You are on page 1of 11

Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 238248

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Numerical study of earth-to-air heat exchanger for three different


climates
L. Ramrez-Dvila, J. Xamn , J. Arce, G. lvarez, I. Hernndez-Prez
Centro Nacional de Investigacin y Desarrollo Tecnolgico, CENIDET-DGEST-SEP, Prol. Av. Palmira S/N, Col. Palmira, Cuernavaca, Morelos CP 62490, Mexico

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 2 November 2013
Received in revised form 14 February 2014
Accepted 22 February 2014
Keyword:
Earth-to-air heat exchanger

a b s t r a c t
A numerical study was conducted for prediction the thermal behavior of an Earth-to-Air Heat Exchanger
(EAHE) for three cities in Mxico. The climate conditions correspond to an extreme heat in summer and
low temperature in winter (Cd. Jurez, Chihuahua), mild weather (Mxico city) and hot weather (Mrida,
Yucatn). A Computational Fluid Dynamics code based on the Finite Volume Method has been developed
in order to model the EAHE. Simulations have been conducted for sand, silt and clay soil textures for the
cities of Cd. Jurez, Mxico city and Mrida, respectively. Also, for different Reynolds numbers, Re = 100,
500, 1000, 1500 through one year. For Cd. Jurez, and Mxico city, simulation results reveal that the
thermal performance of the EAHE is better in summer than in winter, decreasing the air temperature in
an average of 6.6 and 3.2 C for summer and increasing it in 2.1 and 2.7 C for winter, respectively. By
contrast for Mrida, EAHE had its best thermal performance in winter, increasing the air temperature in
3.8 C. It is concluded that the use of EAHEs is appropriate for heating or cooling of buildings in lands of
extreme and moderate temperatures where the thermal inertia effect in soil is higher.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Nowdays, most of the energy demand in buildings is used for
air-conditioning, which runs by burning fossil fuels, however, its
high cost and negative environmental impact makes it necessary
to implement passive systems to reduce the energy consumption.
Coupling an earth-to-air heat exchanger to a building is an alternative to improve thermal comfort at low cost, reducing or even
replacing the use of active systems by taking advantage of soils
thermal inertia.
Recent studies aimed to evaluate the temperature proles in soil
are still implementing 1-D analytic formulation proposed over 50
years ago by Carslaw and Jaeger [1], that are still distant from representing reality since they do not consider soils thermophysical
variation [29]. A study of this kind was carried out by Salah ElDin [10], who predicted the variation of the soil temperature with
depth in a 1-D model based on an energy balance at the ground
surface. They considered the variation of the solar radiation, air
temperature and latent heat ux due to evaporation; however, it
was considered that soil has uniform thermophysical properties.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +52 777 3 62 77 70; fax: +52 777 3 62 77 95.
E-mail addresses: atthedrive 7@hotmail.com (L. Ramrez-Dvila),
jxaman@cenidet.edu.mx (J. Xamn), jesuso@cenidet.edu.mx (J. Arce),
gaby@cenidet.edu.mx (G. lvarez), ivan@cenidet.edu.mx (I. Hernndez-Prez).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.02.073
0378-7788/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

In regard with the studies focused in EAHEs, those that are


based in thermodynamics energy balance do not represent the
phenomena in an appropriate way since the air ow through the
pipe is not considered by disregarding its velocity [7,1113]. One of
these studies was conducted by Cucumo et al. [12], who considered
a one-dimensional transient study where thermal perturbation in
soil and water condensation inside of the heat exchanger tubes
were taken in to account. However, the variation of soils thermophysical properties has been disregarded. Costa [14] is the
exception in these kinds of studies, who conducted a thermodynamical study where the air mass ow rate through the pipe is
actually considered, but the study of the soil temperature prole is one-dimensional. Also, it is considered that the convective
coefcient is a known value, but in reality it is not.
On the other hand, by using computational uid dynamics,
most of the numerical studies consider the existence of an air ow
through the pipe in laminar or turbulent ow regime [2,4,1522].
However, these assume that the convective coefcient is a known
parameter, when in a real phenomenon; it is not. From the authors
knowledge, the only work that doesnt consider the convective
coefcient as a known value was published by Sehli et al. [23]. However, the thermal inuence that other dimensions could have in
their results is disregarded, because the study was in 1-D. Another
interesting numerical approach was carried out by Yoon et al. [22]
who modeled the circular pipes as rectangular ducts applying the
same peripheral length as the circular pipe in order to simplify the

L. Ramrez-Dvila et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 238248

Nomenclature
Cp
G
Hy
P
Q
Ra
Re
T
out
Tave
u, v
x, y

specic heat, J kg1 K1


solar radiation, W/m2
depth of the soil, m
pressure, Pa
heat ux, W/m2
Rayleigh number
Reynolds number
temperature, C
air average temperature at the outlet, C
horizontal and vertical velocities, m/s
dimensional coordinates, m

Greek symbols

thermal diffusivity, m2 s1
emissivity


thermal conductivity, W m1 K1

dynamic viscosity, kg m1 s1

density, kg m3
Subscripts
ave
average
cond
conduction heat transfer
convection heat transfer
conv
rad
radiation heat transfer

study without affecting accuracy in the results. This approximation


has been adopted in the present work. A study to consider 3-D earth
modeling was published by Florides et al. [17]. They conducted a
sensitive study of an EAHE with a U pipe conguration using a
3-D mathematical model for heat conduction in earth, and a 1-D
approach for mass air ow and convective heat transfer in the pipe.
It was observed that the larger the diameter of the pipe, the more
heat ux will be transferred to the soil. Same effect is also obtained
by increasing soils thermal conductivity. Bojic et al. [16] proposed
a model for multi-pipes. However, the heat transfer between the
side pipes is not considered since a one-dimensional model was
used to predict temperature in the ground.
In regard to the experimental studies, they provide reliable
results describing EAHE thermal behavior under specic conditions [24,25] and its importance lies in the fact that they establish
the basis for validation of theoretical studies. However, the nancial investment and time required to set them up are high, which
represents a restriction for this kind of studies. Amara et al. [26]
determined the viability of using an EAHE for air-conditioning in
a building in Adrar, Algeria. The pipe was buried in a depth where
climatic changes in the surface cant inuence soils temperature,
which is close to the average annual temperature. Therefore, the air
at the outlet of the pipe has the tendency to reach this temperature
the whole year, lowering the thermal impact from the outdoor temperature. Ozgener et al. [27] conducted an exergoeconomic test to
determine the optimal design of an EAHE for a greenhouse in Izmir,
Turquia. The results show that the main sources of exergy destruction are the pipe and the fan. The fan is a main source of exergy
destruction due to losses related with mechanical and electrical
efciencies. They concluded that the implementation of methodologies aimed in thermo-economical optimization can contribute
in nding the optimal design for an EAHE.
Based on this brief literature review for the studies aimed to
evaluate the ground temperature prole, it is concluded that analytical one-dimensional formulations proposed more than 50 years
ago [1] continue to be implemented. Such formulations do not
take in to account elements that allow obtaining more realistic

239

Table 1
Geometric dimensions for the EAHE.
Section

Dimension

Soils depth
Pipe depth
Pipe diameter
Pipe length
Length of soil at left and right sides

Hy = 12 m
Hy3 = 10 m
Hx2 = Hx4 = Hy2 = 0.15 m
Hx3 = 5 m
Hx1 = Hx5 = 0.5 m

results, like the variation of soils thermophysical properties. When


it comes to heat exchanger studies, those based in thermodynamics
energy balance do not represent the phenomena in an appropriate way since the air velocity is considered negligible, therefore,
the air ow through the pipe is not taken in to account. On the
other hand, most of the numerical models do consider the presence of an air ow going through the pipe in a laminar or turbulent
regime. Nevertheless, it is assumed that the convective coefcient
is a known value, when in reality it is not. It is worth mentioning
that Sehli et al. [23] do not consider that the convective coefcient
is a known quantity. However, they used a one-dimensional heat
transfer model for the pipe, disregarding the inuence that a second
dimension could have on the results. Furthermore, experimental
studies contribute with reliable results about the thermal behavior
of an EAHE under certain conditions. Its importance lies in the fact
that they constitute the basis for validation of theoretical studies
but the cost of investment and installation time required are high,
which is a limiting factor in this kind of studies.
According to this, it is important to conduct new studies based
on more accurate considerations in order to get results closer to
reality. Therefore, considerations in the present work allow a conjugated heat transfer bi-dimensional study between the pipe and
the soil (EAHE), which is the goal of this article. Additionally, the
convective coefcient is not considered as a known value. The EAHE
thermal behavior is evaluated under Cd. Jurez, Mxico city and
Mridas climatic conditions for one year in order to determine its
impact at the outlet pipe temperature.
2. Physical model
The system subject to study in the present work is shown in
Fig. 1 (where its boundaries are delimited by dashed lines). For the
theoretical study of soil the following considerations are made: (a)
Energy transfer is bi-dimensional, (b) Temperature in soil remains
constant after 10 m depth and reaches the outdoors annual average
temperature and (c) Evaporation of water is only considered in the
surface of the ground. For the study of the pipe, the following considerations are taken into account: (d) Pipes circular cross section
is modeled as a square cross section. Also, the thermal inuence
of the pipe is disregarded due to its thickness; it is so small that it
is negligible, (e) Condensation and evaporation inside of the pipe
are not taken into account, (f) The dominant heat transfer mechanism is convection and (g) The air is in a laminar ow regime. The
consideration (d) is adopted to simplify the calculations using the
Cartesian coordinate system without affecting the accuracy in the
results [4,22].
The geometric dimensions of the EAHE system are shown in
Table 1.
3. Mathematical model
Soil is considered a solid medium where heat is transferred
by conduction. On the other hand, there is convective heat transfer in laminar ow regime through the pipe, and a heat exchange
between the walls of the pipe and the soil. These phenomena are

240

L. Ramrez-Dvila et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 238248

Fig. 1. EAHE physical model with boundary conditions.

modeled in the Cartesian coordinate system and described by continuity, momentum and energy equations [28]:
(u)
(v)
+
=0
x
y

(1)

(uu)
(vu)
P
u
=
+
+

y
x
x
x
x

(vv)
P
v
(uv)

+

=
+
x
y
y
x
x
(uT )
(vT )

+
=
x
y
x

 T
CP x

u

y
y

v
+

y
y

 T
CP y


(2)


(3)

3.1. North boundary (y = 0)

T
 |y=0 = CE LR + SR LE
y
where

a) CE is the convective energy exchanged between the air and soil


surface:
(6)

Tamb is the air temperature above the ground surface and hsur
is the convective heat transfer coefcient at the soil surface and
can be calculated from the following equation:


hsur = 5.678

 vel

wind

0.304

vel

0.775 + 0.35

wind

0.304



if velwind < 4.88

0.78 

(10)

is a coefcient depending on the ground surface absorptivity


and its illumination and G is the incident solar energy (W/m2 ).
d) LE is the latent heat ux from the ground surface due to evaporation.
(11)

3.2. South boundary (y = Hy)


(5)

CE = hsur (Tamb )

(9)

is the emissivity of the ground surface and R is a term


which depends on the relative humidity of the ground and the
air above the ground surface, on the effective sky temperature
and on the soil radiative properties. A value of 63 W/m2 is a good
approximation for this variable [11].
c) SR is the solar radiation absorbed from the ground surface:

LE = 0.0168 fhsur [(aTamb + b) HR (aTamb + b)]

The next energy balance [7] is used for the ground surface:

LR = R

SR = G
(4)

The boundary conditions for the above equations are as following.

hsur = 5.678 0.775 + 0.35

b) LR is the long-wave radiation for horizontal surfaces:

(7)

if velwind 4.88 (8)

Ground temperature remains constant beyond this boundary


(10 m depth), which approaches the annual average air temperature [21]. Therefore, it can be considered: T
= 0.
y
3.3. East and west boundaries (x = 0 and x = Hx)
Adiabatic conditions are used for this boundary since any ther= 0.
mal inuence coming from these boundaries is disregarded: T
x
On the other hand, pipes boundary conditions are as follows.
3.4. Inlet air
It is at the outdoorss temperature and constant velocity (v =
f (Re), u = 0) which is in function of four different Reynolds
numbers.

L. Ramrez-Dvila et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 238248

241

Table 3
Average Nusselt number in the hot wall for aspect ratios of 2, 4, 6 and 10.

Fig. 2. Non-uniform grid.

3.5. Outlet air


Developed ow conditions are used for temperature and velocv
ity: T
= 0, u
= 0 and y
= 0.
y
y
The system is treated as if it all were a uid. Therefore,
thermophysical properties assigned are variable according to the
location in the system, where its values are recalculated at the
control-volume faces by interpolations. Subsequently, a blockingoff method is used, which consists of setting up the velocity
components equal to zero in the solid region, this way, the hydrodynamic effect in soil gets restricted and heat transfer is then
governed only by conduction.
4. Methodology
In order to solve the governing equations, a CFD code based in
the nite volume method (FVM) has been implemented, which consists of generating a grid by sub-dividing the domain in to smaller
sub-domains, where  is transported [28]. In this case, it is necessary to use a non-uniform grid renement that is ner in the
areas with the larger  variations. The non-uniform grid generated
is shown in Fig. 2, its size changes depending on the position (Nx1 ,
Nx2 , Nx3 , Ny1 , Ny2 y Ny3 ).
It is intended to nd the value of  for the internal nodes, which
is transported from the external nodes; where its value is given by
the systems boundary conditions that have been set up since the
beginning. In order to know the internal nodes value for , it is necessary to establish a system of algebraic equations by discretizing
the differential equations that govern the physical phenomenon by
integrating its terms over the control volume. Finally, this leads to
the discretization equation [28]:
aP P = aE E + aW W + aN N + aS S + b

Ra

Mohamad et al. [30]

Present study

Absolute differences
percentage (%)

A=2
103
104
105
106

4.34
4.28
5.91
12

4.10
4.03
5.92
11.82

5.53
5.78
0.25
1.52

A=4
103
104
105
106

4.23
4.18
5.35
10.42

3.99
3.95
5.26
10.34

6.63
5.51
1.53
0.76

A=6
103
104
105
106

4.21
4.18
5.10
9.61

3.96
3.93
5.01
9.65

5.96
5.88
1.73
0.37

A = 10
103
104
105
106

4.18
4.17
4.81
8.58

3.94
3.92
4.69
8.64

5.82
5.94
2.56
0.81

calculate, that increases nonlinearity of the equations. This problem has been tackled by implementing the SIMPLEC algorithm, a
pressure-velocity coupling technique that allows calculating the
ow eld [29].
It is known that the solution of the algebraic equations
approaches the exact solution once a pre-establish convergence
criterion is reached, which has to be rigorous enough to warranty
that the change of  in the subsequent iterations is negligible. In
the present work the convergence criterion for all the unknown
variables is 1010 .
The methodology previously described can be summarized as
follows:

(12)

Since in the governing differential equation for convectiondiffusion the velocities eld is unknown, they need to be calculated.
Velocity is governed by the momentum equations, where a pressure term is included, which is another unknown variable to
Table 2
Nodes distribution in EAHE.
Section

Number of nodes

Nx1 , Nx5
Nx2 , Nx4 , Ny2
Nx3
Ny1
Ny3

21
71
91
41
201

Fig. 3. C-shaped thermosyphon physical model.

242

L. Ramrez-Dvila et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 238248

1.0

(b)

0.6

0.6
*

0.8

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

Experimental Results
Present Study

0.0
-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

1.2

(d) 0.4

1.0

0.3

0.8

0.2

0.6

0.1

0.8

Experimental Results
Present Study

0.0

0.4

0.6

Experimental Results
Present Study

0.0

-0.4

(c)

1.0

0.8

(a)

-0.1

0.2

-0.2

Experimental Results
Present Study

0.0
-0.2

-0.3
-0.4

-0.4
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0.0 0.5

3.0

1.0 1.5 2.0

2.5 3.0

Fig. 4. Comparison of the u -velocity between Nielsen (1990) and the present study in: x = 1.0, (b) x = 2.0, (c) y = 0.972 y (d) y = 0.028.

Table 4
Climatic conditions in Cd. Jurez, Chihuahua for the year 2010.
Month

Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

Average temp. ( C)

8.1
10.4
14.9
19.4
25.0
28.2
28.7
27.3
24.2
19.2
12.0
7.3

Average data corresponding to the


representative day of the month

Data corresponding to the


representative day of the month
Representative day of the month

Max temp. ( C)

Min temp. ( C)

RH (%)

Irradiance (W/m2 )

Wind speed (m/s)

31-Jan
22-Feb
17-Mar
11-Apr
20-May
19-Jun
9-Jul
19-Aug
4-Sep
11-Oct
11-Nov
18-Dec

25.3
31.1
33.3
33.6
31.3
29.1

-0.6
3.2
7.5

11.3
3.3
0.8

53.3
36.8
30.0
26.5
22.0
18.2
38.5
50.3
42.1
39.0
48.1
42.7

312.3
461.1
392.8
593.3
715.8
565.3
574.0
282.0
316.9
394.6
339.5
415.2

3.4
4.3
4.8
3.4
2.2
5.3
4.6
2.9
2.1
1.5
3.2
3.2

L. Ramrez-Dvila et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 238248

243

Table 5
Climatic conditions in Mxico city for the year 2010.
Month

Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

Average temp. ( C)

13.8
15.5
17.5
18.8
19.1
18.0
17.7
17.6
17.0
16.6
14.6
13.9

Average data corresponding to the


representative day of the month

Data corresponding to the


representative day of the month
Representative day of the month

Max temp. ( C)

13-Jan
15-Feb
3-Mar
12-Apr
20-May
6-Jun
25-Jul
14-Aug
10-Sep
7-Oct
7-Nov
2-Dec

27.2
28.0
27.9
25.1
25.0
25.2

Min temp. ( C)
1.8
4.1
6.8

7.0
3.1
3.2

RH (%)

Irradiance (W/m2 )

Wind speed (m/s)

43.0
40.0
33.0
40.0
46.0
58.0
63.0
64.0
69.0
63.0
55.0
49.0

369.8
408.0
462.5
451.7
570.4
380.5
375.6
382.7
328.6
329.5
380.6
359.8

2.4
7.0
3.3
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.0
3.0
2.9
3.0
2.7
2.3

Table 6
Climatic conditions in Mrida, Yucatn for the year 2010.
Month

Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Average temp. ( C)

21.5
23.9
26.4
28.1
30.0
28.8
28.8
28.1
27.2
26.4
23.7
22.6

Average data corresponding to the


representative day of the month

Data corresponding to the


representative day of the month
Representative day of the month

Max temp. ( C)

Min temp. ( C)

RH (%)

Irradiance (W/m2 )

Wind speed (m/s)

12-Jan
15-Feb
9-Mar
11-Apr
20-May
15-Jun
21-Jul
19-Aug
3-Sept
1-Oct
3-Nov
26-Dec

39.6
41.2
38.2
38.4
37.0
36.3

10.1
12.0
14.3

16.8
14.2
12.3

70.0
68.0
63.0
64.0
63.0
71.0
72.0
73.0
76.0
75.0
75.0
73.0

458.0
643.1
659.2
639.7
704.3
555.8
489.5
568.0
619.0
590.3
489.8
508.1

3.8
4.3
8.8
3.0
2.1
1.4
1.9
3.1
0.4
2.9
3.8
2.9

Assignment of initial parameters.


Grid generation.
Assignment of properties whose value depends on the position.
Assignment of guessed u, v, p, T elds.
Implementation of SIMPLEC algorithm to solve u, v and p.
Solve the energy equation to nd the T eld.
Apply the convergence criterion.
Repeat the procedure iteratively until the convergence criterion
is satised.

A grid independence study has been conducted in order to


ensure the reliability of the obtained results. A Reynolds number
of 1500 has been used since it is the maximum ow applied in this
study. For Nx3 (shown in Fig. 2), the study has been performed for
a number of nodes of 71, 81, 91, 101 and 111, while a large xed
Table 7
Inlet and outlet average temperatures ( C) in function of Reynolds number for a year
(Cd. Jurez).
Month

Inlet temperature

out
Nutlet average temperature Tave

Re = 100
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

0.6
3.2
7.5
25.3
31.1
33.3
33.6
31.3
29.1
11.3
3.3
0.8

1.6
4.6
5.9
19.8
27.4
23.6
25.5
24.4
22.8
13.7
4.7
3.8

Re = 500
1.8
4.8
6.1
19.9
27.4
23.6
25.5
24.4
22.8
13.7
4.9
4

Re = 1000

Re = 1500

2.1
5
6.4
20
27.3
23.7
25.6
24.4
22.9
13.8
5.1
4.2

2.4
5.3
6.7
20.1
27.1
23.8
25.6
24.4
22.9
13.8
5.4
4.5

number of nodes have been assigned for other grid segments to


make sure they dont inuence the study. It was found that after
using a grid with 91 nodes for Nx3 there were no signicant changes
in the temperature and velocities. Comparing the grids of 91 and
101 nodes, it was observed that the outlet average temperature
changes in 0.01%, while the velocity v changes in 3.19 105 m/s,
which makes a difference of 0.07%. On the other hand, the segments
Nx2 , Nx4 and Ny2 have been assigned with a number of nodes of 51,
61, 71, 81 and 91. According to the previous grid independence
study, Nx3 has been xed to 91 nodes. In this case, the 71 nodes
grid has been chosen over the others, since the average temperature at the outlet changes in 0.009% compared with the 81 nodes
grid, while the variation of velocity v is 3.5 104 m/s, which represents a difference of 2.06%. The nal node distribution after the
grid independence study is shown in Table 2.
In order to verify the developed code, the problem Natural Convection in C-Shaped Thermosyphon reported by Mohamad et al.
[30] has been solved (Fig. 3). The results obtained were compared
with those reported by Mohamad et al. [30] in a range that varies
from Ra = 103 to 106 and aspect ratios of 2, 4, 6 and 10. The Prandtl
number is considered 0.7. The width of the channel is 1/4L. A 2-D
steady convective heat transfer is considered in the thermosyphon,
in a laminar ow regime. The hot wall remains at a constant temperature TH , while the cold wall temperature is TC . The lower and
upper boundaries are adiabatic. The inlet air temperature is constant and equal to ambient temperature, TC . The nature of the ow
is caused only by natural convection. No velocities are imposed at
the inlet or outlet of the channel. The uid is incompressible with
constant thermophysical properties, considering the Boussinesq
approximation.
In Table 3 it is shown a quantitative comparison for the average
Nusselt number in the hot wall reported by Mohamad et al. [30].

244

L. Ramrez-Dvila et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 238248

For the aspect ratio A = 2, Ra = 105 shows the smaller difference with
0.25%, while Ra = 104 the larger one with 5.78%. For the aspect ratios
of A = 4 and A = 6, Ra = 103 is the larger difference reported with
6.63% and 5.96%. Finally, for A = 10, Ra = 104 shows the larger difference with 5.94%. This comparison reveals that the results obtained
are satisfactory.
Also, in order to validate the numerical code, a comparison against the experimental results reported by Nielsen [31]
was made. The isothermal ventilated cavity has the following
dimensions: 3.0 m 3.0 m 9.0 m (Height, H = 3.0 m). The air enters
through an aperture located in the upper side of the left wall and
leaves the cavity by an aperture on the lower side of the right wall;
all the walls were considered adiabatic. The inlet gap is 0.056 H
and the outlet gap is 0.16 H. Fig. 4 shows results for the nondimensional velocity horizontal component u* for four different
non-dimensional sections of the cavity. Fig. 4a and b shows velocities along y* on the positions x* = 1.0 and x* = 2.0, in the same way,
Fig. 4c and d shows velocities along x* on the position y* = 0.972
and y* = 0.028. It can be concluded from both gures that numerical results have an acceptable qualitative approximation, and from
a quantitative point of view, the maximum error respect to the
experimental results is 16.14%.

5. Results
The numerical results obtained for the conjugated heat transfer for the EAHE are shown. A laminar ow regime in function of
Reynolds number is considered for monthly climatic conditions in
Cd. Jurez, Mxico city and Mrida for 12 months over sand, silt and
clay, respectively.
The meteorological conditions for Cd. Jurez, Mxico city and
Mrida during a year are shown in Tables 46, where the following information was reported: a monthly average ambient
temperature; a representative day for each month, which registers
the corresponding maximum or minimum monthly temperature
for the hot or cold season; nally, the daily averages of relative
humidity (HR), incident diurnal solar radiation and wind speed
corresponding to the representative day are shown. The variable
parameters entered in the simulation code consist of Reynolds
numbers of 100, 500, 1000 and 1500 for each month of the
year.
For results analysis, the effect of Reynolds number in the EAHE
for Cd. Jurez will primarily be shown. Subsequently, the thermal
evaluation for the three cities (Cd. Jurez, Mxico city and Mrida)
will be presented.

Re=100
T out
T in

Re=500
T out
T in
34

32

32

30

30
o

T( C)

T( C)

34

28

28

26

26

24

24

5.64

5.66

5.68

5.70

5.72

5.74

5.76

5.78

5.80

5.82

5.64

5.66

5.68

5.70

5.72

x(m)

5.74

5.76

5.78

5.80

5.82

x(m)

Re=1000
T out
T in

Re=1500
T out
T in

34
34

32

32

30
o

T( C)

T( C)

30

28

28

26

26
24

24
5.64

5.66

5.68

5.70

5.72

x(m)

5.74

5.76

5.78

5.80

5.82

5.64

5.66

5.68

5.70

5.72

5.74

5.76

x(m)

Fig. 5. Temperature prole at the inlet and outlet of the EAHE for Re = 100, 500, 1000 and 1500 for July (Cd. Jurez).

5.78

5.80

5.82

L. Ramrez-Dvila et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 238248

5.1. Reynolds number effect

the heat loses in winter are reduced as the Re is increased. As it is


explained in Section 5.2, for the month of July, the temperature at
the pipes outlet tends to remain constant regardless the Re.
The air velocity at the pipes inlet which is in function of
Reynolds number has taken values of 100, 500, 1000 and 1500 as
mentioned before. These values are below the critic Reynolds number since it has been assumed that air ows in a laminar regime.
The maximum difference between the velocities at the pipes outlet
for Re = 100 and Re = 1500 is 0.0011 m/s.

In this section, the inuence of Reynolds number (Re) in the convective heat transfer taking place inside of the pipe is discussed. To
do so, the weather conditions of Cd. Jurez were chosen. Therefore,
the results shown below have only been evaluated for sandy soil.
The temperature proles at the pipes outlet for July and January
(months that registered the highest and lowest ambient temperature in the year) in function of Reynolds number are shown in
Figs. 5 and 6. It is observed that the temperature prole at the outlet of the pipe for January is a parabolic curve that reaches higher
temperature values as the Reynolds number increases. This contradicts the results obtained by [5], where it is reported that as the Re
increases, EAHEs efciency decreases. This is because a higher ow
velocity reduces the contact of the air with the pipe, decreasing the
amount of heat exchanged with the soil. However, in several studies the physical model considers that the EAHE is just composed
of a horizontal pipe, disregarding the effect that the vertical tube
sections have in the heat transfer. It was found for this case that
the effect obtained from those vertical tube sections was negative
since the thermal energy gained for the pipe is lost once it gets in
contact with the cold soil near to the surface. This explains why

5.2. Thermal evaluation.


For the thermal evaluation of the EAHE, the average temperature
values at the pipes outlet are shown along with a qualitative and
quantitative comparison with the air temperature at the inlet.
Table 7 shows the variation of the average air temperature at the
out ) in function of the Reynolds number for Cd. Jurez.
EAHE outlet (Tave
From the results in Table 7, it can also be observed that the variation
out tend to increase from January to July, and to decrease from
of Tave
out reached
July to December, with the exception of May where Tave
the highest value in the year because this month has the highest incident solar radiation. During the cold season, a comparison
Re=500
T out
T in

Re=100
T out
T in

T( C)

T( C)

245

-1

-1
5.64

5.66

5.68

5.70

5.72

5.74

5.76

5.78

5.80

5.82

5.64

5.66

5.68

5.70

x(m)

5.72

5.74

5.76

5.78

Re=1000
T out
T in

5.82

Re=1500
T out
T in

T( C)

T( C)

5.80

x(m)

-1

-1

5.64

5.66

5.68

5.70

5.72

x(m)

5.74

5.76

5.78

5.80

5.82

5.64

5.66

5.68

5.70

5.72

5.74

5.76

x(m)

Fig. 6. Temperature prole at the inlet and outlet of the EAHE for Re = 100, 500, 1000 and 1500 for January (Cd. Jurez).

5.78

5.80

5.82

246

L. Ramrez-Dvila et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 238248

Fig. 7. Isotherms in soil for: a) January and b) May.

out obtained with Re = 100 and with Re = 1500, indibetween the Tave
cates an average difference of 19%. For heating purposes, the EAHE
behaved better with higher Re; a higher velocity does not let the
uid stay long enough in contact with the cold soil near the surface, what diminishes the loss of heat. In this city, the increase of air
temperature provided by the EAHE averaged 2.1 C. In December,
the EAHE was able increase the air temperature up to 3.7 C above
the inlet temperature. On the other hand, during warm months,
out
the Reynolds number did not have a signicant inuence on Tave
since the temperature variations in the soil are small. The EAHE had
a more important contribution for cooling than for heating, in all
warm months (from April to September) the EAHE highly decreased
the temperature. The reductions of temperature averaged 6.6 C. In
June, the EAHE provided the maximum cooling effect; it reduced
the air temperature up to 9.7 C. As can be seen in Fig. 7, the EAHE
does not require to be buried in great depths to work appropriately, after 2 m depth the temperature of the soil remains constant
for summer and winter.
out in function of Reynolds number for Mexico
Fig. 8 presents Tave
City. For all months and Reynolds numbers, the EAHE behaves as
out increased during the cold months (JanMar,
expected; the Tave
out decreased during the hot months (AprSep).
OctDec) and the Tave
out for all months;
The Reynolds number has a small inuence on Tave

the maximum variation of temperature was 0.7 C corresponding to


the cold season. In the case of cold months, the EAHE increased the
temperature between 1.5 and 3.7 C with Re = 1500, and increased it
between 0.9 and 3.1 C with Re = 100. On the other hand, for cooling
purposes the EAHE worked better. The EAHE decreased the temperature between 1.9 and 5.4 C with Re = 1500, and decreased it
between 1.6 and 5.4 C with Re = 100.
For the case of Mrida, Table 8 presents the average air temperout ) during the year as function of
ature at the outlet of the EAHE (Tave
Reynolds number. The EAHE achieved its objective for all months
out
in cold season (JanMar and OctDec); it was able to increase Tave
out
regardless of the Reynolds number. The maximum variation of Tave
towards Re was 0.8 C for this season. The heating effect provided
by the EAHE ranged from 3 to 4.8 C with Re = 1500, and from 2.4 to
4.8 C with Re = 100. Unlike its behavior for heating, the EAHE had a
poor performance for cooling in this city. During the hot season, the
out only in 3 months (Apr, Aug and Sep), the maxiEAHE decreased Tave
mum decrease was just 1.7 C for April. For the other 3 months (May,
out . This behavior depends on the
Jun and Jul) the EAHE increased Tave
combination of the different parameters involved in the EAHE system (climatic conditions, soil thermal inertia, the considerations
in the physical and mathematical model, etc.). From the combination of the parameters, the relative humidity (RH) is the one that
out . The city of Mrida has relative humidity values
mainly affects Tave

Table 8
Inlet and outlet average temperatures ( C) in function of Reynolds number for a year
(Mrida).
Month

Inlet temperature

Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

10.1
12.0
14.3
39.6
41.2
38.2
38.4
37.0
36.3
16.8
14.2
12.3

out
Outlet average temperature Tave

Re = 100

Re = 500

Re = 1000

12.5
15.4
17
38.7
43.4
43.2
39.9
37.5
36.1
21.6
16.7
16.4

12.7
15.5
17.1
38.5
43.1
42.8
39.6
37.3
35.8
21.6
16.9
16.5

13.0
15.7
17.3
38.2
42.6
42.3
39.3
37
35.5
21.6
17.0
16.7

Re = 1500
13.3
15.9
17.5
37.9
42.1
41.7
38.9
36.6
35.2
21.6
17,2
16.8

greater than 60% during all the year, which causes an increment
of the soil temperature. Therefore, by increasing the soil temperature, the uid toward the outlet of the EAHE signicantly raises
its temperature. Then, to avoid the undesirable gains of heat, it is
recommended to insulate the vertical section at the outlet of the
EAHE. This modication will be analyzed in a future work.
Finally, Table 9 presents the temperature difference (Tave )
out ) and the inlet (T inlet ) of the EAHE for the
between the outlet (Tave
ave
three selected cities during the year. These values are given for
Re = 1500. The results in the table demonstrate that the use of EAHE
is appropriate for heating or cooling in locations with extreme and
moderate climates, and not for humid hot climates.

Table 9
Average temperature difference ( C) between the outlet and inlet temperature for
Re = 1500 for Cd. Jurez, Mxico City and Mrida.
Month

Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

out
inlet
Tave = Tave
Tave

Cd. Jurez

Mxico city

1.8
2.1
0.8
5.2
4.0
9.5
8.0
6.9
6.2
2.5
2.1
3.7

3.7
2.1
1.5
5.4
3.5
3.9
2.3
2
1.9
1.9
3.5
3.5

Mrida
3.2
3.9
3.2
1.7
0.9
3.5
0.5
0.4
1.1
4.8
3
4.5

L. Ramrez-Dvila et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 238248

247

Fig. 8. Inlet and outlet average temperatures ( C) in function of Reynolds number for a year (Mxico city).

6. Conclusions

Acknowledgement

In this work the numerical analysis for the thermal performance


in a two-dimensional EAHE is presented. From the results we can
conclude the following:
out obtained
For Cd. Jurez, it was observed, that comparing the Tave
for Re = 100 and Re = 1500 during winter season, an average difference of 19% was obtained, which tends to increase along with Re.
This is because a higher velocity in the ow reduces the interaction
with the cold soil near the surface, decreasing the energy loss. On
the other hand, during the hot season, it was shown that an increase
of 26.63% in the incident radiation on the soil surface can increase
out in 13.98%. Therefore, in order to avoid undesirable gain or
the Tave
loss of heat, it is recommended to insulate the vertical section of
the outlet pipe. It was also shown that the higher temperature variations are located within the rst 2 m depth in the soil, therefore,
it is not necessary to bury the pipe to greater depths.
Also, it was observed that for Cd. Jurez and Mxico city, results
reveal that the thermal performance of the EAHE is better in summer than in winter, decreasing the air temperature in an average of
6.6 and 3.2 C for summer and increasing it in 2.1 and 2.7 C for winter, respectively. By contrast for Mrida EAHE had its best thermal
performance in winter, increasing the air temperature in 3.8 C.
In general, it is concluded that the use of EAHEs is appropriate
for heating or cooling of buildings in lands of extreme and moderate
temperatures where the thermal inertia effect in soil is higher.

The authors are grateful to the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y


Tecnologa (CONACYT), whose nancial support made this work
possible.
References
[1] H. Carslaw, J. Jaeger, Conduction of Heat in Solids, Oxford at the Claredon Press,
1959.
[2] R. Cichota, E.A. Elias, Quirijn de Jong van Lier, Testing a nite-difference model
for soil heat transfer by comparing numerical and analytical solutions, Environmental Modeling 19 (2004) 495506.
[3] M. De Paepe, A. Janssens, Thermo-hydraulic design of earth-air heat exchangers, Energy and Buildings 35 (2003) 389397.
[4] C. Gauthier, M. Lacroix, H. Bernier, Numerical simulation of soil heat exchangerstorage system for greenhouses, Solar Energy 60 (1997) 333346.
[5] G. Mihalakakou, M. Santamouris, D. Asimakopoulos, Modelling the thermal
performance of earth-to-air heat exchangers, Solar Energy 53 (1994) 301305.
[6] G. Mihalakakou, M. Santamouris, D. Asimakopoulos, N. Papanikolau, Impact
of ground cover on the efciencies of earth-to-air heat exchangers, Applied
Energy 48 (1994) 1932.
[7] G. Mihalakakou, M. Santamouris, D. Asimakopoulos, On the application of the
energy balance equation to predict ground temperature, Solar Energy 60 (1997)
181190.
[8] P. Tittelein, G. Achard, E. Wurtz, Modeling earth-to-air heat exchanger behavior with the convolutive response factors method, Applied Energy 86 (2009)
16831691.
[9] S. Thiers, B. Peuportier, Thermal and environmental assessment of a passive
building equipped with an earth-to-air heat exchanger in France, Solar Energy
82 (2008) 820831.

248

L. Ramrez-Dvila et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 238248

[10] M.M. Salah El-Din, On the heat ow into the ground, Renewable Energy 18
(1999) 473490.
[11] V. Badescu, Simple and accurate model for the ground heat exchanger of a
passive house, Renewable Energy 32 (2007) 845855.
[12] M. Cucumo, S. Cucumo, L. Montoro, A. Vulcano, A one-dimensional transient
analytical model for earth-to-air heat exchangers, taking into account condensation phenomena and thermal perturbation from the upper free surface as well
as around the buried pipes, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 51
(2008) 506516.
[13] P. Hollmuller, B. Lachal, Cooling and preheating with buried pipe systems:
monitoring, simulation and economic aspects, Energy and Buildings 33 (2001)
509518.
[14] V.A.F. Costa, Thermodinamic analysis of building heating or cooling using the
soil as heat reservoir, Heat and Mass Transfer 49 (2006) 41524160.
[15] A. Benazza, E. Blanco, M. Aichouba, Jos Luis Ro, S. Laouedj, Numerical investigation of horizontal ground coupled heat exchanger, Energy Procedia 6 (2011)
2935.
[16] M. Bojic, N. Trifunovic, G. Papadakis, S. Kyritsis, Numerical simulation, technical
and economic evaluation of air-to-earth heat exchanger coupled to a building,
Energy 22 (1997) 11511158.
[17] G. Florides, P. Christodoulides, P. Pouloupatis, An analysis of heat ow
through a borehole heat exchanger validated model, Applied Energy 92 (2012)
523533.
[18] R. Misra, V. Bansal, G. Das Agrawal, J. Mathur, T.K. Aseri, CFD analysis based
parametric study of derating factor for earth air tunnel heat exchanger, Applied
Energy 103 (2012) 266277.
[19] M. Santamouris, G. Mihalakakou, C.A. Balaras, J.O. Lewis, M. Vallindras, A.
Argiriou, Energy conservation in greenhouses with buried pipes, Energy 21
(1995) 353360.

[20] M. Santamouris, G. Mihalakakou, C.A. Balaras, A. Argiriou, D.N. Asimakopoulos,


On the performance of buildings coupled with earth to air heat exchangers,
Solar Energy 54 (1995) 375380.
[21] Su.H. Xiao-Bing Liu, Jing-Yu Mu, A numerical model of a deeply buried airearth-tunnel heat exchanger, Energy and Buildings 48 (2012) 233239.
[22] G. Yoon, H. Tanaka, M. Okimiya, Study on the design procedure for a multicool/heat tube system, Solar Energy 83 (2009) 14151424.
[23] A. Sehli, A. Hasni, M. Tamali, The potential of earth-air heat exchanger for
low energy cooling of buildings in South Algeria, Energy Procedia 18 (2012)
496506.
[24] M. Bojic, G. Papadakis, S. Kyritsis, Energy from a two-pipe, earth-to-air heat
exchanger, Energy 24 (1999) 519523.
[25] P. Roth, A. Georgiev, A. Busso, E. Barraza, First in situ determination of ground
and borehole thermal properties in Latin America, Renewable Energy 29 (2004)
19471963.
[26] S. Amara, B. Nordell, B. Benyoucef, Using fouggara for heating and cooling
buildings in Sahara, Energy Procedia 6 (2011) 5564.
[27] O. Ozgener, L. Ozgener, Determining the optimal design of a closed loop earth to
air heat exchager for heating by using exergoeconomics, Energy and Buildings
43 (2011) 960965.
[28] S.V. Patankar, Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, Hemisphere Publishing,
Washington, 1980.
[29] J. Van Doormaal, G. Raithby, Enhancements of the SIMPLE method for
predicting incompressible uid ow, Numerical Heat Transfer 7 (1984)
147163.
[30] A.A. Mohamad, I. Sezai, Natural convection in C-shaped thermosyphon, Numerical Heat Transfer, Part A 32 (1997) 311323.
[31] P. Nielsen, Specication of a two dimensional test case, Energy Conservation in
Buildings and Community System, Annex 20, Denmark, 1990.

You might also like