Thermal performance of three horizontal ground heat exchanger systems: comparison of linear-loop, spiral-coil and slinky-coil arrangements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ground source heat pumps (GSHPs) are highly efficient for heating and cooling buildings. Among the different types of ground source heat pumps, horizontal ground heat exchangers (HGHEs) gaining popularity due to their cost-effectiveness, ease of installation and high regeneration capacity. However, studies on the interaction and influence of the local environment with the HGHE and the thermal performance influenced by the arrangement and performance of the HGHE are insufficient. This study uses a three-dimensional numerical model to simulate three types of HGHEs, including linear-loop, spiral-coil, and slinky-coil arrangements. Instead of just one unit, three units are connected in series or parallel. The model considers the energy balance and the heat transfer and exchange processes between the heat exchanger and the soil. Simulation of cooling and heating for 1 year revealed that the slinky-coil arrangement is the most affected by heat fluxes at the ground surface, because of its maximum length, which leads to its lowest coefficient of performance (COP) value. The thermal performance of linear-loop and spiral-coil arrangements is similar, but considering the material cost, the linear-coil arrangement has the lowest installation cost and operating cost for 30 years.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".