INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH

Int. J. Energy Res. 2005; 29:671–687

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/er.1099

Thermodynamic analysis of a ground-source heat pump system

for district heating
Arif Hepbaslin,y
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ege University, 35100 Bornova, Izmir, Turkey

SUMMARY
This study deals with the thermodynamic analysis of ground-source heat pump (GSHP) systems for district
heating. The mass, energy, entropy and exergy balance relations are derived and applied to a GSHP system
with a U-bend ground heat exchanger. The performance characteristics of this GSHP system are evaluated
in terms of energetic and exergetic aspects. Based on the measurements conducted on 7 January 2004, the
heat extraction rate from the soil is found to be, on average, 61.4 W m
1 of bore depth, while the required
borehole length in meter per kW of heating capacity is obtained as 11.71. The entering water temperature
to the unit is measured to be 15.38C. The heating coefficient of performance of the heat pump (COPHP) is
about 2.85, while that for the whole system is obtained to be 7.4% lower than COPHP. The exergy efficiency
values for the heat pump unit and whole system are found to be 66.8 and 66.6%, respectively. Copyright #
2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: energy; ground source heat pump; geothermal heat pump; geothermal energy; greenhouses;
renewable energy; sustainable development; Turkey

1. INTRODUCTION

Ground source or geothermal heat pumps (GSHPs or GHPs) are attractive alternatives to
conventional heating and cooling systems owing to their higher energy utilizations efficiencies.
Also, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that GSHP systems are
the most energy efficient and environmentally clean of all the heating and cooling options (DOE,
2001; Hepbasli, 2004).
GSHPs for direct utilization have had the largest growth of 9.7% annually since 1995. Most
of this growth occurred in the U.S.A. and Europe, though interest is developing in other
countries, such as Japan and Turkey. The installed capacity was 6850 MW and annual energy
use is 23 214 TJ year
1 in 26 countries in 2000. The actual number of installed units was around
500 000 in the same year, while the equivalent number of 12 kW units installed was slightly over
570 000. The 12 kW equivalent units installed are used as typical of homes in the U.S. and some

n
Correspondence to: A. Hepbasli, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ege University,
35100 Bornova, Izmir, Turkey.
y
E-mail: hepbasli@bornova.ege.edu.tr, hepbasli@egenet.com.tr

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

672 A. HEPBASLI

western European countries (Lund and Freeston, 2000, 2001). It is also estimated that there are
over a million today (Lund, 2004).
An exergy analysis has proven to be a powerful tool in the thermodynamic analyses of energy
systems (Moran, 1982; Kotas, 1985; Bejan, 1988; Szargut et al., 1988; Dincer, 2002). In order to
calculate exergy, the reference environment must be specified. Exergy analysis is employed to
detect and to evaluate quantitatively the causes of the thermodynamic imperfection of the
process under consideration. Exergy analysis can, therefore, indicate the possibilities of
thermodynamic improvement of the process under consideration, but only an economic analysis
can decide the expediency of a possible improvement (Szargut et al., 1988).
In recent years, investigations have been conducted by various researchers on design,
modelling and experimental performance evaluation of GSHP systems (e.g. Kavanaugh, 1992;
Kavanaugh and Rafferty, 1997; Healy and Ugursal, 1997; Hepbasli, 2002; Hepbasli et al.,
2003; Sanner et al., 2003; Hepbasli and Akdemir, 2004; Bi et al., 2004; Yumrutas and Kaska,
2004; Ozgener and Hepbasli, 2004, 2005). The present study deals with a comprehensive
thermodynamic analysis of GSHPs for district heating by using mass, energy, entropy and
exergy balance equations. The performance of a GSHP system along with its individual
components installed in Izmir, Turkey, which is given as an illustrative example, is then
evaluated in terms of energetic and exergetic aspects. Finally, the potential for improvements is
given and discussed.

2. ANALYSIS

2.1. Mass, energy, entropy and exergy balance equations

For a general steady-state, steady-flow process, the four balance equations, namely mass,
energy, entropy and exergy balance equations, are applied to find the heat input, the rate of
exergy decrease, the rate of irreversibility, and the energy and exergy efficiencies (Kotas, 1985;
Szargut et al., 1988; Cengel and Boles, 2001).
The mass balance equation can be expressed in the rate form as
X X
m’ in ¼ m’ out ð1Þ

where m’ is the mass flow rate, and the subscript in stands for inlet and out for outlet.
The general energy balance can be expressed as
X X
E’ in ¼ E’ out ð2Þ

The general energy balance can also be written more explicitly as

X X
Q’ þ m’ in hin ¼ W’ þ m’ out hout ð3Þ

where Q’ ¼ Q’ net;in ¼ Q’ in
Q’ out is the rate of net heat input, W’ ¼ W’ net;out ¼ W’ out
W’ in is the
rate of net work output, and h is the enthalpy per unit mass.
The rate form of the entropy balance can be expressed as
Sin
Sout þ Sgen ¼0 ð4Þ
|fflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflffl} |{z}
Rate of net entropy Rate of entropy
transfer by heat and mass generation

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2005; 29:671–687
 THERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMP SYSTEM 673

where the rates of entropy transfer by heat transferred at a rate of Q’ k and mass flowing at a rate
of m’ are S’ heat ¼ Q’ k =Tk and S’ mass ¼ m’ s; respectively.
Taking the positive direction of heat transfer to be to the system, the rate form of the general
entropy relation given in Equation (4) can be rearranged to give
X X X Q’ k
S’ gen ¼ m’ out sout
m’ in sin
ð5Þ
Tk
The general exergy balance can be expressed in the rate form as
E’ xin
E’ xout ¼ ’ xdest
E ð6aÞ
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl} |fflffl{zfflffl}
Rate of net exergy Rate of exergy
transfer by heat; work; and mass destruction

or
E ’ xwork þ E
’ xheat
E ’ xmass;in
E’ xmass;out ¼ E
’ xdest ð6bÞ
Using Equation (6b), the rate form of the general exergy balance can also be written as
X 
T0 ’ X X
1
Qk
W’ þ m’ in cin
m’ out cout ¼ E’ xdest ð7aÞ
Tk
with
c ¼ ðh
h0 Þ
T0 ðs
s0 Þ ð7bÞ
where Q’ k is the heat transfer rate through the boundary at temperature Tk at location k, W’ is
the work rate, c is the flow (specific) exergy, h is enthalpy, s is entropy, and the subscript zero
indicates properties at the restricted dead state of P0 and T0.
It is usually more convenient to find entropy generation S’ gen first, and then to evaluate the
exergy destroyed or the irreversibility I’ directly from the following equation:
’ xdest ¼ T0 S’ gen
I’ ¼ E ð8Þ

2.2. Energy and exergy efficiencies

The energy (or first law) efficiency is simply a ratio of useful output energy to input energy and is
referred to as a coefficient of performance (COP) for refrigeration systems. In this context, the
energy efficiency of the GSHP unit itself (COPHP,act) and the whole GSHP system (COPsystem,act)
can be defined as follows, respectively:
Q’ sh
COPHP;act ¼ ð9aÞ
W’ comp
or
Q’ sh
COPsystem;act ¼ ð9bÞ
SW’ input
where Q’ sh is the space heating load, W’ comp is the work input to the compressor and SW’ input is
the total work input rate to the system.
Different ways of formulating exergetic (or exergy) efficiency (second law efficiency,
effectiveness, or rational efficiency) have been proposed in the literature. The first form of the

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2005; 29:671–687
674 A. HEPBASLI

exergy efficiency on the GSHP unit basis is as follows:

COPC;h
eHP;1 ¼ ð10Þ
COPHP;act
with
TH
COPC;h ¼ ð11Þ
TH
TL
where COPC,h is the maximum heating coefficient of performance obtained from the Carnot
cycle for an ideal heat pump system operating between the low- and high-temperature reservoirs
at TL and TH, respectively (Cengel and Boles, 2001).
On the product/fuels (P/F) basis, the second form of the exergy efficiency can be written as
follows:
’ xout
E E’ xdest
e2 ¼ ¼1
ð12Þ
’Exin E’ xin
The third form of the exergy efficiency, which is called the rational efficiency or the overall
rational efficiency, may be defined by Kotas (1985) as the ratio of the desired exergy output to
the exergy used, namely
’ xdesired;output
E
e3;HP ¼ ð13Þ
’ xused
E
where E ’ xdesired; out is the sum of all exergy transfers from the system, which must be regarded as
constituting the desired output, plus any by-product, which is produced by the system, while
’ xused is the required exergy input for the process to be performed.
E
The exergy efficiency of a heat exchanger, namely the condenser and evaporator in this study,
may be defined as product/fuel, which is measured by the increase in the exergy of the cold
stream divided by the decrease in the exergy of the hot stream on a rate basis as follows (Wark,
1995):
m’ cold ðccold;out
ccold;in Þ
eHE ¼ ð14Þ
m’ hot ðchot;in
chot;out Þ

2.3. Exergetic improvement potential and some thermodynamic parameters

Van Gool (1997) has also noted that maximum improvement in the exergy efficiency for a
’ xin
E’ xout Þ is
process or system is obviously achieved when the exergy loss or irreversibility ðE
minimized. Consequently, he suggested that it is useful to employ the concept of an exergetic
‘improvement potential’ when analysing different processes. This improvement potential on the
rate basis, denoted IP, is given by Hammond and Stapleton (2001)
’ xin
E’ xout Þ
IP ¼ ð1
eÞðE ð15Þ
Thermodynamics analysis of a system may also be performed using the following parameters
(Xiang et al., 2004):
E’ xdest;i
Fuel depletion rate: di ¼ ð16aÞ
F’ tot

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2005; 29:671–687
 THERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMP SYSTEM 675

’ xdest;i
E
Relative irreversibility: wi ¼ ð16bÞ
’
Exdest;tot

’ xdest;i
E
Productivity lack: xi ¼ ð16cÞ
P’ tot

F’ i
Exergetic factor: fi ¼ ð16dÞ
F’ tot
Further details on thermodynamic modelling may also be available in Ozgener et al. (2004).

3. AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE

In this section, the theory is used to analyse the performance of a GSHP system and its
individual components, which is given below as an illustrative example.

3.1. Description of the system

Figure 1 illustrates a schematic diagram of a GSHP system in the heating mode, while the main
characteristics of the elements of the experimental set-up are given in detail elsewhere (Hepbasli
et al., 2003; Hepbasli and Akdemir, 2004). The system was designed and installed in the Solar
Energy Institute of Ege University, Izmir, Turkey. It was commissioned in May 2000 and the
performance tests have also been performed since then. It mainly consists of three separate
circuits: (i) the ground coupling circuit (brine circuit or water-antifreeze solution circuit) with a
50 m vertical 1.25 in. nominal diameter U-bend ground heat exchanger, (ii) the refrigerant circuit
(or a reversible vapour compression cycle) and (iii) the fan coil circuit (water circuit).
Conversion from the heating cycle to the cooling cycle is obtained by means of a four-way valve.
To avoid freezing the water under the working condition during winter, a 10% ethyl glycol
mixture by weight was prepared. The refrigerant circuit was built of closed-loop copper tubing.
The working fluid is R-22. Recently, this GSHP system has been integrated with a solar
collector, greenhouse and drying chamber (Ozgener and Hepbasli, 2004, 2005).

3.2. Application of the balance equations, and energy and exergy efficiencies
Temperature, pressure, and mass flow rate data for working fluid (R22), brine fluid, and hot
(supply) water are given in Table I according to their state numbers specified in Figure 1. Exergy
rates are also calculated for each state, as presented in Table I. In this study, the restricted dead
state was taken to be the state of environment at which the temperature and the atmospheric
pressure are 2.28C and 101.325 kPa, respectively, which were the values measured at the time
when the GSHP system data were obtained. The thermodynamic properties of water and R-22
(working fluid) are taken from the electronic thermodynamic tables.
The mass and energy balance equations as well as the exergy destructions obtained using the
entropy and exergy balance equations for each of the GSHP components illustrated in Figure 1
are listed as follows, respectively.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2005; 29:671–687
676 A. HEPBASLI

V
55
6

3 II 2
I : compressor
II : condenser
III : capillary tube
III IV : evaporator
I V : fan-coil unit
IV VI : ground heat
4
1 exchanger

7 8
Ground level

VI

Figure 1. The main components and schematic of the ground-source heat pump system.

For compressor:
m’ 1 ¼ m’ 2 ¼ m’ r ð17aÞ

W’ comp ¼ m’ r ðh2act
h1 Þ ð17bÞ

E’ xdest;comp;ent ¼ To m’ r ðs1
s2a Þ ð17cÞ

’ xdest;comp ¼ m’ r ðc1
c2act Þ þ W’ comp

E ð17dÞ
where the heat transfer versus the environment was neglected.
For condenser:
m’ 1 ¼ m’ 2 ¼ m’ r ; m’ 5 ¼ m’ 6 ¼ m’ w ð18aÞ

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2005; 29:671–687
 Table I. Energy and exergy analysis results of the GSHP system as of 7 January 2004.
Exergy
Specific Specific Mass Specific rate Energy
Temperature Pressure enthalpy entropy flow rate exergy E
’ x ¼ m’ c rate E’
No. Description Fluid Phase T (8C) P (kPa) h (kJ kg
1) s (kJ kg
1 K
1) m’ (kg s
1) C (kJ kg
1) (kW) (kW)
0 } Refrigerant Dead state 2.2 101.325 414.72 1.9310 } 0 0
00 } Water Dead state 2.2 101.325 10.18 0.0328 } 0 0

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1 Compressor inlet Refrigerant Sup. heated
6 341 404.58 1.7819 0.02 48.48 0.970 8.09
vapour
2 Compressor outlet Refrigerant Sup. heated 99.2 1911 464.30 1.8222 0.02 79.52 1.590 9.29
vapour
3 Condenser outlet Refrigerant Liquid 40.8 1911 251.15 1.1705 0.02 45.72 0.914 5.02
4 Evaporator inlet Refrigerant Mixture
10.8 341 251.15 1.1963 0.02 38.62 0.772 5.02
5 Fan–coil unit inlet Water Liquid 45 250 188.50 0.6381 0.20 11.74 2.348 37.70
6 Fan–coil unit outlet Water Liquid 39.9 250 167.25 0.5707 0.20 9.04 1.808 33.45
7 Ground heat Brine Liquid 13.2 250 56.15 0.1981 0.347 0.48 0.167 19.48
exchanger water
pump inlet
8 Ground heat Brine Liquid 15.3 350 64.98 0.2288 0.347 0.59 0.205 22.55
exchanger water
pump outlet
THERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMP SYSTEM
677

Int. J. Energy Res. 2005; 29:671–687

678 A. HEPBASLI

Q’ cond ¼ m’ r ðh2act
h3 Þ; Q’ cond ¼ Q’ fc ¼ m’ w Cp;w ðT5
T6 Þ ð18bÞ

’ xdest;cond;ent ¼ To ½m’ r ðs3
s2 Þ þ m’ w ðs5
s6 Þ
E ð18cÞ

E’ xdest;cond ¼ m’ r ðc2act
c3 Þ þ m’ w ðc6
c5 Þ ð18dÞ

For throttling valve (capillary tube):
m’ 3 ¼ m’ 4 ¼ m’ r ð19aÞ

h3 ¼ h 4 ð19bÞ

E’ xdest;tv;ent ¼ To m’ r ðs4
s3 Þ ð19cÞ

’ xdest;valve ¼ m’ r ðc3
c4 Þ
E ð19dÞ
For evaporator:
m’ 4 ¼ m’ 1 ¼ m’ r ð20aÞ

Q’ evap ¼ m’ r ðh1
h4 Þ; Q’ evap ¼ Q’ gh ð20bÞ

E’ xdest;evap;ent ¼ To ½m’ r ðs1
s4 Þ þ m’ wa ðs7
s8 Þ ð20cÞ

’ xdest;evap ¼ m’ r ðc4
c1 Þ þ m’ wa ðc8
c7 Þ
E ð20dÞ
For fan-coil unit:
m’ air;in ¼ m’ air;out ¼ m’ air ð21aÞ

Q’ fc ¼ m’ air Cp;air ðTout;air
Tin;air Þ; Q’ fc ¼ Q’ cond ; Q’ sh ¼ Q’ cond ð21bÞ

 ’ 
’Exdest;fc;ent ¼ To m’ w ðs6
s5 Þ þ Qfc ð21cÞ
Tin;air
 
E’ xdest;fc ¼ m’ w ðc5
c6 Þ
Q’ fc 1
To ð21dÞ
Tin;air
For ground-heat exchanger:
m’ 7 ¼ m’ 8 ¼ m’ wa ð22aÞ

Q’ gh ¼ m’ w;a Cp;wa ðT8
T7 Þ; Q’ sh ¼ Q’ fc ð22bÞ

 ’ 
’Exdest;gh;ent ¼ To m’ wa ðs8
s7 Þ
Qgh ð22cÞ
Tsoil
 
’Exdest;fc ¼ m’ wa ðc7
c8 Þ þ Q’ gh 1
To ð22dÞ
Tsoil
The exergy destruction in the circulating pump may be calculated from the following
equation, while it was not considered in this study:
’x
E ¼ W’ pump
m’ wa ðcout
cin Þ ð23Þ
dest;pump

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2005; 29:671–687
 THERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMP SYSTEM 679

The COP of the GSHP unit and the overall heating system (COPsystem) is calculated by the
following equations, respectively:
Q’ cond
COPHP ¼ ð24Þ
W’ comp
and
Q’ cond
COPsystem ¼ ð25aÞ
W’ comp þ W’ pumps þ W’ fc
or
Q’ cond
COPsystem;act ¼ ð25bÞ
W’ comp;act þ W’ fan coil;act þ W’ pumps;act
where Q’ cond is the heat transfer rate of the condenser (the space heating load), while W’ comp;act ;
W’ fan coil;act and W’ pumps;act are the rates of actual work inputs to the compressor, fan-coil and
circulating pumps, respectively.
The actual power input to the compressor and the circulating pumps given by Equation (25b)
may be computed as follows, respectively,
W’ comp
W’ comp;act ¼ ð26aÞ
Zcomp; m Zcomp;el
or
Icomp Vcomp Cos j pffiffiffi
W’ comp;act ¼ : 3 ð26bÞ
1000
and
Ipump Vpump Cos j
W’ pump;act ¼ ð27Þ
1000
where I is the current, V is the voltage, W’ is the rate of work input, Cos j is the power factor,
Zcomp;m and Zcomp;el are the compressor mechanical and the compressor motor electrical
efficiencies, respectively, while the subscripts comp and pump denote the compressor and the
circulating pump, respectively.
In this study, exergy efficiencies are calculated in two different ways. Using Equation (12)
P’ tot; HP
eHP ¼ ð28aÞ
F’ tot; HP

P’ tot;system
esystem ¼ ð28bÞ
F’ tot;system
where P’ tot is the total exergy of the product of the heat pump unit and F’ tot is the total exergy of
the fuel of the whole system.
Using Equation (13), the first one is written for the GSHP unit and the whole system as
follows, respectively:
E’ xdesired;output ’ xheat
E ’ xin;con
E
E ’ xout;con
eHP ¼ ¼ ¼ ð29aÞ
’ xused
E W’ comp;act W’ comp;act

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2005; 29:671–687
680 A. HEPBASLI

E’ xin;con
E’ xout;con
esystem ¼ ð29bÞ
’
W comp;act þ W’ fan coil;act þ W’ pumps;act
Using Equation (14a), the exergy efficiency of the condenser and evaporator is calculated on a
rate basis as follows, respectively:
m’ w ðc5
c6 Þ
econd ¼ ð30Þ
m’ r ðc2
c3 Þ
m’ r ðc1
c4 Þ
eevap ¼ ð31Þ
m’ wa ðc8
c7 Þ

3.3. Results and discussion

Uncertainty analysis is needed to prove the accuracy of the experiments. An uncertainty analysis
was performed using the method described by Holman (2001). In the present study, the
temperatures, flow rates, pressures and instantaneous power consumptions were measured with
appropriate instruments explained in detail elsewhere (Hepbasli and Akdemir, 2004). The total
uncertainties of the measurements are estimated to be  3.33% for the refrigerant tempera-
tures,  1.59% for the water temperatures,  3.32% for pressures and  1.51% for power
inputs to the compressor and circulating pumps,  1.81 for solar radiation. Uncertainty in
reading values of the table is assumed to be  0.20%. Total uncertainties associated with mass
flow rates of the refrigerant and brine are found to be  1.51 and  3.02%, respectively.
The tests were conducted on the GSHP system under steady-state conditions in the heating
mode. In the present study, the results obtained from the experiments on 7 January 2004 were
evaluated to determine the performance of the GSHP unit and the overall system. These
evaluations may be classified into two groups, namely energetic and exergetic evaluations.

3.3.1. Energetic evaluation. Using Equation (11) and the values given in Table II, the coefficient
of performance of the Carnot cycle was found to be 3.54. Although COPC,H can never be
remotely approached in practice, it is useful as a reference to indicate important influencing
factors. It is evident from Equation (11) that the COP increases as the temperature difference
between the condenser and evaporator decreases.
The heating coefficient of performance of the heat pump unit, COPhp,h, and the whole system,
COPoverall, were calculated from Equations (25a) and (25b), and found to be on average 2.85
and 2.64, respectively. By comparison, based on the values of the U.S. Department of Energy
(U.S.D.O.E.), commercially available systems have the COP values for heating of 3–4.3
(U.S.D.O.E., 2001). In a study performed by Bi et al. (2004), the total average heating COP of a
ground-source heat-pump system with a heating load of 2298 W is also found to be 2.83. It may
be concluded that the COP values obtained from the present study are fairly close to those
reported by Bi et al. (2004).

3.3.2. Performance evaluation of the whole system

(a) Circulating pump: The energy performance of the system is also influenced by the pumping
energy required to circulate the fluid through the heat pump and the ground loop. In the design
of ground coupled heat pump (GCHP) systems, Kavanaugh and Rafferty (1997) have suggested

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2005; 29:671–687
 Table II. Exergetic, energetic and thermodynamics analysis data provided for one representative unit of the GSHP system.
Fuel
Relative depletion Productivity
irreversibility rate lack x Exergetic
w (%) d (%) (%) factor f (%)

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Energy
Exergy Utilized Exergy (first law)
destruction power P’ F’ efficiency efficiency (%)
Item no. Component (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) (%) A B A B A B A B or COP IP (W)
I Compressor 0.880 1.50 0.620 1.500 41.3 51.83 66.77 23.58 47.59 35.40 41.79 40.19 47.59 75 516.56
II Condenser 0.136 4.27 0.676 0.540 79.9 8.00 10.32 3.64 4.31 5.47 6.46 14.47 17.13 27.34
III Expansion valve 0.142 } 0.772 0.914 84.5 8.36 10.77 3.80 4.51 5.71 6.74 24.49 29.00 22.01
IV Evaporator 0.160 3.07 0.038 0.198 19.2 9.42 12.14 4.29 5.08 6.44 7.60 5.31 6.28 129.28

V Fan coil unit 0.300 4.27 0.260 0.540 48.1 17.67 8.04 12.07 14.47 155.70
VI Ground heat exchanger 0.080 3.07 0.120 0.040 33.3 4.72 2.14 3.22 1.07 53.36

I–IV GSHP unit 1.318 2.106 3.152 66.8 77.61 100.00 35.32 41.81 53.02 62.59 84.46 10000 2.85n
I–VI Overall system 1.698 2.486 3.732 66.6 100.00 45.50 68.30 100.00 2.64y
n
Heating coefficient of performance of the heat pump unit.
y
Heating coefficient of performance of the whole system: A: (%) of the whole system; B: (%) of the GSHP unit.
THERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMP SYSTEM
681

Int. J. Energy Res. 2005; 29:671–687

682 A. HEPBASLI

the guidelines listed in Table III for pumping power for commercial GCHP systems. This table
is proposed as a benchmark for judging the effectiveness of a pumping and piping system design
for a minimum of 0.162 m3 h
1 kW
1 of cooling, with optimum pumping flow rates ranging
from 0.162 to 0.192 m3 h
1 kW
1 of cooling. Higher rates require excessive pump power, while
lower rates limit heat pump performance. In addition, pumping energy should range between 6
and 7% of the total system energy used (Sulatisky and van der Kamp, 1991). In this study, the
values given by Kavanaugh and Rafferty (1997) were taken into account for evaluating the
performance of circulating pump in the heating mode. It was assumed that the values suggested
for the cooling are equivalent to those for the heating.
The pumping flow rate was found to be 0.293 m3 h
1 kW
1 of heating. The pumping power
was obtained as 13.81 W kW
1 of heating. It is clear from Table III that the circulator wattage
for the closed-loop falls into the categorization of efficient systems.
(b) Entering water temperature: The EWT to the unit (the temperature of the water/antifreeze
solution leaving the earth coil) will be lower than the normal temperature of the earth. This is
due to the heat extraction from the earth to the circulating water. The EWT is perhaps the single
most representative parameter of ground-coupling effectiveness, and heat pump loading. In
other words, the actual performance of the equipment is a function of the water temperature
produced by the ground heat exchanger. Systems with inadequate ground heat exchanger
capacity will have excessively high EWTs in summer, and excessively low EWTs in winter
(Phetteplace and Sullivan, 1998). The average temperature difference between the inlet and
outlet of the ground heat exchanger was obtained to be approximately 2.18C. This was very low
due to a short period of operation time and the imbalances in the system. Longer-term testing is
needed to determine if the ground heat exchanger temperatures are stable. By comparison, in
practice, it is aimed at achieving a temperature difference of at least 38C, with a design value of
58C for Turkey.
(c) Heat extraction rate: The key parameter for ground heat exchanger layout is the specific
performance, i.e. heat extraction rate in W m
1 of borehole length. During the heating season,
the rate at which heat is extracted from the ground (ground heat exchanger load) was found to
be in average 3070 W from Equation (22b) by using the values given in Table II. This
corresponds to a heat extraction rate of 61.4 W m
1 of bore depth. By comparison, Sanner
(1995) reported that the heat rejection rate ranges from 40 to 100 W m
1 with a typical average
of 55–70 W m
1 in mid-Europe. This obviously represents that the values of the heat extraction
rate obtained from this study remain within the range reported by Sanner.

Table III. Benchmarks for GSHP system pumping efficiency required pump power to cooling capacity.
Watts input
Performance
Per ton Per kW efficiency Grade
450 414 Efficient systems A: excellent
50–75 14–21 Acceptable systems B: good
75–100 21–28 Acceptable systems C: medium
100–150 28–42 Inefficient systems D: poor
>150 >42 Inefficient systems E: bad
Source: Kavanaugh and Rafferty (1997).

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2005; 29:671–687
 THERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMP SYSTEM 683

The heating capacity of the heat pump system was obtained to be 4.27 kW. Based on this
figure, the required borehole length in m kW
1 of heating capacity was found to be 11.71. By
comparison, based on the installations in Istanbul, Turkey (1933 degree-days heating, base:
188C; 135 days cooling, base: 228C) for horizontal loop systems, the heat exchanger circuit pipe
length ranged from 39.5 to 46.7 m k W
1
1
t with an average of 43.1 m k Wt (Hepbasli et al., 2001),

1
as confirmed by Healy and Ugursal (1997) with values of 45–55 m k W of heat pump capacity.
Besides these, for vertical bores, the range was 9.30–13.2 m of bore per kW with an average
value of 11.25 m of bore per kW. As a rule of the thumb, a Turkish heat pump installer suggests
that for heating and cooling, in average 12 and 16 m of bores per kW may be sufficient,
respectively. In addition, based on a study that covered the 22 systems and was carried out by
Bloomquist (2000) in the United Sates, for closed-loop systems, the heat exchanger circuit pipe
length ranged from 20.5 to 52.0 m kW
1, with an average of 39.3 m kW
1. Of those with vertical
bores, the range was 14.4–17.7 m of bore per kW. As indicated above, the heat exchanger length
used may maintain the heating capacity needed. However, the heat pump design should be
carefully examined in order to achieve this.
For applications in combination with other heat sources, the specific performance may differ
considerably. Therefore, it is essential to obtain a second parameter, i.e. the specific heat
extraction per meter of borehole length for a year. This value ranges between 50 and
200 kW h m
1 year
1 for mid-European plants (1995). In this study, this parameter was not
evaluated due to a short period of operating time.

3.3.3. Exergetic evaluation. The exergy rate results given in Table I indicate that the compressor
produces an increase in exergy rate due to its work input, while all other components result in a
decrease in exergy rate due to their irreversibilities.
Table III illustrates the values for exergy destruction rate, energy and exergy efficiencies as
well as the thermodynamic parameters such as fuel depletion rate, productivity lack and
exergetic factor. The thermodynamic parameters as well as exergy efficiency values are evaluated
in terms of the GSHP unit and the whole system.
Using Equations (28a) and (28b), the exergy efficiency values for the GSHP unit and the
whole system on a product/fuel basis are obtained to be 66.8 and 66.6%, respectively. Using
Equations (29a) and (29b), they are found to be 9.07 and 8.41%, respectively. The causes of
exergy destruction in the system include the compressor, heat exchangers (ground heat
exchanger, condenser and evaporator) and circulating pumps, which were not considered in this
study. It is obvious from the table that the highest irreversibility occurs in sub-region I for the
heat pump unit. The losses in the motor–compressor sub-assembly are due to the electrical,
mechanical and isentropic efficiencies and emphasize the need for paying close attention to the
selection of this type of equipment, since components of inferior performance can considerably
reduce the overall performance of the system. The second largest irreversibility in the GSHP
unit is due to the evaporator. The third highest irreversibility is in the capillary tube due to the
pressure drop of the refrigerant passing through it. Besides this, the condenser has the lowest
irreversibility on the basis of the heat pump cycle. This is partly due to the large degree of
superheat achieved at the end of the compression process, leading to large temperature
differences associated with the initial phase of heat transfer.

3.3.4. Potential improvements. Using Equation (15), the exergetic IP of Van Gool’s (1997) is
determined for each of the heat pump system components. The results obtained are listed in

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2005; 29:671–687
684 A. HEPBASLI

Table III. As can be seen from the table, the most potential for improvement on the heat pump
unit basis is in the compressor, followed by the evaporator, condenser and the capillary tube.
Since compressor power depends strongly on the inlet and outlet pressures, any heat exchanger
improvements that reduce the temperature difference will reduce compressor power by bringing
the condensing and evaporating temperatures closer together. From a design standpoint,
compressor irreversibility can be attacked independently. In recent years, it has been reduced
substantially by improving motors, valves, lubrication, etc. (Bridges et al., 2001). The only way
to eliminate throttling loss would be to replace the capillary tube (the expansion device) with an
isentropic turbine (an isentropic expander) and to recover some shaft work from the pressure
drop. A comparison of the irreversibilities associated with the heat transfer processes in the
evaporator and the ground heat exchanger will show that although the mean temperature
difference in the former is smaller, the relative magnitudes of their irreversibilities are in the
reverse order. This apparent paradox is due to the evaporator operating at a lower temperature
than the ground heat exchanger and, hence, suffering greater irreversibility with a smaller mean
temperature (Crawford, 1988).

4. CONCLUSIONS

The thermodynamic analysis of GSHP systems for district heating was investigated in terms of
both energy and exergy analysis, which aims at better identifying process efficiencies and losses.
Expressions for this analysis were derived using mass, energy, entropy and exergy balance
equations. These equations were applied to a GSHP system, which was designed and installed in
the Solar Energy Institute of Ege University, Izmir, Turkey. The exergy efficiency values of each
of the components were also given, while the potential for improvements were discussed. The
main conclusions that may be drawn from the present study are listed below:
1. The values for the heat pump unit and whole system were obtained to be 2.85 and 2.64.
2. Design practices in Turkey normally call for U-bend depths between 11 and 13 m kW
1 of
heating, while the required borehole length in meter per kW of heating capacity was
obtained to be 11.71.
3. The pumping brine flow rate was found to be 0.2931 m3 h
1 kW
1 of heating. Kavanaugh
and Rafferty (1997) suggests that the optimum pumping rates for the circulating pump
should range from 0.162 to 0.192 m3 h
1 kW
1 of heating capacity. It may be concluded
that the pump selected exceeds this above upper limit.
4. The pumping power was obtained to be 13.81 W kW
1 of heating, falling into the
categorization of efficient systems.
5. The exergy efficiency values for the GSHP unit and the whole system on a product/fuel
basis are obtained to be 66.8 and 66.6%, respectively.
6. The highest irreversibility on the heat pump unit basis occurs in the compressor, followed
by the evaporator, expansion valve and condenser.
7. The analysis should provide a designer with a better, quantitative grasp of the inefficiencies
and their relative magnitudes. Furthermore, the results can draw an engineer’s attention
towards the components where the most availability is being destroyed and quantify the
extent to which modification of one component affects, favourably or unfavourably, the
performance of other components of the system.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2005; 29:671–687
 THERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMP SYSTEM 685

NOMENCLATURE

C = specific heat (kJ kg
1 K
1)

COP = heating coefficient of performance of heat pump (dimensionless)
E’ = energy rate (kW)
Ex = exergy
E’x = exergy rate (kW)
f = exergetic factor (dimensionless)
F’ = exergy rate of the fuel (kW)
h = specific enthalpy (kJ kg
1)
I = current (A)
I’ = rate of irreversibility (exergy destroyed) (kW)
IP = rate of improvement potential (kW)
m’ = mass flow rate (kg s
1)
P = pressure (kPa)
P’ = exergy rate of the product (kW)
Q’ = heat transfer rate (kW)
s = entropy (kJ kg
1 K
1)
S’ = entropy rate (kW K
1)
T = temperature (8C or K)
V = voltage (V)
W’ = work rate or power (kW)

Greek letters

d = fuel depletion rate (dimensionless)

e = exergy (second law) efficiency (dimensionless)
Z = energy efficiency (dimensionless)
x = productivity lack (dimensionless)
w = relative irreversibility (dimensionless)
c = flow exergy (kJ kg
1)
Cos j = power factor (dimensionless)

Subscripts

act = actual
C = Carnot
comp = compressor
cond = condenser
dest = destroyed, destruction
el = electrical
ent = entropy
evap = evaporator
fc = fan-coil
gen = generation
h = heating

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2005; 29:671–687
686 A. HEPBASLI

H = high
HE = heat exchanger
HP = heat pump
i = component
in = inlet
k = location
L = loss, low
m = mechanical
out = outlet
r = refrigerant
sh = space heating
tot = total
tv = throttling valve
w = water
wa = water/antifreeze
0 = restricted dead state
1 = initial state
2 = final state

Superscript
. = quantity per unit time (except those denoted in the text)

Abbreviations

EVT = entering water temperature

GHP = geothermal heat pump
GSHP = ground source heat pump

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank Research Assistant Onder Ozgener, Solar Energy Institute, Ege University,
Izmir, Turkey, for his help in performing the experiments.

REFERENCES
Bejan A. 1988. Advanced Engineering Thermodynamics. Wiley: New York.
Bi Y, Guo T, Zhang L, Chen L. 2004. Solar and ground source heat–pump system. Applied Energy 78(2):231–245.
Bloomquist RG. 2000. Geothermal heat pumps five plus decades of experience in the United States. Proceedings of
World Geothermal Congress 2000, Kyushu-Tohuko, Japan, 3373–3378.
Bridges BD, Harshbarger DS, Bullard CW. 2001. Second law analysis of refrigerators and air conditioners. CD
Proceedings of ASHRAE Winter Meeting, Atlanta, GA, U.S.A.
Cengel Y, Boles MA. 2001. Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (4th edn). McGraw-Hill: New York.
Crawford RR. 1988. An experimental laboratory investigation of second law analysis of a vapor-compression heat
pump. ASHRAE Transactions 94(2):1491–1504.
Dincer I. 2002. The role of exergy in energy policy making. Energy Policy 30:137–149.
Department of Energy (DOE), (U.S.A.). 2001. Geothermal heat pumps, http://www.eren.doe.gov.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2005; 29:671–687
 THERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMP SYSTEM 687

Hammond GP, Stapleton AJ. 2001. Exergy analysis of the United Kingdom energy system. Proceedings of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers 215(2):141–162.
Healy PF, Ugursal VI. 1997. Performance and economic feasibility of ground-source heat pumps in cold climate.
International Journal of Energy Research 21:857–870.
Hepbasli A. 2002. Performance evaluation of a vertical ground source heat pump system in Izmir, Turkey. International
Journal of Energy Research 26:1121–1139.
Hepbasli A. 2004. Ground-source Heat Pumps. In The Encyclopedia of Energy, Cutler J, Cleveland CJ (eds). Academic
Press/Elsevier Inc.: U.S.A.
Hepbasli A, Akdemir O. 2004. Energy and exergy analysis of a ground source (geothermal) heat pump system. Energy
Conversion and Management 45(5):737–753.
Hepbasli A, Akdemir O, Hancioglu E. 2003. Experimental study of a closed-loop vertical ground source heat pump
system. Energy Conversion and Management 44(4):527–548.
Hepbasli A, Eltez M, Duran H. 2001. Current status and future directions of geothermal heat pumps in Turkey.
Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford,
California, U.S.A., 29–31 January, 398–405.
Holman JP. 2001. Experimental Methods for Engineers (7th edn). McGraw-Hill: New York, 48–143.
Kavanaugh SP. 1992. Field test of vertical ground-coupled heat pump in Alabama. ASHRAE Transactions 98(2):
607–616.
Kavanaugh SP, Rafferty K. 1997. Ground-Source Heat Pumps: Design of Geothermal Systems for Commercial and
Institutional Buildings. ASHRAE: Atlanta, U.S.A., 167.
Kotas TJ. 1985. The Exergy Method of Thermal Plant Analysis. Anchor Brendon Ltd.: Tiptree, Essex.
Lund JW. 2004. Letter dated 12 May 2004. Geo-Heat Center, OR, U.S.A.
Lund JW, Freeston DH. 2000. World-wide direct uses of geothermal energy 2000. Proceedings World Geothermal
Congress 2000, Kyushu-Tohoku, Japan, 28 May–10 June; 1–21.
Lund JW, Freeston DH. 2001. World-wide direct uses of geothermal energy 2000. Geothermics 30:29–68.
Moran MJ. 1982. Availability Analysis: A Guide to Efficiency Energy Use. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Ozgener O, Hepbasli A. 2004. Experimental investigation of the performance of a solar assisted ground-source heat
pump system for greenhouse heating. International Journal of Energy Research, in press.
Ozgener O, Hepbasli A. 2005. Experimental performance analysis of a solar assisted ground-source heat pump
greenhouse heating system. Energy and Buildings 37(1):101–110.
Ozgener L, Hepbasli A, Dincer I. 2004. Exergy analysis of Salihli geothermal district heating system in Manisa, Turkey.
International Journal of Energy Research, in press.
Phetteplace G, Sullivan W. 1998. Performance of a hybrid ground-coupled heat pump system. ASHRAE Transactions
104(1B):763–770.
Sanner B. 1995. Earth heat pumps and underground thermal energy storage in Germany. Proceedings of the World
Geothermal Congress, vol. 3, Florenca, Italy, 1167–1172.
Sanner B, Karytsas C, Mendrinos D, Rybach L. 2003. Current status of ground source heat pumps and underground
thermal energy storage in Europe. Geothermics 32:579–588.
Sulatisky M, van der Kamp G. 1991. Ground-source heat pumps in the Canadian prairies. ASHRAE Transactions
97(1):374–385.
Szargut J, Morris DR, Stewart FR. 1988. Exergy Analysis of Thermal, Chemical, and Metallurgical Processes.
Hemisphere Publishing Co.: New York.
United States Department of Energy (U.S.D.O.E). 2001. Ground-source Heat Pumps Applied to Federal Facilities
(2nd edn). Federal Technology Alerts.
Van Gool W. 1997. Energy policy: fairly tales and factualities. In Innovation and Technology-Strategies and Policies,
Soares ODD, Martins da Cruz A, Costa Pereira G, Soares IMRT, Reis AJPS (eds). Kluwer: Dordrecht, 93–105.
Wark K. 1995. Advanced Thermodynamics for Engineers. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Xiang JY, Cali M, Santarelli M. 2004. Calculation for physical and chemical exergy of flows in systems elaborating
mixed-phase flows and a case study in an IRSOFC plant. International Journal of Energy Research 28:101–115.
Yumrutas R, Kaska O. 2004. Experimental investigation of thermal performance of a solar assisted heat pump system
with an energy storage. International Journal of Energy Research 28:163–175.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2005; 29:671–687