Applied Thermal Engineering 167 (2020) 114770

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

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

Assessment and comparison of different arrangements of horizontal ground T

heat exchangers for high energy required applications
⁎
Behrad Asgari, Mohammad Habibi, Ali Hakkaki-Fard
RASES Lab, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Azadi Ave., Tehran, Iran

H I GH L IG H T S

• The arrangement that has the maximum heat exchange rate for each type of GHE is defined.
• Thermal performance of twelve different pipe arrangements is studied for the linear GHE.
• The linear GHE with quadruple-layer arrangement has the highest heat exchange rate.
• The staggered double-layer pipe layout has the best performance for the slinky and spiral GHE.
• The thermal performance of the best arrangements is studied for three types of soil.

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

Keywords: Horizontal ground heat exchangers (GHEs) have a lower initial installation cost in comparison to vertical ones;
Ground source heat pump however, they require more land area. In order to reduce the required land area of horizontal GHEs, their heat
Horizontal ground heat exchanger exchange rate per unit land area needs to be enhanced. A remedy to this problem is installing horizontal GHEs in
Pipe arrangement an arrangement with maximum heat exchange rate per unit land area. However, such arrangements have not
Linear
been introduced for different types of horizontal GHEs thus far. To this end, in this study, the thermal perfor-
Slinky
mance of various GHE pipe arrangements for three different types (linear, spiral, and slinky) of horizontal GHEs
Spiral
is evaluated. Comparing the obtained results, the arrangement that provides the maximum heat exchange rate
per unit land area for each type is introduced. A 3D numerical model based on the finite-element method is
developed to simulate the GHEs performance. In order to have a fair comparison, all studied arrangements are
designed to have the same installation cost. The obtained results indicated that the linear GHE with quadruple-
layer arrangement provides the most uniform heat distribution in the ground and, therefore, has the highest heat
exchange rate per unit land area among all cases studied. This arrangement has about a 34% higher heat ex-
change rate per unit land area than the conventional single-layer arrangement. The staggered double-layer
arrangement is the best arrangement for the slinky and spiral GHE types, which has about 22 and 7% higher heat
exchange rate per unit land area than conventional single-layer arrangement, respectively. Furthermore, the
thermal performance of the best arrangement for each type is evaluated for three different values of soil thermal
conductivities.

1. Introduction
Recently, ground Source Heat Pumps (GSHPs) have attracted a -
great deal of attention as a highly efficient, eco-friendly, and sustain-
able heating/cooling system. However, their high installation cost has
hindered their broad adoption [1]. The Ground Heat Exchanger (GHE)
is the most prominent component of a GSHP. The GHEs can be divided
into vertical and horizontal types based on their installation orienta-
tion. In vertical type, GHE pipes are buried in vertical boreholes with a
depth range of 15 to 120 m [2]. The vertical GHEs have better thermal
performance and require less pipe and land area in comparison to the
horizontal type. However, on account of the need for drilling deep
boreholes, they require high installation costs [3].
The effects of various parameters on the thermal performance of
vertical GHEs has been widely studied by several researchers [4–7].
Ally et al. [8] performed energy and exergy analysis of a vertical GSHP
system during one-year of operation. They determined the sources of
exergy destruction in the system. Their result indicated that ground

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ahakaki@sharif.ir (A. Hakkaki-Fard).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.114770
Received 18 July 2019; Received in revised form 12 November 2019; Accepted 3 December 2019
Available online 04 December 2019
1359-4311/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B. Asgari, et al.
supplied approximately 75% of the required energy of the studied
building for space heating.
On the other hand, in horizontal types, GHE pipes are buried in the
trenches with a depth range of one to two meters. Although the in-
stallation cost of horizontal GHEs is significantly lower than the vertical
ones, they require a large land area [9]. The thermal performance of
horizontal GHEs has also been studied by various researchers [10–13].
Kim et al. [14], for instance, performed a numerical simulation to in-
vestigate the effect of pipe diameter and soil thermal conductivity on
the thermal performance of spiral and slinky vertical GHEs. Their re-
sults demonstrated that the spiral GHE has better thermal performance
than slinky GHE. Furthermore, they indicated that the soil thermal
conductivity is the main parameter in designing the GHEs and the effect
of pipe diameter on the thermal performance of GHEs can be neglected.
In another study, Habibi and Hakkaki-Fard [15] performed long-
term energy and exergy analysis of a heat pump with different types of
GHEs. Their results revealed that the seasonal Coefficient of Perfor-
mance (COP) of a heat pump with vertical GHE, horizontal GHE, and
ground-air heat exchanger are approximately 45%, 38%, and 8% higher
than the conventional air-source heat pump, respectively. Li et al. [16]
numerically studied different parameters affecting the heat transfer rate
of spiral GHEs such as buried depth, soil thermal conductivity, ambient
air temperature, and pipe spacing. According to this study, the soil
thermal conductivity and pipe spacing are the most critical parameters
in determining the thermal performance of spiral GHEs.
Chang et al. [17] performed a numerical study to evaluate how
different parameters such as soil type, loop diameter, and loop pitch
affect the thermal performance of slinky GHEs. The results of this study
demonstrated that if the loop pitch is equal to the loop diameter, the
installation cost of the slinky heat exchanger would be minimum.
Congedo et al. [18] developed a computational model to assess the
thermal performance of three various kinds of horizontal GHEs during a
365-day operating period. Their results illustrated that the fluid flow
rate inside the pipe and soil type are the pivotal factors that affect the
thermal performance of the GHE. In addition, their result demonstrated
that spiral GHE has the best thermal performance among various kinds
of horizontal GHEs.
In another study, Kim et al. [19] developed a numerical model to
assess the performance of spiral GHEs. They verified their numerical
model with the results of the thermal response test. The effect of five
different parameters, viz, fluid velocity, soil thermal conductivity,
spiral diameter, spiral pitch, and buried depth of GHE, on the thermal
performance of the spiral GHE, were studied. Their results demon-
strated that the spiral pitch does not affect the thermal performance of
GHE when its value is higher than 0.6 m. Furthermore, the spiral dia-
meter is not a pivotal factor in determining the thermal performance of
a spiral GHE.
In a recent study, Habibi et al. [20] carried out a parametric study to
investigate the effect of critical parameters, including plate width, soil
thermal conductivity, and buried depth on the thermal performance of
flat-panel GHEs. Their result showed that the plate width is not a pi-
votal factor when its value is higher than 10 m. Moreover, they ob-
served that by increasing the buried depth, the thermal performance of
GHE is increased while its enhancement rate is decreased.
Lamarche et al. [21] proposed a novel analytical model to simulate
the thermal performance of linear GHEs. This model is based on the
finite line-source method that takes into account the variation of
ground surface temperature. Their model can predict the temperature
and heat flux distribution along the GHE.
In another recent study, Li et al. [22] studied the effect of surface
ground boundary conditions on the thermal performance of horizontal
GHEs. The studied parameters involved diurnal shading, the aspect
ratio of street, latitude, and the GHE buried depth. They concluded that
the effect of ground surface boundary condition is of paramount im-
portance when the building load is high, and buried depth is low.
As mentioned before, the main drawback of the horizontal GHEs is
2
Applied Thermal Engineering 167 (2020) 114770
their requirement for significant land area. Consequently, several re-
search studies attempted to enhance the heat exchange rate of the GHEs
to reduce the amount of required land area [23]. For instance, Habibi
and Hakkaki-Fard [24] performed a techno-economic comparison of
different types of horizontal GHEs such as linear, spiral, horizontal, and
vertical slinky. Their results demonstrated that the linear and spiral
types have the best performance in a parallel and single arrangement,
respectively. Furthermore, they introduced the idea of utilizing sec-
ondary soil around the GHE in order to enhance the thermal perfor-
mance of GHEs and reduce the amount of required land area.
In a study by Dasare and Saha [25], a numerical model was de-
veloped to compare the thermal performance of three different types of
horizontal GHEs. They enhanced the heat extraction from the ground
by introducing the double-layer ground heat exchanger. However, they
performed this idea only for an in-line GHE arrangement, and they did
not consider the staggered arrangement. In another study, Pu et al. [26]
numerically investigated the double-layer arrangement for linear GHEs.
They studied the effect of pipe spacing for both in-line and staggered
arrangements on the thermal performance of linear GHEs. However,
they neither studied double-layer arrangements for other types of
horizontal GHEs such as slinky and spiral nor the triple or quadruple
layer arrangements for linear GHEs.
Brum et al. [27] numerically evaluated the thermal performance of
an earth-air heat exchanger with different arrangements in a single
trench. They found that diamond arrangement has the best perfor-
mance when the number of pipes in a trench is four, and rectangular
arrangement with a central pipe is the best arrangement when the
number of pipes in a trench is five. However, they did not consider the
economic aspect in determining the best arrangement.
Based on the above literature review, the following gaps can be
noted:
• Although some research studies investigated the multiple layer ar-
rangements, a fair comparison between different arrangements has
not been performed. All the previous studies only considered heat
transfer and ignored the economic aspect.
• Even though several arrangements have been studied, an arrange-
ment that has the highest heat transfer rate per unit land area has
not been introduced.
• Although the thermal performance of the double-layer staggered
arrangement is investigated for linear GHEs, this arrangement has
not been studied for slinky and spiral GHEs.
• No research study is dedicated to investigating the thermal perfor-
mance of GHEs with the triple and quadruple-layer arrangements.
Therefore, in order to enhance the horizontal GHEs heat transfer
rate per unit land area and to fill the gaps mentioned above, the thermal
performance of different types of horizontal GHEs, including linear,
slinky, and horizontal GHEs with various pipe arrangements is assessed
and compared. To this aim, a 3D numerical model is developed to
evaluate the thermal performance of different GHE arrangements. The
developed numerical model is validated against the available experi-
mental results. Different GHE pipe arrangements of each type of hor-
izontal GHEs is evaluated, and the best arrangement (that has the
maximum heat exchange rate per unit land area) for each type is in-
troduced. In order to have a fair comparison, all studied arrangements
are designed to have the same installation costs. Furthermore, the
thermal performance of the best arrangement for each type is evaluated
for three different values of soil thermal conductivities.
2. System configuration and problem description
The schematic of the studied GSHP system is depicted in Fig. 1. As
shown in this figure, the system consists of three subsystems, viz,
ground loop, heat pump cycle, and the building loop. The heat pump
cycle includes an evaporator, a compressor, an expansion valve, and a
B. Asgari, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 167 (2020) 114770

Table 1
The main meteorological parameters of
Tehran [15].
Parameter Value

Tmean (°C) 16.75

Tamp (°C) 15

Table 2
The physical and thermal properties of the soil used in the present study [17].

Density, (
kg
) Specific heat, Thermal conductivity, m2
m3
Diffusivity, ( )
kJ W s
( ) ( )
kg.K m.K

1587.32 1.4648 1.24 5.33×10−7

Table 3
The physical and thermal properties of the water and pipe used in the present
study [24].
Material Density, (
kg
) Specific heat, (
J
) Thermal conductivity, (
W
)
m3 kg.K m.K

Pipe (PE) 950 2300 0.44

Water 999.7 4188 0.567

water leaves the condenser/heat exchanger and circulates in the ground

Fig. 1. Schematic of the ground source heat pump.
condenser. The ground loop includes a GHE, a circulating pump, and a
heat exchanger. The building loop consists of a circulating pump and a
heat exchanger. Water is chosen as the circulating fluid of the ground
and the building loops.
According to Fig. 1, the high-pressure superheated refrigerant vapor
leaves the compressor and enters the condenser. In the condenser/heat
exchanger, the high-temperature refrigerant vapor exchanges heat with
the cooling water from the ground loop and condenses. The warmed
loop to exchange heat with the ground. The liquid refrigerant leaving
the condenser enters the expansion valve and undergoes an isenthalpic
expansion process. The low-pressure low-temperature refrigerant
leaving the expansion valve enters the evaporator. In the evaporator,
the saturated refrigerant evaporates by absorbing heat from the
building loop and leaves the evaporator as the saturated vapor/super-
heated-vapor. This refrigerant vapor is compressed in the compressor,
and the cycle recommences.
In this study, different arrangements of three different types of
horizontal GHEs (linear, spiral, and slinky) are evaluated in order to

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of (a) model domain of GHE, (b) linear GHE, (c) slinky GHE, and (d) spiral GHE.

3
B. Asgari, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 167 (2020) 114770

Table 5
Parameters involved in the experiment by Metz [25].
Item Value

Pipe length(m) 152.5

Buried depth(m) 1.2
Internal pipe diameter(m) 0.0409
External pipe diameter(m) 0.0465
0.46
( )
Thermal conductivity of pipe
W
m.K
1.731
Soil thermal conductivity( ) W
m.K
m2 0.0036
Soil thermal diffusivity⎛ ⎞
⎝h ⎠
0.51
Thermal conductivity of fluid ( ) W
m.K

Specific heat of fluid(

J
) 3900
kg.K
m3 0.972
Flow rate⎛ ⎞
⎝h ⎠
Annual average temperature of the ground surface (℃) 10.2
Annual amplitude of temperature variations at the ground surface 12.8
(℃)

Fig. 3. The logic flow chart of the developed computational model.

Fig. 4. A sample of the generated computational mesh for linear GHE. Fig. 6. Comparison of the outlet fluid temperature obtained by the present
numerical model versus the experimental results of Metz [29] and Mei’s model
[30].

Table 6
Physical properties of the materials used in Yoon et al. [31] experiment.
Material Density, (
kg
) Heat capacity, (
J
) Thermal conductivity, (
W
)
m3 kg.K m.K
Fig. 5. In-line single layer arrangement of linear GHE.
Sand 1400 807 0.26
Water 998.2 4182 0.60
Table 4
Mesh independence study results.
Number of Total flow Heat exchange rate The relative difference length is considered to be 900 m for all cases. Therefore, with the above
elements lit
rate, ( ) per unit land area, from the finest mesh, (%) assumptions, it can be claimed that all studied arrangements have the
s W
( ) same installation cost. The schematic of the GHE domain and different
m2
GHE types (linear, spiral, and slinky) are depicted in Fig. 2.
30,147 0.180 15.11 4.0
60,231 0.174 14.61 0.6
119,444 0.173 14.53 0.0
3. Modeling

determine the arrangement with the highest heat transfer rate per unit
land area, for each type. To conduct a fair comparison, all GHE types
are assumed to be buried at one to two meters depths in a ground
surface area of 6 by 50 square meters. Moreover, the total GHE pipe
A 3D simulation is performed to simulate the GHE pipes and the
surrounding soil. A finite element method is used to discretize the
governing equations. The heat transfer in the ground is coupled with
fluid flow and heat transfer in GHE pipes. Some general assumptions
considered in this study are listed as follows:

4
B. Asgari, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 167 (2020) 114770

Table 7 given by [15]:

Parameters of the Yoon et al. experiment [31] for spiral and slinky GHE types.
π 2πt π ⎞
sin ⎜⎛
−|y |
Item Slinky Spiral Tsoil (y ) = Tmean + Tamp e 8760αs − |y| ⎟

⎝ 8760 8760αs ⎠ (4)

Total length(m) 24 18
Internal pipe diameter(mm) 16 16 where Tmean and Tamp represent the annual average temperature of the
External pipe diameter(mm) 20 20 ground surface (°C) and the amplitude of the annual temperature of the
Number of loops 15 15 ground surface °C, y represents the ground depth (m) , αs represents the
Diameter(cm) 30 30 m2
soil thermal diffusivity ( s ) , t represents the time of the hottest day of
Pitch(cm) 30 30
Initial temperature (°C) 18.75 17.5 the year (h) and is considered to be 2190 h in this study. In this
m
Velocity( ) 0.3291 0.3913 equation, the solar radiation and radiant heat transfer from the ground
s
lit 3.97 4.72 are neglected.
Flow rate( )
min In this study, Tehran (capital of Iran) is chosen as a case study. The
main meteorological parameters of Tehran are presented in Table 1.
All the boundary conditions of soil are obtained from Eq. (4).
• The system is used only for space cooling. As suggested by Kavanaugh and Rafferty [28], in order to assure
• The simulations are performed under steady-state conditions. optimal performance of the GSHP, the GHE should comply with the
• The physical and thermal properties of fluid and ground are con- following conditions at the maximum load:
sidered constant.
• The ground is considered homogeneous. • The maximum temperature difference between the inlet and outlet
• It is considered that the working fluid is evenly distributed among water should be 5.6 to 8.4 °C, which is considered to be 6 °C in this
the GHE pipes.
study.

3.1. Governing equations

• The maximum temperature difference between the outlet water and
the undisturbed ground temperature in the deepest depth should be
11 to 17 °C, which is considered to be 17 °C in this study.
The governing equations for the working fluid include continuity,
momentum, and energy equations. Moreover, the energy equation is In order to comply with the above conditions, the GHE inlet water
solved for the heat transfer in the soil and wall of the pipe. The gov- temperature should be 23 °C warmer than the temperature of the un-
erning equations, in the Cartesian coordinate system, are as follows: disturbed ground in depth below ten meters. Therefore, the inlet water
∂ temperature is calculated to be 39.75 °C. Also, according to the above
ρ (ui ) = 0
∂x i (1) conditions, the GHE outlet water temperature should be 33.75 °C. This
condition is satisfied by adjusting the flow rate of the working fluid in
∂ ∂p the GHE pipe for each working condition.
ρ (ui uj ) = − + μ∇ ·(∇ui )
∂x j ∂x i (2) Tables 2 and 3 present the physical and thermal properties of the
soil, water, and pipe used in this study.
∂
ρcp (ui T ) = k∇2 T Internal and external pipe diameters (DN20) are considered to be
∂x j (3) 20.93 mm and 26.67 mm [17], respectively. Fig. 3 presents the logic
where ui , ρ , p , and μ represent the velocity vector in ith direction, flow chart of the developed computational model.
density, pressure, and dynamic viscosity, respectively. T , cp , and k de-
note the temperature, specific heat, and thermal conductivity, respec- 3.3. Mesh independence study and model validation
tively. Eqs. (1), (2) and (3) are solved for the working fluid and Eq. (3)
with ui = 0 is solved for soil and wall of the pipe. An unstructured tetrahedral-mesh is used to compute the heat
transfer in the ground. The maximum and minimum mesh element sizes
3.2. Boundary conditions used were 2 and 0.01 m, respectively. Also, the maximum element
growth rate (the element size grows from a region with small elements
The temperature of the undisturbed ground at the specific time is to a region with larger elements) was considered to be 1.3. A sample of

Fig. 7. Comparison of the soil temperature obtained by the present numerical model versus the experimental results of Yoon et al. [31].

5
B. Asgari, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 167 (2020) 114770

Fig. 8. Comparison of the heat exchange rate obtained by the present numerical model versus the experimental results of Yoon et al. [31].

Fig. 9. Different arrangements of linear GHE pipes.

the mesh generated for linear GHE type studied is illustrated in Fig. 4.
Moreover, 1D simulation is performed for fluid flow and heat transfer in
GHE pipes according to the fully-developed flow assumption.
The mesh independence study is performed for the in-line single-
layer arrangement of linear GHE, as depicted in Fig. 5. Table 4 presents
the results of the mesh independence study. According to this table, grid
convergence is achieved. As for the mesh size greater than 60,231
elements, the relative difference from the finest mesh size is less than
1%; this mesh size is chosen as the base grid for linear GHEs. The same
process is repeated for other GHE types. The obtained numbers of ele-
ments for the in-line single-layer arrangements of slinky and spiral GHE
are 412561, and 694893, respectively.
In order to verify the accuracy of the proposed numerical model, the
numerical results are validated against the available experimental

6
B. Asgari, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 167 (2020) 114770

Table 8 ethylene glycol (20% by weight). The fluid inlet temperature of the
Simulation results of different linear GHE pipe arrangements. numerical model is set as the inlet temperatures of the Metz experi-
Test case Number of Total flow rate, Heat exchange rate per unit land ment. Fig. 6: presents the outlet fluid temperature predicted by the
layers lit
( ) area, (
W
)
present numerical model and the experimental results of Metz [29] and
m2
s
the predicted values by the Mei model [30]. According to this figure,
1 one 0.174 14.61 the maximum difference between the results of the present numerical
2 two 0.212 17.74 model and experimental results is about 12%, indicating that there is a
3 two 0.210 17.56 reasonably good agreement between the results of the present numer-
4 two 0.210 17.56
ical model and the experimental results.
5 three 0.234 19.61
6 three 0.200 16.75
The developed numerical model of the spiral and slinky GHE types
7 three 0.202 16.89 is also validated against the experimental results of Yoon et al. [31]. In
8 three 0.213 17.87 their experiment, two Thermal Response Tests (TRTs) was performed
9 three 0.210 17.60 for a period of 30 h on the spiral and slinky GHE types. The GHEs were
10 four 0.222 18.62
buried in a 1 × 1 × 5 m3 insulated-box, which was filled with sand.
11 four 0.237 19.88
12 four 0.215 18.01 The inlet and outlet circulating fluid temperatures, as well as the soil
temperature at 10 cm away from the edge of the GHEs were recorded
over time. The physical properties of the materials and parameters of
results in the literature. For this purpose, the numerical solution of the the experiment are presented in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. Fig. 7
linear GHE is validated with the experimental result of Metz [29] and compares the predicted soil temperature at 10 cm away from the edge
the model presented by Mei [30]. Metz experimentally studied the of the GHEs with the present numerical model versus the experimental
performance of a linear GHE. He recorded the inlet and outlet circu- results.
lating fluid temperatures over a 43-days period. Parameters of the Metz Moreover, Fig. 8 compares the heat exchange rates of GHEs ob-
experiment are presented in Table 5. The working fluid used was water- tained by the present numerical model versus the experimental results.

Fig. 10. Soil temperature contours for the simulated linear GHE pipe arrangements.

7
B. Asgari, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 167 (2020) 114770

Fig. 10. (continued)

Table 9
Effect of soil thermal conductivity on the thermal performance of linear GHE
(case number eleven).
Soil thermal conductivity, Total flow Heat exchange rate per unit
W lit W
( ) rate, ( ) land area, ( )
m.K s m2

0.75 0.154 12.87

1.24 0.237 19.88
1.75 0.332 27.79

The maximum deviation between the results of the numerical model

and the experimental results is 15%. Therefore, there is reasonably
good agreement between the numerical and experimental results.

4. Results and discussion

As already noted, this study attempts to evaluate the performance of

different arrangements of three types of horizontal GHEs, including
linear, spiral, and slinky. To this end, and in order to have a fair
comparison, all studied arrangements are designed to have the same
installation cost. Therefore, it is considered that all studied cases have
the same total GHE pipe length, which is considered to be 900 m. It is
also considered that all GHE pipes are buried at one to two meters
Fig. 11. Different arrangements of slinky GHE pipes.
depths in a ground surface area of 6 by 50 square meters. Moreover, as
already mentioned in Section 3.2, the inlet water temperature is con-
sidered to be 39.75 °C, and the GHE outlet water temperature is

8
B. Asgari, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 167 (2020) 114770

Table 10 considered to be 33.75 °C for all simulated cases. Therefore, to comply

Simulation results of different slinky GHE pipe arrangements. with this condition, the flow rate of each case would be different.
Test case Number of Total flow rate, Heat exchange rate per unit land Comparing the obtained results for each type of horizontal GHEs,
layers lit
( ) area, (
W
)
the arrangement that provides the maximum rate of heat transfer per
s m2
unit land area is determined for that type. Furthermore, the thermal
1 one 0.182 15.25 performance of the best arrangement for each GHE type has been in-
2 two 0.218 18.25 vestigated for three different values of soil thermal conductivities.
3 two 0.223 18.64
4.1. Linear GHE

In this case, eighteen 50 m pipes are buried at one to two meters

depths in twelve different arrangements, as depicted in Fig. 9. Ac-
cording to this figure, case number one represents the most common
horizontal GHE pipe arrangement which is the in-line single-layer pipe
arrangement. Cases number two, three and four, represent double-layer
arrangements. Cases number five to nine represent different triple-layer
arrangements. Cases number ten to twelve represent different quad-
ruple-layer arrangements.
The calculated total flow rate of the working fluid and heat ex-
change rate per unit land area for all the twelve simulated cases are
presented in Table 8. According to the obtained results, case number
one with the single-layer arrangement, which is the most common
horizontal linear GHE pipe arrangement, provides the lowest heat
transfer rate per unit land area among all other arrangements. As the
number of levels is increased from single-layer to double-layers (i.e.,
cases numbers two, three, and four), the heat transfer rate per unit land
area is increased by about 21%. Therefore, by just installing the linear
GHE pipes in two different depths (without any cost increase), the heat
transfer rate per unit land area and, therefore, the thermal performance
of the GSHP can be significantly enhanced. However, among all double-
layer arrangements, case number two has the highest heat transfer per
unit land area (approximately 21% higher than the single-layer ar-
rangement).
When the number of installed layers is increased from two to three
(i.e., cases number five to nine), the heat transfer per unit land area is
only increased by about 2%, compared to the double-layer arrange-
ment. Among all triple-layer arrangements, case number five, which is
an in-line triple-layer arrangement, has the highest heat transfer per
unit land area (about 34% higher than single-layer arrangement).
By increasing the number of installed layers to four, different be-
havior is observed. In case number eleven, the highest heat transfer rate
per unit land area, which is approximately 36% higher than that of the
single-layer arrangement, is achieved. However, cases number twelve
does not have a better heat transfer rate per unit land area than case
number five with three layers. According to Table 8, by increasing the
total flow rate, the heat exchange rate per unit land area also increases.
Fig. 10 illustrates the soil temperature contours from the ground
surface to 5 m below the surface, for all simulated linear GHE ar-
rangements. According to this figure, due to the proximity of the GHE
pipes in the first case, the extracted heat is accumulated around the
central GHE pipes. Therefore, the soil temperature around the central
Fig. 12. Soil temperature contours for the simulated slinky GHE pipe ar-
GHE pipes is increased, and as a result, the heat transfer is significantly
rangements. reduced.
Due to the low number of pipes in the first layer of the second case,
the heat is accumulated around the lower GHE pipes. However, the heat
Table 11 is distributed better than the first case, but still, the soil temperature
Effect of soil thermal conductivity on the thermal performance of slinky GHE
around most GHE pipes is high, and therefore, their heat transfer is low
(case number three).
in case number two. According to Fig. 10 cases number three and four,
Soil thermal conductivity, Total flow rate, Heat exchange rate per unit while the number of pipe in both layers are equal, more heat is accu-
W lit W
(
m.K
) ( )
s
area, (
m2
) mulated in the second layer, and therefore the thermal performance of
this arrangement is reduced.
0.75 0.137 11.48 In the triple-layer arrangements, the heat is generally accumulated
1.24 0.223 18.64
in the middle layer. However, due to the better distribution of the pipes,
1.75 0.306 25.61
there is no local accumulation of heat compared to the single-layer
arrangement. That is why the heat exchange rate of triple-layer ar-
rangements is high.

9
B. Asgari, et al.
Fig. 13. Different arrangements of spiral GHE pipes.
Table 12
Simulation results of different spiral GHE pipe arrangements.
Test case Number of Total flow rate, Heat exchange rate per unit land
layers lit
( ) area, (
W
) Soil thermal conductivity,
s m2
1 one 0.194 16.24
2 two 0.207 17.33
As can be observed, in all simulated cases, the side pipes have better
thermal performance than central pipes because they are in contact
with the surrounding cold soil. Therefore, in cases, number ten and
eleven, four GHE pipes are placed in the side boundaries. Therefore, the
better thermal performance of these two cases can be attributed to this
fact. Since, in case number eleven, the extracted heat is evenly dis-
tributed in the soil, it shows the best thermal performance among all
considered cases. In case number twelve, due to the proximity of the
pipes, the heat transfer rate is lower than the cases number ten and
eleven.
Table 9 presents the effect of the soil thermal conductivity on the
thermal performance of the case number eleven. According to the si-
mulation results, the soil thermal conductivity has a significant impact
on the heat exchange rate per unit land area. Heat transfer rate per unit
land area in soils with thermal conductivities of 0.75 and 1.75 (W/m/K)
are respectively 35% lower and 40% higher than that of the base case
(with thermal conductivity of 1.24 (W/m/K)).
4.2. Slinky GHE
In this case, five 180 m pipes are buried at one to two meters depths
in three different arrangements, as depicted in Fig. 11. The loop dia-
meter and pitch are considered to be 0.4986 and 0.6024 m, respec-
tively, and each pipe consists of 83 loops. According to Fig. 11, case
number one represents the most common slinky GHE pipe arrangement,
which is the in-line single-layer arrangement. Cases number two and
three represent double-layer slinky GHE pipes arrangements.
The calculated total flow rate of the working fluid and heat ex-
change rate per unit land area for all the three simulated slinky cases
are presented in Table 10. According to the obtained results, case
number one with the single-layer arrangement, which is the most
common slinky GHE pipe arrangement, provides the lowest heat
Fig. 14. Soil temperature contours for the simulated spiral GHE pipe arrangements.
10
Applied Thermal Engineering 167 (2020) 114770
Table 13
Effect of soil thermal conductivity on the thermal performance of spiral GHE
(case number two).
Total flow Heat exchange rate per unit
W lit W
( ) rate, ( ) land area, ( )
m.K s m2
0.75 0.127 10.63
1.24 0.207 17.33
1.75 0.285 23.87
transfer rate per unit land area among the other arrangements. As the
number of levels is increased from single-layer to double-layers (i.e.,
cases numbers two and three), the heat transfer rate per unit land area
is increased by about 21%. Therefore, by just installing the slinky GHE
pipes in two different depths (without any cost increase), the heat
transfer rate per unit land area and, therefore, the thermal performance
of the GSHP can be significantly enhanced. The heat exchange rate per
unit land area of case number three is approximately 2% higher than
that of case number two.
Fig. 12 illustrates the soil temperature contours from the ground
surface to 5 m below the surface, for all simulated slinky GHE ar-
rangements. According to this figure, due to the proximity of the GHE
pipes in the first case (similar to case number one of linear GHE), the
extracted heat is accumulated around the central GHE pipes. Therefore,
this arrangement has the lowest heat exchange rate.
In case number two, unlike the linear GHE type, the presence of two
slinky GHE pipes at the sides causes accumulation of heat around the
sides of the domain. Therefore, it deteriorates the performance of this
arrangement. The staggered arrangement in case number three pro-
vides even distribution of the extracted heat in the soil, and therefore it
exhibits the best thermal performance.
Table 11 presents the effect of the soil thermal conductivity on the
thermal performance of the case number three. Heat transfer rate per
unit land area in soils with thermal conductivities of 0.75 and 1.75 (W/
m/K) are respectively 38% lower and 37% higher than that of the base
case (with thermal conductivity of 1.24 (W/m/K)). Therefore, it follows
the same trend as the linear type.
4.3. Spiral GHE
In this case, six 150 m pipes are buried at one to two meters depths
B. Asgari, et al.
in two different arrangements as depicted in Fig. 13. The loop diameter
and pitch are considered to be 0.4974 and 0.5208 m, respectively, and
each pipe consists of 96 loops. As shown in Fig. 13, case number one
represents the most common spiral GHE pipe arrangement, which is the
in-line single-layer arrangement. Cases number two represents the
staggered double-layer arrangement.
The calculated total flow rate of the working fluid and heat ex-
change rate per unit land area for the two simulated spiral cases are
presented in Table 12. According to the obtained results, case number
one with the single-layer arrangement, which is the most common
spiral GHE pipe arrangement, provides the lower heat transfer rate per
unit land area. As the number of levels is increased from single-layer to
double-layers (case numbers two), the heat transfer rate per unit land
area is increased by about 7%. Therefore, by just installing the spiral
GHE pipes in two different depths (without any cost increase), the heat
transfer rate per unit land area and, therefore, the thermal performance
of the GSHP can be enhanced.
Fig. 14 illustrates the soil temperature contours from the ground
surface to 5 m below the surface, for the two simulated spiral GHE
arrangements. According to this figure, in the linear case, the extracted
heat is accumulated around the central GHE pipes. Therefore, this ar-
rangement has a lower heat exchange rate than the two-layer staggered
arrangement with better heat distribution.
Table 13 presents the effect of the soil thermal conductivity on the
thermal performance of the case number two. Heat transfer rate per
unit land area in soils with thermal conductivities of 0.75 and 1.75 (W/
m/K) are respectively 39% lower and 38% higher than that of the base
case (with thermal conductivity of 1.24 (W/m/K)). Therefore, it follows
the same trend as the linear and slinky types.
4.4. Comparison of different types of horizontal GHEs
Among all the cases studied, the linear GHE with arrangement
number eleven (four layers of pipe installation with the staggered ar-
rangement and extra pipes at the side boundaries) exhibits the most
uniform extracted heat distribution and as a result the highest heat
exchange rate per unit land area (19.88 W/m2). The best case of linear
GHE has about 7% and 15% higher heat exchange rate per unit land
area than the best slinky and spiral GHE arrangements, respectively.
The calculated pressure loss of the best cases of linear, slinky, and
spiral GHEs is about 106 Pa, 3050 Pa, and 1520 Pa, respectively. The
pressure loss of slinky and spiral GHEs is approximately 29 and 14
times higher than that of linear GHEs. Thus, the best case of linear GHE
has lower pressure loss than the best slinky and spiral GHE arrange-
ments.
Comparing all different single-layer arrangements, the spiral GHE
provides the highest heat exchange rate per unit land area (16.24 W/
m2). The single-layer arrangement of spiral GHE has about 11% and 7%
higher heat exchange rate per unit land area compared to linear and
slinky GHEs, respectively. The better performance of single-layer spiral
GHE can be attributed to the fact that the distance between the pipes in
spiral GHE pipes is larger than the other types.
5. Conclusion
In an attempt to enhance the heat exchange rate of horizontal GHEs,
pipe arrangements that provide the maximum heat exchange rate per
unit land area of each type of horizontal GHE are presented. The con-
sidered horizontal GHEs include linear, slinky, and spiral. To this end, a
3D numerical model is developed to evaluate the thermal performance
of horizontal GHEs. In order to have a fair comparison between dif-
ferent arrangements, the initial installation cost of all studied cases is
equal. To put it concisely, the results of this study can be expressed as
follows:
• The thermal performance of twelve different GHE pipes
11
Applied Thermal Engineering 167 (2020) 114770
arrangements (such as single, double, triple, and quadruple-layer
arrangements) has been studied for the linear GHE. The obtained
results revealed that the conventional single-layer pipe arrangement
has the worst thermal performance. The thermal performance of
double-layer arrangements of linear GHEs pipe is approximately
21% higher than that of the conventional single-layer pipe ar-
rangement. However, the arrangement with four layers of pipe in-
stallation with the staggered arrangement and extra pipes at the side
boundaries exhibits the best thermal performance, which is ap-
proximately 36% higher than that of the conventional single-layer
pipe arrangement.
• The thermal performance of three different GHE pipe arrangements
has been studied for the slinky GHE. The obtained results indicated
that the conventional single-layer pipe arrangement has the worst
thermal performance. However, the staggered double-layer pipe
arrangement exhibits the best thermal performance, which is ap-
proximately 22% higher than that of the conventional single-layer
arrangement.
• The thermal performance of two different GHE pipe arrangements,
including single and staggered double-layer arrangements, has been
studied for the spiral GHE. Unlike the other types, the spiral GHE
displayed approximately the same thermal performance for both
single and double-layers GHE pipes arrangements.
• Heat exchange rate per unit land area in soils with thermal con-
ductivities of 0.75 and 1.75 (W/m/K) are respectively 38% lower
and 38% higher than that in the soil with thermal conductivity of
1.24 (W/m/K).
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] S.K. Soni, M. Pandey, V.N. Bartaria, Ground coupled heat exchangers: a review and
applications, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 47 (2015) 83–92.
[2] A. Handbook, Heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning applications (chapter 34),
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, 2015.
[3] Y. Wu, G. Gan, R.G. Gonzalez, A. Verhoef, P.L. Vidale, Prediction of the thermal
performance of horizontal-coupled ground-source heat exchangers, Int. J. Low-
Carbon Technol. 6 (2011) 261–269.
[4] A.A. Serageldin, Y. Sakata, T. Katsura, K. Nagano, Thermo-hydraulic performance
of the U-tube borehole heat exchanger with a novel oval cross-section: numerical
approach, Energy Convers. Manage. 177 (2018) 406–415.
[5] A. Hakkaki-Fard, P. Eslami-Nejad, Z. Aidoun, M. Ouzzane, A techno-economic
comparison of a direct expansion ground-source and an air-source heat pump
system in Canadian cold climates, Energy 87 (2015) 49–59.
[6] Y. Cui, J. Zhu, F. Meng, Techno-economic evaluation of multiple energy piles for a
ground-coupled heat pump system, Energy Convers. Manage. 178 (2018) 200–216.
[7] X. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Wang, Y. Liu, Y. Zhu, H. Chen, Simulation-based analysis of a
ground source heat pump system using super-long flexible heat pipes coupled
borehole heat exchanger during heating season, Energy Convers. Manage. 164
(2018) 132–143.
[8] M.R. Ally, J.D. Munk, V.D. Baxter, A.C. Gehl, Exergy analysis of a two-stage ground
source heat pump with a vertical bore for residential space conditioning under si-
mulated occupancy, Appl. Energy 155 (2015) 502–514.
[9] H. Fujii, K. Nishi, Y. Komaniwa, N. Chou, Numerical modeling of slinky-coil hor-
izontal ground heat exchangers, Geothermics 41 (2012) 55–62.
[10] R. Chargui, S. Awani, Determining of the optimal design of a closed loop solar dual
source heat pump system coupled with a residential building application, Energy
Convers. Manage. 147 (2017) 40–54.
[11] J.-S. Jeon, S.-R. Lee, M.-J. Kim, A modified mathematical model for spiral coil-type
horizontal ground heat exchangers, Energy 152 (2018) 732–743.
[12] G. Gan, Dynamic thermal performance of horizontal ground source heat pumps –
the impact of coupled heat and moisture transfer, Energy 152 (2018) 877–887.
[13] N. Kayaci, H. Demir, Numerical modelling of transient soil temperature distribution
for horizontal ground heat exchanger of ground source heat pump, Geothermics 73
(2018) 33–47.
[14] M.-J. Kim, S.-R. Lee, S. Yoon, G.-H. Go, Thermal performance evaluation and
parametric study of a horizontal ground heat exchanger, Geothermics 60 (2016)
134–143.
[15] M. Habibi, A. Hakkaki-Fard, Long-term energy and exergy analysis of heat pumps
with different types of ground and air heat exchangers, Int. J. Refrig 100 (2019)
B. Asgari, et al.
414–433.
[16] C. Li, J. Mao, H. Zhang, Z. Xing, Y. Li, J. Zhou, Numerical simulation of horizontal
spiral-coil ground source heat pump system: sensitivity analysis and operation
characteristics, Appl. Therm. Eng. 110 (2017) 424–435.
[17] C.S.A. Chong, G. Gan, A. Verhoef, R.G. Garcia, P.L. Vidale, Simulation of thermal
performance of horizontal slinky-loop heat exchangers for ground source heat
pumps, Appl. Energy 104 (2013) 603–610.
[18] P.M. Congedo, G. Colangelo, G. Starace, CFD simulations of horizontal ground heat
exchangers: a comparison among different configurations, Appl. Therm. Eng. 33–34
(2012) 24–32.
[19] M.-J. Kim, S.-R. Lee, S. Yoon, J.-S. Jeon, Evaluation of geometric factors influencing
thermal performance of horizontal spiral-coil ground heat exchangers, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 144 (2018) 788–796.
[20] M. Habibi, A. Amadeh, A. Hakkaki-Fard, A numerical study on utilizing horizontal
flat-panel ground heat exchangers in ground-coupled heat pumps, Renew. Energy
147 (2020) 996–1010.
[21] L. Lamarche, Horizontal ground heat exchangers modelling, Appl. Therm. Eng. 155
(2019) 534–545.
[22] C. Li, J. Mao, X. Peng, W. Mao, Z. Xing, B. Wang, Influence of ground surface
boundary conditions on horizontal ground source heat pump systems, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 152 (2019) 160–168.
12
Applied Thermal Engineering 167 (2020) 114770
[23] M. Zukowski, J. Topolanska, Comparison of thermal performance between tube and
plate ground-air heat exchangers, Renew. Energy 115 (2018) 697–710.
[24] M. Habibi, A. Hakkaki-Fard, Evaluation and improvement of the thermal perfor-
mance of different types of horizontal ground heat exchangers based on techno-
economic analysis, Energy Convers. Manage. 171 (2018) 1177–1192.
[25] R.R. Dasare, S.K. Saha, Numerical study of horizontal ground heat exchanger for
high energy demand applications, Appl. Therm. Eng. 85 (2015) 252–263.
[26] L. Pu, L. Xu, D. Qi, Y. Li, Structure optimization for horizontal ground heat ex-
changer, Appl. Therm. Eng. 136 (2018) 131–140.
[27] R.S. Brum, J.V.A. Ramalho, M.K. Rodrigues, L.A.O. Rocha, L.A. Isoldi, E.D. Dos
Santos, Design evaluation of earth-air heat exchangers with multiple ducts, Renew.
Energy 135 (2019) 1371–1385.
[28] S. Kavanaugh, K. Rafferty, Geothermal Heating and Cooling, Design of Ground-
Source Heat Pump Systems, ASHRAE, Atlanta, 2014.
[29] P.D. Metz, Ground coupled heat-pump-system experimental results, Report No.
BNL-33540, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, N.Y (1983).
[30] V.C. Mei, Heat transfer of buried pipe for heat pump application, J. Sol. Energy Eng.
113 (1991) 51–55.
[31] S. Yoon, S.-R. Lee, G.-H. Go, Evaluation of thermal efficiency in different types of
horizontal ground heat exchangers, Energy Build. 105 (2015) 100–105.