Evaluation of the thermal efficiency and a cost analysis of different types of ground heat exchangers in energy piles. (15th November 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yoon, Seok; Lee, Seung-Rae; Xue, Jianfeng; Zosseder, Kai; Go, Gyu-Hyun; Park, Hyunku
• Is Part Of: Energy conversion and management. Volume 105(2016)
• Page Start: 393
• Page End: 402
• Publication Date: 2015-11-15
• Subjects: Energy pile -- Thermal performance test -- Heat exchange rate -- Cost analysis; Direct energy conversion -- Periodicals; Energy storage -- Periodicals; Energy transfer -- Periodicals; Énergie -- Conversion directe -- Périodiques; Direct energy conversion; Periodicals; 621.3105
• DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2015.08.002
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0196-8904

Abstract

Abstract : Highlights: We performed field TPT with W and coil-type GHEs in energy piles. We evaluated heat exchange rates from TPT results. Field TPT results were compared with numerical analysis. Cost analysis with GSHP design method was conducted for each type of GHEs in energy piles. Abstract: This paper presents an experimental and numerical study of the results of a thermal performance test using precast high-strength concrete (PHC) energy piles with W and coil-type ground heat exchangers (GHEs). In-situ thermal performance tests (TPTs) were conducted for four days under an intermittent operation condition (8 h on; 16 h off) on W and coil-type PHC energy piles installed in a partially saturated weathered granite soil deposit. In addition, three-dimensional finite element analyses were conducted and the results were compared with the four-day experimental results. The heat exchange rates were also predicted for three months using the numerical analysis. The heat exchange rate of the coil-type GHE showed 10–15% higher efficiency compared to the W-type GHE in the energy pile. However, in considering the cost for the installation of the heat exchanger and cement grouting the additional cost of W-type GHE in energy pile was 200–250% cheaper than coil-type GHE under the condition providing equivalent thermal performance. Furthermore, the required lengths of the W, 3U and coil-type GHEs in the energy piles were calculated based on the design process of Kavanaugh and Rafferty. The additional cost for the W and 3U types of GHEs were also 200–250% lower than that of the coil-type GHE. However, the required number of piles was much less with the coil-type GHE as compared to the W and 3U types of GHEs. They are advantageous in terms of the construction period, and further, selecting the coil-type GHE could be a viable option when there is a limitation in the number of piles in consideration of the scale of the building.