Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115914

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

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

Performance evaluation of ground source heat pump using linear and T

nonlinear regressions and artificial neural networks
⁎ ⁎
Xinjie Xua, Jinxiang Liua, Yu Wanga, , Jinjun Xub,c, , Jun Baoa
a
College of Urban Construction, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 210009, PR China
b
College of Civil Engineering, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 211816, PR China
c
International Joint Research Center for Comprehensive Protection of Engineering Structures, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 211816, PR China

H I GH L IG H T S

• An experimental database containing influential parameters and heat transfer capacity was compiled using literature-based data collection and on-site mea-
surement.
• Linear and nonlinear regression models were adopted to evaluate the heat transfer performance of GSHP.
• BP neural networks were employed to develop a prediction model for evaluation of heat transfer capacity of GSHP.
• A parametric analysis using the trained ANN model was conducted to predict the trend of heat transfer capacity as a function of each parameter.

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Ground source heat pump (GSHP) systems have been widely used in both Northern Europe and China and have
Ground source heat pump received a large amount of research attention due to their role in heat exchange of heating and cooling indoor
Heat transfer performance temperature. Previous investigations have demonstrated that numerous design parameters have remarkable
Linear regression, nonlinear regression influences on the heat transfer performance of GSHP. Moreover, it is found that the design-ordinated provisions
Artificial neural networks
are not available for the direct prediction of the heat transfer performance of GSHP. To this end, this paper
Parameter analysis
presents three numerical approaches (i.e., linear regression, nonlinear regression and artificial neural networks)
to evaluate the heat transfer rate of GSHP regarding the fixed variables. An experimental database of GSHP
applied in China is first collected containing 79 test results measured by authors and 33 experimental mea-
surements from available literatures. Aiming to obtain the prediction models with high accuracy, the extensive
and important variables (i.e., soil thermal conductivity, vertical well depth, well diameter, U-tube thickness,
water flow rate and water temperature difference) reported in all test programs of the compiled experimental
database are then set as the input parameters in the numerical approaches. The results show that the developed
artificial neural networks (ANN) can provide more accurate predictions on the tested heat transfer rate of GSHP
compared to the linear and nonlinear regressions. Finally, the trained ANN model is employed to conduct the
parameter study to predict the influence of the input variables on the heat transfer rate and heat transfer rate
variation of GSHP. The evaluation results demonstrate that increasing the well diameter and the U-tube
thickness can lead to decrease the heat transfer rate of GSHP, whilst other variables (i.e., soil thermal con-
ductivity, vertical well depth, water flow rate and water temperature difference) have an improvement in the
heat transfer rate of GSHP.

1. Introduction
Ground source heat pump (GSHP) is a system that transfers low-
grade thermal energy to high-grade thermal energy by inputting a small
amount of high-grade energy (e.g., electrical energy and solar energy)
to stimulate the underground latent heat [1]. GSHP was originated in
Northern Europe [2] and has been largely used in China due to its
energy-saving technology [3–6]. It is widely accepted that the use of
GSHP can promote the development of renewable and clean energy,
and the function of GSHP is to heat and cool indoor temperature, that

⁎
Corresponding authors at: College of Urban Construction, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 210009, PR China (Y. Wang). College of Civil Engineering, Nanjing
Tech University, Nanjing 211816, PR China (J. Xu).
E-mail addresses: yu-wang@njtech.edu.cn (Y. Wang), jjxu_concrete@njtech.edu.cn (J. Xu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.115914
Received 20 January 2020; Received in revised form 3 July 2020; Accepted 12 August 2020
Available online 19 August 2020
1359-4311/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Xu, et al.
Nomenclature
bj Offset error of the j-th neuron
Ci regression coefficient corresponding to xi
C6+i regression coefficients in quadratic terms
C11+i regression coefficients in quadratic terms
C15+i regression coefficients in quadratic terms
C18+i regression coefficients in quadratic terms
C20+i regression coefficients in quadratic terms
C21+i regression coefficients in quadratic terms
Cρ specific heat at constant pressure of circulating fluid (J/
kg·°C)
d well diameter (mm)
Ef heat transfer rate variation
Fl regression constant coefficient in linear equation
Fnl regression constant coefficient in nonlinear equation
G water flow rate (m3/h)
h vertical well depth (m)
HB hidden layer biases
HWs hidden layer weights
IBs input layer biases
IWs input layer weights
m number of neurons in the input layer
M mass flow rate of circulating water inside the tube (kg/s)
MAPE mean absolute percent error
n total number of neurons in the previous layer
N total number of the training and testing records
p predicted outputs
pi Adjacent influential parameters
is: i) in summer, the high thermal energy generated from buildings can
be stored in the ground; ii) in winter, the geothermal energy can be
pumped to heat buildings. An experimental investigation [7] has de-
monstrated that GSHP consumes 1 kWh of energy while users can get
more than 4.4 kWh of thermal energy in heating or cooling process; and
moreover, the GSHP system has 40% higher efficiency in transferring
thermal energy when compared to the conventional air conditioning
systems.
Recently, the heat transfer performance of GSHP has received a
large amount of research attention. Hou and Taherian [8] conducted an
experiment at their home located in Birmingham, Alabama, and found
that the energy consumption was the smallest when the U-tube length
was fixed at 400 m. Wang et al. [9] proposed a hybrid GSHP system
simulating the heat performance and the temperature recovery in
ground to evaluate its energy performance, and the results showed that
the vertical well depth must be larger than 40 m in order to keep a
higher long-term energy efficiency. You et al. [10] investigated the
long-term performance of GSHP and the results showed that the lower
groundwater flow can effectively alleviate the decrease of both the
temperature and thermal efficiency of the outlet fluid but can improve
the heat transfer rate and reduce the energy consumption. A real GSHP
system located at Wuhan in China was constructed by Mao and Chen
[11] to investigate the characteristic of soil temperature distribution in
this system. Using the finite volume numerical solution in FLUENT,
Koohi-Fayegh and Rosen [12] investigated two-dimensional transient
conduction of the heat in soil around vertical ground heat exchangers in
order to verify the line source theory. In Wang et al.’s [13] studies, it
was found that GSHP could maintain a stable running condition when
the inlet temperature of the U-tube was higher than 4.5 °C. Tong et al.
[14] adopted TRNSYS to simulate the running condition of GSHP
throughout a year and found that increasing the U-tube length, pipe
spacing, vertical well depth and well diameter can reduce the operation
cost. In order to quantitatively investigate the feasibility of GSHP, Liu
et al. [15] selected three cold regions in China as research objects, i.e.,
2
Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115914
pi-1 adjacent influential parameters
q number of neurons in the output layer
Q heat transfer rate (W/m)
Qi adjacent values of heat transfer rate (W/m)
Qi-1 adjacent values of heat transfer rate (W/m)
r number of neurons in the hidden layer
R2 coefficient of correlation
RMSE root mean square error (W/m)
SD mean value, standard deviation
tc outlet temperature of circulating fluid (°C)
tj inlet temperature of circulating fluid (°C)
vjk network weight between the hidden layer and the output
layer
wij Network weight between the input layer and the hidden
layer
xi input value of the i-th neuron
x1 soil thermal conductivity (W/m·°C)
x2 vertical well depth (m)
x3 well diameter (mm)
x4 U-tube thickness (mm)
x5 water flow rate (m3/h)
x6 water temperature difference (°C)
y measured outputs
yavg average value of the measured outputs
yj output value of the j-th neuron
Δt water temperature difference (°C)
λ Soil thermal conductivity (W/m·°C)
δ U-tube thickness (mm)
Qiqihar, Shenyang and Beijing, and adopted TRNSYS to simulate the
ten-year running performance of GSHP. The simulation results showed
that the GSHP in Beijing is the most suitable while Qiqihar is not an
acceptable city for the application due to the inlet/outlet temperature
of the U-tube in this region is below 0 °C. Wei et al. [16] developed
three-dimensional numerical models for underground heat exchanger
of GSHP using independent heat transfer calculation method.
It can be seen from the aforementioned literature review that the
most common research tools for evaluating the heat transfer perfor-
mance of GSHP are the on-site experiments (usually more than 48 h)
and numerical simulations; and moreover, limited mathematical
models are available for predicting the heat transfer rate of GSHP. It
should also be highlighted that the existing specifications [17–19] re-
garding the GSHP system cannot provide a direct evaluation on its heat
transfer rate even if knowing the medium characteristics (i.e., soil
thermal conductivity, U-tube thickness, well depth and diameter, water
temperature and flow rate, etc.). This phenomenon brings low effi-
ciency to the design and optimization process of the GSHP system. To
this end, reliable and high-efficiency approaches need to be developed
for the estimation of the heat transfer rate of GSHP with high accuracy
and efficiency, while covering wide-range of influential variables.
Regression analysis and machine learning approaches are char-
acterized by data-mining techniques relying on a certain computer
platform to seek optimal solutions for engineering issues. Linear and
nonlinear regressions are the commonly used mathematical methods
regarding the fast evaluation of those issues [20–24]. Fujii et al. [25]
conducted the GSHP thermal response test in U-tube ground heat ex-
changers installed in two different geological environments, and used
nonlinear regression to estimate the vertical distribution of ground
thermal conductivities.
The widely-used machine learning algorithms include artificial
neural networks (ANN), model tree, fuzzy logic, genetic programming,
etc. To date, these algorithms have been successfully used to establish
the accurate relationship between specific influential variables and
X. Xu, et al.
target performances [26–28].
The artificial neural network can be used as a tool for simulating
behaviors and optimizing solutions of the examined systems, which are
widely used in different application areas. Krzywanski and Nowak [29]
studied the combustion of solid-fuel in circulating fluidized bed boilers
using artificial neural network methods. The results showed that the
neural network can generalize the relationship between SO2 emissions
and operating parameters. In Krzywanski and Nowak’s [30] research,
artificial neural network method was used to predict the local heat
transfer coefficient in the combustion chamber of the circulating flui-
dized bed boiler. It was found that the neural network model can ac-
curately predict the local overall heat transfer coefficient in the com-
bustion chamber of the circulating fluidized bed boiler. Liukkonen et al.
[31] used artificial neural networks to simulate the formation of ni-
trogen oxides in circulating fluidized bed boilers. The results showed
that the artificial neural network method is an effective method of the
circulating fluidized bed process and its emissions. Liukkonen et al.
[32–33] also discovered a sub-model based artificial neural network
method to model the formation of nitrogen oxides in circulating flui-
dized bed boilers. It was found that this method can effectively obtain
new information from the combustion process. Abbassi and Bahar [34]
applied a neural network method to accurately simulate the thermal
behavior of an evaporative condenser. The results showed that the
neural network can effectively predict the behavior of the air con-
ditioning system.
Some attempts also have been done in the region of GSHP. Guang
et al. [35] established a model based on artificial neural networks to
realize the performance control method for controlling the hybrid
GSHP system for 4 years, and compared with another two frequently
used methods. The results showed that the control strategy of the
ground heat exchanger and cooling tower can make full use of the heat
exchange advantages of outdoor air and soil, and has a high energy
efficient. Zhang et al. [36] established an artificial neural network
model to predict the layered thermal conductivity of the four boreholes
of the GSHP system. The results showed that the prediction error of the
artificial neural network model for the layered thermal conductivity is
less than 0.1 W/(m.K). In Benli and Huseyin's [37] research, the arti-
ficial neural networks were used to predict the influence of the per-
formance parameters (i.e., the air temperature entering condenser fan-
coil unit, air temperature leaving condenser fan-coil unit, and ground
temperatures) of the GSHP system on the system performance coeffi-
cient. The results show that the maximum correlation coefficient R2 is
0.999, which confirmed that the use of artificial neural networks for
performance prediction of heating coefficient of performance of GSHP
system is acceptable. Park et al. [38] developed an hourly energy
consumption of GSHP system prediction model based on multiple linear
regression and artificial neural network. The prediction accuracy of
multiple linear regression is 3.56%, and the prediction accuracy of ar-
tificial neural network is 1.75%. Jeon et al. [39] designed the scale
factor model of the spiral heat exchanger based on the design length of
the straight-line-type heat exchanger. And then artificial neural net-
work and linear regression method were used to develop a scale factor
model, which can provide a new method for the design of the spiral-
coil-type horizontal ground heat exchangers. However, the ANN models
trained in the literatures mostly focus on the overall system energy
consumption or the component design. Studies about the core tech-
nology of the GSHP, the heat transfer ability prediction, are still in-
sufficient, which is not beneficial for the application of ANN in the field
Table 1
Range of the experimental variables in the database.
Variable Soil thermal conductivity [W/ Vertical well depth
m·°C] [m]
Varying range 1.06–3.26 43.0–150.0
Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115914
of GSHP.
Based on the theories of regression analysis and machine learning
approaches, this paper presents both the regression and machine
learning techniques to develop high-accuracy models for predicting the
total heat transfer rate of GSHP. Using literature data collection and on-
site measurements, an extensive experimental database was compiled
containing major influencing parameters concerning three main com-
ponents of the GSHP heat transfer, including soil, water and the u-tube.
The selected soil parameter is thermal conductivity. The U-tube para-
meters are vertical well depth, well diameter and U-tube thickness. The
flowing water parameters selected are the water flow rate and water
temperature difference. Also the heat transfer rates were included.
Based on the compiled experimental database, linear and nonlinear
regression models are calibrated. Also based on the same database, the
artificial neural network models are trained and tested. A database-
based parametric analysis using the developed ANN model is then
conducted to investigate the overall trend of heat transfer rate of GSHP
as a function of each parameter. The evaluation approaches in this
study will help to quantitatively predict the heat transfer rate of GSHP
by introducing input parameters without on-site experiments and
evaluate the influential parameters, hence to quickly determine the
heat transfer between the soil and the GSHP, thereby promote the
confidence of applying GSHP in engineering applications.
2. Experimental database
The first step of developing prediction models is to establish an
extensive experimental database containing the parameter variety and
variation range, and the heat transfer performance of GSHP. The ex-
perimental database (see Appendix A) reported in this paper are com-
piled from two sources, i.e., one is collected from the literature [41–50]
(33 datasets obtained from the charts and curves in the references),
another is 79 datasets measured by authors through on-site experiments
in various cities. It should be highlighted that the experimental datasets
used to evaluate the heat transfer performance of GSHP are obtained
from different regions in China, where the GSHP systems are widely
used. Therefore, the developed models in the following can be em-
ployed to predict the heat transfer rate of GSHP for the case study of
China application.
2.1. Parameter determination and datasets collected from literature
A number of investigations [40,51–61] have demonstrated that the
heat transfer performance of GSHP mainly depends on the soil char-
acteristics, tube and well dimensions and water flow and temperature
conditions. In all tests, the soil thermal conductivity (λ ), the vertical
well depth (h), the well diameter (d), the U-tube thickness (δ ), the water
flow rate (G) and the water temperature difference (Δt ) are considered
as the influential parameters (i.e., independent variables); and mean-
while, the heat transfer rate (Q) is measured for representing the per-
formance of GSHP(i.e., dependent variable). A total of 113 experi-
mental datasets containing winter and summer conditions collected
from our on-site experiments (79 experimental datasets) and 11 studies
(33 datasets) [41–50] contains 31 cities and 6 provinces/municipalities.
Table 1 shows the variation ranges of all the collected experimental
datasets, in which the temperature difference is the absolute value.
Well diameter [mm] U-tube thickness Water flow rate [m3/ Water temperature difference
[mm] h] [°C]
130.0–180.0 1.15–3.50 0.550–1.909 0.66–6.50
3
X. Xu, et al.
2.2. Datasets measured by authors
2.2.1. Experimental background
On-site thermal response experiments are the normal way of un-
derstanding the heat transfer performance of GSHP system, which
provides the help of designing GSHP. The real heat exchange rate be-
tween the buried pipe and the soil can be obtained using the thermal
response test. For on-site tests, the technical code for ground source
heat pump system (GB 50366-2009) [62] is employed to conduct the
thermal response experiments for the evaluation of heat transfer rate of
GSHP. Fig. 1 shows the schematic diagram of the constructed thermal
response experimental system. It is noteworthy that the backfill soil
shown in Fig. 1 has the same properties with the soil around the GSHP.
It can be seen from Fig. 1 that the test system consists of water tank
with constant temperature heating (frequency conversion control), air-
cooled unit, water pump, flow regulating value, flow meter, tempera-
ture sensor, temperature collecting instrument and recording system. In
the tests, the electric heater and the air-cooled unit can be operated
simultaneously; and in this way, the heat release process in summer and
heat absorption process in winter can be simulated, respectively. The
inlet and outlet temperature in the U-tube are collected using a high-
precision temperature patrol instrument with every 60 s and are stored
automatically. The on-site photos of the test equipment are shown in
Fig. 2. The summer and winter GSHP simulating tests can be described
as follows:
(i) The heat release experiment is to simulate the standard operation
conditions of GSHP in summer. In this way, heat is transferred
through the exchange between the buried tube heat exchanger and
the soil mass. In this condition, the supply water temperature of the
heat release experiment is relatively high. Generally, the inlet water
temperature is set at 35 °C, while the temperature of the outlet
water needs to be measured.
(ii) The heat extraction experiment is to simulate the standard oper-
ating conditions of GSHP in winter. GSHP can take the underground
soil heat retainer as a heat source, which collects the heat from the
underground soil layer through the buried underground heat ex-
changer. In this condition, the supply water temperature of the heat
extraction experiment is relatively low. Generally, the inlet water
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental system.
4
Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115914
temperature is set at 5 °C, while the temperature of the outlet water
also needs to be measured.
2.2.2. Data description
For the data tested by authors, the implemented equipment can
provide high power (i.e., 12 kW) for field testing and stable operation.
The water supply temperature is kept constant using an automatic
control system with an error of ± 0.15 °C and the water flow is
monitored by an ultrasonic flowmeter in real time with an error less
than 1%. The heat transfer rate is obtained by Eq. (1) in the engineering
field.
MCρ (t j − tc )
Q=
h (1)
where M is the mass flow rate of circulating water inside the tube, kg/s;
Cρ is the specific heat at constant pressure of circulating fluid, J/
(kg· °C); tj is the inlet temperature of circulating fluid, °C; tc is the outlet
temperature of circulating fluid, °C; h is the vertical well depth, m.
3. Prediction of heat exchange in GSHP using statistical
regressions and artificial neural networks
A carful literature review has demonstrated that limited prediction
models can be directly used to estimate the heat exchange in the design
of GSHP. In this regard, it will be a milestone to develop novel pre-
diction models with high accuracy for the help of evaluation of heat
transfer performance in GSHP. In this section, two practical and one
intelligent numerical approaches, i.e., linear regression, nonlinear re-
gression and artificial neural networks, are employed to construct the
relationship between the influential experimental variables and the
target heat exchange performance. A deep and comprehensive evalua-
tion on the variables shows that the soil thermal conductivity, vertical
well depth, well diameter, U-tube thickness, water flow rate and water
temperature difference should be considered and modeled in the
aforementioned numerical approaches, i.e., representing the input
parameters; meanwhile, the heat transfer rate can be set as the output
parameter in these prediction models.
X. Xu, et al.
(a) The water tank
Fig. 2. Photos of on-site experimental devices.
3.1. Linear regression (LR) model
It is widely accepted that a linear mathematical description for the
relationship between independent variables and dependent variable is a
simple but efficient solution to solve the engineering problems.
Therefore, it is initially applied to establish the predicting model. The
independent variables presented in the database (see Appendix A) in-
clude the soil thermal property, geometry characteristics of well and U-
tube, physical property of water in GSHP; and from the mathematical
point of view, these parameters have no direct correlation with each
other, which means that linear regression can be treated as a proper
technique to obtain the target heat transfer performance of GSHP as a
function of the independent variables. The linear equation can be
written as:
n the principle of neurons and the structure of BP-ANN, which contains
Q = Fl + ∑ xi Ci
i=1
where Q is heat transfer rate; Fl is the regression constant coefficient in
linear equation; Ci is the regression coefficient corresponding to xi; xi
represents the input variable, in which x1 = soil thermal conductivity,
x2 = vertical well depth, x3 = well diameter, x4 = U-tube thickness,
x5 = water flow rate, x6 = water temperature difference.
The coefficients of Fl and Ci are obtained by regression analysis and
their value are listed in Table 2.
3.2. Nonlinear regression (NLR) model
Compared with the simple linear regression, multivariate regression
analysis usually bonds different parameters in a certain term of poly-
nomial equations so as to improve the prediction accuracy for the target
performance. To this end, the nonlinear regression model is developed
after the linear model. Generally, increasing the power number in a
polynomial equation leads to decrease the deviation between true va-
lues and prediction ones but results in the formula complexity for ap-
plication. Quadratic nonlinear regression connects two variables
through multiplication, balancing the complexity and quality of the
prediction model. In this regard, joint effect generated from two vari-
ables can be regarded as the contribution to the accuracy of target
performance. The following equation can be used to predict the heat
transfer rate of GSHP.
n n n n
Q = Fnl + ∑i = 1 x i Ci + ∑i = 1 x1 x i C6 + i + ∑i = 2 x2 x i C11 + i + ∑i = 3 x3 x i C15 + i
n n n
+ ∑i = 4 x 4 x i C18 + i + ∑i = 5 x5 x i C20 + i + ∑i = 6 x 6 x i C21 + i
where Fnl is the regression constant coefficient in nonlinear equation; Ci
is the regression coefficient corresponding to xi; C6+i, C11+i, C15+i,
C18+i, C20+i and C21+i, are the regression coefficients in quadratic
terms; xi represents the input variable, in which x1 = soil thermal
conductivity, x2 = vertical well depth, x3 = well diameter, x4 = U-
tube thickness, x5 = water flow rate, x6 = water temperature differ-
ence.
The coefficients of Fnl, Ci, C6+i, C11+i, C15+i, C18+i, C20+i and C21+i
are obtained by regression analysis and their value are listed in Table 3.
Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115914
(b) The constant power (c) The fluid inlet and outlet
3.3. Artificial neural networks (ANN)
Artificial neural network (ANN) is a minimal iterative algorithm and
is used to predict complex behavior systems. Artificial neural networks
consist of varieties of intelligent neurons, which are bonded and
transferred by activation function. Signals from one neuron to another
are weighted by vectors and then added by biases. Back Propagation
(BP)-artificial neural network is one of the widely used neural network
models, which is characterized by simple structure and strong oper-
ability [63,64]. This algorithm is essentially a nonlinear mapping from
input to output and is capable of implementing any complex mathe-
matical relationship, which means that BP-ANN provides an approx-
imate continuous function in the closed interval and can perform ar-
bitrary n-dimensional to m-dimensional function mapping. Fig. 3 shows
the input layer, hidden layer and output layer. Training and testing
(2) procedures are the process of machine learning in ANN. The first step of
the ANN learning is to train the set of input and output parameters, the
optimal model can be obtained and stored after a series of training
process. In the second step, the trained ANN model is then employed to
test the rest of input and output parameters. In this paper, the ratio of
training-to-testing parameter set is determined 9:1 after multiple trial
calculation; and the MATLAB platform is employed to conduct the
calculation of BP-ANN simulation. It should be noted that the input
layer consists of soil thermal conductivity, vertical well depth, well
diameter, U-tube thickness, water flow rate and water temperature
difference; whilst the output layer is the target performance of heat
transfer rate of GSHP.
The detailed parameters in Fig. 3 are listed as follows:
One hidden layer is distributed in the neural network with 7 nodes.
There were 6 neurons in the input layer, 7 neurons in the hidden layer
and 1 neuron in the output layer. Numerical matrices of input layer
weights (IWs), input layer biases (IBs), hidden layer weights (HWs) and
hidden layer biases (HB) are calculated as follows:
⎡ 1.1721 - 0.1982 1.4942 0.5305 - 0.1230 - 1.4560 ⎤
⎢ - 0.6529 - 0.2558 0.9022 1.3185 - 1.4345 0.5004 ⎥
⎢ - 2.0031 - 0.0926 - 1.2396 - 1.0514 - 1.5250 - 0.9132 ⎥
IWs = ⎢ 2.1861 - 0.7209 - 0.0191 0.2413 - 1.1509 1.3143 ⎥
⎢ - 0.6829 - 0.5418 0.6732 0.4107 2.0291 - 0.7886 ⎥
⎢ - 0.8885 2.1114 - 0.5737 - 0.3449 - 2.2672 - 1.0669 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ - 0.9351 1.8637 0.6485 - 0.8993 - 0.6248 - 1.4220 ⎦ (4)
(3)
Table 2
Regression coefficients in Eq. (2).
Item Constant x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6
Coefficient N/A C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
Value 35.245 −0.463 −0.219 0.016 −4.613 20.550 6.960
5
X. Xu, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115914

Table 3
Regression coefficients in Eq. (3).
Item Constant x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x12 x1x3

Coefficient N/A C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
Value 39.436 −36.566 −0.565 −1.513 79.198 129.436 −4.114 4.951 0.268
Item x1x4 x1x5 x1x6 x22 x2x3 x2x4 x2x5 x2x6 x32

Coefficient C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17

Value −1.078 −10.856 0.749 −0.002 0.002 −0.162 0.850 −0.025 0.008
Item x3x4 x3x5 x3x6 x42 x4x5 x4x6 x52 x5x6 x62

Coefficient C18 C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25 C26
Value 0.314 −0.731 0.017 −5.662 5.434 0.417 −37.476 2.295 0.786

⎡ - 1.5978 ⎤ ∑iN (pi − yi )2 ∑iN (pi − y avg )2

0.7335 ⎥ RMSE= , SD =
⎢ N N
⎢ 1.7022 ⎥ p i − yi 2 ∑iN (pi − yi )2
IBs = ⎢
⎢
0.1340 ⎥
0.6660 ⎥
1
MAPE= N
N
∑i ( ) yi
, R2 =1−
∑iN (yi − y avg )2 (9)
⎢ - 0.9630 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ where p and y respectively represent the predicted outputs and the
⎣ - 2.1103 ⎦ (5)
measured outputs; yavg is the average value of the measured outputs;
and N is the total number of the training and testing records.
HWs = [ - 1.4352 0.2784 - 1.0289 - 1.1819 - 1.7373 - 1.5367 1.2417] (6) It is noteworthy that lower RMSE and MAPE and higher R2 indicate
a better accuracy of the model prediction. Fig. 4 shows the comparison
HB = [0.4682] (7) of the heat transfer rate of GSHP between the numerical predictions and
the experimental measurements. Table 4 and Fig. 5 lists the statistical
The activation function is a S-type function (sigmoid function): results of prediction-test. It can be seen from the figures and table that:
i) the prediction accuracy can be significantly improved by increasing
1 the numerical order, i.e., from first-order LR to second-order NLR; ii)
yj = n
1 + e−(∑i = 1 wij xi + bj ) (8) the approaches of NLR and ANN can achieve a comparable prediction
and prediction accuracy in the evaluation of heat transfer rate of GSHP;
where yj is the output value of the j-th neuron; n is the total number of
iii) in all the comparative models, ANN model has the lowest RMSE and
neurons in the previous layer; xi is the input value of the i-th neuron; wij
MAPE but has the highest R2, which indicates that the intelligence al-
is the weight between the i-th neuron and the j-th neuron; bj is the offset
gorithm can provide higher accuracy in predicting the heat transfer rate
error of the j-th neuron.
of GSHP. It should be highlighted that although the ANN model has a
similar prediction effect compared with NLR model, it has another
advantage that there is no need to define the specific mathematical
3.4. Results and discussions
expression in ANN algorithm.
It is concluded in Table 5 that the statistical regressions and artifi-
The principle of the developed numerical approaches presented in
cial neural networks all have their assumptions and limitations. In
this paper depends on the mathematical approximation and their goal is
overall consideration of Fig. 5 and Table 5, the BP-ANN model are
to obtain the optimal solution. For this reason, the prediction results
applied for the parametric study in Section 4.
should be evaluated using the mathematical statistical criteria so as to
make a comparison with the tested values, i.e., coefficient of correlation
(R2), mean value, standard deviation (SD), root mean square error 4. Database-based parametric study
(RMSE) and mean absolute percent error (MAPE). In particular, when
R2 is equal to 1, it only shows the linear correlation between the ex- Different tests have various of experimental purposes and varying
perimental value and the predicted value, and the accuracy of predic- ranges of parameters; and meanwhile, an individual test may not pro-
tion cannot be absolutely guaranteed. Therefore, the values of SD, vide exact conclusions regarding a certain parametric effect. As pre-
RMSE and MAPE should all be considered. These evaluation criteria can sented in Section 3, the developed ANN model has been verified by a
be calculated as: large number of experimental datasets and the evaluation result

Fig. 3. Structure of artificial neuron and BP-ANN.

6
X. Xu, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115914

Table 4
Values of statistical criteria for the developed heat transfer rate predicting
models.
Method R2 Mean SD RMSE [W/m] MAPE [%]

Linear regression 0.114 1.015 0.131 6.539 9.652

Nonlinear regression 0.842 1.004 0.067 3.516 4.796
Artificial neural network 0.947 1.008 0.043 2.126 2.575

10 9.652 SD
9 RMSE
MAPE

Model prediction error (%)

8
7 6.539
6
5 4.796
4 3.516
3 2.575
2.126
2
1
0.131 0.067 0.043
0
LR NLR BP-ANN
Fig. 5. Statistical analysis for empirical models and machine learning model.

that i) the input values of the investigated parameter are assumed

within the scope of its lower and upper limits and ii) other input
parameters are assigned using their approximate experimental average
value.
In the following evaluation, the heat transfer rate variation (i.e., Ef)
is also discussed in order to understand the effect of each influential
parameter on the heat transfer variations of GSHP, which can be
written as:
Qi − Qi − 1
Ef =
pi − pi − 1 (10)
where Qi and Qi-1 represent the adjacent values of heat transfer rate,
respectively; pi and pi-1 represent the adjacent influential parameters,
respectively.

4.1. Weight calculation of the input variables

The weight represents the strength of the connection between

Fig. 4. Comparisons of heat transfer rate predicted by numerical techniques
and measured by on-site experiments.
demonstrates that this machine learning tool can be used to simulate
the heat transfer rate of GSHP with high accuracy. Hence, in this section
the trained ANN model is employed to conduct a parametric study to
understand the multi-parametric effect on the heat transfer rate of
GSHP within the scope of the compiled experimental database. Note
neurons. If the weight is positive, it indicates the promotion signal is
transmitted. Otherwise it means that the suppression signal is trans-
mitted. In order to explore the influence of six input variables on the
heat transfer performance of the GSHP, the influence of the i-th neuron
in the input layer on the output neuron is expressed by the weight
contribution rate wik.
r q
∑ j = 1 wij ∑k = 1 vjk
wik =
m r q
∑i = 1 ∑ j = 1 wij ∑k = 1 vjk (11)
where wij is the network weight between the input layer and the hidden
layer; vjk is the network weight between the hidden layer and the output
layer; m, r, and q are the number of neurons in the input layer, hidden
layer and output layer respectively.
It is shown from Fig. 6 that the temperature difference account for
the largest contribution rate to the heat transfer performance, followed
by the water flow rate. This is in conformity with the heat transfer
mechanism of the GSHP under different constraint conditions, and the
related control factors determine the development trend of heat transfer
rate, which means that BP-ANN is reasonable in predicting this index in
the GSHP.

7
X. Xu, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115914

Table 5
Assumptions and limitations of the statistical regressions and artificial neural networks.
Method Assumptions Limitations

Linear regression Linear relationship between input and output Low calculation accuracy

Nonlinear regression Quadratic nonlinear relationship between input and output Complicated expression type

Artificial neural network Nonlinear mapping between input and output Accuracy depending on the database

0.40 thickness, water flow rate and water temperature difference constant.
Fig. 8 shows the distribution of the heat transfer rate of GSHP as a
0.35
function of vertical well depth and the detailed input values of the fixed
parameters. It can be seen from the figure that: i) increasing the vertical
Weight contribution rate

0.30
well depth leads to improve the heat transfer rate of GSHP indicating
0.25 that longer well distance can cumulate/dissipate more thermal energy
in GSHP, and this predicted trend is also confirmed by the results re-
0.20
ported in Esen et al. [54–56]; ii) an increase of vertical well depth re-
0.15 sults in a decrease in the heat transfer rate variation (i.e., 0.432, 0.102,
0.099), which means that the heat transfer of GSHP can be more stable
0.10 using longer well.
Similar to vertical well depth, well diameter is another parameter of
0.05
presenting the characteristic of the heat transfer interacting with soil. In
0.00 this modelling, four categories of the well diameters, i.e., 130 mm,
h d G t 140 mm, 160 mm and 180 mm, are selected to investigate their influ-
Input variable of BP-ANN ence on the heat transfer rate of GSHP while keeping the parameters of
soil thermal conductivity, vertical well depth, U-tube thickness, water
Fig. 6. Weight calculation results of the input variables.
flow rate and water temperature difference constant. Fig. 9 shows the
distribution of the heat transfer rate of GSHP as a function of well
4.2. Effect of soil thermal conductivity diameter and the detailed input values of the fixed parameters. It can be
seen from the figure that increasing the well diameter leads to decrease
In the GSHP system, soil is a medium of transferring the low-grade the heat transfer rate and heat transfer rate variation (i.e., −0.029,
thermal energy into high-grade thermal energy, and in term of physical −0.071, −0.273) of GSHP. This can be explained that the increased
significance soil thermal conductivity is a representative indicator of well diameter means a larger thickness of the backfill soil layer sur-
geothermal exchange. In numerical modelling, four categories of the rounding the U-tube, resulting in increasing the thermal resistance and
soil thermal conductivities, i.e., 1.06 W/(m· °C), 1.8 W/(m· °C), 2.4 W/ reducing the heat exchange between U-tube stored water and soil. This
(m· °C) and 3.2 W/(m· °C), are selected to predict their influence on the predicted trend is also confirmed by the results reported in Chong et al.
heat transfer rate of GSHP while keeping the parameters of vertical well [57].
depth, well diameter, U-tube thickness, water flow rate and water
temperature difference constant. Fig. 7 shows the distribution of the
heat transfer rate of GSHP as a function of soil thermal conductivity and 4.4. Effect of U-tube thickness
the detailed input values of the fixed parameters. It can be seen from
the figure that increasing the soil thermal conductivity leads to improve The embedded U-tubes are used to transport the water for heat
the heat transfer rate of GSHP. This can be explained that larger soil transfer and the thickness of U-tube can affect the heat exchange be-
thermal conductivity has a stronger intensity of conducting the soil tween soil and water. In this modelling, four varieties of U-tube
heat. This predicted trend is also confirmed by the results reported in
Zhou et al. [51–53]. From Fig. 7, it can be observed that the heat
transfer rate variation of GSHP is generally increased due to the heat
contribution of soil thermal conductivity; on the other hand, the soil
thermal conductivities varying from 1.8 W/(m· °C) to 2.4 W/(m· °C)
have the lowest heat transfer rate variation. This phenomenon is mainly
due to the water containing in the soil. As the soil thermal conductivity
increases, heat is more easily transferred into the soil. However, in the
process the water inside the soil may absorb heat, impairing the heat
transfer rate between the tube and the soil. After the water is saturated
out of the soil, the amount of heat absorbed by the soil increases sig-
nificantly.

4.3. Effects of vertical well depth and well diameter

One of the characteristics of the heat transfer is its route distance in

the process of heat exchange. The excavated wells in soil have a certain
vertical depth so as to meet the requirement of the supplied high-grade
heat energy. In this modelling, four categories of the vertical well
depths, i.e., 43 mm, 50 m, 100 m and 150 m, are selected to predict
their influence on the heat transfer rate of GSHP while keeping the
parameters of soil thermal conductivity, well diameter, U-tube Fig. 7. Effect of soil thermal conductivity on heat transfer rate.

8
X. Xu, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115914

vertical well depth, well diameter, U-tube thickness and water tem-
perature difference constant. For effect of water temperature difference,
four temperatures inputted in the model, i.e., 1 °C, 2 °C, 4 °C and 6 °C,
are adopted to investigate their influence on the heat transfer rate of
GSHP while keeping the parameters of soil thermal conductivity, ver-
tical well depth, well diameter, U-tube thickness and water flow rate
constant.
Figs. 11 and 12 respectively show the distribution of the heat
transfer rate of GSHP as a function of water flow rate and water tem-
perature difference and the detailed input values of the fixed para-
meters. It can be seen from the figure that both increasing the water
flow rate and water temperature difference improve the heat transfer
rate of GSHP. This can be explained using Eq. (1) that water flow rate
and water temperature difference are proportional to quantity of heat.
It can be also found that increasing the water flow rate decreases the
heat transfer rate variation whereas the opposite is observed when in-
creasing the water temperature difference. The former factor becomes
less sensitive and the latter factor becomes more sensitive to the heat
transfer rate with their enhancement. These two predicted trends are
also confirmed by the results reported in Dasare et al. [59–61].
Fig. 8. Effect of vertical well depth on heat transfer rate.
As listed above, the above predicting trends in Sections 4.2–4.5 are
all confirmed by literatures, which demonstrates the reliability of the
trained BP-ANN model. In the future work, this model can be serviced
and optimized in design and verification process of a real GSHP project.

5. Conclusions

The existing specifications regarding the GSHP system cannot pro-

vide a direct evaluation on its heat transfer rate with high efficiency
even if knowing the medium (i.e., soil, U-tube, well, water, etc.) char-
acteristics. To this end, this paper presents both the regression and
machine learning techniques to develop high-accuracy models for
predicting the heat transfer rate of GSHP. An extensive experimental
database containing the influential parameters and heat transfer rate is
compiled using the literature-based data collection and the on-site
thermal response measurement. Based on the compiled experimental
database, linear and nonlinear regression models are calibrated and an
artificial neural network model is trained and tested. A database-based
parametric analysis using the developed ANN model is conducted to
investigate the overall trend of heat transfer rate of GSHP as a function
of each parameter. The following conclusions can be obtained from the
detailed evaluation and analysis:
Fig. 9. Effect of well diameter on heat transfer rate.

(1) The prediction accuracy can be significantly improved by

thicknesses, i.e., 1.15 mm, 1.5 mm, 2.0 mm and 2.5 mm, are selected to
investigate their influence on the heat transfer rate of GSHP while
keeping the parameters of soil thermal conductivity, vertical well
depth, well diameter, water flow rate and water temperature difference
constant. Fig. 10 shows the distribution of the heat transfer rate of
GSHP as a function of U-tube thickness and the detailed input values of
the fixed parameters. It can be seen from the figure that increasing the
U-tube thickness leads to decrease the heat transfer rate of GSHP, which
can be attributed to the thermal resistance generated by the U-tube
wall; on the other hand, larger U-tube thickness slightly increases the
heat transfer rate variation of GSHP, which can be explained that en-
hancing the thermal resistance can be more sensible to the thermal
performance variation in U-tube. This predicted trend is also confirmed
by the results reported in Hu et al. [40,58].

4.5. Effect of water flow rate and water temperature difference

Water flow rate and water temperature difference affect the per-
formance of heat transfer in GSHP. For effect of water flow rate, four
volumetric rates of water, i.e., 0.55 m3/h, 1.2 m3/h, 1.6 m3/h and
2.0 m3/h, are adopted to investigate their influence on the heat transfer
rate of GSHP while keeping the parameters of soil thermal conductivity, Fig. 10. Effect of U-tube thickness on heat transfer rate.

9
X. Xu, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115914

performance, followed by the water flow rate.

(2) Increasing the soil thermal conductivity from 1.06 W/(m· °C) to
3.2 W/(m· °C) leads to the heat transfer rate increasing by almost
100%. The heat transfer rate variation of GSHP can be generally
increased by increasing the soil thermal conductivity.
(3) Increasing the vertical well depth from 43 m to 150 m leads to the
heat transfer rate of GSHP increasing by 27%. Due to the increase of
the vertical well depth, the heat transfer area of the U-tube is in-
creased, thereby increasing heat transfer rate variation of the U-
tube.
(4) Increasing the well diameter from 130 mm to 180 mm leads to the
decrease of the heat transfer rate by 14%. However, the heat
transfer rate variation of GSHP is increased. Increasing the U-tube
thickness from 1.15 mm to 2.5 mm leads to decrease the heat
transfer rate by 22%, but the heat transfer rate variation of GSHP is
increased.
(5) Increasing the water flow rate from 0.55 m3/h to 2.0 m3/h leads to
the increasing of the heat transfer rate by 62%. Increasing the water
flow rate decreases the heat transfer rate variation. Increasing the
water temperature difference from 1 °C to 6 °C leads to improve the
Fig. 11. Effect of water flow rate on heat transfer rate. heat transfer rate of GSHP by 257%. Increasing the water tem-
perature difference increases the heat transfer rate variation

It should be highlighted that the developed models for evaluating

the heat transfer rate of GSHP are obtained based on the experimental
datasets measured from different regions in China, in which the GSHP
systems are widely used. For other countries and regions, the analytical
methods and numerical solutions presented in this paper can be
adopted to develop appropriate models in predicting the heat transfer
rate of GSHP in terms of highlighting the influential parameter char-
acteristics in different regions.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgement

The work presented in this paper is supported by the National

Fig. 12. Effect of water temperature difference on heat transfer rate.
increasing the numerical order, i.e., from first-order linear regres-
sion to second-order nonlinear regression. Compared to the re-
gression models, ANN model can provide higher accuracy in pre-
dicting the heat transfer rate of GSHP without defining the specific
mathematical expression. In the ANN model, the temperature dif-
ference account for the largest weight to the heat transfer
Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51806096), the China
Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 2019M661812), Natural
Science Foundation of the Jiangsu Higher Education institutions of
China (Grant No. 18KJB560007), Postgraduate Research & Practice
Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province (Grant No. SJCX20-0323) and
the Research Fund of Key Laboratory of Aircraft Environment Control
and Life Support, MIIT, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and
Astronautics (Grant No. KLAECLS-E-201902).

Appendix A. Information of experimental database complied from the test results measured by authors and reported in the literature

Location Heat ex- Soil thermal conduc- Vertical well Well dia- U-tube thick- Water flow Water temperature Heat transfer
change tivity, λ [W/m· °C] depth, h [m] meter, d ness, δ [mm] rate, G [m3/h] difference, Δt [°C] rate, Q [W/m]
manner [mm]

Fuyang, Anhui Province Release 1.410 100.0 180 3.00 1.150 4.04 53.90
Release 1.410 125.0 180 3.00 1.150 4.86 52.00
Extraction 1.410 100.0 180 3.00 1.150 3.18 42.40
Extraction 1.410 125.0 180 3.00 1.150 3.82 40.70

Olympic Stadium, Hexi District, Na- Release 1.460 85.0 130 2.80 1.190 4.19 66.60
njing, Jiangsu Province Release 1.460 85.0 130 2.80 1.150 3.67 58.30
Release 1.460 84.0 130 3.50 0.940 4.88 60.70
Extraction 1.460 85.0 130 2.80 1.190 3.44 54.40
Extraction 1.460 84.0 130 3.50 1.150 3.07 48.50
Extraction 1.460 84.0 130 3.50 0.760 4.00 41.80

10
X. Xu, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115914

Nanjing Agricultural University, Na- Release 2.150 120.0 130 2.25 2.000 3.16 61.22
njing, Jiangsu Province Release 2.150 120.0 130 2.25 2.000 3.01 58.16
Extraction 1.840 120.0 130 2.25 2.000 3.00 59.34
Extraction 1.840 120.0 130 2.25 2.000 3.00 53.36

Qinhuai District, Nanjing, Jiangsu Release 1.900 100.0 140 2.30 1.150 5.15 68.60
Province Extraction 1.900 100.0 140 2.30 1.150 4.00 53.50

Nanjing Lukou Airport, Nanjing, Ji- Release 2.060 100.0 130 2.25 1.150 4.94 66.00
angsu Province Release 2.060 100.0 130 2.25 1.150 4.91 65.60
Extraction 2.060 100.0 130 2.25 1.150 3.97 53.00
Extraction 2.060 100.0 130 2.25 1.150 3.92 52.40

Xinhua Road, Liuhe District, Nanjin- Release 1.660 110.0 130 2.30 1.150 4.71 60.90
g, Jiangsu Province Release 1.660 99.0 130 2.30 1.150 4.19 62.10
Extraction 1.660 110.0 130 2.30 1.150 4.15 50.40
Extraction 1.660 99.0 130 2.30 1.150 3.67 52.00

Yulong Road, Changzhou, Jiangsu Release 1.510 85.0 130 3.00 1.150 3.50 55.00
Province Release 1.510 85.0 130 3.00 1.150 3.55 55.80
Extraction 1.510 85.0 130 3.00 1.150 2.92 45.20
Extraction 1.510 85.0 130 3.00 1.150 2.96 45.60

Huai'an, Jiangsu Province Release 1.460 100.0 150 2.30 1.150 4.56 61.00
Release 1.460 100.0 150 2.30 1.150 4.64 62.00
Extraction 1.460 100.0 150 2.30 1.150 3.22 43.00
Extraction 1.460 100.0 150 2.30 1.150 3.29 44.00

Longchi Road, Liuhe District, Nanji- Release 1.660 80.0 130 3.00 1.150 3.14 64.60
ng, Jiangsu Province Extraction 1.660 80.0 130 3.00 1.150 2.62 53.80

Nanjing University of Finance & Ec- Release 1.600 83.0 130 3.00 1.150 3.24 52.20
onomics, Nanjing, Jiangsu Prov- Release 1.600 83.0 130 3.00 1.150 3.29 53.00
ince Extraction 1.600 83.0 130 3.00 1.150 2.77 44.60
Extraction 1.600 83.0 130 3.00 1.150 2.81 45.20

East Road of Hehai, Changzhou, Ji- Release 1.460 85.0 140 3.00 1.150 3.40 52.90
angsu Province Extraction 1.460 85.0 140 3.00 1.150 2.77 43.50

Suyu District, Suqian, Jiangsu Prov- Release 1.560 100.0 150 2.25 1.150 5.09 68.00
ince Release 1.560 100.0 150 2.25 1.150 5.04 67.40
Extraction 1.560 100.0 150 2.25 1.150 3.70 49.40
Extraction 1.560 100.0 150 2.25 1.150 3.67 49.00

Jiangnan University, Wuxi, Jiangsu Release 1.370 81.0 130 3.00 1.150 2.99 49.40
Province Extraction 1.370 81.0 130 3.00 1.150 2.95 48.60

Science and Technology Park, Hexi Release 1.400 100.0 140 2.25 1.150 4.68 62.00
District, Nanjing, Jiangsu Provi- Extraction 1.400 100.0 140 2.25 1.150 3.64 48.00
nce

Hanjiang District, Yangzhou, Jiangsu Release 1.660 120.0 150 2.25 1.150 5.31 59.20
Province Release 1.660 120.0 150 2.25 1.150 5.36 59.60
Extraction 1.660 120.0 150 2.25 1.150 4.26 47.50
Extraction 1.660 120.0 150 2.25 1.150 4.34 48.30

Jiangning District, Nanjing, Jiangsu Release 1.460 90.0 130 2.30 1.150 3.14 46.70
Province Release 1.460 90.0 130 2.30 1.150 3.18 47.80
Extraction 1.460 90.0 130 2.30 1.150 5.01 74.40

Taizhou, Zhejiang Province Release 1.500 82.0 130 2.25 0.713 5.07 49.65
Release 1.500 76.0 130 2.25 0.713 4.59 49.68

Zhenjiang, Jiangsu Province Release 1.440 100.0 150 2.25 1.150 4.86 65.00
Release 1.440 100.0 150 2.25 1.150 4.79 64.00
Extraction 1.440 100.0 150 2.25 1.150 3.57 47.70
Extraction 1.440 100.0 150 2.25 1.150 3.59 48.00

Baixia District, Nanjing, Jiangsu Pr- Release 2.280 102.0 150 2.25 1.150 5.69 76.00
ovince Release 2.280 102.0 150 2.25 1.150 5.63 76.70
Extraction 2.280 102.0 150 2.25 1.150 4.79 64.00
Extraction 2.280 102.0 150 2.25 1.150 4.73 64.40

Jingdezhen, Jiangxi Province Release 2.750 100.0 135 1.15 1.200 4.80 64.00
Extraction 2.750 100.0 135 1.15 1.200 2.85 48.00

Huishan District, Wuxi, Jiangsu Pro- Release 1.670 80.0 130 3.20 1.097 3.43 52.00
vince Release 1.670 80.0 130 3.20 1.167 3.32 55.00
Extraction 1.670 80.0 130 3.20 1.090 2.47 41.00
Extraction 1.670 80.0 130 3.20 1.146 2.49 42.00

11
X. Xu, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115914

Tongzhou District, Nantong, Jiangsu Release 1.783 100.0 150 2.30 0.920 5.28 60.84
Province Release 1.783 100.0 150 2.30 0.920 5.33 60.56
Release 1.783 100.0 150 2.30 0.920 5.27 60.67
Release 1.783 100.0 150 2.30 0.920 5.46 60.29
Extraction 1.794 100.0 150 2.30 0.920 3.32 44.88
Extraction 1.794 100.0 150 2.30 0.920 3.27 44.63
Extraction 1.794 100.0 150 2.30 0.920 3.30 44.79
Extraction 1.794 100.0 150 2.30 0.920 3.41 45.38

Shinan District, Qingdao, Shandong Release 2.670 110.0 150 3.00 1.400 4.30 66.77
Province [41] Release 2.670 120.0 150 3.00 1.400 4.30 66.77
Extraction 2.670 110.0 150 3.00 1.400 3.11 43.74
Extraction 2.670 120.0 150 3.00 1.400 3.11 43.74

Jiaxing, Zhejiang Province [42] Release 1.970 100.0 130 3.00 1.060 4.13 51.10
Extraction 1.970 100.0 130 3.00 1.064 3.52 43.82

Beijing [43] Release 2.240 150.0 150 3.00 1.500 6.00 69.80
Extraction 2.240 150.0 150 3.00 1.500 3.20 37.20

Nanjing, Jiangsu Province [44] Release 1.730 100.0 150 3.00 1.150 4.80 60.17
Release 1.730 100.0 150 2.30 1.150 5.40 64.38
Extraction 1.730 100.0 150 3.00 1.150 3.10 41.51
Extraction 1.730 100.0 150 2.30 1.150 4.20 44.26

Xuzhou, Jiangsu Province [45] Release 2.110 100.0 130 3.00 1.100 4.90 62.70
Release 2.110 100.0 130 3.00 0.900 5.10 53.40
Release 2.110 100.0 130 3.00 0.700 6.10 49.70
Release 2.110 100.0 130 3.00 0.750 5.00 43.60
Release 2.110 100.0 130 3.00 0.650 5.40 40.80
Release 2.110 100.0 130 3.00 0.550 6.50 41.60
Extraction 2.110 100.0 130 3.00 1.500 4.20 53.70

Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province [46] Release 3.260 92.5 130 3.00 1.909 2.16 51.62
Release 3.260 92.8 130 3.00 1.889 2.27 53.93
Extraction 3.260 92.5 130 3.00 1.829 1.64 37.82
Extraction 3.260 92.8 130 3.00 1.801 1.44 32.32

Nanjing, Jiangsu Province [47] Release 1.060 57.5 130 2.30 0.872 3.62 63.50
Release 1.060 58.2 130 3.00 1.333 2.08 55.25

Suzhou, Jiangsu Province [48] Extraction 2.930 100.0 130 2.30 0.945 4.95 71.67
Extraction 2.840 100.0 130 2.30 0.942 5.41 73.89

Xuzhou, Jiangsu Province [49] Release 2.440 100.0 130 3.00 1.260 4.76 69.31
Release 2.440 100.0 130 3.00 1.580 1.70 62.40
Extraction 2.020 100.0 130 3.00 1.260 2.55 46.80
Extraction 2.020 100.0 130 3.00 1.580 1.26 45.70

Huzhou, Zhejiang Province [50] Release 1.660 73.0 130 3.00 1.150 3.80 59.20
Release 1.660 43.0 130 3.00 1.150 2.50 58.50

References ground heat exchangers, Appl. Energy 97 (2012) 962–969.

[1] P. Bayer, M. de Paly, M. Beck, Strategic optimization of borehole heat exchanger
field for seasonal geothermal heating and cooling, Appl. Energy 136 (2014)
445–453.
[2] T. Nygard, The Performance of Air and Ground Source Heat Pumps in a Northern
Climate: Fonctionnement des pumpes à chaleur avec l'air ou le sol comme sources
de chaleur, dans un climat nordique, Progr. Refrig. Sci. Technol. (1965) 1387–1396.
[3] J. Luo, Z. Luo, J. Xie, et al., Investigation of shallow geothermal potentials for
different types of ground source heat pump systems (GSHP) of Wuhan city in China,
Renew. Energy 118 (2018) 230–244.
[4] W. Xu, C. Liu, A. Li, et al., Feasibility and performance study on hybrid air source
heat pump system for ultra-low energy building in severe cold region of China,
Renew. Energy 146 (2020) 2124–2133.
[5] W. Yang, Experimental performance analysis of a direct-expansion ground source
heat pump in Xiangtan, China, Energy 59 (2013) 334–339.
[6] B. Huang, V. Mauerhofer, Life cycle sustainability assessment of ground source heat
pump in Shanghai, China, J. Clean. Prod. 119 (2016) 207–214.
[7] R. Wan, D. Kong, J. Kang, et al., The experimental study on thermal conductivity of
backfill material of ground source heat pump based on iron tailings, Energy Build.
174 (2018) 1–12.
[8] G. Hou, H. Taherian, Performance analysis of a hybrid ground source heat pump
system integrated with liquid dry cooler, Appl. Therm. Eng. 8 (2019) 159.
[9] X. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Wang, et al., Simulation-based analysis of a ground source
heat pump system using super long flexible heat pipes coupled borehole heat ex-
changer during heating season, Energy Build. 164 (2018) 132–143.
[10] T. You, X. Li, S. Cao, et al., Soil thermal imbalance of ground source heat pump
systems with spiral-coil energy pile groups under seepage conditions and various
influential factors, Energy Convers. Manage. 178 (2018) 123–136.
[11] Q. Mao, Y. Chen, Experimental investigation of thermal performance of a ground
source heat pump system for spring season, Energy Build. 152 (2017) 336–340.
[12] S. Koohi-Fayegh, M. Rosen, Examination of thermal interaction of multiple vertical
[13] M. Wang, Z. Wu, Z. Chen, et al., Economic performance study on the application of
ground source heat pump system in swine farms in Beijing China, AASRI Procedia 2
(2012) 8–13.
[14] C. Tong, X. Li, L. Duanmu, Sensitivity analysis of the ground-coupled heat pump
system with horizontal ground heat exchangers in the cold regions of China, Build.
Simul. 12 (2019) 573–584.
[15] Z. Liu, W. Xu, C. Qian, et al., Investigation on the feasibility and performance of
ground source heat pump (GSHP) in three cities in cold climate zone, China, Renew.
Energy 84 (2015) 89–96.
[16] K. Wei, W. Li, J. Li, et al., Study on a design method for hybrid ground heat ex-
changers of ground-coupled heat pump system, Int. J. Refrig. 76 (2017) 394–405.
[17] Closed-Loop/Geothermal Heat Pump Systems Design and Installation Standards.
International Ground Source Heat Pump Association (IGSHPA), 2010.
[18] ASHARE 37-2009. Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment. American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc (ASHRAE), 2009.
[19] BSEN 15450-2007. Heating systems in buildings - Design of heat pump heating
systems. British Standard, 2007.
[20] C. Franca, R. Diez, A. Jubert, On the calculation of 15N chemical shifts using linear
regression formulae. A performance comparison of different methods, J. Mol.
Struct. (Thoechem) 856 (2008) 1–8.
[21] S. Mitra, S. Lim, A. Karathanasopoulos, Regression based scenario generation:
Applications for performance management, Operat. Res. Perspect. 6 (2019).
[22] A. Bagirov, A. Mahmood, A. Barton, Prediction of monthly rainfall in Victoria,
Australia: Clusterwise linear regression approach, Atmos. Res. 188 (2017) 20–29.
[23] S. Tomlinson, The mathematics of thermal sub-optimality: Nonlinear regression
characterization of thermal performance of reptile metabolic rates, J. Therm. Biol
81 (2019) 49–58.
[24] E. Conceic, A. Portugal, Finite-sample comparison of robust estimators for nonlinear
regression using Monte Carlo simulation: Part I. Univariate response models,
Comput. Chem. Eng. 35 (2011) 530–544.
[25] H. Fujii, H. Okubo, K. Nishi, et al., An improved thermal response test for U-tube

12
X. Xu, et al.
ground heat exchanger based on optical fiber thermometers, Geothermics 38 (2009)
399–406.
[26] L. Jollans, R. Boyle, E. Artiges, et al., Quantifying performance of machine learning
methods for neuroimaging data, NeuroImage 199 (2019) 351–365.
[27] A. Badnjevic, L. Pokvic, M. Hasici, et al., Evidence-based clinical engineering:
Machine learning algorithms for prediction of defibrillator performance, Biomed.
Signal Process. Control (2019 (54).).
[28] M. Ballestara, L. Doncelb, J. Sainz, et al., A novel machine learning approach for
evaluation of public policies: An application in relation to the performance of
university researchers, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 149 (2019).
[29] J. Krzywanski, W. Nowak, Artificial intelligence treatment of SO2 emissions from
CFBC in air and oxygen-enriched conditions, J. Energy Eng. 142 (1) (2016)
04015017.
[30] J. Krzywanski, W. Nowak, Modeling of heat transfer coefficient in the furnace of
CFB boilers by artificial neural network approach, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 55
(15–16) (2012) 4246–4253.
[31] M. Liukkonen, M. Heikkinen, T. Hiltunen, et al., Artificial neural networks for
analysis of process states in fluidized bed combustion, Energy 36 (1) (2011)
339–347.
[32] M. Liukkonen, E. Hälikkä, R. Kuivalainen, et al., Modeling of nitrogen oxide
emissions in fluidized bed combustion using artificial neural networks, Int. J. Data
Eng. 1 (2) (2010) 26–35.
[33] M. Liukkonen, E. Hälikkä, R. Kuivalainen, et al. Process state identification and
modeling in a fluidized bed energy plant by using artificial neural networks, in:
Proc. Finnish-Swedish Flame Days. The Finnish and Swedish National Committees
of the International Flame Research Foundation (IFRF), 2009.
[34] A. Abbassi, L. Bahar, Application of neural network for the modeling and control of
evaporative condenser cooling load, Appl. Therm. Eng. 25 (2005) 3176–3186.
[35] W. Guang, J. Wang, S. Wang, Performance analysis of hybrid ground source heat
pump systems based on ANN predictive control, Appl. Energy 136 (2014)
1138–1144.
[36] Y. Zhang, L. Zhou, Z. H, et al. Prediction of layered thermal conductivity using
artificial neural network in order to have better design of ground source heat pump
system, Energies 2018, 11(7): 1896.
[37] Huseyin Benli, Performance prediction between horizontal and vertical source heat
pump systems for greenhouse heating with the use of artificial neural networks,
Heat Mass Transf. 52 (8) (2016) 1707–1724.
[38] S. Parka, H. Moonc, K. Min, et al., Application of a multiple linear regression and an
artificial neural network model for the heating performance analysis and hourly
prediction of a large-scale ground source heat pump system, Energy Build. 165
(2018) 206–215.
[39] J. Jeon, S. Lee, M. Kim, et al., Suggestion of a scale factor to design spiral-coil-type
horizontal ground heat exchangers, Energies 11 (10) (2018) 2736.
[40] P. Hu, Z. Yu, N. Zhu, et al., Performance study of a ground heat exchanger based on
the multipole theory heat transfer model, Energy Build. 65 (2013) 231–241.
[41] X. Huo, Analysis of thermal response test for borehole heat exchangers of ground
source heat pump system in granite area, Chin. J. Eng. Geophys. 16 (2) (2019)
243–248.
[42] J. Shen, Geothermal response test of ground source heat pump system in Xiuzhou
photovoltaic town exhibition hall, Jiaxing city, Eng. Des. 3 (2017) 210–211.
[43] J. Liu, X. Huang, Y. Lei, Operation analysis on geothermal heat pump system of a
factory in Beijing, Resour. Ind. 19 (1) (2017) 48–54.
13
Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115914
[44] Z. Wu, Y. Yu, J. Wei, Test and analysis of thermal response of vertical buried pipe of
soil source heat pump in Nanjing area, Archit. Technol. 46 (S1) (2015) 99–102.
[45] L. Zhang, Thermal response analysis and test of ground-source heat pump for
ground burst in Xuzhou area, Anhui University of Science and Technology, 2017.
[46] J. Wang, Analysis and simulation of ground thermal response test based on constant
heat-temperature method and constant heat-flux method, Tianjin Univ. (2012).
[47] Z. Yang, Thermal response test and numerical simulation of vertical heat exchanger
of ground source heat pump, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
2011.
[48] J. Zhang, S. Zhao, Thermal response test and analysis of ground source heat pump
buried tube heat exchanger, Shanxi Architecture 40 (32) (2014) 203–205.
[49] Z. Zhen, Y. Xu, L. Zhang, Thermal Response Test for U-Tube Geothermal Heat
Exchanger in Xuzhou, Build. Energy Efficiency 42 (7) (2014) 28–32.
[50] X. Liu, J. Zhen, Y. Hu, Thermal response testing analysis on a GSHP project in the
North of Zhejiang Province, Build. Energy Environ. 30 (6) (2011) 80–82.
[51] Y. Zhou, Y. Zhang, Y. Xu, Influence of grout thermal properties on heat transfer
performance of ground source heat exchangers, Sci. Technol. Built Environ. 24
(2018) 461–469.
[52] Y. Shang, S. Li, H. Li, Analysis of geo-temperature recovery under intermittent
operation of ground-source heat pump, Energy Build. 43 (4) (2011) 935–943.
[53] V. Bansal, R. Misra, G. Agarwal, et al., Transient effect of soil thermal conductivity
and duration of operation on performance of Earth Air Tunnel Heat Exchanger,
Appl. Energy 103 (2013) 1–11.
[54] H. Esen, M. Inalli, In-situ thermal response test for ground source heat pump system
in Elazıg, Turkey, Energy Build. 41 (2009) 395–401.
[55] Y. Noorollahi, R. Saeidi, M. Mohammadi, et al., The effects of ground heat ex-
changer parameters changes on geothermal heat pump performance-A review,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 129 (2018) 1645–1658.
[56] R. Beier, W. Holloway, Changes in the thermal performance of horizontal boreholes
with time, Appl. Therm. Eng. 78 (2015) 1–8.
[57] C. Chong, G. Gan, A. Verhoef, et al., Simulation of thermal performance of hor-
izontal slinky-loop heat exchangers for ground source heat pumps, Appl. Energy
104 (2013) 603–610.
[58] M. Tatlõer, A. Erdem-SËenatalar, Effects of metal mass on the performance of ad-
sorption heat pumps utilizing zeolite 4A coatings synthesized on heat exchanger
tubes, Int. J. Refrig 23 (2000) 260–268.
[59] R. Dasare, S. Saha, Numerical study of horizontal ground heat exchanger for high
energy demand applications, Appl. Therm. Eng. 85 (2015) 252–263.
[60] Y. Shang, M. Dong, S. Li, Intermittent experimental study of a vertical ground
source heat pump system, Appl. Energy 136 (2014) 628–635.
[61] B. Zhao, Study on heat transfer of ground heat exchanger based on wedgelet finite
element method, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 74 (2016) 63–68.
[62] GB 50366-2009. Technical Code for Ground Source Heat Pump System, China
Architecture & Building Press, 2009.
[63] J. Xu, X. Zhao, Y. Yu, et al., Parametric sensitivity analysis and modelling of me-
chanical properties of normal- and high-strength recycled aggregate concrete using
greytheory, multiple nonlinear regression and artificial neural networks, Constr.
Build. Mater. 211 (2019) 479–491.
[64] J. Xu, Y. Chen, T. Xie, et al., Prediction of triaxial behavior of recycled aggregate
concrete using multivariable regression and artificial neural network techniques,
Constr. Build. Mater. 226 (2019) 534–554.