Energy and Buildings 61 (2013) 3950

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

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

A passive design strategy for a horizontal ground source heat pump pipe operation optimization with a non-homogeneous soil prole
Amir Rezaei-Bazkiaei a, , Ehsan Dehghan-Niri c , Ebrahim M. Kolahdouz b , A. Scott Weber a , Gary F. Dargush b
a b c

Department of Civil, Structural & Environmental Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, United States Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, United States Smart Structures Research Lab, Department of Civil, Structural & Environmental Engineering, University at Buffalo, NY 14260, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
The effectiveness of a non-homogeneous soil prole for horizontal ground source heat pumps (GSHPs), dened as natural backll with an intermediate layer of material having different thermal characteristics, is investigated. Steps toward development of a comprehensive model to consider the effects of the non-homogeneous layer are described. The developed model is utilized successfully in conjunction with a genetic algorithm (GA) search method to obtain the optimized operational parameters for a GSHP in three different climate conditions. A properly sized and engineered non-homogeneous soil prole demonstrated the potential to increase the energy extraction/dissipation rates from/to the ground to a signicant level. The potential benet of a recycled product, Tire Derived Aggregate (TDA), as an insulating non-homogeneous layer is assessed. TDA is demonstrated to be more effective in the cold climate (Buffalo) by increasing the energy extraction rates from the ground approximately 15% annually. TDAs effectiveness is less pronounced in a relatively moderate climate (Dallas) by increasing the energy extraction rates from the ground about 4% annually. For the cooling only scenario (Miami), a high conductive intermediate layer of saturated sand exhibited greater potential to increase the energy dissipation to the ground. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Article history: Received 30 August 2012 Received in revised form 4 January 2013 Accepted 29 January 2013 Keywords: Horizontal ground source heat pump Tire Derived Aggregate Non-homogeneous soil Optimization Genetic algorithm Energy efciency Control

1. Introduction Building energy consumption comprises a considerable portion of every nations energy budget. Within the energy consuming items in buildings, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) accounts for a majority of energy demand. The reputation of ground source heat pumps (GSHPs) in harnessing the Earths clean energy with high performance coefcients combined with the technological advances in the HVAC industry has introduced these systems as one of the promising technologies to reduce building energy consumption. Every GSHP consists of two main parts: the ground side and the heat pump inside the building. The ground side, also referred to as the heat source/sink, consists of the ground pipe

Corresponding author at: 204 Jarvis Hall, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, United States. Tel.: +1 716 380 5255; fax: +1 716 645 2549. E-mail addresses: ar92@buffalo.edu, amir rezaee engv@yahoo.com (A. Rezaei-Bazkiaei), ehsandeh@buffalo.edu (E. Dehghan-Niri), mkolahdo@buffalo.edu (E.M. Kolahdouz), sweber@buffalo.edu (A.S. Weber), gdargush@buffalo.edu (G.F. Dargush). 0378-7788/$ see front matter. Published by Elsevier B.V. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.01.040

network and the circulating pump. The heat pump unit itself consists of sub-units which handle the thermodynamic relationships between the working uid and the load side (indoor air or Domestic Hot Water (DHW) network); compressor, condenser, evaporator, the expansion device and blower fans or circulating DHW pumps. The working uid ows through the ground pipes and exchanges heat with the surrounding soil medium where it gains/loses heat in heating/cooling modes, respectively. The uid at the outlet of the ground pipe enters the heat pump where the thermodynamic cycle of the heat exchange between the working uid and the refrigerant is responsible for heat delivery or dissipation in heating and cooling modes, respectively. A successful design of GSHP involves careful selection and sizing of both the ground side and the indoor unit so that heating/cooling loads are met year-round with the least waste heat/electricity inventory. This selection process usually involves employment of simplifying engineering assumptions. For example, one of the most well-known ground pipe sizing semi-empirical formulas is based on the concept of thermal resistance calculation for the soil, pipe and working uid [1]. Resistance factor calculation is based on the line source theory, which assumes a constant source of heat propagates continuously through the soil medium of interest.

40

A. Rezaei-Bazkiaei et al. / Energy and Buildings 61 (2013) 3950

This assumption, while not completely representative of ground pipe operation, is assumed to be within reasonable range of error for engineering practice. A heating/cooling load budget analysis for a prospect building via accepted methods, such as the bin method or, more popular, well accepted dynamic thermal load simulation software such as Energy+and eQuest, is the GSHP design start point. The calculated peak load data is subsequently used to size and design the GSHP system. Even with the dynamic software tools, the design for the capacity of the heat pump equipment is usually based on the peak load (worst case scenario) conditions that is oversized in many cases. Moreover, most ground source heat pump design methods usually consider a constant source/sink strength (ground temperature) based on the maximum and minimum observed data or semi-experimental formulas [1]. These assumptions do not capture the dynamic variation of the boundary conditions and the timevariable nature of the system functionality. The historical approach in design methods yield operational values for heating and ventilation systems that stray from the least waste energy path. This has made the dynamic, real-time analysis of GSHPs the focus of several recent research studies [24]. An essential part of the GSHP design, after selection of the pipe length and size, is the proper selection of the working uid temperature range as it is pumped back into the ground. The International Ground Source Heat Pump Association (IGSHPA) suggests an approach that relates the inlet water temperature to the heat pump to maximum, minimum and average ambient air temperatures. It is the responsibility of the designer to select the appropriate optimal entering water temperature to the heat pump that guarantees efcient performance. Given the complexities of an accurate building load evaluation including users consumption habits, level of building insulation, changes in occupancy, and sudden climatic changes that are far different from the long term statistical design year data, etc., and its causal relationship with the GSHP system units, the optimization of the overall performance of a GSHP is a challenge. Compounding the problem is the fact that ground characteristics vary in different regions to make it more challenging to track the dynamic building load demand and keep the heating/conditioning process as optimized as possible. Because the absence of design experience can cause a wide deviation from the optimized cost and operation path, the optimization algorithm proposed in this study aims at providing the designers of the GSHPs with benecial information regarding the GSHP design. Strategies to control the capacity of GSHP systems to match the building energy demand emerged as a response to the large energy consumption rates in buildings [5]. The capacity control practices explore options to satisfy building load requirements and minimize the waste energy in the heating/conditioning process. Capacity control usually involves either the control on the components of a GSHP system (e.g. the compressor, condenser, ground pipes, etc.) or a change in design congurations for different seasons or advanced control algorithms [6]. The correlations between different units of a GSHP are quite complex and changes in characteristics of one unit with time affect the overall performance of the system. Introduction of the building properties and its dynamic energy requirements will add to the complexity of the near-optimal energy delivery goal [79], especially when integrated building energy solutions [10,11] or non-conventional HVAC designs [12,13] are involved, or the system performance goals require a close examination of the interactions between the building and the HVAC systems [14]. Researchers have attempted to model these complexities by dynamically tracking the interactions between these units via widely accepted building energy modeling softwares [2,15,16] or in combination with thermodynamic data base models such as EES [3] or by self developed programs [17,18]. The general structure of such models consists of rst-tier models (e.g. ground pipe

and heat pump), which each have sub-models of second-tier (e.g. compressor, evaporator, etc.) with higher details. The functional relationship between the sub-models is constructed via operational parameters, such as water/brine and refrigerant ow rates [19,20]. The level of complexity of these sub-models signicantly depends on the purpose of the modeling effort [6]. Although numerous studies have aimed at controlling the heat pump side of a GSHP system, a much smaller number have focused on design methods for the ground side characteristics. Ground related work is usually associated with additional capital investment that has retarded exploration of design options in the ground compared to the heat pump unit inside the building. Previous research results suggest that utilization of a non-homogeneous system above the pipe burial depth might be worth more attention [21]. Based on the results from a comprehensive horizontal ground pipe model calibrated to a set of eld data from a mild climate, the non-homogeneous soil prole demonstrated the potential to increase the energy extraction rates from the ground by approximately 17%, in a peak heating month, compared to the homogeneous soil prole [21]. This research is focused on the analysis of the GSHP system performance optimization via control on the source/sink (ground) side. The following simple semi-empirical equations for the entering water temperature to the pump in heating and cooling seasons were adopted from the International Ground Dource Heat Pump Association (IGSHPA) design manual [1] to make the link between the ground pipe and the heat pump side of the GSHP system: Tf,ih = Tf,imin + Tf,imean Tf,imin Tairmean Tairmin Tf,imax Tf,imean Tairmax Tairmean (Tairmax Tair ) (Tair Tairmean ) (1)

Tf,ic = Tf,imean +

(2)

where Tf,ih is the entering water temperature to the ground in heating mode, Tf,ic is the entering water temperature to the ground in cooling mode, Tf,imin is the minimum design entering water temperature in heating, Tf,imean is the average design entering water temperature in heating or cooling, Tf,imax is the maximum design entering water temperature in cooling, Tairmean is the average annual ambient air temperature, Tairmin is the minimum annual ambient air temperature, Tairmax is the maximum annual ambient air temperature, and Tair is the air temperature at the time of simulation. The model employed for characteristic analysis of ground pipes comprises a comprehensive surface energy balance model, which is capable of solving for the temperature distribution of the entire soil prole to obtain the outlet water temperature from the ground pipes. A detailed description of the surface energy balance equations, parameters and the solution methods has been presented in material and methods section. The developed model was utilized to investigate the potential benets of a non-homogeneous soil prole on the ground side performance. Tire Derived Aggregate (TDA) has been proposed as an intermediate layer in the non-homogeneous system [21]. TDA mainly consists of chopped pieces of used tires in a variety of nominal sizes ranging from 1 to above 5 in. [22]. The idea to employ TDA, also referred to as tire chips, tire shreds, and tire mulch, in civil engineering applications was rst initiated by Humphrey [23]. New applications for TDA, mostly in civil engineering, have been proposed based on its unique physical characteristics. TDAs relatively low density compared to conventional backll makes it a viable alternative ll material, where a lighter ll material is desired in construction [24]. Its low thermal conductivity was the driving force for utilizing TDA as an alternative insulation material in road base insulation and some agricultural applications to modulate temperature uctuation on the soil surface [22,23,25]. Several

A. Rezaei-Bazkiaei et al. / Energy and Buildings 61 (2013) 3950 Table 1 TDA thermal and physical properties in literature. Material [reference] Thermal conductivity (W m1 C1 ) 0.1490.164 NA 0.29 0.564 Specic heat (J kg1 C1 ) NA NA 1.15 507 Density (kg m3 ) 513 10601100 720 641

41

1 1 + 10Ri

(8)

TDA (2-in. nominal) [22] TDA (1-in. nominal) [25] TDA (212-in.) [26] TDA (2-in. nominal) [27] NA: Not available.

where a is the air density equal to 1.275 kg m3 , Cp,a is the specic heat of air assumed to be 1000 J kg1 K1 , Ta is the air temperature (K), es0 is the surface vapor pressure (Pa), ea is the atmospheric vapor pressure (Pa), Pa is the atmospheric pressure (Pa), Ls is the latent heat of sublimation of snow (J kg1 ), is the Von Karmans constant, Us is the wind speed (m s1 ) at reference height z (m), and zo is the roughness length set to 0.5 m. The Richardson number, Ri , is dened as: Ri = gz(Ta Ts0 )
2 Ta Uz

studies in the literature have reported on the thermal and physical properties of TDA [22,26,27] and these are presented in Table 1. A thermal conductivity value of 0.29 W m1 C1 , specic heat of 500 J kg1 C1 and density of 720 kg m3 were chosen as representative properties of TDA material for the purpose of the analyses in this paper. In this work, TDA was compared to other potential materials for their applicability as the non-homogeneous layer. The overall goal of this research was to determine a GSHP design that optimizes energy savings by utilizing an evolutionary algorithm to evaluate different materials for use as the intermediate layer. The optimization was carried out for the same pipe characteristics, but different climatic conditions to evaluate the effects of climatic conditions on the optimized parameters. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Surface energies The surface boundary condition takes into account the effects of energy balance due to a variety of mechanisms responsible for surfaceambient heat interaction. The total energy balance on the ground surface (Qt , W) can be written in rate form as [28,29]: Qt = Qc + Qe + Qh + Qle + Qli + Qsi + Qp (3)

(9)

where g is the gravitational acceleration (m s2 ), and Uz is the wind speed at the elevation z relative to reference height z0 . The emitted longwave radiation, Qle , was given by: Qle =
s

(Ts0 )4

(10)

where s is the soil surface emissivity assumed to be equal to 0.98, and is the Stefan Boltzman constant equal to 5.6704 108 (W m2 K4 ). The incoming longwave radiation was given by the empirical description [30]. Qli = 1.08(1 e(0.01ea )
Ta /2016

) (Ta )4

(11) (12)

2353 log 10 ea = 11.40 Tdp

where Tdp is the daily dew-point temperature (K). The incident solar radiation reaching earths surface can be described as follows: Qsi = (1 Albedo)[Sm + Sa Re(exp(iwt +
1 ))]

(13) (W m2 ),

where Qc is the conduction heat ux through snow layer or ground surface (W), Qe is the turbulent exchange of latent heat (W), Qh is the turbulent exchange of sensible heat (W), Qle is the emitted longwave radiation heat ux (W), Qli is the incoming long wave radiation (W), Qsi is the solar radiation reaching the surface of earth (W), and Qp is the heat ux due to precipitation (W). Heat conduction through the snow and ground layers can be written as [29]: Qc = (Ts0 Tb ) zg zs + Ks Kg
1

Sa is the where Sm is the mean annual solar radiation amplitude of surface solar radiation (W m2 ), w is the angular velocity (rad), and 1 is the phase angle (rad). Heat ux due to precipitation can be written as [31]: Qp = IR Cp,w (Ta Ts0 ) is the rain intensity (kg m2 (14)

(4)

s), and Cp,w is the specic heat where IR of water assumed to be equal to 4186 J kg1 K1 . As some of the energy equations are a function of the surface temperature of the solution domain that need to be numerically solved, utilization of an iterative method was necessary. The surface energy equations, which are obtained from the daily meteorological data, were solved for the unknown surface temperature values, Ts0 , using the NewtonRaphson method. This iterative scheme solves for temperature values on the surface using Eq. (15):
n+1 n Ts0 = Ts0

where Ts0 is the snow surface or ground surface temperature depending on whether the surface is covered with snow or not, Tb is the ground temperature at the bottom of topsoil layer (thickness of rst discretization element in y direction, y), zs and zg are the thicknesses of snow and the top layer of soil ( y), respectively. Ks and Kg (W m1 K1 ) are the thermal conductivities of the snow and soil layers respectively. Turbulent exchange of sensible and latent heat, Qh and Qe are given as [28,29]: Qh = Qe =
a Cp,a Dh a Ls De

f (Ts0 ) f (Ts0 )

(15)

where f(Ts0 ) takes the following form: f (Ts0 ) = Qc (Ts0 ) + Qe (Ts0 ) + Qh (Ts0 ) + Qle (Ts0 ) + Qli (Ts0 ) + Qsi (Ts0 ) + Qp (Ts0 ) = 0 (16)

(Ta Ts0 ) 0.622 ea es0 Pa

(5) (6)

The iteration continues until the temperature difference between two consecutive iterations becomes less than 0.1 C. 2.2. Ground pipe modeling The ground pipe conguration employed in this research consists of a horizontal pipe with a total length of 61 m (L) and 1.9 cm diameter, 3 m distance between inlet and outlet, buried at the depth of 2 m, with the working uid ow rate of 0.19 kg s1 , as depicted in

The exchange coefcients for sensible and latent heat, Dh and De , and the stability function are dened as follows: De = Dh = 2 Us (ln z/z0 )2 (7)

42

A. Rezaei-Bazkiaei et al. / Energy and Buildings 61 (2013) 3950

Fig. 1. Conguration of the ground pipe and soil layer (not scaled). Fig. 3. Schematic of slices of 3D domain in pipe direction (not scaled).

Fig. 1. These design characteristics belong to an experimental test room in Buffalo, NY, with an approximate heating load of 1.5 kW, heated and conditioned with the specied horizontal GSHP, that is under investigation by these authors. Assuming there is no thermal interaction between pipes, the solution domain (detailed in Fig. 2) was considered to be from the center line of the pipe to the mid-span of the distance between pipes (1.5 m), in the x-direction, and from ground surface to the fareld (5 m) in the y-direction. The ground pipe is buried at the mesh level jpipe , as indicated in Fig. 2. Soil thermal conductivity (Ks ) and thermal diffusivity (s ) were selected based on the soil and rock classication guideline [32] to be equal to 1.67 W m1 K1 and 66 108 m2 s1 , respectively. For the sake of comparison, this ground pipe physical setting and the original soil properties were assumed to be identical for all the regions simulated in this paper. A comprehensive study of the impact of geographical variation of the soil properties has not been the focus of this study and is the subject of authors future work. To account for the three-dimensional behavior of the pipe and the surrounding soil, the effect of the working uid ow rate was considered along the pipe direction. The third dimension of the

problem was modeled by splitting the physical domain in the pipe direction into a series of cross-sections (slices) of the soil prole for each time step, including the nodal temperature of the uid at the pipes location. Fig. 3 shows how the slices are spaced in the pipe direction to cover the temperature distribution of the entire 3D domain. At each time step, the nodal temperatures of each cross section were obtained and subsequently updated for the next slice along the pipes length to achieve a temperature distribution of soil and uid at the end of the pipe (L). The same process was repeated for the next time steps until the end of the simulation time. 3. Numerical algorithm The three-dimensional temperature distribution in the soil media was modeled by solving the governing heat conduction equation and incorporating the heat ow rate forced by the circulating water. The temperature gradient in the pipe material is small enough to be neglected allowing the heat equation to be solved in

Fig. 2. Schematic of the solution domain mesh showing the relative size of the mesh grid and pipe diameter (scaled).

A. Rezaei-Bazkiaei et al. / Energy and Buildings 61 (2013) 3950

43

a two-dimensional geometry by inclusion of the uid temperature in the domain [33]. The governing thermal diffusion equation: 1 T (x, y, t) T (x, y, t) T (x, y, t) + = t x2 y2
2 2

(17)

was solved for the entire domain in two-dimensions for the pure heat conduction rst, and the solution was then updated along the pipes length to obtain the solution in three dimensions. In Eq. (17), is the thermal diffusivity of the medium through which heat travels. The output water temperature equation along the pipe direction, calculated based on the analytical solution for the energy balance between surrounding soil medium and pipe [34], constructs the link between the uid and the soil temperature in the model. Thus, Tf,out = Ts (Ts Tf,i ) exp Ks L mCp,f (18)

where Tf,out is the uid temperature exiting a pipe of length L (m), Ts is the surrounding soil temperature, Tf,i is the initial water temperature entering the pipe, Ks is the soil thermal conductivity (W m1 C1 ), m is the mass ow rate (kg s1 ) and Cp,f is the specic heat of the working uid (J kg1 C1 ). Boundary and initial conditions for the solution domain are described as follows: Ti = T (x, y), t=0
Fig. 4. Two dimensional grid of the solution domain [21].

T = 0, x T = 0, x

x = xmax x=0
2

Qt (W/m ),

y=0 y = ymax

T (y, t) = T (y, t)Kusuda ,

while the initial temperature distribution of the soil prole (Ti ) was obtained from the Kusuda model [35]: T (y, t)Kusuda = Tavg + Tamp ey
/s P

cos

t y P

s P

(19)

nodes in x and ny + 1 nodes in the y-direction, of which inner domain was used to solve for the temperature distribution of each cross section of the physical domain. The nodes on the boundary were separated to force boundary conditions in x and y direction. A fully explicit nite difference solution scheme was employed to solve for temperature distribution of the solution domain. The model was constructed in MATLAB. Time steps of 1800 s and space discretization of x = y = 0.1 m were chosen, based on a stability analysis of the model undertaken in a previous work [21]. Fully explicit nite difference formulation of the heat conduction equation takes the form:
n+1 n n n n n n n Ti,j Ti,j = r(Ti1,j 2Ti,j + Ti+1,j ) + r(Ti,j1 2Ti,j + Ti,j+1 )

(23)

where Tavg is the average annual surface temperature, Tamp is the amplitude of uctuation of the annual surface temperature, y is the depth from ground surface (m), s is soil thermal diffusivity (m2 s1 ), P is the duration of a year in seconds, and t is the time of the year in seconds. The second partial derivative of temperature in x-direction was written with a central difference scheme:
n n n n n n 2 Ti1,j 2Ti,j + Ti+1,j Ti1,j 2Ti,j + Ti+1,j T n |(i,j) = + O( x)2 x2 ( x)2 ( x)2

where rx =

x= y t , ry = t ( y)2 , rx = ry = r (24)

( x)2

After rearrangement, the explicit equation will take the form:

n+1 n n n n n Ti,j = rTi1,j + rTi+1,j + rTi,j1 + rTi,j+1 + (1 4r)Ti,j

(25)

= where

2 T n x ( x)2

(20)

2 T = Ti1,j 2Ti,j + Ti+1,j x

(21)

Using the same discretization for the y-direction and a forward difference to represent the time derivative, the governing heat equation therefore can be expressed in terms of nodal temperature values in explicit form as follows: 2 T n 2 T n T n+1 T n y x = + t ( x)2 ( y)2 (22)

Once the homogeneous case formulation was performed, the next step was adjustments to the difference equations to take into account the effects of the internal boundary conditions on the top and bottom of the intermediate layer. To meet the temperature and ux conditions on the internal boundaries, the energy balance on the interfacial nodes of intermediate layer and soil was obtained by writing the nodal uxes and the energy storage term for the control volume around each node. Fig. 5 depicts the energy balance for a node on the top and bottom of the intermediate layer interface, the control volume around the node, and the heat uxes involved. The resulting energy balance is written: q1 + q3 q2 q4 = ( Cp )avg where ( Cp )avg = ( Cp )s + ( Cp )int. , 2 Kavg = Ks + Kint. 2 x y

Ti,j , t

(26)

Next, a scheme was selected to sequence through time. As depicted in Fig. 4, the solution domain was discretized in nx + 1

44

A. Rezaei-Bazkiaei et al. / Energy and Buildings 61 (2013) 3950

Fig. 5. The intermediate layer top and bottom interfaces energy balance [21].

and the resulting values of heat uxes are described as follows: q1 = Kavg q2 = Kavg q3 = Ks
n Ti1,j n Ti,j

4. Optimization algorithm A genetic algorithm (GA) optimization scheme was used to obtain the operational parameters of a horizontal GSHP that maximizes energy extraction/dissipation rates from/to the ground. The main advantage of GA over traditional optimization algorithms for this work is that it does not require and does not depend on gradient information of the objective function; instead it uses a population of design points and randomly utilizes information from each generation to the subsequent one to search for the parameters that optimize the objective function. The optimization variables dene the characteristics (genes) of each design point in the initial pool (population) of the design points. The information about each design point is compared to other ones in the pool to transfer information to the next set of design points (next generation). The reproduction of new set of design alternatives with updated variables continues for a number of times (generations) to achieve the set of variables that yield the optimal results. The specications of the GA implementation for this work are listed in Table 2. More

x
n n Ti+1,j Ti,j

(27)

(28)

n n Ti,j1 Ti,j

(29)

q4 = Kint.

n n Ti,j+1 Ti,j

(30)

Substituting the ux equations (27)(30) into the energy balance equation and rearranging the equations results in the introduction of the following new parameters in the difference equation: Kavg t , ( Cp )avg ( x)2 rS = Kint. t , ( Cp )avg ( x)2 (31)

rAVG =

rT =

Ks t ( Cp )avg ( x)2

Table 2 Genetic algorithm terminology and denitions. Population size Number of individuals that are evaluated in each generation. At each iteration, the genetic algorithm runs the core nite difference ground pipe model with the selected variables from the current population to produce a new population of possible input variables (500, per each generation in this paper) Each successive population of possible set of input variables is called a new generation (50, in this paper) GAs operation used to vary the programming of a chromosome or chromosomes from one generation of input variables to the next GAs operation used to maintain genetic diversity from one generation of a population of input variables to the next. This operator is needed to avoid the search algorithm get trapped in a local optimum design GAs mechanism that ensures that the highly tted individuals of the population of input variables are passed on to the next generation without being altered by GAs operators. Using elitism ensures that the best input variables of the population can never be altered from one generation to the next. This operator increases the rate of convergence to the optimal point The migration algorithm partitions a population of selected variables by the algorithm into a set of sub-populations and shares information between these sub-populations

where Kavg is the average of the soil and the intermediate layer thermal conductivity (W m1 C1 ), Kint. is the intermediate layer thermal conductivity (W m1 C1 ), and Ks is the soil thermal conductivity (W m1 C1 ). The rAVG , rT and rS are the parameters dened to express the nite difference formula for the energy balance on top and bottom of the intermediate layer. The difference formulas obtained previously for the explicit method were revised to account for the heat ux through the TDA top and bottom layers resulting in the relations: TDA top layer:
n+1 n n n n Ti,j = rAVG Ti1,j + rAVG Ti+1,j + rS Ti,j1 + rT Ti,j+1 n + (1 2rAVG rS rT )Ti,j

Generation Crossover

Mutation

Elitism

(32)

TDA bottom layer:

n+1 n n n n Ti,j = rAVG Ti1,j + rAVG Ti+1,j + rT Ti,j1 + rS Ti,j+1 n + (1 2rAVG rS rT )Ti,j

Migration

(33)

A. Rezaei-Bazkiaei et al. / Energy and Buildings 61 (2013) 3950 Table 3 Working uid properties selected from the IGSHPA guideline [1]. Index number 1 2 3 4 5 Fluid Water 6% propylene-glycol and water 13% propylene-glycol and water 18% propylene-glycol and water 24% propylene-glycol and water Thermal conductivity (W m1 C1 ) 0.6 0.476 0.432 0.408 0.389 Specic heat (J kg1 C1 ) 4183 4140 4100 4060 4020 Density (kg m3 ) 998.3 1010 1010 1020 1020 Dynamic viscosity (kg m1 s1 ) 103 1 1.5 1.9 3 6.3

45

information about GA optimization and illustrative examples can be found in [36,37]. Designers often use past experience to select the best heat pump design that satises the energy needs of the building during different seasons. Given that the common design practice is based on peak load design, GSHP designs are inclined to be far from the optimized scenario to meet the real-time heating loads in a building. Several researchers in the building energy and heat transfer literature have come to the conclusion that optimization schemes can benet the design process where the effects of the climatic conditions are meant to be closely considered in an efcient design process [3840]. In their comprehensive work on vertical [38] and horizontal [39] ground source heat pumps, Sanaye and Niroomand modeled the thermodynamic cycle of the heat pump in conjunction with the thermal resistance pipe model to obtain the optimized operational parameters. Sayyaadi and Amlashi performed a similar study via exergy analysis of a vertical ground source heat pump [40]. In the present work, a genetic algorithm (GA) optimization scheme was designed to obtain the optimum values of the intermediate layer conguration (thickness and position), working uid type, and inlet uid temperature ranges. The results of the simulation provide insights on the benets returned from the introduction of an intermediate layer on the performance of a GSHP throughout the year. The model outputs help elucidate the optimal properties and conguration of the intermediate layer and the optimal entering water temperatures to the ground throughout the year to achieve the maximum energy extraction/dissipation rates from/to the ground. The ultimate motivation behind the analysis is to determine whether the operating parameters for different months of the year are in a range that conrms the benets of a capacity control strategy or a set of selected operational parameters can be used for all months without deviating from the optimized monthly values. Seven input variables (decision variables) were chosen to feed the core nite difference model in each run of the GA. These inputs comprise working uid properties, minimum, mean and maximum entering water temperature values, the intermediate layer thickness, position and thermal properties. To let the evolutionary algorithm search in a broader spectrum of potential designs, the algorithm was allowed to choose between a range of practical working uid properties (Table 3) and also a range of common soil properties applicable to the development of ground source heat pump works (Table 4). Selection of these values for the working uid properties and common range of soil properties for the GSHP application were based on the information published in the

guidelines [1,32], respectively. TDA thermal properties were listed as one of the intermediate layer choices that GA can choose from in each run. The genetic search algorithm selects from the list of provided input parameters, based on the GA options dened in Table 2, then uses these input variables to run the core nite difference model that results in calculation of the outlet uid temperatures from the ground pipe. The outlet uid temperature values were subsequently used to calculate the energy extraction/dissipation rates based on the relation:
avg avg Eground = m Cp,f (Tout Tin ) avg (Tout )

(34)
avg

where the time averaged values of outlet and inlet (Tin ) working uid temperatures for the simulation period (monthly or seasonal) were used to calculate the energy extraction/dissipation rates in heating/cooling modes. m is the working uid mass ow rate (kg s1 ). The heat pump work rate was calculated as follows: Epump = m P pump (35)

where P is the pressure drop in the ground pipe, calculated based on the friction factor and Reynolds number described in [41], and pump is the pump efciency (assumed 85% for a constant speed pump in this study). The objective function used in the simulation was calculated as reciprocal of the difference between the ground energy extraction rate and the circulating pump energy consumption rate as follows: Minimize(F) 1 F= Eground Epump

(36)

It was assumed that maximum heating/cooling energy rates from the ground pipes do not exceed 1.5 kW in any of the cities, to match it with the energy demand of the small test room under investigation by the authors. This assumption was made to make the comparison between different regions possible by searching for the parameters that maximize the energy extraction rates from the ground with a similar upper limit in all the modeled climatic conditions. Although a different objective function could have been dened to include the impacts of the dynamic building load requirements, which would have been a more holistic view of the building and GSHP system, the scope and intend of this paper has been primarily put on optimizing the ground side characteristics. The next phase of this project will be more focused on the dynamic

Table 4 Intermediate layer thermal properties selected from the manual for the soil and rock classication for ground heat pump design [32]. Index number 1 2 3 4 5 6 Intermediate material TDA Sand Clay Loam Saturated silt or clay Saturated sand Thermal conductivity (W m1 C1 ) 0.29 0.77 1.11 0.91 1.67 2.5 Thermal diffusivity (m2 s1 ) 108 58 45 54 49 66 93

46
35

A. Rezaei-Bazkiaei et al. / Energy and Buildings 61 (2013) 3950

240 Buffalo Dallas Miami 220 200 Dallas Buffalo Miami

Air temperature (Degrees C)

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 0 50 100

Solar radiation (W/m 2)

200 250 300 350

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

150

Days (starting on October 1st)

Days (starting on October 1st)

Fig. 6. Annual air and solar radiation variation in the selected cities.

optimization of the building load demand as well as the cost savings associated with the presence of the intermediate soil layer. A population size of 500 and 50 generations was selected for each run of the model after a few diagnostic runs to guarantee the convergence to the optimized values. A single-objective GA was used to search for the optimal value of the objective function in each population of results or, in other words, maximize the net energy extraction/dissipation rates from/to the ground. For each set of parameters in the initial population of the possible design points (500 for these runs) chosen by GA, the nite difference ground pipe model was run to calculate the energy rates and the heat pump work rate required to calculate the objective function. The resulting values of the objective function for all the points in the pool of initial set of variables were sorted, compared and ranked by the GA options dened in Table 2 based on their optimal values of objective function. After all the calculations for the initial population of possible optimal points were performed, the GA utilizes the mutation and crossover functions as listed in Table 2 to create the next generation of the near-optimal points. A similar calculation process was repeated for each generation of GA runs where the elite (near-optimal) sets of parameters from each population were passed to the next generations of best results, and this procedure repeated itself till the last generation (total of 50 generations) of optimal results were obtained. A total number of 32 processors with 48 GB memory were used for each monthly run of the model, which resulted in a runtime of about 7 h. A total number of 64 processors with 48 GB memory were used for each annual run, which resulted in a runtime of about 65 h for each year. 5. Effects of climate on optimization The main focus of this research was to study the effects of the climatic conditions on the selection of the optimized operational ground side parameters for a horizontal GSHP employing a non-homogeneous soil prole. To evaluate the potential benets of the intermediate layer in different climate conditions, three cities representing different climates were selected for evaluation. These were Buffalo, NY, Dallas, TX and Miami, FL. Buffalos climate condition requires space heating for a majority of the year (approximately 838 annual cooling-degree-days, extracted from www.degreedays.net), so Buffalo was assumed to represent a heating dominated city with eight months of heating (starting in October). Miamis case with approximately 4517 annual cooling-degree-days was assumed to be a representative of a warm climate. Simulation for Dallas (approximately 3621 annual cooling-degree-days) was done with the assumption of six months (NovemberApril) of heating to be representative of a mild climate condition. To simplify the introduction of the weather data, the air

and dew-point temperature, and solar radiation values for these cities were introduced to the model via estimation of these inputs by the following cosine functions: Tair = Ta-avg + Ta-amp cos 2 t air P 12 (37)

where Ta-avg is the average annual air temperature, Ta-amp is the amplitude of uctuation of annual air temperature, and air is the tted cosine model phase difference for air temperature, calculated based on the start time of the modeling on October rst (the assumed heating season start time). In addition, the dew-point temperature Tdewpoint used in calculation of the incoming longwave radiation described in [21], was modeled as: Tdewpoint = Tdew-avg + Tdew-amp cos 2 t dew P 12 (38)

where Tdew-avg is the average annual dew-point temperature, Tdew-amp is the amplitude of annual dew-point temperature variation, and dew is the tted cosine model phase difference for dew-point temperature. Finally, Qsi = Qsi-avg + Qsi-amp cos 2 Qsi t P 12 (39)

where Qsi-avg is the average annual solar radiation reaching the surface, Qsi-amp is the amplitude of uctuation of the solar radiation throughout the year, and the Qsi is the tted cosine model phase difference for radiation. Weather data were obtained form the National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center (NOHRSC) and curve-tting was undertaken in the Microsoft Excel environment to obtain the input parameters to the cosine models. A schematic of air temperature and solar radiation variation for these cities is presented in Fig. 6. A summary of the input parameters to the model for these cities is presented in Table 5. Here, Us is the average annual surface wind
Table 5 Weather data for selected cities as input to the model. City Buffalo Ta-avg ( C) Ta-amp ( C) air (month) Tdew-avg ( C) Tdew-amp ( C) dew (month) Qsi-avg (W m2 ) Qsi-amp (W m2 ) Qsi (month) Us (m s1 ) 9.3 14.1 10.1 4.3 12.2 10.2 142 75 9.2 4.2 Dallas 19.7 12.2 10.1 9.4 11.6 10 168 59 10.2 4.1 Miami 23.7 6.8 10.3 18.1 7.3 10.4 182 33 10.1 4

A. Rezaei-Bazkiaei et al. / Energy and Buildings 61 (2013) 3950 Table 6 Monthly genetic algorithm results for Buffalo, Dallas and Miami. Month Buffalo Intermediate material October November December January February March April May June July August September Sat. sand TDA TDA TDA TDA TDA Sat. sand Sat. sand TDA Sat. sand TDA TDA Eground (W) 558 492 515 474 375 252 179 295 1500 1500 1500 1500 % 6.5 4.7 13.2 18.8 19.4 6.8 9.1 11.7 2.5 1.2 1.2 1.3 Dallas Intermediate material TDA Sat. sand Sat. sand TDA Sat. sand Sat. sand Sat. sand TDA TDA TDA TDA TDA Eground (W) 1500 1071 1096 1054 1017 937 825 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 % 0.2 4.9 1.7 0.1 4.9 6.8 6.7 0.3 1.7 1.7 0.9 1.7 Miami Intermediate material Sat. sand Sat. sand Sat. sand Sat. sand Sat. sand Sat. sand Sat. sand TDA TDA TDA TDA TDA Eground (W) 1499 1500 1359 712 649 1145 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 %

47

2.2 0.1 7.1 7.4 6.2 8.5 0.6 1.1 0.2 0.9 0.6 0.3

velocity (m s1 ) and the rest of the parameters are dened in Eqs. (37)(39).

6. Results and discussion 6.1. Monthly optimization of depth and placement of non-homogeneous layer for energy saving The optimization process was performed separately for each month to estimate the range of the optimal operating parameters and how the optimal parameters vary from month to month. The selection of the intermediate layer material type by the algorithm assures a non-homogeneous prole that provides the best performance. The optimized monthly parameters for the three cities evaluated are presented in Table 6. The columns in this table contain the optimized choice of the intermediate layer and the energy extraction/dissipation rates from/to the ground for each month. The energy rates and the percent difference between the calculated energy rates with the non-homogeneous soil prole and the corresponding values for the homogeneous soil prole are presented for each city as well. It can be concluded from these results that including an intermediate non-homogeneous layer of TDA provides more benets in certain climate conditions and within each climate its potential advantage is more pronounced in some months more than others. Results for Buffalo (Table 6) show that TDA was selected as the dominant intermediate layer for eight months of the year of which ve months (NovemberMarch) were in the heating season. In the cooling season, TDA was not selected only in July where the saturated sand tends to exhibit a dominant effect as an intermediate layer. The results for Dallas (Table 6) show a different trend where TDA has been selected as the dominant intermediate layer mostly in warmer months of the year, whereas saturated sand yields the optimal energy extraction rates in the colder months. The reason behind this observation probably lies in the difference in the phase change angle of the annual temperature and solar radiation for Buffalo and Dallas. The maximum and minimum ambient temperature and solar radiations occur with a time lag for these cities (Fig. 6). Therefore, the interplay of energy exchange processes on the surface seems to favor the most conductive intermediate layer versus the least conductive layer or vice versa in certain months of the year. TDA was selected by the algorithm in the hottest months of the year in Miami (Table 6) to yield the highest energy dissipation rates. There is an inconsistent trend in selection of the choice intermediate layer properties in June, for Buffalo, and in January, for Dallas, as compared to the other months of the same season. This might be associated with the fact that the results of the

optimization algorithm for these two months were marginally convergent to select TDA as the best intermediate material, whereas if the optimization would have continued longer and for larger number of generations, saturated sand would have been selected. An interesting observation from the monthly results was that only the two intermediate materials with lowest and highest thermal conductivities were selected as the choice non-homogeneous layer material through the optimization algorithm. The fact that TDA (the least conductive) or saturated sand (the most conductive) were selected among the provided list of intermediate material suggests that the ground pipes can benet from a nonhomogeneous layer above the pipe burial depth throughout the year, but not necessarily from the one with the highest insulation properties. It should be noted that this modeling procedure does not take into account other characteristics of the TDA or saturated sand. Characteristics such as the porosity and water holding capacity, which might potentially contribute to considerably different performance results than that only based on the heat conduction in the soil medium. TDAs porous structure can potentially enhance the moisture migration to the underlying layers of soil, where higher moisture can contribute to higher thermal conductivities of the soil around the pipes. It is expected that this characteristic of TDA has a more substantial effect in the summer time, especially in regions with less rainfall events. The values in the last column for each city in Table 6 represent the percentage energy extraction/dissipation rate increase compared to the homogeneous soil prole in different months. There are trends in comparing the results for similar seasons in different cities. The percentage increases in energy extraction rate for the coldest months in Buffalo (JanuaryFebruary) are as high as 1819% as compared to similar time periods for Dallas with highest values of 56%. This nding can be translated into the potential for higher energy harvesting potential with a non-homogeneous soil prole in the heating season in a colder climate (Buffalo). It should be noted again that the material choice for the intermediate layer in the cold season in Buffalo was TDA versus the saturated sand for Dallas. A similar comparison for the cooling season in all cities reveals an interesting observation. The highest increase in the energy dissipation rate, for cooling in Miami, happens in the coldest month of the year with an increase in energy dissipation rates of approximately 68%. The optimization algorithm tends to choose higher working uid temperatures, compared to the warmer months, with the highest intermediate layer conductivity (saturated sand) to maximize the heat ux to the ground and subsequently increase the overall ground pipe performance. This trend did not repeat in warmer months as the algorithm searches through the large population of possible solutions. The comparison for the cooling season in all cities shows that relatively small increase in energy extraction

48

A. Rezaei-Bazkiaei et al. / Energy and Buildings 61 (2013) 3950 Table 7 Optimal values of working uid temperature and TDA conguration from annual GA simulations for Buffalo, Dallas and Miami (to be used as annual design values). Parameter Tf,imin ( C) Tf,imean-heating ( C) Thickness, b (m) Position, d (m) Tf,imax ( C) Tf,imean-cooling ( C) Buffalo 2.3 7 0.5 0.3 45.7 31.7 Dallas 2.7 23.5 0.5 0.4 52.6 29.6 Miami

rates from the ground are achievable with the non-homogeneous soil prole for cooling purposes. It should be noted that the performance of the homogeneous system is very close to the maximum expected cooling capacity (1500 W) in warmest months of the year for all these cities, which contributes to the marginal improvements with a non-homogeneous soil prole. In other words, if the designed ground pipe network was supposed to provide higher energy rates, the percentage increase in energy extraction rates would probably be higher and more pronounced with the nonhomogeneous soil prole. It seems reasonable to conclude that use of a non-homogeneous soil prole for cooling-only purposes, in a warm climate, can be more benecial if a relatively high conductive intermediate layer is employed.

0.8 0.4 73.0 55.0

6.2. Annual optimization The intention behind performing the optimization for each month was to gain an understanding of the key parameters that provide optimal energy rates for the ground pipe and their shorter term variation in different regions. The intermediate layer selection by the optimization algorithm was performed to provide a basis for comparing the ground pipe performance each month versus the results of annual optimization presented in this section. After performing the analysis for each month and gaining knowledge of the relationship between selected variables, modeling was focused on nding the optimal values of the inlet uid temperature and the conguration of the intermediate layer yearround. This approach provides the designer with the optimized working uid temperatures and intermediate layers conguration which yields maximum annual energy extraction/dissipation rates in each season. One of the most important ndings from the monthly simulation results was that the two dominant choices for the intermediate non-homogeneous layer were TDA and saturated sand, the two intermediate material with lowest and highest thermal conductivity. Although the selection of the antifreeze solution is mandated by the pipe characteristics, pressure drop calculations and other site specic considerations, the working uid properties was set to 13% propylene-glycol and water mixture for all the annual runs. This working uid property was the most dominant choice of the GA search in the monthly optimization to achieve maximum energy extraction/dissipation rates from/to the ground. Given that the TDA material can be implemented practically as a value-added passive design with non-homogeneous soil prole for the ground pipes, the annual optimization simulations were limited to the use of TDA. After obtaining the optimized values of the entering uid temperatures and TDA layer conguration, the energy extraction/dissipation rates were calculated for heating and cooling seasons. Energy extraction/dissipation rates were calculated for a non-homogeneous prole with saturated sand layer with the same optimized operational parameters achieved for TDA to compare the annual results. This approach provides a base to compare the difference between the energy harvesting rates from the ground with the two choice intermediate material in identical operational conditions.

Results from the annual simulations are presented in Tables 7 and 8. The values of TDA thickness and position and the operating uid temperatures in Table 7 were obtained by running the optimization for the entire year, so these values should be used as the annual design values that maximize the energy extraction/dissipation rates from/to the ground. The reported energy extraction/dissipation rates in Table 8 are the average values for each season. The upper and lower limits for the values of the working uid temperatures were chosen to cover the below freezing point temperatures in heating season as well as high temperatures in cooling season. The introduction of the broad range of temperature values to the search algorithm was intentionally made to utilize the capacity of the search algorithm to nd the optimal solution in a bigger space of design options. Although some of the higher temperature values might not be in the common practice range for the ground pipe design, the goal of this research to explore the potential new design options for the ground pipe has ruled the need for keeping the upper limits higher than the common working uid temperature ranges. The aim of this study has been to explore the options for the ground pipe design with new initiatives that have not been considered before, yet require further investigation. Interesting observation from the optimization results for the maximum and average working uid temperature is that the search for the optimal working uid temperatures has resulted in values that are considerably higher than the common upper range design values (approximately 35 C). These ndings can be a starting point for investigating new ground pipe technologies that are capable of delivering higher temperatures from the ground to achieve optimal energy extraction rates. Nonetheless, the practical aspects of implementation of the higher working uid temperature values requires further investigation. The percentages in Table 8 refer to the percent increase in the energy extraction/dissipation rates compared to the homogeneous soil prole with TDA or saturated sand layers. The obtained optimized temperature values and intermediate layer conguration for TDA were used to run the homogeneous and saturated sand scenarios for comparison. A comparison between the Buffalo annual energy extraction/dissipation rates shows 15.7% and 7.6% higher rates with TDA layer versus the homogeneous case, in heating and cooling seasons, respectively. A similar comparison for Buffalo shows 2.1% and 1.2% lower performance for saturated sand versus the homogeneous case, in heating and cooling seasons, respectively (Table 8). The corresponding values for Dallas with TDA are 3.8% and 3.5% higher

Table 8 Values of seasonally averaged energy extraction/dissipation rates in heating/cooling season for Buffalo, Dallas and Miami. Parameter Buffalo Heating TDA energy (W) Sat. sand energy (W) Homog. energy (W) % TDA % Sat. sand 324 274 280 15.7 2.1 Cooling 1497 1375 1391 7.6 1.2 Dallas Heating 635 608 612 3.8 0.7 Cooling 1431 1378 1382 3.5 0.3 Miami Cooling 1298 1482 1456 10.9 1.8

A. Rezaei-Bazkiaei et al. / Energy and Buildings 61 (2013) 3950

49

in heating and cooling seasons as compared to 0.7% and 0.3% lower with saturated sand layer in similar seasons (Table 8). For Buffalo, higher energy extraction/dissipation rate increase over the homogeneous prole was observed with TDA layer in heating than cooling season (15.7% versus 7.6%). Comparing the heating season energy extraction rates over the homogeneous soil prole in Buffalo to Dallas shows that relatively higher efciencies were achievable in Buffalo (15.6% versus 3.8%). The results for Miami (Table 8), on the other hand, suggest a signicantly better energy dissipation rates to the ground with saturated sand as compared to TDA layer (1.8% versus 10.9%) for cooling purposes. However, it is worth noting that the percentage increase in energy dissipation rate to the ground (1.8%) with saturated sand is considerably lower than the monthly values obtained for Miami (Table 6). The optimized energy extraction rates with the monthly design parameters obtained from the genetic algorithm deviate considerably from the values obtained from the simulations for the entire year. It is harder for the search algorithm to nd operational parameters for the ground pipes that decrease the difference between seasonal energy rates and highest achievable monthly values. This causes the annual energy rates to be lower than the ones attainable if the monthly control on the operating parameters (working uid temperatures and intermediate layer conguration) was practically feasible. For example, the maximum attainable energy extraction rate in heating season for Buffalo is 324 W (Table 8) as compared to maximum obtainable monthly (October) rate of 558 W (Table 6), a reduction of approximately 40% compared to the monthly value. A similar comparison for Dallas shows that the average heating season energy extraction rate of 635 W (Table 8) is approximately 57% lower than the maximum monthly (October) attainable energy extraction rate of 1500 W (Table 6). The cooling season energy dissipation rates to the ground in all the cities have considerably lower deviance from the corresponding monthly optimized values. It is worth raising a discussion regarding the physical phenomenon that leads to the selection of TDA versus saturated sand in the search algorithm. Conceptually, there is a need for balancing the amount of heat penetrating the soil surface, mainly from the solar gains and surface heat conduction, and the amount of heat that needs to be extracted/dissipated depending on the season. This balance point, of course, has been altered by the introduction of the intermediate layer in this study which can be translated into more engineering control on this natural process occurring in the soil. The way this energy extraction/dissipation demand becomes satised is a function of both the physical soil prole as well as the ambient air temperature and solar radiation variation throughout the year (Fig. 6). The combination of these parameters promotes utilization of an intermediate layer, which best serves the heat transfer regime in the soil prole. For cities with climatic conditions similar to Buffalo, this balance seems to shift toward the need to maintain the stored heat in the bulk of soil at the pipe level, given the lower amount of heat entering the soil prole from the surface because of less incident solar energy and lower air temperature. This is the reason TDA has been selected by the algorithm for cold months in Buffalo. A similar comparison in the cooling season for Miami, from October to April, shows that a higher conductive intermediate layer favors the heat dissipation process from the pipe to the surrounding soil by letting more heat escape the immediate bulk of soil adjacent to the pipe. A closer look at the cooling season optimization results, from May to September, for Dallas and Miami (Table 6), shows that TDA has been selected as the choice intermediate layer. This can be explained as an attempt to maintain the ground cooler by having an overlaying insulation layer so that there is a higher heat ux to the ground from the pipe. Because the intermediate layer conguration can not be adjusted once the system is installed, it is clear that the intermediate layer dimensions that optimize the annual energy extraction

rates are needed for each of these climates as summarized in Table 7. More exible control on the energy extraction rates in each month can subsequently be obtained via control on the heat pump characteristics. Variable refrigerant ow or multi-stage heat pumps can be designed in conjunction with the desirable intermediate layer properties and conguration to assure the least deviance from the actual monthly building energy demand. Moreover, a detailed analysis of the impact of the geographical variation of soil properties is recommended to be considered in the future studies. The numerical results from the presented analyses in this paper are subject to verication with the expected eld data from an experimental GSHP facility under investigation by the authors. Authors expect that with the results from their eld experiment the responsible mechanisms associated with the implementation of the TDA material can be revealed with more evidence, so that alternative materials can be explored, subsequently. 7. Conclusions A numerical model was developed for the ground pipe of a horizontal GSHP with a non-homogeneous soil layer. The model was coupled with genetic algorithm to search for operational parameters that maximize energy extraction/dissipation rates from/to the ground. The search algorithm was given a range of working uid properties, intermediate layer thermal properties, a range of operating uid temperatures, and the intermediate layer conguration to search for the optimized energy extraction/dissipation rates from/to the ground. The optimization was performed for three cities representing a cold (Buffalo), moderate (Dallas) and warm (Mmiami) climate to evaluate the impact of climate on the optimization. Despite different performance achievements with either a low conductance (TDA) or a high conductance (saturated sand) intermediate layer, a non-homogeneous soil prole demonstrated the potential for increasing the energy extraction/dissipation rates from/to the ground. A shift in perspective toward more control strategies for GSHPs with control on the ground pipe side of the system is suggested based on the model results. Further investigation of other attributes of a non-homogeneous system which potentially can enhance the GSHPs performance is still required. A summary of ndings are listed below: A non-homogeneous soil prole exhibited a great potential for enhancing a horizontal GSHPs pipe performance by increasing the energy extraction/dissipation rates from/to the ground. TDA demonstrated higher benets in colder climates by increasing the energy extraction rates from the ground in the heating season. TDA demonstrated a marginal enhancement during cooling cycles due to insignicant difference between achievable energy extraction rates with the non-homogeneous and homogeneous cases. Saturated sand demonstrated potential for increasing the energy dissipation rates to the ground in warm climate. The optimized seasonal energy extraction rates from the ground exhibited signicant difference (an upper range of 4060% less) from the highest achievable monthly values in the heating season. Minimal difference was observed between the cooling season optimized energy dissipation rates and the corresponding monthly values. Acknowledgments Partial funding for this research was provided by Empire State Developments Environmental Services Unit through the New York State Tire Derived Aggregate Program at the

50

A. Rezaei-Bazkiaei et al. / Energy and Buildings 61 (2013) 3950 [19] Y. Zhou, J. Wu, R. Wang, S. Shiochi, Energy simulation in the variable refrigerant ow air-conditioning system under cooling conditions, Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 212220. [20] X. Liu, T. Hong, Comparison of energy efciency between variable refrigerant ow systems and ground source heat pump systems, Energy and Buildings 2010 (2010). [21] A. Rezaei, B.E.M. Kolahdouz, G.F. Dargush, A.S. Weber, Ground source heat pump pipe performance with Tire Derived Aggregate, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 28442853. [22] J. Shao, J. Zarling, Thermal conductivity of recycled tire rubber to be used as insulating ll beneath roadways, Technical Report, Institute of Northern Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, 1995. [23] B. Lawrence, D. Humphrey, L.-H. Chen, Field trial of tire shreds as insulation for paved roads, in: Cold Regions Engineering: Putting Research into Practice, ASCE, Hanover, NJ, 1999, pp. 428439. [24] D. Humphrey, Tire shreds as lightweight ll for retaining walls results of full scale eld trials, in: International Workshop on Lightweight Geomaterials, 2002, pp. 261268. [25] H. Moo-young, K. Sellasie, D. Zeroka, G. Sabnis, Physical and chemical properties of recycled tire shreds for use in construction, Journal of Environmental Engineering (2003) 921929. [26] D. Humphrey, A. Fiske, R. Eaton, Backcalculation of thermal conductivity of tire chips from instrumented test section, in: Transportation Research Board 81st Annual Meeting, 2002. [27] H.L. Wappett, J.G. Zornberg, Full scale monitoring for assessment of exothermal reactions in waste tires nal report, Technical Report 27, Recycled Materials Resource Center, Project No. 27, University of Texas, Austin, 2006. [28] F. Ling, T. Zhang, A numerical model for surface energy balance and thermal regime of the active layer and permafrost containing unfrozen water, Cold Regions Science and Technology 38 (2004) 115. [29] G.E. Liston, D.K. Hall, An energy-balance model of lake-ice evolution, Journal of Glaciology 41 (1995) 373382. [30] R. Fleagle, J. Businger, An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics, vol. 25, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1980. [31] H. Demir, A. Koyun, G. Temir, Heat transfer of horizontal parallel pipe ground heat exchanger and experimental verication, Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 224233. [32] J. Bose, Soil and rock classication for the design of ground-coupled heat pump systems-eld manual, Electric Power Research Institute Special Report, EPRI CU-6600, 1989. [33] H. Demir, A. Koyun, S.O. Atayilmaz, Determination of optimum design parameters of horizontal parallel pipe and vertical U-tube ground heat exchangers, in: ASME Conference Proceedings, 2009, pp. 621627. [34] A. Koyun, H. Demir, Z. Torun, Experimental study of heat transfer of buried nned pipe for ground source heat pump applications, International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 36 (2009) 739743. [35] T. Kusuda, P.R. Achenbach, Earth temperature and thermal diffusivity at selected stations in the United States, Technical Report, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC, 1965. [36] D. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search; Optimization and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts, 1989. [37] M. Mitchell, An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996. [38] S. Sanaye, B. Niroomand, Thermal-economic modeling and optimization of vertical ground-coupled heat pump, Energy Conversion and Management 50 (2009) 11361147. [39] S. Sanaye, B. Niroomand, Horizontal ground coupled heat pump: thermaleconomic modeling and optimization, Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2010) 26002612. [40] H. Sayyaadi, E. Amlashi, Multi-objective optimization of a vertical ground source heat pump using evolutionary algorithm, Energy Conversion and Management 50 (2009) 20352046. [41] S. Kakac, H. Liu, Heat Exchangers: Selection, Rating and Thermal Design, second ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2002.

University at Buffalos Center for Integrated Waste Management: www.tdanys.buffalo.edu/UB. Authors would like to thank Dr. Kenneth Fishman and Mr. Louis Zicari from the Center for Integrated Waste Management for their constant support and continuing contribution to this project. References
[1] IGSHPA, Ground Source Heat Pump Residential and Light Commercial Design and Installation Guide, International Ground Source Heat Pump Association, Oklahama State University, Division of Engineering Technology, Oklahoma, OK, 2009. [2] O. Zogou, A. Stamatelos, Optimization of thermal performance of a building with ground source heat pump system, Energy Conversion and Management 48 (2007) 28532863. [3] H. Madani, J. Claesson, P. Lundqvist, Capacity control in ground source heat pump systems. Part II: Comparative analysis between on/off controlled and variable capacity systems, International Journal of Refrigeration 34 (2011) 19341942. [4] A. Rezaei-Bazkiaei, E. Dehghan-Niri, A.S. Weber, G.F. Dargush, A new control strategy to improve the ground source heat pumps efciency with a recycled product, in: Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition IMECE2012, November 915, Houston, Texas, USA, 2012. [5] T. Qureshi, Variable-speed capacity control in refrigeration systems, Applied Thermal Engineering 16 (1996) 103113. [6] H. Madani, J. Claesson, P. Lundqvist, Capacity control in ground source heat pump systems. Part I: Modeling and simulation, International Journal of Refrigeration 34 (2011) 13381347. [7] F.F. Al-ajmi, V.I. Hanby, Simulation of energy consumption for Kuwaiti domestic buildings, Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 11011109. [8] Y. Gao, J.J. Roux, L.H. Zhao, Y. Jiang, Dynamical building simulation: a low order model for thermal bridges losses, Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 22362243. [9] L. Wang, J. Gwilliam, P. Jones, Case study of zero energy house design in UK, Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 12151222. [10] Y. Hang, M. Qu, S. Ukkusuri, Optimizing the design of a solar cooling system using central composite design techniques, Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 988994. [11] C. Xi, L. Lin, Y. Hongxing, Long term operation of a solar assisted ground coupled heat pump system for space heating and domestic hot water, Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 18351844. [12] A. Khandelwal, P. Talukdar, S. Jain, Energy savings in a building using regenerative evaporative cooling, Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 581591. [13] P.J. Martinez, A. Garcia, J.M. Pinazo, Performance analysis of an air conditioning system driven by natural gas, Energy and Buildings 35 (2003) 669674. [14] Z. Lin, C.K. Lee, K.F. Fong, T.T. Chow, Comparison of annual energy performances with different ventilation methods for temperature and humidity control, Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 35993608. [15] O. Siddiqui, A. Fung, H. Tse, D. Zhang, Modelling of the net zero energy town house in toronto using trnsys, and an analysis of the impact using thermal mass, in: 2008 Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Energy Sustainability, ES 2008, vol. 2, Jacksonville, FL, United states, 2008, pp. 297304. [16] E. Kjellsson, G. Hellstrm, B. Perers, Optimization of systems with the combination of ground-source heat pump and solar collectors in dwellings, Energy 35 (2010) 26672673. [17] R.G. Kapadia, S. Jain, R.S. Agarwal, Transient characteristics of split airconditioning systems using R-22 and R-410A as refrigerants, HVAC and R Research 15 (2009) 617649. [18] Y. Nam, R. Ooka, S. Hwang, Development of a numerical model to predict heat exchange rates for a ground-source heat pump system, Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 21332140.