Chapter 2: Literature review

Chapter 2
Literature Review
This chapter will provides a bird-eyes view of the GSHP system literature with
emphasis on the design and operational studies of GSHP systems. An analysis of
representative literature can identify which aspects have been studied extensively, and
which aspects have received the least attention. Literature reviewed so far can be
classified into three groups: experimental work, which includes laboratory and in situ
experiments; modelling of GHEs, which is divided into analytical and numerical
methods; and the rest of the literature focusing on GSHP system-related studies,
which include analysis, comparison, operation, installation, design, simulation, and
optimization of GSHP or hybrid GSHP (HGSHP) systems, etc.
2.1 Properties of soil
The efficiency of the heat transfer between the ground heat exchanger and the ground
is strongly dependent on the thermodynamic characteristics of the soil . The thermal
conductivity, the density, the specific heat, the porosity and the hydraulic conductivity
should be investigated to study the thermal performance of GSHP systems.
The measurement of these thermal properties are not easy, especially for vertical
GHEs design, which usually passes through several soil layers and all these types
need to be identified correctly. In order to measure these properties, recently, many
researchers have focused their attention on development of in situ measurement
methods (Low et al 2014). Several experimental apparatus were first developed and
reported in USA and Europe (Gehlin, 2002). After that, many researchers have
1

Chapter 2: Literature review

developed mobile test facilities for this purpose, in different regions of the world,
including Latin America (Roth et al 2004), Canada (Marcotte et al 2008), China
(Wang et al 2010) and elsewhere. Table 2.1 shows the thermal conductivity and
thermal diffusivity of typical soils identified (ASHRAE, 2011). As can be seen in
Table 2.1, thermal conductivity varies with the content of water in the soil. The soil
moisture is an important parameter influencing the soil thermal properties. When air
between soil particles is replaced by water, the contact resistance will be reduced to
some extent. The research work of Leong et al (1998) suggested the GSHP
performance is strongly dependent on the soil moisture content, the higher the soil
moisture value, the better performance of the heat pump.
Table 2.1 Typical thermal properties of soil.

Soils
Heavy clay, 15% water
5% water
Light clay, 15% water
5% water
Heavy sand, 15% water
5% water
Light sand, 15% water
5% water
Rocks
Granite
Limestone
Sandstone
Shale, wet
dry

Thermal conductivity
(W/mK)

Thermal diffusivity
(m2/day)

1.4 to 1.9
1.0 to 1.4
0.7 to 1.0
0.5 to 0.9
2.8 to 3.8
2.1 to 2
1.0 to 2.1
0.9 to 1

0.042 to 0.061
0.047 to 0.061
0.055 to 0.047
0.056 to 0.056
0.084 to 0.11
0.093 to 0.14
0.047 to 0.093
0.055 to 0.12

2.3 to 3.7
2.4 to 3.8
2.1 to 3.5
1.44 to 2.4
1.0 to 2.1

0.084 to 0.13
0.084 to 0.13
0.65 to 0.11
0.065 to 0.084
0.055 to 0.074

2.2 Performance evaluation of GSHP system

Similar with the performance evaluation of traditional heat pump systems, several
performance indexes are used for evaluating the energy performance of ground source
heat pump systems.
2

Chapter 2: Literature review

COP (Coefficient of Performance)

The COP is the ration of the rate of energy delivered to the rate of energy supplied to
do that work for a complete operating heat pump plant.

SEER (Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio)

SEER is the ratio of the total cooling output during a normal usage period for cooling
(in Btu) to the total energy input (in Watt-hour) during the same operation period
which can be used to determine the seasonal energy efficiency of heat pumps during
heating and cooling seasons.

SEER

Total seasonal cooling output (Btu)

Total electricit y energy input of the cooling season (kW)

(2.1)

Up to now, many performance evaluations of various types of ground source heat

pump systems have been conducted simulatively and experimentally. E.M.R (1989)
concluded based on a massive studies of systems in Canada that the coefficient of
performance (COP) of a typical ground source heat pump is 2.9 to 3.2 at 2C in
Canada. . Sanner et al. (2003) reviewed the early development of GSHP systems for
commercial buildings, and pointed that the utilization of GSHP systems in
commercial applications offered some economic and environmental advantages.
Hamada et al. (2007) described a GSHP system using friction piles as heat exchangers
for air conditioning of a building for both office and residential use. Long-term space
heating operation measurements found that the average coefficient of performance
(COP) for space heating was high at 3.9, and the seasonal primary energy reduction
rate reached 23.2% compared with a typical air-conditioning system. Michopoulos
3

Chapter 2: Literature review

et al. (2007) presented a performance evaluation of a GSHP system with vertical

ground heat exchanger in parallel connection for air-conditioning a public building in
northern Greece. It was proved that the energy demand of the system was
significantly lower, compared to that of conventional heating and cooling systems.
The primary energy required by the system for heating was estimated to be lower by
45% and 97% (period average) as compared to that of air-to-water heat pump based
and conventional oil boiler respectively. In cooling mode the relevant differences
were estimated at 28% and 55% for air-to-water and air-to-air heat pump based
systems. Hwang et al. (2009) presented the cooling performance of a water-torefrigerant type GSHP system installed in a school building in Korea. The average
cooling coefficient of performance and overall COP of the GSHP system were found
to be around 8.3 and 5.9 at 65% partial load condition, respectively. While the air
source heat pump system, which had the same capacity with the GSHP system, was
found to have the average COP of 3.9 and overall COP of 3.4, implying that the
GSHP system was more efficient than the air source heat pump system Karabacak
et al. (2011) have reported the cooling performance of a GSHP system consisting of a
225 m vertical single U-tube ground heat exchanger. After a cooling period the COP
(Coefficient of Performance) of the heat pump and the system was found in the range
of 3.14.8 and 2.13.1, respectively. They had also reported a heat injection rate
between 27 and 93 W/m. A comparison study conducted by Self et al (2012) showed
great advantages of GSHP system. Results of the comparison of COP of different
heating systems are shown in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Typical equivalent COP comparisons results for heating systems.
Types of system
Ground source heat pumps
Air source heat pump

COP
3-5
2.3-3.5
4

Chapter 2: Literature review

Electric baseboard heaters

Mild-efficiency natural gas furnace
High-efficiency natural gas furnace

1
0.78-0.82
0.88-0.97

2.3 Modelling of Ground Source Heat Pump Systems

In the past decades, many researches have been focused on the development of
mathematical models of ground heat exchangers to evaluate and predict the heat
transfer phenomena in the ground to facilitate the design and operation investigations
of GSHP systems. The main objective of the GHE modelling is to determine the
temperature of the heat carrier fluid, which is circulated between the U-tubes and the
heat pump, under certain operating conditions. A design goal is then to control the
temperature rises of the ground and the circulating fluid within acceptable limits over
the system lifespan. Several literature reviews on GHE models have been reported
(Florides et al 2007; Yang et al 2010).
2.3.1

Modelling of vertical ground heat exchangers

Modelling GHEs is important, which allows system dynamic simulations to be

performed. For GSHP system, simulation is an important tool for system optimization
design purpose as well as for investigating long-term system performance. For this a
reliable and feasible heat transfer analysis model of GHE is required. Practically, the
heat transfer process of a vertical GHE is analysed in two separated zones. One is the
soil/rocks outside the borehole. The other is the zone inside the borehole, including
the grout, U-tube pipes and the circulating fluid inside the pipes.

Outside the vertical GHEs

Currently, there have been a number of models that can predict transient heat transfer
in outside zone of vertical U-tube GHE (Yang et al 2010). The models are mostly
5

Chapter 2: Literature review

based on either some analytical solutions like line source heat source theory proposed
by Ingersoll and Plass (1948) and cylindrical heat source theory first presented by
Carslaw and Jaeger (1959) and Ingersoll et al. (1954) and later refined by Deerman
and Kavanaugh (1991) or numerical solutions like the one proposed by
Eskilsons (1987) and Hellstrom (1991) that were used for designing vertical
boreholes used in GCHP systems. The existing simplest analytical solutions are the
line source model from Ingersoll and Plass (1954) and the cylindrical source model
from Carslaw and Jaeger (1959). Both models assume infinite length for borehole,
and no steady-state occurs. Some important expressions regarding the simplest
analytical solutions can be found in Table 2.3.

Inside the vertical GHEs

Except simulation of the transient heat conduction of solid/rock outside the borehole,
another important part isolated for analysis is the region inside the borehole, including
grouting materials, the arrangement of flow channels and the circulating fluid inside
the pipes. The heat transfer within a borehole depends not only on the arrangement of
flow channels but also thermal properties of grouted materials and adjacent
surrounding soils. Thermal processes between the heat-carrying fluid and the ground
are composed of three parts:
1) Convective heat transfer between the circulating fluid and the surface of pipes;
2) Conductive heat transfer through the pipes;
3) Conductive heat transfer through the grouting material.
With the steady state assumption, they can be characterized by steady thermal
6

Chapter 2: Literature review

resistances, and sum of them yields an effective fluid-to-ground thermal resistance Rb.
Rb R f R p R g

(2.1)

where Rb is thermal resistance of the borehole, Rf is the convective resistance of the

fluid, Rp is the conductive resistance of the pipes, Rg is the conductive resistance of the
grout.
Thus the steady-state borehole thermal resistance Rb can be calculated as the ratio
between the heat flux and the temperature difference between the circulating fluid and
the borehole wall:

Rb

T f Tb
q

(2.2)

where: Rb is thermal resistance of the borehole, q is the heat flux per length of
borehole, Tf is the average circulating fluid temperature.
There also have been a number of models existed to determine the borehole thermal
resistance (Lamarche et al 2010). Important expressions of the models are also
summarised in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 Summary of the important expressions of vertical GHEs models.
Region
Outside the
vertical GHE

Expressions of models
Infinite line source model
q1
q e u
r2
T ( r, ) To
du

E
(
)
r
1
4k s 4 u
4k s
4 s
2

Infinite cylindrical model

r
q

Tb To G ( Fo , i ) Fo s 2
ks
ro
ri
;

References
Borehole is modelled as a line of
heat sources or sinks of infinite
length (Carslaw and Jaeger,
1959; Ingersoll et al. 1954).
It is based on the solution for a
constant heat flux considering
two pipes as one coaxial infinite
long pipe within a borehole with
7

Chapter 2: Literature review

infinite length (Carslaw and

Jaeger, 1946, 1959; Ingersoll et
al. 1954).
Empirical model
Rb

Inside the
vertical GHE

1
r
0 k b ( b ) 1
rp

Line source approximation

Rp
r
r
k ks
r4
1
Rb
[ln b ln b b
ln( 4 b 4 )]
4k b
ro
2D kb k s
2
rb D

Quasi-three dimensional models

Rb

2.3.2

T f ,i Tb

L
1
(
) )
f c f V f T f ,i T f ,o 2

This expression is based on the

shape factor of heat conduction
and fitting experimental data
(Paul, 1996).
Line-source formula used in the
popular DST program (Pahud et
al., 1996).
This model considers the
variation of fluid temperature
along the borehole depth (Diao,
et al 2004).

Modelling of horizontal ground heat exchangers

Compared with vertical ground heat exchangers, quite few theoretic simulation
analyses of horizontal heat exchangers have been derived so far, which mostly due to
the complexity of nature problems. Several major difficulties were proposed (Mei,
1986):
1) the lack of knowledge of soil thermal conductivity and diffusivity and moisture
migration of a given location;
2) the effect of seasonal temperature variation on the shallow depths of ground;
3) uncertain thermal resistance due to lack of close contact of the coil with the
soil;
4) the effect of ground coil size, configuration and material.
Despite these, modelling of horizontal loop heat exchangers have been done for many
years, mathematical models are available to assist in the design of horizontal loop heat
exchangers. IGSHPA (1998) provided the thermal response functions for many
8

Chapter 2: Literature review

different ground-loop configurations. Claesson et al (1983) also proposed a linesource theory based model for ground heat exchanger which requires the estimated
specification of line-source strength. Mihalakakou et al. (1994) presented a model in
which the ground surrounding the pipe and the pipe itself are described in polar coordinates. The model was solved in the TRNSYS (a modular energy system
simulation program) environment and validated with good results. Lin et al (2005)
developed a plane source heat transfer model to analyse the heat transfer phenomenon
of slinky horizontal loop heat exchangers to assist the design process. A semianalytical model for serpentine horizontal ground heat exchangers was proposed and
validated by Philippe et al (2011). Computer-aided simulation tools are also available,
finite-element simulator is most commonly used simulation engine to analyse the heat
transfer of horizontal loop heat exchangers in various configurations (Cingedo et al
2012, Fujili et al 2012, Simms et al 2014). Based on the literature reviewed,
simulation models developed for horizontal loop heat exchangers are obviously not as
sophisticated as those for vertical ground heat exchangers, it is also hard to conclude a
universal simplified analytical model for horizontal loop heat exchangers due to the
major difficulties mentioned above.
2.4 Design and operational optimization of GSHP systems
As reviewed above, GSHP (Ground source heat pump) can be regarded one of the
promising technologies for space heating and cooling applications. In general, a GHE
can be either a horizontal or a vertical loop system. Horizontal GHEs are normally
buried under the ground at a depth of 1 2 m while vertical GHEs are drilled at a
depth of 20 200 m. Selection of GHE configurations for heat pump applications
depends on the availability of resources i.e. water, land etc. In general, GSHP users
9

Chapter 2: Literature review

tend to believe that vertical GSHP systems are more efficient than the horizontal
GSHP systems because the variation in ambient temperature will have more influence
on the horizontal GSHP systems that are buried at shallow depth compared to the
deep vertical GHEs. Thus closed-loop GSHPs vertical heat exchangers are
particularly considered. In both cases, a large amount of research have been done
concerning the design and operation of GSHP systems and are briefly reviewed in
below sections.
2.4.1 GSHP systems design and operational approaches
2.4.1.1 Design considerations
Design of GSHP system is a complicated and important issue since the design has a
direct influence on the performance of the GSHP system. Eskilson (1987) and
Hellstrm (1991) provided a detailed thermal analysis of heat extraction boreholes
and describe important parameters in their performance. The five most important
parameters identified in the performance of a borehole heat exchanger are the soil
thermal conductivity, the borehole thermal resistance, the undisturbed soil
temperature, the heat extraction (and rejection) rates, and the mass flow rate of the
heat carrier fluid. The thermal performance of a borehole heat exchanger is
proportional to the thermal conductivity of the ground. A considerable amount of
research has been conducted over the past decades regarding in-situ testing (or
thermal response testing) to determine earth thermal conductivity for use in design
and simulation tools. The borehole thermal resistance is defined by a number of
design variables including the composition and flow rate of the fluid, borehole
diameter, pipe material, arrangement of the flow channels, and grout material. The
large thermal resistance of the individual borehole will reduce the heat transfer rate
between the heat carrier fluid and the surrounding soil, thus increases the length of the
10

Chapter 2: Literature review

GHE. As a result, it is desirable to keep the borehole thermal resistance at a minimum

value. The undistributed soil temperature is normally takes as an average in current
design and simulation tools. The required borehole depth is essentially proportional to
the temperature difference between this temperature and the minimum (or maximum)
design heat pump entering fluid temperature. Precise identification of this temperature
is essential to the design of GHEs. The heat extraction or rejection rate directly
influences the design capacity of GHEs, which is normally determined based on the
peak building thermal load. The mass flow rate is actually included in the borehole
thermal resistance calculation, but it is important to keep the flow rate large enough to
ensure turbulent flow (Eskilson, 1987). Based on the discussion above, the basic
design routine for the different types of GSHPs are summarized as follows
(Kvavnaugh et al 1997; Abdeen 2008):
1) Determination of the cooling/heating design loads of the building;
2) Select a properly sized heat pump system;
3) Select a type of indoor air distribution system;
4) Select the proper air supply diffusers and registers and return grillers for the
air distribution system;
5) Size the indoor air distribution system;
6) Estimate the energy requirements of the building:
a. The buildings heating and cooling loads
b. The type and size of heat pump equipment selected
c. The climate and soil thermal characteristics
7) Estimate the ground heat exchanger loads:
a. Select a ground heat exchanger configuration:
a) horizontal or vertical
11

Chapter 2: Literature review

b) parallel or series flow arrangement

b. Select plastic pipe, considering:
a) material
b) size
c) diameter
d) length
e) circulating fluid pressure loss
c. Estimate ground heat exchanger length;
d. Select circulating pump(s).
2.4.1.2 GHE sizing methods
In general, design the GSHP systems refers to sizing equipment to meet a desired
result by accomplishing the fundamental task of properly sizing the ground heat
exchangers (GHEs). One design method is based on the solution of the equation for
heat transfer from a cylinder buried in the earth. This equation was developed and
evaluated by Carslaw and Jaeger (1959) and was suggested by Ingersoll and Zobel
(1954) as an appropriate method of sizing ground heat exchangers. Kavanaugh (1985)
adjusted the method to account for the U-bend arrangement and hourly heat rate
variations. In all the design methods, parameters that must be known include: the
thermal properties and undistributed temperature of the soil, the thermal properties
and flow rate of the heat transfer fluid, the coefficient of performance (COP) of the
heat pump equipment at the design conditions, the minimum and maximum design
entering fluid temperatures to the heat pump equipment, and the building loads
distribution over time. Several methods for sizing the GHEs of GSHP system are
summarized below.

12

Chapter 2: Literature review

1) Rules of thumbs method

The rule of thumb approximations had been in vogue for a long time, which were
discussed by Ball et al. (1983). Rules of thumbs is also referred as the specific
installed thermal outputs or specific heat extraction in W/m, the values of the specific
heat rate are obtained based on extensive analysis of monitored systems. Some
international guidelines for dimensioning vertical and horizontal GSHP systems are
summarized below (Rosen, 2001):

In United States, 68-82 W/m are reported for vertical GHEs with single U-

tubes;
In German, for vertical GHEs, 20-25 W/m are recommended for soil thermal
conductivity less than 1.5 W/mK, 50-60W/m for medium thermal conductivity

and 70-84 W/m for soil thermal conductivity greater than 3.0 W/mK.
Across Europe in general, the average heat rate is estimated at 62 W/m for

vertical GHEs with single U-tube.

For the entire borefield, Robert et al (2014) estimated the range of acceptable

load per unit of total length is between 30 W/m and 130 W/m.
For horizontal GHEs, 50-100 W/m are recommended for slinky trench, while
15-30 W/m are reported for single-pipe trench.

Based on the rules of thumbs method, ASHRAE (2011) summarized the

recommended trench lengths for the various types of commonly used excavation
methods, and is shown in table 2.4.
Such rules of thumb may be a good start point and provides great convenience for
design, however, excessive reliance on these rules is dangerous. As mentioned in
section 2.1.1.1, the performance of a closed loop GSHP system depends on many
parameters, a simple rule of thumb (a certain number of watts per drilled meter) will
13

Chapter 2: Literature review

be too simplistic.

Type
Horizontal
GHE
Vertical
GHE

6-pipe /6-pitch spiral

4-pipe /4-pitch spiral
2-pipe
19 mm pipe
25 mm pipe
32 mm pipe

Pitch
m of Pipe per m
Trench/Bore
6
4
2
2
2
2

Ground temperature (C)

7 to 8

8 to 11

11 to 13

13 to 15

15 to 17

16
19
26
16
15
14

14
17
24
15
14
13

13
17
22
14
13
12.5

14
17
24
15
14
13

16
19
26
16
15
14

Table 2.4 Recommended lengths of trench or bore per kW for residential GSHPs.

2) IGSHPA method
The IGSHPA modelling procedure is also built around Kelvins line source theory,
and is mainly used for the design of vertical GHEs. Bose (1984) sizes the ground heat
exchanger length for the coldest and the hottest month of the year and then calculates
the seasonal performance and system energy consumption using the monthly bin
method of energy analysis. The IGSHPA approach defines the ground formation
resistance of a single vertical heat exchanger as follows:

Rs

1
r2 c
E1 ( b s s )
4k s
4k s

(2.3)

where rb is the borehole radius, ks is the soil thermal conductivity, is the simulation
time, E1(x) is the exponential integral function, N is the borehole number, s is the soil
density, and cs is the specific heat of the soil.
The methodology also allows for the calculation of ground formation resistance for
multiple vertical heat exchangers by superimposing the thermal resistive effects of
adjacent heat exchangers and adding the total effect to the ground formation
resistance of a single pipe of an equivalent radius. The IGSHPA approach calculates
14

17 to

17
22
30
17
16
15

Chapter 2: Literature review

the annual heating and cooling run fractions based on heat pump maximum and
minimum entering fluid temperatures. Bose (1984), and Cane and Forgas (1991)
recommend that a design minimum entering fluid temperature Tf,min of 1.1C to 4.4C
above the coldest outdoor air temperature at a given geographical location and
essentially assume 37.8 C as the first approximation for the maximum entering fluid
temperature Tf,max. Equations determined the total length of the GHEs are listed below:
For heating,

Q c ,h
Lh ,tot

COPh 1
( R p Rs RunFractio nh )
COPh
Ts ,min . annual T f ,min

(2.4)

For cooling,

Q c ,c
Lc ,tot

COPc 1
( R p Rs RunFractio n c )
COPc
T f ,max Ts ,max .annual

(2.5)

where Qc,h and Qc,c are the heating and cooling capacity, COPc and COPh are the
coefficient of performance of heat pump in heating and cooling performance.
3) ASHRAE method
Ingersoll and Zobel (1954) derived the design method that can be used to handle
these

shorter-term

variations.

It

uses

the

following

steady-state

heat

transfer equation:

L( t s t f )
R

(2.6)

15

Chapter 2: Literature review

where q is the heat transfer rate, L is the required vertical GHE length, ts is the
undistributed soil temperature, tf is the fluid temperature, R is the effective thermal
resistance of soil.
Kavanaugh and Rafferty (1997) modified the equation to represent the variable heat
rate of a ground heat exchanger by using a series of constant heat-rate pulses.
Calculations of the required borefield lengths for cooling and heating is based on Eqs
(2.7) and (2.8).
For heating,

Lh ,tot

qa Rsa (C fh qlh )( Rb PLFm Rsm Rsd Fsc )

t fi t fo
tg
tp
2

(2.7)

For cooling,

Lc ,tot

qa Rsa (C fc qlc )( Rb PLFm Rsm Rsd Fsc )

t t fo
t g fi
tp
2

(2.8)

where qa can be calculated from Eq (2.9).

qa

C fc qlf EFLH c C fh qlh EFLH h

8760 Hours

(2.9)

The terms used in the above equations are explained below:

Fsc = Short-circuit heat loss factor, which accounts for heat loss due to heat transfer
between the two different legs of the U-tube in the borehole.
16

Chapter 2: Literature review

Lc,tot = Required ground-loop length to meet the shaved cooling load.

Lh,tot = Required ground-loop length to meet the shaved heating load.
PLFm = Part-load factor during design month, which represents the fraction of
equivalent full load hours during the design month to the total number of hours in that
month.
qa = Net annual average heat transfer to the ground.
Qlc = Building design cooling block load
Qlh = Building design heating block load.
Rsa = Effective thermal resistance of the ground; annual pulse.
Rsd = Effective thermal resistance of the ground; daily pulse.
Rsm = Effective thermal resistance of the ground; monthly pulse.
Rb = Thermal resistance of

the borehole.
ts = Undisturbed ground temperature.
tp = Temperature penalty (change in ground temperature over a long run which is due
to the thermal interference between adjacent boreholes).
tfi = Water temperature at heat pump inlet;
tfo = Water temperature at heat pump outlet.
Cfc and Cfh = Correction factors that account for the amount of heat rejected or
absorbed by the heat pumps. The values depend on the respective EER and COP of
the units and are provided in the design manual.
EFLHc and EFLHh = Annual equivalent full-load cooling and heating hours.
2.4.1.3 Status of current design tools for GSHP system
Design of GHEs for GHP systems in commercial buildings is generally done using a
software program. For single-zone, residential systems, design tables can be used.
Software programs vary widely in calculation approach and simplifying assumptions
17

Chapter 2: Literature review

necessary for efficient calculation, and thus result in widely varying accuracy. Table
2.5 is a non-exhaustive list of commercially-available software design programs for
GHE (Chiasson 2007).

Table 2.5 List of Software Programs for GHE design.

Softwares
CLGS
ECA
Earth Energy Designer
(EED)
Lund Programs
GEOCALC
GeoDesigner
GchpCalc E
GL-Source
GLHEPRO

Vendor
Intl. Ground-Source Heat Pump Assoc., Stillwater,
OK, USA
Elite Software, Inc., Bryan, TX, USA
University of Lund, Sweden
University of Lund, Sweden
Ferris State University, Big Rapids, MI, USA
ClimateMaster, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
nergy Information Services, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA
Kansas Electric Utility, Topeka, KS, USA
Intl. Ground-Source Heat Pump Assoc., Stillwater,
OK, USA

Ground Loop Design

Gaia Geothermal; GBT, Inc., Maple Plain, MN, USA
(GLD)
2.4.2 Operational strategies of GSHP system
HVAC systems operational strategies design is to maintain the temperature, humidity,
etc. in buildings. Automatic control primarily modulates, stages or sequences
mechanical equipments to satisfy building load requirements and safe equipment
operation. In practical projects, control loops can use digital, pneumatic, mechanical,
electrical, and electric control devices to meet different control purposes.
Development of an operational strategy of GSHP system is complicated to some
extent, as the control should be considered into building level, heat pump level and
ground loop level (Verhelst, 2012).
Building level control is to ensure the temperature, humidity, etc. of the buildings are
18

Chapter 2: Literature review

within the acceptable range of setting values. Research focused on the building level
control are normally to develop simplified, accurate building models to predicting
both the thermal comfort and the heating, cooling load. Thermal comfort is a function
of the operative temperature Top, which in turn is a weighted sum of the room air
temperature and the radiative temperature. An accurate prediction of Top requires a
detailed building model which distinguishes between convective and radiation heat
transfer processes into and inside the building zones.
In the review work of Verhelst (2012), studies of Wimmer (2004) and Bianchi (2006)
on floor heating systems indicated that a third-order or even a second-order lumped
capacitance model is able to capture the control relevant dynamics imposed by the
floor heating time constant in a well-insulated heavy-weight residential building. The
capacity of the zone air, inner walls and outer walls are all lumped to one capacity at
an average zone temperature. The impact of the solar gains on the heating load are
taken into account by adding a positive temperature difference to the ambient air
temperature. The study of Zhai et al (2012) also indicated the strong effects of the
indoor temperature on the system performance of GSHP system. Either the heat
rejected to soil in the cooling mode or the heat extracted from soil in the heating mode
is evidently affected by the set value of indoor temperature. With the increase of
indoor set temperature, the imbalance of earth energy decreases. The decreased
imbalance ratio would be beneficial to the long-time operation of such GSHP system.
In heat pump level control, extension research effort in the field of developing and
evaluating optimal control strategies of cooling or heating dominated, air-conditioned
buildings. e.g. (Ahn et al 2001; Jin et al 2005; Ma et al 2009; Li et al 2013; West et al
2014, Sichilalu et al 2014). For this type of buildings, the focus potential primarily
19

Chapter 2: Literature review

lies at development of operational models or sequences of different HVAC

equipments, such as, determining the logic of charging and discharging of active
thermal energy storage devices (e.g., ice storage), or the logic of switching between
active cooling, free cooling and night ventilation and the capacity operations of
chillers, heat pumps etc. In general, the control methods can be summarized into three
types: constant setpoint based, temperature differential based and schedule based.
Yavuzturk and Spitler (2000) discussed a comparative research method which
investigates the advantages and disadvantages of various hybrid GSHP systems
operating and control strategies. One of the operating and control strategies is about
recharging the soil. It is based on cooling storage in the ground to avoid a long-term
temperature rise. The cooling storage effect is achieved by operating the cooling
tower for six hours during the night. In addition, one of the advantages of this system
operating and control strategy is that it uses the peak and valley electric charges to
improve economical efficiency. And one of the disadvantages is heat on the flow of
water might be carried and transported from the cooling tower to the soil if the
outdoor wet bulb temperature is higher than the soil around the GHE. Man et al.
(2011) proposed a similar method, which proposes a novel hybrid GSHP (HGSHP)
system with nocturnal cooling radiator (NCR) serves as supplemental heat rejecters.
NCR is activated under ideal meteorological conditions to diminish the heat
accumulation around GHE. The water circulation pump is activated from 10:00 pm to
6:00 am to pump the circulating water flow through the NCR installed on the roof for
rejecting the accumulated heat around GHE. At 6:00 am, the circulation pump is
turned off. In order to reduce the heat rejected into ground and take full advantage of
waste heat, this HGSHP system is designed to produce domestic hot water by a
desuperheater. Ouyang et al. (2012) proposed a new operating and control strategy
20

Chapter 2: Literature review

aimed at decreasing soil temperature during night. Under this control strategy, the
cooling tower is connected with the condenser of heat pump through the heat
exchanger, and the GHE is connected with the evaporator of heat pump, so that the
soil could be cooled at night to relieve the soil heat accumulation problem. In this
way, the coefficient of performance (COP) of HGSHP system can be improved
obviously in the day time. Because the extra energy is consumed by the heat pump at
night, the total electricity consumption of the system will be increased. However, it
uses the peak and valley electric charges to improve economical efficiency as the
aforementioned control strategy. Yang et al (2014) analyzed the intermittent operation
strategies of a hybrid ground-source heat pump system with double-cooling towers for
hotel buildings. On the basis of hotel load patterns, four operating conditions were
designed for this system including one continuous condition and three intermittent
conditions conducted 20 years simulation in TRNSYS. Results showed the optimal
intermittent operating condition favored both energy consumption reduction and soil
temperature recovery.
When the GSHP system is designed to cover the entire heating and cooling demand,
the control at ground loop level is straightforward. The ground loop can be used
permanently only when the temperature limits are met at the end of the design life
time, normally chosen 20 to 25 years. In order to facilitate the optimal operation,
massive efforts have been invested in developing different models of GHEs to
accurately predict fluid temperature in the ground loop. Mathematical models have
been reviewed in detail in section 2.3. However, a GHE model with high accuracy
temperature prediction is extremely difficult because of the dimensionality and
complexity of the heat exchange process underground. A two dimensional infinite
line-source model used by Michopoulos and Kyriakis (2009) to predict water
21

Chapter 2: Literature review

temperature exiting the GHE had a bias at 2 C on average. In order to minimize the
bias to further extent, an artificial neural network (ANN) model of GHE was
established by Gang et al (2013). Based on the ANN model built, Gang et al (2014)
proposed a new control strategy to compare the cooling water temperature exiting the
ground heat exchanger predicted by ANN model and cooling tower directly. Four
years performance of the hybrid ground source heat pump system controlled based on
the new method is calculated and compared with another two frequently used methods
(Schedule based and temperature differential based). Results show that the new
control method is more energy efficient and can make full use of the heat exchange
advantage of outdoor air and the soil.
2.4.3 Optimization research concerning GSHP systems
A majority research of optimization are focused either on developing and modifying
models of GSHP system, or on evaluating and comparing different design/operational
strategies

and

then

recommending

the

best

strategies.

Zogou

and

Stamatelos (1998) studied the design optimization of heat pump systems to examine
the effect of climatic conditions. They considered northern and southern parts of
Europe for their analysis. Their study reveals that milder climates of the
Mediterranean and subtropical climates are found to be favorable for a heat pump
system. Spitler et al. (2005) performed simulation and optimization for different
components of a GSHP system. They considered the effect of heating and cooling
loads of the buildings on the optimization of heat exchanger length when the GSHP
system was operated for 20 years. Their optimization results enabled them to maintain
the entering water temperature to the heat pump at the design value. Kjellsson et al.
(2010) optimized a solar assisted GSHP system with a vertical GHX installed in a
dwelling. Their results reveal that using solar collector for hot water production in
22

Chapter 2: Literature review

summer and recharging the ground in winter is the optimal combination. Hackel et al.
(2008) investigated the optimization of a hybrid GSHP system using TRNSYS
(transient system simulation) simulation studio and concluded that for cooling
dominated buildings the hybrid system should be sized to meet the heating demand.
Park et al. (2011) and (2012) performed optimization of a hybrid GSHP with parallel
configuration of a GHX and compared with a non-hybrid GSHP system. They found
that hybrid GSHP system was 21% more efficient than the conventional GSHP system
and also they optimized the hybrid GSHP using RSM (response surface
methodology). Bazkiaei et al. (2013) proposed a method to optimize a horizontal
GHX system by using homogenous and non-homogenous soil profiles. Based on their
study, they concluded that the performance of GHX installed in soil with nonhomogenous profile has better extraction and dissipation rates compared to the soil
with homogenous profile. These studies above lack explicit optimization objectives
and optimization strategies, but, provide fundamental theories for further development
of optimization methodology of the GSHP system. In recent years, a number of
systematic optimization research on GSHP system have been carried out.
2.4.3.1 Optimization parameters
The performance of a GSHP system depends on many parameters such as geological
condition, pipe material, carrier fluid property, pipe diameter, mass flow rate in the
GHE, distance between the pipes, boreholes and borehole diameters, and operation
configurations etc. (Cho et al 2014). Fig 2.1 depicts the classification of design and
operating parameters of GSHP system. Optimization of these parameters is important
to improve energy performance and reduce the upfront and running cost of the GSHP
system (Garber et al 2013). The following section describes previous research work
23

Chapter 2: Literature review

on the optimization of GSHP systems.

Fig.2.1 Design and operating parameters summarized.

2.4.3.2 Optimization objective functions
Objective function is a key component formulating an optimization methodology. In
mathematics, optimization is the discipline concerned with finding inputs of a
function that minimize or maximize its value, which may be subjected to constraints.
Based on the literature reviewed, the objective functions adopted in the optimization
study of GSHP system can be categorized into two categories: economic and
thermodynamic. Objective functions derived based on economic aspect are total cost,
total life cycle cost or the system COP/EER etc. Thermodynamic objective functions
are the system irreversibility, the exergy loss and entropy/enthalpy generation etc.
Fig.1 below shows the classification of main optimization objectives in the literature.

24

Chapter 2: Literature review

Fig 2.2 Classification of objective function used.

Economic optimization of GSHP systems is normally based on the thermoeconomic
analysis, which incorporates the associated costs of the thermodynamic inefficiencies
in the total product cost of an energy system which can help designers to find out the
cost formation process in the energy system (Bejan et al 1996). A powerful
thermoeconomic analysis, evaluation, and optimization techniques have been refined
and applied by researchers around the world to solve practical problems in the design
and improvement of energy system (Frangopoulos 1987). In the literature, there are a
number of economic analysis methods used to evaluate and optimize GSHP systems.
These include the life cycle cost method (Kreith et al 2008), net benefits (net present
worth) method (Peterson et al 2012), payback method, benefit-to-cost (or savings-toinvestment) ratio method, internal rate-of-return method, overall rate-of-return
method, exergy and cost energy mass method, and the analytical hierarchy process
(Nikolaidis et al 2009).
The earliest work using thermoeconomic analysis on heat pump system was proposed
by Wall (1985). He analysed a heat pump systems and pointed out that a
thermoeconomic optimization is an economic optimization in conjunction with
thorough thermodynamic description of the system. Since then, great efforts have
been put in this area, and in 1996, Bejan et al (1996) established the principles and
25

Chapter 2: Literature review

methodologies

of

thermoeconomics

and

provided

guidelines

to

perform

thermoeconomic analysis.
Zhao et al (2003) put forward an integrated optimal mathematical model by analysing
the operating characteristics of the groundwater heat pump and then optimized the
system with an objective function of the annual total costs according to technical and
economic optimal principle. In Khan et al work (2004), the authors reported on a
simulation procedure implemented in HVACSIM+ and a life cycle cost analysis and
gives example result for a typical Canadian residential building. The life cycle cost
analysis was based on the electricity costs for the heat pump and circulating pump and
first costs for the heat pump, circulating pump, grout, borehole drilling, U-tube, and
antifreeze. Esen et al. (2006) has reported a detailed techno-economic analysis of a
ground source heat pump system and six conventional heating systems for the climate
conditions of Turkey in heating season of 20022003. In hot climates such as in
Turkey, GSHPs represent a viable alternative to ASHPs and conventional space
cooling and heating systems because of their higher operating efficiency, especially
during the cooling season. Further, Pulat et al (2009) conducted an experimental study
of horizontal ground source heat pump performance for mild climate in Turkey, the
economic analysis also indicated that GSHP system was more cost effective than the
all other conventional heating systems. Sanaye and Niroomand (2009; 2010)
developed a thermal-economic optimal design method and utilize the model to
optimize a vertical ground-coupled heat pump and a horizontal ground-coupled heat
pump system respectively. The objective function was the sum of annual operating
and investment costs of the system, and was minimized by using NelderMead and
genetic algorithm optimization methods separately to guarantee the validity of the
optimization results. Kalinci et al (2008) conducted a study dealing with the
26

Chapter 2: Literature review

determination of optimum pipe diameters based on economic analysis and the

performance analysis of geothermal district heating systems along with pipelines
using energy and exergy analysis methods. They found that the nominal diameter of
DN300 pipeline has the minimum cost of US $561856.906 per year, with the energy
efficiency and exergy efficiency values of 40.21% and 50.12%, respectively. A
probability based approach was adopted in Garber et al.s study (2013), to evaluate
the economical feasibility and CO2 savings of a full-size GSHP system as compared to
four alternative HVAC system configurations. Results showed that potential savings
from a GSHP system largely depend on projected HVAC system efficiencies, and gas
and electricity prices, and the GSHP sized to meet the full design load with an
auxiliary back up was potentially the most cost efficient configuration. Robert et al
(2014) established a new design method in order to optimal size the vertical ground
heat exchangers of ground source heat pump system. The procedure relies on total
cost minimization, and includes a series of different initial costs (e.g., drilling,
excavation, heat pump, and piping network) as well as the operation cost (energy).
Retkowski et al (2014) developed a new mixed-integer nonlinear programming
(MINLP) approach to optimal design GSHP system. The mathematical model applied
includes the calculation of the total annual costs (TAC) and the coefficient of
performance to obtain estimates of both economic and ecological relevance to design
an optimal equipment set-up. A case study was performed to validate the effectiveness
of the method, the results showed that the TAC can be reduced by more than 10%.
Morrone et al analyzed the energy and economic savings using geothermal heat
pumps in different climates by performing a numerical study on 20 years GSHP
operation. The results implied that the economical profit of GSHPs is more difficult to
achieve in mild climates than in cold ones. Conversely, greenhouse gas (GHG)
27

Chapter 2: Literature review

emission reduction is found to be larger in mild climates than in cold ones. In situ
experiment study was also conducted by Cerve ra-Vzquez et al (2015) to optimize
the water circulation pumps frequency of ground source heat pump systems by
improving the energy performance of the system. Results show that energy savings up
to 32% can be obtained by applying this optimization methodology.
Thermodynamic optimization of the GSHP systems are usually studied using the
second law of thermodynamics or exergy analysis. Exergy analysis is a powerful tool
in the design, optimization and performance evaluation of energy systems. This
analysis can be used to identify the main sources of irreversibility (exergy loss) and to
minimize the generation of entropy in a given process where the transfer of energy
and material take place (Bejan 2006).
Piechowski (1996) first introduced a relatively new approach to optimize a ground
heat exchanger (GHE), which was based on the second law of thermodynamics. The
proposed method of designing a GSHP system was to accurately size a GHE not only
to local soil conditions but also to the building thermal characteristics. Ozgener et al
(2004) conducted a series of exergy analysis and performance assessment on ordinary
GSHP and hybrid GSHP systems. They established an energetic and exergetic
modeling and utilized the actual thermal data taken from the system to evaluate the
system performance through energy and exergy efficiencies, exergetic improvement
potential, as well as some other thermodynamic parameters. Bi et al (2009) presents a
comprehensive exergy analysis of three circuits and whole system of a GSHP for both
building heating and cooling modes to search out the key potential energy saving
components. Results showed that the GHEs normally have minimum exergy
efficiency and thermodynamic perfection, indicating great potential of design
28

Chapter 2: Literature review

optimization from the aspect of thermodynamic performance. A new method for

determining the optimized dimensions of a ground source heat pump system (GSHPS)
heat exchanger is developed by Marzbanrad et al (2010), optimum length and
diameter for the heat exchanger is determined for different mass flow by using
entropy generation minimization method to reduce the exergy destroy and power
consumption of the system, thus the heat pump efficiency increases. Ally et al (2012)
presented an exergy and energy analysis on the horizontal ground-source heat pump
system operated in a low-energy test house. The average monthly rate of entropy
production and percent entropy contribution for each segment of the system were
calculated through the exergy analysis, meanwhile, the monthly average COPs were
also summarized. Li et al (2013) provided analytical expressions for optimizing flow
velocity and borehole length by applying the entropy generation minimization method
for GSHPs with a single U-tube. Their analyses indicated the existence of optimum
parameters based on pure heat transfer and thermodynamics ground. Yekoladio (2013)
studied on the design, performance analysis and optimization of a downhole coaxial
heat exchanger for an enhanced geothermal system. The objective function is
minimization of heat transfer and fluid friction irreversibilities, in terms of entropy
generation number. An optimum diameter ratio of the coaxial pipes for minimum
pressure drop in both limits of the fully turbulent and laminar fully developed flow
regime was determined and observed to be nearly the same irrespective of the flow
regime. Furthermore, an optimum geothermal mass flow rate and an optimum
geometry of the downhole coaxial heat exchanger were determined for maximum net
power output.
The above reviewed work on thermodynamic optimization or economic optimization
only considers one objective function. Some scholars adopted multi-objective
29

Chapter 2: Literature review

approaches, to optimize both thermodynamic and thermoeconomic objectives

simultaneously. An earlier study proposed by Hepbasli (2004) conducted an energy
and exergy analysis of a GSHP system. The results provided specific thermodynamic
assessment analysis of a GSHP system for volume heating and cooling modes, and
gave useful energy transfers between the components, and the exergy consumptions in
the GSHP system and its components for the average calculated values have been
achieved from the experimental studies. Sayyaadi et al. (2009) proposed a multiobjective optimization of a vertical U-tube GSHP system to minimize both the total
levelized cost of the system product and the exergy destruction of the system. Seven
temperature differences (e.g. between inlet brine and sub-cooled refrigerant in the
condenser, between the outlet air and superheated refrigerant in the evaporator, etc.)
and the pipe diameter of the GHE were chosen as the decision variables. The
sensitivities of the interest rate, operating hours and the cost of electricity for the
optimization were also studied. Shi (2012) developed a thermoeconomic model for
analysis and optimization of a seawater source heat pump (SWHP) system in a
residential building. The modelling results indicated that the exergy loss and EER
increasing by 22.7% and 13.9% respectively using thermoeconomic optimization
compare to thermodynamic optimization, but annual production costs reduce by
29.1%.
As can be seen from the literature reviews above, the efforts of research on the
optimization of GSHP systems has increased dramatically in recent years and the
optimization focus has gradually developed from single-objective to more
comprehensive multi-objective level for GSHP systems. However, due to the
complexities of an accurate building load evaluation, the variation of ground and
climate conditions and the complex correlations among all these parameters in GSHP
30

Chapter 2: Literature review

system, etc. More efforts are still necessary in developing optimization strategies for
GSHP systems.
2.5 Conclusion
A detailed literature review around this thesis topic covering the
simulation model establishment, operation simulation and design,
control optimization of the GSHP system. A simple summary can be
deduced:
1) Analytical and numerical models have been developed for
modelling and dimensioning ground heat exchangers. The
analytical GHE models are usually used for long time period
simulation and not suitable for the short time response
calculation. Numerical models are not suitable for direct
incorporation in a building simulation program with hourly or
sub-hourly

time

steps

due

to

the

computational

time

requirements.
2) Several design procedures and software are commercially
available for sizing the vertical ground loop heat exchanger.
However, due to the simplifications and assumptions made in
these design methods, the design results are necessary to be
further optimized.
3) Several operational strategies of GSHP system are available
now,

including

constant

setpoint

based,

temperature

differential based and schedule based. As reviewed, the

31

Chapter 2: Literature review

currently available operational strategies might be far from

optimal and not generally applicable, operational optimization
is still worth to be further investigated.

32