Thermal conductivity of sedimentary rocks: uncertainties in measurement and modelling

Midttømme, Kirsti; Roaldset, E.

doi:10.1144/gsl.sp.1999.158.01.04

Cited by 53 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The accuracy of the measurements is theoretically about 2-3% and the time of measurement depends on the thermal conductivity value, varying from a few minutes to about 20 min. Examples of applying such devices to soils/rocks can be found, e.g., in References [20,47].…”

Section: Needle-probe Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there is a trend to utilise steadystate methods for rocks (solid mineral matter) and transient methods for soils (e.g., see Reference [40]). [20,33,34,47,66,[70][71][72][73][74]; Sr: degree of saturation, n: porosity.…”

Section: Comparison Of Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In an effort to quantify measurement uncertainties, Reference [20] reported higher thermal conductivity measurements obtained with the thermal needle probe (up to 10-20%) compared to the divided bar in unconsolidated sediments. This was in agreement with some studies, such as Reference [19], but contradicted others, such as Reference [76], showing a general disharmony.…”

Section: Comparison Of Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main factors that influence soil or rock bulk thermal conductivity are the properties of the different phases (solid, pore fluid, pore air), usually measured in terms of density and moisture content. Consequently, empirical prediction models for soil thermal conductivity have historically been used (e.g., [15][16][17][18][19]), However, these can lead to significant errors [13] and do not account for factors such as soil structure, heterogeneity, and anisotropy, which might become important [20]. For soils, Figure 1 illustrates the situations where convection and radiation may also occur and become significant.…”

Section: Thermo-hydro-mechanical Processes In Soil and Rocksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Results and accuracy depend on the same general parameters of the absolute method. The divided cut-bar has been used successfully to measure mainly rock samples, as in References [20,40]. Rock samples are much less prone to moisture migration and therefore, provided heat losses are controlled, the method is reliable.…”

Section: Absolute Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Characterisation of Ground Thermal and Thermo-Mechanical Behaviour for Shallow Geothermal Energy Applications

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing use of the ground as a thermal reservoir is expected in the near future. Shallow geothermal energy (SGE) systems have proved to be sustainable alternative solutions for buildings and infrastructure conditioning in many areas across the globe in the past decades. Recently novel solutions, including energy geostructures, where SGE systems are coupled with foundation heat exchangers, have also been developed. The performance of these systems is dependent on a series of factors, among which the thermal properties of the soil play a major role. The purpose of this paper is to present, in an integrated manner, the main methods and procedures to assess ground thermal properties for SGE systems and to carry out a critical review of the methods. In particular, laboratory testing through either steady-state or transient methods are discussed and a new synthesis comparing results for different techniques is presented. In situ testing including all variations of the thermal response test is presented in detail, including a first comparison between new and traditional approaches. The issue of different scales between laboratory and in situ measurements is then analysed in detail. Finally, the thermo-hydro-mechanical behaviour of soil is introduced and discussed. These coupled processes are important for confirming the structural integrity of energy geostructures, but routine methods for parameter determination are still lacking.

show abstract

Section: Needle-probe Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison Of Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison Of Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Thermo-hydro-mechanical Processes In Soil and Rocksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Absolute Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Characterisation of Ground Thermal and Thermo-Mechanical Behaviour for Shallow Geothermal Energy Applications

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Arctic river temperature dynamics in a changing climate

Docherty

Dugdale

Milner

et al. 2019

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change in the Arctic is expected to have a major impact on stream ecosystems, affecting hydrological and thermal regimes. Although temperature is important to a range of in‐stream processes, previous Arctic stream temperature research is limited—focused on glacierised headwaters in summer—with limited attention to snowmelt streams and winter. This is the first high‐resolution study on stream temperature in north‐east Greenland (Zackenberg). Data were collected from five streams from September 2013 to September 2015 (24 months). During the winter, streams were largely frozen solid and water temperature variability low. Spring ice‐off date occurred simultaneously across all streams, but 11 days earlier in 2014 compared with 2015 due to thicker snow insulation. During summer, water temperature was highly variable and exhibited a strong relationship with meteorological variables, particularly incoming shortwave radiation and air temperature. Mean summer water temperature in these snowmelt streams was high compared with streams studied previously in Svalbard, yet was lower in Swedish Lapland, as was expected given latitude. With global warning, Arctic stream thermal variability may be less in summer and increased during the winter due to higher summer air temperature and elevated winter precipitation, and the spring and autumn ice‐on and ice‐off dates may extend the flowing water season—in turn affecting stream productivity and diversity.

show abstract

Why is Svalbard an island? Evidence for two‐stage uplift, magmatic underplating, and mantle thermal anomalies

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] Svalbard is an anomalous, subaerial part of the Barents Shelf, Northeast Atlantic Ocean. In this study, we performed both, one-and two-dimensional subsidence analyses based on basin structure, water depth, and thermochronology, to quantify and date the phases of uplift affecting Svalbard during the Cenozoic. Svalbard has experienced two phases of uplift, from >36 to~10 Ma, and since~10 Ma, similar in timing to uplift phases identified in Greenland, Scandinavia, and the Barents Shelf. Total uplift across much of the Central Tertiary Basin of Svalbard is >1.5 km and exceeds 2.5 km in parts of the West Spitsbergen Foldbelt (WSFB). Uplift from >36 to~10 Ma accounts for the greatest part of the vertical motion and like the younger phase reduces in magnitude towards the east. Flexural rigidity of the lithosphere is estimated to be low (Te % 5 km), so that post-36 Ma erosion of the WSFB contributes little to the uplift, whose permanent nature and proximity to the synchronous Yermak Plateau favors a link to regional magmatic underplating. Plume dynamic support and flexural unloading along the western transform plate margin can be ruled out as influences on vertical motions. Since~10 Ma renewed uplift, generating the modern topography may be linked to thermal erosion of the mantle lithosphere under Svalbard. We suggest that a likely cause of much of the surface uplift is the northward propagation of the Knipovich Ridge to establish continuous seafloor spreading through the Fram Strait after~10 Ma.

show abstract

Thermal conductivity of sedimentary rocks: uncertainties in measurement and modelling

Cited by 53 publications

References 33 publications

Characterisation of Ground Thermal and Thermo-Mechanical Behaviour for Shallow Geothermal Energy Applications

Characterisation of Ground Thermal and Thermo-Mechanical Behaviour for Shallow Geothermal Energy Applications

Arctic river temperature dynamics in a changing climate

Why is Svalbard an island? Evidence for two‐stage uplift, magmatic underplating, and mantle thermal anomalies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About