Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

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

A comprehensive study of geothermal heating and cooling systems T

a,b,c,d,e,⁎ a d,e a a
M. Soltani , Farshad M. Kashkooli , A.R. Dehghani-Sanij , A.R. Kazemi , N. Bordbar ,
M.J. Farshchia, M. Elmia, K. Gharalif, Maurice B. Dusseaultd,e
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
Advanced Energy Initiative Center, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
c
HVAC & R Management Research Center, Niroo Research Institute (NRI), Tehran, Iran
d
Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
e
Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Energy (WISE), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
f
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Geothermal heat is an energy source that is local, reliable, resilient, environmentally-friendly, and sustainable.
Geothermal energy This natural energy is produced from the heat within the earth, and has different applications, such as heating
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and cooling of buildings, generating electricity, providing warm/cold water for agricultural products in
Heating and cooling systems greenhouses, and balneological use. Geothermal energy is not dependent on weather or climate and can supply
Ground source heat pump (GSHP)
heat and electricity almost continuously throughout the year. It may even be possible to use geothermal projects
Ground heat exchanger (GHE)
as “thermal batteries”, wherein waste or collected heat is stored for future use, even seasonal use, making
geothermal energy “renewable” at a time scale of years. Extensive research has been carried out on different
technologies and applications of geothermal energy, but comprehensive assessment of geothermal heating and
cooling systems is relevant because of changing understanding, scale of application, and technology evolution.
This study presents a general overview of geothermal heating and cooling systems. We provide an introduction
to energy and the environment as well as the relationship between them; a brief history of geothermal energy; a
discussion of district energy systems; a review of geothermal heating and cooling systems; a survey of geo-
thermal energy distribution systems; an overview of ground source heat pumps; and, a discussion of ground heat
exchangers. Recognition and accommodation of several factors addressed and discussed in our review will en-
hance the design and implementation of any geothermal heating or cooling system.

1. Introduction
Large-scale exploitation of fossil fuels has led to environmental
concerns at a global scale. If human dependency on fossil fuels con-
tinues at current levels, it will impact world climate conditions, and
consequent global ecological problems will notably affect life quality
and patterns of energy use. At a national and regional scale, air pollu-
tion linked to fossil fuel use remains a significant environmental issue
(Li, Bian, Liu, Zhang, & Yang, 2015); according to a 2016 world energy
outlook (IEA, 2016b), air pollution warnings and rules for environ-
mental protection have both increased. The IEA’s preliminary estimate
of global energy-related carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2015 shows
that CO2 emissions have flattened (IEA, 2016b) (Fig. 1), but there has
been a close historical relationship among energy demand, global
economic growth and energy-related CO2 emissions. The 2015 time-
series plot shows that decoupling of economic growth and CO2 emis-
sions is beginning to be evident.
Buildings are responsible for one-third of world greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions (Robert & Kummert, 2012). Fossil fuels are largely
responsible for GHG emissions’ growth, which is leading to global
warming, climate change, and environmental impacts (Liang, Wu, Lal,
& Guo, 2013; Lising, 2012; Nejat, Jomehzadeh, Taheri, Gohari, &
Majid, 2015; Pan & Garmston, 2012). In four decades, annual anthro-
pogenic CO2 emissions have doubled; in 2011, emissions exceeded 32
billion tons (Nejat et al., 2015; IEA, 2013a), and should exceed 36
billion tons in 2020 (Nejat et al., 2015; Smith, Barden, Martin, Kearney,
& Murphy, 2013). Residential buildings were responsible for ∼6% of
direct CO2 emissions in 2011 (Janssens-Maenhout, Muntean, & Peters,
2013; Lising, 2012), and because of domestic electricity use, for 11% of
indirect CO2 emissions (IEA, 2013a).

⁎
Corresponding authors at: Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Energy (WISE), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada. & Department of Mechanical
Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
E-mail address: msoltani@uwaterloo.ca (M. Soltani).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.09.036
Received 9 March 2018; Received in revised form 28 September 2018; Accepted 28 September 2018
Available online 01 October 2018
2210-6707/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Soltani et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818

Fig. 1. Changes in energy demand, global economic output and energy-related CO2 emissions (IEA, 2016b). Note that in this figure, GDP (PPP) refers to Gross
Domestic Product on a purchasing power parity basis.

The definition of air pollution appears to now be functionally ex- Table 1

tended to include GHGs as well as the more conventional harmful Residential energy consumption compared with total energy consumption and
chemical emissions (NOx, SOx, etc.) (Chen et al., 2016; Nagarathna, CO2 emissions for some countries (data is for 2016) (IEA, 2018).
Manoranjani, & Seshadri, 2017; World Health Organization (WHO), Country Total final Residential The percentage of CO2
2014; Zannetti, Al-Ajmi, & Al-Rashied, 2007). Outdoor air pollution energy energy residential energy emissions
causes premature death of about 3.7 million people throughout the consumption consumption consumption to (Mt of
(PJ) (PJ) total energy CO2)a
world annually (Cárdenas Rodríguez, Dupont-Courtade, & Oueslati,
consumption (%)
2016; World Health Organization (WHO), 2014), and buildings are
responsible for a large amount of the air pollution in cities. Urban re- Canada 8013.7 1345.8 16.8 541
gions’ population exceeds 3.5 billion globally, and the percentage of the Germany 9375.5 2342.9 25.0 732
India 23960.6 7449.5 31.1 2077
total world population in urban centers is growing. The United Nations
Japan 12311.2 1853.1 15.1 1147
predicts further migration to cities at least up to 2050, with attendant Turkey 4096.6 867.0 21.2 339
environmental challenges (Agudelo-Vera, Mels, Keesman, & Rijnaarts, USA 63431.5 10352.2 16.3 4833
2011; Tsolakis & Anthopoulos, 2015; United Nations (UN), 2012). In-
a
creasing inputs of renewable and clean energy sources are needed to CO2 emissions from fuel combustion only. Emissions are calculated using
address environmental concerns and increase general energy use sus- IEA’s energy balances and the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
tainability.
Heating and cooling needs increase global energy requirements Staniec, & Eom, 2013; Ürge-Vorsatz, Cabeza, Serrano, Barreneche, &
(Bahadori & Dehghani-Sanij, 2014; Bahadori, Mazizdi, & Dehghani- Petrichenko, 2015). Apparently, residential and commercial buildings’
Sanij, 2008; Dincer & Acar, 2015) and impact natural resource use energy consumption in the majority of regions is increasing, likely be-
(Cabeza, Rincón, Vilariño, Pérez, & Castell, 2014; Dehghani-Sanij, cause of more air conditioning, except in Oceania (Pacific OECD
Dehghani, Naterer, & Muzychka, 2017; Lechtenböhmer & Schüring, Countries) and South Asia (Ürge-Vorsatz et al., 2013, 2015).
2011; Nejat et al., 2015). Residential buildings are responsible for 75% Replacement of fossil fuel systems providing heating and cooling in
of energy consumption in the building sector (IEA, 2013b); it is there- buildings with more sustainable energy sources can have an environ-
fore important to address building energy efficiency (Fig. 2). Re- mental impact (Benzaama, Menhoudj, Kontoleon, Mokhtari, & Lekhal,
sidential buildings account for ∼20% of total energy consumption in 2018; Dehghani-Sanij, Soltani, & Raahemifar, 2015; Dincer & Acar,
developed countries, and for developing countries, more than 35% (Yau 2015; Naicker & Rees, 2018a; Razmi, Soltani, Kashkooli, & Garousi
& Hasbi, 2013). Residential energy compared with total energy con- Farshi, 2018; Soltani et al., 2018). 14% of world energy requirement is
sumption data for several countries are reported in Table 1 (IEA, 2018). provided by renewable energy sources. Renewable energy sources ac-
Heating and cooling energy use in buildings (both commercial and re- count for ∼14% of primary energy needs (Panwar, Kaushik, & Kothari,
sidential buildings) through 2010–2020 in different regions and pro- 2011; UNDP, 2000), and include hydropower, geothermal, wind, solar,
jections to 2050 are shown in Fig. 3 (Ürge-Vorsatz, Petrichenko, and marine energy (Table 2) (Bilgen, Kaygusuz, & Sari, 2004; Dincer,
2001). Note that geothermal energy is not strictly renewable if deep
heat mining is considered because the heat flux from the earth is too
slow to recharge the heat except in hundreds of years time frame.
However, if heat storage is used, as in shallow ground-source heat
pump technologies, then geothermal energy can be considered renew-
able, and the heat storage concept can be extended to deeper and
larger-volume geothermal repositories.
In the USA in 2005, renewable energy accounted for ∼9% of total
energy, increasing to ∼13.2% by 2014, and predicted to be ∼18% by
2040 (Fig. 4) (Lake, Rezaie, & Beyerlein, 2017; U.S. EIA, 2014, 2015).
Direct geothermal energy use for district heating has increased sig-
nificantly (Lund, 2006; Marinova, Beaudry, Taoussi, Trépanier, & Paris,
2008).
District heating and cooling systems will increasingly be viable
Fig. 2. Buildings’ energy consumption percentage of total energy utilization in supply options in the future (Werner, 2017a), exploiting various low-
the different regions of the world (Yau & Hasbi, 2013). grade energy sources (waste heat from waste water and industrial

794
M. Soltani et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818

Fig. 3. Heating and cooling energy use in buildings in different regions from 2010 to 2050. Note that energy is expressed in PWh. Predictions are based on a frozen
efficiency scenario (Ürge-Vorsatz et al., 2013, 2015).

storage issues.
Table 2 There appears to be no comprehensive review of geothermal energy
Principal renewable energy sources and their utilization forms (Demirbaş, use in heating and cooling systems, hence our work. In Section 1, an
2006). introduction to energy and the environment is presented, with em-
Energy source Energy usage forms phasis on the role of cooling and heating of buildings. In Section 2, a
history of geothermal energy with various applications is presented
Geothermal Power generation, urban heating, hot dry rock, and while district heating is discussed in Section 3. Geothermal heating and
hydrothermal
cooling systems are described in Section 4. The different types of dis-
Modern biomass Power and heat generation, gasification, pyrolysis, and
digestion tribution systems of geothermal energy are explained in Section 5.
Solar Solar dryers, solar home system, and solar cookers Geothermal heat pump systems and ground heat exchangers are dis-
Direct solar Thermal power generation, photovoltaic, and water heaters cussed in Sections 6 and 7, followed by a summary and future chal-
Hydropower Power generation lenges in Section 8.
Wind Wind generators, power generation, water pumps, and
windmills
Tidal Tidal stream and barrage
Wave Numerous designs 2. Geothermal energy

sources, solar water heaters, passive solar energy home systems, in-
dustrial and urban waste incineration, solid biomass sources, wood
processing and forestry residues, and so on). Low-grade heat energy can
also be sourced from geothermal systems, or stored in the ground for
later use. Renewable energy sources can be compared using various
metrics: economic, energetic, social, environmental, and so on. Table 3
summarizes advantages and disadvantages of different renewable en-
ergy sources used for district heating and cooling. Typical sizes, op-
eration and maintenance costs, efficiency and other criteria are pre-
sented in Table 4.
Geothermal heating and cooling systems can provide low cost re-
sources for buildings, and generally have greater lifespans, temporal
consistency, reliability and resilience, compared to sources such as
wind and solar (Dincer & Acar, 2015). Of course, geothermal energy
can be combined with other sources to address both consistency and
Heat is a form of energy and heat stored within the earth is called
geothermal energy (Dickson & Fanelli, 2002). In layman’s terms, geo-
thermal energy is that part of earth’s heat that can be exploited
(Dickson & Fanelli, 2002). Hot springs and pools for bathing and health
treatments or simply for heating and cooking were the first examples of
geothermal use (Stober & Bucher, 2013), and hot springs often acquired
spiritual and religious status, as flowing hot springs obviously symbo-
lized life and power as well as pointing to unknown forces at depth
(Stober & Bucher, 2013).
Today, applications of geothermal energy use the earth’s tempera-
tures near the surface (shallow geothermal) or accessed only through
deep boreholes (deep geothermal). The three main types of geothermal
energy systems are direct use and district heating systems, electricity
generation, and geothermal heat pumps. Fig. 5 illustrates a ground
source heat pump for a district heating system consisting of a long
(∼50 m) U-shaped ground heat exchanger, a refrigeration cycle to

795
M. Soltani et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818

Fig. 4. Renewable energy sources in USA energy generation for 2005, 2014, with predictions for 2040 (Lake et al., 2017; U.S. EIA, 2014, 2015).

Table 3
Summary of renewable energy sources.
Source Description Advantages Disadvantages

Geothermal or ground source heat pumps
(Dincer & Acar, 2015; Ellabban, Abu-Rub, &
Blaabjerg, 2014; Li et al., 2015;
Thorsteinsson & Testerb, 2010)
Biomass (Dincer & Acar, 2015; Ellabban et al.,
2014; Ericsson & Nilsson, 2006)
Solar (Dincer & Acar, 2015; Ellabban et al.,
2014; Urbaneck et al., 2015)
Built in locations above large
geothermal sources, typically those
with naturally occurring hot springs,
geysers or aquifers
Often using wood or energy crop
based material to provide heat
Using sunlight and solar collectors to
provide high temperature water for
heating and cooling purposes
- Abundant and clean, - Expensive start-up and
- Provides year around low cost heating and maintenance because of
cooling using district energy technology, corrosion
- Weatherproof - Risk of hydrogen sulfide
emissions
- Subsidence, landscape
change and polluting
waterways
- Long construction time
- Hard to assess resource
- Hard to modularize
- Abundant with a wide variety of feedstocks and - May release GHGs (e.g.,
conversion technologies, Indigenous fuel methane) during biofuel
production and conversion technology in production
developing countries - Landscape change and
deterioration of soil
productivity
- Abundant supply, - Storage and backup issues
- Less environmental damage compared to other - Not a constant supply-
renewable options intermittent and fluctuating
- Passive and active systems with the option to nature
also provide cooling during warmer seasons
using absorption chillers

Table 4
Technical and economical comparison of different renewable energy heating and cooling systems (Dincer & Acar, 2015; IEA, 2006, 2014).
Resource Technology O&M Costa Feedstock

Fixed Variable Cost Conversion Capacity Lifetime

(per kW) (per GJ) (US$/GJ) Efficiency (%) Factor (%) (years)

Biomass Domestic heating 13–43 10–20 86–95 13–29 10–20

MSW (CHP) 15–130 0–3 20–40 80–91 10–20
Steam turbine (CHP) 1.5–2.5 3.7–6.2 10–40 63–74 10-20
Anaerobic digestion 37–140 2.5–3.7 20–30 68–91 15–25
(CHP)
Solar Domestic hot water 1.5–10 N/A 20-80 4.1–13 10–15
Geothermal Building heating 8.3–11 N/A N/A 25–30 20
District heating 8.3–11 N/A N/A 25–30 25
Greenhouse heating 5.6–8.3 N/A N/A 50 20
Ponds 8.3–11 N/A N/A 60 20
Heat pumps 7.8–8.9 N/A N/A 25–30 20

a
O&M: operation and maintenance.

extract heat from the circulating fluid, and a radiator and fan to provide
the heat to a building (Hepbasli, 2005). The district cooling system il-
lustrated in Fig. 6 operates similarly but uses convective heat transfer in
a permeable aquifer, and an absorption cooling cycle with LiBr to
produce chilled water to distribute among users (Rogowska, 2003).
2.1. Primary utilization of geothermal energy
The therapeutic power of hot springs has been understood for mil-
lennia; bathing in springs and consuming the geothermally heated and
mineral rich water long preceded recorded history. Not surprising,

796
M. Soltani et al.
Fig. 5. Schematic of a ground source heat pump for district heating (Hepbasli,
2005).
disputed possession of valuable hot springs in South Dakota incited
conflict between Sioux and Cheyenne first nations people long before
the arrival of Europeans (Stober & Bucher, 2013).
Geothermal energy for cooking was widespread historically among
Romans, Japanese, Turks and Icelanders, and at least two thousand
years ago bathing and medical treatment centers existed near Beijing. A
significant activity of Romans was bathing, not only for wellness, but
for social gatherings and business meetings (Stober & Bucher, 2013).
Published instructions for farming and treatment employing hot springs
date from the 4th to the 6th century; for instance, local farmers could
take hot water to their rice crops in March and at other specified times
Fig. 6. Schematic of a district cooling cycle (Rogowska, 2003).
797
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818
(Stober & Bucher, 2013).
Geothermal energy was also encountered in mining (Stober &
Bucher, 2013). In 1530, Agricola found that temperature is greater with
depth, and in the 1740s, De Gensanne measured the temperature of a
mine near Belfort in France using a thermometer (Dickson & Fanelli,
2002). In 1791, Alexander von Humboldt (Stober & Bucher, 2013)
postulated a relation between temperature and depth, the geothermal
gradient, which became a basic parameter in geothermal energy ex-
ploitation. He measured a 3.8 °C per 100 m increase in depth in Frei-
berg, Saxony. In 1839, a high temperature of 38.7 °C was recorded at a
depth of 342 m in Neuffen, Southern Germany, an anomalous geo-
thermal gradient of 9 °C/100 m.
2.2. Contemporary applications of geothermal energy
Early in the 19th century, advances in thermodynamics helped to
employ thermal water for energy conversion from hot steam to me-
chanical energy and then to electrical energy with the assistance of
engines, turbines and generators (Stober & Bucher, 2013), leading
eventually to the first geothermal power station at Larderello, Tuscany,
Northern Italy (Belessiotis & Delyannis, 2000; Tiwari & Ghosal, 2005),
in the early 20th century. Hot springs near Larderello were exploited for
borates and other dissolved minerals through direct evaporation using
wood fires until the early 19th century when Francesco Larderel, who
founded the boron industry, established a geothermal energy convertor
in 1827 (Belessiotis & Delyannis, 2000). He built the first low-pressure
steam boiler working with the heat of geothermal water by covering the
surface of a pond with brick (Fig. 7). In this way, evaporation of boron-
rich water and the production of boron was enabled by the pond’s heat
and also powered pumps and related machines (Belessiotis & Delyannis,
2000). Much firewood was saved, and deforestation of the area ceased.
In the early years of the 20th century, Piero Ginori Conti took con-
trol of the Larderello chemical industry and experimented with geo-
thermal energy conversion to electricity (Belessiotis & Delyannis,
2000), making the first geothermal electricity generator in 1904 in
Larderello and powering five light bulbs with a piston engine coupled
with a 10 kW dynamo (Fig. 8) (Tiwari & Ghosal, 2005). Wet steam from
a well produced the required steam via heat exchangers to run the
engine, employing a binary cycle in which geothermal fluids heated a
secondary fluid to run the engine (Belessiotis & Delyannis, 2000).
Nine years later, in 1913, the first commercial geothermal power
M. Soltani et al.
Fig. 7. Covered lagoon (“lagone coperto”), Larderello, Italy, 1904 (Lund,
2004a).
Fig. 8. Piero Ginori Conti and the 10 kW experimental power plant, Larderello,
Italy, 1904 (Lund, 2004a).
Fig. 9. First commercial geothermal power plant, 250 kW, Larderello, Italy,
1913 (Lund, 2004a).
plant, called Larderello I, was designed and built by the Tosi
Electromechanical Company. The turbine for the power plant was run
by saturated steam generated by geothermal fluids from two wells with
a temperature of 200–250 °C via a heat exchanger to avoid the diffi-
culties of handling mineral-rich geothermal fluids directly in ma-
chinery. The power plant was capable of producing 250 kW (Fig. 9)
(Belessiotis & Delyannis, 2000).
Two years later, the net power production hit 15 MW but after 1931,
798
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818
Fig. 10. Geothermal plant at Larderello, destroyed in WWII, 1944 (Lund,
2004a).
new technology was introduced: with deep drillholes, superheated
steam of 200 °C was produced, eliminating any corrosion or miner-
alization caused by direct wet steam use (Stober & Bucher, 2013). By
1939 the gross power production of Larderello rose to 66 MW (Stober &
Bucher, 2013). The geothermal energy facility was destroyed during
WWII (Fig. 10), but later rebuilt and expanded (Belessiotis & Delyannis,
2000). Currently, the field is capable of producing 545 MW, which is
1.6% of the net power produced in Italy in 2010 (Fig. 11) (Stober &
Bucher, 2013).
The history of American geothermal energy goes back to 1890, in
Boise, Idaho with a district heating system, duplicated at Klamath Falls
in Oregon 10 years later (Lund, 2004b; Stober & Bucher, 2013). In
1926, a geothermal well in Klamath Falls was used to demonstrate
home heating, and four years later, private houses in Klamath Falls
began to make good use of geothermal energy for heating (Lund,
2004b; Stober & Bucher, 2013).
In Reykjavik, Iceland, geothermal water was systematically
exploited to heat houses starting in 1930 (Stober & Bucher, 2013).
Reykjavik itself means steaming bay, coined by Vikings for its visible
steaming springs. Iceland, with its small population and ample geo-
thermal energy based on volcanic processes is a leader in geothermal
use, meeting more than 50% of its power needs by geothermal power
plants, ∼79,700 TJ (Stober & Bucher, 2013). Almost all of the country’s
power is supplied by geothermal and hydroelectric energy. Fig. 12
shows that by employing geothermal district heating in Iceland, CO2
production in this country from homes has decreased dramatically.
New Zealand installed its first geothermal plant in 1958 in Wairakei,
the volcanic region in the center of the North Island (Lund, 2004a). The
New Zealand government was eager to develop geothermal energy after
two years of drought that resulted in hydropower shortages in 1947.
Fig. 11. Larderello Power Plant (Anonymous, 2018a).
M. Soltani et al.
Fig. 12. CO2 emissions in Iceland, by replacing fossil fuels with geothermal
district heating (Valdimarsson, 2008).
Furthermore, they wished to restrict their dependence on imported
fuels. Therefore, they sent their engineers to Larderello in 1948, but
they had to develop technology applicable to the wet steam available in
Wairakei, rather than the dry steam of Larderello, which meant se-
parating high-temperature water from steam. By 1952, 20 MW of power
was being generated, and by 2004, New Zealand produced over
450 MW of electricity in the Wairakei area (Lund, 2004a).
Northern California started development of the Geysers in 1960.
The Geysers consists of 21 power plants and is capable of producing
750 MW of power, sufficient to run San Francisco (Stober & Bucher,
2013). Other countries have gradually followed suit, such as Mexico
starting in 1959 (Dickson & Fanelli, 2002). Geothermal energy profit-
ability depends on demand, supply and cost of other energy sources, as
well as a suitable regulatory and environmental framework. For ex-
ample, in 1980 Germany drilled wells to exploit geothermal energy
after oil prices hit an unprecedented high, but the project was put on
hold when the prices later fell. For similar economic reasons, projects in
Greece and Argentina were closed (Stober & Bucher, 2013). For success,
geothermal power generation needs stable prices and markets for grid
base load. The distribution of geothermal energy use in the world is
shown in Fig. 13. Space heating has the greatest proportion of direct
geothermal energy application in the world, but heat pumps have the
greatest percentage of geothermal energy application in the USA
(Fig. 14).
Table 5 illustrates the total geothermal electricity power installed
capacity in 25 countries and an estimation of electrical energy of
56,831 GW h/yr generated by these power plants in 2004. These geo-
thermal electrical plants have a 73% capacity factor on average and
Fig. 13. Distribution of geothermal energy use in the world (Lund, 2004b).
799
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818
produce electricity continuously by operating 95% of the time (Lund,
2004a). The amount of installed geothermal energy increased to
10,715 MW in 2010 (Bertani, 2012), meaning a 22% increase. It was
forecast that in 2015 there would be more than 19,500 MW of elec-
tricity production in geothermal power plants worldwide, an 80%
growth in only 5 years. This estimate was made assuming that all plants
being constructed would be completed (Bertani, 2012). It is reasonable
to surmise that the high price of fossil fuels in 2010 was a major trigger
of this projection, but the sharp drop in natural gas prices (2010) and
oil prices (2014) has modified geothermal energy investment strategies.
3. District heating
3.1. Introduction to district energy systems
Methods to heat or cool spaces (apartments, homes, public and in-
dustrial places) fall into two groups; first, the conventional internal
source for a single building, and second, an external source heating
several or many buildings. Much energy can be saved and pollution
reduced by the second method, called district energy systems (Rafferty,
2003). For instance, Rezaie and Rosen (2012) reported that 77% of
GHG emissions in Canada are due to residential space heating and
cooling as well as water heating. A centralized energy system capable of
providing hot and cold fluids to neighbourhoods can reduce energy
losses and reduce GHGs emissions (Rezaie and Rosen, 2012) if the
primary energy source being replaced is dependent in whole or in part
on fossil fuel sources (e.g., natural gas or power from coal) (Naicker &
Rees, 2018b).
3.2. History of district energy systems
District heating dates back at least to the Romans who circulated hot
water in waterways to supply heat to baths and buildings in Pompeii
(Ozgener, Hepbasli, & Dincer, 2007). Centuries later, in 1334, some
buildings in a village in Chaude-Aigues, France were connected to a
geothermal source (Raynal, Gibert, & Barthomeuf, 1992). Interestingly,
the name of the village translated to “hot waters”. District heating was
commercially introduced in the 1870s and 1880s in cities like New York
and Lockport (Collins, 1959); in the 1920s district energy systems were
applied for the first time in Europe in Germany (Rafferty, 2003); in
Iceland geothermal energy in district heating began in 1930 (Ozgener
et al., 2007); and, the Soviet Union and China followed and applied the
system in the 1930s and 1950s (Rafferty, 2003). Many countries in
recent decades have become interested in geothermal district heating
systems and made or fostered investments to develop the technology
(Chuanshan, 1997; Werner, 2017b). At present, there are over 80,000
M. Soltani et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818

Fig. 14. Distribution of geothermal energy use in the USA (Lund, 2004b).

Table 5 from oil to coal in the wake of the 1970s oil crisis, and now are shifting
Total geothermal electricity power installed worldwide in 2004 (Lund, 2004a). to biomass, providing 53% of the share by 2014 (Rafferty, 2003). De-
Country Installed MW Est. Energy Produced (GWh/a)
velopment of technology has set the stage for district systems to cover
both heating and cooling, but these are recent, and far less common
Argentina 1 not operating than a simpler district heating system (Rafferty, 2003).
Australia <1 0.5 Increased oil prices since the 1970s have triggered increased in-
Austria <1 3.2
China 28 95.7
terest in district heating systems (Beck, 1978; IEA, 1983; Reichl, 1989;
Costa Rica 163 1,145 WEC, 1978, 1991) with more and more interest in using renewable
El Salvador 151 967 energy to run them (Werner, 2003, 2004). District heating progress is
Ethiopia 7 30 well described (Diamant, 1963; Margolis, 1947; Nielsen, 1948; Rosada,
France (Guadaloupe) 15 102
1964; Vormerken, 1957); the first comprehensive European survey was
Germany <1 1.5
Greece 2 not operating published in 1971 (Mölter, 1974). Today, information on every aspect
Guatemala 33 212 of district heating systems is available and is provided by many groups
Iceland 202 1,406 of various sizes, including the International Energy Agency (IEA) (IEA,
Indonesia 797 6,085 2016a), but little review information on district cooling systems is
Italy 790 5,340
Japan 535 3,467
available (Li, Sun, Zhang, & Wallin, 2015).
Kenya 127 1,088
Mexico 953 6,282
3.3. District heating versus space heating
New Zealand 435 2,774
Nicaragua 77 207.7
Papua New Guinea 6 17 About three quarters of Europeans are urban residents (Population
Philippines 1,931 9,419 Division, 2009; Population Division, 2010), and European cities are
Portugal (Azores) 16 90 relatively densely populated, compared with cities in North and South
Russia 79 85
America. District heating, from any resource, has a 13% market share in
Taiwan 3 3.3
Thailand <1 1.8 Europe, whereas more than 60% of annual heating load is supplied by
Turkey 20 105 fossil fuels (Connolly, Lund, & Mathiesen, 2014). From a technical and
United States 2,534 17,840 demand profile perspective, European cities are amenable to installa-
TOTAL 8,904 56,831
tion of geothermal district heating systems (Persson & Werner, 2011;
Werner & Constantinesku, 2006), implying continued substitution of
fossil fuels by district heating systems (Energy Roadmap 2050,
systems active across the world in cities, though not all are geother- 2011Energy Roadmap 2050, 2011). Encouragingly, despite fluctuations
mally powered (Frederiksen & Werner, 2013). in natural gas prices, Connolly et al. (2014) presented an optimized
Different heat carriers have been used over the years (Guo, Huang, strategy based on Energy Roadmap 2050 (Lund & Boyd, 2016), that
& Wei, 2015): water succeeded steam, and carbon dioxide that is con- suggested an approximately 15% decrease in costs of heating and
sidered to be a possible replacement for water in the future in secure cooling could be achieved by implementation of district systems
closed systems because of its thermodynamic properties (Lund et al., (Connolly et al., 2014).
2004). Until the 1930s, high temperature steam with concrete ducts Based on energy requirements of a town in Greece, Agioutantis and
and pipes was used (Rafferty, 2003), but the safety risks and energy Bekas (2000) calculated a gross heat load of about 4.7 GW h to be
losses were high. Steam’s successor was pressurized hot water with shell supplied by geothermal energy annually, replacing 474 tons of fossil
and tube heat exchangers, saving energy, but insufficient to meet large fuels emitting over 1500 tons of CO2 gas annually if only heating was
or sudden energy demand (Rafferty, 2003). High pressure water but considered for 12 h/day. Small cities and towns with low seasonal
with lower temperatures, called “Scandinavian district heating tech- temperatures and close to geothermal sources can be connected to
nology” (Rafferty, 2003), and based on underground piping, is now the Geothermal District Heating (GDH) systems; there are 271 such cases
most widespread approach (Lund et al., 2004). identified in North America, and 70% of them have a population of less
Europe is the leader in using district energy systems and in im- than 5000 (Rafferty, 2003), but they lack numerous large buildings that
plementing sustainable energy policy (Rafferty, 2003); an 80% reduc- make it more economical to use GDH systems. In countries such as
tion of CO2 emission by implementing an energy plan by 2050 has been Canada, policies will have to change to improve the thermal efficiency
promulgated (Energy Roadmap 2050, 2011Energy Roadmap 2050, of homes and also to encourage developers to build communities and
2011). For instance, Sweden changed its district energy systems’ fuel industrial complexes to allow for GDH systems. As long as natural gas

800
M. Soltani et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818

and electricity prices are low (comparatively), there is little incentive to

retro-fit existing buildings in Canada, and the real estate and con-
tracting sectors have long resisted compulsory regulations fostering
greater efficiency.
In buildings less than 930 m2, connecting to GDH could be eco-
nomical only if they have a high consumption of energy and if fuel or
electrical power are costly. In higher fuel cost scenarios, geothermal
heating can offer 30–40% saving on fuel (Rafferty, 2003), but in Ca-
nada, GDH will not be competitive with low-cost natural gas. If overall
decarbonization and attendant GHG emissions reduction are important,
in most cases at this time, the economic benefits of connecting small
buildings to GDH or retrofitting homes with ground-source heat pumps
are insufficient alone to achieve these goals. Despite good designs and Fig. 15. Geothermal versus conventional HVAC system (Anonymous, 2018b).
slowly dropping costs, it appears that taxation and regulatory policies
must be modified to promote wide-spread retrofits to GDH (Rafferty,
2003). 4.1. Ground-source heat pump (GSHP)
As a sign of adoption rate, a 41% growth for installed capacity of
geothermal space heating utilization was reported between 2010 and All heat pumps function on the basis of a temperature difference
2015 (Lund & Boyd, 2016), giving a total capacity of 7602 MWt, with (ΔT): the low-T medium is the heat source (TL) and the high-T medium
annual energy consumption of direct geothermal use reported as is the heat sink (TH). A GSHP uses the ground as its heat source or sink
88,668 TJ/year (Lund & Boyd, 2016). However, geothermal district (Rosen & Koohi-Fayegh, 2017), depending on the season (Deng, Feng,
heating installed capacity and annual energy consumption were re- Fang, & Cao, 2018), and the GHE design mediates the heat exchange
ported to be 88% and 89%, respectively, compared to geothermal space efficiency. A heating or cooling coil (air-based heat exchanger) med-
heating of 10% and 15% in 28 countries (Lund & Boyd, 2016). Ad- iates heat exchange between the heat pump and the space to be heated
ditionally, in a district heating project, refurbishing actions such as (e.g., through forced air circulation). When cooling (inserting heat into
more efficient boilers, heat recovery systems with ventilation, improved the ground), heat is exchanged from the cooling coil (low-temperature
windows and thermal insulation may result in ancillary large reductions medium) to the refrigerant flowing in the GHE (high-temperature
in annual natural gas consumption (Pinto & Da Graça, 2018), although medium); when heating (heat removal from the ground), heat is ex-
the capital costs may make conversions economically uncompetitive. changed with the refrigerant flowing in the GHE (low-temperature
Nevertheless, GDH is slowly being adopted for greenfield projects medium) to the heating coil (high-temperature medium) (Rosen &
where the additional costs of retrofitting are absent; as carbon taxes are Koohi-Fayegh, 2017).
applied in more jurisdictions internationally, this trend will continue.
4.2. Comparison of air-source and ground-source heat pumps

4. Geothermal heating and cooling systems
The economic viability of using geothermal energy is influenced by
location and resources, initial expenses, discount rate, system effi-
ciency, annual load and demand, etc. (Gudmundsson & Lund, 1985).
Yet, the substantial environmental and reliability advantages of geo-
thermal energy over other energy sources must not be ignored (Rosen &
Koohi-Fayegh, 2017). For ground source heat pump systems, there are
two basic cycles:
• Heating in cold seasons: Since ground temperature (T ) is higher
g centrifugal and reciprocating). For the lower to middle efficiency range
than atmospheric temperature (Ta), (Tg > Ta), and Tg may be suf-
ficient for heating or only preheating to conventional heating sys-
tems, based on the efficiency of the heat pump system to extract
heat from the ground (Rosen & Koohi-Fayegh, 2017).
• Cooling in hot seasons: Now, Tg < Ta, and the ΔT enables cooling
or precooling, enhanced by cooling mode heat pump operation to
achieve greater efficiency (Rosen & Koohi-Fayegh, 2017).
Comparing these systems, an air-source heat pump delivers outdoor
air, which itself has a high temperature, to exchange heat, but a ground-
source heat pump uses a ground temperature that has a lower tem-
perature than outdoors, so the efficiency that depends on ΔT is higher
(Rosen & Koohi-Fayegh, 2017). Importantly, installation of GSHP from
1996 to 2008 in Canada increased significantly (Fig. 16), so GHG
emissions have decreased and the cost of energy is decreased (Rosen &
Koohi-Fayegh, 2017). Table 6 illustrates a comparison between ground-
and air-source heat pumps.
Different types of compressors are used for GSHP systems (scroll,
of GSHPs, one compressor is sufficient, but for high efficiencies, units
are designed with two-speed compressors for the same heat exchanger

Geothermal-based heating and cooling systems consist of a heat

pump, a ground heat exchanger (GHE) installed underground, and an
air distribution system (Rosen & Koohi-Fayegh, 2017). The major cost
depends on the ground-based heat exchanger, which must be sized
depending on demand expectations and ancillary systems (e.g., a nat-
ural gas component for extremely cold temperatures). GHEs can be
vulnerable to subsurface flow rates in permeable cases, as well as
ground temperature, thermal properties of soil, and heat exchange
coefficients, but can be designed optimally for a range of conditions
(Rosen & Koohi-Fayegh, 2017). Fig. 15 shows that when geothermal
energy is employed in a HVAC system, there is a potential of reducing
Fig. 16. Ground-source heat pump installation growth from 1996 to 2008 in
the energy bill by half. Canada (Rosen & Koohi-Fayegh, 2017).

801
M. Soltani et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818

Table 6 performance (COP) of about 4. A ground source heat pump transfers

Comparison of ground- and air-source heat pumps. heat into the ground in summer and extracts heat from the ground in
Characteristic Air-source Ground-source heat pump the winter (Rosen & Koohi-Fayegh, 2017).
heat pump Geothermal systems are also important for cooling (Ampofo,
Vertical Horizontal Maidment, & Missenden, 2006; Rybach & Sanner, 2000), based mostly
on groundwater aquifers or lake cooling. This use is estimated to con-
Efficiency •• ••• ••
Design criteria serve about 90–95% of the cooling energy needs for district cooling
Feasibility •• • • systems (DCS) (Paksoy, Andersson, Abaci, Evliya, & Turgut, 2000). One
Construction difficulty •• ••• •• of the largest groundwater reservoirs in Norway is used to serve the
Life cycle cost Gardermoen Airport as a complementary heat sink and source for DCHS
Installation • ••• ••
(Eggen & Vangsnes, 2005). During the cooling period, the chilled water
Operation •• • •
Maintenance •• • • is pre-cooled by the groundwater with a cooling capacity of 3 MW. It is
Total •• • • then post-cooled by a combined heat pump/refrigeration plant with a
Environmental cooling capacity of 6 MW (Rosen & Koohi-Fayegh, 2017).
CO2 emissions •• • •
Land disturbance None •• •
Water contamination None None None
5. Geothermal energy distribution systems
Durability • •• ••
Practical issues As mentioned, direct use of geothermal energy has increased 41%
Operating restrictions •• • • from 2010 to 2015 (Lund & Boyd, 2016). The basic approach for in-
Aesthetics • •• ••
dividual residential and commercial buildings is to employ an under-
Quietness • ••• •••
Vandalism • None None ground heat exchanger or a well pump for heating purposes
Safety •• •• •• (Bloomquist, 2003). In a more broadly integrated energy system, they
might be used as backup in hot summers or pre-heating equipment
Quantity of symbol • indicates characteristic strength (Atam & Helsen, 2016b). while conventional fossil fuel boilers or power plants are in operation
(Benzaama et al., 2018; Bloomquist, 2003). Energy can be distributed in
Table 7 the form of either hot water or hot steam. Heat distribution by con-
Distribution of different heat exchanger types based on number of installations vectors is suitable in forced air systems (more common in USA and
in some Canadian provinces (Rosen & Koohi-Fayegh, 2017).
Canada), using water-based systems such as radiators, or floor or ceiling
Province Open-loop (% of Closed-loop (% of Pond/lake (% of radiant system (Bloomquist, 2003; Lund, 2010). Suitable existing dis-
provincial provincial systems) provincial tribution systems can be adapted to accommodate geothermal sources
systems) systems)
(Gudmundsson & Lund, 1985), either alone or in combination with
Vertical Horizontal
other energy sources (e.g., combined natural gas and geothermal,
Ontario 12 15 67 6 where the natural gas is used only in low external temperature situa-
Quebec 6 85 8 1 tions). Several methods and components to directly use geothermal
British 15 31 52 2
energy in residential or commercial spaces are mentioned in the fol-
Columbia
Alberta 7 72 19 2 lowing subsections.

5.1. Forced air convector system

(Omer, 2008). Single-stage heat pumps can provide heat at 55 °C, but
buildings which require heat delivery of higher than 60 °C must be
supplied by two-stage heat pumps (Rosen & Koohi-Fayegh, 2017). The
main challenge of using two-stage heat pumps is to employ the right
refrigerant capable of working within the geothermal source and the
second-stage condenser, where high temperature heat is transferred to
the heating system (Rosen & Koohi-Fayegh, 2017). The solution may be
using different refrigerants in two single-stage heat pumps that are
connected by a heat exchanger (Kulcar, Goricanec, & Krope, 2008).
Table 7 shows the distribution of different heat exchanger types based
on a number of installations in some provinces in Canada.
It is worth noting that the degree of adoption of geothermal energy
depends on policy in the various jurisdictions, as well as technology and
cost issues (Eriksson & Vamling, 2007). In regions where cheap energy
is available and there is little incentive to decarbonize the energy
system, comparative costs may be a barrier. In remote areas or where
energy costs are high, or where there are direct incentives for dec-
arbonization, geothermal energy can be a valuable and competitive
source of heat, and in appropriate case, of power. If cogeneration is
employed (power and heat), the system is amenable to optimization,
but the design capacity and energy split must be addressed for the
periods of highest need, such as the winter months in cold climates.
4.3. Geothermal heating and cooling systems across the world
Another possible energy source for a district energy (DE) system is
the ground source heat pump, which typically has a coefficient of
This approach, also called a forced air system, requires ducts for
heating and cooling (Fig. 17(a)). This type of distribution is already
widely used for energy sources like air heat pumps and oil or gas fur-
naces (Anonymous, 2018c). Indoor air is circulated through coils in
which hot water flows (Fig. 17(b)) (Gudmundsson & Lund, 1985).
These systems can use 40 °C water and above, and are most efficient at
water temperatures in the 70 °C range (Gudmundsson & Lund, 1985).
5.2. In-floor systems
Installing floor pipes is becoming a more popular option for
homebuilders in new homes (retrofits are costly) and new commercial
developments; warm fluid is circulated and the pipes radiate heat to
rooms. Three main advantages of these systems are: (1) capability of
employing low-temperature water of 30 °C, (2) providing uniform
heating of a room (Gudmundsson & Lund, 1985), and (3) ease of control
to choose which rooms to heat and by how much. Garages and even
sidewalks and driveways (to melt snow and ice) can use this approach
(Anonymous, 2018c; Gudmundsson & Lund, 1985). The only significant
drawback is that in-floor pipes cannot be used for cooling processes or
moisture content must be controlled by some additional systems, such
as vapor condensing water coils or sorption systems (Anonymous,
2018c). Chilled water in this case is produced by reversing the process
of the heat pump (Anonymous, 2018c). Figs. 18 and 19 illustrate hor-
izontal and vertical systems; they can be coupled by ductwork air sys-
tems to fully meet the demand and so that the advantages of both
systems apply. In this case, they are referred to as “All-in-one systems”

802
M. Soltani et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818

Fig. 20. Water to air GSHP with a desuperheater (Anonymous, 2018f).

(Anonymous, 2018c).

5.3. Domestic hot water pre-heating

Fig. 17. (a) Ducted air systems (b) Forced air convector (Gudmundsson & Lund, To pre-heat domestic water, “desuperheating” is employed with a
1985).
heat exchanger connected as an extra part or as part of the heat pump
design that has the role to pre-heat the water (Anonymous, 2018c). A
desuperheater is usually located between the compressor and con-
denser; the superheated refrigerant gas discharged from the compressor
and heading to the condenser to be cooled passes the desuperheater and
some of its heat is extracted. Waste heat can be recovered to provide
domestic hot water (Wagers & Wagers, 1985) or for post-heating in air
handling units (Schibuola & Scarpa, 2016), decreasing the energy needs
of boilers. In cold climates where reliable heat is essential, these sys-
tems can be a backup for break-down events (Schibuola & Scarpa,
2016) or even for temporary fossil fuel shortages. Fig. 20 illustrates a
ground source heat pump fitted with a desuperheater to transfer the
waste heat from the refrigeration cycle of the GSHP to a storage tank,
potentially saving up to 70% of hot water costs (Anonymous, 2018f).
Fig. 20. Water to air GSHP with a desuperheater (Anonymous,
2018f).

Fig. 18. Geothermal in-floor systems, horizontal (Anonymous, 2018d).
Fig. 19. Geothermal in-floor systems, vertical (Anonymous, 2018e).
6. Heat pumps
Heat pumps have been widely used since the 1800s, when they were
recognized for the first time (Ozyurt & Ekinci, 2011; Self, Reddy, &
Rosen, 2013). Electricity is the most common type of drive energy for
heat pumps to use ambient air as a heat source or sink. The vapor-
compression refrigeration cycle is the operational principal, and an
appropriate refrigerant is used as the working fluid (Chua, Chou, &
Yang, 2010; Ozyurt & Ekinci, 2011; Zhang, Wang, & Guo, 2010). The
working principle of heat pumps is based on the Reverse Carnot cycle,
in which thermal energy is a product of electrical energy (Sarbu &
Sebarchievici, 2014). Consequently, thermal energy is transferred from
an environment with a lower temperature to a medium with higher
temperature (Ozyurt & Ekinci, 2011; Self et al., 2013). There are heat
exchangers in both mediums, and a compressor is used to circulate the
refrigerant between them. In the coils of a cold medium, the refrigerant
absorbs the heat at a low pressure and therefore it evaporates; then, the
compressor pressurizes this vapor and it moves through the other heat
exchanger to be condensed and releases the absorbed heat from the cold
medium to a sink with higher temperature (Hepbasli & Kalinci, 2009;
NRCOEE, 2004; Wu, 2009).
GSHPs are more efficient than the other types of heat pumps
available, such as Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHP). This advantage is due

803
M. Soltani et al.
Fig. 21. Temperature changes with depth in Ottawa, Canada (Wu, 2009).
to the heat source and sink of the thermal energy, which are the ground
and the environmental air, for GSHP and ASHP, respectively. The
ground behaves like a roughly constant temperature medium, colder
than the air in hot seasons and warmer in cold seasons (Carvalho,
Moura, Vaz, & De Almeida, 2015; Chiasson & Yavuzturk, 2009). For
example, the annual change in temperature of the ground in Ottawa,
Canada, with increasing depth, is shown in Fig. 21. As illustrated in this
figure, ground temperature at 7–8 m is roughly unchanging at nearly
the average air temperature on a yearly basis (Girard, Gago, Muneer, &
Caceres, 2015; Omer, 2014).
Thermal energy is moved between the conditioned space and the
ground in a GSHP, controlling temperature and pressure by expansion
and compression (Bi, Wang, Liu, Zhang, & Chen, 2009; Hepbasli &
Kalinci, 2009; Wu, 2009). The five important components of every
GSHP are (Bi et al., 2009; Efficiency OoE, 2009; Healy & Ugursal, 1997;
Ozyurt & Ekinci, 2011): two heat exchangers (in cold and warm med-
iums), expansion valve, compressor, and reversing valve, as indicated
in Fig. 22.
When a GSHP is used for heating, it operates as follows:
1 The evaporator extracts thermal energy from the ground.
2 Cold refrigerant in a liquid-vapor phase (mostly liquid) enters the
evaporator. Extracted thermal energy from the ground connection
transfers to the cold refrigerant and thus the refrigerant evaporates
and becomes a low-pressure vapor.
Fig. 22. General layout of a GSHP with a desuperheater (Eriksson & Vamling,
2007).
804
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818
3 The compressor receives vaporized refrigerant and increases its
pressure and temperature (when the vapor leaves the compressor,
its temperature is more than the temperature of the ambient air).
4 After leaving the compressor, high temperature vapor goes into the
condenser and the heat transfers from the condenser to the building,
condensing the hot refrigerant condenses into a high-temperature
and high-pressure liquid.
5 High-temperature liquid travels through an expansion valve which
results in reduction of pressure and temperature. The cold re-
frigerant enters the evaporator to start the cycle again.
During the cooling period, the direction of fluid flow reverses, and
consequently the direction of heat transfer reverses, extracting heat
from the conditioned space (cooling) and injecting it into the ground. A
desuperheater is found in some systems to transfer thermal energy from
hot vapor to a water tank to reduce or eliminate other energy sources
for heating water (Ozyurt & Ekinci, 2011; RETScreen I., 2005).
6.1. Different types of ground source heat pumps (GSHPs)
The geological characteristics, including the ground temperature,
the hydrological condition, and the thermal properties of the GSHP
exchanger location are decisive factors in the relative cost and design of
the system. Heat exchangers that are buried in the ground are almost
always horizontal or vertical in orientation (Lucia, Simonetti, Chiesa, &
Grisolia, 2016), although one may envision other arrays in special
circumstances, such as directionally drilled wells from a central pad to
reduce the surface footprint and piping costs for a large industrial ap-
plication. GSHPs can be categorized according to the technologies that
are used into four main types.
6.1.1. Ground-water heat pump systems (GWHPs)
GWHPs, also called open-loop systems, were first installed in the
late 1940s (Kavanaugh & Rafferty, 1997). These are vertical systems
that include wells and pumps to provide subsurface water for direct
application or to a heat pump. The groundwater is then returned to the
system, perhaps at a different location, depending on heat and cooling
needs analysis for various climates and structures. The availability of
groundwater (porosity, permeability volume) and its geochemical
characteristics are important. The advantages of GWHPs are low cost
and limited areas (volumes) needed to function. The drawbacks of these
systems are related to the local lack of groundwater, poor quality
(scaling or corrosion), retraction of groundwater and its re-injection
(Lucia et al., 2016), and potential competition for the use of ground-
water. Fig. 23(a) is a schematic illustration of a GWHP.
6.1.2. Ground-coupled heat pump systems (GCHP)
GCHPs are also called closed-loop systems (Breger, Hubbell, El
Hasnaoui, & Sunderland, 1996). To overcome groundwater availability
and quality issues, this type of GSHP was developed during the 1970s.
The required pumping energy is less than for the previous type
(GWHP), due to less elevation (Claesson, 1991), and the heat ex-
changers’ pipes are made from high-density polyethylene, placed in
horizontal ditches or vertical boreholes. Antifreeze solutions or water
are commonly used fluids in this approach. In vertical GCHP systems,
30 to 120 m deep 76 to 127 mm diameter boreholes grouted into place
are common (Claesson & Eskilson, 2015). A challenge in the design of
vertical GCHP systems is proper sizing of the depth and diameter of
boreholes (Claesson & Eskilson, 2015; Gerber, 2014). In horizontal
GCHP systems, the length of parallel pipes (tubing) is ∼20–40 mm in
diameter needed is ∼100-200 m per ton of cooling and heating load, in
ditches that are on the order of one to three meters depth. Since the
temperature of the soil is not stable in the upper three meters of soil (see
Fig. 21), a disadvantage of horizontal systems is that the COP is variable
in the heating mode (Lucia et al., 2016). Fig. 23(b) illustrates a typical
schematic of vertical and horizontal GCHP systems, respectively.
M. Soltani et al.
Fig. 23. A schematic illustration of different classes of ground-source heat pumps: (a) GWHP systems, (b) vertical GCHP systems, (c) horizontal GCHP systems, (d)
SWHP systems, and (e) SCW systems (Omer, 2013).
6.1.3. Surface-water heat pump systems (SWHP)
Any body of water may be suitable for SWHPs (Spitler & Mitchell,
2016), which are deployed in two main configurations:
1 The open-loop system: Water is extracted from the intake region,
and the discharge water is sent to a different receptor region (Lucia
et al., 2016). This system is highly flexible in terms of capacity for
both heating and cooling applications provided adequate water
volumes (Spitler & Mitchell, 2016).
2 The closed-loop system: The primary circuit is located within an
open water body at a suitable depth. For each ton of cooling or
heating load, ∼30-100 m long pipes, ∼20–40 mm in diameter, are
needed (Lucia et al., 2016). A merit of closed-loop systems is that
they do not require screening or filtering of the water body, al-
though they do need a submerged heat exchanger (Spitler &
Mitchell, 2016).
When designing SWHP systems, annual water temperatures are
needed at the appropriate depths; this may require pre-design surveys
for a year or two if time series data for the local site are unavailable.
Water body temperature profiles are dependent on bathymetric profile,
climate conditions, and water flow rates; for two lakes of identical area
and different depth, the temperature profiles may be quite different
because of seasonal water stratification and flow rate, so direct data
extrapolation may not result in suitable design data (Spitler & Mitchell,
2016). Meteorological and hydrological data can be used for simulation
of temperature profiles where no statistical data are available (Spitler &
805
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818
Mitchell, 2016).
6.1.4. Standing column well systems (SCW)
SCWs use groundwater pulled from wells in a semi-open loop con-
figuration. The vertical well is used as a ground heat exchanger
(Fig. 23(e)). Though most of the time they function by recirculation of
water between the heat pump and the well, during peak periods of
cooling or heating load they can “bleed” some water from the system.
This occurs where groundwater flows into the column from the inter-
sected aquifers to cool the surrounding rocks and column when heat is
rejected into the earth, and vice versa during heating periods (Deng,
2004). Generally, the vertical borehole that allows the fluid to be in
contact with the rocks is about 15 cm in diameter and hundreds of
meters in depth. A drawback of SCWs is installation cost (Lucia et al.,
2016). Tables 8 and 9 contain a comparison of different types of heat
pumps and their advantages and drawbacks.
6.2. Hybrid ground coupled heat pump systems (HGCHP)
When the difference between annual rejected heat to the ground
and extracted heat from the ground is considerable, as in extreme cli-
mates as opposed to temperate climates, the average ground tempera-
ture will increase or decrease over time (Reda, 2017), perhaps leading
to changes in microbial environment and even the biological or organic
matter reserves in the soil (Zhoua, Cuia, Lia, & Liu, 2016), or affecting
the temperature of the water locally used for consumption. Fig. 24
shows such a decrease in average ground temperature because of the
M. Soltani et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818

Table 8
Different categories of GSHPs (Lucia et al., 2016).
Main Description Sub categories Heat source Working
categories depth

GWHP Ground-water heat – Ground 6-100 m

pump (open-loop
systems)
GCHP Ground-coupled Horizontal Soil 1.5 m
heat pump (closed- Vertical Soil 6-120 m
loop systems)
SWHP Surface water heat Open-loop Surface water 0-5 m
pump Closed-loop Surface water 0-5 m
SCW Standing column – Groundwater Up to
well systems 450 m

dominant heating period in Urbino, Italy.

One solution is that ground loop heat exchangers can be increased Fig. 24. Gradual decrease in average ground temperature between 10 and
in size to meet demands, but this increases capital costs. A practical 100 m of depth in the monitoring well, which was located 2.2 m from a BHE, in
solution for this problem is to add a supplementary heat source or sink a heating dominated site in Urbino, Italy (Piscaglia et al., 2016).
to the system (Qi, Gao, Liu, Yan, & Spitler, 2014); the hybrid ground
source heat pump (HGSHP) system achieves this by combining a ground
source heat pump (GSHP) system and a supporting thermal source or
sink. There are various types of supplementary heat sources or sinks,
such as solar collectors, waste heat, boilers, cooling towers, fluid
coolers and shallow ponds (Gentry, Spitler, Fisher, & Xu, 2006). For
example, in a cold northern climate with long hours of sun in the
summer, solar heating can be used to add heat to the thermal reservoir
to avoid excess cooling. Conversely, in hot climates, evaporative water
cooling can reduce heat load on the strata.
In a building with an HGSHP system where the cooling need is
dominant, and a heat sink is added to the GSHP system, the ground heat
exchanger is sized to meet the heating demands, and the size of the heat
exchanger thus is smaller. Similarly, in a building with an HGSHP
system where the heating need is dominant, the ground heat exchanger
Fig. 25. A schematic diagram of a hybrid GCHP with CT (Sarbu &
is sized to meet the demands for cooling of the system (Xu, 2007; Yang,
Sebarchievici, 2014).
Cui, & Fang, 2010). Two types of hybrid systems are the solar assisted
ground source heat pump (SAGSHP) and the cooling tower supple-
mented ground source heat pump (CTGSHP) (Qi et al., 2014). underground heat rejecters, especially when the cooling load is domi-
nant and is much higher than the heating need (Sagia, Rakopoulos, &
Kakaras, 2012). The performance principle and a schematic of a hybrid
6.2.1. HGCHP with extra heat rejecters system with a cooling tower (CT) are shown in Fig. 25, where the GCHP
These systems use an extra cooling device as a supplement to the

Table 9
Advantages and disadvantages of different categories of GSHPs.
Categories Advantages Disadvantages

GWHP - low installation cost (Lucia et al., 2016) - limited availability of groundwater (Lucia et al., 2016)
- simplicity of construction (Lucia et al., 2016) - poor chemical quality of water (Lucia et al., 2016)
- small amount of ground area (Lucia et al., 2016) - groundwater withdrawal and re-injection (Lucia et al., 2016)
GCHP - independent of groundwater availability and quality (Lucia et al., - difficulty of designing appropriate sizing the depth of borehole (in vertical
2016) GCHP) (Gerber, 2014; Ingersoll & Plass, 1948)
- low pumping energy (Claesson, 1991) - variable COP during heating season (in horizontal GCHP) due to soil temperature
variations (Lucia et al., 2016)
SWHP: - flexible (extraction rate is adjustable due to demand) (Nova Scotia - lake mixing interfering effects (by changing natural currents) (Nova Scotia
open-loop Environment, 2018) Environment, 2018)
- adaptable (installation is possible at most surface water sites) - contamination of surface water
(Nova Scotia Environment, 2018) - temperature effects (Nova Scotia Environment, 2018)
- physical blockage (Nova Scotia Environment, 2018)
- susceptibility to damage (Nova Scotia Environment, 2018)
SWHP: closed-loop - quite low installation cost due to reduced excavation costs (Sarbu - contamination of surface water (Nova Scotia Environment, 2018; Sarbu &
& Sebarchievici, 2014) Sebarchievici, 2014)
- maintenance cost is low (Sarbu & Sebarchievici, 2014) - temperature effects (threatening aquatic life) (Nova Scotia Environment, 2018)
- works at lower temperatures (due to working with refrigerant - physical blockage (Nova Scotia Environment, 2018)
fluid) (Sarbu & Sebarchievici, 2014) - susceptibility to damage (Nova Scotia Environment, 2018; Sarbu & Sebarchievici,
2014)
- variation of water temperature with weather temperature (Sarbu & Sebarchievici,
2014)
SCW - shorter boreholes (Deng, 2004) - significant installation costs (Lucia et al., 2016)
- more stable temperature of water (Deng, 2004)

806
M. Soltani et al.
Fig. 26. A schematic of a hybrid GCHP with solar thermal collectors (Sarbu &
Sebarchievici, 2014).
heat exchangers are in series with CT (Sarbu & Sebarchievici, 2014).
Excessive heat rejection results in soil temperature rise and impairment
of system performance in this case, and extra heat rejecters are used
(Gang & Wang, 2013). A control strategy for the cooling tower and
ground heat exchanger is of high importance for the optimized per-
formance of these systems (Atam & Helsen 2016a, 2016b; Gang, Wang,
& Wang, 2014).
6.2.2. HGCHP with extra heat absorbers
In cooling dominated areas, excessive heat rejection can similarly
result in a decrease in system performance. Similarly, the GCHP system
alone can cause thermal depletion of the soil and a decrease in tem-
perature of fluid entering the heat pump, in heating dominated cli-
mates. Extra heat load can be supplied by different supplemental
sources (Sarbu & Sebarchievici, 2014), such as local sources of low-
grade wasted heat. The use of a supplemental heat absorber will likely
decrease the total life cycle cost of the system more than the other types
of GSHP systems (Rad, Fung, & Leong, 2013). Fig. 26 illustrates a
schematic of an HGCHP system with solar thermal collectors (Qi et al.,
2014).
The application of combined geothermal and solar energy in heat
pumps for heating in commercial applications has been studied since
the introduction of geothermal systems (Chiasson, Yavuzturk, &
Talbert, 2004; Hawlader, Rahman, & Jahangeer, 2008; Yumrutaş &
Ünsal, 2012). In Chiasson et al. (2004), the loads were obtained by
simulation of a heating dominated school building in a cold climate.
The use of a solar collector leads to a 34% decrease in heat exchanger
size.
Fig. 27 illustrates a solar thermal HGCHP. Heat gathered from solar
collectors is used to lessen the excessive heat load of ground heat ex-
changers, with priority over water heating. A 35% water-based pro-
pylene glycol solution is the fluid used in the solar/ground circuit in
order to prevent water from freezing. A more concentrated propylene
glycol has a negligible impact on the performance of a heat pump and
increases drive electricity of circulation pumps (Bernier, Ladang, &
Hulot, 2005).
The antifreeze solution is injected into the buried pipes in the
ground, after thermal extraction in the evaporator. Then, the fluid flows
into the solar collectors, but only if the solar radiation is adequate; if
not, the solution does not circulate through the solar loop, and enters
directly into the evaporator. When the fluid does not flow through the
solar loop, the buffer tank stores the excess heat harvested throughout
the day and solar collectors are used as a by-pass. This harvested heat is
not usable during the day because of the temperature limit of the heat
pump system (Girard et al., 2015).
The feasibility of higher performance from GSHPs with the use of
solar collectors in heating mode and within different latitudes has been
analyzed (Girard et al., 2015). In this study, the COP varied between
4.4 and 5.8 for solar assisted GSHPs, and between 4.3 and 5.1 for
807
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818
GSHPs, from northern to southern locations. The increase of COP re-
sulting from changing the system from GSHP to SGSHP is much higher
for southern than for northern cases in the northern hemisphere. Also,
the solar assisted GCHPs work well in autumn and spring when more
solar radiation is available. The solar assisted GSHP’s annual electricity
consumption is less than that of GSHP in all latitudes (Girard et al.,
2015). Fig. 28 shows changes in performance of solar assisted GCHPs
and GCHPs at different latitudes within Europe.
7. Ground heat exchangers
GHEs can directly extract heat from or release it into a space for
cooling/heating applications and also can be coupled to ground source
heat pumps. For instance, in two-stage heat pumps, the heat exchanger
can be a condenser and an evaporator at the same time for the first and
second heat pumps, respectively, as illustrated in Fig. 29 (Rosen &
Koohi-Fayegh, 2017). GHEs use air, water or antifreeze fluids as a
working fluid to circulate in the system. High-density polyethylene
(HDPE) pipes are usually employed to construct these heat exchangers
(Sarbu & Sebarchievici, 2014). GHEs can be categorized based on their
circulating fluid, loop types (open/closed), position (horizontal, vertical
or oblique), pipe connections (series/parallel) and more (Florides &
Kalogirou, 2007b). Each of these types and their combinations is ap-
plied for a specific usage, depending on its pluses and minuses.
7.1. Direct exchange
These heat exchangers employ a refrigerant flowing in copper tubes
that contact the ground source heat exchanger directly. The phase
changing state of the refrigerant supplies greater heat transfer rates,
allowing the building of smaller loops with the same heat transfer load,
lowering direct loop costs (Rosen & Koohi-Fayegh, 2017).
7.2. Open-loop systems
The operation of open- and closed-loop GHEs are similar, with some
differences. A basic principle of open-loop systems is to directly preheat
or precool the ambient air with a conventional air conditioning unit
(Florides & Kalogirou, 2007b). Fig. 30(a) shows an earth-to-air heat
exchanger (EAHE) as an example of open-loop systems; ambient air is
transferred into an inlet shaft using a fan and filters. The filtered air
enters a network of buried pipes as an interface between the inside air
and the surrounding soil for the heat transfer process. The heat transfer
process is governed by the high thermal inertia of soil, which leads to
stable thermal behavior; therefore, unlike the ground surface, an in-
significant temperature fluctuation is observed beneath the surface, and
the underground temperature is high enough in winter and low enough
in summer to be used for heating and cooling (Peretti, Zarrella, De
Carli, & Zecchin, 2013). Fig. 30(b) demonstrates the steps needed to
assess the performance of an EAHE; thereby, the ground temperature as
a function of the ground parameters and climate patterns is calculated,
leading to an estimation of the outlet air parameters based on the
characteristics of the system, and the potential of heating/cooling
during winter/summer can be calculated. Using these values, the fea-
tures of the required HVAC system, its efficiency, energy savings, and
decarbonization impacts are determined (Peretti et al., 2013).
An approach to enhance the energy efficiency of buildings is to
combine EAHEs with other ventilation systems (Benzaama et al., 2018;
Heiselberg, 2004; Lekhal, Belarbi, Mokhtari, Benzaama, & Bennacer,
2018). For instance, in the case of EAHEs combined with hybrid ven-
tilation, some energy consumed by the fan can be saved using natural
airflow driving forces (e.g., buoyancy and wind). To do so, the cross-
sectional area of the ductwork increases so that pressure drop decreases
(Peretti et al., 2013). Outlet air temperature has a significant impact on
the energy efficiency of the EAHE and its performance, both in pre-
cooling and heating ventilation modes (Chiesa, Simonetti, & Grosso,
M. Soltani et al.
Fig. 27. A schematic diagram of a solar-assisted GCHP in detail (Girard et al., 2015).
Fig. 28. Variations of COP with latitude (Girard et al., 2015).
2014; Li et al., 2017). Evaluating the COPs (i.e., cooling energy divided
by fan electrical energy consumption) shows that EAHEs can be effec-
tive choices in mild Mediterranean climates as they can be designed to
save a considerable amount of the primary cooling energy demand of
the buildings.
Open-loop systems also can use groundwater directly to exchange
heat (Dehkordi & Schincariol, 2014) using natural or forced advection.
One well is needed to extract groundwater (i.e., extraction well) using a
pump, another well is usually required to reinject it (i.e., injection
well), as shown in Fig. 31. Design parameters are based on the geolo-
gical characteristics of the target area (e.g., the porosity and perme-
ability of the rocks) to drive quantitative analysis of the separation
distance between the wells and injection/extraction rate (Kazemi,
Mahbaz, Soltani, Yaghoubi, & Dusseault, 2018). These types of systems
generally operate with large flow rates (i.e., between 1.5 gal/min and
3 gal/min per system cooling ton) (Omer, 2008).
Closed-loop systems are more common for the operation of GHEs
808
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818
(Li, Chen, Chen, & Zhao, 2006), but some types of open-loop systems
have been taken into consideration recently (Lee et al., 2012). In an
open-loop system, wells can be vertical and fewer boreholes are needed,
so open-loop systems require less construction space and this is the
most noteworthy feature that makes them suitable for built-up areas
(Choi et al., 2016).
There are three types of open-loop GHEs based on the pump posi-
tion and inner casing configuration (Yoon, 2012). Standing column
wells (SCWs) are the first type. The second type is concentric thermal
wells. To avoid wall collapse, the empty space between the borehole
wall and the inner case must be filled with granular aggregates. The
newer third type has no inner case component in its structure (Choi
et al., 2016). These three types are shown in Fig. 32. It is proved by
thermally affected zones (TAZ) sensitivity analysis that porosity, hy-
draulic conductivity, and hydraulic gradient play the main roles in
open-loop systems (Russo, Taddia, & Verda, 2012).
M. Soltani et al.
Fig. 29. A two-stage heat pump using a heat exchanger as a connector (Rosen &
Koohi-Fayegh, 2017).
7.3. Closed-loop systems
The GHE’s position can be grouped as horizontal (trench), vertical
(borehole) and oblique, and pipes connections can be parallel or in
series (or a combination). These categories are more common for
closed-loop systems, which are more common where sufficient space is
Fig. 30. Schematic illustration of (a) an EAHE (Ozgener, 2011) and (b) steps to assess its performance (Peretti et al., 2013).
809
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818
Fig. 31. Ground water heat pump in an open-loop system (Florides &
Kalogirou, 2007b).
available, where it is easy to excavate trenches. Horizontal and vertical
ground loops have different applications. Horizontal loops are em-
ployed where an adequate area is accessible to install enough pipes and
the trench’s depth is 1–2 m in the ground. Series, parallel and trench
connections of horizontal GHEs are schematically illustrated in Fig. 33.
To gain 1 kW, it is required to install 35–60 m pipes in a horizontal
manner (Florides & Kalogirou, 2007a). However, this configuration is
the most cost-effective, especially if it is applied during new construc-
tion (Florides & Kalogirou, 2007b).
Unlike horizontal ground loops, vertical ones are used where land
space is restricted. Although this configuration needs less piping, it is
more costly than horizontal loops because of drilling cost (Anonymous,
2018f). For typical application a depth of 50–150 m is needed in a
standard borehole (Florides & Kalogirou, 2007b). A sample of a vertical
GHE is illustrated in Fig. 34.
Among various kinds of borehole heat exchangers, only some of
them have been fully tested and are fit for general use. These can be
divided into two classes (Fig. 35) (Florides & Kalogirou, 2007b):
M. Soltani et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818

Fig. 35. Cross section of vertical ground heat exchangers that are generally
used (Rosen & Koohi-Fayegh, 2017).

1 U-pipes. These are set up as double or triple loops for using in a

Fig. 32. Characteristics of three types of open-loop GHEs (Choi et al., 2016). single hole. U-pipes contain two comparable pipes linked with a U-
turn from one side.
2 Coaxial/Concentric pipes. As shown in Fig. 35, two straight pipes
with diverse diameters can be joined coaxially or several pipes can
be positioned in a complex configuration.

By sensitivity analysis of heat injection, it is found that thermal

conductivity, porosity, the soil/rock heat capacity and then the long-
itudinal dispersivity have large impacts (Vandenbohede, Hermans,
Nguyen, & Lebbe, 2011).

7.4. Ground thermal distribution

Ground temperature profiles are needed as they relate to how the

properties of the ground alters physically as well as the impact of am-
bient climate conditions. The first factor mainly includes the ground
surface cover, such as grass, water, and bare ground, to name a few. In
addition, rock lithology affects the thermal conductivity of zones. The
second factor includes the temperature of the air, solar radiation, hu-
midity, and rainfall as well as wind speed; all of them variable, de-
pending on seasonal cycle weather conditions (Florides & Kalogirou,
2007b).
Popiel, Wojtkowiak, and Biernacka (2001) set up two experimental
stations with different surface covers, a car park as a “bare ground
surface” having a solar radiation effect and a lawn in the city of Poznan,
to investigate the ground cover effects on the ground temperature
distribution. Their results should be summarized (Popiel et al., 2001):

1 Above a depth of ∼1 m, the ground temperature experiences short

Fig. 33. Horizontal closed-loop ground exchangers (Florides & Kalogirou,
period erratic temperature behaviour.
2007b).
2 General heat flux downward over the summer months, but by the
end of September, when the temperature difference becomes zero at
nearly 1 m under the ground, the heat flow inverts.
3 During summer, a lawn’s surface cover provides a colder zone which
can be used as a cold source for air conditioning purposes. The re-
sults demonstrate an almost 4 °C lower temperature at the depth of
more than 1 m in contrast with the bare ground surface.
4 It is generally suggested to use a depth of about 1.5–2 m for hor-
izontal heat exchangers.
5 The constant temperature occurs approximately at a depth of
8–10 m where a boundary is assumed, which divides the under-
ground space into shallow and deep zones. The temperature of the
deep zone remains constant over time.
6 The authenticity of the temperature distribution is verified by the
results of Bugg’s formula.
Fig. 34. Vertical closed-loop ground exchangers (Florides & Kalogirou, 2007b).
The uninterrupted heat being extracted from and being released into

810
M. Soltani et al.
the earth in winter and summer, respectively, alter the thermal dis-
tribution of the ground in the long term, impacting the operation of
customary ground source heat pumps (GSHPs), especially in regions
having warm summers or cold winters. Therefore, the multi-function
ground source heat pump (MFGSHP) system is proposed to solve this
issue. Additionally, to their normal duties (space heating/cooling),
these systems provide hot water to lessen the instability in the under-
ground temperature distribution, so a single MFGSHP system can sup-
port all the operations mentioned simply by opening/closing the valves
to change the flow direction of the refrigerants, as shown in Fig. 36 (Li,
Yang, & Zhang, 2009):
1 Air conditioning only: For space heating and cooling purposes, the
same valves must be on, number 9, 14 and 18. The flow direction in
these valves determines the cooling or heating states.
2 Water heating only: Except for valves 14 and 18, all of them must be
off.
3 Water heating and space cooling at the same time: By switching off
all the valves except number 15 and 18, the heat exchangers 4 and
11 operate as an evaporator and a condenser.
As ground heat exchangers affect the underground temperature
distribution, it must be calculated for design. Methods proposed are
analytical, numerical, and the g-function model (You, Li, Shi, & Wang,
2017); each approach solution has its own pros and cons. The analytical
solution cannot be a suitable method for accurate applications due to its
many simplifications (Diao, Li, & Fang, 2004; Li & Lai, 2013; Zeng,
Diao, & Fang, 2003). The numerical solutions normally contain some
intricacies (Congedo, Colangelo, & Starace, 2012; Cui, Yang, & Fang,
2008; Lee & Lam, 2008). The g-function model is a combination of the
analytical and numerical solution, but some significant options, in-
cluding the U pipe shape and the non-uniform soil properties, are dis-
regarded (Li, Li, Chan, & Lai, 2014; Yavuzturk, Spitler, & Rees, 1999).
7.5. Modeling ground heat exchangers
Generally, the ground heat exchanger can be analyzed for heat
transfer inside or outside the borehole, with models focusing on bore-
hole heat exchangers’ design, including determining the number of
boreholes and their depth, in-situ ground thermal conductivity analysis,
and unification of the air conditioning, heating, and ventilating systems
into a whole coupled model to estimate performance (Rosen & Koohi-
Fayegh, 2017).
7.5.1. Vertical ground heat exchangers models
7.5.1.1. Heat conduction outside borehole. Although the modeling
811
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818
Fig. 36. Schematic of MFGSHP systems (Li et al.,
2009). Note: a- cooling and water heating; b- space
cooling, emit heat into soil; c- space heating, extract
heat from soil; d- water heating only, extract heat from
soil; 1- compressor; 2- reverse valve; 3, 6, 9, 14, 15, 18-
valve; 4- heat exchanger; 5, 8- throttling capillary; 7-
check valve; 10, 11- heat exchanger; 12, 13- water
pump; 16- water tank; 17- ground heat exchanger; 19-
hot water tank.
methods of heat transfer outside the borehole are generally in
accordance with the analytical or numerical approaches singly, some
approaches combining both methods (Eskilson, 1987).
• Kelvin’s line source
Kelvin’s line source, or the infinite line source, is based on the as-
sumptions that the ground and the borehole are an infinite medium and
line source, respectively, while the ground has a specific initial uniform
temperature, neglecting the heat fluxes toward the borehole axis that
make the Kelvin’s line source model one-dimensional (Ingersoll & Plass,
1948; Ingersoll, Adler, Plass, & Ingersoll, 1950). Rapid calculations
ensue, but assumptions restrict model applications; for instance, re-
garding the borehole as an infinite line source makes it suitable only for
small pipes (Eskilson, 1987; Fang, Diao, & Cui, 2002). Furthermore,
sometimes the error is not acceptable (Ingersoll, Zobel, & Ingersoll,
1954). Some modified methods are developed based on Kelvin’s line
source adding other conditions in order to enhance the accuracy. The
Hart and Couvillion method is one of the most accurate ones (Hart &
Couvillion, 1986).
• Cylindrical source model
In this analytical model, the properties of the ground are constant,
and the borehole is an infinite cylinder with heat transfer to the
homogeneous surrounding medium by pure heat conduction. This
model is useful provided that either the temperature of the pipe surface
or the rate of heat transfer between the pipe and the ground is constant
(Yang et al., 2010). Carslaw and Jaeger (1947) assumed that the heat
transfer rate is constant, and then Ingersoll et al. (1954) modified it to
an operational model to apply in relevant studies (Bernier, 2001;
Deerman, 1991; Kavanaugh, 1985).
• Eskilson’s model
Unlike the two previous models, Eskilson’s model assumes the
borehole to be a finite line source, in addition to considering the heat
fluxes toward the borehole axis, and it is an appropriate solution to
simulate long-term performance (Yang et al., 2010). In this model, heat
transfer is pure heat conduction in cylindrical coordinates, and it is
assumed that the initial and boundary temperature of the homogeneous
ground remain constant.
Generally, a borehole is surrounded by a grouting material to pro-
tect groundwater, as shown in Fig. 37 (Yang et al., 2010). The grout and
pipe wall thermal capacitances are neglected (Eskilson, 1987), and di-
mensionless temperature response is solved as a g-function for the
M. Soltani et al.
Fig. 37. Schematic of a vertical borehole surrounded by grout (Yang et al.,
2010).
borehole wall by special/temporal superimpositions at any arbitrary
time. However, the massive g-functions require more computing time,
and some errors may accumulate with time (Yang et al., 2010).
• Finite line source solution
Zeng, Diao, and Fang (2002) developed the Eskilson’s model, em-
phasizing the effect of the ground surface as a boundary (semi-infinite
medium) and the borehole as a finite length source, with homogeneous
ground and constant thermophysical properties. Throughout time, the
ground surface boundary temperature, the rate of heating per unit
source length are constant, and the borehole radius is neglected. Other
researchers have extended this method for different studies (Ping,
Hongxing, & Zhaohong, 2007; Yu, Diao, Su, & Fang, 2002). The tem-
perature response of the finite line source solution is realistic for long
time durations, in contrast with Kelvin’s theory, which would tend to
infinity in these cases (Diao, Zeng, & Fang, 2004).
• Short time-step model
The finite line source and the Eskilson’s model are both designed to
estimate the temperature responses, but only for a long period of time,
over 2–6 h, caused by neglecting the borehole thermal capacity
(Eskilson, 1987). To address this issue, (Congedo et al., 2012;
Yavuzturk & Spitler, 2001 developed a two-dimensional short time-step
model for transient heat conduction outside the borehole for time
periods of less than one hour.
• Other typical numerical models
There are some ground loop heat exchangers packages with mul-
tiple boreholes, which can operate singly or with a heat pump to heat
buildings. Hellström (1989, 1991) and Thornton et al. (1997) have
developed a simulation model to describe these systems. One of these
models, called the duct storage model (DST), categorizes the ground
into a medium surrounding one borehole, and another medium from
the far field to the bulk of the heat store, called “local” and “global”
regions, respectively. For estimating the ground thermal distribution, a
one-dimensional numerical and a two-dimensional finite difference
method are used for the “local” and “global” regions, respectively.
The nearby legs of a vertical U-tube heat exchanger can affect each
812
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818
other. Hence, a transient finite-element model was presented by
Muraya, OöNeal, and Heffington (1996) who investigated the effec-
tiveness of the heat exchangers to address this thermal interference. To
define a noncircular geometry for the borehole pipes, Rottmayer,
Beckman, and Mitchell (1997) introduced a finite difference model with
a geometric factor. The model was verified using simpler existing
models.
A three-dimensional model based on unstructured finite volume
methods has been developed and validated with experimental data,
categorizing the ground into various layers (Li & Zheng, 2009). The
working fluid temperature, which varies with depth, definitely has a
great impact on the borehole thermal distribution, and the choices of
ground layers determines the variations of temperature with depth. The
mesh methodology employed is a Delaunay triangulation, allowing the
maintenance of the borehole geometric structure with its cross-sec-
tional meshes.
7.5.1.2. Heat transfer inside the borehole. The main purpose of the heat
transport analysis inside boreholes is to measure the injection and
production temperatures of the circulating fluid to address thermal
resistance, heat flux and the wall borehole temperature, which can
dramatically influence the ground heat exchanger’s operation (Yang
et al., 2010). The following are some of these models with different
levels of complexity:
• One-dimensional model
The ground outside the borehole is much larger than the borehole
dimension; thus, it can be considered as an infinite medium, and the
borehole thermal capacitance and also the heat flux toward the bore-
hole axis in the grout and along pipe walls can be neglected. The heat
transport and the U-tube are treated as a one-dimensional process with
a single “equivalent” pipe, and the heat transfer is assumed to be steady
state (Bose, Parker, & McQuiston, 1985; Gu & OöNeal, 1998). Because
of its simplicity, this model is unable to analyze the thermal inter-
ference between the U-tube legs, called thermal “short circulating”,
which has a significant effect on the heat exchanger operation.
• Two-dimensional model
A two-dimensional analytical method solved in the cross-sectional
direction of the pipes where the heat fluxes of each U-tube pipe per unit
length are considered separately to express the U-tube fluid tempera-
ture by a superposition of their temperature responses (Hellström,
1991). This model has the ability to calculate the inlet and outlet fluid
temperature, providing quantitative forms of the cross-sectional
thermal resistance, in contrast with assuming the U-tube to be a single
equivalent pipe in the one-dimensional model, so one can study the U-
tube configurations’ impact on the heat conduction. The thermal in-
terference between the U-tube legs can lead to a decline of the heat
transfer rate between the refrigerant and ground due to the thermal
“short-circuit” phenomenon (Zeng, Diao, & Fang, 2003). However, like
the one-dimensional model, this model is unable to express this impact
on the heat exchanger performance.
• Quasi-three-dimensional model
This model is developed from the two-dimensional model and again
the heat conduction in the grout is neglected along the borehole axis to
simplify the analysis (Zeng et al., 2003b). However, this model includes
the changes of the fluid temperature in the axial direction in the
borehole and gives more satisfactory results than previous models, as
demonstrated by the authors (Zeng et al., 2003b). Therefore, for ana-
lysis and design purposes, it is recommended to use this model. A
summary of different heat transport models inside the borehole is given
in Table 10.
M. Soltani et al.
Table 10
Comparison of different heat transfer models inside the borehole (Claesson & Dunand, 1983; Hellström, 1991; Koohi-Fayegh & Rosen, 2013; Paul, 1996; Zeng et al.,
2003a).
U-tube disposal
Expressing the cross-sectional thermal resistance in quantitative form
Thermal interference
Extinction between the entering and exiting pipes
Axial convective heat transfer by fluid flow
Axial conductive heat transfer in grout
7.5.1.3. Comparison of the numerical and analytical models. Whereas the
analytical and semi-analytical models contain some restrictive
assumptions to simplify the complex mathematical diffusion problem
(e.g., neglecting the real size of the U-tubes) (Cui et al., 2008), the
common numerical models are usually based on polar or cylindrical
grids and provide more accuracy, but are computationally more
intensive. The analytical models employ straightforward algorithms
that can lead to a compact design or simulation program (Yang et al.,
2010). For stochastic analysis of simple cases, these can be used for
Monte Carlo or parametric assessment easily and quickly, helping to
guide the inputs for more complex numerical models with a great deal
of inhomogeneity and addressing the thermal capacitance of the pipe
and grout. A comparison between the features of the analytical and
numerical models is summarized in Table 11.
7.5.2. Horizontal ground heat exchangers models
The main focus in the literature has been on vertical ground heat
exchangers; far fewer models have been proposed to design, simulate
and test horizontal ground heat exchangers experimentally and math-
ematically. However, some studies have investigated the effect of
varying heat exchanger parameters on performance and operation. To
calculate the thermal resistance of the surrounding soil, Mei (1986)
suggested a method based on the energy balance between the soil and
the circulating fluid, using thermal properties of the soil, the geometry
of the heat exchanger and the system operating procedures as inputs.
The heat transfer rate can be calculated using the temperature of the
inlet water to the heat exchanger and the mass flow rate and this
method is also able to calculate the soil thermal distribution directly for
more realistic temperature profile predictions.
In a modification of Mei’s model (Mei, 1986), computational effort
was concentrated in the vicinity of the pipe with finer meshes, im-
proving accuracy and diminishing computation time (Piechowski,
1999) as the most rapid (high gradient) heat and mass transfer pro-
cesses occur neat the pipe. This model also includes the moisture and
temperature gradients at the boundary of the pipe and soil.
Eight models of horizontal ground heat exchangers were in-
vestigated by Tzaferis, Liparakis, Santamouris, and Argiriou (1992),
using air as a circulating fluid. They categorized their algorithms into
two groups:
1 Considering both convective and conductive heat transfer: (a)
Transfer from the circulating air to the pipe (convective heat
transfer) and (b) from the pipe to the ground and within the ground
(conductive heat transfer). The thermal characteristics of the ground
Table 11
Comparison of different heat transfer models inside the borehole (Yang et al., 2010).
Model Method
Kelvin’s line source Infinite line-source
Cylindrical source Infinite cylindrical source
Eskilson’s model Combination of numerical and analytical methods
Finite line-source solution Analytical method
Short time-step model Numerical method
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818
One-dimensional (equivalent pipe diameter) Two-dimensional Quasi-three-dimensional
No Yes Yes
No Yes Yes
No No Yes
No No Yes
No No Yes
No No No
and the pipe, the system’s geometric characteristics, and the un-
disturbed ground temperature are required as the input data.
2 Considering only convective heat transfer from the circulating air to
the pipe: The pipe surface temperature, in addition to the thermal
and geometric characteristics of the pipe and the system, are re-
quired as the input data.
The thermohydraulic aspect of the system based on design para-
meters of ground heat exchangers which use air as a circulating fluid
(De Paepe & Janssens, 2003) can be simulated with a one-dimensional
model connecting the thermal efficiency to the pressure drop inside the
tube, allowing the specific pressure drop to be calculated. Considering
the circulating fluid as a liquid, similar relations can be utilized to es-
timate the performance of the system. Experimental study to estimate
the thermal distribution around horizontal ground heat exchangers are
advised to help assess system performance and calibrate models (Esen,
Inalli, & Esen, 2007) over seasonal time frames for heating, leading to
definition of a coefficient performance for the ground-source heat
pump, useful in design.
8. Summary and conclusion
Integrating renewable energy into habitat heating is imperative
because of environmental issues resulting from GHG emissions. Since
renewable energy use has increased substantially. Good value propo-
sitions are needed in many cases, and renewable direct heating and
cooling performances of geothermal and biomass systems are approxi-
mately the same overall value, but unintegrated solar energy systems
perform less well. Solar heat sources combined with geothermal,
however, have great promise. Geothermal systems have high initial cost
and lengthy construction time, but their advantages over other re-
newable energy sources make geothermal energy more suitable in
many, perhaps the great majority of applications. These advantages
include good COP efficiency, uninterrupted operation, small footprint,
weatherproof, easily integrated with other energy systems, to name the
major one.
This paper briefly reviewed geothermal energy use and the history
of geothermal energy district heating in different parts of the world.
Differences between space heating and district heating are important,
with different options to distribute energy in a space. Environmental
issues and two oil crises in the last few decades have pushed govern-
ments and companies to invest in renewable energy, even of fossil fuel
prices are low, so we discussed the pros and cons of sustainable energy
sources and the economy viability of using each one. A huge amount of
Thermal interference between boreholes Boundary effects
Yes No
Yes No
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
813
M. Soltani et al.
Fig. 38. Process flowchart for design and integration of shallow geothermal systems.
energy is consumed worldwide for space cooling and heating, and we
believe that future work focusing on development of integrated district
cooling could change energy consumption of energy, as with district
heating.
We reviewed the development of geothermal heat pumps; different
types of GSHPs are compared and classified in four main categories:
GWHP, GCHP, SWHP, and SCW. They are dependable technologies for
residential and commercial use, with better performances than air
source heat pumps (with COPs up to 4.9). They can be improved sig-
nificantly by using them as hybrid systems in combination with heat
rejecters or heat absorbers, depending on the climate conditions (with
COPs up to 6); accordingly, hybrid systems can further reduce the
consumption of energy. Geothermal systems’ high capital investments
and lack of modularity (compared to wind and solar) means that they
are not affordable by a large group of poorer communities; increased
development of lower cost systems that are largely pre-built and
modular would make this technology more commonplace worldwide.
Ground heat exchangers are used to extract and release heat, and in
order to enhance their efficiency, they are typically coupled to heat
pumps. In contrast to ambient air temperature, the ground temperature
is always less variable seasonally. Heat storage is a fundamental prin-
ciple of operating GHEs, integratable with air pre-heating and pre-
cooling in open-loop systems.
Many models have been developed, especially for vertical GHEs, in
order to describe heat transport inside and outside the borehole. Most
geothermal companies have proprietary models, so a detailed com-
parison is performed only on basic approaches. These simulation
models depict the thermal performance of GHEs and can be applied in
sizing applications, but much improvement remains possible in the
domains of effective system design, system choice, hybrid systems, in-
tegration with other energy sources that may be intermittent, and so on.
Considering the groundwater effects and optimizing the heat storage
processes using borehole heat exchangers under varying circumstances
requires better geological understanding of heat conduction and con-
vection, which vary with thermal properties of the soil/rock and op-
erating conditions. Moreover, more efficient methods for drilling holes
to decrease installation costs will reduce capital investments, and we
believe that automated pattern drilling with air hammers and water
hammers will be important in hard rock, and perhaps foam drilling in
softer rocks, to achieve more rapid penetration rates.
To approach the design of a geothermal system, a logical process is
followed, categorized into four major phases (Fig. 38) (ASHRAE, 2015,
2018; Kavanaugh & Rafferty, 2014). Prior to formal design activity, it is
necessary to decide that the ground source heat pump approach is ac-
tually a potentially appropriate option for the site and for the energy
needs; thus, the applicability of the geothermal system needs to be
814
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818
investigated by assessing site characteristics, building energy balance,
undisturbed ground temperatures, drilling requirements, and ground
properties (e.g., thermal conductivity, and thermal diffusivity), which
will be considered in ground source sizing. Equipment choice can also
influence the field heat exchanger sizing, and a hybrid design may
impact efficiency and system choice. Having estimated the energy
(cooling/heating) loads, the design phase begins by selecting the op-
erating temperature range. This value is selected by calculating the COP
and EER of the system. The operating temperature range, in fact, de-
termines what type of heat pump should be employed. Based on the
required flow rate, the capacity of the heat pump and its exact model
are selected. The design phase is actually the most costly among others.
In the next phase, the main objective is to design the optimum GHE
based on the target area. To meet this challenge, thermal properties of
the ground (i.e., thermal conductivity, thermal diffusivity, and deep
earth temperature distribution) surrounding the borehole have to be
determined by carrying out time-based tests. In the next stage, three
steps should iterate until the optimized output is obtained, which are as
follows:
1 Balancing length with operating temperatures;
2 Changing to different equipment;
3 Balancing with different equipment.
Finally, system integration would be the last phase within which
two system layouts are considered:
1 Direct flow
• With 3-way control
• With 3-way control and variable-frequency drive (VFD)
• With secondary geo-pump
• Without loop temperature control
2 Reverse return
• With 3-way valve control
• With secondary geo-pump
• Without loop temperature control
Although ground source heat pumps are considered to be a mature
technology by some, we described above many issues, mainly related to
combining heating and cooling seasonally, integration with inter-
mittent renewable energy sources (solar and wind), use of available
waste heat, hybrid systems using water bodies for much of the cooling
in hot climates, the inclusion of deep geothermal systems that may
provide some power with heat (especially in cold climates), and other
areas where one cannot say that the systems are mature.
The sizing of the GHEs is strongly dependent upon the thermal
M. Soltani et al.
interaction between the groundwater flow and boreholes, heat storage
in the case of fractured rock masses, and thermally-induced convective
flow; however, proposed efficient simulation models suitable for GSHP
system design are deficient, as research and highly complex mathe-
matical codes are less useful to the design engineer in these cases. Many
computer codes have not been validated by accurate experimental
measurements at the field scale because of time and cost, and there is
some merit to development of a national site for quantifying behavior,
leading to certification of modular systems and borehole system de-
signs.
Further evolution of technology will enhance the life span and the
life-cycle efficiency of GCHP systems. Methods should be developed for
designing hybrid GCHPs, considering the effects of supplemental heat
rejecters and absorbers, building systems, ground heat exchangers, and
the complex interactions with ancillary power sources (wind, solar).
The shallow geothermal technologies discussed have excellent potential
to displace some proportion of the fossil fuels consumed worldwide,
both for cooling and for heating. Soon, these systems will be cheaper
than non-geothermal active systems, and will allow the integration of
other renewable energy sources into the construction of the human
habitat, reducing indoor and outdoor pollution. These are useful goals
to improve the quality of life and the environment.
References
Anonymous (2018a). https://archeologiaindustriale.net/.
Anonymous (2018b). http://geocube.in/residential.html.
Anonymous (2018c). https://www.nordicghp.com/residential-heat-pumps/system-
selection/energy-distribution-system/.
Anonymous (2018d). http://www.dominc.ca/geothermal.html.
Anonymous (2018e). https://www.mvb.cz/domacnosti/tepelna-cerpadla/voda-voda/.
Anonymous (2018f). Australia's leading provider of geoexchange heating, cooling and hot
water systems. http://www.geoexchange.com.au/.
Agioutantis, Z., & Bekas, A. (2000). The potential of district heating using geothermal
energy: A case study, Greece. Geothermics, 29(1), 51–64.
Agudelo-Vera, C. M., Mels, A. R., Keesman, K. J., & Rijnaarts, H. H. M. (2011). Resource
management as a key factor for sustainable urban planning. Journal of Environmental
Management, 92, 2295–2303.
Ampofo, F., Maidment, G., & Missenden, J. (2006). Review of groundwater cooling sys-
tems in London. Applied Thermal Engineering, 26, 2055–2062.
ASHRAE (2015). ASHRAE handbook—HVAC applications, chapter 34, geothermal energy. SI
ed. Atlanta, GA, USA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
ASHRAE (2018). ASHRAE technical committee 6.8, geothermal heat pump and energy re-
covery applications. https://tc0608.ashraetcs.org/.
Atam, E., & Helsen, L. (2016a). Ground-coupled heat pumps: Part 1–Literature review and
research challenges in modeling and optimal control. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 54, 1653–1667.
Atam, E., & Helsen, L. (2016b). Ground-coupled heat pumps: Part 2-literature review and
research challenges in optimal design. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54,
1668–1684.
Bahadori, M. N., & Dehghani-Sanij, A. R. (2014). In A. Sayigh (Ed.). Wind towers:
Architecture, climate and sustainability. Springer International Publishing.
Bahadori, M. N., Mazizdi, M., & Dehghani-Sanij, A. R. (2008). Experimental investigation
of new designs of wind towers. Renewable Energy, 33, 2273–2281.
Beck, K. (1978). Fernwärmeversorgung im internationaler Vergleich. Fernwärme Int. 7(5),
168–173.
Belessiotis, V., & Delyannis, E. (2000). The history of renewable energies for water de-
salination. Desalination, 128, 147–159.
Benzaama, M. H., Menhoudj, S., Kontoleon, K. J., Mokhtari, A. M., & Lekhal, M. C. (2018).
Investigation of thermal behavior of a combined geothermal system for cooling with
regards to Algeria’s climate. Sustainable Cities and Society, 43, 121–133.
Bernier, M. A. (2001). Ground-coupled heat pump system simulation/discussion. ASHRAE
Transactions, 107(1), 605–616.
Bernier, M. A., Ladang, O., & Hulot, J. (2005). Effet du choix du fluide caloporteur sur
l’énergie de pompage des systèmes de pompes à chaleur géothermiques. Paper pre-
sented at the VIIe colloque Franco-Québécois sur la thermique des systèmes, Université de
Rennes, 103–108.
Bertani, R. (2012). Geothermal power generation in the world 2005–2010 update report.
Geothermics, 41, 1–29.
Bi, Y., Wang, X., Liu, Y., Zhang, H., & Chen, L. (2009). Comprehensive exergy analysis of a
ground-source heat pump system for both building heating and cooling modes.
Applied Energy, 86, 2560–2565.
Bilgen, S., Kaygusuz, K., & Sari, A. (2004). Renewable energy for a clean and sustainable
future. Energy Sources, 26, 1119–1129.
Bloomquist, R. G. (2003). Geothermal space heating. Geothermics, 32(4-6), 513–526.
Bose, J. E., Parker, J. D., & McQuiston, F. C. (1985). Design/data manual for closed-loop
ground-coupled heat pump systems. Atlanta, GA, USA: American Society of Heating,
815
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
Breger, D. S., Hubbell, J. E., El Hasnaoui, H., & Sunderland, J. E. (1996). Thermal energy
storage in the ground: Comparative analysis of heat transfer modeling using U-tubes
and boreholes. Solar Energy, 56, 493–503.
Cabeza, L. F., Rincón, L., Vilariño, V., Pérez, G., & Castell, A. (2014). Life cycle assessment
(LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A
review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29, 394–416.
Cárdenas Rodríguez, M., Dupont-Courtade, L., & Oueslati, W. (2016). Air pollution and
urban structure linkages: Evidence from European cities. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 53, 1–9.
Carslaw, H., & Jaeger, J. (1947). Conduction of heat in solids (2nd ed.). Oxford Science
Publications.
Carvalho, A. D., Moura, P., Vaz, G. C., & De Almeida, A. T. (2015). Ground source heat
pumps as high efficient solutions for building space conditioning and for integration
in smart grids. Energy Conversion and Management, 103, 991–1007.
Chen, R., Hu, B., Liu, Y., Xu, J., Yang, G., Xu, D., et al. (2016). Beyond PM2.5: The role of
ultrafine particles on adverse health effects of air pollution. BBA General Subjects,
1860, 2844–2855.
Chiasson, A., & Yavuzturk, C. (2009). A design tool for hybrid geothermal heat pump
systems in cooling-dominated buildings. ASHRAE Transactions, 115, 74–87.
Chiasson, A., Yavuzturk, C., & Talbert, W. (2004). Design of school building HVAC retrofit
with hybrid geothermal heat-pump system. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 10,
103–111.
Chiesa, G., Simonetti, M., & Grosso, M. (2014). A 3-field earth-heat-exchange system for a
school building in Imola, Italy: Monitoring results. Renewable Energy, 62, 563–570.
Choi, H. J., Park, S., Lee, H., Pham, K. L. N., Ryu, H., & Choi, H. (2016). Optimum op-
eration of open-loop ground heat exchanger considering subsurface temperature
gradient. International Journal of Energy Research, 40, 651–661.
Chua, K. J., Chou, S. K., & Yang, W. (2010). Advances in heat pump systems: A review.
Applied Energy, 87, 3611–3624.
Chuanshan, D. (1997). Thermal analysis of indirect geothermal district heating systems.
Geothermics, 26, 351–364.
Claesson, J. (1991). PC design model for thermally interacting deep ground heat exchangers.
IEA heat pump centre report HPC-WR-895–104.
Claesson, J., & Dunand, A. (1983). Heat extraction from the ground by horizontal pipes: A
mathematical analysis. Lund, Sweden: Department of Mathematical Physics, Lund
University.
Claesson, J., & Eskilson, P. (2015). PC design model for heat extraction boreholes. Conférence
internationale sur le stockage de l’énergie pour le chauffage et le refroidissement 41988.
Paris, France135–137.
Collins, J. F. (1959). The history of district heating. District Heating, 44, 154–161.
Congedo, P., Colangelo, G., & Starace, G. (2012). CFD simulations of horizontal ground
heat exchangers: A comparison among different configurations. Applied Thermal
Engineering, 33, 24–32.
Connolly, D., Lund, H., Mathiesen, B. V., et al. (2014). Heat roadmap Europe: Combining
district heating with heat savings to decarbonise the EU energy system. Energy Policy,
65, 475–489.
Cui, P., Yang, H., & Fang, Z. (2008). Numerical analysis and experimental validation of
heat transfer in ground heat exchangers in alternative operation modes. Energy and
Buildings, 40, 1060–1066.
Deerman, J. (1991). Simulation of vertical U-tube ground-coupled heat pump systems
using the cylindrical heat source solution. ASHRAE Transactions, 97, 287–295.
De Paepe, M., & Janssens, A. (2003). Thermo-hydraulic design of earth-air heat ex-
changers. Energy and Buildings, 35, 389–397.
Dehghani-Sanij, A. R., Dehghani, S. R., Naterer, G. F., & Muzychka, Y. S. (2017). Marine
icing phenomena on vessels and offshore structures: Prediction and analysis. Ocean
Engineering, 143, 1–23.
Dehghani-Sanij, A. R., Soltani, M., & Raahemifar, K. (2015). A new design of wind tower
for passive ventilation in buildings to reduce energy consumption in windy regions.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 42, 182–195.
Dehkordi, S. E., & Schincariol, R. A. (2014). Effect of thermal-hydrogeological and
borehole heat exchanger properties on performance and impact of vertical closed-
loop geothermal heat pump systems. Hydrogeology Journal, 22, 189–203.
Demirbaş, A. (2006). Global renewable energy resources. Energy sources, 28, 779–792.
Deng, Z. (2004). Modeling of standing column wells in ground source heat pump systems, Ph.D.
thesis. Stillwater, OK, USA: Oklahoma State University.
Deng, Y., Feng, Z., Fang, J., & Cao, S. J. (2018). Impact of ventilitation rates on indoor
thermal comfort and energy efficiency of ground-source heat pump system.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 37, 154–163.
Diamant, R. (1963). District heating. Heating and Ventilating Engineer, 36, 375–381.
Diao, N., Li, Q., & Fang, Z. (2004). Heat transfer in ground heat exchangers with
groundwater advection. International Journal of Thermal Sciences, 43, 1203–1211.
Diao, N., Zeng, H., & Fang, Z. (2004). Improvement in modeling of heat transfer in ver-
tical ground heat exchangers. HVAC & R Research, 10, 459–470.
Dickson, M. H., & Fanelli, M. (2002). What is geothermal energy. Pisa, Italy: Istituto di
Geoscienze e Georisorse, CNR. http://users.metu.edu.tr/mahmut/pete450/Dickson.
pdf.
Dincer, I. (2001). Environmental issues: II-potential solutions. Energy sources, 23, 83–92.
Dincer, I., & Acar, C. (2015). A review on clean energy solutions for better sustainability.
International Journal of Energy Research, 39, 585–606.
Efficiency OoE (2009). Heating and cooling with a heat pump – ground source heat pumps
(earth-energy systems). Ottawa, Canada: Natural Resources Canada.
Eggen, G., & Vangsnes, G. (2005). Heat pump for district cooling and heating at Oslo
Airport, Gardermoen. Proceedings 8th IEA Heat Pump Conference.
Ellabban, O., Abu-Rub, H., & Blaabjerg, F. (2014). Renewable energy resources: Current
status, future prospects and their enabling technology. Renewable and Sustainable
M. Soltani et al.
Energy Reviews, 39, 748–764.
Energy Roadmap 2050 (2011). Communication from the commission to the European par-
liament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the
regions, Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2012_
energy_roadmap_2050_en_0.pdf.
Ericsson, K., & Nilsson, L. J. (2006). Assessment of the potential biomass supply in Europe
using a resource-focused approach. Biomass and Bioenergy, 30, 1–15.
Eriksson, M., & Vamling, L. (2007). Future use of heat pumps in Swedish district heating
systems: Short-and long-term impact of policy instruments and planned investments.
Applied Energy, 84, 1240–1257.
Esen, H., Inalli, M., & Esen, M. (2007). Numerical and experimental analysis of a hor-
izontal ground-coupled heat pump system. Building and Environment, 42, 1126–1134.
Eskilson, P. (1987). Thermal analysis of heat extraction boreholes. Doctoral thesis. Lund,
Sweden: Lund University.
Fang, Z., Diao, N., & Cui, P. (2002). Discontinuous operation of geothermal heat ex-
changers. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 7, 194–197.
Florides, G., & Kalogirou, S. (2007a). Ground heat exchangers—A review of systems,
models and applications. Renewable Energy, 32, 2461–2478.
Florides, G., & Kalogirou, S. (2007b). Ground heat exchangers-a review of systems,
models and applications. Renewable Energy, 32, 2461–2478.
Frederiksen, S., & Werner, S. (2013). District heating and cooling. Lund: Studentlitteratur
AB 2013.
Gang, W., & Wang, J. (2013). Predictive ANN models of ground heat exchanger for the
control of hybrid ground source heat pump systems. Applied Energy, 112, 1146–1153.
Gang, W., Wang, J., & Wang, S. (2014). Performance analysis of hybrid ground source
heat pump systems based on ANN predictive control. Applied Energy, 136,
1138–1144.
Gentry, J. E., Spitler, J. D., Fisher, D. E., & Xu, X. (2006). Simulation of hybrid ground
source heat pump systems and experimental validation. Proceedings of the 7th Int.
Conf. on System Simulation in Buildings.
Gerber, M. (2014). EnergyPlus energy simulation software. Duluth: Swenson College of
Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota.
Girard, A., Gago, E. J., Muneer, T., & Caceres, G. (2015). Higher ground source heat pump
COP in a residential building through the use of solar thermal collectors. Renewable
Energy, 80, 26–39.
Gu, Y., & O’Neal, D. L. (1998). Development of an equivalent diameter expression for
vertical U-tubes used in ground-coupled heat pumps. ASHRAE Transactions, 104,
347–355.
Gudmundsson, J. S., & Lund, J. W. (1985). Direct uses of earth heat. International Journal
of Energy Research, 9(3), 345–375.
Guo, J., Huang, Y., & Wei, C. (2015). North–South debate on district heating: Evidence
from a household survey. Energy Policy, 86, 295–302.
Hart, D. P., & Couvillion, R. (1986). Earth coupled heat transfer. Dublin, OH, USA: National
Water Well Association.
Hawlader, M., Rahman, S., & Jahangeer, K. (2008). Performance of evaporator-collector
and air collector in solar assisted heat pump dryer. Energy Conversion and
Management, 49, 1612–1619.
Healy, P., & Ugursal, V. (1997). Performance and economic feasibility of ground source
heat pumps in cold climate. International Journal of Energy Research, 21, 857–870.
Heiselberg, P. K. (2004). Building integrated ventilation systems - modelling and design
challenges. http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB10309.pdf.
Hellström, G. (1991). Ground heat storage: Thermal analyses of duct storage systems. Lund,
Sweden: Department of Mathematical Physics, Lund University.
Hellström, G. (1989). Duct ground heat storage model, manual for computer code. Lund,
Sweden: Department of Mathematical Physics, Lund University.
Hepbasli, A. (2005). Thermodynamic analysis of a ground-source heat pump system for
district heating. International Journal of Energy Research, 29, 671–687.
Hepbasli, A., & Kalinci, Y. (2009). A review of heat pump water heating systems.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 1211–1229.
IEA (2018). World energy balances 2018: Overview. Paris, France: The International Energy
Agency (IEA). https://webstore.iea.org/world-energy-balances-2018-overview.
IEA (2006). Renewables for heating and cooling. Paris, France: The International Energy
Agency (IEA).
IEA (2014). Word energy outlook 2014. Paris, France: The International Energy Agency
(IEA).
IEA (1983). District heating and combined heat and power systems - A technology review, vol.
53The International Energy Agency (IEA), Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development 305 p.
IEA (2013a). CO2 emissions from fuel combustion (highlights) (2013 ed.). Paris, France: The
International Energy Agency (IEA).
IEA (2016a). World energy balances until 2014. Paris, France: The International Energy
Agency (IEP).
IEA (2016b). World energy outlook 2016. Executive summary. Paris, France: The
International Energy Agency (IEA).
IEA (2013b). World energy outlook 2013. Executive summary. Paris, France: The
International Energy Agency (IEA).
Ingersoll, L., & Plass, H. (1948). Theory of the ground pipe heat source for the heat pump.
ASHVE Transactions, 47, 339–348.
Ingersoll, L., Adler, F. T., Plass, H. J., & Ingersoll, A. C. (1950). Theory of earth heat
exchangers for the heat pump. ASHVE Transactions, 56, 167–188.
Ingersoll, L., Zobel, O. J., & Ingersoll, A. C. (1954). Heat conduction: With engineering
geological and other applications. Calcutta, Bombay, New Delhi: Oxford And Ibh
Publishing Co.
Janssens-Maenhout, G., Muntean, M., & Peters, J. (2013). Trends in global CO2 emissions:
2013 reportThe Hague, The Netherlands: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Agency.
816
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818
Kavanaugh, S. P. (1985). Simulation and experimental verification of vertical ground-coupled
heat pump systems. Ph.D. thesis. Stillwater, OK, USA: Oklahoma State University.
Kavanaugh, S. P., & Rafferty, K. (1997). Ground-source heat pumps: Design of geothermal
systems for commercial and institutional buildings. American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
Kavanaugh, S. P., & Rafferty, K. D. (2014). ASHRAE design Guide for commercial and in-
stitutional buildings. Geothermal heating and cooling: design of Ground-source heat pump
systems. Atlanta, GA, USA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
Kazemi, A. R., Mahbaz, S. B., Soltani, M., Yaghoubi, A. A., & Dusseault, M. B. (2018).
SEGS Reservoir behavior, Western Canada sedimentary Basin case study. 2nd
International Discrete Fracture Network Engineering Conference.
Koohi-Fayegh, S., & Rosen, M. A. (2013). A review of the modelling of thermally inter-
acting multiple boreholes. Sustainability, 5, 2519–2536.
Kulcar, B., Goricanec, D., & Krope, J. (2008). Economy of exploiting heat from low-
temperature geothermal sources using a heat pump. Energy and Buildings, 40,
323–329.
Lake, A., Rezaie, B., & Beyerlein, S. (2017). Review of district heating and cooling systems
for a sustainable future. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67, 417–425.
Lechtenböhmer, S., & Schüring, A. (2011). The potential for large-scale savings from
insulating residential buildings in the EU. Energy Efficiency, 4, 257–270.
Lee, C., & Lam, H. (2008). Computer simulation of borehole ground heat exchangers for
geothermal heat pump systems. Renewable Energy, 33, 1286–1296.
Lee, C., Park, S., Won, J., Jeoung, J., Sohn, B., & Choi, H. (2012). Evaluation of thermal
performance of energy textile installed in tunnel. Renewable Energy, 42, 11–22.
Lekhal, M. C., Belarbi, R., Mokhtari, A. M., Benzaama, M. H., & Bennacer, R. (2018).
Thermal performance of a residential house equipped with a combined system: A
direct solar floor and an earth–air heat exchanger. Sustainable Cities and Society, 40,
534–545.
Li, M., & Lai, A. C. (2013). Analytical model for short-time responses of ground heat
exchangers with U-shaped tubes: Model development and validation. Applied Energy,
104, 510–516.
Li, K., Bian, H., Liu, C., Zhang, D., & Yang, Y. (2015). Comparison of geothermal with
solar and wind power generation systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
42, 1464–1474.
Li, C., Mao, J., Zhang, H., Li, Y., Xing, Z., & Zhu, G. (2017). Effects of load optimization
and geometric arrangement on the thermal performance of borehole heat exchanger
fields. Sustainable Cities and Society, 1(35), 25–35.
Li, X., Chen, Y., Chen, Z., & Zhao, J. (2006). Thermal performances of different types of
underground heat exchangers. Energy and Buildings, 38, 543–547.
Li, S., Yang, W., & Zhang, X. (2009). Soil temperature distribution around a U-tube heat
exchanger in a multi-function ground source heat pump system. Applied Thermal
Engineering, 29, 3679–3686.
Li, M., Li, P., Chan, V., & Lai, A. C. (2014). Full-scale temperature response function (G-
function) for heat transfer by borehole ground heat exchangers (GHEs) from sub-hour
to decades. Applied Energy, 136, 197–205.
Li, Z., & Zheng, M. (2009). Development of a numerical model for the simulation of
vertical U-tube ground heat exchangers. Applied Thermal Engineering, 29, 920–924.
Li, H., Sun, Q., Zhang, Q., & Wallin, F. (2015). A review of the pricing mechanisms for
district heating systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 42, 56–65.
Liang, L., Wu, W., Lal, R., & Guo, Y. (2013). Structural change and carbon emission of
rural household energy consumption in Huantai, northern China. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 28, 767–776.
Lising, A. J. (2012). Buying down our carbon footprint: An econometric analysis of the impact
of green pricing programs on electricity consumption in the US residential sector. M.A.
thesis. Washington, DC: School of Arts and Sciences, Georgetown University.
Lucia, U., Simonetti, M., Chiesa, G., & Grisolia, G. (2016). Ground-source pump system for
heating and cooling: Review and thermodynamic approach. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 867–874.
Lund, J. W. (2006). Geothermal energy focus: Tapping the earth’s natural heat. Refocus, 7,
48–51.
Lund, J. W. (2010). Direct utilization of geothermal energy. Energies, 3(8), 1443–1471.
Lund, J. W. (2004a). 100 years of geothermal power production. Proceedings, Thirtieth
Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford.
Lund, J. W. (2004b). Geothermal direct-heat utilization. Technika Poszukiwań
Geologicznych, 43, 19–33.
Lund, J. W., & Boyd, T. L. (2016). Direct utilization of geothermal energy 2015 worldwide
review. Geothermics, 60, 66–93.
Lund, H., Werner, S., Wiltshire, R., Svendsen, S., Thorsen, J. E., Hvelplund, F., et al.
(2004). 4th generation district heating (4GDH): Integrating smart thermal grids into
future sustainable energy systems. Energy, 68, 1–11.
Margolis, A. (1947). Continental practice. Bulletin National District Heating Association, 33,
13–17.
Marinova, M., Beaudry, C., Taoussi, A., Trépanier, M., & Paris, J. (2008). Economic as-
sessment of rural district heating by bio-steam supplied by a paper mill in Canada.
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 28, 159–173.
Mei, V. C. (1986). Horizontal ground-coil heat exchanger theoretical and experimental ana-
lysis. ORNL/CON-193, ON: DE87004051. TN, USA: Oak Ridge National Lab.
Mölter, F. M. (1974). F. Stand und Entwicklung der Fernwärme in den Mitgliedsländern
der Unichal. Fernvärme Int, 3, 3–12.
Muraya, N. K., O’Neal, D. L., & Heffington, W. M. (1996). Thermal interference of adjacent
legs in a vertical U-tube heat exchanger for a ground-coupled heat pump. Atlanta, GA,
USA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
Nagarathna, R., Manoranjani, R., & Seshadri, K. (2017). Leveraging social networks for
smart cities: A case-study in mitigation of air pollution. International Conference on
Intelligent Information Technologies.
M. Soltani et al.
Naicker, S. S., & Rees, S. J. (2018a). Performance analysis of a large geothermal heating
and cooling system. Renewable Energy, 122, 429–442.
Naicker, S. S., & Rees, S. J. (2018b). Performance analysis of a large geothermal heating
and cooling system. Renewable Energy, 122, 429–442.
Nejat, P., Jomehzadeh, F., Taheri, M. M., Gohari, M., & Majid, M. Z. A. (2015). A global
review of energy consumption, CO2 emissions and policy in the residential sector
(with an overview of the top ten CO2 emitting countries). Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 43, 843–862.
Nielsen, A. (1948). District heating in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Bulletin
National District Heating Association, 34, 15–16.
Nova Scotia Environment (2018). https://novascotia.ca/nse/water/.
NRCOEE (2004). Heating and cooling with a heat pump. Natural Resources’ Canada Office
of Energy Efficiency (NRCOEE).
Omer, A. M. (2008). Ground-source heat pumps systems and applications. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12, 344–371.
Omer, A. M. (2014). Soil thermal properties and the effects of groundwater on closed
loops. International Journal of Sustainable Energy and Environmental Research, 3, 34–52.
Omer, A. M. (2013). Direct expansion ground source heat pumps for heating and cooling.
International Research Journal of Engineering, 1, 27–48.
Ozgener, L. (2011). A review on the experimental and analytical analysis of earth to air
heat exchanger (EAHE) systems in Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
15, 4483–4490.
Ozgener, L., Hepbasli, A., & Dincer, I. (2007). A key review on performance improvement
aspects of geothermal district heating systems and applications. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11, 1675–1697.
Ozyurt, O., & Ekinci, D. A. (2011). Experimental study of vertical ground-source heat
pump performance evaluation for cold climate in Turkey. Applied Energy, 88,
1257–1265.
Paksoy, H., Andersson, O., Abaci, S., Evliya, H., & Turgut, B. (2000). Heating and cooling
of a hospital using solar energy coupled with seasonal thermal energy storage in an
aquifer. Renewable Energy, 19, 117–122.
Pan, W., & Garmston, H. (2012). Compliance with building energy regulations for new-
build dwellings. Energy, 48, 11–22.
Panwar, N., Kaushik, S., & Kothari, S. (2011). Role of renewable energy sources in en-
vironmental protection: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15,
1513–1524.
Paul, N. D. (1996). The effect of grout thermal conductivity on vertical geothermal heat ex-
changer design and performance, M.Sc. thesis. Brookings, SD, USA: South Dakota State
University.
Peretti, C., Zarrella, A., De Carli, M., & Zecchin, R. (2013). The design and environmental
evaluation of earth-to-air heat exchangers (EAHE). A literature review. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 28, 107–116.
Persson, U., & Werner, S. (2011). Heat distribution and the future competitiveness of
district heating. Applied Energy, 88(3), 568–576.
Piechowski, M. (1999). Heat and mass transfer model of a ground heat exchanger:
Theoretical development. International Journal of Energy Research, 23, 571–588.
Ping, C., Hongxing, Y., & Zhaohong, F. (2007). Simulation modelling and design opti-
misation of ground source heat pump systems. HKIE Transactions, 14(1), 1–6.
Pinto, J. F., & Da Graça, G. C. (2018). Comparison between geothermal district heating
and deep energy refurbishment of residential building districts. Sustainable Cities and
Society, 38, 309–324.
Piscaglia, F., Blasi, A., Del Moro, S., Polonara, F., Arteconi, A., Zanarelli, L., et al. (2016).
Monitoring of a vertical borehole ground-coupled heat pump system: A case study
from a marly-limestone heat reservoir (Urbino, Central Italy). Geothermics, 62, 61–69.
Popiel, C. O., Wojtkowiak, J., & Biernacka, B. (2001). Measurements of temperature
distribution in ground. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, 25, 301–309.
Population Division (2009). Department of economic and social affairs, United nations.
World urbanization prospects: The 2009 revision, Data in digital form POP/DB/ WUP/
Rev.2009.
Population Division (2010). Department of economic and social affairs, United Nations.
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/index.htm.
Qi, Z., Gao, Q., Liu, Y., Yan, Y., & Spitler, J. D. (2014). Status and development of hybrid
energy systems from hybrid ground source heat pump in China and other countries.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29, 37–51.
Rad, F. M., Fung, A. S., & Leong, W. H. (2013). Feasibility of combined solar thermal and
ground source heat pump systems in cold climate, Canada. Energy and Buildings, 61,
224–232.
Rafferty, K. (2003). The economics of connecting of small buildings to geothermal district
heating systems. GHC Bulletin. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=
10.1.1.549.3521&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Raynal, P., Gibert, J., & Barthomeuf, C. (1992). Chaudes-Aigues: historique des utilisations
de la géothermie. Chaudes-Aigues – Inventaire du patrimoine thermal – Route des Villes
d’Eaux du Massif Central. 67–75.
Razmi, A., Soltani, M., Kashkooli, F. M., & Garousi Farshi, L. (2018). Energy and exergy
analysis of an environmentally-friendly hybrid absorption/recompression refrigera-
tion system. Energy Conversion and Management, 164, 59–69.
Reda, F. (2017). Solar assisted ground source heat pump solutions: Effective energy flows
climate management. Springer International Publishing.
Reichl, A. (1989). Gegenwärtiger Stand der Fernwärmeversorgung in einzelnen Ländern.
District Heating International, 18, 123–130.
RETScreen I (2005). Clean energy project analysis software.
Rezaie, B., & Rosen, M. A. (2012). District heating and cooling: Review of technology and
potential enhancements. Applied Energy, 93, 2–10.
Robert, A., & Kummert, M. (2012). Designing net-zero energy buildings for the future
climate, not for the past. Building and Environment, 55, 150–158.
Rogowska, A. (2003). District cooling by a geothermal heat source. Geothermal training
817
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818
programme, Orkustofnun, Grensásvegur 9, IS-108 Reykjavík, Icelandhttps://
orkustofnun.is/gogn/unu-gtp-report/UNU-GTP-2003-19.pdf.
Rosada, J. (1964). Heizsysteme in Europäischen Städten - Fernheizung und Städte
Heizung. HLH, 15(5), 159–165.
Rosen, M. A., & Koohi-Fayegh, S. (2017). Geothermal energy: Sustainable heating and cooling
using the ground. John Wiley & Sons.
Rottmayer, S. P., Beckman, W. A., & Mitchell, J. W. (1997). Simulation of a single vertical
U-tube ground heat exchanger in an infinite medium. Atlanta, GA, USA: American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
Russo, S. L., Taddia, G., & Verda, V. (2012). Development of the thermally affected zone
(TAZ) around a groundwater heat pump (GWHP) system: A sensitivity analysis.
Geothermics, 43, 66–74.
Rybach, L., & Sanner, B. (2000). Ground source heat pump systems, the European ex-
perience. GHC Bulletin, 21, 16–26.
Sagia, Z., Rakopoulos, C., & Kakaras, E. (2012). Cooling dominated hybrid ground source
heat pump system application. Applied Energy, 94, 41–47.
Sarbu, I., & Sebarchievici, C. (2014). General review of ground-source heat pump systems
for heating and cooling of buildings. Energy and Buildings, 70, 441–454.
Schibuola, L., & Scarpa, M. (2016). Ground source heat pumps in high humidity soils: An
experimental analysis. Applied Thermal Engineering, 99, 80–91.
Self, S. J., Reddy, B. V., & Rosen, M. A. (2013). Geothermal heat pump systems: Status
review and comparison with other heating options. Applied Energy, 101, 341–348.
Smith, K., Barden, J., Martin, P., Kearney, D., & Murphy, E. (2013). International energy
outlook 2013. Washington, DC: US Energy Information Administration. https://www.
eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/0484(2013).pdf.
Soltani, M., Dehghani-Sanij, A. R., Sayadnia, A., Kashkooli, F. M., Gharali, K., Mahbaz, S.
B., et al. (2018). Investigation of airflow patterns in a new design of wind tower with
a wetted surface. Energies, 11, 1100.
Spitler, J., & Mitchell, M. (2016). Surface water heat pump systems. In S. J. Rees (Ed.).
Advances in ground-source heat pump systems. London: Woodhead Publishing.
Stober, I., & Bucher, K. (2013). Geothermal energy: From theoretical models to exploration
and development. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Thornton, J., McDowell, T., Shonder, J., Hughes, P., Pahud, D., & Hellström, G. (1997).
Residential vertical geothermal heat pump system models: Calibration to data.
ASHRAE Transactions, 103, 660–674.
Thorsteinsson, H. H., & Testerb, J. W. (2010). Barriers and enablers to geothermal district
heating system development in the United States. Energy Policy, 38, 803–813.
Tiwari, G., & Ghosal, M. (2005). Renewable energy resources: Basic principles and applica-
tions. Harrow, UK: Alpha Science International.
Tsolakis, N., & Anthopoulos, L. (2015). Eco-cities: An integrated system dynamics fra-
mework and a concise research taxonomy. Sustainable Cities and Society, 17, 1–14.
Tzaferis, A., Liparakis, D., Santamouris, M., & Argiriou, A. (1992). Analysis of the accu-
racy and sensitivity of eight models to predict the performance of earth-to-air heat
exchangers. Energy and Buildings, 18, 35–43.
U.S. EIA (2014). Electric power monthly, with data for May 2014. Washington, DC: Office of
Integrated and International Energy Analysis. U.S. Department of Energy. https://
www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/current_month/epm.pdf.
U.S. EIA (2015). Annual energy outlook 2015 (AEO2015), with projections to 2040.
Washington, DC: Office of Integrated and International Energy Analysis. U.S.
Department of Energy. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf.
UNDP (2000). World Energy assessment 2000 – Energy and the challenge of sustainability.
One United Nations Plaza, New York, NY: Bureau for Development Policy.
United Nations (UN) (2012). World urbanization prospects: The 2011 revision. New York,
NY: New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division.
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, ST/ESA/SER.A/
322.
Urbaneck, T., Oppelt, T., Platzer, B., Frey, H., Uhlig, U., Göschel, T., et al. (2015). Solar
district heating in East Germany–transformation in a cogeneration dominated city.
Energy Procedia, 70, 587–594.
Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Cabeza, L. F., Serrano, S., Barreneche, C., & Petrichenko, K. (2015).
Heating and cooling energy trends and drivers in buildings. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 41, 85–98.
Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Petrichenko, K., Staniec, M., & Eom, J. (2013). Energy use in buildings
in a long-term perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5,
141–151.
Valdimarsson, P. (2008). Replacing fossil fuels by geothermal district heating - Example
from Iceland. Presented at the Workshop for Decision Makers on Direct Heating Use of
Geothermal Resources in Asia, Organized by UNU-GTP, TBLRREM and TBGMED.
Vandenbohede, A., Hermans, T., Nguyen, F., & Lebbe, L. (2011). Shallow heat injection
and storage experiment: Heat transport simulation and sensitivity analysis. Journal of
hydrology, 409, 262–272.
Vormerken, F. S. (1957). Die volks- und betriebswirtschaftliche Bedeutung der
Heizkraftkupplung. Beitrag zur Theorie der Heizkraftkupplung. Praktische Energiekunde-
Heizkrafttagung, 5. Jg., Heft 1/2. Verlag: Karlsruhe, G. Braun.
Wagers, H. L., & Wagers, M. C. (1985). The earth-coupled or geothermal heat pump air
conditioning system. Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Improving Building
Systems in Hot and Humid Climates.
WEC (1978). Combined heat and power (CHP). Report by the ad hoc committee of combined
heat and power production and district heating of the world energy conference, London.
WEC (1991). District heating/combined heat and power - Decisive factors for a successful use
as learnt from experiences. London: World Energy Council.
Werner, S. (2003). The position of district heating in the world and the corresponding use
of renewables. Paper S2:1. ISES Solar World Congress.
Werner, S. (2004). District heating and cooling. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.
jsf?pid=diva2%3A676931&dswid=-7816.
Werner, S. (2017a). International review of district heating and cooling. Energy, 137,
M. Soltani et al.
617–631.
Werner, S. (2017b). District heating and cooling in Sweden. Energy, 126, 419–429.
Werner, S., & Constantinesku, N. (2006). EcoHeatCool: The European heat market. Work
package 1. Final reportBrussels, Belgium: Euroheat & Power. https://www.euroheat.
org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Ecoheatcool_WP1_Web.pdf.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2014). Ambient (outdoor) air quality and health. WHO
Media Centre, factsheet 313. http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/
ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health.
Wu, R. (2009). Energy efficiency technologies–air source heat pump vs. ground source
heat pump. Journal of Sustainable Development, 2(2), https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.
v2n2p14.
Xu, X. (2007). Simulation and optimal control of hybrid ground source heat pump systems,
Ph.D. thesis. Stillwater, OK, USA: Oklahoma State University.
Yang, H., Cui, P., & Fang, Z. (2010). Vertical-borehole ground-coupled heat pumps: A
review of models and systems. Applied Energy, 87, 16–27.
Yau, Y., & Hasbi, S. (2013). A review of climate change impacts on commercial buildings
and their technical services in the tropics. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
18, 430–441.
Yavuzturk, C., & Spitler, J. D. (2001). Field validation of a short time step model for
vertical ground-loop heat exchangers/Discussion. ASHRAE Transactions, 107,
617–625.
Yavuzturk, C., Spitler, J. D., & Rees, S. J. (1999). A transient two-dimensional finite
volume model for the simulation of vertical U-tube ground heat exchangers. ASHRAE
Transactions, 105, 465.
Yoon, M. (2012). A study on the installation guidelines of standing column Well (SCW)
type geothermal system. Korea Testing Laboratory, 1, 61–67.
818
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 793–818
You, T., Li, X., Shi, W., & Wang, B. (2017). Fast and accurate calculation of the soil
temperature distribution around ground heat exchanger based on a response factor
model. IGSHPA Technical/Research Conference and Expo. https://doi.org/10.22488/
okstate.17.000509.
Yu, M., Diao, N., Su, D., & Fang, Z. (2002). A pilot project of the closed-loop ground-source
heat pump system in China. Proceeding of IEA 7th Heat Pump Conference Beijing,
China356–364.
Yumrutaş, R., & Ünsal, M. (2012). Energy analysis and modeling of a solar assisted house
heating system with a heat pump and an underground energy storage tank. Solar
Energy, 86, 983–993.
Zannetti, P., Al-Ajmi, D., & Al-Rashied, S. (2007). Ambient air pollution-an overview. The
Arab School for Science andTechnology (ASST)15–28 Chapter 2.
Zeng, H., Diao, N., & Fang, Z. (2002). A finite line-source model for boreholes in geo-
thermal heat exchangers. Heat Transfer-Asian Research, 31, 558–567.
Zeng, H., Diao, N., & Fang, Z. (2003a). Heat transfer analysis of boreholes in vertical
ground heat exchangers. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 46,
4467–4481.
Zeng, H., Diao, N., & Fang, Z. (2003b). Efficiency of vertical geothermal heat exchangers
in the ground source heat pump system. Journal of Thermal Science, 12(1), 77–81.
Zhang, S., Wang, H., & Guo, T. (2010). Experimental investigation of moderately high
temperature water source heat pump with non-azeotropic refrigerant mixtures.
Applied Energy, 87, 1554–1561.
Zhoua, S. H., Cuia, W., Lia, Z. H., & Liu, X. (2016). Feasibility study on two schemes for
alleviating the underground heat accumulation of the ground source heat pump.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 24, 1–9.