A Study on Improving the Coefficient of Performance by Comparing Balancing Well and Standing Column Well Heat Exchange Systems
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Experimental Methodology
- where is the total cooling capacity of the heat pump (W),
- is the total heating capacity of the heat pump (W),
- is the heat pump inlet temperature (°C) of circulating water on the source side,
- is the heat pump outlet temperature (°C) of circulating water on the source side,
- is the specific heat of heat source circulation water J/(kg·K)],
- is the mss flow rate of circulating water on the heat source side (kg/s),
- is the total power consumption (W).
3. Results and Investigations
3.1. Initial Ground-Water Temperature
3.2. Effective Thermal Conductivity
3.3. Coefficient of Performance
3.4. Thermal Environment of the Groundwater Temperature
4. Conclusions
- Using the SCW and cross-mixing balancing well underground heat exchanger, the effective thermal conductivity characteristics and COP characteristics during heating and cooling modes were compared and analyzed. Thus, the cross-mixing balancing well underground heat exchanger exhibited more effective thermal conductivity than the SCW underground heat exchanger with a high COP. Therefore, we assumed that the performance was improved because it utilized the groundwater flow in contrast to the SCW.
- The effective heat transfer value of the cross-mixing balancing well underground heat exchanger was 9.22 (W/m·K). The thermal performance of the ground was measured using two types of underground heat exchangers; the results showed that the thermal performance of the cross-mixing balancing well underground heat exchanger was more than three times higher than that of the SCW underground heat exchanger.
- In the case of SCW geothermal heat exchanger, the average effective thermal conductivity values of the heating and cooling modes were 5.86 and 3.19 W/mK, respectively. In case of balancing well cross-mixing geothermal heat exchanger, the effective thermal conductivity values using the line-source expression were 11.3 and 16.2 W/mK, respectively, during the heating and cooling modes. A comparison of the SCW and cross mixing balancing well geothermal heat exchanger showed that the balancing well system has much better performance than SCW.
- The result of comparing and analyzing the characteristics of the effective heat map using the results of SCW and balancing well system showed that the heating operation for the SCW underground heat exchanger had better thermal conductivity characteristics than the cooling operation. In addition, in the case of a balancing well underground heat exchanger, the cooling operation showed suitable thermal conductivity characteristics. As such, it is considered that the improvement in performance was caused by the flow of activated groundwater in the ground and rapid heat transfer without heat accumulation.
- The COP of two types of geothermal heat exchangers indicates a better performance of cross-mixed balancing well underground heat exchangers as compared with the SCW type. It is believed that reflecting these systems in the design would reduce the construction costs and improve the overall performance.
- The results of analysis of the thermal environment characteristics of the ground water through the cross mixing of the SCW and balancing well methods showed that, when driving the balancing well, the thermal efficiency of cross-mixing balancing well system increases more than that of the SCW, optimizing the thermal environmental conditions of the ground water, which can be a condition for long-term operation.
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Seo, Y.; Seo, U.-J. Ground source heat pump (GSHP) systems for horticulture greenhouses adjacent to highway interchanges: A case study in South Korea. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 135, 110194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- KEMCO, NR GT 101: Water-to-Water Ground Source Heat Pump; Korea Energy Management Cooperation: Gyeonggi-do, Korea, 2008.
- KEMCO, NR GT 102: Water-to-Air Ground Source Heat Pump; Korea Energy Management Cooperation: Gyeonggi-do, Korea, 2008.
- KEMCO, NR GT 103: Water-to-Air Ground Source Multi-Heat Pump; Korea Energy Management Cooperation: Gyeonggi-do, Korea, 2008.
- International Standardization Organization. International Standard, ISO 13256–1: Water-Source Heat Pumps-Testing and Rating for Performance-Part. 1. Water-to-Air and Brine-to-Air Heat Pumps; International Standardization Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- International Standardization Organization. International Standard, ISO 13256–2: Water-Source Heat Pumps-Testing and Rating for Performance-Part. 2. Water-to-Water and Brine-to-Water Heat Pumps; International Standardization Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, M.J.; Choi, C.H.; Jeon, J.U. A study on the KS (Korea Standard) of SCW type ground heat exchanger-ground source heat pump system. Korea Acad. Ind. Coop. Soc. 2013, 3, 22–30. [Google Scholar]
- Chang, K.S.; Kim, M.J.; Kim, Y.J. An experimental study on the thermal performance evaluation of SCW ground heat exchanger. Int. J. Air-Cond. Refrig. 2017, 25, 1750006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gozgor, G.; Mahalik, M.K.; Demir, E.; Padhan, H. The impact of economic globalization on renewable energy in the OECD countries. Energy Policy 2020, 139, 111365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanner, B.; Hellström, G.; Spitler, J.; Gehlin, S. More than 15 years of mobile thermal response test—A summary of experiences and prospects. In Proceedings of the European Geothermal Congress, Pisa, Italy, 3–7 June 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Beier, R.A.; Smith, M.D.; Spitler, J.D. Reference data sets for vertical borehole ground heat exchanger models and thermal response test analysis. Geothermics 2011, 40, 79–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, K.-S.; Kim, M.J. A study on the heat transfer characteristics of various construction of SCW type ground heat exchanger. Korean J. Air-Cond. Refrig. Eng. 2014, 26, 460–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gustafsson, A.-M.; Westerlund, L. Multi-injection rate thermal response test in groundwater filled borehole heat exchanger. Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 1061–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raymond, J.; Therrien, R.; Gosselin, L. Borehole temperature evolution during thermal response tests. Geothermics 2011, 40, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, K.S.; Kim, M.J. Analysis and thermal response test for vertical ground heat exchanger with two U-loop configuration. Int. J. Energy Res. 2016, 40, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rivera, J.A.; Blum, P.; Bayer, P. A finite line source model with Cauchy-type top boundary conditions for simulating near surface effects on borehole heat exchangers. Energy 2016, 98, 50–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chang, J.H.; Park, D.H.; Park, S.S.; Na, S.M. Evaluation of application of effective hydraulic conductivity in SCW ground heat pump system. J. Korean Geo-Environ. Soc. 2010, 141–146. [Google Scholar]
- Jang, K.S.; Kim, M.J. An analysis on the bleeding effect of SCW ground heat exchanger using thermal response test data. Korea Acad. Ind. Coop. Soc. 2020, 2, 512–520. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, W.H.; Kim, J.Y.; Hong, W.H.; Ahn, C.H. A study on recovery time of ground water temperature of small scale GWHP using standing column well in case of heating. J. Archit. Inst. Korea 2008, 24, 223–230. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, S.J.; Kim, J.Y.; Hong, W.H.; Ahn, C.H. An analysis of underground water temperature during heating and cooling by small-scale scw type GWHP system in operation modes. J. Archit. Inst. Korea 2009, 25, 263–270. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, D.Y.; Seo, B.M.; Choi, J.M.; Lee, K.H. Comparative analysis of the heating energy performance of SCW geothermal heat pump system with and without heat storage tank. Soc. Air-Cond. Refrig. Eng. Korea 2018, 6, 77–80. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, S.H.; Park, J.S.; Byun, S.J.; Park, C.H.; Lee, C.H. An experimental study on improvement of ground thermal conductivity by reinjection method of bleed drainage of SCW type heat exchanger. Korean Soc. New Renew. Energy 2018, 11, 226. [Google Scholar]
- You, J.; Lee, C. Comparative analysis of geothermal energy in Korea based on closed borehole and single- and two-well standing column well geothermal heat exchange systems. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, C. Thermal performance of a standing column well geothermal heat exchanger system using re-injection of bleeding water. Geothermics 2019, 82, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Gil, A.; Abesser, C.; Cavero, S.G.; Marazuela, M.Á.; Lázaro, J.M.; Vázquez-Suñé, E.; Hughes, A.G.; Moreno, M.M. Defining the exploitation patterns of groundwater heat pump systems. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 710, 136425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Gil, A.; Maya, S.M.; Garrido, E.; Moreno, M.M.; Vázquez-Suñé, E.; Marazuela, M.; Lázaro, J.M.; Sánchez-Navarro, J.Á. Sustainability indicator for the prevention of potential thermal interferences between groundwater heat pump systems in urban aquifers. Renew. Energy 2019, 134, 14–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- García-Gil, A.; Mejías Moreno, M.; Garrido Schneider, E.; Marazuela, M.Á.; Abesser, C.; Mateo Lázaro, J.; Sánchez Navarro, J.Á. Nested shallow geothermal systems. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, B.; Vienken, T.; Kolditz, O.; Shao, H. Modeling the groundwater temperature response to extensive operation of ground source heat pump systems: A case study in Germany. Energy Procedia 2018, 152, 971–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maya, S.M.; García-Gil, A.; Garrido, E.; Moreno, M.M.; Epting, J.; Vázquez-Suñé, E.; Marazuela, M.Á.; Sánchez-Navarro, J.Á. An upscaling procedure for the optimal implementation of open-loop geothermal energy systems into hydrogeological models. J. Hydrol. 2018, 563, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W.; Li, X.; Peng, Y.; Wang, Y.; Tu, J. Experimental and numerical studies on the thermal performance of ground heat exchangers in a layered subsurface with groundwater. Renew. Energy 2020, 147, 620–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.; You, J.; Park, H. In-situ response test of various borehole depths and heat injection rates at standing column well geothermal heat exchanger systems. Energy Build. 2018, 172, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eskilson, P. Thermal Analysis of Heat Extraction Boreholes. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Mathematical Physics, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Lamarche, L.; Beauchamp, B. A new contribution to the finite line-source model for geothermal boreholes. Energy Build. 2007, 39, 188–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Y.; Yu, J.; Yan, T.; Zhang, L.; Liu, X. Improved analytical modeling and system performance evaluation of deep coaxial borehole heat exchanger with segmented finite cylinder-source method. Energy Build. 2020, 212, 109829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, H.-K.; Yoo, G.-J.; Lim, K.-B.; Lee, S.-H.; Lee, C.-H. Thermal performance analysis of borehole size effect on geothermal heat exchanger. J. Central South. Univ. 2012, 19, 3524–3529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minea, V. Experimental investigation of the reliability of residential standing column heat pump systems without bleed in cold climates. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2013, 52, 230–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, G.; Tao, Z.; Meng, X.; Ma, C.; Chai, J.; Jin, L. Review of effective thermal conductivity models of rock-soil for geothermal energy applications. Geothermics 2019, 77, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gehlin, S.E.; Hellstrom, G. Comparison of four models for thermal response test evaluation. ASHRAE Trans. 2003, 109, 131–142. [Google Scholar]
- Morgensen, P. Fluid to duct wall heat transfer in duct system heat storage. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Subsurface Heat Storage in Theory and Practice, Stockholm, Sweden, 6–8 June 1983; pp. 625–657. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Deng, N.; Ma, H.; Dong, S. Thermal response test for ground source heat pump based on constant temperature and heat-flux methods. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2016, 93, 678–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Deng, N.; Wang, J.; Zhang, D.; Wang, J. Thermal response test and numerical analysis based on two models for ground-source heat pump system. Energy Build. 2013, 66, 657–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcotte, D.; Pasquier, P. On the estimation of thermal resistance in borehole thermal conductivity test. Renew. Energy 2008, 33, 2407–2415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borinaga-Treviño, R.; Pascual-Muñoz, P.; Castro-Fresno, D.; Blanco-Fernandez, E. Borehole thermal response and thermal resistance of four different grouting materials measured with a TRT. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2013, 53, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Location | Transducer Reading (W) | Average q (W) | Difference (W) | % of Average Power |
---|---|---|---|---|
A | 2506.6 | 2657.8 | 101.2 | 3.88 |
B | 3207.2 | 3302.5 | 93.3 | 2.82 |
Actual Flow (LPM) | Calibration Flow (LPM) | Error (%) |
---|---|---|
3.316 | 3.292 | 0.73 |
15.87 | 16.032 | 1.01 |
100.90 | 102.99 | 2.03 |
350.62 | 355.41 | 1.35 |
SCW Type | Initial Temperature | Ave. Diff. of Temperature between Inlet and Out Water | Heat Injection | Slope (K) | Effective Thermal Conductivity | Ratio of Bleeding to No Bleeding |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
°C | °C | W | - | W/m·K | % | |
SCW | 16.51 | 4.01 | 81,000 | 7.66 | 3.075 | - |
Balancing well | 17.71 | 3.67 | 76,000 | 2.41 | 9.22 | 300% |
Parameters | Initial Temperature | Ave. Diff. of Temp. between Inlet and Out Water | Heat Injection | Slope (K) | Effective Thermal Conductivity | Ratio of Bleeding to No Bleeding | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SCW Type | |||||||
°C | °C | W | - | W/m·K | % | ||
SCW | Single well | 16.51 | 4.01 | 81,000 | 7.66 | 3.075 | - |
Heating mode (two well) | 16.99 | 5.0 | 131,000 | −2.292 | 5.86 | 190% | |
Cooling mode (two well) | 17.72 | 6.9 | 119,000 | 1.256 | 3.19 | 103% | |
Balancing well | Single well | 17.71 | 3.67 | 76,000 | 2.41 | 9.22 | 300% |
Heating mode (two well) | 16.98 | 5.23 | 137,000 | −1.283 | 11.3 | 367% | |
Cooling mode (two well) | 17.75 | 7.22 | 132,000 | 1.209 | 16.2 | 527% |
Initial Ground Water Temp. | Temperature of Geothermal Side | Temperature of Load Side | Total Power | Power Consumption | COP | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Inlet | Outlet | Flow Rate | Inlet | Outlet | Flow Rate | |||||
NO/Units | °C | °C | °C | LPM | °C | °C | LPM | kW | kW | (-) |
SCW geothermal heat exchanger at cooling mode | ||||||||||
1 | 17.72 | 28.37 | 35.08 | 305.69 | 15.60 | 10.63 | 346.39 | 120.11 | 38.35 | 3.13 |
2 | 19.94 | 29.90 | 36.62 | 304.75 | 15.60 | 11.10 | 346.68 | 119.10 | 39.03 | 3.05 |
3 | 19.98 | 30.45 | 37.14 | 306.05 | 16.28 | 11.35 | 346.58 | 119.06 | 39.29 | 3.03 |
4 | 20.09 | 30.61 | 37.31 | 306.03 | 16.34 | 11.43 | 347.47 | 119.22 | 39.52 | 3.02 |
5 | 20.54 | 31.01 | 37.71 | 304.36 | 16.46 | 11.53 | 348.26 | 119.83 | 39.74 | 3.02 |
Average | 19.65 | 30.07 | 36.77 | 305.38 | 16.06 | 11.21 | 347.08 | 119.46 | 39.19 | 3.05 |
SCW geothermal heat exchanger at heating mode | ||||||||||
1 | 16.99 | 12.30 | 7.77 | 324.62 | 41.64 | 47.03 | 349.12 | 131.26 | 44.89 | 2.92 |
2 | 16.15 | 12.40 | 7.87 | 324.31 | 41.85 | 47.25 | 349.12 | 131.65 | 45.01 | 2.92 |
3 | 15.84 | 12.12 | 7.62 | 324.55 | 41.99 | 47.37 | 349.29 | 131.01 | 45.01 | 2.92 |
Average | 16.94 | 12.27 | 7.75 | 324.49 | 41.83 | 47.22 | 349.20 | 131.31 | 45.00 | 2.92 |
Initial Ground Water Temp. | Temperature of Geothermal Side | Temperature of Load Side | Total Power | Power Consumption | COP | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Inlet | Outlet | Flow Rate | Inlet | Outlet | Flow Rate | |||||
NO/Units | °C | °C | °C | LPM | °C | °C | LPM | kW | kW | (-) |
Balancing well geothermal heat exchanger in cooling mode | ||||||||||
1 | 17.75 | 20.61 | 27.56 | 317.81 | 17.61 | 12.14 | 349.69 | 133.55 | 35.26 | 3.79 |
2 | 17.63 | 20.44 | 27.33 | 318.14 | 17.22 | 11.79 | 349.47 | 132.58 | 35.13 | 3.77 |
3 | 17.91 | 20.44 | 27.21 | 318.76 | 16.49 | 11.13 | 349.14 | 130.54 | 35.00 | 3.73 |
4 | 17.64 | 20.46 | 27.32 | 318.73 | 17.05 | 11.63 | 349.64 | 132.37 | 35.18 | 3.76 |
5 | 17.84 | 20.48 | 27.33 | 318.90 | 16.99 | 11.58 | 349.63 | 132.06 | 35.19 | 3.75 |
Average | 17.75 | 20.49 | 27.35 | 318.47 | 17.07 | 11.65 | 349.51 | 132.22 | 35.15 | 3.76 |
Balancing well geothermal heat exchanger in heating mode | ||||||||||
1 | 16.98 | 14.28 | 9.36 | 319.20 | 40.53 | 46.19 | 348.31 | 137.48 | 41.91 | 3.28 |
2 | 16.85 | 14.26 | 9.33 | 318.75 | 40.47 | 46.14 | 348.60 | 137.95 | 41.91 | 3.27 |
3 | 16.85 | 14.29 | 9.36 | 319.32 | 40.36 | 46.03 | 348.32 | 137.80 | 41.91 | 3.27 |
Average | 16.89 | 14.28 | 9.35 | 319.09 | 40.45 | 46.12 | 348.41 | 137.74 | 42.06 | 3.27 |
Initial Ground-Water Temperature | Cooling Operation | Heating Operation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
SCW | Balancing Well | SCW | Balancing Well | |
1 | 17.72 | 17.75 | 16.99 | 16.98 |
2 | 19.94 | 17.63 | 16.15 | 16.85 |
3 | 19.98 | 17.91 | 15.84 | 16.85 |
4 | 20.09 | 17.63 | ||
5 | 20.54 | 17.84 | ||
Standard deviation | 1.11 | 0.12 | 0.6 | 0.08 |
COP Performance Coefficient | Cooling Operation | Heating Operation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SCW | Balancing Well | Remarks | SCW | Balancing Well | Remarks | |
minimum | 2.58 | 3.45 | 2.08 | 2.21 | ||
maximum | 3.96 | 4.29 | 3.44 | 3.66 | ||
Average | 3.05 | 3.76 | 23% ↑ | 2.92 | 3.27 | 12% ↑ |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lim, M.; Lim, K.; Lee, C. A Study on Improving the Coefficient of Performance by Comparing Balancing Well and Standing Column Well Heat Exchange Systems. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10445. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410445
Lim M, Lim K, Lee C. A Study on Improving the Coefficient of Performance by Comparing Balancing Well and Standing Column Well Heat Exchange Systems. Sustainability. 2020; 12(24):10445. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410445
Chicago/Turabian StyleLim, Myungkwan, Kyoungbin Lim, and Changhee Lee. 2020. "A Study on Improving the Coefficient of Performance by Comparing Balancing Well and Standing Column Well Heat Exchange Systems" Sustainability 12, no. 24: 10445. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410445
APA StyleLim, M., Lim, K., & Lee, C. (2020). A Study on Improving the Coefficient of Performance by Comparing Balancing Well and Standing Column Well Heat Exchange Systems. Sustainability, 12(24), 10445. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410445