在德克萨斯州达拉斯气候带3A的一所小学设计中，进行了模拟，以评估具有不同泵送配置的混合式地源热泵（GSHP）系统的生命周期成本。长期模拟评估了系统在20年内的性能。本研究的基本情况是全地下换热器（全GHX）配置。分别对闭路冷却塔（CCCT）和干液冷却器（DFC）进行建模，以在混合系统中提供辅助散热。本文介绍的示例建筑混合系统的生命周期成本估计比全GHX配置低35-40%。基本案例生命周期成本估计为894000美元，而混合动力选项的成本范围为565000美元至578000美元。这些可能不代表最低寿命周期成本设计，该设计将平衡系统组件（包括地源换热器和辅助排热装置）的尺寸与相关能源成本的现值。 在许多情况下，对单个组件（尤其是GHX）的大小有空间限制。因此，替代混合设计可任意使用140个钻孔，其尺寸为280个钻孔时示例设计尺寸的一半，并添加辅助散热装置，其尺寸可保持可接受的井田温度。在所有混合动力系统中建模的控制方案在工业上被认为是常见的，并且固有地允许回路温度升高，并且形成了一个有效的基础，在此基础上就全GHX设计和混合动力系统之间的生命周期成本比较得出结论。热泵进水回路温度（EWT）目标被指定为95°F（35°C），但如果由此产生的生命周期成本有利，则可以通过迭代来减少辅助散热装置的尺寸，并允许温度不超过100°F（38°C）的更高温度。DFC的物理尺寸和声学问题是外围考虑因素。 混合动力系统被指定为情况1、2、3和4。简要探讨了进一步减少钻探量的其他模拟，其表明寿命周期成本节约超过40%，总寿命周期成本约为500000美元，并被称为案例1A和案例4A。泵送配置包括使用双独立循环泵、带中央变速增压泵的单循环泵和单中央变速泵。使用双循环泵的基本情况使用了最多的泵能量，而中央变速泵实现了60%的泵能量节约。将采用不同循环泵送方案的中央混合配置的井田与全GHX多吊舱配置进行了比较，并给出了比较的生命周期成本。引用:2016年年度会议，密苏里州圣路易斯，会议论文

Simulations were conducted to make assessments regarding life cycle costs of hybrid ground source heat pump (GSHP) systems with different pumpingconfigurations on an elementary school design in Dallas, Texas, Climate Zone 3A. Long term simulations evaluated the systems' performance over a 20year period. The base case in this study is an all-ground heat exchanger (all-GHX) configuration. A closed circuit cooling tower (CCCT) and dry fluidcooler (DFC) were separately modeled to provide supplemental heat rejection in hybrid systems. Life cycle costs of the hybrid systems presented herein forthe example building are estimated between 35-40% less than an all-GHX configuration. The base case life cycle cost is estimated at $894,000 whilethe hybrid options ranged from $565,000 to $578,000. These likely do not represent the lowest life cycle cost designs which would balance the sizing ofthe system components including the ground source heat exchanger and supplemental heat rejection device with the associated energy costs' present value. Inmany instances, there are space constraints on sizing individual components, most notably the GHX. As such, the alternate hybrid designs arbitrarilyutilize 140 bores which is one-half the size of the example design at 280 bores, with the addition of a supplemental heat rejection device which is sized tomaintain acceptable borefield temperatures.The control scheme modeled in all hybrid systems is considered common in industry, and inherently allows loop temperatures to elevate, andforms a valid basis upon which to make conclusions regarding life cycle cost comparisons between an all-GHX design and Hybrid systems. The heatpump entering water loop temperature (EWT) target was designated as 95°F (35°C), but iterations to reduce the sizing of the supplemental heatrejection device and allow higher temperatures of no more than 100°F (38°C) were acceptable if resultant life cycle costs were favorable. DFC physicalsize and acoustical concerns were peripheral considerations.Hybrid systems are designated as Case 1, 2, 3 & 4. Additional simulations with further reduced borefields are briefly explored whichindicated life cycle costs savings of over 40% with total life cycle costs of around $500,000, and noted as Case 1A and Case 4A. Pumpingconfigurations included the use of dual individual circulator pumps, single circulator pumps with a central variable speed booster pump, and a singlecentral variable speed pump. The base case which utilized dual circulator pumps used the most pump energy, while a central variable speed pumpachieved 60% pump energy savings. Borefields utilizing central hybrid configurations with different circulation pumping schemes are compared to the all-GHX multi-pod configuration and comparative life cycle costs are presented.