Geothermal Heat Pump Open Loop vs. Closed Loop Systems
This paper examines geothermal heat pump (GHP) systems, comparing open loop and closed loop configurations in terms of design, efficiency, and practical application. Beginning with the history and operating principles of GHPs, the paper details the three closed-loop configurations — horizontal, vertical, and pond/lake — as well as open-loop variants including multi-well and standing water column systems. A side-by-side analysis of a four-ton GHP unit demonstrates how entering water temperature (EWT) affects heating capacity and coefficient of performance, ultimately showing that closed loop systems, despite lower EWT in late winter, offer superior overall efficiency and lower operating costs than open loop alternatives.
- Introduction to Geothermal Heat Pumps: History, operating principles, and efficiency of GHPs
- Closed-Loop System Designs: Horizontal, vertical, and direct-exchange closed-loop configurations
- Open-Loop System Designs: Well water systems, discharge methods, and design rules
- Standing Water Column Open Loop: Single deep bedrock well design and bleed water management
- Closed Loop Earth Connection Details: HDPE pipe materials, trench depth, and pipe length per ton
- Open Loop vs. Closed Loop: Performance Comparison: EWT, BTU output, and COP compared for a four-ton unit
- Conclusion: Installation, maintenance, and efficiency trade-offs summarized
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper integrates a practical performance comparison table — contrasting EWT, heating capacity, power draw, and COP for a four-ton unit — anchoring abstract system differences in concrete numerical evidence.
- It systematically addresses each system variant (horizontal, vertical, multi-well, standing column) before synthesizing them in a comparative analysis, giving readers a clear conceptual map before asking them to evaluate trade-offs.
- The use of multiple authoritative sources (ASHRAE transactions, DOE, peer-reviewed journal articles) lends credibility to the technical specifications presented.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of comparative analysis supported by quantitative data. Rather than relying solely on qualitative claims about system superiority, the author presents specific performance metrics — BTU output, kilowatt draw, and COP percentages — to substantiate the conclusion that closed loop systems yield lower operating costs despite their higher upfront installation expense.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an overview of GHP history and operating principles, then devotes separate sections to closed-loop and open-loop system designs, including sub-types of each. A dedicated comparison section presents a side-by-side efficiency table for a four-ton unit. The conclusion synthesizes installation and operational considerations for both systems. The structure is logical and mirrors a standard engineering feasibility study format.
Introduction to Geothermal Heat Pumps
Geothermal heat pumps (GHPs), sometimes called GeoExchanges, are earth-coupled, water-source, or ground-source pumps that have been in use since the latter part of the 1940s. They employ the earth's relatively constant temperature — rather than external air temperature — as their medium for heat exchange. This enables GHP systems to achieve quite high efficiencies, ranging between 300% and 600%, on extremely cold winter nights, compared with air-source heat pumps, which achieve only 175–250% efficiency during winter (Energy.Gov, n.d.). While many regions experience extreme seasonal temperature swings — from sweltering summer heat to below-freezing winter temperatures — just a few feet beneath the earth's surface, ground temperature remains fairly stable year-round. Depending on latitude, ground temperature ranges between 7°C (45°F) and 21°C (75°F). As in caves, ground temperature is higher than the air above it during winter months, and cooler than the air during summer. GHPs exploit this phenomenon by exchanging heat energy with the ground through ground heat exchangers.
Despite the high installation costs associated with geothermal systems compared to air-source systems of identical cooling and heating capacity, those additional costs are typically returned to the buyer through energy savings over the subsequent 5–10 years. The system's estimated lifespan exceeds half a century for ground loops and roughly half that for internal components. A ground loop system can be either open loop or closed loop. The former uses one or more wells, while the latter comes in three configurations: pond/lake, horizontal, and vertical. Which proves most effective depends on soil conditions, climate, local installation expenses, and available land. Both approaches may be applied in residential and commercial buildings (Energy.Gov, n.d.).
Closed-Loop System Designs
The majority of closed-loop GHPs circulate an antifreeze solution through a plastic closed loop that is buried underground or immersed in water. Heat exchangers transfer heat between the antifreeze solution in the closed loop and the refrigerant in the heat pump. The loop may be configured in one of three ways: pond/lake, horizontal, or vertical (Goldscheider & Bechtel, 2009). A variant of this approach — known as direct exchange — pumps coolant directly through copper tubing buried underground in a vertical or horizontal configuration, bypassing heat exchangers. Such systems require a larger compressor and perform best in moist soil conditions, sometimes requiring additional irrigation to maintain soil moisture. However, direct exchange systems should not be installed in soils that can corrode copper tubing. Because they circulate coolant through the ground, some local environmental regulatory authorities may prohibit their use.
Horizontal Closed Loop
Horizontal installation is often the most economical option for residential complexes, particularly new constructions where ample land is available. It requires digging trenches approximately four feet deep. The most common layout uses two pipes, one buried six feet deep and the other four feet deep. Another common layout places two pipes side by side at a depth of five feet within a two-foot-wide trench. The Slinky pipe-looping method allows more pipe length to be incorporated into a narrower trench (Energy.Gov, n.d.), reducing installation expenses and making horizontal installation feasible in locations where traditional horizontal approaches would not work.
Vertical Closed Loop
Schools and large commercial buildings typically use vertical loop systems because of the prohibitive land area that horizontal loop installation would require. Vertical loop systems are also used in locations where the ground is too shallow for trenching, and they minimize disturbance to existing landscaping. For vertical installations, holes approximately four inches in diameter are drilled to depths of 100–400 feet, spaced roughly 20 feet apart. Two pipes are lowered into each hole and connected at the bottom with a U-bend, forming a loop. Vertical loops are then connected using horizontal manifold piping set in trenches and attached to the building's heat pump (Energy.Gov, n.d.; Kavanaugh & Rafferty, 1997).
References
Energy.Gov. (n.d.). Geothermal heat pumps. U.S. Department of Energy.
Goldscheider, N., & Bechtel, T. D. (2009). Editors' message: The housing crisis from underground — damage to a historic town by geothermal drillings through anhydrite, Staufen, Germany. Hydrogeology Journal, 17(3), 491–493.
Idaho Geothermal. (n.d.). Open loop vs. closed loop.
Kavanaugh, S. P., & Rafferty, K. (1997). Ground-source heat pumps. ASHRAE.
Lund, J. W. (2001). Ground-source (geothermal) heat pumps. European Summer School on Geothermal Energy Applications, University of Oradea, Romania.
Ohio Water Resources Council. (2012). State of Ohio: Recommendations for geothermal heating and cooling systems. http://wwwapp.epa.ohio.gov/ddagw/SCCGW/Documents/GHCS.pdf
Orio, C. D., Johnson, C. N., Rees, S. J., Chiasson, A., Deng, Z., & Spitler, J. D. (2004). A survey of standing column well installations in North America. ASHRAE Transactions, 110(4), 637–655.
Rafferty, K. (1995). A capital cost comparison of commercial ground-source heat pump systems. Geo-Heat Center Quarterly Bulletin, 16(2).
Rafferty, K. (2004). Water chemistry issues in groundwater heat pump systems. ASHRAE Transactions, 110(1), 550–555.
Rafferty, K. (2008). Design issues in commercial open loop heat pump systems. ASHRAE Transactions, 114(2), 316–327.
Rezaei, B., Amir, K., Dargush, G. F., & Weber, A. S. (2012). Ground source heat pump pipe performance with tire-derived aggregate. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 55(11–12), 2844–2853.
Rybach, L., & Sanner, B. (1999). Ground-source heat pump systems — the European experience. Proceedings of the International Summer School, GeoHeat Center, Klamath Falls, OR.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.