thesis ground source heat pumps feasibility analysis
TRANSCRIPT
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 1/182
ABSTRACT
RAY, SAURABH ASOKKUMAR. Feasibility Analysis of Implementing Ground SourceHeat Pump Systems for Commercial and Residential Buildings in the United States. (Under the direction of Dr. Soolyeon Cho and Dr. Stephen D Terry).
Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) systems are one of the most efficient and reliable
systems for providing heating and cooling in buildings. Today, there is an enormous potential
for GSHP systems in continental United States, but high capital cost of GSHP systems
(without Federal tax credits) has limited the growth rate of this technology. The objective of
this study was to develop a methodology for conducting feasibility analysis of GSHP systems
in residential homes and commercial buildings. A user interactive tool was also developed
based on the methodology. This study analyzes the feasibility of GSHP systems across seven
climate zones and three climate regions in the United States, represented by fifteen cities.
The methodology involves collection and analysis of data for energy use, energy cost and
design parameters in the fifteen locations. Using the analyzed data, four different feasibility
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 2/182
sites in the VERY HIGH category, 3 sites in HIGH, 8 sites in GOOD, 4 sites in
MODERATE, and no sites in FAIR. For commercial buildings there are no sites in the
VERY HIGH category, 1 site in HIGH, 7 sites in GOOD, 7 sites in MODERATE, and no
sites in FAIR.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 3/182
Feasibility Analysis of Implementing Ground Source Heat Pump Systems for Commercialand Residential Buildings in the United States
bySaurabh Asokkumar Ray
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University
in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Mechanical Engineering
Raleigh, North Carolina
2012
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 4/182
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to my parents for their unconditional love and support. I also dedicate
this thesis to my teachers, who have taught me so much.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 5/182
BIOGRAPHY
Saurabh Ray was born to Mr. Ashok Kumar Ray and Mrs. Supriya Ray in Asansol, India. His
parents soon moved to Mumbai, the biggest city in India, where he spent most of his
childhood. During his school years, Saurabh was always fascinated by science and
technology. As a result of this keen interest he decided to pursue engineering, and completed
his Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Mumbai. After
completing his Baccalaureate he decided to pursue his Master’s in Mechanical Engineering
and got enrolled in North Carolina State University. There he joined the Industrial
Assessment Center (IAC) in the summer of 2011 and developed a keen interest in energy
systems and energy conservation. Upon graduation, Saurabh plans to stay in the USA to
pursue a career in the field of Energy engineering.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 6/182
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my committee co-chair Dr. Stephen Terry for giving me the opportunity
to work with the IAC and being my mentor during that time. It has been a wonderful
experience to learn so much from the numerous industrial visits and solving so many
practical problems. I also thank him for serving as my committee co-chair.
I would like to thank Dr. Soolyeon Cho who is also my committee co-chair. I am grateful for
all the time and effort he has taken to help me with my thesis, and answer the numerous
questions that I had.
I want to thank Dr. Herbert Eckerlin who readily accepted my request for being a member of
my graduate committee. I want to thank Dr. Piljae Im at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for
letting me work on a pilot project, the result of which is part of this thesis.
I want to thank all the wonderful people I met in the IAC during my time there It was great
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 7/182
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ viii
LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................................x
ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................1
1.1 Energy and the United States ........................................................................................2
1.2 Initiatives and Challenges.............................................................................................8
1.3 Energy Conservation Measures and Standards for Buildings ...................................... 10
1.3.1 ASHRAE Standards ............................................................................................ 10
1.3.2 Energy Star .......................................................................................................... 11
1.3.3 LEED Ratings ..................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER 2: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES........................................................................ 14
2.1 Goals ......................................................................................................................... 14
2.2 Objectives .................................................................................................................. 15
CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW OF HEAT PUMPS 16
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 8/182
3.4.2 Types of GSHP systems ...................................................................................... 34
3.4.3 Ground-Coupled Heat Pumps .............................................................................. 34
3.4.4 Surface Water Heat Pumps .................................................................................. 37
3.4.5 Ground Water Heat Pumps .................................................................................. 39
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 40
4.1 Data and Resources .................................................................................................... 40
4.1.1 Heating and Cooling Degree Days ....................................................................... 40
4.1.2 Climate Zones and Regions ................................................................................. 43
4.1.3 Selected Cities for Representing Climate Zones in the United States.................... 47
4.1.4 Summer and Winter Design Temperatures ........................................................... 49
4.1.5 Annual Average Ground Temperature ................................................................. 50
4.1.6 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey Data ................................... 53
4.1.7 Residential Energy Consumption Survey Data ..................................................... 57
4.2 Procedures for GSHP Application Feasibility Screening ................................ ............ 60
4.2.1 Process Flow Chart .............................................................................................. 61
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 9/182
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 96
5.1 Results ....................................................................................................................... 96
5.1.1 Prescreening Analysis - 1 Results ........................................................................ 96
5.1.2 Prescreening Analysis - 2 Results ........................................................................ 99
5.1.3 Prescreening Analysis - 3 Results ...................................................................... 102
5.1.4 Prescreening Analysis - 4 Results ...................................................................... 106
5.1.5 Integrated Feasibility Results ............................................................................. 110
5.2 Analysis ................................................................................................................... 115
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 121
CHAPTER 7: FUTURE STUDIES.................................................................................... 123
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 124
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 128
APPENDIX A: 2003 CBECS Report Data ........................................................................ 129
APPENDIX B: 2009 RECS Report Data ........................................................................... 143
APPENDIX C: Analysis of RECS and CBECS Data for Prescreening Analysis – 3 & 4 .... 147
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 10/182
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Energy Star efficiency requirements for Tier 1 GSHP systems (Energy Star, 2012)12
Table 2: Efficiency requirements for GSHP systems for LEED homes (LEED, 2008) ......... 13
Table 3: Annual HDD and CDD for 16 selected cities (ASHRAE, 2009) ............................. 42
Table 4: International Climate Zone Definitions (IECC®, 2009) .......................................... 43
Table 5: Climate Zone Definitions (ASHRAE, 2007) .......................................................... 44
Table 6: 16 Cities Representing 8 Climate Zones in the United States (PNNL, 2009) .......... 48
Table 7: Heating and Cooling Design Temperatures for 16 cities (ASHRAE, 2009) ............ 50
Table 8: Annual Average Ground Temperature across the United States .............................. 52
Table 9: Summary of data from Appendix A obtained from 2003 CBECS report ................. 55
Table 10: Summary of data from Appendix B obtained from 2009 RECS report ................. 59
Table 11: EUI for 5 climate zones based on RECS data ....................................................... 73
Table 12: 5 Group classifications for 15 cities ..................................................................... 74
Table 13: Maximum, Minimum and Range values for 5 groups ........................................... 75
Table 14: Adjusted EUI per residential housing unit in 15 locations 77
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 11/182
Table 21: Normalized Total Energy Cost saving per commercial office building ................. 91
Table 22: Weighting Factors for 4 prescreening analysis ..................................................... 93
Table 23: Scores, Feasibility Levels and Rankings for Prescreening Analysis - 1 ................. 97
Table 24: Scores, Feasibility Levels and Rankings for Prescreening Analysis - 2 ............... 100
Table 25: Prescreening Analysis -3 Scores, Feasibility Levels and Rankings for residential
homes ................................................................................................................................ 103
Table 26: Prescreening Analysis -3 Scores, Feasibility Levels and Rankings for commercial
buildings ................................................................ ........................................................... 105
Table 27: Prescreening Analysis -4 Scores, Feasibility Levels and Rankings for residential
homes ................................................................................................................................ 107
Table 28: Prescreening Analysis -4 Scores, Feasibility Levels and Rankings for commercial
buildings ................................................................ ........................................................... 109
Table 29: Integrated Feasibility Scores, Feasibility Levels and Rankings for residential
homes ................................................................................................................................ 112
Table 30: Integrated Feasibility Scores, Feasibility Levels and Rankings for commercial
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 12/182
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Total World and US Primary Energy Production 1980 – 2006 .............................3
Figure 1.2: Total World and US Primary Energy Consumption 1980 – 2008 .........................3
Figure 1.3: Distribution of energy usage in the United States by various sectors in 2009
(Number in Quads) (LLNL, 2010) .........................................................................................5
Figure 1.4: The United States Energy Use by Sector in 2009 (Quads; %)...............................6
Figure 1.5: Corrected United States Energy Use by Sector in 2009 (Quads; %) .....................7
Figure 1.6: Effectiveness of energy usage in the United States in 2009 (Quads; %) ...............8
Figure 2.1: Area suitable for GSHP systems in the United States (NREL, 2006) .................. 14
Figure 3.1: The Carnot Heat Engine .................................................................................... 16
Figure 3.2: P-V diagram of the Carnot Cycle ....................................................................... 17
Figure 3.3: T-s Diagram of the reversed Carnot Cycle (Cengel and Boles, 2011) ................. 21
Figure 3.4: The Vapor Compression Cycle (Dincer and Kanoglu, 2010) .............................. 23
Figure 3.5: T-s diagram (left) and P-h diagram for an ideal Vapor Compression Cycle
(Cengel and Boles 2011) 24
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 13/182
Figure 3.11: Vertical Ground Coupled Heat Pump (Kavanaugh and Rafferty, 1997) ............ 35
Figure 3.12: Horizontal Ground Coupled Heat Pump (Kavanaugh and Rafferty, 1997) ........ 36
Figure 3.13: Slinky type Horizontal Ground Coupled Heat Pump (Kavanaugh and Rafferty,
1997) ................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 3.14: Closed loop (left) and Open loop SWHP systems (KGS, 2011)........................ 38
Figure 4.1: Climate Zones and Regions in the United States (PNNL and ORNL, 2010) ....... 46
Figure 4.2: Average Annual ground temperature across the United States (Geo4VA, 2006). 51
Figure 4.3: Census divisions for 2003 CBECS report (EIA, 2009) ....................................... 54
Figure 4.4: Climate Zones for 2009 RECS report (PPNL and ORNL, 2010) ........................ 58
Figure 4.5: Process Flow Diagram of Pre-Screening Processes ............................................ 62
Figure 5.1: Distribution of Scores of Combined HDDs and CDDs for 7 climate zones......... 96
Figure 5.2: Five Level Environmental Feasibility and number of sites appeared in each
category .............................................................................................................................. 98
Figure 5.3: Distribution of Scores of the Ground Conditions in Relation to the Design and
Degree Days for 7 climate zones ......................................................................................... 99
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 14/182
.......................................................................................................................................... 105
Figure 5.8: Five Level Energy Savings Feasibility and number of sites appeared in each
category for commercial buildings ..................................................................................... 106
Figure 5.9: Distribution of Scores for Normalized Cost Savings in residential homes ........ 107
Figure 5.10: Five Level Cost Savings Feasibility and number of sites appeared in each
category for residential homes ........................................................................................... 108
Figure 5.11: Distribution of Scores for Normalized Cost Savings in commercial buildings 109
Figure 5.12: Five Level Cost Savings Feasibility and number of sites appeared in each
category for commercial buildings ..................................................................................... 110
Figure 5.13: Distribution of the Integrated Scores for residential homes in 7 climate zones 111
Figure 5.14: Five Level Integrated Feasibility and number of sites appeared in each category
for residential homes ......................................................................................................... 112
Figure 5.15: Distribution of the Integrated Scores for commercial buildings in 7 climate
zones ................................................................................................................................. 113
Figure 5.16: Five Level Integrated Feasibility and number of sites appeared in each category
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 15/182
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 16/182
(t) GSF: Gross Square Feet
(u) Btu: British Thermal Unit
(v) EUI: Energy Use Intensity
(w) EIA: U.S. Energy Information Administration
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 17/182
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Our quest for finding better and more optimum solutions to engineering problems is one of
the most pressing issues of our time. One such problem which engulfs our community is the
issue of “Energy”. While the term energy is by itself very diverse in nature, for this study we
will limit ourselves to Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) systems, which are energy
efficient systems for providing thermal energy for various purposes.
Currently, buildings (commercial and residential) these days are being retrofitted with GSHP
systems because their existing Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems
are nearing the end of their life cycle. Also newly constructed buildings are often provided
with GSHP systems for meeting thermal loads in more energy efficient ways. These projects
are typically cost intensive and require some level of prescreening analysis prior to detailed,
and investment grade analysis. This study serves as the first step for the project planning
process, for understanding the feasibility of ground source heat pump systems for residential
and commercial buildings across continental the United States The tool created for this study
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 18/182
1.1 Energy and the United States
Energy is the prime mover of economic growth and is vital to the sustenance of a modern
economy (Siemens, 2010). We live in a time when global energy issues have reached
unprecedented levels of significance both for nations and the consuming public. Our
existence by and large depends in our ability to understand, and utilize this limited resource
in the most optimum manner, and also educate future generations regarding the need to be
conscientious in the use of energy.
There has been a constant increase in energy production to keep up with ever increasing
demand over the last few decades, and given the advancements in science and technology,
coupled with economic developments and an increasing rate of population growth, the
demand for energy is destined to grow higher. Figure 1.1 depicts the Total Primary Energy 1
production in the World and the United States between 1980 and 2006 (EIA, 2012). Figure
1.2 depicts the Total Primary Energy consumption by the World and the United States
between 1980 and 2008 (EIA, 2012).
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 19/182
E n e r g y ( Q u a d r i l l i o n B t u )
g y ( Q u a d r i l l i o n B t u )
Figure 1.1: Total World and US Primary Energy Production 1980 – 2006
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 20/182
It is observed that the total world’s annual primary energy production grew from 287.6
quadrillion2
Btu to 469.4 quadrillion Btu, from 1980 to 2006 (EIA, 2012). This is an increase
of 63% over 26 years. At the same time the primary energy production in the United States
grew from 67.2 quadrillion Btu to 71 quadrillion Btu (EIA, 2012), which is just a 6%
increase in production within the same time frame.
Similarly it is observed that the total world’s primary energy consumption grew from 283.2
quadrillion Btu to 493 quadrillion Btu, from 1980 to 2008 (EIA, 2012). This is an increase of
74% over 28 years. At the same time the primary energy consumption in the United States
grew from 78.1 quadrillion Btu to 100.6 quadrillion Btu (EIA, 2012), which is a 29%
increase in demand for energy.
The energy production and consumption data highlights the fact that, there has not been a
significant increase in energy production within the United States over last few decades. On
the other hand energy consumed by the United States has been drastically increasing, and is
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 21/182
5
Figure 1.3: Distribution of energy usage in the United States by various sectors in 2009 (Number in Quads) (LLNL, 2010)
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 22/182
While the end use of energy can be by various means, there are four major energy consuming
sectors in which all energy consumption is categorized in the United States. They are
Residential, Industrial, Commercial and Transportation. Figure 1.4 shows the distribution of
energy use based on values from Figure 1.3, by all the four sectors.
Transportation appears to be the most energy intensive sector, while Residential and
Commercial facilities together use about 29% of the total energy, if we consider the end use
energy demand in each sector. In reality however, various losses due to inefficiencies
contribute towards more energy being used up, to meet the demand for all sectors. For
example, primary energy sources like coal, hydro, nuclear and natural gas is used to generate
electricity (the highest quality of energy) with a maximum process efficiency of about 40%
(Eurelectric and VGB, 2003).
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 23/182
Figure 1.5 depicts an integrated version of the energy use distribution for various sectors of
the United States economy by considering the effects of losses due to inefficiencies. We
notice that in this case the industrial sector is the highest consumer of energy followed by
transportation, residential and commercial sectors respectively.
Figure 1.5: Corrected United States Energy Use by Sector in 2009 (Quads; %)
It is also to be noted that about 58% of the total energy used in 2009 was lost due to
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 24/182
Figure 1.6: Effectiveness of energy usage in the United States in 2009 (Quads; %)
The savings from energy lost can be in the form of various energy efficiency optimizations
starting from production to delivery. In case of used energy, we have to consider alternatives,
and methods which reduce the energy requirement of all four sectors of the United States
energy economy. Since this research is related to GSHP systems, we shall only consider
residential and commercial sectors where it has the most applications.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 25/182
The US Department of Energy (DOE) has come up with the Net-Zero Commercial Building
Initiative (CBI) which will strive for building Net-Zero Energy Buildings (NZEBs) for
commercial facilities by the year 2025 (DOE, 2010). A NZEB is a building which can
generate an equivalent amount of energy as it consumes in a year period. The CBI was
launched in the year 2008 and DOE is collaborating with National Laboratory Collaborative
on Building Technologies (NLCBT), architectural and engineering companies, and building
owners to meet the goals of the project.
Another interesting challenge for the future is “The 2030 Challenge”, which is an initiative of
architect Edward Mazria and his organization known as Architecture 2030. The targets of
this initiative are (2030 Inc., 2011):
1. All new buildings, developments and major renovations shall be designed to meet a
fossil fuel, Greenhouse Gas (GHG)-emitting, energy consumption performance
standard of 60% below the regional (or national) average for that building type.
2. At a minimum, an equal amount of existing building area shall be renovated annually
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 26/182
90% in 2025
Carbon-neutral in 2030 (using no fossil fuel GHG emitting energy to operate)
1.3 Energy Conservation Measures and Standards for Buildings
The strategies discussed in the previous section need various supporting standards and
measures that ascertain energy savings and curtails GHG emissions. Some of the prevailing
standards and measures include: the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standards, Energy Star, Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) rating system, and various other technology upgrades
(Energy Conservation Measures) done on existing systems for commercial and industrial
facilities, and residential houses.
1.3.1 ASHRAE Standards
ASHRAE is one of the major international technical societies dedicated to the HVAC and
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 27/182
& maintenance, and utilization of on-site renewable energy sources (ASHRAE, 2010).
Established in 1989, the current version is Standard 90.1-2010 and ASHRAE is currently
developing Standard 90.1-2013 version.
ASHRAE Standard 90.2: This is the standard for Energy-Efficient Design of Low-Rise
Residential Buildings. The latest update for this standard is 2007, and has similar objectives
to standard 90.1.
ASHRAE Standard 189.1: This is the Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green
Buildings except low-rise residential buildings. Introduced in 2009, the standard currently
has one update in 2011. The objectives of this standard are similar to that of standard 90.1 as
applied to green-buildings and at the same time ensuring sustainable living (ASHRAE,
2009).
1.3.2 Energy Star
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 28/182
they can be certified as Energy Star compatible systems. Table 1 below show the minimum
EER and COP values for different GSHP systems for Tier 1 systems (Energy Star, 2012).
Table 1: Energy Star efficiency requirements for Tier 1 GSHP systems (Energy Star, 2012)
In order to be certified as an Energy Star compliant GSHP system3, the EER and COP values
need to be equal to or greater than the values mentioned in Table 1. These requirements are
in effect from the year 2009.
1 3 3 LEED Ratings
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 29/182
LEED is a point-based rating system. This means that a building is assigned points based on
certain sustainability performance areas, as measured by LEED. The ratings are awarded on a
110 point scale, and based on the LEED score, a building could be rated as LEED Certified
(40-49 points), LEED Silver (50-59 points), LEED Gold (60-79 points) or LEED Platinum
(80+ points).
Table 2 below shows the minimum efficiency requirements for GSHP systems in LEED
Homes (LEED, 2008). High efficiency GSHPs are entitled to earn 2 points and very high
efficiency GSHP systems can earn 4 points (the maximum possible points) under the Space
Heating and Cooling Equipment category.
Table 2: Efficiency requirements for GSHP systems for LEED homes (LEED, 2008)
End Use Open Loop Closed Loop Direct expansion
Cooling ≥ 16.2 EER ≥ 14.1 EER ≥ 15 EER
Heating ≥ 3.6 COP ≥ 3.3 COP ≥ 3.5 COP
Cooling ≥ 17 8 EER ≥ 15 5 EER ≥ 16 5 EER
Ground Source Heat Pump Type
Good HVAC Design and Installation (prerequisite)
HVAC Equipment
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 30/182
CHAPTER 2: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
2.1 Goals
The goal of this research is to help building practitioners understand their standings as far as
building energy use and performance. This will enable them to make decisions that can
change the energy consumption by the buildings, which in turn has a greater impact on
society.
Today, GSHPs have enormous potential in the United States. Figure 2.1 below shows the
areas that have the potential for electric power generation, direct use and GSHP systems in
the United States (NREL, 2006). As shown, all the areas in the United States are suitable for
the application of GSHP systems.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 31/182
GSHPs are a great way to reduce a building’s energy consumption and GHG emissions by
improving the system efficiency of heating and cooling systems, which in turn the systems
use less energy to meet the thermal demand. Even though the prospect of installing such
energy efficient systems seems very exciting, significant analysis and study is required
before installing such systems. The feasibility tool created for this research serves as the
starting point for carrying out major GSHP projects.
2.2 Objectives
The objectives of this study are:
1. To analyze the GSHP application feasibility for different climates and ground
conditions for residential homes and commercial buildings in the United States.
2. To identify energy and cost savings potential for different regions in the United States
based on the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) and
Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) data respectively.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 32/182
CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW OF HEAT PUMPS
3.1 Background
Nicolas Carnot, the French scientist was the first to establish a precise relationship between
heat and work (Zogg, 2008). In 1894, Carnot proposed a theoretical thermodynamic cycle,
known today as the “Carnot Cycle” which consists of four completely reversible 4 processes
and forms the basis of a “Carnot Heat Engine”. Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 below show the
Carnot Heat Engine and the corresponding P-V diagram for the Carnot Cycle.
Figure 3.1: The Carnot Heat Engine
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 33/182
Figure 3.2: P-V diagram of the Carnot Cycle
The four reversible processes in the Carnot Cycle are:
1. Reversible Isothermal Expansion (process 1-2): This process occurs at the higher
temperature (T1). The expansion of the gas in the cylinder causes the temperature to
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 34/182
no heat transfer taking place as the gas expands in the cylinder, causing the
temperature to drop from T1 to T2 and doing work on the surrounding.
3. Reversible Isothermal Compression (process 3-4): This process is similar to the first
one, with the only difference being that the gas is compressed at constant
temperature. The compression of the gas in the cylinder causes the temperature to
increase by dT and an equivalent amount of heat is transferred out of the system to the
surrounding, which lowers the temperature back to T2. This continues until the piston
reaches point 4, and by that time the system transfers Q2 amount of heat to the
surrounding sink.
4. Reversible Adiabatic (Isentropic) Compression (process 4-1): As a final step in the
cycle, the system is again assumed to be completely insulated from the surrounding.
The gas is compressed, while the surrounding does work on the system. The
temperature rises from T2 to T1, and the gas returns to the initial state (point 1), thus
completing the cycle.
Based on the above processes, the work done by a Carnot Engine is given by the expression:
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 35/182
The efficiency of a Carnot heat engine operating between two reservoirs is the maximum
theoretical efficiency that can be achieved at those temperatures. The efficiency is defined by
the expression:
Where,
= the Carnot efficiency of the system.
T1 = the temperature of the source reservoir.
T2 = the temperature of the sink reservoir.
Prior to Carnot, William Thompson (later known as Lord Kelvin) in 1852 had the idea about
a “reverse heat engine” which could be used for both cooling and heating. He described an
open system in great detail with individual components like compressor, expansion valves,
evaporator and air as the refrigerant (Heap, 1979). His ideas are a precursor to the commonly
used and known closed vapor compression cycle system.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 36/182
Post 1900, with industrialization bringing about various inventions, refrigeration systems
were commercially applied in various industries. Between 1919 - 1950 heat pumps for
residential space heating had become reliable and commercially viable. As of today, heat
pumps and other HVAC units have become an essential part of most commercial, residential
and certain industrial facilities, both in terms of providing thermal comfort and sharing a
large part of the energy consumption footprint.
3.2 The Vapor Compression Cycle
As mentioned in the previous section, the Carnot heat engine operates on a completely
reversible cycle shown in Figure 3.2. Reversing the Carnot cycle results in heat getting
extracted from a low temperature source and released into a high temperature sink. This
phenomenon occurs when some external work is done on the system, thus staying consistent
with the second law of thermodynamics5.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 37/182
Figure 3.3: T-s Diagram of the reversed Carnot Cycle (Cengel and Boles, 2011)
Process 1-2 occurs in the evaporator (a heat exchanger). Here the working fluid, known as a
refrigerant, absorbs heat (QL) form the source at lower temperature (TL) during isothermal
expansion
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 38/182
Process 3-4 occurs in the condenser (also a heat exchanger). The saturated vapor rejects heat
(QH) isothermally to the sink at higher temperature (TH). The refrigerant now becomes a
saturated liquid at the end of this process.
Process 4-1 is the final stage in the cycle. It is assumed to occur in a turbine (a work
producing device). The liquid refrigerant is isentropically expanded so that it reaches its
initial state (point 1) as a two-phase mixture.
In practice however, the reversed Carnot cycle has not been implemented on actual devices.
For example, compressors and turbines are not designed to handle two-phase mixtures. Due
to the limitations faced by practical devices, a modification to the reversed Carnot cycle,
known as the vapor compression cycle is applied to refrigerators and heat pumps7. Figure 3.4
below shows the components of a simple vapor compression cycle (Dincer and Kanoglu,
2010).
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 39/182
Figure 3.4: The Vapor Compression Cycle (Dincer and Kanoglu, 2010)
The vapor compression cycle operates similarly to the reversed Carnot cycle discussed
previously in this section. The evaporator absorbs heat (QL) from the low temperature source
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 40/182
3.2.1 Ideal Vapor Compression Cycle
The schematic discussed above serves as the backbone for the vapor compression cycle.
Figure 3.5 below represents the temperature vs. entropy (T-s) and pressure vs. enthalpy (P-h)
diagrams for an ideal vapor compression cycle (Cengel and Boles, 2011). These diagrams are
essential for understanding certain performance parameters of a vapor compression cycle for
an ideal case. The ideal conditions become the benchmark, and basis for practical
considerations.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 41/182
Just like we use the term “efficiency” to understand the performance of a Carnot engine, the
term “Coefficient of Performance” (COP) is used for describing the efficiency of refrigerators and heat pumps. The COP is given by the expression:
The refrigeration effect depends on whether the system is a refrigerator or a heat pump. In
case of a refrigerator the refrigeration effect is the cooling effect produced, and for a heat
pump it is the heating effect produced. The work input for the system is the total work done
on the cycle.
Thus, work done on the cycle:
Where,
h2 = specific enthalpy of the refrigerant leaving the compressor
h1 = specific enthalpy of the refrigerant entering the compressor
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 42/182
For a heat pump the COP is expressed as:
Where,
h3 = specific enthalpy of the refrigerant leaving the evaporator
The difference comes about because in heating mode, the compressor work is available for
heating. The following relation is true for a unit operating between the same temperatures:
3.3 Air Source Heat Pumps
An air source heat pump (ASHP) is a mechanical device used for providing thermal
conditioning. ASHPs use the outside air as the heat source in winter or heat sink in summer,
depending on which cycle it is being run. During the cooling cycle, the outside air acts as the
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 43/182
Figure 3.6: ASHP heating cycle (USDOE, 2001)
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 44/182
In the heating cycle, the evaporator is in contact with the outside air, and absorbs heat from
the air. The gaseous refrigerant is compressed and sent into the conditioning space, where it
loses the heat to the space, thus providing heat. For the cooling cycle, the system is reversed
using a reversing valve. The evaporator is now inside the conditioning space, where the
refrigerant picks up the heat to be removed from the space. The condenser rejects this heat to
the outside air, as the refrigerant is condensed.
Conventional ASHPs are rated based on a number of parameters8, besides the COP. They are
as follows:
1. Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER): The EER is the measure of an ASHP’s cooling
capacity. It is the ratio of the output (cooling provided) measured in Btu/hr. to the
input energy measured in Watts. EER is related to COP by the equation:
2. Heating Seasonal Performance Factor (HSPF): This is the measure of an ASHP’s
performance for the heating cycle over an entire heating season. It is considered to be
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 45/182
EER, as SEER is the ratio of the total cooling provided in Btu/hr. for the entire season
divided by the power consumption during the same time frame, measured in Watts.
SEER and EER are related by the following equation (Hendron and Engebrecht,
2010):
4. kW/Ton: this is a direct measure of the power consumption of a heat pump for
producing one ton of cooling. A ton of cooling is equal to 12,000 Btu/hr. This ratio is
also called the Performance Factor (PF).
3.4 Ground Source Heat Pumps
3.4.1 Introduction
In the previous chapter we looked into how heat pumps work. GSHPs operate using same
principles as an ASHP. The difference between the two is that ASHPs use the outside air as
the source or sink whereas GSHPs use the more stable ground or surface water as a source
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 46/182
and the air delivery system. Figure 3.8 depicts the working components that make up a
GSHP system (digtheheat.com, 2011).
Figure 3.8: Components of a typical GSHP system using a hydronic heat delivery system
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 47/182
with an anti-freeze solution for circulating the thermal energy. In GSHP design, the
construction of the ground loop is the most critical factor for all types of GSHP systems. We
shall look at various construction parameters and GSHP types in the following sections. The
third component of a GSHP system is the ductwork that delivers the conditioned air to the
space.
Figure 3.9 below shows the operation of a GSHP during the cooling cycle (Geo4VA, 2006).
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 48/182
During the cooling cycle the anti-freeze solution in the ground loop absorbs the heat from the
superheated refrigerant coming out of the compressor. The ground (which remains at a lower
temperature than the outside air condition at all times during the cooling cycle) absorbs the
heat from the pipes in the ground loop. The refrigerant leaving the condenser in the heat
pump now becomes saturated liquid at high pressure. This liquid passes through an
expansion valve where the pressure and temperature is significantly lowered. The cold liquid
refrigerant is circulated across the evaporator (the heat exchanger between the heat pump and
the conditioned space) where it gains the heat due to the cooling load from the conditioned
space. This saturated vapor gets compressed in the compressor and the cycle gets repeated. It
is to be noted that part of heat from the superheated refrigerant can be utilized for domestic
hot water heating. This is achieved by using a de-superheater as shown in Figure 3.9.
In the heating cycle, the system is reversed using a reversing valve. Figure 3.10 below shows
the working of a GSHP system for the heating cycle (Geo4VA, 2006).
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 49/182
Figure 3.10: Operation of a GSHP during the heating cycle (Geo4VA, 2006)
When the system is reversed, the direction of flow of the refrigerant changes in the heat
pump. The cold liquid refrigerant comes out of the expansion valve and fills the evaporator.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 50/182
pressure. Just like in case of the cooling cycle, a de-superheater may be used to extract some
of the heat from the superheated vapor for domestic hot water heating. The hot vapor
refrigerant is circulated across the condenser (the heat exchanger between the heat pump and
the conditioned space now acts as a condenser) where it loses the heat to provide heating to
the conditioned space. The hot vapor comes out of the condenser as saturated hot liquid and
enters the expansion valve and the cycle gets repeated.
3.4.2 Types of GSHP systems
GSHP systems are categorized into three basic types, which are: Ground-Coupled Heat
Pumps (GCHPs), Surface Water Heat Pumps (SWHPs) and Ground Water Heat Pumps
(GWHPs). The following sections describe them in detail.
3.4.3 Ground-Coupled Heat Pumps
GCHPs are closed loop systems which run a network of loops into the ground. The loops are
made of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipes which circulate an anti-freeze solution
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 51/182
Figure 3.11: Vertical Ground Coupled Heat Pump (Kavanaugh and Rafferty, 1997)
Vertical GCHPs consist of an array of supply and return HDPE piping loops. These loops are
placed vertically in the ground and spaced 15 – 25 feet apart between loops The loops have a
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 52/182
The second type of the GCHPs is the Horizontal Ground Coupled Heat Pump System. Figure
3.12 shows the layout for a Horizontal GCHP system (Kavanaugh and Rafferty, 1997).
Figure 3.12: Horizontal Ground Coupled Heat Pump (Kavanaugh and Rafferty, 1997)
Horizontal GCHPs are closed loop systems which are constructed by placing the piping loops
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 53/182
Figure 3.13: Slinky type Horizontal Ground Coupled Heat Pump (Kavanaugh and Rafferty, 1997)
In this system the pipes are placed in a coiled format. This reduces the land requirement but
may increase the pipe length for avoiding thermal interference. Slinky systems are more
expensive to install than conventional horizontal GCHP systems.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 54/182
requirements of the system. An area of major concern is the effects of thermal pollution
caused by SWHP systems. Care must be taken and proper analysis should be done to
understand the impact of SWHP systems, before such projects are undertaken.
Figure 3.14 depicts the layout of closed loop and open loop SWHP systems (KGS, 2011).
Figure 3.14: Closed loop (left) and Open loop SWHP systems (KGS, 2011)
Closed loop SWHP systems consist of a heat pump which is located in the building and a
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 55/182
Open loop systems use water from the water body directly by pumping water into the heat
pump. A water-to-air or water-to-water heat exchanger extracts or rejects heat and provides
heating or cooling as needed. Due to the direct pumping of water from the water body, a
good filtration mechanism is essential to prevent damage to piping and equipment. One
disadvantage of open loop systems is that they cannot be used for heating in colder climates
(Kavanaugh and Rafferty, 1997).
3.4.5 Ground Water Heat Pumps
GWHPs are open loop systems where the energy in the ground water is used for heating,
cooling and domestic hot water preparation. Ground water (which remains at fairly constant
temperature) is pumped via a well, which then circulates between a water-to-water heat
exchanger. The closed loop side of the water-to-water heat exchanger is connected to the
water-to-air heat exchanger in the heat pump. Ground water can also be directly circulated
across the heat pump, but care has to be taken for possible fouling problems.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 56/182
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY
4.1 Data and Resources
4.1.1 Heating and Cooling Degree Days
Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling Degree Days (CDD) are the measure of heating
and cooling requirements for a location or any specific building respectively. The HDD and
CDD are calculated based on a certain reference temperature.
HDD is the difference between the base temperature at which the HDD is to be determined
and the average temperature for a given day. The difference if positive means that the HDD
for that particular day is the difference in degrees Fahrenheit temperature between the base
temperature and the average temperature for that day. If the difference between the two is
negative, then the HDD is considered to be zero. The annual HDD for a certain location is
the sum of all HDD for the location over one calendar year. The following equations show
the relationship between HDD and outside temperature.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 57/182
Tmin = Minimum temperature for that particular day (°F)
Tavg = Average of maximum and minimum temperatures for that particular day (°F)
Annual HDD is given by:
Where,
n = Number of days in the calendar year.
Similarly, CDD is the difference between the average temperature for a given day, and the
base temperature at which the CDD is to be determined. The difference if positive means that
the CDD for that particular day is the difference in degrees Fahrenheit temperature between
the average temperature and the base temperature for that day. If the difference between the
two is negative, then the CDD is considered to be zero. The annual CDD for a certain
location is the sum of all CDD for the location over one calendar year. The following
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 58/182
Tmax = Maximum temperature for that particular day (°F)
Tmin = Minimum temperature for that particular day (°F)
Tavg = Average of maximum and minimum temperatures for that particular day (°F)
Annual CDD is given by:
For this study, the annual HDD and CDD for the 16 cities representing the 8 climate zones in
USA were considered. The values for annual HDD and CDD were taken from the 2009
ASHRAE Handbook, with T b as 65°F. Table 3 below lists the HDD65, and CDD65 data for
the 16 locations in the United States, and their sum (ASHRAE, 2009):
Table 3: Annual HDD and CDD for 16 selected cities (ASHRAE, 2009)
NO. CITY STATECLIMATE
ZONEHDD65 CDD65 SUM
1 Miami Florida 1A 130 4,458 4,588
2 Houston Texas 2A 1,204 3,103 4,3073 Phoenix Arizona 2B 941 4,557 5,498
4 Atlanta Georgia 3A 2,694 1,841 4,535
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 59/182
4.1.2 Climate Zones and Regions
The International Code Council (ICC) is an organization which publishes codes and
standards for building design, construction and safety for existing and new buildings. One
such set of codes is known as the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC ®). The
IECC® divides the world into eight different climate zones. These zones are classified based
on the prevailing climate conditions and thermal criteria (Heating and Cooling Degree Days).
Table 4 shows the different climate zones based on IECC® classification (IECC®, 2009):
Table 4: International Climate Zone Definitions (IECC®, 2009)
NO. ZONE NUMBER THERMAL CRITERIA
1 1 9,000 < CDD50°F
2 2 6,300 < CDD50°F ≤ 9,000
3 3A and 3B4,500 < CDD50°F ≤ 6,300
AND HDD65°F ≤ 5,400
4 4A and 4BCDD50°F ≤ 4,500 AND
HDD65°F ≤ 5,400
5 3C HDD65°F ≤ 3,6006 4C 3,600 < HDD65°F ≤ 5,400
7 5 5,400 < HDD65°F ≤ 7,200
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 60/182
ORNL, 2010). The 3 climate regions are defined based on the moisture regimes at those
locations.
ASHRAE adopted the IECC® climate zone definition and published it in its ASHRAE 90.1,
2004 edition. This study adopts the values specified by ASHRAE for the different climate
zones and regions across the United States. Table 5 below shows ASHRAE’s design criteriafor different zones depicted in Figure 4.1 (ASHRAE, 2007).
Table 5: Climate Zone Definitions (ASHRAE, 2007)
NO. ZONE NUMBER ZONE NAME THERMAL CRITERIA
1 1A and 1BVery Hot – Humid (1A)
Dry (1B)9,000 < CDD50°F
2 2A and 2BHot – Humid (2A)
Dry (2B)6,300 < CDD50°F ≤ 9,000
3 3A and 3B
Warm – Humid (3A)
Dry (3B) 4,500 < CDD50°F ≤ 6,300
4 3C Warm – Marine (3C)CDD50°F ≤ 4,500 AND
HDD65°F ≤ 3 600
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 61/182
The three climate regions are defined by ASHRAE as (ASHRAE, 2007):
Marine (C) definition – Locations meeting all four of the following criteria:
1. Mean temperature of coldest month between 27°F and 65°F
2. Warmest month mean < 72°F
3. At least four months with mean temperatures over 50°F
4.
Dry season in summer. The month with the heaviest precipitation in the cold season
has at least three times as much precipitation as the month with the least precipitation in the
rest of the year. The cold season is October through March in the Northern Hemisphere and
April through September in the Southern Hemisphere.
Dry (B) definition – Locations meeting the following criteria:
Not Marine (C) and
Where,
P = annual precipitation in inches
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 62/182
46
Figure 4.1: Climate Zones and Regions in the United States (PNNL and ORNL, 2010)
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 63/182
4.1.3 Selected Cities for Representing Climate Zones in the United States
As mentioned in the previous section, there are 8 climate zones that cover all of continental
United States. Out of these, zones 1 (Very Hot), 2 (Hot), 3 (Warm), 4 (Mixed), 5 (Cool), 6
(Cold), 7 (Very Cold), and 8 (Subarctic) are further classified as A (Humid), B (Dry) or C
(Marine) depending on the region. Due to the diverse nature of climatic conditions in these
zones, along with the variation in RECS and CBECS data, it becomes essential to select
specific locations that represent the physical conditions of every specific zone.
Based on the research done by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) for analyzing
energy savings design in medium sized office buildings, 16 cities across the United States
were selected to represent the different climate zones that cover the United States. This
research adopts the same 16 cities for understanding the feasibility of GSHP systems over
conventional ASHP systems. Table 6 below shows the list of 16 cities along with certain
specific information related to their location (PNNL, 2009).
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 64/182
Table 6: 16 Cities Representing 8 Climate Zones in the United States (PNNL, 2009)
Climate zone 3B (3B-CA and 3B-other, both falling under zone name hot – dry) is represented
by two different cities, Los Angeles, CA and Las Vegas, NV. This was done because the two
cities experience very different climate conditions even though they are in the same climate
zone (PNNL, 2009).
NO. CLIMATE ZONE CITY STATE ZONE NAME COORDINATES
1 1A Miami Florida hot - humid 25°47′16″N 80°13′27″W2 2A Houston Texas hot - humid 29°45′46″N 95°22′59″W
3 2B Phoenix Arizona hot - dry 33°27′N 112°04′W
4 3A Atlanta Georgia hot - humid 33°45′18″N 84°23′24″W
5 3B-CA Los Angeles California hot - dry 34°03′N 118°15′W
6 3B-other Las Vegas Nevada hot - dry 36°10′30″N 115°08′11″W
7 3C San Francisco California marine 37°46′45.48″N 122°25′9.12″W
8 4A Baltimore Maryland mild - humid 39°17′N 76°37′W
9 4B Albuquerque New Mexico mild - dry 35°06′39″N 106°36′36″W
10 4C Seattle Washington marine 47°36′35″N 122°19′59″W
11 5A Chicago Illinois cold - humid 41°52′55″N 87°37′40″W
12 5B Denver Colorado cold - dry 39°44′21″N 104°59′5″W
13 6A Minneapolis Minnesota cold - humid 44°59′N 93°16′W
14 6B Helena Montana cold - dry 46°35′44.9″N 112°1′37.31″W
15 7 Duluth Minnesota very - cold 46°47′12.98″N 92°5′53.5″W
16 8 Fairbanks Alaska extreme - cold 64°50′37″N 147°43′23″W
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 65/182
4.1.4 Summer and Winter Design Temperatures
The summer and winter design temperatures are important factors that indicate the peak
heating and cooling load requirements for any given location. These temperatures help
designers understand equipment design and sizing to meet the peak thermal loads. The design
temperatures are based on a percentile value for the calendar year.
For this study, the winter design heating temperature (dry bulb temperature) is the 99.6
percentile value. This means that the heating design temperature is the lowest temperature
experienced for 99.6% of the total hours annually. The summer cooling design temperature
(dry bulb temperature) is the 0.4 percentile value. This means that the cooling design
temperature is the highest temperature experienced in all but 0.4% of the hours annually. In
this study, the wet-bulb coincident design temperature was not combined as a factor. Table 7
below shows the values for heating (99.6%) and cooling (0.4%) design temperatures for the
16 selected cities representing the 8 climate zones in the United States (ASHRAE, 2009).
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 66/182
Table 7: Heating and Cooling Design Temperatures for 16 cities (ASHRAE, 2009)
4.1.5 Annual Average Ground Temperature
The soil has a better heat capacity than air. Due to this property of soil, it serves as a better
h t d i k Th il t t i t bl di t b d t d th f
NO. CITY STATECLIMATE
ZONE
Heating Design
Temp. (°F )(99.6%)
Cooling Design
Temp. (°F )(0.4%)
1 Miami Florida 1A 47.7 91.8
2 Houston Texas 2A 31.3 95.1
3 Phoenix Arizona 2B 38.6 110.2
4 Atlanta Georgia 3A 20.7 93.8
5 Los Angeles California 3B-CA 44.4 83.7
6 Las Vegas Nevada 3B-other 30.5 108.37 San Francisco California 3C 38.8 83.0
8 Baltimore Maryland 4A 12.9 93.9
9 Albuquerque New Mexico 4B 17.7 95.2
10 Seattle Washington 4C 24.0 86.1
11 Chicago Illinois 5A -4.0 91.9
12 Denver Colorado 5B 0.7 94.3
13 Minneapolis Minnesota 6A -13.4 91.0
14 Helena Montana 6B -15.4 92.7
15 Duluth Minnesota 7 -19.5 84.5
16 Fairbanks Alaska 8 -43.3 81.2
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 67/182
As changes in soil temperature at lower depths depends mostly on the soil characteristics, it a
very site specific analysis is needed to understand the design and construction of horizontal
GCHP systems. Due to the lack of data for individual locations, a more general case has been
considered for this research which is more suitable for vertical GCHP systems. The average
annual ground temperature for various locations across the United States is used for
analyzing feasibility of GSHP systems in the 8 climate zones within continental United
States. Figure 4.2 shows the average annual ground temperature across the United States
(Geo4VA, 2006).
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 68/182
Based on Figure 4.2, values for annual average ground temperature for the 16 cities
representing 8 climate zones in continental United States were determined. Table 8 below
shows the values for the ground temperature observed from Figure 4.2.
Table 8: Annual Average Ground Temperature across the United States
NO. CITY STATE CLIMATEZONE
Annual Avg. GroundTemp. (°F)
1 Miami Florida 1A 77
2 Houston Texas 2A 71
3 Phoenix Arizona 2B 67
4 Atlanta Georgia 3A 62
5 Los Angeles California 3B-CA 676 Las Vegas Nevada 3B-other 62
7 San Francisco California 3C 62
8 Baltimore Maryland 4A 57
9 Albuquerque New Mexico 4B 52
10 Seattle Washington 4C 53
11 Chicago Illinois 5A 50
12 Denver Colorado 5B 52
13 Minneapolis Minnesota 6A 42
14 Helena Montana 6B 44
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 69/182
4.1.6 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey Data
Introduced in 1979, CBECS is a national survey for commercial buildings10 in the United
States. The CBECS database is the largest available statistical resource for energy
consumption, and energy expenditures in commercial buildings across the United States. EIA
has been publishing CBECS results on a quadrennial basis from 1979 – 2003. However data
from the 2007 survey was not released by EIA because of poor quality standard of acquired
data (EIA, 2008). Subsequently the CBECS for 2011 was not conducted due to financial
constraints. EIA however has resumed work for publishing a new CBECS report, with a
target date of 2014 (EIA, 2008).
The 2003 CBECS report was based on a sample size of 5,215 buildings, which were selected
across nine census divisions and five climate zones as defined by the EIA. This sample size
is weighted to represent 4,859,000 commercial buildings, which is an estimate for the total
number of commercial buildings in the United States back in 2003 (EIA, 2008). Figure 4.3
shows the census divisions from which the census data was gathered for the 2003 CBECS
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 70/182
Figure 4.3: Census divisions for 2003 CBECS report (EIA, 2009)
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 71/182
55
Table 9 below lists a summary of data compiled from Appendix A which is used for this research.
Table 9: Summary of data from Appendix A obtained from 2003 CBECS report
OFFICE BUILDING DATA (CBECS 2003)
New
England
Middle
Atlantic
East
North
Central
West
North
Central
South
Atlantic
East
South
Central
West
South
Central
M ount ain Pacific
NO. OF BUILDINGS 47,000 108,000 134,000 97,000 125,000 41,000 84,000 62,000 125,000
TOTAL GSF (Million sq.ft) 578 2,434 2,190 799 1,958 481 1,343 629 1,796
Electricity Consumption (Billion Btu) 30,717 136,520 143,346 40,956 119,455 30,717 92,151 34,130 88,738
Natural Gas Consumption (Billion Btu) 0 73,944 86,268 19,513 12,324 0 12,324 19,513 17,459
Others (Fuel Oil + District Heat) (Billion Btu) 35,283 28,536 33,386 1,531 23,221 19,283 19,525 4,357 10,803
TOTAL ENERGY USE (Billion Btu) 66,000 239,000 263,000 62,000 155,000 50,000 124,000 58,000 117,000
EUI (kBtu/sq.ft-yr.) 114.60 98.00 120.10 77.60 79.30 103.20 92.30 91.90 65.10
Elect. Expenditure (Million $) 900 4,000 2,940 840 2,450 630 1,890 1,000 2,600
Nat. Gas Expenditure (Million $) 0 667 669 151 105 0 105 139 125
Others (Million $) 75 316 285 104 255 63 175 82 233
TOTAL EXPENDITURE (Million $) 975 4,984 3,894 1,095 2,809 693 2,169 1,221 2,958
Avg. Size/Office Bldg.(sq.ft) 12, 298 22, 537 16, 343 8, 237 15, 664 11, 732 15, 988 10, 145 14, 368
Census Region and Division
Northeast Midwest South West
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 72/182
For commercial buildings, the best available data in the 2003 CBECS report was for office
buildings. This is based on the fact that office buildings show the least number of “Q” values
in the 2003 CBECS report. A “Q” value indicates that data for a particular field was not
released due to statistical inaccuracies. Thus for this research, the feasibility of GSHP
systems for commercial buildings across all climate zones in the United States pertains only
to office buildings in the respective climate zones.
Table 9 lists the data for number of office buildings and the total gross square feet area for
the different census divisions. The energy consumption and energy cost data comprises of
electricity, natural gas, and other fuel types (fuel oil and district heat) all expressed in kBtu
and US$ respectively. The 2003 CBECS report has data for electricity, natural gas and total
energy consumption and expenditure respectively, for office buildings in all census regions.
The energy consumption and expenditure by other fuel types was determined by subtracting
the consumption and expenditure values for electricity and natural gas from the total energy
consumption and expenditure respectively.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 73/182
The average size for office buildings in respective census division was determined by
dividing the total square feet area by the total number of office buildings in the census
division. The values for the same are shown in Table 9 above.
4.1.7 Residential Energy Consumption Survey Data
Similar to CBECS, RECS is a national survey for residential housing units. The RECS
database is the largest available statistical resource for energy consumption, and energy
expenditures in residential housing units across the country. EIA has been publishing RECS
results on a quadrennial basis from 1978 – 2009. Figure 4.4 shows the climate zones from
which the census data was gathered for the 2009 RECS report (PPNL and ORNL, 2010).
Appendix B shows data used from the 2009 RECS report.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 74/182
58
Figure 4.4: Climate Zones for 2009 RECS report (PPNL and ORNL, 2010)
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 75/182
The climate zone map used for the 2009 RECS report covers 7 of the 8 climate zones in the
United States, with the exception being climate zone 8 (the subarctic zone represented by
Fairbanks in the list of 16 cities). Figure 4.4 also depicts the location of 15 cities which
represent the 7 climate zones in continental United States. Table 10 below lists a summary of
data compiled from Appendix A which was used for this research.
Table 10: Summary of data from Appendix B obtained from 2009 RECS report
Very Cold/Cold Mixed-HumidMixed-Dry/Hot-
DryHot-Hum id Marine
TOTAL GSF (Million sq.ft) 85,300 73,000 23,000 32,200 10,500
Electricity Consumption (Billion Btu) 1,250,000 1,540,000 440,000 960,000 200,000
Natural Gas Consumption (Billion Btu) 2,440,000 1,320,000 470,000 270,000 200,000
Propane/ LPG (Billion Btu) 230,000 180,000 30,000 40,000 10,000
Fuel Oil (Billion Btu) 380,000 190,000 0 0 0
Kerosene (Billion Btu) 20,000 10,000 0 0 0
TOTAL ENERGY USE (Billion Btu) 4,320,000 3,240,000 940,000 1,270,000 410,000
EUI (kBtu/sq.ft-yr.) 50.64 44.38 40.87 39.44 39.05
Climate Region
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 76/182
For residential housing units, the major fuel types that are used include electricity, natural
gas, propane/LPG11, fuel oil and kerosene. Based on the climate region, Table 10 lists the
data for total gross square feet area for all housing units, the energy consumption and energy
cost data for different fuel types (all expressed in kBtu and US$ respectively). The table also
has values the total fuel consumption by all fuel types and the total energy use cost for all
fuel types. The EUI for every particular climate zone is also calculated and shown in the
table. The values from this table are used in further feasibility screening processes which will
be discussed later.
4.2 Procedures for GSHP Application Feasibility Screening
To develop the prescreening methodologies for GSHPs suitable for the different climate
zones across USA, a comprehensive literature review was conducted with an emphasis on
precedents of GSHP implementations for residential and commercial facilities. The
information gathered to develop the methodology includes utility usage in various census
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 77/182
effectiveness based on the capital investment and expected energy and operating cost savings
compared to the typical existing systems in these locations, were also conducted.
Using the prescreening methodologies, a prioritized feasibility list to implement GSHP
technologies into residential housing units and commercial buildings were developed. The
list includes high level analysis results based on a five level scale of feasibility (very high,
high, good, moderate, and fair), along with expected O&M cost savings, and potential energy
savings. Following sections describe the detailed prescreening methodologies and processes.
4.2.1 Process Flow Chart
Figure 4.5 shows the pre-screening methodology flow diagram, which includes 19. This
diagram has been inputted as a tool in an Excel spreadsheet for users to automatically find
the feasibility answers before implementing the GSHP systems. The feasibility pre-screening
tool is provided as a separate file along with this report. The steps below explain a step-by-
step process on how the user gets answers about the GSHPs project feasibility for a specific
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 78/182
62
Figure 4.5: Process Flow Diagram of Pre-Screening Processes
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 79/182
Step-1. User looks up a city from list based on the 7 climate zones12 in USA.
Step-2. Based on the selected location, the corresponding satellite image using
Google Maps is displayed along with a brief description.
Note: Steps 3 -7 and Steps 11, 12 and 17 do not affect the results for this research. However
they can be used if individual case studies for GSHP feasibility analysis are performed. Thus
these steps have been explained below but their deduction is left to the reader’s discretion.
Step-3. For the selected location, and based on information from satellite images,
the available real estate is estimated, especially for the open land area (for
vertical GCHPs) and the surface water area (for SWHPs).
Step-4. Estimation of available real estate includes: surface water source(s)
available nearby for SWHP systems.
Step-5. Estimation of available real estate includes: ground area available for
ground-coupled loop for GSHP systems.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 80/182
Step-8. Running on parallel to the location selection in Step-3, the information
regarding the facility is extracted from the database, both in general
(Weather & Ground) and site-specific (residential housing unit or
commercial facility).
Step-9. (i) The Weather Condition (HDDs & CDDs) information for the location
is used to conduct the Prescreening Analysis-1 (Environmental
Condition). Note-1) This is a general environmental factor, not
considering the specific factors that individual locations have such as
building types and their operations. Note-2) HDDs & CDDs are used here
as indicators of thermal energy requirements, although Heating/Cooling
design temperatures are used for peak load calculations (for equipment
sizing). (ii) The Ground Condition (ground temperature) information for
the location is used to conduct the Prescreening Analysis-2 (Ground/Water
Source Feasibility).
Step-10. The information for the site also includes site specific information in the
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 81/182
Step-12. A comparison is made between the total required tons calculated in Step-
11 and the estimated total available Tons for GSHP and SWHP systems as
processed in Step-6 and Step-7.
Step-13. Prescreening Analysis-1, Environmental Condition Feasibility, is
performed based on the weather conditions, which will be discussed in one
of the following sections.
Step-14. Prescreening Analysis-2, Ground Condition Feasibility, is performed
based on the ground conditions, which will be discussed in one of the
following sections.
Step-15.
Prescreening Analysis-3, Energy Savings Potential, is performed based on
the location specific information such as energy use, RECS EUIs and
CBECS EUIs, which will be discussed in one of the following sections.
Step-16. Prescreening Analysis-4, Economic Feasibility, is performed based on the
cost savings calculations, which will be discussed in one of the following
sections.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 82/182
Step-19. Using the Combined Pre-Screening Analysis data from Step-18, the final
results are displayed for the feasibility of GSHP systems in the selected
location. The results show both feasibility scores and rankings for
residential housing units and commercial buildings.
The prescreening results are designed to give one of the five different feasibility levels based
on the integrated scores; i.e., 1) VERY HIGH (81-100), 2) HIGH (61-80), 3) GOOD (41-60),
4) MODERATE (21-40), and 5) FAIR (0-20). The specific scores of individual locations are
shown in the results. In addition, as there are 15 locations representing 7 climate zones,
rankings (or Comparative Feasibility) are indicated to show the feasibility results based on
the comparisons between the 15 locations. The 15 locations are ranked based on the
integrated pre-screening analysis, which combines four different prescreening analyses; i.e.,
1) Analysis-1 from the weather conditions, 2) Analysis-2 from the ground conditions, 3)
Analysis-3 from site energy use, and 4) Analysis-4 from economic calculations, along with
weighting factors. The specific methodologies and basic assumptions are explained in the
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 83/182
temperature. Based on this main independent parameter or outdoor air temperature, HDDs
and CDDs are typical indicators to show the thermal (heating and cooling) requirements or
demand of building in a specific climate location. In this first prescreening process, these
indicators were used to score the implementation feasibility of GSHPs. As Heat Pumps (HPs)
provide both heating and cooling to buildings, the HDDs and CDDs of a site location were
combined or summed together to show the magnitude of the thermal requirements. The more
the combined HDDs and CDDs are, the higher the feasibility scores.
The information of HDDs and CDDs, based on the change point temperature of 65 F, was
obtained from the ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals (ASHRAE, 2009). Fairbanks, Alaska
shows the highest combined HDDs and CDDs, but since this location and climate zone is not
considered, Duluth, Minnesota is considered to have the highest combined HDDs (9,425
HDDs) and CDDs (209 CDDs) of 9,634, which, as a result, received the highest score of 84
with the number one ranking. In contrast, Los Angeles, California, which show the least
combined HDDs (1,284 HDDs) and CDDs (617 CDDs) of 1,901, which in turn received the
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 84/182
If:
If:
If:
If:
Where,
DDn = Combined HDD and CDD for a given location
DDmax = Maximum combined HDD and CDD out of 15 locations
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 85/182
4.2.3 Prescreening Analysis - 2 (Ground Condition)
Ground conditions are critical in the feasibility analysis of GSHP projects, since GSHPs use
the underground environment as heat source in the winter and heat sink in the summer. It is
clear that the higher temperature difference between the outdoor temperature and the ground
temperature means the higher potential benefits from having GSHPs for energy savings. This
is because, in contrast to GSHPs, other thermal energy proving systems or HVAC systems
utilizes either outdoor weather conditions as their heat sink/source environment or water such
as cooling tower, which varies significantly dependent on outdoor conditions as compared to
the relatively constant ground conditions.
Figure 4.2 shown earlier depicted the undisturbed ground temperatures in across USA. In
general, the temperature of the soil remains constant at a depth of greater than thirty feet. So
the mean earth temperature is the temperature at which the ground below 30 feet of depth is
consistent year round and independent of seasonal variations. As shown in Figure 4.2, the
undisturbed ground temperatures vary from 37 °F in the northern areas of Minnesota as
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 86/182
for the cooling case. These temperature differences were then multiplied by HDDs and CDDs
and summed together for the individual locations to integrate with the annual thermal energy
requirements. The following equations show these relationships.
n
n
n
n
Where,
αn = Product of CDD and difference in temperature for the given location
βn = Product of HDD and difference in temperature for the given location
γn = Sum of the two parameters α and β for the given location
Once again Fairbanks, Alaska shows the highest “γ” value, but since this location and climate
zone is not considered Duluth Minnesota is considered to have the highest “γ” value or
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 87/182
If:
If:
If:
If:
Where,
γmax = Maximum γ value out of 15 locations
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 88/182
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 89/182
The EUIs for the 5 climates zones were calculated by summing the energy use for all fuel
types, and dividing the sum with the total square footage for all residential units in each
climate zones. The % Energy Use and % Energy Cost for each fuel type in each climate zone
is calculated by:
Table 11 below shows the EUI values for all 5 climate zones. These values are useful
because they were used for calculating the residential housing unit EUIs in the 15 locations
across USA which was selected to represent all 7 climate zones and regions.
Table 11: EUI for 5 climate zones based on RECS data
No. Climate RegionRECS-EUI
(kBtu/sqft-yr)
1 Very Cold/Cold 50.64
2 Mixed-Humid 44.38
3 Mixed Dry/Hot Dry 40 87
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 90/182
The international climate zone definition
The values of HDD, CDD (Table 3) and their sum at these locations.
The 15 cities were split in 5 groups based on their geographic location and climate zone
classification. Table 12 lists the cities which fall under each group.
Table 12: 5 Group classifications for 15 cities
GROUP
1 2 3 4 5
DULUTH BALTIMORE LAS VEGAS MIAMI SAN FRANCISCO
HELENA ATLANTA ALBUQUERQUE HOUSTON LOS ANGELES
MINNEAPOLIS PHOENIXCHICAGO
DENVER
SEATTLE
For each group, the EUI for the location(s) were then determined based on the influence of
HDDs, CDDs or their sum. The deciding factor in group 1 is HDDs because the HDD value
i i ifi l h CDD l f h l i I 2 3 d 5 h d idi
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 91/182
Next, the maximum, minimum and range14 for each group based on values of the deciding
factor as discussed above are calculated. Table 13 lists these values for the 5 groups noted
previously.
Table 13: Maximum, Minimum and Range values for 5 groups
Combining values from Table 11 and Table 13 the EUIs for the 15 locations were calculated
using the following relation:
Where,
difi d l b d d f h i l i (k / f )
1 2 3 4 5MAXIMUM 9,425 5,795 5,453 4,458 2,850
MINIMUM 4,729 4,535 5,168 3,103 1,901
RANGE 4,696 1,260 285 1,355 949
BASIS HDDSUM (HDD +
CDD)
SUM (HDD +
CDD)CDD
SUM (HDD +
CDD)
GROUP VALUE TYPE
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 92/182
ERCZn = EUI value of RECS Climate Zone in which the given location falls under
(kBtu/sqft-yr).
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 93/182
77
Table 14 lists the adjusted EUI values per residential housing unit in the 15 cities, based on calculation methods described in this
section.
Table 14: Adjusted EUI per residential housing unit in 15 locations
No. Location State
Climate Region
(as per Building
America Climate
Region map)
Climate Region (as
per International
Climate Zone Def.)
Climate
ZoneHDD CDD SUM
Adjusted EUI
(kBtu/sqft-yr)
1 DULUTH MN Very Cold/Cold Very Cold 7 9,425 209 9,634 51.64
2 HELENA MT Very Cold/Cold Cold - Dry 6B 7,679 374 8,053 51.27
3 MINNEAPOLIS MN Very Cold/Cold Cold - Humid 6A 7,565 751 8,316 51.25
4 CHICAGO IL Very Cold/Cold Cool - Humid 5A 6,311 842 7,153 50.98
5 DENVER CO Very Cold/Cold Cool - Dry 5B 5,942 777 6,719 50.90
6 SEATTLE WA Marine Mixed - Marine 4C 4,729 177 4,906 50.64
7 BALTIMORE MD Mixed-Humid Mixed - Humid 4A 4,567 1,228 5,795 45.38
8 ATLANTA GA Mixed-Humid Warm - Humid 3A 2,694 1,841 4,535 44.38
9 LAS VEGAS NV Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Warm - Dry 3B 2,105 3,348 5,453 41.87
10 ALBUQUERQUE NM Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Mixed - Dry 4B 4,069 1,348 5,417 41.74
11 PHOENIX AZ Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Hot - Dry 2B 1,245 3,923 5,168 40.87
12 MIAMI FL Hot-Humid Very Hot - Humid 1A 130 4,458 4,588 40.54
13 SAN FRANCISCO CA Marine Warm - Marine 3C 2,708 142 2,850 40.05
14 HOUSTON TX Hot-Humid Hot - Humid 2A 1,204 3,103 4,307 39.44
15 LOS ANGELES CA Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Warm - Dry 3B 1,284 617 1,901 39.05
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 94/182
Energy savings from GSHP systems over conventional ASHP systems can vary significantly
based on the location, the prevailing energy costs, construction and labor costs. A study
performed by Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the DOE concluded that typical GSHP systems
on an average provided 25% to 50% energy savings over typical ASHPs, for a 3,000 square
feet single family residential home (Navigant Consulting Inc., 2009). The same study also
concluded that GSHP systems on an average provided 20% to 45% energy savings over
typical ASHPs, for a 6,000 square feet office building (Navigant Consulting Inc., 2009).
Based on the literature review, a conservative assumption was made for this study regarding
the energy savings potential of GSHP systems over conventional ASHP systems. The energy
savings potential was calculated based on the comparison between the adjusted EUIs from
the RECS report for a corresponding location and considering the baseline design case as
80% of the adjusted RECS EUIs. The adjusted RECS EUIs are the average performance
values, so for the design case, 20% lower EUIs were implemented, based on the conservative
approach that GSHPs can save in general about 20% of total energy in buildings.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 95/182
For residential homes, the average GSF area per housing unit was considered to be the
average GSF values of Single-Family Homes in all climate zones. This is because single
family homes accounted 63% of all housing units for the 2009 RECS survey. The average
GSF area values per housing unit for single family homes in all climate zones are listed in
Table 10. Table 15 lists the normalized energy saving values for all cities based on the
methodology discussed above. The normalized energy saving values was used for generating
Prescreening Analysis – 3 scores for residential housing units the 15 locations.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 96/182
80
Table 15: Normalized Total Energy Savings value per residential housing unit
No. Location StateClimateZone
Climate Region(as perBuilding America
Climate Region map)
Avg. GSF RECS-EUIBaseline-
EUI
NORMALIZED
ENERGY
SAVINGS
sqft/householdkBtu/sqft-
yr
kBtu/sqft-
yrkBtu/sqft-yr
1 MIAMI FL 1A Hot-Humid 2,023 40.54 32.43 8.11
2 HOUSTON TX 2A Hot-Humid 2,023 39.44 31.55 7.89
3 PHOENIX AZ 2BMixed-Dry/Hot-
Dry2,000
40.8732.70 8.17
4 ATLANTA GA 3A Mixed-Humid 2,546 44.38 35.51 8.88
5 LAS VEGAS NV 3BMixed-Dry/Hot-
Dry2,000
41.8733.50 8.37
6 LOS ANGELES CA 3B
Mixed-Dry/Hot-
Dry 2,000 39.05 31.24 7.81
7 SAN FRANCISCO CA 3C Marine 2,090 40.05 32.04 8.01
8 BALTIMORE MD 4A Mixed-Humid 2,546 45.38 36.31 9.08
9 ALBUQUERQUE NM 4BMixed-Dry/Hot-
Dry2,000
41.7433.39 8.35
10 SEATTLE WA 4C Marine 2,090 50.64 40.52 10.13
11 CHICAGO IL 5A Very Cold/Cold 2,696 50.98 40.79 10.20
12 DENVER CO 5B Very Cold/Cold 2,696 50.90 40.72 10.18
13 MINNEAPOLIS MN 6A Very Cold/Cold 2,696 51.25 41.00 10.25
14 HELENA MT 6B Very Cold/Cold 2,696 51.27 41.02 10.25
15 DULUTH MN 7 Very Cold/Cold 2,696 51.64 41.32 10.33
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 97/182
Just like in Prescreening Analysis – 1 and Prescreening Analysis – 2, a similar methodology
was used to determine scores for Prescreening Analysis – 3. Once again Duluth, Minnesota is
considered to have the highest “ NES” value or 10.33kBtu/sqft-yr, and received the highest
score of 64. In contrast, Los Angeles, California, shows the lowest “ NES” value or
7.81kBtu/sqft-yr, and received the lowest score of 36. The scores were calculated based on
maximum, minimum and median “NES” value. The following equations show the details of
score calculations for individual sites.
If:
If:
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 98/182
NESmed = Median NES value (kBtu/sqft-yr)
PS3n = Prescreening Analysis-3 Score for the given location
Prescreening Analysis – 3 for Commercial Buildings: The data obtained from 2003
CBECS report was used to analyze energy consumption, energy cost, and EUI for specific
census divisions as shown in Figure 4.3. There are 9 census divisions which cover the
CBECS data namely: Pacific, Mountain, West North Central, East North Central, West South
Central, East South Central, South Atlantic, Middle Atlantic and New England. Based on the
type of fuel used values for Energy Used (Btu), % Energy Use, Energy Cost ($), % Energy
Cost, Cost/MMBtu ($), Total Energy Used (MMBtu), Total Energy Cost ($), Total GSF
(sqft), and CBECS-EUI (kBtu/sqft-yr) were determined for all 9 census divisions. These data
and other data related to Prescreening Analysis – 3 for Commercial buildings are shown in
Appendix C.
The EUIs for the 9 census divisions were calculated similarly to that of residential housing
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 99/182
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 100/182
4. For every location, take the % deviation between the EUI value from Step 3 and the
adjusted EUI value from Table 14.
5. The % deviation from Step 4 serves as the % change factor for every location.
Table 17 below shows the % change values for all 15 locations based on the steps discussed
above.
Table 17: % change values for all 15 locations
No. Location
Adjusted
RECS-EUI
(kBtu/sqft-
yr)
Climate Regions used
for obtaining mean
EUI
Adjusted EUI
as per census
division
(kBtu/sqft-
yr)
% CHANGECensus
Division
1 DULUTH 51.64Very Cold/Cold,
Mixed-Humid47.51 -8.00%
West North
Central
2 HELENA 51.27Very Cold/Cold,
Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry45.76 -10.76% Mountain
3 MINNEAPOLIS 51.25Very Cold/Cold,
Mixed-Humid47.51 -7.29%
West North
Central
4 CHICAGO 50.98Very Cold/Cold,
Mixed-Humid47.51 -6.80%
East North
Central
5 DENVER 50.90Very Cold/Cold,
Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry45.76 -10.11% Mountain
6 SEATTLE 50.64
Very Cold/Cold,
Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry,Marine
43.52 -14.07% Pacific
7 BALTIMORE 45.38Hot-Humid, Mixed-
Humid41.91 -7.65%
South
Atlantic
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 101/182
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 102/182
The energy savings potential in commercial buildings was calculated similarly to that of
residential housing units. Just like for residential houses, a 20% lower EUIs for the design
case was implemented.
Thus the total energy savings per residential housing unit was calculated by taking the
difference between the Baseline EUI and CBECS EUI and multiplying the number with the
average GSF area per commercial building for every location.
As explained earlier, for commercial buildings the average GSF area per commercial
building was considered to be the average GSF value of office buildings in all census
divisions. The average GSF area values per office building in all census divisions are listed in
Table 9. Table 19 lists the normalized energy savings per commercial office building in all
cities based on the methodology discussed above. The normalized energy saving values was
used for generating Prescreening Analysis – 3 scores for commercial buildings in the 15
Table 19: Normalized Total Energy Savings value per commercial office building
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 103/182
87
Table 19: Normalized Total Energy Savings value per commercial office building
Avg. GSF CBECS-EUI Baseline-EUINORMALIZED
ENERGY SAVINGS
sqft/building kBtu/sqft- yr kBtu/sqft-yr kBtu/sqft- yr
1 MIAMI FL 1A Hot-Humid South Atlantic 15,664 81.85 65.48 16.37
2 HOUSTON TX 2A Hot-Humid West South Central 15,988 97.30 77.84 19.46
3 PHOENIX AZ 2B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Mountain 10,145 103.24 82.59 20.65
4 ATLANTA GA 3A Mixed-Humid South Atlantic 15,664 74.75 59.80 14.95
5 LAS VEGAS NV 3B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Mountain 10,145 100.77 80.62 20.15
6 LOS ANGELES CA 3B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Pacific 14,368 72.61 58.09 14.52
7 SAN FRANCISCO CA 3C Marine Pacific 14,368 70.79 56.64 14.16
8 BALTIMORE MD 4A Mixed-Humid South Atlantic 15,664 73.11 58.49 14.62
9 ALBUQUERQUE NM 4B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Mountain 10,145 101.08 80.86 20.22
10 SEATTLE WA 4C Marine Pacific 14,368 55.98 44.78 11.2011 CHICAGO IL 5A Very Cold/Cold East North Central 16,343 111.92 89.54 22.38
12 DENVER CO 5B Very Cold/Cold Mountain 10,145 82.89 66.31 16.58
13 MINNEAPOLIS MN 6A Very Cold/Cold West North Central 8,237 71.94 57.55 14.39
14 HELENA MT 6B Very Cold/Cold Mountain 10,145 82.29 65.83 16.46
15 DULUTH MN 7 Very Cold/Cold West North Central 8,237 71.39 57.11 14.28
Census Division No. Location State Climate Zone
Climate Region (as
per Building America
Climate Region map)
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 104/182
For commercial office buildings Chicago, Illinois is considered to have the highest “NES”
value or 22.38kBtu/sqft-yr, and received the highest score of 83. In contrast, Seattle,
Washington, shows the lowest “NES” value or 11.20kBtu/sqft-yr, and received the lowest
score of 17. The scores were calculated based on maximum, minimum and median “NES”
value. The following equations show the details of score calculations for individual sites.
If:
If:
If:
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 105/182
4.2.5 Prescreening Analysis - 4 (Cost Savings)
The cost savings is an important factor for the implementation of GSHPs. The cost savings
analysis was conducted for both residential housing unit and commercial office building
separately. The values are based on total energy savings in each location, and the
corresponding cost of utility ($/MMBtu). The energy savings from individual fuel types were
calculated using the % energy use for each fuel type in each location and multiplying the
value with the total energy savings. The energy savings from each fuel type was then
multiplied with the cost/MMBtu of fuel to obtain the energy cost savings. The sum of all cost
savings for individual fuel types was used as the total cost savings from installing a GSHP
system. The values for the same are indicated in Appendix C. It is to be noted that the values
are an average value, and will most likely be different for individual cases. The normalized
cost savings ($/sqft-yr) for both residential and commercial buildings were used for
generating Prescreening Analysis – 4 scores. Tables 20 and 21 below list the normalized
energy cost saving value per residential home and commercial office building for all cities
respectively, based on the methodology discussed above.
Table 20: Normalized Total Energy Cost saving per residential housing unit
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 106/182
90
Table 20: Normalized Total Energy Cost saving per residential housing unit
Avg. GSF
sqft/household
1 MIAMI FL 1A Hot-Humid South Atlantic 2,023 509.34$ 0.2518$2 HOUSTON TX 2A Hot-Humid West South Central 2,023 495.57$ 0.2450$
3 PHOENIX AZ 2B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Mountain 2,000 398.61$ 0.1993$
4 ATLANTA GA 3A Mixed-Humid South Atlantic 2,546 530.34$ 0.2083$
5 LAS VEGAS NV 3B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Mountain 2,000 408.36$ 0.2042$
6 LOS ANGELES CA 3B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Pacific 2,000 380.84$ 0.1904$
7 SAN FRANCISCO CA 3C Marine Pacific 2,090 359.70$ 0.1721$
8 BALTIMORE MD 4A Mixed-Humid South Atlantic 2,546 542.28$ 0.2130$
9 ALBUQUERQUE NM 4B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Mountain 2,000 407.13$ 0.2036$
10 SEATTLE WA 4C Marine Pacific 2,090 454.89$ 0.2176$
11 CHICAGO IL 5A Very Cold/Cold East North Central 2,696 525.73$ 0.1950$
12 DENVER CO 5B Very Cold/Cold Mountain 2,696 524.92$ 0.1947$
13 MINNEAPOLIS MN 6A Very Cold/Cold West North Central 2,696 528.49$ 0.1960$
14 HELENA MT 6B Very Cold/Cold Mountain 2,696 528.74$ 0.1961$
15 DULUTH MN 7 Very Cold/Cold West North Central 2,696 532.57$ 0.1975$
Normalized Total
Cost Savings
($/sqft-yr)
Total Cost
Savings ($/yr)Location State
Climate
Zone
Climate Region (as
per Building America
Climate Region map)
Census Division No.
Table 21: Normalized Total Energy Cost saving per commercial office building
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 107/182
91
Table 21: Normalized Total Energy Cost saving per commercial office building
Avg. GSF
sqft/building
1 MIAMI FL 1A Hot-Humid South Atlantic 15,664 4,646.99$ 0.2967$2 HOUSTON TX 2A Hot-Humid West South Central 15,988 5,442.63$ 0.3404$
3 PHOENIX AZ 2B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Mountain 10,145 4,410.57$ 0.4347$
4 ATLANTA GA 3A Mixed-Humid South Atlantic 15,664 4,244.24$ 0.2710$
5 LAS VEGAS NV 3B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Mountain 10,145 4,305.23$ 0.4244$
6 LOS ANGELES CA 3B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Pacific 14,368 5,275.42$ 0.3672$
7 SAN FRANCISCO CA 3C Marine Pacific 14,368 5,143.69$ 0.3580$
8 BALTIMORE MD 4A Mixed-Humid South Atlantic 15,664 4,150.72$ 0.2650$
9 ALBUQUERQUE NM 4B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Mountain 10,145 4,318.26$ 0.4256$10 SEATTLE WA 4C Marine Pacific 14,368 4,067.40$ 0.2831$
11 CHICAGO IL 5A Very Cold/Cold East North Central 16,343 5,416.89$ 0.3314$
12 DENVER CO 5B Very Cold/Cold Mountain 10,145 3,541.20$ 0.3491$
13 MINNEAPOLIS MN 6A Very Cold/Cold West North Central 8,237 2,093.78$ 0.2542$
14 HELENA MT 6B Very Cold/Cold Mountain 10,145 3,515.66$ 0.3465$
15 DULUTH MN 7 Very Cold/Cold West North Central 8,237 2,077.72$ 0.2522$
Census DivisionTotal Cost
Savings ($/yr)
Normalized Total
Cost Savings
($/sqft-yr)
Location StateClimate
Zone
Climate Region (as
per Building America
Climate Region map)
No.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 108/182
For commercial office buildings, Phoenix, Arizona showed the highest “NCS” value or
$0.4347/sqft-yr, and received the highest score of 77. In contrast, Duluth, Minnesota, showed
the lowest “NCS” value or $0.2522/sqft-yr, and received the lowest score of 23. The
following equations show the details of score calculations for all commercial sites.
If:
If:
If:
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 109/182
For residential housing units, Miami, Florida showed the highest “NCS” value or 0.2518
$/sqft-yr, and received the highest score of 69. In contrast, San Francisco, California, showed
the lowest “NCS” value or 0.1721 $/sqft-yr, and received the lowest score of 31. The
equations used for generating scores for residential housing units are similar to those used for
commercial sites.
4.2.6 Integrated Feasibility Analysis
The four prescreening analyses (environmental condition, ground condition, energy savings,
and cost savings) were integrated using weighting factors. The weighting factors are not
fixed values, rather the numbers that the user can decide and change based on the specific
conditions that the individual cases have.
In this research, the default values for the weighting factors are shown in Table 22 below.
Table 22: Weighting Factors for 4 prescreening analysis
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 110/182
systems more. Prescreening – 2 takes into consideration the design temperatures, ground
temperature, and the degree day values for every location. These parameters thus have a
higher weight. Prescreening – 4 considers the cost savings from a GSHP system over
conventional HVAC systems. Since simple payback period (which is directly related to cost
savings) typically serve as a key component in understanding project feasibility, the
importance for this criteria is rendered higher. The values for the weighting factors remain
the same for both residential houses and commercial buildings. A selection option of the
weighting factors is given in the prescreening tool provided in a separate Excel spreadsheet,
and users are encouraged to use weighting values as they feel fit.
The integrated feasibility also uses a score system to generate ranks for individual locations.
The integrated scores are generated based on the scores from individual prescreening
analyses and their corresponding weighting factors. The integrated score is calculated based
on the following formula:
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 111/182
4.3 GSHP Feasibility Analysis Prescreening Tool
The prescreening tool serves as a graphical user interface for users to generate results and
input certain values that might seem fit. The tool was created using Microsoft Excel 2007
with a macro-enabled worksheet. The tool is made up of the following worksheets:
DashBoard
Residential_Results
Commercial_Results FlowChart
Methodology
Instructions
Residential_IntegratedFeasibility
Commercial_IntegratedFeasibility
Prescreen-1_OA
Prescreen-2_Ground
Residential_Prescreen-3_Energy
Commercial_Prescreen-3_Energy
Residential_Prescreen-4_Econo
Commercial_Prescreen-4_Econo
RECS UtilityAnalysis
RECS SavingsCalculation CBECS UtilityAnalysis
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 112/182
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 113/182
The colder climate zones got the highest scores primarily because they have high HDD
values. Table 23 lists the scores, the feasibility level and the ranking for all 15 cities. The
cities are arranged in the order of their climate zone, starting from 1A to 7.
Table 23: Scores, Feasibility Levels and Rankings for Prescreening Analysis - 1
No. Location State
Climate
Zone HDD CDD HDD+CDD Score
5
FeasibilityLevels
Ranking
1 MIAMI FL 1A 130 4,458 4,588 30 MODERATE 13
2 HOUSTON TX 2A 1,204 3,103 4,307 37 MODERATE 12
3 PHOENIX AZ 2B 941 4,557 5,498 48 GOOD 7
4 ATLANTA GA 3A 2,694 1,841 4,535 39 MODERATE 11
5 LAS VEGAS NV 3B 2,105 3,348 5,453 47 GOOD 8
6 LOS ANGELES CA 3B 1,284 617 1,901 16 FAIR 15
7 SAN FRANCISCO CA 3C 2,708 142 2,850 25 MODERATE 14
8 BALTIMORE MD 4A 4,567 1,228 5,795 50 GOOD 6
9 ALBUQUERQUE NM 4B 4,069 1,348 5,417 47 GOOD 9
10 SEATTLE WA 4C 4,729 177 4,906 43 GOOD 10
11 CHICAGO IL 5A 6,311 842 7,153 62 HIGH 4
12 DENVER CO 5B 5,942 777 6,719 58 GOOD 5
13 MINNEAPOLIS MN 6A 7,565 751 8,316 72 HIGH 2
14 HELENA MT 6B 7,699 311 8,010 69 HIGH 3
15 DULUTH MN 7 9,425 209 9,634 84 VERY HIGH 1
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 114/182
Figure 5.2: Five Level Environmental Feasibility and number of sites appeared in each category
1
3
6
4
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Very High High Good Moderate Fair
N o .
o f S i t e s
FEASIBILITY
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 115/182
5.1.2 Prescreening Analysis - 2 Results
Similar to prescreening – 1, the results for prescreening – 2 are common to both residential
homes and commercial buildings. Figure 5.3 below shows the prescreening – 2 score
distribution in 7 climate zones.
Figure 5 3: Distribution of Scores of the Ground Conditions in Relation to the Design and Degree Days
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1A 2A 2B 3A 3B 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 6A 6B 7
S c o r e
Climate Zone
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 116/182
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 117/182
Figure 5.4 depicts the number of sites that fall into one of the five feasibility categories. As
shown in Figure 5.4, there is 1 site in the VERY HIGH category, 3 sites in HIGH, 2 sites in
GOOD, 5 sites in MODERATE, and 3 sites in FAIR.
Figure 5.4: Five Level Ground/Design Condition Feasibility and number of sites appeared in each
1
3
2
5
3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Very High High Good Moderate Fair
N o .
o f S i t e s
FEASIBILITY
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 118/182
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 119/182
Table 25: Prescreening Analysis -3 Scores, Feasibility Levels and Rankings for residential homes
Figure 5.6 depicts the number of sites that fall into one of the five feasibility categories. As
shown in Figure 5.6, there are no sites in the VERY HIGH category, 6 sites in HIGH, 4 sites
in GOOD, 5 sites in MODERATE, and no sites in FAIR.
No. Location State
Climate
Zone
Climate Region (as per
Building America ClimateRegion map)
NORMALIZED
ENERGY
SAVINGS
(kBtu/sqft-yr)
Score
5 Feasibility
Levels Ranking
1 MIAMI FL 1A Hot-Humid 8.11 39 MODERATE 12
2 HOUSTON TX 2A Hot-Humid 7.89 37 MODERATE 14
3 PHOENIX AZ 2B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry 8.17 40 MODERATE 11
4 ATLANTA GA 3A Mixed-Humid 8.88 48 GOOD 8
5 LAS VEGAS NV 3B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry 8.37 42 GOOD 9
6 LOS ANGELES CA 3B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry 7.81 36 MODERATE 15
7 SAN FRANCISCO CA 3C Marine 8.01 38 MODERATE 138 BALTIMORE MD 4A Mixed-Humid 9.08 50 GOOD 7
9 ALBUQUERQUE NM 4B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry 8.35 42 GOOD 10
10 SEATTLE WA 4C Marine 10.13 62 HIGH 6
11 CHICAGO IL 5A Very Cold/Cold 10.20 62 HIGH 4
12 DENVER CO 5B Very Cold/Cold 10.18 62 HIGH 5
13 MINNEAPOLIS MN 6A Very Cold/Cold 10.25 63 HIGH 3
14 HELENA MT 6B Very Cold/Cold 10.25 63 HIGH 2
15 DULUTH MN 7 Very Cold/Cold 10.33 64 HIGH 1
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 120/182
Figure 5.6: Five Level Energy Savings Feasibility and number of sites appeared in each category for
residential homes
In case of commercial buildings similar results were generated and their graphical
representations are shown below. Figure 5.7 below shows the prescreening – 3 score
distribution for commercial buildings in 7 climate zones. Table 26 lists the prescreening – 3
f ibili l l d ki f id i l h i ll 15 i i Th i i
0
6
4
5
00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Very High High Good Moderate Fair
N o .
o f S i t e s
FEASIBILITY
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 121/182
Figure 5.7: Distribution of Scores for Normalized Energy Savings in commercial buildings
Table 26: Prescreening Analysis -3 Scores, Feasibility Levels and Rankings for commercial buildings
0
20
40
60
80
100
1A 2A 2B 3A 3B 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 6A 6B 7
S c o r e
Climate Zone
No. Location StateClimate
ZoneCensus Region
NORMALIZED
ENERGY
SAVINGS
(kBtu/sqft-yr)
Score5 Feasibility
LevelsRanking
1 MIAMI FL 1A South Atlantic 16.37 47 GOOD 8
2 HOUSTON TX 2A West South Central 19.46 66 HIGH 53 PHOENIX AZ 2B Mountain 20.65 73 HIGH 2
4 ATLANTA GA 3A South Atlantic 14.95 39 MODERATE 9
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 122/182
Figure 5.8 depicts the number of sites that fall into one of the five feasibility categories. As
shown in Figure 5.8, there is 1 site in the VERY HIGH category, 4 sites in HIGH, 3 sites in
GOOD, 6 sites in MODERATE, and 1 site in FAIR.
Figure 5.8: Five Level Energy Savings Feasibility and number of sites appeared in each category for
commercial buildings
1
4
3
6
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Very High High Good Moderate Fair
N o .
o f S i t e s
FEASIBILITY
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 123/182
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 124/182
Figure 5.10 depicts the number of sites that fall into one of the five feasibility categories. As
shown in Figure 5.10, there are no sites in the VERY HIGH category, 2 sites in HIGH, 11
sites in GOOD, 2 sites in MODERATE, and no sites in FAIR.
Figure 5.10: Five Level Cost Savings Feasibility and number of sites appeared in each category for
residential homes
0
2
11
2
00
2
4
6
8
10
12
Very High High Good Moderate Fair
N o .
o f S i t e s
FEASIBILITY
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 125/182
Figure 5.11: Distribution of Scores for Normalized Cost Savings in commercial buildings
Table 28: Prescreening Analysis - 4 Scores, Feasibility Levels and Rankings for commercial buildings
0
20
40
60
80
100
1A 2A 2B 3A 3B 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 6A 6B 7
S c o r e
Climate Zone
No. Location StateClimate
ZoneCensus Region
NORMALIZED
COST
SAVINGS
($/sqft-yr)
Score5 Feasibility
LevelsRanking
1 MIAMI FL 1A South Atlantic 0.2967$ 36 MODERATE 10
2 HOUSTON TX 2A West South Central 0.3404$ 49 GOOD 8
3 PHOENIX AZ 2B Mountain 0.4347$ 77 HIGH 1
4 ATLANTA GA 3A South Atlantic 0.2710$ 29 MODERATE 12
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 126/182
Figure 5.12 depicts the number of sites that fall into one of the five feasibility categories. As
shown in Figure 5.12, there are no sites in the VERY HIGH category, 3 sites in HIGH, 6 sites
in GOOD, 6 sites in MODERATE, and no sites in FAIR.
Figure 5.12: Five Level Cost Savings Feasibility and number of sites appeared in each category for
commercial buildings
0
3
6 6
00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Very High High Good Moderate Fair
N o .
o f S i t e s
FEASIBILITY
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 127/182
and tables project the final results for integrated feasibility as generated in the tool. The cities
are arranged in the order of their climate zone, starting from 1A to 7.
Figure 5.13: Distribution of the Integrated Scores for residential homes in 7 climate zones
0
20
40
60
80
100
1A 2A 2B 3A 3B 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 6A 6B 7
S c o r e s
Climate Zone
T bl 29 I t t d F ibilit S F ibilit L l d R ki f id ti l h
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 128/182
Table 29: Integrated Feasibility Scores, Feasibility Levels and Rankings for residential homes
No. Location StateClimate
Zone
Integrated
& Weighted ScoreRanking
5 Level
Feasibility
1 MIAMI FL 1A 38 13 MODERATE
2 HOUSTON TX 2A 41 11 GOOD
3 PHOENIX AZ 2B 42 9 GOOD
4 ATLANTA GA 3A 40 12 MODERATE
5 LAS VEGAS NV 3B 43 8 GOOD
6 LOS ANGELES CA 3B 24 15 MODERATE
7 SAN FRANCISCO CA 3C 25 14 MODERATE
8 BALTIMORE MD 4A 47 6 GOOD9 ALBUQUERQUE NM 4B 41 10 GOOD
10 SEATTLE WA 4C 43 7 GOOD
11 CHICAGO IL 5A 56 4 GOOD
12 DENVER CO 5B 53 5 GOOD
13 MINNEAPOLIS MN 6A 62 3 HIGH
14 HELENA MT 6B 63 2 HIGH
15 DULUTH MN 7 70 1 HIGH
8
456
7
8
9
t e s
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 129/182
Figure 5.15: Distribution of the Integrated Scores for commercial buildings in 7 climate zones
Table 30: Integrated Feasibility Scores, Feasibility Levels and Rankings for commercial buildings
0
20
40
60
80
100
1A 2A 2B 3A 3B 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 6A 6B 7
S c o r e
Climate Zone
No. Location StateClimate
Zone
Integrated
& Weighted ScoreRanking
5 Level
Feasibility
1 MIAMI FL 1A 29 14 MODERATE
2 HOUSTON TX 2A 40 9 MODERATE
3 PHOENIX AZ 2B 58 4 GOOD
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 130/182
Figure 5.16: Five Level Integrated Feasibility and number of sites appeared in each category for
commercial buildings
For residential homes, as shown in Figure 5.14, the overall results show that there are no sites
in the VERY HIGH category, 3 sites in HIGH, 8 sites in GOOD, 4 sites in MODERATE, and
no sites in FAIR.
0
1
7 7
00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Very High High Good Moderate Fair
N o .
o f S i t e s
FEASIBILITY
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 131/182
intensit o ld tend to get a higher rank In the act al case this is a oided b considering
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 132/182
intensity would tend to get a higher rank. In the actual case this is avoided by considering
other parameters and assigning weights to these parameters to obtain an integrated feasibility
rank. Overall the colder climate zones have better feasibilities as compared to the hot and
humid locations. One of the primary reasons for this trend is because of the high HDD values
in colder locations. A high HDD value increases energy use, thus favoring implementation of
GSHP systems.
Another important analysis is the simple payback period for GSHP systems. Although the
payback period was not considered in the overall feasibility ranking process, it is one of the
key factors that indicate the viability of a project. The simple payback period is calculated
based on the total cost (this includes system and installation costs) difference between a
GSHP and a conventional ASHP system, which is divided by the annual energy cost savings
from installing a GSHP system. For GSHP systems the cost/ton on average was considered to
be $4,600/ton for residential units and $7,000/ton for commercial units (DoD, 2007) without
any government or any other incentive(s). Corresponding to this, the cost/ton of ASHP
Table 32 shows the simple payback period in years based on the implementation cost
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 133/182
Table 32 shows the simple payback period in years based on the implementation cost
differences for residential homes and commercial buildings without any incentives.
Table 32: Simple payback period for GSHP systems without incentives
As shown the payback period ranges from 14 to 21 years with an average of 18 years for
LocationClimate
Zone
Simple Payback
without
incentives for
Residential
homes(yrs)
Simple Payback
without incentives
for Commercial
buildings(yrs)
MIAMI 1A 14.3 17.3
HOUSTON 2A 14.7 15.0
PHOENIX 2B 18.1 11.8
ATLANTA 3A 17.3 18.9
LAS VEGAS 3B 17.6 12.1
LOS ANGELES 3B 18.9 13.9
SAN FRANCISCO 3C 20.9 14.3
BALTIMORE 4A 16.9 19.3
ALBUQUERQUE 4B 17.7 12.0
SEATTLE 4C 16.5 18.1
CHICAGO 5A 18.5 15.4
DENVER 5B 18.5 14.7
MINNEAPOLIS 6A 18.4 20.1
HELENA 6B 18.4 14.8
DULUTH 7 18.2 20.3
the federal tax credits certain state tax credits and utility rebates may be applicable
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 134/182
the federal tax credits, certain state tax credits and utility rebates may be applicable
depending on the location and utility service provider. Considering only the federal tax
incentives for qualified GSHP systems the cost/ton on average is reduced to $3,220/ton for
residential units and $6,300/ton for commercial units. Table 33 shows the simple payback
period in years for residential homes and commercial buildings with federal tax incentives.
Table 33: Simple payback period for GSHP systems with Federal tax incentives
LocationClimate
Zone
Simple Payback
with incentives
for Residential
homes(yrs)
Simple Payback
with incentives
for Commercial
buildings(yrs)
MIAMI 1A 3.3 12.5
HOUSTON 2A 3.4 10.9PHOENIX 2B 4.2 8.6
ATLANTA 3A 4.0 13.7
LAS VEGAS 3B 4.1 8.8
LOS ANGELES 3B 4.4 10.1
SAN FRANCISCO 3C 4.9 10.4
BALTIMORE 4A 3.9 14.0
ALBUQUERQUE 4B 4.1 8.7
SEATTLE 4C 3.9 13.1
CHICAGO 5A 4.3 11.2
the life of the buildings Furthermore if the maintenance costs are incorporated in the
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 135/182
the life of the buildings. Furthermore, if the maintenance costs are incorporated in the
payback calculation, the feasibility will be much higher since the GSHP systems have less
maintenance costs with longer life cycle compared to the ASHP systems. Thus proper market
analysis for benefits and incentives is very crucial in the implementation of GSHP systems
across USA.
Based on the methodology discussed in this research, GSHP systems tend to have higher
feasibility in the colder climate regions in USA. When installed properly, GSHP systems in
general will contribute towards energy and cost savings irrespective of the location. The
performance metric for these systems becomes relative to each other, thus justifying the
classification categories used in this research. At the same time, due to the high installation
costs involved upfront, GSHP systems on their own do not seem to be a viable option over
ASHP systems without government incentives and other forms of subsidies. However there
seems to be a shift towards this technology as energy prices keeps escalating. An example of
estimated increasing energy costs is shown in Figure 5.17 (EIA, 2010).
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 136/182
Figure 5.17: Estimated Energy Expenditures – Total Non-Renewable United States (EIA, 2010)
The total energy cost projections in Figure 5.17 indicates that if the current trend in energy
prices continues, GSHP systems will most likely become a necessity and perhaps such
projects might as well payback on their own without any outside incentives.
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 137/182
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
Overall, GSHP feasibility analysis was performed for all major climate regions in the United
States. 16 cities were selected to represent the different climate conditions and energy
consumption and cost data at these locations were used to perform the feasibility analysis.
The feasibility analysis was made for residential homes (single family detached homes), and
commercial buildings (office buildings) based on RECS 2009 and CBECS 2003 data sets
respectively.
Based on the available data, the energy savings and cost savings potential of GSHP systems
over conventional ASHP systems at the selected locations were calculated. The savings
potential, along with system design parameters such as heating and cooling design
temperatures, average annual ground temperature, and heating and cooling degree day values
were graded separately assigned scores between 0 – 100. Furthermore, using weighting
factors, an integrated feasibility score was generated to understand the overall feasibility of
GSHP systems for specific climate conditions A five level classification system was used to
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 138/182
CHAPTER 7: FUTURE STUDIES
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 139/182
CHAPTER 7: FUTURE STUDIES
Going back to the objectives of this research, the intention has been to equip building
practitioners and engineers with a tool that can judge the feasibility of GSHP systems over
conventional HVAC systems. The methodologies used for this research were based out of a
limited and specific data set and certain assumptions. A few concepts have been introduced
and the accuracy for the same remains to be tested on real life projects. Two interesting
future projects that can be related to this work are briefly introduced below.
1. Testing the tool in a specific location (preferably a standalone residential home or
commercial building) which has recently been installed with GSHP systems.
Historical and current data from site can be used to compare the performance of the
project with the predictions from the tool. The tool can also be modified and the new
data set can be used for generating results, which can be compared to the historical
performance of the unit.
2. Building energy simulation modeling can be carried out for select residential homes
and commercial buildings in the 15 locations used for this research The performance
REFERENCES
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 140/182
REFERENCES
2030 Inc., (2011). Inc. / Architecture 2030. (2011, ). The 2030 challenge. Retrieved from
Architecture 2030 website:http://architecture2030.org/2030_challenge/the_2030_challenge
ASHRAE, (2007). ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007. Atlanta: American Society Of Heating, Refrigerating And Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 2007. Print.
ASHRAE, (2009). 2009 ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals. Atlanta: American Society Of Heating, Refrigerating And Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 2009. Print.
ASHRAE, (2009). ANSI/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Standard 189.1 - 2009. Atlanta: AmericanSociety Of Heating, Refrigerating And Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 2009. Print.
ASHRAE, (2010). ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2010. Atlanta: American Society Of Heating, Refrigerating And Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 2010. Print.
Carolina Geothermal, (2011). Cost and savings with geothermal heating and air conditioning.website: http://www.carolinageoheating.com/costsavings.php
Cengel and Boles, (2011). Çengel, Yunus A., and Michael A. Boles. Thermodynamics : An Engineering Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.
digtheheat.com, (2011). How geothermal heat pumps work. Retrieved from digtheheat.comwebsite:
http://www.digtheheat.com/geothermal_heatpumps/how_geothermal_heatpumps_work.html
Dincer and Kanoglu (2010) Dinçer İ & Kanoğlu M (2010) Refrigeration systems and
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 141/182
Kavanaugh and Rafferty, (1997). Kavanaugh, S. P., & Rafferty, K. (1997). Ground-source
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 142/182
g y, ( ) g , , y, ( )heat pumps: Design of geothermal systems for commercial and institutional
buildings. Atlanta: American Society Of Heating, Refrigerating And Air-Conditioning
Engineers.
KGS, (2011). Evans, C. S. (2011, April). Geothermal energy and heat pump potential inkansas. 1-6. Retrieved from http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/PIC/PIC31-2011.pdf
LEED, (2008). U.S. Green Building Council. (2008). Leed for homes rating system. 1-140.Retrieved from http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3638
Linde, (2004). Linde AG. (n.d.). 125 years of linde a chronicle. 1-92. Retrieved fromhttp://www.the-linde-group.com/internet.global.thelindegroup.global/en/images/chronicle_e%5B1%5D14_9855.pdf
Liu, (ORNL). Liu, X. Discover opportunities with ground source heat pump (gshp). 1-27.Retrieved from http://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub31224.pdf
LLNL, (2010). Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. (2010, August). U.S. energyflowchart 2009. 1-4. Retrieved fromhttps://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2010/images/energy-flow-annotated.pdf
Navigant Consulting, Inc. (2009). Ground‐source heat pumps: Overview of market status, barriers to adoption, and options for overcoming barriers. 1-139. Retrieved fromhttp://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/pdfs/gshp_overview.pdf
PNNL and ORNL , (2010). Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory. "Guide to Determining Climate Regions by County." BUILDING AMERICA
USGBC, (2012). Leed. Retrieved from LEED U.S. Green Building Council website:
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 143/182
, ( ) ghttps://new.usgbc.org/leed
Zogg, (2008). Zogg, M. (2008). History of heat pumps swiss contributions and internationalmilestones. 1-114. Retrieved from http://www.zogg-engineering.ch/publi/HistoryHP.pdf
APPENDICES
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 144/182
APPENDICES
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 145/182
A2: Census Region and Division, Floor space for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 146/182
New
England
Middle
Atlantic
East
North
Central
West
North
Central
South
Atlantic
East
South
Central
West
South
Central Mountain Pacific
All Buildings* ............................... 64,783 2,964 9,941 11,595 5,485 12,258 3,393 7,837 3,675 7,635
Building Floorspace
(Square Feet)1,001 to 5,000 ................................ 6,789 360 666 974 922 1,207 538 788 464 8715,001 to 10,000 .............................. 6,585 359 764 843 722 1,387 393 879 418 82010,001 to 25,000 ......... ........... ........ 11,535 553 1,419 1,934 1,164 2,240 810 1,329 831 1,25625,001 to 50,000 ............................ 8,668 347 944 1,618 949 1,672 498 998 511 1,13250,001 to 100,000 .......................... 9,057 516 1,524 1,618 642 1,470 650 1,314 374 948100,001 to 200,000 ........................ 9,064 414 1,703 1,682 614 2,087 Q 1,131 Q 895200,001 to 500,000 ........................ 7,176 Q 1,673 1,801 395 1,072 Q 664 339 947Over 500,000 ................................. 5,908 Q 1,248 1,126 Q 1,123 Q Q Q 766
Principal Building ActivityEduc ation ....................................... 9,874 Q 1,384 1,990 552 2,445 341 1,198 640 1,027Food Sales ..................................... 1,255 Q Q 218 Q 223 Q Q Q QFood Service ................................. 1,654 Q 127 248 206 433 99 232 Q 232Health Care .................................... 3,163 Q 464 551 247 749 219 309 230 323Inpatient ....................................... 1,905 Q 310 316 Q 469 Q 235 Q 176Outpatient .................................... 1,258 Q Q 235 Q 280 Q Q Q 147
Lodging .......................................... 5,096 374 797 548 595 939 368 387 438 649Retail (Other Than Mall).................. 4,317 Q 419 544 337 897 353 594 210 753Of f ice ...... ........... ........... .......... ....... 12,208 578 2,434 2,190 799 1,958 481 1,343 629 1,796Public Assembly ............................ 3,939 Q 769 635 377 440 Q 498 Q 468
Public Order and Safety ................ 1,090 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QReligious Worship .......................... 3,754 Q 474 720 395 721 310 467 Q 341Service 4 050 Q 620 775 514 753 307 298 345 319
Total Floorspace (million square feet)
All
Buildings*
Northeast Midwest South West
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 147/182
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 148/182
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 149/182
A6: Natural Gas Consumption and Conditional Energy Intensity by Census Division for Non-Mall
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 150/182
Buildings, 2003: Part 1
New
England
Middle
Atlantic
East
North
Central
New
England
Middle
Atlantic
East
North
Central
New
England
Middle
Atlantic
East
North
Central
All Buildings* ............................... 73 343 512 1,465 7,716 9,570 49.5 44.4 53.5
Building Floorspace
(Square Feet)
1,001 to 5,000 ................................ Q 41 68 Q 417 729 Q 99.5 93.6
5,001 to 10,000 .............................. Q 31 43 Q 482 654 Q 64.8 66.0
10,001 to 25,000 ............................ Q 45 90 Q 931 1,681 Q 47.9 53.6
25,001 to 50,000 ............................ Q 39 70 Q 829 1,422 Q 47.4 49.5
50,001 to 100,000 .......................... Q 43 73 Q 1,263 1,554 Q 34.1 47.2
100,001 to 200,000 ........................ Q 41 67 Q 1,445 1,264 Q 28.3 52.7
200,001 to 500,000 ........................ Q 55 56 Q 1,484 1,277 Q 37.3 44.1
Over 500,000 ................................. Q 47 44 Q 865 989 Q 54.0 44.4
Principal Building Activity
Education ....................................... Q 49 99 Q 1,247 1,804 Q 39.5 54.6
Food Sales ..................................... Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Food Service ................................. Q Q 35 Q Q 228 Q Q 152.9
Health Care .................................... Q 41 49 Q 396 484 Q 103.8 100.6
Inpatient ....................................... Q 37 38 Q 306 287 Q 120.3 131.2
Outpatient .................................... Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Lodging .......................................... Q Q 39 Q Q 507 Q Q 77.5
Retail (Other Than Mall).................. Q 13 29 Q 269 485 Q 48.2 59.2
Of fice ............................................. Q 72 84 Q 1,887 1,929 Q 38.2 43.7Public Assembly ............................ Q 12 35 Q 602 550 Q Q 64.2
Public Order and Safety ................ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Total Natural Gas
Consumption
(billion cubic feet)
Total Floorspace of
Buildings Using Natural Gas
(million square feet)
Natural Gas
Energy Intensity
(cubic feet/square foot)
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 151/182
A8: Natural Gas Consumption and Conditional Energy Intensity by Census Division for Non-Mall
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 152/182
Buildings, 2003: Part 3
West
South
Central
Moun-
tain Pacific
West
South
Central
Moun-
tain Pacific
West
South
Central
Moun-
tain Pacific
All Buildings* ............................... 151 162 149 4,704 2,797 5,016 32.2 57.9 29.7
Building Floorspace
(Square Feet)
1,001 to 5,000 ................................ 29 18 Q 334 265 363 87.9 68.4 60.2
5,001 to 10,000 .............................. 23 Q Q 519 Q 496 44.2 Q 53.4
10,001 to 25,000 ............................ 14 38 22 514 630 748 28.1 61.1 29.0
25,001 to 50,000 ............................ 17 23 21 512 464 733 33.5 49.1 28.7
50,001 to 100,000 .......................... 18 Q 18 888 Q 730 20.5 Q 24.2
100,001 to 200,000 ........................ 16 Q 12 760 Q 651 21.5 Q 17.8
200,001 to 500,000 ........................ Q Q 14 470 Q 675 Q Q 20.8
Over 500,000 ................................. Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Principal Building Activity
Education ....................................... 16 21 28 797 420 802 20.6 48.8 34.8
Food Sales ..................................... Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Food Service ................................. 37 Q Q 211 Q Q 175.7 Q Q
Health Care .................................... 26 19 19 282 162 274 91.4 115.5 68.7
Inpatient ....................................... 23 Q Q 235 Q Q 96.0 Q Q
Outpatient .................................... Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Lodging .......................................... Q Q 16 Q Q 515 Q Q 31.5
Retail (Other Than Mall).................. 7 Q 5 436 Q 455 16.2 Q 11.4
Of fice ............................................. 12 19 17 Q 379 1,165 15.2 50.0 14.2Public Assembly ............................ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Public Order and Safety ................ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Total Natural Gas
Consumption
(billion cubic feet)
Total Floorspace of
Buildings Using Natural Gas
(million square feet)
Natural Gas
Energy Intensity
(cubic feet/square foot)
A9: Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity by Census Division for Sum of Major Fuels for Non-Mall
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 153/182
Buildings, 2003: Part 1
New
England
Middle
Atlantic
East
North
Central
New
England
Middle
Atlantic
East
North
Central
New
England
Middle
Atlantic
East
North
Central
All Buildings* ............................... 294 978 1,254 2,964 9,941 11,595 99.0 98.3 108.1
Building Floorspace
(Square Feet)
1,001 to 5,000 ................................ 33 85 146 360 666 974 91.2 128.1 149.7
5,001 to 10,000 .............................. Q 64 73 359 764 843 Q 83.7 86.8
10,001 to 25,000 ............................ Q 115 163 553 1,419 1,934 Q 81.2 84.3
25,001 to 50,000 ............................ Q 74 140 347 944 1,618 Q 78.7 86.8
50,001 to 100,000 .......................... Q 134 148 516 1,524 1,618 Q 87.8 91.5
100,001 to 200,000 ........................ Q 150 203 414 1,703 1,682 Q 87.9 120.8
200,001 to 500,000 ........................ Q 177 214 Q 1,673 1,801 Q 105.8 118.8Over 500,000 ................................. Q Q Q Q 1,248 1,126 Q Q Q
Principal Building Activity
Education ....................................... Q 143 175 Q 1,384 1,990 Q 103.1 87.7
Food Sales ..................................... Q Q Q Q Q 218 Q Q Q
Food Service ................................. Q Q 68 Q 127 248 Q Q 276.6
Health Care .................................... Q 102 122 Q 464 551 Q 219.0 220.7
Inpatient ....................................... Q Q Q Q 310 316 Q Q Q
Outpatient .................................... Q Q Q Q Q 235 Q Q Q
Lodging .......................................... Q Q 70 374 797 548 Q Q 126.7
Retail (Other Than Mall).................. Q 30 59 Q 419 544 Q 72.3 108.4Office ............................................. 66 239 263 578 2,434 2,190 114.6 98.0 120.1
Public Assembly Q Q 80 Q 769 635 Q Q 126 8
Sum of Major Fuel
Consumption
(trillion Btu)
Total Floorspace
of Buildings
(million square feet)
Energy Intensity for
Sum of Major Fuels
(thousand Btu/
square foot)
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 154/182
A11: Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity by Census Division for Sum of Major Fuels for Non-Mall
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 155/182
Buildings, 2003: Part 3
West
South
Central
Moun-
tain Pacific
West
South
Central
Moun-
tain Pacific
West
South
Central
Moun-
tain Pacific
All Buildings* ............................... 575 381 530 7,837 3,675 7,635 73.4 103.8 69.4
Building Floorspace(Square Fee t)1,001 to 5,000 ................................ 87 44 64 788 464 871 110.9 94.7 73.05,001 to 10,000 .............................. 60 36 76 879 418 820 68.2 86.7 92.910,001 to 25,000 ............................ 53 76 73 1,329 831 1,256 40.2 91.7 58.425,001 to 50,000 ............................ 64 49 65 998 511 1,132 63.9 96.5 57.250,001 to 100,000 .......................... 73 29 60 1,314 374 948 55.7 77.6 63.6100,001 to 200,000 ........................ 90 Q 66 1,131 Q 895 79.5 Q 73.8200,001 to 500,000 ........................ 54 Q 65 664 339 947 81.6 Q 69.0Over 500,000 ................................. Q Q Q Q Q 766 Q Q Q
Principal Building ActivityEduc ation ....................................... 74 53 76 1,198 640 1,027 61.4 82.9 74.3Food Sales ..................................... Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QFood Service ................................. Q Q Q 232 Q 232 Q Q QHealth Care .................................... 59 Q 57 309 230 323 192.3 Q 177.7
Inpatient ....................................... Q Q Q 235 Q 176 Q Q Q
Outpatient .................................... Q Q Q Q Q 147 Q Q QLodging .......................................... Q Q 47 387 438 649 Q Q 71.8Retail (Other Than Mall).................. 39 Q 40 594 210 753 66.3 Q 52.8
Sum of M ajor Fuel
Consumption
(trillion Btu)
Total Floorspace
of Buildings
(million square fe et)
Energy Intensity for
Sum of Major Fuels
(thousand Btu/
square foot)
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 156/182
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 157/182
A14: Total Energy Expenditures by Major Fuel for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 158/182
Number of
Buildings
(thousand)
Floorspace
(million
square feet)
Sum of
Major
Fuels Electr icity
Natural
Gas Fuel Oil
District
Heat
All Buildings* ............................... 4,645 64,783 92,577 69,032 14,525 1,776 7,245
Building Floorspace(Square Feet)
1,001 to 5,000 ................................ 2,552 6,789 12,812 10,348 2,155 292 Q5,001 to 10,000 .............................. 889 6,585 9,398 7,296 1,689 307 Q10,001 to 25,000 ............................ 738 11,535 13,140 10,001 2,524 232 Q25,001 to 50,000 ............................ 241 8,668 10,392 7,871 1,865 127 Q50,001 to 100,000 .......................... 129 9,057 11,897 8,717 1,868 203 Q100,001 to 200,000 ........................ 65 9,064 13,391 9,500 1,737 272 Q200,001 to 500,000 ........................ 25 7,176 10,347 7,323 1,343 272 QOver 500,000 ................................. 7 5,908 11,201 7,977 1,344 71 1,810
Principal Building Activity
Education ....................................... 386 9,874 12,008 8,111 1,889 362 QFood Sales ..................................... 226 1,255 4,990 4,627 332 Q NFood Service ................................. 297 1,654 6,865 5,176 1,615 Q QHealth Care .................................... 129 3,163 7,440 4,882 1,538 79 QInpatient ....................................... 8 1,905 5,329 3,198 1,241 67 QOutpatient .................................... 121 1,258 2,111 1,684 297 Q Q
Lodging .......................................... 142 5,096 7,445 5,288 1,581 272 QRetail (Other Than Mall).................. 443 4,317 5,980 5,132 719 117 QOf fice ............................................. 824 12,208 20,841 17,050 2,201 149 1,441
($/sq.f t) for Office fuel types......... 1.3966$ 0.1803$ 0.0122$ 0.1180$Public Assembly ............................ 277 3,939 5,790 3,943 775 230 QPublic Order and Safety ................ 71 1,090 1,917 1,216 234 Q Q
All Buildings * Total Ene rgy Expe nditur es (m illion dollar s)
APPENDIX B: 2009 RECS Report Data
B1: Household Fuel Consumption in the U.S., Totals and Averages, 2009
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 159/182
143
Total U.S...................................................... 113.6 10.18 4.39 4.69 0.49 0.58 0.02 89.6 38.6 67.8 42.4 76.4 14.5
Census Region
Northeas t.................................................. 20.8 2.24 0.57 1.06 0.08 0.50 0.02 107.6 27.6 77.3 38.1 80.3 30.0
Midw es t.................................................... 25.9 2.91 0.94 1.75 0.19 0.03 (*) 112.4 36.1 90.3 66.8 61.4 3.2
South........................................................ 42.1 3.22 2.09 0.94 0.14 0.04 0.01 76.5 49.7 53.1 29.8 58.7 10.6
Wes t......................................................... 24.8 1.82 0.79 0.94 0.08 0.01 (*) 73.0 31.7 51.2 41.2 50.0 6.4
Urban and Rural3
Urban........................................................ 88.1 7.79 3.06 4.21 0.09 0.42 0.01 88.5 34.7 68.4 26.9 75.4 13.0
Rural......................................................... 25.5 2.39 1.33 0.49 0.40 0.16 0.01 93.5 52.0 63.1 48.6 79.2 16.1
Metropolitan and M icropolitan
Statistical Ar ea
In metropolitan s tatis tic al area.................. 94.0 8.48 3.50 4.19 0.29 0.49 0.01 90.2 37.2 68.4 41.5 76.4 13.3In mic ropolitan s tatis tic al area................... 12.4 1.08 0.55 0.38 0.09 0.05 0.01 87.3 44.5 65.9 41.3 77.8 17.7
Not in metropolitan or micropolitan
s tatis tic al area.......................................... 7.2 0.62 0.34 0.13 0.11 0.05 (*) 86.1 46.9 57.8 46.1 74.9 14.7
Climate Region4
V ery Cold/Cold.......................................... 38.8 4.32 1.25 2.44 0.23 0.38 0.02 111.4 32.2 89.0 53.9 84.2 19.4
Mix ed-Humid............................................. 35.4 3.24 1.54 1.32 0.18 0.19 0.01 91.5 43.5 66.5 41.0 65.6 11.8
Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry.................................... 14.1 0.95 0.44 0.47 0.03 Q Q 67.2 31.5 41.7 31.4 Q Q
Hot-Humid................................................. 19.1 1.26 0.96 0.27 0.04 Q Q 66.1 50.2 39.7 22.4 Q Q
Marine....................................................... 6.3 0.42 0.20 0.20 0.01 Q Q 66.6 32.1 50.2 36.5 Q Q
Housing Unit Type
Single-Family ............................................. 78.6 8.14 3.44 3.80 0.42 0.47 0.01 103.6 43.7 75.5 45.7 85.1 10.8
Single-Family Detac hed........................ 71.8 7.59 3.23 3.50 0.41 0.44 0.01 105.7 44.9 76.8 45.9 85.6 10.4
Single-Family Attached......................... 6.7 0.55 0.21 0.30 0.01 0.03 Q 81.3 30.8 63.2 38.2 78.8 Q
Multi-Family ............................................... 28.1 1.57 0.64 0.81 0.02 0.11 Q 55.9 22.6 47.0 37.1 54.2 Q
Apartments in 2-4 Unit Buildings........... 9.0 0.69 0.22 0.41 0.01 0.04 Q 76.1 24.4 67.3 53.3 59.9 Q
Apartments in 5 or More Unit Buildings. 19.1 0.89 0.42 0.39 0.01 0.06 Q 46.4 21.7 35.7 29.0 50.9 Q
Mobile Homes ............................................ 6.9 0.47 0.32 0.09 0.05 (*) 0.01 67.8 45.6 50.6 27.1 36.7 23.7
Electricity
Housing Unit Characteristics and
Energy Usage Indicators
Total Consumption
(quadrillion Btu)
Average Consumption
(million Btu per household using the fuel)
Fuel Oil KeroseneElectricity
Natural
Gas
Total
Housing
Units1
(millions)
Propane/
LPGTotal2Natural
Gas
Propane/
LPG Fuel Oil KeroseneTotal2
B2: Household Fuel Expenditures in the U.S., Totals and Averages, 2009
Total Expenditures
(billion Dollars)
Average Expenditures
(Dollars per household using the fuel)
Total
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 160/182
144
Total U.S...................................................... 113.6 229.95 152.27 55.67 11.28 10.24 0.49 2,024 1,340 804 973 1,338 294
Census Region
Nor theas t. ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ...... 20.8 53.91 27.04 15.55 2.18 8.83 0.30 2,595 1,302 1,129 1,052 1,410 563
Midw e st... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 25.9 51.34 28.85 18.08 3.84 0.53 0.03 1,981 1,113 933 1,330 985 81
South.... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... . 42.1 85.70 69.07 12.30 3.47 0.72 0.14 2,037 1,641 693 738 1,074 241
Wes t......................................................... 24.8 39.00 27.31 9.73 1.79 0.15 0.02 1,570 1,099 531 926 877 129
Urban and Rural3
Ur ban....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ...... 88.1 170.32 110.14 50.04 2.38 7.53 0.22 1,934 1,251 813 720 1,337 267
Rur al...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... . 25.5 59.63 42.12 5.63 8.90 2.71 0.27 2,335 1,649 732 1,074 1,342 320
Metr opolitan and Micropolitan
Statistical Are a
In metr opolit an s tatis tic al area.... ....... ....... 94.0 189.67 124.26 49.70 6.79 8.62 0.29 2,017 1,322 811 972 1,346 276
In micropolitan statistical area................... 12.4 24.86 17.20 4.52 2.17 0.83 0.14 2,009 1,390 785 958 1,310 339
Not in metropolitan or micropolitan
statistical area.......................................... 7.2 15.43 10.81 1.45 2.32 0.79 0.06 2,136 1,496 664 989 1,286 294
Climate Region4
Ver y Cold/Cold... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ... 38.8 82.61 43.76 26.98 5.03 6.55 0.30 2,130 1,128 985 1,159 1,433 375
Mix ed- Humid. ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ 35.4 76.03 50.38 17.65 4.26 3.57 0.17 2,148 1,423 891 958 1,213 259
Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry.................................... 14.1 22.95 17.17 5.04 0.71 Q Q 1,628 1,218 445 778 Q Q
Hot-Humid................................................. 19.1 39.46 34.80 3.64 1.00 Q Q 2,070 1,826 544 625 Q Q
Marine....................................................... 6.3 8.89 6.16 2.36 0.29 Q Q 1,420 984 592 943 Q Q
Housing Unit Type
Single-Family ...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ... 78.6 181.17 118.71 44.40 9.57 8.24 0.25 2,306 1,511 883 1,039 1,480 226
Single- Family Detac hed.. ....... ....... ....... . 71.8 169.06 111.10 40.72 9.40 7.62 0.23 2,353 1,547 893 1,042 1,487 219
Single-Family Attached......................... 6.7 12.11 7.61 3.68 0.17 0.62 Q 1,802 1,134 786 898 1,404 Q
Multi-Family............................................... 28.1 36.33 23.61 10.19 0.57 1.93 Q 1,292 840 595 927 975 Q
Apartments in 2-4 Unit Buildings........... 9.0 14.47 8.23 5.19 0.27 0.78 Q 1,606 914 848 1,296 1,086 Q
Apartments in 5 or More Unit Buildings. 19.1 21.86 15.38 5.00 0.31 1.15 Q 1,144 805 454 744 912 Q
Mobile Homes............................................ 6.9 12.45 9.94 1.08 1.14 0.07 0.22 1,793 1,432 597 646 658 460
Housing Unit Characteristics and
Energy Usage IndicatorsElectricity
Natural
Gas
Propane/
LPGFuel Oil Kerosene
Total
Housing
Units1
(millions)
Total2 Electricity
Natural
Gas
Propane/
LPGFuel Oil Kerosene Total
2
B3: Total Square Footage of U.S. Homes, By Housing Characteristics, 2009
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 161/182
Total............................................................. 113.6 223.9 2.24E+11 186.8 139.8
0.00E+00
Census Region 0.00E+00
Northeast................................................... 20.8 44.1 4.41E+10 34.5 19.1
Midw est..................................................... 25.9 58.9 5.89E+10 49.2 35.6
South......................................................... 42.1 78.6 7.86E+10 68.9 65.2West.......................................................... 24.8 42.4 4.24E+10 34.2 19.9
0.00E+00
Urban and Rural3
0.00E+00
Urban......................................................... 88.1 163.5 1.64E+11 136.2 101.1
Rural.......................................................... 25.5 60.4 6.04E+10 50.6 38.7
0.00E+00
Metropolitan and Micropolitan 0.00E+00
Statistical Area 0.00E+00
In metropolitan statistical area................... 94.0 185.9 1.86E+11 155.4 117.1
In micropolitan statistical area.................... 12.4 24.3 2.43E+10 19.9 14.9
Not in metropolitan or micropolitan 0.00E+00
statistical area........................................... 7.2 13.8 1.38E+10 11.4 7.8
0.00E+00
Climate Region4
Very Cold/Cold........................................... 38.8 85.3 8.53E+10 70.2 41.9
Mixed-Humid.............................................. 35.4 73.0 7.30E+10 61.8 52.4
Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry..................................... 14.1 23.0 2.30E+10 18.1 14.9
Hot-Humid.................................................. 19.1 32.2 3.22E+10 28.2 28.2
Marine........................................................ 6.3 10.5 1.05E+10 8.5 2.4
Housing Unit TypeSingle-Family Detached............................. 71.8 178.4 1.78E+11 147.7 112.6
Single-Family Attached.............................. 6.7 11.9 1.19E+10 9.5 6.9
Total Square Footage
Housing Units1 Total2 Total2 Heated Cooled
Housing Characteristics Millions Billions sq.ft Billions Billions
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 162/182
APPENDIX C: Analysis of RECS and CBECS Data for Prescreening Analysis – 3 & 4
C1: Utility Analysis of 2009 RECS Data for all climate zones
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 163/182
147
No. Climate Region Energy (BTU) % Energy Use Cost ($) % Cost
1 Very Cold/Cold 1.25E+15 29% 43,760,000,000.00$ 52.97% 35.01$
2 Mixed-Humid 1.54E+15 48% 50,380,000,000.00$ 66.26% 32.71$
3 Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry 4.40E+14 47% 17,170,000,000.00$ 74.91% 39.02$
4 Hot-Humid 9.60E+14 76% 34,800,000,000.00$ 88.24% 36.25$
5 Marine 2.00E+14 49% 6,160,000,000.00$ 69.92% 30.80$
Utility Types ElCCost/MMBTU
Energy (BTU) % Energy Use Cost ($) % Cost Energy (BTU) % Energy Use Cost ($) % Cost
2.44.E+15 56.48% 26,980,000,000.00$ 32.66% 11.06$ 2.E+14 5.32% 5,030,000,000.00$ 6.09% 21.87$
1.32.E+15 40.74% 17,650,000,000.00$ 23.21% 13.37$ 2.E+14 5.56% 4,260,000,000.00$ 5.60% 23.67$
4.70.E+14 50.00% 5,040,000,000.00$ 21.99% 10.72$ 3.E+13 3.19% 710,000,000.00$ 3.10% 23.67$
2.70.E+14 21.26% 3,640,000,000.00$ 9.23% 13.48$ 4.E+13 3.15% 1,000,000,000.00$ 2.54% 25.00$
2.00.E+14 48.78% 2,360,000,000.00$ 26.79% 11.80$ 1.E+13 2.44% 290,000,000.00$ 3.29% 29.00$
Cost/MMBTUPPG NAG
Cost/MMBTU
C1 Contd.
Energy (BTU) % Energy Use Cost ($) % Cost Energy (BTU) % Energy Use Cost ($) % CostCost/MMBTU
FSDCost/MMBTU
KER
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 164/182
148
Energy (BTU) % Energy Use Cost ($) % Cost Energy (BTU) % Energy Use Cost ($) % Cost
4.E+14 8.80% 6,550,000,000.00$ 7.93% 17.24$ 2.E+13 0.46% 300,000,000.00$ 0.36% 15.00$
2.E+14 5.86% 3,570,000,000.00$ 4.70% 18.79$ 1.E+13 0.31% 170,000,000.00$ 0.22% 17.00$0.E+00 0.00% -$ 0.00% 0 0.E+00 0.00% -$ 0.00% 0
0.E+00 0.00% -$ 0.00% 0 0.E+00 0.00% -$ 0.00% 0
0.E+00 0.00% -$ 0.00% 0 0.E+00 0.00% -$ 0.00% 0
Gross Area RECS-EUI
Sq.Ft kBtu/sqft-yr
4,320,000,000 82,620,000,000.00$ 85,300,000,000 50.64
3,240,000,000 76,030,000,000.00$ 73,000,000,000 44.38
940,000,000 22,920,000,000.00$ 23,000,000,000 40.87
1,270,000,000 39,440,000,000.00$ 32,200,000,000 39.44
410,000,000 8,810,000,000.00$ 10,500,000,000 39.05
Total Energy MBTU Total COST $
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 165/182
C3: Total energy cost use per residential housing unit and corresponding splits based on fuel type
TOTAL
ENERGY USE
TOTAL ENERGY
COST No. Location StateClimate
ZClimate Region UTILITY TYPE ENERGY COST ($/yr.)
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 166/182
150
kBtu/yr. ELC NAG PPG FSD KER $/yr.
1 DULUTH MN 7 Very Cold/Cold 139,234 1,410.39$ 869.57$ 162.12$ 211.11$ 9.67$ 2,662.86$
2 MINNEAPOLIS MN 6A Very Cold/Cold 138,166 1,399.58$ 862.90$ 160.87$ 209.49$ 9.59$ 2,642.43$
3 HELENA MT 6B Very Cold/Cold 138,232 1,400.24$ 863.31$ 160.95$ 209.59$ 9.60$ 2,643.69$
4 CHICAGO IL 5A Very Cold/Cold 137,447 1,392.28$ 858.40$ 160.04$ 208.40$ 9.54$ 2,628.67$
5 DENVER CO 5B Very Cold/Cold 137,235 1,390.14$ 857.08$ 159.79$ 208.08$ 9.53$ 2,624.61$
6 BALTIMORE MD 4A Mixed-Humid 115,547 1,796.68$ 629.44$ 151.92$ 127.32$ 6.06$ 2,711.42$
7 LAS VEGAS NV 3B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry 83,739 1,529.58$ 448.98$ 63.25$ -$ -$ 2,041.81$
8 ALBUQUERQUE NM 4B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry 83,486 1,524.96$ 447.63$ 63.06$ -$ -$ 2,035.65$
9 PHOENIX AZ 2B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry 81,739 1,493.04$ 438.26$ 61.74$ -$ -$ 1,993.04$
10 SEATTLE WA 4C Marine 105,848 1,590.30$ 609.27$ 74.87$ -$ -$ 2,274.43$
11 MIAMI FL 1A Hot-Humid 82,006 2,247.10$ 235.04$ 64.57$ -$ -$ 2,546.71$
12 ATLANTA GA 3A Mixed-Humid 113,001 1,757.09$ 615.57$ 148.57$ 124.51$ 5.93$ 2,651.68$
13 HOUSTON TX 2A Hot-Humid 79,789 2,186.35$ 228.69$ 62.83$ -$ -$ 2,477.86$
14 SAN FRANCISCO CA 3C Marine 83,700 1,257.53$ 481.78$ 59.20$ -$ -$ 1,798.52$
15 LOS ANGELES CA 3B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry 78,095 1,426.48$ 418.72$ 58.99$ -$ -$ 1,904.19$
Zoneg ($/y )
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 167/182
C5: Utility Analysis of 2003 CBECS Data for all census regions
No. Census Region Energy (BTU) % Energy Use Cost ($) % Cost
Utility Types ELCCost/MMBTU
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 168/182
152
1 New England 3.07E+13 47% 900,000,000.00$ 92.29% 29.30$
2 Middle Atlantic 1.37E+14 57% 4,000,000,000.00$ 80.26% 29.30$
3 East North Central 1.43E+14 55% 2,940,000,000.00$ 75.50% 20.51$
4 West North Central 4.10E+13 66% 840,000,000.00$ 76.69% 20.51$
5 South Atlantic 1.19E+14 77% 2,450,000,000.00$ 87.22% 20.51$
6 East South Central 3.07.E+13 61% 630,000,000.00$ 90.97% 20.51$
7 West South Central 9.22.E+13 74% 1,890,000,000.00$ 87.13% 20.51$
8 Mountain 3.41.E+13 59% 1,000,000,000.00$ 81.88% 29.30$
9 Pacific 8.87.E+13 76% 2,600,000,000.00$ 87.89% 29.30$
Energy (BTU) % Energy Use Cost ($) % Cost Energy (BTU) % Energy Use Cost ($) % Cost
0.00E+00 0.00% -$ 0.00% 0 3.53.E+13 53.46% 75,140,000.00$ 7.71% 2.13$7.39E+13 30.94% 667,440,000.00$ 13.39% 9.03$ 2.85.E+13 11.94% 316,420,000.00$ 6.35% 11.09$
8.63E+13 32.80% 669,480,000.00$ 17.19% 7.76$ 3.34.E+13 12.69% 284,700,000.00$ 7.31% 8.53$
1.95E+13 31.47% 151,430,000.00$ 13.83% 7.76$ 1.53.E+12 2.47% 103,870,000.00$ 9.48% 67.84$
1.23E+13 7.95% 104,520,000.00$ 3.72% 8.48$ 2.32.E+13 14.98% 254,540,000.00$ 9.06% 10.96$
0.00.E+00 0.00% -$ 0.00% 0 1.93.E+13 38.57% 62,530,000.00$ 9.03% 3.24$
1.23.E+13 9.94% 104,520,000.00$ 4.82% 8.48$ 1.95.E+13 15.75% 174,590,000.00$ 8.05% 8.94$
1.95.E+13 33.64% 139,460,000.00$ 11.42% 7.15$ 4.36.E+12 7.51% 81,770,000.00$ 6.70% 18.77$
1.75.E+13 14.92% 124,780,000.00$ 4.22% 7.15$ 1.08.E+13 9.23% 233,480,000.00$ 7.89% 21.61$
Cost/MMBTU NAG
Cost/MMBTUOTHERS
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 169/182
C6: Total energy use per commercial office building and corresponding splits based on fuel type
TOTAL
ENERGY USECensus Region UTILITY TYPE ENERGY USE (kBtu/yr.) No. Location StateClimate
ZoneClimate Region
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 170/182
154
kBtu/yr. ELC NAG OTHERS
1 DULUTH MN 7 Very Cold/Cold West North Central 588,053 388,457 185,076 14,521
2 MINNEAPOLIS MN 6A Very Cold/Cold West North Central 592,598 391,459 186,506 14,633
3 HELENA MT 6B Very Cold/Cold Mountain 834,847 491,264 280,868 62,714
4 CHICAGO IL 5A Very Cold/Cold East North Central 1,829,195 996,988 600,004 232,203
5 DENVER CO 5B Very Cold/Cold Mountain 840,914 494,834 282,909 63,170
6 BALTIMORE MD 4A Mixed-Humid South Atlantic 1,145,155 882,545 91,051 171,559
7 LAS VEGAS NV 3B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Mountain 1,022,344 601,597 343,948 76,799
8 ALBUQUERQUE NM 4B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Mountain 1,025,438 603,417 344,989 77,032
9 PHOENIX AZ 2B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Mountain 1,047,359 616,316 352,364 78,678
10 SEATTLE WA 4C Marine Pacific 804,334 610,043 120,025 74,26711 MIAMI FL 1A Hot-Humid South Atlantic 1,282,071 988,063 101,937 192,071
12 ATLANTA GA 3A Mixed-Humid South Atlantic 1,170,957 902,430 93,102 175,424
13 HOUSTON TX 2A Hot-Humid West South Central 1,555,676 1,156,106 154,614 244,956
14 SAN FRANCISCO CA 3C Marine Pacific 1,017,172 771,469 151,785 93,919
15 LOS ANGELES CA 3B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Pacific 1,043,222 791,226 155,672 96,324
Zone
C7: Total energy cost per commercial office building and corresponding splits based on fuel type
TOTAL
ENERGY USE
TOTAL ENERGY
COSTCensus Region UTILITY TYPE ENERGY COST ( $/yr.) No. Location StateClimate
ZoneClimate Region
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 171/182
155
kBtu/yr. ELC NAG OTHERS $/yr.
1 DULUTH MN 7 Very Cold/Cold West North Central 588,053 7,967.17$ 1,436.27$ 985.18$ 10,388.62$
2 MINNEAPOLIS MN 6A Very Cold/Cold West North Central 592,598 8,028.75$ 1,447.37$ 992.79$ 10,468.91$3 HELENA MT 6B Very Cold/Cold Mountain 834, 847 14, 393. 92$ 2,007.38$ 1,176.99$ 17,578.28$
4 CHICAGO IL 5A Very Cold/Cold East North Central 1,829,195 20,448.04$ 4,656.31$ 1,980.12$ 27,084.47$
5 DENVER CO 5B Very Cold/Cold Mountain 840, 914 14, 498. 51$ 2,021.96$ 1,185.54$ 17,706.02$
6 BALTIMORE MD 4A Mixed-Humid South Atlantic 1,145,155 18,100.84$ 772.20$ 1,880.57$ 20,753.61$
7 LAS VEGAS NV 3B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Mountain 1,022,344 17,626.62$ 2,458.21$ 1,441.33$ 21,526.16$
8 ALBUQUERQUE NM 4B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Mountain 1,025,438 17,679.96$ 2,465.65$ 1,445.69$ 21,591.30$
9 PHOENIX AZ 2B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Mountain 1,047,359 18,057.91$ 2,518.36$ 1,476.60$ 22,052.86$
10 SEATTLE WA 4C Marine Pacific 804, 334 17, 874. 09$ 857.82$ 1,605.09$ 20,337.01$
11 MIAMI FL 1A Hot-Humid South Atlantic 1,282,071 20,264.99$ 864.53$ 2,105.41$ 23,234.93$
12 ATLANTA GA 3A Mixed-Humid South Atlantic 1,170,957 18,508.67$ 789.60$ 1,922.94$ 21,221.21$
13 HOUSTON TX 2A Hot-Humid West South Central 1,555,676 23,711.52$ 1,311.28$ 2,190.37$ 27,213.17$
14 SAN FRANCISCO CA 3C Marine Pacific 1,017,172 22,603.83$ 1,084.81$ 2,029.82$ 25,718.47$
15 LOS ANGELES CA 3B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Pacific 1,043,222 23,182.71$ 1,112.59$ 2,081.81$ 26,377.11$
Zone
C8: Total energy cost savings per commercial office building and corresponding splits based on fuel type
ENERGY
SAVINGS Total Cost Savings
k / ($/ )
Census Region UTILITY TYPE COST SAVINGS ($/yr.) No. Location StateClimate
ZoneClimate Region
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 172/182
156
kBtu/yr. ELC NAG OTHERS ($/yr.)
1 CHICAGO IL 5A Very Cold/Cold East North Central 365,839 4,089.61$ 931.26$ 396.02$ 5,416.89$
2 HELENA MT 6B Very Cold/Cold Mountain 166,969 2,878.78$ 401.48$ 235.40$ 3,515.66$3 DENVER CO 5B Very Cold/Cold Mountain 168,183 2,899.70$ 404.39$ 237.11$ 3,541.20$
4 LAS VEGAS NV 3B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Mountain 204,469 3,525.32$ 491.64$ 288.27$ 4,305.23$
5 ALBUQUERQUE NM 4B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Mountain 205,088 3,535.99$ 493.13$ 289.14$ 4,318.26$
6 PHOENIX AZ 2B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Mountain 209,472 3,611.58$ 503.67$ 295.32$ 4,410.57$
7 SEATTLE WA 4C Marine Pacific 160,867 3,574.82$ 171.56$ 321.02$ 4,067.40$
8 SAN FRANCISCO CA 3C Marine Pacific 203,434 4,520.77$ 216.96$ 405.96$ 5,143.69$
9 LOS ANGELES CA 3B Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry Pacific 208,644 4,636.54$ 222.52$ 416.36$ 5,275.42$
10 BALTIMORE MD 4A Mixed-Humid South Atlantic 229,031 3,620.17$ 154.44$ 376.11$ 4,150.72$
11 MIAMI FL 1A Hot-Humid South Atlantic 256,414 4,053.00$ 172.91$ 421.08$ 4,646.99$12 ATLANTA GA 3A Mixed-Humid South Atlantic 234,191 3,701.73$ 157.92$ 384.59$ 4,244.24$
13 DULUTH MN 7 Very Cold/Cold West North Central 117,611 1,593.43$ 287.25$ 197.04$ 2,077.72$
14 MINNEAPOLIS MN 6A Very Cold/Cold West North Central 118,520 1,605.75$ 289.47$ 198.56$ 2,093.78$
15 HOUSTON TX 2A Hot-Humid West South Central 311,135 4,742.30$ 262.26$ 438.07$ 5,442.63$
Zone
APPENDIX D: GSHP Feasibility Prescreening Tool
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 173/182
D1: DashBoard
The “DashBoard” tab is the first tab in the feasibility tool. The user starts from the
“DashBorad” tab to generate results for residential homes or commercial buildings. Figure
D1 illustrates the contents of this tab. The number balloons17 in the screenshot indicate
various contents and options in the tab, and are explained below.
1. The user clicks on the small button to view a drop down list. The list contains the
names of the 15 cities selected for this research. Clicking on a name from the list
selects the city, and corresponding information and results are generated for the same.
2. This section displays certain information relevant to the selected city from the
database. These include State, Geographic Co-ordinates, Climate Zone, certain
Design Conditions, Average annual outdoor temperature18, and Average annual
ground temperature.
3. Based on the selected city, a satellite image based on Google Maps19 is displayed.
4. The user can click on this button to open the “Instructions” tab in the tool.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 174/182
158
Figure D1: Screenshot of DashBoard Tab
D2: Residential_Results & Commercial_Results
B h h “R id i l R l ” d “C i l R l ” b i il l f
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 175/182
Both the “Residential_ Results” and “Commercial_ Results” tabs generate similar results for
residential homes and commercial buildings respectively. Figures D2 and D3 below are
screenshots of the two tabs. The number balloons for explanatory purposes are only shown in
the screenshot for “Residential_ Results” since the two tabs are similar in nature. The
following is their description:
1. The user can click on this button to open the “Instructions” tab.
2. The user can click on this button" to go back to the “DashBoard” tab and search
results for a new location.
3. This is the “Integrated Feasibility Score” graphic indicator. The cells are numbered
and color coded from 100 to 0 with intervals of 5. Green indicates the maximum
possible integrated feasibility score (100) and red indicates the lowest possible
integrated feasibility score (0). The scores in between fall under various color shades
for the two extreme colors. An example of the color shades is shown below:
100 80 60 40 20 0
7. This is the map of climate zones for RECS and map of census divisions for CBECS.
8 Th ll i di t th I t t d F ibilit S d I t t d F ibilit
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 176/182
8. These cells indicate the Integrated Feasibility Score and Integrated Feasibility
Ranking for the selected city.
9. This button lets the user to open the “Residential_IntegratedFeasibility” or
“Commercial_IntegratedFeasibility” tab as the case maybe. This allows the user to
modify the value of the 4 weights for the weighting factors as needed.
10. This button lets the user to open the “Residential_Prescreen-4_Econo” or
“Commercial_Prescreen-4_Econo” tab as the case maybe. This allows the user to
modify the Cost per ton values for conventional ASHP systems and GSHP systems as
needed.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 177/182
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 178/182
D3: Residential_IntegratedFeasibility & Commercial_IntegratedFeasibility
Both these tabs allow the user to modify the weights for the weighting factors which are
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 179/182
Both these tabs allow the user to modify the weights for the weighting factors which are
assigned to the four prescreening processes. Both tabs are identical in nature with each
having data based on either RECS or CBECS. Figure D3 shows the screenshot of one of the
integrated feasibility tabs. The number balloons are defined as follows:
1. These cells (colored orange) define the weight for the weighting factors. The user can
modify these values as needed. Any changes made to these cells will affect the
integrated feasibility result for the locations. Both the results for residential and
results for commercial are assigned their own integrated feasibility tabs, so any
changes made to the weight will affect the corresponding results.
2. As the weights are changed, the ranking order for the 15 cities may alter. By clicking
the “SORT RANKS” button, the user can re-arrange the rankings in the ranking
column in an ascending order.
3. The “RESULTS” button allows the user to go back to the “Residential_Results” or
“Commercial_Results” tab as the case may be.
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 180/182
D4: Residential_Prescreen-4_Econo & Commercial_Prescreen-4_Econo
While the Prescreening Analysis 4 score is solely dependent on the normalized total cost
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 181/182
While the Prescreening Analysis – 4 score is solely dependent on the normalized total cost
savings value, room has been provided in the tool for calculating the simple payback (years)
for installing a GSHP system. The simple payback calculation is based on the formula:
Where,
Implementation Cost Difference = Cost difference ($/Ton) between conventional baseline
case and GSHP system.
The implementation cost will vary from region to region for residential and commercial
units. Also, for GSHP systems there are certain federal and state tax credits that can be
applicable for qualified systems. Thus for payback calculations it is recommended that the
user inputs the applicable $/Ton values instead of relying on the default values used in the
tool. Two separate tabs are provided for Residential and Commercial based simple payback
7/27/2019 THESIS Ground Source Heat Pumps Feasibility Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thesis-ground-source-heat-pumps-feasibility-analysis 182/182
Figure D4: Screenshot of Prescreen-4_Econo Tab