Geothermics 51 (2014) 103–112

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Groundwater Heat Pump (GWHP) system modeling and Thermal

Affected Zone (TAZ) prediction reliability: Influence of temporal
variations in flow discharge and injection temperature
Stefano Lo Russo a,∗ , Loretta Gnavi a , Emanuele Roccia a , Glenda Taddia a , Vittorio Verda b
a
Department of Environment, Land and Infrastructure Engineering (DIATI), Politecnico di Torino, C.so Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy
b
Department of Energy (DENERG), Politecnico di Torino, C.so Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy

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

Article history: A fundamental aspect in Groundwater Heat Pump (GWHP) plant design is the correct evaluation of the
Received 5 September 2012 Thermal Affected Zone (TAZ) that develops around the injection well, which is important to avoid inter-
Accepted 28 October 2013 ference with existing groundwater applications and underground infrastructure. Numerical methods
facilitate the identification of temperature anomalies, and software tools such as the FEFLOW program
Keywords: used in this study assist in these determinations. The actual flow rate and injection temperature are
Groundwater Heat Pumps
highly time-variable and follow changes in building energy requirements. In order to accurately predict
Thermal Affected Zone, FEFLOW
the TAZ, it is necessary to consider this time variability. We calculated the TAZ using hourly discharge flow
Energy equivalent
Italy
and temperature data, then recalculated the TAZ using average daily, monthly, and seasonal energetic
equivalents. The four simulation results were compared with groundwater temperature data measured
using a downgradient piezometer in order to assess the reliability of the simulations. The quality of the
simulation was satisfactory when hourly, daily, or monthly flow rate and injection temperature data
were used, whereas the seasonal averages were not suitable for reliably assessing TAZ development.
© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction require less space than conventional building Heating, Ventilation,

The increase in fuel and environmental costs related to the use
of fossil fuels has made renewable and efficient energy systems
increasingly popular. This has been reflected in the increased use
of geothermal heat pumps for heating and cooling systems in resi-
dential and commercial buildings (Lund et al., 2011).
Groundwater Heat Pumps (GWHPs) offer substantial improve-
ments in energy efficiency and significant reductions in CO2
emissions, global warming effects, and environmental pollution.
Their performance is strongly dependent on the heating and cool-
ing load, the heat pump design characteristics (such as compressor
efficiency and heat exchanger configuration), the control strategy,
and the characteristics of the aquifer (groundwater temperature,
thermal conductivity, etc.). The relatively stable temperature of
groundwater yields a higher performance efficiency and offers
greater energy savings than air-source heat pump (ASHP) systems,
especially in temperate climates (Florides and Kalogirou, 2007;
Milenic et al., 2010; Self et al., 2012). In addition, GWHP systems
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 011 090 7648; fax: +39 011 090 7699;
mobile: +39 349 4162387.
E-mail addresses: stefano.lorusso@polito.it, lorusso.stefano@gmail.com
(S. Lo Russo).
and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems, enabling a large reduction in
the size of HVAC equipment rooms (Chung and Choi, 2012).
The common use of well doublets for groundwater-sourced
heating or cooling results in a thermal plume of colder or warmer
re-injected groundwater known as the Thermal Affected Zone
(TAZ). Plume propagation occurs mainly through advection (Lo
Russo and Taddia, 2010) and tends to “degrade” following con-
ductive heat transport and convection within the moving water
(Hecht-Mendez et al., 2010). The plumes may be regarded either
as a potential anthropogenic geothermal resource or as pollution,
depending on downstream aquifer usage. For instance, a thermal
plume might pose a risk to groundwater uses downgradient or
affect the sustainability of the well system through thermal feed-
back. These risks increase in densely urbanized areas that may
contain multiple installations in close proximity. This problem is
discussed by Fry for the city of London (Fry, 2009).
Approaches based on the use of numerical simulations are valu-
able for analyzing the thermal impacts caused by GWHP installation
(Lo Russo et al., 2011). Several workers have proposed numer-
ical investigations of soil-heat pump interactions. Banks (2009)
described a model for one-dimensional thermal analysis of the
impact of open-loop systems, and the analysis was used to pre-
dict thermal short circuits between the injection and extraction
wells. Freedman et al. (2012) conducted an analysis of the potential

0375-6505/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2013.10.008
104 S. Lo Russo et al. / Geothermics 51 (2014) 103–112
conflict between minimizing pumping costs and reducing the
temperature of groundwater being discharged to a river. The envi-
ronmental impact was strongly influenced by the mass flow rate
of the extracted and re-injected water, and could be mitigated by
varying the flow rates. Yang et al. (2011) performed a numeri-
cal analysis of transient conditions aimed at identifying possible
interference between adjacent installations. Lo Russo and Civita
(2009) described a steady-state numerical analysis of potential
aquifer productivity and compared possible well configurations
for an open-loop system. For each configuration, the extent of the
TAZ was determined. The same type of analysis was performed by
Baccino et al. (2010) using transient conditions corresponding to a
period of 1 year. Zhou and Zhou (2009) calculated the water mass
flow rate and re-injection temperature based on building thermal
demands and plant operating conditions.
Modeling the TAZ requires solution of momentum and energy
equations in a suitable computational domain. A variety of soft-
ware is available to perform these calculations, including FEFLOW,
FRACHEM, and SHEMAT. A complete review of the available soft-
ware for heat transport in porous and fractured media has been
compiled by Hecht-Mendez et al. (2010). The accuracy of heat trans-
port simulations is intrinsically related to the reliability of subsoil
data. The effects of variations in subsoil parameters on the devel-
opment of the TAZ were described in Lo Russo et al. (2012).
Another important aspect of modeling is validation of the sim-
ulation against experimental measurements. In the work by Nam
and Ooka (2010), a numerical model for calculating temperature
disturbances in a full-scale open-loop GWHP was proposed and
validated by comparison with temperature measurements.
The level of hydraulic and thermal stress caused in an aquifer
by the withdrawal and injection of groundwater is typically highly
variable and depends on the fluctuating energy needs of the build-
ing. For example, if the plant is operating in cooling mode during the
summer season, the building energy needs are usually larger during
the day than at night. Moreover, changing weather conditions exert
a highly variable effect the energy demands of the GWHP plant. The
time variability of the building’s energy demand can affect both the
groundwater withdrawal and injection flow rates Q = Qout = Qin and
the temperature difference between the injection and extraction
wells T = (Tin − Tout ). Pumps may be equipped with inverters so
the water mass flow rate can be reduced when heating/cooling
requirements decrease, maintaining high system efficiency dur-
ing periods of partial load. Generally, inverter technology induces
variability in both the flow (Q) and temperature differential (T).
Correct assessment of the TAZ around the injection well and
good correspondence between the simulation results and mea-
sured data requires an effective numerical model that takes into
account the time transient variability of Q and T. However,
there is generally a lack of accurate data concerning the dynamic
variability of Q and T parameters over time, particularly during
preliminary GWHP plant design phases. In practical engineering,
the effects of time variability on the TAZ calculations are often
disregarded, and the subsurface numerical simulation of the TAZ
is developed using Q and T values that are held constant over
an extended time interval (usually a month or an entire season).
These time-averaged values of Q and T are usually derived from
simulations of building energy needs and are calculated based on
the principle of energy equivalence. From a practical standpoint,
the use of time-averaged flow rates and temperatures reduces the
computational load, but the simplification may also negatively
impact the quality of the temperature predictions. We explored
problems such as this in the TAZ modeling of an instrumented
GWHP plant located at the “Politecnico di Torino” (NW Italy). Flow
and energy transport simulations were executed using hourly
data. Using this hourly data set and taking into account the energy
conservation principle, we calculated daily, monthly, and seasonal
energy equivalent values for Q and T and performed additional
subsurface simulations using the averaged data. The results were
analyzed using linear regression analysis and statistical testing in
order to verify their ability to correctly predict TAZ development.
We compared the results of the simulations with groundwater
temperatures measured using a piezometer located ∼35 m down-
gradient from the injection well. The simulations were performed
using FEFLOW 6.0 (Diersch, 2010), which is designed for mass and
energy transport simulations involving water.
The main aims of the paper were to verify whether the time-
averaged values of Q and T are suitable substitutes for hourly
values and to determine the extent to which these simplifications
modify the reliability of TAZ predictions.
2. Methods
The test site (Politecnico di Torino) is located in the urban
area of Turin (see Fig. 1), the capital of the Piemonte Region in
northwest Italy (geographical coordinates 45◦ 03 45 N, 7◦ 39 43 E,
elevation 250 m asl). The buildings connected to the existing GWHP
plant contain university offices and laboratories. The site contains
two 47 m-deep wells with similar technical characteristics, one of
which is used for groundwater extraction (P2) and the other for
injection (P4). The simulations were performed during the cooling
period (summer 2011) to assess the development of a warm TAZ
around the injection well.
2.1. Geologic site description
The Turin urban area is mainly situated on the outwash
plain of several coalescing glaciofluvial fans associated with the
Pleistocene–Holocene expansion phases of the Susa glacier. The
plain extends between the external Rivoli-Avigliana Morainic
Amphitheatre (RAMA – Susa Glacier) on the west side and the
Torino Hill on the east (Fig. 1). The site is located in the central
part of the urban area between the Dora Riparia River to the north,
the Sangone River to the south, and the Po River to the east, which
serves as the major drainage for the watershed and flows northeast
along the western border of the Torino Hill.
The hydrogeological setting is known with a high degree of
confidence owing to the large number of wells drilled in the area
(Regione Piemonte, 2007). Downhole log tests indicate the pres-
ence of two lithologic zones with distinct hydraulic properties:
Unit 1 – (Middle Pleistocene – Holocene, surface to 47 m depth).
Continental alluvial cover composed mainly of coarse gravel and
sandy sediments (with local subordinate clay lenses of limited
areal extent and up to 1–1.5 m thick) derived from alluvial fans
aggraded by the Alpine rivers flowing toward the east. The base of
Unit 1 dips gently (0.5%) toward the northeast and overlies Unit 2.
Unit 2 – (Early Pliocene – Middle Pleistocene, below 47 m depth).
Originally deposited in a shallow marine environment and tra-
ditionally defined as Sabbie di Asti and/or Argille di Lugagnano.
Mainly composed of fossiliferous sandy–clayey layers with sub-
ordinate fine gravelly and coarse sandy marine layers, or by
quartz-micaceous sands. The top of Unit 2 has been eroded and
covered by the alluvial deposits of Unit 1.
2.2. Aquifers characteristics
The unconfined aquifer that extends over the entire urban plain
(including the site under investigation) is hydraulically connected
to the main surface water drainage network in the area (the Dora
and Sangone rivers). This aquifer is hosted in Unit 1. The potentio-
metric surface 17 m below ground level displays a W-to-E gradient
 S. Lo Russo et al. / Geothermics 51 (2014) 103–112 105

Fig. 1. Hydrogeological map of the Turin area and location of the site under investigation.

of 0.269% toward the river Po. The saturated thickness of the uncon-
fined aquifer at the site is approximately 30 m. The potentiometric
surface has been determined by means of an extensive groundwa-
ter monitoring network at the site.
The two existing vertical wells (extraction and injection) are
screened in the saturated zone of Unit 1. The injection well (P4)
is located 78 m from the extraction well (P2), almost downgradi-
ent with respect to the local unperturbed potentiometric gradient.
The wells have a steel casing diameter of 355 mm. The bridge slot
screens are located from 19 m to 47 m. The annulus from the sur-
face to 6 m depth is cemented with bentonite grout. Below 6 m to a
depth of 47 m, there is a filter pack consisting of calibrated gravel.
The piezometer bore is drilled to 47 m depth and is screened from
15 to 47 m. It is located ∼35 m downgradient from the injection
well (Fig. 2). The undisturbed average groundwater temperature is
15.0 ◦ C along the saturated zone, as determined from temperature

Fig. 2. Schematic hydrogeological cross section of the site under study. Not to scale. (i) Gradient of potentiometric surface.
106 S. Lo Russo et al. / Geothermics 51 (2014) 103–112
Fig. 3. Vertical temperature logs in Unit 1 obtained from piezometer S2 during the
undisturbed period.
logging in the wells and piezometer. These experimental determi-
nations highlight the absence of thermal stratification in the aquifer
under undisturbed conditions (Fig. 3). The groundwater levels and
temperature were measured in the extraction and injection wells
and in the piezometer using monitoring probes (DN70 type pro-
duced by the STS) submerged 2 m below the groundwater level.
The measurements were acquired at hourly intervals.
An unconfined aquifer system also occurs in Unit 2. The top of
Unit 2 is at a depth of 48–50 m. Owing to the absence of locally
confining impermeable layers near the site, water levels in the wells
in the Unit 2 system are coincident with those measured in the
overlaying Unit 1.
2.3. Modeling study of the aquifer
The conceptual model was constructed taking into consider-
ation the structure and geometry of the units within the domain.
The distribution of the layers in the model area was determined
from topographic elevation data for the geological units, as listed
in the regional authority database (Regione Piemonte, 2007). A plan
view of the area covered by the computational grid (approximately
2,665,000 m2 ; 2,538,040 elements and 1,338,162 nodes) is pro-
vided in Fig. 4. The horizontal dimensions of the model grid are
1914 m (NW–SE) and 1525 m (SW–NE). These dimensions were
established in order to ensure that the limits of the model were
sufficiently remote to reduce the impact of the assumed boundary
conditions on the model outcomes. The average mesh spacing in
the modeling domain was 15 m and was refined to 3 m in the areas
close to the wells to provide enhanced resolution of the thermal
plumes. The grid spacing was defined after trials to calculate the
delay time required for the thermal plume to reach three control
points located 20, 30, and 60 m downstream of the injection well as
a function of the mesh size. The delay was essentially stable when
a mesh smaller than 3 m was used (Fig. 5), and therefore this size
was selected in order to limit the required simulation time.
Table 1
Thermal and hydrodynamic parameters used for FEFLOW modeling.
Parameter Value
Unit 1
Horizontal hydraulic conductivity Kxx1 = Kyy1 [m/s] 0.0025
Vertical hydraulic conductivity Kzz1 [m/s] 0.00001
Storativity S1 0.106
Porosity n1 0.2
f
Volumetric heat capacity of the fluid f c1 [106 J/m3 K] 4.2
Volumetric heat capacity of the solid s c1s [106 J/m3 K] 1.3
f
Heat conductivity of the fluid 1 [J/ms K] 0.65
Heat conductivity of the solid s1 [J/ms K] 3
Longitudinal dispersivity ˛L1 [m] 5
Transverse dispersivity ˛T1 [m] 0.5
Unit 2
Horizontal hydraulic conductivity Kxx2 = Kyy2 [m/s] 0.00027
Vertical hydraulic conductivity Kzz2 [m/s] 0.000054
Storativity S2 0.106
Porosity n2 0.2
f
Volumetric heat capacity of the fluid f c2 [106 J/m3 K] 4.2
Volumetric heat capacity of the solid s c2s [106 J/m3 K] 2.52
f
Heat conductivity of the fluid 2 2 [J/ms K] 0.65
Heat conductivity of the solid s2 [J/ms K] 3
Longitudinal dispersivity ˛L2 [m] 5
Transverse dispersivity ˛T2 [m] 0.5
The initial groundwater temperature for Units 1 and 2 was
set at 15.0 ◦ C. This temperature is nearly constant throughout the
year. The volumetric heat capacity and thermal conductivity of
water were set to the default parameters in the FEFLOW simula-
tor. The volumetric heat capacities and thermal conductivities of
the solid materials (matrix) were estimated using the stratigraphic
data derived from the piezometer log (Fig. 6). The volumetric heat
capacity (Cs ) was determined for each lithologic feature recorded in
the log below the undisturbed groundwater (Engineering ToolBox,
2012). The Unit 1 Cs value was then calculated as a composition-
weighted mean based on the lithologic record. These values are
consistent with JSTP (1990). The horizontal hydraulic conductivity
(Kxx, Kyy) was derived from step-drawdown pumping test results
and calculated assuming an average saturated thickness of 30 m.
The vertical hydraulic conductivity (Kzz) and the storativity were
determined by means of a constant-rate pumping test. The porosity
was determined by examining the logs recorded during the drilling
of the wells in Unit 1. The complete list of the parameters used in
the simulation is provided in Table 1. Rainfall infiltration was not
included in the calculations due to a lack of infiltration data and
the characteristics of the model surface, which is mostly covered
by buildings and roads and was therefore considered essentially
impermeable.
The unperturbed groundwater flow is stable throughout the
year, based on groundwater level monitoring. Therefore, the Dirich-
let boundary conditions were set by fixing groundwater levels on
the upstream and downstream surfaces. These levels were also
verified by initially calibrating the model against the steady-state
groundwater heads obtained from a potentiometric surface map
(Civita et al., 2004) and field monitoring. The undisturbed ground-
water temperature is constant throughout the year at 15 ◦ C. It does
not appear to be influenced in any manner by rainfall events or sea-
sonal atmospheric temperature oscillations, which conforms to the
general constancy of temperature observed in unconfined aquifers
in the Piemonte region in situations where the depth to ground-
water exceeds 9.5 m (Lo Russo and Civita, 2010). The temperature
of the upstream surface was set equal to the unperturbed tem-
perature, while the downstream surface was set based on a flux
Neumann condition.
The numerical simulations of heat transport within the aquifer
were solved using transient conditions. The simulations assumed
full heat transfer within the saturated aquifer and only conductive
 S. Lo Russo et al. / Geothermics 51 (2014) 103–112 107

Fig. 4. Plan view of the site overlaid onto the simplified topographical map, including the mesh boundary, the potentiometric surface for the Unit 1 unconfined aquifer under
undisturbed conditions (contour spacing: 1 m; dimensions in meters above mean sea level; m asl), and the location of the cross-section described in Fig. 2.

heat transfer between the saturated and unsaturated zone. The
latter process was modeled because it is related to the transient
temperature gradient induced by the warmer water injection.
Owing to the thickness of the unsaturated zone and the lack of
detailed information regarding its hydraulic and thermal character-
istics, adiabatic conditions were established on the ground surface
over the unsaturated zone. Therefore, the numerical simulations
could potentially slightly overestimate the size of the calculated
thermal plumes. In any case, the thermal gradient and the conduc-
tive heat transfer through the unsaturated zone due to warm water
injection is limited, and the approximation appears reasonable.
The simulations were performed during the cooling period
until the end of the year (May to December 2011) to assess the
development of a warm TAZ around the injection well (P4). Appro-
priate FEFLOW time-varying functions (TVFs) for Q and T were
defined based on monitoring data extracted from the heat pump
control system. The heat pump instrumentation, which works in
tandem with the groundwater monitoring system described above,
was used to record the discharge in the wells using a flowmeter
installed on the groundwater pump and the temperatures across
the heat exchangers using thermocouples. All parameters were
measured on an hourly basis.
To assess the TAZ, four computational modeling scenarios were
defined and tested. The first (T1) took into account the hourly
variable data for Q and T. The TVFs for Q and T were derived
directly from the monitoring data. The second scenario (T2) used
108 S. Lo Russo et al. / Geothermics 51 (2014) 103–112

daily averages calculated from the hourly data. The third (T3)
used monthly equivalents, and the last (T4) scenario employed a
seasonal equivalent value for Q and T. The resulting TVFs for Q
and T are plotted in Figs. 7 and 8. The ranges of discharge flow
and temperature were dependent on the scenarios and reached
maximum values of 55 m3 /h and 29.8 ◦ C in the T1 scenario.
The equivalent volumetric flow rates and temperature differ-
ences used in scenarios T2–T4 were obtained by averaging the
quantities in a balanced manner, i.e., the volumetric flow rate and
the enthalpy flow:
n
i=1
Qi · t
Q = (1)
n · t
n
Q · ci · Ti · t
i=1 i
Fig. 5. Trend of the delay time for the thermal plume at the three control points T =  n (2)
downstream of the injection well. L is the model mesh spacing. i=1
Qi · ci · t

Fig. 6. Piezometer log and stratigraphy. The prevailing lithology of Unit 1 includes sand and gravel with subordinate clay lenses (1–1.5 m thick) of limited areal extent.
 S. Lo Russo et al. / Geothermics 51 (2014) 103–112 109

60,0

50,0

Volumetric flow rate (m3/h)

40,0

30,0 Q1
Q2
Q3
20,0
Q4

10,0

0,0
1/5 21/5 10/6 30/6 20/7 9/8 29/8 18/9
Time (days)

Fig. 7. Discharge flow rates in injection well (P4).

30,0

28,0
Injecon temperature (°C)

26,0

24,0

T1
22,0
T2
T3
20,0
T4

18,0

16,0

14,0
1/5 21/5 10/6 30/6 20/7 9/8 29/8 18/9
Time (days)

Fig. 8. Temperatures in injection well (P4).

where n is the number of time intervals in the selected period (day
in T2, month in T3, and season in T4), t is the simulation time inter-
val (1 h), and c is the specific heat capacity of water (4.187 kJ/kg K).
The computational time interval was fixed at one hour in all
of the simulations (T1–T4). The simulations were performed on a
computer equipped with an Intel® Core i7 2.93 Ghz CPU proces-
sor with 16.0 GB of RAM and the 64-bit Microsoft Windows 7®
operating system.
3. Simulation results and discussion
The simulation results are depicted in Fig. 9. The TAZ extension
is conventionally indicated by the 16.0 ◦ C isotherm (1 ◦ C greater
than the natural undisturbed groundwater temperature). Simula-
tions T1, T2, and T3 are quite similar during the period between
July (Fig. 9c) and August (Fig. 9d) whereas the T4 result is signif-
icantly different. When the GWHP plant was deactivated at the
end of September (Fig. 9e), the TAZ moved downstream toward
the injection well (P4), elongating and reducing in size in all four
scenarios.
Additional information concerning the reliability of the simu-
lations was obtained by comparing simulated temperatures with
the piezometer measurements (S2) plotted in Fig. 10. T1, T2, and
T3 exhibited the same trend as the measured data, while the
fourth (T4) was quite different from the observed groundwater
temperature profile. The measured peak temperature (18.7 ◦ C) was
reached between late July and early August, and only the T3 sim-
ulation predicted a temperature near the maximum (18.8 ◦ C). The
T1 and T2 simulations remained below 18.5 ◦ C and 18.3 ◦ C, while
the T4 simulation peak was only 16.4 ◦ C and occurred at the end
of June. As clearly highlighted in Fig. 10, the T4 temperature-
time profile is very different from the measured data. Following
shutdown of the plant, the simulations all displayed trends sim-
ilar to the recorded temperatures. The good match between the
110 S. Lo Russo et al. / Geothermics 51 (2014) 103–112

Fig. 9. Injection area zoom views. Location of 16.0 ◦ C isotherm in Unit 1 unconfined aquifer following injection of warmer water during cooling period: (a) May, (b) June, (c)
July, (d) August, (e) September, (f) October, (g) November, and (h) December 2011 (Geographical coordinates – injection well P4: 45◦ 03 42.44 N, 7◦ 39 36.45 E, extraction
well P2: 45◦ 03 40.58 N, 7◦ 39 34.27 E).

simulated and measured temperature data could be considered a
confirmation that the modeling assumption regarding the no-flow,
adiabatic top boundary condition is reliable. The extended thick-
ness of the unsaturated zone at the site (17 m) most likely reduces
heat exchange between the aquifer and the surface to negligible
values.
Fluctuations in the water level were limited (less than 1 m in
the T1 scenario) and very well predicted by FEFLOW. No per-
manent alteration in the potentiometric surface was produced in
any scenario, probably due to the low abstraction and discharge
rate compared to the high productivity of the aquifer and the
characteristics of the wells, which are designed for efficient abstrac-
tion and discharge.
Simulations T1, T2, and T3 were statistically tested to quan-
titatively evaluate their reliability. Scenario T4 was not tested
because the results were clearly too far from the measured data for
meaningful statistical comparison. Figs. 11–13 are comparisons of
the average daily numerical and experimental data for the simula-
tions. Most points in the figures lie close to the bisector, indicating
that the calculated temperatures are close to the measured values,
and fall within the error bars. Only a few points in simulation T2
do not lie within the error bars. To further strengthen the analysis,
 S. Lo Russo et al. / Geothermics 51 (2014) 103–112 111

Fig. 10. Temperatures in piezometer S2. The dotted line corresponds to the measured data.

19 Table 2
RMSE (root mean square error) for the different simulation scenarios.
18.5
Calculateed temperatrure (°C)

18 T1 T2 T3

17.5 May 0.0159 0.0208 0.0155

June 0.0992 0.1016 0.1337
17
July 0.2199 0.1758 0.2494
16.5 August 0.2248 0.2802 0.1441
September 0.2319 0.3110 0.2311
16
October 0.0763 0.0830 0.0758
15.5 November 0.0559 0.0237 0.0515
15 December 0.0082 0.0156 0.0088
15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19
Measured temperature (°C)
additional statistical tests were applied to the data set (simulated
Fig. 11. Regression analysis for T1. vs. measured) for the T1, T2, and T3 scenarios. Analysis of the
19
residual errors (i.e., the difference between the observed and
predicted values) was used to evaluate the model performance,
18.5
for example identifying systematic under- or over-prediction. We
Calculateed temperatrure (°C)

18 used the RMSE (root mean square error):

17.5  0.5
17 
n
(Pi − Oi )
2
RMSE = (3)
16.5 n
i=1
16
15.5 in which Pi are the predicted values, Oi are the observed values,
and Ō is the mean of the observed data. As the quality of the
15
15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 simulation (simulated ≈ measured) improves, RMSE decreases to
Measured temperature (°C) 0. Table 2 contains the values of RMSE calculated on a monthly
base for simulations T1, T2, and T3 and confirms the reliability of
Fig. 12. Regression analysis for T2. the simulation results.
19
18.5 4. Conclusions
Calculateed temperatrure (°C)

18
In order to obtain a good match between simulated and actual
17.5
groundwater temperatures during modeling of the TAZ produced
17 by a GWHP plant, it is necessary to model the injection using
16.5 realistically variable flow rates and injection temperature data.
16 Therefore, information concerning the variability of these param-
15.5 eters over time is essential to obtaining reliable simulations.
Moreover, to improve the simulation of the TAZ the hydrodynamic
15
15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19
parameters of the surrounding materials should also be accurately
Measured temperature (°C) determined.
In this paper, several simulations were performed in which
Fig. 13. Regression analysis for T3. the mass flow rate and the enthalpy flux between a GWHP plant
112 S. Lo Russo et al. / Geothermics 51 (2014) 103–112
and the local aquifer were averaged over different intervals. Time-
averaging reduces the computational effort required in modeling
routines and is therefore extensively used in professional practice
for TAZ prediction.
The use of average hourly, daily, or monthly injection flow rate
and temperature data produced good quality simulation results.
In contrast, the use of seasonal average values did not produce
good estimates of the TAZ. This element is particularly important
in the design of plants in which it is necessary to assess the extent
and dynamics of the underground thermal perturbation to avoid
interference with nearby plants or wells used for other purposes.
Simulations employing seasonal average data might produce unre-
liable results, underestimating the peak temperature reached by
the groundwater in the neighborhood of the injection well, and
therefore should be avoided if possible. Instead, the use of hourly,
daily, or monthly data may be considered a good option for TAZ
modeling.
References
Baccino, G., Lo Russo, S., Taddia, G., Verda, V., 2010. Energy and environmental anal-
ysis of an open-loop ground water heat pump in a Urban area. Thermal Science
14, 693–706.
Banks, D., 2009. Thermogeological assessment of open-loop well-doublet schemes:
a review and synthesis of analytical approaches. Hydrogeology Journal 17 (5),
1149–1155, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10040-008-0427-6.
Chung, J.T., Choi, J.M., 2012. Design and performance study of the ground-coupled
heat pump system with an operating parameter. Renewable Energy 42, 1–2,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.08. 054.
Civita, M., Lo Russo, S., Vigna, B., 2004. Hydrogeological sketch map of Piemonte (NW
Italy) 1:25.000. In: Map Presented at the 32nd International Geological Congress
(32IGC), Florence, Italy, August 21–28.
Diersch, H.J.G., 2010. FEFLOW 6 – User’s Manual. WASY GmbH, Berlin.
Engineering ToolBox, 2012. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/
Florides, G., Kalogirou, S., 2007. Ground heat exchangers – a review of
systems, models and applications. Renewable Energy 32, 2461–2478,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2006.12.014.
Freedman, V.L., Waichler, S.R., Mackley, R.D., Horner, J.A., 2012. Assessing
the thermal environmental impacts of an groundwater heat
pump in southeastern Washington State. Geothermics 42, 65–77,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2011.10.004.
Fry, V.A., 2009. Lessons from London: regulation of open-loop ground source heat
pumps in central London. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydro-
geology 42, 325–334.
Hecht-Mendez, J., Molina-Giraldo, N., Blum, P., Bayer, P., 2010. Evaluating MT3DMS
for heat transport simulation of closed geothermal systems. Ground Water 48
(5), 741–756, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2010.00678.x.
JSTP, 1990. Thermophysical Properties Handbook. Japan Society of Thermophysical
Properties. Yokendo Co., Tokyo, Japan, pp. 489 pp.
Lund, J.W., Freeston, D.H., Boyd, T.L., 2011. Direct utilization of geother-
mal energy 2010 worldwide review. Geothermics 40 (3), 159–180,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2011.07.004.
Lo Russo, S., Civita, M.V., 2009. Open-loop groundwater heat pumps development
for large buildings: a case study. Geothermics 38, 335–345.
Lo Russo, S., Civita, M., 2010. Hydrogeological and thermal characterization of shal-
low aquifers in the plain sector of Piemonte region (NW Italy): implications for
groundwater heat pumps diffusion. Environmental Earth Sciences 60, 703–713,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-009-0208-0.
Lo Russo, S., Taddia, G., 2010. Advective heat transport in an unconfined
aquifer induced by the field injection of an open-loop groundwater
heat pump. American Journal of Environmental Sciences 6 (3), 253–259,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3844/ajessp.2010.253.259.
Lo Russo, S., Taddia, G., Baccino, G., Verda, V., 2011. Different design scenarios related
to an open loop groundwater heat pump in a large building: Impact on subsur-
face and primary energy consumption. Energy and Buildings 43, 347–357.
Lo Russo, S., Taddia, G., Verda, V., 2012. Development of the thermally affected zone
(TAZ) around a ground water heat pump (GWHP) system: a sensitivity analysis.
Geothermics 43, 66–74, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2012.02.001.
Milenic, D., Vasiljevic, P., Vranjes, A., 2010. Criteria for use of groundwa-
ter as renewable energy source in geothermal heat pump systems for
building heating/cooling purposes. Energy and Buildings 42, 649–657,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.11.002.
Nam, Y., Ooka, R., 2010. Numerical simulation of ground heat and water transfer for
groundwater heat pump system based on measured-scale experiment. Energy
and Building 42, 69–75, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.07.012.
Regione Piemonte, 2007. Water protection plan. D.C.R.n. 117-10731, Turin,
Italy (in Italian), http://www.regione.piemonte.it/acqua/pianoditutela/
pta/aree/ai14/pdf/index.htm
Self, S.J., Reddy, B.V., Rosen, M.A., 2012. Geothermal heat pump systems: sta-
tus review and comparison with other heating options. Applied Energy 1–3,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.01.048.
Yang, Q.C., Liang, J., Liu, L.C., 2011. Numerical model for the capacity evaluation of
shallow groundwater heat pumps in Beijing plain, China. Procedia Environmen-
tal Sciences 10, 881–889.
Zhou, Y., Zhou, Z., 2009. Simulation of thermal transport in aquifer: a GWHP system
in Chengdu, China. Journal of Hydrodynamic 21, 647–657.