1. Introduction
The lower heat source for heat pumps is usually air or ground. The ground is an advantageous heat source, due to a much more stable temperature and a high specific heat. Ground temperature and its fluctuations (apart from other physical quantities of the ground) is a factor that determines the course of physical, chemical and biological processes in the ground. Knowledge of the temperature of the ground in time and space as well as its thermal properties gives basic information about physical phenomena concerning the transfer and accumulation of heat in the ground. This is particularly important in the design, modelling and exploitation of ground heat exchangers as well as underground buildings and other structures related to heat transport in the ground (for example, pipes transporting heat carriers).
Experimental determination of the temperature distribution in the ground should be carried out continuously for a sufficiently long period of time, so that the measured values are not random, which affects the high cost of measurements. However, the results of the ground temperature measurements at various depths and in different places around the world are published in the literature [
1,
2,
3,
4,
5]. Popiel and Wojtkowiak [
1] presented the results of the temperature distributions of the ground monitored during 10 years in the region of Poznan City. The ground temperature was measured at a depth from 0 to 6.9 m (car park) and from 0 to 17.3 m (lawn). The results of extensive studies of temporal temperature changes of the ground at various depths under different climatic conditions in the USA have been presented by Kusuda and Achenbach [
4] and Neuberger and Adamovský [
5] carried out the measurements during three heating periods in Prague. To be useful, the measurement results must relate to depth >1 m, because for shallow layers of the ground diurnal changes impose on the effect of seasonal temperature changes.
Thus, the development a mathematical model for heat transfer in the ground and the estimation the subsurface temperature distribution is a key issue. Therefore, the boundary condition on the surface of the ground should be defined carefully. The annual variation of the ground temperature at different depths can be determined using a sinusoidal temperature variation as a first kind boundary condition [
4,
6,
7]. In numerical studies, Piechowsky [
8] included the heat flux associated with mass transfer in order to take into account the effects of the soil moisture content and migration. Kupiec et al. [
9] considered only the convective heat flux between air and ground. Jaszczur et al. [
10] studied the impact of individual model elements on the temperature of the ground. It has been found that the simplest models and the most complex model result in a similar temperature variation over the simulation period, but only at a low depth. Also, Bortoloni et al. [
11,
12] analysed the effect of the first, second and third kind boundary conditions (Dirichlet, Neumann and Robin boundary condition, respectively) imposed at the ground surface in modelling heat transfer process in the ground. They improved the convective component by introducing the aerodynamic resistance of the canopy layer. Most of other works are based on the heat fluxes balance equation on the ground surface, i.e., short-wave and long-wave radiation fluxes, convective heat flux, evaporative heat flux and conductive flux [
13,
14,
15,
16,
17], however some of these works assume that the long-wave radiation flux has a constant value or show the results of temperature measurements or heat transfer rates when a ground heat exchanger is installed in the soil. For example, Nam et al. [
17] developed a numerical model that combines a heat transport model with groundwater flow using heat fluxes balance on the ground surface and a heat exchanger model with a U-tube shape.
Although the influence of the type of boundary condition in the literature has been thoroughly analysed, there are still no reports on the impact of various parameters on the distribution of temperature in the ground, or even on the amount of heat conducted through the ground under natural conditions (except for the water content in the soil and its thermal conductivity). This applies particularly to those parameters that are difficult to determine accurately, for example the heat transfer coefficient between the surface of the ground and the surroundings.
The aim of this work is to present a universal, simple mathematical model to predict temperature distribution in the ground and to analyse the size of thermal fluxes occurring on the surface of the ground (primarily in terms of variability of these fluxes over time). In the developed mathematical model, it was taken into account that the long-wave radiation flux is also variable over time. The impact of coefficients: amplitude of annual solar radiation flux, heat transfer coefficient, emissivity of the ground surface and evaporation rate coefficient on the ground temperature as well as on the thermal fluxes, especially on the total amount of heat transferred between the ground and the environment during the year resulted from the conductive heat flux in the ground, is determined.
The presented simulation results relate to average climatic conditions occurring in Cracow. In addition, based on data from the literature, the compatibility of the Carslaw-Jaeger equation with the results of ground temperature measurements at different depths in different climatic conditions (Lemont, USA and Zarqa, Jordan) was evaluated.
3. Experimental Verification of the Model
In order to verify the presented mathematical model, based on the Carslaw-Jaeger Equation (4), temperature profiles generated computationally were compared with the measurements presented by Kusuda and Anechbach [
4] and Al-Hinti et al. [
2].
In both cases nonlinear regression using the Solver application (Excel) was utilized to develop the results—the parameters of Equation (4). The sum of squares (
SS) of differences between experimental and calculated temperatures according to Equation (4) was minimized:
where
n is the number of measurements used to develop results.
The standard deviation between experimental and computational temperatures (based on the values of parameters determined by nonlinear regression) is equal to:
where
m—the number of determined parameters.
• Lemont, USA
The measurements were carried out under moderate climate conditions (Lemont, Illinois, USA). Annual average of ambient air temperature in Lemont equals to 10.0 °C, and yearly average sunshine duration is 2508 h [
20]. The temperature of the ground to a depth of 8.84 m was measured and results were presented in [
4]. The results of measurements carried out for whole the year were utilized (
n = 84).
The following values of parameters of Equation (4) have been obtained:
Tsm = 11.2 °C,
As =13.1 K,
Ps = 0.664 rad,
L = 2.44 m. In
Figure 3, the comparison of experimental values and values calculated from Equation (4) for the values of the parameters presented above is shown. Temperature profiles for selected months of the year: January, April, July and October are presented. The symbols represent the experimental values read out from the drawings shown in [
4]. The good compliance of experimental and computational values confirms that Equation (4) correctly describes the temperature distribution in the ground and its variability over time. The ground temperature stabilizes throughout the year at around 11 °C (undisturbed ground temperature) starting from a depth of 10 m below the surface.
The sum of squares equals to
SS = 30.28. The standard deviation according to (25) is equal:
• Zarqa, Jordan
The measurements were conducted at an open field, near the city of Zarqa, Jordan. The climate is arid and characterized by low annual rainfall, and around 3300 h of sunshine per year. Yearly average ambient air temperature equals to 19.2 °C. Thus, climatic conditions are completely different from Lemont, USA.
The measurements were carried out over a one-year period extending from October 2014 to August 2015. The temperature of the ground at five selected depths (0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, and 10.0 m) as well as the ambient air and the ground surface temperature was measured.
In
Figure 4 the comparison of experimental values and values calculated from Equation (4) for the values of the parameters presented above is presented. The results of measurements carried out at different times of the year: January 18th, April 28th, August 6th and October 10th were utilized (
n = 49). Also, in this case, the ground temperature obtained by the presented model is in good agreement with the experimental results (
Figure 4b). The following values of parameters of Equation (4) have been obtained:
Tsm = 21.3 °C,
As = 11.9 K,
Ps = 0.232 rad,
L = 1.91 m. The sum of squares equals to
SS = 38.08 and the standard deviation according to (25) is equal σ = 0.91 K.
The calculated values of the ground temperature confirm the author’s observations [
2] that underground temperature stabilizes throughout the year at around 21°C (calculated undisturbed ground temperature equals to 21.3 °C) starting from a depth of 8 m below the surface, as can be seen in
Figure 4a.
5. Results of Calculations
The presented mathematical model contains parameters that are difficult to determine:
Heat transfer coefficient h, depending on the wind velocity,
Emissivity of the surface of the ground ε, depending on the type of coverage of this surface,
Evaporation rate coefficient f, depending on the humidity of the ground (this humidity is influenced by the amount of precipitation and ground permeability for water).
Parametric analysis of this model was carried out and the impact of h, ε and f on the temporal ground temperature courses was determined. The calculations were performed for moderate climate conditions (Cracow, Poland).
Knowing the temporal courses of the ground temperature on its surface, it is possible to determine the temporal courses of thermal fluxes. Knowledge of LW, EV and H fluxes (in addition to the knowledge of the solar radiation flux S, independent of the ground temperature) allows to determine the heat flux associated with the heat transfer to the subsurface qcond.
• Analysis of Heat Fluxes on the Ground Surface
The evaporation rate coefficient
f takes into account that the rate of evaporation of water from the ground surface is lower than the rate of evaporation from the water surface; this factor ranges from 0.1–0.2 for dry soils up to 0.4–0.5 for humid soils [
13]. The impact of the evaporation rate coefficient on temporal courses of heat fluxes on the surface of the ground is presented in
Figure 5. The value of evaporative heat flux varies significantly for dry and for moist soil, especially during the summer: for dry soil (
f = 0.1) the maximum value of
EV is equal to 30 W/m
2, wherein for moist soil (
f = 0.4) this value is three times as large as for dry soil. However, differences in the values of
H are smaller than
EV, and vary from 65 to 110 W/m
2 (maximum values). However, there is no discrepancy in the values of conductive heat flux for dry and moist soil,
qcond changes slightly (marked as brown symbols).
In
Figure 6 temporal courses of heat fluxes on the surface of the ground for different values of wind velocity
u are shown. According to Equation (7) as the wind velocity increases, the value of the heat transfer coefficient also increases, which results in lower value of convective heat flux (applies to negative values). The maximum difference between the values of
H compared to
u = 2 m/s and for
u = 4 m/s is equal to 10 W/m
2 (during the whole year). Changes in the values of the discussed thermal fluxes cause minimal changes in the conductive heat flux values.
Emissivity of the surface of the ground
ε, depending on the type of coverage of this surface, adopts different values: for example, for asphalt
ε ranges from 0.9 to 0.98, for the ground
ε ranges from 0.92 to 0.96, for vegetation
ε = 0.95 and for snow
ε = 0.83 [
25]. The impact of the emissivity of the ground surface on the temporal courses of the heat fluxes is presented in
Figure 7. The changes mainly concern the
LW flux, from Equation (11). Courses of convective and evaporative fluxes varies slightly. However, even for a large change in the value of emissivity of the ground surface, changes in the values of individual fluxes are not as significant as in the case of
u or
f. Furthermore, these changes do not affect the change in a value of the conductive heat flux.
• Analysis of Conductive Heat Flux
A heat flux transported to (or from) the interior of the ground qcond results from the algebraic summation of all thermal fluxes on the surface of the ground (Equation (2)). In spring and summer, the conductive heat flux is directed from the surface to the subsurface, while in autumn and winter, heat from the deeper layers of the ground is transported towards the surface.
In spite of the range in the values of fluxes
H and
EV for different value of
f (
Figure 5) and
u (
Figure 6) value of conductive heat flux is changed slightly over time. However, as the wind speed increases, the value of the conductive heat flux varies slightly (in comparison with values of other fluxes):
qcond is equal to 6.5, 7.0, 9.0 W/m
2 for
u = 1, 3, 5 m/s, respectively (calculated for
f = 0.3). More heat is conducted deep into the ground for dry soil (
Figure 8), because the evaporation rate coefficient is lower than for moist soil, which in turn leads to a reduction in the heat flux associated with evaporation of moisture (provided that
k = constant). It results in the total amount of heat transferred between the ground and the environment during the year
Q. As can be seen from
Figure 6,
Q for dry soil is equal to 34.56 kWh/m
2, wherein for moist soil is equal to 31.77 kWh/m
2 (calculated for
h = 13.3 W/m
2K). Furthermore, with the higher value of amplitude of the daily average of this radiation flux (
Asol) the value of
Q increases: for
Asol = 188 W/m
2 the amount of transferred heat increases by 46% compared to
Asol = 101 W/m
2 for moist soil.
The impact of
h,
f and
ε on the total amount of heat transferred between the ground and the environment during the year is shown in
Figure 9. With an increase in the value of
h, the amount of heat transferred through the ground surfaces decreases, regardless of the value of the ground surface emissivity or the evaporation rate coefficient (for
k = constant). This amount of heat is 20% greater for dry soil than for moist soil. A significant change in the value of the emissivity of the ground surface does not cause a large difference in the amount of transferred heat. Furthermore, these differences decrease with the increase of the heat transfer coefficient and the evaporation rate coefficient. In the case of moist soil for wind velocity above 2.5 m/s (i.e.,
h > 15 W/m
2K), the emissivity in the 0.5–1.0 range does not affect the amount of heat transferred inside the ground.
• Direction of Heat Transfer
The directions of the fluxes
qcond and
H (
Figure 10) are variable over time. If
Ta > Ts, then
H > 0 and convective heat flux is directed from the air to the ground surface (
Figure 10a,b). If (
dT/dx)
x=0 < 0, then
qcond < 0 and conductive heat flux is directed from the ground surface to its interior (
Figure 10b,d). Temperature gradient for the ground surface can be determined by the differentiation of Equation (4). Hence:
Because the ground is in a cyclic steady state, the yearly average value of the conductive flux is zero.
In
Figure 11 the temporal courses of fluxes
qcond and
H are presented. There are the following theoretically directions of heat fluxes throughout the year: both
H and
qcond are positive or negative, and both of these fluxes are opposite signs. However, in reality, during the year there is no case for which both
H > 0 and
qcond > 0 occurs (
Figure 10a). Climatic conditions directly affect the date of changes in the direction of thermal fluxes
qcond and
H. For annual average climatic conditions in Cracow parameters of Equation (4) were determined:
Tsm = 10.9 °C,
As = 13.8 K,
Ps = 0.166 rad (calculated for
a = 0.6·10
−6 m
2/s). Under these conditions, convective heat flux is negative during ¾ of the year (February 3rd to November 8th) due to the relationship
Ta <
Ts—the heat flux is directed from the ground surface to the air. But the ground cools down in shorter period (half a year): February 24th to August 25th, due to the fact that (
dT/dx)
x=0 < 0.
• Temperature Distribution in the Ground
The change in the values of coefficients h, f and ε affects not only the values of individual thermal fluxes occurring on the surface of the ground, but also the temperature distribution in the ground. The ground temperature profile also depends on the thermal diffusivity of the ground and the associated damping depth as well as on the atmospheric conditions. On the basis of the heat balance on the ground surface, it is possible to determine the parameters of Equation (4), which will allow determination the temperature distribution in the ground with known thermal parameters.
Based on climatic data for Cracow-Balice (1981–2010) [
21] the parameters of Equations (8), (9) and (12) were obtained:
Tam = 8.5 °C,
Aa = 10.6 K,
Pa = 0.270 rad,
Tskym = −0.3 °C
Asky = 11.6 K,
Sm = 119 W/m
2,
Asol = 101 W/m
2,
Psol = −0.153 rad.
In
Figure 12 the impact of
u,
f and
ε on the temperature profiles in the ground are shown. Example temperature profiles for the 49th (green lines), 288th (red lines) and 349th (dashed lines) day of the year which is February 18th, October 15th and December 15th respectively. The calculations were carried out for
a = 0.6·10
−6 m
2/s. As can be seen from
Figure 12 the change in the value of the emissivity of the ground surface does not affect the
qcond value (
Figure 7) but also the course of the ground temperature profile, which remains practically unchanged. In the subsurface layers of the ground (
x < 3 m) the wind velocity also does not cause a significant change in the ground temperature. However, for larger depths, the ground temperature varies even by 1.2 °C, even at a depth of 16 m, which affects the value of the undisturbed temperature of the ground. The ground at any depth has a higher temperature for lower wind velocity as well as for lower value of evaporative rate coefficient, which applies to dry soils.
In
Figure 13, temporal changes of ground temperature at a depth of 0 m, 1 m and 5 m for different values of wind velocity are presented. As can be seen, the wind velocity significantly affects the temporal course of temperature in the ground at any depth; for
x = 5 m the difference in the ground temperature is up to 2 °C during the whole year. For the ground surface and a depth of 1 m, significant differences in the ground temperature occur only in the summer—during fall and winter the increase in the wind speed does not cause a significant difference in the temperature of the ground. Moreover, at a depth higher than 1 m, the ground temperature is positive throughout the year.
6. Conclusions
The presented, verified model has been used to simulate the temperature distribution in the ground under moderate climatic conditions. This model can be also used to analyse the influence of various climatic conditions on the efficiency of the subsurface as a heat source or sink for ground coupled heat pumps, to predict the ground temperature profile as function of time and depth at any place (as long as climatic conditions are known) as well as to analyse the size of thermal fluxes occurring on the surface of the ground.
Heat fluxes H, EV and LW are interrelated. The change of one of these fluxes affects the value of the other, which in consequence, when the S value is determined at a given time, causes the qcond value to remain unchanged. Solar radiation flux (S) does not have this feature. Although for large S values, the values of opposite directed fluxes also increase, but not enough to keep qcond unchanged.
In addition, even if the values of coefficients h, f and ε cannot be accurately defined, they have minimal effect on the conductive heat flux between the environment and the ground (qcond). Amplitude of the daily average solar radiation flux has a large influence on conductive flux, but this value (Asol) is generally quite well known.
The temperature profiles in the ground at different depths determined with the use of the presented simple mathematical model are consistent with the results of the measurements shown in the literature for different climatic conditions—moderate and arid climate. The parameters of the Carslaw-Jaeger equation: Tsm, As, Ps and L was determined using nonlinear regression. The good compliance of experimental and computational values confirms that the Carslaw-Jaeger equation correctly describes the temperature distribution in the ground and its variability over time.