Modeling of Standing Column Wells in Ground Source Heat Pump Systems Zheng D. O Neill Ph.D., P.E. Cimetrics, Inc. Boston, Mass Jeffrey D. Spitler Ph.D., P.E. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK Simon J. Rees Ph.D. CEng De Montfort University, Leicester, United Kingdom 1
Outline Introduction Model development Experimental validation Application example Conclusions and recommendations 2
SCW Systems Standing Column Well: Single borehole Open loop Water extracted from and returned to same borehole Similar to a domestic water well, but water is returned, for the most part. In some systems, some water, some of the time, is not returned. ( Bleed ) 3
Introduction SCW systems Operation Without bleed With bleed Benefits Economy, environmental benefits 50-60 feet per ton Limitation Good groundwater quality Local regulations 4
Previous work No models available for SCW design and energy analysis purposes: Effects of bleed not quantified. Time varying thermal boundary conditions Effects of design parameters such as borehole diameter, borehole depth, dip tube size, etc. not quantified. 5
Model: Detailed model Detailed model (ASHRAE-RP1119) Two-dimensional (radial/axial) finite volume method-composed of two coupled components Well borehole model Heat transfer in the borehole Finite volume model Heat transfer in the surrounding rock Flow in the borehole and in the surrounding rock 6
Model: Detailed model Adiabatic surface Top of Water Table r Return Pipe Discharge z Borehole wall boundary condition is heat flux from sub-borehole model T=(11.1+0.006*depth) ºC Head is set as constant zero Suction Pipe Inlet ( head flux is specified) Head/temperature distribution after one year of normal operation T=13.38ºC Head is set as constant zero 7
Model: Detailed model Significant Parameters Bleed Rate; Borehole depth Rock thermal conductivity and hydraulic conductivity Performance can be improved dramatically by introducing bleed As bleed rate increases, sensitivity to length decreases As hydraulic conductivity increases, there can be a tradeoff between convective and advective heat transfer Model takes several weeks (!) to simulate a single year of operation 8
Model: Simplified model Simplified model One-dimensional finite difference method For annual building simulation More than a hundred thousand times faster than detailed model. Assumptions No vertical heat and water flow Zero natural ground temperature gradient 9
Model: Simplified model Tfo Tfi m (1-b) m Heat pump Vr Tfi b m Bleed flow at Tfi Vr q Borehole Wall Vr o T far = 12 C Far Field mc pt fo m(1-b)c T p fi T f T b mbc Tgw p Vr T gw b m Groundwater flow at Tgw 10
Model: Simplified model Three different effects of water on the heat transfer in SCW system Static water Effective thermal conductivity Induced groundwater flow (w/o bleed) Enhanced thermal conductivity Bleed Bleed-driven advection 11
Model: Simplified model Use enhanced thermal conductivity The effect of bleed is superimposed Three procedures to estimate the enhanced thermal conductivity Physical in-situ test Numerical in-situ experiment Correlations 12
Experimental validation-without bleed Penn. State University 45 40 Cooling mode 113.0 104.0 One SCW without bleed 320 m (1050 ft) deep 0.1524 m (6 in) diameter Temperature [ºC] 35 30 25 20 15 10 95.0 86.0 77.0 68.0 59.0 50.0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Time of operation [days] Detailed 2D Model SCW1D Model Mikler's Data Temperature [ºF] Temperature [ºC] 14 12 10 8 6 4 Heating mode 57.2 53.6 50.0 46.4 42.8 39.2 Temperature [ºF] 2 35.6 0 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 Time of operation [days] 32.0 Detailed 2D Model SCW1D Model Mikler's Data Comparisons of temperatures at the outlet to the well for the simplified model (SCW1D), reference model, and Mikler s data in cooling and heating mode 13
Experimental validation-with bleed 1 Haverhill public library, Massachusetts Initially two SCWs, Now four SCWs 457 m (1500 ft) deep 0.1524 m (6 in) diameter 14
Experimental validation- with bleed 2 Haverhill library 8 Temperature back to HP (ºC) 7 6 5 4 3 System off Corrupt data Missing data 2 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Times (hours) Haverhill data SCW1D model Comparisons of calculated and measured temperatures at the outlet of the well using the Haverhill Public Library installation data 15
Application example Annual energy simulation implemented in HVACSIM+ Three different system Single U-tube closed-loop Short-time step g-function SCW without bleed Simplified SCW 1D model SCW with bleed deadband control Simplified SCW 1D model 16
Application example Summary of ground heat exchanger design results for Boston weather file Ground Heat Exchanger Type Single U-tube closedloop Standing Column Well Without Bleed Standing Column Well With 10% Bleed (Deadband Control) Borehole Geometry 1 8 1 1 1 1 Borehole Depth (m) [ft] 82 (268) 391 (1,283) 263 (863) Required Total Borehole Length (m) [ft] 653 (2,144) 391 (1,283) 263 (863) EFT max (ºC) [ºF] 29.7 (85.5) 22.8 (73.1) 28.1 (82.5) EFT min (ºC) (ºF) 3.4 (38.2) 7.0 (44.6) 7.0 (44.6) Feet per ton 121 72 48 17
Application example Required total borehole depth (m) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 2297 1969 1641 1312 984 656 328 Required total borehole depth (ft) 0 Single U-tube SCW without bleed SCW with bleed 0 Required total borehole depth for different ground heat exchanger systems in Boston, MA SCW without bleed requires 40% less borehole depth SCW with bleed requires 60% less borehole depth 18
Application example Life Cycle Cost - 20-year Operation (Present Value) 35000 30000 25000 Cost ($) 20000 15000 Pump Op. Cost HP Op. Cost Capital Cost 10000 5000 0 Single U-tube SCW w/o bleed SCW w/ bleed 19
Conclusions Developed numerical models of standing column wells Two-dimensional finite volume model One-dimensional finite difference model Validated against experimental data With Bleed Without bleed 1-d model is suitable for either energy analysis or design purposes. 20
Recommendations Future Research Extend the model to account for well-to-well interference in multiple standing column well systems. Develop and validate complete design procedure, including recommended site tests: In situ measurement of the thermal conductivity Well drawdown test for the hydraulic conductivity Further long-term experimental validation 21
Any Questions? www.hvac.okstate.edu 22
23