\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Development of Analytical Model for a Vertical Single U-Tube Ground-Coupled Heat Pump System},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2020-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2020)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2020-01-15}
\title{Development of Analytical Model for a Vertical Single U-Tube Ground-Coupled Heat Pump System}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Ali H.  Tarrad}

             \affil[1]{  Université de Lorraine}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 11 December 2019 Accepted: 3 January 2020 Published: 15 January 2020}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


An analytical model was built to study the thermal design of a single vertical U-tube coupled heat pump under steady-state conditions. It was based on the philosophy of U-tube replacement by an equivalent thermal resistance situated between the heat transfer medium that flows inside the tube and the borehole boundary. An obstruction factor was introduced to account for the reduction of heat flow from or to a tube in the borehole due to the presence of the second leg of the U-tube. Two Copper Utubes with wall factors of (12.5) and (14.29) were implemented to comprise several borehole configurations to verify the present work. The shank spacing was ranged between (2) and (4) times the Utube outside diameter producing shank spacing to borehole diameter ratio range of (0.29-0.59). The model was utilized for the assessment of DX ground heat exchangers works as a condenser for cooling purposes. Reducing of the tube spacing to tube outside diameter ratio from (3.3) to (2) for both tube wall factors showed a rise for the borehole thermal resistance in the range of (22-54)% and (26.5-28)% predicted at wall factors of (12.5) and (14.29) respectively.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{borehole thermal resistance, analytical modeling, thermal resistance correlation, DX heat exchangers, R-410A.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
he ground has been utilized since the forties of the last century as an energy source, an energy sink, or for energy storage. This was done in a parallel effort of developing efficient heat pumps to raise this heat source to a higher level of temperatures for heating purposes or heat rejection for cooling purposes. Augmentation of efficiency led to tremendous research to improve the performance of the ground part of the heat pump system. Hence qualitative and quantitative work was focused on the thermal design of the ground heat exchanger, vertical and horizontal orientations.\par
Naili et al. \hyperref[b0]{[1]} studied experimentally a horizontal ground source heat pump system in the cooling mode. The heat pump COP and the system COP were found to be (4. \hyperref[b24]{25}) and (2.88), respectively. Bakirci \hyperref[b1]{[2]} evaluated the performance of a groundsource heat pump system in a cold climate region. The experimental results indicated that the average heatpump COP values are approximately (3) and  {\ref (2.6)} in the coldest months of a heating season. Fan et al. \hyperref[b2]{[3]} conducted a theoretical study on the performance of an integrated ground-source heat pump system. The results refer to various factors affecting the performance of the vertical heat exchangers and hence the performance of the heat pumps system. Esen et al. \hyperref[b3]{[4]} studied experimentally the transient temperature distribution inside a borehole for a vertical U-tube heat exchanger at (30, 60, and 90) m depth and (150) mm borehole diameter. A two-dimensional finite element model was built, and ANSYS code was implemented for the numerical analysis to predict the temperature distribution. They concluded that the numerical analysis appears to be most promising for predicting the response of GHEs to thermal loading.  {\ref Wood et al. [5]} studied the heat pump performance and ground temperature of a ground heat exchanger system for a residential building. The seasonal coefficient of performance of the heat pump was found to be (3.62), and the temperature at (5) m was undisturbed. Florides et al. \hyperref[b5]{[6]} investigated the thermal performance of a double U-tube GHE and the assessment of its efficiency with regard to its building cost. A numerical model was also developed for energy flows and temperature changes in and around a borehole. It was validated upon comparing its results with established experimental results for a single GHE.\par
Liao et al. \hyperref[b6]{[7]} studied numerically the effective borehole thermal resistance of a vertical, single U-tube ground heat exchanger for a range of shank spacing. They claimed that their study produced a correlation that showed better accuracy than available correlations. Sharqawy et al. \hyperref[b7]{[8]} postulated a 2-dimensional numerical model for the steady-state heat conduction within the borehole. He developed a correlation for the effective borehole thermal resistance and was also concluded that his correlation predicted the thermal resistance better than other available formulas. The T Fluid Exit Fluid Inlet 
\section[{S p}]{S p} 
\section[{Grout}]{Grout}\par
Borehole Walld o\par
analytical models for (GHE) utilize mainly a line heat source \hyperref[b8]{[9,}\hyperref[b9]{10]} and cylinder heat source theory \hyperref[b10]{[11,}\hyperref[b11]{12]} to predict the heat transfer rate between the ground and the heat carrier fluid flowing in the (GHE).\par
The equivalent diameter of U-tube can be presented in the form of:\par
(\par
Where (??) is an equivalency coefficient greater than (1.0). Claesson and Dunand \hyperref[b12]{[13]} postulated the value of (??) for two buried horizontal pipes to be (?2).\par
Shonder and Beck \hyperref[b13]{[14]} implemented a onedimensional heat transfer model for the U-tube and arrived at the same value as that of Claesson and Dunand \hyperref[b12]{[13]} for a single vertical U-tube heat exchanger in the form:\par
(2.a)\par
In which the equivalent diameter corresponds to:(2.b)\par
Where (n) is equal to (2) for a single U-tube system and is corresponding to (2 do) for double U-tube ground heat exchanger. Gu and O'Neal \hyperref[b14]{[15]} utilized a steady-state heat transfer simulation based on the cylindrical source model to produce a correlation for the grout resistance for a vertical U-tube ground heat exchanger in the form:(3.a)\par
This form of equation reveals that the equivalent diameter was expressed as:\par
(3.b) Koenig \hyperref[b15]{[16]} has analyzed the heat transfer problem in a borehole with single and multi-vertical Utube loops. He has arrived at an analytical solution to the borehole thermal resistance for different U-tube geometry configuration and presented a validation for the model with acceptable accuracy limits. Tarrad \hyperref[b16]{[17]} reported a simple correlation for the prediction of a borehole thermal resistance in a vertical single U-tube ground heat exchanger incorporates the following expression of the equivalent diameter: The correlation showed an acceptable agreement with previously available ones in the open literature. More recently, Tarrad \hyperref[b17]{[18]} developed a correlation to predict the borehole thermal resistance in which the equivalent tube was derived as:\par
(5)\par
The correlation showed excellent agreement with previously published expressions in the open literature.\par
In this study, the thermal resistance of the grout was coupled with the tube resistance to accomplish a model for the assessment of effective borehole resistance. The obstruction to heat conduction inside the borehole due to the presence of the second tube leg was also studied, and a correlation was addressed for this purpose. The shank spacing was ranged between (2) and (4) times the U-tube outside diameter producing a geometry factor (??) defined as the ratio of tube spacing to borehole diameter occupies the range of (0.29-0.59). 
\section[{II.}]{II.} 
\section[{Present Model}]{Present Model} 
\section[{Model Derivitive}]{Model Derivitive}\par
The model suggests that there is a single Utube installed in the borehole to compose a ground heat exchanger for heating or cooling heat pump system, Figure \hyperref[fig_1]{1}. ? ? = ?? ? ? ð??"= ??? ? ? ?? ? ? ? 2 ? ? ð??" ? ? = ?? ? ? ? ð??"= ??? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 2 ? ? ð??" ? ? = ?? ? ? ? ? ? = ? ? ??+?? 2 ?1? ? = ? ? 2 + ? ? 2 ?? ? 2 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? = ?2 ? ? +2 ? ? 2 q 3 q 1 R b,B R a,B R f R f q 2\par
The presentation of the thermal resistance circuit may be illustrated for the U-tube geometry, as depicted in Figure 2. A similar thermal resistance circuit was also postulated by Koenig \hyperref[b15]{[16]} for a single U-tube ground heat exchanger. The U-tube geometry in the borehole is usually chosen to be identical, and parallel loop circuits are utilized. Hence the same fluid flows in both U-tube legs. This leads to equal tube thermal resistances on the fluid side and conduction through the tube wall for both tubes. Further for identical tube geometries, the grout thermal resistance is the same between the tube wall and the grout boundary, as illustrated on the right side of Figure 2. Therefore the following conditions hold for the present work: Equations \hyperref[b8]{(9)}\hyperref[b9]{(10)}\hyperref[b10]{(11)} were solved simultaneously to yield the following relations for each of heat transfer rate inside the borehole and its mutual exchange with ground and tubing systems: Equations \hyperref[b12]{(13)}\hyperref[b13]{(14)}\hyperref[b14]{(15)} reveal that the individual values of the heat transfer rate have complex relation criteria with the parameters related to the thermal resistance of different parts of the system. Hence it is usually treated as a semi-analytical problem or a complete analytical solution with several assumptions to simplify the problems having a margin of error in their applications. The total heat transfer rate between the two legs of the U-tubing walls and borehole boundary is \hyperref[b16]{(17)} Shunt Thermal Resistance modeled as an isothermal pipe to pipe conduction shape factor per unit length in an infinite medium per unit length Holman \hyperref[b18]{[19]}. The following mathematical expressions are to be solved simultaneously for (q 1 , q 2 , and q 3 ).\par
represented by the algebraic summation of (q 1 and q 2 ) as:\par
In these expressions Î?"T b , B , Î?"T a , B , and Î?"T b , a represents a temperature difference as follows:\par
The thermal shunt resistance (R s ) can be  
\section[{Grout Thermal Resistance}]{Grout Thermal Resistance}\par
The thermal resistance of an offset tube inside a cylindrical geometry with a length to be much bigger than the radius of the tube can be deduced from the shape factor cited in Holman \hyperref[b18]{[19]} as:  
\section[{Obstruction Factor}]{Obstruction Factor}\par
There is a conductive borehole obstruction due to the presence of the other U-tube leg of the loop in the radial direction of heat flow. This interference or obstruction is addressed by including the factor (??). Hence the thermal resistance between the U-tubing wall and the borehole boundary is defined as: \hyperref[b19]{(20)} The obstruction factor to heat transfer is effectively represented by the surface area that is shadowed by the thermal beam of one leg at an angle of (?), Figure 3. Here, it is assumed that the heat source, the tube leg represents a line heat transfer source at the center of the tube. This is the case where heat is lost from the ground heat exchanger, and it works as a heat sink for heating purposes. The heat transfer mechanism occurs in the radial direction, and circumferential heat conduction at the borehole surface is neglected. The latter assumption implicitly states an isothermal condition at the borehole surface. The envelope behind the tube, which is projected at the borehole surface, is calculated per unit length from: Simultaneously, the second leg performs the same obstruction for heat transfer, which is reflected in the total heat transfer rate in the borehole configuration. Hence, the obstruction factor can be expressed as: Equation \hyperref[b20]{(21)} shows that the obstruction factor is only a geometry dependence parameter; its value lies in the range of (0<???1) and depends on the borehole and U-tube configurations. The obstruction factor is equal to unity when there is no obstruction object since the thermal beam diverging angle (??) tends to zero. Hence it is always greater than zero and less or equal to \hyperref[b0]{(1)}. This expression experiences a decrease as the two legs become closer and approaches a minimum when these tubes touch each other with (S p = d e ); hence its value shows a weak dependence on the tube diameter. In other words, it produces the highest expected borehole thermal resistance for a given configuration. The obstruction factor shows a rise as the leg spacing increases and approaches the maximum as the tubes are touching the borehole surface. Hence, it showed the lowest borehole thermal resistance. However, the extreme case where the tube legs are situated along the outer surface of the borehole violates the principle assumption for heat transfer in a 1dimensional radial direction. Accommodating the tubes at the borehole wall will create a large circumferential temperature maldistribution; the uniform borehole surface temperature assumption will be demolished.? ? = 1 ? ? ð??" = cosh ?1 ?2 ? ? ? ? ? ? 2 ?1? 2 ? ? ð??" ? ð??" = 2 ? ? cosh ?1 ? ? ? 2 + ? ? 2 ?4 ? ? 2 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?ð??"ð??" = 1 ? ð??" ? ð??" ? ð??" = ? ?ð??"ð??" ? (21.a) ? ??? = (? ? + ? ? ) tan ?1 ? ? ? 2 ? ? ? 2 ?? ? ? 2 ? 2 ? (21.b) ? = 1 ? 2 ?? ? + ? ? ? tan ?1 ? ? ? ? ? 2 ? ? ? 2 ?? ? ? 2 ? 2 ? ? ? ? ? ?\par
The expression of the obstruction factor could also be confirmed by the work of Remund \hyperref[b19]{[20]}, who has reported the borehole thermal resistance for three different cases of the two tube legs spacing. These conditions were described according to the U-tube leg spacing as, close, average, and along the outer wall of the borehole in the form: The results of equation (  {\ref 22}) revealed that for a given borehole configuration as the tube legs get closer, the borehole thermal resistance showed a rise and approached maximum as they touch each other. It approaches a minimum value as the tube spacing reaches a maximum as the tubes touch the borehole surface. Further, Gu and O'Neal \hyperref[b13]{[14]} in their work for replacement of the U-tube by equivalent concentric tube at the borehole had arrived at the same conclusion. Increasing the two legs spacing results in an increase of the equivalent diameter and in turn, reduces the grout and borehole thermal resistance.\par
These results are consistent with the present work outcomes for the obstruction factor (??), and its numerical value is a geometrical parameter only regardless of the operating conditions. 
\section[{Borehole Thermal Resistance}]{Borehole Thermal Resistance}\par
The thermal resistances of different sources inside the borehole to heat transfer between the fluid flow in the tubes as a heat source or sink, and the borehole boundary are presented in eq. (  {\ref 8}) and eq. \hyperref[b19]{(20)}. Therefore, the total borehole resistance is expressed by: Equation (  {\ref 14}) can be simplified further to give:\par
The net total heat transfer rate that crosses the boundary of the borehole is expressed as:\par
In eq. (24.b) the mean temperature of the fluid inside the tubes is considered as: and Combining eq. (24.a) and eq. (24.b) yields to:\par
Hence the borehole thermal resistance corresponds to:\par
When the obstruction factor is dismissed, then (?) is equal to unity, and the same expression will be obtained as that of Koenig \hyperref[b15]{[16]}. 
\section[{Ground Thermal resistance}]{Ground Thermal resistance}\par
The ground thermal resistance is important for the assessment of heat transfer rate and temperature distribution of the ground heat exchanger. Garbai and Méhes \hyperref[b20]{[21]} have included the effect of the ground as a resistance to heat transfer from or to the U-tube fluid for a region extended to infinity. They have concluded that after (1) year of operation, the heat transfer process approaches steady-state conditions and the value of (0.053) m.K/W for a ground thermal conductivity of (2.42) W/m.K was estimated. Hence, it was decided to implement this value at the present work. 
\section[{Total Thermal Resistance}]{Total Thermal Resistance}\par
The total thermal resistance per unit length of the borehole is estimated by: (28)\par
This expression represents the thermal resistance of the double U-tube GHE to heat transfer. 
\section[{III.}]{III.} 
\section[{Verification Methodology}]{Verification Methodology} 
\section[{Ground Heat Exchanger Specifications}]{Ground Heat Exchanger Specifications}\par
The verification of the model was accomplished by the comparison with previously published correlations in the open literature. The following conditions were utilized for a hypothetical heat pump system utilizes the U-tube GHE: Further, the heat transfer rate (q 3 ) as presented in eq. (15.b) approaches zero and eq. (  {\ref 25}) is still applicable.\par
An interesting result may be deduced from the present analysis when it is applied for geothermal DX evaporators and condensers. The change of phase usually takes place in an isothermal (T b = T a = T) process for pure refrigerants, nonazeotrop mixtures and azeotropic mixtures of the negligible boiling range such as R-410A, then:\par
Where the values of the coefficient (C 1 ) and the index (C 2 ) were stated for three cases, as illustrated in Table \hyperref[tab_0]{1}.\par
1. A heat pump coupled ground heat exchanger is utilized for cooling purpose having the following operating conditions: ? Cooling load of (3.5) kW to be extracted from the space throughout the circulation of chilled water in fan coils installed at the required points. ? Chilled water to be produced by circulating through the chiller at a temperature range of (7-12) °C. The mass flux density and fluid flow velocity were calculated from:  
\section[{Maximum U-tube Spacing}]{Maximum U-tube Spacing}\par
The tube spacing (Sp) was selected according to the relation given by Koenig \hyperref[b15]{[16]} for practical applications of the ground U-tube heat exchanger as follows:\par
Rearranging this relation in terms of the tube spacing (Sp) gives:\par
This expression shows that the maximum tube spacing inside the borehole is controlled by: IV. 
\section[{Results and Discussion}]{Results and Discussion} 
\section[{Grout Thermal Resistance}]{Grout Thermal Resistance}\par
The present work results of the thermal resistance of grout are compared to other available correlations in the open literature. The single loop borehole specific thermal resistance for the WF of (14.29) geometry is compared in Figure 4. ? Rejected load to the ground by the copper tubing of the condenser was estimated in the range of (4.4) kW with COP of (3.57) for cooling.\par
2. A single copper U-tube and borehole dimensions are shown in Table \hyperref[tab_1]{2}.\par
The data revealed that the present model predicted higher grout thermal resistance than other investigators. It was higher than that of the closest data of Shonder and Beck \hyperref[b13]{[14]} by about (15) \%. Sharqawy et al. \hyperref[b7]{[8]} prediction was the lowest among other correlations and the rest occupies the zone in between the two mentioned models. The thermal resistance predicted by Koenig \hyperref[b15]{[16]} and Shonder and beck were close to each other and were higher than those of Gu and O'Neal \hyperref[b14]{[15]} and Remund \hyperref[b19]{[20]}. As the grout thermal conductivity increases, the predicted results are getting closer and approaching a minimum discrepancy at the highest tested thermal conductivity of (1.9) W/m.K. This is due to the decrease of thermal resistance of the grout as the thermal conductivity increases, eq. (  {\ref 19}). At a constant value of (S p / D B ), the thermal resistance showed dependence on the grout thermal conductivity in the form: 
\section[{Grout Thermal Conductivity}]{Grout Thermal Conductivity}\par
The thermal resistance showed a reduction with thermal conductivity increase regardless of the (??) ratio value and exhibited the lower at the higher test grout thermal conductivity. The trend of the data may be presented in a linear formula as:\par
The coefficient (a 0 ) is a negative value. These results were also confirmed by Koenig \hyperref[b15]{[16]} and Gu and O'Neal \hyperref[b14]{[15]} work. The borehole resistance revealed a declination with the geometry factor (??) increase. Increasing of the geometry factor refers to the increase of the U-tube spacing (S p ) of the tube legs. Hence, the thermal resistance decreases as the distance of the two tubes increases. The lower grout thermal conductivity of (0.78) W/m.K showed a higher value for (R B ) and exhibited a steeper gradient with the geometry factor (S p /D B ). As the grout thermal conductivity increases, it produces a lower (R B ) level and flatter curve representation. The latter is mainly due to the decrease of the temperature gradient with (k g ) increase and hence improves the heat transfer inside the borehole body.\par
The index (? 1 ) has a negative value. A linear behavior for the borehole thermal resistance with the ratio (S p / D B ) at constant grout thermal conductivity is obvious in Figure 5 for both geometries. It was a steeper for the bigger tube size (12.7) mm outside diameter than that of the smaller one of (9.52) mm. This, of course, is related directly to the thermal resistance of the grout layer that covers these tubes; the lower thermal resistance corresponds to the steeper line variation in Figure 5. The present model showed a similar trend of data to those of other investigators, and it is located closer to that of Remund \hyperref[b19]{[20]} and Sharqawy et al. \hyperref[b7]{[8]} ones for both tested configurations. Koenig \hyperref[b15]{[16]} expression revealed the lowest resistance value and Shonder and Beck \hyperref[b13]{[14]} showed the highest values among other correlations; it was about double of that of the earlier investigator. Shonder and Beck \hyperref[b13]{[14]} have replaced the two legs of the U-tube by an equivalent tube diameter concentric at the borehole; this procedure loses a surface area for the U-tube by about (30) \% per unit length. Hence, it will exhibit higher thermal resistance, or it needs more surface area to accomplish the same heat load. The same dialogue is true for Gu and O'Neal \hyperref[b14]{[15]} correlation because a similar technique was implemented to build up their model. The response of the present work for a single loop GHE to the variation of the geometrical configuration is present, as shown above. It is also predicted reasonable values for the borehole thermal resistance when compared with other available correlations. 
\section[{U-Tube Size}]{U-Tube Size}\par
A comparison of the predicted borehole thermal resistance by the present model for the single loop of the four geometries is illustrated in Figure  {\ref 7}. The thermal resistance showed a decrease as the U-tube diameter increases, and it is also showed a declination as the grout thermal conductivity increases. The bigger tube size with WF of (17.86) possesses the lowest borehole thermal resistance, among other tested sizes. Whereas, the smaller tube size having a WF of (12.5) revealed the highest thermal resistance. This is related directly to the thickness of the grout layer, which covers these tubes. The bigger thickness reveals higher thermal resistance and vice versa. Also, the bigger tube size possesses a larger surface area per unit length and hence increases the heat transfer rate in the borehole. The smaller tube size of (9.52) mm outside diameter showed a higher thermal resistance by (66.7) \% and (39) \% than those of (19.05) mm diameter at grout thermal conductivity of (0.73) W/m.K and (1.9) W/m.K respectively. The other tested U-tube sizes occupied the zone bounded by these two tube configurations. This phenomenon was also confirmed by other investigators presented in this work.  
\section[{U-Tube Legs Spacing}]{U-Tube Legs Spacing}\par
The center to center U-tube legs spacing is of vital importance in the process of heat transfer inside the borehole and U-tube configuration system. It has been found that the ground heat exchanger depth is proportional to the total borehole thermal resistance and hence the spacing of its tube legs  {\ref [15, 16, and 20}]. The present model was investigated for the verification of the ratio of tube spacing to the borehole diameter . Figure 8 illustrates a comparison for the borehole thermal resistance obtained at different values of the ratio of (S p / D B ) in the range of (0.29) and (0.59) for both geometries.  As the geometry factor (??) increases, the spacing between the U-tube legs is also increasing and hence revealed a lower borehole thermal resistance. Similar behavior is noticed for both geometries regardless of the U-tube borehole configurations. These results revealed consistency with other investigators who have studied this factor, Gu and O'Neal \hyperref[b14]{[15]}, Koenig \hyperref[b15]{[16]}, Garbai and Méhes \hyperref[b20]{[21]}, and Remund \hyperref[b19]{[20]}. 
\section[{It is clear that the borehole thermal resistance of a GHE Total Borehole Thermal resistance}]{It is clear that the borehole thermal resistance of a GHE Total Borehole Thermal resistance}\par
The total thermal resistance between the fluid and soil region is compared for various correlations is illustrated in Figure 9. ) and grout thermal conductivity, Figure 8. The present work showed that when increasing (S p /d o ) ratio from (  {\ref 2}) to (3.3) for both tube wall factors showed a decrease in the borehole thermal resistance. The predicted borehole thermal resistance at (S p /d o ) of (  {\ref 2}) was higher than that of (3.3) by the range of (22-54) \% and (26.5-28) \% at wall factor of (12.5) and (14.29) respectively for the examined range of grout thermal conductivity.  The same trend can be inferred from all of the examined correlations for both borehole configurations. The trend of the curves and predicted values are similar to those of borehole thermal resistance in their distributions for all of the correlations presented in this graph. The Shonder and Beck \hyperref[b13]{[14]} correlation showed the highest level among other models, and the Koenig \hyperref[b15]{[16]} model revealed the lowest. As the grout thermal conductivity increases, the curves are getting closer to each other due to the decrease in the temperature gradient and reduced borehole thermal resistance. The present model predicted a moderate values and are closer to Remund \hyperref[b19]{[20]} predictions than other test correlations. 
\section[{Heat Loading}]{Heat Loading}\par
The comparison of predict heat loading per unit length of the U-tube heat exchanger is presented in figure \hyperref[fig_1]{10} for both investigated configuration. Although the underground temperature is almost stable over the year-round it is also a dependent measure on the altitude. The temperature in the ground below \hyperref[b5]{(6)} m is roughly equal to the mean annular air temperature at that altitude. It is at the range of (10-16) °C. Seasonal variation decreases with depth and disappears below (7 to 12) m, Tarrad \hyperref[b24]{[25]}. Hence to construct the objectives of performing the heat loading calculation, a temperature difference between the refrigerant and ground of (  {\ref 14}) °C was utilized. It was calculated from the conduction heat transfer relation in the form:\par
The predicted specific heat loading for the bigger tube size (12.7) mm outside diameter was higher than that of the smaller tube size (9.52) mm for all of the examined correlations and had similar data trends. Koenig \hyperref[b15]{[16]} model predicted the higher heat loading of the GHE; it was in the range of (68-120) and (60-110) W/m for WF values of (14.29) and (12.5) respectively. Shonder and Beck \hyperref[b13]{[14]} correlation produced the lower level for both geometries; the numerical values were in the range of (38-77) W/m and (35-70) W/m at WF of (14.29) and (12.5) respectively. The present model revealed a moderate heat loading, among other investigated correlations, regardless of the U-tube size. The respective numerical values at WF of (14.29) and (12.5) were (53-101) W/m and (47-90) W/m. These values of heat loading are almost occupying the midway zone between Koenig \hyperref[b15]{[16]} and Shonder and Beck \hyperref[b13]{[14]} correlations. Sharqawy et al. \hyperref[b7]{[8]} and Remund \hyperref[b19]{[20]} predicted heat loadings higher and lower than those of the present work respectively. Koenig \hyperref[b15]{[16]} model predicts the lowest borehole depth, whereas the Shonder and Beck \hyperref[b13]{[14]} correlation produces the deepest borehole. This is because the predicted total thermal resistance of the borehole/ground for Shonder and Beck was higher than those of Koenig \hyperref[b15]{[16]} and other models, including the present work, as illustrated in Figure 9. The correlations presented by Shonder and Beck \hyperref[b13]{[14]} and that of Remund \hyperref[b19]{[20]} have no response to the ratio (S p / d o ). Hence they are expected to predict constant values of the depth regardless of the tube spacing for a given configuration. The present model showed an interaction response to the tube spacing variation as those of Koenig \hyperref[b15]{[16]}, Sharqawy et al. \hyperref[b7]{[8]}, and Gu and O'Neal \hyperref[b14]{[15]} models. Further, the present model predicted almost a mean value for those of Shonder and Beck \hyperref[b13]{[14]} and Koenig \hyperref[b15]{[16]}.\par
An analytical model was performed to formulate a thermal analysis for a single U-tube ground source coupled heat pump. An obstruction factor to heat transfer in the borehole configuration was addressed and implemented in the present model. Consistence of the borehole thermal resistance behavior with different geometry factors existed with previously published work in the open literature. The borehole thermal resistance of the U-tube showed a decrease with tube diameter and grout thermal conductivity increase. The borehole thermal resistance decreases with the geometry factor (??) increase and approaching a minimum as the two legs of the U-tube are located close to the borehole surface. Increasing of (S p / d o ) ratio from (2) to (3.3) for Nomenclature Year 2020 both tube wall factors showed a decrease in the borehole thermal resistance. The predicted borehole thermal resistance at (S p / d o ) of (2) was higher than that of (3.3) by the range of (22-54) \% and (26.5-28) \% at wall factor of (12.5) and (14.29) respectively for the examined range of grout thermal conductivity. The results showed that the predicted heat loading of the heat exchanger at (S p / d o ) of (3.3) and (Î?"T m ) of (  {\ref 14}) °C, was ranged between (46-53) W/m and (91-101) W/m as predicted at (0.73) W/m.K and (1.9) W/m.K grout thermal conductivity respectively. The model could be improved to allow the implementation of different tube sizes for the U-tube legs, which is the usual case for DX ground condensers and evaporators.\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_1}Figure 1 :}\end{figure}
                   \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.4619565217391304\textwidth}P{0.16630434782608697\textwidth}P{0.2217391304347826\textwidth}}
Configuration\tabcellsep C 1\tabcellsep C 2\\
Close together\tabcellsep 20.10\tabcellsep -0.9447\\
Average\tabcellsep 17.44\tabcellsep -0.6052\\
Along outer wall\tabcellsep 21.91\tabcellsep -0.3796\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.5554279749478079\textwidth}P{0.015970772442588724\textwidth}P{0.02129436325678497\textwidth}P{0.062108559498956155\textwidth}P{0.03194154488517745\textwidth}P{0.049686847599164925\textwidth}P{0.04258872651356994\textwidth}P{0.017745302713987474\textwidth}P{0.05323590814196242\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Geom. d o (mm)}\tabcellsep D B (mm)\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{S p /d o ( -) S p /D B ( -)}\tabcellsep G ref (kg/m 2 s)\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{V ref (m/s) Vap Liq.}\tabcellsep A U-tube (m 2 /m)\\
1\tabcellsep 9.525\tabcellsep 65\tabcellsep 2-4\tabcellsep 0.29-0.59\tabcellsep 371.43\tabcellsep 5.03\tabcellsep 0.364\tabcellsep 0.05985\\
2\tabcellsep 12.7\tabcellsep 75\tabcellsep 2-3.3\tabcellsep 0.34-0.56\tabcellsep 199.27\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0.196\tabcellsep 0.0798\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{3. The borehole is filled with grout, having a thermal}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{conductivity range between (0.73) W/m.K and (1.9)}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
W/m.K, [22].\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{4. R-410A is circulated through the heat pump in the}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{DX system. It has a typical condensation heat}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{transfer coefficient of (3000) W/m 2 K, Huang et al.}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{[23] and Kim and Shin (2005) [24]}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 		 		\backmatter   			 
\subsection[{Acknowledgement}]{Acknowledgement}\par
The author sincerely thanks the administration of (PAUSE) program and the Laboratory of Energy and, Theoretical and Applied Mechanics (LEMTA) of the University of Lorraine for their valuable support and giving the opportunity to complete the publication of the presented article. 			  			 
\subsection[{Funding}]{Funding}\par
This is a noncommercial research. It is based on the author's own initiative and scientific interests. 			 			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Tarrad ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		‘A Borehole Thermal Resistance Correlation for a Single Vertical DX U-Tube in Geothermal Energy Application’.  		 			A H Tarrad 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.ajese.20190304.12}{10.11648/j.ajese.20190304.12}.  	 	 		\textit{American Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering}  		2019. 3  (4) .  	 
\bibitem[Tarrad ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		‘A Perspective Model for Borehole Thermal Resistance Prediction of a Vertical U-Tube in Geothermal Heat Source’.  		 			A H Tarrad 		.  	 	 		\textit{Athens Journal of Technology and Engineering}  		2020. 7  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Wood et al. ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		\textit{An Investigation of the Heat Pump Performance and Ground Temperature of a Piled Foundation Heat Exchanger System for a Residential Building},  		 			C Wood 		,  		 			H Liu 		,  		 			S Riffat 		.  		2010. Energy. 12 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Remund ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		‘Borehole Thermal Resistance: Laboratory and Field Studies’.  		 			C P Remund 		.  	 	 		\textit{ASHRAE Trans}  		1999. 105 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Huang et al. ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		‘Condensation Heat Transfer Characteristics of R410A-oil Mixture in 5 mm and 4 mm Outside Diameter Horizontal Microfin Tubes’.  		 			X Huang 		,  		 			G Ding 		,  		 			H Hu 		,  		 			Y Zhu 		,  		 			Y Gao 		,  		 			B Deng 		.  	 	 		\textit{Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science}  		2010. 34  (7)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kim ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		‘Condensation Heat transfer of R-22 and R410A in Horizontal Smooth and Micorofin Tubes’.  		 			M Kim 		,  		 			ShinJ 		.  	 	 		\textit{Int. J. of Refrigeration}  		2005. 28 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Carslaw and Jaeger ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		\textit{Conduction of Heat in Solids},  		 			H S Carslaw 		,  		 			J C Jaeger 		.  		1959. London: Oxford University Press.  	 	 (2nd ed.) 
\bibitem[Shonder and Beck ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		\textit{Determining Effective Soil Formation Thermal Properties from Field Data Using a Parameter Estimation Technique},  		 			J A Shonder 		,  		 			J V Beck 		.  		1999. ASHRAE Trans. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Gu and Neal ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		\textit{Development of an Equivalent Diameter Expression for Vertical U-Tubes Used in Ground-Coupled Heat Pumps},  		 			Y Gu 		,  		 			D L Neal 		.  		1998. ASHRAE Transaction. 104 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Liao et al. ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘Effective Borehole Thermal Resistance of a Single U-Tube Ground Heat Exchanger’.  		 			Q Liao 		,  		 			C Zhou 		,  		 			W Cui 		,  		 			Jen 		,  		 			TC 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10407782.2012.691061}{10.1080/10407782.2012.691061}.  	 	 		\textit{Numerical Heat Transfer, Part A: Applications}  		2012. 62  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Sharqawy et al. ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		‘Effective Pipe-to-Borehole Thermal Resistance for Vertical Ground Heat Exchangers’.  		 			M H Sharqawy 		,  		 			E M Mokheimer 		,  		 			H M Badr 		.  	 	 		\textit{Geothermics}  		2009. 38 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bakirci ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		\textit{Evaluation of the Performance of a Ground-Source Heat-Pump System with Series GHE (Ground Heat Exchanger) in the Cold Climate Region},  		 			K Bakirci 		.  		2010. Energy. 35 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Naili et al. ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘First in Situ Operation Performance Test of Ground Source Heat Pump in Tunisia’.  		 			N Naili 		,  		 			I Attar 		,  		 			M Hazami 		,  		 			A Farhat 		.  	 	 		\textit{Energy Conversion and Management}  		2013. 75 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Geothermal ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		\textit{Ground Loop Design Software},  		 			Gaia Geothermal 		.  		2009.  	 
\bibitem[Garbai and Méhes ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		‘Heat Capacity of Vertical Ground Heat Exchangers with Single U-tube Installation in the Function of Time’.  		 			L Garbai 		,  		 			S Méhes 		.  	 	 		\textit{Wseas Transactions on Heat and Mass Transfer}  		2008. 3  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ingersoll et al. ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		\textit{Heat Conduction with Engineering and Geological Application},  		 			L R Ingersoll 		,  		 			O J Zobel 		,  		 			A C Ingersoll 		.  		1948. McGraw Hill; New York.  	 
\bibitem[Ingersoll et al. ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		\textit{Heat Conduction with Engineering, Geological and Other Applications},  		 			L R Ingersoll 		,  		 			O J Zobel 		,  		 			A C Ingersoll 		.  		1954. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.  	 	 (revised edition) 
\bibitem[Claesson ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		‘Heat Extraction From the Ground by Horizontal Pipes-A mathematical Analysis’.  		 			J Claesson 		,  		 			DunandA 		.  	 	 		\textit{Document D1, Swedish Council for Building Research},  				 (Stockholm)  		1983.  	 
\bibitem[Holman ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		 			J P Holman 		.  		\textit{Heat Transfer},  				2010. p. .  	 	 (10th edition) 
\bibitem[Muttil and Chau ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘Neural Network and Genetic Programming for Modeling Coastal Algal Blooms’.  		 			N Muttil 		,  		 			K W Chau 		.  	 	 		\textit{Int. J. Environ. Pollut}  		2006. 28 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Florides et al. ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		‘Single and Double U-tube Ground Heat Exchangers in Multiple-layer Substrates’.  		 			G A Florides 		,  		 			P Christodoulides 		,  		 			P Pouloupatis 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy}{10.1016/j.apenergy}.  		 \url{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy}  	 	 		\textit{Applied Energy}  		2013. 102 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Esen et al. ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		\textit{Temperature Distributions in Boreholes of a Vertical Ground-Coupled Heat Pump System},  		 			H Esen 		,  		 			M Inalli 		,  		 			Y Esen 		.  		2009. p. .  	 	 (Renewable Energy, 34) 
\bibitem[Tarrad ()]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		\textit{The Utilization of Renewable Energy Source and Environment Friendly Refrigerants in Cooling Mode},  		 			A H Tarrad 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.12691/rse-7-1-2}{10.12691/rse-7-1-2}.  		2019. p. .  	 	 (Sustainable Energy, 7(1)) 
\bibitem[Fan et al. ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		\textit{Theoretical Study on the Performance of an Integrated Ground-Source Heat Pump System in a whole Year},  		 			R Fan 		,  		 			Y Jiang 		,  		 			Y Yao 		,  		 			MabZ 		.  		2008. Energy. 33 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Koenig ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘Thermal Resistance of Borehole Heat Exchangers Composed of Multiple Loops and Custom Shapes’.  		 			A A Koenig 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40517-015-0029-1}{10.1186/s40517-015-0029-1}.  	 	 		\textit{Geothermal Energy}  		2015. 3  (10)  p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
