Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57 (2016) 16–33

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Heat transfer enhancement of geothermal energy piles

Mohammed Faizal a,1, Abdelmalek Bouazza a,n, Rao M. Singh b,2
a
Monash University, Department of Civil Engineering, 23 College Walk, Wellington Road, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, United Kingdom

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Geothermal energy piles utilize the almost constant ground temperature at shallow depths below the
Received 13 October 2014 ground surface to heat and/or cool built structures. Heat is extracted from and/or injected into the
Received in revised form ground through the use of a heat carrier fluid that flows in pipes attached to the reinforcement cage of
3 September 2015
the pile foundations. The performance of the energy piles can be improved by enhancing the heat
Accepted 16 December 2015
exchange between the heat carrier fluid and the ground. The purpose of this paper is to provide evidence
Available online 1 January 2016
from literature on multidisciplinary methods to improve the thermal properties of elements in a geo-
Keywords: thermal energy pile. Geometrical optimization such as the number of pipes and their arrangement can be
Nanofluids done to reduce the total pile thermal resistance. Nanofluids can be used as the heat carrier fluid to
HDPE thermal conductivity
enhance the fluid conductive and convective heat transfer. Highly thermally conductive fillers can be
Concrete thermal conductivity
mixed with the pipe material to enhance its thermal conductivity. The thermal properties of the concrete
Geothermal energy piles
can also be enhanced by adding highly thermo-conductive materials to the concrete mix.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2. Shallow geothermal energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3. Heat transfer in geothermal energy piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4. Heat transfer enhancement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1. Geometrical optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2. Introduction of nanofluids as primary circuit fluid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3. Pipe materials to increase heat transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.4. Concrete heat transfer enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

1. Introduction temperature as a heat source or sink to heat or cool built struc-

tures. The use of this shallow geothermal energy conversion
Ground temperatures at given shallow depths below the technology has the potential to save energy costs up to two-thirds
ground surface remains almost constant throughout the year. Heat of conventional systems [1].
exchangers can be incorporated within pile foundations to form Geothermal energy piles are closed looped, indirect heat
thermo-active piles or energy piles and use the constant ground exchangers, where the heat carrier medium does not make direct
contact with the soil [2]. Heat is extracted/rejected in the ground
using mostly HDPE pipes embedded in the concrete of foundation
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 61 3 9905 4956. piles. Thus no additional structural modifications to the piles are
E-mail addresses: mohammed.faizal@monash.edu (M. Faizal),
needed to meet the geothermal energy requirements [3]. Fur-
malek.bouazza@monash.edu (A. Bouazza), r.singh@surrey.ac.uk (R.M. Singh).
1
Tel.: þ61 3 9905 8901. thermore, the additional costs for the HDPE pipe installations are
2
Tel.: þ44 1483 689280. relatively small [4]. Other types of pipes used are cross-linked

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.065
1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Faizal et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57 (2016) 16–33
polyethylene (PEX), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and polybutylene
pipes [5–7]. A heat carrier fluid flows in the pipes that exchanges
thermal energy between the ground and the built structure. Steel
pipes are also used as foundation piles, in which heat exchanger
pipes are installed. The gaps between the steel pipe wall and heat
exchanger pipes are backfilled with conductive grout [6,8,9].
Heating/cooling requires a primary circuit in the foundation
piles and a secondary circuit in the built structure. The primary
circuit is entirely underground and consists of the piles, the pipes
embedded in the concrete of the piles, primary circuit fluid (or
heat carrier fluid) flowing in the pipes, and the soil surrounding
the piles. The secondary circuit is the built structure that consists
of closed loops of fluid-based piping or ducts embedded in floors,
walls, or ceilings for heating or cooling [1,3]. These two circuits are
connected by a heat pump that uses low electrical energy input to
raise or lower the temperature in the built structure to help meet
human comfort conditions [1,3]. During heating, the heat pump
absorbs heat from the ground and delivers it to the building.
During cooling, the heat pump with a reversed cycle absorbs heat
from the building and rejects it to the ground.
The constant ground temperature that is used as a heat source
or sink is very low, 10–15 °C below 10–15 m in most European
regions, and 20–25 °C at 10–15 m depths in the tropics [3]. The
thermal properties of the pile elements could be enhanced to
exchange more thermal energy in low temperature regions. Multi-
disciplinary studies are required to enhance the heat transfer
between the fluid and the ground, which in turn will improve the
heat extraction/rejection. Geometrical modifications such as pipe
arrangement in the pile can be done to reduce total thermal
resistance between the heat carrier fluid and the ground. Nano-
fluids can be used as the heat carrier fluid to enhance heat transfer
to the ground. Many studies have shown enhancement in con-
ductive and convective heat transfer in heat exchangers by using
nanofluids [10,11]. The thermal conductivity of the HDPE pipe
material can also be increased by altering the material properties
of the resin [12,13].Many studies have been done to increase
thermal conductivity of HDPE material by adding thermally con-
ductive fillers [13–20]. The concrete thermal conductivity can also
be enhanced by altering the ratio of constituents or adding high
conductivity material to the concrete mix [21–25].
The objective of this paper is thus to review techniques of
improving thermal properties of individual components that affect
the heat exchange between the heat carrier fluid and the ground
in geothermal energy piles and make recommendations for design
improvements. The review is narrowed to geometrical modifica-
tions, application of nanofluids as heat carrier fluid, and mod-
ification of pipe material and the concrete mix.
2. Shallow geothermal energy
The ground temperature below the surface varies with air
temperature up to given depths, after which an almost constant
temperature is maintained throughout the year [3]. The surface
temperature fluctuations diminish with depth due to the thermal
inertia of soil [26].
In summer, the ground temperature is cooler than the average
air temperature and can be used as a heat sink for rejecting heat
from buildings. In winter, the ground temperature is warmer than
the air temperature and can thus be used as a heat source for
supplying heat to buildings. The amount of heat required to be
extracted/rejected from/to the ground depends on heating/cooling
demands of the built structure.
Fig. 1 shows the ground temperature variation with increasing
depth for tests done at Monash University (Clayton Campus),
Melbourne, for the year 2013. The temperature becomes almost
17
Fig. 1. Ground temperature variations with depth for year 2013 measured at the
energy pile test site at Monash University (Clayton Campus), Melbourne.
constant with values of 16–18 °C after 8 m depth. The soil below a
built structure will however be shielded from solar thermal and
atmospheric effects, and thus will have constant temperature from
the surface. The ground temperature varies with location and
depends on the regional climate of that location. Li et al. [27]
presented the thermal performances of ground heat exchangers
for two locations: Tianjin and Shenyang, China. The soil in Tianjin
was clay with high water content and low porosity whereas the
soil in Shenyang was sandstone of high porosity. The heat rejected
by the ground heat exchanger in Tianjin was about 40% higher
than that in Shenyang and the heat extracted in Tianjin was about
70% higher than that in Shenyang. Different soil characteristics
such as density and moisture content will affect the thermal
properties of the soil [28].
The operation of energy piles will affect the surrounding soil
temperature up to a certain distance from the edge of the pile.
Experimental and numerical studies conducted by Gao et al. [29]
showed that the effect of pile operation on the surrounding
ground reduces with increasing radial distance from the heat
exchanger. Wood et al. [30] monitored field ground temperatures
in the vicinity of a plot of energy piles. Temperatures were
recorded at 1 m, 2.5 m, and 5 m from the plot at different depths.
The ground temperature at 5 m from the plot was thermally
undisturbed by the piles, while the largest temperature difference
was at 1 m. Li et al. [27] conducted a numerical analysis to study
the soil temperature surrounding a vertical ground heat exchanger
and they also concluded that the effect of pile thermal loading on
the soil reduces with increasing radial distance. Also, if heating
and cooling loads are not balanced, the ground may gradually cool
down or heat up over the years. Olgun et al. [4,31] simulated 30
years of energy pile operation to assess the long term performance
of energy piles for balanced and imbalanced thermal loads. Where
heating and cooling loads were balanced, it was seen that ground
temperatures remained reasonably unchanged. The ground pro-
gressively cooled down for heating dominant location, and pro-
gressively became warmer over the years for cooling dominant
location.
3. Heat transfer in geothermal energy piles
The elements in the primary circuit involved in heat transfer
processes during heating or cooling of built structures are the
surrounding soil, concrete of the pile (for concrete piles), HDPE
pipes and the heat carrier fluid. The heat transfer between the
18 M. Faizal et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57 (2016) 16–33
Fig. 2. Temperature drop between the primary circuit fluid
surrounding soil.
heat carrier fluid and the soil is affected by the HDPE pipe and the
concrete of the pile.
The primary circuit fluid commonly used in energy piles is
water or a water/glycol mixture, where glycol acts as antifreeze to
prevent freezing and thus clogging of liquid at temperatures below
0 °C [3]. The pipes most commonly used in energy piles are
standard HDPE pipes. Various configurations of HDPE pipes are
installed in geothermal energy piles that are reported in the lit-
erature. The pipes are mounted to the reinforced cages of piles
prior to concreting.
Due to the temperature difference between the heat carrier
fluid and the soil and due to differences in thermal properties of
the materials, a thermal gradient is created between the heat
carrier fluid and the soil (Fig. 2). The different elements provide
different resistances to heat transfer, hence affecting the thermal
gradient between the fluid and the soil (equations 1–5). Fig. 2 and
the following equations assume the equivalent diameter approx-
imation for an ideal case which combines the pipes to give a single
pipe co-axial with the pile with a central effective diameter [32]. In
real cases, there will be temperature drops at the interface of pipe/
concrete and concrete/soil. This will give rise to contact resistances
which should be accounted for in design [33,34].
The heat transfer between the primary circuit fluid and soil is
given as:
T1 T5
Q¼
RT
where T1 and T5 are fluid and soil temperatures, respectively, and
RT is the total thermal resistance transfer, given as:
RT ¼ Rfluid þ Rpipe þ Rconcrete þ Rground
The resistance of the flowing fluid is given as:
1 as opposed to its original design. Fig. 3 also shows that the
Rf luid ¼
2nπ r i h
where ri is the internal pipe radius, n is the number of pipes, and h
is the convective heat transfer coefficient.
The pipe thermal resistance is given as:


ln r o =r i
Rpipe ¼ ð4Þ
2nπ kp
where ro is the pipe outer radius and kp is the thermal conductivity
of the pipe material.
The concrete thermal resistance using the equivalent diameter
approach is given as:
 
ln rreffb
Rconcrete ¼ ð5Þ
2π kc
where rb is pile radius, kc is concrete thermal conductivity, and reff
pffiffiffi
is effective radius given as r eff ¼ r o n, where n is number of pipes.
The equivalent cylinder approach does not consider actual posi-
tioning of the pipes.
4. Heat transfer enhancement
As seen from Eqs. (1)–(5), an increase in thermal conductivity,
k, and convective heat transfer coefficient, h, will lead to reduction
in the total thermal resistance, leading to an increase in the heat
transfer between the primary circuit fluid and the soil.
Multidisciplinary methods are required to enhance heat
exchange between the primary circuit fluid and the soil which in
and the
turn will enhance the heat extraction/rejection from/to the
ground. Heat exchange can be increased by optimizing pile
dimensions and geometrical arrangement of pipes, and by
improving the thermal properties of the fluid, the pipe material,
and the concrete mix.
Careful design considerations are however required when
improving the thermal properties of the elements for scenarios
where the heat carrier fluid temperatures fall below zero degrees
for very cold regions, which can possibly lead to ground freezing.
Loveridge et al. [35] numerically showed that the pile edge tem-
peratures could go below freezing for scenarios where the con-
crete thermal conductivity is larger than the ground thermal
conductivity combined with extreme cases of below freezing fluid
temperatures.
The following sections discuss some interdisciplinary methods
of improving thermal properties that could lead to enhanced heat
transfer between the fluid and the soil in geothermal energy piles.
4.1. Geometrical optimization
Geometrical optimization for improving heat exchange
between fluid and soil can be done by modifying the pile dia-
meters and lengths, concrete cover to pipes, and pipe configura-
tions. The geometrical modifications in the thermo-active foun-
dation piles can affect the energy usage in the buildings. Kwag and
Krarti [36] (Fig. 3) showed in a numerical study (validated with
laboratory tests with 3 U – loops) that the annual building heating
and cooling energy uses can be reduced by increasing the foun-
dation depth. Increasing the foundation depth increases the heat
ð1Þ
exchange due to increase in contact area with the ground. While
increasing the foundation piles improve thermal performance, it
should be noted that foundation pile design lengths are normally
limited by building structural designs. Pile lengths could be
ð2Þ
increased, with additional concreting and reinforcement steel to
gain more area to improve heat transfer, provided that the toe of
the pile does not end up being embedded in a really soft material
ð3Þ
building energy usage is reduced when the distance between the
U – tube loops or shank space is increased. Similar studies done by
Kaltreider et al. [37] with a single U – loop also showed that the
heat transfer from the tubes in the foundation increases with
increasing spacing between tubes, shown in Fig. 4. The thermal
interactions between tubes is high for low tube spacing, leading to
lower heat transfer as a result of thermal short circuiting.
 M. Faizal et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57 (2016) 16–33
Fig. 3. Impact of tube spacing and foundation depth on the cooling and heating
energy usage of a building in Chicago, IL. [36]. (Reprinted from Kwag BC, Krarti M.
Performance of Thermoactive Foundations for Commercial Buildings. Journal of
Solar Energy Engineering 2013;135:040907-040907, Copyright (2013), with per-
mission from ASME).
Fig. 4. Effect of tube spacing on overall heat transfer from the tubes [37]. (Rep-
rinted from Kaltreider C, Krarti M, McCartney J. Heat transfer analysis of thermo-
active foundations. Energy and Buildings 2015;86:492-501., Copyright (2015), with
permission from Elsevier.).
Together with pile lengths, the pile diameters of geothermal
energy piles also affect the heat transfer. Bourne-Webb et al. [38]
evaluated the impact of pile length to pile diameter (aspect ratio)
on the heat transfer of energy piles and compared to borehole heat
exchangers. The thermal output was generally found to be higher
than boreholes, particularly for large diameters or low aspect
ratios. Larger pile diameters were also found to give lower con-
crete resistance, Rconcrete , for U-tube configurations by Loveridge
and Powrie [32], provided the pipes are installed closer to the edge
of the pile. The concrete and the large diameter piles have larger
thermal mass and thermal properties compared to the soil, giving
higher heat transfer potential [38]. However, similar to pile
lengths, the pile diameters are also limited by the buidling struc-
tural design.
During energy pile operation, heat can also be lost from the
building slab into the subsurface, particularly near the junction of
the thermoactive foundation and exterior wall where the tem-
perature differences between the exterior and the thermally acti-
vated foundation is most significant [37,39]. This should thus be
considered when designing building thermal energy losses.
19
Another important factor that affects the heat transfer in the
piles is the offset of the pipes from the edge of the pile (i.e. the
concrete cover). Loveridge and Powrie [32] conducted numerical
modeling on how the pile resistance varied with the number of
heat exchanger pipes and the depth of the concrete cover. The 2D
model domain was restricted to the pile concrete resistance only.
The geometry and thermal conductivity components of the resis-
tance were presented in terms of the conduction shape factor
which takes into account the arrangement of pipes in the concrete.
The pipes were always arranged symmetrically and fixed to the
pile steel reinforcement. For a 600 mm diameter pile with 25 mm
diameter pipes, it was found that, as the concrete cover is reduced,
shape factor increased while resistance is reduced. For a given
concrete cover, with increasing number of pipes, shape factor
generally increases with a reduction in resistance. For increasing
concrete cover, the range of shape factors reduces when a large
number of pipes are installed, thus thermal resistance is increased.
Hence, for a larger concrete cover, there won’t be much benefit in
installing a large number of pipes (two pipes were recommended
for such cases). Conversely, for bored piles where the heat carrier
pipes are mounted on the reinforcement cage, the pipes may not
have a large concrete cover, and will therefore have lower thermal
resistance compared to those piles that will have their pipes
installed closer to the center of the pile. Fig. 5 summarizes the
effects of concrete cover and number of pipes on the shape factor
and resistance, for concrete thermal conductivities of 1.5 and 2.5.
The most common configuration of pipes in energy piles are U-
shaped arrangements, possibly due to simplicity of mounting to
reinforcements bars and for ease of pouring concrete (for bored
piles). An assessment of the performance of single and double U-
shaped pipes done by Li et al. [27] and Gashti et al. [8] had both
agreed that the thermal performance of the double U-shaped
pipes were higher than the single U-shaped pipes. Fig. 6 shows the
differences in heat extracted for single and double U shaped pipes,
at inlet temperature of 3 °C in Shenyang [Li et al. [27].
Other geometrical arrangements of U shapes of pipes are W
shaped and triple U shapes, which has been studied by Gao et al.
[40,41] and Park et al. [7] for full scale piles. Both had found that
the heat transfer and energy output was highest for the triple U
shape. However, Gao et al. [40,41] concluded that if costs of the W-
shaped pipes were not considered, then W-shaped pipes were
more efficient than single, double, and triple U-shaped pipes. On
the other hand, Park et al. [7] concluded that triple U shapes were
better than the W shape pipes. They had however found that this
was valid for intermittent modes of operation, while the perfor-
mance was similar for continuous mode of operation. Fig. 7 shows
the numerical simulations for a 3 month continuous and 8 h
intermittent operation for W shape and triple U shapes obtained
by Park et al. [7]. This finding suggested that the longer length of
Fig. 5. Effect of number of pipes and concrete cover on the shape factor and the
pile thermal resistance [32]. (Reprinted from Loveridge F, Powrie W. 2D thermal
resistance of pile heat exchangers. Geothermics 2014;50:122-135., Copyright
(2014), with permission from Elsevier).
20 M. Faizal et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57 (2016) 16–33
pipe in the triple U heat exchanger gave a positive effect under
peak loads. Hamada et al. [42] carried out field tests on an energy
pile system for space heating using U-shaped, double U-shaped,
and indirect double-pipe heat exchangers. The indirect double-
pipe heat exchanger gave highest heat exchange rates. However,
upon non-dimensionalizing against the U-tube pipe, there were
not much differences between the heat exchanged. Hence, from
the viewpoint of workability and economic efficiency, the U-
shaped pipes were recommended to be the better choice.
Coaxial heat exchangers are also applicable to energy piles. The
assessment of coaxial heat exchangers against U shape heat
Fig. 6. Heat extracted performance of single and double U-pipes at inlet tem-
perature of 3 °C in Shenyang [27]. (Reprinted from Li X, Chen Y, Chen Z, Zhao J.
Thermal performances of different types of underground heat exchangers. Energy
and Buildings 2006;38:543-547, Copyright (2006), with permission from Elsevier.).
Fig. 7. Simulation results for 8 h intermittent and continuous modes for triple u and W shaped pipes for 3 months [7]. (Reprinted from Park H, Lee S-R, Yoon S, Choi J-C.
Evaluation of thermal response and performance of PHC energy pile: Field experiments and numerical simulation. Applied Energy 2013;103:12-24., Copyright (2013), with
permission from Elsevier.).
exchangers were conducted by Wood et al. [43] and Zarrella et al.
[44]. Wood et al. [43] compared the performance of coaxial and U-
tube loops and found that heat output and coefficient of perfor-
mance (COP) of the heat pump for U-tube pipes were greater than
the coaxial pipes (Fig. 8). An enhanced coaxial heat exchanger with
steel helixes welded around the central steel pipe was compared
with the double U-tube heat exchanger by Zarrella et al. [44]. They
had, however, concluded that the enhanced coaxial heat exchan-
ger gave better heat transfer than the double U-tube. Unlike the
normal coaxial heat exchanger studied by Wood et al. [43], the
steel helixes in the enhanced heat exchanger created more tur-
bulence which increased heat transfer as a result of reduced
borehole thermal resistance.
Spiral shaped or helical pipe heat exchangers are also being
used in energy piles [45]. A comparison of performance of helical
pipes with U tube pipes by Zarrella et al. [46] and Zarella et al. [47]
had both concluded that the helical pipes gave better performance
than double and triple U-tube pipes. The total borehole depth
required for helical heat exchanger was 50% shorter than the U-
tube heat exhcanger for both cooling and heating modes Zarrella
et al. [47]. The heat exhanged by the helical pipe was 23% higher
than the triple U-tube and 30% higher than the double U-tube. The
reason for higher performance for helical shaped heat exchangers
are larger surface area giving more area for heat exchange.
A multi-tube heat exchanger performance was assessed against
U-tube and double U-tube ground heat exchangers in a steel pile
by Jalaluddin et al. [6]. The multi-tube had an insulated polyvinyl
chloride pipe as the central and outlet pipe, and four polyvinyl
chloride pipes placed around the central pipe as inlet tubes. It was
found that highest heat exchange rate was obtained for double-
tube heat exchanger, followed by multi-tube and U-tube. The
double-tube had highest heat exchange rate due to larger contact
area compared to U-tube and multi-tube. Fig. 9 shows the heat
exchange rates of these heat exchangers at a flowrate of 2 l/m.
 M. Faizal et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57 (2016) 16–33
Fig. 8. Heat pump COP (a) and heat output (b) when used with the U-tube or
coaxial ground loop at various flow rates [43]. (Reprinted from Wood CJ, Liu H,
Riffat SB. Comparative performance of ‘U-tube’ and ‘coaxial’ loop designs for use
with a ground source heat pump. Applied Thermal Engineering 2012;37:190-195.,
Copyright (2012), with permission from Elsevier.).
Fig. 9. Heat exchange rates of multi-tube, U-tube, and double U-tube heat
exchangers [6]. (Reprinted from Jalaluddin, Miyara A, Tsubaki K, Inoue S, Yoshida K.
Experimental study of several types of ground heat exchanger using a steel pile
foundation. Renewable Energy 2011;36:764-771., Copyright (2011), with permis-
sion from Elsevier.).
The key findings of the above studies are summarized in
Table 1. Based on studies in this section, geometry has an impor-
tant role in affecting heat transfer between the primary circuit
fluid and ground. Larger pile diameters with small concrete cover
to pipe work generally give better heat transfer. The optimal
21
choice of pipe configuration would also depend on economics and
workability of the energy piles. Pipe configurations with more
surface area will generally give more heat transfer. The double U-
shaped pipes have generally been found to give better perfor-
mance compared to single U-shaped pipes and multi-tube shapes.
Enhanced coaxial heat exchanger pipes gave better heat transfer
compared to double U-shaped pipes. Helical shaped heat
exchangers also gave better heat exchange compared to U-shaped
pipes. Heat exchange studies by varying pipe configurations
should however consider the same pipe materials, same pipe
dimensions and thermal properties and flow parameters for a
better comparison of results.
4.2. Introduction of nanofluids as primary circuit fluid
Traditional methods of increasing convective heat transfer by
using extended surfaces such as fins to increase heat transfer area
will be difficult on the internal walls of the HDPE pipes used in
energy piles. Nanoscale particles can be introduced in the primary
circuit fluid to enhance thermal properties of the fluid. The mix-
ture of nanoparticles in fluids (termed as nanofluids) has been
extensively studied and has proven to lead to substantial increases
in thermal properties of fluids with very low concentrations of
particles [10].
Das et al. [10] reviewed the characteristics that lead to heat
transfer enhancement of nanofluids, nanofluids preparation
methods, theoretical models depending on liquid layering, particle
aggregation, and particle movement. The heat transfer enhance-
ment reduces with increasing particle size, metallic nanoparticles
give higher thermal conductivities at low volume fractions thus
less effect on the viscosity of base fluids, and thermal conductivity
of nanofluids increase with temperature. Some of the unique
features of nanofluids are abnormal rise in thermal conductivity,
large enhancement of thermal conductivity with small con-
centration of particles, fluids maintain their Newtonian behavior
with very small rise in viscosity and thus pumping power, and
dependence of thermal conductivity enhancement on particle size
and concentration. Nanoparticles are highly mobile and cause
micro-convection and dispersion of heat in the fluid, thus
enhancing conductive and convective heat transfer coefficients.
Chances of sedimentation are very less due to the small weight of
particles, thus making the nanofluids very stable. Erosion of walls
is also less due to small momentum as a result of small particle
size [10]. Nanoparticles in fluids changes the flow structure, gives
chaotic motion, dispersion and fluctuation especially near the
walls, thus enhancing fluid mixing and increasing heat transfer
[48]. All solid particles with high thermal conductivities can be
used to prepare nanofluids [49]. The thermal conductivities of
some materials including metals which can be used as nano par-
ticles are given in Table 2.
Water is the base fluid in geothermal energy pile heat
exchangers mixed with glycol which acts as an anti-freeze and is
circulated in the primary circuit under forced convection. This
section thus presents some selected studies that have used dif-
ferent types of nanofluids to enhance heat transfer under forced
convection in heat exchangers with water as base fluid, in parti-
cular, shell and tube heat exchangers. Shell and tube heat
exchangers contain a number of tubes in a cylindrical shell, where
fluid passing through the tubes exchange heat with fluids on the
shell side. The key findings of these studies are collected in Table 3.
The studies focus on enhancement of the overall heat transfer
coefficient, thermal conductivity and convective heat transfer
coefficient. Studies of heat transfer enhancement in other types of
heat exchangers and mechanisms for increasing heat transfer
using nanofluids are presented elsewhere [10,11,49, 50].
22 M. Faizal et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57 (2016) 16–33
Table 1
Thermal behavior of ground heat exchangers with different pipe configurations.
Source Pipe configurations studied Methods and materials
Hamada et al. U-shaped, double U-shaped, Pile outer and inner diameters were 302 mm and
[42] and indirect double-pipe 232 mm, respectively, with 9 m depth. Polyvinyl chloride
pipes with outer diameter of 34 mm and internal dia-
meters of 28.8 mm.
Gao et al. W-shaped and U-shaped The outer diameter of the pile was 600 mm with a length
[40,41] Three U-shape of 25 m. HDPE pipe inner diameter of 0.02 m.
configurations:
 single U, double U, and
triple U shapes.
Park et al. [7] W and triple U-shaped The precast pile had a diameter of 400 mm and thickness
of 180 mm in which the pipes were installed and back-
filled with cement grout. Polybutylene pipe with inner/
outer diameter¼0.016/0.02 m used. Continuous and 8 h
intermittent simulations were carried for 3 months at an
initial ground temperature of 17 °C, water flowrate of
7.21 L/min, and constant inlet water temperature of 30 °C.
Li et al. [27] single and double U-shaped For applications in boreholes and foundation piles.
DN32 HDPE pipes used.
Jalaluddin et al. Double-tube, U-tube, and Steel piles used. The U-tube was a polyethylene pipe with
[6] multi-tube an outer diameter of 33 mm. The multi-tube had an
insulated polyvinyl chloride pipe with an outer diameter
of 20 mm as the central and outlet pipe, and four poly-
vinyl chloride pipes with outer diameters of 25 mm
placed around the central pipe as inlet tubes. The double-
tube had a stainless steel pipe with outer diameter of
139.8 mm used as inlet tube, while a polyvinyl chloride
pipe of 48 mm outer diameter was installed in the steel
pipe as outlet tube.
Wood et al. Coaxial and U-tube A 152.4 mm outside diameter steel casing with 3 mm
[43] wall thickness was installed in a 100 m deep borehole.
This casing was then filled with a glycol/water mixture in
which the heat exchanger loops were inserted upto 72 m.
The U-tube loops had outer diameter of 20 mm and
1.9 mm wall thickness, whereas coaxial loop had a
40 mm outer diameter pipe with wall thickness of
3.7 mm and a 20 mm outer diameter pipe with wall
thickness of 1.9 mm as the inner pipe.
Zarrella et al. Coaxial and double U-tube The enhanced coaxial heat exchanger had steel helixes
[44] welded around a central steel pipe (outer diameter of
70 mm and inner diameter of 62 mm) containing the
inlet HDPE pipe of 50 mm outer diameter and 40.8 mm
outer diameter. The outer and inner diameters of the
outlet pipe were 150 mm and 140 mm, respectively. The
length and diameter of borehole were 60 m and 150 mm,
respectively. The double U-tube heat exchanger had
HDPE pipes with outer diameter of 32 mm and inside
diameter of 26 mm arranged in parallel, with a borehole
length and diameter of 60 m and 140 mm, respectively.
Zarrella et al. Double U-tube, triple U-tube, The lengths and diameters of boreholes of the triple
[46] and helical U-tube and helical pipes were 12 m and 0.5 m, and 60 m
and 140 mm for double U-tubes, respectively. The outside
and inside diameters of the HDPE pipes used in triple
U-pipes and helical pipes were 20 mm and 16 mm, and
32 mm and 26 mm for double U-tubes, respectively.
Zarella et al. Helical and double U-tube The borehole lengths and diameters were 15 m and 0.5 m
[47] for helical heat exchanger, and 60 m and 140 mm for
double U-tube heat exchanger, respectively. The outside
and inside diameters of the HDPE pipes used in double
U-pipes and helical pipes were 32 mm and 26 mm, and
25 mm and 20.4 mm respectively, with helical pipes
having a pitch of 0.1 m between the turns.
Key findings
 Heat rejected to the ground for U-shaped, double
U-shaped and indirect double pipes were found to be
53.81 W/m, 54.76 W/m, and 68.71 W/m, respectively.
 Heat rejection rates non-dimensionalized against
U-shaped pipes and found similar performance. U-shaped
pipes were recommended to be the better choice in terms
of workability.
 W-shaped pipes are more efficient than U-shaped pipes at
the same absolute flowrate if costs not considered.
 W-shape pipe with reference flowrate had 43% higher heat
rejection rate compared to single U-shape.
 Heat rejection of W-shape pipe with reference flowrate
was 37% higher than that of double U-shape with refer-
ence flowrate.
 Heat exchange and temperature drop were: triple U case:
87 W/m and 2.34 K for intermittent operation and 42 W/m
and 1.15 K for continuous operation 2) W case: 76 W/m
and 2.07 K for intermittent operation and 40 W/m and
1.01 K for continuous operation.
 Triple U shape was superior to W shape by 15% in inter-
mittent case, while there was similar performance for
continuous operation.
 At inlet temperature of 35 °C and at same flowrate for heat
rejection mode, heat transfer of double U-pipes was about
50% higher than that of single U-pipe.
 At inlet temperature of 3 °C and at same flowrate of heat
extracting mode, heat transfer of double U-pipes was 45%
higher than that of the single U-pipes.
 Highest heat exchange rate for double-tube heat exchan-
ger, followed by multi-tube and U-tube.
 Average water temperature differences between inlet and
outlet of double-tube, multi-tube, and U-tube were 5, 4.1,
and 3.4 °C for 2 L/min; 3.3, 2.5, and 2 °C for 4 L/min; 1.8,
1.4, and 1.1 °C for 8 L/min, respectively.
 For 4 L/min, heat exchange rate for double-tube was
49.6 W/m, 34.8 W/m for multi-tube and 30.4 for the
U-tube.
 Double-tube had highest heat exchange rate due to the
larger contact area of 8.73 m2 compared to 4.15 m2 for
U-tube and 6.28 m2 for multi-tube.
 COP and heat output of U-tube pipes were greater than
coaxial pipes by 0.08 and 12%, respectively.
 U-tube pipes initiated more turbulence in the flow com-
pared to coaxial pipes, thus leading to higher heat transfer
coefficients.
 Enhanced coaxial heat exchanger had better performance
than U-tube.
 Borehole thermal resistance was found to be 0.02 mK/W
for the enhanced coaxial heat exchanger and 0.12 mK/W
for double U-tube.
 Turbulence created by helical shapes enhanced the heat
transfer coefficient and reduced the borehole thermal
resistance.
 Helical pipe heat exchanger gave better performance than
U-tube heat exchanger
 Peak load heat exchanged by helical pipe was 370 W/m
and 300 W/m for triple U-pipe, an increase of 23%
 Peak load of double U-tube was 30% lower than helical-
pipe and 13% lower than triple U-tube
 Total borehole depth required for helical shape was 50%
shorter than double U-tube
 M. Faizal et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57 (2016) 16–33
Table 2
Thermal conductivities of some materials [11,12].
Material Thermal conductivity (W/mK)
Ethylene glycol 0.253
Water 0.613
Silver 429–450
Copper 401–483
Aluminium 204–237
Carbon Nanotube 2000–6000
Alumina (Al2O3) 20–40
Titanium Oxide (TiO2) 8.4
Copper Oxide (CuO) 32.9
Graphite 100–400
Olson [51] patented the application of nanofluids for ground
source heat pumps. The nanoparticles for this claim are fumed
alumina oxide (Al2O3), fumed titanium oxide (TiO2), fumed silica
oxide (SiO2) and a mixture of fumed alumina with fumed silica
oxide. The fumed nanoparticles caused nanofluids to become thin
when a shear force was applied to it, and become thicker when
shear force was removed. The pump that circulates the nanofluids
will have less pumping power since nanofluids will become
thinner during pumping.
Guerrieri et al. [48] studied the effect of Al2O3 and CuO parti-
cles immersed in water on the heat transfer performance of a
single pass shell and tube heat exchangers. Water was on the hot
side whereas the nanofluids were on the cold side. For the highest
concentration, the overall heat transfer coefficient of Al2O3/water
and CuO/water was found to be higher than that of water. The
length of heat exchanger using water as base fluid reduced by 8.1%
for Al2O3 and 13.2% for CuO. Nanofluids can hence be researched
for use in geothermal energy piles to improve heat exchange as
well as to reduce the length of HDPE pipes used. Lotfi et al. [52]
experimentally investigated the convective heat transfer
enhancement of multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT)/water
nanofluids in a shell and tube heat exchanger and compared with
water as base fluid. The nanofluid flowed through the tubes and
coolant flowed through the shell. The nanofluids gave higher
overall heat transfer coefficient compared to water, as shown in
Fig. 10.
Godson et al. [53] experimentally studied heat transfer char-
acteristics of silver/water nanofluids in a single pass shell and tube
heat exchanger for particle volume percent concentrations of 0.01,
0.03, and 0.04. The nanofluid flowed in tubes and chilled water
flowed in the shell in a counter flow configuration. The nanofluids
were heated using a solar flat plate collector and it was observed
that the nanofluids enhanced the performance of the solar col-
lector compared to water as base fluid. Nanofluids with higher
volume concentrations transferred more heat to cold water in the
shell side and increased its temperature. Higher Reynolds number
flows were found to have higher Nusselt number due to delayed
boundary layer development as well as formations of eddies that
enhanced turbulence. The overall heat transfer coefficient
increased with increasing particle concentrations and Reynolds
number (Fig. 11). The pressure drop of nanofluids was also found
to be higher compared to base fluid due to increase in viscosity,
which means more pumping power for nanofluids.
Ghozatloo et al. [54] experimentally studied the convective
heat transfer enhancement of graphene/water nanofluids in a shell
and tube heat exchanger. KRG-2, KRG-3, and KRG-4, represents
graphene concentration of 0.05, 0.075, and 0.1, respectively. At any
given length of the tube, convective heat transfer coefficient
increased with increasing concentration (Fig. 12). For a tempera-
ture range of 10–60 °C, thermal conductivity increased with
increasing temperature (Fig. 13). The increment in thermal
23
conductivity at 0.1 wt% was lower due to possible graphene
deposition in water and reduction in stability. It was also found
that density and viscosity increased with increasing concentration,
similar to findings of Godson et al. [53]. Thus careful designs are
necessary for use in geothermal energy piles to avoid over con-
centration of particles which can reduce heat transfer as well as to
avoid pumping power losses due to increase in viscosity.
Farajollahi et al. [55] experimentally investigated the thermal
characteristics of γ-Alumina (γ-Al2O3)/water and Titanium dioxide
(TiO2)/water nanofluids in shell and tube heat exchangers and
compared with distilled water as base fluid. The volume con-
centration range of γ-Al2O3 and TiO2 were 0.3–2% and 0.15–0.75%,
respectively. The maximum enhancement of thermal properties
for γ-Al2O3/water nanofluid was at an optimum of 0.5% con-
centration and at an optimum of 0.3% for TiO2/water nanofluid
(Fig. 14). At concentrations higher than optimum, heat transfer
coefficients for both nanofluids reduces as a result of increase in
viscosity which leads to increase in the boundary layer thickness,
as was also observed by Ghozatloo et al. [54]. Therefore having
higher than optimum concentrations of nanoparticles can affect
the pumping power of the nanofluids. The convective heat transfer
increases due to increase in thermal conductivity and reduction of
boundary layer thickness in nanofluids.
Elias et al. [56] studied the effect of nanoparticle shape on the
thermal performance of a shell and tube heat exchanger. Boehmite
alumina (γ-AlOOH) nanoparticles of cylindrical (aspect ratio 1:8),
brick (aspect ratio 1:1:1), blade (aspect ratio 1:6:1/12), platelet
(aspect ratio 1:1/8), and spherical shapes were dispersed in a 50/
50 mixture of water/ethylene glycol as base fluid. The experiments
were carried out for a particle volume concentration range of 0–
1%. The thermal conductivities, convective heat transfer coeffi-
cients and overall heat transfer coefficients increased with
increasing particle volume fraction (Fig. 15). The highest heat
transfer was obtained for cylindrical shapes, followed by bricks,
blades, platelets, and spherical shapes. Hence, together with type
of nanoparticles, their shapes are also important for use in geo-
thermal energy piles. Shape on the heat transfer and thermo-
dynamic performance of a shell and tube heat exchanger. Inter-
national Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 2013;44:93-
99., Copyright (2013), with permission from Elsevier.)
The key findings of the studies in this section are detailed in
Table 3. It can thus be said that addition of nanoscale particles in
the primary circuit fluid of geothermal energy piles could enhance
the heat transfer between the fluid and the ground by improving
the conductive, convective, and overall heat transfer coefficients.
The studies show that heat transfer increases for even low con-
centrations of particles. The improvement in heat transfer will also
reduce the lengths of the pipes needed to meet a required amount
of heating or cooling load. However, research needs to be done on
different types of nanoscale particles to optimize the constituents
such as particle concentration to have optimum heat transfer with
lower pumping power losses.
4.3. Pipe materials to increase heat transfer
Thermally conductive fillers can be combined with HDPE
material to enhance their thermal conductivities. Polymers with
enhanced thermal conductivities generally find applications in
circuit boards, heat exchangers, appliances and machinery [16,17].
Versaprofiles, an HDPE pipe manufacturer for geothermal appli-
cations, developed an HDPE pipe for borehole heat exchangers,
s
known as the GEOperform , with a thermal conductivity 75%
higher than the conventional HDPE pipe. The pipe, which has
k¼ 0.7 W/m °C, is made with polyethylene filled with highly con-
ductive nanoparticles. Due to enhancement in heat transfer, this
24 M. Faizal et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57 (2016) 16–33

Table 3
Heat transfer improvements using nanofluids.

Source Nanofluid (s) studied Methods/material/concentration Key findings

Lotfi et al. [52] Multiwalled carbon nano-
tubes (MWCNT)/water
Ghozatloo et al. Graphene/water
[54]
Farajollahi et al. γ-Alumina (γ-Al2O3)/water
[55] and Titanium dioxide
(TiO2)/water
Elias et al. [56] Boehmite alumina (γ-
AlOOH)/water/ethylene
glycol
Godson et al. Silver/water
[53]
Guerrieri et al. Al2O3 and CuO particles
[48] immersed in water
Nanofluid had a concentration of 0.015 wt%. The U value
of the heat exchanger was obtained for heating power of
280 W and 630 W.
Graphene concentrations of 0.05, 0.075, and 0.1 wt%.
Mean particle diameters of γ-Al2O3 and TiO2 were 25 nm
and 10 nm, with volume concentration range of 0.3–2%
and 0.15–0.75%, respectively.
Different shapes of nanoparticles:Cylindrical (aspect ratio
1:8), brick (aspect ratio 1:1:1), blade (aspect ratio 1:6:1/
12), platelet (aspect ratio 1:1/8), and spherical shapes
were dispersed in a 50/50 mixture of water/ethylene
glycol as base fluid Experiments were carried out for a
particle volume concentration range of 0–1%.
Reynolds number range of 5000–25000, particle volume
percent concentrations of 0.01, 0.03, and 0.04, and heat
flux of 800 W/m2 and 1000 W/m2. The nanofluids were
heated using a solar flat plate collector.
Volume concentration of 0–0.15.
 Nanofluids gave higher heat transfer coefficient, U, com-
pared to water.
 U of nanofluid for 280 W and 630 W was 18.5 W/m2K and
32 W/m2K, compared to 17.5 W/m2K and 30 W/m2K for
water, respectively.
 At maximum of 0.1 wt%, viscosity and density were
0.997 cp and 1053.5 kg/m3, an increase of 11.97% and 5.79%
compared to base fluid.
 k increased by 15% for 0.05 wt%, 29.2% for 0.075 wt%, and
12.6% for 0.1 wt% at 25 °C.
 The increment at 0.1 wt% was lower due to possible gra-
phene deposition
 For 0.075 wt%, k range was 0.76-0.85 W/mK
 At length of 83.3 cm, increment in h was 8.2%, 17.1%, and
27.2% for wt% of 0.05, 0.075, and 0.1.
 For 0.1 wt% and 25 °C, h increased from 1585.7 W/m2K of
water to 1942.3 W/m2K of nanofluid, an increase of 22.5%.
 h increased from 1942.3 W/m2K at 25 °C to 2553.1 W/m2K
at 38 °C for 0.1 wt%.
 Maximum enhancement of thermal properties for γ-Al2O3/
water nanofluid was at 0.5 vol% and at 0.3 vol% for TiO2/
water nanofluid.
 At Peclet number of 50000 for γ-Al2O3/water nanofluid,
enhancement in U at vol% of 0.3, 0.75, 1, and 2 were 14%,
16%, 15%, and 9%.
 At Peclet number of 44000 for TiO2/water nanofluid,
enhancement in U at vol% of 0.15, 0.3, 0.5, and 0.75 were
11%, 24%, 16%, and 13%.
 Enhancement in h for γ-Al2O3/water nanofluid at vol% of
0.3, 0.5, 0.75, 1 and 2 were 46%, 56%, 46%, 38%, and 19%.
 For TiO2/water nanofluid, enhancement in h at vol% of 0.15,
0.3, 0.5, and 0.75 were 20%, 56%, 33%, and 18%.
 At concentrations higher than optimum, h reduces as a
result of increase in viscosity
 k, h, and U increased with γ-AlOOH vol%
 Highest values obtained for cylindrical shapes, followed by
bricks, blades, platelets, and spherical.
 At vol% of 1: Cylindrical nanoparticles had k ¼ 0.485 W/mK,
U¼ 32.4 W/m2K, h ¼ 77.5 W/m2K;
 Bricks had k ¼0.482 W/mK, U¼ 32.32 W/m2K, h ¼ 77 W/
m2K;
 Blades k ¼ 0.479 W/mK, U ¼32.23 W/m2K, h ¼76.5 W/m2K;
(Platelets values were close to bricks)
 Spherical k ¼ 0.474 W/mK, U ¼ 32 W/m2K, h ¼ 75.7 W/m2K.
 Nanofluids with higher vol% transferred more heat
 At mass flowrate of 0.17 kg/s, exit temperature of cold
water was 46 °C; at 0.04 vol%, exit temperature of cold
water was 49 °C.
 Nusselt number increased with increasing vol% and Rey-
nolds number.
 For 0.04 vol%, Nusselt number enhancement was 12.4% and
6.08%, for Reynolds numbers of 25,000 and 5000,
respectively.
 Nanofluids had higher Nusselt number at higher Reynolds
number, delayed boundary layer development, and for-
mations of eddies that increases turbulence.
 The fluid boundary layer on the walls contributes to the
total resistance to heat transfer.
 For Reynolds number of 25,000, increase in Nusselt num-
ber was found 9.2%, 10.87% and 12.4% for 0.01, 0.03 and
0.04 vol%, respectively.
 Enhancement in U was 13.2%, 12.4% and 9.2% for 0.04, 0.03,
and 0.01 vol%, respectively.
 Pressure drop of nanofluids was higher compared to base
fluid due to increase in viscosity, hence more
pumping power.
 For Reynolds number of 25000, pressure drop increased by
12.84%, 11.15%, and 16.22%, for 0.01, 0.03, and 0.04 vol%.
 For highest concentration, U of Al2O3/water and CuO/water
was approximately 5.1  103 W/m2°C and 5.2  103 W/
m2°C, respectively, compared to U ¼4.8  103 W/m2°C
for water.
 Length of heat exchanger using water as base fluid reduced
by 8.1% for Al2O3 and 13.2% for CuO.
 M. Faizal et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57 (2016) 16–33
Fig. 10. Comparison between the measured overall heat transfer coefficient for
water and nanofluid for Q ¼280 W [52]. (Reprinted from Lotfi R, Rashidi AM,
Amrollahi A. Experimental study on the heat transfer enhancement of MWNT-
water nanofluid in a shell and tube heat exchanger. International Communications
in Heat and Mass Transfer 2012;39:108-111., Copyright (2012), with permission
from Elsevier.).
Fig. 11. Variation of overall heat transfer coefficient [53]. (Reprinted from Godson L,
Deepak K, Enoch C, Jefferson B, Raja B. Heat transfer characteristics of silver/water
nanofluids in a shell and tube heat exchanger. Archives of Civil and Mechanical
Engineering 2014;14:489-496., Copyright (2014), with permission from Elsevier.).
development has led to reduction in the length of pipes as well as
improved heat pump performance [13,57].
Pasquier et al. [58] tested the thermal performance of bore-
holes installed with the enhanced GEOperforms HDPE pipes.
Experimental results from thermal response tests showed that the
equivalent borehole thermal resistance of the well with GEOper-
form pipe was 17% lower. Simulations done to verify test results
showed a reduction of 18%. Comparative simulations done at
various peak loads using conventional HDPE pipes and GEOper-
forms pipes showed that these latter reduce the borehole lengths
by up to 10%.
Raymond et al. [13] performed numerical studies on this
enhanced pipe for applications in boreholes. Two-dimensional,
steady state simulations of conductive heat transfer showed that
borehole thermal resistance can be reduced by 6–24% compared to
regular pipes, with the highest reduction occurring for high
25
Fig. 12. Comparison of the local heat transfer coefficient of graphene nanofluids
with water in the laminar flow [54]. (Reprinted from Ghozatloo A, Rashidi A,
Shariaty-Niassar M. Convective heat transfer enhancement of graphene nanofluids
in shell and tube heat exchanger. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science
2014;53:136-141., Copyright (2014), with permission from Elsevier.).
Fig. 13. Thermal conductivity of the samples vs. temperature nanofluids [54].
(Reprinted from Ghozatloo A, Rashidi A, Shariaty-Niassar M. Convective heat
transfer enhancement of graphene nanofluids in shell and tube heat exchanger.
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 2014;53:136-141., Copyright (2014), with
permission from Elsevier.).
thermal conductivity of the grout. For the cases studied, a borehole
length reduction of 9% was achieved. Figs. 16 and 17 show the
change in borehole thermal resistance and borehole length for 3
U-tube configurations: (a) both pipes of the U-tube near the edge
of borehole (b) both pipes with equal concrete cover (c) both pipes
at the center of the borehole. Application of HDPE pipe with
enhanced thermal properties will therefore lead to lower thermal
resistances as well as reduction in the total length of pipes used in
geothermal energy piles.
Thermal properties of HDPE material can be enhanced using
different types of thermally conductive fillers. Dorrian and Mumm
[14] patented a pipe with enhanced thermal conductivity for
geothermal applications (Green Geo pipe). The pipes could be
made of plastic, including HDPE, and the thermally conductive
particles may be metallic oxide, non-oxides, graphite, or other
similar materials with high thermal conductivity. Using a blend of
20% HDPE, 5% thermoplastic elastomer and 75 wt% zinc oxide, a
pipe thermal conductivity of 0.85 W/mK was achieved compared
to 0.36 W/mK for standard HDPE without thermally conductive
particles. Tests were done for slinky patterns of 210 m of standard
HDPE pipes and 96 m of thermally enhanced pipes at 1.8 m depth.
For heating, it was found the temperature difference between inlet
and outlet of pipes was 6.7 degrees for thermally enhanced pipe
26 M. Faizal et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57 (2016) 16–33

Fig. 14. Convective heat transfer coefficients a) (γ-Al2O3)/water nanofluid b) (TiO2)/

water nanofluid [55]. (Reprinted from Farajollahi B, Etemad SG, Hojjat M. Heat
transfer of nanofluids in a shell and tube heat exchanger. International Journal of
Heat and Mass Transfer 2010;53:12-17., Copyright (2010), with permission from
Elsevier.).

compared to 4.6 degrees for standard HDPE pipe. For cooling, the
temperature difference between inlet and outlet of pipes was
9.1 degrees for thermally enhanced pipe compared to 5.6 degrees
Fig. 15. Effect of different particle shape on (a) thermal conductivity and
for standard HDPE pipe. The thermally enhanced pipes would also
(b) convective heat transfer coefficient [56]. (Reprinted from Elias et al. Effect of
be useful in geothermal energy piles for improving heat extraction nanoparticle shape on the heat transfer and thermodynamic performance of a shell
and reduction. and tube heat exchanger. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer
Graphite is one material that has shown promise in enhancing 2013;44:93-99., Copyright (2013), with permission from Elsevier.).

thermal properties of HDPE material, as shown by Ye et al. [15],

Krupa and Chodák [16], and Krupa et al. [59]. Ye et al. [15]
experimentally studied the thermal conductivity of HDPE filled
with expanded and colloid graphite. The thermal conductivity of
HDPE increased with increasing content of graphite (Fig. 18). Due
to increase in content, graphite particles are in more contact, thus
increasing conductivity. The thermal conductivity was higher for
expanded graphite compared to colloid graphite (Fig. 19), thus
grade of material is also affects heat transfer. Krupa and Chodák
[16] studied the effect of two types of graphite (graphite EG and
graphite KS) and showed a non-linear increase in thermal con-
ductivity, with the graphite KS giving higher values than graphite
EG. The thermal conductivities of (LDPE)/graphite and HDPE/gra-
phite composites were also shown to increase with increasing
graphite content by Krupa et al. [59] (Fig. 20). While there is ample
increase in thermal conductivities of HDPE material, the effect of
increasing filler content can lead to possible formation of non-
Fig. 16. Borehole thermal resistance [13]. (Reprinted from Raymond J, Frenette M,
homogenous stress sites in the material, which can lead to possi-
Leger A, Magni E, Therrien R. Numerical Modeling of Thermally Enhanced Pipe
ble cracks Krupa and Chodák [16]. Therefore, together with Performances in Vertical Ground Heat Exchangers. Ashrae: Transactions 2011, Vol
enhancing thermal properties, the mechanical properties of the 117, Pt 1 2011;117:899-907., Copyright (2011), with permission from ASHRAE.).
 M. Faizal et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57 (2016) 16–33
Fig. 17. Borehole length [13]. (Reprinted from Raymond J, Frenette M, Leger A,
Magni E, Therrien R. Numerical Modeling of Thermally Enhanced Pipe Perfor-
mances in Vertical Ground Heat Exchangers. Ashrae: Transactions 2011, Vol 117, Pt
1 2011;117:899-907., Copyright (2011), with permission from ASHRAE.).
Fig. 18. Thermal conductivity of HDPE filled with colloid graphite [15]. (Reprinted
from Ye CM, Shentu BQ, Weng ZX. Thermal conductivity of high density poly-
ethylene filled with graphite. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 2006;101:3806-
3810., Copyright (2006), with permission from Wiley.).
Fig. 19. Influence of the graphite species on the thermal conductivity of HDPE
composites (volume content and particle diameter of graphite: 7%, 4 μm) [15].
(Reprinted from Ye CM, Shentu BQ, Weng ZX. Thermal conductivity of high density
polyethylene filled with graphite. Journal of Applied Polymer Science
2006;101:3806-3810., Copyright (2006), with permission from Wiley.).
27
Fig. 20. Thermal conductivity (λc) of the graphite filled LDPE (squares) and HDPE
(circles) as a function of the volume filler content (φf ) [59]. (Reprinted from Krupa
I, Novak I, Chodak I. Electrically and thermally conductive polyethylene/graphite
composites and their mechanical properties. Synthetic Metals 2004;145:245-252.,
Copyright (2004), with permission from Elsevier.).
Fig. 21. Thermal conductivity for isotropic (◄) SWNT/LDPE and (●) SWNT/HDPE
composites at various SWNT loadings, measured perpendicular to pressing direc-
tion [18]. (Reprinted with permission from (Haggenmueller R, Guthy C, Lukes JR,
Fischer JE, Winey KI. Single wall carbon nanotube/polyethylene nanocomposites:
Thermal and electrical conductivity. Macromolecules 2007;40:2417-2421). Copy-
right (2007) American Chemical Society.).
HDPE pipes has to be well desinged to suit both mechanical and
thermal loading conditions of geothermal energy piles.
Han and Fina [6] presented an extensive review on thermal
conductivity of carbon nanotubes (CNT) and their polymer nano-
composites. They identified and discussed several parameters that
affect the thermal conductivity of CNTs and polymer/CNT com-
posites. The thermal resistances between CNT-polymer and CNT-
CNT should be minimized for effective heat transfer. The contact
between CNT-CNT should be improved as much as possible. The
CNTs in nanocomposites should be properly distributed in the
polymer matrix for effective conduction.
Haggenmueller et al. [18] and Chen et al. [19] investigated the
thermal conductivity of polymer composites for single wall carbon
nanotube (SWCNT) and multi walled carbon nanotube (MWCNT),
respectivley. The thermal conductivities were generally found to
increase with SWCNT and MWCNT tube loading, as shown in
28 M. Faizal et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57 (2016) 16–33

Figs. 21 and 22. Haggenmueller et al. [18] showed that the HDPE
thermal conductivity was higher due to increased crystallinity
compared to LDPE (Fig. 21). The orientation of HDPE was varied
from isotropic to highly aligned and it was found that thermal
Fig. 22. TC of the HDPE/MWCNT composites vs. MWCNT content [19]. (Reprinted
from Chen XG, He GH, Du JH, Pei SF, Guo JF. Investigation on the thermal con-
ductivity of HDPE/MWCNT composites by laser pulse method. Science in China
Series E-Technological Sciences 2009;52:2767-2772, Fig. 3, Copyright (2009 Science
in China Press), With kind permission from Springer Science and Business Media.).
conductivity increased with increasing alignment of HDPE fibers
and SWCNT/HDPE composite fibers. Carbon nanotubes composites
can thus be researched on to improve thermal conductivities of
HDPE pipes in geothermal energy piles.
Other types of fillers that could possibly be used to improve
thermal conductivity of HDPE pipes in geothermal energy piles are
carbon black, carbon nanofiber, and polyamide particles. Zainab
[60] studied HDPE filled with carbon black and titanium dioxide
and found that the thermal conductivity increased with increasing
filler content. Krupa et al. [17] observed non-linear increase of
thermal conductivity of HDPE with increasing filler content of
silver coated, spherical polyamide 6 particles. Xu et al. [20] studied
the thermal properties of carbon nanofiber reinforced HDPE
nanocomposites and showed that the thermal conductivity of the
HDPE/carbon nanofiber nanocomposite increased with carbon
nanofiber loading. Thick silane treated carbon nanofiber compo-
sites improved thermal conductivities for all concentrations. The
enhancement was due to high thermal conductivity of carbon
nanofibers as well as interfacial quality between the carbon
nanofibers and the HDPE matrix.
The key findings of the studies in this section are collected in
Table 4. The studies presented in this section clearly shows that
thermally conductive fillers mixed with HDPE pipe material will
improve the thermal conductivity of the pipe material, thus
enhancing heat transfer between the heat carrier fluid in the pipes
and the ground. The improvement in heat transfer will also reduce
the length of pipes. However, research needs to be done to obtain

Table 4
Thermal properties of HDPE pipes with various filler types.

Source Filler used in HDPE Filler content/ specifications Key findings

Ye et al. [15] Graphite Graphite powder content was between 0–22% by volume  k increased with increasing vol% of graphite.
 A k ¼ 1.59 W/mK for expanded graphite and
k ¼0.779 W/mK for colloidal graphite were recorded at
7 vol% and 4 μm particle diameter.
 Due to increase in content, graphite particles are in
more contact, thus increasing conductivity.
Krupa and Chodák [16] Graphite EG and gra- Filler volume fraction range of 0–0.33  Nonlinear increase in k with increasing vol% of
phite KS graphite.
 k for HDPE/graphite EG increased approximately from
0.44 to 1.7 W/mK, and from 0.44 to 1.8 W/mK for
HDPE/graphite KS.
Krupa et al. [17] Silver coated, spherical Filler volume fraction range of 0–0.334  Non-linear increase of k with increasing filler content.
polyamide 6 particles.  k of HDPE increased from 0.45 W/mK to 1.935 W/mK.
Krupa et al. [59] LDPE/graphite and Graphite EG-10 with irregular shape and broad size dis-  k increased non-linearly with increasing vol% of
HDPE/graphite tribution was used with volume fraction range of 0–0.4. graphite
composites  k for HDPE/graphite was approximately 2.4 W/mK, and
2 W/mK for LDPE/graphite composite.
Haggenmueller et al. single walled carbon 0–0.2 volume fraction  k increased with SWCNT loading.
[18] nanotube (SWCNT)  k ¼3.5 W/mK for HDPE and k ¼ 1.8 W/mK for LDPE was
achieved at 0.2 vol% of SWCNT.
 HDPE thermal conductivity was higher due to
increased crystallinity compared to LDPE.
 k increased with increasing alignment of HDPE fibers
and SWCNT/HDPE composite fibers.
Chen et al. [19] Multi walled carbon 0–0.11 volume fraction  k increased rapidly up to vol% of 3.35%, after which the
nanotube (MWCNT) increasing rate became very slow.
 k remained constant up to a temperature of 120 °C,
after which it increased with increasing temperature.
 k was approximately 0.455 W/mK compared to
0.266 W/mK for HDPE at room temperature and
maximum concentration.
Xu et al. [20] Carbon nanofiber Weight percent concentrations of 0.5, 1, and 3. Three types  k increased with carbon nanofiber loading.
of carbon nanofibers were used: pristine, thick and thin  Thick silane treated carbon nanofiber composites gave
silane treated carbon nanofibers. higher k.
 At wt% of 3, k of thick silane carbon fiber composite
was 0.528 W/mK, compared to 0.446 W/mK for neat
HDPE, an increase of 18.4%.
 Enhancement was due to high k of carbon nanofibers
as well as interfacial quality between carbon nanofi-
bers and HDPE matrix.
 M. Faizal et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57 (2016) 16–33
optimum filler content for given filler type, that will allow the
HDPE pipe material to resist cracking, to maintain stability under
cyclic thermal loading as well as to sustain the variations in fluid
flow pressure.
4.4. Concrete heat transfer enhancement
Concrete is composed of cement, sand and coarse aggregates
(gravel). Cement is the element that binds the mix when water is
added. Any modifications to the concrete mix to enhance its heat
transfer characteristics should not alter the load carrying capacity
of the piles. Many studies have been done to increase the strength
of concrete with low cost, lightweight materials, and at the same
time to reduce thermal conductivity for thermal insulation.
Sukontasukkul [61] mixed rubber crumbs to reduce k of the pre-
cast concrete from 0.531 W/mK to 0.296 W/mK. Bentz et al. [62]
reduced k of concrete by 19% when 75% of cement was replaced by
fly ash. Some other studies on reducing k of concrete are reported
elsewhere [63–65]. Increasing the thermal conductivity of con-
crete helps reduce the overall thermal resistance to heat transfer,
hence improving heat exchange between the pipes and the ground
and reducing building energy usage. Fig. 23 shows that increasing
foundation thermal conductivity reduces the heating and cooling
energy demands of a building (Kwag and Krarti [36].
The basic parameters of concrete such as its normal con-
stituents could be altered to improve its thermal properties. Sand,
silica fume, and silane composition in cement could alter its
thermal properties. Xu and Chung [21,22] studied the effect of
sand addition on specific heat and thermal conductivity of Port-
land cement paste and mortar, with and without the presence of
silica fume, in one study [21] and studied the changes in specific
heat and thermal conductivity of Portland cement mixed with
Fig. 23. Impact of concrete thermal conductivity on the cooling and heating energy
usage of a building in Chicago, IL [36]. (Reprinted from Kwag BC, Krarti M. Per-
formance of Thermoactive Foundations for Commercial Buildings. Journal of Solar
Energy Engineering 2013;135:040907-040907, Copyright (2013), with permission
from ASME).
29
silane and silica fume in another study [22]. For cement pastes and
mortars without silica fume, adding sand decreased specific heat
and increased thermal conductivity. Addition of sand to cement
pastes and mortars containing silica fume reduced specific heat
capacity and increased thermal conductivity. The smaller interface
area in sand was believed to be the reason for low specific heat
and high thermal conductivity. The overall effect of adding both
silane and silica fume increases specific heat and thermal con-
ductivity. There is also an increase in compressive strength and
modulus, with a reduction in compressive ductility. These para-
meters are a result of networking of silica fume particles due to
addition of silane. Silica fume on its own increases specific heat
but decreases thermal conductivity. Also, directly mixing silane
with sand and cement gives more benefits in terms of thermal
properties compared to coating silane on silica fume.
Kim et al. [66] studied the effects of age, water–cement ratio,
types of admixtures, aggregate volume fraction, fine aggregate
fraction, temperature, and humidity condition of specimen. The
thermal conductivities of cement paste and concrete were not
affected by curing age and were found to reduce with increasing
water–cement ratio. With addition of more cement, i.e. for lower
water–cement ratio, thermal conductivity is higher since cement
has higher thermal conductivity. The thermal conductivities
increased slightly as the fine aggregate fraction was increased,
either because of fine aggregates had high thermal conductivities
or fine aggregates are more easily to distribute in the mixture. The
thermal conductivities of specimens decreased when specimen
temperature was increased, and increased with increasing moist-
ure content since water fills the voids. Higher volume of coarse
aggregates gave higher thermal conductivities for all temperature
and moisture conditions. The coarse aggregates have higher
thermal conductivities in concrete, thus larger amount of aggre-
gates will give higher thermal conductivities, as shown in Fig. 24.
It was also shown that the thermal conductivity reduced when fly
ash and blast furnace slag are used as admixtures (Fig. 25). These
alterations to the basic concrete mix design, such as volume and
type of aggregates and fly ash and slag compositions, can be
Fig. 24. Effect of aggregate volume ratio on the thermal conductivity of concrete
[66]. (Reprinted from Kim KH, Jeon SE, Kim JK, Yang SC. An experimental study on
thermal conductivity of concrete. Cement and Concrete Research 2003;33:363-371.,
Copyright (2003), with permission from Elsevier.).
30 M. Faizal et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57 (2016) 16–33

Fig. 25. Effect of fly ash and slag composition on the thermal conductivity of
concrete [66]. (Reprinted from Kim KH, Jeon SE, Kim JK, Yang SC. An experimental
study on thermal conductivity of concrete. Cement and Concrete Research
2003;33:363-371., Copyright (2003), with permission from Elsevier.).
Fig.26. The effect of graphite content on the thermal conductivity [24]. (Reprinted
from Guo CZ, Zhu JQ, Zhou WB, Chen W. Fabrication and Thermal Properties of a
New Heat Storage Concrete Material. Journal of Wuhan University of Technology-
Materials Science Edition 2010;25:628-630, Fig. 3, Copyright (Wuhan University of
Technology and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010), With kind permission
from Springer Science and Business Media.).

researched on for applications in geothermal energy piles to

enhance heat transfer.
Foundation concrete heat transfer could also be enhanced by
adding additives with high thermal conductivities. Laing et al. [25]
and Guo et al. [24] suggested the application of graphite to
improve thermal properties of concrete. Particulary for high tem-
perature application for thermal energy storages, Laing et al. [25]
showed that the number of tubes to obtain sufficient heat transfer
is reduced by using heat transfer structures (such as aluminium
and graphite) with high thermal conductivity. This would mean
that the length of pipes used in energy piles will also reduce if the
concrete thermal conductivity is increased. Guo et al. [24] showed
that at room temperatures and with increasing graphite content,
the thermal conductivity increased with increasing graphite con-
tent (Fig. 26). The compressive and flexural strengths were, how-
ever, found to reduce with increasing graphite content (Fig. 27), as
a result of increasing porosity and number of voids. While the end
results of compressive strengths were acceptable for use in this
study, extreme care has to be taken if altering the concrete design Fig. 27. Effect of adding graphite on a) thermal conductivity b) compressive and
mix for geothermal energy piles. Nevertheless, addition of gra- flexural strength [24]. (Reprinted from Guo CZ, Zhu JQ, Zhou WB, Chen W. Fabri-
phite to the concrete mix (with other alterations mentioned above cation and Thermal Properties of a New Heat Storage Concrete Material. Journal of
Wuhan University of Technology-Materials Science Edition 2010;25:628-630, Fig. 2,
such as volume of aggregates) to improve its thermal properties
Copyright (Wuhan University of Technology and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
would be worthwhile to look into for use in geothermal 2010), With kind permission from Springer Science and Business Media).
energy piles.
Lie and Kodur [23] studied the thermal properties of steel–
fiber-reinforced siliceous concrete for applications at elevated
temperatures. The thermal conductivity of the fiber-reinforced investigated for improving thermal conductivity of concrete in
concrete was slightly higher compared to plain carbonate concrete geothermal energy piles.
and fiber-reinforced carbonate concrete. Siliceous concrete had The key findings of the studies in this section are summarized
higher thermal conductivity than carbonate concrete because of in Table 5. The thermal conductivities of concrete can be enhanced
higher crystallinity of siliceous aggregates compared to carbon
by altering the basic mix. Highly thermally conductive additives
aggregates. The presence of the steel fibers increased thermal
such as graphite and steel–fiber can also be included in the con-
conductivity because thermal conductivity of steel is about 50
crete mix to enhance thermal conductivity. Improvements in heat
times larger than that of concrete. Unlike the low temperature
range for geothermal energy piles, test in the present studies were transfer capabilities of concrete will also reduce the length of pipes
done for range 0–1000 °C, showing a reduction in thermal con- required in geothermal energy piles to meet the heating or cooling
ductivities for all specimens up to 400 °C. The compressive loads. Together with enhancing thermal properties, research also
strength of fiber-reinforced concrete was also higher. Given its needs to be done to maintain the normal compressive strength of
benefits in mechanical and thermal properties, steel fibers can be the foundation concrete.
 M. Faizal et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57 (2016) 16–33
Table 5
Thermal properties of concrete.
Source Study Materials/methods used
Xu and Effect of sand addition on specific heat and Silica fume used was 15% by weight of cement.
Chung [21] thermal conductivity of Portland cement Natural sand with fine particles (no. 4 US sieve
paste and mortar, with and without the pre- size) was used in mortars.
sence of silica fume.
Xu and Changes in specific heat and thermal con- Silica fume used was 15% by weight of cement.
Chung [22] ductivity of Portland cement mixed with Silane (aqueous amino vinyl silane) was used in
silane and silica fume. the amount of 0–2% of weight of cement.
Kim et al. Effect age, water–cement ratio, types of Materials used were: Portland cement, Type I with
[66] admixtures, aggregate volume fraction, fine compressive strength of 40 MPa and Type V with
aggregate fraction, temperature, and humid- compressive strength of 36 MPa; rive sand as fine
ity condition of specimen. aggregate with fineness modulus of 2.95 and cru-
shed stone as course aggregate with fineness
modulus of 7.23; and fly ash and blast surface slag
as admixtures. The effect of age, aggregate content,
temperature, and humidity condition on thermal
conductivity were tested for both concrete and
cement paste. The effect of water–cement ratio
and type of cementitious material was tested for
cement paste, whereas effect of fine aggregate
fractions on thermal conductivity was tested for
concrete.
Lie and Steel–fiber-reinforced concrete General purpose Portland cement, silica-based
Kodur [23] sand as fine aggregates, and siliceous and carbo-
nate stone aggregates were used in the concrete
mix. Corrugated steel fibers with length of 50 mm,
equivalent diameter of 0.9 mm, and aspect ratio of
57 were used as reinforcement. Mechanical and
thermal properties of fiber-reinforced siliceous
concrete (compressive strength of 40 MPa) and
fiber-reinforced carbonate concrete (compressive
strength of 43 MPa) were compared against plain
carbonate concrete (compressive strength of
33 MPa).
Guo et al. Thermal properties of concrete with graphite Mechanical and thermal properties against varying
[24] content content of graphite from 0–5%, for room and ele-
vated temperatures.
31
Key findings
 For cement pastes and mortars without silica fume,
adding sand decreased specific heat by 13% (from
0.736 to 0.642 J/gK) and increased k by 9% (from
0.53 to 0.58 J/gK).
 Addition of sand to cement pastes and mortars
containing silica fume reduced specific heat capa-
city by 11% (from 0.788 to 0.705 J/gK) and increased
k by 64% (from 0.33 to 0.54 W/mK).
 Smaller interface area in sand was believed to be
the reason for low specific heat and high thermal
conductivity.
 Overall effect of adding both silane and silica fume
was that the thermal diffusivity decreased from
0.37 to 0.329 mm2/s (18%), specific heat increased
from 0.703 to 1.057 J/gK (50%), and k increased
from 0.52 to 0.719 W/mK (38%).
 Compressive strength increased from 57.9 to
82.7 MPa, and modulus increased from 2.92 to
16.9 GPa.
 Silica fume on its own mixed with cement increases
compressive strength, but reduces k.
 Directly mixing silane with silica fume and cement
increased k by 52–78%, whereas coating silane on
silica fume particles did not affect k.
 k of cement paste and concrete were not affected by
curing age.
 k increased with the volume of coarse aggregates
for all temperature and moisture conditions.
 Larger amount of aggregates will give higher k of
concrete.
 For water–cement ratio of 40%, fine aggregate
fraction of 39%, temperature of 20 °C and aggregate
volume ratio from 0 to 0.7, k for wet condition
increased from 1–2.12 kcal/mh °C (1.16–2.47 W/
mK), and from 0.66–1.69 kcal/mh °C (0.77–1.97 W/
mK) for the dry condition.
 k reduced with increasing water–cement ratio.
 With addition of more cement, i.e. for lower water–
cement ratio, k is higher since cement has higher k.
 The effect of admixtures was studied by replacing
cement with fly ash or blast surface slag according
to the replacement ratio of 0%, 50%, and 100%.
 k reduced when fly ash and blast furnace slag are
used as admixtures.
 k increased slightly as the fine aggregate fraction
was increased because k of fine aggregates could be
greater than course aggregates, or aggregates are
more easily distributed in the mixture when fine
aggregates are added.
 k decreased when specimen temperature was
increased.
 k increases with moisture content, since increase of
water content fills air voids
 k of fiber-reinforced concrete was higher compared
to plain carbonate concrete.
 Steel fibers slightly increased k of concrete because
k of steel is about 50 times larger than that of
concrete.
 Fiber-reinforced siliceous concrete had higher k
than fiber-reinforced carbonate concrete because of
higher crystallinity of siliceous aggregates com-
pared to carbon aggregates.
 Tests were done for a temperature range of
0-1000 °C.
 k of all specimens decreased with increasing tem-
perature up to 400 °C, after which it remained
almost constant.
 At room temperature and with increasing graphite
content, the compressive strength reduced from
approximately 55 MPa to 27.2 MPa, and flexural
strength reduced from approximately 7.5 MPa to
3.5 MPa.
 For 5% graphite content, compressive and flexural
strengths generally increased with increasing
32 M. Faizal et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57 (2016) 16–33
Table 5 (continued )
Source Study Materials/methods used
5. Conclusions
An overview of thermal characteristics and methods of heat
transfer enhancement of geothermal energy piles is presented.
Heat transfer can be enhanced in energy piles by minimizing
the temperature gradient between the primary circuit fluid in the
pipes and the ground. This can be done by optimizing the geo-
metry, enhancing the fluid thermal properties, and enhancing the
pipe material and concrete by adding highly thermally conductive
fillers. The studies on geometrical optimization looked at the
effects of pile diameter, concrete cover, number of pipes, and pipe
configurations such as single U-tube, double U-tube, triple U-tube,
multi-tubes, W-shaped, helical shapes, and coaxial types. Larger
pile diameters with small concrete cover to pipe work generally
give better heat transfer. Double U-shaped pipes have generally
been found to give better performance compared to single U-
shaped pipes and multi-tube shapes. Enhanced coaxial heat
exchanger pipes gave better heat transfer compared to double U-
shaped pipes. Helical shaped heat exchangers also gave better heat
exchange compared to the U-shaped pipes.
Nanofluids, which have shown a lot of promise in enhancing
heat transfer in heat exchangers, can also be researched to be used
as heat carrier fluid to enhance the conductive and convective heat
transfer coefficients. Few selected studies were presented that
compare heat transfer rates of nanofluids with water as base fluid
in tube heat exchangers. The nanoparticles presented in this study
are multi walled carbon nanotubes, graphene, alumina, titanium
dioxide, silver, aluminium oxide, and copper oxide. It is found that
heat transfer generally increases at even low concentrations of all
these types of nano scale particles. Some studies however showed
that higher than optimum concentrations could increase pumping
pressure losses. Further research in application of nanofluids for
use in geothermal energy piles is hence required to assess the
positive and negative effects of long term operation.
Highly thermal conductive fillers can also be used to enhance
the thermal conductivity of HDPE material. These enhanced HDPE
materials can be used for manufacturing pipes for use in energy
piles, which in turn will reduce the total thermal resistance by
increasing heat transfer between the primary circuit fluid and the
ground. The thermally conductive fillers for HDPE material pre-
sented in this study are metallic oxides, graphite, silver coated
polyamide particles, single walled carbon nanotubes, multi walled
carbon nanotubes, and carbon nanofibers. Research still needs to
be done on different types of fillers as well as avoiding possible
formation of cracks in the pipes for mechanical and cyclic thermal
loads in the pile.
Heat transfer enhancement in concrete can be achieved by
altering its basic mix as well as introducing thermally conductive
fillers in the concrete mix to improve the concrete thermal con-
ductivity. The thermally conductive fillers presented here are sand,
silane and silica fume, different aggregate fractions, graphite,
Key findings
temperature; but reduced at 700 °C due to surface
microcracks
 For temperature range of 0–1100 °C, compressive
strength increased from 27.2 MPa to approximately
37 MPa, and flexural strength increased from
approximately 3.5 MPa to approximately 4.75 MPa.
 At room temperature and with increasing graphite
content, k increased from approximately 1.2 W/mK
to 2.34 W/mK.
 At elevated temperatures, k increased from 2.34 W/
mK at 0 °C to approximately 2.9 W/mK at 900 °C.
aluminium, and steel fiber. The load carrying capacity of the
foundation piles should however not be compromised as a result
of altering the concrete mix to improve heat transfer.
References
[1] Brandl H. Ground-source energy wells for heating and cooling of buildings.
ACTA Geotech Slov 2006;1:5–27.
[2] 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 Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:2683–96.
[3] Brandl H. Energy foundations and other thermo-active ground structures.
Geotechnique 2006;56:81–122.
[4] Olgun CG, Abdelaziz SL, Martin JR. Long term performance of heat exchanger
piles. Coupled phenomena in environmental geotechnics. London, UK: CRC
Press; 2013. p. 511–7.
[5] MartinII JR, Abdelaziz SL, Olgun CG. Renewable energy applications using
thermo-active deep foundations. In: Proceedings of the international scientific
conference. Braşov12–13 November; 2010.
[6] Jalaluddin Miyara A, Tsubaki K, Inoue S, Yoshida K. Experimental study of
several types of ground heat exchanger using a steel pile foundation. Renew
Energy 2011;36:764–71.
[7] Park H, Lee S-R, Yoon S, Choi J-C. Evaluation of thermal response and perfor-
mance of PHC energy pile: field experiments and numerical simulation. Appl
Energy 2013;103:12–24.
[8] Gashti EHN, Uotinen VM, Kujala K. Numerical modelling of thermal regimes in
steel energy pile foundations: a case study. Energy Build 2014;69:165–74.
[9] Morino K, Oka T. Study on heat exchanged in soil by circulating water in a steel
pile. Energy Build 1994;21:65–78.
[10] Das SK, Choi SUS, Patel HE. Heat transfer in nanofluids – a review. Heat Transf
Eng 2006;27:3–19.
[11] Kakac S, Pramuanjaroenkij A. Review of convective heat transfer enhancement
with nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2009;52:3187–96.
[12] Han ZD, Fina A. Thermal conductivity of carbon nanotubes and their polymer
nanocomposites: a review. Prog Polym Sci 2011;36:914–44.
[13] Raymond J, Frenette M, Leger A, Magni E, Therrien R. Numerical modeling of
thermally enhanced pipe performances in vertical ground heat exchangers.
Ashrae: Trans 2011 2011;Vol 117(Pt 1):899–907.
[14] Dorrian D, Mumm SM. Thermal conductivity pipe for geothermal applications.
Google Patents; 2011.
[15] Ye CM, Shentu BQ, Weng ZX. Thermal conductivity of high density poly-
ethylene filled with graphite. J Appl Polym Sci 2006;101:3806–10.
[16] Krupa I, Chodak I. Physical properties of thermoplastic/graphite composites.
Eur Polym J 2001;37:2159–68.
[17] Krupa I, Boudenne A, Ibos L. Thermophysical properties of polyethylene filled
with metal coated polyamide particles. Eur Polym J 2007;43:2443–52.
[18] Haggenmueller R, Guthy C, Lukes JR, Fischer JE, Winey KI. Single wall carbon
nanotube/polyethylene nanocomposites: thermal and electrical conductivity.
Macromolecules 2007;40:2417–21.
[19] Chen XG, He GH, Du JH, Pei SF, Guo JF. Investigation on the thermal con-
ductivity of HDPE/MWCNT composites by laser pulse method. Sci China Ser E
– Technol Sci 2009;52:2767–72.
[20] Xu S, Akchurin A, Liu T, Wood W, Tangpong X, Akhatov IS, Zhong W-H.
Thermal properties of carbon nanofiber reinforced high-density polyethylene
nanocomposites. J Compos Mater 2015;49:795–805.
[21] Xu YS, Chung DDL. Effect of sand addition on the specific heat and thermal
conductivity of cement. Cem Concr Res 2000;30:59–61.
[22] Xu YS, Chung DDL. Cement of high specific heat and high thermal con-
ductivity, obtained by using silane and silica fume as admixtures. Cem Concr
Res 2000;30:1175–8.
[23] Lie TT, Kodur VKR. Thermal and mechanical properties of steel-fibre-
reinforced concrete at elevated temperatures. Can J Civ Eng 1996;23:511–7.
 M. Faizal et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57 (2016) 16–33
[24] Guo CZ, Zhu JQ, Zhou WB, Chen W. Fabrication and thermal properties of a
new heat storage concrete material. J Wuhan Univ Technol – Mater Sci Ed
2010;25:628–30.
[25] Laing D, Bahl C, Bauer T, Fiss M, Breidenbach N, Hempel M. High-temperature
solid-media thermal energy storage for solar thermal power plants. Proc IEEE
2012;100:516–24.
[26] Florides G, Kalogirou S. Ground heat exchangers—a review of systems, models
and applications. Renew Energy 2007;32:2461–78.
[27] Li X, Chen Y, Chen Z, Zhao J. Thermal performances of different types of
underground heat exchangers. Energy Build 2006;38:543–7.
[28] Barry-Macaulay D, Bouazza A, Singh RM, Wang B, Ranjith PG. Thermal con-
ductivity of soils and rocks from the Melbourne (Australia) regiond. Eng Geol
2013;164:131–8.
[29] Gao Q, Li M, Yu M. Experiment and simulation of temperature characteristics
of intermittently-controlled ground heat exchanges. Renew Energy
2010;35:1169–74.
[30] Wood CJ, Liu H, Riffat SB. An investigation of the heat pump performance and
ground temperature of a piled foundation heat exchanger system for a resi-
dential building. Energy 2010;35:4932–40.
[31] Olgun CG, Ozudogru T, Abdelaziz S, Senol A. Long-term performance of heat
exchanger piles. Acta Geotech 2014:1–17.
[32] Loveridge F, Powrie W. 2D thermal resistance of pile heat exchangers. Geo-
thermics 2014;50:122–35.
[33] Loveridge F, Powrie W. Pile heat exchangers: thermal behaviour and interac-
tions. In: Proceedings of the ICE-Geotechnical Engineering; 2013. p. 178–96.
[34] Hellström G. Ground heat storage: thermal analyses of duct storage systems. I.
Theory. Sweden: University of Lund; 1991.
[35] Fleur Loveridge TA, William Powrie. Energy pile performance and preventing
ground freezing. In: Proceedings of the 2012 international conference on
geomechanics and engineering (ICGE'12). Seoul, Korea; 2012.
[36] Kwag BC, Krarti M. Performance of thermoactive foundations for commercial
buildings. J Sol Energy Eng 2013;135:040907.
[37] Kaltreider C, Krarti M, McCartney J. Heat transfer analysis of thermo-active
foundations. Energy Build 2015;86:492–501.
[38] Bourne-Webb P. An overview of observed thermal and thermo-mechanical
response of piled energy foundations. In: Proceedings of the European geo-
thermal congress 2013. Pisa, Italy 3–7 June; 2013.
[39] Rouissi K, Krarti M, McCartney JS. Analysis of thermo-active foundations With
U-tube heat exchangers. J Sol Energy Eng – Trans ASME 2012:134.
[40] Gao J, Zhang X, Liu J, Li K, Yang J. Numerical and experimental assessment of
thermal performance of vertical energy piles: an application. Appl Energy
2008;85:901–10.
[41] Gbao J, Zhang X, Liu J, Li KS, Yang J. Thermal performance and ground tem-
perature of vertical pile-foundation heat exchangers: a case study. Appl Therm
Eng 2008;28:2295–304.
[42] Hamada Y, Saitoh H, Nakamura M, Kubota H, Ochifuji K. Field performance of
an energy pile system for space heating. Energy Build 2007;39:517–24.
[43] Wood CJ, Liu H, Riffat SB. Comparative performance of ‘U-tube’ and ‘coaxial’
loop designs for use with a ground source heat pump. Appl Therm Eng
2012;37:190–5.
[44] Zarrella A, Scarpa M, Carli MD. Short time-step performances of coaxial and
double U-tube borehole heat exchangers: modeling and measurements.
HVACR Res 2011;17:959–76.
[45] Go G-H, Lee S-R, Yoon S, Kang H-b. Design of spiral coil PHC energy pile
considering effective borehole thermal resistance and groundwater advection
effects. Appl Energy 2014;125:165–78.
33
[46] Zarrella A, De Carli M, Galgaro A. Thermal performance of two types of energy
foundation pile: Helical pipe and triple U-tube. Appl Therm Eng 2013;61:
301–10.
[47] 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.
[48] Guerrieri D, Viana F, Fragoso SC, Avelino MR. Shell-and-tube heat exchangers
using nanofluids. In: Proceedings of the 4th Brazilian Congress of Thermal
Sciences and Engineering. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil: ABCM; 2012.
[49] Syam Sundar L, Singh MK. Convective heat transfer and friction factor corre-
lations of nanofluid in a tube and with inserts: a review. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2013;20:23–35.
[50] Huminic G, Huminic A. Application of nanofluids in heat exchangers: a review.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:5625–38.
[51] Olson JM. Nanofluids and a method of making nanofluids for ground source
heat pumps and other applications. Google Patents; 2013.
[52] Lotfi R, Rashidi AM, Amrollahi A. Experimental study on the heat transfer
enhancement of MWNT-water nanofluid in a shell and tube heat exchanger.
Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 2012;39:108–11.
[53] Godson L, Deepak K, Enoch C, Jefferson B, Raja B. Heat transfer characteristics
of silver/water nanofluids in a shell and tube heat exchanger. Arch Civ Mech
Eng 2014;14:489–96.
[54] Ghozatloo A, Rashidi A, Shariaty-Niassar M. Convective heat transfer
enhancement of graphene nanofluids in shell and tube heat exchanger. Exp
Therm Fluid Sci 2014;53:136–41.
[55] Farajollahi B, Etemad SG, Hojjat M. Heat transfer of nanofluids in a shell and
tube heat exchanger. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2010;53:12–7.
[56] Elias MM, Miqdad M, Mahbubul IM, Saidur R, Kamalisarvestani M, Sohel MR,
Hepbasli A, Rahim NA, Amalina MA. Effect of nanoparticle shape on the heat
transfer and thermodynamic performance of a shell and tube heat exchanger.
Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 2013;44:93–9.
[57] Stéphane G. Thermally enhanced pipe for geothermal applications. IGSHPA
Technical Conference and Expo. USA; 2012.
[58] Pasquier PG, Magni E, Gonthier S. Thermal performance evaluation of a
geoexchange well installed with GEOperfrom HDPE pipes. Geoexchange;
2009.
[59] Krupa I, Novak I, Chodak I. Electrically and thermally conductive polyethylene/
graphite composites and their mechanical properties. Synth Met
2004;145:245–52.
[60] Zanaib YS. Mechanical and physical properties of high density polyethylene filled
with carbon black and titanium dioxide. Diyala J of Eng Sci 2012;5:147–59.
[61] Sukontasukkul P. Use of crumb rubber to improve thermal and sound prop-
erties of pre-cast concrete panel. Constr Build Mater 2009;23:1084–92.
[62] Bentz DP, Peltz MA, Duran-Herrera A, Valdez P, Juarez CA. Thermal properties
of high-volume fly ash mortars and concretes. J Build Phys 2011;34:263–75.
[63] Xu YS, Chung DDL. Increasing the specific heat of cement paste by admixture
surface treatments. Cem Concr Res 1999;29:1117–21.
[64] Fu XL, Chung DDL. Effect of admixtures on thermal and thermomechanical
behavior of cement paste. Aci Mater J 1999;96:455–61.
[65] Yun TS, Jeong YJ, Han TS, Youm KS. Evaluation of thermal conductivity for
thermally insulated concretes. Energy Build 2013;61:125–32.
[66] Kim KH, Jeon SE, Kim JK, Yang SC. An experimental study on thermal con-
ductivity of concrete. Cem Concr Res 2003;33:363–71.