In this work the feasibility of using the double-U borehole heat exchangers (BHE) in multiple arrangements for production of heating and cooling energy has been investigated.Theoretical case studies are given for a few hypothetical lithological cases corresponding to the lithology that can be found in City of Zagreb. The results show interference between the borehole heat exchangers and limits of use of shallow reservoir with respect to slow convection and loss of accumulated energy in the reservoir. Special emphasis is placed on the description of the groundwater flow determined by the parameters of the shallow geothermal reservoir, such as permeability, water saturation, thermal conductivity, specific heat capacity and soil density, topography, precipitation, etc. Simulations have been performed in FeFlow coupled with Python user-scripts for individual control of the BHE’s, and the surface equipment is modelled using RES2GEO. To assess the accuracy of numerical predictions in simulating thermal responses, FeFlow software was utilized to conduct Thermal Response Tests (TRT) for individual Borehole Heat Exchangers (BHEs). These numerical results were then juxtaposed with empirical TRT data collected from a site near Velika Gorica, a town within the City of Zagreb. For each case simulation is done for one year with one hour resolution. The temperature distribution analysis highlights notable differences between scenarios, where the temperature field with lower permeability experiences significant variations, particularly near the BHE. Here, temperatures can soar to 20 °C during cooling periods and plummet to 4 °C in heating seasons. These fluctuations cause overheating and subcooling of the reservoir, impairing the heat pump’s efficiency and necessitating increased electricity consumption. By using Multivariate linear regression and Multi-layer perceptron regressor method, the main parameter for determination of COP of ground source heat pump. The analysis reveals that the majority of errors fall within the range of ± 5 %, although the MLA prediction method exhibits slightly more frequent errors. Additionally, the R2 scores demonstrate strong performance: the MLA procedure achieves 0.95 for heating and 0.99 for cooling, while the MLP procedure attains 0.99 for both heating and cooling phases.
Read full abstract