Energy Conversion and Management 288 (2023) 117179

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Performance analysis of a novel solar assisted ground source heat pump

water heating system with graded thermal energy storage
Zhihang Zheng a, b, Jin Zhou a, b, *, Ying Yang c, Feng Xu a, b, Hongcheng Liu a, b, Yili Yan d
a
School of Architecture and Planning, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China
b
Hunan Key Laboratory of Sciences of Urban and Rural Human Settlements in Hilly Areas, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China
c
General Design Institute, China Construction Fifth Engineering Division Corp Ltd, Changsha 410082, China
d
Xiangtan Planning and Architectural Design Institute Ltd, Xiangtan 411100, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The solar assisted ground source heat pump system (SAGSHP) is recognized as an efficient, clean and economical
Solar assisted ground source heat pump renewable energy technology for hot water supply. However, in SAGSHP systems with an all-day hot water
Graded thermal energy storage supply, the solar collectors can only heat the water tank with intense solar radiation, which wastes moderate and
Performance
weak solar resources. In addition, as the SAGSHP system draws heat from the soil for a long time, the soil
Feasibility
Soil temperature
temperature around the borehole decreases, causing the performance of the GSHP to deteriorate. To solve the
above problems, a SAGSHP system with graded thermal energy storage (SAGSHP-GTES) was proposed. This
paper investigated the performance and feasibility of the SAGSHP-GTES system, using a case study of hot water
supply in a campus dormitory in Changsha, China. Firstly, the drawbacks of solar energy utilization in the
conventional SAGSHP system were analyzed. Then, the SAGSHP-GTES system was modeled by TRNSYS, and its
operational performance was evaluated and compared with the conventional SAGSHP system. Finally, the
feasibility and performance of the SAGSHP-GTES system in different climate zones of China were analyzed. The
results showed that the conventional SAGSHP system had a poor solar energy utilization efficiency, with an
average thermal efficiency of the SC (ηSC) of only around 19.4%. The long period of operation caused the soil
temperature to drop from 18.1 ◦ C to 2.78 ◦ C, which led to a decrease in system efficiency and an increase in
electricity consumption. By controlling the heat collection of the SC and the graded utilization of solar energy in
the SAGSHP-GTES system, a high ηSC of around 42.7% was obtained, which improved the system efficiency while
eliminating the problem of soil temperature drop. After 15 years of operation, the soil temperature increased
from 18.1 ◦ C to 19.9 ◦ C, which led to an increase in the coefficient of performance of the system (COPsys) from
3.77 kW/kW to 3.84 kW/kW and COPGSHP from 3.45 kW/kW to 3.5 kW/kW, and a reduction in electricity
consumption from 51,746 kWh to 50,735 kWh. In addition, the conventional SAGSHP system was not feasible in
severe cold zones (Harbin) and cold zones (Beijing) of China, where soil temperatures fell below 0 ◦ C and
freezing of the circulating fluid occurred, while the SAGSHP-GTES system showed excellent performance in all
climatic zones of China and is a feasible and efficient technology for hot water supply.

1. Introduction
In recent years, excessive consumption of fossil energy has led to
irreversible natural resource depletion and serious environmental
problems, which have drawn widespread attention worldwide [1,2]. Up
to 2021, more than 50 countries have set a carbon neutrality target, and
as the world’s largest energy consumption unit, China proposes to
achieve carbon peaking by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060 [3,4].
The supply of domestic hot water (DHW) in Chinese urban residential
buildings accounts for 9.5% of energy consumption during the opera­
tional phase and has significant carbon reduction potential, with this
percentage even higher in densely populated buildings such as dormi­
tories [5]. Hu [6] investigated the energy consumption of a dormitory
building in a university in Zhejiang Province, China, and the results
showed that DHW energy consumption accounted for 37% of the total
building energy consumption.
To reduce the carbon emissions of DHW supply, solar hot water
systems have been widely deployed in China, and more than 800 million

* Corresponding author at: School of Architecture and Planning, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China.
E-mail address: zhoujin_y@hnu.edu.cn (J. Zhou).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117179
Received 12 April 2023; Received in revised form 8 May 2023; Accepted 10 May 2023
Available online 18 May 2023
0196-8904/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z. Zheng et al.
m2 of solar collectors (SC) have been installed by 2020 [5]. However,
solar radiation is susceptible to climate and is almost zero on rainy,
cloudy days and nights, making it incapable of achieving a stable and
continuous energy supply. Therefore, solar energy needs to be assisted
by heat sources such as electricity, heat pumps and natural gas [7,8].
Ground source heat pump (GSHP) can convert low-grade heat from the
soil into high-grade thermal energy through the borehole heat
exchanger (BHE) and is an efficient device for solving the problem of
intermittent solar radiation [9–14]. Esen et al. [15–20] carried out
several studies to analyze the performance of GSHP systems and
compared them with other heating methods (electrical resistance, fuel
oil, liquid gasoline, coal, oil, natural gas and ASHP) and the results
showed that GSHP systems showed better COP and economy. Solar
assisted ground source heat pump (SAGSHP) system, which combines
solar water heating system with the GSHP, is a reliable, economical and
decarbonized technology for water heating [21–26].
In recent years, researchers have investigated the feasibility of the
SAGSHP system in depth and compared its performance with other
water heating systems. Trillat-Berdal et al. [27] proposed a combined SC
and GSHP system and found that SC could reduce the number of bore­
holes and operating costs of the GSHP system. Yang et al. [28] conducted
numerical simulations of a SAGSHP system operating in combined
mode. The results showed that compared with the GSHP system, the
SAGSHP system could reduce energy consumption by 14.5% and 10.4%
with and without heat storage, respectively. Rad et al. [29] examined
the feasibility of the SAGSHP system in six Canadian cities. The results
showed that the life-cycle cost of the SAGSHP system was 3.7%-7.6%
lower than that of the GSHP system, and the system performed best in
Vancouver. Girard et al. [30] compared the performance of the SAGSHP
system with that of the GSHP system in 19 European cities. The results
showed that the coefficient of performance (COP) ranged from 4.4 to
5.8 kW/kW for the SAGSHP system and from 4.3 to 5.1 kW/kW for the
GSHP system. Pärisch et al. [31] investigated the performance of the
SAGSHP system under different operating conditions by TRNSYS and
experimentally validated the results. Yang et al. [32] simulated the key
parameters affecting the SAGHPS system by TRNSYS. The results
showed that increasing the SC area and the BHE number could signifi­
cantly improve the system efficiency.
Some studies have focused on the parameter optimization of the
SAGSHP system to improve performance and reduce operating costs.
Verma et al. [33] optimized the SC area and BHE length of the SAGSHP
system using the Taguchi method and the utility concept. The COP
optimized by the utility concept was 4.23 kW/kW, which was 8.74%
higher than that of the Taguchi method. Chen et al. [34] conducted an
optimization study of the SAGSHP system by TRNSYS. The results
showed that for the specified load conditions, the optimum SC area was
40 m2 and the borehole length was 264 m. In addition, in SAGSHP
systems with mainly heat production, the long-term operation of the
GSHP can lead to a decrease in soil temperature around the BHE, which
in turn decreases the system COP and increases operating costs. To solve
this problem, scholars have proposed different control methods to
recharge the soil with solar energy. Trillat-Berdal et al. [35] proposed a
SAGSHP system with a reversible GSHP, with solar energy first used to
meet the hot water demand and excess solar energy could be injected
into the underground through boreholes. The results showed that the
energy injected into the underground accounted for 34% of the extrac­
ted heat and that the average value of the COP of the GSHP in heating
mode was 3.75 kW/kW. Zhou et al. [36] analyzed a SAGSHP system
with seasonal energy storage that provides DHW for a campus dormi­
tory. The results showed that the problem of reduced soil temperature
was effectively addressed, and the suitable design of the SC area could
reduce the life cycle cost of the system. Wang et al. [37] presented a case
study of underground thermal storage in a SAGSHP system for a resi­
dential building. They suggested that the optimum ratio of tank volume
to SC area should be between 20 and 40 L/m2.
Latent heat storage is an attractive approach to enhance the
2
Energy Conversion and Management 288 (2023) 117179
performance of SAGSHP systems as it can provide high energy storage
density and has the ability to store energy over a limited range of tem­
perature variations [38]. Phase change materials (PCM) as suitable
latent thermal storage material used for thermal storage have attracted
extensive scholars’ attention [38]. Wang et al. [39] simulated the per­
formance of a SAGSHP system with PCM (SAGSHP-PCM) for heating a
rural building in Xi’an, China. The results showed that compared to the
conventional SAGSHP system, the average COP of the SAGSHP-PCM
system increased from 3.4 kW/kW to 3.8 kW/kW. Wang et al. [40]
solved the PCM unit by the finite difference method and then developed
a numerical solution model for the SAGSHP-PCM system, and the
simulation results of the model were in good agreement with the
experimental results. Han et al. [41] simulated the SAGSHP-PCM system
and analyzed its heating performance in Harbin. The results showed that
compared to the conventional SAGSHP system, the COP and system
operational stability of the SAGSHP-PCM system were improved, and its
COP was 3.28 kW/kW during the heating period. Wu et al. [42] inves­
tigated a SAGSHP-PCM system for building heating and cooling and the
measured results showed an average heating COP of 3.2 kW/kW in
winter and a cooling COP of 18.0 kW/kW in summer.
Previous studies showed that compared to conventional solar water
heating systems, the SAGSHP systems showed better system perfor­
mance, especially in densely populated buildings such as dormitories
and hotels [43,44]. However, in SAGSHP systems with the all-day DHW
supply, it is difficult for weak solar energy to heat the tank, such as on
rainy days, as the GSHP heats the tank to keep it at a high temperature
(50–60 ◦ C) [45,46], which results in the waste of solar resources. In
addition, as the SAGSHP system takes heat from the soil for a long time,
it decreases soil temperature around the BHE, which reduces the COP of
the GSHP year by year [47]. These two reasons limit the large-scale
application of SAGSHP systems. To further improve the solar energy
utilization of SAGSHP systems and eliminate the problem of soil tem­
perature reduction, this study proposed a SAGSHP system with graded
thermal energy storage (SAGSHP-GTES) for providing DHW to a campus
dormitory building in Changsha, China. This system had two tanks,
respectively the load water tank (LWT) and storage water tank (SWT),
with the LWT used to supply DHW and the SWT used to store heat. In the
SAGSHP-GTES system, the SC can be connected to the LWT, SWT and
BHE respectively according to the strength of the solar radiation,
enabling a graded utilization of solar energy. In addition, the source side
of the GSHP can be connected to the SWT and BHE respectively, which
further enhances the system performance.
Once the composition and control methods of the SAGSHP-GTES
system were proposed, the SAGSHP-GTES system was modeled and
simulated for one and fifteen years using TRNSYS software, and its
performance was evaluated and compared with the conventional
SAGSHP system in depth. Finally, the feasibility and performance of the
SAGSHP-GTES system in different climate zones of China were analyzed.
These findings provide an effective method to improve solar energy
utilization in SAGSHP systems and solve the soil temperature reduction
problem in SAGSHP systems.
2. Methods
2.1. Weather data and DHW demand
In this study, the proposed SAGSHP-GTES system was used to supply
hot water to a campus dormitory building in Changsha, China. Changsha
has a typical climate with hot summer and cold winter, and Fig. 1 shows
its hourly air temperature, mains water temperature and solar irradiance
for a typical year. The meteorological data for Changsha were exported
into TMY2-format and used as input to TRNSYS.
The campus DHW supply is mainly utilized to cover the daily de­
mand of students, such as bathing, face washing and hand washing, and
the amount of DHW consumption is greatly influenced by the climate
and living habits [48]. Zhou et al. [49] investigated the DHW usage of a
Z. Zheng et al.
Fig. 1. Hourly air temperature, mains water temperature and solar irradiance
for a typical year in Changsha.
campus dormitory building in Changsha, China. The results showed that
the daily DHW consumption for male and female students was 23.28 and
24.53 L/day per person respectively. Fig. 2 illustrates the daily distri­
bution of students’ DHW consumption, with peaks at 8:00 am and 11:00
pm for male students, and 7:00 am and 10:00 pm for female students.
The campus dormitory building in this study had 960 students, with
480 male and 480 female students, respectively. The DHW demand was
determined according to Fig. 2, and the total DHW consumption for 960
students was 22,949 L/day. It should be noted that in China, there are
two long vacations per year for students: respectively the winter vaca­
tion from 1 February to 31 February and the summer vacation from 1
July to 31 August [37]. During these two vacations, students usually
leave school for internships or go home, so there is no DHW demand in
the dormitory building.
According to the hourly mains water temperature (Fig. 1) and DHW
consumption (Fig. 2), the daily DHW load (QDHW) was calculated by Eq.
(1).
QDHW = Cp × qDHW × ρ × (tDHW − tC ) (1)
Where Cp is the specific heat capacity of the DHW, 4.19 kJ/(kg⋅◦ C); qDHW
is the daily DHW consumption, L/day, 22,949 L/day; ρ is the density of
DHW, 1000 kg/m3; tDHW is the temperature of DHW, 45 ◦ C; tC is the
mains water temperature, as shown in Fig. 3.
2.2. System description
Fig. 3 shows the schematics of the conventional SAGSHP system and
the novel SAGSHP- GTES system. For the SAGSHP system, the SC and
GSHP are connected in parallel to the LWT and heat it. The heating of
the SC to the LWT is achieved by controlling the P1, and the P1 is
Fig. 2. Daily DHW consumption.
3
Energy Conversion and Management 288 (2023) 117179
activated when the difference (ΔtSC, LWT) between the water tempera­
ture in the SC (tSC) and the water temperature of the LWT (tLWT) is
greater than 6 ◦ C, until the P1 is switched off when ΔtSC, LWT is <2 ◦ C. To
protect the LWT, the tLWT is allowed to heat up to 80 ◦ C. The heating of
the GSHP to the LWT is achieved by controlling the GSHP, P2 and P3.
The GSHP, P2 and P3 are switched on when tLWT is below 48 ◦ C, and
switched off until the tLWT is above 48 ◦ C. The function of the diverter is
to divide the mains water into two parts, with part entering the LWT and
the other mixing with the hot water flowing out of the LWT, thus
keeping the DHW temperature at 45 ◦ C.
In contrast to the conventional SAGSHP system, the SAGSHP-GTES
system has an additional SWT unit, as shown in Fig. 3. To maximize
the utilization of solar energy, increase the efficiency and eliminate the
soil temperature imbalance, the SAGSHP- GTES system has ten oper­
ating modes, as shown in Fig. 4, and detailed descriptions of them are
shown below.
Mode 1: The SC is connected to the LWT, and the condenser of the
GSHP is connected to the SWT. The SC and GSHP operate together to
heat the LWT.
Mode 2: The SC is connected to the LWT, and the condenser of the
GSHP is connected to the BHE and absorbs heat from the soil. The SC and
GSHP operate together to heat the LWT.
Mode 3: The SC is connected to the LWT, and the GSHP is switched
off. The SC operates alone to heat the LWT.
Mode 4: The SC is connected to the SWT to heat it, and the condenser
of the GSHP is connected to the SWT to heat the LWT.
Mode 5: The SC is connected to the SWT to heat it, and the condenser
of the GSHP is connected to the BHE and absorbs heat from the soil to
heat the LWT.
Mode 6: The SC is connected to the SWT to heat it, and the GSHP is
switched off.
Mode 7: The SC is connected to the BHE through the PHE, and the
condenser of the GSHP is connected to the SWT. The SC operates to heat
the soil and GSHP operates to heat the LWT.
Mode 8: The SC is connected to the BHE through the PHE to heat the
soil, and the GSHP is switched off.
Mode 9: The condenser of the GSHP is connected to the SWT to heat
the LWT, and the SC is switched off.
Mode 10: The condenser of the GSHP is connected to the BHE and
absorbs heat from the soil to heat the LWT, and the SC is switched off.
To better demonstrate the operating principle of the SAGSHP-GTES
system, Fig. 5 shows the combination mechanism of the ten operating
modes. The SC can be connected in three ways: (1) When the solar ra­
diation is abundant, the SC is connected to the LWT in priority. (2) When
there is insufficient solar radiation or the tLWT is above 80 ◦ C, the SC is
connected to the SWT. (3) When the solar radiation is weak or when tLWT
and the water temperature of the SWT (tSWT) are above 80 ◦ C, the SC is
connected to the BHE through the PHE. In addition, the GSHP operates
in two different ways: (1) When the difference (ΔtLWT, S) between tSWT
and the soil temperature (tS) is higher than 5 ◦ C, the condenser of the
GSHP is connected to the SWT and absorbs heat from it. (2) When ΔtLWT,
S is lower than 5 C, the condenser of the GSHP is connected to the BHE
◦
and absorbs heat from the soil.
The control strategies of the SAGSHP-GTES system are presented in
Table 1, and the control parameters are described in detail as follows.
kSC, LWT is the connection signal between the SC and LWT. When ΔtSC,
LWT greater than 6 C and tLWT < 80 C, kSC, LWT = 1, then the P1 is
◦ ◦
activated, and the SC is connected to the LWT and heats it, until kSC, LWT
= 0 when ΔtSC, LWT < 2 ◦ C or tLWT ≥ 80 ◦ C, then the P1 is switched off.
kSC, SWT is the connection signal between the SC and SWT. When the
difference (ΔtSC, SWT) between tSC and the water temperature of the SWT
(tSWT) is greater than 6 ◦ C and tLWT < 80 ◦ C, kSC, SWT = 1, until kSC, SWT =
0 when ΔtSC, LWT < 2 ◦ C or tSWT ≥ 80 ◦ C. When kSC, LWT = 0 and kSC, SWT
= 1, the P1 is activated, and the SC is connected to the SWT and heats it.
kSC, S is the connection signal between the SC and BHE. When the
difference (ΔtSC, S) between tSC and the soil temperature (tS) is greater
Z. Zheng et al. Energy Conversion and Management 288 (2023) 117179

Fig. 3. Schematics of SAGSHP system and SAGSHP- GTES system.

than 20 ◦ C, kSC, S = 1, until kSC, S = 0 when ΔtSC, S < 20 ◦ C. When kSC, LWT
= 0, kSC, SWT = 0 and kSC, S = 1, the P1 and P4 are activated, and the SC is
connected to the BHE through the PHE and heats the soil. It should be
noted that when the condenser of the GSHP is connected to the BHE for
LWT heating, kSC, S = 0.
kGSHP is the control signal of the GSHP. When tLWT < 48 ◦ C, kGSHP =
1, until kGSHP = 0 when tLWT > 52 ◦ C. When kGSHP = 1 and tSWT ≥ tS, the
GSHP, P2 and P3 is activated to heat the LWT, and the condenser of the
GSHP is connected to the SWT. When kGSHP = 1 and tSWT < tS, the GSHP,
P2 and P4 is activated to heat the LWT, and the condenser of the GSHP is
connected to the BHE.
The GSHP was modeled by the Type 927 module and its rated
heating capacity was determined by the hot water load. The COP of the
GSHP in heating mode varies according to the inlet source water tem­
perature (tin, source) and the inlet sink water temperature (tin, sink) [54],
which was obtained from the manufacturer, as shown in Fig. 6.
The BHE was modeled by the Type 557a module and the borehole
volume (Vb) was calculated by Eq. (4). The variation of soil temperature
around the BHE during the heat exchange process can be found in the
literature [55].
Vb = πNH(0.525B)2 (4)

Where N is the number of boreholes; H is the depth of boreholes, m; B is

2.3. TRNSYS model the distance between two boreholes, m.

In this study, the SAGSHP-GTES system was modeled by the TRNSYS 2.4. Performance analysis
18 software [50]. The TRNSYS model mainly consisted of the SC, GSHP,
LWT/SWT, PHE, BHE, pump, mixer, diverter, weather data, aquastat The thermal efficiency of the SC (ηSC) was calculated by Eq. (5).
and on/off differential controller, as shown in Table 2. In addition, a
TRNSYS model of the SAGSHP system was developed to compare the ηSC =
QSC
(5)
performance of the SAGSHP system with that of the SAGSHP-GTES A × ISC
system. Table 3 shows the main characteristics of the two systems.
The Type 1b module in the TRNSYS software was utilized to simulate Where QSC is the heat collected by SC, kJ; ISC is the amount of solar
the SC, and its mathematical model can be referred to the literature [51]. irradiation incident per unit area of the SC, kJ/m2.
The area (A) of the SC was calculated by the national design standard for The COP of the GSHP (COPGSHP) was calculated by Eq. (6), and the
solar heating systems in China [52], as shown in Eq. (2). overall COP (COPsys) of the SAGSHP system and SAGSHP- GTES system
was calculated by Eq. (7).
86400 × QDHW × f
A= (2) QGSHP
J × ηSC × (1 − ηL) COPGSHP = (6)
PGSHP
Where f is the recommended solar fraction, 40%; J is the average daily
QDHW
tilted surface solar irradiance, kJ/m2; ηSC is the thermal efficiency of the COPsys = (7)
PP + PGSHP
SC, 40%; ηL is the heat loss factor; 20%.
The Type 534 module was utilized to simulate the HWT and CWT, Where PP is the power consumed by the pump, kJ; PGSHP is the power
which was divided into multiple layers in the vertical direction, and consumed by the GSHP, kJ.
each layer was regarded as a node with uniform temperature [53]. The
volume of the LWT (VLWT) was calculated by Eq. (3), and the volume of 3. Results and discussion
the SWT was taken as half of VLWT.
VLWT = A × B (3) 3.1. Model validation

Where B is the daily DHW production per unit area of SC, 60 L/m2. Chen [56] tested a GSHP hot water system on three typical days (17

4
Z. Zheng et al.
Fig. 4. Schematics of ten operation modes for the SAGSHP-GTES system.
September 2012, 15 November 2012 and 9 January 2013), which was
used to supply DHW to a dormitory in Changsha. The GSHP system
consisted of LWT, GSHP and BHE, etc., as shown in Fig. 7, and its
operation mode was the same as mode 10 (Fig. 4(j)) of the SAGSHP-
GTES system. The detailed control strategy and characteristics of the
GSHP system can be obtained from the literature [56].
Fig. 8 shows the hourly ambient temperature and DHW consumption
for the three test days. The ambient temperature of the three typical days
ranged from 25 ◦ C to 35 ◦ C, 12 ◦ C to 18 ◦ C and − 2 ◦ C to 7 ◦ C respec­
tively, with significant summer, spring, and winter weather character­
istics. The GSHP hot water system was modeled by TRNSYS and the
simulated results were compared with the measured values, as shown in
Fig. 9. It can be seen that the decrease in ambient temperature caused
the operating hours of the heat pump to increase from 7 h (17 September
2012) to 11 h (9 January 2013). In addition, the error between the
simulated and tested values was minor during the operating hours (12 h
to 24 h) of the GSHP, while the system was turned off (3 h to 11 h), the
lack of pipe insulation between the GSHP to the LWT and the delay in
system operation caused large errors. Overall, the simulated values were
consistent with the same trend as the measured values, therefore the
simulation based on the TRNSYS software can be considered accurate.
5
Energy Conversion and Management 288 (2023) 117179
3.2. Analysis of the utilization of solar energy in the conventional
SAGSHP system
Based on the TRNSYS 18.0 platform, the DHW load, the incident
solar irradiance of the SC and the heat collected by the SC of the SAGSHP
system were simulated, as shown in Fig. 10. From a year-round
perspective, the conventional SAGSHP system showed two drawbacks.
Firstly, there was a seasonal mismatch between DHW load and solar
irradiance. From January to December, the DHW load decreased and
then increased, while the solar irradiance showed an opposite trend. In
January, the DHW load reached a maximum value of 27,948 kWh, while
the solar irradiance showed a minimum of 14,094 kWh. In July and
August, the abundant solar resources were wasted as students left school
during the summer vacation (1 July to 31 August).
In addition, a seasonal mismatch existed between the ηSC of the
system and the DHW load. In January with the highest DHW load, the
heat collected by the SC in January was 1,902 kWh and the ηSC was only
13.5%, while in June the heat collected by the SC was 10,022 kWh and
the ηSC reached 33.2%. This was because in the all-day hot water supply
system, the GSHP kept the tLWT at about 50 ◦ C, and the weak solar
irradiance in winter made it difficult to heat the LWT, which resulted in
Z. Zheng et al. Energy Conversion and Management 288 (2023) 117179

Fig. 5. Combination mechanism of ten operating modes of the SAGSHP-GTES system.

Table 1 Table 3
Control Strategies of the SAGSHP-GTES system. Main characteristics of the SAGSHP system and SAGSHP-GTES system.
Conditions kSC, LWT kSC, LWT = 0 Vacation; Name Characteristic
=1 kSC, SWT kSC, SWT = 0 kSC, S = 1
Flat-plate solar collector (SC)
=1 kSC, S = kSC, S =
Area 280 m2
1 0
Orientation South
kGSHP tSWT-tS ≥ Mode 1 Mode 4 Mode 7 Mode 9 / Tilted angle Local latitude (28◦ )
=1 5 ◦C Water tank (LWT/SWT)
Typology Vertical cylindrical storage tank
tSWT-tS < Mode 2 Mode 5 / Mode /
Heat loss coefficient 5 kJ/(h⋅m2⋅K)
5 ◦C 10
Volume LWT: 16.8 m3
kGSHP = 0 Mode 3 Mode 6 Mode 8 / Mode 8
SWT: 6.4 m3
Pump of SC (P1)
Nominal flow rate 20,160 L/h
Nominal power 2016 W
Table 2
Ground source heat pump (GSHP)
TRNSYS components used in the SAGSHP system and SAGSHP-
Manufacture Daikin
GTES system model. Rated heating capacity 242 kW
Name Component Rated power 65 kW
Pump of GSHP (P2, P3 and P4)
Flat-plate solar collector Type 1b Nominal flow rate 38,755 L/h
Ground source heat pump Type 927 Nominal power 3875 W
LWT/SWT Type 534 Borehole heat exchanger (BHE)
Plate heat exchanger Type 91 Borehole depth 60 m
Borehole heat exchanger Type 557a Number of boreholes 56
Pump Type 114 Horizontal Header depth 1m
Mixer Type 11 h Borehole radius 0.055 m
Diverter Type 11f Soil thermal conductivity 1.5 W/(m⋅K)
Weather data Type 15–6 Soil heat capacity 2500 kJ/(m3⋅K)
Aquastat Type 106 Outer radius of the u-tube pipe 0.01265 m
On/off differential controller Type 165 Inner radius of the u-tube pipe 0.01250 m
Water consumption Type 9e Center-to-center half distance 0.03 m
Fill thermal conductivity 1.3 W/(m⋅K)
Pipe thermal conductivity 0.465 W/(m⋅K)
a low ηSC. In summer with the strong solar irradiance, the DHW con­ Plate heat exchanger (PHE)
sumption occurred mostly at night and the storage capacity of the LWT Coefficient of heat transfer 4.5 kW/(m2⋅K)
was limited, which likewise resulted in the waste of solar resources. Area 6 m2

Through the above analysis, the conventional SAGSHP system

showed a low ηSC. There were two critical aspects to improve solar en­
ergy utilization, one was to enhance the utilization of weak solar irra­
diance and the other was to increase the utilization of excessive solar
irradiance.
3.3. Performance of the SAGSHP-GTES system in the first year
Fig. 11 shows the operating time of each mode of the SAGSHP-GTES
system in the first year. In terms of the running time throughout the
year, the SAGSHP-GTES system mainly operated in five modes: mode 3,
mode 6, mode 8, mode 9 and mode 10. A common feature of these five
modes was that the SC and the GSHP were not running simultaneously.
This was due to the fact that GSHP mainly operated at night, while SC
could only work during the daytime. From January to December, the
operating hours of mode 3, mode 6 mode 8 and mode 9 increased and
then decreased, and that of mode 10 decreased and then increased. This
was because more heat was collected by the SC into the LWT, SWT and

6
Z. Zheng et al. Energy Conversion and Management 288 (2023) 117179

soil as the solar irradiance increased, while the GSHP was more
dependent on taking heat from the SWT when heating the LWT. In
addition, during the winter and summer vacations (February, July and
August), there was no DHW demand in the dormitory, thus the SAGSHP-
GTES system operated only by mode 8.
Fig. 12 shows the schematic of the energy transfer of the SAGSHP-
GTES system. In the first year, the SC collected a total of 132,115kWh
of solar energy, which transferred 40,585 kWh to the LWT, 45,287 kWh
to the SWT and 46,243 kWh to the soil. The GSHP absorbed 42,340 kWh
of heat from the SWT and 75,909 kWh of heat from the soil in heating
the LWT. It can be seen that the SAGSHP-GTES system increased the
utilization of solar energy while supplementing the soil with heat.
To better illustrate the energy transfer of the SAGSHP-GTES system,
the energy balances of the SC, SWT, GSHP and LWT were analyzed, as
shown in Fig. 13. From January to December, the solar energy collected
by the SC increased and then decreased (Fig. 13(a)), while the heat
transferred to the SWT and LWT also showed the same variation (Fig. 13
(b) and (d)). During the winter and summer vacations (February, July
and August), all the solar energy collected by SC was transferred to the
soil. In addition, the energy extracted from the soil by the GSHP was
Fig. 6. The COP of the GSHP in heating mode.
17,137 kWh in January, while in June and September, it was only 2,511
kWh and 2,219 kWh (Fig. 13(c)), respectively. This was mainly attrib­
uted to the fact that the excess solar energy was stored in the SWT when
the solar irradiance was strong, and the GSHP heated the SWT by
extracting the energy from the SWT.
Fig. 14 shows the COPsys, COPGSHP and ηSC of the SAGSHP-GTES
system in the first year. From January to December, the COPsys and
COPGSHP increased and then decreased, reaching a maximum of 6.25
kW/kW for the COPsys and 3.75 kW/kW for the COPGSHP in September.
This was consistent with the variation trend of solar irradiance (Fig. 10).
There were two connection types on the source side of the GSHP,
respectively to the LWT and the BHE (Fig. 3), with values of 4.1–4.32
kW/kW for the COPGSHP, SWT (the GSHP linked to the SWT) and
3.1–3.31 kW/kW for the COPGSHP, BHE (the GSHP linked to the BHE). The
strong solar irradiance in May, June, September and October directly
increased the COPsys, and the GSHP preferred to operate connected to
the SWT, thus increasing the COPGSHP. Overall, the ηSC ranged from 24%
to 51% and the SAGSHP-GTES system showed an excellent performance
with an average COPsys of 3.77 kW/kW in the first year.

3.4. Comparison of the SAGSHP and SAGSHP-GTES system

Fig. 7. Schematics of the GSHP hot water system. Fig. 15 shows the comparison of the ηSC, soil temperature, electricity
consumption and COP of the SAGSHP system and SAGSHP-GTES system.
For the conventional SAGSHP system, the efficiency of solar energy
utilization was weak, with an ηSC of only around 19.4%, due to the de­
ficiencies in its structure and control method. In addition, due to the
long-term heat extraction from the soil by the GSHP, the soil tempera­
ture near the BHE decreased from 18.1 ◦ C to 2.78 ◦ C after 15 years of
operation (Fig. 15(b)), which resulted in a decrease in the annual COPsys
from 3.18 kW/kW to 2.59 kW/kW and the annual COPGSHP from 3 kW/
kW to 2.34 kW/kW (Fig. 15(d)), and an increase in the annual electricity
consumption from 61,021 kWh to 75,493 kWh (Fig. 15(c)).
For the SAGSHP-GTES system, the SC preferred to supply heat to the
LWT, followed by the SWT and finally the soil. By controlling the heat
collection of the SC and the graded utilization of solar energy, the ηSC
was increased and the problem of soil temperature reduction was
simultaneously solved. After 15 years of operation, the SAGSHP-GTES
system demonstrated a high ηSC, maintaining around 42.7% (Fig. 15
(a)), while the soil temperature increased from 18.1 ◦ C to 19.9 ◦ C
(Fig. 15(b)), which led to an increase in COPsys from 3.77 kW/kW to
3.84 kW/kW and COPGSHP from 3.45 kW/kW to 3.5 kW/kW (Fig. 15(c)),
and a decrease in electricity consumption from 51,746 kWh to 50,735
Fig. 8. Hourly ambient temperature and DHW consumption for three test days.
kWh (Fig. 15(c)).
The results in Fig. 15 were compared with the studies of Zhu [57],
Liu [58], Ji [59] and Zhou [36], as presented in Table 4. Their study

7
Z. Zheng et al. Energy Conversion and Management 288 (2023) 117179

Fig. 9. Comparison of simulated and measured values.

Fig. 10. Monthly DHW load, incident solar irradiance of SC and heat collected
Fig. 11. Operating time of each mode of the SAGSHP-GTES system in the
by SC of the SAGSHP system.
first year.

8
Z. Zheng et al. Energy Conversion and Management 288 (2023) 117179

Fig. 12. Schematic of the energy transfer of the SAGSHP-GTES system in its first year.

Fig. 13. Energy balance of the SAGSHP-GTES system in the first year.

showed that GSHP systems in cities where the total heating load was
greater than the total cooling load showed a decrease in soil temperature
after a period of operation (10.6 ◦ C in Liu’s study [57], 8.7 ◦ C in Dalian
[59] and 15.4 ◦ C in Changsha [36]), which in turn led to a decrease in
COPGSHP. In contrast, for the SAGSHP system, despite the solar heat
supplementation to the system, the soil temperature decreased (1.1 ◦ C in
Dalian [59] and 9.9 ◦ C in Changsha [36]), similarly causing COPGSHP to
decrease. This is consistent with the conclusion reached in this paper
that soil temperature decreased from 18.1 ◦ C to 2.78 ◦ C and COPGSHP
decreased from 3 kW/kW to 2.34 kW/kW after 15 years of operation
(Fig. 15). In addition, Zhou’s study [36] showed that the SAGSHP sys­
tem with seasonal thermal energy storage (STES) significantly slowed
down the soil temperature decline trend, but the COPGSHP still decreased
by 0.03 kW/kW, while the SAGSHP-GTES system proposed in this paper
was more efficient, with the COPGSHP increasing from 3.45 kW/kW to
3.5 kW/kW after 15 years of operation.
These findings indicated that in conventional SAGSHP systems, the
solar collectors can only heat the water tank with intense solar radiation,

9
Z. Zheng et al.
Fig. 14. COPsys, COPGSHP and ηSC of the SAGSHP-GTES system in the first year.
wasting moderate and weak solar resources, which resulted in an un­
derutilization of solar energy and a low ηSC. In addition, the COPsys
decreased year by year due to the long-term extraction of heat from the
soil. In contrast, the SAGSHP-GTES system proposed in this paper could
solve the appeal problem and improve system efficiency by properly
controlling the SC, utilizing solar energy according to the intensity
gradient of solar irradiance, and supplementing heat to the soil.
Therefore, the SAGSHP-GTES system was a more energy-efficient form
of DHW supply.
3.5. Feasibility of the SAGSHP-GTES system in different climatic zones of
China
There are five climate zones in China, respectively, severe cold zones,
cold zones, hot summer and cold winter zones, mild zones and hot
summer and warm winter zones [36]. Previous studies showed that the
Fig. 15. Comparison of the SAGSHP system and SAGSHP-GTES system.
10
Energy Conversion and Management 288 (2023) 117179
GSHP absorbed heat from the soil over a long period of time and there
was a risk of freezing of the circulating fluid in the BHE, making it un­
suitable for application in severe cold zones and cold zones. However,
the SAGSHP-GTES system proposed in this paper could enhance the
utilization of solar energy and recharge heat to the soil, potentially
eliminating the above risk. Changsha has typical hot summer and cold
winter climate characteristics, and the performance of the SAGSHP-
GTES system in Changsha had been thoroughly analyzed in the previ­
ous section. To explore the feasibility of the SAGSHP-GTES system in
four other climate zones of China, its performance in Harbin (severe cold
zone), Beijing (cold zone), Kunming (mild zone) and Guangzhou (hot
summer and warm winter zone) was simulated and compared with that
of the conventional SAGSHP system. Table 5 shows the main charac­
teristics of the SAGSHP system and SAGSHP-GTES system in the above
four cities.
Fig. 16 shows the comparison of the SAGSHP system and SAGSHP-
GTES system in Harbin, Beijing, Kunming and Guangzhou. An impor­
tant assumption was that once the soil temperature near the BHE fell
below 0 ◦ C, the system was considered unsuitable for operation in this
city. The SAGSHP system was not feasible in Harbin and Beijing, where
soil temperatures dropped below 0 ◦ C in the second year and the eighth
year, respectively, and freezing of the circulating fluid occurred. For the
SAGSHP-GTES system, after 15 years of operation, the soil temperature
increased from 5.56 ◦ C to 16.46 ◦ C in Harbin and from 12.89 ◦ C to
19.63 ◦ C in Beijing, indicating the feasibility of this system. Further­
more, the system showed great performance in Harbin and Beijing, with
the COPsys of 4.31–4.67 kW/kW and COPGSHP of 3.38–3.59 kW/kW in
Harbin (Fig. 16(a)) and COPsys of 4.78–5.03 kW/kW and COPGSHP of
3.6–3.72 kW/kW in Beijing (Fig. 16(b)) .
In Kunming and Guangzhou, although there was no risk of freezing of
the circulating fluid in the SAGSHP system, there was a drop in soil
temperature and degradation of the system performance due to the long-
term heat extraction from the soil by the GSHP. As shown in Fig. 16(c)
Z. Zheng et al. Energy Conversion and Management 288 (2023) 117179

Table 4 Table 5
Comparison of the results of this paper with the studies of Zhu [57], Liu [58], Ji Main characteristics of the SAGSHP system and SAGSHP-GTES system in Harbin,
[59] and Zhou [36]. Beijing, Kunming and Guangzhou.
Location System Usage Operating Results Source City Harbin Beijing Kunming Guangzhou
years
Climate zone Severe Cold Mild Hot summer
Tianjin SAGSHP Building 3 COPGSHP [57] cold and warm
heating decreased from winter
and 4.21 kW/kW to Latitude/◦ 45 40 25 23
cooling 4.12 kW/kW. Solar irradiance /MJ/ 5844 5669 6131 4378
/ GSHP Building 10 Soil temperature [58] (m2⋅yr)
heating decreased from Average ambient 5.56 12.89 15.77 22.95
17.5 ◦ C to 6.9 ◦ C; temperature/◦ C
COPGSHP Average mains water 7.6 15.1 18.9 24.5
decreased from temperature/◦ C
3.5 kW/kW to Area of SC/m2 350 288 257 206
3.25 kW/kW. Volume of LWT/ m3 21 17.3 15.4 12.3
Dalian GSHP Building 10 Soil temperature [59] Rated heating capacity of 274 219 192 151
heating decreased from GSHP/kW
and 14.4 ◦ C to 5.7 ◦ C; Volume of SWT/ m3 10.5 8.7 7.7 6.2
cooling COPGSHP Boreholes number of BHE 83 66 58 46
decreased from
2.56 kW/kW to
2.29 kW/kW. COPGSHP of 3.62–3.65 kW/kW in Guangzhou (Fig. 16(d)). It should be
SAGSHP Soil temperature explained that due to the weak solar radiation in Guangzhou, the soil
decreased from
14.4 ◦ C to
temperature of the SAGSHP-GTES system decreased by 0.75 ◦ C after 15
13.3 ◦ C; COPGSHP years of operation, despite the solar energy supplement to the soil, and
decreased from its impact on the COPsys was negligible (Fig. 16(d)).
2.56 kW/kW to In summary, the conventional SAGSHP system was not feasible in
2.51 kW/kW.
severe cold zones (Harbin) and cold zones (Beijing) of China due to the
Changsha GSHP DHW 15 Soil temperature [36]
supply decreased from soil temperature near the BHE fell below 0 ◦ C, while in hot summer and
18.1 ◦ C to 2.7 ◦ C; cold winter zones (Changsha), mild zones (Kunming) and hot summer
COPGSHP and warm winter zones (Guangzhou), after long periods of operation, a
decreased from drop in soil temperature occurred, which in turn led to a reduction in the
2.73 kW/kW to
2.23 kW/kW.
system efficiency. However, for the SAGSHP-GTES system, it was
SAGSHP Soil temperature feasible in all climate zones of China due to the injection of excess solar
decreased from energy into the soi. In addition, the SAGSHP-GTES system showed
18.1 ◦ C to 8.2 ◦ C; excellent performance in all climate zones of China because it utilized
COPGSHP
moderate and weak solar resources to enhance the utilization of solar
decreased from
2.73 kW/kW to energy. In conclusion, the SAGSHP-GTES system proposed in this paper
2.36 kW/kW. is a feasible and efficient technology for hot water supply.
SAGSHP Soil temperature
with increased from 4. Conclusions
STES 18.1 ◦ C to
17.5 ◦ C; COPGSHP
increased from Conventional SAGSHP systems suffered from low solar energy utili­
2.79 kW/kW to zation and reduction of soil temperature, which limited the large-scale
2.76 kW/kW. application of SAGSHP systems. To address the appeal issues, a
Changsha SAGSHP DHW 15 Soil temperature Fig. 14
SAGSHP-GTES system was proposed, and its performance and feasibility
supply decreased from
18.1 ◦ C to were investigated through a case study of hot water supply in a campus
2.78 ◦ C; COPGSHP dormitory in Changsha, China. The drawbacks of solar energy utilization
decreased from in the conventional SAGSHP system were analyzed by TRNSYS simula­
3 kW/kW to tion. Then, the performance of the SAGSHP-GTES system was evaluated
2.34 kW/kW.
SAGSHP- 15 Soil temperature
by one-year and fifteen-year simulations and compared with the
GTES increased from SAGSHP system in depth. Finally, the feasibility and performance of the
18.1 ◦ C to SAGSHP-GTES system in all climate zones of China were analyzed. The
19.9 ◦ C; COPGSHP main conclusions are as follows:
increased from
3.45 kW/kW to
3.5 kW/kW. ● The lack of utilization of solar energy in the conventional SAGSHP
systems was due to two main causes. Firstly, there was a seasonal
mismatch between DHW load and solar irradiance. From January to
and (d), after 15 years of operation of the SAGSHP system, the soil December, the DHW load decreased and then increased, while the
temperature decreased from 15.77 ◦ C to 0.6 ◦ C, COPsys from 5.44 kW/ solar irradiance showed an opposite trend. In addition, there was a
kW to 3 kW/kW and COPGSHP from 2.93 kW/kW to 2.45 kW/kW in seasonal mismatch between the ηSC and DHW load. In January with
Kunming, while in Guangzhou, the soil temperature decreased from the highest DHW load, the heat collected by the SC was 1,902 kWh
22.95 ◦ C to 4.77 ◦ C, COPsys from 2.85 kW/kW to 2.25 kW/kW and and the ηSC was only 13.5%, while in June the heat collected by the
COPGSHP from 3.11 kW/kW to 2.42 kW/kW. In contrast, the SAGSHP- SC was 10,022 kWh and the ηSC reached 33.2%.
GTES system performed better than the conventional SAGSHP system ● The SAGSHP-GTES system showed excellent performance in its first
by far, with the COPsys of 5.44–5.71 kW/kW and COPGSHP of 3.72–3.82 year of operation, with an average COPsys of 3.77 kW/kW. From
kW/kW in Kunming (Fig. 16(c)) and COPsys of 4.42–4.4 kW/kW and January to December, the ηSC ranged from 24% to 51%, and the

11
Z. Zheng et al. Energy Conversion and Management 288 (2023) 117179

Fig. 16. Comparison of the SAGSHP system and SAGSHP-GTES system in Harbin, Beijing, Kunming and Guangzhou.

12
Z. Zheng et al.
COPsys and COPGSHP increased and then decreased, reaching a
maximum in September with COPsys at 6.25 kW/kW and COPGSHP
at 3.75 kW/kW.
● The efficiency of solar energy utilization in the conventional SAGSHP
system was poor, with an average annual ηSC of only around 19.4%.
Furthermore, after 15 years of operation, the soil temperature near
the BHE decreased from 18.1 ◦ C to 2.78 ◦ C, which resulted in a
decrease in the annual COPsys from 3.18 kW/kW to 2.59 kW/kW and
the annual COPGSHP from 3 kW/kW to 2.34 kW/kW, and an increase
in the annual electricity consumption from 61,021 kWh to 75,493
kWh.
● By controlling the heat collection of the SC and the graded utilization
of the solar energy in the SAGSHP-GTES system, a high ηSC of around
42.7% was obtained, which also eliminated the problem of soil
temperature reduction. After 15 years of operation, the soil tem­
perature increased from 18.1 ◦ C to 19.9 ◦ C, which led to an increase
in COPsys from 3.77 kW/kW to 3.84 kW/kW and in COPGSHP from
3.45 kW/kW to 3.5 kW/kW and a reduction in electricity con­
sumption from 51,746 kWh to 50,735 kWh.
● The conventional SAGSHP system was not feasible in the severe cold
zones (Harbin) and cold zones (Beijing) of China, where soil tem­
peratures fell below 0 ◦ C and freezing of the circulating fluid
occurred in the second year and eighth year of operation respec­
tively. In addition, in hot summer and cold winter zones (Changsha),
mild zones (Kunming) and hot summer and warm winter zones
(Guangzhou), a drop in soil temperature occurred after a long period
of operation, which in turn led to a reduction in system efficiency.
However, the SAGSHP-GTES system showed excellent performance
in all climatic zones of China and is a feasible and efficient tech­
nology for hot water supply.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Zhihang Zheng: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Writing – original draft, Visualization. Jin Zhou: Validation, Supervi­
sion, Project administration. Ying Yang: Supervision, Validation. Feng
Xu: Supervision, Funding acquisition. Hongcheng Liu: Supervision.
Yili Yan: Data curation.
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.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgements
This work was financially supported by National Key R&D Program
of China (2019YFD1101300).
References
[1] Dannemand M, Sifnaios I, Tian ZY, Furbo S. Simulation and optimization of a
hybrid unglazed solar photovoltaic-thermal collector and heat pump system with
two storage tanks. Energy Convers Manag 2020;206:112429.
[2] Yildirim N, Bilir L. Evaluation of a hybrid system for a nearly zero energy
greenhouse. Energy Convers Manag 2017;148:1278–90.
[3] Zhang Y, Hu S, Guo F, Mastrucci A, Zhang S, Yang Z, et al. Assessing the potential
of decarbonizing China’s building construction by 2060 and synergy with industry
sector. J Clean Prod 2022;359:132086.
[4] González-Torres M, Pérez-Lombard L, Coronel JF, Maestre IR, Yan D. A review on
buildings energy information: trends, end-uses, fuels and drivers. Energy Rep 2022;
8:626–37.
13
Energy Conversion and Management 288 (2023) 117179
[5] Zhou X, Tian S, An J, Yan D, Zhang L, Yang J. Modeling occupant behavior’s
influence on the energy efficiency of solar domestic hot water systems. Appl Energy
2022;309:118503.
[6] Hu X. The Research on Evaluation Index and the Energy Consumption Analysis of a
University in Zhejiang Province. China: Zhejiang University; 2014.
[7] Zheng Z, Zhou J, Xu F, Deng G. Solar assisted air source heat pump systems for
campus water heating in China: economic optimization of solar fraction design.
Appl Therm Eng 2022;213:118767.
[8] Emmi G, Bordignon S, Zarrella A, De Carli M. A dynamic analysis of a SAGSHP
system coupled to solar thermal collectors and photovoltaic-thermal panels under
different climate conditions. Energy Convers Manag 2020;213:112851.
[9] Esen M. Thermal performance of a solar-aided latent heat store used for space
heating by heat pump. Sol Energy 2000;69(1):15–25.
[10] Esen H, Inalli M, Sengur A, Esen M. Performance prediction of a ground-coupled
heat pump system using artificial neural networks. Expert Syst Appl 2008;35(4):
1940–8.
[11] Esen H, Inalli M, Esen M. Numerical and experimental analysis of a horizontal
ground-coupled heat pump system. Build Environ 2007;42(3):1126–34.
[12] Esen H, Inalli M, Esen M, Pihtili K. Energy and exergy analysis of a ground-coupled
heat pump system with two horizontal ground heat exchangers. Build Environ
2007;42(10):3606–15.
[13] Esen H, Inalli M, Sengur A, Esen M. Modelling a ground-coupled heat pump system
using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems. Int J Refrig 2008;31(1):65–74.
[14] Esen H, Inalli M, Sengur A, Esen M. Artificial neural networks and adaptive neuro-
fuzzy assessments for ground-coupled heat pump system. Energy Build 2008;40(6):
1074–83.
[15] Esen H, Inalli M, Esen M. Technoeconomic appraisal of a ground source heat pump
system for a heating season in eastern Turkey. Energy Convers Manag 2006;47
(9–10):1281–97.
[16] Esen H, Inalli M, Esen M. A techno-economic comparison of ground-coupled and
air-coupled heat pump system for space cooling. Build Environ 2007;42(5):
1955–65.
[17] Esen H, Inalli M, Sengur A, Esen M. Forecasting of a ground-coupled heat pump
performance using neural networks with statistical data weighting pre-processing.
Int J Therm Sci 2008;47(4):431–41.
[18] Esen H, Inalli M, Sengur A, Esen M. Modeling a ground-coupled heat pump system
by a support vector machine. Renew Energy 2008;33(8):1814–23.
[19] Esen H, Inalli M, Sengur A, Esen M. Predicting performance of a ground-source
heat pump system using fuzzy weighted pre-processing-based ANFIS. Build Environ
2008;43(12):2178–87.
[20] Esen M, Ayhan T. Development of a model compatible with solar assisted
cylindrical energy storage tank and variation of stored energy with time for
different phase change materials. Energy Convers Manag 1996;37(12):1775–85.
[21] Balbay A, Esen M. Temperature distributions in pavement and bridge slabs heated
by using vertical ground-source heat pump systems. Acta Sci-Technol 2013;35(4):
677–85.
[22] Esen M, Yuksel T. Experimental evaluation of using various renewable energy
sources for heating a greenhouse. Energy Build 2013;65:340–51.
[23] Esen M, Esen H. Experimental investigation of a two-phase closed thermosyphon
solar water heater. Sol Energy 2005;79(5):459–68.
[24] Balbay A, Esen M. Experimental investigation of using ground source heat pump
system for snow melting on pavements and bridge decks. Sci Res Essays 2010;5
(24):3955–66.
[25] Esen H, Esen M, Ozsolak O. Modelling and experimental performance analysis of
solar-assisted ground source heat pump system. J Exp Theor Artif In 2017;29(1):
1–17.
[26] Esen M, Durmuş A, Durmuş A. Geometric design of solar-aided latent heat store
depending on various parameters and phase change materials. Sol Energy 1998;62
(1):19–28.
[27] Trillat-Berdal V, Souyri B, Achard G. Coupling of geothermal heat pumps with
thermal solar collectors. Appl Therm Eng 2007;27:1750–5.
[28] Yang WB, Shi MH, Dong H. Numerical simulation of the performance of a solar-
earth source heat pump system. Appl Therm Eng 2006;26:2367–76.
[29] Rad FM, Fung AS, Leong WH. Feasibility of combined solar thermal and ground
source heat pump systems in cold climate. Canada Energ Buildings 2013;61:
224–32.
[30] Girard A, Gago EJ, Muneer T, Caceres G. Higher ground source heat pump COP in a
residential building through the use of solar thermal collectors. Renew Energ 2015;
80:26–39.
[31] Pärisch P, Mercker O, Warmuth J, Tepe R, Bertram E, Rockendorf G. Investigations
and model validation of a ground-coupled heat pump for the combination with
solar collectors. Appl Therm Eng 2014;62:375–81.
[32] Yang W, Zhang H, Liang X. Experimental performance evaluation and parametric
study of a solar-ground source heat pump system operated in heating modes.
Energy 2018;149:173–89.
[33] Verma V, Murugesan K. Optimization of solar assisted ground source heat pump
system for space heating application by Taguchi method and utility concept. Energ
Buildings 2014;82:296–309.
[34] Chen X, Yang H. Performance analysis of a proposed solar assisted ground coupled
heat pump system. Appl Energy 2012;97:888–96.
[35] Trillat-Berdal V, Souyri B, Fraisse G. Experimental study of a ground-coupled heat
pump combined with thermal solar collectors. Energ Buildings 2006;38:1477–84.
[36] Zhou J, Cui Z, Xu F, Zhang G. Performance Analysis of solar-assisted ground-
coupled heat pump systems with seasonal thermal energy storage to supply
domestic hot water for campus buildings in southern China. Sustainability 2021;
13:8344.
Z. Zheng et al.
[37] Wang H, Qi C, Wang E, Zhao J. A case study of underground thermal storage in a
solar-ground coupled heat pump system for residential buildings. Renew Energ
2009;34:307–14.
[38] Zhu Na Hu, Linghong PX, Zhangning J, Fei L. Recent research and applications of
ground source heat pump integrated with thermal energy storage systems: a
review. Appl Therm Eng 2014;71(1):142–51.
[39] Wang N, Liu K, Hu J, Wang X. Simulation of operation performance of a solar
assisted ground heat pump system with phase change thermal storage for heating
in a rural building in Xi’an. In: 4th Asia Conference of International Building
Performance Simulation Association; 2018 Dec 3-5; Hong Kong, China.
[40] Wang F, Liu Z, Li Z, Zheng M. Numerical simulation of solar ground-source heat
pump with latent heat storage. Adv Mat Res 2010;129–131:1069–73.
[41] Han Z, Zheng M, Kong F, Wang F, L Z, Bai T.. Numerical simulation of solar assisted
ground-source heat pump heating system with latent heat energy storage in
severely cold area. Appl Therm Eng 2008;28(11):1427–36.
[42] Wu L, Zheng M. Research of combined heating and cooling by solar ground-source
heat pump and PCM thermal storage. In: International Solar Energy Conference;
2005 Aug 6-12, Orlando, FL.
[43] Yang LW, Xu RJ, Hua N, Xia Y, Zhou WB, Yang T, et al. Review of the advances in
solar-assisted air source heat pumps for the domestic sector. Energy Convers
Manag 2021;247:114710.
[44] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Moschos K, Antonopoulos KA. Energetic and financial
evaluation of solar assisted heat pump space heating systems. Energy Convers
Manag 2016;120:306–19.
[45] Fine JP, Nguyen HV, Friedman J, Leong WH, Dworkin SB. A simplified ground
thermal response model for analyzing solar-assisted ground source heat pump
systems. Energy Convers Manag 2018;165:276–90.
[46] Jiang Y, Zhang H, Wang YM, Wang YR, Liu MZ, You SJ, et al. Research on the
operation strategies of the solar assisted heat pump with triangular solar air
collector. Energy 2022;246:123398.
[47] Hu Z, Geng S, Huang Y, Ge F, Wang Y. Heat storage characteristics and application
analysis of heat source tower in soil thermal balance of ground source heat pump.
Energ Buildings 2021;235:110752.
14
Energy Conversion and Management 288 (2023) 117179
[48] Razavi SH, Ahmadi R, Zahedi A. Modeling, simulation and dynamic control of solar
assisted ground source heat pump to provide heating load and DHW. Appl Therm
Eng 2018;129:127–44.
[49] Zhou J, Yin X, Yin S, Wang Z, Xu F. Research on the behavior characterization of
domestic hot water utilization of college students. Water Wastewater Eng. 2017; 53
(05):91–95. China.
[50] Chargui R, Awani S. Determining of the optimal design of a closed loop solar dual
source heat pump system coupled with a residential building application. Energy
Convers Manag 2017;147:40–54.
[51] Ruiz E, Martinez PJ. Analysis of an open-air swimming pool solar heating system
by using an experimentally validated TRNSYS model. Sol Energy 2010;84:116–23.
[52] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of
China, General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine
of the People’s Republic of China. Technical code for solar heating: GB / 50495-
2019. China; 2019.
[53] Cervera-Vázquez J, Montagud-Montalvá C, Corberán JM. Sizing of the buffer tank
in chilled water distribution air-conditioning systems. Sci Technol Built Environ
2016;22:290–8.
[54] Zheng Z, Zhou J, Xu F, Zhang R, Deng G. Integrated operation of PV assisted
ground source heat pump and air source heat pump system: performance analysis
and economic optimization. Energy Convers Manag 2022;269:116091.
[55] Liu Z, Li Y, Xu W, Yin H, Gao J, Jin G, et al. Performance and feasibility study of
hybrid ground source heat pump system assisted with cooling tower for one office
building based on one Shanghai case. Energy 2019;173:28–37.
[56] Chen D. The operation simulation and design optimization study of soil source heat
pump hot water system. China: Hunan University; 2013.
[57] Zhu N, Wang J, Liu L. Performance evaluation before and after solar seasonal
storage coupled with ground source heat pump. Energy Convers Manag 2015;103:
924–33.
[58] Liu Z, Xu W, Zhai X, Qian C, Chen X. Feasibility and performance study of the
hybrid ground-source heat pump system for one office building in Chinese heating
dominated areas. Renew Energ 2017;101:1131–40.
[59] Ji Y, Duanmu L, Li X, Airaksinen M, Wang Z. Simplified method to determine the
collector area of solar-assisted ground-source heat pump system. Procedia Eng
2017;205:1138–45.