A Design Tool For Hybrid Geothermal Heat Pump Systems in Cooling-Dominated Buildings

2014-3-31
A design tool for hybrid geothermal heat pump systems in cooling-dominated buildings. - Free Online Library
Periodicals Keyword Literature Search Title Author Topic
TEX
Patinka
7,8 tkst. 690
22,596,477 articles and books
The Free Library > Business and Industry > Construction and materials industries > ASHRAE Transactions > July 1, 2009 The Free Library > Date > 2009 > July > 1 > ASHRAE Transactions
A design tool for hybrid geothermal heat pump systems in cooling-dominated buildings.
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Water Block Manufacturing

koolance.com ISO 9001 Certified. Over 13 years of design and production!
Patinka 0
Author: Chiasson, A.D.; Yavuzturk, C. Publication: ASHRAE Transactions Article Type: Report Geographic Code: 1CANA Date: Jul 1, 2009 Words: 9088 Previous Article: A design tool for hybrid geothermal heat pump systems in heating-dominated buildings. Next Article: IEA-ECBCS annex 41 whole building heat, air, and moisture response. Topics: Buildings Equipment and supplies Heating, cooling and ventilation Computer simulation Research Computer-generated environments Research Engineering design Methods Technology application Geothermal energy Research Heat pumps Design and construction Energy use Mathematical optimization Optimization theory
Link to this page INTRODUCTION Energy utilization in the built environment is of increasing concern, and geothermal heat pump (GHP) systems (also known as ground-source heat pump or Geoexchange[TM] systems) are now relatively well established as a means of significantly reducing energy consumption in space conditioning of buildings. This improvement in efficiency, however, generally comes at a higher first cost, which must be offset by lower operating and maintenance costs within an acceptable period of time to the building owner. As with most alternative energy systems, high capital cost is a significant barrier to market penetration. One of the main goals in the design of a GHP system is the proper sizing of the total length of the ground-loop heat exchanger so that it provides fluid temperatures to the heat pump within design limits. Unlike with conventional heating and cooling systems, design of GHP systems requires some type of life-cycle simulation due to the thermal storage effects of the earth. Annual heating loads in a building are rarely balanced with annual cooling loads, and thus thermal responses of the ground throughout the building's life cycle must be considered. In heating dominated buildings, annual imbalances in the ground load will lead to progressively lower heat pump entering fluid temperatures, and in cooling dominated buildings, progressively higher heat pump entering fluid temperatures will occur. These excursions may result in the heat pump equipment capacity being compromised if the ground-loop heat exchanger (GLHE) is not large enough. Borehole fields designed for buildings with relatively large annual ground load imbalances can often be excessively large and costly, making vertical closed-loop GHP systems noncompetitive with conventional systems.
Full-Text Online Journals

questia.com/Journals Research online. Academic journals & books at Questia Online Library.
The phenomenon of long-term temperature change in the subsurface due to GHP systems serving buildings with imbalanced annual thermal loads has given rise to the concept of the hybrid GHP system, where a supplemental component is utilized to effectively balance the annual ground loads. These systems permit the use of smaller, lower-cost borehole fields, but their design adds to the complexity of the overall GHP design process because of the addition of another transient component to the system. For example, acceptable conditions for supplemental heat rejection to the atmosphere in a cooling-dominated building depends on weather conditions and ground loop temperature. Consequently, hybrid GHP systems should be analyzed on an hourly basis in order to be able to fully assess their behavior. The fundamental task in designing hybrid GHP systems lies in properly sizing the supplemental component and the ground-loop heat exchanger, using an appropriate control algorithm for system operation so that annual heat rejection and extraction loads in the ground can be balanced. Current engineering design manuals such as Caneta Research, (1995), Kavanaugh and Rafferty (1997), and ASHRAE (2003), developed from research conducted since the 1980s, mention the potential use of hybrid cooling tower GHP systems, but do not describe a detailed design process for these systems. Proper and reliable design of hybrid GHP systems is quite difficult and cumbersome without the use of a system simulation approach. Further, without an automated optimization scheme coupled to the system simulation program, the design activity itself can become tediously impractical and time consuming. The use of system simulation for analyzing complex building systems is ever increasing, but the necessary computing resources are not at the disposal of every design practitioner, nor is their use always economically justified. As new technologies and design concepts emerge, design tools and methodologies must accompany them and be made usable for practitioners. Without reliable design tools, reluctance of practitioners to implement more complex systems can become a significant barrier. Therefore, the overall goal of the work presented in this paper is to develop a tool for the design of hybrid GHP systems in coolingdominated buildings that is useful to practitioners. The design tool is based on current "state-ofthe-art" system simulation methods, cast in a format that allows straight-forward use.
Related Articles
Examining geothermal energy: geo*ther*mal adj. having to do with the heat of the earth's interior. Geothermal heat is becoming a hot commodity. Geothermal heat pump projects to get U.S. gov't funds.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/A+design+tool+for+hybrid+geothermal+heat+pump+systems+in...-a0217848191
Design radiators
1/14
2014-3-31
Optimization of cooling-dominated hybrid groundcoupled heat pump systems. Leddy Center installs sustainable heating. A design tool for hybrid geothermal heat pump systems in heating-dominated buildings.
Design radiators
hothotexclusive.com Various paint finishes and colors. EU Free Delivery. Bespoke radiators
It should be noted however that the design practice of balancing ground loads in no way means that the system is economically optimal as the method is based on minimizing ground loop length under the assumption that the ground loop is the most costly portion of the system. One could choose to optimize a system based on life-cycle cost using a system simulation approach. However, attempting to find an optimum life-cycle cost is fraught with uncertainties in economic indicators and future energy prices. For this reason, a design approach of minimizing total ground loop length is preferred, and the practicing engineer could make economic calculations using the sizing results of the design tool developed here. Furthermore, as an added benefit, system hybridization while balancing ground loads annually by shifting the unbalanced portion to a supplemental heat rejection unit removes an implicitly built-in constraint in life span of energy-efficient operation in such systems. The design method for hybrid GHP systems proposed in this paper was developed from results of detailed computer simulations, using three dimensionless groups containing key GHP design parameters based on the Buckingham Pi Theorem. With typical design parameters available to a practitioner, the design method can be used to estimate the total ground loop length for standalone GHP systems, along with the quantity of annual energy required to balance the annual ground loads. With additional input parameters also readily available to designers, a method for the calculation of the cooling tower capacity is presented, along with the corresponding reduced borehole heat exchanger length. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW Caneta Research, Inc. (1995) discusses the advantages of hybrid GHP applications with respect to reducing capital costs and optimizing available surface area relative to a stand-alone GHP systems. A design procedure is suggested that sizes the capacity of the supplemental component based on the difference between the monthly average cooling and heating loads of a commercial building. The ground loop is sized to meet the building heating loads while the cooling load in excess of the heating load is met through supplemental heat rejection. Caneta Research, Inc. (1995) also suggests that it may be advantageous to operate the supplemental heat rejecter during night-time hours for storage of low temperature energy (cold storage) in the ground. Other control strategies discussed include set point control of heat rejection based on an upper limit of heat pump entering fluid temperatures, and the possible year around operation of the rejecters in southern climates.
Full-Text Online Journals

questia.com/Journals Research online. Academic journals & books at Questia Online Library.
Kavanaugh and Rafferty (1997) discuss hybrid GHP systems from a perspective of cost containment of large loops designed to meet 100% of the cooling loads. The advantage of hybrid GHPs in areas of limited land availability is also stressed. Kavanaugh and Rafferty (1997) suggest a design procedure, which is to size the ground loop for the heating loads, and size the supplemental heat rejecter for the difference in the cooling load. Kavanaugh (1998) revises and extends the design procedures recommended by ASHRAE (1995) and Kavanaugh and Rafferty (1997) for cooling tower design in hybrid systems. The revisions involve balancing the heat flow to the ground on an annual basis in order to limit heat buildup in the borehole field, based on a set point control of the ground loop temperature. The revised procedure is applied to a multi-story office building in three different climates, and the results indicated that hotter climates are more appropriate for the cooling tower hybrid application since the savings in required bore length are much more significant than moderate and cold climates. Phetteplace and Sullivan (1998) describe a case study that has been undertaken to collect performance data from an operating hybrid cooling tower GHP system at a 2,230 [m.sup.2] military base administration building in Fort Polk, LA. The authors report that for the monitoring period, approximately 43 times as much heat was rejected to the ground as was extracted, indicative of a highly cooling-dominated building. The system consists of 70 vertical closed-loop boreholes, each 61.0 m deep with a 3.30 m spacing. The supplemental heat rejecter is a 275 kW cooling tower, and is controlled with a set-point to activate the cooling tower when the heat pump exiting fluid temperatures reach 36.0[degrees]C. The relative energy consumption of the major system components over the study period is provided where the heat pumps account for 77% of the total energy consumption, the circulating pumps for 19%, the cooling tower fan for 3.0% and the cooling tower pump for 1.0%. Singh and Foster (1998) report on first cost savings that resulted from using a hybrid cooling tower GHP system on the Paragon Center building located in Allentown, PA and an elementary school building in West Atlantic City, NJ. Hybrid GHP systems were installed in these buildings because required loop lengths could not be installed due to drilling difficulties at the Paragon center building and insufficient land area at the elementary school. Yavuzturk and Spitler (2000) use a system simulation approach to compare the advantages and disadvantages of various control strategies for the operation of a hybrid cooling tower GHP in a small cooling-dominated office building. The control strategies examined were to operate the cooling tower under the following conditions: (1) when the exiting fluid temperature from the heat pumps exceeded a set point of 35.8[degrees]C, (2) when the entering fluid temperature to the heat pumps exceeded a set point of 35.8[degrees]C, (3) when the differential temperature between the entering fluid to the heat pumps and the ambient air wet-bulb exceeded 2.00[degrees]C, (4) when the differential temperature between the entering fluid to the heat pumps and the ambient air wet-bulb exceeded 8.00[degrees]C, (5) when the differential temperature between the exiting fluid from the heat pumps and the ambient air wet-bulb
2/14
2014-3-31
temperature between the exiting fluid from the heat pumps and the ambient air wet-bulb exceeded 2.00[degrees]C, and (6) on various night-time schedules at various times of the year in order to chill the ground.
The most beneficial control strategy found by Yavuzturk and Spitler (2000), based on 20-year lifecycle cost analyses, was to operate the cooling tower when the differential temperature between the exiting heat pump fluid temperature and the ambient air wet bulb temperature exceeded a set point. This resulted in operation of the cooling tower under the most advantageous weather conditions. Ramamoorthy et al. (2001) use a system simulation approach to find the optimal size of a supplemental cooling pond operating with a GHP system serving a cooling-dominated office building in two climates. Heat rejection to the pond was accomplished using a similar control strategy to the "best" one found by Yavuzturk and Spitler (2000). That is, to reject heat to the pond based on a differential temperature between the source (the heat pump exiting fluid in this case) and the sink (the pond in this case). A sensitivity analysis was conducted on the actual differential temperature value, and it was found that varying this differential temperature was negligible in impacting heat pump energy consumption. Although significant ground-loop size reductions were found, the study identified the need for an automated optimization scheme to find the true optimum pond area and ground loop length, as well as to facilitate the design procedure. TESS (2005) developed a sub-hourly simulation model of a small commercial building at a military base in the Southeastern United States. The model identifies and implements a series of hybrid configurations and control schemes, and simulates each configuration for a 20-year life span for each of the control strategies and system parameters. An optimization algorithm is used to select the system and control strategy that resulted in the lowest life-cycle cost, considering first costs, energy and demand costs, water and water treatment costs, and maintenance costs. A comparative discussion of the simulation results, including a comparison of the systems and control strategies, and a description of the optimized system are provided. Epstein and Sowers (2006) document the heating up of the vertical borehole field at the Richard Stockton College, NJ, which was the largest geothermal heat pump system in the world at that time. Temperature measurements of the subsurface were recorded at various depths throughout the geologic profile over time, and a gradual increase in temperature of 11.0[degrees]C was observed. Consequently, a cooling tower was added to the system in order to remove the thermal energy buildup. ASHRAE Technical Research Project TRP-1384 (2008) proposes a detailed simulation-based tool incorporating physics-based models of the hybrid geothermal heat pump system components using the TRNSYS simulation program. A series of parametric studies are also conducted that demonstrate a set of general design guidelines that can be used to select an equipment configuration, size equipment, and control the equipment of a typical hybrid GHP system. METHODOLOGY The design tool presented in this paper is based on correlation of dimensionless groups that are comprised of variables describing the design of geothermal heat pump systems. A total of 91 GHP system simulations were conducted in order to generate design data for subsequent correlation. This section describes the system simulations conducted and the development of the dimensionless groups. System Simulations The GHP system models were constructed in the TRNSYS modeling environment (SEL, 2000) using standard and non-standard TRNSYS library components. The system configuration for the base cases (i.e. with no supplemental hybrid component) is shown in Figure 1, and Figure 2 shows the system configuration for the hybrid cases. In all simulations, the building loads were pre-calculated as described below and read from a file into a water source heat pump component model. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Component Model Description. Generic Buildings: Hourly heating and cooling loads on an annual basis for generic buildings were computed using eQuest (Hirsch, 2005), a graphical user interface coupled to the DOE-2 simulation engine (York and Cappiello, 1981). Hourly loads were calculated for a school building and an office building in 10 cities in the United States and Canada: Albuquerque, NM; Anchorage, AK; Boise, ID; Dallas, TX; Halifax, NS; Houston, TX; Philadelphia, PA; Raleigh, NC; Phoenix, AZ; and Vancouver, BC. In addition, hourly loads were calculated for a church and an apartment building for Halifax, NS and Houston, TX. Detailed descriptions of the buildings can be found in Chiasson (2007). Ground-loop Heat Exchanger Model: This component model is a modified version of that developed by Yavuzturk and Spitler (1999), which is a response factor (referred to as g-functions) model based on the work of Eskilson (1987). Modifications used in this present study are described by Chiasson (2007), and include replacement of a steady-state borehole resistance with hourly modeling of thermal storage of the u-tube fluid, and modeling of transient heat transfer within the borehole grout. Heat Pump Model. This component model describes the performance of a water-to-air heat pump that has been developed for GHP system simulations. Inputs to the heat pump model include the building loads, entering fluid temperature, and fluid mass flow rate. Quadratic curve-fit equations to manufacturer's heat pump catalog data are employed to compute the heat of rejection in cooling mode, heat of absorption in heating mode, and the heat pump energy consumption.
3/14
2014-3-31
cooling mode, heat of absorption in heating mode, and the heat pump energy consumption. Outputs provided by the model include exiting fluid temperature, energy consumption, fluid mass flow rate, and coefficient of performance (COP).
Flow Controls, Pump, and Heat Exchanger Models: The hybrid GHP systems were modeled as a primary/secondary loop system as shown in Figure 2. The primary circuit is the building loop plus ground loop heat exchanger and the secondary circuit is the hybrid component loop. The flow circuits are separated by a plate type heat exchanger (TRNSYS component type 5) modeled with a constant effectiveness. The system is modeled in this way to mimic design practices and to allow different fluids or chemical treatment in each loop. [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] Tee pieces, diverters, and pumps were modeled using TRNSYS standard library component models. Differential temperature control schemes are specified with the differential controller model, which was used to activate pumps and valves. A simple control scheme was used to simulate a variable frequency drive on the primary building loop pump; the flow rate for the current hour of the simulation is scaled to the peak flow rate according to the ratio of the current hourly load to the peak building load. A maximum pump turn-down speed of 30% was assumed. Cooling Tower Model: A cooling tower was not explicitly modeled. A simplified generic approach was taken to model the cooling tower return water under the assumption of a constant approach to the wet bulb temperature. This method is employed in the TRNSYS absorption chiller model (Type 7) and also in the Carrier Hourly Analysis Program (HAP). Modeling a cooling tower in this fashion simplified the number of parameters to be optimized to the cooling tower capacity only. The alternative would be to utilize performance data for an individual cooling tower, requiring automated adjustment in an optimization routine of a number of equipment-specific parameters. The cooling tower return water is given by: [T.sub.return] = [T.sub.wet bulb] + [T.sub.approach] (1) Cooling towers are capable of generating approach temperatures of as low as 2.80[degrees]C, but are more typically in the range of 3.90[degrees]C to 5.50[degrees]C (Maze, 1967). With the return temperature calculated from Equation 1 and the supply temperature known from the upstream component model, the heat rejection rate can be computed once the mass flow rate of the water is known. Control Strategies for Hybrid GHP Systems. Previous work by Yavuzturk and Spitler (2000) and Ramamoorthy et al. (2001) concluded that the most effective control strategy for hybrid GHPs was a differential temperature control, where the monitored temperatures were the exiting heat pump fluid temperature and the source/sink temperature used by the supplemental component. Thus, this was the control strategy selected for this work. With regard to direct contact evaporative cooling towers, the sink temperature is the ambient wet bulb temperature. The differential control temperature selected was 10.0[degrees]C for the cooling tower hybrid GHP system simulations. A lower temperature set-point control was also required to ensure that cooling tower operation did not result in the heat pump entering fluid temperature dropping below the minimum design temperature. Chiasson (2007) conducted a sensitivity analysis of the control strategy on the annual energy transferred and on the system energy consumption. The sensitivity analysis included system simulations with double and half the differential control temperature relative to the base case. Varying the differential control temperature in the hybrid cooling tower GHP systems resulted in some change in the energy rejected by the cooling tower, but no significant change in the annual energy consumed by the heat pumps. Increasing the differential control temperature to 20.0[degrees]C still resulted in no decrease in the cooling tower loop run hours for the Phoenix Office case due to the relatively low wet bulb temperatures. However, for the Dallas Office case, increasing the differential control temperature to 20.0[degrees]C resulted in a decrease in cooling tower loop run hours of 3.1%, but at the expense of 1.4% energy rejected by the cooling tower. Ground-Loop Sizing, Base Case Simulations, and Parametric Runs. The base GHP systems were simulated using TRNSYS as depicted in Figure 1 for a 30-year life with a time step of one hour, by iteratively adjusting the borehole depth until the peak entering fluid temperatures (EFT) were within the target criteria. The peak EFT to the heat pump is one of the critical design parameters in the sizing of any GHP system. A maximum design heat pump EFT of 32.0[degrees]C was chosen for this study. Earth thermal properties and borehole construction details used in the base design cases and parametric runs are summarized in Table 1. The purpose of conducting the parametric runs was to obtain more data points for subsequent correlation. The base case simulates a borehole network in the earth with a thermal conductivity ([k.sub.ground]) of 2.42 W*[m.sup.-1]*[K.sup.-1]. The base design uses a borehole of a diameter of 114 mm with 25.4 mm nominal diameter Utube pipes evenly spaced within the borehole with standard bentonite grout (i.e. a thermal conductivity of 0.750 W*[m.sup.-1]*[K.sup.-1]). The thermal conductivity of thermally-enhanced grout was taken as 1.50 W*[m.sup.-1]*[K.sup.-1]. The volumetric heat capacity used in all simulations was 2.5 MJ*[m.sup.-3]*[K.sup.-1] and 3.9 MJ*[m.sup.-3]*[K.sup.-1] for the earth and grout, respectively. T a b l e1 .S u m m a r yo fP a r a m e t e r sC o m m o nt oB a s eC a s ea n dP a r a m e t r i cR u n s C a s e [ k . s u b . g r o u n d ] , N a m e W * [ m . s u p . 1 ] * [ K . s u p . 1 ] B a s e 2 . 4 2 D e s c r i p t i o n
1 1 4m md i a m e t e rb o r e ,2 5 . 4m m U t u b e se v e n l ys p a c e d ,s t a n d a r dg r o u t 1 1 4m md i a m e t e rb o r e ,2 5 . 4m m U t u b e se v e n l ys p a c e d ,s t a n d a r dg r o u t
k 1
1 . 3 8
4/14
2014-3-31
k 2
U t u b e se v e n l ys p a c e d ,s t a n d a r dg r o u t 2 . 0 8 1 1 4m md i a m e t e rb o r e ,2 5 . 4m m U t u b e se v e n l ys p a c e d ,s t a n d a r dg r o u t 1 1 4m md i a m e t e rb o r e ,2 5 . 4m m U t u b e se v e n l ys p a c e d ,s t a n d a r dg r o u t 1 1 4m md i a m e t e rb o r e ,2 5 . 4m m t o u c h i n gb o r e h o l ew a l l ,s t a n d a r dg r o u t 1 1 4m md i a m e t e rb o r e ,2 5 . 4m m U t u b e se v e n l ys p a c e d , t h e r m a l l y e n h a n c e dg r o u t 1 1 4m md i a m e t e rb o r e ,2 5 . 4m m U t u b e st o u c h i n gb o r e h o l ew a l l , t h e r m a l l y e n h a n c e dg r o u t
k 3
3 . 4 6
R 1
2 . 4 2
R 2
2 . 4 2
R 3
2 . 4 2
Peak design flow rates were established at 0.16 L/s per peak refrigeration tons, and the borehole heat transfer fluid was specified as pure water. To simulate pumping power, a head loss of 30.5 m of water was assumed adequate, based on a design criteria of 0.0400 m/m of head loss per equivalent pipe length. The Minimization Function and Optimization of the Hybrid GHP Systems. The goal of the supplemental component (cooling tower) is to effectively balance the ground loads over each annual cycle. When this occurs, the annual maximum heat pump entering fluid temperature in cooling-dominated buildings should be unchanged and equivalent from year to year, rather than progressively reaching the design temperature several years into the future. When the maximum and minimum temperatures are equivalent from year to year, the system is considered optimized, and the ground loop length is at a minimum. Thus, the objective function to be minimized is given by (as also indicated in Figure 2): Z = [summation][([T.sub.ann.min.] - [T.sub.design]).sup.2] (2) System simulations were executed for a 30-year lifecycle. System optimization was conducted using GenOpt (LBNL, 2004), a generic optimization software package, employing the NelderMead optimization algorithm. Five cases were selected as candidates for the hybrid GHP system simulations. Cooling tower hybrid GHP systems were designed for the office building in Dallas, TX; Houston, TX; Phoenix, AZ; and Raleigh, NC, in addition to the school building in Houston, TX. The TRNSYS input files were constructed as shown in Figure 2. The hybrid cases used all the same parameters as the base cases (i.e. not the parametric runs). For each hybrid GHP case, a cooling tower was simulated with a constant approach temperature of 3.90[degrees]C. Simulations were run for 30 years with a time-step of one hour. The borehole depths and cooling tower capacity were adjusted automatically by the GenOpt software package until the objective function (Equation 2) had been minimized using a convergence criterion of 0.001. A typical tower flow rate of 0.0500 L/s per kW of heat rejection capacity was specified, and the cooling tower flow rate was modulated according to the flow rate of the building loop. Thus, the optimization scheme effectively optimized the cooling tower flow rate during the condition of peak building load. The heat pump maximum design EFT used in the objective function was the maximum EFT observed from the equivalent base case. A constant heat exchanger effectiveness of 0.80 was used. An example plot of the heat pump entering fluid temperatures for the base case and corresponding hybrid cooling tower GHP case for the Dallas, TX office is shown in Figure 3. A review of Figure 3 shows that the system has been optimized, as defined previously, since the maximum peak heat pump entering fluid temperatures are constant from year to year. [FIGURE 3 OMITTED] Development of Dimensionless Groups The Buckingham Pi Theorem (Buckingham, 1914) was used to identify dimensionless groups for GHP systems. The theorem states that if an equation involving k variables is dimensionally homogeneous, it can be reduced to a relationship among k--r independent dimensionless products, where r is the minimum number of reference dimensions required to describe the variables. The dimensionless products are frequently referred to as "pi groups", given the symbol [PI]. The important variables in GHP design were identified as: * Total borehole length, L, m * Borehole spacing, H, m * Peak heating load, [q.sub.h], W * Peak cooling load, [q.sub.c], W * Seasonal heat pump COP, SCOP
* Annual equivalent full load heating hours, [EFLH.sub.h]
5/14
2014-3-31
* Annual equivalent full load heating hours, [EFLH.sub.h] * Annual equivalent full load cooling hours, [EFLH.sub.c] * Annual load contribution from supplemental component, [Q.sub.s], J * Undisturbed earth temperature, [T.sub.g], [degrees]C * Design maximum or minimum entering heat pump fluid temperature, [T.sub.max] or [T.sub.min], [degrees]C * Thermal diffusivity of soil/rock, [alpha], [m.sup.2]*[s.sup.-1] * Design life, t, s * Steady-state borehole thermal resistance per unit length of borehole, [R'.sub.b], m*K* [W.sup.-1] Some of these variables were combined to simplify the problem. The peak building loads were converted to annual ground loads defined as: [Q.sub.e] = [3600q.sub.h][EFLH.sub.h]([[SCOP.sub.h] - 1]/[SCO[P.sub.h]]) (3) for heating, and [Q.sub.r] = [3600q.sub.c][EFLH.sub.c]([[SCOP.sub.c] + 1]/[[SCOP.sub.c]]) (4) for cooling, where [Q.sub.e] and [Q.sub.r] are the annual heat extraction and rejection loads (J), and the SCOP values were computed from the heat pump model. The undisturbed earth temperature was combined with the critical heat pump design entering fluid temperature to obtain a [DELTA]T variable. The critical design temperature is the minimum design entering heat pump fluid temperature in heating-dominated applications, and the maximum design entering heat pump fluid temperature in cooling-dominated applications. The variables were simplified and expressed in dimensional form as: L, m [right arrow] L H, m [right arrow] L [q.sub.e, r], W [right arrow] [FLT.sup.-1] [Q.sub.e], J [right arrow] FL [Q.sub.r], J [right arrow] FL t, s [right arrow] T [DELTA]T, [degrees]C [right arrow] [theta] [alpha], [m.sup.2] * [s.sup.-1] [right arrow] [L.sup.2][T.sup.-1] [R'.sub.b], m * K * [W.sup.-1] [right arrow] [theta]T[F.sup.-1] where [q.sub.e,r] is the peak ground extraction or rejection load (i.e. the building load adjusted for the heat pump COP at maximum/minimum entering fluid temperature). The above list includes 9 variables and 4 dimensions, which would result in 5 dimensionless groups. However, it was considered desirable to limit the dimensionless groups to three in order to simplify the correlation and to facilitate visualization of the fitted surface. In the above list of variables, the design life and the borehole spacing were considered those that have the least design freedoms, and in the GHP system simulations described previously, the borehole spacing was kept at a constant 6.1 m (20 ft) and the design life was kept at a constant 30 years. This reduced the problem to 7 variables and 4 dimensions, resulting in 3 dimensionless groups. To describe cooling-dominated cases, [Q.sub.r], [DELTA]T, [q.sub.e], and [alpha] were selected as the repeating variables, and the following [PI] groups were formed: ln([Q.sub.e]/[Q.sub.r]), ln([[R'.sub.b][([q.sub.r]).sup.[3/2]]]/[[([alpha][Q.sub.e]).sup.[1/2]] [DELTA]T]), ln([L[([q.sub.r]).sup.[1/2]]]/[([alpha][Q.sub.e]).sup.[1/2]]) Each dimensionless group is expressed as a natural logarithm of the dimensionless group in order to keep the values of the dimensionless groups from getting excessively large, and to facilitate the visualization of the surface fitting procedure described in the next subsection. Surface Fitting of Dimensionless Group Data For each of the 91 simulation cases, [PI] groups were calculated from the simulation results, and TableCurve 3D (SYSTAT Software, Inc., 2002), an automated surface fitting software tool, was used to fit an equation of a surface to the data set. The number of coefficients in fitted surface equations was limited to 10. TableCurve 3D (SYSTAT Software, Inc., 2002) fits data to over 450 million built-in equations in its library. These equations include linear equations, polynomial and rational functions, logarithmic and exponential functions, nonlinear transition functions, and nonlinear exponential and power equations. The fitted equations were ranked in order of correlation coefficient. Prior to fitting a surface to the simulation data, some preprocessing of the data was necessary.
6/14
2014-3-31
Prior to fitting a surface to the simulation data, some preprocessing of the data was necessary. A uniform grid was interpolated from the scattered simulation data using Surfer software (Golden Software, 2002) to avoid pitfalls of a surface equation being calculated by TableCurve 3D (SYSTAT Software, Inc., 2002) with unrealistic peaks and/or valleys in regions of the surface with sparse or lacking data. The method of kriging (Golden Software, 2002) was used to generate a uniform grid from the scattered data. The method of kriging is known as an exact interpolation method (as opposed to a smoothing interpolation scheme) that is mathematically similar to the method of least squares used in curve fitting (Golden Software, 2002). The kriging algorithm uses a semivariance model, which is a non-linear weighting method based on the concept that sampled points that are closer to each other are more similar than those that are at greater distances. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Correlating Equations of Dimensionless Groups Based on the simulation results, the dimensionless [PI] groups are defined as follows: [[PI].sub.1] = ln([Q.sub.e]/[Q.sub.r]) (5) [[PI].sub.2] = ln([0.98724[([chi]).sup.-0.70345][R'.sub.b][([q.sub.r]).sup.[3/2]]]/[[([alpha] [Q.sub.e]).sup.[1/2]][DELTA]T]) (6) and [[PI].sub.3] = ln([1.01252L[([q.sub.r]).sup.[1/2]][([lambda]).sup.0.49428]]/[([alpha][Q.sub.e]).sup. [1/2]]) (7)
where [CHI] is the ratio of the particular steady-state borehole thermal resistance (per unit length) to that of the base case (0.1823 m*K*[W.sub.-1]) and, [lambda] is defined as the ratio of the particular ground thermal conductivity to that of the base case (2.42 W*[m.sup.-1]*[K.sup.-1]). The best fit surface equation found by the surface fitting software tool (SYSTAT Software, Inc., 2002) was a Taylor Series polynomial with a correlation coefficient of 0.999, and is expressed as: [[PI].sub.3] = a + b[[PI].sub.1] + c[[PI].sub.2] + d[[PI].sub.1.sup.2] + e[[PI].sub.2.sup.2] + f[[PI].sub.1][[PI].sub.2] + g[[PI].sub.1.sup.3] + h[[PI].sub.2.sup.[3]] + i[[PI].sub.1][[PI].sub.2.sup. [2]] + j[[PI].sub.1.sup.2][[PI].sub.2] (8) where the constants a through j are a = 3.0857E+02 b = -9.2721E+01 c = -6.4197E+03 d = 6.7618E+00 e = 4.5793E+04 f = 1.3673E+03 g = -1.2561E-01 h = -1.0935E+05 i = -4.9644E+03 j = -5.1576E+01 A contour plot of the surface described by Equation 8 is shown in Figure 4. Also shown in Figure 4, regarding the optimized hybrid GHP cases, are arrows depicting the path taken from the base case point to the corresponding optimal point of balanced annual ground loads. [FIGURE 4 OMITTED] A review of Figure 4 reveals that the hybrid GHP cases take similar paths, approximately perpendicular to contour lines, to their optimum point at [[PI].sub.1] = 0.00. The change in [[PI].sub.2] (i.e., [DELTA][[PI].sub.2]) can be related to the change in [[PI].sub.1] (i.e., [DELTA] [[PI].sub.1]) to describe the path taken from a base point to the optimum point as shown in Figure 5. [FIGURE 5 OMITTED] Approximation of the Seasonal Heat Pump Coefficient of Performance The coefficient of performance (COP) of geothermal heat pumps is rated according to International Standards Organization (ISO) Standard 13256-1 at 0.00[degrees]C for heating and 25.0[degrees]C for cooling, and these data are readily available from manufacturer's catalogs. However, calculation of the annual ground loads for use in the design tool presented here requires knowledge of the seasonal heat pump coefficient of performance (SCOP), which is defined as the average COP of the heat pump over a season. Without a system simulation, this value can only be estimated because the COP is a function of the entering fluid temperature, which varies throughout the life cycle of the system.
In order to approximate the SCOP, another set of correlations has been developed from the
7/14
2014-3-31
In order to approximate the SCOP, another set of correlations has been developed from the simulation results of this study. The ratio of the SCOP to the standard rated COP is correlated to the natural logarithm of the annual building loads ratio (i.e. not the grounds loads ratio, as this is not known without the SCOP) and the undisturbed earth temperature ([degrees]C). As would be expected, the system simulation results reveal lower heat pump SCOPs occurring in cases with more imbalanced loads at more extreme undisturbed earth temperatures. At first glance, this correlation appears over-simplified because two buildings, for example, could have equivalent annual loads ratios and undisturbed earth temperatures, but have different total ground loop lengths, and consequently have different peak entering heat pump fluid temperatures. While this is true, the peak hour effects are apparently averaged out over the season within limits. Therefore, the limitations of the surface equation shown below are that ground loop lengths be sized to provide peak minimum entering fluid temperatures of 0.00[degrees]C [+ or ]3.00[degrees]C in heating mode and peak maximum entering fluid temperatures of 32.0[degrees]C[+ or -]5.00[degrees]C in cooling mode. These were temperature limits of the simulation data used to generate the contours. A surface was fitted to the simulation data using the same procedure as described to fit a surface to the [PI] groups. The equation of best fit for both the heating SCOP and cooling SCOP cases was a Taylor Series polynomial of the form: z = a + bx + cy + [dx.sup.2] + [ey.sup.2] + fxy + [gx.sup.3] + [hy.sup.3] + [ixy.sup.2] + [jx.sup.2]y (9) where z is the ratio of the SCOP to the rated COP, x is the natural logarithm of the annual building loads ratio, and y is the undisturbed earth temperature ([degrees]C). The coefficients of the surface equations are shown in Table 2. T a b l e2 .V a l u e so ft h eC o n s t a n t si nt h eF i t t e dS u r f a c eE q u a t i o n sf o r A p p r o x i m a t i n gH e a tP u m pH e a t i n ga n dC o o l i n gS e a s o n a lC O P H e a t i n gS C O P a=1 . 0 5 8 E + 0 0 b=1 . 0 9 5 E 0 2 c=2 . 4 6 1 E 0 3 d=9 . 9 2 6 E 0 4 e=1 . 0 7 4 E 0 3 f=2 . 2 5 6 E 0 3 g=1 . 9 0 7 E 0 4 h=2 . 4 5 5 E 0 5 i=8 . 5 5 4 E 0 5 j=7 . 8 6 6 E 0 5 C o o l i n gS C O P a=1 . 5 1 9 E + 0 0 b=2 . 3 9 3 E 0 2 c=1 . 1 5 5 E 0 2 d=9 . 8 8 7 E 0 4 e=1 . 1 7 4 E 0 3 f=3 . 3 6 9 E 0 3 g=3 . 2 3 8 E 0 4 h=2 . 8 6 3 E 0 5 i=1 . 3 8 7 E 0 4 j=1 . 0 8 9 E 0 4
Analysis of Error The predicted values of [[PI].sub.3] using Equation 8 are plotted against the actual [[PI].sub.3] values in Figure 6. The average absolute percent difference between the predicted and actual [[PI].sub.3] values is 0.4%, with a maximum of 4.2%. Errors of similar magnitude are also observed in the calculation of heat pump heating and cooling SCOP using Equation 9. [FIGURE 6 OMITTED] A simplification made in the system simulations was to only deal with square borehole fields. Thus, there will be some error in adapting the results presented here to other borehole field patterns, because thermal interaction between the boreholes is, in part, a function of the placement of the boreholes relative to each other. To quantify this error, borehole fields were sized with varying configurations using GLHEPro software (Spitler, 1999) for the base cases of an extreme cooling-dominated building (Phoenix, AZ office) (Figure 7), and a building with wellbalanced annual ground loads (Halifax, NS office) (Figure 8). [FIGURE 7 OMITTED] [FIGURE 8 OMITTED] A review of Figures 7 and 8 shows that the greatest variation in total design ground loop length as a function of the borehole field pattern occurs for buildings with highly imbalanced annual ground loads. In changing from a 10x10 borehole field pattern to a 5x20 pattern, the same number of boreholes exist in each configuration, but a reduction in total ground loop length of 8.7% was observed for the Phoenix, AZ office case due to the reduction in borehole-to-borehole thermal interference. In changing from a 10x10 to an 8x8 borehole field pattern, the decrease in total ground loop length was slightly less than the 5x20 case, and was 7.8% for the Phoenix, AZ office case. The smaller borehole field reduces the borehole-to-borehole thermal interference, but at the potential feasibility of increased drilling depths. For the balanced annual ground load case of the Halifax, NS office, the difference in total design ground loop lengths is less than 2% for the different borehole field patterns considered. This relatively low difference in design ground loop length is due to the relatively low borehole-toborehole thermal interference typical of balanced buildings; borehole-to-borehole thermal interference is minimal because approximately equal quantities of thermal energy are extracted and rejected to the earth each year. Determining the Cooling Tower Capacity
The correlating equations described in the previous sections permit the calculation of total ground
8/14
2014-3-31
The correlating equations described in the previous sections permit the calculation of total ground loop heat exchanger length, the quantity of annual energy rejection to atmosphere required to balance the ground thermal loads, and the corresponding reduction of total ground loop heat exchanger length. To determine the cooling tower capacity required to provide this annual heat rejection, an equivalent full load hour concept is used. While the purpose of a cooling tower (as employed in this work) is to balance thermal energy in the ground over the annual cycle, a cooling tower has the additional effect of reducing the peak hourly ground load. This is due to the fact that during the peak building cooling load, the heat pump exiting fluid temperature is typically at or near a maximum, and the differential control strategy used in this study was observed to call for the cooling tower to operate. Thus, the cooling tower in a hybrid GHP system must be designed to offset a sufficient portion of the peak cooling demand of the building, in addition to balancing the annual ground loads. The term "cooling tower capacity" is ambiguous without a description of the conditions under which the heat rejection occurs. A cooling tower in Phoenix will be a different physical size than one in Houston with equal heat rejection rates. Thus, to define cooling tower capacity requires knowledge of the water flow rate through the cooling tower, the entering and leaving water temperature (i.e. the cooling tower range), the cooling tower approach temperature, and the ambient wet bulb temperature. Nominal cooling tower capacity is based on heat rejection from a chilled water system, and is defined as cooling 0.054 L*[s.sup.-1] from 35 to 29[degrees]C at 26[degrees]C wet bulb temperature (ASHRAE, 2008). For the system simulations described above, the cooling tower capacity was defined as the heat rejection rate provided by the cooling tower during the conditions of the peak building cooling load. This definition was chosen for practical reasons, because when significant ground-loop reduction occurs in these types of hybrid systems, the designer must choose a cooling tower to ensure that the peak building load will be met by the hybrid GHP system. In the optimization routine, a constant cooling tower approach temperature of 3.9[degrees]C was chosen, which is consistent with the above ASHRAE (2008) definition of nominal cooling tower capacity. The peak cooling tower flow rate was optimized at a 0.054 L/s per kW of heat rejection capacity, also consistent with the ASHRAE (2008) definition. Due to the dynamic nature of buildings, in absence of conducting a system simulation, a designer would not know the exact weather conditions coincident with the peak building cooling load. Further, the peak ground load may not occur at exactly the same time as the peak building load. Therefore, the approach taken here to design a cooling tower from a known quantity of annual energy rejected is based on the equivalent full load hour concept. Then, from a conservative design perspective, details of a cooling tower can be defined from standard design equations at peak design conditions. For the limited number of hybrid cooling tower GHP cases examined here (i.e. five), the equivalent full load hours of a hybrid cooling tower are related to the annual ground loads ratio through an approximate quadratic relationship as shown in Figure 9. Thus, with knowledge of the annual quantity of heat rejection required to balance the annual ground loads (described below), the peak heat rejection rate of a hybrid cooling tower can be estimated. [FIGURE 9 OMITTED] The remaining cooling tower design parameters can now be determined. The peak flow rate through cooling tower for the hybrid cooling tower GHP cases simulated here was smaller than the peak flow rate through the building loop, and this can be assumed to be true for other hybrid cooling tower GHP cases. Therefore, the effectiveness ([epsilon]) of the heat exchanger isolating the cooling tower loop from the building loop can be described as: [epsilon] = [q/[q.sub.max]] = [[[C.sub.c]([T.sub.co] - [T.sub.ci])]/[[C.sub.min]([T.sub.hi] [T.sub.ci])]] = [[[T.sub.co] - [T.sub.ci]]/[[T.sub.hi] - [T.sub.ci]]] (10) where C is the heat capacity rate, and T is temperature. Subscripts c, h, i, and o represent cold, hot, inlet, and outlet, respectively. For a plate-type heat exchanger in a hybrid cooling tower GHP system, the hot side represents the building side and the cold side represents the cooling tower side. Therefore, Equation 10 can be re-arranged to find the cold outlet temperature from the heat exchanger, which is the cooling tower inlet temperature: [T.sub.co] = [T.sub.cooling tower inlet] = [epsilon]([T.sub.hi] - [T.sub.ci]) + [T.sub.ci] (11) The cold inlet fluid temperature ([T.sub.ci]) to the heat exchanger is the cooling tower return fluid temperature, which is determined from the design wet bulb temperature and the cooling tower approach (Equation 1). With the inlet and outlet fluid temperatures and the heat rejection rate known for the cooling tower, the mass flow rate of the fluid m can be readily calculated by an energy balance: m = q/[c.sub.p][DELTA]T (12) where m is the mass flow rate of the cooling tower fluid, q is the cooling tower heat rejection rate, [c.sub.p] is the specific heat capacity of the cooling tower fluid at constant pressure, and [DELTA]T is the temperature differential between the inlet and outlet cooling tower fluid. A comparison of the predicted cooling tower flow rates to the simulated results using the above design approach, reveals that the predicted cooling tower flow rate is quite sensitive to the wet bulb design condition selected. If the 99.6th percentile wet bulb temperature (ASHRAE, 2005) is chosen as the design criteria, the smallest error in the predicted flow rate is on the order of 1% for the Houston, TX cases, but as high as 39% for the Phoenix, AZ case. If the 98th percentile wet bulb temperature (ASHRAE, 2005) is chosen as the design criteria, the error in the predicted flow rate is on the order of -11% for the Houston, TX cases, and 15% for the Phoenix, AZ case. These discrepancies in the predicted and simulated cooling tower flow rates are due to the occurrence of the peak load relative to the design wet bulb temperature; the peak cooling load for
9/14
2014-3-31
occurrence of the peak load relative to the design wet bulb temperature; the peak cooling load for the Phoenix, AZ case did not coincide with the maximum annual wet bulb temperature, but did for the Houston, TX case. From the foregoing discussion, there may be some trend of over-predicting the cooling tower flow rate in drier climates, although this could not be stated with certainty without further analysis. Over-predicting the cooling tower flow rate will lead to an over-prediction of the heat rejection rate at the actual peak condition. The Design Tool Algorithm
An algorithm for a design tool for hybrid GHP systems using cooling towers is shown graphically in Figures 10 and 11 and described below. The design algorithm requires input data that would be readily available to a designer. [FIGURE 10 OMITTED] For stand-alone or hybrid GHP cases, input parameters required are a description of the building loads, the ground thermal properties, and heat pump details. Specific input data are shown in Figure 10. The first step in the algorithm is to calculate the heat pump seasonal COP. The heat pump heating and cooling seasonal COP relative to its catalog rated COP has been correlated (Equation 9) to the average undisturbed ground temperature and the ratio annual heating to cooling loads of the building. The SCOP is then used to calculate the annual heating and cooling ground loads. The ratio of annual ground loads gives the value of the [[PI].sub.1] group as described by Equation 5. For negative [[PI].sub.1] values, the building is cooling-dominated and for positive [[PI].sub.1] values, the building is heating-dominated. The [[PI].sub.2] group is then readily calculated from Equation 6, and [[PI].sub.3] is then determined from the surface fit correlation (Equation 8), allowing calculation of the total ground loop length (L) from the [[PI].sub.3] expression described by Equation 7. The next set of calculations in the design algorithm (Figure 11) determines the required ground loop length for a hybrid GHP system, along with the capacity of a supplemental cooling tower. Additional input data include heat exchanger effectiveness, the wet bulb design temperature, and the cooling tower approach. [FIGURE 11 OMITTED] In order to calculate the total required ground loop length for a hybridized system, the annual energy contribution from the supplemental component is determined by setting [[PI].sub.1] equal to zero. The new value of the [[PI].sub.2] group can then be determined from the correlation shown in Figure 5. The calculation of the [[PI].sub.3] group and the total ground loop length is the same as for the stand-alone GHP case. The peak heat rejection rate of a hybrid cooling tower is estimated using the annual equivalent full load hour concept, where the annual equivalent full load hours of a hybrid cooling tower are correlated to the ratio of annual ground heating load to cooling load. Knowledge of the peak cooling tower heat rejection rate then allows for the calculation of the peak flow rate through the cooling tower. CONCLUSION An algorithm has been developed for a spreadsheet-based design tool for stand-alone and hybrid geothermal heat pump (GHP) systems that use supplemental cooling towers in coolingdominated buildings. The algorithm has been developed from results of 91 detailed computer simulations, but such a design tool is not meant to replace system simulation for more detailed system analyses. Three dimensionless groups of key GHP design parameters were developed using the Buckingham Pi Theorem, and correlated using a fitted surface equation. The result is that from knowledge of the peak hourly heating and cooling loads, the annual equivalent full load heating and cooling hours, the thermal properties of the ground, the steady-state borehole resistance, the heat pump peak hourly and seasonal COP for heating and cooling, and the critical heat pump design entering fluid temperature, the total ground loop length can be calculated along with the quantity of annual energy required to balance the annual ground loads. With additional input parameters which would be readily available to designers, the capacity of a supplemental cooling tower in a cooling-dominated building can be calculated, along with the reduced groundloop heat exchanger length. Cooling tower capacity is calculated using an equivalent full load hour concept. Results from of a simplified design tool will expectably have some error when compared to an hourly system simulation due to simplifying assumptions and approximations made. The equations of best fit describing the correlating surfaces of the dimensionless groups result is a calculated total ground loop length error between 0 and 5%. This study assumed square borehole field patterns and an error analysis showed acceptable results in using the algorithm of this study to size the total ground loop length in closed-loop, vertical borehole systems in other borehole field configurations. Cooling tower capacity is calculated from the annual equivalent full load hours of the cooling tower, which are correlated to the ratio of annual ground heating load to cooling load. In assuming that the peak cooling tower heat rejection rate occurs at the 99.6th percentile design wet bulb temperature as defined by ASHRAE (2005), the method led to overprediction of the design cooling tower flow rate of 1% for the Houston, TX cases to 39% for the Phoenix office case. The reason for the large discrepancy for the Phoenix case was that the peak cooling load did not occur at the same time as the maximum wet bulb temperature. NOMENCLATURE a,...,j = constants in surface fitting equations
10/14
2014-3-31
A = area, [m.sup.2] H = borehole spacing, m
COP = coefficient of performance [c.sub.p] = specific heat at constant pressure, J*[kg.sup.-1]*[K.sup.-1] EFT = entering fluid temperature k = thermal conductivity, W*[m.sup.-1]*[K.sup.-1] L = length, m m = mass flow rate, kg*[s.sup.-1] q = heat transfer rate, W q' = heat transfer rate per unit length, W*[m.sup.-1] Q = energy, J r = radius, m; R' = thermal resistance per unit length, m*K*[W.sup.-1] SCOP = seasonal coefficient of performance t = time, s T = temperature, [degrees]C Greek Symbols [alpha] = thermal diffusivity, [m.sup.2]*[s.sup.-1] [CHI] = dimensionless steady-state borehole thermal resistance ratio [epsilon] = heat exchanger effectiveness [PI] = dimensionless pi group [lambda] = dimensionless thermal conductivity ratio [rho] = density, kg*[m.sup.-3] Subscripts c = cooling ci = cold inlet co = cold outlet e = extraction g = undisturbed ground h = heating hi = hot inlet ho = hot outlet max = maximum min = minimum r = rejection s = supplemental component Overbar - = average condition REFERENCES ASHRAE. 1995. Commercial/Institutional Ground Source Heat Pumps Engineering Manual. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA. ASHRAE. 2003. ASHRAE Handbook-HVAC Applications, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA. ASHRAE. 2005. ASHRAE Handbook-Fundamentals, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA.
11/14
2014-3-31
ASHRAE. 2008. ASHRAE Handbook-HVAC Systems and Equipment, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA. ASHRAE TRP-1384. 2008. Development of Design Guidelines for Hybrid Ground-Coupled Heat Pump Systems. Final Report. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA. Buckingham, E., 1914. On physically similar systems; Illustrations of the use of dimensional equations. Physical Review, Vol. 4, No. 4. Caneta Research, Inc., 1995. Commercial/Institutional Ground-Source Heat Pump Engineering Manual. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA. Chiasson, A.D. 2007. Simulation and Design of Geothermal Heat Pump Systems. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Civil & Architectural Engineering, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Epstein, C.M. and L.S. Sowers, 2006. The continued warming of the Stockton geothermal well field. Proceedings of Ecostock 2006, the 10th International Conference on Thermal Energy Storage, The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey. Eskilson, P., 1987. Thermal Analysis of Heat Extraction Boreholes. Doctoral Thesis, University of Lund, Department of Mathematical Physics. Lund, Sweden. Golden Software, Inc., 2002. Surfer 8, Contouring and 3D Surface Mapping for Scientists and Engineers. Golden Software, Inc., Golden, Colorado, USA. Hirsch, J.J., 2005. eQUEST Energy Simulation Tool. Kavanaugh, S. P. and K. Raffferty, 1997. Ground Source Heat pumps: Design of Geothermal Systems for Commercial and Institutional Buildings. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA. Kavanaugh, S. P, 1998. A design method for hybrid ground-source heat pumps. ASHRAE Transactions 104(2): 691-698. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). 2004. GenOpt 2.0, Generic Optimization Program, Version 2.0. Simulation Research Group, Building Technologies Department, Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Maze, R.W., 1967. Practical tips on cooling tower sizing. Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 46, No. 2. Phetteplace, G., W. Sullivan, 1998. Performance of a hybrid ground-coupled heat pump systems. ASHRAE Transactions 104(1b): 763-770. Ramamoorthy, M., H. Jin, A. Chiasson, and J.D. Spitler. 2001. Optimal sizing of hybrid groundsource heat pump systems that use a cooling pond as a supplemental heat rejecter--a system simulation approach. ASHRAE Transactions, 107(1). SEL. 2000. TRNSYS Manual, a Transient Simulation Program, Version 15. Solar Engineering Laboratory. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Singh, J.B. and G. Foster, 1998. Advantages of using the hybrid geothermal option. Proceedings of the 2nd Stockton International Geothermal Conference, The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey. Spitler, J.D. 1999. GLHEPro 3.0 for Windows Users Guide. School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Oklahoma State University. SYSTAT Software, Inc., 2002. TableCurve 3-D, Automated Surface Fitting and Equation Discovery, Version 4.0. SYSTAT Software, Inc., Richmond, California, USA. TESS, Thermal Energy Systems Specialists. 2005. Hybrid Geothermal Heat Pumps at Fort Polk, Louisiana, Final Report to Oak Ridge National Laboratories for Subcontract #4000034426. Yavuzturk, C. and J.D. Spitler, 1999. A short time step response factor model for vertical ground loop heat exchangers. ASHRAE Transactions, 105(2): 475-485. Yavuzturk, C. and J.D. Spitler, 2000. Comparative study to investigate operating and control strategies for hybrid ground source heat pump systems using a short time-step simulation model. ASHRAE Transactions 106 (2):192-209. York, D.A. and Cappiello, C.C., 1981. DOE-2 Engineers Manual (Version 2.1A), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory. A.D. Chiasson, PhD, PE, PEng Associate Member ASHRAE C. Yavuzturk, PhD Member ASHRAE
A.D. Chiasson is an assistant professor, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
12/14
2014-3-31
A.D. Chiasson is an assistant professor, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH. C. Yavuzturk is an assistant professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT.
COPYRIGHT 2009 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. No portion of this article can be reproduced w ithout the express w ritten permission from the copyright holder. Copyright 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Please bookmark with social media, your votes are noticed and appreciated:
Reader ratings: Reader Opinion Title: Comment:
0 [0 vote(s)] You can rate this article by selecting 1 to 5 stars on the left.
Submit
The Free Library > Business and Industry > Construction and materials industries > ASHRAE Transactions > July 1, 2009 The Free Library > Date > 2009 > July > 1 > ASHRAE Transactions Publications by Name
A-D E-O P-T U-Z
Publications by Date
before 1995 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009 2010-
Authors
ABCDEFGHIJKLM NOP QRS T UV WX Y Z
Literature
ABCDEFGHIJKLM NOP QRS T UV WX Y Z
Terms of use | Copyright 2014 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For w ebmasters
13/14
2014-3-31
14/14

A Design Tool For Hybrid Geothermal Heat Pump Systems in Cooling-Dominated Buildings

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A Design Tool For Hybrid Geothermal Heat Pump Systems in Cooling-Dominated Buildings

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2014-3-31

7,8 tkst. 690

22,596,477 articles and books

Water Block Manufacturing

Full-Text Online Journals

Full-Text Online Journals

* Annual equivalent full load heating hours, [EFLH.sub.h]

A.D. Chiasson is an assistant professor, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,

Reader ratings: Reader Opinion Title: Comment:

Terms of use | Copyright 2014 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For w ebmasters

Вам также может понравиться