Applied Energy 151 (2015) 178–191

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Review

Review of analytical models for heat transfer by vertical ground heat

exchangers (GHEs): A perspective of time and space scales
Min Li a,⇑, Alvin C.K. Lai b
a
School of Energy Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, China
b
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

 We provide a review and introduction

to analytic models for ground heat
exchangers.
 We evaluate various models in a time
and space scale framework.
 We compare six analytic G-functions
for ground heat exchangers of single
U-tube.
 We discuss several key problems with
indoor and in situ experimental work.
 We identify several unsolved
problems in the analysis of ground
heat exchangers.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Ground (or geothermal) heat exchangers are attracting a great deal of attention as a way of using shallow
Received 3 September 2014 geothermal energy. This paper provides not only a critical review but also a thorough introduction to the
Received in revised form 3 April 2015 analysis of heat transfer by borehole and foundation pile ground heat exchangers, with an emphasis on
Accepted 17 April 2015
different analytical models. The literature is reviewed in a time-scale framework because of the diversity
of the time and space scales involved in the thermal processes of ground heat exchangers. We summarize,
discuss, and evaluate major advances in this field, including heat-source models, short-time models,
Keywords:
models for energy piles, in situ thermal-response tests, indoor sandbox experiments, and parameter esti-
Ground heat exchanger
Energy pile
mation as an inverse problem. Of particular note is that the unit-step temperature response (i.e., G-func-
Ground-coupled heat pump tion) of a ground heat exchanger with one U-shaped pipe is calculated; and six analytical models are
Ground heat storage compared: an infinite cylinder-source model, two infinite line-source models, two finite line-source mod-
In situ thermal-response test els, and a composite-medium line-source model. This paper closes by identifying several unsolved prob-
lems that require solutions.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author at: Room 309, Energy Building, School of Energy Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410083, China. Tel.: +86 185
7311 9955.
E-mail address: cnlimin78@gmail.com (M. Li).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.070
0306-2619/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Li, A.C.K. Lai / Applied Energy 151 (2015) 178–191 179

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
2. Types of ground heat exchangers (GHEs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
3. Uniform framework for analysis of heat transfer by GHEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
3.1. Scale analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
3.2. General assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
3.3. Formalization of key problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
3.4. Methods of analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
3.4.1. Numerical vs. analytical methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
3.4.2. Analytical methods for heat conduction of GHEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
3.4.3. Duhamel’s theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
4. Key developments in heat-transfer analysis of borehole GHEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
4.1. Heat transfer models for effective thermal resistance of borehole, Rb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
4.2. Conventional models for G-function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
4.2.1. Effect of ground surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
4.2.2. Effect of groundwater movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
4.2.3. Effect of freezing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
4.2.4. Effect of moisture transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
4.2.5. Ground heat storage (GHS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
4.3. Short-term responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
4.4. A comparison study of various G-functions for borehole GHEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
5. Developments in heat-transfer analysis of pile GHEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
6. Sandbox and in situ thermal-response tests (TRTs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
6.1. In situ TRTs of GHEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
6.2. Indoor sandbox experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
6.3. Estimation of parameters from TRTs as inverse problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
7. Conclusions and future research suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

1. Introduction of GCHP and GHS systems [9]. It is impractical to develop these

Ground heat exchangers (GHEs), which are also called geother-
mal heat exchangers, have emerged as a promising and globally
accepted way of exploiting shallow geothermal energy (Fig. 1). A
GHE is essentially a channel (e.g., U-, W-, or helical-shaped) in a
vertical borehole or a foundation pile of a building, in which a cir-
culating heat-carrying fluid absorbs (or discharges) heat from (or
to) the ground [1]. This heat exchange process, together with some
special features of the ground, makes the use of GHEs attractive but
also difficult.
Through the use of a cluster of GHEs, the ground offers a feasible
economical approach to the seasonal storage of a vast amount of
solar energy and industrial waste heat (Fig. 1A and B) [1–3]. The
seasonal storage of solar energy may greatly reduce the energy
consumption of a central-heating system. The seasonal storage of
waste heat not only provides additional free heat sources for a cen-
tral-heating system but also improves the energy efficiency of
industry and reduces the industrial consumption of water. GHEs
are also critical components of ground-coupled heat pumps
(GCHPs), which use the ground as a heat source or sink to complete
a vapor-compression [4–6] or an absorption [7] heat pump cycle
(Fig. 1C and D). The use of the earth rather than the ambient air
provides a lower-temperature sink for cooling, a higher-tempera-
ture source for heating, and smaller temperature fluctuations,
thereby yielding higher efficiency for the heat pump. According
to the US Environmental Protection Agency [8], ground source heat
pumps have the lowest CO2 emissions and the lowest overall
environmental costs of all the technologies analyzed.
Despite their great energy-saving potential, ground heat storage
(GHS) and GCHPs have not yet been fully developed. This undesir-
able state is mainly due to difficulties in the design and analysis of
GHEs, which involve complicated heat transfer calculations [4,5].
Knowledge of the thermal processes in the ground is also a prereq-
uisite for creating optimum strategies for the control and operation
strategies experimentally because a matrix of GHEs is very large
and is coupled thermally to the ground. Theoretical predictions
from heat-transfer models seem to be the only feasible cost-effi-
cient approach to developing these strategies [1]. Additionally, var-
ious types of GHEs, drilling technologies, and systems are steadily
evolving, further highlighting the importance of research on the
fundamental thermal process of GHEs.
Surprisingly, however, relatively few attempts have been made
to improve our understanding of the thermal process. The authors
categorized and analyzed a set of representative reports published
during the period 1990–2012 that concern GCHPs and vertical
GHEs. Among them, system-related studies and in situ experi-
ments account for almost 70%, with the remaining 30% being
devoted to heat transfer analysis by analytical or numerical meth-
ods (27%) and to laboratory experiments (3%). The lack of funda-
mental heat transfer research might stem largely from the
difficulty of the analysis and from the scattered appearance of
reports on the subject over decades. The authors believe that a
thorough critical review of the literature, accompanied by a sys-
tematic introduction to this topic, will help engineers understand
this problem and also help researchers with their investigations.
There are reviews of GCHPs and GHS, but most of them focus on
applications and system-related work, such as heat pump tech-
nologies [10], types of GHEs and GSHP systems [11,12], integrated
approaches [13], comparisons with other heating options [14], and
the status of recent applications in different regions and countries,
including Europe [15], Australia [16], Korea [17], and China [18].
From the perspective of heat transfer, the pioneering work of
Ingersoll et al. [4] summarized research up to and including the
1950s. It provides an excellent basis for subsequent developments
in this field. Hellstrom reviewed analyses of borehole GHEs, with a
primary focus on duct GHS systems [1]. Although several recent
papers covered aspects of heat transfer calculations, such as the
design method and penalty temperature [19], parameter
180 M. Li, A.C.K. Lai / Applied Energy 151 (2015) 178–191
Fig. 1. Methods of exploiting shallow geothermal energy that employ borehole GHEs with single or double U-shaped tubes.
estimation [20–22], quasi-steady heat transfer around a borehole
[23], and progress in conventional models for borehole GHEs
[24], a systematic review of recent developments in the analysis
of heat transfer through pile and borehole GHEs is still unavailable.
This paper aims to fill this gap in our knowledge by providing
not only a critical review but also a systematic introduction to heat
transfer analysis for vertical GHEs. This paper attempts to evaluate
existing models within a time- and space-scale framework. This
approach enables us to find enough common threads to make a
‘‘high pass’’ over the complex details of each model. At the same
time, it also provides key references and descriptive details, which
may help novices follow the theoretical development.
Furthermore, this paper identifies some unsolved issues and
problems associated with heat transfer by GHEs, which deserve
to be explored in the future.
2. Types of ground heat exchangers (GHEs)
GHEs can have various configurations. This review focuses only
on closed loops, or more precisely, borehole and foundation pile
GHEs. The borehole type is the most common. It consists of one
or two U-shaped pipes that are inserted into a vertical borehole
and connected to a heat pump or a heating system to form a closed
loop (Fig. 1). A U-shaped channel usually comprises two small-di-
ameter high-density polyethylene (HDPE) tubes thermally fused to
form a U-shaped bend at the bottom [5]. The space between the
wall of the borehole and the U-shaped tubes is usually grouted
completely with grouting material or, in some cases, partially filled
with groundwater [25]. The depth of the hole (generally from 30 m
to 200 m) depends strongly on local geological conditions and
available drilling equipment.
In a foundation pile GHE (or energy pile), the heat transfer tubes
are inside the steel frame of a foundation pile. There are various
possible shapes, two of which are shown in Fig. 2 [26].
Foundation piles are usually much shallower than boreholes and
have a greater radius. These features of building piles and heat-
exchange channels make the heat transfer analysis of energy piles
somewhat different from that of borehole GHEs. Since energy piles
generally require less land area, this technology is evoking
increasing interest in the GCHP community; and thus, recent
advances in this field are reviewed in Section 5.
3. Uniform framework for analysis of heat transfer by GHEs
3.1. Scale analysis
A huge challenge in predicting the thermal response of a GHE is
the diversity of the time and space scales involved. It is necessary
to analyze these scales because most heat-transfer models make
assumptions about the time characteristics of the thermal process.
The time scales important for heat transfer through vertical GHEs
can be estimated by analyzing the differential equation (Eq. (1a))
for heat conduction. According to Bejan [27], estimates of the
orders of magnitude of the terms in Eq. (1a) are given by Eq. (1b)
for a given radial space range, Dr:
 
@T a @ @T
¼ r ð1aÞ
@t r @r @r
 
DT a 1 DT
 Dr ; ð1bÞ
t Dr Dr Dr
where t denotes the estimated time, and a is the thermal diffusivity
of the medium. The symbol ‘‘’’ used here means ‘‘is of the same
order of magnitude as’’ [27]. When the transient term on the left
is comparable to the diffusion term on the right, the time t can be
estimated by rearranging the scaling relation Eq. (1b):
t  ðDr Þ2 =a: ð2Þ
The transient term can be ignored when t is about equal to
10(Dr)2/a. From Eq. (2), it is easy to estimate several time scales
that are of practical importance, provided that the orders of mag-
nitude of the thermal diffusivities of the grouting material, ab,
and the ground, as, are known (e.g., 106 m2/s).
Four space scales and eight time scales (Fig. 3) are involved in
the heat transfer of GHEs. The first space scale having practical
importance is the diameter of the borehole, rb, (0.1 m) and the
associated time (tb  r2b =ab ) is on the order of 1 h, during which
the effect of the heat capacity of the backfilling material is
 M. Li, A.C.K. Lai / Applied Energy 151 (2015) 178–191 181

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of energy piles with (a) spiral coil and (b) W-shaped tube. (Source: Authors’ published paper [26].)

3.2. General assumptions

Several assumptions must be made when developing a mathe-

matical model. The most common ones are given below.

Assumption 1: The ground is infinite or semi-infinite in extent,

depending on whether or not the influence of
the surface is considered.
Assumption 2: The ground has a uniform initial temperature
(effective undisturbed ground temperature). If
the surface is considered, this initial temperature
can be used as a constant-temperature boundary
condition (BC) for the surface.
Assumption 3: The BC for the wall of borehole or heat transfer
pipe is either a constant flux or a constant temper-
ature, with the constant-flux BC being more
convenient.
Fig. 3. Time and space scales involved in thermal process of borehole GHEs. The
thermal process can span four space scales and eight time scales. (Source: Authors’ Assumption 4: If the effect of the seepage of groundwater cannot
published paper [86].) be ignored, the flow is generally assumed to be
homogeneous and parallel to the surface.
Assumption 5: Although the ground is usually layered and inho-
significant. The second important space dimension is the half dis- mogeneous, the ground can be treated as a med-
tance between two adjacent boreholes, L, which is on the order ium with an equivalent thermal conductivity,
of several meters. The corresponding time tL  L2/as is on the order ks,e. Analytical models use Assumption 5 almost
of a month, during which the thermal interaction between adja- exclusively. At first glance, this assumption seems
cent boreholes is important. The largest space scale can be tens to be highly idealized; but several numerical stud-
of meters or more, such as the half length of a borehole, H/2, and ies have confirmed that it is appropriate for pre-
the horizontal scale of a GHE cluster. The time scale involved, dicting the overall temperature response [28–
tH  H2/4as, is as long as the lifetime of a GHE (decades). There is 30]. It should be noted that this equivalence prop-
another time, tr  H/u, (where u denotes the velocity of the fluid erty is also a key parameter used in practical GCHP
in the pipes) called the residence time, which has been discussed system design [5]. In fact, there are several theo-
in some studies [1]. It is generally several minutes long. It is the retical expressions for ks,e [31]. For example, the
time during which the heat capacity of the fluid circulating in a equivalent conductivities are
pipe needs to be addressed.
The short-term hourly temperature response of the ground is 1 XN
vital for analyzing the energy of GCHP and GHS systems and for ks;e ¼ PN k b
i¼1 s;i i
ð3aÞ
i¼1 bi
their optimum control and operation. By contrast, the long-term
response determines the overall feasibility of a system from the for a horizontally layered ground medium and
standpoint of life cycle. Addressing the complete spectrum of time
1 1 XN bi
scales require vast computational resources, particularly in ¼ PN ð3bÞ
ks;e i¼1 bi
i¼1 k
s;i
large-scale applications.
182 M. Li, A.C.K. Lai / Applied Energy 151 (2015) 178–191
for a vertically layered ground medium, where ks,i and bi are the
thermal conductivity and thickness of the ith layer of the ground,
respectively, and N is the total number of layers. An expression
for ground stratified in an arbitrary direction can also be found in
Ref. [31].
Assumptions 1–5 are widely used in analytical models of GHEs,
and they have been verified to some extent by numerical simula-
tions [28–30,32].
3.3. Formalization of key problem
The main questions that engineers may ask in the early stages
of designing a GHE are (a) what the heat transfer rate of a GHE
as a function of time is, given a particular temperature difference
between the circulating fluid and the ground, and (b) what the
temperature difference as a function of time is, given a required
heat exchange rate. In the language of heat transfer, the two ques-
tions can probably be expressed as [4]
T f ðtÞ  T s;0 DT
ql ¼ ¼ ;
RðtÞ RðtÞ
where Tf is the average temperature of the circulating fluid, Ts,0 is
the effective, undisturbed temperature of the ground, ql is the heat
transfer rate of the GHE per unit time per unit length (W/m), and R
is the total thermal resistance (mK/W).
Eq. (4) provides a general basis for modeling the thermal pro-
cesses of vertical GHEs, including borehole GHEs and energy piles.
For a GHE, R(t) is often an unknown variable that needs to be deter-
mined by heat transfer analysis. Despite R(t) being a function of
time, analytical models exclusively decompose it into a time-inde-
pendent part and a time-dependent part to simplify the analysis.
Thus, a possible approach to evaluating existing models can rest
in a time-scale context, in which the constant part of R is evaluated
according to specific requirements.
The unsteady part of R is often denoted by G(t) (called the G-
function). There are minor differences between the G-functions
proposed by different researchers [26,29]. The G-function1 was first
suggested in a dimensionless form by Ingersoll et al. [4] and was
subsequently used and further developed by Eskilson [28] and
Claesson and Eskilson [29]. The dimensionless form is widely used
because it facilitates the analysis and summary of results [5,33–
35]. By contrast, the G-function used here has a clear physical mean-
ing: It has the same dimension as thermal resistance and is entirely
consistent with the unit-step response function defined in the prin-
ciple of superposition (Section 3.4.3) [26]. In other words, the
unsteady thermal resistance, G, can be understood as the tempera-
ture response in the ground due to a unit-step change in the heat
flux, ql. Using the definition of G, Eq. (4) becomes
DT ¼ ql RðtÞ ¼ ql ½Rs þ Gðx; tÞ;
where x denotes the coordinates of the point under consideration;
and Rs is the steady part of the thermal resistance, which depends
on the choice of x.
The temperature, Tf, in Eqs. (4) and (5) is the average tempera-
ture of the ground loops. Another model or assumption is neces-
sary to determine the temperatures of the inlet and outlet fluids.
One commonly used assumption is that Tf approximately equals
the average of the temperatures of the inlet and outlet fluids of
the GHE [5]. Thus, the temperatures at the inlet and outlet, Tf,i
and Tf,o, respectively, are
1
Some GCHP reports mistake the G-function for Eskilson’s G-function. As shown in
Section 3.4.3, the G-function is defined in Duhamel’s theorem and was initially
proposed by Ingersoll et al. [4].
8
< T f;i ðtÞ ¼ T f ðtÞ þ ql H
2qf cf V f
; ð6Þ
: T f;o ðtÞ ¼ T f ðtÞ  ql H
2qf cf V f
where subscript f denotes fluid; H is the length of the GHE; and q, c,
and V are density, mass specific heat, and volume flow rate, respec-
tively. Eq. (6) is equivalent to qfcfVf(Tf,i  Tf,o) = qlH. More accurate
expressions for Tf,o can be found by solving energy balance equa-
tions for the circulating fluid based for a given Tf,i and for a specific
point x. A good example of this is the quasi-three-dimensional mod-
els for Rb reviewed in Section 4.1.
To conclude, the key to heat transfer analysis is first to deter-
mine G and Rs. Then, Tf, Tf,i, and Tf,o can be determined. Existing
models, as discussed in Sections 4 and 5, can be evaluated in terms
of the extent to which the predictions are affected by the constant
thermal resistance, Rs.
3.4. Methods of analysis
3.4.1. Numerical vs. analytical methods
ð4Þ
Analytical methods and models appear to be more useful than
numerical methods for advancing GHE technology. Although
numerical methods, such as finite-difference [28–30,36], finite-
volume [37–39], and finite-element methods [40–42], are elabo-
rate enough to describe all the underlying physical mechanisms,
they are impractical for engineering applications for three reasons:
(1) They are time consuming for year-round and/or life-cycle sim-
ulations, particularly in large applications where all the time and
space scales are important and must be tackled. (2) It is very diffi-
cult for in-house programming to develop a general grid genera-
tion program for various configurations of ground channels; and
it is thus very difficult to develop software for the analysis, design,
and simulation of GHS and GCHPs. (3) In the literature, a majority
of numerical models are implemented in commercial software,
such as Fluent and Ansys. However, it is very difficult to incorpo-
rate commercial software into the pre- and post-processing stages
to perform a system simulation for a particular application. It is
also difficult for designers and engineers to use computational fluid
dynamics software. Thus, it would be better to use a general design
and simulation tool based on analytical heat-transfer models. This
paper focuses mainly on analytical models, and numerical models
are mentioned only when necessary.
3.4.2. Analytical methods for heat conduction of GHEs
The most widely used analytical tools for analyzing heat trans-
fer in GHEs are Kelvin’s theory of heat sources and the Laplace
transform method [4,43]. Kelvin’s theory of heat sources has a very
clear simple physical meaning [43]: Taking the solution of an
instantaneous point source (an abstract concept similar to the
ð5Þ mass point in mechanics) as a fundamental solution (also called
Green’s function for an infinite medium) enables the solution for
a continuous point source to be obtained by the integration of
the fundamental solution over time. The solutions for line, plane,
surface, and volume sources can also be obtained by the integra-
tion of point-source solutions over appropriate space variables.
This method has proven to be extremely successful in analyzing
the thermal processes of various GHEs because many configura-
tions of boreholes and ground loops, which are intractable by other
means, can be well approximated by line or surface sources of heat.
The Laplace transform method basically has two steps [43,44]:
First, applying the Laplace transform reduces the original problem
to a subsidiary problem, whose solution is easy to find. And second,
the solution to the original problem can be derived by the use of
the inversion theorem for the Laplace transform. This method is
often used to derive short-term solutions for borehole GHEs
(Section 4.3) and to obtain fundamental solutions for the
 M. Li, A.C.K. Lai / Applied Energy 151 (2015) 178–191 183

heat-source method [45]. These two methods are described in 4.1. Heat transfer models for effective thermal resistance of borehole,
great detail in the classical book of Carslaw and Jaeger [43]. Rb

Heat transfer in a borehole depends on the configuration of the

3.4.3. Duhamel’s theorem
Duhamel’s theorem, which is also known as the principle of
superposition [43,44], is an efficient theoretical tool for developing
solutions to heat conduction with time-dependent BCs and/or
time-varying energy source terms. In actual applications, the heat
transfer rate of GHEs varies continuously due to variations in the
cooling or heating loads of buildings. According to Duhamel’s the-
orem, the problems of time-varying loads can easily be tackled by
using the solution to the problem for a unit-step load [43,44]:
Z t
@Gðx; t  sÞ
T 1 ðx; tÞ ¼ T s;0 þ ql ðsÞ ds;
0 @t
where T1 is the temperature at the point under consideration, x; the
time-dependent function ql(t) is the heat exchange rate of a GHE;
and s is an integral variable with the dimension of time. The func-
tion G is the temperature response to the unit-step load of a GHE; it
is the same as in Eq. (5). Since the heating and cooling loads of a
building are commonly available as step-wise constant values (on
an hourly, daily, or other basis), it is more convenient to write Eq.
(7) as Eq. (8) [44]:
X
N1
T 1 ðx; tÞ ¼ T s;0 þ Dql;j Gðx; t  jDtÞ:
j¼0
Here, Dql,j is the step-wise change in ql at the beginning of the
jth time interval. Eqs. (7) and (8) imply that the temperature
response of any time-varying ql is readily determined once the
response to the unit-step load, that is, the G-function, is available.
Thus, a heat transfer analysis can focus only on the development of
the G-function.
4. Key developments in heat-transfer analysis of borehole GHEs
The borehole GHE is the most common type of GHE and has
been studied extensively. The conventional way in which the ther-
mal processes of a borehole GHE are decomposed (i.e., R) is in
terms of the radius of the borehole: The process in the borehole
is assumed to be in a steady state that is described by the effective
thermal resistance of the borehole, Rb. The process outside the
borehole depends on time and is represented by a G-function.
This decomposition is widely accepted and used; and for simplic-
ity, all the models based on this assumption are called conven-
tional models in this paper. While Yang et al. have reviewed
recent developments in this field [24], in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 we
discuss these conventional models in the time-scale framework,
which yields new insights.
flow channels, the thermal properties of the grouting materials,
and the surrounding ground. This local thermal process has three
components:
(1) convective heat transfer between the circulating fluid and
the inner surface of the U-shaped pipes,
(2) conductive heat transfer through the wall of the U-shaped
pipe, and
(3) conductive heat transfer through the backfill material.
In a strict sense, if t is greater than or equal to 5tb, the thermal
ð7Þ
process in the borehole can approach a steady-flux state (not a
steady state), which is a state in which the temperature difference
between the fluid and the wall of the borehole (not the tempera-
tures themselves) is constant. Under this steady-flux condition,
the three processes can be characterized by three constant thermal
resistances; and their sum yields the effective fluid-to-ground
thermal resistance, Rb (mK W1) [1].
The thermal resistances associated with the first two processes
are referred to as the thermal resistance of the pipe, Rp. It is easy to
calculate from the formula [1]
1 ro 1
Rp ¼ ln þ ; ð9Þ
ð8Þ 2pkp ri 2pr i a
where kp is the thermal conductivity of the U-shaped pipe
(W m1 K1); ro and ri denote the outer and inner radii of the legs
of the U-shaped pipe, respectively; and a is the convective heat
transfer coefficient (W m2 K1). There are many formulas for cal-
culating or estimating a. The most common formula for turbulent
flow in a circular pipe is the one proposed by Dittus and Boelter
[27]:
2ar i
Nu ¼ ¼ 0:023 Re4=5 Pr n ; ð10Þ
kf
where kf is the thermal conductivity of the fluid; Re is Reynold’s
number, which is defined in terms of the diameter of the pipe; Pr
is Prandtl’s number, which is determined at the mean temperature
of the bulk fluid; and n is equal to 0.4 when the fluid is being heated,
and to 0.3 when it is being cooled. Eq. (10) is a good approximation
when 0.7 6 Pr 6 120, 2500 6 Re 6 124,000, and the ratio of length
to diameter is greater than 60. Although an empirical correlation
simply yields a rough estimate of a due to the inherent complexity
of convective heat transfer, the influence of such a rough estimate
on the calculation of Rb is negligible because convective thermal
resistance accounts for only 2–3% of Rb in most situations (except
in the case of laminar flow) [46].
Models for Rb can be divided into empirical and theoretical
groups, and some of them are listed in Table 1. Typical empirical

Table 1
Models of effective thermal resistance of borehole of GHE with single U-shape pipe.

Expressions for Rb Comments

Empirical models Rb ¼ 1
b
This expression uses the shape-factor concept in heat conduction. The empirical
b0 kb ðrb =r p Þ 1
coefficients are obtained by fitting experimental data [49]
Rb ¼ 2p1k ln prffiffinbr This is derived from the equivalent-diameter assumption. n denotes the number of pipes in
b p
a borehole [48]
 qffiffiffiffi
rb rp This is for a GHE with a single U-shaped pipe. It is also derived from the equivalent-
Rb ¼ 2p1k ln rp D
b
diameter assumption [47]
  r 

Two-dimensional models r2 r4b R The influence of ks is represented by the dimensionless ratio r. g is equal to 0 or calculated
Rb ¼ 4p1k ln 2Drb o r4 D  g þ 2p
b
4
b
from Eq. (11), which is derived by the multipole method [1]
 
Quasi-three-dimensional models Rb ¼ q cHf V f
T f;i T b
 12 Tf,o is obtained by solving energy equations for up- and down-flow channels [53]
f T f;i T f;o
184 M. Li, A.C.K. Lai / Applied Energy 151 (2015) 178–191

models are one-dimensional models that take the U-shaped pipe to
be a pipe of ‘‘equivalent’’ diameter [47,48]. This equivalent-diame-
ter assumption simplifies a two-dimensional geometric region into
a concentric annular region, thereby reducing a complicated multi-
dimensional problem to a simple one-dimensional one. Empirical
models may contain several empirical constants, which may be
determined by fitting experimental or computational data to the
model for a particular geometric arrangement [49,50]. Empirical
models are widely used because of their simplicity; but they pro-
vide little insight into the underlying heat transfer processes,
which makes them difficult to generalize.
Theoretical models can be broken down into two-dimensional
and quasi-three-dimensional models. A Swedish group proposed
two two-dimensional models for Rb [1], one derived from the
steady-state line-source assumption and one based on a multipole
method. The difference between them lies in the dimensionless
variable g (defined in Table 1). For the configuration with a single
U-shaped tube, either g equals 0, if the steady-state line-source
assumption is used, or it is calculated from Eq. (11), which is
derived from the first-order multipole expression [1]
  2
ro 4rD4
2D
1  r 4 D4
g¼ b ;
1þ2pkb Rp r 2 16rD4 r 4
12pkb Rp
þ 4Do2 1 þ 4 4 b2
ðrb D Þ
proposed a mathematically rigorous boundary condition at rc
based on a matched-asymptotic-expansion technique [52].
Empirical and two-dimensional theoretical models consider the
local heat exchange at a given depth but ignore the variation in the
temperature of the fluid in the downward and upward channels. To
address this variation, Hellstrom proposed two quasi-three-dimen-
sional models for Rb, one employing a uniform-flux BC for the bore-
hole wall and one employing a uniform-temperature BC [1]. The
final expressions include additional correction factors for the
two-dimensional models. Based on Hellstrom’s models, Zeng
et al. also devised quasi-three-dimensional models for GHEs with
single and double U-shaped tubes. They employ functions of the
temperature of the fluid at the outlet (Table 1); the expressions
for the outlet temperature are rather complex and can be found
in their paper [53].
Last but not least, all the models for Rb are applicable only for
time t > 5tb, which means that the steady-flux state is attained in
the borehole. These models are conventionally used together with
a G-function for the thermal process outside the borehole
(Section 4.2). Therefore, no matter which G-function is used, the
conventional approach is unsuitable for t < 5tb when a rapidly-
varying heat flux must be addressed. To describe the thermal
response to a high-frequency heat flux, we must deal with the
ð11Þ
effect of the heat capacities of the backfilling materials in the bore-
hole. Work on this is reviewed in Section 4.3.

where D is the half spacing between the legs of the U-shaped tube;
the dimensionless variable r is defined to be (kb  ks)/(kb + ks); and
ks and kb denote the thermal conductivities of the ground and back-
filling materials, respectively. The difference between the line-
source model and the first-order multipole model (i.e., g) is usually
less than 15% in most situations [1].
It should be noted that ks enters the two-dimensional models
via the dimensionless variable r, highlighting the fact that the
thermal conductivity not only of the backfill material but also of
the surrounding ground can affect the steady-flux thermal process
within the borehole. All empirical expressions incorrectly ignore
the influence of ks by arbitrarily imposing a constant-temperature
BC on the wall of the borehole [47–50]. Theoretical models address
the influence of ks by imposing a constant-temperature BC at a cer-
tain distance rc from the wall [1]. Thus, the predictions of the mod-
els depend somewhat on the choice of rc. To completely eliminate
the dependence on rc, Claesson and Hellstrom have recently refor-
mulated the multipole model and derived a physically and mathe-
matically correct definition of Rb [51]; Hermanns and Pérez also
4.2. Conventional models for G-function
The conventional models for a G-function have been inspired by
the seminal work of Ingersoll et al. [4], who presented an infinite
line-source model and a cylindrical-source model for heat transfer
through the ground. Even though they did not develop concrete
expressions, they did propose ideas for dealing with additional
complicated factors, including the method of images of heat
sources used to account for the influence of the ground surface,
the moving heat-source method for determining the effect of the
movement of groundwater, and the principle of superposition for
addressing the issue of variable heating rates. They also discussed
relevant topics such as the effect of ice formation, moisture trans-
fer, temperature recovery, and heat storage [4]. Subsequently, the
ideas suggested by Ingersoll et al. were extended to the analysis
of borehole GHEs. Table 2 lists some typical G-functions, all of
which are for the point rb on the borehole wall because the thermal
resistance, R, is split depending on the radius of the borehole in the
conventional approach. These functions are discussed below.

Table 2
Model developments for G-function.

Expression for G-function Comments

Infinite cylindrical-surface source model [4]
R1
Gðt; r b Þ ¼ p2 r1 ks 0 ðeas u t  1Þ J0 ðurbuÞY
2
1 ður b ÞY 0 ður b ÞJ 1 ður b Þ
du It is more complicated than the line-source model, and it is difficult to extend to handle other influences
2 J 2 ður ÞþY 2 ður Þ
b ½1 b 1 b 
(surface of ground, seepage flow, etc.)
Infinite line-source model [4]
R1  2 
Gðt; r b Þ ¼ 4p1ks r2 =4as t expðuÞ
r
du ¼ 4p1ks E1 4abs t It has the same performance as the infinite cylindrical surface model, and it is easy to extend to handle other
u
b relevant factors
Finite line-source model [55]
2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2ffi3
r2 þðzz0 Þ
bpffiffiffiffi
2
r 2 þðzþz0 Þ
bpffiffiffiffi
It is suitable for predicting long-term responses because the influence of the ground surface is considered.
R H 6erfc 2 as t
erfc
2 as t 7 0 This G also depends on z, but the value at z = H/2 is usually used as the average G-function
Gðt; rb ; zÞ ¼ 4pk 0 4 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2 7
1 6
5dz
s r2b þðzz0 Þ r 2b þðzþz0 Þ

Infinite moving line-source model [59]

  R r2 =4a t  
U 2 r 2b g This model accounts for the effect of the characteristic velocity of groundwater, U, on the responses of
Gðt; r b Þ ¼ 4p1ks I0 Ur
s 1 1
g exp  g  16a2 dg
b b
2as 0 s borehole GHEs
Infinite phase-change line-source model [43]
h  r2 i
Gðt; rb Þ ¼ Tq1 þ 4p1k E1 ðb2 Þ  E1 4abfr t This is the only analytical solution that can address the issue of ice formation. T1 is the melting-point of
l fr
groundwater; afr and kfr are the effective properties of frozen soil; and b is the root of Eq. (18)
 M. Li, A.C.K. Lai / Applied Energy 151 (2015) 178–191 185

Practically speaking, the ground can be thought of as an infinite we compare the complicated cylindrical-surface source model
medium. Thus, heat transfer outside a borehole can be presumed to with the line-source model, the former seems unnecessary and
be heat conduction in an infinite region bounded internally by the impractical because the difference between the two is less than
borehole wall, which is subject to the boundary condition of a con- 10%.
stant flux or temperature. Carslaw and Jaeger employed the Second, Eq. (16) (including Eq. (12)) cannot be used to predict
Laplace transform method [43] to solve this problem. Then, the response of GHEs for very long times (t  tH) because it ignores
Ingersoll et al. used that solution to model the thermal processes the influence of the ground surface. This is a common disadvantage
of buried pipes [4], and Deerman and Kavanaugh used it to model of all the models that assume the ground to be an infinite medium.
U-tube GHEs [54]. This model is often referred to as the infinite
cylindrical-surface source model. It is given mathematically by 4.2.1. Effect of ground surface
8 2  The ground surface has an impact on long-term temperature
> @ Ts 1 @T s
> qs cs @t ¼ ks @r2 þ r @r
@T s
> variations in the ground, especially when the heating and cooling
>
>
< loads differ from each other. Excess heating or cooling loads can
r ¼ r b  2pr b ks @T
@r
s
¼ ql : ð12Þ
> accumulate in the ground, causing the average ground tempera-
>
> r ! 1 T s ¼ T s;0
>
> ture to gradually increase or decrease over time to such an extent
:
t ¼ 0 T s ¼ T s;0 that heat transfer through the ground surface becomes significant.
If the time is long enough, a quasi-steady-state can be approached
Here, r denotes radial distance. Carslaw and Jaeger’s solution is
whereby the excess heat is transferred to the air through the
[43]
ground surface [55–57].
T s ðt; r b Þ ¼ T s;0 þ ql Gðt; rb Þ; ð13Þ As discussed in Section 3.2, the effect of the ground surface is
generally simplified and taken to be a constant-temperature BC.
where the response function G(t, rb) is given in Table 2. For large val-
While the influence of the ground surface cannot be addressed
ues of ast/r2b, the G-function can also be written as
by the infinite cylindrical-source model, it can be treated analyti-
  
1 4as t r2 4as t cally by the method of images if Kelvin’s theory of heat sources
Gðr; tÞ ¼ ln 2  c þ ln 2  c þ 1 ; ð14Þ
4pks r 2as t r is used: The ground surface is thought of as a reflecting plane,
and a mirror-image line of heat sinks (strength: ql) exists [58].
where c = 0.5772 is Euler’s constant. The symmetrical distribution of line source and sink can keep the
The radius of the borehole of a GHE is usually several centime- temperature of the ground surface at a constant value. The addition
ters. It is very small compared to the length, which is tens of of the temperature responses of the heat sources and sinks yields
meters. Thus, this very thin borehole can be thought of as a line finite line-source models [55–57]; the final expression is given in
of infinite length with no volume that releases (or absorbs) heat Table 2. The finite line-source model requires a double integral to
to (or from) the surrounding soil [1,4,55–57]. This approach is obtain the integral average temperature of the borehole wall,
called the infinite line-source model and is given mathematically which leads to a marked increase in computational cost.
by Lamarche reformulated the finite line-source model so as to avoid
8 2 
use of the double integral [57].
>
>
> qs cs @T@ts ¼ ks @@rT2s þ 1r @T@rs
>
>
<
r ! 0  2pks limr @T s
¼ ql 4.2.2. Effect of groundwater movement
r!0 @r : ð15Þ
>
> The movement of groundwater affects heat transfer by involv-
> r ! 1 T s ¼ T s;0
>
>
: ing gross heat convection, which is significant for the long-term
t ¼ 0 T s ¼ T s;0 temperature response of GHEs [2]. Whereas a conservative design
The difference between Eqs. (15) and (12) is the way in which assumes no benefit from this flow [25], an analytical estimate of
the BC on the borehole wall (r = rb) is dealt with. The solution to the influence of groundwater flow is desirable. Most analytical
Eq. (15) is [4,43] models solve this diffusion-convection problem by using the mov-
Z ing heat-source method, which was first proposed by Ingersoll
1
ql expðuÞ et al. [4] and was further explored or extended by Diao et al.
T s ðt; r b Þ ¼ T s;0 þ du ¼ T s;0 þ ql Gðt; r b Þ: ð16Þ
4pks r 2 =4as t u [59], Sutton, et al. [60], Molina-Giraldo [61,62], Chiasson and
b
O’Connell [63], and Tye-Gingras and Gosselin [64]. All these mod-
For large values of as t=r 2b , the exponential integral E1 defined in els are theoretically identical to each other, and that of Diao et al. is
Table 2 can be approximated by [43] given in Table 2. The seepage flow of groundwater may be very
 2    complex, being vertical, horizontal, or both. All these analytical
1 rb 1 4as t
E1 ¼ ln 2  c ; ð17Þ models, however, use Assumption 4 in Section 3.2. Therefore, their
4pks 4as t 4pks rb
accuracy depends heavily on how closely this assumption repre-
with a maximum error of 2% for t > 5tb. Eq. (17) is also equal to the sents the actual seepage conditions. A further extension of analyt-
first two terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (14). The infinite line- ical solutions to consider more complicated seepage flows is
source model is widely used in GHE simulation because of its sim- extremely difficult. The movement of groundwater in a porous
plicity. Nevertheless, it suffers from two limitations on the time aquifer may also cause heat transfer by thermal dispersion [31].
scale. Several authors have addressed the effect of thermal dispersion
First, Eq. (16) is unsuitable for small periods because of the line- through the concept of modified thermal conductivity [61,65].
source assumption. This assumption can initially delay the temper-
ature response at the borehole wall if a hollow borehole is 4.2.3. Effect of freezing
employed, as in the infinite cylindrical-surface source model (Eq. ASHRAE recommends that all ground-source heat pumps use
(12)). The relative error between these two models is less than extended-range heat pump units for most water-to-air configura-
about 10% when t  5tb [1] and 2% when t  20tb [4]. An interesting tions [5]. An extended-range heat pump is a unit specifically
observation is that t > 5tb is required when using any of these G- designed to operate when the entering water has a temperature
functions in conjunction with any of the models for Rb reviewed (leaving the GHE) of 4 °C in the heating mode and 38 °C in the
in Section 4.1 (i.e., the conventional approach). In this sense, if cooling mode. A temperature of 4 °C for the entering water
186 M. Li, A.C.K. Lai / Applied Energy 151 (2015) 178–191
implies a lower average temperature of the fluid in the ground
loop, which can cause problems with groundwater freezing.
Only one analytical expression is available for estimating the
influence of freezing. It combines the infinite line-source solu-
tion with Neumann’s treatment for the phase-change interface
[4,43]. This expression may be suitable for a porous aquifer if
proper modifications are made. Table 2 gives a G-function
derived from this solution, in which parameter b is the root of
Eq. (18) [43]:
ql ks h1 expðb2 afz =as Þ
expðb2 Þ  ¼ b2 afz nqf Q L ;
4p E1 ðb2 afz =as Þ
where E1 is the exponential integral defined in Table 2; h = Ts,0  Ts
is the excess temperature; the subscript fz denotes frozen ground;
the subscript 1 denotes the freezing-point of water; n is the porosity
of a porous aquifer; QL is the latent heat of freezing; and qf is the
density of the groundwater. Ingersoll et al. conducted a simple case
study using this solution to explore the effect of groundwater freez-
ing [4]. Their preliminary conclusion is that, among the factors
affecting heat transfer, freezing is much less important than mois-
ture transfer.
4.2.4. Effect of moisture transfer
Heat transfer in a porous medium is often accompanied by
moisture transfer [66]. Even though heat transfer due to moisture
transfer by GHEs may be a minor contribution, the accompanying
variations in the thermal properties of the ground can be large,
thereby significantly affecting the thermal process in the ground.
An increase in the amount of moisture in dry soil can lead to a large
increase in thermal conductivity, while diffusivity generally rises
to a maximum (2–3 times the dry value) at a moisture content of
5–10% [43]. Moisture transfer coupled with heat transfer may
involve the evaporation (or condensation) of water and diffusion
driven by temperature (Soret/Luikov effect), or pressure differ-
ences [66]. These processes make the analysis more complicated.
Analytical solutions seem to be impossible. Very little investigative
work has been done on a coupled heat and moisture process asso-
ciated with the temperature levels of a GCHP system. Reuss et al.
used the finite-difference method to investigate coupled heat and
moisture transfer in high-temperature ground heat storage [67],
and found that a deep moisture gradient was detected and drying
out and cracking out may occurred in some ground media.
4.2.5. Ground heat storage (GHS)
A GHE used for GHS has a different purpose from one used for a
GCHP. In a GCHP, heat exchange between GHEs and the surround-
ing ground should be maximized; while in GHS, it should be min-
imized to reduce heat loss during storage. Ingersoll et al. concluded
that using just one GHE to store heat holds little promise because
the heat put into the ground dissipates rather quickly [4]. For a
GHS system, therefore, a cluster of many GHEs should be installed
so compactly that there is thermal interaction between adjacent
heat exchangers. Once the interaction is fully developed, the ther-
mal process around the bores approaches a steady-flux state [1], in
which the temperature difference between the circulating fluid
and the local average temperature in the store is constant. More
details of heat transfer calculations associated with GHS can be
found in Hellstrom’s book [1].
So far, Sections 4.1 and 4.2 have provided an overview of the
conventional approach to modeling the heat transfer of borehole
GHEs. This approach assumes the thermal process in a borehole
to be in a steady state, and it is only applicable to cases in which
the rate of heat transfer varies slowly. The original purpose of this
approach was to design a GHE cluster for ground heat storage, and
it probably produces errors when used to model the high-fre-
quency (short-term) thermal response of a GCHP.
4.3. Short-term responses
In contrast to GHS, short-term temperature fluctuations are
important in the design, optimization, and energy analysis of
GCHPs and hybrid GCHPs [9,68]. The heating and cooling loads
of buildings vary continuously with time due to changes in the
weather, the number of occupants, their activities, etc. In fact,
ð18Þ
cooling loads are generally calculated on an hourly basis. Hourly
variations can cause corresponding high-frequency fluctuations
in the temperatures of a ground loop. According to Yavuzturk
and Spitler [9], the supply and return temperatures of a ground
loop typically fluctuate up to 5.6–10 °C over a given day.
Predicting the high-frequency response, however, is more difficult
than predicting the low-frequency response because it requires
handling the effect of heat capacity in a borehole, which involves
transient heat conduction in a composite medium together with
taking the configuration of various U-shaped tube installations
into consideration [26]. Common analytical methods cannot meet
this challenge satisfactorily.
One way to tackle this challenge is by numerical methods. Since
this review focuses only on analytical models, common numerical
methods (such as the finite-volume and finite-element methods)
are not discussed here, except for the thermal-network method
[69–74]. The simplified thermal-network approach is based on
the concept of lumped capacitance [73] and uses an analogy to
electricity to solve transient heat conduction problems. In this
method, a GHE and the surrounding ground are divided into incre-
mental layers in the depth direction, and each layer is subdivided
into annular regions in the radial direction [69–71].
Consequently, the domain is discretized into a number of thermal
nodes. The law of energy balance is applied to each node, which
yields an ordinary differential equation (referred to as a lumped-
capacitance representation) for the temperature of each node.
The simultaneous solution of these representations yields the tran-
sient response of both the GHE and the ground. Moreover, this
approach can analyze several configurations of GHEs in both the
long and short term; and it can also be coupled to a heat pump
model to simulate an entire GCHP system [72]. The thermal-net-
work method is essentially a simplified numerical method and
may have acceptable accuracy and computational speed.
Another way to model the short-term response of a GHE is to
simplify the geometrical arrangement in the borehole. Most
short-time analytical models opt for the equivalent-diameter
assumption [75–83], which simplifies a problem involving compli-
cated geometry to one with a relatively simple hollow cylindrical
composite region. It is possible to solve this simplified heat con-
duction problem by various methods, such as the generalized
orthogonal expansion technique [75] and the Laplace transform
method [77,82]. This simplification also makes it possible to tackle
the transient effect of fluid circulating in a U-shaped channel [76].
But the equivalent-diameter approach is an empirical method and
cannot handle GHEs with ground channels of other forms. A pile
GHE with a W- or helical-shaped tube is a case in point.
The authors have proposed an alternative method of modeling
the short-term response of a GHE that is based on Jaeger’s instan-
taneous line-source solution for a cylindrical composite medium
[26,84,85]. It can deal with difficulties involving not only a com-
posite medium but also the geometric configuration of heat
exchange channels, including single and double U-shaped tubes,
W-shaped channels, and helical-coils. It has, however, a compli-
cated form. Moreover, this model belongs to the group of infinite
line-source models and thus cannot be used to make predictions
 M. Li, A.C.K. Lai / Applied Energy 151 (2015) 178–191
for a long-term thermal process if there is an imbalance between
heat injection and extraction in the GHE.
4.4. A comparison study of various G-functions for borehole GHEs
In this section, six analytical G-functions are used to calculate
the temperature response of the unit-step heat transfer rate
(ql = 1 W/m) for a single-U GHE: the infinite cylindrical-surface
source model Eq. (13), the infinite line-source model Eq. (16), the
simplified infinite line-source model Eq. (17), two finite line-source
models, and the composite-medium line-source model. Except for
the composite-medium line-source model, the five conventional
models for G-functions are used in the equation
T f ðtÞ  T s;0 ¼ Rb þ Gðt; r b Þ;
where the effective borehole thermal resistance, Rb, is calculated
using the two-dimensional model (see Table 1). The finite line-
source model (Table 1) is used in two ways to determine the aver-
age temperature: The first one is the computationally intensive
integral average, and the second one uses the temperature at
z = H/2 as an approximation.
By contrast, if the composite-medium line-source model is used
for the G-function, the unit-step temperature response is given by
Rp
T f ðtÞ  T s;0 ¼ þ Gðt; r p Þ;
2
where the thermal resistance, Rp, is defined in Eq. (9). The expres-
sion for the G-function can be found in the references [26,84].
Fig. 4 shows the calculated temperature responses and the
input parameters that were used. The time range is as long as
100 years and is divided into three subintervals: short range (0–
5tb), medium range (5tb < t < 0.1tH), and long range (>0.1tH).
These responses are in reasonable accord with each other in the
medium range (5tb < t < 0.1tH), which is roughly from several hours
to one year. But the match is poor for the short and long ranges. For
times larger than 0.1tH, all the models assuming that a borehole is
infinitely long yield temperature responses that increase to infin-
ity, whereas the finite line-source models show temperatures
approaching a steady state. The results for finite-length models
are thus more reasonable and can be explained by the following
physical insight: Heat transferred through the GHE is balanced
by that through the ground surface. The comparison results indi-
cate that the use of an infinitely long model results in an
Fig. 4. Comparison of various analytical models for G-function.
187
overestimation of the temperature variation, which leads to a more
conservative design for a borehole GHE, despite long-term experi-
mental data being unavailable. There is also a discrepancy between
the two finite line-source models: The mid-point temperature is
higher than the integral average value. The impact of this differ-
ence on GHE design, particularly in large-scale applications,
deserves to be explored.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Fig. 4 clearly reveals the
marked difference between the calculated short-term responses.
The conventional models using the steady-state thermal resis-
tance, Rb, (infinite cylindrical-surface model, and conventional infi-
nite and finite line-source models) give temperatures noticeably
larger than that yielded by the composite-medium line-source
model. The difference arises because the heat capacity of the grout-
ð19Þ
ing material in the borehole is neglected. Comparison of the com-
posite-medium model with a set of reference sandbox data and an
elaborate finite-volume model has demonstrated that the compos-
ite-medium line-source model is suitable for times as short as sev-
eral minutes [85]. Thus, the discrepancies shown herein imply that
all the conventional models fail to accurately predict the short-
term (or high-frequency) temperature responses of GHEs.
To conclude, all the models examined here can be used to pre-
dict the medium-term temperature responses. We should use the
composite-medium line-source model (or similar models that
ð20Þ address the effect of heat capacity in the borehole) to predict the
short-term responses, and we should use the finite line-source
models to calculate the long-term responses. Very recently, an ana-
lytical model applicable to time scales from several minutes to dec-
ades has been built based on the idea of matched asymptotic
expansion, which combines the composite-medium, the infinite,
and the finite line-source solutions [86]. But this model was devel-
oped for a one-borehole GHE and cannot handle the thermal inter-
action among GHEs.
5. Developments in heat-transfer analysis of pile GHEs
Pile GHEs, or energy piles, use the foundation piles of buildings
to house heat transfer tubes. Various forms of pipes can be used,
e.g., U-, W-, and helical-shaped tubes. Unlike borehole GHEs,
energy piles may involve complex thermomechanical processes
[87–89], a topic that is far from understood. To grasp the thermo-
mechanical process of a pile GHE, the thermal response must first
be addressed.
Foundation piles have much larger radii than borehole GHEs do,
but they are generally shorter. Thus, length-to-diameter ratio could
be an important parameter in evaluating energy piles [90,91]. The
heat capacity of a foundation pile must also be considered in con-
junction with the more complicated forms of heat transfer pipes
[26]. The problem of understanding transient heat conduction in
a cylindrical composite medium together with various types of
tube installations presents a huge challenge.
In addition to numerical methods [92–96], several simplified
methods have been used. First, some researchers applied the con-
cept of steady-state thermal resistance to energy piles [97,98]. As
discussed, foundation piles generally have relatively large diame-
ters. Thus, it should take longer for them to reach a steady state
than for borehole GHEs, which may take on the order of a day.
Second, empirical expressions are derived from numerical simula-
tions for the temperature responses of one pile GHE [91] and a field
of pile GHEs [99]. Third, the difference in thermal properties
between a foundation pile and the surrounding ground is ignored
[100–103]. In this way, the heat-source method is highly likely to
be the only viable theoretical method because various arrange-
ments of heat transfer channels exist. Modeling energy piles with
U- and W-shaped channels is relatively direct if the channels are
188 M. Li, A.C.K. Lai / Applied Energy 151 (2015) 178–191
assumed to be line heat sources in a homogenous medium [100].
But the modeling of energy piles with helical-shaped coils is some-
what indirect. Three models have been developed. The ring-coil-
source model takes a helical-shaped coil to be a series of separated
rings of heat that release heat in an infinite or semi-infinite
homogenous medium [101]. The solid cylindrical-surface source
model takes the helical pipe to be a cylindrical-surface source
[102]. Finally, the helical-line-source model employs point sources
distributed along a helical line [103], which is the most physically
reasonable assumption for a coil pipe. The homogenous-medium
assumption used in these three heat-source models can cause
unacceptable errors because energy piles also involve a cylindrical
composite medium, resembling that of borehole GHEs. Thus, the
composite-medium line-source approach is a better alternative
[26] because it can address the difference in properties between
the ground and a concrete foundation pile.
As in borehole GHEs, the movement of groundwater may be an
influencing factor. One way of handling this factor is the moving
heat-source method, which assumes seepage flow to be homoge-
neous. It was used to extend the conventional heat-source solutions
for modeling energy piles with helical tubes [104–108]. Since foun-
dation piles are composed of dense concrete, groundwater cannot
flow through them; that is, there should be no groundwater flow
in foundation piles. The homogenous-flow approximation will not
be as satisfactory for energy piles as for borehole GHEs, and the
accuracy needs to be further verified and validated.
6. Sandbox and in situ thermal-response tests (TRTs)
6.1. In situ TRTs of GHEs
Lack of knowledge of the thermal properties of the ground is
another serious obstacle to advances in GCHPs and GHEs. The
properties and composition of underground materials vary greatly
with location and depth. Thus, it is extremely complicated to deter-
mine the spatial thermal properties of the ground. Practically, it is
recommended that the equivalent (average) thermal properties of
the ground be determined from in situ thermal-response tests
(TRTs) [5]. In situ tests require a mobile testing facility. Such appa-
ratus was first developed and reported in Europe and the USA
[109,110]. In addition, many researchers have developed or
improved similar testing equipment in different regions of the
world, including Latin America [111], China [112], Japan [113],
Korea [114], Turkey [115], Cyprus [116], Saudi Arabia [117],
Tunisia [118], and Canada [119]. Most testing rigs use electrical-re-
sistance heaters to increase the temperature of a circulating fluid,
while some use heat pumps, which can both heat and cool the cir-
culating fluid. There are, however, intrinsic uncertainties and prob-
lems with the complexity and dynamic behavior of the heat pumps
used.
In our opinion, the usefulness of in situ TRTs is overrated. A sim-
ple statistical analysis that the authors performed indicates that
over 30% of the reports on GCHPs are associated with in situ tests
based on pilot or actual installations. Admittedly, in situ TRTs may
provide an overall evaluation of the energy performance of a par-
ticular GCHP installation and yield a practical estimate of the effec-
tive thermal properties of a particular location. But, from the
viewpoint of model validation, the data from in situ TRTs is inap-
propriate. Some researchers used in situ test data to validate theo-
retical models [120,121]. Such validations are inadequate because
the thermal properties of the ground are actually unknown, and
because of various uncontrollable testing uncertainties and esti-
mated equivalent properties that are generally obtained by
curve-fitting approaches [122]. Clearly, a comparison of in situ data
with model predictions based on curve-fitting properties only
results in self-verification. In this context, well-controlled sandbox
experiments are necessary.
6.2. Indoor sandbox experiments
The advantages of indoor sandbox experiments include well-
controlled parameters, which enable the experimental model to
resemble the mathematical model, and independently determined
thermal properties, which enable model validation to be complete
and thorough. Unfortunately, very few indoor sandbox experi-
ments have been reported [67,123–127], and even worse is that
only one is satisfactory for model validation [127].
Yu et al. [123] and Park et al. [124] reported indoor sandbox
experiments on U- and helical-shaped ground loops, respectively,
for validating heat-transfer models. Reuss et al. also performed
several sandbox experiments on different soil materials to validate
their numerical model for simulating coupled heat and moisture
diffusion in borehole GHS [67]. These three tests were performed
in small-scale sandboxes and employed a homogeneous medium,
rather than a composite medium, such as that used in common
GHEs. Erol and François performed small-scale sandbox experi-
ments to compare the thermal performance of several grouting
materials [125]. Shirazi and Bernier also built a small-scale labora-
tory tank to investigate heat transfer by borehole GHEs [126].
These two small-scale experiments used backfilling material that
was different from the sand used in the sand box.
Beier et al. built a medium-scale sandbox with an 18-m-long
borehole [127,128]. This length permits the construction of a bore-
hole GHE with a radius-to-length ratio close to what is used in an
actual situation. The borehole was grouted with a material other
than sand, and the medium resembles what is used in actual
GHEs. In their first paper [127], Beier et al. did not report the heat
capacities of sand and backfilling material, although they did so in
subsequent work [128]. The sandbox experiment of Beier et al.
may be the best so far for validating heat transfer models and
parameter estimation procedures. The authors have used the
reported data to validate the short-term performance of the com-
posite-medium line-source model for GHEs with a single U-shaped
pipes [84,85].
6.3. Estimation of parameters from TRTs as inverse problem
The design of GHEs and heat transfer calculations require the
thermal properties of the ground. The determination, or estima-
tion, of those properties from in situ TRTs or sandbox test data is
an inverse problem of heat conduction.
Both analytical and numerical models have been used to esti-
mate key parameters [20,21] (e.g., the thermal conductivities and
diffusivities of soil and grouting material). In general, estimation
procedures based on analytical models are simpler, faster, and
more robust than those based on numerical methods. But few of
them can determine the heat capacity of grouting material because
of the steady-state assumption about heat conduction in a bore-
hole [111–113]. For the same reason, these methods can only use
late-stage testing data, and thus require a relatively long testing
time to ensure accuracy [122]. On the other hand, procedures using
numerical models, either one- or multi-dimensional [129–133],
can estimate the heat capacity of grout; and the field testing time
may be short. However, they require more input parameters and
are more sensitive to the accuracy of the input parameters than
algorithms based on analytical models.
Rainieri et al. [20] and Raymond et al. [21] have reviewed many
aspects of the estimation of parameters from in situ TRTs. One
more issue emphasized here is that almost all the scientific effort
has been directed at parameter estimation, and little attention
 M. Li, A.C.K. Lai / Applied Energy 151 (2015) 178–191
has been paid to the accuracy of the parameters or to the estima-
tion of the error [134].
Error, or accuracy estimation, is an important issue that goes
beyond the mere finding of the best-fit parameters [135]. To be
genuinely useful, an estimation procedure should provide estima-
tions of both a parameter and the error. Error estimates provided
by linear fitting procedures fail in cases where the normality
assumption is violated or nonlinear curve-fitting is required. This
is especially true if early-stage data from in situ TRTs are used to
shorten the testing period. In practice, uncertainties that arise in
the field are difficult to control. What is needed to improve the
confidence level of parameter estimation is a general method for
evaluating the influence of uncertainties on the accuracy of param-
eter estimation algorithms.
7. Conclusions and future research suggestions
This paper provides an overview of GHE heat transfer analysis,
which is a central issue in the design of GHEs. It evaluates existing
analytical models on the basis of time scale, with an emphasis on
various heat-source models. The geometric characteristics of
GHEs make Kelvin’s theory of heat source very attractive and effi-
cient at solving related heat conduction problems.
While considerable advances have been made, several funda-
mental problems remain unsolved:
(1) The first is how to efficiently solve the problem of heat con-
duction in the ground over diverse time and space scales.
Numerical methods require vast computational resources
and are thus impractical for tackling this challenge. Current
analytical models all have limitations with regard to time
scales, and an efficient analytical model is still unavailable
for calculating the temperature response of a large matrix
of GHEs on scales from less than an hour to decades.
(2) The second is how to precisely and efficiently evaluate the
influence of coupled heat and moisture transfer in the
ground on the performance of GCHP and GHS systems.
Since different systems have different operating tempera-
tures in the ground, moisture transfer should affect heat
transfer to different extents.
(3) The third point is how to improve the accuracy and reliabil-
ity of parameter estimation based on in situ thermal-re-
sponse tests (TRTs). Existing methods based on analytical
models require somewhat long testing times (at least
2 days); the longer the testing time is, the greater the possi-
bility is that accidents will occur in situ. Moreover, general
error or accuracy estimation methods based on analytical
or numerical models are not readily available yet.
(4) To validate heat transfer models and verify parameter esti-
mation algorithms, we need very accurate sandbox data sets,
together with independently measured parameters.
However, they are very rare. For borehole GHEs, the refer-
ence data of Beier et al. can be used [126,127], despite some
improvements in the experiments being desirable. For pile
GHEs, however, there is no reliable sandbox data for pillars
with various types of heat exchange tubes.
(5) The complex thermomechanical processes that occur in
energy piles are far from understood. Recent progress in
the heat transfer analysis of energy piles provides a good
starting point for solving this problem. One critical process
is how the periodic expansion and contraction of concrete
pillars caused by heating and cooling processes affect the
frictional force of foundation pillars, especially in the long
term.
189
References
[1] Hellstrom G. Ground heat storage – thermal analysis of duct storage systems
I. Theory. Lund: University of Lund; 1991.
[2] Pavlov GK, Olesen BW. Thermal energy storage—a review of concepts and
systems for heating and cooling applications in buildings: Part 1—Seasonal
storage in the ground. HVAC&R Res 2012;18(3):515–38.
[3] Bauer D, Marx R, Nußbicker-Lux J, Ochs F, Heidemann W, Müller-Steinhagen
H. German central solar heating plants with seasonal heat storage. Sol Energy
2010;84(4):612–23.
[4] Ingersoll LR, Zobel OJ, Ingersoll AC. Heat conduction with engineering,
geological, and other applications. Revised ed. Madison: The University of
Wisconsin Press; 1954.
[5] ASHRAE. ASHRAE handbook: HVAC applications. Atlanta: ASHRAE, Inc.; 2011.
[6] ASHRAE. ASHRAE handbook: HVAC systems and
equipment. Atlanta: ASHRAE, Inc.; 2008.
[7] Wu W, Wang B, You T, Shi W, Li X. A potential solution for thermal imbalance
of ground source heat pump systems in cold regions: Ground source
absorption heat pump. Renew Energy 2013;59:39–48.
[8] United States Environmental Protection Agency. Space conditioning: the next
frontier – the potential of advanced residential space conditioning
technologies for reducing pollution and saving consumers money. EPA 430-
R-93-004; 1993.
[9] Yavuzturk C, Spitler JD. A short time step response factor model for vertical
ground loop heat exchangers. ASHRAE Trans 1999;105(2):475–85.
[10] Staffell I, Brett D, Brandon N, Hawkes A. A review of domestic heat pumps.
Energy Environ Sci 2012;5:9291–306.
[11] Florides G, Kalogirou S. Ground heat exchangers – a review of systems,
models, and applications. Renew Energy 2007;32:2461–79.
[12] Omer AM. Ground-source heat pumps systems and applications. Renew Sust
Energy Rev 2008;12:344–71.
[13] Zhai XQ, Qu M, Yu X, Yang Y, Wang RZ. A review for the applications and
integrated approaches of ground-coupled heat pump systems. Renew Sust
Energy Rev 2011;15:3133–40.
[14] Self SJ, Reddy BV, Rosen MA. Geothermal heat pump systems: status
review and comparison with other heating options. Appl Energy
2013;101:341–8.
[15] Bayer P, Saner D, Bolay S, Rybach L, Blum P. Greenhouse gas emission savings
of ground source heat pump systems in Europe: a review. Renew Sust Energy
Rev 2012;16:1256–67.
[16] de Moel M, Bach PM, Bouazza A, Singh RM, Sun JLO. Technological advances
and applications of geothermal energy pile foundations and their feasibility
in Australia. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2010;14:2683–96.
[17] Lee JY. Current status of ground source heat pumps in Korea. Renew Sust
Energy Rev 2009;13:1560–8.
[18] Yuan YP, Cao XL, Sun LL, Lei B, Yu NY. Ground source heat pump system: a
review of simulation in China. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2012;16:6814–22.
[19] Capozza A, De CarliM, Zarrella A. Design of borehole heat exchangers for
ground-source heat pumps: a literature review, methodology comparison
and analysis on the penalty temperature. Energy Build 2012;55:369–79.
[20] Rainieri S, Bozzoli F, Pagliarini G. Modeling approaches applied to the thermal
response test: a critical review of the literature. HVAC&R Res
2011;17(6):977–90.
[21] Raymond J, Therrien R, Gosselin L, Lefebvre R. A review of thermal response
test analysis using pumping test concepts. Ground Water 2011;49(6):
932–45.
[22] Zhang CX, Guo ZJ, Liu YF, Cong XC, Peng DG. A review on thermal response
test of ground-coupled heat pump systems. Renew Sust Energy Rev
2014;40:851–67.
[23] Lamarche L, Kajl S, Beauchamp B. A review of methods to evaluate borehole
thermal resistances in geothermal heat-pump systems. Geothermics
2010;39:187–200.
[24] Yang HX, Cui P, Fang ZH. Vertical-borehole ground-coupled heat pumps: a
review of models and systems. Appl Energy 2010;87:16–27.
[25] Kavanaugh SK, Rafferty K. Ground-source heat pumps: design of geothermal
systems for commercial and institutional buildings. Atlanta (GA): American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.; 1997.
[26] Li M, Lai ACK. New temperature response functions (G functions) for pile and
borehole ground heat exchangers based on composite-medium line-source
theory. Energy 2012;38:255–63.
[27] Bejan A. Convection heat transfer. 4th ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.;
2013.
[28] Eskilson P. Thermal analysis of heat extraction boreholes [PhD Thesis].
Sweden: University of Lund; 1987.
[29] Claesson J, Eskilson P. Conductive heat extraction to a deep borehole –
thermal analyses and dimensioning rules. Energy 1988;13:509–27.
[30] Lee CK. Effects of multiple ground layers on thermal response test analysis
and ground-source heat pump simulation. Appl Energy
2011;88(12):4405–10.
[31] Bear J. Dynamics of fluids in porous media. New York: American Elsevier
Publishing Company Inc.; 1972.
[32] Lee CK, Lam HN. A modified multi-ground-layer model for borehole ground
heat exchangers with an inhomogeneous groundwater flow. Energy
2012;47(1):378–87.
190 M. Li, A.C.K. Lai / Applied Energy 151 (2015) 178–191
[33] Cimmino M, Bernier M. A semi-analytical method to generate g-functions for
geothermal bore fields. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2014;70:641–50.
[34] Zanchini E, Lazzari S. New g-functions for the hourly simulation of double U-
tube borehole heat exchanger fields. Energy 2014;70:444–55.
[35] Marcotte D, Pasquier P. Unit-response function for ground heat exchanger
with parallel, series or mixed borehole arrangement. Renew Energy
2014;68:14–24.
[36] Mottaghy D, Dijkshoorn L. Implementing an effective finite difference
formulation for borehole heat exchangers into a heat and mass transport
code. Renew Energy 2012;45:59–71.
[37] Yavuzturk C, Spitler JD, Rees SJ. A transient two-dimensional finite volume
model for the simulation of vertical U-tube ground heat exchangers. ASHRAE
Trans 1999;105:475–85.
[38] Koohi-Fayegh S, Rosen MA. Examination of thermal interaction of multiple
vertical ground heat exchangers. Appl Energy 2012;97:962–9.
[39] Rees SJ, He M. A three-dimensional numerical model of borehole heat
exchanger heat transfer and fluid flow. Geothermics 2013;46:1–13.
[40] Bauer D, Heidemann W, Diersch HJG. Transient 3D analysis of borehole heat
exchanger modeling. Geothermics 2011;40:250–60.
[41] Choi JC, Lee SR, Lee DS. Numerical simulation of vertical ground heat
exchangers: intermittent operation in unsaturated soil conditions. Comput
Geotech 2011;38:949–58.
[42] Wołoszyn J, Gołaś A. Modelling of a borehole heat exchanger using a finite
element with multiple degrees of freedom. Geothermics 2013;47:13–26.
[43] Carslaw HS, Jaeger JC. Conduction of heat in solids. 2nd ed. Oxford: Claremore
Press; 1959.
[44] Özisik MN. Heat conduction. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1993.
[45] Jaeger JC. Some problems involving line sources in conduction of heat.
Philosophical Magazine Series 7 1944;35(242):169–79.
[46] Li M, Lai ACK. Thermodynamic optimization of ground heat exchangers with
single U-tube by entropy generation minimization method. Energy Conv
Manage 2013;65:133–9.
[47] Gu Y, O’Neal DL. Development of an equivalent diameter expression for
vertical U-tubes used in ground-coupled heat pumps. ASHRAE Trans
1998;104:347–55.
[48] Shonder JA, Beck JV. Field test of a new method for determining soil formation
thermal conductivity and borehole resistance. ASHRAE Trans
1999;106:843–50.
[49] Paul ND. The effect of grout thermal conductivity on vertical geothermal heat
exchanger design and performance [MSc Thesis]. USA: South Dakota
University; 1996.
[50] Sharqawy MH, Mokheimer EM, Badr HM. Effective pipe-to-borehole thermal
resistance for vertical ground heat exchangers. Geothermics 2009;38:271–7.
[51] Claesson J, Hellström G. Multipole method to calculate borehole thermal
resistances in a borehole heat exchanger. HVAC&R Res 2011;17(6):895–911.
[52] Hermanns M, Pérez JM. Asymptotic analysis of vertical geothermal boreholes
in the limit of slowly varying heat injection rates. SIAM J Appl Math
2014;74(1):60–82.
[53] Zeng HY, Diao NR, Fang ZH. Heat transfer analysis of boreholes in vertical
ground heat exchangers. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2003;46:4467–81.
[54] Deerman JD, Kavanaugh SP. Simulation of vertical U-tube ground-coupled
heat pump systems using the cylindrical heat source solution. ASHRAE Trans
1990;97:287–95.
[55] Zeng HY, Diao NR, Fang ZH. A finite line-source model for boreholes in
geothermal heat exchangers. Heat Transf Asian Res 2002;31:558–67.
[56] Cui P, Yang HX, Fang ZH. Heat transfer analysis of ground heat exchangers
with inclined boreholes. Appl Therm Eng 2006;26:1169–75.
[57] Lamarche L, Beauchamp B. A new contribution to the finite line-source model
for geothermal boreholes. Energy Build 2007;39:188–98.
[58] Eckert ERG, Drake RM. Analysis of heat and mass
transfer. Washington: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation; 1987.
[59] Diao NR, Li QY, Fang ZH. Heat transfer in ground heat exchangers with
groundwater advection. Int J Therm Sci 2004;43:1203–11.
[60] Sutton MG, Nutter DW, Couvillion RJ. A ground resistance for vertical bore
heat exchangers with groundwater flow. J Energy Resour Technol – Trans
ASME 2003;125(3):183–9.
[61] Molina-Giraldo N, Bayer P, Blum P. Evaluating the influence of thermal
dispersion on temperature plumes from geothermal systems using analytical
solutions. Int J Therm Sci 2011;50:1223–31.
[62] Molina-Giraldo N, Blum P, Zhu K, Bayer P, Fang ZH. A moving finite line
source model to simulate borehole heat exchangers with groundwater
advection. Int J Therm Sci 2011;50:2506–13.
[63] Chiasson A, O’Connell A. New analytical solution for sizing vertical borehole
ground heat exchangers in environments with significant groundwater flow:
parameter estimation from thermal response test data. HVAC&R Res
2011;17(6):1000–11.
[64] Tye-Gingras M, Gosselin L. Generic ground response functions for ground
exchangers in the presence of groundwater flow. Renew Energy
2014;72:354–66.
[65] Erol S, Hashemi MA, François B. Analytical solution of discontinuous heat
extraction for sustainability and recovery aspects of borehole heat
exchangers. Int J Therm Sci 2015;88:47–58.
[66] Luikov AV. Systems of differential equations of heat and mass transfer in
capillary-porous bodies. Int J Heat Mass Transf 1975;18(1):1–14.
[67] Reuss M, Beck M, Müller JP. Design of a seasonal thermal energy storage in
the ground. Sol Energy 1997;59(4):247–57.
[68] Yavuzturk C, Chiasson AD, Nydahl JE. Simulation model for ground loop heat
exchangers. ASHRAE Trans 2009;115(2):45–59.
[69] Zarrella A, Scarpa M, De Carli M. Short time step analysis of vertical ground-
coupled heat exchangers: the approach of CaRM. Renew Energy
2011;36(9):2357–67.
[70] Zarrella A, Scarpa M, De Carli M. Short time-step performances of coaxial and
double U-tube borehole heat exchangers: modeling and measurements.
HVAC&R Res 2011;17:959–76.
[71] Pasquier P, Marcotte D. Short-term simulation of ground heat exchanger with
an improved TRCM. Renew Energy 2012;46:92–9.
[72] 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.
[73] Mitchell JW, Braun JE. Principles of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
in buildings. Hoboken: Wiley; 2013.
[74] Ruiz-Calvo F, De Rosa M, Acuňa J, Corberán JM, Montagud C. Experimental
validation of a short-term borehole-to-ground (B2G) dynamic model. Appl
Energy 2015;140:210–23.
[75] Gu Y, Oneal DL. An analytical solution to transient heat-conduction in a
composite region with a cylindrical heat-Source. J Sol Energy Eng – Trans
ASME 1995;117:242–8.
[76] Beier RA, Smith MD. Minimum duration of in-situ tests on vertical boreholes.
ASHRAE Trans 2003;109:475–86.
[77] Lamarche L, Beauchamp B. New solutions for the short-time analysis of
geothermal vertical boreholes. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2007;50:1408–19.
[78] Bandyopadhyay G, Gosnold W, Mann M. Analytical and semi-analytical
solutions for short-time transient response ground heat exchangers. Energy
Build 2008;40:1816–24.
[79] Bandyopadhyay G, Kulkarni M, Mann M. A new approach to modeling ground
heat exchangers in the initial phase of heat-flux build up. ASHRAE Trans
2008;114:428–39.
[80] Claesson J, Javed S. An analytical method to calculate borehole fluid
temperatures for time-scales from minutes to decades. ASHRAE Trans
2011;117:279–88.
[81] Javed S, Claesson J. New analytical and numerical solutions for the
short-term analysis of vertical ground heat exchangers. ASHRAE Trans
2011;117:3–12.
[82] Li M, Lai ACK. Analytical solution to heat conduction in finite hollow
composite cylinders with a general boundary condition. Int J Heat Mass
Transf 2013;60:549–56.
[83] Shirazi AS, Bernier M. Thermal capacity effects in borehole ground heat
exchangers. Energy Build 2013;67:352–64.
[84] Li M, Lai ACK. Analytical model for short-time responses of ground heat
exchangers with U-shaped tubes: model development and validation. Appl
Energy 2013;104:510–6.
[85] Yang Y, Li M. Short-time performance of composite-medium line-source
model for predicting responses of ground heat exchangers with single U-
shaped tube. Int J Therm Sci 2014;82:130–7.
[86] Li M, Li P, Chan V, Lai ACK. Full-scale temperature response function (G-
function) for heat transfer by borehole ground heat exchangers (GHEs) from
sub-hour to decades. Appl Energy 2014;136:197–205.
[87] Brandl H. Energy foundations and other thermo-active ground structures.
Géotechnique 2006;56(2):81–122.
[88] Amatya BL, Soga K, Bourne-Webb PJ, Amis T, Laloui L. Thermo-mechanical
behavior of energy piles. Géotechnique 2012;62(6):503–19.
[89] Bourne-Webb PJ, Amatya B, Soga K. A framework for understanding energy
pile behavior. Proc ICE-Geotech Eng 2012;166(2):170–7.
[90] Loveridge F, Powrie W. Pile heat exchangers: thermal behaviour and
interactions. Proc ICE-Geotech Eng 2012;166(2):178–96.
[91] Loveridge F, Powrie W. Temperature response functions (G-functions) for
single pile heat exchangers. Energy 2013;57:554–64.
[92] 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(10):901–10.
[93] Xing L, Cullin JR, Spitler JD, Im P, Fisher DE. Foundation heat exchangers for
residential ground source heat pump systems — numerical modeling and
experimental validation. HVAC&R Res 2011;17(6):1059–74.
[94] Ghasemi-Fare O, Basu P. A practical heat transfer model for geothermal piles.
Energy Build 2013;66:470–9.
[95] Lee CK, Lam HN. A simplified model of energy pile for ground-source heat
pump systems. Energy 2013;55:838–45.
[96] 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(2):301–10.
[97] Loveridge F, Powrie W. 2D thermal resistance of pile heat exchangers.
Geothermics 2014;50:122–35.
[98] Hu PF, Zha J, Lei F, Zhu N, Wu TH. A composite cylindrical model and its
application in analysis of thermal response and performance for energy pile.
Energy Build 2014;84:324–32.
[99] Loveridge F, Powrie W. G-functions for multiple interacting pile heat
exchangers. Energy 2014;64:747–57.
[100] 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.
[101] Cui P, Li X, Man Y, Fang ZH. Heat transfer analysis of pile geothermal heat
exchangers with spiral coils. Appl Energy 2011;88:4113–9.
 M. Li, A.C.K. Lai / Applied Energy 151 (2015) 178–191
[102] Man Y, Yang H, Diao NR, Liu J, Fang ZH. A new model and analytical solutions
for borehole and pile ground heat exchangers. Int J Heat Mass Transf
2010;53:2593–601.
[103] Li M, Lai ACK. Heat-source solutions to heat conduction in anisotropic media
with application to pile and borehole ground heat exchangers. Appl Energy
2012;96:451–8.
[104] Zhang W, Yang H, Lu L, Fang ZH. Investigation on heat transfer around buried
coils of pile foundation heat exchangers for ground-coupled heat pump
applications. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2012;55:6023–31.
[105] Zhang W, Yang HX, Lu L, Fang ZH. The analysis on solid cylindrical heat
source model of foundation pile ground heat exchangers with groundwater
flow. Energy 2013;55:417–25.
[106] Zhang W, Yang HX, Lu L, Cui P, Fang ZH. The research on ring-coil heat
transfer models of pile foundation ground heat exchangers in the case of
groundwater seepage. Energy Build 2014;71:115–28.
[107] Zhang W, Yang HX, Cui P, Lu L, Diao NR, Fang ZH. Study on spiral source
models revealing groundwater transfusion effects on pile foundation ground
heat exchangers. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2015;84:119–29.
[108] Go GH, Lee SR, Kang HB, Yoon S, Kim MJ. A novel hybrid design algorithm for
spiral coil energy piles that considers groundwater advection. Appl Therm
Eng 2015;78:196–208.
[109] Austin III WA, Yavuzturk C, Spitler JD. Development of an in-situ system and
analysis procedure for measuring ground thermal properties. ASHRAE Trans
2000;106:365–79.
[110] Gehlin S. Thermal response test: method development and evaluation [PhD
Thesis]. Sweden: Luleå University of Technology; 2002.
[111] Roth P, Georgiev A, Busso A, Barraza E. First in situ determination of ground
and borehole thermal properties in Latin America. Renew Energy
2004;29:1947–63.
[112] Yu M, Peng X, Li X, Fang ZH. A simplified model for measuring thermal
properties of deep ground soil. Exp Heat Transf 2004;17:119–30.
[113] Fujii H, Okubo H, Nishi K, Itoi R, Ohyama K, Shibata K. An improved thermal
response test for U-tube ground heat exchanger based on optical fiber
thermometers. Geothermics 2009;38:399–406.
[114] Hwang S, Ooka R, Nam Y. Evaluation of estimation method of ground
properties for the ground source heat pump system. Renew Energy
2010;35:2123–30.
[115] Esen H, Inalli M. In-situ thermal response test for ground source heat pump
system in Elazig, Turkey. Energy Build 2009;41:395–401.
[116] Florides G, Kalogirou S. First in situ determination of the thermal
performance of a U-pipe borehole heat exchanger, in Cyprus. Appl Therm
Eng 2008;28:157–63.
[117] Sharqawy MH, Said SA, Mokheimer EM, Habib MA, Badr HM, Al-Shayea NA.
First in situ determination of the ground thermal conductivity for borehole
heat exchanger applications in Saudi Arabia. Renew Energy 2009;34:
2218–23.
191
[118] Naili N, Attar I, Hazami M, Farhat A. First in situ operation performance test of
ground source heat pump in Tunisia. Energy Conv Manage 2013;75:292–301.
[119] Raymond J, Lamarche L. Development and numerical validation of a novel
thermal response test with a low power source. Geothermics
2014;51:434–44.
[120] Michopoulos A, Kyriakis N. Predicting the fluid temperature at the exit of the
vertical ground heat exchangers. Appl Energy 2009;86(10):2065–70.
[121] Hu P, Yu Z, Zhu N, Lei F, Yuan X. Performance study of a ground heat
exchanger based on the multipole theory heat transfer model. Energy Build
2013;65:231–41.
[122] Li M, Lai ACK. Parameter estimation of in-situ thermal response tests for
borehole ground heat exchangers. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2012;55:2615–24.
[123] Yu Y, Ma Z, Li X. A new integrated system with cooling storage in soil and
ground-coupled heat pump. Appl Therm Eng 2008;28(11):1450–62.
[124] Park HK, Lee SR, Yoon S, Shin H, Lee DS. Case study of heat transfer behavior
of helical ground heat exchanger. Energy Build 2012;53:137–44.
[125] Erol S, François B. Efficiency of various grouting materials for borehole heat
exchangers. Appl Therm Eng 2014;70:788–99.
[126] Shirazi AS, Bernier M. A small-scale experimental apparatus to study heat
transfer in the vicinity of geothermal boreholes. HVAC&R Res
2014;20(7):819–27.
[127] Beier RA, Smith MD, Spitler JD. Reference data sets for vertical borehole
ground heat exchanger models and thermal response test analysis.
Geothermics 2011;40:79–85.
[128] Beier RA. Transient heat transfer in a U-tube borehole heat exchanger. Appl
Therm Eng 2014;62(1):256–66.
[129] Shonder JA, Beck JV. Field test of a new method for determining soil
formation thermal conductivity and borehole resistance. ASHRAE Trans
2000;106(1):843–50.
[130] Gehlin S, Hellström G. Comparison of four models for thermal response test
evaluation. ASHRAE Trans 2003;109:131–42.
[131] Wagner R, Clauser C. Evaluating thermal response tests using parameter
estimation for thermal conductivity and thermal capacity. J Geophys Eng
2005;2(4):349–56.
[132] Marcotte D, Pasquier P. On the estimation of thermal resistance in borehole
thermal conductivity test. Renew Energy 2008;33:2407–15.
[133] Bozzoli F, Pagliarini G, Rainieri S, Schiavi L. Estimation of soil and grout
thermal properties through a TSPEP (two-step parameter estimation
procedure) applied to TRT (thermal response test) data. Energy
2011;36(2):839–46.
[134] Javed S, Spitler J, Fahlén P. An experimental investigation of the accuracy of
thermal response tests used to measure ground thermal properties. ASHRAE
Trans 2011;117(1):13–21.
[135] Box GEP, Hunter JS, Hunter WG. Statistics for experimenters: design,
Innovation, and Discovery. 2ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2005.