Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Ground-coupled heat pumps: Part 1 – Literature review and research

challenges in modeling and optimal control
Ercan Atam a,n, Lieve Helsen a,b
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, KU Leuven, Celestijnelaan 300 box 2421, Leuven 3001, Belgium
b
EnergyVille, Waterschei, Belgium

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

In this paper, a compact overview of the state-of-the-art in modeling of ground-coupled heat pump (GCHP)
Keywords: systems and an in-depth review of their optimal control along with the associated research challenges are
Geothermal energy given. The main focus is on optimal control but since design of an optimal controller may require a model, a
Ground-coupled heat pumps relatively short literature review of modeling approaches is also discussed. Adopting the adage “a picture is
Hybrid ground-coupled heat pumps worth a thousand words”, we tried to include a minimal number of representative schematics and result
Borefield modeling figures for some of the reviewed studies for clarity and a better understanding of the presented material. In
Optimal control addition to the literature review, we included our comments, points of view, alternative solutions and some
potential future directions. This review paper is useful both for engineers and researchers involved in
modeling and optimal control of GCHP systems. The second part of the paper, “Ground-Coupled Heat
Pumps: Part 2 – Literature Review and Research Challenges in Optimal Design”, focuses on the literature
review on optimal design and the associated design challenges for GCHP systems.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Literature review on modeling of GCHPs and modeling challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Thermal response factor-based models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Numerical thermal models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Artificial neural network models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. State-space models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Challenges in modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5.1. Dynamic ground surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5.2. Moisture in the soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5.3. Effect of groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.6. Comments on modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.7. Comparison of different GCHP modeling methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Literature review on control of (Hy)GCHPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Rule-based control methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Model-based control methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Other control methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4. Control challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4.1. Obtaining a control model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4.2. State estimation issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4.3. Robustness and practical implementation issues for controllers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4.4. Defining a benchmark case study to compare different control methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5. Comments on control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6. Comparison of different GCHP control methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Ercan.Atam@kuleuven.be (E. Atam).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.007
1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Atam E, Helsen L. Ground-coupled heat pumps: Part 1 – Literature review and research challenges in
modeling and optimal control. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.007i
2 E. Atam, L. Helsen / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

3.7. Some future directions to-Go . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4. Conclusions . . . . . . ................................................................................................... 13
Acknowledgments . . . . . ................................................................................................... 14
References . . . . . . . . . . . ................................................................................................... 14

1. Introduction connection is closed-loop or open-loop. The heat source (sink)

may be ground (earth) or water. In case ground is the heat source
Global warming and worries about future energy shortage have (sink), the connection can be a vertical or a horizontal closed-loop
resulted in a substantial interest in clean and renewable energy in connection. When water is used as the heat source (sink), both
the last decades. Based on the fact that buildings account for closed-loop and open-loop type connections are possible.
approximately 40% of total energy use in Europe [1] and similar Most of the heat pump applications involve supplementary
percentages in the rest of the world, design of energy-efficient devices in addition to the GCHP unit and the combined system is
buildings and development of heating and cooling technologies called hybrid ground-coupled heat pump (HyGCHP). These sup-
based on renewable energy sources are required. In this context, plementary devices involve open- or closed-circuit cooling towers,
ground-coupled heat pumps play a key role in the supply of clean closed-circuit fluid coolers, surface heat rejecters (such as shallow
and low cost energy. Despite the low public awareness of this heat rejecters under pavements or in ponds) for cooling purposes
energy-efficient technology based on geothermal energy sources, and gas-fired boilers, electrical heaters for heating purposes.
GCHPs have been in commercial use for more than 50 years. The HyGCHPs are, by far, more complex systems than GCHPs. Under
first successful demonstration of GCHPs dates back to 1946 at the normal conditions, the optimal operation of a (Hy)GCHP system
Commonwealth Building in Portland, Oregon [2]. GCHPs can cover (its optimal control) boils down to maximizing the use of the heat
a wide range of energy demand, from small residences to large pump and passive cooling in covering the heating and cooling
commercial and institutional buildings. The U.S. Environmental loads within certain temperature constraints for the heat carrier
Protection Agency (EPA) has identified GCHP systems as the most fluid. Although this kind of optimal control policy is clear, deter-
energy-efficient and environmentally clean heating and cooling mination of quantitative values of optimal load sharing between
option [3]. components requires an intelligent control strategy when multiple
The main advantage of GCHP systems over air-source heat operational constraints hold, such as maximum machine power,
pumps (ASHPs) is their stable and higher efficiency thanks to a temperature bounds of the heat carrier fluid, ground thermal
relatively higher-lower (relatively higher for winter, relatively depletion or build-up.
lower for summer) and stable ground temperature compared to However, before starting to design an optimal controller for a
the ambient air temperature. GCHPs are sometimes called ground- (Hy)GCHP system, an accurate control model of the (Hy)GCHP
source heat pumps (GSHPs) and hence both the terms GCHPs and system is required. Although there has been a substantial devel-
GSHPs are used interchangeably within the text. Table 1 gives a opment in the thermal modeling of such systems, still some
detailed comparison between the ASHPs and GSHPs from different modeling challenges remain. Especially, an accurate model of a
borefield taking into account short and long term dynamic effects,
aspects. GSHPs can be categorized in different ways. One way is
thermal interactions among boreholes, axial temperature gra-
based on the heat source (sink). The other way is whether the
dients and moving ground water effects, etc., is hard to obtain.
In this paper, a literature review of (Hy)GCHP system modeling
Table 1 and their optimal control together with research challenges are
Comparison of different characteristics of GSHPs and ASHPs. This table is modified presented. We, in general, selectively focused on the literature which
version of the corresponding table in [4] (0: weakest, 5: highest).
includes the thermal dynamics of the ground. There are many other
ASHPs GSHPs closely related studies in the literature which consider “geothermal
renewable energy” as a part of their optimal control strategy but
Vertical Horizontal Open- there is no detail on modeling of the geothermal part. Some exam-
water
ples are: examining system capacity and performance sensitivity to
Energy efficiency 1 5 3 3 different control strategies (for example, set-point control of zone
Design criteria Feasibility 3 1 1 1 temperatures, building loop return water temperature and control of
Construction 1 5 3 3 the bandwidth of these temperatures) [5] and PID, PID-MPC or fuzzy-
difficulty logic based indoor temperature control [6]. These kind of studies
Capital cost 1 5 3 3
Life cycle cost Installation 1 5 3 3
simply assume a maximum capacity on the energy to be provided by
Operation 3 1 1 1 the geothermal component and modeling of the geothermal com-
Maintenance 3 1 1 1 ponent is not included. In this review paper, we skipped such studies,
Total 3 1 1 1 except capacity control approaches [7] and dynamic heat pump
Environmental CO2 emissions 3 1 1 1
modeling approach [8]. We included these studies to make the
Land disturbance 0 3 1 1
Water 0 0 0 1 reader aware of these new ideas.
contamination The modeling and optimal control literature on (Hy)GCHP
Equipment life 1 3 3 3 systems is subdivided into different categories as shown in Table 2.
Practical issues Operation 3 1 1 1
From Table 2, we see that the approaches differ considerably and
restrictions
Aesthetics 1 3 3 3
most of them require an interdisciplinary collaboration between
Quietness 1 5 5 5 the fields of heat transfer, optimization, control and system iden-
Vandalism 1 0 0 0 tification. In the review of the relevant studies, the ones which we
Indoor 1 3 3 3 found more interesting or more applicable are reviewed and
comfortability
Safety 3 3 3 3
explained in a greater detail compared to the others. In addition,
we included some sections to point out the challenges, sometimes

Please cite this article as: Atam E, Helsen L. Ground-coupled heat pumps: Part 1 – Literature review and research challenges in
modeling and optimal control. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.007i
 E. Atam, L. Helsen / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 3

Nomenclature GHE ground heat exchanger

Variable Description HP heat pump
HyGCHP hybrid ground-coupled heat pump
B borehole spacing ILS infinite line source
H; L borehole depth LTI linear time-invariant
k thermal conductivity; time step number MIQP mixed-integer quadratic programming
m_ mass flow rate MPC model predictive control
n number of years; number of states PF performance factor
_ Q ; Q_
q; q; heat transfer rate (changes from study to study) PID proportional integral derivative
r borehole radius RBFNN radial basis function neural network
R resistance RMSE root mean square error
t time SS state-space
T temperature
Tb borehole wall temperature Subscripts Description
u input
W electrical power a air
x state ave average
α thermal diffusivity b, bhe borehole
ρ density c cooling
conv convection
Abbreviations Description d demand
f fluid
ANN artificial neural networks g grout
APSO adaptive particle swarm optimization gr, s soil
BHE borehole heat exchanger h heating; hourly
CHS cylindrical heat source in indoor; inlet
COP coefficient of performance mix mixture
CT cooling tower opt operational; optimal
ESC extremum seeking control p pipe
FLS finite line source r rejection
GCHP, GSHP ground-coupled (source) heat pump tot total
y yearly

alternative solutions, our points of view on the related subjects The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In Section 2,
and some future directions to follow based on this literature different modeling approaches for GCHPs or HyGCHPs together
review and our experience. with the associated modeling challenges are presented and the
advantages/disadvantages of each modeling approach from a
Table 2
Categories within modeling and optimal control of GCHP/HyGCHP systems based control-oriented point of view are discussed. Section 3 reviews the
on the current literature. relevant work on optimal control of (Hy)GCHPs, discusses advan-
tages/disadvantages of different control approaches, lists main
Modeling
challenges in control of (Hy)GCHPs and suggests some future work
Thermal response factor Numerical thermal Artificial State-space to be done based on our experience. Finally, the summary of this
models models neural net- models
review material and some concluding remarks can be found in the
work models
conclusions, Section 4.
Eskilson [11], Cimmino Rees and He[21], Esen et al. Verhelst and
and Bernier [12], Cui et al. [22], Li [29], Gang Helsen [33],
Yavuzturk and Spitler and Zheng [23], and Wang De Rideder
[13], Zeng et al. [14], Bauer et al. [24], [30], Yating et al. [34],
Lamarche and Beau- Diersch et al. [25], et al. [31], Atam et al. 2. Literature review on modeling of GCHPs and modeling
champ [15], Cui et al. Al-Khoury et al. Gang et al. [35], Atam challenges
[17], Marcotte and [27], Wooszyn and [32] et al. [36]
Pasquier [18], Goa [28] In this section, we present a survey of borehole/borefield
Lamarche [19], Fisher
and Simon [20] thermal modeling approaches to be discussed/analyzed in the
Control context of optimal control of (Hy)GCHPs. The application of an
optimal control method for a (Hy)GCHP system is very dependent
Rule-based control methods Mathematical-model based Other control
control methods methods
on the used borehole/borefield model. Some control approaches
can be designed based on specific borehole/borefield models only.
Cullin and Spitler [47], Hackel Verhelst [55], De Ridder Gang and Since the main focus of the paper is optimal control of (Hy)GCHP
and Pertzborn [48], Yang and et al. [34], Atam and Helsen Wang [30],
Wang [50], Sagia and Rako- [57], Atam et al. [58], Hu Yating et al.
systems, the review of modeling approaches is done from a
poulos [51], Yavuzturk and et al. [56], Antonov et al. [31], Madani control-oriented point of view, i.e, the usefulness, advantages/
Spitler [52], Man et al. [53], [59], Sundbrandt [8] et al. [7] disadvantages of modeling approaches in the context of design of
Arteconi et al. [54]
optimal controllers.

Please cite this article as: Atam E, Helsen L. Ground-coupled heat pumps: Part 1 – Literature review and research challenges in
modeling and optimal control. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.007i
4 E. Atam, L. Helsen / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
2.1. Thermal response factor-based models
Thermal response factor models represent a group of techni-
ques based on infinite or finite line source theory, cylindrical
source theory, etc. [9–11]. These approaches determine borehole
wall temperatures in terms of net heat rate per borehole length
from the ground and special functions, so called “g-functions”:


Q0 t rb B
Tb
T0 ¼ g ; ; ; borefield geometry : ð1Þ
λ ts H H
The concept of a g-function was introduced by Eskilson in 1987
[11]. A g-function is defined as a non-dimensional temperature
response factor which relates the borehole wall temperature and
the net heat rate per borehole length from the ground, through the
ground thermal diffusivity. It is used to represent the dynamic
thermal behavior of a specific borefield configuration. In (1), Tb
represents the borehole wall temperature, T0 the undisturbed
ground temperature, Q 0 the net heat rate per borehole length, ts
the characteristic time ð ¼ H 2 =9αs Þ, rb the borehole radius, H the
borefield depth, B the distance between two neighboring bore-
holes and αs the thermal diffusivity of the ground, respectively. As
we see, three non-dimensional parameters appear in a g-function:
r b =H: non-dimensional borehole radius, B=H: borefield aspect ratio
and t=t s : non-dimensional time.
There are many approaches to deriving g-functions: numerical,
analytical or hybrid (a combination of numerical and analytical
methods). The most widely used approaches are based on finite
line source (FLS) theory [11], where boreholes are considered as
line sources of finite length. In FLS theory based approaches, these
kinds of boundary conditions have been used in the literature [12]:
 BC1: uniform and the same heat rate along the length of the
boreholes. The average temperatures of boreholes are different.
 BC2: uniform but a different heat rate along the length of the
boreholes. The average temperatures of boreholes are the same.
 BC3: variable heat rate along the length of the boreholes. The
temperatures along the length of boreholes are uniform and the
same for all boreholes.
Eskilson [11] derived his g-functions numerically based on the 2D
(radial-axial) finite difference solution of the heat equation in the
cylindrical coordinates under the assumption of negligible capa-
citances for grout, pipe and circulating fluid:
∂2 T 1 ∂T ∂2 T 1 ∂T
þ þ ¼ ;
∂r 2 r ∂r ∂z2 α ∂t
Tðr; 0; tÞ ¼ T 0 ;
Tðr; z; 0Þ ¼ T 0 ;
Z 
1 H
∂T 
Q0 ¼ 2πrk dz:
H 0 ∂r r ¼ rb
In Eskilson's model, the numerical solutions were obtained to
determine the temperature distribution for a single borehole and
then superposition in spatial and temporal coordinates were used
to obtain the temperature distribution for an arbitrary borefield
and for an arbitrary net heat rate. Eskilson's g-functions were
derived using BC3.
An example of g-function is shown in Fig. 1. From Fig. 1, we
observe four different regions [12]:
 The first region corresponds to 1D heat transfer where the
borehole wall temperature is not affected yet by the ground
surface temperature or far-field ground temperature.
Please cite this article as: Atam E, Helsen L. Ground-coupled heat pumps: Part 1 – Literature review and research challenges in
modeling and optimal control. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.007i
Fig. 1. g-function example for different spacing to depth ratios, for a 3  2 borefield [12].
 The second region corresponds to a time region where thermal
interactions between boreholes exist. Note that this is also the
region where g-function of the borefield detaches from the g-
function of a single borehole.
 The third region corresponds to the time region where 2D
radial-axial heat transfer is occurring.
 Finally, the fourth region corresponds to the steady-state heat
transfer modes.
Note that the g-function of a single borehole corresponds to
B=H ¼ 1. In Eskilson's approach, since capacitances of all elements
inside the borehole were neglected, the approach is not valid for
short-term time scales (2 h–6 h).
After Eskilson's introduction of g-functions, there have been
many extensions and developments on this subject to alleviate the
restrictions of the approach and improving its accuracy. For
example, Yavuzturk and Spitler [13] extended the Eskilson's
approach for short-time scales of down to one hour by using a 2D
finite volume formulation in polar coordinates. Zeng et al. [14]
extended Eskilson's approach using BC1. Comparison of their
results with Eskilson's results showed little differences. Lamarche
and Beauchamp [15] also used BC1 and simplified the FLS solution
to obtain a relation for the integral mean temperature at the
borehole wall involving a single integral instead of a double inte-
gral which was the case for Zeng et al. [14]. As a result, the solution
ð2aÞ of Lamarche and Beauchamp was approximately 1000 times faster
than that of Zeng et. al. and 10 times than that of Eskilson.
ð2bÞ Claesson and Javed [16] obtained analytical but very complex
relations for the integral mean borehole wall temperature. The FLS
ð2cÞ based g-function approach was also extended to inclined bore-
holes [17–19]. Lamarche [19] compared his results to Eskilson's
approach for borefields of 2, 4, 6 boreholes and the results agreed
ð2dÞ
within 2% for the studies cases.
An example of the experimental validation of the model of a
GHE system with two boreholes based on g-functions is given in
Fig. 2. As wee see, the heat transfer rate of the model agrees well
with the experimental data.
2.2. Numerical thermal models
In this section, we list some of the numerical models for
borehole and borefield heat exchangers that are based on 1D, 2D,
3D finite volume or finite element approaches. We only give a
representative list and do not go into their details since they are
not so useful in practice for design of optimal controllers for real
applications due to several reasons. First, most of them are very
 E. Atam, L. Helsen / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
Fig. 2. Experimental validation of a GHE model (consisting of two boreholes) based
on g-functions [20].
complicated models and hence it is not easy to get a reduced-
order, state-space representation ðx_ ¼ Ax þ Bu; y ¼ Cx þ DuÞ from
these numerical models. This is especially the case for numerical
models taking into account groundwater flow effect, dynamic
surface boundary conditions, etc. State-space representation is
required since most of the advanced control methods (for exam-
ple, model predictive control) require such a representation. The
state-space model should be a reduced-order model to calculate
control inputs fast enough. Second, these models are large-scale
models and hence the underlying dynamical system will have
observability/controllability issues. Third, they are developed
using a commercial software (like ANSYS, Fluent, COMSOL, GEMS)
which is difficult to couple to a control design software (for
example, Matlab Control System toolbox). Finally, none of these
approaches is applicable to a borefield consisting of a moderate-
to-a large number of boreholes. These counted reasons are the
main factors why state-space models (Section 2.4) are developed
from numerical models using system identification or model-
order reduction techniques. However, numerical approaches are,
in general, by far more accurate than the simplified analytical
models since they can take into account multiple time scales
existing in U-tube fluid, grout and ground regions, they are able to
deal with the different configurations of U-tubes and they can take
into account groundwater flow and moisture effects. As a result,
most of the time they are used as a cross-check means to asses the
accuracy of other simplified analytical or semi-simplified hybrid
models (models developed from a combination of numerical and
analytical approaches). As a representative list of numerical
modeling of borehole/borefield studies, we can suggest [21–28].
2.3. Artificial neural network models
Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) have been very useful to
model extremely complex systems in many areas of engineering.
They have also been applied to model GCHPs or HyGCHPs [29–32].
They can be used to model an existing borefield for short-term
predictions and the developed model may be used for control
purposes. In Esen et al. [29] a GCHP with a horizontal GHE was
considered. An adaptive neuro fuzzy model was used to model the
whole system where the input variables are air temperature
entering the condenser unit, air temperature leaving the con-
denser unit (due to condenser fan) and the ground temperature.
The output of interest is COP of the heat pump. The adaptive neuro
fuzzy model of the system predicted COP of the heat pump very
accurately with a RMSE value of 0.0047. Gand and Wang [30] used
an ANN model to model GHE in a HyGCHP system. The input
variables are the temperatures at the inlet side of the GHE, at the
Please cite this article as: Atam E, Helsen L. Ground-coupled heat pumps: Part 1 – Literature review and research challenges in
modeling and optimal control. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.007i
5
inside–outside walls of the buried pipe and at the inside–outside
walls of backfilling material. The output of interest is the tem-
perature of the water exiting the GHE. The authors reported that
the ANN model could predict the GHE exit temperature with an
absolute error less than 0.2 °C. Yating et al. [31] modeled a whole
GCHP system using a radial basis function neural network (RBFNN)
model. The inputs considered are building load, inlet temperature
of GHE, borehole circulating fluid mass flow rate and building
supply water mass flow rate. The outputs to be predicted are the
heat pump COP and the building supply water temperature. The
RBFNN model prediction results had 0.132 RMSE for the heat
pump COP and 0.15 °C RMSE for the building supply water tem-
perature. Finally, in Gang et al. [32] the considered system is a
HyGCHP (a GCHP system with a cooling tower). GHE in the
HyGCHP system was modeled using an ANN model. The inputs to
the ANN model are the inputs considered in Gang and Wang [30]
plus the time step and the cooling water temperature difference
between the inlet and outlet of the heat pump unit. The predicted
output is the water temperature exiting the plate heat exchanger
(PHE) (which is put at the GHE side). The ANN model predicted the
output with a RMSE value of 0.5 °C.
In case of using ANN models or modifications of them, one
faces a serious drawback: the availability of data to be used to train
the ANN system. The typical data of a borefield require multi-
decades (20–30 years) to include both the short and long-term
dynamic effects. Collection of such long-term data is not feasible in
reality. In the above cited references, the training data for ANN
models originate either from real experiments over a short time
period or from BHE simulation softwares, which can provide
(approximate) long-term data.
2.4. State-space models
Among the borehole/borefield modeling approaches, the state-
space approaches [33,34,?,36] are the most useful approaches for
model based control but still the models developed and/or pre-
sented methods toward state-space based modeling in these stu-
dies are not satisfactory or not general enough or not easy-to-
apply. More specifically, Verhelst and Helsen [33] considered
developing state-space models starting from a one-dimensional
finite difference model (1D-FDM) of heat diffusion equation in the
ground. This 1D-FDM was constructed based on guidelines pre-
sented in Eskilson [11] and then model reduction was used to
obtain a lower-order model. For the considered reduced-order
models, the input was the net heat injected to the ground and the
output was the circulating fluid mean temperature. The perfor-
mances of a set of reduced-order models were compared with the
output results of the TRNSYS [37] DST model and it was observed
that a sixth order model had a reasonable accuracy (with RMSE of
0.6 °C for variable heat input and 1.7 °C for a step heat input) over
10 years. Verhelst and Helsen [33] also considered parameter
estimation techniques using a coarse version of the 1D-FDM and
estimated its parameters using data from the TRNSYS DST model.
It was observed that lower order models of first-to-fifth order
were able to predict borehole circulating mean temperature over a
shorter period of one year but extrapolation to longer time inter-
vals deteriorated the performance of the models. A state-space
model was also used by De Ridder et al. [34] for a borefield but it is
a very simple first-order model for the mean borefield tempera-
ture with a sampling period of one week. One week sampling
period is very long since typical control actions for buildings
equipped with GCHPs may require control time steps in order of
minutes or hours. Moreover, the measurement of mean borefield
temperature may be either difficult or inaccurate. Atam et al. [36]
derived a control oriented-model for a borehole by applying finite
volume discretization to radial heat equation and then obtained a
6 E. Atam, L. Helsen / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
reduced-order model for the system through application of proper
orthogonal decomposition method which allows to integrate the
effect of multiple time scales by appropriately constructing a
matrix (known as snapshot matrix) used in the reduced-order
modeling. An approach for obtaining parameterized state-space
models as a function of physical variables such as borehole length,
radius, and mass flow rate was derived by Atam et al. [35]. The
main advantage of such a parameterized borehole model is the
fact that it can be used in a co-design (simultaneous optimal
design and optimal control, which will be discussed in the second
part of the paper) framework. All of these state-space based
modeling approaches are either valid for a single borehole only or
in case of borefields their derivation relies on some idealized
assumptions which are hard to meet in a real-time applications.
2.5. Challenges in modeling
2.5.1. Dynamic ground surface
The ground surface involves many complex processes and inter-
actions happening and an accurate modeling should take into account
solar radiation, cloud cover, surface albedo, ambient temperature,
relative humidity, rainfall, snow cover, wind speed, etc [38]. It is
almost impossible to model analytically the above complex processes
and it is very hard also to consider their effects in numerical models.
As a result, many researchers simplified the dynamic ground surface
by assuming the ground surface temperature variation in the form of a
sine wave or Fourier series [39,40]. Some other researchers even made
a more simplified assumption: they assumed the ground surface to
have a constant temperature value or they assumed an adiabatic
boundary condition on the ground surface.
2.5.2. Moisture in the soil
Heat transfer in the ground with the presence of soil moisture
requires system modeling with coupled heat and mass transfer
balances which make the modeling problem more difficult and
complex. However, taking into account the moisture effect is very
crucial for the optimal design and performance prediction of a
GCHP system since moisture content directly affects the soil
thermal conductivity. In Fayegh and Rosen [38], it was specified
that the effect of moisture is more pronounced in horizontal BHEs
than vertical BHEs because of the effect of temperature and
moisture variation near the ground surface. Some literature stu-
dies [41–43] reported that the moisture content of soil affects the
BHE design length and GCHP performance in the long term.
2.5.3. Effect of groundwater
Another factor affecting the thermal response of a borefield
system is the presence of groundwater flow. Groundwater flow
requires the heat conduction equation to be coupled to the heat
advection equation. The direction of groundwater flow is a key
parameter and in many methods dealing with the effect of
groundwater flow on the heat transfer response of a borefield
system, it was assumed that the direction of flow was parallel to a
coordinate axis. This assumption may be violated in complex
borefield configurations and, in fact, based on flow direction the
borefield orientation may be decided for a better performance. In
Lee and Lam [44], the effect of groundwater flow direction was
scrutinized in detail through a 3D numerical modeling study.
Some other groundwater effect studies are presented in [45,46].
The groundwater level has also a direct effect on the performance
of a GCHP system and hence on the model to predict its COP. As the
water level increases, the thermal interaction of groundwater with
borehole through advection and natural convection increases. This
increased interaction decreases the borehole thermal resistance,
which in turn increases COP of the GCHP system.
Please cite this article as: Atam E, Helsen L. Ground-coupled heat pumps: Part 1 – Literature review and research challenges in
modeling and optimal control. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.007i
2.6. Comments on modeling
The different categories of (Hy)GCHP system modeling approaches
have pros and cons relative to each other. The model of a (Hy)GCHP
should have at least one of the following three properties, preferably
having all of them, (a) to predict the response of the underlying sys-
tem with an acceptable accuracy, (b) to be used in optimal control,
(c) to be used in optimal design. The first property, in fact, is a must.
Now let us analyze the presented different modeling approaches in
the context of the first two properties (the discussion in the context of
third property will be done in the second part of the paper).
 ANN models can accurately model an existing complex (Hy)
GCHP system but, as mentioned in Section 2.3, they are not
useful for optimal control in long-term application practice
since their training requires long-term data. ANN is not the
preferred approach to model BHEs, but may be a good approach
for modeling other components within the global system
having smaller time constants.
 The thermal response factor models are not so useful for con-
trol. It is extremely difficult to use such complex models in a
model based control design framework. However, these models
can be used indirectly for control purpose. For example, system
identification can be applied to obtain reduced-order models by
using the input–output data from the simulation of thermal
response factor models and a controller can be designed using a
reduced-order model.
 Numerical thermal models are, in general, very accurate, and
hence may be considered ideal for control purposes. However,
they include too many states (in the order of millions) and
hence they cannot be used directly for control purposes. To that
end, first a model-order reduction is necessary to obtain a
reduced-order, controllable/observable model, based on which a
controller can be designed. Even in this case, the controlled
system will be of limited capacity since thermal numerical
approaches can only model a borefield system with a few BHEs.
 State-space models (especially, linear, time-invariant state-
space models (LTI-SS)) are desired forms for optimal control.
The main reason for this is the fact that the related theory for
optimal control of LTI-SS systems is very well-developed.
However, as we observed from the literature review on model-
ing, the most general models are thermal response factor
models and these models are not in state-space form. However
for optimal control purposes, as we mentioned before, it is
worth trying the following: once a borefield is modeled using
thermal response factor approaches, system identification can
be used to obtain a state-space model approximating it. As
input, for example, we may consider the inlet temperature of
the circulating fluid exiting the heat pump and as output we can
take the temperature of the fluid entering the heat pump.
2.7. Comparison of different GCHP modeling methods
A qualitative comparison of presented different (Hy)GCHP mod-
eling methods with respect to their capabilities of handling the
mentioned research challenges and with respect to model character-
istics (accuracy, complexity and speed) is given in Table 3.
3. Literature review on control of (Hy)GCHPs
3.1. Rule-based control methods
A rule-based controller that uses the most efficient machine at
each time step might be the simplest algorithm to use. This kind of
controller is, however, not able to make full use of the temperature
 E. Atam, L. Helsen / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 7

Table 3 charge/discharge the ground, Mode 2: solar energy and BHE

A qualitative comparison of different (Hy)GCHP modeling methods in terms of together are used as heat source of the heat pump to heat the
research challenges and model characteristics using a scale of 0–5 (0: lowest, 5:
building, Mode 3: the GCHP is used to heat the building. Using
highest).
these three modes, T solar;require ; T solar;out and BHE outlet tempera-
Research challenges Modeling approaches ture T BTE;out , they constructed the rule-based control flow chart
& model shown in Fig. 3(b). The performance of the proposed control
characteristics strategy was tested on a 24 h simulation (which is a very short
Thermal Numerical Artificial State-space
time for the building and borehole having large time constants) of
response thermal neural net- models
factor models work a test case study with a control time step of 15 min. In order to
models models assesses the performance of the designed rule-based control
strategy, a performance factor PF was defined as
Accuracy 3 4 5 2
Complexity 4 5 4 1 Q_ h
Speed 3 1 2 5
PF ¼ ; ð4Þ
W total
Dynamic ground 1 5 4 0
surface boundary where Q_ h is the heat transferred to the building and W total is the
condition inclu- total electricity consumption of all units. During 24 h simulation,
sion capability
Mode 1 took 6.25% of time with PF ¼8.42, Mode 2 took 21.88% of
Moisture in the soil 1 5 4 0
effect inclusion time with PF ¼3.16 and Mode 3 took 72.92% of time with PF ¼2.47.
capability The authors indicated that a future study concerning seasonal
Groundwater effect 1 5 4 0 performance of this hybrid system (thus, a longer simulation) is
inclusion needed.
capability
For cooling-dominated buildings, successful rule-based control
Applicability to 5 1 1 2
dense borefields strategies were designed for HyGCHP systems. For example, Sagia
Usefulness for 0 1 1 5 and Rakopoulos [51], Yavuzturk and Spitler [52] and Man et al.
model-based [53] considered similar control strategies for a HyGCHP system
control
with a closed-circuit cooling tower as supplemental device for
Easiness to obtain 3 1 3 4
heat rejection to increase the performance of the GCHP system.
The control strategies were based on set-point temperatures for
constraints of the heat carrier fluid for a BHE. For example, Cullin the heat pump entering/exiting fluid or based on differential
and Spitler [47] and Heckel and Pertzborn [48] proposed rule- temperatures between the heat pump entering/exiting fluid and
based control strategies coupled with a set of parameters to the ambient air (wet-bulb temperature). The main conclusion of
optimize the system performance using a simulation based opti- these studies was that GCHP systems with a cooling tower are cost
mization method. Multiple simulations with different initial- optimal for relatively hot climates or moderately warm ones. For
boundary conditions and heating-cooling demand scenarios have example, Man et al. [53] reported that compared to the traditional
been considered and the decision variables are optimized either GCHP system, 34.32% investment cost saving, 22.85% operation
manually or through a simulation-coupled optimization program cost saving in the first year running and 53.59% operation cost
such as GenOpt [49] until satisfactory performance was observed saving in ten years running can be achieved by using the HyGCHP
in the simulations. The main drawbacks of these approaches are system for the considered sample building.
that first, they suffer from a mathematical model-based optimi- Finally, Arteconi et al. [54] analyzed a case study with a GCHP
zation/control and hence the suggested rule-based control meth- plant and evaluated its performance by means of a dynamic
ods may be very conservative strategies in general and second, the simulation, calibrated based on experimental data. The borefield
number of variables to be optimized in a rule-based control was modeled using TRNSYS. The objective was to compare the
approach is restricted most of the time since few parameters are performance of the GCHP system with a traditional system where
chosen to characterize the optimal control performance. A third a boiler for heating and a chiller for cooling were considered. A
problem is that they have difficulties to incorporate properly the rule-based control strategy using heating–cooling curve was used.
long term effects. A sensitivity analysis was performed to show the influence of
A very interesting and clear illustration of a rule-based control design parameters (volume of storage tank, storage tank set-point
strategy for a HyGCHP system is by Yang and Wang [50]. They temperature, number of boreholes, borehole length, etc). The
designed a rule-based control strategy for a hybrid solar-assisted results showed that especially in winter the hot water storage tank
GCHP system as shown in Fig. 3(a) to heat a building. The authors coupled to the plant had a central role: the tank temperature set-
present a method to calculate online the building energy demand point is the parameter with the greatest influence on the energy
Q_ d from an expression of the form Q_ d ¼ f ðT s ; T in ; T sup;a ; m
_ a ; pÞ, use. Moreover, it was stated that attention should be paid to the
where Ts is the set-point temperature for the indoor temperature number of boreholes and their lengths: their increase enhances
_ a is the mass flow rate
Tin, T sup;a is the temperature of supply air, m the heat transfer rate, thus improving the heat pump performance
of the air out of the fan coil unit and p is a parameter vector and reducing its energy use. It was also shown that the choice of a
including constant parameters of the system. Using thermo- longer space among boreholes did not have a great relevance.
dynamics and energy balance relations, they derived a necessary
condition for the solar collector outlet temperature T solar;out to 3.2. Model-based control methods
satisfy an expression of the form:
Mathematical model-based control approaches (especially
T solar;out ZT solar;require ¼ gðQ_ d ; m
_ a ; T in ; T mix Þ; ð3Þ
approaches using linear-time invariant state-space models) are the
where Tmix is the temperature of air into the fan coil unit, which is most useful and preferable ones thanks to providing a framework
the air mixture from outside fresh air and reheated air from part of toward global optimality. A number of studies in that direction
the exhausted air. appeared in the literature: De Ridder et al. [34], Verhelst [55], Hu
They defined and used three modes. Mode 1: solar energy is et al. [56], Atam et al. [57], Atam et al. [58], Sundbrandt [8] and
used directly to heat the building without heat pump and/or Antonov [59]. Although their common point is the fact that they

Please cite this article as: Atam E, Helsen L. Ground-coupled heat pumps: Part 1 – Literature review and research challenges in
modeling and optimal control. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.007i
8 E. Atam, L. Helsen / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

are model-based control approaches, they are looking at different
problems using different approaches. As a result, each one is
summarized separately.
De Ridder et al. [34] used dynamic programming. Dynamic
programming is a powerful method since it is a closed-loop, global
optimal control algorithm. However, the model used in [34] for
dynamic programming is a very simple first-order model for the
ground mean temperature. The chosen sampling period for the
system is one week, which is very long since typical control
actions for buildings may require sampling times in order of
minutes or hours. Moreover, the realization of the designed con-
troller requires the measurement of the underground borefield
temperature, for which measurement may be either difficult or
non-accurate. As a result, the approach of [34] involves both some
modeling simplifications and a hard-to-realize implementation.
Verhelst [55] applied a linear optimal control method for a
HyGCHP system to satisfy heating/cooling demands of a typical
office zone building. The COP for the heat pump and chiller were

Fig. 3. (a) Schematic diagram of the solar-assisted GCHP system. (b) Rule-based control flow chart [50].

Please cite this article as: Atam E, Helsen L. Ground-coupled heat pumps: Part 1 – Literature review and research challenges in
modeling and optimal control. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.007i
 E. Atam, L. Helsen / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
taken to be constant, in contrast to being functions of source and
sink temperatures. COP values were taken to be constant because
otherwise the optimization problem is a non-convex problem,
which cannot be solved over a couple of years especially when
short control time steps are considered. Although a mathematical
model-based optimal control was considered, the simplifications
of taking the mentioned COPs as constant values without a formal
justification restricts the work of [55]. Moreover, the model used
for control and emulator are the same, which eliminates the
impact of model mismatch and therefore limits the generality of
the approach followed in [55].
Hu et al. [56] presented an extremum seeking control (ESC)
strategy for a HyGCHP system where a cooling tower is included as
the supplementary device. The system and control configurations
are shown in Fig. 4. The ESC method is seen, most of the time, as a
“model-free” control method [60], which means that it does not
require a state-space model of the system to be controlled but
requires a relation between control inputs and controlled outputs.
Hence, it is still convenient to consider such an approach as a
model-based control method based on the mathematical relation
between control inputs and controlled outputs. The optimal con-
trol is determined online from minimization of an objective
function f ðt; uÞ:
uopt ¼ arg min f ðt; uÞ:
The ESC scheme used takes as feedback the total power for the
heat pump compressor, the tower fan and the water pump. The
control inputs are the tower fan speed and the condensing water
flow rate. The performance of the ESC controller was tested for
different constant part-load cooling scenarios (part-loads are
defined based on the evaporator entering water temperature) and
dynamic cooling load scenarios. The control results for partial-load
cases are shown in Fig. 5. In Fig. 5, the ESC controller is tuned at
t ¼ 50; 000 s and the ESC controller achieves the estimated optima
in the static maps, with steady-state errors less than 3% in both
cases. Although the results are not shown here, ESC control for
dynamic loading was also successful, where they incorporated an
anti-windup scheme to alleviate the actuator saturation effects on
control results. The authors concluded that ESC-based control
resulted in power savings in the range of 24–30% relative to
operating the system with a relative flow rate of 0.9.
Fig. 4. (a) Schematic diagram of the hybrid GCHP system. (b) Control system diagram [56].
Please cite this article as: Atam E, Helsen L. Ground-coupled heat pumps: Part 1 – Literature review and research challenges in
modeling and optimal control. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.007i
9
Atam and Helsen [57] presented a convex approach through
convexification for non-convex optimal control-based and non-
convex model predictive control-based energy-use minimization
of buildings equipped with hybrid ground-coupled heat pump
systems. The original non-convex problems were convexified
using a convex envelope approach. The results of the convexified
optimal control problem were compared with dynamic
programming-based optimal control, which is a global and closed-
loop control approach. The comparison results showed that the
convex approximation of the optimal control problem gave almost
global optimal results in terms of responses and cost criteria. The
suggested method is especially useful for optimal/model pre-
dictive control of HVAC systems integrated in buildings, where the
source and sink temperature-dependent coefficients of perfor-
mance of some components introduce non-convexity into the
system.
Atam et al. [58] presented a prediction-based dynamic pro-
gramming control approach, a non-linear model predictive control
approach and a linear optimal control approach to analyze the
minimization of the total energy-use of a HyGCHP system (incor-
porating a ground-coupled heat pump, a gas boiler, a passive
cooler and an active chiller) under operational constraints. A large-
scale emulator model (based on finite-volume method and the
equivalent diameter approach) was used for the borehole system
ð5Þ and for assessment of different control algorithms. A non-linear
autoregressive exogenous model (NARX) was identified from the
input–output data generated by the emulator model to be used in
the dynamic programming-based controller. Since dynamic pro-
gramming is a global optimal control method, it was used as a
reference for the performance assessment. Next, a state-space,
reduced-order, control-oriented model with a larger sampling
time was obtained from the emulator model using the so-called
proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) model reduction techni-
que. This model was used in a non-linear model predictive control
algorithm with the purpose of energy-use minimization over
sequences of shorter time intervals (prediction interval) to see
how far it is suboptimal with respect to dynamic programming.
Finally, a series of linear optimal controllers based on constant
heat pump coefficients of performance were tested to see how
much the system performance deteriorates. The control algo-
rithms were used for satisfaction of heating–cooling demands of
three types of buildings: heating-dominated, cooling-dominated
10 E. Atam, L. Helsen / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Fig. 5. ESC control for partial cooling load cases. (a) Static map under 80% cooling load. (b) ESC control results for 80% cooling load. (c) Static map under 50% cooling load.
(d) ESC control results for 50% cooling load [56].

and thermally-balanced. The effects of constraining the thermal
build-up/depletion of the ground and variable electricity profiles
on the performance of the applied different controllers were also
separately analyzed. The results showed that the performance of
MPC and linear optimal controllers were close to dynamic
programming-based control results: less than 10% performance
deterioration.
Sundbrandt [8] controlled a GCHP system through model pre-
dictive control. The control problem was defined as to keep the
inside temperature of an office building and the domestic hot
water temperature within certain bounds compatible with ther-
mal comfort while minimizing the energy used. The GCHP system
was modeled as close as possible to reality: the pulse width
modulation and on/off nature of the heat pump, and minimization
of maximum number of heat pump start-ups and shut-downs per
hour to get a good life time expectancy were taken into account.
This resulted in a hybrid model for the overall system which
includes logic, discrete and continuous dynamics, and the mixed
logical dynamical (MLD) system modeling approach [61] was used
to mathematically model the system in a suitable form for the
MPC framework. This hybrid model required the mixed integer
quadratic programming (MIQP) for MPC control, as opposed to the
use of QP in classical MPC. The heat pump was modeled by a state-
space model. Different scenarios were considered depending on
different outside conditions in different times of the year and the
control results were compared to the results of a conventional
controller. Without night setback, the energy saving performance
of MPC was 1–3% better compared to the conventional controller,
which increased to 7.5% when night setback was considered. From
the extensive simulations it was observed that a conventional
controller cannot achieve an acceptable reference tracking for
which MPC was successful. In this study, although a more realistic
and detailed modeling approach was followed, the ground
dynamics was not taken into account and it was simply assumed
that the GCHP system was able to provide the desirable heating/
cooling.
Antonov et al. [59] analyzed the annually optimal operation of a
HyGCHP system. The ground heat exchanger model was derived
by Verhelst and Helsen [33] from a resistor-capacitor (RC) net-
work, which was composed following the guidelines of Eskilson
[11]. The model was validated by simulation data from a detailed
emulator model of a duct storage system. A linear state-space
model was used, which integrated the models of an office building
(4-th order), a ground heat exchanger (11-th order) and algebraic
models of primary and backup heating/cooling devices. It was
shown that the best performance of the system investigated was
achieved by MPC with a time horizon of longest one week.
Moreover, it was noted that there was no potential for further
decreasing the system operation cost by forcing seasonal under-
ground thermal energy storage. This was concluded by solving an
off-line optimal control problem over a time horizon of one year
with a control time step of one hour. For analysis of the seasonal
underground thermal energy storage, the solution of this optimal
control problem was compared to the MPC controlled system with
a prediction horizon of one week (control time step also one hour),
which recedes with one day (24 time steps) on each iteration.
3.3. Other control methods
The control approaches used in this category are approaches
which cannot be categorized as solely rule-based or model-based.
However, some of them can be seen as a hybrid combination of

Please cite this article as: Atam E, Helsen L. Ground-coupled heat pumps: Part 1 – Literature review and research challenges in
modeling and optimal control. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.007i
 E. Atam, L. Helsen / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
them. The first example of such a study is by Gang and Wang [30]
which considered control of a HyGCHP system for a cooling-
dominated office building where a supplementary cooling tower
was used in parallel to a GHE as shown in Fig. 6. They used a model
with a rule based controller. They used ANNs for modeling both
the CT and BHE. They indicated that during the operation of such a
hybrid system only one of the exit temperatures of GHE or CT was
measurable since only one of them was working at a given time. As
a result, they claimed that there was a need to predict the exit
temperature of GHE or CT and for that purpose they used ANN-
based prediction models. For ANN-based GHE modeling they
concluded that a dynamic ANN model with the Levenberg–Mar-
guardt (LM) learning algorithm was the best option and such a
model had a prediction error performance of less than 0.2 °C for
the GHE exit fluid temperature. Their control strategy was as fol-
lows. They compared the exit fluid temperatures of GHE and CT
and chose the lower one. They compared the performance of their
control strategy using the developed models with the performance
of a time-based scheduled control over two days. Their control
strategy proved minor advantages over the time-based scheduled
control. Authors concluded that though ANN modeling provided
good prediction accuracy, still there was need for improvement of
the proposed control strategy and a comparison over the life cycle
of the system.
A similar work was done by Yating et al. [31] where they used
radial basis function neural networks (RBFNNs) to predict supply
water temperature of the building and COP of the GCHP system
unit. They used adaptive particle swarm optimization (APSO) for
determination of control inputs of the predictive control algorithm
which minimizes the total consumed energy by the system under
operational constraints. The authors indicated a 5% energy saving
potential of the RBFNN-APSO method.
Next, we consider an interesting and a different control
approach called “capacity-based control” (meaning the use of
different components with different capacities) by Madani et al.
[7]. They developed a simulation model for a building equipped
with a GCHP system by developing submodels for the heat pump
unit, the building, the heat source, the thermal storage tank, and
the climate, in order to compare some of the strategies used for
capacity control of a heat pump system, such as using a variable
speed compressor and/or variable speed pumps in the HP system.
TRNSYS and EES [62] were used as the simulation tools in so-called
co-solving manner. The seasonal performance factors (SPFs) of
four constant speed, on–off controlled GCHPs were compared with
SPF of an inverter-driven, variable speed ( ¼variable capacity)
GCHP system. The borehole used for ground energy source was
taken to be 200 m deep. They used an electrical auxiliary heater
for on–off controlled systems to cover the building load demand
not covered by the GCHP. In the variable speed GCHP system, it
was expected that this system alone would cover the whole
building load and hence no electrical auxiliary heater was used in
Fig. 6. Schematic diagram of a HyGCHP system in parallel configuration [30].
Please cite this article as: Atam E, Helsen L. Ground-coupled heat pumps: Part 1 – Literature review and research challenges in
modeling and optimal control. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.007i
11
this case. After detailed simulations with the two different control
strategies (fixed capacity, on–off controlled GCHPs versus the
variable capacity GCHP) under different operating and boundary
conditions (like ambient temperature, solar radiation and internal
gains), the authors observed the following:
 Comparing the performances of fixed capacity and variable
capacity GCHP systems, the capacity of the fixed GCHP system is
very crucial: if the fixed capacity GCHP is designed to cover only
55% of peak building load, then the SPF of the fixed capacity
GCHP system is lower than that of the variable capacity GCHP
system. On the other hand, if the fixed capacity GCHP is
designed to cover more than 65% of peak building load, then
SPFs are close to each other.
 The fixed capacity GCHP systems have a higher SPF when the
auxiliary heater is designed to cover less than 5% of the annual
heat demand.
3.4. Control challenges
3.4.1. Obtaining a control model
By control model of a (Hy)GCHP system we mean a model to be
used in a model-based control method. This control model is, in
general, different from the simulation model (or the real system),
which is sometimes called the emulator model. Emulator models
are complex compared to control models for complex systems and
obtaining a control model from an emulator model is a very hard
task. For example, the control model used by Atam et al. [58] is a
state-space model obtained from a large-scale, finite volume
numerical model of the borehole heat exchanger by applying a
model order reduction scheme. Similarly, the control model used
by Ridder et al. [34] is a simple state-space model but the emulator
model is a complex model in TRNSYS.
Emulator models are needed for testing the control algorithm
before application to the real system to test a priori the expected
performance of the controlled system and redesign the controller
in case of poor performance. System identification and model
order reduction techniques are among the methods applied to
obtain control models. In system identification, measured input–
output data are used to obtain black-box or grey-box models of the
system and hence no or little physical knowledge about the system
is required. System identification may fail if the underlying system
is highly non-linear or if it has many input and outputs. Another
disadvantage of system identification for (Hy)GCHP systems is that
it requires long-term data (over 15–20 years), which is not feasible
to collect from field measurements over such a long period.
Moreover, the data to be used should have a rich-frequency con-
tent to be able to identify the relevant modes in the system
dynamics [63]. An example of obtaining a control-oriented, grey-
box model of a borehole using TRNSYS to represent the real system
to avoid real data is given by Clara and Verhelst [64].
In model order reduction techniques, a simplified model of the
system is obtained from the emulator model to be used as a
control model by projection of the large-scale model dynamics
onto a lower subspace [65]. Model reduction techniques require
mathematical equations of the emulator model, which may not be
available or may be very complex. Obtaining a control model is the
core and the most difficult stage of designing a model-based
controller for GCHP or HyGCHP systems.
3.4.2. State estimation issues
State estimation is an important aspect in model-based control
methods. The control model should be observable for estimation
of states from system inputs and some set of measurable outputs.
The more complicated the control model is, the more it may be
challenging to design an estimator. If the control model is not
12 E. Atam, L. Helsen / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

observable, one may try the following: (a) apply a model reduction
technique to the control model to eliminate non-observable
modes, (b) try to measure more outputs. It is very crucial that
the outputs of interest are accurately measurable in practice. In
this sense, for example, for a GHE in a GCHP system, one may try
to obtain a control model where the temperature of the exit fluid
from the heat pump is the input to the model and the temperature
of the inlet fluid to the heat pump from ground side is the output,
both of which can be measured. If the output of interest is ground
mean temperature as in Ridder et al. [34], then the estimator may
not be realized or it may be non-accurate in a practical application,
since the measurement of the mean ground temperature at some
depth may not be easy, accurate or practical. The determination of
outputs to measure and the sensor location are key factors for the
success of an estimator.
3.4.3. Robustness and practical implementation issues for controllers
Robustness of the control algorithm is another important
aspect. If in the control design framework used for the (Hy)GCHP
systems it is also possible to design a robust controller, then a
robust controller should be designed with a certain robustness
degree against parametric or dynamic uncertainties of the con-
trol model. If it is difficult to design a robust controller or if there
does not exist a robust control design framework for the used
control approach, then the performance of the controller should
be tested on an emulator model through extensive worst-case
simulation scenarios that may be encountered in a real imple-
mentation. Nominal controller design (controller design without
robustness considerations) for a large-scale system in which
renewable energy is provided by a GCHP system is itself already
difficult and an additional request for robustness may make the
problem extremely complex, if not impossible. Even if it is not
possible to design a robust controller, it is very important to
check performance degradation or constraint violations of the
nominal controller under worst-case scenarios. Hence, in any
case, control performance test on an emulator model against
robustness is strongly recommended. If it is possible to use an
adaptive control framework, then that may be optimal in the
sense of robustness because by their design paradigm adaptive
control algorithms adapt to changing environments and hence
may handle uncertainty issues better compared to other robust
control methods.
3.4.4. Defining a benchmark case study to compare different control
methods
From the reviewed literature on control of (Hy)GCHP systems,
it was observed that different control approaches had different
energy saving performances and the results were case dependent.
As a result, to asses the nominal or robust performance of these
different approaches on the same system, a benchmark case study
is required.
3.5. Comments on control
From the reviewed material on (Hy)GCHP control, we have the
following observations:
 Rule-based control methods are suboptimal compared to
model-based control methods or model-free control methods
like ESC. However, they have the advantage that a control model
of the underlying system is not needed, which is a big plus
especially for the hard-to-model borefield dynamics.
 Model-free approaches like ESC have two advantages (a) in
general, they give results which are, in terms of performance,
between rule-based and model-based control results, (b) a
control model is not needed.
 Model-based control methods are, by far, better than all other
approaches and they can provide significant cost savings.
However, they require an accurate mathematical control model,
which may not be easy for complex borefields. Among the
model-based control approaches, MPC seems the best one
thanks to its ability of handling constraints and working for
MIMO systems.
 Control strategies based on ANNs did not provide satisfactory
performance, despite their detailed model structure. The main
cause for this is the lack of a mathematical control theory
working optimally for ANN models.
 The successful control of an integrated (Hy)GCHP system is also
dependent on the building or structure it is integrated into. As a
result, the overall modeling and control of an energy-efficient
building with (Hy)GCHP systems also involve modeling and
control of the building part separately, if a decentralized control
approach is used. In case of a centralized control approach,
building and (Hy)GCHP models should be coupled to design a
single centralized controller for the overall system. It should be
noted that modeling and control of multi-zone buildings is a
challenge, not less than modeling and controlling (Hy)GCHP
systems. So far, in the literature successful modeling and real-
time control of maximum 3–4 zones have been achieved [66].
As a result, the combined system of building and (Hy)GCHP
system is very challenging to control.
3.6. Comparison of different GCHP control methods
A qualitative comparison of presented different (Hy)GCHP
control methods with respect to their capabilities of handling the

Table 4
A qualitative comparison of different (Hy)GCHP control methods in terms of research challenges and controller characteristics using a scale of 0–5 (0: lowest, 5: highest).

Research challenges & Control approaches

controller characteristics
Rule-based Mathematical Other con-
control model-based control trol
methods methods methods

Optimality 1 5 3
Complexity 1 3 3
Speed 5 3 2
State estimation difficulty 0 3 3
Easiness to obtain a model 5 2 3
for the associated
control approach
Robustness level 1 4 2
Implementation easiness 5 3 3
Easiness to design 5 3 3

Please cite this article as: Atam E, Helsen L. Ground-coupled heat pumps: Part 1 – Literature review and research challenges in
modeling and optimal control. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.007i
 E. Atam, L. Helsen / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
mentioned research challenges and with respect to controller
characteristics (optimality, complexity and speed) is given in
Table 4.
3.7. Some future directions to-Go
In this section, we shortly describe some potential control
approaches to be tried for a better performance of the (Hy)GCHP
systems.
 Model-free control approaches: The term “model-free control”
may refer to many different control techniques ranging from
classical PID control to fuzzy control, to ESC control (an example
of which was given by Hu et al. [56]) and to soft computing
control approaches. Here, “model-free control” means a mathe-
matical control model of the dynamics of the underlying system
is not required. Being aware of the difficulty of obtaining a
control model for a time-varying, uncertain borefield system,
such approaches, especially adaptive model-free control
approaches [67], may be considered as strong alternatives.
 Multi-loop decentralized /distributed control approaches: In case
of a large structure (like an airport) for which heating/cooling
energy is provided by a large and complex (Hy)GCHP system, it
may be useful to divide the control design task into decen-
tralized, multi-loop control design tasks to simplify the control
design problem, instead of focusing on the design of a single
controller for the overall system. This kind of a decentralized
approach may yield very suboptimal or unacceptable results. A
better solution is to use a distributed control approach (for
example, distributed model predictive control), which is a
framework where controllers communicate with each other
and the performance of the distributed controller may be very
close to an optimal single centralized controller.
 Learning-based control approaches: Learning-based control
approaches (like machine learning) are good candidates for
complex systems like GCHP or HyGCHP systems. These techni-
ques have been successfully used in many other fields and
recently some appeared to be used in energy-efficient buildings
[68,69]. An extension of them to (Hy)GCHP-based building
energy optimization is worth to consider. Machine learning-
based control approaches may be useful especially in prediction
of some uncertain model inputs/parameters (like heat pump
COP), in optimizing existing rule-based controllers or designing
new ones.
 Gain-scheduled control approaches: Gain-scheduled control
approaches are control techniques where a set of controllers are
designed around a set of operating points and an interpolation
algorithm is used to interpolate between these controllers during
real-time implementation. Such approaches may also be useful
for (Hy)GCHP control systems. For example, if the mass flow rate
of the circulating fluid in the BHE is not constant, then the
resulting GHE model will be a bilinear model and a linear control
approach may not work in such a case. In this case, one may
attempt to obtain multi-GHE models corresponding to different
mass flow rates, design a controller for each model and then
apply gain-scheduling during real-time implementation.
 Adaptive-mpc: There are many sources of uncertainty and time-
varying parameters in models of (Hy)GCHPs: hard-to model
ground surface dynamics, thermal interaction between bore-
holes, convective heat transfer coefficient of the circulating fluid
(which changes dramatically during on-off operation periods of
the heat pump), groundwater flow, etc. These variables/ phe-
nomena are both time-varying and difficult to model accurately.
As a result, a model of a (Hy)GCHP system is a model with some
Please cite this article as: Atam E, Helsen L. Ground-coupled heat pumps: Part 1 – Literature review and research challenges in
modeling and optimal control. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.007i
13
potential time-varying parameters and which probably excludes
some unmodeled dynamics. Therefore, an adaptive version of
MPC which updates online the control model and controller
parameters may be very useful to consider.
4. Conclusions
The main conclusions drawn from this study can be summar-
ized as follows.
 Mathematical model-based optimal control depends on an
accurate mathematical control model of the underlying borefield
subsystem and other subcomponents of a GCHP or HyGCHP
system. Among them, borefield modeling is the most challenging
part. As a result, the bottleneck here is control-oriented borefield
modeling to predict the thermal behavior of a general borefield
system accounting for the thermal interaction between bore-
holes, the effect of groundwater flow, the effect of a dynamic
ground surface boundary condition, multi-layer ground charac-
teristics, combination of short-term and long-term effects, etc.
 In current practice, thermal response factor models and state-
space models can be used for borefield modeling. Thermal
response factors models can be easily constructed for many
borefield configurations (square, L-shape, etc.) and state-space
models can be obtained from heat transfer relations. However,
only state-space models are appropriate for model-based control
approaches (for example, model predictive control). If the
obtained state-space model is a large scale model, a model
reduction technique can be applied. Thermal response factor
models can be used in control approaches based on rules of
thumb. ANN-based modeling methods cannot be used to model
borefields for long-term prediction since they require long-term
training data which is not feasible to obtain. As a result, in general,
ANN models are not appropriate to design a controller to work in
a long time period of 15–20 years (typical for (Hy)GCHPs).
Numerical thermal models are not applicable to borefields
including a moderate-to-a large number of boreholes since the
corresponding model is complex and computationally demand-
ing. As a result, in general, they are appropriate neither as control-
oriented models nor as emulator models for large borefields.
 Among control methods, rule-based control seems the one which
is widely applicable (since it does not require a mathematical
model) and the easiest to design but suboptimal. Rule-based
control may be of poor performance especially for reference
tracking control applications (such as set-point tracking for zone
temperatures during daytime and night). On the other hand,
mathematical model-based control is the optimal strategy but it
requires an accurate control model for the underlying system,
which is challenging, especially for complex systems.
 Since rule-based control does not require a mathematical model
and is hence easy to design/realize, it seems that it will remain
to be the dominant control strategy in the next two–three
decades. However, the ambitious research on obtaining better
controllers using mathematical models will continue in parallel
at a faster speed compared to the current state.
 A nice and interesting exercise would be to compare different
applied optimal control approaches on a benchmark case.
 Most of the reviewed literature work is either simulation-based
or applied to simplified systems (for example, considering only
one borehole). As a result, many of them are not applicable in
real time or for more complex systems. The future directions
should be on the development of generic approaches with the
purpose of being general and applicable.
14 E. Atam, L. Helsen / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
Acknowledgments
The authors want to acknowledge the Agency for Innovation by
Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT) and the Scientific and
Technical Center for the Building Industry (WTCB) for supporting
the post-doctoral research work of Ercan Atam within the IWT
project VIS SMART GEOTHERM.
References
[1] EPBD energy performance of buildings directive, directive 2010/31/ue; 2010.
[2] Stuebi RT. Geothermal heat pumps: green for your wallet, green for our planet.
In: Renewable energies conference, November 29, Denver, USA; 2000.
[3] Geothermal heat pumps – DOE (USA), Available from: 〈http://www.eren.doe.
gov〉; 2014.
[4] Wu R. Energy efficiency technologies – air source heat pump vs. ground source
heat pump. J Sustain Dev 2009;2(2):14–23.
[5] Corberan JM, Fin DP, Montagud CM, Murphy FT, Edwards KC. A quasi steady-
state mathematical model of an integrated ground source heat pump for
building space control. Energy Build 2011;43:82–92.
[6] Paris B, Eynard J, Grieu S, Talbert T, Polit M. Heating control schemes for
energy management in buildings. Energy Build 2010;42:1908–17.
[7] Madani H, Claesson J, Lundqvist P. Capacity control in ground source heat
pump systems part ii: comparative analysis between on/off controlled and
variable capacity systems. Int J Refrig 2011;34(8):1934–42.
[8] Sundbrandt M. Control of a ground source heat pump using hybrid model
predictive control [M.Sc. thesis]. Linkopings University, Sweden; 2011.
[9] Ingersoll L, Adler F, Plass H, Ingersoll A. Theory of earth heat exchangers for
the heat pump. Heat Pip Air Cond 1950:113–22.
[10] Carslaw HS, Jaeger JC. Conduction of heat in solids. UK: University Press; 1959.
[11] Eskilson P. Thermal analysis of heat extraction boreholes [Ph.D. thesis]. Uni-
versity of Lund, Sweden; 1987.
[12] Cimmino M, Bernier M. A semi-analytical method to generate g-functions for
thermal borefields. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2014;70:641–50.
[13] Yavuzturk C, Spitler J. A short-time step response factor model for vertical
ground loop heat exchangers. ASHRAE Trans 1999;105(2):475–85.
[14] Zeng HY, Diao NR, Fang ZH. A finite line-source model for boreholes in geo-
thermal heat exchangers. Heat Transf – Asian Res 2002;31(7):558–67.
[15] Lamarche L, Beauchamp B. A new contribution to the finite line-source model
for geothermal boreholes. Energy Build 2007;39(2):188–98.
[16] Claesson J, Javed S. An analytical method to calculate borehole fluid tem-
peratures for time-scales from minutes to decades. ASHRAE Trans 2011;117
(Part 2):279–88.
[17] Cui P, Yang H, Fang Z. Heat transfer analysis of ground heat exchangers with
inclined boreholes. Appl Therm Eng 2006;26(11-12):1169–75.
[18] Marcotte D, Pasquier P. The effect of borehole inclination on fluid and ground
temperature for glhe systems. Geothermics 2009;38(4):392–8.
[19] Lamarche L. Analytical g-function for inclined boreholes in ground-source heat
pumps. Geothermics 2011;40(4):241–9.
[20] Fisher DE, Simon JR. Implementation and validation of ground-source heat
pump system models in an integrated building and system simulation
environment. HVAC & R Res Spec Issue 2006;12(3a) 693–619.
[21] Rees SJ, He M. A three-dimensional numerical model of borehole heat
exchanger heat transfer and fluid flow. Geothermics 2013;46:1–13.
[22] Cui P, Yang H, Fang Z. Numerical analysis and experimental validation of heat
transfer in ground heat exchangers in alternative operation modes. Energy
Build 2008;40(6):1060–6.
[23] Li Z, Zheng M. Development of a numerical model for the simulation of ver-
tical u-tube ground heat exchangers. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29(56):920–4.
[24] Bauer D, Heidemann W, Müller-Steinhagen H, Diersch HJ. Modeling and
simulation of groundwater influence on borehole thermal energy stores. In:
Proceedings effstock-11th international conference on energy storage, Stock-
holm; 2009.
[25] Diersch HJG, Bauer D, Heidemann W, Ruhaak W, Schatzl P. Finite element
modeling of borehole heat exchanger systems part 1. fundamentals. Comput
Geosci 2011;37(8):1122–35.
[26] Diersch HJG, Bauer D, Heidemann W, Ruhaak W, Schatzl P. Finite element
modeling of borehole heat exchanger systems part 2. Numerical simulation.
Comput Geosci 2011;37(8):1136–47.
[27] Al-Khoury R, Kolbel T, Schramedei R. Efficient numerical modeling of borehole
heat exchangers. Comput Geosci 2010;36(10):1301–15.
[28] Wooszyn J, Goa A. Modeling of a borehole heat exchanger using a finite ele-
ment with multiple degrees of freedom. Geothermics 2013;47:13–26.
[29] Esen H, Inalli M, Sengur A, Esen M. Modeling a ground-coupled heat pump
system using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems. Int J Refrig 2008;
31(1):65–74.
[30] Gang W, Wang J. Predictive ann models of ground heat exchanger for the
control of hybrid ground source heat pump systems. Appl Energy
2013;112:1146–53.
Please cite this article as: Atam E, Helsen L. Ground-coupled heat pumps: Part 1 – Literature review and research challenges in
modeling and optimal control. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.007i
[31] Yating Z, Guiyang W, Guang H. Gchp system optimal predictive control based
on rbfnn and apso algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Chinese control
conference, July 25–28, Xi'an China; 2013.
[32] Gang W, Wang J, Wang S. Performance analysis of hybrid ground source heat
pump systems based on ann predictive control. Appl Energy 2014;136:1138–44.
[33] Verhelst C, Helsen L. Low-order state-space models for borehole heat
exchangers. HVAC & R Res 2011;17(6):928–47.
[34] De Ridder F, Diehl M, Mulder G, Desmedt J, Van Bael J. An optimal control
algorithm for borehole thermal energy storage systems. Energy Build 2011;
43(10):2918–25.
[35] Atam E, Verhelst C, Helsen L. Borehole dynamics parameterization for thermal
performance optimization under operational constraints. In: European geo-
thermal congress, Pisa-Italy, June 3–7; 2013(a).
[36] Atam E, Verhelst C, Helsen L. Development of a control-oriented model for
borehole dynamics for buildings equipped with ground-coupled heat pumps,
In: BS 2013 Conference, Chambery, France, 2013(b).
[37] A transient systems simulation program, Available from: 〈http://sel.me.wisc.
edu/trnsys/〉; 2015.
[38] Fayegh SK, Rosen MA. A review of the modeling of thermally interacting
multiple boreholes. Sustainability 2013;5(6):2519–36.
[39] Jacovides CP, Mihalakakou G, Santamouris M, Lewis JO. On the ground tem-
perature profile for passive cooling applications in buildings. Sol Energy
2002;57(3):167–75.
[40] Mihalakakou G. On estimating ground surface temperature profiles. Energy
Build 2002;34(3):251–9.
[41] Piechowski M. Heat and mass transfer model of a ground heat exchanger:
theoretical development. Int J Energy Res 1999;23(7):571–88.
[42] Leong WH, Tarnawski VR. Effects of simultaneous heat and moisture transfer
in soils on the perforamnce of a ground source heat pump system. In: ASME-
ATI-UIT conference on thermal and environmental issues in energy systems,
Sorrento, Italy; 2012.
[43] Erdogan B. The effect of mositure content in the soil on sizng of vertical single
u-tube ground heat exchanger for ground source heat pump. In: Unitech10:
international scientific conference, 19–20 November Gabrovo, Bulgaria; 2010.
[44] Lee CK, Lam HN. Effects of groundwater flow direction on performance of ground
heat exchanger borefield in geothermal heat pump systems using a 3-d finite
difference method. In: Building simulation conference, Beijing, China; 2007.
[45] Dehkordi SE, Schincariol RA. Impact of groundwater flow on thermal energy
storage and borehole thermal interference, In: European Geosciences Union
General Assembly, Vienna, Austria, 2013.
[46] Diao NR, Li Q. Heat transfer in ground heat exchangers with groundwater
advection. Int J Therm Sci 2004;43(12):1203–11.
[47] Cullin J, Spitler J. Comparison of simulation-based design procedures for
hybrid ground source heat pump systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th inter-
national conference on system simulation in buildings, Liege, Belgium; 2010.
[48] Hackel S, Pertzborn A. Effective design and operation of hybrid ground source
heat pumps: three case studies. Energy Build 2011;43(12):3497–504.
[49] Wetter M. Genopt, generic optimization program. In: Seventh international
IBPSA conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, August 13–15; 2001.
[50] Yang R, Wang L. Efficient control of a solar assisted ground-source heat pump
system based on evaluation of building thermal load demand. In: North
American power symposium (NAPS), 2012, September 9–11; 2012.
[51] Sagia Z, Rakopoulos C. New control strategy for a hybrid ground source heat
pump system coupled to a closed circuit cooling tower. J Appl Mech Eng
2012;1(2):1–8.
[52] Yavuzturk C, Spitler JD. Comparative study to investigate operating and con-
trol strategies for hybrid ground source heat pump systems using a short
time-step simulation model. ASHRAE Trans 2000;106(2):192–209.
[53] Man Y, Yang H, Wang J. Study on hybrid ground-coupled heat pump system
for air-conditioning in hot-weather areas like Hong Kong. Appl Energy
2010;87:2826–33.
[54] Arteconi A, Brandoni C, Rossi G, Polonara F. Experimental evaluation and
dynamic simulation of a ground-coupled heat pump for a commercial build-
ing. Int J Energy Res 2013;37(15):1970–80.
[55] Verhelst C, Model predictive control of hybrid ground-coupled heat pump
systems in office building [Ph.D. thesis]. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Bel-
gium; 2012.
[56] Hu B, Li Y, Mu B, Wang S, Seem JE, Cao F. Extremum seeking control of hybrid
ground source heat pump system. In: 15th international refrigeration and air
conditioning conference at Prdue, July 14–17; 2014.
[57] Atam E, Helsen L. A convex approach to energy use minimization of buildings
equipped with hybrid ground-coupled heat pump systems. Energy Build
2015;93:269–81.
[58] Atam E, Patteeuw D, Antonov S, Helsen L. Optimal control approaches for
analysis of energy use minimization of hybrid ground-coupled heat pump
systems. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol; 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
TCST.2015.2445851, in press.
[59] Antonov S, Verhelst C, Helsen L. Should the optimization horizon in optimal
control of ground-coupled heat pump systems cover the inter-seasonal time
scale? ASHRAE Trans 2014;120(2):346–56.
[60] Ariyur KB, Kristic M. Real-time optimization by extremum-seeking control.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2003.
 E. Atam, L. Helsen / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 15

[61] Bemproad B, Morari M. Control of systems integrating logic, dynamics, and
constraints. Automatica 1999;35(3):407–27.
[62] Klein SA. EES: Engineering equation solver, professional version. F-chart
software, 〈http://www.fchart.com〉; 2003.
[63] Ljung L. System identification: theory for the user. PTR Prentice Hall Infor-
mation and System Science Series 1999.
[64] Verhelst C, Helsen L. A linear dynamic borehole model for use in model based
predictive control. In: Effstock 2009, Stockholm, Sweden, June 14–17; 2009.
[65] Alfio Q, Gianluigi R. Reduced order methods for modeling and computational
reduction. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2014.
[66] Zacekova E, Vana Z, Cigler J. Towards the real-life implementation of mpc for
an office building: identification issues. Appl Energy 2014;135(15):251–9.
[67] Hou Z, Jin S. Model free adaptive control: theory and applications. US: CRC
Press, Taylor and Francis Group; 2013.
[68] Domahidi A, Ullmann F, Morari M, Jones JN. Learning near-optimal decision
rules for energy-efficient building control. In: IEEE Conf Decis Control, Maui,
HI, USA; 2012.
[69] Domahidi A, Ullmann F, Morari M, Jones JN. Learning decision rules for energy
efficient building control. J Process Control 2014;24(6):763–72.

Please cite this article as: Atam E, Helsen L. Ground-coupled heat pumps: Part 1 – Literature review and research challenges in
modeling and optimal control. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.007i