Handbook of Clean Energy Systems - 2014 - Cui - Geothermal Heat Pumps

Geothermal Heat Pumps
Ping Cui1,2 , Yi Man1,2 , and Zhaohong Fang1,3

1 Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan, P. R. China
2 Shandong Key Laboratory of Building Energy-saving Technique, Jinan, P. R. China
3 Shandong Zhongrui New Energy Technology Co. Ltd., Jinan, P. R. China
1 INTRODUCTION envelope, and the system requires less mechanical room,

allowing for more profitable space use.
1.1 Categories of geothermal heat pump As one of the fastest growing renewable energy applica-
tions, GHP technology has seen several revivals during the
Geothermal heat pump (GHP) technologies utilize the under- over 100 year’s development. The first known record of the
ground environment as a heat source/sink to provide space concept of using the ground as heat source for a heat pump
cooling and heating. From a thermodynamic perspective, the was found in a Swiss patent issued in 1912 (Ball, Fischer,
operating cost of the GHP systems is much lower than that of and Hodgett, 1983). However, the first surge of interest in the
the air source heat pumps because the underground environ- GHP technology began in both North America and Europe
ment experiences less temperature fluctuation compared to only after World War II and lasted until the early 1950s
the ambient air temperature swing. Besides the advantage of when gas and oil became widely used as heating fuels. At
high efficiency, GHP systems offer the following attractive that time, the basic analytical theory for the heat conduction
benefits over conventional heating/cooling systems. of the GHP system was proposed by Ingersoll and Plass
(1948), which served as a basis for development of some of
1. Low maintenance cost and low noise
the later design programs. The next period of intense activity
on GHPs started in North America and Europe in the 1970s
Eliminate the need for a cooling tower or any other outdoor
equipment, which can significantly reduce the maintenance after the first oil crisis, with an emphasis on experimental
cost and noise. investigation. During this period, the research was focused
on the development of the GHP system with vertical bore-
2. Environmental friendliness holes because of the advantage of less land area requirement
for borehole installation. In the ensuing two decades, consid-
Produce less carbon dioxide and other pollutants than the erable efforts were made to establish the installation standard
conventional alternatives, thus reducing global warming and and develop design methods (IGSHPA, 1988; Kavanaugh
other environmental impacts. and Rafferty, 1997; Bose, Parker, and McQuiston, 1985;
Eskilson, 1987). To date, GHP systems have been widely
3. Building esthetics and less required mechanical room used in both residential and commercial buildings because
of the worldwide growing energy shortage. It is estimated
Without boilers and cooling towers, the building esthetics that the GHP system installations have grown continuously
is improved by fewer external penetrations of the building on a global basis with the range from 10% to 30% annually
Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, Online © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in recent years (Yang et al., 2010).
This article is © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Geothermal heat pumps that may use various underground
This article was published in the Handbook of Clean Energy Systems
in 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
sources have been basically grouped into three categories,
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041 that is, (i) groundwater heat pump (GWHP) systems, (ii)
10.1002/9781118991978.hces041, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118991978.hces041 by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [21/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 Geothermal Energy
Pond
Groundwater heat pump Surface water heat pump
a b c
Ground-coupled heat pump (a) Vertical GHE; (b) Horizontal straight GHE; (c) Horizontal slinky GHE
Figure 1. Schematics of different geothermal heat pumps.
surface water heat pump (SWHP) systems, and (iii) ground- condition, the building configuration and loads, the capital
coupled heat pump (GCHP) systems, as shown in Figure 1. and operating costs, and the local regulations for ground-
The GWHP system, also referred to as open-loop systems, water withdrawal. Among these factors, the geology and
is the original type of the GHP systems, which utilizes hydrogeology condition is the primary determining factor
groundwater as heat source or heat sink. Groundwater for the system type. Therefore, a general site survey should
is supplied directly or indirectly to the heat pump units be first conducted to secure the basic site characteristics that
from a well or wells equipped with submersible pumps, may include the presence or absence of groundwater/surface
and it can be discharged on either the subsurface through water, depth of water table, underground temperature,
another well or the surface (ASHRAE, 2003). In a SWHP soil/rock type, and other geology and hydrogeology infor-
system, heat rejection/extraction is accomplished by circu- mation. The site information helps determine what type of
lating working fluid through high density polyethylene GHP system is geologically feasible for the building. For
(HDPE) pipes positioned at an adequate depth within a example, available surface water in a moderate climate may
lake, pond, reservoir, or other suitable open channels. guarantee an SWHP system with a high operating efficiency.
Natural convection becomes the primary role rather than The GWHP system could be preferred in the locations with
heat conduction in the heat transfer process in a GCHP sufficient water resources if the groundwater withdrawal for
system, which tends to have higher heat exchange capa- space heating/cooling applications is legally permitted by
bility than a GCHP system. In a GCHP system, heat is local government. After the GHP type has been decided,
extracted from or rejected to the ground via a closed some specific parameters, such as the underground thermal
loop through which pure water or an antifreeze solution properties, water quality, and water well static and pumping
circulates. The ground heat exchangers (GHEs) used levels, are necessary to design the system. The methods for
in the closed-loop systems typically consist of pipes obtaining these parameters are described in other parts of
installed in vertical boreholes or horizontal trenches, this article.
which are called vertical or horizontal GHE systems,
respectively.
1.3 Objectives of this article
1.2 Determining a GHP for heating and cooling The primary objectives of this article are to describe the
applications basic concept and various configurations of the three cate-
gories of GHP systems, to address the current status of the
Determining what type of GHP system is most suitable for a GHP applications and to provide an advanced review of the
given building in a particular location is actually a complex three categories of GSPs in terms of the recent research and
design process that should comprehensively consider developments. Some design methods or guidelines will be
many factors including the geology and hydrogeology suggested for engineering applications.
Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, Online © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Handbook of Clean Energy Systems in 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041
Geothermal Heat Pumps 3
2 GROUNDWATER HEAT PUMP 2.2 Application types of GWHP system
2.1 Basic concept of GWHP system The GWHP system can be classified by two criterions.
According to the first criterion, the GWHP system can be
As a branch of GHP systems, the GWHP, which is also divided into unitary plant and central plant system. Another
called a simple open-loop system, pumps groundwater from criterion to classify the GWHP system is considered from
developed wells or depleted oil wells and delivers it to a heat the viewpoint of the usage of the groundwater side, that is,
pump or an intermediate heat exchanger to serve as a heat direct system and indirect system (ASHRAE, 2003). For the
source or sink. Then, the groundwater will be discharged into central plant system, only one or a small number of large-
the injection wells (Nam and Ooka, 2010). The groundwater capacity heat pumps are utilized to supply hot and chilled
is a kind of thermally stable heat exchange medium that can water to a water distribution system inside a building, as
provide heat source with high temperature in winter and heat shown in Figure 2. In the unitary plant GWHP system, a large
sink with low temperature in summer, resulting in excellent number of small heat pumps are distributed throughout the
coefficients of the GWHP system performance. building, as shown in Figure 3. Compared with the central
A literature review shows that groundwater has been type, the unitary approach is more common and tends to be
selected as a medium for space heating and cooling for more energy-efficient.
more than 60 years. The main form to utilize the thermal For the direct GWHP system, the groundwater is
energy of groundwater is the GWHP system, which employs pumped directly to the heat pump without an intermediate
large quantities of groundwater as heat source/sink using heat exchanger, as shown in Figure 2. This type is not
relatively inexpensive wells and small land areas. The use of recommended except small installations because of the
the GWHP system for the air conditioning of the Equitable possible blockage and corrosion occurred inside heat
Building built in 1948 is the pioneering achievement in pump units. Thus, the most widely used applications for
the Western world (Hatten and Morisson, 1995; Hatten, commercial/industrial-scale buildings are designed as the
1992). The moderate and relatively constant temperature of indirect system to isolate groundwater from the building
groundwater guarantees the GWHP system a higher energy system with a heat exchanger, as shown in Figure 3. The
efficiency in both commercial and residential buildings, water-to-water heat exchanger is commonly used to connect
causing the system to have been the most widely used type the groundwater loop and a closed water loop, which is
of GHP until the emerge of GCHP system (ASHRAE,
2003). The GWHP systems have some marked advan-
tages and limitations over other GHP systems, as given in
Table 1.
Fan coil unit
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of GWHP.
Advantages Disadvantages
Operation cost is much Groundwater availability is
lower as the groundwater limited for many locations
temperature keeps nearly and may be restricted by local
constant throughout the environmental regulations.
year. Heat pump
The capital cost and land Energy consumption of water
area requirement to dig pumps may be high when the
groundwater wells is system is poorly designed or
much lower than the draws groundwater from a
GCHP system. deep aquifer.
Properly designed Fouling, corrosion, and
groundwater loops with blockage may occur when
correctly developed water groundwater is used directly
wells require little in heat pumps and water
maintenance. quality is poor.
When groundwater is The precious groundwater will Production well Injection well
injected back into the be consumed unless the total
aquifer, net water use is extracted groundwater can be Figure 2. Schematic diagram of central plant GWHP system
zero. properly injected. (direct system).
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041
4 Geothermal Energy
2.3.1 Groundwater production well

Indoor terminal unit The groundwater is extracted from the aquifer, which is a
geologic unit that is capable of yielding groundwater to a
well in sufficient quantities to be of practical use (UOP,
Heat pump
1975). Aquifers can exist in areas where water is present
in conjunction with pore spaces in the subsurface materials
sufficient to allow the water to move laterally. There are four
Heat pump configurations of groundwater production, which are the tube
well, the large opening well, the infiltration galleries, and
the spring chamber. When the local aquifer with thickness
Heat pump larger than 5 m and buried at least 15 m below the ground
surface, groundwater needs to be collected with the tube well.
For the local aquifer with thinner thickness buried at most
15 m below the ground surface, the large opening well should
be selected. If the local aquifer with thinner thickness and
Heat exchanger shallower bury depth less than 5 m, the infiltration galleries
is the optimal configuration of the groundwater production
well. Unusually, the spring chamber is utilized to collect
the spring water, which is an especial form of groundwater.
Generally, the tube well is the most frequent choice for the
groundwater production well of GWHP projects.
The component of the tube well is shown in Figure 4a,
which mainly includes the well wall pipe, and the screen
perforated casing or open hole, the bowl assembly, the grout
Production well Injection well seal, and the gravel-filled layer. The groundwater in the
aquifer can permeate the gravel-filled layer and flow into the
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of unitary plant GWHP system (indi- well wall pipe. In most situations, a single tube well cannot
rect system). satisfy the groundwater amount requirement of the GWHP
system. The siphon tube well group comprised by series
of single tube wells as shown in Figure 4b is the common
connected to heat pumps located in the building. It should configuration of the groundwater production well for the
be noticed that groundwater below 15 or above 40◦ C can practical GWHP projects. The well-casing diameter depends
be circulated directly through coils, which may be buried on the diameter of the pump (bowl assembly) necessary to
inside floor, ceiling, or wall to form the radiant cooling or produce the required flow rate.
heating systems. This type of the direct thermal utilization
of groundwater can save a large amount of energy that
would otherwise have to be generated by mechanical 2.3.2 Groundwater injection well
refrigeration.
In order to protect groundwater resource from destruction,
most GWHP systems are required to install an injection well
2.3 Production/injection wells of GWHP system in addition to the production well to dispose the ground-
water after it has passed through the heat exchanger. On the
As shown in Figure 3, a typical GWHP system may consist other hand, groundwater injection stabilizes the aquifer by
of four primary components: (i) groundwater wells (produc- reducing or eliminating long-term drawdown, and helps to
tion and injection), (ii) well pumps, (iii) groundwater heat ensure long-term productivity of the groundwater produc-
exchanger, and (iv) water-to-water heat pump unit. It should tion well.
be noticed that the production/injection wells are the critical Generally, construction of the groundwater injection well
component that is very distinctive from other GHP systems, differs from the groundwater production well primarily in the
whereas the other three components are quite similar to recommended screen velocity and well sealing design. The
those in conventional systems. The operating efficiency of screen velocity of the injection well is usually selected to be
the production wells can influence the system performance 0.015 m/s, or 1/2 that of production wells (ASHRAE, 2003).
to a large extent. Most injection well walls are subjected to positive injection
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041
Ground level Ground level
Pump Pump
Grout seal Well pipe wall

Siphon pipe Siphon pipe
Bowl
assembly
Aquifer Tube Tube

well well
Collection well
Gravel
filled layer
(a) (b)
Figure 4. (a, b) Groundwater tube well and siphon tube well group.
pressure, so they should be fully cased and sealed from the optimal groundwater flow rate to obtain the maximum
top of the injection zone to the surface. system performance with respect to heat pumps and well
A variation on the injection well configuration is the pumps power requirements.
standing column well, which is a tradeoff between ground- Then the optimization design process involves evaluating
water systems and ground coupled systems. For the standing the performance of the heat pumps and well pumps over a
column GWHP system, the majority of the return ground- range of groundwater flow rates. Corresponding data needed
water is reinjected back into the production well, so the to make this calculation include well performance, which
capital cost of injection well and the amount of surface is generally derived from well pump test results, and heat
discharge water can be cut down. pump performance, which is available from the manufac-
turer. Generally, an optimum groundwater flow rate is less
2.4 Design strategy of GWHP system than the building loop flow rate. According to the studies
by Mustafa Omer (2008), the recommended flow rate of the
In order to obtain accurate and optimal design strategy, the in- groundwater typically lies in the range of 0.027 and 0.054 l
situ groundwater well testing should be completed initially to per second per system cooling capacity (L/(s⋅kW)).
collect the actual flow test data and water chemical analysis
information. Groundwater well tests can be divided into
three different types: rig, short-term, and long-term (Stiger, 3 SURFACE WATER HEAT PUMP
Renner, and Culver, 1989).
The key and distinguishing part of the GWHP system 3.1 Basic concept of SWHP system
design is to project the groundwater loop. Energy consump-
tions of the groundwater pumps and the heat pumps of the Owing to its big heat capacity, surface water bodies such as
GWHP system must be well balanced for proper design. river, lake, and ocean can be the excellent heat source and
The effect of increasing the groundwater flow rates on the sink if they are properly utilized. The SWHP system is a
system energy consumption lies in two inverse aspects: subset of the GHP systems, which utilizes the thermal energy
firstly, the energy consumption of well pumps will increase; of the surface water to provide space heating and cooling.
on the contrary, the energy consumption of heat pumps A pioneer study on the feasibility of using shallow ponds
will decrease as more favorable average temperatures are for dissipation of building heat was carried out by Cantrell
produced with the increase of the groundwater flow rate. and Wepfer in north Ohio (Cantrell and Wepfer, 1984). After
In order to minimize the energy consumption of the whole that, a number of researchers focused on the design consider-
GWHP system, the key design strategy is to identify the ations and its practical operation performance of the SWHP
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041
6 Geothermal Energy
Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of SWHP.

Advantages Disadvantages Fan coil unit
Capital cost and maintenance Operation cost is higher than

requirement is lower than the GWHP system as the surface Heat pump
GWHP system and GCHP water possesses less stable
system. thermal characteristics.
Energy consumption of A large body of water is
circulation pump is low for required, and the submerged Water surface
the closed-loop system pipes may restrict the use as
because there is no elevation well as ecology of the water Water body
head from the water surface body.
to heat pumps.
The closed-loop system can be Coils submerged in the surface
used for heating provision in water body are subject to
cold climate because the damage especially for those Pipe network
antifreeze can be added into submerged in public waters.
the circulation fluid loop. Water body bottom
Fouling, corrosion, and Fouling may occur on the
blockage can be reduced in outside of the surface water
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of closed-loop SWHP system.
closed-loop system. coil, particularly in murky
lakes or where coils are
located on or near the water
body bottom. As the open-loop system circulates the surface water
directly inside the heat pump unit, and no antifreeze can be
added into the circulation water, the temperature of surface
water must remain above 5◦ C to prevent freezing for heating
system for heating and cooling in cold and hot climates provision in winter. Therefore, the application of the open-
separately (Kavanaugh and Pezent, 1990; Aittomäki, 2003; loop SWHP system is restricted to warmer climates. Usually,
Büyükalaca, Ekinci, and Yilmaz, 2003; Tim and Joyce, the open-loop SWHP system tends to be smaller with only
2002). a few heat pump units. It should be noticed that there is
As for its configurations, the SWHP system can be either often enough thermal stratification in surface water bodies
open-loop systems similar to GWHP system or closed-loop deep than 12 m throughout the year that direct cooling or
systems similar to GCHP system. However, the thermal char- precooling is possible. Large-scale cooling-only systems
acteristics of surface water are quite different from those have been deployed successfully in some locations, including
of the groundwater or ground-coupled systems. The major Cornell University and the city of Toronto (Cornell Univer-
disadvantage of the system is that the surface water temper- sity, 2006; Enwave).
ature is more affected by weather conditions, especially in As shown in Figure 5, a closed-loop SWHP system
winter. Table 2 summarizes the advantages and disadvan- consists of a heat pump unit connected to a pipe network
tages of SWHP systems. submerged in a surface water body. The pump circulates
water or a water/antifreeze solution through the water-
to-refrigerant heat exchanger in the heat pump and the
3.2 Application types of SWHP system
submerged piping loop. The recommended pipe material
is thermally fused HDPE. All connections must be either
In the closed-loop system, heat is rejected into or extracted
thermally socket-fused or butt-fused. These HDPE pipes
from the surface water by the fluid (usually a water/antifreeze
should have ultraviolet (UV) radiation protection, especially
mixture) circulating inside the coil submerged inside the
when near the water surface. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
surface water bodies. The esthetics of closed-loop system
pipe and plastic pipe with band-clamped joints are not
is high, and it requires adequate surface area and depth of
recommended.
surface water to function adequately in response to heating or
cooling requirements under local weather conditions. In the
open-loop system, water is pumped from the surface water 3.3 Design strategy of SWHP system
through a heat exchanger and returned to the surface water
some distance from the point where it is extracted. The pump The distinguishing part of the SWHP system design is to
can be located either slightly above or submerged below the project the surface water circulation loop. Energy consump-
surface water level. tions of the circulation pumps and the heat pumps of the
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041
SWHP system must be well balanced for proper design. For 4.1 Vertical borehole ground-coupled heat pump
the open-loop SWHP system, the design project is similar
to that of the GWHP system. Its key design strategy is to 4.1.1 Basic concept of vertical system
identify the optimal surface water flow rate to obtain the
maximum system performance with respect to heat pumps In vertical GCHP systems, the GHE configurations may
and circulation pumps power consumptions. For the closed- include one, tens, or even hundreds of boreholes, each
loop SWHP system, the design of the surface water circula- containing one or double U-tubes through which the heat
tion loop is the key part. exchange fluid is circulated. Typical U-tubes have a diameter
The pipe networks of closed-loop SWHP systems are in the range of 25–40 mm and each borehole is normally
similar to those used in GCHP systems. Both a large- 40–150 m deep with a diameter ranging from 100 to
diameter header between the heat pump and lake coil and 200 mm. The borehole annulus is generally backfilled with
several parallel pipe loops submerged inside water body are some special material (named as grout) that can prevent the
contamination of groundwater. A typical borehole with one
required. Loops are spread out to limit thermal interference,
or double U-tubes is illustrated in Figure 6.
hot spots, and cold pockets. One of the practical compen-
The main advantage of the vertical GCHPs is that they
sation methods for thermal interference is to make bundled
require smaller land areas. Besides, the system can be
coils longer than the spread coils.
installed at any location where drilling or earth trenching
Generally, the submerged piping system is installed in
is feasible. Therefore, the vertical GCHP system has been
loops attached to concrete anchors. Typical installations
recognized as the most widely used application among all
recommended by ASHRAE (2003) require around 26 m of
the GHP systems.
heat-transfer pipes per system cooling capacity (26 m/kW)
and around 79 m2 of water surface area per system cooling
capacity (79 m2 /kW). In order to ensure the good convec- 4.1.2 Heat transfer models
tive heat transfer between pipes and their surrounding water,
The main objective of the GHE thermal analysis is to deter-
the concrete anchors are utilized to hold the pipes from
mine the temperature of the heat carrier fluid, which is
movement and keep the pipes 23–46 cm above the floor
circulated in the U-tubes and the heat pump, under certain
of the surface water body. In order to maintain adequate
operating conditions. A design goal is then to control the
thermal mass in times of extended drought or other low water
temperature rise/drop of the ground and the circulating fluid
conditions, it is also recommended that the pipes should
within acceptable limits over the system lifespan.
be at least 1.8–2.4 m below the water surface. Rivers are
There are roughly three categories of approaches in
not widely used in SWHP system because they are subject
dealing with the thermal analysis and design of the GHEs.
to drought and flooding, both of which may damage the
system.
4 GROUND-COUPLED HEAT PUMP

(GCHP)
Among the various GHP systems, the GCHP system has

attracted the greatest interest in research field and practical
U-tube U-tube
engineering as well, owing to its advantages of less land
area requirement and wide range of applicability. During
the past few decades, a considerable number of studies
have been carried out to investigate the development and
Grout Grout
applications of the GCHP systems with various GHE
configurations and addressed their individual advantages
and disadvantages in detail. Furthermore, various hybrid
GCHP systems, which couple the conventional GCHP
equipment with a supplemental heat rejection/generation
device, have been recently developed in order to improve (a) Double U-tube (b) Single U-tube
the economics of the GCHP systems for unbalanced
climates. Figure 6. (a, b) Schematic of a grouted borehole.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041
8 Geothermal Energy
Empirical or semi-empirical formulations are recommended was first developed by Carslaw and Jaeger (1946). Both the
in textbooks and monographs for GHE design purposes one-dimensional model of the Kelvin’s theory and the cylin-
(Bose, Parker, and McQuiston, 1985; Kavanaugh and drical source model neglect the axial heat flow along the
Rafferty, 1997). These approaches are relatively simple, and borehole depth; therefore they are inadequate for the long-
may be manipulated easily by design engineers. However, term operation of the GCHP systems. A major progress was
they do not reveal in detail the impacts of complicated factors made by Eskilson (1987) to account for the finite length of the
on the GHE performance. The second kind of approaches borehole. Based on the Eskilson’s model, an analytical solu-
involves numerical simulation of the heat transfer in the tion to the finite line source has been developed by a research
GHEs (Mei and Baxter, 1986; Yavuzturk and Spitler, 1999). group, which considers the influences of the finite length of
The third method is the analytical approach, which was first the borehole and the ground surface as a boundary (Zeng,
presented by Eskilson (1987) and further improved by Zeng, Diao, and Fang, 2002). This analytical model approximates
Diao, and Fang (2002). the borehole with the U-tube as a finite line source with radial
The numerical models using polar or cylindrical grids may heat flow. The computed results from the analytical solu-
be computationally inefficient because of a large number tion were compared with the data from numerical solutions
of complex grids. Besides, they can hardly be incorporated in references (Eskilson, 1987; Zeng, Diao, and Fang, 2002),
directly into a design and energy analysis program, unless and they agreed with each other perfectly when a𝜏∕rb2 ≥ 5.
the simulated data are precomputed and stored in programs Temperature rises that occur at any time 𝜏 on the wall of
as a massive database with some parameters. The analyt- the borehole can then be calculated in the following manner
ical models make a number of assumptions and simpli- (Zeng, Diao, and Fang, 2002):
fications in order to solve the complicated mathematical (√ )
algorithms; therefore, the accuracy of analytical results will ⎧ rb 2 + (0.5H−h)2
be slightly reduced but required computation time is much ⎪ erfc √
2 a𝜏
ql H
⎪
less. Another advantage is that the straightforward algorithm √
4kπ ∫0 ⎨
tb − t0 =
deduced from analytical models can be readily integrated ⎪ rb 2 + (0.5H − h)2
into a design/simulation program. Therefore, only the typical ⎪
⎩
analytical models that are widely used in GHE design are (√ )
presented in this section. rb 2 + (0.5H + h)2 ⎫
Actually the heat transfer process in a GHE involves a
erfc √
2 a𝜏
⎪
⎪
number of uncertain factors, such as the ground thermal − √ ⎬ dh (1)
properties and the groundwater and building loads, over a rb + (0.5H + h) ⎪
2 2
⎪
long lifespan of several or even tens of years. In this case, ⎭
the heat transfer process is rather complicated and must be
treated, on the whole, as a transient one. In view of the where t0 is the initial temperature of the soil, that is, the
complication of this problem and its long time scale, the heat annual mean temperature of the soil; k and a denote the
transfer process may usually be analyzed in two separated thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity of the soil,
regions. One is the solid soil/rock outside the borehole, respectively; H and rb the borehole length and the radius,
where the heat conduction must be treated as a transient respectively; and ql the heating rate per length of the line
process. With the knowledge of the temperature response source.
in the ground, the temperature on the borehole wall can
then be determined for any instant on specified operational 4.1.2.2 Heat transfer inside the borehole. The thermal
conditions. Another sector often segregated for analysis is resistance inside the borehole, which is primarily determined
the region inside the borehole, including the grout, the U- by the thermal properties of the grouting materials and the
tube pipes and the circulating fluid inside the pipes. This arrangement of flow channels of the borehole, has a signifi-
region is sometimes analyzed as being quasi-steady-state and cant impact on the GHE performance. The main objective of
sometimes analyzed as being transient. The analyses on the this analysis is to determine the entering and leaving temper-
two spatial regions are interlinked on the borehole wall. atures of the circulating fluid in the borehole according to
the borehole wall temperature, its heat flow, and the thermal
4.1.2.1 Heat conduction outside borehole. The earliest resistance.
approach to calculating the thermal transport around a heat A few models with varying degrees of complexity have
exchange pipe in the ground is the Kelvin line-source theory, been established to describe the heat transfer inside the
that is, the infinite line source (Ingersoll et al., 1950). The GHE boreholes. A simplified one-dimensional model has
cylindrical source solution for a constant heat transfer rate been recommended for GHE design, which considers the
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041
U-tube as a single “equivalent” pipe (Gu and O’Neal, 1998). U-tube inside the borehole, the temperature profiles in
Hellstrom (1991) derived the analytical two-dimensional the two pipes were illustrated by Diao, Zeng, and Fang
solutions of the thermal resistances among pipes in the (2004).
cross-section perpendicular to the borehole axis, which For the purpose of practical applications an alternative
is superior to empirical expressions and one-dimensional parameter 𝜀 = (tf′ − tf′′ )∕(tf′ − tb ) is derived from the temper-
model. On the basis of the two-dimensional model afore- ature profiles, which is named as the heat transfer efficiency
mentioned, a quasi-three-dimensional model was proposed of the borehole. It should be noticed that tf′ and tf′′ are
by Zeng, Diao, and Fang (2003), which considers the fluid the entering/exiting fluid temperatures to /from the U-tube.
temperature variation along the borehole depth. Being From the derived temperature profile the more accurate heat
minor in the order, the conductive heat flow in the grout conduction resistance between the fluid inside the U-tube and
and ground in axial direction, however, is still neglected so the borehole wall can be calculated by
as to keep the model concise and analytically manageable.
The energy equilibrium equations for a single U-tube can ( )
be written for up-flow and down-flow of the circulating H 1 1
Rb = − (4)
fluid: Mc 𝜀 2
−Mc
dtf 1
=
(tf 1 −tb )
+
(tf 1 −tf 2 ) ⎫ The authors validated that the quasi-3-D model was more
dz RΔ RΔ ⎪
1 12
⎬ (0 ≤ z ≤ H) (2) accurate than the other current models and recommended it
Mc
dtf 2
=
(tf 2 −tb )
+
(tf 2 −tf 1 )
⎪ for design and thermal analysis of GHEs.
dz RΔ2
RΔ12 ⎭
A summary of the characteristics of the numerical and
Two conditions are necessary to complete the solution: analytical models of the GHEs reviewed is given in Table 3
} (Yang et al., 2010).
z = 0, tf1 = t′ f Combined the heat transfer models outside and inside
(3) the boreholes, the temperatures of the circulating fluid
z = H, tf1 = tf2
to/from the heat pump can be determined. Finally, the
where RΔ and RΔ are the relative thermal resistances between modeling procedure uses spatial superimposition for
1 2
the circulating fluids and the borehole wall, respectively, and multiple boreholes and sequential temporal superimposition
RΔ the resistance between the pipes. The detailed expres- to determine the arbitrary heating or cooling loads of the
12
sions can be found in reference (Zeng, Diao, and Fang, 2003). systems, as proposed by Eskilson (1987). This approach
M and c are the mass flow rate and specific heat of the circu- can be easily incorporated into computer programs for
lating fluid. thermal analysis and sizing of the GHEs while providing
The general solution of this problem is derived by better insight into influences of various factors on the
Laplace transformation, which is slightly complicated in GHE performance (Yu et al., 2002; Cui, Yang, and Fang,
form. At the instance of the symmetric placement of the 2007).
Table 3. Comparisons of the current models of vertical GHEs.

Model Method Thermal Interference Boundary Effects
Between Bore Holes
Outside borehole Kelvin’s line source Infinite line source Yes No
Cylindrical source Infinite cylindrical source Yes No
Eskilion’s model Combination of numerical Yes Yes
and analytical methods
Finite line-source solution Analytical method Yes Yes
Short time-step model Numerical Yes Yes
Model Method Thermal Interference Heat Flux along Depth
between U-tube Pipes
Inside borehole One-dimensional model No No
(equivalent pipe)
Two-dimensional model Yes No
Quasi-three-dimensional Yes Yes
model
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041
10 Geothermal Energy
4.1.3 Design methods 4.1.3.2 In-situ thermal response test. Thermal proper-
ties of the underground soil/rock are important parame-
4.1.3.1 Building and heat pump models. Building load ters for designing GHE system. In-situ test combined with
characteristic including peak loads and annual hourly loads parameters estimation algorithm is an accepted method to
is another important determining factor for the GCHP system determine the ground thermal properties. The in-situ test
design. While the conventional air conditioning systems can system with measuring apparatus is illustrated in Figure 7.
be adequately designed only according to a peak heating Figure 8 shows the inner configuration of measuring appa-
load and cooling load at a peak day, the GCHP systems ratus, which includes an electrical heater, a circulating pump,
require consideration of a whole year, at a minimum, and two thermocouples, a flow meter, a data logger, and data tran-
the GHE needs an annual simulation. As the heat transfer sition equipment. The measuring apparatus is connected to
of GHEs is assumed to be transient across the lifespan of the buried loop of the GHE at worksite. To reduce heat loss,
a GCHP system, the building loads can be calculated on all exposed pipes should be coated with insulation materials.
an hourly, daily, or monthly basis according to the design During tests, being heated by the electrical heater and driven
program. Therefore, an annual heating and cooling load by the circulating pump, water is circulated in the buried
profile must be pre-analyzed in the design and decision loop and releases heat to the ambient grout and soil. The
process, which can result in an accurate and reliable vertical U-tube inlet and outlet water temperatures and flow rate are
GHE system. measured and transmitted to a data processor. The thermal
The heat pump unit is a key component to connect the response test should be performed for about 48–72 h. All
vertical GHE loop and building loop. It has been shown
that the performance of a heat pump unit is a function of
the entering fluid temperature (EFT) of the water that is
transported to the water-loop heat pump from the GHE side. Measuring
apparatus
The coefficient of performance (COP) for the heating mode
can be correlated to the EFT as follows:
COP = a + b ⋅ EFT + c ⋅ EFT2 (5) Ground
Borehole & grout

The energy efficiency ratio (EER) for the cooling mode is
derived as:
EER = d + e ⋅ EFT + f ⋅ EFT2 (6)
In these expressions, the coefficients (a, b, c, d, e, f) can

be obtained by fitting the performance data that are provided
Figure 7. Schematics of in-situ thermal response test.
by heat pump manufacturers. By using the definition of the
cooling EER, the required compressor power consumption
for the cooling mode, which is rejected to the ground together
with the building cooling loads, can be obtained. The cooling Electrical
Thermometer
load for the GHE Qgc —or the heat that is rejected to the heater
ground—is given as follows: To ground loop
Qgc = Qbc (1∕EER + 1) (7)

Circulating pump
where Qbc is the cooling capacity of the heat pump, which is

approximately equal to the building cooling load.
From ground loop
Similarly, the heating load of the GHE Qgh , or the heat that
is extracted from the ground, is obtained from the heating
COP: Thermometer Flow meter
Qgh = Qbh (1 − 1∕COP) (8)
where Qbh denotes the heating capacity of the heat pump. Figure 8. Components of the measuring apparatus.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041
Table 4. Thermal properties of selected soils, rocks, and bore The required bore length is the larger of the two lengths
grouts/fills. Lc , and Lh found from Equations (9) and (10). The effi-
Dry Density, Conductivity, Diffusivity, ciency benefits of an oversized bore length could be used
Ib/ft3 Btu/h ft ◦ F ft2 /day to compensate for the higher capital cost. If the designer
Soils expects to install the smaller length to reduce the capital cost,
Heavy clay (15% water) 120 078–1.06 0.45–0.65 a supplemental heating or cooling source should be installed
Heavy clay (5% water) 120 0.6–0.8 0.5–0.65 to compensate for the undersized coil. Obviously, the simpli-
Light clay (15% water) 80 0.4–0.6 0.35–0.5
Light clay (5% water) 80 0.3–0.5 0.35–0.6
fied method does not account for the transient effects of
Heavy sand (15% water) 120 1.6–2.2 0.9–1.2 the long-term operation and the variations of building loads,
Heavy sand (5% water) 120 1.2–1.9 1.0–1.5 which may cause a significant deviation from practical condi-
Light sand (15% water) 80 0.6–1.2 0.5–1.0 tions.
Light sand (5% water) 80 0.5–1.1 0.6–1.3
Rocks
Granite 165 1.3–2.1 0.9–1.4 4.1.3.4 Design and simulation programs for GHEs.
Limestone 150–175 1.4–2.2 0.9–1.4 As mentioned earlier, the heat transfer process in a GHE
Sand tone 160–170 1.2–2.0 0.7–1.2 involves a large number of factors. It is necessary to further
Wet shale 130–165 0.8–1.4 0.7–0.9 develop an accurate, reliable, and convenient program
Dry shale 131–165 0.6–0.8
for GHE design and simulation. In the past decade, a
Source: Reproduced with permission from Kavanaugh and Rafferty, 1997. number of GHE models have been developed and they
© ASHRAE. have been combined, directly or indirectly, with models
of the building, heat pumps, and other components in
the data should be collected at least once every 10 min (Yu
various modeling environments such as TRNSYS, Ener-
et al., 2004). Based on the measured data, soil conductivity
gyPlus, eQuest, HVACSIM+, and Geostar. The GHE
ks , borehole heat resistance Ro , and volumetric specific heat
model used in TRNSYS (Hellström, 1989) is called the
capacity 𝜌s cs can be found by inverse heat transfer anal-
Duct Ground Heat Storage model, originally intended for
ysis. Table 4 lists the thermal properties for some typical
underground thermal storage systems. The model uses
soils/rock.
numerical solutions for the global heat transfer between the
4.1.3.3 Simplified Design Method. The International storage volume and the far-field, and for the local problem
Ground-Source Heat Pump Association (IGSHPA) is one of the heat transfer around the boreholes. An analytical
of the earliest groups that are involved in the development method is employed to solve the steady-flux problem
of GHE design methods (Bose, Parker, and McQuiston, around the nearest pipe. The three models implemented in
1985). The IGSHPA modeling procedure is based on the HVACSIM + (Xu and Spitler, 2006), EnergyPlus (Fisher
Kelvin’s line-source theory with a number of simplifying et al., 2006) and eQuest (Liu, 2008) have a common
assumptions. It can only estimate the GHE length for the heritage, which are based on extensions of Eskilson’s model
coldest and the hottest month of a year using the following (1987).
two simple formulas. The required length for heating is: A software package named GeoStar, which is based
on the quasi-3-D model and the finite line source model,
( )
has been developed and spread for the design and simu-
Qbh COP−1
COP
(Rp + Rs Fh )
Lh = (9) lation of the GHEs mainly in China (Fang, Diao, and
Ts,m − Tmin Cui, 2002). This program is able to size GHEs to meet a
user-specified minimum and maximum heat pump EFTs
and for cooling, for a given set of design conditions, such as building
( ) loads, ground thermal properties, borehole configura-
EER+1
Qbc EER
(Rp + Rs Fc ) tion, and heat pump operating characteristics. Another
Lc = (10) function of the program is to simulate the system perfor-
Tmax − Ts,m
mance and predict the GHE heat transfer rates for an
where Rs is the soil resistance of a single vertical heat existing GCHP project. The flow chart of the computing
exchanger obtained by the Kelvin’s line-source theory; Rp procedure for the model implementation is described in
the thermal resistance of the U-tube, which is assumed to be Figure 9. The design process is actually a simulation-based
an “equivalent diameter” pipe; F the run fraction; Ts,m the process by means of the trial-and-error method. When
mean soil temperature; and Tmin and Tmax the design heat completing the calculation, the program will produce a
pump minimum and maximum entering fluid temperatures, detailed report to describe the whole design process and the
respectively. results.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041
Begin
Input heat pump data and building loads
Design Simulate
Set the max and min temp of EFT Input the GHE size
Assume the GHE size Cal resistance of borehole

Adjust GHE size
Cal the resistance of borehole Cal the predicted EFT, ExFT
Cal the predicted EFT, ExFT Cal the heat transfer rate of GHE
and power consumption of HP
No Yes
EFTset−EFTCal < ε
Output
End
Figure 9. The flowchart of the GeoStar program.
4.2 Horizontal ground-coupled heat pumps temperature may fluctuate as much as 10◦ C at a depth of
1.5 m.
4.2.1 Basic concept of horizontal system For the straight pipe configuration, multiple pipes are
The horizontal ground heat exchanger (HGHE) usually usually placed in different depths in a single trench because
consists of straight or spiral/slinky coiled loops, which this installation can reduce the land area needed for hori-
are buried in a trench at a depth of approximately zontal system, as shown in Figure 10. The pipes can be
1.2–2 m. An antifreeze solution is recommended to be connected in parallel or in series in trenches, as shown in
employed in heat-dominated regions because the ground Figure 11. The most common straight pipe application is the
(a) Two pipes per trench (b) Four pipes per trench (c) Six pipes per trench
Figure 10. (a–c) Typical configurations with straight pipes.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041
Table 5. Advantages and disadvantages of horizontal GHE.

Advantages Disadvantages
Loop installation is less Large land area is needed, not
expensive compared to the feasible for most urban
drilling cost buildings
No potential for aquifer Heat transfer efficiency is more
contamination because of the affected by the ambient
shallow depth of the trench temperature fluctuations
The effect from unbalanced Pipe buried relatively near the
Figure 11. Parallel and series horizontal GHEs. annual loads can be ignored surface is more susceptible to
because more heat is being cut during excavations
transferred through the for other utilities
ground surface
The construction of trenches is An antifreeze solution must be
convenient used in most heating
dominated regions
(a) (b)
GCHP systems in some specific locations where the land area
Figure 12. (a) Overlapping slinky loops and (b) vertical spiral is sufficient for the pipe installations, such as the residential
loops. buildings in suburbs or buildings near large playground or
golf course.
two-pipe arrangement in parallel. Rarely are more than two 4.2.2 Thermal response test for horizontal GHE
layers of pipes used in a single trench because of the extra
time needed for the partial backfilling (ASHRAE, 2003). The It should be noticed that the ground thermal properties and
parallel loops are recommended to be used compared to the the ground temperature are important parameters for any
series loops because of the lower pumping power consump- ground loop design. As for horizontal GHE systems, the soil
tion. Compared to the series loops, the parallel loops use thermal properties can be obtained either by in-situ thermal
pipes of smaller diameter, and thus require smaller volumes response test or by lab test for the sample soil excavated from
of antifreeze (if needed) though they may need slightly more the site.
pipes.
The overlapping slinky loop configurations have also been 4.2.3 Design methods
used with some success because of the advantages of less
land area requirement and higher pipe installation density The design objective of horizontal applications is to have
compared to conventional straight HGHEs, as shown in enough buried pipe length within the available land area to
Figure 12a. As for the overlapping slinky loops, special atten- serve the space heating and cooling.
tion should be paid to backfilling process to guarantee soil Compared to the advanced heat transfer models for
fills all the gaps formed by the overlapping pipe. Other- the vertical GHE, the horizontal GHE system is still in
wise, additional air thermal resistance may be produced in its early stage of numerical and experimental investi-
the gaps between the soil and the pipes, and thus reduce the gations. Mei first proposed a numerical model suitable
heat transfer performance. Recently, a novel configuration of for horizontal GHEs with straight pipes in 1986 (Mei,
vertical spiral loops has attracted great interest in research 1986). In recent years, research into the horizontal GHE
field because the thermal interference between the vertical systems has been carried out on thermal performance,
coils is much insignificant when compared to the overlapping thermal interference, and optimal geometric design methods
slinky coils (Congedo1, Colangelo1, and Starace, 2012), as for different operation conditions and loop arrange-
shown in Figure 12b. However, more installation cost and ments. Little work has been carried out to analytically
time may be required for the vertical spiral coils than the model horizontal systems for multiyear hourly energy
horizontal slinky coils. calculations, where interaction with the aboveground
Table 5 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of environment is important (Spitler, 2005). The deficiency
a horizontal GHE system when compared to a vertical GHE of an accurate design procedure can be attributed to the
(from ASHRAE 2003 Handbook HAVC Application). In inherent difficulty of the thermal analysis of the horizontal
summary, the HGHE offers a cost-effective alternative for systems as the temperature fluctuations around a year
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041
Table 6. Land area needed for straight pipes per ton 4.3 Ground-coupled heat pumps with pile GHEs
(ft2 /ton = 0.026 m2 /kW).
Numbers of Buried Straight Pipe North South 4.3.1 Basic concept of pile GHE
Two pipe loops per trench 2000 3500 A conventional GHP with vertical or horizontal GHEs
Four pipe loops per trench 1400 2400
Six pipe loops per trench 1400 2400 requires a large plot of land and high installation cost,
which has significantly hindered the wide applications of
the GHP technology. Recently a so-called pile ground heat
exchanger (PGHE), which utilizes the building foundation
in the shallow ground and on the boundary (the ground piles as part of the GHE, becomes promising in the GHP
surface) cannot be neglected as in the cases of the vertical industry. Besides supporting the building, the piles can act
borehole GHEs. as heat exchangers. Each pile carries a closed-loop pipe
The “rule of thumb” approximations have been in vogue connected to a heat pump on the ground for heating, cooling,
for the horizontal system design. Rules of thumb can serve and hot water supply as well. The pile grout material,
well for specific localities where soil and weather conditions mainly concrete, provides good tight contact between the
are fairly uniform because design specifications are based buried pipes and the piles, and between the piles and the
on the experience with related installations. However, surrounding soil, which can significantly reduce the thermal
some systems designed by this method may suffer from contact resistance, and hence improve the heat transfer
the inability of the “rule of thumb” designer to properly efficiency. The most competitive advantage of such a system
assess the effect of varied design parameters, such as is the considerable reduction of the cost and the plot of
burial depth, pipe spacing, and different ground surface land for the borehole field (Morino and Oka, 1994). In the
conditions. PGHE technology, pipes may be buried in concrete piles
In addition to the rule-of-thumb method, some numerical in configurations of U-tubes or spiral coils, as shown in
models with different complexity have been developed for Figure 13 (Cui et al., 2011).
the design and performance prediction of horizontal GHEs
in engineering applications (Demir et al., 2009; Wu et al., 4.3.2 Heat transfer models
2010).
The detailed design guidelines for residential hori- A literature review has shown that most of existing studies
zontal GHE installations can be found in OSU (1988). of pile GHE were based on either experiments or numer-
The Commercial/Institutional Ground-Source Heat Pump ical simulations (Morino and Oka, 1994; Pahud, Fromentin,
Engineering Manual published by ASHARE has recom- and Hadorn, 1996; Pahud, Fromentin, and Hubbuch, 1999;
mended some land area indexes required for per ton for Laloui, Nuth, and Vulliet, 2006; Hamada et al., 2007; Sekine
the straight pipe loop design according to the different et al., 2007). Besides, pipes buried in concrete piles are
climate characteristics in north and south area in America in configurations of U-tubes in most of such applications.
(Table 6). However, the values provided in the table are In these U-tube configurations, the effective heat transfer
suitable for the preliminary design and can be only used area in a certain pile is limited, and air choking may occur
in the regions of America. More accurate and detailed in the turning tips of the tubes connected in series. In
design method should be consulted to the relative profes- order to overcome these drawbacks, a novel configuration
sionals or be completed by using design/simulation of the foundation pile GHE with a spiral coil has been
programs. proposed (Man et al., 2010a). The distinct advantage of
(c) Double
(a) Single U-tube (b) W-tube (d) Triple U-tube (e) Spiral coil
U-tube
Figure 13. (a–e) Typical configurations for pile GHE.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041
h1 h1 b/2
b/2
b b b b
h2 h2
2r0 2r0 2r0 2r0
z z z z
Pile GHE with (a) Infinite ring-coil (b) Finite ring-coil (c) Infinite spiral (d) Finite spiral
spiral coil source model source model source model source model
Figure 14. (a–d) Established heat source models of the pile GHE.
this novel GHE is that it can offer higher heat transfer effi- mechanical behavior with its temperature rises/drops.
ciency, reduce pipe connection complexity, and decrease The heat exchanger piles and the surrounding soil will
the thermal “short-circuiting” among the feed and return expand or contract with the temperature variations under
pipes. the GHP system operating conditions. With temperature
A number of heat transfer models for spiral pile GHE variations and different thermal expansion coefficients of
have been developed by a Chinese research group. The first pile and soil, the thermal deformation between piles and
model is referred as the ring-coil source model (Cui et al., the surrounding soil will become inconsistent, and the
2011), which is developed on the basis of cylindrical source stress on the pile-soil interface would change (Zhao et al.
model (Man et al., 2010a), as shown in Figure 14a and b. 2012).
The ring-coil model further considers the discontinuity of the The thermal load in foundation design for heat exchanger
heat source and the impact of the coil pitch by simplifying piles has to be considered. However, this issue has not
the buried spiral coil as a set of separated rings located on received enough attention in practice so far. Fortunately,
the cylindrical surface. Evolved from the ring-coil source there are some pioneer works on designing energy pile.
model, the “spiral source model” (Man et al., 2011a) is For example, Laloui et al. investigated the increased loads
further presented for better analyzing and designing the pile on piles because of thermal effects through the FEM
GHE with spiral coils, as shown in Figure 14c and d. For this numerical analysis in 2006, and Knellwolf, Peron, and
model, the buried spiral coil is approximated by a spiral line Laloui (2011) proposed a revised load transfer method.
heat source. The temperature response of the buried spiral Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the structural
coils can be evaluated according to the analytical solutions engineer should be consulted for the thermo-mechanical
of this model. behavior of the energy pile before installations of a
pile GHE.
4.3.3 Considerations
4.4 Hybrid ground-coupled heat pumps
More importantly, the thermo-mechanical behavior of an
energy pile should be thoroughly investigated. As mentioned, the GCHP system can achieve better energy
It is noteworthy that the continuous heat rejec- performance in specific locations where building, heating,
tion/extraction of the PGHE to/from the piles can cause and cooling loads are well balanced all the year round
significant temperature variations (up to 20◦ C) of piles and because of the long-term transient heat transfer in the GHE.
the surrounding soil, which may influence the mechan- However, heating and cooling loads of most buildings
ical behavior of the pile foundation severely. From the located in warm- or cold-climate areas are unbalanced
thermo-mechanical point of view, the pile equipped on an annual basis. When the GCHP system is utilized
with heat exchanger pipes becomes to a newly type of in the cooling load dominated or heating load dominated
heat exchanger pile, with the special feature of varying buildings, the imbalance between the amount of heat
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041
extracted from and rejected into ground will cause the 4.4.1 HGCHP systems with supplemental heat
increase or decrease of ground temperature as well as rejecter
the EFT to the heat pump. As a result, the GCHP system
will experience performance degradation gradually. It is For the HGCHP system with supplemental heat rejecter, the
possible to avoid this problem by either increasing the total unbalanced cooling load can be rejected by supplemental
length of the GHE and/or increasing the spacing between heat rejecter. Therefore, the GHE size may be smaller, and
the GHE boreholes. However, the system capital cost and the system capital cost can be reduced considerably for
land requirement may be significantly higher, so that the cooling load dominated buildings compared with the GCHP
GCHP system may not be competitive with traditional system. The conventional supplemental heat rejecter of the
alternatives. HGCHP system is an open-loop cooling tower connected
In order to prevent the unbalanced heat or cold accu- with a plate heat exchanger. As shown in Figure 15, the
mulation in the ground around the GHE, to reduce the conventional HGCHP system mainly consists of a heat pump
system capital cost and further improve the system oper- unit, a GHE, a cooling tower, a plate heat exchanger, and an
ation performance, one of the available options is to use optional domestic hot water (DHW) production device (the
the hybrid ground coupled heat pump (HGCHP) system. By desuperheater).
incorporating a supplemental heat rejecter or supplemental The ASHRAE Manual (1995) first discussed the advan-
heater, the HGCHP system can reject the unbalanced heat of tages of the HGCHP systems considering the capital costs
cooling load from dominated buildings by supplemental heat and available surface area limitations for cooling load domi-
rejecter, and can compensate the unbalanced cold of heating nated buildings in 1995. After that, some studies were carried
load from dominated buildings by supplemental heater. The out with respect to the simulation model establishment,
distinguished difference between the HGCHP system and optimal operating control strategies selection, and experi-
the GCHP system is that the HGCHP system integrates the mental investigation of the HGCHP systems.
GCHP system with a supplemental heat rejecter or supple- Most studies focused on the simulative fields that
mental heater. mainly concentrate on the capacity design of supplemental
Thermo-couple
Flow meter
From air conditioning room
Thermo-couple
Water pump
To air conditioning room
Evaporator Compressor
Domestic hot water
Expansion Expansion
valve valve Desuper DHW Electric supplemental heater
heater tank
Condensor Cold water
Flow meter Cooling

Water Thermo-couple tower
circulation Side valve
pump Thermo-couple Water
Thermo-couple circulation
pump
Thermo- Panel heat
couple exchanger
Circulation way of heat pump unit in cooling mode
Circulation way of heat pump unit in heating mode
GHEs
Figure 15. Schematic diagram of HGCHP system with supplemental heat rejecter.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041
heat rejecter as well as GHE, the selection of operation HGCHP system have been carried out. A design and simula-
control strategy, and the simulation of system oper- tion tool for modeling the performance of a shallow pond as
ating performance to make the HGCHP systems more a supplemental heat rejecter with GCHP systems was devel-
attractive in their economical competitiveness. Gilbreath oped in detail by Chiasson et al. (2000). On the basis of
(1996) conducted a detailed study based on a HGSHP the simulation model of the shallow pond, Ramamoorthy
system installed in an office building and presented et al. developed a system simulation approach to deter-
some design suggestions. Kavanaugh and Rafferty (1997) mine the optimum size of a HGCHP system with a cooling
suggested that the supplemental heat rejecter should be pond (Ramamoorthy et al., 2001). In order to reduce the
sized according to the peak block loads at design condi- high capital cost of the GCHP system and to decrease the
tions and its nominal capacity was calculated according energy consumption for DHW heating, Cui et al. (2008)
to the difference between cooling and heating loads. developed a HGCHP system with DHW supply system for
Kavanaugh (1998) modified the existing design proce- residential buildings in hot-climate areas. Combining the
dures recommended by the ASHRAE Manual (1995) natural passive nocturnal cooling technology with the GCHP
and by Kavanaugh and Rafferty (1997), and a method system, Man et al. (2011b) proposed a novel HGCHP system
to balance the heat transfer in the ground on an annual with nocturnal cooling device serves as supplemental heat
basis was proposed. Phetteplace and Sullivan (1998) rejecters.
described the operating performance of a HGCHP system
using the measured data over a 22-month period. Singh 4.4.2 HGCHP systems with solar collectors
and Foster (1998) investigated the capital cost savings of
the HGCHP system designed for two sample buildings. When the GCHP system is utilized for the heating load-
Yavuzturk and Spitler (2000) presented a system simulation dominated buildings located in cold climates, the amount
approach to compare the advantages and disadvantages of of heat rejected to the ground in summer cannot balance
various control strategies for the operation of the HGCHP the heat extracted from the ground in winter. Especially
system. Xu (2007) studied the optimal control strategies for the large-scale system with a long-term operation, the
and control parameters for HGCHP systems using the annual imbalance in ground load will cause an irreversible
HVACSIM + simulation environment. Man et al. (2010b) temperature drop of underground soil and correspondingly
developed a practical hourly simulation model of the a lower temperature of circulating fluid entering the heat
HGCHP system operated with various control strategies by pump. As a result, the unbalanced ground loads will signif-
analyzing and modeling the heat transfer process of its main icantly degrade the system performance, even causing the
components. system collapsed during the coldest time of winter. Similar
Just a few studies concentrated on the experimental to the cases for cooling load-dominated buildings, the use of
operation performance of the HGCHP systems. Hern a supplemental heater, such as a solar collector, can signifi-
(2004) set up an accurate experimental facility with cantly reduce the GHE size and the borehole installation cost
complex control instruments at the Oklahoma State Univer- and, therefore, can make the GCHP systems economically
sity to measure the performance of the HGCHP system attractive. Basically, the GHE is sized to meet the cooling
operated with different control strategies. Practical oper- load and the supplemental heat supply device is sized to meet
ations of this HGCHP system experimental facility were the excess heating load that is unmet by the GHE. Figure 16
presented by Xu (2007). Two operation control strate- depicts the basic operating principle of the hybrid GCHP
gies of the cooling tower were investigated. Man (2011) system with a solar collector.
reported an experimental rig of the HGCHP system with The idea to couple a solar collector to the coil of pipes
comprehensive data acquisition instruments and control buried in the ground, by means of which solar energy can be
equipments, the detailed operation performance data of stored in the ground, was first proposed by Penrod in 1956.
the HGCHP system with different control strategies were After a few decades, the solar GCHP system was recom-
collected, and the optimal practical control strategies were mended by Metz (1982). Recently, a number of efforts have
recommended. been made to investigate the performance and applications
It should be noticed that the wide application of the of the solar-assisted GCHP systems. Chiasson and Yavuz-
HGCHP system is partly restricted by the cooling tower, turk (2003) presented a system simulation approach in the
which serves as the conventional supplemental heat rejecter. TRNSYS environment to assess the feasibility of the hybrid
First, the installation of cooling tower affects the building GCHP systems with fixed and azimuth tracking solar collec-
exterior. Besides, the operation of cooling tower is noisy and tors in heating load-dominated buildings. Bi et al. (2004)
water consuming with high maintenance requirement. There- conducted the experimental studies of a solar-ground heat
fore, explorations on novel supplemental heat rejecter of the pump system, where the heating mode is alternated between
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041
Thermo-couple
Flow meter
From air conditioning room
Thermo-couple
Water pump
To air conditioning room
So
l
ar
Thermo-couple
co
Flow meter
lle
Heat
ct
er
pump
Water Hot
Side valve water
circulation
pump Thermo-couple tank
Thermo-couple
Supplemental
heater
GHEs
Figure 16. Schematic diagram of HGCHP system with supplemental heater.
a solar energy-source heat pump and a GCHP with a vertical 5 COMPARISONS OF CAPITAL AND
double-spiral coil GHE. Ozgener and Hepbasli (2005) exper- OPERATING COSTS
imentally investigated the performance characteristics of a
solar-assisted HGCHP system for greenhouse heating with a The overall cost of the GHP system is usually the most
vertical GHE. important factor in determining whether to employ GHP
Trillat-Berdal, Souyri, and Fraisse (2006) presented system to provide space heating and cooling. The capital and
a HGCHP system coupled with solar collectors, which operating costs during the whole lifespan are the two basic
was designed to provide DHW and space heating for a components of the overall cost.
private residence. Experimental operation performance of
the system indicated that the heat injected into the ground 5.1 Capital costs
by the solar collector had an average value of 39.5 W/m,
approximately the same as the average heat extracted from It is known that there is no big difference of equipment
the ground by the GCHP (40 W/m). Therefore, the system cost among the various GHP systems and the conventional
COP was significantly increased, which demonstrates that systems because this part of cost mainly depends on the
recharging the ground with solar heat is a feasible way to capacity of the equipment designed according to the building
balance the ground loads in cases of heating load-dominated load demands. Therefore, the equipment in the machine plant
buildings. is not considered in the calculation of capital cost in this
A solar-assisted HGCHP heating system with latent article. The following items should be included in the capital
heat energy storage tank was investigated by Han et al. costs of these GHP systems (Rafferty, 1995).
(2008). The HGCHP system can implement eight different
operation modes according to the outdoor weather condi- GWHP system:
tions by means of alternative heat source changes among 1. Production and injection wells
the solar energy, ground heat, and the latent heat energy 2. Buried piping (well to building)
storage tank. The numerical simulative system opera- 3. Production well pump
tion characteristic indicated the HGCHP system has an 4. Heat exchanger
improved COP as the ground temperature can obtain
an effective recovery because of the addition of solar SWHP system (closed loop):
energy. 1. Trench and water intake
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041
Table 7. Capital costs of various GHPs for commercial buildings in China.

GWHP SWHP Vertical GCHP Horizontal GCHP
Take an example of 1 kW of system capacity
Heat capacity per loop 5.8 kW/(m3 /h) 45 W/m 50 W/m 30 W/m
Well/borehole/trench ($/kW) 10–15 40–70 100–270 50–85
Buried piping ($/kW) 10–15 80 70 85
Pumps ($/kW) 20 20 20 20
Heat exchanger ($/kW) 10
Total ($/kW) 50–60 140–170 190–360 155–190
2. Buried piping (surface water body to building) Table 8. Coefficients of performance of different geothermal heat
3. Circulating pump pump systems.
GWHP SWHP Vertical GCHP Horizontal GCHP
Vertical GCHP system: COP 4–4.5 3.5–4 3.2–4 3–3.8
1. Vertical borehole
2. Buried piping (Loop and piping installation)
3. Circulating pump
attractively economic system goes for SWHP systems, which
Horizontal GCHP system: has a relative lower capital cost and higher operating effi-
1. Horizontal trench ciency. Similarly, the wide application of SWHP systems is
2. Buried piping (Loop and piping installation) also limited in some specific areas with a moderate climate
3. Circulating pump and a large body of surface water. GCHP systems have the
highest capital and operating costs, but the systems show a
These items of the costs vary with climate, hydrogeo- relatively wide range of applications and less technical limi-
logical conditions, soil thermal properties, building char- tations when compared to the GWHP and SWHP systems.
acteristics, and the local economic development level that Therefore, when selecting the best suitable GHP type for
determines the labor cost. Consequently, it is difficult to a specific project, many issues should be simultaneously
conclude a uniform or similar standard of capital cost for considered such as the technical feasibility, construction, and
all the projects around the world. Basically, all the influ- economics, which include capital cost, operating cost, and
ence factors for each project can be quantifiably expressed acceptable payback time. It is suggested to employ some
by a cost per system capacity ($/kW) according to the heat specialized program to optimally select the suitable GHP
transfer capacity of piping loop, the building loads, and the system for some specific buildings in specific location.
local prices. In this article, only the general capital costs of
the various GHPs for commercial buildings in the middle of
6 CONCLUSIONS
China are summarized in Table 7.
This article is an overview what needs to be known about the
5.2 Operating costs GHP systems for a design engineer or a reader who is inter-
ested in the field of GHP systems. The basic concepts and
In the process of system selection, the operating cost is various options of the GHP systems that include groundwater
another important issue that should be considered as well. heat pump, surface water heat pump, and ground coupled
The operating cost mainly includes electricity for pumps heat pump have been described in this article. The brief
and heat pumps and water treatment cost (for groundwater). history of the GHP system has been addressed in terms of
The overall system performance of different systems can be its research development and engineering applications. Addi-
roughly estimated according to the system capacity and the tionally, the advantages and limitations of each type of GHP
total power consumption. Table 8 generally gives a rough systems have been summarized, respectively. This article
range of COP for various systems. has also focused on the description of the design strategy
It can be inferred from Tables 7 and 8 that the GWHP is the or guidelines for these systems, especially for the vertical
most cost-effective system in terms of capital and operating GCHP system that is considered to be the most widely used
costs compared to the other three systems. However, it should type of GHP throughout the world. Finally, the economic
be noticed that the GWHP system may be restricted by local analysis including the capital and operating costs for these
regulatory issues of groundwater utilization. The second GHP systems has been carried out.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041
Generally speaking, each type of GHP system has its Cantrell, J.M. and Wepfer, W.J. (1984) Shallow ponds for dissipation
attractive application aspects and some distinctive restric- of building heat: a case study. ASHRAE Transactions, 90 (Part 1),
239–246.
tions as well. In certain applications, it is technically and
economically feasible to employ a hybrid GHP system Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.C. (1946) Conduction of Heat in Solids,
Claremore Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 120–200.
coupled with a supplemental heater or rejecter to elimi-
nate the underground imbalance or to reduce the relatively Chiasson, A.D. and Yavuzturk, C. (2003) Assessment of the viability
of hybrid geothermal heat pump systems with solar thermal collec-
high capital cost. Certainly, the hybrid GHP systems may tors. ASHRAE Transactions, 109 (Part 2), 487–500.
be more complicated than the common GHP systems. It is
Chiasson, A.D., Spitler, J.D., Rees, S.J., and Smith, M.D. (2000)
highly suggested to further establish optimal design methods A model for simulating the performance of a shallow pond
and operational control strategies according to the climatic as a supplemental heat rejecter with closed-loop ground-loop
conditions, building functions, and thermal balance of the ground-source heat pump systems. ASHRAE Transactions, 106 (2),
ground. 107–121.
This article provides some design recommendations for Congedo1, P.M., Colangelo1, G., and Starace, G. (2012) CFD simu-
various GHP systems, which can assist the design engineer lations of horizontal ground heat exchangers: a comparison among
different configurations. Applied Thermal Engineering, 33–34,
in determining what type of system is most suitable for the
24–32.
given location and in designing an optimal GHP system with
Cornell University (2006) Lake Source Cooling, http://energyand
lowest operating cost and capital cost.
sustainability.fs.cornell.edu/LSC/LSC2.cfm.
Cui, P., Yang, H.X., and Fang, Z.H. (2007) The simulation model and
design optimization of ground source heat pump systems. HKIE
RELATED ARTICLES Transactions, 14 (1), 1–5.
Cui, P., Yang, H.X., Spitler, J.D., and Fang, Z.H. (2008) Simulation
Introduction: Renewable Energy of hybrid ground-coupled heat pump with domestic hot water
Overview of Geothermal Energy Resource heating systems using HVACSIM+. Energy and Buildings, 40 (9),
Direct Use of Geothermal Energy 1731–1736.
Introduction: Energy Storage Technologies Cui, P., Li, X., Man, Y., and Fang, Z.H. (2011) Heat transfer anal-
ysis of pile geothermal heat exchangers with spiral coils. Applied
Seasonal Thermal Storage
Energy, 88, 4113–4119.
Thermal Energy Storage: Selection and Sizing Criteria
Diao, N.R., Zeng, H.Y., and Fang, Z.H. (2004) Improvement in
Sustainability Assessment for Energy Technologies modeling of heat transfer in vertical ground heat exchangers.
HVAC&R Research, 10 (4), 459–470.
Enwave (2004) Deep Water Lake Cooling. http://www.enwave.com/
history.html.
REFERENCES Eskilson, P. (1987) Thermal analysis of heat extraction boreholes.
PhD thesis. University of Lund, Sweden.
Aittomäki, A. (2003) Lakes as a Heat Source in Cold Climate. Fang, Z.H., Diao, N.R., and Cui, P. (2002) Discontinuous operation
Proceedings of International Congress of Refrigeration, Wash- of geothermal heat exchangers. Tsinghua Science and Technology,
ington, DC. 7 (2), 194–197.
ASHRAE (1995) Commercial/Institutional Ground-Source Heat Fisher, D.E., Murugappan, A., Padhmanabhan, S.K., and Rees, S.J.
Pump Engineering Manual, American Society of Heating, Refrig- (2006) Implementation and validation of ground-source heat pump
eration and Air-Conditioning Engineers. Inc., Atlanta, pp. 20–100. system models in an integrated building and system simulation
ASHRAE (2003) ASHRAE Handbook, HVAC Applications, Amer- environment. HVAC&R Research, 12 (3a), 693–710.
ican Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engi- Gilbreath, C.S. (1996) Hybrid ground-source heat pump systems for
neers, Inc., Atlanta, pp. 30–150. commercial applications. Master’s thesis. University of Alabama,
Ball, D.A., Fischer, R.D., and Hodgett, D.L. (1983) Design methods Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
for ground-source heat pumps. ASHRAE Transactions, 89 (2B), Gu, Y. and O’Neal, D.L. (1998) Development of an equivalent diam-
416–440. eter expression for vertical U-tubes used in ground-coupled heat
Bi, Y.H., Guo, T.W., Zhang, L., and Chen, L.G. (2004) Solar and pumps. ASHRAE Transactions, 104, 347–355.
ground source heat-pump system. Applied Energy, 78, 231–245. Hamada, Y., Saitoh, H., Nakamura, M., et al. (2007) Field perfor-
Bose, J.E., Parker, J.D., and McQuiston, F.C. (1985) Design/Data mance of an pile GHE system for space heating. Energy and Build-
Manual for Closed-Loop Ground Coupled Heat Pump Systems, ings, 39 (5), 517–524.
Oklahoma State University for ASHRAE, Atlanta, pp. 50–120. Han, Z.W., Zheng, M.Y., Kong, F.H., et al. (2008) Numerical simula-
Büyükalaca, O., Ekinci, F., and Yilmaz, T. (2003) Experimental tion of solar assisted ground-source heat pump heating system with
investigation of Seyhan River and dam lake as heat source–sink latent heat energy storage in severely cold area. Applied Thermal
for a heat pump. Energy, 28, 157–169. Engineering, 28 (11–12), 1427–1436.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041
Hatten, M.J. (1992) Groundwater heat pumping: lessons learned in 43 Mei, V.C. (1986) Horizontal Ground-coil Heat Exchanger: Theo-
years at one building. ASHRAE Transactions, 98 (1), 1031–1037. retical and Experimental Analysis, ORNL/CON-193, Oak Ridge
Hatten, M.J. and Morisson, W.B. (1995) The commonwealth building National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
groundbreaking history with a groundwater heat pump. ASHRAE Mei, V.C. and Baxter, V.D. (1986) Performance of a ground-coupled
Journal, 37 (7), 45–48. heat pump with multiple dissimilar U-tube coils in series. ASHRAE
Hellström, G. (1989) Duct Ground Heat Storage Model, Manual for Transactions, 92 (2), 22–25.
Computer Code, Department of Mathematical Physics, University Metz, P.D. (1982) The use of ground-coupled tanks in solar-assisted
of Lund, Sweden. heat-pump systems. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, 104 (4),
Hellstrom, G. (1991) Ground Heat Storage: Thermal Analyses 366–372.
of Duct Storage Systems, Department of Mathematical Physics, Morino, K. and Oka, T. (1994) Study on heat exchanged in soil by
University of Lund, Sweden. circulating water in a steel pile. Energy and Buildings, 21 (1),
Hern, S.A. (2004) Design of an experimental facility for hybrid 65–78.
ground source heat pump systems. Master thesis. Oklahoma State Mustafa, O.A. (2008) Ground-source heat pumps systems and appli-
University, Stillwater, OK. cations. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12 (2),
IGSHPA (1988) Closed-Loop/Ground-Source Heat Pump Systems — 344–371.
Installation Guide. Nam, Y. and Ooka, R. (2010) Numerical simulation of ground heat
Ingersoll, L.R. and Plass, H.J. (1948) Theory of the ground pipe and water transfer for groundwater heat pump system based on
source for the heat pump. ASHVE Transactions, 54, 339–348. real-scale experiment. Energy and Buildings, 42 (1), 69–75.
Ingersoll, L.R., Adler, F.T., Plass, H.J., and Ingersoll, A.C. (1950) OSU (1988) Closed-loop/Ground-source Heat Pump Systems Instal-
Theory of earth heat exchangers for the heat pump. ASHVE Trans- lation Guide, International Ground Source Heat Pump Association,
actions, 56, 167–188. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
Kavanaugh, S.P. (1998) A design method for hybrid ground-source Ozgener, O. and Hepbasli, A. (2005) Performance analysis of a
heat pumps. ASHRAE Transactions, 104 (2), 691–698. solar assisted ground-source heat pump system for greenhouse
Kavanaugh, S.P. and Pezent, M.C. (1990) Lake water applications heating: an experimental study. Building and Environment, 40 (8),
of water-to-air heat pumps. ASHRAE Transactions, 96 (Part 1), 1040–1050.
813–820. Pahud, D., Fromentin, A., and Hadorn, J.C. (1996) The Duct Ground
Kavanaugh, S.P. and Rafferty, K. (1997) Ground-Source Heat Pumps, Heat Storage Model (DST) for TRNSYS Used for the Simulation of
Design of Geothermal Systems for Commercial and Institutional Heat Exchanger Piles. DGC-LASEN, Lausanne.
Buildings, ASHRAE, Atlanta, pp. 67–123. Pahud, D., Fromentin, A., and Hubbuch, M. (1999) Heat exchanger
Knellwolf, C., Peron, H., and Laloui, L. (2011) Geotechnical anal- pile system for heating and cooling at Zurich Airport. IEA Heat
ysis of heat exchanger piles. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoen- Pump Centre Newsletter, 17 (1), 15–16.
vironmental Engineering. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606. Phetteplace, G. and Sullivan, W. (1998) Performance of a hybrid
0000513 ground-coupled heat pump system. ASHRAE Transactions, 104
Laloui, L., Nuth, M., and Vulliet, L. (2006) Experimental and numer- (1b), 763–770.
ical investigations of the behaviour of a heat exchanger pile. Inter- Rafferty, K. (1995) Capital cost comparison of commercial ground-
national Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geome- source heat pump systems. ASHRAE Transactions, 101 (Part 2),
chanics, 30 (8), 763–781. 1095–1100.
Liu, X. (2008). Enhanced Design and Energy Analysis Tool for Ramamoorthy, M., Jin, H., Chiasson, A.D., and Spitler, J.D. (2001)
Geothermal Water Loop Heat Pump Systems. Proceedings of 9th Optimal sizing of hybrid ground-source heat pump systems that use
International Energy Agency Heat Pump Conference, May 20–22, a cooling pond as a supplemental heat rejecter-a system simulation
Zürich, Switzerland. approach. ASHRAE Transactions, 107 (Part 1), 26–38.
Man, Y. (2011) Study on the hybrid ground coupled heat pump Sekine, K., Ooka, R., Yokoi, M., et al. (2007) Development of
systems with borehole and foundation pile ground heat exchangers a ground-source heat pump system with ground heat exchanger
for cooling load dominated buildings. Doctoral thesis. The Hong utilizing the cast-in-place concrete pile foundations of buildings.
Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. ASHRAE Transactions, 113 (1), 558–566.
Man, Y., Yang, H.X., Diao, N.R., et al. (2010a) A new model and Singh, J.B. and Foster, G. (1998) Advantages of Using the
analytical solutions for borehole and pile ground heat exchangers. Hybrid Geothermal Option. The Second Stockton International
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 53, 2593–2601. Geothermal Conference, The Richard Stockton College of New
Man, Y., Yang, H.X., and Wang, J.G. (2010b) Study on hybrid Jersey.
ground-coupled heat pump system for air-conditioning in hot- Spitler, J.D. (2005) Ground-source heat pump system research – past,
weather areas like Hong Kong. Applied Energy, 87, 2826–2833. present and future. International Journal of HVAC&R Research, 11
Man, Y., Yang, H.X., Li, X., et al. (2011a) The spiral heat source (2), 165–167.
model for the pile ground heat exchangers. HVAC&R Research, 17 Stiger, S., Renner, J., and Culver, G. (1989) Geothermal and Direct
(6), 1075–1088. Use Engineering and Design Guidebook, Oregon Institute of Tech-
Man, Y., Yang, H.X., Spitler, J.D., and Fang, Z.H. (2011b) Feasibility nology, Geo-Heat Center, Klamath Falls. Chapter 7, Well testing
study on novel hybrid ground coupled heat pump system with and reservoir evaluation.
nocturnal cooling radiators for cooling load dominated buildings. Tim, P. and Joyce, W.S. (2002) Lake-source cooling. ASHRAE
Applied Energy, 88, 4160–4171. Journal, 44 (4), 37–39.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041
Trillat-Berdal, V., Souyri, B., and Fraisse, G. (2006) Experimental using a short time step simulation model. ASHRAE Transctions,
study of a ground-coupled heat pump combined with thermal solar 106 (2), 192–209.
collectors. Energy and Buildings, 38 (12), 1477–1484. Yu, M.Z., Diao, N.R., Su, D.C., and Fang, Z.H. (2002) A Pilot
UOP (1975) Ground Water and Wells, Johnson Division, UOP Inc., Project of the Closed-loop Ground Source Heat Pump System in
St. Paul, MN. China. Proceeding of IEA 7th Heat Pump Conference, Beijing,
Wu, Y.P., Gan, G.H., Verhoef, A., et al. (2010) Experimental pp. 356–364.
measurement and numerical simulation of horizontal-coupled Yu, M.Z., Peng, X.F., Li, X.D., and Fang, Z.H. (2004) A simpli-
slinky ground source heat exchangers. Applied Thermal Engi- fied model for measuring thermal properties of deep ground soil.
neering, 30, 2574–2583. Experimental Heat Transfer, 17 (2), 119–130.
Xu, X.W. (2007) Simulation and optimal control of hybrid ground Zeng, H.Y., Diao, N.R., and Fang, Z.H. (2002) A finite line-source
source heat pump systems. Doctoral thesis, Oklahoma State model for boreholes in geothermal heat exchangers. Heat Transfer-
University, Stillwater, OK. Asian Research, 31 (7), 558–567.
Xu, X. and Spitler, J.D. (2006) Modeling of Vertical Ground Zeng, H.Y., Diao, N.R., and Fang, Z.H. (2003) Heat transfer analysis
Loop Heat Exchangers with Variable Convective Resistance and of boreholes in vertical ground heat exchangers. International
Thermal Mass of the Fluid. Proceedings of Ecostock, Pomona, NJ. Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 46 (23), 4467–4481.
Yavuzturk, C. and Spitler, J.D. (1999) A short time step response Zhao, H., Cui, P., Lu, L., and Fang, Z.H. (2012) Numerical Analysis
factor model for vertical ground loop heat exchangers. ASHRAE of the Thermo-mechanical Behavior of Energy Piles. Proceedings
Transactions, 105 (2), 475–485. of the 11th International Conference on Sustainable Energy Tech-
Yavuzturk, C. and Spitler, J.D. (2000) Comparative study of operating nologies (SET), Vancouver, Canada. SET Paper No: SET-2012-
and control strategies for hybrid ground-source heat pump systems 152.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces041

Handbook of Clean Energy Systems - 2014 - Cui - Geothermal Heat Pumps

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook of Clean Energy Systems - 2014 - Cui - Geothermal Heat Pumps

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geothermal Heat Pumps

Ping Cui1,2 , Yi Man1,2 , and Zhaohong Fang1,3

1 INTRODUCTION envelope, and the system requires less mechanical room,

Groundwater heat pump Surface water heat pump

Figure 1. Schematics of different geothermal heat pumps.

2 GROUNDWATER HEAT PUMP 2.2 Application types of GWHP system

2.3.1 Groundwater production well

Ground level Ground level

Grout seal Well pipe wall

Aquifer Tube Tube

Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of SWHP.

Capital cost and maintenance Operation cost is higher than

4 GROUND-COUPLED HEAT PUMP

Among the various GHP systems, the GCHP system has

Table 3. Comparisons of the current models of vertical GHEs.

COP = a + b ⋅ EFT + c ⋅ EFT2 (5) Ground

Borehole & grout

EER = d + e ⋅ EFT + f ⋅ EFT2 (6)

In these expressions, the coefficients (a, b, c, d, e, f) can

Qgc = Qbc (1∕EER + 1) (7)

where Qbc is the cooling capacity of the heat pump, which is

Qgh = Qbh (1 − 1∕COP) (8)

Input heat pump data and building loads

Assume the GHE size Cal resistance of borehole

Cal the resistance of borehole Cal the predicted EFT, ExFT

Figure 9. The flowchart of the GeoStar program.

Figure 10. (a–c) Typical configurations with straight pipes.

Table 5. Advantages and disadvantages of horizontal GHE.

Figure 13. (a–e) Typical configurations for pile GHE.

Flow meter Cooling

Circulation way of heat pump unit in cooling mode

Circulation way of heat pump unit in heating mode

Figure 16. Schematic diagram of HGCHP system with supplemental heater.

Table 7. Capital costs of various GHPs for commercial buildings in China.

You might also like