| 摘要: |
| 本文基于江苏无锡某典型厂房土壤源热泵空调项目的实测数据，以地源侧系统总能耗最低为目标，构建设备模型对地源水泵运行工况进行优化，并与两种传统控制策略的运行效果进行对比，据此提出进一步的优化建议。结果表明：基于负荷的优化控制策略，其节能效果要明显优于定频控制策略，冬夏季典型测试日平均节能率分别为28.33%和13.27%，相比于5 ℃温差变频策略节能了3.61%和 2.21%。适当增大地埋管的埋管深度或管径，可以进一步提升该优化控制策略的节能效果。传统的定温差控制策略在负荷率大于60%时，可在5 ℃基础上将温差增加1~5 ℃以提升节能效果。 |
| 关键词: 土壤源热泵 地埋管换热器 变流量 供回水温差 节能率 |
| DOI： |
| 投稿时间：2022-12-13 修订日期：2023-02-18
录用日期：2023-03-14 |
| 基金项目: |
|
| Investigating Optimal Operation of Buried Pipe Side Water System of Ground Source Heat Pump |
|
Chen Pengxu1, Xu Bo1, Chen Zhenqian1, Chen Xiangyan2
|
| (1.School of Energy and Environment, Southeast University;2.Jiangsu Shengshi Electromechanical Engineering Co., Ltd.) |
| Abstract: |
| Based on the measured data from a typical ground-source heat pump air conditioning project in Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, with the primary objective of minimizing total energy consumption on the ground-source side, an equipment model for optimizing the operating conditions of the ground-source heat pump is constructed in this study. The optimal control strategy is compared with two traditional control strategies, and recommendations for further optimization are presented. The results showed that the optimal control strategy based on the load had a significantly better energy-saving effect than that of the constant-frequency control strategy. On typical test days in winter and summer, it achieved average energy savings of 28.43% and 21.21%, respectively, resulting in energy savings of 3.61% and 2.21%, respectively, when compared to the 5 ℃ temperature difference frequency conversion strategy. Moreover, it was found that the traditional constant temperature difference control strategy should elevate the temperature difference by 1–5 ℃ from the 5 ℃ baseline, to enhance energy savings when the load ratio exceeded 60%. These findings offer valuable guidance for optimizing the variable-flow strategy of ground-source side water systems in ground-source heat pumps. |
| Key words: ground-source heat pump buried pipe heat exchanger variable flow temperature difference between supply and return water energy-saving ratio |
