深层埋管换热岩土温度响应及影响半径

doi:10.13809/j.cnki.cn32-1825/te.2022.06.004

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为了分析深层埋管换热时的岩土温度响应及换热影响半径，研究结合西安某个实际深层埋管供暖工程，基于钻井测井温度、岩土岩性解释以及现场实验建立了埋管换热的全尺寸数值模型。通过对埋管在5 a，即5个供暖期和4个恢复期换热的数值分析，给出了埋管周围岩土温度波动（ΔT）在不同深度上随运行时间的变化情况。在此基础上，考虑到理论研究及工程应用，选择了3种不同的ΔT限值来确定埋管的换热影响半径，同时分析了影响半径的影响因素。结果表明，在ΔT限值足够小至接近0时，埋管换热的影响半径主要受埋管周围岩土自身参数的影响；当ΔT限值增大时，影响半径主要受ΔT限值的影响。

关键词: 地热能, 深层埋管换热, 岩土温度响应, 换热影响半径, 数值模型

Abstract:

In order to analyze the ground temperature response and thermal effect radius of the heat transfer of the deep buried pipe, a full-scale numerical model of buried pipe heat transfer is established based on the well logging temperature, ground lithology interpretation, and field heat transfer experiments of an actual deep-buried pipe heating project in Xi’an. By the numerical analysis of the heat transfer of the buried pipes in five years, namely five heating periods and four recovery periods, the variation of ground temperature fluctuation （ΔT） around the buried pipe at different depths with running time is summarized. On this basis, by considering the theoretical research and engineering application, three different ΔT limits are selected to determine the thermal effect radius, and the factors affecting the thermal effect radius are analyzed. The results show that when ΔT limit is small enough to close to zero, the thermal effect radius is mainly affected by the geotechnical parameters around the buried pipe, and when ΔT limit increases, the thermal effect radius is mainly affected by ΔT limit.

Key words: geothermal energy, deep-buried pipe heat exchange, ground temperature response, thermal effect radius, numerical model

中图分类号:

TE965

李超,江超,官燕玲,宗聪聪,曲华,吴巧兰. 深层埋管换热岩土温度响应及影响半径[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2022, 12(6): 859-868.

LI Chao,JIANG Chao,GUAN Yanling,ZONG Congcong,QU Hua,WU Qiaolan. Ground temperature response and thermal effect radius of heat transfer of deep buried pipe[J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2022, 12(6): 859-868.

图/表 12

图1

图2

图3

图4

图5

表1

表2

表3

表4

图6

图7

表5

参考文献 21

[1]	邢利钧. 绿色能源的合理利用与开发[J]. 绿色环保建材, 2021, 25(3): 50-51.
	XING Lijun. Reasonable utilization and development of green energy[J]. Green Environmental Protection Building Materials, 2021, 25(3): 50-51.
[2]	雷超, 李韬. 碳中和背景下氢能利用关键技术及发展现状[J]. 发电技术, 2021, 42(2): 207-217. doi: 10.12096/j.2096-4528.pgt.20015
	LEI Chao, LI Tao. Key technologies and development status of hydrogen energy utilization under the background of carbon neutrality[J]. Power Generation Technology, 2021, 42(2): 207-217. doi: 10.12096/j.2096-4528.pgt.20015
[3]	XU Y S, WANG X W, SHEN S L, et al. Distribution characteristics and utilization of shallow geothermal energy in China[J]. Energy and Buildings, 2020, 229: 110479. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110479
[4]	LUO Y Q, GUO H S, MEGGERS F, et al. Deep coaxial borehole heat exchanger: Analytical modeling and thermal analysis[J]. Energy, 2019, 185: 1298-1313. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2019.05.228
[5]	LUO Y Q, YU J H, YAN T, et al. Improved analytical modeling and system performance evaluation of deep coaxial borehole heat exchanger with segmented finite cylinder-source method[J]. Energy and Buildings, 2020, 212: 109829. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.109829
[6]	LUO Y Q, XU G H, CHENG N. Proposing stratified segmented finite line source (SS-FLS) method for dynamic simulation of medium-deep coaxial borehole heat exchanger in multiple ground layers[J]. Renewable Energy, 2021, 179: 604-624. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2021.07.086
[7]	LI C, JIANG C, GUAN Y L. An analytical model for heat transfer characteristics of a deep-buried U-bend pipe and its heat transfer performance under different deflecting angles[J]. Energy, 2022, 244: 122682. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.122682
[8]	LI C, JIANG C, GUAN Y L, et al. Development and applicability of heat transfer analytical model for coaxial-type deep-buried pipes[J]. Energy, 2022, 255: 124533. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2022.124533
[9]	FANG L, DIAO N R, SHAO Z K, et al. A computationally efficient numerical model for heat transfer simulation of deep borehole heat exchangers[J]. Energy and Buildings, 2018, 167: 79-88. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.02.013
[10]	李思奇, 赵军, 李扬, 等. 闭式中深层井下换热数值模拟与内管分段绝热影响研究[J]. 太阳能学报, 2020, 41(11): 369-374.
	LI Siqi, ZHAO Jun, LI Yang, et al. Numerical simulation of closed loop medium-deep downhole heat exchange: a focus on influence of segmented insulation on central pipe[J]. Acta Energiae Solaris Sinica, 2020, 41(11): 369-374.
[11]	CAI W L, WANG F H, CHEN C F, et al. Long-term performance evaluation for deep borehole heat exchanger array under different soil thermal properties and system layouts[J]. Energy, 2022, 241: 122937. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.122937
[12]	CAI W L, WANG F H, CHEN S, et al. Analysis of heat extraction performance and long-term sustainability for multiple deep borehole heat exchanger array: A project-based study[J]. Applied Energy, 2021, 289: 116590. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116590
[13]	HUANG Y B, ZHANG Y J, XIE Y Y, et al. Long-term thermal performance analysis of deep coaxial borehole heat exchanger based on field test[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021, 278: 123396. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123396
[14]	王兴, 李超, 官燕玲, 等. 竖向U型深埋管建筑供暖连续及间歇运行的现场实验[J]. 区域供热, 2018, 2(3): 8-12.
	WANG Xing, LI Chao, GUAN Yanling, et al. In-situ experiment of continuous and intermittent operation of vertical U-bend deep-buried pipe to supply heat in buildings[J]. District Heating, 2018, 2(3): 8-12.
[15]	PAN A Q, LU L, CUI P, et al. A new analytical heat transfer model for deep borehole heat exchangers with coaxial tubes[J]. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 2019, 141: 1056-1065. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.07.041
[16]	HU X C, BANKS J, WU L P, et al. Numerical modeling of a coaxial borehole heat exchanger to exploit geothermal energy from abandoned petroleum wells in Hinton, Alberta[J]. Renewable Energy, 2020, 148: 1110-1123. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2019.09.141
[17]	BÄR K, RÜHAAK W, WELSCH B, et al. Seasonal high temperature heat storage with medium deep borehole heat exchangers[J]. Energy Procedia, 2015, 76: 351-360. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.841
[18]	官燕玲, 张小刚, 梁草茹, 等. 西安地区土壤源热泵地埋管换热的岩土影响因素区域分布[J]. 西北大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 46(4): 565-572.
	GUAN Yanling, ZHANG Xiaogang, LIANG Caoru, et al. Regional distribution of rock-soil influences for ground heat exchange of ground-source heat pump in Xi’an Area[J]. Journal of Northwest University (Natural Science Edition), 2016, 46(4): 565-572.
[19]	任建喜, 刘嘉辉, 高虎艳, 等. 西安地铁沿线地层地温春季分布规律观测研究[J]. 铁道工程学报, 2012, 29(3): 101-106.
	REN Jianxi, LIU Jiahui, GAO Huyan, et al. Study on distribution law and observation of ground temperature in spring along Xi’an subway[J]. Journal of Railway Engineering Society, 2012, 29(3): 101-106.
[20]	LI C, GUAN Y L, LIU J H, et al. Heat transfer performance of a deep ground heat exchanger for building heating in long-term service[J]. Renewable Energy, 2020, 166: 20-34. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.11.111
[21]	饶松, 姜光政, 高雅洁, 等. 渭河盆地岩石圈热结构与地热田热源机理[J]. 地球物理学报, 2016, 59(6): 2176-2190.
	RAO Song, JIANG Guangzheng, GAO Yajie, et al. The thermal structure of the lithosphere and heat source mechanism of geothermal field in Weihe Basin[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 2016, 59(6): 2176-2190.

径向距离（m）	ΔT（℃）
径向距离（m）	第一年供暖期结束	第一年恢复期结束	第二年供暖期结束	第二年恢复期结束	第三年供暖期结束	第三年恢复期结束	第四年供暖期结束	第四年恢复期结束	第五年供暖期结束
14.76	0.001	0.049	0.070	0.130	0.150	0.204	0.221	0.269	0.283
16.25	0	0.030	0.048	0.094	0.114	0.158	0.177	0.217	0.233
17.89	0	0.016	0.031	0.065	0.083	0.119	0.137	0.170	0.186
19.70	0	0.008	0.018	0.043	0.057	0.086	0.102	0.130	0.145
21.69	0	0.004	0.010	0.026	0.037	0.060	0.072	0.096	0.108
23.69	0	0.001	0.005	0.016	0.024	0.041	0.050	0.070	0.080
25.69	0	0.001	0.002	0.009	0.015	0.028	0.035	0.050	0.059
27.69	0	0	0.001	0.005	0.009	0.018	0.024	0.036	0.042
29.70	0	0	0	0.003	0.005	0.012	0.016	0.025	0.030
31.70	0	0	0	0.002	0.003	0.008	0.010	0.018	0.022
33.70	0	0	0	0.001	0.002	0.005	0.007	0.012	0.015
35.70	0	0	0	0	0.001	0.003	0.004	0.008	0.010
37.71	0	0	0	0	0	0.002	0.003	0.005	0.007
39.71	0	0	0	0	0	0.001	0.002	0.004	0.005
41.71	0	0	0	0	0	0.001	0.001	0.002	0.003
43.71	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.001	0.001	0.002
45.71	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.001	0.001
47.72	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.001	0.001

埋管深度（m）	影响半径（m）
埋管深度（m）	第一年供暖期结束	第一年恢复期结束	第二年供暖期结束	第二年恢复期结束	第三年供暖期结束	第三年恢复期结束	第四年供暖期结束	第四年恢复期结束	第五年供暖期结束
500	14.76	25.69	29.70	35.70	39.71	43.71	45.71	49.72	51.72
1 000	14.76	23.69	27.69	33.70	35.70	41.71	43.71	45.71	47.72
1 500	14.76	25.69	27.69	33.70	37.71	41.71	43.71	47.72	49.72
2 000	16.25	29.70	33.70	39.71	43.71	47.72	51.72	55.73	57.73
2 500	14.76	25.69	29.70	35.70	37.71	43.71	45.71	49.72	51.72

埋管深度（m）	影响半径（m）
埋管深度（m）	第一年供暖期结束	第一年恢复期结束	第二年供暖期结束	第二年恢复期结束	第三年供暖期结束	第三年恢复期结束	第四年供暖期结束	第四年恢复期结束	第五年供暖期结束
500	7.48	12.16	12.16	14.76	16.25	17.89	19.70	19.70	21.69
1 000	9.09	14.76	16.25	17.89	19.70	21.69	23.69	25.69	25.69
1 500	8.25	13.40	16.25	17.89	19.70	21.69	23.69	25.69	25.69
2 000	9.09	14.76	16.25	19.70	19.70	23.69	23.69	25.69	27.69
2 500	10.02	17.89	19.70	23.69	23.69	27.69	29.70	31.70	31.70

埋管深度（m）	影响半径（m）
埋管深度（m）	第一年供暖期结束	第一年恢复期结束	第二年供暖期结束	第二年恢复期结束	第三年供暖期结束	第三年恢复期结束	第四年供暖期结束	第四年恢复期结束	第五年供暖期结束
500	5.58	3.07	6.79	7.48	8.25	9.09	9.09	11.04	11.04
1 000	6.79	9.09	10.02	12.16	13.40	14.76	14.76	16.25	17.89
1 500	6.79	10.02	11.04	13.40	14.76	16.25	16.25	17.89	17.89
2 000	7.48	11.04	12.16	14.76	16.25	17.89	17.89	19.70	19.70
2 500	9.09	13.40	14.76	17.89	19.70	21.69	21.69	23.69	23.69

进水温度工况	影响半径（m）
进水温度工况	第一年供暖期结束	第一年恢复期结束	第二年供暖期结束	第二年恢复期结束	第三年供暖期结束	第三年恢复期结束	第四年供暖期结束	第四年恢复期结束	第五年供暖期结束
GK-7	16.25	29.70	33.70	39.71	43.71	47.72	51.72	55.73	57.73
GK-12	16.25	29.70	33.70	39.71	43.71	47.72	49.72	55.73	57.73
GK-17	16.25	27.69	31.70	39.71	41.71	47.72	49.72	55.73	57.73