariff for a
GSHP was 19.86 pence per kilowatt hour (p/kWh), which is about
48.7% and 67% higher compared to the incentive obtained from the
government for Air Source Heat Pump and Biomass respectively [132].
Key findings
• Heating an energy pile from 15° to 60°C increases its shear capacity by 40%. However, that temperature
range is unrepresentative of real life practice.
• The thermal axial stresses were found to be greater in end-bearing piles in silt than in semi-floating piles in
sand, because of the greater restraint provided at the pile toe and by the compacted silt.
• Heating of semi-floating GEPs in compacted silt result in an increase in ultimate shaft capacity of the piles,
however, heating the pile in the sand is insignificant to the overall capacity. Possibly because of the
compaction of the silt soil during pile installation.
• Heating process induces higher compressive strains in the pile, which are greater than that developed due to
pure mechanical load.
• The strain developed along the pile length varies and it depends on the magnitude of mobilised side friction.
• Pile embedded in lightly over-consolidated clay undergoes a more pronounced ratcheting settlement pattern
with a reduction in severity due to thermal cycles, compared to the pile embedded in heavily over-
consolidated clays.
• Aclay,cumulative settlement of 3.8%D (D-diameter) was observed in the pile installed in lightly over-consolidated
compared to the 2.1%D associated with piles in heavily over-consolidated clays, after five heating and
cooling cycles. The larger settlement in lightly over-consolidated clay may be due to accelerated creep rate at
the pile-clay interface caused by the thermal cycles.
• Both the energy piles (EP1 and EP2), installed in lightly and heavily over-consolidated clay, continued to
settle under thermal load application at a reduced rate.
• The ratcheting settlement of piles in clays could be problematic to the serviceability of the energy piles and
structure in the long run.
• The neutral point located below mid-depth moves downward due to increase in temperature.
• Under pure heating load, there was additional mobilised base resistance due to constrained vertical expansion.
• Heating EP1 and EP2 continuously for 4 months, without axial load, resulted in pile heave by 0.4%D and 1%
D. These are 32% and 21% lower than the theoretical displacement values calculated.
• Similarly, heating EP2 continuously for 4 months, under coupled thermal and mechanical load, resulted in
initial pile displacement of 1.4%D, which later settled to 0.6%D due to 4 months heating. This led to volume
contraction due to the thermal collapse of larger pores.
• Subjecting EP1 and EP2 to 37 °C and 52 °C resulted in 13% and 30% increase in pile capacity compared to the
reference pile (i.e. EP1 with no thermal load applied).
• Increase in pile capacity, when a pile is heated to 37 °C, was achieved through the increase in mobilised shaft
resistance. However, when a pile is heated to 52 °C, the applied vertical load is resisted by the larger resistance
mobilised at the toe.
• Under the same heating power, the horizontal earth pressure for the W-shape GEP was 1.18 and 1.24 higher
than the spiral and U-shape GEP, respectively.
• The W-shape GEP had higher thermal strain along pile depth, followed by spiral type GEP under the same
heating power.
• Settlement accumulation was observed after each cycle. The W-shape GEP had −0.585 mm (0.56%D) at the
end of the third cycle, thus indicating that attention should be paid where repeated heating–cooling cycles are
involved.
• The pile behaves in a thermo-elastic manner when the load is less than 40% of the pile ultimate resistance.
• When the applied mechanical load exceeds 40% of the ultimate resistance, permanent settlement develops.
• More than 70% of the pile load is resisted at the pile toe.
• The magnitude of the measured soil pressures below the pile toe were significantly influenced by the coupled
thermal and mechanical load.
• The mobilised pile surface friction increased during initial mechanical loading and was significantly modified
during subsequent thermal cycles.
• The pile behaves in a thermo-elastic way, when the constant axial head load applied is within 30% of the pile-
surface resistance. However, a significant cumulative permanent settlement could occur with an increased
axial force at the pile toe, for a higher pile head load exceeding 30%.
• Thermal cycles induce an irreversible settlement of the pile.
• The first thermal cycle induces a higher magnitude of pile settlement, which decreases and gradually becomes
negligible with more subsequent number of thermal cycles.
• The axial force developed at the end of a heating phase is higher than that at the end of subsequent cooling
phase.
• An increase in the GEP temperature results in additional effective stress development at the pile toe.
• Also, temperature increase leads to an increase in lateral confinement and mobilisation of additional shaft and
base resistances around the GEP.
6.1. Field scale tests on the thermal performance of a GEP
The thermal performance of a GEP was found to be influenced by
factors including: geometry, dimension, thermal and hydrological soil
properties [16]. Also, the configuration and number of installed loops:
1-loop; 2-loops; 3-loops; indirect double-pipe; double-tube; multi-tube;
W-shape configurations, and fluid velocity were reported to offer a
positive influence on the heat transfer efficiency of the GEP system
[31,41,44,50,51,133]. In addition, the energy performance between
3U-shape and W-shape energy loops, under continuous and intermittent
operation, were investigated by Park et al. [38]. Similarly, Yoon et al.
[37] compared the energy output of a borehole and a GEP, both
Table 4
Key findings of numerical studies on the thermo-mechanical behaviour of GEPs.
Source Aim(s) GEPs’ Properties/Soil type Numerical tool/ Key findings
A.K. Sani, et al.

model

Rotta-Loria et al. [119] • The impact of different magnitudes & combinations of mechanical 3 GEPs. Lagamine • Increase in the thermal and mechanical load increases the magnitude of
and thermal loads. DGEP =0.88 m; L=19.6 m; FEM the vertical load transmitted through the pile toe.
Saturated Toyoura sand 2D Axisym. plastic strain developed at the soil-pile interface at larger magnitudes of
• Athermal and mechanical load, thus inducing a large effective horizontal
stress, which ultimately affects shaft resistance.
• The null point moves up and down depending on the magnitude of the
thermo-mechanical load applied, and it corresponds to the stress
distribution occurring in the surrounding soil.
Ng et al. [120] • Behaviour of semi-floating GEPs on the change in horizontal stress DGEP =1.0–1.75 m; L=20–30 m; ABAQUS • Repeated pile expansion and contraction impose cyclic shearing at pile-
due to thermal cycle. L/DGEP = 20; Toyoura sand FEM soil interface, thus decreasing horizontal stress. This decreased the shaft
2D-Axisym. resistance capacity and led to an additional mobilisation of base
resistance to balance the reduction in shaft capacity. The settlement
reaches a stabilised state after some repeated cycles.
• Amplitude of thermal cycles and pile diameter govern the magnitude of
shearing at the soil-pile interface.
• The horizontal stress reduction after 50 thermal cycles decreases by up to
90% and is independent of the pile length for the range of pile length
considered: 20 m to 35 m.
Abdelaziz and Ozudogru • Influence of non-uniform distribution of thermal strains and stresses 1-GEP COMSOL • They showed that both thermal tensile and compressive stresses and
[121] in a GEP subjected to transient thermal loads. DGEP = 0.5 & 0.55 m; L=10 m; FEM strains were found to coexist in a GEP during either heat rejection or
Silty clay 3D injection process. This occurs because of the non-uniform temperature
changes that exist within the GEP cross section.
Suryatriy-astuti et al. • Effect of cyclic temperature change on the mechanical behaviour of Square GEP; Width, B = 0.6 m; FLAC3D • Repetitive heating and cooling cycles cause degradation of shear
[122] GEPs. L=15 m; Loose sandy soil FDM resistance at the pile-soil interface, which decreases the pile shaft
1D & 3D capacity for restrained and unrestrained piles.
• A thermal cyclic fatigue effect (strain ratcheting and stress relaxation)
were observed at the end of the analysis.
Suryatriy-astuti et al. • Effect of temperature induced mechanical behaviour of GEPs under Square GEP; Width, B = 0.6 m; FLAC3D • The stresses and displacements obtained at the soil-pile interface for
[14] different soil–pile interface conditions: perfect contact and sliding L=15 m; Loose sandy soil FDM sliding contact are lower compared to that developed under perfect
contact scenarios. 3D contact condition.
• Application of thermal load alters the shaft friction mobilised at the soil-
pile interface.
Arson et al. [123] • Impact of pile de-bonding on the thermal and geotechnical 1-GEP – • The presence of an air film (1.6 mm) at the soil–pile interface acts as an
performance of GEPs considering 2 cases: perfect contact and de- DGEP =0.45 m; Expansive clay FEM insulator between pile and soil, hence, yielding a decrease in heat
bonding (with 1.6 mm between pile and soil) 1-D transfer between the pile and the ground, compared to the case of
perfect adhesion.
• De-bonding causes a reduction in efficiency on the geothermal heat pump,
thereby breaking the energy balance of the system.
• De-bonding has a mechanical effect on the adhesion between the pile and
soil, which results in loss of friction at the soil-pile interface.
Di Donna et al. [124] • Response of GEPs in a group to different magnitude of thermo- 4 GEPs: GEP1 to GEP4. Lagamine • Increase in temperature increases the stresses and displacements
mechanical load. DGEP =0.9 m; L=28 m; Alluvial/ FEM induced in the pile.
• Effect of pile head restraint. sandy-gravelly/moraine soil 3D • Vertical displacement of +1 mm (contraction) was observed when piles
were mechanically loaded separately, and −1 mm (expansion) when
individually heated because of thermal strain.
• Heating one or three GEPs together induces higher compressive stress in
the order of 7 MPa, compared to heating the four GEPs together (4 MPa).
(continued on next page)
A.K. Sani, et al.

heating phase results in a decrease in horizontal effective stress, while

geotechnical behaviour compared to heating/cooling individual secluded
equipped with W-shape energy loops. Furthermore, You et al. [49]

overall efficiency, which decreased at a rate of 1.4% per °C, between the
temperature (in the range of 40 °C) storage does not affect the
studied the heat exchanging rate of a cement fly-ash gravel (CFG) en-

group of piles together has a positive impact on the

ergy piles having different fluid flow velocities. The influences of con-

the cooling phase leads to an increase in mean effective stress.

tinuous and intermittent operation for summer and winter mode were
mean annual temperature and initial ground temperature. also investigated. In addition, Faizal et al. [134] also investigated the
effect of continuous (24 h) and intermittent operations (8 h and 16 h).
Their respective findings are reported in Table 5.

6.2. Laboratory experiments on the thermal performance of a GEP

The performance of GEPs based on laboratory scale experiments

were reported by several researchers. These studies provide an insight
into the behaviour of the system with a focus on the energy that can be
exchanged with the ground for heating and/or cooling purposes.
Akrouch et al. [135] reported that there are several factors which could
influence the energy performance of a GEP. These factors include but
• Heating/cooling

not limited to soil saturation, void ratio, water content and soil types.
Also, the type of pipe configuration installed in the GEP could influence
Key findings

• Higher

the magnitude of temperature distribution in the surrounding soil

piles.
• The

[113]. Similarly, the HCF velocity was reported to have an impact on

the energy extraction/injection rate of a GEP by Kramer et al. [136]. In
addition, Yang et al. [137] equipped a GEP with a spiral shape energy
loop and reported the effect of different factors including inlet tem-
Numerical tool/

perature, intermittent operation, pitch and pile material, on the heat

2D-Axisym.

rejection rate of a GEP and the distribution of temperature in the sur-

Lagamine

rounding soil. The key findings from these studies are reported in
model

FEM

Table 6.
DGEP =0.8 m; L=20 m; Clay soil

6.3. Numerical studies on thermal performance of a GEP

GEPs’ Properties/Soil type

Several numerical tools, available commercially and developed in-

house by other researchers, have been used to analyse and gain further
understanding on the energy performance of GEPs. Cecinato &
Loveridge [138] used a commercial software, Abaqus, to investigate the
key factors that contribute significantly to heat transfer in GEPs. Their
4-GEPs

findings showed that higher number of loops is the major factor due to
the increased HDPE surface area for heat transfer. In this context, other
approaches of maximising the surface area has been explored by other
of group of GEPs for seasonal heat storage under thermo-

researchers [38,52–55] involving incorporating and comparing dif-

ferent HDPE configurations. Though increase in number or configura-
tion with denser pipes is beneficial, however, it should be done with
caution in smaller diameter rotary bored piles or CFA GEPs [139].
Having the loops placed close to each other could lead to thermal short
circuiting and render the system non-usable a phenomenon reported by
[26,140–142]. Furthermore, the response of surrounding soil domain
depends on factors such as soil type, degree of saturation, heating
duration and its magnitude [78,143], which are potentially useful for
heat storage [144]. However, this is hardly the case where groundwater
flow exist [145]. In addition, the long term behaviour of such elements,
for a duration up to 30 years, has been investigated by Olgun et al.
[146] and that due to thermal cycles and the heating-cooling demand
associated with varying climatic conditions Olgun et al. [147]. The key
mechanical load.

findings of these studies are highlighted in Table 7.

• Response

7. Future prospects and research focus

Aim(s)

This paper explores various available field, laboratory and numer-

ical studies reported on the geotechnical and energy performance of
GEPs. Even though the design and dimensioning of such elements are
carried out based on conservative approach, capitalising vastly upon
Dupray et al. [125]
Table 4 (continued)

experience and increasing the safety factor against that of a conven-

tional pile, no any failure has been reported till date. However, in-
creasing the safety factor unnecessarily increases the system installation
cost, which puts away potential users and investors from patronising
Source

them. As shown in this study, the use of piles as energy sourcing

structures result in cyclic changes in stresses and strains in and around
A.K. Sani, et al.

Table 5
Key findings of field scale studies on the thermal performance of GEPs.
Location Key findings
(Source(s))

Bad Schallerbach, Austria • Pile diameter, thermal and hydrological properties have a significant impact on the amount of heat that can be obtained.
(Brandl [16]) • Similarly, concrete composition, such as cement fineness and additives, influence the heat exchange rate of GEPs.
Monash University, Australia • Heat propagation in soils occurs in a radial direction.
(Singh et al. [44,133]; Faizal e. al. [134]) • The soil needed about 4 times the heating test time to recover to its initial temperature.
• Heat exchange rate of the GEP and the surrounding soil is directly related to the difference in inlet and outlet HCF temperature and
its flowrate.
• Increase in soil temperature induced by thermal load does not significant influence on the heat exchange rate of the GEP.
• The energy extracted during 8 and 16 h was 40.9% and 14.8% higher than the 24 h heating mode.
• Thus, the average energy extracted or injected per meter pile length is higher in the intermittent mode than in continuous mode.
Hokkaido, Japan
(Hamada et al. [41])
• The heat rejection rate for the U-shape, double U-shape and indirect double-pipe types were 53.81, 54.76 and 68.71 W/m,
respectively.
• The U-shape energy loop (polyvinyl chloride pipe, 34 and 28.8 mm outer and inner diameter) was found to be the best option in
terms of economic efficiency and workability.
Saga-shi, Japan • The double-tube type has the highest heat exchange rate followed by multi-tube and lastly the U-tube, being the least.
(Jalaluddin et al. [51]) • The efficiency of the double-tube decreases due to closer spacing between inlet and outlet pipes which is filled with water as
compared to sand used in the U-tube GEPs.
• 4.15 2 2
m and 6.28 m for the U-tube and multi-tube types, respectively.
2
The double-tube configuration had a larger contact surface area of 8.73 m , hence resulted in higher heat transfer rate, compared to

• The double-tube and multi-tube showed an increase in heat transfer rate with increasing flow rate.
Shanghai, China
(Gao et al. [31,50])
• The double and triple U-shape pipe configurations possess double and triple flow rate and produced 28% and 56% more energy
output than the W-shape configuration.
• configuration 3
The W-shape configuration with reference flow rate of 0.342 m /h results in 43% higher energy output compared to the same
3
at a flow rate of 0.171 m /h.
• W-Shape pipe configuration was found to be the most thermally efficient if costs are not considered.
Suwon, South Korea • The heat exchanged by the 3U-shape in intermittent mode decreased by 51.7% compared to continuous operation.
(Park et al. [38]) • Similarly, the W-shape in intermittent mode decreased by 46.4% compared to continuous mode.
(Yoon et al. [37]) • InHowever,
intermittent operation, the 3U-shape produced a heat exchange rate that is 15% higher compared to the W-shape configuration.
their performance for continuous operation was found to be similar.
• The −1 −1
thermal conductivities of the GEP and the borehole were 2.32 and 2.15 Wm K , respectively.
• A5–10%.
simple analytical equation that could estimate the equivalent ground thermal conductivity was proposed which had a variation of

• The
GHE.
multipole and equivalent diameter analytical methods were found to accurately estimate the thermal resistance of the GEP and

Beijing, China
(You et al. [49])
• The TPT indicated that circulating water at a velocity of 0.5 m/s presents the best cost-effective solution, in terms of heat
exchange rate.
• The heat exchange rate in CFG energy piles is positively proportional to the inlet water temperature, observed during TPT.
• Average heat exchange rate per meter in intermittent operation is 20% higher compared to continuous operation, and the total heat
energy exchanged dropped by 14%.
• The TPTs reached a steady state at around 40 h, compared to TRTs that stabilises at 72 h.
• The heat injection and extraction rate for the group of piles decreases by 5% and 20% compared to single piles, during TPT test.
• Temperature contour distribution indicates that the radial temperature influence for a single pile spreads more than 4 m, hence
spacing between piles should not be less than 8 m.

Table 6
Key findings of laboratory experiments on the thermal performance of GEPs.
Location Key findings
(Source(s))

Texas A&M University, USA.
(Akrouch et al. [65,135])
Chongqing University, China
(Wang et al. [113])
The Pennsylvania State University, USA
(Kramer et al. [136])
Yangzhou University, Jiangsu, China
(Yang et al. [137])
• Pile thermal performance could increase by up to 40% in sand depending on the degree of saturation.
• The varying water table in sand decreases thermal exchange efficiency by up to 0.43, when at the pile toe. However, little
significant difference was observed in sandy-clays.
• W-shape GEP results in the largest temperature variations in the pile and soil, followed by the spiral shape GEP.
• Thermal efficiency of a GEP system increases with an increase in HCF velocity, however, it results in higher electrical energy
usage. Thus, could be detrimental on its seasonal performance.
• No residual temperature changes remained in the soil where the applied heat injection and extraction rates are equal.
• Thermal cycles have positive influence on heat transfer efficiency of a GEP. The first cycle (e.g. heat injection) enhances the soil
thermal potential which results in higher heat exchange rate during the subsequent opposite thermal cycle process (heat
extraction).
• The heat energy rejection rate increases linearly with an increase in inlet fluid temperature.
• Aofreduction
the GEP.
in pitch size (vertical spacing between two helixes) could lead to an increase in total heat rejection rate per unit length

• The thermal effusivity of a GEP has significant influence on its heat rejection rate and on the soil temperature restoration rate.
the pile which are governed by the magnitude and combination of the systems installed on a global scale against their use in secluded re-
superimposed coupled loads and the type of restraint on the pile. sidential dwellings. Similarly, natural events such as precipitation,
Nonetheless, the expected operational temperature range re- surface run-off (important to boreholes) and groundwater flow could
commended by the heat pump manufacturers and GEP specialists influence the performance of the system. This leads to the GEP being
should not present any potential structural hazard on the pile. Still, embedded in fully dry/saturated or partially saturated soils. Hence re-
future efforts should look into understanding the behaviour of such search into the cyclic saturation and desaturation of GEPs should be
Table 7
Key findings of numerical studies on the thermal performance of GEPs.
SOURCE Aim(s) GEPs’ Properties/Soil type
Cecinato & Loveridge • Effect of different factors: Pile diameter and length; concrete cover; DGEP =0.3 m; L=26.8 m; U-loop
[138] concrete thermal conductivity; number and diameter of HDPEs; HCF
flow velocity on the thermal performance of GEPs. London Clay
Batini et al. [52] • Effect of different pipe configurations; GEP geometrical aspect ratio; DGEP=0.9 m; L=28 m; 1-U, 2-U &
HCF flow rate and the variation of antifreeze volume in the HCF on the W-shape loops; Dbar=40 mm
thermal performance of a GEP. Alluvial/sandy-gravelly/moraine
soil
Mehrizi et al. [53] • Comparison of heat transfer between 3 HDPE configurations. • 1-U-shape
• Impact of connecting 15 GEPs in series and in parallel. • 1-W-shape
• W-shape all round or 6-U-
shape
DGEP=0.6 m
L= 20, 25 & 30 m
Sandy silt
Zarrella et al. [54] • Comparing the performance of a helical-tube and double-U-tube GEPs • Helical-tube
with balanced and un-balanced thermal load.
• Effect of axial heat transfer D =0.5 m
GEP
L=12 m
Dhelix=0.38 m
Pitch height=0.1 m
• Double-U-tube
parallel connection
DGEP=0.14 m
L=60 m
Numerical tool/ KEY FINDINGS
A.K. Sani, et al.
model
ABAQUS • The most important factor is maximising pipe contact surface area (i.e.
FEM higher number of pipes). But, placing pipes close together could lead to
3D pipe-pipe thermal interaction.
• Higher concrete thermal conductivity results in greater heat energy
exchange.
HCF flow velocity has no much significant impact on overall heat energy
• exchange, provided turbulent flow is maintained.
COMSOL • Pipe configuration is the most important factor in terms of heat transfer
FEM efficiency.
3D • W-shape pipe showed 54% higher heat transfer rate compared to the
single U-shape pipe.
• The double U-shape is the least advantageous because it has double fluid
flow rate. Also, it induced greatest concrete cooling, stress and
displacement in the pile.
• Increasing the pile length and diameter linearly increase the amount of
exchanged heat.
• Increasing fluid velocity from 0.2 m/s to 1 m/s resulted in increased heat
transfer rate by 11%, with no increase in vertical stress within the pile.
• Adding low antifreeze concentration to the fluid does not affect the heat
transfer rate when compared to pure water. However, adding 25 or 50%
of Mono-Ethylene-Glycol decrease the heat exchange rate by 6 and 11%
respectively.
• The heat transfer rate decreased by 30% for single U-shape compared to
the first day of operation, while up to 45% for double U and W-shape
pipes.
Gambit/FLUENT • W-Shape all round or 6-U-shape pipe configuration result in higher heat
FEM exchange efficiency by 20.63% and 35.5% compared to 1-W-shape and
1-U-Shape pipes.
• Inlet water temperature decreased by 4% and 4.27% when 10 and 15
piles were connected in parallel. Thus, connecting more than 10 piles in
parallel is not economically wise.
3D • Connecting 6 piles in series greatly increased the amount of heat transfer
by 4.54%. A moderate increase of 0.67% when 7–11 piles were
connected. However, connecting 12–15 piles resulted in 0.13%. Thus, it is
ineffective connecting more than 11 piles.
• There is 65% and 73% increase in heat energy output for piles connected
in parallel and series, compared to a single pile.
CaRM/GeoHP- • The helical-tube GEP require about 50% shorter length than that of the
Calc/ double-U-tube.
COMSOL • The effect of axial heat transfer on the double-U-tube heat exchanger, and
FEM a helical-tube with a balanced heating-cooling load, is negligible.
3D • In a helical-tube with an unbalanced thermal load demand, the axial heat
transfer effect results in about 10% lower annual electrical energy
consumption.
• The seasonal COP values of 3.7 (cooling) and 5.3 (heating) were obtained
when the axial heat transfer is neglected against 4.3 (cooling) and 5.6
(heating) when the axial heat transfer effect is accounted for.
(continued on next page)
Table 7 (continued)

SOURCE Aim(s) GEPs’ Properties/Soil type Numerical tool/ KEY FINDINGS

model
A.K. Sani, et al.

Zarrella et al. [55] • Comparing the performance of a helical-tube, double-U-tube and 3-U- • Helical-tube CaRM • The helical tube produced a 23% and 40% higher thermal performance
tube GEPs. D =0.5 m
GEP FEM compared to the 3U-tube and double-U pipe configurations at peak
• Effect of pitch height in a helical pile: 75, 150 and 300 mm. L=12 m 3D load, respectively.
D =0.36 m
helix • Decreasing the pitch from 150 mm to 75 mm produced a 14% increase in
Pitch height=0.15 m peak load. However, the peak load decreases by 14% after increasing the
• Double-U-tube pitch spacing from 150 mm to 300 mm.
parallel connection
DGEP=0.14 m
L=60 m
• 3-U-tube
parallel connection
DGEP=0.5 m
L=12 m
Park et al. [38] Comparing the performance of W-tube and 3-U-tube GEPs with respect to • W-tube ABAQUS • The W-tube and 3-U-tube resulted in heat exchange rate of 87 W/m and
heat exchange rate and ground temperature increase. parallel connection FEM 42 W/m respectively, after 3 months cooling.
DGEP=0.4 m 3D • Thermal resistance decreases with denser HDPE pipes i.e. 0.131 mK/W
L=13.25 m and 0.098 mK/W for W-tube and 3-U-tube respectively.
• 3-U-tube • An increase in HCF velocity resulted in increase in the amount of
parallel connection exchanged heat.
DGEP=0.4 m • The average exchanged heat increases linearly with higher temperature
L=13.75 m difference between the HCF and the ground.
Weathered granite soil deposit.
Loveridge and Cecinato • Comparison of the energy performance of CFA piles and that of rotary • CFA GEP ABAQUS Rotary bored piles are more efficient than CFA piles when equipped
[139] bored piles. Rotary bored GEP FEM
• with the same number of pipes, because of the pipes situated near the
•
DGEP=0.9 m; L=25 m; 2-U-loops; 3D pile periphery.
Dbar=40 mm • Rotary bored piles offer more room for installing a higher number of
London Clay pipes in the pile cross-section, which maximises its efficiency.
CFA can be fitted with 4 HDPE pipes than the conventional two pipes
• Acommonly used. But, a turbulent fluid flow regime should be maintained
in the pipes.
• The current norm of installing CFA piles with steel bar for rigidity has no
detrimental effect on thermal performance. However, using spacers to
avoid bunching of the pipes would improve the system performance.
Loveridge and Powrie Investigate the heat transfer in a GEP • CFA GEP COMSOL • Installing HDPEs at the centre in a CFA pile results in lower magnitude
[26] • Rotary bored GEP FEM of temperature distribution at the pile circumference. Thus, leading to
D =0.6 m
GEP 2D-planar reduced influence associated with pile movement in geotechnical
design.
• CFA GEPs with loops at the centre possess larger thermal resistance than
rotary bored piles.
Sani et al. [140–142] The studies investigated the following: • CFA GEP COMPASS • Installing central steel in a CFA GEP contribute to higher heat transfer
• Heat flow mechanism in a GEP. • Rotary bored GEP FEM between the inlet and outlet pipes.
• Performance of a CFA pile. D =0.6 m
GEP 2D-planar • Utilising plastic bar of adequate strength provides an economical and
• Heat flow characteristics in a CFA pile. London clay energy efficient solution to installing loops in CFA GEP.
• Increasing the shank spacing between inlet and outlet pipes increases the
GEP efficiency.
• Heat transfer between the inlet and outlet loops become significant after a
steady state is achieved i.e. 3-5 days.
• Increasing the number of installed HDPE loops lead to a higher
magnitude of heat transfer between the pipes in a GEP.
• The circumferential temperature distribution varies with increasing
number of installed loops.
• The normalised thermally active region for a GEP, fitted with 1−4 loops,
spans out radially to about 7 m.
(continued on next page)
Table 7 (continued)

SOURCE Aim(s) GEPs’ Properties/Soil type Numerical tool/ KEY FINDINGS

model
A.K. Sani, et al.

Kawuwa et al. [78] Response of the soil surrounding a GEP to heating load. DGEP=0.6 m COMPASS • The duration of the heat injection/extraction has direct influence on
L=30 m FEM the time to achieve natural recovery.
London clay 2D-Axisym. • The soil require about 4 times the heating time to naturally recover
towards its initial state.
Sani et al. [144] The study investigated the use of GEPs for heat storage in unsaturated soil DGEP=0.6 m COMPASS • The heat injection process results in drying up of soil next to the GEP,
domain. L=30 m FEM thus resulting in soil with lower saturation.
Unsaturated swelling clay 2D-Axisym. • Soil with lower saturation result in lower thermal conductivity. However,
with an advantage of having a higher volumetric heat storage capability.
Sani et al. [143] Response of unsaturated soils to heating load. DGEP=0.6 m COMPASS • The magnitude of temperature observed in the soil decreases with
L=30 m FEM increase in soil saturation.
Unsaturated clay, silt & sand 2D-Axisym • Temperature changes in the soil decreases significantly in the first 10
days following the heating test.
• The magnitude of temperature build-up decreases with increase in soil
granularity due to higher hydraulic and thermal conductivity.
• The thermally active region in the domain increases with soil granularity.
Olgun et al. [146] Investigated the long-term performance of GEPs under different myriads DGEP=0.6 m COMSOL • The estimated heating–cooling amplitudes are linearly proportional to
of climatic conditions FEM the resulting GEP temperature in a long-term thermal operation process
2D-planar i.e. 30 years.
• The heat exchange efficiency of the GEP system is expected to decrease
after a long-term usage.
Olgun et al. [147] Investigated the effect of long-term thermal cycles on the temperature DGEP=0.6 m COMSOL • The nature and distribution of temperature around a GEP and its
distribution within and around the GEP FEM surrounding soil is dependent on the seasonal energy demand.
2D-planar a balanced system (e.g. Charlotte, North Carolina), the region
• Ininfluenced by temperature changes within the soil mass surrounding the
GEP is minimal, hence, resulting in high efficiency over long-term.
an unbalanced climatic conditions (e.g. Chicago, Illinois and Austin,
• InTexas), the system loses its efficiency over time especially in larger pile
grids.
Gashti et al. [145] Investigated the effects of groundwater flow on the GEP performance. DGEP=0.6 m COMSOL • They discouraged the use of other secondary methods to forcefully
L=20 m FEM recharge the soil in situations where groundwater flow exists.
3D • In20%.winter operating mode, the amount of heat extracted increases by up to
summer operation, the GEP performance increases by 5% owing to
• Ingroundwater flow effect.
A.K. Sani, et al.
carried out focusing on the energy performance and geotechnical re-
sponse of the pile.
Furthermore, the use of thermally conductive fillers in the concrete
pile was found to result in higher heat transfer. However, this results in
higher heat flow between the HDPE pipes in the GEP. This could easily
heat up the pile core, and lower the temperature gradient between the
inlet and the outlet loop(s). Possible ways of minimising this should be
researched upon to avoid thermal short circuiting, which is expected to
be common in CFA piles because of the very close proximity of the inlet
and outlet loop legs.
Several numerical tools are available for analysing the energy,
geotechnical or coupled thermo-mechanical response of individual or
group of GEPs. Yet, to the authors’ knowledge no any numerical tool
capable of carrying out analyses of the whole system is available. This is
especially important for modelling and simulating large scale projects
in order to understand their performance and mitigate any possible
issues on the energy output capacity of the system. Research into de-
veloping a simple, user-friendly numerical tool which has the capability
of analysing the primary and secondary unit coupled with the heat
pump should be looked into.
In addition, social issues related with such systems should also be
investigated. Qualitative and quantitative studies looking at users’
perception towards such systems should be carried out. The research
should answer some psychological questions related to the users’ sa-
tisfaction, in terms of installation costs, overall energy usage before and
after the system installation. Similarly, possible noise issues, their
perception about the space for system installation in situation where it
is highly valuable. Additionally, ways of encouraging the patronage of
such systems should be investigated targeting governmental agencies,
specifically legislative bodies of government to put laws that prevent
the installation of environmentally harmful energy systems in new
buildings. This would offer a change in mindset and serves as a major
step towards reducing GHG emissions and their associated negative
effects.
8. Conclusions
This paper has presented an extensive and revealing study on the
significant amount of research undertaken on GEP over the last two
decades around the world. The research has clearly identified the im-
portance of understanding the effects of heating and cooling on
building foundations in order to successfully design and install a GEP
system that will provide a highly efficient, cost effective, long-term
solution, for heating and cooling the very building on which it sits.
The paper has identified the following key factors that need to be
taken into account for successful GEP design and operation, they are
summarised as follows:
• From the literature reviewed, it was found that the thermal prop-
erties of soils are affected by several factors: the soil type, ground-
water flow, grain size, soil temperature, geological and geographical
location. Ultimately this combination of factors dictates, the thermal
conductivity and diffusivity values of the surrounding geology in
which the GEP system will sit and are of great significance on the
amount of heat that can be sourced/injected into the ground.
Having knowledge of these properties is essential in designing an
effective and efficient heat pump system, that will function at the
highest efficiency possible, run at the lowest possible operating cost
and through a control strategy, provide a long-term solution out
living the building design life.
• Various methods of measuring thermal exchange rates of the soil
were reviewed. This can be achieved by determining the soil
thermal conductivity and its diffusivity, through either laboratory
experiments, or on-site field tests or both. Accurate measurement of
the conductive and diffusive properties of the soil will significantly
impact on the system performance and will prevent over or under
estimation of the system thermal capacity.
• The design of a GEP system should be carried out in accordance with
the available design guide, in order to achieve an optimum perfor-
mance and ensure the sustainability of the system. This can be ob-
tained by carrying out a detailed preliminary design study, in-
cluding but not limited to designing using hourly thermal load data,
which should have factored in to it, occupancy type, the building
usage, and thermal energy loss from the system.
• It is imperative to remember that the primary function of GEPs is
that of safe transmission of the loads induced from the super-
structure to a more stable ground that can suitably withstand the
building loads. Thus, their primary role should not be put in jeo-
pardy for the purpose of achieving a higher thermal energy output.
In situations where the available pile foundation elements are not
sufficiently deep enough to meet the desired thermal load, the GEP
system and another alternative system should be carefully in-
tegrated with conventional heating and cooling equipment and most
importantly a comprehensive control management system installed
in order to deliver and monitor the required energy needed, that
does not compromise foundation capability, long term system effi-
ciency, run costs of the system and remains sustainable.
• It is important also, to point out that based on the range of literature
reviewed, GEPs behave in a thermo elastic way. Meaning, under
thermal cycles, they will expand and contract relative to the applied
temperature and the available restraint provided by the surrounding
soil, the strata at the pile toe and the mechanical load at the pile
head. This expansion and contraction process increases and de-
creases the pile capacity nominally, during heating and cooling
cycles. However, it is understood that the operational temperature
limit does not degrade the overall pile load carrying capacity.
• The performance of GEPs was shown to depend on a myriad of
factors, including, but not limited to: energy loops arrangement and
configurations; number of installed loops; position of the installed
energy loops; fluid flow rate; fluid type; heat conduction and dif-
fusion characteristics of pipes, concrete and soil; geological and
geographical location; and hydrogeological conditions. The most
important of these factors are the energy pile dimension (depth and
diameter) and the number of HDPE pipes installed due to the in-
crease in pipe surface area for heat transfer. Similarly, the helical
pipe configuration yield higher energy output due to the larger pipe
surface area, followed by the 3-U, W, 2-U and 1-U loop. Also, con-
trary to the general notion, the HCF velocity is the least contributing
factor towards heat transfer. Nonetheless, these factors if correctly
optimised can result in a GEP system with higher COP, conse-
quently, leading to increased cost savings and faster recovery of the
initial capital investment costs. However, it should be ensured that
geothermal loop quantities and arrangements are carefully con-
sidered and do not threaten the structural function of the GEP.
• Finally, utilising the foundation elements of buildings for harnessing
heat energy present within the shallow surface of the earth, makes
perfect sense and provides an engineering-friendly and sustainable
solution to meeting a substantial amount of heating and cooling
energy needed by the building on which they sit. It offers a re-
newable solution to the building energy need at a little added, heat
pump system, installation cost without affecting the overall struc-
tural integrity of the overlying structure.
References
[1] Council Climate. Key Issues for the New Climate Agreement 2015:9.
[2] UNFCCC. Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Proposal by the President. Paris Clim
Chang Conf - Novemb 2015, COP 21 2015;21932:32. doi:FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/
Rev.1.
[3] Bowen A, Rydge J. Climate change policy in the United Kingdom. Grantham Res
Inst Clim Chang Environ; 2011.
[4] Fankhauser S, Kennedy D, Skea J. The UK’s carbon targets for 2020 and the role of
the Committee on Climate Change. Build a Low-Carbon Futur Polit Clim Chang
A.K. Sani, et al.
2008:99–110.
[5] Holst DR-. California Climate Policy to 2050 2015.
[6] Yeh S, Yang C, Gibbs M, Roland-Holst D, Greenblatt J, Mahone A, et al. A modeling
comparison of deep greenhouse gas emissions reduction scenarios by 2030 in
California. Energy Strateg Rev 2016;13–14:169–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.
2016.10.001.
[7] Salkin PE. Sustainability and Land Use Planning: Greening State and Local Land
Use Plans and Regulations to Address Climate Change Challenges and Preserve
resources for future generations 2009;121:2016.
[8] Brown EG, Nichols MD, Corey RW. Proposed First Update to the Climate Change
Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework February 2014 Table of Contents 2014.
[9] Franco G, Cayan D, Luers A, Hanemann M, Croes B. Linking climate change science
with policy in California. Clim Change 2008;87:7–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10584-007-9359-8.
[10] Kember O, Jackson E, Chandra M. GHG Mitigation in Australia: an Overview of the
Current Policy Landscape. World Resour Inst Work Pap 2014:1–40.
[11] ECUK. Energy consumption in the UK. 07 2015. 〈http://webarchive.
nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160317154000/https://www.gov.uk/government/
statistics/energy-consumption-in-the-uk〉 (accessed September 1, 2016).
[12] Akrouch GA. Energy piles in cooling dominated climates. Texas A&M University;
2014.
[13] Duffield W a, Sass JH. Geothermal energy: Clean power from the earth’s heat. U S
Geol Surv Circ 2003:1–36.
[14] Suryatriyastuti ME, Mroueh H, Burlon S. Understanding the temperature-induced
mechanical behaviour of energy pile foundations. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2012;16:3344–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.062.
[15] Singh RM, Sani AK, Amis T. An overview of ground source heat pump technolo-
gy.pdf. In: Letcher TM, editor. Manag. Glob. Warm. An Interface Technol. Hum.
Issues. London: Academic Press; 2019. p. 455–86.
[16] Brandl H. Energy foundations and other thermo-active ground structures.
Géotechnique 2006;56:81–122. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2006.56.2.81.
[17] Zagorscak R, Thomas HR. A review on performance of energy piles and effects on
surrounding ground. Inženjerstvo Okoliša (Environmental Eng) 2016;3:33–45.
[18] Kovačević MS, Bačić M, Arapov I. Possibilities of underground engineering for the
use of shallow geothermal energy 2013;64:1019–1028.
[19] Brandl H. Energy piles for heating and cooling of buildings. In: Seventh Int. Conf.
Exhib. Pilling Deep Found., 1998.
[20] Brandl H, Adam D, Markiewicz R. Ground-sourced energy wells for heating and
cooling of buildings. Acta Geotech Slov 2006;1:5–27.
[21] Katzenbach R. New technologies and applications: materials and equipment in
near surface geothermal systems 2015; doi: 10.1179/1937525514Y.0000000012.
[22] Markiewicz R, Adam D. Energy from earth-coupled structures, foundations, tun-
nels and sewers. Géotechnique 2009;59:229–36. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.
2009.59.3.229.
[23] Xia C, Sun M, Zhang G, Xiao S, Zou Y. Experimental study on geothermal heat
exchangers buried in diaphragm walls. Energy Build 2012;52:50–5. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.03.054.
[24] Dawoud B, Amer E, Gross D. Experimental investigation of an adsorptive thermal
energy storage. Int J Energy Res 2007;31:135–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.
[25] Hu P, Zha J, Lei F, Zhu N, Wu T. A composite cylindrical model and its application
in analysis of thermal response and performance for energy pile. Energy Build
2014;84:324–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.07.046.
[26] Loveridge F, Powrie W. 2D thermal resistance of pile heat exchangers. Geothermics
2014;50:122–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2013.09.015.
[27] Preene M, Powrie W. Ground energy systems: from analysis to geotechnical design.
Géotechnique 2009;59:261–71.
[28] Sagia Z. Borehole resistance and heat conduction around vertical ground heat
exchangers. Open Chem Eng J 2012;6:32–40. https://doi.org/10.2174/
1874123101206010032.
[29] Morino K, Oka T. Study on heat exchanged in soil by circulating water in a steel
pile. Energy Build 1994;21:65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-7788(94)
90017-5.
[30] Nagano K. Energy pile system in new building of Sapporo City University. Therm.
Energy Storage Sustain. Energy Consum. Springer; 2007. p. 245–53.
[31] Gao J, Zhang X, Liu J, Li K, Yang J. Numerical and experimental assessment of
thermal performance of vertical energy piles: An application. Appl Energy
2008;85:901–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.02.010.
[32] Frank R. Design of pile foundations following Eurocode 7. Danube-European Conf
Geotech Enginnering 2006:577–86.
[33] Loveridge F. The Thermal Performance of Foundation Piles used as Heat
Exchangers in Ground Energy Systems 2012:206.
[34] Hamada Y, Ochifuji K, Nagano K, Nakamura M. Low energy house with ground
source heat pump in Hokaido. Proc World Geotherm Congr 2000:3427–32.
https://doi.org/10.4271/1999-01-2667.
[35] Nagano K, Katsura T, Takeda S, Saeki E, Corporation NS, Nakamura Y, et al.
Thermal characteristics of steel foundation piles as ground heat exchangers. In:
IEA Heat Pump Conf 2005;8th.
[36] Nagano K, Katsura T, Takeda S, Ibamoto T, Narita S, Nakamura Y, et al.
Development of a design and performance prediction tool for the ground source
heat pump system. Appl Therm Eng 2006;26:1578–92.
[37] Yoon S, Lee S-R, Go G-H, Xue J, Park H, Park D. Thermal transfer behavior in two
types of W-shape ground heat exchangers installed in multilayer soils. Geomech
Eng 2014;6:79–98. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2014.6.1.079.
[38] Park H, Lee SR, Yoon S, Choi JC. Evaluation of thermal response and performance
of PHC energy pile: Field experiments and numerical simulation. Appl Energy
2013;103:12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.10.012.
[39] Loveridge F, Powrie W. Temperature response functions (G-functions) for single
pile heat exchangers. Energy 2013;57:554–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.
2013.04.060.
[40] Akrouch GA, Sánchez M, Briaud J-L. Thermo-mechanical behavior of energy piles
in high plasticity clays. Acta Geotech 2014;9:399–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11440-014-0312-5.
[41] Hamada Y, Saitoh H, Nakamura M, Kubota H, Ochifuji K. Field performance of an
energy pile system for space heating. Energy Build 2007;39:517–24. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.09.006.
[42] Bourne-Webb PJ, Amatya B, Soga K, Amis T, Davidson C, Payne P. Energy pile test
at Lambeth College, London: geotechnical and thermodynamic aspects of pile re-
sponse to heat cycles. Géotechnique 2009;59:237–48. https://doi.org/10.1680/
geot.2009.59.3.237.
[43] Bozis D, Papakostas K, Kyriakis N. On the evaluation of design parameters effects
on the heat transfer efficiency of energy piles. Energy Build 2011;43:1020–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.12.028.
[44] Singh RM, Bouazza A, Wang B, Haberfield CH, Baycan S, Carden Y. Thermal and
thermo-mechanical response of a geothermal energy pile. World Geotherm Congr
2015 2015;7.
[45] Wang B, Haberfield C, Baycan S. Field investigation of a geothermal energy pile:
Initial observations. Geotech-FrOrg 2013:3415–8. https://doi.org/10.1179/
1937525514Y.0000000002.
[46] Mccartney JS, Murphy KD. Strain distributions in full-scale energy foundations. J
Deep Found Inst 2012;6:26–38. https://doi.org/10.1179/dfi.2012.008.
[47] Jeong S, Lim H, Lee JK, Kim J. Thermally induced mechanical response of energy
piles in axially loaded pile groups. Appl Therm Eng 2014;71:608–15. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.07.007.
[48] Skouby A. Closed-Loop/Geothermal Heat Pump Systems Design and Installation
Standards Edited By 2010.
[49] You S, Cheng X, Guo H, Yao Z. Experimental study on structural response of CFG
energy piles. Appl Therm Eng 2016;96:640–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2015.11.127.
[50] Gao J, Zhang X, Liu J, Li KS, Yang J. Thermal performance and ground tem-
perature of vertical pile-foundation heat exchangers: A case study. Appl Therm Eng
2008;28:2295–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2008.01.013.
[51] Jalaluddin, Miyara A, Tsubaki K, Inoue S, Yoshida K. Experimental study of several
types of ground heat exchanger using a steel pile foundation. Renew Energy
2011;36:764–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.08.011.
[52] Batini N, Rotta Loria AF, Conti P, Testi D, Grassi W, Laloui L. Energy and geo-
technical behaviour of energy piles for different design solutions. Appl Therm Eng
2015;86:199–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.04.050.
[53] Mehrizi AA, Porkhial S, Bezyan B, Lotfizadeh H. Energy pile foundation simulation
for different configurations of ground source heat exchanger. Int Commun Heat
Mass Transf 2016;70:105–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2015.
12.001.
[54] Zarrella A, Capozza A, De Carli M. Performance analysis of short helical borehole
heat exchangers via integrated modelling of a borefield and a heat pump: A case
study. Appl Therm Eng 2013;61:36–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2013.07.021.
[55] Zarrella A, De Carli M, Galgaro A. Thermal performance of two types of energy
foundation pile: Helical pipe and triple U-tube. Appl Therm Eng 2013;61:301–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.08.011.
[56] Loveridge F, Powrie W. G-Functions for multiple interacting pile heat exchangers.
Energy 2014;64:747–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.11.014.
[57] Laloui L, Nuth M, Vulliet L. Experimental and numerical investigations of the
behaviour of a heat exchanger pile. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech
2006;30:763–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.499.
[58] Farouki OT. Thermal Propeties of Soils 1981:136.
[59] Rees SW, Adjali MH, Zhou Z, Davies M, Thomas HR. Ground heat transfer effects
on the thermal performance of earth-contact structures. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2000;4:213–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-0321(99)00018-0.
[60] Nicholson D, Agab a, Clarke BG. Model specification to determine thermal con-
ductivity of soils. Proc ICE - Geotech Eng 2008;161:161–8. https://doi.org/10.
1680/geng.2008.161.3.161.
[61] Wakao N, Kato K. Effective thermal conductivity of packed beds. J Chem Eng
Japan 1969;2:24–33. https://doi.org/10.1252/jcej.2.24.
[62] Johansen O. Thermal conductivity of soils. Engineering 1977;21:750. https://doi.
org/10.1063/1.1699752.
[63] Kim YY, Lee KM, Bang JW, Kwon SJ. Effect of W/C ratio on durability and porosity
in cement mortar with constant cement amount. Adv Mater Sci Eng 2014;2014.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/273460.
[64] Diao N, Li Q, Fang Z. Heat transfer in ground heat exchangers with groundwater
advection. Int J Therm Sci 2004;43:1203–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijthermalsci.2004.04.009.
[65] Akrouch GA, Sánchez M, Briaud J-L. An experimental, analytical and numerical
study on the thermal efficiency of energy piles in unsaturated soils. Comput
Geotech 2016;71:207–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2015.08.009.
[66] Thomas HR, Rees SW. Measured and simulated heat transfer to foundation soils.
Geotechnique 2009;59:365–75. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2008.59.4.365.
[67] De Moel M, Bach PM, Bouazza A, Singh RM, Sun JO. Technological advances and
applications of geothermal energy pile foundations and their feasibility in
Australia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:2683–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2010.07.027.
[68] Janssen H, Carmeliet J, Hens H. Envelope and Building Science 2002. https://doi.
org/10.1106/109719602023683.
[69] Janssen H, Carmeliet J, Hens H. The influence of soil moisture transfer on building
A.K. Sani, et al.
heat loss via the ground. Build Environ 2004;39:825–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2004.01.004.
[70] Jian-lin W, Zu-xu Z, Jing G. Effect of groundwater seepage on heat transfer in heat
exchanger for ground-coupled heat pumps. Phys Numer Simul Geotech Eng
2013:39–42. https://doi.org/10.5503/J.PNSGE.2013.12.009.
[71] Florides GA, Kalogirou SA. Annual ground temperature measurements at various
depths. In: Proc CLIMA 2005 2005:? doi:Proceedings of CLIMA 2005, Lausanne,
Switzerland.
[72] Busby J geological considerations before installing ground source heat pump
systems, Lewis M, Reeves H, Lawley R. Initial geological considerations before
installing ground source heat pump systems. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol
2010;42:295–306. https://doi.org/10.1144/1470-9236/08-092.
[73] Rybach L, Sanner B. Ground-Source Heat Pump Systems 2000.
[74] Cleall P. An investigation of the hydro/hydraulic/mechanical behaviour of un-
saturated soils, including expansive clays. Cardiff University; 1998.
[75] Loveridge F, Holmes G, Roberts T, Powrie W. Thermal response testing through the
Chalk aquifer in London, UK. Proc ICE - Geotech Eng 2013;166:197–210. https://
doi.org/10.1680/geng.12.00037.
[76] Busby J. UK shallow ground temperatures for ground coupled heat exchangers. Q J
Eng Geol Hydrogeol 2015;48. https://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh2015-077.
[77] Rawlings RHD, Sykulski JR. Ground source heat pumps: A technology review.
Build Serv Eng Res Technol 1999;20:119–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/
014362449902000304.
[78] Kawuwa AS, Singh RM, Cavarretta I. Ground thermal response to a pile heat ex-
changer subjected to heating load. In: Symp. Coupled Phenom. Environ. Geotech.
(CPEG2), Leeds, UK: 2017.
[79] Wood CJ, Liu H, Riffat SB. Comparison of a modelled and field tested piled ground
heat exchanger system for a residential building and the simulated effect of as-
sisted ground heat recharge. Int J Low-Carbon Technol 2010;5:137–43. https://
doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctq015.
[80] Man Y, Yang H, Wang J. Study on hybrid ground-coupled heat pump system for
air-conditioning in hot-weather areas like Hong Kong. Appl Energy
2010;87:2826–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.04.044.
[81] Faizal M, Bouazza A. Effect of forced thermal recharging on the thermal behaviour
of a field scale geothermal energy pile. Energy Geotech. 2016:557–68.
[82] Loveridge F, Olgun CG, Brettmann T, Powrie W. Group thermal response testing
for energy piles. In: Eur. Conf. Soil Mech. Geotech. Eng., vol. XVI, 2015.
[83] You S, Cheng X, Guo H, Yao Z. In-situ experimental study of heat exchange ca-
pacity of CFG pile geothermal exchangers. Energy Build 2014;79:23–31.
[84] Low JE, Loveridge F, Powrie W, Nicholson D. A comparison of laboratory and in
situ methods to determine soil thermal conductivity for energy foundations and
other ground heat exchanger applications. Acta Geotech 2015;10:209–18. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11440-014-0333-0.
[85] Low JE, Loveridge F, Powrie W. Thermal conductivity of soils by the needle probe
method, for energy foundation applications. In: 32nd Int Therm Conduct Conf
2014:11. doi:10.5703/1288284315539.
[86] Cecinato F, Loveridge F, Gajo A, Powrie W. A new modelling approach for piled
and other ground heat exchanger applications Une nouvelle approche de
modélisation pour pieux et autres applications géothermiques 2011:2–7.
[87] Low JE, Loveridge F, Powrie W. Measuring soil thermal properties for use in en-
ergy foundation design. 18Th Int Conf Soil Mech Geotech Eng 2013:3375–3378.
[88] Boënnec O. Shallow ground energy systems. Proc ICE - Energy 2008;161:57–61.
https://doi.org/10.1680/ener.2008.161.2.57.
[89] Boënnec O. Piling on the Energy. Geodrilling Int 2009;150:25–8.
[90] GSHP Association. Thermal pile design, installation and materials standards. Gr
Source Heat Pump Assoc Milt Keynes 2012:82.
[91] Reuss M, Konstantinidou E, Sanner B. 10 Years VDI 4640—German Guidelines for
Ground Coupled Heat Pumps, UTES and Direct Thermal use of the Underground.
Proc ECOSTOCK, Stock Coll New Jersey, USA 1998:8.
[92] Bourne-Webb PJ, Burlon S, Javed S, Kürten S, Loveridge F. Analysis and design
methods for energy geostructures. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;65:402–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.06.046.
[93] Sanner B. Shallow geothermal energy – history, development, current status, and
future prospects 2016:19–24.
[94] Sanner B, Geothermal E, Council E. Guidelines, Standards, Certification and Legal
Permits for Ground Source Heat Pumps in the European Union. 9th Int IEA Heat
Pump Conf 20–22 May 2008, Zürich, Switz 2008:20–2.
[95] Dincer I, Sanner B. Shallow Geothermal Energy. June:19–25 GHC Bull2001.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-0321(99)00011-8.
[96] Sanner B. Shallow Geothermal Systems, Ground Source Heat Pumps a) Technology
n.d.:1–27.
[97] Kavanaugh S. Gound source heat pumps. ASHRAE J 1998;40:31.
[98] Katzenbach PR, Clauss DF, Waberseck DT. Sustainable Energy Supply and Storage
with Enhanced Geothermal Energy Systems n.d.:3–6.
[99] Bourne-Webb PJ, Bernard J, Friedemann W, Pralle N, Uotinen VM, Widerin B.
Delivery of energy geostructures. Energy Geostructures 2013:229–63.
[100] Mimouni T, Laloui L. Thermo-Pile: A Numerical Tool for the Design of Energy
Piles. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118761809.ch13.
[101] Amis T, Loveridge F. Energy piles and other thermal foundations for GSHP –
Developments in UK practice and research. REHVA J 2014:32–5.
[102] Amatya BL, Soga K, Bourne-Webb PJ, Amis T, Laloui L. Thermo-mechanical be-
haviour of energy piles. Géotechnique 2012;62:503–19. https://doi.org/10.1680/
geot.10.P.116.
[103] Laloui L, Moreni M. In-situ thermo-mechanical load test on a heat exchanger pile.
In: Proc 4th Int Conf Deep Found Pract 1999:273–279.
[104] Wang B, Bouazza A, Singh RM, Haberfield C, Barry-macaulay D, Baycan S.
Posttemperature Effects on Shaft Capacity of a Full-Scale Geothermal Energy Pile.
J Geotechnol Geoenvironmental Eng 2014;141:04014125. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001266.
[105] Amis T, Bourne-Webb PJ, Davidson C, Amatya B, Soga K. The effects of heating
and cooling energy piles under working load at Lambeth College, UK. In: Proc 33rd
Annu 11th Int Conf Deep Found 2008:10.
[106] Cekerevac C, Laloui L. Experimental study of thermal effects on the mechanical
behaviour of a clay. J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2004;28:209–28. https://doi.
org/10.1002/nag.332.
[107] McCartney JS, Rosenberg JE. Impact of heat exchange on side shear in thermo-
active foundations. Adv. Geotech. Eng., ASCE 2011:488–98.
[108] Santiago C De, Santayana FP De, Groot M De, Urchueguía J, Badenes B, Magraner
T, et al. Thermo-mechanical behavior of a thermo-active precast pile. Bulg Chem
Commun 2016;48:41–54.
[109] Goode III JC, McCartney JS. Centrifuge modeling of end-restraint effects in energy
foundations. J Geotechnol Geoenvironmental Eng 2015;141:1–13. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001333.
[110] Stewart MA, McCartney JS. Strain Distributions in Centrifuge Model Energy
Foundations, Oakland, California, USA: 2012, p. 4376–85.
[111] Ng CWW, Shi C, Gunawan A, Laloui L. Centrifuge modelling of energy piles sub-
jected to heating and cooling cycles in clay. Proc Inst Civ Eng Struct Build
2014;4:310–6. https://doi.org/10.1680/geolett.14.00063.
[112] Ng CWW, Shi C, Gunawan A, Laloui L, Liu HL. Centrifuge modelling of installation
effects on helical anchor performance in sand. Can Geotech J 2015;52:1045–57.
[113] Wang C, Liu H, Kong G, Ng CWW. Different types of energy piles with hea-
ting–cooling cycles. Proc Inst Civ Eng 2017;170:220–31.
[114] Ahmadipur A, Basu P. Temperature-induced alterations of the shaft and base re-
sistances of a model geothermal pile in dry sand. Geo-Chicago, Chicago
2017:155–65. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784480137.016.
[115] Kalantidou K, Tang AM, Pereira J-M, Hassen G. Preliminary study on the me-
chanical behaviour of heat exchanger pile in physical model. Géotechnique
2012;62:1047–51.
[116] Yavari N, Tang AM, Pereira J-M, Hassen G. Experimental study on the mechanical
behaviour of a heat exchanger pile using physical modelling. Acta Geotech
2014;9:385–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-014-0310-7.
[117] Nguyen VT, Tang AM, Pereira J-M. Long-term thermo-mechanical behavior of
energy pile in dry sand. Acta Geotech 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-017-
0539-z.
[118] Fadejev J, Simson R, Kurnitski J, Haghighat F. A review on energy piles design,
sizing and modelling. Energy 2017;122:390–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2017.01.097.
[119] Rotta Loria AF, Gunawan A, Shi C, Laloui L, Ng CWW. Numerical modelling of
energy piles in saturated sand subjected to thermo-mechanical loads. Geomech
Energy Environ 2015;1:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gete.2015.03.002.
[120] Ng CWW, Ma QJ, Gunawan A. Horizontal stress change of energy piles subjected
to thermal cycles in sand. Comput Geotech 2016;78:54–61. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.compgeo.2016.05.003.
[121] Abdelaziz S, Ozudogru TY. Non-uniform thermal strains and stresses in energy
piles non-uniform thermal strains and stresses in energy piles. Environ Geotech
2016. https://doi.org/10.1680/jenge.15.00032.
[122] Suryatriyastuti ME, Mroueh H, Burlon S. A load transfer approach for studying the
cyclic behavior of thermo-active piles. Comput Geotech 2014;55:378–91. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2013.09.021.
[123] Arson C, Berns E, Akrouch GA, Sanchez M, Briaud J-L. Heat Propagation around
Geothermal Piles and Implications on Energy Balance 2013:628–35.
[124] Di Donna A, Rotta Loria AF, Laloui L. Numerical study of the response of a group
of energy piles under different combinations of thermo-mechanical loads. Comput
Geotech 2016;72:126–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2015.11.010.
[125] Dupray F, Laloui L, Kazangba A. Numerical analysis of seasonal heat storage in an
energy pile foundation. Comput Geotech 2014;55:67–77. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.compgeo.2013.08.004.
[126] Loveridge F, Olgun CG, Brettmann T, Powrie W. The thermal behaviour of three
different auger pressure grouted piles used as heat exchangers. Geotech Geol Eng
2015;33:273–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-014-9757-4.
[127] Loveridge F, Powrie W. Pile heat exchangers: thermal behaviour and interactions.
Proc ICE - Geotech Eng 2013;166:178–96. https://doi.org/10.1680/geng.11.
00042.
[128] Man Y, Yang H, Diao N, Liu J, Fang Z. A new model and analytical solutions for
borehole and pile ground heat exchangers. Int J Heat Mass Transf
2010;53:2593–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2010.03.001.
[129] He M, Lam H. Study of geothermal seasonal cooling storage system with energy
piles. Ecostock Conf Atl City, NJ 2006.
[130] Tarnawski VR, Leong WH, Momose T, Hamada Y. Analysis of ground source heat
pumps with horizontal ground heat exchangers for northern Japan. Renew Energy
2009;34:127–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.03.026.
[131] Faizal M, Bouazza A, Singh RM. Heat transfer enhancement of geothermal energy
piles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;57:16–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.
2015.12.065.
[132] RHI. Renewable Heat Incentive 2018. 〈http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/
scotland/grants-loans/renewables/renewable-heat-incentive〉.
[133] Singh RM, Bouazza A, Wang B. Near-field ground thermal response to heating of a
geothermal energy pile: Observations from a field test. Soils Found
2015;55:1412–26.
[134] Faizal M, Bouazza A, Singh RM. An experimental investigation of the influence of
intermittent and continuous operating modes on the thermal behaviour of a full
scale geothermal energy pile. Geomech Energy Environ 2016;8:8–29. https://doi.
A.K. Sani, et al.
org/10.1016/j.gete.2016.08.001.
[135] Akrouch GA, Sánchez M, Briaud J-L. Effect of the unsaturated soil condition on the
thermal efficiency of energy piles. IFCEE 2015:1618–27. https://doi.org/10.1061/
9780784479087.146.
[136] Kramer CA, Ghasemi-Fare O, Basu P. Laboratory thermal performance tests on a
model heat exchanger pile in sand. Geotech Geol Eng 2014. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10706-014-9786-z.
[137] Yang W, Lu P, Chen Y. Laboratory investigations of the thermal performance of an
energy pile with spiral coil ground heat exchanger. Energy Build
2016;128:491–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.07.012.
[138] Cecinato F, Loveridge F. Influences on the thermal efficiency of energy piles.
Energy 2015;82:1021–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.02.001.
[139] Loveridge F, Cecinato F. Thermal performance of thermo-active CFA piles. Environ
Geotech 2015:1–27.
[140] Sani AK, Martand R, Ignazio S. Numerical investigation on the performance of
geothermal energy contiguous flight auger (CFA) pile. In: Cui L, Bhattacharya S,
Nikitas G, editors. 15th BGA Young Geotech. Eng. Symp. Guildford: University of
Surrey; 2018. p. 69–70.
[141] Sani AK, Singh RM, Cavarretta I, Tsuha C, de HC, Bhattacharya S. Inlet & outlet
pipe heat interaction in a Contiguous Flight Auger (CFA) Pile. In: Ferrari A, Laloui
L, editors. Energy Geotech. Springer; 2018. p. 113–22.
[142] Sani AK, Singh RM, Tsuha C de HC, Cavarretta I. Pipe-pipe thermal interaction in a
geothermal energy pile. Geothermics 2019.
[143] Sani AK, Singh RM. Response of unsaturated soils to heating of geothermal energy
pile. Renew Energy 2018.
[144] Sani AK, Singh RM, Cavarretta I, Bhattacharya S. Heat storage performance of a
pile heat exchanger installed in partially saturated swelling clay. In: 7th Int Conf
Unsaturated Soils 2018:1–6.
[145] Gashti EHN, Malaska M, Kujala K. Analysis of thermo-active pile structures and
their performance under groundwater flow conditions. Energy Build
2015;105:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.07.026.
[146] Olgun CG, Geyin M, Ozudogru TY. Long-term performance of heat exchanger
boreholes at different climatic conditions. Geotech Front 2017. https://doi.org/
10.1061/9780784480472.016.
[147] Olgun CG, Ozudogru TY, Abdelaziz SL, Senol Aykut. Long-term performance of
heat exchanger piles. Acta Geotech 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-014-
0334-z.