Mechanical Engineering / Makina Mühendisliği
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/11147/4129
Browse
2 results
Search Results
Article Citation - WoS: 66Citation - Scopus: 79Piping Network Design of Geothermal District Heating Systems: Case Study for a University Campus(Elsevier Ltd., 2010) Yıldırım, Nurdan; Toksoy, Macit; Gökçen, GüldenGeothermal district heating system design consists of two parts: heating system and piping network design. District heating system design and a case study for a university campus is given in Yildirim et al. [1] in detail. In this study, piping network design optimisation is evaluated based on heat centre location depending upon the cost and common design parameters of piping networks which are pipe materials, target pressure loss (TPL) per unit length of pipes and installation type. Then a case study for the same campus is presented. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd.Article Citation - WoS: 25Citation - Scopus: 32District Heating System Design for a University Campus(Elsevier Ltd., 2006) Yıldırım, Nurdan; Toksoy, Macit; Gökçen Akkurt, Güldenİzmir Institute of Technology campus is in use since 2000 and still under development. At present, heating is provided by individual fuel boilers. On the other hand, the campus has a geothermal resource in its borders with a temperature of 33 °C. Because of this low geothermal fluid temperature; heat pump district heating system is considered for the campus. As an alternative, fuel boiler district heating system is studied. Each heating system is simulated using hourly outdoor temperature data. For the simulations, a control system with constant flow rate and variable return water temperature is used and the main control parameter is the indoor temperature. Various heating regime alternatives have been studied for heat pump district heating system for the various condenser outlet temperature and geothermal fluid flow rate, and two of these alternatives are given in this study. Furthermore, economic analysis has also been done for each heating system alternative based on investment and operational costs. Results indicate that heat pump district heating system has the highest investment but lowest operational cost. The alternatives are evaluated according to internal rate of return method, which shows the profit of the investment and resulted that, the heat pump district heating system has minimum 3.02% profit comparing with the fuel boiler district heating system at the end of the 20-year period.