首页> 外文期刊>Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews >A review of vertical ground heat exchanger sizing tools including an inter- model comparison
【24h】

A review of vertical ground heat exchanger sizing tools including an inter- model comparison

机译:垂直地面换热器选型工具的综述,包括模型间比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

This paper attempts to fill a gap in the literature on ground heat exchanger sizing tools which are routinely used but have not been recently compared against each other. First, a comprehensive review of the governing equations of these tools is presented. The tools are then classified into five levels (L0 to L4) according to their level of complexity from tools based on rules-of-thumb (L0) to those using annual hourly simulations (L4). Then this study presents a methodology for comparing vertical ground heat exchanger sizing tools. After a review of available tests, four test cases are proposed to cover the full spectrum of conditions from single boreholes to large bore fields with various annual ground thermal imbalances. This is followed by an inter-model comparison of twelve sizing tools including some commercially-available software programs and various forms of the ASHRAE sizing equation. In one of the tests on a single borehole subjected to a 1-h peak load duration, it is shown that the minimum and maximum lengths obtained by the various tools are 39.1 m and 59.7 m. Tools that include short-term effects tend to calculate smaller lengths while longer lengths are predicted by tools that evaluate effective ground thermal resistances using the cylindrical heat source solution. In another test involving a large annual ground imbalance on a 5 x 5 borehole field, it is shown that results vary from 93.0 m to 128.9 m among the twelve tools. A group of seven tools, including L2, L3, and L4 tools are in good agreement with a minimum of 121.0 m and a maximum of 128.9 m. Two tools have determined lengths that are much lower than the rest of the tools (103.9 and 93.0 m). Clearly, these two tools cannot properly account for borehole thermal interaction caused by large annual imbalanced loads.
机译:本文试图填补文献中有关地面热交换器选型工具的空白,这些工具通常使用,但最近尚未相互比较。首先,介绍了这些工具的控制方程式。然后,根据工具的复杂程度,将其分为五个级别(L0至L4),从基于经验法则的工具(L0)到使用年度每小时模拟的工具(L4)。然后,本研究提出了一种用于比较垂直地面换热器选型工具的方法。在回顾了可用的测试之后,提出了四个测试案例,以涵盖从单个钻孔到具有各种年度地面热失衡的大钻孔场的全部条件。接下来是对十二种上浆工具的模型间比较,包括一些商业上可用的软件程序和各种形式的ASHRAE上浆方程。在对承受1小时峰值载荷持续时间的单个钻孔进行的一项测试中,表明使用各种工具获得的最小和最大长度分别为39.1 m和59.7 m。包含短期效应的工具往往会计算出较小的长度,而使用圆柱形热源解决方案评估有效地面热阻的工具会预测出较长的长度。在另一项涉及5 x 5井场的年度地面不平衡的测试中,结果表明,在十二种工具中,结果从93.0 m到128.9 m不等。一组七个工具(包括L2,L3和L4工具)吻合良好,最小为121.0 m,最大为128.9 m。有两个工具确定的长度比其他工具(103.9和93.0 m)要短得多。显然,这两种工具无法适当地解释由于每年较大的不平衡载荷而引起的井眼热相互作用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号