Recent Developments in Ground Source Heat Pump Research

Comentarios

Transcripción

Recent Developments in Ground Source Heat Pump Research
RECENT
DEVELOPMENTS
IN GROUND
SOURCE HEAT
PUMP RESEARCH
Jeffrey D. Spitler
Oklahoma State University
Outline
• A brief history
• Recent research developments
• Foundation Heat Exchangers (Residential)
• Simple simulation tool (Both)
• GSHP vs. VRF - ASHRAE HQ Building (Commercial)
• Renewable?
William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)
• 1852: proposed a heat
pump for heating
buildings or, in tropical
climates, cooling them.
• 1853: provided
mathematical proof of
same, interacting with
the works of Joule,
Carnot, Mayer,
Rankine
Heinrich Zoelly
• A Mexican-Swiss turbine
engineer, born in Mexico
in 1862.
• Better known for
development of steam
turbine as an alternative to
steam engines for
locomotives.
• Issued Swiss patent
59350 in 1912 for a
ground source heat pump.
1940s
• Some pre-World War II
installations were done
in the U.S.; numbers
increased after the
war.
A start – a fizzle
• 1940s: A dozen research/monitoring projects reported in
the literature
• After the early 1950s reports of ground source heat pump
systems essentially vanished from the U.S. literature.
Why? Apparently,
• problems with drying around horizontal ground-loop heat
exchangers,
• leakage,
• and undersizing.
Take Two – 1970s
• In 1974, Oklahoma State University began a
research program in response to a request from
some local businesses.
• First GSHP by modifying an air-source unit.
• 1978 – first residential installations in Oklahoma
• Late 1970s – several US projects on solarassisted ground source heat pump systems
Early OSU Work
“The major problem is the complexity of the controls…”
From Bose, et al. (1979)
Challenges addressed 70s-90s
• Leakage: Fused plastic (HDPE) pipe
• Undersizing: Design tools
• Ground thermal properties: Thermal response
test
• Research-to-practice:
• Commercialization,
• IGSHPA,
• technology transfer
Mid-1990s - Present
• Transition from residential to commercial.
• Primary challenge remaining: economic.
• Addressed by:
• Hybrid systems
• Improved ground heat exchangers
• Identification of niche applications, e.g.:
• Schools
• Light retail
• Dissemination of best design practices
• Avoid over-pumping
• Avoid excess controls
• Improved design and simulation tools
Recent research developments –
a sample
• Foundation Heat Exchangers (Residential)
• Simple simulation tool (Residential and Commercial)
• GSHP vs. VRF - ASHRAE HQ Building (Commercial)
Foundation Heat Exchangers
Ground source heat pump (GSHP)
systems
• First cost the most
significant barrier.
• For typical US house,
extra cost for drilling
boreholes is $3000-$6000
(USD)
An alternative: Foundation Heat
Exchangers (FHX)
• Experimentally-proven
technology!
• For well-insulated houses
• For houses with excavated
basements (or drainage)
• Significant cost reduction
possible.
FHX
Experimental Houses
• Two low energy
houses have been
constructed with FHX
at Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, USA.
• Data collected over a
one year period has
been use to validate a
number of design tools
and simulation models
After earlier experimental success questions
• Proven in a temperate climate – where else might they
•
•
•
•
•
work?
Proven for highly-insulated houses – how good does the
insulation need to be?
How can we design such a system?
How big of a problem is short-circuiting?
How can we calculate energy consumption in EnergyPlus
in a reasonable amount of time?
Most of these questions can be at least partially answered
with an experimentally-validated simulation.
Simulation
• Which phenomena need be modeled?
• Conduction heat transfer
• Surface convection & radiation
• Evapotranspiration
• Freezing/thawing
• Moisture transport
• Snow
• Methodology?
• Speed?
• Accuracy?
Simulation Approaches
• Numerical Models
• 2d & 3d FVM using boundary-fitted coordinates
• 2d “coarse grid” finite volume method (FVM)
• 3d “dual coordinate system” FVM
• Response Factor Model – “Dynamic Thermal Networks”
• Analytical Model
Dual-coordinates FVM
• Combines nonuniform
coarse grid with radial
grid surrounding each
pipe.
• Final solution
implemented in
EnergyPlus
• 4000 rectangular cells;
360 radial cells
• Similar approach
developed by Piechowski
Heat pump Entering fluid temperature (C)
Experimental Validation
35
30
Experimental result
DCS-FV E+ model
25
HVACSIM+ model
2D/3D E+ Model
20
15
10
5
0
0
50
100
150
200
Days
250
300
350
FHX for well-insulated house
“Marginal”
may require
additional
horizontal
ground heat
exchanger
Simple simulation tool for vertical GHE
GHX Simulation
• Approaches
• Analytical
• Numerical
• Response factors (g-functions)
• Short time-step g-functions
• DST model
• But…
25
GSHP System Simulation
• To be useful, needs to be part
of a modeling tool, e.g.:
• eQuest
• EnergyPlus
• HVACSIM+
• TRNSYS
• Modelica
26
Problem
• What to do when heat pump or
system is “non-standard”?
• eQuest
• EnergyPlus
Wait or approximate
• HVACSIM+
• TRNSYS
Use existing components
or write new Fortran code.
• Modelica
Write new Modelica code
(Good Luck!)
27
Our Solution
• Problem complicated by
“simultaneity”
• Use successive substitution with
full-duration, separate,
simulations of
• GHX
• Heat pump(s) and supplementary
devices
28
Our Solution
• Hourly, multi-year simulation
• GHX simulation: standalone, pre-compiled exe.
(derived from HVACSIM+)
• Heat pump / auxiliary components: Excel/VBA
• G-functions from database or Javed and
Claesson (2011)
• Post-processing: Excel/VBA
• Converges “rapidly”: 4 or 5 iterations
ASHRAE Headquarters Building Study
ASHRAE Building
• 2008: Major renovation
• Three state-of-the-art systems:
• 2nd floor: Ground source heat pump (GSHP) system
• 1st floor: Variable refrigerant flow (VRF) system – a multiple-split air
source heat pump system
• Dedicated Outdoor Air System (DOAS) to provide fresh air
• 1600 data points are measured! Includes:
• Total power of each system
• Lighting power consumption
• Plug loads
• Objective: Compare performance of GSHP and VRF
systems
Analysis of loads on both systems
• Measured:
• Lighting
• Plug Loads
• DOAS
• Estimated:
• Envelope (Walls, windows, roof)
• Occupants
Net monthly building loads
1,2
GSHP
Monthly Net Loads, kWh/sq ft
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
-0,2
VRV
22
Average Power, W/m2
20
18
16
14
12
VRF
10
8
6
4
GSHP
2
0
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Outside Air Temp, °C
25
30
35
40
36
VRF system power – contributions of
cooling/heating
22
20
Average VRF Power Use, W/m2
18
heating
cooling
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-8
-2
3
8
13
18
Outside Air Temp, °C
23
28
33
38
37
GSHP system power – contributions of
cooling/heating
22
20
heating
Average GSHP Power Use, W/m2
18
cooling
unallocated
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-8
-2
3
8
13
18
Outside Air Temp, °C
23
28
33
38
38
Ground Loop Supply Temp.
Ambient Dry Bulb Temp.
Ground Loop Supply Fluid Temp.
40
35
30
Temperature, °C
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
7/1/11
12/31/11
7/1/12
12/31/12
7/2/13
39
Conclusions – System performance
• 2nd floor (served by GSHP system) has (per unit floor
area):
• Higher cooling demand than 1st floor, but
• Lower heating demand
• Total cooling energy requirements >> total heating energy
requirements
• The GSHP system used less energy per unit floor area
than the VRF system while maintaining similar room
temperatures
• Up to 40% less energy in summer
• Up to 70% less energy in winter and shoulder seasons
40
Conclusions—Reasons for the Difference
• Ground loop supply temperature was more favorable than
the ambient air temperature for heat pump operation
• The control strategy of the VRF resulted in more
simultaneously heating and cooling than the GSHP,
especially in shoulder season
• VRF system “over-controlled” – leading to heating mode
operation even in summer.
• Defrosting operation of VRF in winter
Renewable Energy Perspectives
Perspectives
• What is the goal of renewable energy?
• Not (in my opinion) an end in itself
• Rather:
• to maximize human comfort and productivity
• while minimizing consumption of non-renewable energy,
• also minimizing adverse environmental effects,
• and do it cost-effectively.
Comparison
• Comparing GSHP system to an advanced air
source heat pump system (VRF), GSHP system:
• Reduces electrical energy required for cooling (~40•
•
•
•
70%)
Reduces electrical energy required for heating (~65%)
Delivers (mostly) renewable heat to the building
Gives the same human comfort and productivity
Has ~25% lower initial cost, including boreholes.
Conclusions
• Like any other cooling system, GSHP systems
require electricity.
• They use less energy, so for any mix of power
sources, they use less non-renewable energy.
• They can use even less non-renewable energy
as the power source mix becomes more
renewable.

Documentos relacionados

Presentación de PowerPoint

Presentación de PowerPoint Design the system carefully for a low total heating/cooling load with some care to take for considering the balance between heating and cooling load for the ground source, Design carefully the hydr...

Más detalles

Hybrid System Modeling Using the Parallel DEVS Formalism and

Hybrid System Modeling Using the Parallel DEVS Formalism and To Prof. François E. Cellier, Prof. Gabriel A. Wainer and Prof. Mamadou D. Seck, for inviting me to visit them in their home institutions, for offering good advices and critics, and for the shared...

Más detalles