Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 93–105

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments

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

Original Research Article

Shallow geothermal energy for industrial applications: A case study

S. Focaccia a, F. Tinti a,⇑, F. Monti b, S. Amidei b, R. Bruno a,c
a
DICAM – Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
b
Nuovo Pignone S.p.A. – GE Oil&Gas, Firenze, Italy
c
CINIGEO – Italian National Interuniversity Consortium of Georesources Engineering, Rome, Italy

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

Article history: Shallow geothermal energy is of great interest for HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning)
Received 20 October 2015 designers. While increasingly popular in the residential and commercial sectors, shallow applications
Revised 14 March 2016 are still little used in the industrial sector and unfamiliar to policy makers, designers and stakeholders
Accepted 9 May 2016
[1]. Despite this, geothermal applications are feasible for industrial plant for several reasons: operating
at high load factors and supplying energy to a single location, geothermal systems would cut energy
costs, a large slice of overall industrial production costs. This paper presents the results of a feasibility
Keywords:
study carried out for an industrial shallow geothermal project, where the required preheating to the inno-
Ground source heat pumps
Numerical simulation
vative Expanding-Gas-Power-Transformation (EGPT) process was supplied through a Hybrid
Expanding Gas Power Transformation Geothermal-Air Transcritical Heat Pump. Focus was given to modeling the geothermal component to
Sensitivity analysis comply with the heat pump working temperature requirements, integrating this with geostatistics and
numerical simulation of heat/water flows.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction  Summer cooling of buildings. In summer, underground temper-

A shallow geothermal system (commonly closed loop/open loop
geoexchange system) allows thermal energy exchange with the
first 100–200 m of the underground within a specified volume
[2]. Shallow geothermal systems are designed to allow operational
repeatability during the year, thereby avoiding thermal depletion
of the soil.
A so-called geoexchanger, whose temperature level (<100 °C)
falls within the range of low enthalpy geothermal systems [3,4],
is connected to a heat pump in a system that can be used for dif-
ferent purposes: heating and cooling of buildings, subsurface
energy storage, production of domestic hot water, de-icing and
snow melting, conservation and reuse of waste heat from indus-
trial processes [5].
Heat pumps exploit heat from ambient sources. The warmer the
source, the higher their efficiency. Given the virtual absence of any
seasonal temperature variability, underground sources enhance
heat pump capability [6]. Examples of use include:
 Winter heating of buildings. In winter, underground tempera-
tures are higher than the average temperature of air and
superficial water [7].
⇑ Corresponding author at: via Terracini 28, 40131 Bologna, Italy. Tel.: +39
0512090477.
E-mail address: francesco.tinti@unibo.it (F. Tinti).
atures are lower than the average temperature of air and
superficial water [8].
 Underground thermal energy storage (UTES). Underground
temperatures are lower than the circulating fluid, causing heat
transfer to the surrounding underground area [9–11].
Low enthalpy geothermal applications in the industrial sector
are still infrequent, temperatures exploited falling mainly into
the medium enthalpy range (90 °C < T < 150 °C) [1].
The reason for the poor industrial uptake has to do with the
high temperature requirements of most industrial processes, in
contrast to the low-temperature requirements of domestic hot
water production. Despite this, certain industrial processes do pre-
sent conditions conducive to geothermal applications. These
include high load factor operations, single-location load concentra-
tion requirements, and industrial operations where energy is a
major production cost item [12].
The main recent applications of medium enthalpy reservoirs for
industrial purposes have been the Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC)
production of electrical energy [13,14], the production of heat
and cold distributed to final users through pipeline networks
(district heating and cooling) [15] and thermal energy storage
applications [16].
An application of medium enthalpy geothermal resources with
binary Organic Rankine power cycle is described by Hettiarachchi
et al. [17]. Geothermal water is passed through the evaporator that

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2016.05.003
2213-1388/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
94 S. Focaccia et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 93–105
heats a secondary fluid, typically an organic working fluid with a
low boiling point. Vapor generated at the evaporator is used to
drive a turbine. On leaving the turbine, the working fluid is con-
densed and pumped back to the evaporator, passing through a ser-
ies of devices forming a closed loop. By modeling each device, a
complete cycle simulation is achieved.
Kalina cycles have been used to generate electricity from
geothermal sources. A notable example is the 2 MWe power plant
in Husavik, Iceland [18]. Started in 2000, the plant utilizes a 124 °C
hot water geothermal source, which cools down to 80 °C, to gener-
ate electricity. The geothermal water leaving the plant at 80 °C is
used for urban district heating. Medium enthalpy geothermal
energy has huge potential as a source of district heating and cool-
ing and its use is expected to increase [19,20]. Examples in Europe
include the district heating schemes of Ferrara [21], Southampton
[22], Munich [23] and the Pannonian basin [24]. Many other plants
under construction or recently completed will also increase the
deployment of ORC-based combined heat and power systems
[25,26]. In the case of district heating alone, there are many exam-
ples of shallow low-enthalpy resource schemes linked to heat
pumps. In Paris [27] and Milan [28] water stored in the first aquifer
below the city is used to feed several high-temperature heat
pumps linked to the network. In other cases, the heat pump uses
seawater to provide district heating in Stockholm [29,30], Helsinki
[31] and Tallinn [32].
Heat pump-based district heating exploits low-enthalpy
geothermal energy through water extraction, i.e. open loop cir-
cuits. Reservoirs like aquifers, lakes or even seas are widely pre-
ferred for these applications on account of their favorable flow
rates.
Non-residential applications using geo-exchangers are found in
the agricultural and winery sector. There are many examples
around Europe of greenhouses [33–36] and wine cellars [37] oper-
ating on closed loop geothermal energy systems. In greenhouses,
gas-fired low-temperature heat pumps provide both heating and
cooling and CO2 controlled injection [38]. Dedicated production
processes in the wine-making sector, such as grape cooling and fer-
mentation cooling, use low-enthalpy geothermal energy [39]. This
energy source is also appearing in innovative processes such as
freshwater production and desalination [40].
Finally, other frequent non-residential applications are the
heating and cooling of industrial sheds and office buildings to
ensure comfort-zone temperatures for occupants. Eicker and
Vorschulze provide several examples along with the related energy
data [41].
As regards thermal energy storage applications, shallow
geothermal energy systems have been successfully integrated with
solar thermal energy applications for higher storage efficiency [42].
Several recent central solar heating pilot plants with seasonal heat
storage in Central and Northern Europe have proved the suitability
of these systems and confirmed their high energy efficiency poten-
tial [43,44]. Moreover, recent studies have also shown their appli-
cability in Southern Europe climates as well. The excess energy
produced by solar thermal panels in climates with high irradiation
is injected into the ground and then recovered through GSHP, pro-
viding a solution to the overheating problems of solar thermal sys-
tems [45,46].
Our case study presents an innovative non-residential applica-
tion of low-enthalpy geothermal energy. It is a pre-feasibility study
of a closed loop shallow geothermal system entirely slaved to a
new industrial application, the Expanding Gas Power Transforma-
tion (EGPT) process that considerably reduces CO2 emissions in the
natural gas pressure reduction stations. EGPT is an innovative tech-
nique harnessing gas expansion by means of a turboexpander gen-
erator, extracting motive power from the gas flow, whilst the
required preheat is provided by a connected Transcritical Heat
Pump [47]. To produce exportable electrical power, the COP of
the heat pump must be higher than 2.0, which depends entirely
on the ambient temperature available and the gas preheating tem-
perature required. The minimum ambient temperature threshold
for system applicability is 0 °C. By exploiting geothermal energy
alone or with a combination of aerothermal and geothermal
energy, the power produced by the system is always higher than
the power absorbed by the Transcritical Heat Pump, giving rise
to zero-consumption or even a positive-production process [47].
The pre-feasibility study carried out on a viable application
investigated the potential integration of EGPT and shallow
geothermal energy, and identified preliminary guidelines for the
correct analysis and design of such a system in different climatic
conditions.
Materials and methods
The following interdependent components must be taken into
account when designing a borehole heat exchanger field [48,49]:
 System energy demand (peak power, functioning temperature
and timing).
 Heat pump appropriate to the energy requirement.
 Underground providing the thermal energy.
 Possible GSHP systems providing ambient energy to the heat
pump and building.
For relatively small residential applications (generally up to
30 kW) technical norms allow the use of simplified design meth-
ods, based prevalently on peak heat pump power, the type of
underground and average yearly working hours. For more complex
and powerful industrial systems, these simplifications are not fea-
sible and a detailed analysis must be conducted [50–52].
For the design of a large borehole field with more than 100
BHEs, as in the case of industrial projects, the methodology must:
(a) Assess the hydrogeological site: lithologies, permeability,
aquifer condition and flow velocity.
(b) Assess the underground thermal parameters: thermal con-
ductivity of the different layers, geothermal flow, natural
temperature gradient.
(c) Evaluate the technical feasibility of the various design alter-
natives for the geoexchangers and their configurations/dis-
posal in the ground.
As regards the detailed analytical design of borehole heat
exchanger fields, the ASHRAE American method is one of the most
commonly used (see Italian technical norm UNI 11466:2012 [52]
and ASHRAE Transactions [48]). The methodology is iterative with
the following phases:
1. Identification of the energy to be extracted from the under-
ground, based on the equivalent monthly/yearly hours and on
the heat pump load factor.
2. Choice of the geoexchanger and the connection configuration.
3. Calculation, on the basis of the soil’s thermal properties, of the
total length of geoexchangers required to meet thermal needs.
4. Iterative analysis to verify the system’s working temperature
based on the hypothesis made for the chosen geoexchange sys-
tem, both on an annual and decennial basis.
It should be noted that the particular heating requirements of
the EGPT process follow seasonality only in part and involve
energy consumption mainly by the preheater boiler: higher gas
consumption during winter, but almost zero take-up during
 S. Focaccia et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 93–105
summer. Such a highly specific process makes simplified calcula-
tions of underground thermal behavior completely inadequate.
For this reason, it was decided to study the system with a numer-
ical modeling approach that allows the dynamic interaction of the
system components.
The numerical analysis consists of:
 Geostatistical simulation of thermal conductivity characterizing
the geothermal reservoir.
 Numerical finite element simulation of the behavior of the ther-
mal flow inside the geoexchange system in order to evaluate the
effective extractable energy and thermal interference between
geoexchangers during prolonged operation.
Geostatistical simulation
Thermal conductivity is a fundamental parameter for the
numerical simulation of the geoexchange system, since it is
directly connected to heat transfer calculations [53]. As in the area
of the prefeasibility study there were no direct field measurements
of the thermal properties of the underground, we used the mean
values and variability ranges provided in the literature [50]. The
distribution and spatial variability of thermal conductivity
were defined based on several similar cases and used to run
geostatistical simulations to generate the parameters required by
a user-defined grid, respecting the value distribution and
variogram model. The geostatistical software used was Geo-MSÒ,
developed by Instituto Superior Técnico of Lisbon and Gaussian
Sequential Simulation was chosen as the geostatistical simulation
technique [54].
Numerical modeling of underground heat and mass transfer
In order to evaluate the behavior of large-scale applications, we
used a dynamic simulator of the heat and mass transfer in the
underground. For this case we chose the software FEFLOWÒ (Finite
Element Flow simulator), which has a specific section for modeling
and simulating borehole heat exchangers and allows definition of
the hydrogeological modeling of the study area. The numerical
model implemented is based on the Al-Khoury model [55,56], with
generalized formulations for borehole heat exchangers. In addition,
Fig. 1. Simplified scheme of the Expanding Gas Power Transformation process. P0, T0: natural gas data before transformation; high pressure, low temperature; P1, T1: natural
gas data after preheating through Transcritical Heat Pump; high pressure, high temperature; P2, T2: natural gas data after depressurization in the Turbo Expander; low
pressure, low temperature.
95
the software has a 3D module that couples heat and mass trans-
port, very important in our case since we had the dual problem
of heat transfer linked to groundwater flow. FEFLOWÒ allowed us
to realize as many layers as needed, and upload punctual database
information for each layer (thermal conductivity, thermal capacity,
hydraulic conductivity, vertical thermal gradient).
FEFLOWÒ has been widely used to simulate classical borehole
heat exchanger applications. Appropriate Finite Elements modules
have been added to the software for efficient formulation of
geothermal heating systems, both for steady state [57,58] and
transient simulation [59]. Comparison with experimental results
has shown the model to be quite robust in predicting heat
exchange rates for a ground-source heat pump system [60], simu-
lating the aquifer thermal plumes and their effect on the BHE
closed loop applications [61], and modeling the behavior of open
loop applications. FEFLOWÒ can also be used both for specific site
simulation [62] and as a strategic resource management tool [63].
It has been used as a benchmark for evaluating performances of
other modeling tools [64].
Case study and main calculation
The case study is related to the application of a geo-exchanger
system to deliver high efficiency heat to cold, incoming pipeline
gas in a pressure reduction station, recovering mechanical energy
for the production of power through a turboexpander. The process
is made possible by a Transcritical Heat Pump using CO2 as a refrig-
erant that delivers heat to the gas, raising the temperature to
around 80 °C (depending on the pump manufacturer), and counter-
acting the cooling caused by turboexpansion [65]. Fig. 1 shows a
diagram of the system components and their interaction.
Commercially available transcritical heat pumps have a power
range of 50 kW to more than 1 MW.
Table 1 shows an example of EGPT performance at different
ambient reservoir temperatures at a constant preheating of about
80 °C, supplied by the Transcritical Heat Pump [47].
In most climates, the use of ambient air for a considerable part
of the year gives better performance than the underground, where
temperatures, at limited depth (between 20 and 60 m, neutral
zone), is practically constant year round and equal to the average
ambient air temperature over the year [66].
96 S. Focaccia et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 93–105

Table 1 heat exchanger with a Hybrid Transcritical Heat Pump connected

Example of EGPT performance at different ambient temperature values. to the EGPT Process.
Ambient reservoir temperatures (°C) 0 10 20 30 The Heat Pump has the following nominal values (see Table 2).
Gas preheat (kW) [Q] 1015 1015 1015 1015
Heat pump motive input (kW) [A] 305 265 235 210
Heat pump peripherals input (kW) [B] 35 30 25 25 Underground thermal parameters
Existing site electrical load (kW) [C] 10 10 10 10
Total on-site electrical load (kW) [D = A + B 350 305 270 245
Table 3 gives the main lithotype components in the area in
+ C]
Heat pump COP [Q/D] 2.9 3.3 3.8 4.1 question and their thermal conductivity in compliance with Italian
Expander – generator electrical output (kW) 660 660 660 660 norm UNI 11466:2012 [50] and German norm VDI 4640:2010 [52].
[P = Q  g] The parameters necessary for the implementation of the geosta-
Exportable electrical output (kW) [E = P D] 310 355 390 415 tistical simulation were deduced from the above information:
Output loss due to low reservoir temperature 25.3 14.5 6.0 0.0
(%)
1. Distribution – considered a lognormal distribution for the three
lithologies, with a mean equal to the average value of the VDI
norm and a variance equal to 1/12 of the delta between maxi-
The case study presented is located in central Italy, with a typ-
mum and minimum (Fig. 2).
ical Mediterranean climate.
2. Variogram – a nested structure model was considered based on
Based on General Electric calculations, the case study presented
the literature. This comprised a nugget effect and a varying
in this paper shows that if energy losses are to be contained within
range spherical model depending on the lithology (Fig. 3 and
15% with respect to the optimal situation, and if a minimum nom-
Table 4).
inal COP of around 3 is to be obtained, the evaporator of the Tran-
scritical Heat Pump must always register the following minimum
For the geostatistical simulations, a volume of
inlet and outlet temperatures, in a continuous working period of
100 ⁄ 100 ⁄ 200 m3 was considered, based on the assumption that
24 h per day, 365 days per year:
the geoexchangers will not go deeper than 200 m.
 Tin = 8 °C;
 Tout = 3 °C;
Preliminary analytical design
 DT = 5 °C.
The design data for the CO2 heat pump are reported in the fol-
In the ambient context considered by the case study, the under-
lowing table (see Table 5).
ground temperature of the neutral zone during winter (around
Functioning period was decided based on the temperature
14 °C) is definitely higher than the required temperature. In the
trend in the area (analyzed over 10 years, from 2002 to 2011).
summer, however, it is systematically lower than the ambient
Exchange with the underground occurs only when the air temper-
temperature.
ature cannot guarantee the minimum design temperature. The first
It follows that while the limit values are easily met in the sum-
hypothesis for the design was a closed loop application with heat
mer with an air-heating source, in the winter the system may fail
extraction, whose analytical calculation defined the following
on account of low external air temperatures. For this reason, a
parameters:
hydronic system indirectly exchanging heat with the underground,
or directly exploiting heat by confined aquifers is necessary. Given
– Number of vertical Borehole Heat Exchangers (BHEs): 200.
the yearlong heating requirement, the ideal solution is to estimate,
– Depth of boreholes: 150 m.
manage, combine and electronically control the air source and
– Distance between the boreholes: 6 m.
geothermal source operation in order to maximize system effi-
– Borehole disposal: squared grid 13  15 wells.
ciency. In fact, so as to exploit the full natural power present on
– Connections: parallel configuration with direct return on all the
site, the system presented combines ambient air and a geothermal
circuits.
– Inlet temperature of thermovector fluid to boreholes: 3 °C.
– Outlet temperature of thermovector fluid from boreholes: 8 °C.
Table 2
Design data of the Transcritical Heat Pump used in the Italy case study. Preliminary analytical analysis determined a total borehole field
length of 17.320 m. On this basis, it was calculated that 115, cor-
Nominal thermal power 500 kWt
rectly spaced 150 m deep BHEs were sufficient to allow adequate
Required temperature for gas preheating 80 °C
Inlet temperature from the ambient side 8 °C heat exchange between the underground and the thermovector
Outlet temperature to the ambient side 3 °C fluid, for a total extractable power of around 3 kWt for each BHE.
Design nominal COP 3 Assuming the temperature limits imposed by the system
Electric absorption 168 kWe (Tinlet = 3 °C; Toutlet = 8 °C), a field of 200 BHEs could easily meet
Peak power extraction from underground 332 kWt
the heat requirement of the transcritical heat pump (Fig. 4).

Table 3
Thermal conductivity [W/(m K)] of the different lithologies, together with the layer thickness in the case study area. Results of a preliminary geological study.

Lithotypes Thermal conductivity [W/(m K)] Depth [m] Layer thickness [m]
Minimum Average Maximum
Clayey silt 0.40 0.50 1.00 3.50 3.50
Silty sand 0.30 0.45 0.90 4.50 1.00
Saturated gravel 1.80 1.80 1.80 17.00 12.50
Marl-sandstone 1.35 2.20 4.40 152.00 135.00
 S. Focaccia et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 93–105 97

Fig. 2. Distribution of thermal conductivity for the three lithotypes considered Fig. 3. Variogram model of the thermal conductivity for the three lithotypes: silty
variables: silty sand (a), clayey silt (b) and marl-sandstone unit (c). sand (a), clayey silt (b) and marl-sandstone unit (c).

This preliminary analysis does not, however, take the following Table 4
Characterization of spatial variability of ground thermal conductivity: parameters of
aspects into account:
the variogram models of the three lithotypes: c0 nugget effect, csf sill of the spherical
model, asf range of the spherical model.
 Underground thermal depletion around each BHE due to con-
Lithotypes Variogram parameters
tinuous heat extraction.
 Medium term behavior of each BHE at winter’s end. c0 csf asf
 Thermal interference between BHEs and creation of areas of Clayey silt 0.025 0.035 30
criticality in the center of the borehole field. Silty sand 0.015 0.040 20
 The natural thermal recharge capacity of the underground Marl-sandstone 0.100 0.170 40

when subjected to such continuous heat extraction.

 Long-term behavior (at least 10 years) of the entire borehole
field.
Table 5
For this reason, it was imperative to conduct numerical model- Parameters of the CO2 heat pump.
ing of the 200 BHE field.
Peak extraction power from the underground 332 kWt
The temperature data over one year of the 200 BHE-field simu- Heat pump evaporator outlet temperature 3 °C
lation were then added to the analytical calculations. The results Heat pump evaporator inlet temperature 8 °C
for the two alternatives at constant values of DT (solution a) and Thermovector fluid flow rate 62 m3/h
Tin (solution b) are given below (Figs. 5 and 6). Functioning period 5 months
Daily functioning hours 24 h
Numerical analysis shows how the 200 BHE field at a Available field dimension 100  75 m2
depth of 150 m is unable to meet the thermal requirement of the
98 S. Focaccia et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 93–105

transcritical heat pump (both as regards inlet temperature, which

was lower than the limit value of 3 °C at constant DT, and decreas-
ing with time, and delta temperature, which was lower than 5 °C at
constant Tin, and decreasing with time). It follows that the borehole
field must be enlarged, either by increasing the number of BHEs or
increasing the depth of the current number of boreholes. In this
case, the project area in question allows for 208 BHEs maximum.
Given the aim of our study, we did not look further into the ques-
tion of how to improve the performance of the borehole field to
meet the specific industrial project demands.
To avoid any long-term ground freeze risk, common practice in
geothermal applications is to recharge the reservoir during the
summer by inverting the cycle and injecting thermal energy into
the ground. In summer, the moist soil acts as a storage cooling
medium. In many domestic geothermal applications, the pipes
work simultaneously as heat exchangers for space cooling during
the on-peak period and as storage devices in the off-peak period.
Although this solution is very efficient to lower summer energy
Fig. 4. Borehole heat exchanger field composed of 200 BHEs at 150 m depth, in an
consumption, it greatly limits the thermal storage potential of a
available area of 7500 m2.

Fig. 5. Design hypothesis with only heat extraction. Simulation of thermal behavior maintaining a constant temperature difference between inlet and outlet (solution a).

Fig. 6. Design hypothesis with only heat extraction. Simulation of thermal behavior maintaining the thermovector fluid at constant inlet temperature (solution b).
 S. Focaccia et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 93–105 99

site [67]. In a geothermal industrial application, there is usually no We assumed that the maximum energy extractable from the air
cooling on-peak period, with the result that all the underground was injected in the ground.
thermal energy storage potential can be released. The case study The analytical calculation gave us these parameters for the
took this second hypothesis into account, artificially stimulating system:
taking heat from the external air.
To evaluate the thermal energy extractable from the external – thermal power stored in the ground: 350 kWt;
air, climate data for the area over 10 years (2002–2011) were stud- – inlet temperature of the thermovector fluid in the boreholes in
ied, and the number of summer days (from May to September) injection: 24 °C;
determined when temperatures were statistically over 20 °C – outlet temperature of the thermovector fluid from the bore-
(Table 6). holes in injection: 19 °C;
The temperature of the storage fluid (24 °C) required to ther- – flow rate of the fluid in storage: 62 m3/h;
mally recharge the ground was then defined. – number of vertical BHEs: 200;
Another efficient heat storage alternative could be to reuse the – depth of the boreholes: 150 m;
air after its passage through the Transcritical Heat Pump evapora- – distance between the boreholes: 6 m;
tor. The data relating to this case are given in the following table. – borehole disposal: squared grid 13  15 wells;
As average air temperature from May to September is normally – total needed area: 7.500 m2;
14 °C, and 24 °C only during the summer months (June to August), – connections: parallel configuration with direct return on all the
this solution would only be feasible in summer (see Table 7). circuits;
The advantage of the second alternative is that we could use the – maximum absorption of electricity from the circulation pumps:
exchangers already available in the thermo-hydraulic circuit, while 15 kWe;
in the first case, another exchanger has to be added. – inlet temperature of thermovector fluid to boreholes in extrac-
tion: 3 °C;
– outlet temperature of thermovector fluid from boreholes: 8 °C.
Table 6
Analysis of air temperatures in the summer period over a 10-year period. Again, numerical modeling was performed considering heat
injection prior to heat extraction; the results for one-year opera-
Month Number of days with % of days with Average
T > 20°C T > 20°C temperature (°C) tion are given in Figs. 7 and 8.
May 5 16% 21.1
June 27 90% 23.5 Numerical simulation of thermal flow
July 31 100% 25.7
August 31 100% 24.9 In order to validate the analytical models, the area was modeled
September 15 50% 21.9
and simulated in FEFLOWÒ on the basis of 200 BHEs (in a 6 m grid
configuration, as a compromise solution between thermal interac-
tion between BHE and available space for drilling) in a
Table 7 100  100  200 m3 regular grid field.
Analysis of air-source working system in summer period. The geological strata were assumed to lie parallel. Their specific
Spring Summer
properties of thermal conductivity, thermal capacity, permeability
and undisturbed ground temperature were taken into account.
Thermal power at the evaporator 414.0 kW 414.0 kW
Flow rate 75.0 m3/h 74.0 m3/h
The boundary conditions were the following:
Inlet temperature 19.0 °C 29.0 °C
Outlet temperature 14.0 °C 24.0 °C (a) boundary temperature equal to the undisturbed ground
temperature;

Fig. 7. Design hypothesis with heat extraction and recharge. Simulation of thermal behavior keeping constant temperature difference between inlet and outlet of 5 °C
(solution a).
100 S. Focaccia et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 93–105

Fig. 8. Design hypothesis with heat extraction and recharge. Simulation of thermal behavior keeping constant inlet temperature of thermovector fluid of 3 °C (solution b).

(b) constant aquifer depth (6.5 m), with steady velocity of
0.054 m/day.
In the first case, the BHE was submitted to continuous heat
extraction for 5 months, maintaining a constant 5 °C difference
between inlet and outlet temperature. Final inlet temperature
was 0.7 °C while outlet temperature was 5.7 °C, too low for our
purpose.
Although the reservoir was able to provide the constant power
needed for the whole functioning period, the variable inlet and
outlet temperatures had to be managed since they did not main-
tain the 3 °C and 8 °C of the hypothesis.
The same BHE, in a second case, underwent heat extraction for
5 months and maintained a constant inlet temperature of 3 °C.
However, the reservoir was unable to provide the constant power
needed to maintain a constant inlet temperature. In fact, at the end
of the 5 months, the outlet temperature had fallen to 7.3 °C, insuf-
ficient to assure the required DT of 5 °C.
The second alternative was simulated with the following
scheme:
1. 108 days of heat injection in the ground;
2. 47 days of natural recharge of the ground;
3. 150 days of heat extraction from the ground;
4. 60 days of natural recharge of the ground.
During the first phase, the ground was recharged through the
injection of 24 °C in the ground, inducing a ground temperature
variation close to the BHEs. In winter, after 47 days of natural heat
recharge of the ground, the heat extraction was maintained for
5 months, but the outlet temperature could not be kept at 8 °C.
Results
Numerical simulation allows simulation of long-term borehole
field thermal behavior. The results over a 10 year period are pre-
sented below for both solutions: heat extraction only (solution
n°1) and heat extraction and recharge (solution n°2) Figs. 9–12.
It should be noted, however, that simulation has thus far not been
confirmed by experimental results, the BHE field being a hypothe-

Fig. 9. Design hypothesis with heat extraction only. Simulation of long-term thermal behavior keeping constant temperature difference between inlet and outlet of 5 °C
(solution a).
 S. Focaccia et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 93–105 101

Fig. 10. Design hypothesis with heat extraction only. Simulation of long-term thermal behavior keeping constant inlet temperature of thermovector fluid of 3 °C (solution b).

Fig. 11. Design hypothesis with heat extraction and recharge. Simulation of long-term thermal behavior keeping constant temperature difference between inlet and outlet of
5 °C (solution a).

Fig. 12. Design hypothesis with heat extraction and recharge. Simulation of long-term thermal behavior keeping constant inlet temperature of thermovector fluid of 3 °C (solution b).
102 S. Focaccia et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 93–105
sis at the pre-feasibility study phase. The use of proven robust soft-
ware like FEFLOWÒ is therefore fundamental, there being no exper-
imental data available for the specific site.
Comments to the results
The results show the effectiveness of summer recharge, which
increases over the long term.
Thanks to underground thermal recharge, fluid temperatures
during heat exploitation increase from 0.5 °C to 1.0 °C, which, espe-
cially given the strict EGPT working conditions, can be crucial to
any decision to adopt shallow geothermal reservoir technology to
meet this type of heat demand.
The added value of energy storage increases over the long term.
Although the maximum temperature rise achieved at the outset
does not increase with time, minimum temperatures are, however,
damped, in this case never falling below 0.7 °C.
The only negative aspect is the electric power absorption of the
circulation pumps, needed for thermal energy storage, and which
must be included when calculating the energy and economic costs
of operating large borehole fields. In the case examined,
underground thermal recharge was necessary to guarantee the
temperature limits required by the specific industrial process. As
a result, the electricity consumption requirement for thermal
energy storage must be included in any return-on-investment cal-
culations. In this particular case, the energy requirement was esti-
mated at around 92 MWh/y in fact a negligible portion of the total
electric energy produced by the turboexpander of about 325 kWe
with a 500 kWt approx. thermal capacity transcritical heat pump.
This electric energy quota completely covers both the peak
transcritical heat pump power (around 170 kWe, see Table 1) and
the peak power of the BHE field circulation pumps (around
15 kWe).
In the hypothesis of a 24-h operating turboexpander, there is
perfect contemporaneity between production and consumption,
with an excess power production of around 140 kWe, which consti-
tutes free electric energy that can be sold on the market. In the case
of heat storage, there is no additional electric absorption because
the two possibilities presented – direct use of external air temper-
ature or cascade use of air source system - both work by means of
the heat exchanger without compression. Using a hybrid combina-
tion of air and ground sources to ensure underground thermal
recharge during summer, the system never allows the temperature
to go below the required 8 °C, with the result that the COP never
goes below 3. The preliminary energy and economic analysis of
the system is presented in Table 8.
This preliminary precautionary result may be higher by 20–25%
in the event of (mainly summer) ambient temperatures of more
than 8 °C, while the combined use of ground source and energy
storage can ensure there are no significant temperature and effi-
ciency drops during the winter.
The uncertainty embedded in this approach is due to the fact
that, despite the sophisticated geostatistical tools available, under-
ground thermal properties cannot be known a priori, only esti-
mated. Calculation of exact parameter values requires production
tests such as the Thermal Response Test (TRT) to be performed
Table 8
Minimum energy results for the EGPT system, using hybrid air and ground source
combination with seasonal thermal energy storage.
Power (kW) Energy (MWh/y)
Turboexpander production 325 2.847
Heat pump consumption 167 1.460
Circulation pumps consumption 15 92
Exportable electrical output 143 1.295
on test boreholes [68]. Even then, a comprehensive assessment of
underground behavior may not be achieved since TRTs are
generally performed for a limited period of time and so are not
representative of the entire production process of a borehole field.
In addition, TRTs are usually performed on just a few BHE, a
situation that fails to imitate an entire BHE field.
For all these reasons, both the design and TRT phase of any pro-
ject must be preceded by temperature sensitivity analyses based
on a series of underground thermal parameters. The case study
included a two-dimensional sensitivity analysis starting from the
underground parameters and covering the borehole field design.
In other words, long-term temperature variation was calculated
for a range of different equivalent underground thermal conductiv-
ity values for a borehole field of unchanged length and
connections.
The sensitivity analysis shows summer thermal energy storage
to be fundamental. In fact, in the heat-extraction-only configura-
tion, solution (b) (keeping constant inlet temperature), an over-
estimation of 14% of the underground thermal conductivity
provides an outlet fluid temperature of more than 80% lower than
the project design. In the heat-extraction-and-recharge hypothesis,
this effect is damped, and the same over-estimation of 14% of
thermal conductivity gives a temperature deviation of around
40% lower than expected, with a 50% reduction in the risk of failure
(Fig. 14). Solution (a) (keeping constant temperature difference
between inlet and outlet) gives similar results (Fig. 13). This is
because, on the one hand, low thermal conductivity obstructs heat
transfer, and therefore underground thermal energy exploitation,
but on the other, permits higher values of energy storage in the
underground since the underground layers near the borehole
retain their heat, with limited radial heat transfer occurring.
The calculation results show the importance in non-residential
geothermal applications of applying a probabilistic approach and
long-term numerical simulation tools. In fact, when dealing with
industrial applications, heat requirements do not follow or, only
partially follow, seasonality, with the result that standard proce-
dures for residential heat pump applications are not suitable and
can lead to considerable errors or under-estimations of failure
risks. In these types of applications, the underground’s finiteness
is all too evident, and the thermal reservoir can be dangerously
depleted if not properly analyzed.
Discussion
It is difficult to produce a universal recipe for calculating the
economic attractiveness of the use of ground source applied to
the EGPT technology. The factors influencing the validity of the
investment are:
– Local electricity prices and feed-in tariffs.
– Investment costs for the wells or BHE field, which differ with
the different labor costs in the various countries, and from site
to site, on account of geological and hydrogeological variability.
– Ambient temperature conditions, which make the use of pure
air-source more or less feasible.
– Natural gas flow variations at pressure reduction stations, a fac-
tor that also depends on special local/regional energy demand.
For the specific case study presented, the ambient temperature
does not allow the use of the air source heat pump for the entire
year, because, for almost 25% of the time, temperatures are below
the required limit (Ta < 8 °C). This means that for 25% of the time,
the transcritical heat pump cannot work with aerothermal energy
alone. As an alternative to hybrid ground-air source heat, there are
two other basic hybrid solutions combining an air source:
 S. Focaccia et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 93–105 103

Fig. 13. Comparison between sensitivity analyses, keeping constant temperature difference between inlet and outlet of 5 °C (solution a): the percentage deviations caused by
potential estimation errors of underground thermal conductivity are compared with the heat extraction only design hypothesis and the heat extraction and recharge design
hypothesis, for both inlet and outlet fluid.

Fig. 14. Comparison between sensitivity analyses, at a constant thermovector inlet fluid temperature of 3 °C (solution b): percentage deviations percentage caused by
potential estimation errors of underground thermal conductivity are compared with the heat-extraction-only design hypothesis and the heat-extraction-and-recharge design
hypothesis, for outlet fluid.

– Preheating the natural gas in other ways and not with a trans-
critical heat pump, thereby maintaining the turboexpander of
the EGPT process working all year long. This most frequently
involves inserting a backup boiler in the circuit, which uses part
of the natural gas present in the station. For the case study con-
sidered, the exportable electrical output decreases proportion-
ally to the natural gas quota used, which was around
1.100 MW h at 80 °C.
– Bypassing the entire EGPT system and depressurizing natural
gas through a throttling expansion valve. In this case, the expor-
table electrical output decreases by 20%.
In both cases, there is no electrical consumption by the BHE
field circulation pumps.
On the other hand, the hybrid ground-air solution presented in
the case study requires the installation of a 200 Borehole Heat
Exchanger field at 150 m, for a thermal power of 322 kWt with
return temperatures of 8 °C, working practically uninterruptedly
for 5 months. This means additional investments ranging from
1.500 k€ to 1.800 k€ depending on the specific underground
conditions, which are unknown a priori, and which can only be
estimated during pre-feasibility phases.
The feasibility of the hybrid ground-air solution increases, the
more ambient air temperatures decrease for the following reasons:
– Less available optimal aerothermal energy.
– Natural gas transit through the grids, theoretically, increases
because of increased heating needs.
104 S. Focaccia et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 93–105
These two facts are in contradiction, because stopping the tur-
boexpander for long periods causes a major fall off of free power
production, which otherwise could be significant in the presence
of huge natural gas consumption for heating.
Since aerothermal energy cannot supply the desired tempera-
ture ranges required by EGPT processes for most of the year in
Artic, continental, Atlantic and mountain climates, the hybrid
ground-air transcritical heat pump would seem very promising.
In contrast, the hybrid ground-air solution would not appear
suitable to Mediterranean, temperate, and generally hot climates
where more aerothermal than geothermal energy is employed.
The site considered by the case study, in a mountainous zone in
the Apennines in Central Italy, where air temperature can support
the EGPT process for almost 75% of the year, proved a border-line
location for this sort of plant, whose investment feasibility must
be assessed in terms of the geological, hydrogeological and
geothermal characteristics of the underground and the possibility
of optimal, cost-efficient installing of the wells or geoexchangers.
In this context, the use of appropriate simulation and prediction
models for the feasibility analysis phase takes on even greater
importance.
Conclusions
The case study presents an innovative application of Borehole
Heat Exchanger (BHE) fields for industrial purposes using a propri-
etary power application of General Electric Oil & Gas: the Expand-
ing Gas Power Transformation (EGPT) process. A ground heat
source is employed in a hybrid combination with an air source to
preheat natural gas in a pressure reduction station by means of a
Transcritical Heat Pump, completing a turboexpander-based ther-
modynamic power production cycle. The borehole field calculation
methodology presented integrates geostatistical simulation of spa-
tial parameters and numerical simulation of heat/water table
flows. This integrated simulation, normally omitted by conven-
tional shallow geothermal projects, becomes indispensable to (a)
confirm the analytical design and (b) improve the economic feasi-
bility of a proposed plant where the narrow fluid temperature
ranges risk jeopardizing overall return on investment.
In fact, in the sort of industrial project considered, stability of
underground temperature across time is key to the successful
use of a shallow geothermal source in stand-alone or in combina-
tion with an air source to minimize borehole investment costs.
Temperature stability must be ensured over time: in order to verify
this, a long-term underground energy simulation is required, able
to demonstrate the finiteness of the medium and indicate the ideal
borehole design for long-term operations.
Results show that these industrial processes can be advanta-
geous when a low-enthalpy shallow geothermal heat source is
used, especially in combination with thermal energy storage meth-
ods. In particular, overall system performance is greatly increased
by thermal recharge of the underground during non-energy
exploitation periods.
A major drawback is the uncertainty of true thermal properties
of the ground. The proposed geostatistical simulation of the reser-
voir coupled with numerical simulation of flows are followed by a
sensitivity analysis providing failure risk due to insufficient knowl-
edge of underground thermal behavior. The analysis shows that
energy recharge could guarantee better performance results: when
the values of the thermal properties of the underground are over-
estimated, the under-exploitation of geothermal energy is partially
compensated by the over-capability of underground thermal
storage.
Conducted on a wide scale, the analyses proposed could lead to
design and operating guidelines for similar industrial applications
coupled to shallow geothermal energy systems. Although the sim-
ulation results need to be compared with real experimental data in
order to prove their accuracy, the study proposed could go a long
way to defining the appropriate market for EGPT processes and
their very tight operating temperature range.
Acknowledgements
This study was possible thanks to the collaboration between
Nuovo Pignone – General Electric and CINIGEO – Italian National
Interuniversity Consortium of Georesources Engineering, the lead
author of this paper.
References
[1] Goetzler W, Zogg R, Lisle H, Burgos J. Ground-source heat pumps: overview of
market status, barriers to adoption, and options for overcoming barriers. US
department of energy efficiency and renewable energy geothermal
technologies program.
[2] Rybach L. Shallow systems: geothermal heat pumps. Reference module in
earth systems and environmental sciences. p. 189–207.
[3] D.Lgs. 28 3 marzo 2011 Attuazione della direttiva 2009/28/CE sulla
promozione dell’uso dell’energia da fonti rinnovabili, recante modifica e
successiva abrogazione delle direttive 2001/77/CE e 2003/30/CE.
[4] International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III – Special
Report on Renewable Energy) – Chapter 4-Geothermal Energy.
[5] European Geothermal Energy Council – EGEC Geothermal Market Report 2014.
[6] Urchueguía JF, Zacarés M, Corberán JM, Montero Á, Martos J, Witte H.
Comparison between the energy performance of a ground coupled water to
water heat pump system and an air to water heat pump system for heating and
cooling in typical conditions of the European Mediterranean coast. Energy
Convers Manage 2008;49(10):2917–23.
[7] Omer AM. Ground-source heat pumps systems and applications. Renewable
Sustainable Energy Rev 2008;12–2:344–71.
[8] Pahud D, Belliardi M, Caputo P. Geocooling potential of borehole heat
exchanger systems applied to low energy office buildings. Renewable Energy
2012;45:197–204.
[9] Sanner B, Karytsas C, Mendrinos D, Rybach L. Current status of ground source
heat pumps and underground thermal energy storage in Europe. Geothermics
2003;32(4–6):579–88.
[10] Diersch HJG, Bauer D. Analysis, modeling and simulation of underground
thermal energy storage (UTES) systems. Advances in thermal energy storage
systems. Methods and applications, 7. p. 149–83.
[11] Hesaraki A, Holmberg S, Haghighat F. Seasonal thermal energy storage with
heat pump sand low temperatures in building projects – a comparative
review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2015;43:1199–213.
[12] Rafferty K. Industrial processes and the potential for geothermal applications.
Geo Heat Center Bull 2003.
[13] Astolfi M, Romano MC, Bombarda P, Macchi E. Binary ORC (organic Rankine
cycles) power plants for the exploitation of medium–low temperature geothermal
sources–part A: thermodynamic optimization. Energy 2014;66:423–34.
[14] Cammarata G, Cammarata L, Petrone G. Thermodynamic analysis of ORC for
energy production from geothermal resources. Energy Procedia 2014;45:1337–43.
[15] Ozgener L, Hepbasli A, Dincer I. A key review on performance improvement
aspects of geothermal district heating systems and applications. Renewable
Sustainable Energy Rev 2007;11(8):1675–97.
[16] Xu J, Wang RZ, Li Y. A review of available technologies for seasonal thermal
energy storage. Sol Energy 2013;103:610–38.
[17] Hettiarachchi HDM, Golubovic M, Worek WM, Ikegami Y. Optimum design
criteria for an organic Rankine cycle using low-temperature geothermal heat
sources. Energy 2007;32:1698–706.
[18] Mannvit. Electricity from waste heat – distribution of expertise. Published on
PRO-TEM network website; 2010.
[19] Andrews D, Riekkola AK, Tzimas E, Serpa J, Carlsson J, Pardo-Garcia N, et al.
Background report on EU-27 district heating and cooling potentials, barriers,
best practice and measures of promotion. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports;
2012.
[20] GeoDH 2014 – Report on Market Development in the Geothermal DH Sector.
[21] Giambastiani BMS, Tinti F, Mendrinos D, Mastrocicco M. Energy performance
strategies for the large scale introduction of geothermal energy in residential and
industrial buildings: the GEO.POWER project. Energy Policy 2014;65:315–22.
[22] Hawkey D, Webb J, Winskel M. Organisation and governance of urban energy
systems: district heating and cooling in the UK. J Cleaner Prod 2013;50:22–31.
[23] Sanner B, Bussmann W. Current status, prospects and economic framework of
geothermal power production in Germany. Geothermics 2003;32(4–
6):429–38.
[24] Szanyi J, Kovács B. Utilization of geothermal systems in South-East Hungary.
Geothermics 2010;39(4):357–64.
[25] Quoilin S, Van der Broek M, Declaye S, Dewallef P, Lemort F. Techno-economic
survey of Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) systems. Renewable Sustainable Energy
Rev 2013;22(2013):168–86.
 S. Focaccia et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 93–105
[26] Velez F, Segovia JJ, Martin MC, Antolin G, Chejne F, Quijano A. A technical,
economical and market review of organic Rankine cycles for the conversion of
low-grade heat for power generation. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev
2012;16(2012):4175–89.
[27] Lopez S, Hamm V, Le Brun M, Schapera L, Boissier F, Cotiche C, et al. 40 years of
Dogger aquifer management in Ile-de-France, Paris Basin, France. Geothermics
2010;39(4):339–56.
[28] Sparacino M, Camussi M, Colombo M, Carella R, Sommaruga C. The world’s
largest geothermal district heating using ground water under construction in
Milan (Italy): AEM unified heat pump project. Unterhaching,
Germany: European Geothermal Congress; 2007.
[29] Bloss WH, Pfisterer F, editors. Advances in solar energy technology, vol.
1. Pergamon; 1988. p. 3998.
[30] Nilsson SF, Reidhav C, Lygnerud K, Werner S. Sparse district-heating in
Sweden. Appl Energy 2008;85(7):555–64.
[31] Riipinen M. District heating and cooling in Helsinki. Paris: International Energy
Agency Workshop; 2013.
[32] Hlebnikov A, Siirde A. The major characteristic parameters of the Estonian
district heating networks and their efficiency increasing potential. Energetika
2008;54(4):67–74.
[33] Adaro JA, Galimberti PD, Lema AI, Fasulo A, Barral JR. Geothermal contribution
to greenhouse heating. Appl Energy 1999;64:241–9.
[34] Bakos GC, Fidanidis D, Tsagas NF. Greenhouse heating using geothermal
energy. Geothermics 1999;28(6):759–65.
[35] Benli H, Durmusß A. Evaluation of ground-source heat pump combined latent
heat storage system performance in greenhouse heating. Energy Build 2009;41
(2):220–8.
[36] Firfiris V, Kougias PG, Nikita-Martzopoulou CH, Martzopoulos GG.
Performance of a covered closed loop shallow geothermal greenhouse
heating system. Acta Hortic 2012;952:457–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.17660/
ActaHortic.952.57.
[37] Ruiz-Mazarrón F, Almoguera-Millán J, García-Llaneza J, Perdigones A. Energy
balance and economic feasibility of shallow geothermal systems for winery
industry. EGU general assembly 2012, held 22–27 April, 2012 in Vienna –
Austria. p. 4621.
[38] De Boever E, Lagrou D, Laenen B. Beknopte wegwijzer, geothermie. België, Geo.
Power Dutch local handbook.
[39] Graham J. Rioja winery digs deep for ‘green’ energy. Vineyard & Winery
management; 2010.
[40] Bundschuh J, Ghaffour N, Mahmoudi H, Goosen M, Mushtaq S, Hoinkis J. Low-
cost low-enthalpy geothermal heat for fresh water production: innovative
applications using thermal desalination processes. Renewable Sustainable
Energy Rev 2015;43:196–206.
[41] Eicker U, Vorschulze C. Potential of geothermal heat exchangers for office
building climatisation. Renewable Energy 2009;34(4):1126–33.
[42] IEA T44, IEA SHC Task 44/HP38 (2013) – Solar and heat pump systems
<http://task44.iea-shc.org>.
[43] Sorensen A, Holm L, Jensen NA. Water storages, solar thermal and heat pumps
in district heating. 1st international conference on solar heating, cooling and
buildings. Eurosun; 2008.
[44] Bauer D, Marx S, Nubbicker-Lux J, Ochs F, Heidemann W, Muller-Seinhagen H.
German central solar heating plants with seasonal heat storage. Sol Energy
2010;84:612–23.
[45] Reda F, Arcuri N, Loiacono P, Mazzeo D. Energy assessment of solar
technologies coupled with a ground source heat pump system for residential
energy supply in Southern European climates. Energy 2015;91:294–305.
[46] Flynn C, Sirén K. Influence of location and design on the performance of a solar
district heating system equipped with borehole seasonal storage. Renewable
Energy 2015;81:377–88.
105
[47] Amidei S, Byrne J, Monti F, Sikora P. Efficient gas depressurisation via the EGPT
process. GPA Europe conference.
[48] Kavanaugh SP, Rafferty K. Ground source heat pumps – design of geothermal
systems for commercial and institutional buildings. ASHRAE applications
handbook.
[49] Bose JE, Parker JD, Mc Quiston FC. Design/data manual for closed-loop ground-
coupled heat pump systems. Atlanta: ASHRAE; 1985.
[50] VDI 4640. Rev. 1 – thermal use of underground. German Association of
Engineers; 2010.
[51] Koohi-Fayegh S, Rosen MA. Three-dimensional analysis of the thermal
interaction of multiple vertical ground heat exchanger. Int J Green Energy
2015;12(11):1144–50.
[52] UNI 11466:2012 (2012) – Sistemi geotermici a pompa di calore – Requisiti per
il dimensionamento e la progettazione.
[53] Zeng H, Diao N, Fang Z. Heat transfer analysis of boreholes in vertical ground
heat exchangers. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2003;46(23):4467–81.
[54] Fredericks AK, Newman KB. A comparison of the sequential Gaussian and
Markov-Bayes simulation methods for small samples. Math Geol 1998;30
(8):1011–32.
[55] Al-Khoury R, Bonnier PG, Brinkgreve RBJ. Efficient finite element formulation
for geothermal heating systems. Part I: steady state. Int J Numer Methods Eng
2005;63.
[56] Al-Khoury R, Bonnier PG. Efficient finite element formulation for geothermal
heating systems. Part II: transient. Int J Numer Methods Eng 2006;67.
[57] Diersch HJG, Bauer D, Heidemann W, Ruhaak W, Schatzl P. Finite element
modeling of borehole heat exchanger systems part 1. Fundamentals. Comput
Geosci 2011;37:1122–35.
[58] Diersch HJG, Bauer D, Heidemann W, Ruhaak W, Schatzl P. Finite element
modeling of borehole heat exchanger systems part 2. Numerical simulation.
Comput Geosci 2011;37:1136–47.
[59] Bauer D, Heidemann W, Diersch HJG. Transient 3D analysis of borehole heat
exchanger modeling. Geothermics 2011;40:250–60.
[60] Nam Y, Ooka R, Hwang S. Development of a numerical model to predict heat
exchange rates for a ground-source heat pump system. Energy Build 2008;40
(12):2133–40.
[61] Rivera JA, Blum P, Bayer P. Analytical simulation of groundwater flow and land
surface effects on thermal plumes of borehole heat exchangers. Appl Energy
2015;146:421–33.
[62] Nam Y, Ooka R. Numerical simulation of ground heat and water transfer for
groundwater heat pump system based on real-scale experiment. Energy Build
2010;42(1):69–75.
[63] Herbert Arthur S, Chillingworth G. Thermal modelling of large scale
exploitation of ground source energy in urban aquifers as a resource
management tool. Appl Energy 2013;109:94–103.
[64] Hecht-Méndez J, Molina-Giraldo N, Blum P, Bayer P. Evaluating MT3DMS for
heat transport simulation of closed geothermal systems. Groundwater
2010;48(5):741–56.
[65] Sikora P. (2011) – System for efficient fluid depressurisation. EP 22642898; US
8025535.
[66] Tinti F, Barbaresi A, Benni S, Torreggiani D, Bruno R, Tassinari P. Experimental
analysis of shallow underground temperature for the assessment of energy
efficiency potential of underground wine cellars. Energy Build 2014;80:451–60.
[67] Zhu N, Hu P, Xu L, Jiang Z, Lei F. Recent research and applications of ground
source heat pump integrated with thermal energy storage systems: a review.
Appl Therm Eng 2014;71(1):142–51.
[68] Gehlin S. Thermal response test—in-situ measurements of thermal properties
in hard rock [D]. Sweden: Department of Environmental Engineering, Luleå
University of Technology; 1998.