Applied Energy 331 (2023) 120398

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Thermo-economic optimization of a multi-source (air/sun/ground)

residential heat pump with a water/PCM thermal storage
Francesco PELELLA a, Gabriel ZSEMBINSZKI b, Luca VISCITO a, Alfonso William MAURO a, *,
Luisa F. CABEZA b
a
Department of Industrial Engineering, Università degli Studi di Napoli – Federico II, P.le Tecchio 80, 80125 Naples, Italy
b
GREiA Research Group, University of Lleida, Pere de Cabrera s/n, 25001 Lleida, Spain

H I G H L I G H T S

• Analysis on a multi-source (air/sun/ground) heat pump for domestic heating.

• Employment of a storage tank which can be sensible (water) or latent (PCM)
• Multi-objective optimization to maximize seasonal performance and minimize costs.
• Thermal and photovoltaic solar sources more convenient in warmer climates.
• Geothermal source more convenient for colder climates.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The main target of this paper is to numerically study a multi-source (air/sun/ground) heat pump with the
Heat pumps implementation of a thermal energy storage, using either water or PCM, for residential space heating. The system
Multi-source was modelled considering several sub-models for each of the components (compressor, solar panels, storage tank,
Storage tank
heat exchangers etc.). A control strategy has been established to decide which operating mode of the system
PCM
provides the highest coefficient of performance (COP). A multi-objective optimization through genetic algorithm
Optimization
Genetic algorithm of several decisional variables of the system was carried out, in different configurations and climate conditions,
by considering different scenarios in terms of total investment and energy consumption costs, to optimize sea­
sonal performances and investment cost of the entire system. Results show that solar thermal and solar photo­
voltaic collectors coupled with water storage tank give higher seasonal energy performance, especially in warmer
climates, whereas the exploitation of the ground source can be more advantageous for colder climates. From the
optimization analysis, it results that optimal non-dominated solutions characterized by a SCOP increase between
50% and 250% are characterized by higher investment costs between 215% and 730%, depending on the climate
conditions. None of the solutions employing a PCM storage tank results economically feasible, due to a slight
effect on system performance, and a much higher effect on investment costs. Finally, several cost scenarios in
terms of incentives on investment costs and increased energy prices were analysed, for which the employment of
scenarios with higher capital investment can be more advantageous in terms of lower total costs.

global CO2 emissions, according to the International Energy Agency

1. Introduction
Due to the ongoing global warming issues, COP26 conference [1] has
decided the targets of carbon neutrality by 2050 and the limit of ambient
temperature rise at 1.5 ◦ C [2]. In order to reach these ambitious ob­
jectives, several energy intensive sectors have to be decarbonized. Be­
tween them, heating and cooling nowadays represent almost 28 % of the
(IEA) [3]. Towards this decarbonization, the European Commission has
agreed to increase the share of renewable quota up to 32 % by 2030,
especially with an increased production of electric energy which will
occur in the future. In these scenarios, heat pumps will play a very
important role in the energy transition, and the current number of
installed units of about 14.86 million in Europe, according to European
Heat Pump Association market report 2021 [4], will largely increase.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wmauro@unina.it (A. William MAURO).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.120398
Received 4 August 2022; Received in revised form 30 September 2022; Accepted 18 November 2022
Available online 28 November 2022
0306-2619/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. PELELLA et al. Applied Energy 331 (2023) 120398

Nomenclature chan Water channel

co Condenser
Roman col Related to the thermal solar collector
A Heat exchangers/solar panels surface, [m2] comp Compressor
a Discount Rate, [%] design Design conditions
a1 Effective heat transfer coefficient of thermal solar panels, el Electrical
[W/m2K] ev Evaporator
a2 Second-order coefficient of thermal solar panels, [W/ fan Air heat exchanger fan
m2K2] ground Related to the ground heat exchanger
C Costs, [€] hp Heat pump
c Specific cost for solar panels, [€/m2] id Ideal
Cbatt Battery capacity, [kWh] in Inlet
cee Specific electricity cost, [€/kWh] indoor Indoor conditions
COP Coefficient of performance, [-] inv Investment cost
COPair COP in air evaporation mode, [-] max Maximum
COPsun COP in storage tank water evaporation mode, [-] melt Melting
COPwat COP in water evaporation mode, [-] out Outlet
DPB Discounted payback period, [years] pv Related to the photovoltaic solar collector
Eel Electric energy, [kWh] pump Circulation pump
G Solar radiation, [W/m2] ref Reference
H Height, [m] s Surface of the solar collector
h Specific enthalpy, [kJ/kg] sun Related to the sun
L Length, [m] spec Specific
L/Htank Shape factor of the storage tank, [-] tank Related to the storage tank
LMTD Logarithmic mean temperature difference, [K] tot Total
ṁ Mass flow rate, [kg/s] user Related to the user
Q̇ Thermal power, [kW] w Water-related
s Specific entropy, [kJ/kgK] wall Related to the wall
SCOP Seasonal coefficient of performance, [-]
Abbreviations
SPB Simple payback period, [years]
DHW Domestic hot water
T Temperature, [◦ C]
CdTe Cadmium telluride photovoltaic panels
V Volume, [m3]
CIGS Copper indium gallium (di) selenide photovoltaic panels
V̇ Volumetric flow rate, [m3/h]
DX Direct expansion
W Width, [m]
GA Genetic algorithm
Ẇ Electrical power, [kW] GHE Ground heat exchanger
z Depth in the ground, [m] HIT Heterostructure with intrinsic thin layer photovoltaic
Greek panels
Δ Difference, [-] IDX Indirect expansion
η Efficiency, [-] IEA International Energy Agency
η0 Zero-loss thermal solar collector efficiency, [-] HTF Heat transfer fluid
ρ Pearson coefficient, [-] LHS Latin hypercube sampling
PCM Phase change material
Subscripts SAHP Solar-assisted heat pump
a Air-related SOC State of charge
amb Ambient

However, despite the spreading of traditional heat pumps, the
feasibility of utilizing other types of energy sources such as solar or
ground is now being investigated and discussed among numerous re­
searchers and engineers, in order to increase the renewable energy
share. Between them, ground source heat pumps exploit the higher
temperatures of the ground compared to ambient temperatures, in order
to increase system performance [5–7]. Other types of systems aim to
exploit waste energy sources such as heat recovery [8–9], cold air
recirculation [10], or sewage heat pumps [11], in order to increase
evaporating temperatures and achieving extra energy saving. Solar en­
ergy is a type of source exploitable by heat pumps, with the so-called
category of solar-assisted heat pumps (SAHPs). Solar systems are
generally employed for domestic hot water in warm-climate countries
and for space heating in cold-climate countries [12]. According to Chu
and Cruickshank [13], solar-assisted heat pumps can be firstly divided
into direct and indirect expansion systems, depending on whether the
refrigerant evaporation occurs directly in thermal solar panels or
through a secondary fluid.
Regarding direct expansion systems (DX) for heating purposes, ac­
cording to Mastrullo et al. [14], they show promising performances, but
not so high seasonal performances due to a reduced number of hours
operating in sun mode, with further advantages in terms of seasonal
performance achievable with the employment of thermal energy storage
tanks. This is in accordance with Kamel et al. [12], for which thermal
energy storage systems are preferred to avoid the negative effect of a
non-constant solar radiation intensity, exploiting them at night or at low
solar irradiance intensity. Better performances are instead obtained for
the production of hot water, according to Chow et al. [15], for which the
demand is more stable along the entire year. Indirect expansion systems
(IDX) can be divided in series and parallel types, depending on the
coupling between the solar source and the heat pump, and dual source
systems, in which evaporation can alternatively occur through water or

2
F. PELELLA et al.
Fig. 1. Ideal scheme plant of the system modelled, conceived to simulate all the possible configurations considered in this study.
air. Several research papers are published on indirect solar-assisted heat
pump in literature, analysing demonstrative case studies to evaluate
system performances. For instance, Cai et al. [16] and Dannemand et al.
[17] analysed the performances of new indirect expansion solar-assisted
heat pump demonstration test facilities for space heating, space cooling,
and hot water production.
Croci et al. [18] analysed the dynamic behaviour of an IDX solar-
assisted heat pump for heating and cooling purposes, in climate condi­
tions of Milan and Rome, obtaining a 50 %–60 % average higher sea­
sonal performance than an only air-mode. Similarly, Yang et al. [19]
analysed several configurations of IDX system in series, parallel, and
dual source in climate conditions of London, obtaining through a
thermo-economic analysis lower payback, respectively for parallel and
dual source configurations.
Other works available in the literature carried out an optimization of
several design variables, aimed at the optimization of the system per­
formance. Ma et al. [20] analysed the effect of storage tank volume,
solar collector surface area, and compressor capacity on energy con­
sumption and free-energy ratio, for three types of one and two-stage
cycles. Nasouri et al. [21] considers as input variables solar collector
surface area, compressor speed, and other geometrical characteristics
and material for heat exchangers and the storage tank, in order to
maximise COP and solar collector efficiency, building the Pareto front
for this optimization. Yumrutas and Ünsal [22], instead, analysed the
effect of Carnot efficiency, solar panel surface, and storage tank volume
on a solar-assisted heat pump with a seasonal buried tank, considering
also different typologies of soil. Finally, Starke et al. [23] carried out an
optimization of solar collector surface area and system capacity for a
solar-assisted heat pump for a swimming pool heating, optimizing the
level of comfort and the yearly life cycle cost of the system.
According to Lazzarin [24], in case of cold climate, both a
geothermal and an air-source heat pump could be used integrated with a
solar source. In that sense, several solar-assisted heat pumps both with
ground and air sources were theoretically and experimentally studied,
not only to have a higher evaporating temperature but also to recharge
the ground in case of high availability of solar energy. Works of Wang
3
Applied Energy 331 (2023) 120398
et al. [25] and Trillat-Berdal [26] et al. experimentally studied a system
for heating, cooling, and DHW purposes, exploiting solar energy source
to charge heat into the ground during summer, useful for the winter
season. Sun et al. [27] purposed a new experimental concept of a solar-
assisted ground source heat pump, considering a core and peripheral
heat-cascade zones in boreholes, reaching a SCOP of 4.66. An optimi­
zation has instead been carried out by Verma et al. [28], which considers
as decisional variables the solar collector surface area and the heat
exchanger length to reach an optimal COP value of 4.23. Regarding
traditional solar-assisted heat pumps, Bulmez et al. [29] suggests that
transferring heat into the ground can improve the seasonal performance
factor by 15 %, whereas Huang et al. [30] performed a thermo-
economical demonstrative analysis of a district heating system, obtain­
ing a COP rise from 2.42 to 2.65 and a significant operating cost
reduction. A comparison between system configurations has been car­
ried out by Nouri et al. [31], which analysed a solar-assisted ground
source heat pump obtaining a lower power consumption for a parallel
indirect expansion configuration. A parallel configuration was also
studied by Lee et al. [32], obtaining a 13.8 % energy consumption
reduction compared to a series scheme.
According to Lazzarin [24], future developments of such systems will
consider the integration of storage capacities such as phase change
materials (PCMs) in complex plant layouts, in order to solve solar source
volatility problems. The employment of a three-passage heat exchanger
filled with PCM was studied by Ni et al. [33] in a solar-assisted heat
pump, reaching a COP of 3.9. Similarly, Kutlu et al. [34] inserted
supercooled PCM tubes in a water tank for solar-assisted systems,
obtaining a cut of energy consumption between 12.1 % and 13.5 %.
Similar considerations have been performed by Belmonte et al. [35],
which compared the effect of the usage of a PCM or water storage tanks.
An economic analysis has been carried out by Plytaria et al. [36],
coupling a solar-assisted ground source heat pump with several encap­
sulated layers of PCM in building walls, obtaining a reduction of 40 % of
the peak load and of 40 %-60 % of energetic consumption, with the
optimal configuration which has the smallest payback of almost 10
years.
F. PELELLA et al.
Fig. 2. Elementary geometry for the PCM storage tank model. (a) 2D model of Zsembinszki et al.[52–53]. (b) 1D version of the model used in this study.
Among all the studies available in literature, only the works of
Kamazani and Aghanajafi [37] carried out a complex multi-objective
optimization of a solar-assisted ground source heat pump, considering
a genetic algorithm to find the optimal design parameters in term of
number and depth of boreholes, heating and cooling set-points, evapo­
rator and condenser heat transfer surfaces, number of PV cells, batteries,
volume and percentage of the PCM storage tank, in order to minimize
costs and maximize exergy efficiency. However, this system does not
consider the possibility to operate in air-source mode.
Therefore, the main novelty of this work is to study with an hourly
basis quasi steady-state approach a multi-source heat pump for domestic
space heating, integrating solar, air, and ground sources in order to
choose the best performance operating mode of the system, and to carry
out a complex optimization through genetic algorithm considering
several decisional variables, and seasonal coefficient of performance and
total costs as objective functions. The main aim of this work is to
consider all the possible combinations for a multi-source system, in
terms of thermal solar, photovoltaic, air or ground sources exploitation.
Therefore, although several configurations might appear too far-fetched,
they are considered to carry-out an exhaustive approach. To the best of
the authors knowledge, no other works analysed multi-source integrated
heat pumps considering its quasi steady-state behaviour, seasonal per­
formance as objective function, and a great number of optimization
input variables, including three different energy sources.
2. System models and methodologies
2.1. Heat pump system modelling
A schematic of the modelled system is provided in Fig. 1. The system
is composed of a solar loop (red), a ground loop (blue), and a heat pump
loop (green). The solar loop has a solar thermal collector, a variable
speed circulation pump (in the scheme named P1) and a thermal storage
which could be sensible or latent. The ground loop is composed of a
geothermal heat exchanger and a fixed speed circulation pump (named
P2) which is shared with the solar loop. Finally, the heat pump is
composed of a scroll compressor, two plate heat exchangers used as
evaporator and condenser, a fin-and-tube evaporator and a thermostatic
expansion valve able to control evaporator superheating. Due to its two
different evaporators, the heat pump can operate in three different
modes, alternatively with an evaporation through the air, through water
from the ground, and through water from the storage tank. For
simplicity, the three operating modes of the system will be referred to,
respectively, as air, ground, and sun evaporation. The storage tank has
only one coil, with only an inlet/outlet pipe. The same coil can be used
both for charging it from solar collectors when it is possible and dis­
charging it to the heat pump water evaporator when needed, by
inverting the water flow in an alternate way through the employment of
the two three-way valves situated on the pipeline branch. Refrigerant
fluid of the heat pump is propane, whereas water has been considered as
4
Applied Energy 331 (2023) 120398
heat transfer fluid in all other piping connections. The system could also
be equipped with solar photovoltaic collectors, and a storage battery,
with the possibility of an electricity exchange with the grid. In this work
PV panels are designed to cover both the heat pump and auxiliaries
(circulating pumps, air fan) electricity demand. It should be clarified
that all the piping connections are not referring to a real existing system,
but are conceived to simulate different system configurations, in order to
carry out a holistic optimization. For instance, in this system, the user
can be fed directly by solar panels or by the heat pump, or the heat pump
and solar loop can operate in parallel to satisfy the user load.
The following sub-models for each component have been modelled
and put together to simulate the behaviour of the entire system. The user
load (Q̇user ) has been evaluated according to the Commission Regulation
(EU) 2016/2281 [38] with the following relation:
Tamb − Tuser
Q̇user = Q̇design • (1)
Tdesign − Tuser
where Tamb is the ambient temperature, Q̇design is the requested load at an
ambient temperature of Tdesign , and Tuser is the indoor temperature of the
user. A 120-h average has been considered in order to simulate the effect
of building inertia on the user load. The thermal load is delivered
through the water with a variable speed circulation pump (named P3 in
the scheme plant), which guarantees certain values of supply water
temperature at 45 ◦ C and return water temperature at 40 ◦ C.
Regarding the heat pump loop, the following expression of the
electrical power of the compressor (Ẇcompressor ) has been used.
( )
ṁ • hout,comp,id − hin,comp
Ẇ comp = (2)
ηcomp
where ṁ is the compressor mass flow rate, hout,comp,id and hin,comp are the
ideal outlet and inlet compressor specific enthalpies, respectively. The
compressor efficiency (ηcomp ) has been calibrated on manufacturer data,
as already done in several research articles by the authors and other
research groups [39–41] whereas the refrigerant mass flow rate and the
corresponding compressor needed displacement have been evaluated
according to the thermal load requested by the user, in order to have a
system which is always able to satisfy user needs.
Regarding heat exchangers, of both fin-and-tube and plate types, the
temperature profiles of primary and secondary fluids have been itera­
tively solved considering a logarithmic mean temperature difference
(LMTD) approach [42]. For the evaporator, plate heat exchangers cor­
relations of Longo et al. [43] have been employed, whereas for the
condenser, the respective correlations of Shah [44] and Dittus and
Boelter [45] have been employed for flow-condensation and de-
superheating (condenser subcooling has been neglected). In both
cases, water heat transfer coefficient has been evaluated through the
correlation of Martin [46]. Finally, for the fin-and-tube evaporator,
correlations of Gungor and Winterton [47] and Dittus and Boelter [45]
F. PELELLA et al. Applied Energy 331 (2023) 120398

Fig. 3. Control strategy employed for the system modelled, in case of presence of all the system components considered in the optimization.

have been used, respectively, for flow-boiling and flow superheating, employed to evaluate the available electrical power (Ẇel,pv ) depending
whereas the air heat transfer coefficient is evaluated through Wang on the boundary conditions.
correlations [48]. In all cases, pressure drop of refrigerant have been
neglected. Ẇ el,pv = G • Apv • ηpv (5)
Regarding the ground loop, an infinite surface heat exchanger has
been assumed, with the outlet water temperature from the ground which where G is the actual solar radiation and Apv is the solar photovoltaic
was imposed equal to the ground temperature. The ground temperature panel surface area.
in turn has been evaluated through the model of Krarti et al. [49], Solar panel efficiency has been fitted for several technologies of
depending on external climate conditions. photovoltaic panels from manufacturer data. The storage battery instead
In the solar loop instead, regarding the thermal solar collectors, the has been modelled considering a charging process when the electrical
definition of collector efficiency (ηpan ) according to Hottel-Whiller-Bliss energy from photovoltaic panels is available, and a discharging process
equation [50–51] has been employed depending on the boundary when an electric load is needed by the heat pump and/or auxiliaries. All
conditions. kinds of electrical losses have been neglected.
The entire system has been simulated by putting together all the sub-
ηcol = η0 − a1 • x − a2 • G • x2 (3) models described above. In terms of model uncertainty, assuming fixed
input data such as ambient temperature and solar radiation, considering
x=
Ts − Tamb
(4) a fitting uncertainty of ±5% in the compressor and solar collectors ef­
G ficiency, and a 15 % uncertainty in the heat exchanger global conduc­
tance models (always falling inside the domain for which the correlation
where η0 , a1 , and a2 are, respectively, the zero-loss efficiency, the first
was originally developed), the uncertainty in the seasonal performance
and second-order coefficients of the solar collector efficiency, G is the
does not overcome 12 %.
solar radiation, and Ts is the collector surface temperature.
It was assumed that the outlet temperature of the heat transfer fluid
is equal to the temperature requested by the user, which is considered
2.2. System control strategy
fixed. Therefore, the corresponding mass flow rate in the solar loop is
evaluated through a coupling between the energies requested and
To decide in which operation the machine should operate to maxi­
available by the solar panels.
mise system performance, a system control strategy has been developed,
Regarding the storage tank, a water/PCM encapsulated heat storage
divided in several parts, each of them specific for every system
has been used, and the 2D validated model of Zsembinszki et al. [52–53]
component. Although there could be several combinations in which
has been considered. The elementary geometry is shown in Fig. 2(a),
some components such as the storage tank or the solar collectors are not
which considers three different layers: heat transfer fluid, metal wall,
used, for generalization purposes, this control strategy has been pre­
and PCM (the last two divided into several sub-layers depending on the
sented considering all system components as effectively employed.
number of nodes chosen for each layer). The whole storage tank has
First, two different strategies operating in parallel for the user and
been modelled considering several elementary geometries in order to
solar sides have been developed. In the presence of the heating load, a
have a volume equal to a certain assigned value.
varying water mass flow rate has been considered to guarantee 45–40 ◦ C
A 1D implicit version of the model along the y direction has been
supply and return temperatures. Otherwise (no heating load), the user
developed to save computational time, as shown in Fig. 2(b). The dif­
mass flow rate is zero. Regarding the solar loop, the mass flow rate is
ferences between the 2D validated model and the 1D model are less than
adjusted to guarantee an outlet temperature of 45 ◦ C. In case of a pro­
2.5 % in terms of yearly energy consumption and seasonal performances
longed tank charge operation, in order to avoid too high mass flow rates,
of the system analysed. On the other hand, a 1D approach guarantees a
the water supply to solar collectors is stopped when the bottom colder
30 s average time saving per simulation, which represents a reduction of
section of the tank reaches temperatures over 40 ◦ C. The same occurs in
around 10 %. Differences in the results obtained using the 1D and 2D
case of unavailability of solar radiation. At this point, both user load and
approaches, in terms of system efficiency, energy consumption, and
solar thermal generation are known, and a user preferential control
simulation time, are shown in the appendix for several configurations of
strategy has been adopted. If the thermal power generated by the solar
parameters and climate conditions. In case of a water storage tank,
collectors is lower than the one requested by the user, the remaining part
without the employment of a PCM, a similar 1D implicit nodal approach
is supplied by the heat pump, which is switched on. Otherwise, the user
has been employed.
is completely supplied by the solar loop, through the direct connection
Finally, regarding solar photovoltaic panels, the definition of solar
pipeline with the thermal solar collector, and the surplus power is used
panel efficiency (ηpv ) according to Skoplaki and Palyvos [54] has been
to charge the storage tank. If the heat pump is operating, the control

5
 F. PELELLA et al. Applied Energy 331 (2023) 120398

grid. If the heat pump requests energy, it is fed by the storage battery if
its state of charge is not empty, otherwise electric energy must be taken
from the grid. An overview of the storage battery control strategy is
provided in Fig. 4.

2.3. Resolution algorithm

A resolution algorithm has been implemented to match all the

described sub-models in order to simulate the behaviour of the entire
system. The model has been implemented in MATLAB [55], with the aim
of Refprop 9.1 [56] for thermodynamic properties evaluation. At a
Fig. 4. Storage battery control strategy in case of presence of photovoltaic
certain time-step t, the inputs of the algorithm are the external boundary
solar panels.
conditions and storage tank temperatures at time-step t. Firstly, the
models for the user and for thermal solar collectors are solved in order to
evaluate thermal powers requested by the user and available from the
solar source, respectively. If a photovoltaic system is employed, the
models for the solar photovoltaic panel and the storage battery in charge
mode are solved in parallel, in order to evaluate the electric available
power. At this point, if the thermal power requested by the user is lower
than the one available from the solar collectors, the storage tank model
is solved in charging mode to evaluate temperatures at t + 1 time-step.
Otherwise, the ground temperature is evaluated, and the heat pump
model is solved in all the operating modes of air, storage tank (sun), and
ground evaporation, to select the highest COP mode. If a photovoltaic
system is employed, the storage battery model is solved in discharge
mode. If the heat pump evaporates through the water in the storage
tank, its model is solved in discharge mode in order to evaluate t + 1
time-step temperature. Finally, all energy consumptions, production and
retail are evaluated for the time-step t, before passing to the next time-
step. A graphic representation of the resolution algorithm is presented in
Fig. 5.

3. Optimization procedure

3.1. Case study data and boundary conditions

The developed models have been applied to a specific case study for
Fig. 5. Resolution algorithm used to simulate the entire system, coupling single domestic space heating. Main characteristics of the system are reported
component models. in Table 1. For the PCM material, properties in terms of specific heat
capacity, density, and thermal conductivity have been obtained from
manufacturer datasheet [57].
Table 1
Rated characteristics of the system and main boundary conditions.
3.2. Optimization variables
Parameter Value Parameter Value

Q̇design [kW] 10 zground [m] 2 A multi-objective optimization of the system analysed has been
Tdesign [◦ C] − 5 Tindoor [◦ C] 20 carried out. Particularly, the following input variables of the optimiza­
V̇ev,a [m3 /h] 2000 ṁev,w [kg/s] 0.30 tion have been considered: the storage tank volume, the solar thermal
Tw,in,user [◦ C] 45 Tw,out,user [◦ C] 40 collector surface area, the photovoltaic collector surface area, the heat
ηfan 0.65 ηpump 0.80 exchanger heat transfer surface areas (both plate and fin-and-tube type),
Number of hours considered 8760 Simulation step [h] 1
the electric battery capacity, the presence of a geothermal heat
per simulation [h]
L/Htank 3 exchanger (yes or no), the type of storage tank (water or PCM), the PCM
melting temperature and different technologies of solar thermal and
photovoltaic panels.
strategy aims to establish in which mode it should operate to maximise The aim of the optimization is to maximise the seasonal coefficient of
the system performance. First, if the air evaporation mode gives higher performance (SCOP) and minimize the investment costs, defined as
COP than the water evaporation mode, or the water supply temperature follows.
is lower than 6 ◦ C (to avoid freezing in the water pipes) the machine ∑Nhours
operates in air mode. Otherwise, the machine operates in the water SCOP = ∑Nhours i=1 Q̇user,i
(6)
evaporation mode, considering as water supply the source which gives i=1 (Ẇ comp,i + Ẇ pump,i + Ẇ fan,i )
the highest temperature between the storage tank and the ground. In
case of evaporation through the water coming from the storage tank, a Ncomponents
∑
discharge of the tank is considered. An overview of the employed control Cinv = Ccomponent,i [€] (7)
j=1
strategy is provided in Fig. 3.
Finally, regarding the storage battery, it is charged as long as its state
where Q̇user,i is the requested thermal power by the user, Ẇcomp,i , Ẇpump,i
of charge is not full. Otherwise, the energy produced is retailed to the
and Ẇfan,i are the electric powers respectively of the compressor, cir

6
­
F. PELELLA et al. Applied Energy 331 (2023) 120398

Table 2 Climate conditions investigated are the ones decided by European

List and range interval of all the decisional variables and objective functions
employed in the optimization.
Decisional variables
Storage Tank Volume Vtank = [050100300500]l
Solar thermal collector surface area Acol =
[05101520]m2
Water evaporator heat transfer surface area* Aw,ev =
[ ]
1 2
Type of storage tank Water/
PCM
Solar photovoltaic panels
surface area Apv =
[05101520]m2
PCM melting temperature
Tmelt,PCM = [203040] C
◦
Community standards of Athens, Strasbourg, and Helsinki. For all the
climate conditions investigated, the operating hours of the system have
been evaluated in order to cover 80 % of the hours when the external
temperature drops below 20 ◦ C. Therefore, the system is operating be­
tween November and April in Athens and between September and May
in Strasbourg and Helsinki. Values of solar radiation and number of
hours (divided in slots of 1 ◦ C each) depending on ambient temperature
for the aforementioned climate conditions, according to TRNSYS [58]
meteorologic database, are provided in Fig. 6(a) and (b), respectively.

0, Amax,ev,w , Amax,ev,w , Amax,ev,w m2 Annual average ground temperature evaluated are 14.4 ◦ C, 8.7 ◦ C and
3 3
Water condenser heat transfer surface area* Awat,co = Solar thermal collector type 3.9 ◦ C respectively for the climate conditions of Athens, Strasbourg and
[ ]
1 1 3
Amax,co,w , Amax,co,w , Amax,co,w , Amax,co,w m2
Without glass (1), plastic Helsinki.
4 2 4 (2), flat-plane (3), and
vacuum tube (4)
Air evaporator heat transfer surface area* Aev,a = Solar photovoltaic panels type 3.3. Genetic algorithm and simulation time
[ ]
1 1 Amorphous (1), CIGS (2),
0, Amax,ev,a , Amax,ev,a , Amax,ev,a m2
4 2 CdTe (3), polycrystalline
A genetic algorithm (GA) is a computational model of biological
(4), monocrystalline (5),
HIT (6) evolution based on a genetic population evolution, useful both as a
Geothermal heat exchanger Yes/No Electric Storage Battery research method for optimization problem solving and for modelling of
Capacity Cbatt = [0136]kWh; system evolution, in order to highly reduce computational time [59]. For
Objective functions this study, the number of total possible combinations for the decisional
Seasonal coefficient of performance (SCOP) To Investment cost (Cinv ) To
variable analysed is over 2 million per climate condition. Therefore,
maximise minimize
considering on average a 3–5 min simulation time, a total simulation
Amax,ev,w = 0.76 m2 ; Amax,co,w = 1.17 m2 ; Amax,ev,a = 39.54 m2 time over 8000 days is required to carry out a brute-force research. With
*
Maximum heat transfer surface areas for which the pinch-point in temper­ the employment of a genetic algorithm, it was possible to reduce to
ature profiles is 0.5 ◦ C
approximately a couple of weeks the simulation time for all the climate
conditions investigated. The optimization was carried out through the
culation pumps and heat exchanger fan, whereas Ccomponent,i is the in­ GA tool of MATLAB [55], considering a population size of 50, a cross­
vestment cost for each of the system components. over fraction of 0.7 and a tolerance of 10-3.
Intervals for each of the optimization input variables considered are
reported in Table 2. 4. Results
Storage tank volumes, solar collector surface areas, and electric
battery capacity values have been chosen according to typical domestic Preliminary results for the system analysed are presented in this
sizes. The maximum values for the heat transfer surface areas of heat section. For the heat pump, two temperature-specific entropy (T-s) di­
exchangers were chosen considering a pinch-point in temperature pro­ agrams are shown in Fig. 7, for air-cooled and water-cooled evaporation
files equal to 0.5, significative of a unitary heat exchanger effectiveness operating modes, for air/water temperatures at the evaporator inlet
and considering for each variable an equally-spaced interval. For the fixed to 10 ◦ C, for hot water production at 40–45 ◦ C, and fixed geome­
evaporator, the pinch-point was considered as the difference between tries for each of the heat exchanger. For these conditions, heat pump
the secondary fluid outlet and the refrigerant evaporation temperatures, COP results to be almost 15 % higher for the water-cooled evaporation.
whereas for the condenser the pinch-point is located after the de- Generally, it can be noticed that, depending on the heat transfer surface
superheating section. Therefore, a value compatible with the design areas of the considered combination and on heat transfer fluid supply
power according to user needs was chosen as thermal power for simu­ temperature to the heat exchanger, it could be more convenient for the
lating the heat exchanger behaviour. Regarding both solar thermal heat pump to operate in one or the other operating modes.
collector and photovoltaic panel technologies, increasing numbers refer Results in terms of COP evolution along an entire year are reported in
to better technologies in terms of panel efficiencies (efficiency curves for Fig. 8, in case of only air on the left and multi-source operation on the
each of the technologies are reported in Appendix). For all the combi­ right. It can be seen that higher values of COP can be achieved by
nations of inputs reported in the table, only feasible configurations have employing different kinds of sources besides air. The lowest values of
been considered. COP in air mode (green), ranging between 3.0 and 3.5, are replaced with

Fig. 6. (a) Solar radiation vs ambient temperature and (b) number of hours vs ambient temperature for the climate conditions investigated of Athens, Strasbourg,
and Helsinki.

7
F. PELELLA et al. Applied Energy 331 (2023) 120398

Fig. 7. Temperature-specific entropy diagrams, in case of (a) air and (b) water evaporation, for fixed conditions of inlet–outlet water temperatures at the condenser
of 40–45 ◦ C, and for inlet air/water temperature at the evaporator of 10 ◦ C.

Fig. 8. Coefficient of performance (COP) evolution along the year in case of (a) only air and (b) a multi-source (b) operating mode, in case of a 20 m2 solar collector
and a 300 l PCM storage tank volume, for Athens climate conditions.

Fig. 9. Tank temperature evolution along a simulation year (a), with a focus on three simulation days of February (b), in case of a 20 m2 solar collector and a 300 l
PCM storage tank volume (melting temperature 20 ◦ C), for Athens climate conditions.

an operation through the ground, for which higher values of COP of
approximately 4.0 can be achieved (blue). The highest COP values are
obtained with the discharge of the storage tank (red), with peaks up to
8.5. Actually, the usage of solar energy from thermal collectors may not
only lead to higher values of COP for the heat pump, but it also repre­
sents a discount in terms of thermal load requested by the heat pump,
which results in an electric energy saving for the compressor.
Results for the storage tank temperature along the year are presented
in Fig. 9, with a focus on three days. The dashed line refers to the heat
transfer fluid, whereas solid-coloured lines are related to different slices
of heat storage material, with red referred to the inner slice and blue to
the closest layer to the heat transfer fluid. It can be noticed that the

8
F. PELELLA et al. Applied Energy 331 (2023) 120398

storage tank charges and discharges completely along an entire day, for
a fixed configuration of solar panels (20 m2) and storage tank (0.3 m3).
Regarding thermal behaviours, in case of a PCM thermal storage, the

Fitting from manufacturer

temperature of inner slices is mostly closer to the melting point tem­

data (see Appendix)

perature due to the latent heat of the PCM, and this led to mitigated

Ferreira et al. [62]

Ferreira et al. [62]

Sanaye et al. [63]

Zhou et al. [60]
oscillations. Otherwise, in case of water thermal storage, all the slices of

Eurostat [65]
Reference the storage tank reach maximum values of the oscillation.

4.1. Economic analysis

Several cost functions based on specific data for this system appli­
cref in €/m Aref , Apan

cation have been considered for each of the system components, as re­
ported in Table 3. Other component costs such as pipelines, connections,
2

Aev,co,w inm2
Vtank in m3

Vtank in m3

valves, etc. have been neglected. Regarding PCM storage tank, a cost
function depending on the volume has been fitted on manufacturer data,
Notes

in m2

as shown in the Appendix. For the ground heat exchanger (GHE) instead,
–

–
an extra-costs of 1500€, including investment and installation contri­
+ 2519.9 • Vtank + 5007.3[€]

butions, have been estimated considering data from the work of Zhou
et al. [60]. For all other components, cost functions are referenced.
0.197 (Greece), 0.202 (France), 0.184

Regarding operating costs, electricity prices for the different countries

• 0, 985[€]

investigated are reported in the following table, whereas maintenance

− 0.04
[€]

costs have been neglected.

516.62 • Aev,co,w + 268.45[$]
0 a1

Vtank 0,3

A sensitivity analysis has been carried out in order to study the effect
η1.2

of each of the optimization variables on objective functions. A Latin

0.32
)0.5

(Finland) [€/kWh]

hypercube sampling (LHS) [66] method has been employed considering

(
Apan
2.5

− 1.4702 • Vtank
3647.5 • 0.32 •
Cost Function

variable intervals indicated in Table 2, and Pearson coefficients for each

2
(

of the variables. Objective functions and climate conditions investigated

cref • Aref •

are reported in Fig. 10. The Pearson coefficient is related to the increase
1500 €

of each of the variable reported on the left side, whereas in case of

“Water Tank” and “Geothermic” the increase is related, respectively, to
PCM (0)/water (1) storage tank, and absence (0) and presence (1) of the
Energy specific

GHE. Results show that most of the variables considered have a con­
Solar thermal

Storage tank

Storage tank
Component

exchangers

trasting effect on the objective functions. For instance, an increase of

Plate heat
collector

(water)

battery capacity, solar thermal and photovoltaic surface area, and heat
(PCM)
GHE

cost

exchanger heat transfer surface area involves not only a SCOP rise, as
also shown in several experimental evidences ([18,20,67]), but also
higher investment costs. Regarding the typology of thermal energy
Tesla (Tervo et al. [64])
Manufacturer data (see

storage, the presence of a PCM does not particularly affect the system
Botticella et al. [61]

Botticella et al. [61]

Sanaye et al. [63]

Sanaye et al. [63]

performance, as also observed in Belmonte et al. [35], due to the fact

that complete charge/discharge cycles occur every day. On the other
Reference

Appendix)

hand, it strongly affects total costs due to costs for encapsulation of the
PCM material. Furthermore, results show that in case of employment of
a PCM, melting temperature does not particularly affect either the SCOP
or the investment costs, for this type of application. The storage tank
Apv in m2 cpv in
Cost functions employed in this study for each of the system component.

V̇comp in m /h

volume slightly affects the system performance, in accordance with

Ẇpump in kW
Cbatt in kWh
3

Yumrutas and Ünsal [22], in a positive way for warmer climates, and in
ṁ in kg/s

Aev,a inm2
Notes

a negative way for colder climates, whereas investment costs are more
€/m2

affected. Same consideration could be done for solar collector technol­

ogies and surface areas, both thermal and photovoltaic, which influence
[€]

the system performance more for warmer than for colder climates. As a
)

1 − ηpump

matter of fact, for Helsinki, the solar thermal collector surface area does
0.2

not affect the system performance at all. Finally, regarding the presence
of a geothermal heat exchanger, a higher influence on the system per­
705.48 • Ẇpump • 1 +
52.63 • V̇comp • 1.2[€]

formance is obtained for colder climate conditions, whereas it is less

(
392.86 • Cbatt [$]

suitable for warmer climates.

Cost Function

0.71
114.5 • ṁ[$]

The optimization has been therefore carried out through the genetic
Aev,a • 45[€]
Apv • cpv [€]

algorithm, and results in terms of investment costs vs seasonal coeffi­

cient of performance, and Pareto fronts for each of the climate condi­
tions investigated are reported in Fig. 11. Points A and C are the
solutions on the Pareto front with highest SCOP and lowest investment
Circulating pumps
Solar photovoltaic

costs, respectively, whereas point B is the closest solution to the so-

Fin and tube heat
Expansion valve

Storage battery

called “Utopia Point”, which is an ideal solution of the Pareto Front,

exchanger
Compressor
Component

assuming the same SCOP of point A and the same investment cost of
point C.
panel
Table 3

Table 4 reports the values assumed for input variables and objective
functions for the solutions A, B, and C. In all the climate conditions

9
F. PELELLA et al. Applied Energy 331 (2023) 120398

Fig. 10. Results of the sensitivity analysis in terms of Pearson coefficient ρ, for climate conditions of Athens (left), Strasbourg (centre) and Helsinki (right).

Fig. 11. Investment costs vs SCOP, and Pareto fronts for the climate conditions of (a) Athens, (b) Strasbourg, and (c) Helsinki. Points A, C, and B refer, respectively,
to the solutions with minimum investment cost, maximum SCOP and closest to the Utopia point, represented as a star.

investigated, solution C of the Pareto front, characterized by the lowest
value for both SCOP and investment costs, refers to a traditional air-to-
water heat pump system, without any integration with solar or ground
sources.
In the case of Athens climate conditions, solutions A and B are both
characterized by the presence of solar thermal collectors with the
maximum surface area and thermal storage tank with the minimum
volume, whereas none of them employs a geothermal heat exchanger.
Furthermore, both solutions A and B are characterized by the presence of
solar photovoltaic panels. Finally, regarding the condenser and the fin-
and-tube evaporator, several values are assumed depending on the in­
vestment costs of the solution considered. SCOP goes from 3.43 for
solution C to 11.76 for solution A, whereas investment cost increases
from approximately €1.5 k to €12.5 k.
In the case of Strasbourg, solution A is the only one which employs
both thermal solar collectors with the maximum surface and thermal
storage tank, whereas solution B is only characterized by solar thermal
collectors without a storage tank. Similarly to Athens, both solutions A
and B employ photovoltaic panels. Also for this climate condition, the
condenser and the fin-and-tube evaporator heat transfer surface areas
depend on the investment costs, except for solution A, where the fin-and-
tube evaporator is absent, and a geothermal heat exchanger is employed.
In this case, SCOP increase is lower than for Athens case, passing from
2.78 for solution C to 4.93 for solution A, with a total cost increase from

10
F. PELELLA et al. Applied Energy 331 (2023) 120398

Table 4
Values of decisional variables, SCOP, and investment cost assumed for solutions A, B, and C of the Pareto front, for the three climate conditions investigated.
[ ]
Point Acol [m2 ] V tank [m3 ] Aev,w [m2 ] Aco,w [m2 ] Aev,a m2 Apv [m2 ] GHE Storage Tmelt Thermal Photovoltaic Battery SCOP Cinv [k€]
tank [◦ C] collector panel type capacity
type type [kWh]

Athens
A 20 0.05 0.76 1.17 39.54 20 No Water N.D. 4 6 6 11.76 12.50
B 20 0.05 0.76 0.88 9.89 10 No Water N.D. 4 4 3 7.65 6.83
C 0 0 0 0.29 9.89 0 No N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. 3.43 1.54
Strasbourg
A 20 0.1 0.76 1.17 0 20 Yes Water N.D. 4 2 6 4.93 10.60
B 15 0 0 0.88 19.77 20 No N.D. N.D. 4 1 1 3.96 5.21
C 0 0 0 0.29 9.89 0 No N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. 2.78 2.27
Helsinki
A 20 0 0.76 1.17 19.77 15 Yes N.D. N.D. 4 4 3 3.49 10.40
B 0 0 0 1.17 9.89 0 Yes N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. 3.08 5.69
C 0 0 0 0.29 9.89 0 No N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. 2.26 3.32

N.D.: Not Defined

Fig. 12. Values for the total cost, for the four cost scenarios analysed, and for climate conditions of (a) Athens, (b) Strasbourg, and (c) Helsinki.

about €2.3 k to €10.6 k.

Table 5
Finally, in the case of Helsinki climate conditions, none of the solu­
Discounted Payback (DPB) period for solutions A and B, referred to solution C,
tions employs a thermal energy storage tank, whereas only solution A is
for each scenario and climate condition investigated.
characterized by solar thermal collectors and photovoltaic panels, due to
DPB compared with solution C Baseline ECrise Inc Inc þ
the low level of solar radiation. On the other hand, both solutions A and
(years) ECrise
B are characterized by a geothermal heat exchanger, accordingly to the
Athens sensitivity analysis of Fig. 12. SCOP increases from 2.26 for solution C to
Solution A 12.85 5.43 5.08 2.38
Solution B 10.89 4.73 5.75 2.67
3.49 for solution A, whereas the total cost goes from €3.3 k to €10.4 k.
Strasbourg In all cases, when a storage tank is employed, the heat transfer sur­
Solution A 8.01 3.61 3.10 1.48 face area for the water evaporator takes its maximum value. More
Solution B 3.86 1.84 1.90 0.93 expensive solar thermal collectors and photovoltaic panels are usually
Helsinki
employed for solutions with higher investment costs, and also when
Solution A 5.22 2.45 1.85 0.89
Solution B 2.45 1.19 0.98 0.49 solar radiation is strongly available, as well as higher storage battery
capacity. Finally, due to the higher costs and low impact on system

11
F. PELELLA et al. Applied Energy 331 (2023) 120398

energy retail prices which influences in turn the electricity produced by

photovoltaic.
In the case of Strasbourg (Fig. 12(b)), due to a higher number of
working hours and to a higher contribution of operating costs, solution C
is already the most expensive in the baseline scenario, with a total cost of
€23.6 k, whereas solution B is characterized by the lowest total costs of
€19.0 k. In the incentivized scenario, solutions A and B are characterized
by similar total costs of about €18.0 k, whereas in the case of energy cost
rise and combined scenarios, solution A became the cheapest, with a
total cost of approximately €30 k and with lower percentage differences
between the investigated solutions compared to Athens.
Finally, for Helsinki climate conditions (Fig. 12(c)), the total costs
behaviour is similar to what is observed in the case of Strasbourg. The
only differences are that, due to a still higher number of working hours
of the system, solutions A and B are characterized by the same total costs
in the baseline scenario of €31.1 k, with the considered lifetime of 12
Fig. 13. Fitting of the compressor global efficiency on manufacturer data. years for the system analysed, whereas it seems that in the incentives
scenario point B has a slightly higher total cost than the point A.
performance, it seems from results that none of the solutions employing Since solution C is always representative of a traditional air-to-water
a PCM storage tank belongs to the Pareto front, for the application and heat pump without the integration of other energy sources, discount
storage tank sizes investigated. payback (DPB) periods for solutions A and B have been evaluated
Finally, total costs have been evaluated for points A, B, and C of the referred to solution C, for each climate condition and energy cost sce­
Pareto front for each of the climate conditions investigated, considering nario investigated, and all values have been reported in Table 5. Dis­
both investment costs and energy prices, as also done in Kamazani and count payback period has been evaluated depending on simple payback
Aghanajafi [37]. Operating costs have been estimated considering a
discount factor evaluated with a discount rate of 5 % and 12 years
lifetime of the machine. Different scenarios have been analysed: Table 7
Values for decisional variables assumed in Table 6 simulations.
• Baseline: investment and energy costs from Table 3 were considered. Test number Acol [m2 ] V tank [l] Apv [m2 ] GHE
• ECrise (energy cost rise): double increase of energy costs compared
1 10 300 10 Yes
to the ones indicated in Table 3, both of purchasing and selling, and 2 15 100 0 Yes
for all the climate conditions investigated was considered. 3 20 500 0 No
• Inc (incentives): 20 % reduction of all the investment costs, 4 5 50 5 No
compared to the ones evaluated through cost functions of Table 3 5 5 500 0 Yes
6 20 50 5 Yes
was considered.
7 20 200 0 No
• Inc + Ecrise: 20 % reduction of the investment costs + double in­
crease of energy costs, compared to the ones of Table 3 were
considered.
Table 8
Parameters for energy efficiency and investment cost evaluation, for all the
Results in terms of total costs for all the aforementioned scenarios are technologies of solar thermal collectors considered in this study.
reported in Fig. 12.
Efficiency Investment
For Athens climate conditions (Fig. 12(a)), the solution B is charac­
costs
terized by the lowest total cost of €7.7 k in the baseline scenario, Collector η0 [− ] a1 (W/m K)
2 a2 Cref [€]
whereas the highest is the one for solution A of €8.6 k. The presence of technology
incentives on investment costs causes that solution A became the most Without glass 0.793 9.503 82.35 165.8
convenient in term of total costs, with a value of €6.1 k, followed by (W2 /m4 K2 )
solutions B and C, with values respectively of €6.3 k and €7.8 k. A more Plastic 0.896 15.05 3311 99.5
pronounced difference between solution A to C could be obtained in case (W2 /m4 K2 )
of the energy cost rise and combined scenarios. For instance, in the Flat-plate 0.773 3.675 0.007 298.5
(W/m2 K2 )
Ecrise scenario total cost for solution A became almost four times lower
Vacuum tube 0.718 0.974 0.005 298.5
than the one for solution C. In this case, the cost of €4.7 k for solution A is (W/m2 K2 )
related not to the increase of the energy purchase costs, but also to the

Table 6
Comparison in terms of SCOP, energy consumption, and simulation time between the 2D PCM storage tank model of Zsembinszki et al. [52–53] and the 1D version
employed in this manuscript.
1D 2D Differences 1D-2D

Test Climate SCOP Eel [kWh/ Sim. time SCOP Eel [kWh/ Sim. time ΔSCOP1D-2D ΔEel 1D-2D ΔSim.time 1D-2D
number y] [s] y] [s] [%] [%] [s]

1 Athens 5.62 2288 243 5.66 2272 273 − 0.71 0.70 30

2 Strasbourg 3.56 9305 355 3.62 9166 381 − 1.69 1.49 26
3 Helsinki 2.77 17,362 366 2.76 17,348 398 0.36 0.08 32
4 Athens 4.84 2655 246 4.85 2650 273 − 0.21 0.19 27
5 Strasbourg 3.40 9743 369 3.45 9626 400 − 1.47 1.20 31
6 Helsinki 2.81 17,108 371 2.82 17,057 446 − 0.36 0.30 75
7 Athens 5.24 2453 247 5.37 2395 273 − 2.48 2.36 26

12
F. PELELLA et al. Applied Energy 331 (2023) 120398

Table 9
Parameters for energy efficiency and investment cost evaluation, for all the technologies of solar photovoltaic panels considered in this study.
Panel a @Ts = b @Ts = c @Ts = a @Ts = b @Ts = c @Ts = a @Ts = b @Ts = c @Ts = [€]
Cspec
technology 10 C 10 C 10 C 40 C 40 C 40 C 70 C 70 C 70 C m2
◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦

Amorphous − 0.279 − 0.744 0.075 − 0.181 − 0.602 0.071 − 0.124 − 0.453 0.068 29
CIGS − 0.843 − 0.894 0.134 − 0.236 − 0.494 0.131 − 0.229 − 0.441 0.126 91
CdTe − 0.176 − 0.593 0.148 − 0.124 − 0.369 0.145 − 0.143 − 0.324 0.141 91
Polycrystalline − 0.413 − 0.697 0.159 − 0.314 − 0.649 0.141 − 0.266 − 0.612 0.122 108
Monocrystalline − 0.217 − 0.555 0.168 − 0.252 − 0.602 0.149 − 0.187 − 0.516 0.131 160
HIT − 0.454 − 0.610 0.200 − 0.356 − 0.531 0.186 − 0.273 − 0.468 0.171 216

presence of a geothermal heat exchanger seems to be more conve­

Fig. 14. Cost function employed for the PCM storage tank fitted on manufac­
turer data.
period (SPB), with the following relation [68]:
log(1 − SPB • a)
DPB = −
log(1 + a)
The discount rate a has been considered equal to 5 %. In case of
Athens, discount payback time is of about 13 years for solution A, higher
than the lifetime of the machine, whereas is approximately 11 years for
solution B. Both solutions have a DPB values around 5 years in the ECrise
and Inc scenarios, and they become about 2–3 year for the combined
scenario. For Strasbourg, solution B has a lower payback time than so­
lution A, around 4 against 8 years in a baseline scenario. In case of
combined scenario DPB values become around 1 year for both solutions.
Finally, for Helsinki climate, similar results are obtained compared to
Strasbourg, with several DPB assuming values lower than 1 year, in non-
baseline scenarios.
5. Conclusions and future developments
A thermo-economic optimization for a multi-source (air/sun/
ground) heat pump for residential heating has been proposed in three
different climate conditions (Athens, Strasbourg and Helsinki). An
approximate system scheme plant has been analysed in order to study all
the possible configurations for a multi-source heat pump, in terms of
employment of thermal solar or photovoltaic panels, air or ground
sources heat exchangers, thermal and electric storages. The main out­
comes of the paper are here presented:
• Most of the chosen variables have a conflicting effect on the objective
functions considered, except for the typology of storage tank (water/
PCM) and PCM melting temperature, which seem not to influence
neither SCOP nor investment costs. Furthermore, storage tank vol­
ume, solar thermal collectors and photovoltaic panels surface areas
and technologies affects system performances positively for warmer
climates and negatively for colder climates. On the contrary, the
nient for colder climates.
• The optimization results on the Pareto front show that, for all cli­
mates, the solution with lowest investment costs and SCOP refer to a
traditional air-to-water heat pump. For Athens conditions, the opti­
mum solution according to “Utopia criterion” is characterized by the
maximum thermal solar collector surface area, the minimum volume
for the storage tank, and presence of photovoltaic panels. Passing
from the non-dominated solution with minimum investment cost
(solution C) to the one with maximum seasonal performance (solu­
tion A), SCOP increases from 3.43 to 11.76, whereas the investment
cost increases from €1.5 k to €12.5 k. In the case of Strasbourg,
instead, the optimum configuration only employs solar thermal
collectors. In this case, passing from solution C to solution A causes a
SCOP increase from 2.78 to 4.93 and a cost increase from €2.3 k to
€10.6 k. Finally, in case the of Helsinki, none of the non-dominated
solutions employ a thermal storage tank, whereas a GHE is consid­
ered for the optimum configuration. In this case, solution A has SCOP
increase from 2.26 to 3.49 and an investment cost increase from €3.3
k to €10.4 k compared with solution C. Due to higher investment
costs and a slight effect on system performances, none of the optimal
solutions consider a PCM storage tank.
(8)
• In case of an unvaried costs scenario, non-dominated cheaper solu­
tions are generally more convenient. The most expensive solution on
the Pareto front becomes the most convenient in case of a doubled
energy cost scenario and in case of incentives on investment costs. As
a matter of fact, between solutions of the Pareto front A (maximum
SCOP), B (closer to the utopia point) and C (minimum investment
costs), the most convenient is solution B in a price baseline scenario,
whereas it becomes solution A in case of incentives on fixed costs or
increase of energy prices.
Regarding the major contributions of this research, the authors
believe that the economic advantages of integrating multi-sources to
traditional residential heat pump may induce both the industrial and
private sectors to focus more on renewable sectors and their spread in
other fields. In future works, the system would become more realistic by
adding complexity to the model and to the control strategy. In this way it
will be possible to simulate more complicated scenarios, considering
decarbonization regulations issued by energy authorities.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Francesco PELELLA: Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original
draft. Gabriel ZSEMBINSZKI: Formal analysis, Writing – review &
editing. Luca VISCITO: Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – review
& editing. Alfonso William MAURO: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Resources, Supervision. Luisa F. CABEZA: Methodology, Resources,
Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

13
F. PELELLA et al. Applied Energy 331 (2023) 120398

Data availability 123511OB-C31 - MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/FEDER, UE and

Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
This work was partially funded by Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación
y Universidades - Agencia Estatal de Investigación (AEI) (PID2021-
RED2018-102431-T - MCIU/AEI). This work is partially supported by
ICREA under the ICREA Academia programme. The authors form Uni­
versity of Lleida would like to thank the Catalan Government for the
quality accreditation given to their research group (2017 SGR 1537).
GREiA is certified agent TECNIO in the category of technology de­
velopers from the Government of Catalonia.

Appendix

Calibration results for the compressor model

Fig. 13 shows the fitting for the global efficiency of the compressor employed in this paper, based on manufacturer data.

Comparison in terms of seasonal performances, energy consumption, and simulation time between the 1D and 2D PCM models

Table 6 shows validations results in term of SCOP, electricity consumption and simulation time between the original 2D model of Zsembinszki et al.
[52–53] and the 1D version employed in this paper, for 5 different tests whose decisional variables values are reported in Table 7. It can be noticed that
percentage differences are in all cases lower than 2.5 %, with a simulation time saving which is on average of 20–30 s using the 1D model.

Efficiency and cost relations for solar thermal collectors and photovoltaic panels

Thermal collectors

Table 8 reports values for η0 , a1 and a2 for the evaluation of thermal efficiency and reference cost, for all the technology of thermal solar panels
investigated [69–70].

Photovoltaic panels

Table 9 reports calibration constant for the evaluation of energy efficiency and specific investment cost, for all the technology of photovoltaic solar
panels investigated. Solar panel efficiency has been calibrated on manufacturer data [71] depending on surface temperatures Ts between 10 ◦ C and
70 ◦ C, and depending on solar radiation with the following expression:.ηpv = a • Gb + c

PCM storage tank cost

PCM storage tank cost has been evaluated with a relation fitted on manufacturer data [72], reported in Fig. 14.

References [11] Z, Liu, L, Ma, J, Zhang, Application of a heat pump system using untreated urban sewage
as a heat source. Applied Thermal Engineering, 62(2014), Vol. 2, 747-757.
[12] Kamel RS, Fung AS, Dash PRH. Solar systems and their integration with heat
[1] COP26 Presidency Outcomes. The Glasgow Climate Pact. November 2021 Glasgow
pumps: A review. Energ Buildings 2015;87:395–412.
(https://ukcop26.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/COP26-Presidency-
[13] Chu J, Cruickshank CA. Solar-Assisted Heat Pump Systems: a review of existing
Outcomes-The-Climate-Pact.pdf).
studies and their applicability to the canadian residential sector. J Sol Energy Eng
[2] V, Masson-Delmotte, P, Zhai, H.O, Pörtner, D, Roberts, J, Skea, P.R, Shukla, T,
2014;136.
Waterfield. Global warming of 1.5 C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global
[14] R, Mastrullo, A.W, Mauro, F, Pelella, L, Viscito, Dual source (air-solar) heat pump:
warming of, 1.5. 2018.
thermo-economic analysis of sizing factors depending on climate conditions, 15th IIR-
[3] IEA (International Energy Agency), Heating, IEA, Paris (2021) https://www.iea.
Gustav Lorentzen conference on Natural Refrigerants, June 13-15, Trondheim, Norway
org/reports/heating.
(in press).
[4] EHPA (European Heat Pump Association). Market report 2021. https://www.ehpa.
[15] T.T, Chow, G, Pei, K.F, Fong, Z, Lin, A.L.S, Chan, M, He, Modeling and application of
org/market-data/market-report-2021/.
direct-expansion solar-assisted heat pump for water heating in subtropical Hong Kong.
[5] Corberán JM, Cazorla-Marín A, Marchante-Avellaneda J, Montagud C. Dual source
Applied Energy, 87(2010), Vol. 2, 643-649.
heat pump, a high efficiency and cost-effective alternative for heating, cooling and
[16] Cai J, Ji J, Wang Y, Huang W. Numerical simulation and experimental validation of
DHW production. Int J Low-Carbon Technol 2018;13:161–76.
indirect expansion solar-assisted multi-functional heat pump. Renew Energy 2016;
[6] Montagud C, Corberán JM, Montero Á. In situ optimization methodology for the
93:280–90.
water circulation pumps frequency of ground source heat pump systems. Energ
[17] Dannemand M, Perers B, Furbo S. Performance of a demonstration solar PVT
Buildings 2014;68:42–53.
assisted heat pump system with cold buffer storage and domestic hot water storage
[7] A, Arteconi, C, Brandoni, G, Rossi, F, Polonara, Experimental evaluation and dynamic
tanks. Energ Buildings 2019;188:46–57.
simulation of a ground coupled heat pump for a commercial building. International
[18] L, Croci, L, Molinaroli, P, Quaglia, Dual Source Solar Assisted Heat Pump Model
journal of energy research, 37(2013), Vol. 15, 1971-1980.
Development, Validation and Comparison to Conventional Systems, AiCARR 50th
[8] O, Bamigbetan, T.M, Eikevik, P, Nekså, M, Bantle, M., C, Schlemminger, The
International Congress; Beyond NZEB Buildings, 10-11 May 2017, Matera, Italy.
development of a hydrocarbon high temperature heat pump for waste heat recovery,
[19] Yang LW, Hua N, Pu JH, Xia Y, Zhou WB, Xu RJ, et al. Analysis of operation
Energy 173(2019), 1141-1153.
performance of three indirect expansion solar assisted air source heat pumps for
[9] Hervás-Blasco E, Navarro-Peris E, Corberán JM. Optimal design and operation of a
domestic heating. Energ Conver Manage 2022;252:115061.
central domestic hot water heat pump system for a group of dwellings employing
[20] Ma J, Fung AS, Brands M, Juan N, Moyeed OMA. Performance analysis of indirect-
low temperature waste heat as a source. Energy 2019;188:115979.
expansion solar assisted heat pump using CO2 as refrigerant for space heating in
[10] B, Rogié, J, Kjær Jensen, S, Kjøller Hansen, W, Brix Markussen, Analysis of Cold Air
cold climate. Sol Energy 2020;208:195–205.
Recirculation in the Evaporators of Large-Scale Air-Source Heat Pumps Using CFD
[21] Nasouri M, Bidhendi GN, Amiri MJ, Delgarm N, Delgarm S, Azarbad K.
Simulations. Fluids, 5(2020), Vol. 4, 186.
Performance-based Pareto optimization and multi-attribute decision making of an

14
F. PELELLA et al.
actual indirect-expansion solar-assisted heat pump system. J Building Eng 2021;42:
103053.
[22] R, Yumrutaş, M, Ünsal, Energy analysis and modeling of a solar assisted house heating
system with a heat pump and an underground energy storage tank. Solar Energy, 86
(2012), Vol. 3, 983-993.
[23] Starke AR, Cardemil JM, Colle S. Multi-objective optimization of a solar-assisted
heat pump for swimming pool heating using genetic algorithm. Appl Therm Eng
2018;142:118–26.
[24] Lazzarin R. Heat pumps and solar energy: a review with some insights in the future.
Int J Refrig 2020;116:146–60.
[25] X, Wang, M, Zheng, W, Zhang, S, Zhang, T, Yang, Experimental study of a solar-assisted
ground-coupled heat pump system with solar seasonal thermal storage in severe cold
areas. Energy and Buildings 42(2010), Vol.11, 2104-2110.
[26] V, Trillat-Berdal, B, Souyri, G, Fraisse, Experimental study of a ground-coupled heat
pump combined with thermal solar collectors. Energy and Buildings, 38(2006), Vol.12,
1477-1484.
[27] Sun T, Yang L, Jin L, Luo Z, Zhang Y, Liu Y, et al. A novel solar-assisted ground-
source heat pump (SAGSHP) with seasonal heat-storage and heat cascade
utilization: Field test and performance analysis. Sol Energy 2020;201:362–72.
[28] Verma V, Murugesan K. Optimization of solar assisted ground source heat pump
system for space heating application by Taguchi method and utility concept. Energ
Buildings 2014;82:296–309.
[29] Bulmez AM, Ciofoaia V, Năstase G, Dragomir G, Brezeanu AI, Şerban A. An
experimental work on the performance of a solar-assisted ground-coupled heat
pump using a horizontal ground heat exchanger. Renew Energy 2022;183:849–65.
[30] Huang J, Fan J, Furbo S. Demonstration and optimization of a solar district heating
system with ground source heat pumps. Sol Energy 2020;202:171–89.
[31] Nouri G, Noorollahi Y, Yousefi H. Designing and optimization of solar assisted
ground source heat pump system to supply heating, cooling and hot water
demands. Geothermics 2019;82:212–31.
[32] Lee M, Lee D, Park MH, Kang YT, Kim Y. Performance improvement of solar-
assisted ground-source heat pumps with parallelly connected heat sources in
heating-dominated areas. Energy 2022;240:122807.
[33] Ni L, Qv D, Yao Y, Niu F, Hu W. An experimental study on performance
enhancement of a PCM based solar-assisted air source heat pump system under
cooling modes. Appl Therm Eng 2016;100:434–52.
[34] Kutlu C, Zhang Y, Elmer T, Su Y, Riffat S. A simulation study on performance
improvement of solar assisted heat pump hot water system by novel controllable
crystallization of supercooled PCMs. Renew Energy 2020;152:601–12.
[35] Belmonte JF, Díaz-Heras M, Almendros-Ibáñez JA, Cabeza LF. Simulated
performance of a solar-assisted heat pump system including a phase-change storage
tank for residential heating applications: a case study in Madrid. Spain, Journal of
Energy Storage 2022;47:103615.
[36] Plytaria MT, Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Antonopoulos KA. Financial and energetic
evaluation of solar-assisted heat pump underfloor heating systems with phase
change materials. Appl Therm Eng 2019;149:548–64.
[37] Kamazani MA, Aghanajafi C. Multi-objective optimization and exergoeconomic
evaluation of a hybrid geothermal-PVT system integrated with PCM. Energy 2022;
240:122806.
[38] Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/2281 of 30 November 2016 implementing Directive
2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework
for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products, with regard to
ecodesign requirements for air heating products, cooling products, high temperature
process chillers and fan coil units (Text with EEA relevance).
[39] Pelella F, Viscito L, Mauro AW. Combined effects of refrigerant leakages and
fouling on air-source heat pump performances in cooling mode. Appl Therm Eng
2022;204:117965.
[40] Pelella F, Viscito L, Mauro AW. Soft faults in residential heat pumps: Possibility of
evaluation via on-field measurements and related degradation of performance.
Energ Conver Manage 2022;260:115646.
[41] Navarro-Peris E, Corberán JM, Falco L, Martínez-Galván IO. New non-dimensional
performance parameters for the characterization of refrigeration compressors. Int J
Refrigeration 2013;36:1951–64.
[42] Cartaxo SJM, Fernandes FAN. Counterflow logarithmic mean temperature
difference is actually the upper bound: a demonstration. Appl Therm Eng 2011;31.
[43] Longo GA, Mancin S, Righetti G, Zilio C. A new model for refrigerant boiling inside
Brazed Plate Heat Exchangers (BPHEs). Int J Heat Mass Transf 2015;91:144–9.
[44] Shah MM. A general correlation for heat transfer during film condensation inside
pipes. Int J Heat Mass Transf 1979;22:547–56.
[45] Dittus FW, Boelter LMK. Heat transfer in automobile radiators of the tubular type.
Univ Calif Publ Eng 1930;2:443–61.
15
Applied Energy 331 (2023) 120398
[46] H, Martin, A theoretical approach to predict the performance of chevron-type plate heat
exchangers. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 35 (1996),
Vol. 4, 301-310.
[47] Gungor K, Winterton R. A general correlation for flow boiling in tubes and annuli.
Int J Heat Mass Transf 1986;29:351–8.
[48] Wang CC, Chi YY. Heat transfer and friction characteristics of plain fin-and-tube
heat exchangers: part II. Correlation, Int J Heat and Mass Transfer 2000;43:
2693–700.
[49] Krarti M, Lopez-Alonzo C, Claridge DE, Kreider JF. Analytical Model to Predict
Annual Soil Surface Temperature Variation. J Sol Energy Eng 1995;117.
[50] C.C, Smith, T.A, Weiss, Design application of the Hottel-Whillier-Bliss equation. Solar
energy 19(1977), Vol. 2, 109-113.
[51] D, Faiman, D, Towards a standard method for determining the efficiency of integrated
collector-storage solar water heaters. Solar energy, 33 (1984), Vol. 5, 459-463.
[52] G, Zsembinszki, P, Moreno, C, Solé, A, Castell, L.F, Cabeza, Numerical model evaluation
of a PCM cold storage tank and uncertainty analysis of the parameters, Applied thermal
engineering 67(2014), Vol 1-2, 16-23.
[53] A, Crespo, G, Zsembinszki, D, Vérez, E, Borri, C, Fernández, L.F, Cabeza, A, de Gracia,
Optimization of design variables of a phase change material storage tank and
comparison of a 2D implicit vs. 2D explicit model, Energies 14(2021), Vol.9, 2605.
[54] E, Skoplaki, J.A, Palyvos, On the temperature dependence of photovoltaic module
electrical performance: A review of efficiency/power correlations, Solar energy, 83
(2009), Vol. 5, 614-624.
[55] MATLAB release. Natick, Massachussets, United States, The MathWorks, Inc.
[56] E.W. Lemmon, M.L. Huber., M.O. McLinden, REFPROP, NIST standard reference
database 23, version 9.0. National Institute of Standards and Technology (2007),
Gaithersburg, MD.
[57] Rubitherm Technologies GmbH - Imhoffweg 6 - 12307 Berlin, PCM RT-Line: htt
ps://www.rubitherm.eu/en/index.php/productcategory/organische-pcm-rt.
[58] Beckman WA, Broman L, Fiksel A, Klein SA, Lindberg E, Schuler M, et al. TRNSYS
The most complete solar energy system modeling and simulation software. Renew
Energy 1994;5:486–8.
[59] S, Forrest, Genetic algorithms. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 28 (1996), Vol.1, 77-
80.
[60] Zhou K, Mao J, Zhang H, Li Y, Yu X, Chen F, et al. Design strategy and techno-
economic optimization for hybrid ground heat exchangers of ground source heat
pump system. Sustainable Energy Technol Assess 2022;52:102140.
[61] Botticella F, De Rossi F, Mauro AW, Vanoli GP, Viscito L. Multi-criteria
(thermodynamic, economic and environmental) analysis of possible design options
for residential heating split systems working with low GWP refrigerants. Int J
Refrig 2018;87:131–53.
[62] Ferreira AC, Silva A, Teixeira JC, Teixeira S. Multi-objective optimization of solar
thermal systems applied to portuguese dwellings. Energies 2020;13:6739.
[63] Sanaye S, Shirazi A. Thermo-economic optimization of an ice thermal energy
storage system for air-conditioning applications. Energ Buildings 2013;60:100–9.
[64] Tervo E, Agbim K, DeAngelis F, Hernandez J, Kim HK, Odukomaiya A. An
economic analysis of residential photovoltaic systems with lithium ion battery
storage in the United States. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;94:1057–66.
[65] Eurostat, Electricity prices (including taxes) for household consumers, second half 2021,
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_
statistics#:~:text=The%20EU%20average%20price%20in,was%20%E2%82%
AC0.2369%20per%20kWh.
[66] J.C, Helton, F.J, Davis, Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in
analyses of complex systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 81(2003), Vol. 1,
23-69.
[67] «C.J, Banister, M.R, Collins, Development and performance of a dual tank solar-
assisted heat pump system, Applied Energy 149 (2015), 125-132».
[68] «S.B, Bhandari, Discounted payback period-some extensions, Journal of Business
and Behavioral Sciences, 21 (2009), 28-38».
[69] Solarbayer - Solar systems - High performance collectors - https://www.solarbayer.
com/solar-systems.html.
[70] SvizzeraEnergia, Ufficio federale dell’energia UFE Mühlestrasse 4, CH-3063 Ittigen.
Indirizzo postale : CH-3003 Berna - https://www.svizzeraenergia.ch/.
[71] «M.A, Green, K, Emery, Y, Hishikawa, W, Warta, E.D, Dunlop, D.H, Levi, A.W.Y,
Ho-Baillie, Solar cell efficiency tables (version 49), Prog. Photovolt: res. Appl. 25
(2017), 3–13».
[72] PCM Products Ltd - Unit 32 Mere View Industrial Estate, Yaxley, Unit 32 Mere View
Industrial Estate, Yaxley, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, PE7 3HS - https://www.
pcmproducts.net/.