Alexandria Engineering Journal (2020) 59, 4037–4047

H O S T E D BY
Alexandria University

Alexandria Engineering Journal

www.elsevier.com/locate/aej
www.sciencedirect.com

Comparative study of the performance of air and

geothermal sources of heat pumps cycle operating
with various refrigerants and vapor injection
Saeed Maddah a, Marjan Goodarzi b, Mohammad Reza Safaei c,d,e,*

a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, PO Box 397, Postal code 9617976487,
Sabzevar, Iran
b
Sustainable Management of Natural Resources and Environment Research Group, Faculty of Environment and Labour Safety, Ton
Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
c
Institute of Research and Development, Duy Tan University, Da Nang 550000, Vietnam
d
Faculty of Electrical—Electronic Engineering, Duy Tan University, Da Nang 550000, Vietnam
e
NAAM Research Group, Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah P.O.Box 80259,
Saudi Arabia

Received 18 March 2020; revised 20 May 2020; accepted 5 July 2020

Available online 16 July 2020

KEYWORDS Abstract Nowadays, due to the energy and environmental crisis, using renewable energy is consid-
Geothermal source heat ered to reduce environmental pollution. In this paper, a comprehensive review of geothermal source
pump (GSHP); heat pumps (GSHPs) and air source heat pumps (ASHPs) are studied from various aspects includ-
Air source heat pump ing refrigerant change, single-stage heat pump and heat pump with an economizer. This study is
(ASHP); conducted to meet the heating needs of the central laboratory of Hakim Sabzevari University.
Refrigerant; These cycles are analyzed using energy, exergy, and environmental and economic equations (4E
Economizer; analysis). The results show that the coefficient of performance (COP) and exergy efficiency values
4E Analysis for the GSHP cycle are higher than the ASHP cycle, and the best refrigerant for both is R134A. The
economic and environmental analysis also reveals that using the GSHP cycle can save the electricity
to 239 MWh/year (by cycle equipment), which reduces CO2 emissions to 140 tons/year and saves
costs 27,280 $/year, compared to ASHP.
Moreover, by using an economizer in the heat pump cycle, the COP of the GSHP cycle improved
by 9%. The exergy efficiency about 6.8% and the COP of the ASHP cycle grew about 7.5% and its
exergy efficiency by 7.4%. It is concluded that the economizer has a more significant impact on the
GSHP cycle.
Ó 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria
University. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

* Corresponding author at: Institute of Research and Development, Duy Tan University, Da Nang 550000, Vietnam.
E-mail addresses: marjan.goodarzi@tdtu.edu.vn (M. Goodarzi), mohammadrezasafaei@duytan.edu.vn (M.R. Safaei).
Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.07.009
1110-0168 Ó 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
4038
Nomenclature
C The price factor of emission ($ kg
1)
Ce The price factor of energy ($ kWh
1)
CR CO2 reduction (ton)
EF The emission factor of carbon ðkgCO2 kWh
1)
ES Energy-saving (MWh)
Ex_ Exergy rate (kW)
h Enthalpy (kJ kg
1)
m_ Mass flow rate (kg s
1)
P Pressure (kPa)
Q_ Heat transfer (kW)
s Specific entropy (kJ kg
1 K
1)
T Temperature (K)
V_ Volumetric flow rate (m3/year)
W_ Power consumption (kW)
Greek Symbols
g Efficiency
1. Introduction
As energy issues play a vital role in every field, researchers find
high-efficiency systems that use renewable energy sources. On
the other hand, increasing environmental pollution and its
impact on people’s lives has led to systems that are
environment-friendly as well as paying attention to energy
consumption [1]. Researchers have conducted various studies
to incorporate environmental issues in the development of
energy systems [2]. One of these systems, which is
environment-friendly and low energy consumption, is the heat
pump system. Extensive studies on the use of these systems
have been conducted in different countries. In a study in Den-
mark, the use of heat pumps is investigated. It is found that
thermal energy of about 2 to 4 GW of these systems can be
obtained, which is equivalent to a profit of about 100 million
Euros per year [3].
The idea of geothermal source heat pump (GSHP) systems
is developed in the late 1940s [4,5]. These systems are capable
of being used to generate the heating and cooling needed for
buildings by using renewable energy stored on the ground.
They are useful because of benefits such as energy-saving
and environmental protection [6]. In recent years, many exper-
imental and theoretical kinds of research on GSHP systems are
studied in different parts of the world, and various data are
presented. Due to the high compatibility of GSHP cycles on
heating systems compared to conventional heat systems, these
systems are evaluated for greenhouse gas emissions on 1105
GSHP systems operating in southwestern Germany [7]. The
results showed that the amount of CO2 reduction from one
GSHP unit installed in the present study is between 1800
and 4000 (kg/year). In Japan, the performance of the GSHP
cycle is simulated with a horizontal geothermal heat exchanger
for cooling and heating in a residential building, which 200
square meters. They concluded that these types of heat
exchangers are beneficial and appropriate in Japan [8]. Also,
in China, a study is conducted on a heat pump in a university
building [9]. According to their report, the annual system
S. Maddah et al.
Subscripts
0 Ambient
Comp Compressor
in Inlet
iw Industrial wastewater
NG Natural gas
out Outlet
rec Recycle
w Water
Abbreviation
ASHP Air source heat pump
COP Coefficient of performance
GSHP Geothermal source heat pump
LHV Low heating value
NP Net pay
WSHP Wastewater source heat pump
consumption of cooling and heating was 6.2 and 4.1 kWh,
respectively. Lee analyzed a GSHP cycle for an office building
based on actual operational data during 2014–2015 [10]. Their
results showed that their system could keep the room temper-
ature in the winter above 20 °C and in the summer around
26 °C.
Due to the energy-saving approach, especially in buildings,
air-source heat pumps (ASHPs) are increasingly growing [11].
ASHPs are one of the most widely used due to low limitation
on initial install and operation and low cost [12]. Among heat
pumps with different heat sources, air to water heat pump mod-
els are the most common for space heating [13]. The ASHP sys-
tem is one of the essential heating equipment in north and south
China [14,15]. One of the problems with ASHP systems in win-
ter is when the ambient temperature drops to 7 °C and relative
humidity (RH) higher than 65 °C, it freezes on the surface of the
outer coils [16]. These freezes reduce heat transfer and airflow
during heating, resulting in reduced system coefficient of per-
formance (COP) or even unwanted shutdown. Studies are con-
ducted on defrosting methods [17,18] to prevent these
problems. Also, many studies are conducted on air-to-air heat
exchangers in recent years [19,20].
Due to the functional limitations of heat pumps, extensive
studies have been done on methods, such as multi-stage heat
pump systems or vapor injection, to overcome the weaknesses
of the single-stage heat pumps. These cycles have a smaller
compression ratio in each step, which in turn improves the
compression efficiency over a single step cycle [21,22]. Various
parameters, such as compressor speed, injection ratio, as well
as outdoor air temperature variations, are analyzed in the
vapor injection method in heat pumps with different R410A
and R32 refrigerants [23]. In another article, a vapor injection
cycle with an ejector for R22, R290, and R32 refrigerants are
investigated. The results showed that for the R22 and R290
refrigerants 0.5% and the R32 refrigerant 0.2%, the COP is
improved compared to the conventional vapor injection
cycle [24]. Heating capacity in the ASHP cycles using vapor
injection is also significantly increased [25]. In other studies,
Comparative study of the performance of air and geothermal sources of heat pumps cycle operating 4039

thermodynamic parameters, including pressure and mass flow

rate of the injection line in vapor injection cycles of heat
pumps, are optimized [26,27].
In this study, a comprehensive review of GSHP and ASHP
cycles are analyzed using energy, exergy, and environmental
and economic equations. This investigation is performed to
provide the heating needs of the central laboratory of Hakim
Sabzevari University by considering the region’s environmen-
tal conditions. The impact of refrigerant change and the per-
formance of GSHP and ASHP cycles are investigated. Also,
the effect of economizer on the performance of GSHP and
ASHP cycles based on economic and environmental aspects
is carried out. This research is performed to select the suitable
types of heat pumps and the best refrigerant and evaluate the
feasibility of using an economizer.

2. Describe system

In this paper, considering the heating system requirements for

the central laboratory building of Hakim Sabzevari University,
shown in Fig. 1, the geothermal and air source heat pumps are
evaluated in a comprehensive review of various aspects.
The GSHP and ASHP cycles examined in this paper are
presented in Figs. 2A and 2B.
Fig. 2A Schematic of GSHP cycle.
3. 4E analysis

4E analysis considering the energy, exergy, economic, and 3.1. Energy analysis
environmental parameters can be considered as one of the
most comprehensive and practical analyses for comparing
energy systems. This paper is also carried out using this anal- Energy analysis can be used to analyze system performance
ysis and considering the following assumptions. based on the first law of thermodynamics. In equation (1),
_ the
the energy balance is given by the heat transfer rate (Q),
⁶ Dead state for systems is assumed T0 =
10.01 °C and _ Also, the mass flow rate (m)
rate of work (W). _ and the specific
P0 = 101 kPa enthalpy (h) at the input and output section of the cycle [28].
⁶ Positive is intended for transferring heat to the system and
RQ_
W
_ þ Rm_ in ðhin Þ
Rm_ out ðhout Þ ¼ 0 ð1Þ
transferring work from the system.
⁶ System status is in a steady and full load state. The rate of work consumption in the GSHP and ASHP
⁶ Kinetic and potential energy changes are negligible. cycles is given in equations (2) and (3).
⁶ The expansion valve process is a constant enthalpy. _ total ¼ W
_ pumps þ W
_ comp
W ð2Þ
⁶ There is no chemical or nuclear reaction.

Fig. 1 A Satellite photo of case study.

4040 S. Maddah et al.

CO2 reduction based on the emission factor of this parameter

in Table 1 [27].
CR ¼ ES  EF ð8Þ

3.4. Economic analysis

One of the most critical analysis in setting up cycles is the

issues of their initial prices and consumption during their
working life. The cost-effectiveness of the systems under con-
sideration is significant comparing them. Equations (9) and
(10) calculate the amount of cost-saving by less electricity con-
sumption as well as the cost-saving due to CO2 reduction
penalties [37]. Where (Ce) and (CCO2 ) are related to the cost
of electricity and CO2 taxation, respectively, in Table 1.
CostðEnergyÞ ¼ Ce  ES ð9Þ

CostðCO2 Þ ¼ CCO2  CR ð10Þ

The total cost saving can also be obtained from the follow-
Fig. 2B Schematic of ASHP cycle. ing equation [27].
Cost ¼ CostðEnergyÞ þ CostðCO2 Þ ð11Þ
W _ pump þ W
_ total ¼ W _ comp þ W
_ fan ð3Þ
To have a true understanding of economic analysis, in addi-
The COP in heat pump systems is calculated by the follow- tion to the initial cost of the cycle, one must also consider the
ing equation based on the heat transfer rate and the rate of current costs of the cycle over their useful life. In this paper, we
work consumed by the cycle [29]. obtain the net cost of cycles using equation (12).
Q_ out X
Year¼n X
Year¼n
COP ¼ ð4Þ NP ¼ CostðCapitalÞ þ CostðEnergyÞ þ CostðCO2 Þ ð12Þ
_ total
W Year¼1 Year¼1

The input data and the constant parameters considered

3.2. Exergy analysis during the research are presented in Table 1.

Given the concept of exergy, which represents the maximum 4. Modeling

amount of work a system can do during a reversible process,
this analysis can identify all losses in cycle equipment. In equa- Fig. 3A shows the minimum temperature changes in the stud-
tion (5) the exergy balance for the cycles is given. ied city for the last three years [36] and the heat load required



T0 T0 for the building. For the heat source of the GSHP cycle, soil
_
Qin 1
_ _
þ Wtotal
Qout 1
¼ Ex_ destroyed ð5Þ
Tin Tout temperature variations at 65 m were also not affected by ambi-
ent temperature. Therefore, it can be considered 10 °C [30].
This analysis can also be used to obtain exergy efficiency in The ASHP cycle is also designed according to Fig. 4; for a tem-
heat pump systems in equation (6). perature of
5 °C. it is the minimum temperature that is most
 
Q_ in 1
TTin0
gexergy ¼ ð6Þ
_ total þ Q_ out ð1
T0 Þ
W Tout
Table 1 The specification of the refrigeration cycle.
parameter unit value
3.3. Environmental analysis
Isentropic efficiency of the compressor – 74.1
(%) [30]
Considering the importance of environmental protection, one Efficiency of the condenser (%) [30] – 91.65
of the analyses that should be found in the use of air condition- Efficiency of the evaporator (%) [30] – 97.63
ing systems is environmental analysis. Therefore, this compar- Efficiency of the pumps (%) [30] – 70.75
ison is also made in this paper, considering the environmental Soil temperature in depth of 65 m [30] K 283.15
parameter. The amount of difference in electrical work which Ambient temperature K 263.15
used by the cycle equipment for the GSHP and ASHP cycles Capital cost (GSHP) [31] $.kW
1 2470
is obtained by equation (7) [27]. This cycle is used when there Capital cost (ASHP) [32] $.kW
1 1482
Ce [33] $.kWh
1 0.1
is a need for heating.
CCO2 [34] $.kg
1 0.024
 
ES ¼ W _i
W _j ð7Þ EF [35] Kg CO2. 0.587
kWh
1
indices (i) and (j) are related to total electricity consumption in Heating capacity kW 270
the cycles to be compared. Equation (8) shows the amount of
Comparative study of the performance of air and geothermal sources of heat pumps cycle operating 4041

60 60000
Lowest ambient temperature ( )

50
50000

Heating load (MWh)

40
40000
30
20 30000
10
20000
0
10000
-10
-20 0

Heating load (MWh) 2016 2017 2018

Fig. 3A Variation of monthly minimum temperature for the city

under study [36] and the required heating loads.

likely to occur. The comfortable indoor temperature for the

cold season is in the range of 20 °C to 23 °C. Concerning
the temperature of the heat source and the comfortable tem-
peratures, ASHP and GSHP cycles were modeled. Of course,
there was a minimum required temperature difference to heat
transfer between the refrigerant and outdoor and indoor envi-
ronments. Then for the ASHP and GSHP cycles in the cold
season, the refrigerant temperature in the evaporator was con-
sidered equal to
15 °C and 1 °C, respectively. Also, the refrig-
erant minimum temperature in the condenser was deemed to
be equal to 44 °C for both cycles. Finally, based on these tem- Fig. 3B Flowchart of modeling.
peratures and considering the saturated conditions of coolant,
the pressures of evaporator and condenser were calculated.
3.5 180
Considering that COP changes for the heating mode on ASHP
cycles do not vary with ambient temperature changes [37], this 160
3
factor has been neglected. 140
2.5

Total Work (kW)

The flowchart of the modeling in this manuscript is pre- 120
sented in Fig. 3B. 2 100
COP

The properties of the conventional refrigerants in heat 80

1.5
pump cycles (which are discussed in this article) are presented
60
in Table 2 [38–41]. 1
40
0.5
4.1. Modeling of geothermal source heat pump (GSHP) 20
0 0
R125 R134A R404A R407C R410A R507A
The GSHP cycle, based on Fig. 2A, is modeled for different
COP (GSHP) COP (ASHP) Total Work (GSHP) Total Work (ASHP)
refrigerants, and their effective parameters are presented in
Table 3. The maximum and minimum mass flow rate of the Fig. 4 Comparison of COP and total work of GSHP and ASHP
refrigerant GSHP cycle is related to R125 and R410A. The cycles based on various refrigerants.
lowest compression ratios are related to R125 and R507A.

4.2. Modeling of air source heat pump (ASHP)
The ASHP cycle, based on Fig. 2B, is modeled for the different
refrigerants, and in table 4, the main parameters are presented.
The maximum and minimum mass flow rate of the refrigerant
GSHP cycle is related to R125 and R410A. The lowest com-
pression ratios are related to R125.
4.3. Validation
To validate this paper, the thermodynamic model applied to a
heat pump based on experimental data of Ref. [30] is com-
pared. The characteristics of the experimental study, which is
used for validation, is shown in Table 5A. Also, the results
of this validation are represented in Table 5B. A comparison
of the results shows the accuracy of the work with an average
error of 0.838%.
5. Results and discussions
5.1. Comparison refrigerants on GSHP & ASHP cycles
In Fig. 4, the COP and power consumption of the GSHP and
ASHP cycles are plotted based on different refrigerants. As it
can be seen, the highest COP for both cycles is related to
R134A refrigerant, with GSHP being 3.087 and higher than
4042 S. Maddah et al.

Table 2 Specifications of the refrigerants, which were used in this study [38–41].
Type Fluid GWP100years ODP Critical Critical Pressure Atmospheric
(kgeq CO2 kg
1 Þ Temperature (absolute) (k Pa) Lifetime
(K) (years)
HFC R125 3500 0 339.33 3629 29
HFC R134A 1430 0 374.21 4059 14
HFC R404A 3922 0 345.29 3735 40.36
HFC R407C 1774 0 359.2 4634 15.657
HFC R410C 2088 0 343.32 4770 16.95
HFC R507A 3985 0 343.89 3715 40.5

Table 3 The evaporator’s and condenser’s pressures and mass Table 5B The comparison between the temperature at various
flow rates of the various refrigerants for GSHP cycle. points of the developed cycle and the experimental data [30].
Refrigerant Pmin (kPa) Pmax (kPa) m_ (kg=s) Flow number Present Ref. Error
study [30] (%)
R125 546.5 2246 3.205
T (K) T (K)
R134A 231.7 1150 1.834
R404A 489.1 2031 2.379 Ground heat exchanger outlet 280.6 280.63 0.01
R407C 367.3 1740 1.64 water
R410A 649.4 2708 1.625 Ground heat exchanger inlet water 277 277.09 0.03
R507A 508.9 2089 2.462 Wall circuit input water 303.7 303.85 0.05
Wall circuit outlet water 297.9 297.92 0.007
Evaporator outlet gas/ Compressor 288.7 281.12 2.69
inlet gas
Condenser inlet gas / Compressor 344.7 336.31 2.49
outlet gas
Table 4 The evaporator’s and condenser’s pressures and mass Condenser outlet gas 305.8 301.52 1.42
flow rate of the various refrigerants for ASHP cycle. Evaporator inlet gas 273 273.01 0.004
Refrigerant Pmin (kPa) Pmax (kPa) m_ (kg=s)
R125 334.6 2246 3.103
R134A 131.7 1151 1.762
R404A 297 2031 2.278 depicted, and a good agreement is found between the first
R407C 212.9 1740 1.552 and second laws of thermodynamics. The exergy efficiency of
R410A 395 2708 1.513 GSHP and ASHP are 0.28 and 0.2, respectively, for R134A.
R507A 310.9 2090 2.361 In both cycles, the R134A refrigerant had the highest exergy
efficiency. The exergy destruction of the GSHP with R410A
and the ASHP with R125 is the uppermost, compared to other
refrigerants in each cycle.
From the comparison of the previous section, it is found
Table 5A Characteristics of the referenced experimental heat that the best refrigerant for both GSHP and ASHP cycles is
pump [30]. R134A. Therefore, the GSHP and ASHP cycles are compared
Name of the measured Nominal Unit Total with the R134A refrigerant in the following sections.
parameter value uncertainty (%)
5.2. Comparison GSHP & ASHP cycles
Mass flow rate of 0.035 kg/s –
refrigerant R410A
Condenser outlet 28.37 °C ±3.80 Extending the economic and environmental analysis of the
temperature (gas) cycles, financial profit, energy-saving, and CO2 reduction for
Evaporator temperature
0.14 °C ±3.80 the 6-month when it is a cold period of the year are given in
(gas) Fig. 6. As can be observed, the GSHP cycle compared to the
ASHP cycle saves electricity 239 MWh/year, reduces CO2
emissions 140 ton/year, and saves costs 27,280 $/year.
Determining the system cost for a useful life of 30 years, the
ASHP (1.89). Also, the amount of power consumed by GSHP calculated parameter of (NP) given in equation (12), and its
and ASHP cycles with R125 refrigerant is 101.6 and 159.9 kW, variation are presented in Fig. 7. Considering the initial instal-
which is higher than other refrigerants. Generally, the amount lation price parameters (as shown in Table 1), it is concluded
of consumed power in the ASHP is much higher than the that for a 270 kW thermal system, the initial cost of GSHP
GSHP. Therefore, the amount of COP in the GSHP is higher cycle is higher than the ASHP cycle. Although considering
than the ASHP under these circumstances. the higher power consumption cost of the ASHP cycle than
In Fig. 5, the exergy efficiency and exergy destruction of the GSHP cycle, it has been shown that after 12 years, the cost
GSHP and ASHP cycles against different refrigerants are of the cycle has increased more than the GSHP cycle. Over the
Comparative study of the performance of air and geothermal sources of heat pumps cycle operating 4043

0.3 120 2500

0.25 100

Exergy Destruction (kW)

2000 ASHP GSHP
Exergy Efficiency

0.2 80

NP (1000x$)
1500
0.15 60

0.1 40 1000

0.05 20
500
0 0
R125 R134A R404A R407C R410A R507A
0
Exergy Efficiency (GSHP) Exergy Efficiency (ASHP) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Exergy Destruction (GSHP) Exergy Destruction (ASHP) Year

Fig. 5 Comparison of exergy efficiency and exergy destruction Fig. 7 Comparison of the cost of cycles examined for 30
of GSHP and ASHP cycles based on various refrigerants. operation years.

course of 30 years, the results show that although the ASHP cycles increased about 6.8% and 7.4%, respectively. Exergy
cycle has lower initial installation costs, the GSHP cycle is destruction is increased by 0.38 kW and 2.6 kW for GSHP
more cost-effective. and ASHP cycles, respectively.

5.3. Effect of economizer on GSHP & ASHP cycles

This section examines the impact of the economizer on the

GSHP and ASHP cycles. A schematic of the GSHP and ASHP
cycle schemas with the Economizer is depicted in Figs. 8A
and 8B.
The thermodynamic conditions of points for GSHP and
ASHP cycles by applying an economizer and R134A refriger-
ant, in accordance with Figs. 10A and 10B, are given in Tables
6 and 7.
In Fig. 9A, the COP and work consumption parameters of
the GSHP and ASHP cycles with R134A refrigerant are plot-
ted based on with and without economizer. The existence of an
economizer for GSHP and ASHP cycle increased the COP by
about 9% and 7.5%, respectively. The Economizer also
reduced the consumption of the GSHP and ASHP cycles by
6.89 kW and 7.7 kW, respectively.
In Fig. 9B, the exergy efficiency and exergy destruction
parameters of the GSHP and ASHP cycles for R134A refriger-
ant are plotted against the presence and absence of the
economizer. The exergy efficiency of the GSHP and ASHP Fig. 8A Schematic of GSHP cycle with an Economizer.

GSHP-ASHP
300 27.28 30

250 239.11 25
ES (MWh), CR (ton)

Cost (1000x$)

200 20

150 140.359 15

100 10

50 5

0 0
ES (MWh) CR(ton) Cost (1000x$)

Fig. 6 Energy-saving, CO2 reduction and cost-saving compared

to GSHP and ASHP cycles. Fig. 8B Schematic of ASHP cycle with an Economizer.
4044 S. Maddah et al.

Table 6 Thermodynamic parameters‫ ﻭ‬simulated and calculated at different points of the GSHP cycle.
State point P (kPa) T (K) _ (kgs
1)
m h (kJkg
1) s (kJkg
1 k
1) _ (kW)
Ex
1 231.7 274.15 1.533 253.1 0.9586 26.04
2 574 311.28 1.533 279.3 0.9807 57.32
3 574 307.76 1.9 275.9 0.9696 70.09
4 1151 338.94 1.9 296.9 0.9858 102
5 1139 317.43 1.9 114.7 0.4149 41.22
6 574 293.26 1.9 114.7 0.4213 38.06
7 574 293.26 1.533 79.48 0.3011 25.15
8 234 267.101 1.533 79.48 0.3083 22.27
9 574 293.26 0.3674 261.6 0.9223 12.91
10 250 315.71 4.25 178.4 0.6063 132.9
11 300 315.72 4.25 178.5 0.6064 133.2
12 250 297.92 4.25 103.8 0.3637 86.95
13 257 280.63 18.08 31.68 0.1135 256.6
14 250 277.04 18.08 16.6 0.05945 241.2
15 300 277.044 18.08 16.68 0.05952 242.1

Table 7 Thermodynamic parameters, simulated and calculated at different points of the ASHP cycle.
State point P (kPa) T (K) _ (kgs
1)
m h (kJkg
1) s (kJkg
1 k
1) _ (kW)
Ex
1 131.7 260.15 1.403 244.1 0.9687 7.599
2 463 309.93 1.403 280.1 0.9993 46.8
3 463 304.32 1.84 274.9 0.9821 60.01
4 1151 344.53 1.84 302.9 1.003 101.3
5 1139 317.43 1.84 114.7 0.4149 39.91
6 463 286.48 1.84 114.7 0.4248 35.14
7 463 286.48 1.403 70.02 0.2688 21.68
8 133 253.18 1.403 70.02 0.2805 17.38
9 463 286.48 0.4374 258 0.925 13.46
10 250 315.72 4.25 178.5 0.6064 133
11 300 315.73 4.25 178.5 0.6064 133.2
12 250 297.92 4.25 103.8 0.3637 86.95
13 101.3 268.15 49.74 268.3 6.754 2.343
14 101.3 263.15 49.74 263.2 6.735 0

4 160 0.35 120

3.5 140 0.3 100

Exergy Destruction (kW)

3 120
Total Work (kW)

Exergy Efficiency

0.25
80
2.5 100
0.2
COP

2 80 60
0.15
1.5 60
40
1 40 0.1

0.5 20 0.05 20

0 0 0 0
GSHP With GSHP Without ASHP With ASHP Without GSHP With GSHP Without ASHP With ASHP Without
Economizer Economizer Economizer Economizer Economizer Economizer Economizer Economizer

COP Total Work (kW) Exergy Efficiency Exergy Destruction (kW)

Fig. 9A The amount of COP and total work were compared to Fig. 9B The amount of exergy efficiency and exergy destruction
GSHP and ASHP cycles. were compared to GSHP and ASHP cycles.

reduction for the 6-month cold period of the year is shown

Also, by using the economic and environmental analysis, in Figs. 10A and 10B. As can be seen, the use of economizer
the impact of the economizer on the GSHP and ASHP cycles, in the GSHP cycle brings saving electricity 29.76 MWh/year,
the amount of financial benefit, energy-saving, and CO2 CO2 reduction 17.47 ton/year, and cost-saving 3395 $/year.
Comparative study of the performance of air and geothermal sources of heat pumps cycle operating 4045

GSHP with and without economizer 2400

35 4 2100 ASHP with economizer

29.76 3.39 ASHP without economizer
30 3.5 1800
ES (MWh), CR (ton)

NP (1000x$)
25 1500

Cost (1000x$)
2.5
20 17.47 1200
2
15 900
1.5
10 600
1
300
5 0.5
0
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
ES (MWh) CR(ton) Cost (1000x$) Year

Fig. 10A Energy-saving, CO2 reduction and cost-saving com- Fig. 11B Cost of cycles compared to ASHP with and without
pared to GSHP with and without economizer. economizer for 30 operation years.

6. Conclusion

ASHP with and without economizer This paper presents a comprehensive review of GSHP and
35 33.26 3.79 4 ASHP cycles. This study investigates various aspects of refrig-
30 3.5 erant variation, single-stage heat pump cycles, and the impact
of an economizer on heat pump cycles. The study is carried out
ES (MWh), CR (ton)

3
25
to provide the heating needs of the central laboratory of
Cost (1000x$)

19.53 2.5
20 Hakim Sabzevari University, with the following results.
2
15
1.5  By comparing COP and exergy efficiency for both GSHP
10 and ASHP cycles, it is found that refrigerants R134A and
1
5 0.5 R125 had the best and worst performance in both GSHP
and ASHP cycles. It is also found that COP and exergy effi-
0 0
ciency of GSHP cycle are higher than ASHP cycle. Also,
ES (MWh) CR(ton) Cost (1000x$) employing GSHP cycle versus ASHP cycle saved electricity
(239 MWh/year), CO2 reduction (140 ton/year), and cost-
Fig. 10B Energy-saving, CO2 reduction, and cost-saving com-
saving (27280 $/year).
pared to ASHP with and without economizer.
 Study the effect of economizer on cycles revealed the econ-
omizer increases the COP about 9% and 7.5% for GSHP
and ASHP cycles, respectively. The GSHP and ASHP cycle
2000
exergy efficiency also increased by 6.8% and 7.4%, respec-
tively. In contrast, the GSHP cycle had a higher COP and
GSHP with economizer
1800 exergy efficiency.
1600
GSHP without economizer  Considering the effect of the economizer from the economic
and environmental point of view for GSHP, and ASHP
NP (1000x$)

1400 cycles showed that using the economizer on the GSHP cycle
1200
can save 29.76 MWh/year of electricity. It also can reduce
the CO2 production up to 17.47 tons/year and save the cost
1000 up to 3395 $/year. The ASHP cycle also saved electricity
800
(33.26 MWh/year), CO2 reduction (19.53 ton/year), and
cost-saving (3795 $/year).
600
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Therefore, the GSHP cycle with using R134A refrigerant as
Year
well as the economizer are an excellent choice for air condi-
Fig. 11A Cost of cycles compared to GSHP with and without tioning in the central laboratory of Hakim Sabzevari
economizer for 30 operation years. University.

7. Future work recommendations

The ASHP cycle also saved electricity 33.26 MWh/year, CO2
reduction 19.53 ton/year, and cost-saving 3795 $/year.
The effect of economizer on each cycle for useful life of
30 years is determined by considering the parameter NP which
is calculated from equation (12). Its variations are presented in
Figs. 11A and 11B.
As future work recommendations, examining the various types
of heat pumps in different parts of the world with different cli-
matic conditions, as well as different techniques such as ejec-
tors, injections in parallel compressors can be considered to
improve the performance.
4046
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] S. Maddah, M. Deymi-Dashtebayaz, O. Maddah, 4E analysis of
thermal recovery potential of industrial wastewater in heat
pumps: An invisible energy resource from the iranian casting
industry sector, J. Cleaner Prod. 29 (2020) 121824.
[2] I. Ghalehkhondabi, R. Maihami, Sustainable municipal solid
waste disposal supply chain analysis under price-sensitive
demand: A game theory approach, Waste Manage. Res.
(2019), https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X19886650.
[3] R. Lund, D.D. Ilic, L. Trygg, Socioeconomic potential for
introducing large-scale heat pumps in district heating in
Denmark, J. Cleaner Prod. 15 (139) (2016) 219–229.
[4] A.C. Grandall, House heating with earth heat pump, Electr
World 126 (19) (1946) 94–95.
[5] L.R. Ingersoli, H.J. Plass, Theory of the ground pipe heat source
for the heat pump, Heat, Piping, Air Modeing J. 20 (7) (1948)
119–122.
[6] Y. Bi, T. Guo, L. Zhang, L. Chen, Solar and ground source
heat-pump system, Appl. Energy 78 (2) (2004) 231–245.
[7] P. Blum, G. Campillo, W. Münch, T. Kölbel, CO2 savings of
ground source heat pump systems–A regional analysis, Renew.
Energy 35 (1) (2010) 122–127.
[8] V.R. Tarnawski, W.H. Leong, T. Momose, Y. Hamada,
Analysis of ground source heat pumps with horizontal ground
heat exchangers for northern Japan, Renew. Energy 34 (1)
(2009) 127–134.
[9] Y. Chang, Y. Gu, L. Zhang, C. Wu, L. Liang, Energy and
environmental implications of using geothermal heat pumps in
buildings: An example from north China, J. Cleaner Prod. 20
(167) (2017) 484–492.
[10] H. Li, W. Xu, Z. Yu, J. Wu, Z. Sun, Application analyze of a
ground source heat pump system in a nearly zero energy
building in China, Energy. 15 (125) (2017) 140–151.
[11] T. Nishimura, ‘‘Heat pumps - status and trends” in Asia and the
Pacific, Int. J. Refrig. 25 (4) (2002) 405–413.
[12] M. Song, S. Deng, C. Dang, N. Mao, Z. Wang, Review on
improvement for air source heat pump units during frosting and
defrosting, Appl. Energy 1 (211) (2018) 1150–1170.
[13] Z.L. Sun, S.C. Liu, Y.C. Linag, M.J. Song, J.H. Guo,
Experimental study on the optimal charge of carbon dioxide in
water-water heat pump system, HKIE Trans 24 (2) (2017) 99–106.
[14] Q. Zhang, L. Zhang, J. Nie, Y. Li, Techno-economic analysis of
air source heat pump applied for space heating in northern
China, Appl. Energy 207 (2017) 533–542.
[15] J.A. Kelly, M. Fu, J.P. Clinch, Residential home heating: the
potential for air source heat pump technologies as an alternative
to solid and liquid fuels, Energy Policy 98 (2016) 431–442.
[16] Y. Yao, Y.Q. Jiang, S.M. Deng, Z.L. Ma, A study on the
performance of the airside heat exchanger under frosting in an
ASHP water heater/chiller unit, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 47
(2004) 3745–3756.
[17] W. Sheng, P.P. Liu, C.B. Dang, G.X. Liu, Review of restraint
frost method on cold surface, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 79
(2017) 806–813.
[18] M. Amer, C.C. Wang, Review of defrosting methods, Renew.
Sust. Energy Rev. 73 (2017) 53–74.
[19] M.R. Nasr, M. Fauchoux, R.W. Besant, C.J. Simonson, A
review of frosting in air-to-air energy exchangers, Renew. Sust.
Energy Rev. 30 (2014) 538–554.
S. Maddah et al.
[20] C. Zeng, S. Liu, A. Shukla, A review on the air-to-air heat and
mass exchanger technologies for building applications, Renew.
Sust. Energy Rev. 75 (2017) 753–774.
[21] C. Baek, J. Heo, J. Jung, E. Lee, Y. Kim, Effects of vapor
injection techniques on the heating performance of a CO2 heat
pump at low ambient temperatures, Int. J. Refrig. 43 (2014) 26–
35.
[22] A. Redon, E. Navarro-Peris, M. Pitarch, J. Gonzalvez-Macia, J.
M. Corberan, Analysis and optimization of subcritical two-stage
vapor injection heat pump systems, Appl. Energy 124 (2014)
231–240.
[23] I.Y. Cho, H. Seo, D. Kim, Y. Kim, Performance comparison
between R410A and R32 multi-heat pumps with a sub-cooler
vapor injection in the heating and cooling modes, Energy 112
(2016) 179–187.
[24] X. Wang, J. Yu, M. Xing, Performance analysis of a new ejector
enhanced vapor injection heat pump cycle, Energy Convers.
Manage. 100 (2015) 242–248.
[25] J. Heo, M.W. Jeong, C. Baek, Y. Kim, Comparison of the
heating performance of air-source heat pumps using
various types of refrigerant injection, Int. J. Refrig. 34 (2011)
444–453.
[26] E.A. Rad, S. Maddah, Entropic optimization of the
Economizer’s pressure in a heat pump cycle integrated with a
flash-tank and vapor-injection system, Int. J. Refrig. (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2018.09.018.
[27] M. Deymi-Dashtebayaz, S. Maddah, E. Fallahi, Thermo-
economic-environmental optimization of injection mass flow
rate in the two-stage compression refrigeration cycle (Case
study: Mobarakeh Steel Company in Isfahan, Iran), Int. J.
Refrig. (2019).
[28] M. Deymi-Dashtebayaz, S. Maddah, M. Goodarzi, O. Maddah,
Investigation of the effect of using various HFC refrigerants in
geothermal heat pump with residential heating applications, J.
Therm. Anal. Calorim. 141 (2020) 361–372, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10973-020-09539-5.
[29] E.A. Rad, S. Maddah, S. Mohammadi, Designing and
optimizing a novel cogeneration system for an office building
based on thermo-economic and environmental analyses, Renew.
Energy 1 (151) (2020) 342–354.
[30] U. Akbulut, Z. Utlu, O. Kincay, Exergy, exergoenvironmental
and exergoeconomic evaluation of a heat pump-integrated wall
heating system, Energy 107 (2016) 502–522.
[31] S.P. Kavanaugh, M. Green, K. Mescher, Long-term commercial
GSHP performance, part 4: installation costs, ASHRAE J. 54
(10) (2012).
[32] J.W. Lund, Ground-source (geothermal) heat pumps, course on
heating with geothermal energy: conventional and new schemes,
in: World Geothermal Congress 2000 Short Courses, Kazuno,
Tohuko District, Japan, 2000, pp. 209–236.
[33] EIA - Electricity Data [WWW Document], n.d. URL
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?
t=epmt_5_6_a (accessed 10.31.18).
[34] S. Sanaye, M.M. Ghafurian, F.T. Dastjerd, Applying relative
net present or relative net future worth benefit and exergy
efficiency for optimum selection of a natural gas engine based
CCHP system for a hotel building, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 34
(2016) 305–317, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JNGSE.2016.06.038.
[35] A.M. Brander, A. Sood, C. Wylie, A. Haughton, J. Lovell, I.
Reviewers, G. Davis, Electricity-specific emission factors for
grid electricity, Ecometrica 1–22 (2011), https://doi.org/
10.13044/j.sdewes.2014.02.0030.
[36] Web Site of I.R. Of Iran Meteorogicat Organiazation, http://
www.irimo.ir (accessed 2019).
[37] C.A. De Swardt, J.P. Meyer, A performance comparison
between an air-source and a ground-source reversible heat
pump, Int. J. Energy Res. 25 (10) (2001) 899–910.
Comparative study of the performance of air and geothermal sources of heat pumps cycle operating
[38] P. Forster, V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.
W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J.
Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz, R. Van Dorland,
Chapter 2: Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative
forcing, in: S. Solomon, H.L. Miller, M. Tignor, K.B. Averyt,
M. Marquis, Z. Chen, M. Manning, D. Qin (Eds.), Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA, 2007. Retrieved 9 October 2016.
[39] John S. Daniel, Guus J.M. Velders, A.R. Douglass, P.M.D.
Forster, D.A. Hauglustaine, I.S.A. Isaksen, L.J.M. Kuijpers, A.
4047
McCulloch, T.J. Wallington, Chapter 8. Halocarbon Scenarios,
Ozone Depletion Potentials, and Global Warming Potentials,
Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006, World
Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
Retrieved 9 October 2016.
[40] Schoen, J. Andrew, Listing of Refrigerants, Andy’s HVAC/R
Web Page, Archived from the original on 2009-03-19, retrieved
2011-12-17.
[41] Global Warming Potentials of ODS Substitutes‘‘. Science -
Ozone Layer Protection. US EPA. 2007. Archived from the
original on 2010-10-16. Retrieved 2010-12-16.