Renewable Energy 167 (2021) 530e541

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Field experiments on the effects of an earth-to-air heat exchanger on

the indoor thermal environment in summer and winter for a typical
hot-summer and cold-winter region
Haibin Wei a, b, Dong Yang a, b, *, Jinhui Du a, b, Xin Guo a, b
a
School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing, 400045, China
b
National Centre for International Research of Low-carbon and Green Buildings, Chongqing University, Chongqing, 400045, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An earth-to-air heat exchanger (EAHE) is a shallow geothermal energy utilization technology, which can
Received 13 August 2020 significantly reduce the building energy consumption. This study aims to investigate the effects of an
Received in revised form EAHE on the indoor thermal environment in hot-summer and cold-winter regions. A full-scale experi-
11 November 2020
ment was conducted for a continuous 24 h period using two identical buildings (with and without an
Accepted 21 November 2020
Available online 24 November 2020
EAHE) exposed to the same outdoor conditions on typical summer and winter days. Experimental results
show that the EAHE provides an average outdoor air temperature reduction of 9.12
C under cooling
conditions and increase of 5.53
C under heating conditions. Moreover, the average outdoor air relative
Keywords:
Earth-to-air heat exchanger
humidity increases by 46.89% and decreases by 27.41% in the cooling and heating conditions, respec-
Building energy tively; the corresponding average EAHE coefficients of performance (COP) are 7.03 and 4.26, respectively.
Indoor thermal environment Compared to that of the building without EAHE, the average indoor air temperature of the building with
Ventilation EAHE decreases by 5.9
C in summer and increases by 4.29
C in winter, and the average walls’ internal
surface temperature decreases by approximately 6
C and increases by approximately 5.8
C. Moreover,
the EAHE system reduces the average building cooling and heating loads by 55.4 and 40.43 W/m2,
respectively.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Energy consumption in the building sector accounts for
approximately 40% of the total global energy consumption, and a
major portion of this (approximately 32e33%) is used for space
heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems [1]. Most of the
energy required for these purposes is derived from non-renewable
fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, which can cause
serious problems like environmental pollution and energy short-
ages. Accordingly, renewable energy alternatives have been widely
investigated to achieve indoor thermal comfort and reduce energy
consumption and carbon emissions [2e4]. In recent years, earth-to-
air heat exchangers (EAHEs), also called ground air tubes or earth-
air-tube ventilation systems, have attracted considerable attention
as a shallow geothermal energy efficient utilization technology
* Corresponding author. School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University,
Chongqing, 400045, China.
E-mail address: yangdong@cqu.edu.cn (D. Yang).
owing to its simple structure and low maintenance operability [5].
Owing to the high thermal inertia of soil, the underground soil
temperature variation lags behind the outdoor air temperature, and
the soil temperature becomes nearly constant at sufficiently large
depths (typically 3 m); the soil temperature is lower/higher than
the outdoor air temperature in summer/winter. EAHEs use the
underground soil as a heat source/sink and ventilation air as a heat
exchange medium. The outdoor air is drawn through pipes buried
in the soil and exchanges heat with the surrounding soil directly
[6]. The air is pre-cooled in summer and pre-heated in winter
before entering the interior building spaces, which could reduce
both the cooling and heating loads of buildings and in turn reduce
the electricity consumption.
The effectiveness of EAHE ventilation systems is closely related
to their thermal performance, and various experimental, analytical,
and simulation studies have been conducted on this aspect in the
last few decades [7]. Hollmuller et al. [8] developed an analytical
solution for the heat diffusion of a cylindrical EAHE with a har-
monic inlet air temperature and adiabatic or isothermal boundary
conditions. Bansal et al. [9,10] investigated horizontal EAHE

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.11.112
0960-1481/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Wei, D. Yang, J. Du et al.
Nomenclature
d diameter of the buried pipe (m)
m air mass flow rate (kg/s)
Q heating/cooling capacity of EAHE (W)
QR reduction of building cooling/heating load by
EAHE (W)
T temperature (
C)
V velocity of airflow in pipe (m3/s)
W energy consumption of the flowing air (W)
Subscripts
in EAHE inlet
out EAHE outlet
s soil
1 Room 1
2 Room 2
Greek symbols
Cp air specific heat (J/(kg K))
ra air density (kg/m3)
h heat exchange efficiency of EAHE (%)
Abbreviations
COP coefficient of performance
EAHE earth-to-air heat exchanger
systems with two different pipe materials in India for both winter
and summer conditions. Their experimental results indicated that
the performance of the EAHE system was not significantly affected
by the material of the buried pipe, but was significantly affected by
the air velocity through the buried pipe. Liu et al. [11] proposed a
vertical EAHE system and developed a numerical model to evaluate
its thermal performance [12]. To improve the performance of
EAHEs further, an EAHE system was integrated with a layer of phase
change material to stabilize the outlet air temperature [13]. Wei
et al. [14] developed a full-scale experimental platform to investi-
gate the cooling capability of EAHEs with four configuration pa-
rameters in hot and humid climate. Their results indicated that
increases in depth and decreases in diameter cause decreases in the
air temperature/moisture content, and that the air temperature
decays exponentially with increasing pipe length. Pakari et al. [15]
experimentally studied the performance of an EAHE with a short-
grass ground cover under hot and dry desert climate. Their re-
sults indicated that with an airflow velocity of 9.24 m/s, the inlet air
temperature was reduced from 40.6 to approximately 34.1
C, and
the corresponding coefficient of performance obtained was 13.4.
Wei et al. [16] and Yang et al. [17] presented theoretical models for
evaluating the heat transfer performances of flat rectangular and
circular EAHEs in harmonically fluctuating thermal environments,
and they compared the differences in their thermal performances.
The results indicated that the outlet air temperature fluctuation
amplitudes of the flat rectangular EAHE was lower, the phase shift
was larger, and the EAHE pipe wall temperature was more stable
compared to those of the circular EAHE.
In addition, EAHEs have been applied in several types of build-
ings, including office buildings, commercial buildings, residential
buildings, and agricultural greenhouses, in various climates. For
example, Li et al. [18] developed a fresh air handling system
comprising two double-layered horizontal U-shaped EAHEs and a
heat recovery unit to study its feasibility and application in severe
cold regions. Their experimental results indicated that an average
531
Renewable Energy 167 (2021) 530e541
temperature rise of 14.0
C was provided by the EAHE and a further
12.1
C increase was provided by the heat recovery unit; overall, the
outdoor air could reach an acceptable temperature. Benhammou
et al. [19] developed a dynamic model to examine the combined
effect of thermal insulation and the EAHE on the thermal perfor-
mances of buildings in desert regions. Based on the time lag and the
decrement factor theory, Rosti et al. [20] investigated the optimum
thermal insulation configuration in buildings with EAHE. Their
results showed that walls with an external single-layer insulation
and two layers of insulation (middle and external) showed the best
performance for the buildings fitted with the EAHE. Compared to a
traditional ventilation system, the reduction in the building energy
consumption using EAHEs can reach 7 and 9 kW h/m2 per year
when the pipes were buried at depths of 0.6 and 2 m, respectively
[21]. Ascione et al. [22] reported that, compared to a mechanical
ventilation system, the EAHE ventilation system could contribute to
a building energy reduction of approximately 29% in winter and
36e46% in summer for the Mediterranean climate. Al-Ajmi et al.
[23] proposed a numerical model to determine the efficiency of an
EAHE system for residential buildings located in the hot and dry
climate of Kuwait. Results showed that the EAHE system could
decrease the cooling load by 1700 W and reduce the indoor air
temperature by 2.8
C. Moreover, Yang et al. noted that the effects of
coupling EAHEs with the building thermal mass could also main-
tain a comfortable indoor thermal environment and proposed the
corresponding theoretical model for the buoyancy-driven natural
ventilation [24] and mechanical ventilation [25].
According to the literature review, the current research on EAHE
is mainly divided into two main trends: the EAHE thermal perfor-
mance and the flow performance of EAHE [3,5,26,27]. However, the
two trends are both focused on examining/improving the cooling/
heating capacity and energy efficiency of the EAHE itself. It is worth
noting that the effects of EAHEs on the indoor environment are also
important. Although researchers have made efforts to investigate
EAHEs applications under various climatic conditions, the thermal
performance of EAHEs in hot-summer and cold-winter regions can
hardly be assessed. In addition, most of the previous studies
focused on the heat transfer performance of EAHEs, and only few
studies were conducted from the perspective of integrating EAHEs
with the building indoor environment.
To overcome the above-mentioned limitations, in this study, a
full-scale experimental apparatus was constructed to investigate
the effects of EAHEs on the indoor thermal environment in hot-
summer and cold-winter regions. This study was conducted dur-
ing the cooling and heating season under the climatic conditions of
Chongqing, a city in southwest China. The experimental study was
conducted to evaluate the performance of the EAHE system and its
cooling/heating potential for regulating the indoor thermal envi-
ronment. The variation in the air temperature, relative humidity,
thermal capacity, coefficient of performance (COP), and heat
transfer efficiency of an EAHE were analyzed.
2. Experimental methods
2.1. Experimental apparatus
The full-scale test apparatus was installed in Chongqing, which
has a typical hot/humid and cold/humid climate [28]. Generally, the
outdoor air temperature is higher/lower than the thermal comfort
range in summer/winter, and the outdoor air relative humidity is
high throughout the year. This brings a fresh air load to the building
indoor environment. Fig. 1 shows the experimental apparatus,
which consists of the EAHE ventilation system and two tested
buildings. In the experiment, No. II system was selected for building
ventilation.
H. Wei, D. Yang, J. Du et al.
Fig. 1. Schematic of the full-scale test apparatus.
2.1.1. EAHE system
From Fig. 1, it can be seen that the EAHE system included three
main components: the vertical inlet component, vertical outlet
component, and horizontal main component. The EAHE consisted
of a PVC pipe with a diameter of 0.16 m, and wall thickness of
0.0032 m. It is well known that the temperature of the soil at a
depth of approximately 2e3 m remains fairly constant [29,30]. The
burial depth of the horizontal component pipe was set to 3 m. The
length of the vertical inlet and outlet components were both 3 m,
and the length of the main horizontal component was 40 m. To
alleviate the thermal interaction between the air inside the vertical
components and surrounding soil, the vertical inlet and outlet
components of the buried pipes were both insulated with a 0.02 m-
thick rubber and plastic layer. Therefore, only the horizontal com-
ponents of the buried pipes cooled/heated the flowing air during
the operation period. The pipes were separated by a distance of
0.7 m, which is approximately eight times the pipe radius, to
eliminate the interaction between the thermal waves of different
pipes; thus, each pipe can be treated independently [23,25]. The
vertical outlet component of the EAHE was connected to Room 1
and directly supplied the outdoor fresh air into the building interior
space. The vertical inlet component of the EAHE was equipped with
a blower, in which the outdoor air was driven into the buried pipe
and exchanged heat with the surrounding soil. In addition, the
horizontal components of the buried pipes were set at a small slope
along the flow direction for the condensate water collection and
drainage.
2.1.2. Tested buildings
Two identical light buildings (Room 1 and Room 2) were
considered in the present study. Each building has dimensions of
3 m (length)  3 m (width)  2.7 m (height). Room 1 was connected
to the vertical outlet component of the EAHE, and Room 2, as a
reference room, was not equipped with any ventilation and cool-
ing/heating systems. The two tested buildings were adjacent to
each other and insulated with 0.02 m-thick rubber and plastic, and
0.05 m-thick glass fiber to avoid any thermal interference (as
indicated in Fig. 2). The details of the materials used in constructing
the buildings are given in Table 1. The building envelopes for the
two rooms were the same; they were composed of a 0.05 m-thick
glass fiber and exposed to the same outdoor environment. In
532
Renewable Energy 167 (2021) 530e541
addition, the building floors were insulated with 0.02 m-thick
rubber and plastic to reduce heat transfer interference from the
ground. The pre-cooled/pre-heated air was sent to Room 1 using
the roof air supply terminus, and the indoor air was exhausted
through the leakages of the door and windows. An indoor heat
source load of 66 W was applied to the two rooms, which is caused
by the devices of the computer and data recorder. During the
experiment test operation, all the doors and windows of the two
rooms were closed, and shading measures were adopted to prevent
the solar radiation heat gain through the windows. In addition, the
occupancy regime of the rooms was empty during the test.
2.2. Measurement layout
As shown in Fig. 1, nine type-T thermocouples (T2-1 to T2-9)
were located in the center of the buried pipe along the horizontal
part to measure the EAHE air temperature variation. All the tem-
perature measurement points inside the pipe were set approxi-
mately 5 m from one another. The measurement points for the
original soil temperature were set at depths of 1, 2, and 3 m, which
were labeled as TS-10, TS-11, and TS-12, respectively. To obtain the
building surface temperature variation, eight type-T thermocouples
(TW1-1 to TW1-8 and TW2-1 to TW2-8) were attached to the
external and internal surfaces of the two tested buildings (as shown
in Fig. 3). In addition, eight type-T thermocouples (TB1-1 to TB1-8
and TB2-1 to TB2-8) were distributed within the space of the two
test buildings to measure the indoor air temperature. All the ther-
mocouples were calibrated prior to the experiments and connected
to an Agilent data logger (Keysight 34980 A, USA) for data collec-
tion. The air relative humidity variations at the EAHE inlet/outlet
and the indoor space were measured by humidity/temperature
data loggers. The relative humidity and temperature data were
recorded every min during the tests. The power consumption of the
blower (HP12038HSL, 0e350 m3/h, China) was measured using a
power meter, while the airflow velocity inside the buried pipe was
measured by a hot wire anemometer. The air velocity through the
EAHE buried pipe was regulated using a frequency convertor. In
addition, the ring method of equivalent area was adopted to mea-
sure the mean velocity, and the mean velocity was obtained by
averaging the velocities measured at the measuring points in the
cross sections [18,31,32]. The detailed specifications of the
H. Wei, D. Yang, J. Du et al. Renewable Energy 167 (2021) 530e541

Fig. 2. Pictures of the field experiments.

Table 1
Properties of the construction components of the test buildings (from inside to outside).

Envelope component Material Thickness (m) Thermal conductivity (W/m K) Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K)

Roof Iron sheet 0.002 52.00

Glass fiber 0.05 0.036 0.72
Iron sheet 0.002 52.00
Wall Iron sheet 0.002 52.00
Glass fiber 0.05 0.036 0.72
Iron sheet 0.002 52.00
Floor Rubber and plastic 0.02 0.034 1.24
Asbestos cement 0.02 0.093
Window Glass 0.01 0.76 2.4
Polystyrene 0.1 0.1

Fig. 3. Temperature measurement diagram of indoor air and wall surface.

equipment are presented in Table 2. external/internal wall surface were also investigated. An airflow
velocity of 4.2 m/s was fixed during the above experiments, the
corresponding building changes of air per hour was 12.5.
3. Results and discussion

In order to investigate the thermal performance of the EAHE on
the indoor thermal environment in hot-summer and cold-winter
regions, the experiments for the cooling mode and heating mode
were conducted continuously for 24 h from 11:00 on 2019/9/12 to
11:00 on 2019/9/13 and from 17:00 on 2020/1/18 to 17:00 on 2020/
1/19, respectively. During the experimental test, EAHE system was
ventilated all day. Based on the experimental results, the variations
in the air temperature and relative humidity of the EAHE were
analyzed. The temperature variations in the indoor air and
533
3.1. Thermal behavior of EAHE
3.1.1. Temperature of ambient air and soil
Fig. 4 (a) and (b) illustrate the variation in the ambient air and
soil temperature over 24 h during the summer and winter opera-
tion periods, respectively. The measurement points of the soil
temperature corresponded to the soil depth of 1, 2 and 3 m. It is
clearly seen that during the summer and winter periods, the vari-
ation in the original soil temperature at different depths is lower
H. Wei, D. Yang, J. Du et al.
Table 2
Accuracy and range of the instruments used in this study.
Measured parameter Instrument
Temperature Type T thermocouple
Relative humidity Humidity/temperature logger
Air velocity Thermal anemometer
Electric consumption Digital power meter
than that of the outdoor air temperature mainly due to the strong
thermal inertia of the soil. In addition, the temperature distribution
of the soil has an obvious stratification by depth. In summer, the
shallower soil temperature is higher than that of the deeper soil.
The opposite trend is observed in winter. Fig. 4 (a) reveals that
during the summer operation period, the outdoor air temperature
varies within a range of 27.79e38.51
C (the temperature difference
and average being 10.72 and 32.37
C, respectively). The original
soil temperature at the depths of 1, 2, and 3 m vary in the range of
25.41e25.82
C, 22.52e22.88
C, and 20.04e20.32
C, respectively,
and the corresponding average temperatures are 25.63, 22.74, and
20.21
C, respectively. Fig. 4 (b) shows that during the winter
operation period, the outdoor air temperature varies within a range
of 3.95e15.54
C (the temperature difference and average being
11.59 and 8.53
C, respectively). The original soil temperatures at
the depths of 1, 2, and 3 m vary in the range of 11.71e12.01
C,
14.92e15.24
C, and 16.51e16.76
C, respectively; the correspond-
ing average temperatures are 11.87, 15.1, and 16.68
C, respectively.
The EAHE ventilation system is designed for the cooling/heating of
buildings to reduce the energy consumption and peak demand; the
results reveal that the soil temperature range is suitable for
achieving this purpose.
3.1.2. Temperature variation along pipe length
Fig. 5 (a) and (b) show the variation in the air temperatures
along the horizontal pipe length of the EAHE over 24 h during the
summer and winter periods, respectively. During the hot summer
operation period, as shown in Fig. 5 (a), the temperature difference
along the pipe length is small at night, whereas the distinct tem-
perature variations can be observed during the daytime. This is
mainly because the outdoor air temperature is close to the soil
temperature at the depth of 3 m at night, whereas it is much higher
than the soil temperature during the day. In addition, the air
temperature fluctuation amplitudes at different pipe lengths
gradually attenuate, and the phase shift has a small lag, which is
Fig. 4. Variation in the ambient air and soil temperature during the operation period: (a) summer and (b) winter.
534
Renewable Energy 167 (2021) 530e541
Type Range and accuracy
Omega TT-T-24, USA 0e350
C, ±0.5
C
HIOKI-LR5001, Japan 40e85
C, ±0.5
C
0%e100rh, ±5%rh
Testo-480, Germany 0e10 m/s, ±0.03 m/s
PM9805, China 0e2000W, ±5%W
mainly due to the thermal response of the soil around the buried
pipe. As the pipe length increases from 0 to 40 m, the initial average
air temperature of 32.37
C decreases continuously to 23.28
C
(change of 9.1
C). The maximum reduction in the air temperature
between the inlet and outlet of the EAHE is 15
C, which occurs at
15:04 and can be attributed to the reduction from 38.47
C at the
inlet to 23.47
C at the outlet. The minimum reduction in the air
temperature is found to be 4.82
C, which occurs at 2:41; this can be
attributed to the reduction from 27.89
C at the inlet to 23.06
C at
the outlet. During the cold winter operation period, as shown in
Fig. 5 (b), the reasons for the EAHE air temperature variation in
winter are similar to those in summer. As the pipe length increases
from 0 to 40 m, the average air temperature increases continuously
from 8.53 to 14.06
C (change of 5.53
C). The maximum increase in
the air temperature between the inlet and outlet of the EAHE is
9.11
C, which occurs at 7:21; this can be attributed to the increase
from 3.96
C at the inlet to 13.07
C at the outlet. The minimum
increase in the air temperature between the inlet and outlet of the
EAHE is 0.8
C, which occurs at 15:11; this is attributed to the
reduction from 15.64
C at the inlet to 14.37
C at the outlet, which
is due to the air temperature being higher than the soil temperature
during the daytime. From the results reported in Fig. 5 (a) and (b), it
can be seen that the EAHE can effectively exploit the shallow
geothermal soil as a natural heat sink/source in summer/winter to
cool/heat the outdoor air temperature and stabilize the outlet air
temperature.
3.1.3. Relative humidity at inlet/outlet of EAHE
Fig. 6 (a) and (b) show the variation in the air relative humidity
at the inlet/outlet of EAHE over 24 h during the summer and winter
operation periods, respectively. As can be seen from Fig. 6 (a),
during the summer operation period, the relative humidity of the
inlet and outlet air of EAHE changes from 31.8 to 67.5% (average of
51.08%) and from 82 to 97.97% (average of 90.38%), respectively.
This corresponds to an increase in the average relative humidity of
H. Wei, D. Yang, J. Du et al.
Fig. 5. Variation in the air temperatures along the horizontal pipe length of EAHE during the operation period: (a) summer and (b) winter.
the outlet air of 46.89%. Fig. 6 (b) shows that during the winter
operation period, the relative humidity of the EAHE inlet and outlet
air varies from 47.3 to 90.8% (average of 85.52%) and from 49.3 to
69.5% (average of 58.11%). This indicates that the average relative
humidity of the outlet air decreased by 27.41%. The air relative
humidity was a significantly different between the inlet and outlet
of the EAHE, and the air relative humidity at the EAHE outlet does
not reach a saturated state in summer and winter. This means that
humidification and condensation do not occur during the heat
transfer process inside the EAHE and that mainly a sensible heat
transfer occurred in the cooling/heating process. This is mainly
because the velocity of airflow in the buried pipe is too large,
causing an insufficient heat exchange between the flowing air and
the surrounding soil. At the outlet of the EAHE, the air temperature
does not reach the corresponding dew point temperature, and the
air relative humidity does not reach a saturated state in summer
and winter. Previous studies [14,18,32] have shown that the air
relative humidity of the EAHE outlet can be adjusted by the buried
depth, pipe length, diameter, and airflow velocity parameters.
3.2. Thermal behavior of buildings
3.2.1. External surface temperature
Fig. 7 (a) and (b) present the variation in the temperature at the
external surface of the building envelope in different orientations
Fig. 6. Variation in the air relative humidity at the inlet/outlet of EAHE during the operation period: (a) summer and (b) winter.
535
Renewable Energy 167 (2021) 530e541
over 24 h during the summer and winter operation periods,
respectively. During the summer, the temperature at the external
surface of the roof wall varies within a range of 23.72e70.47
C,
corresponding to a temperature difference of 46.75
C. The tem-
peratures at the external surfaces of the eastern and western walls
vary within a range of 24.55e53.84
C and 22.93e60.33
C,
respectively, corresponding to temperature ranges of 29.29 and
37.4
C, respectively. The temperatures of the southern and
northern external walls vary from 24.58 to 52.45
C and from 23.35
to 38.71
C, respectively; their corresponding temperature ranges
are 27.87 and 15.36
C, respectively. Ref. [19] indicated that the
temperature at the external surface of each external wall is pro-
portional to the intensity of the solar radiation incident on it. It can
be shown clearly that all temperature curves vary in the same
manner during the night (from 18:00 on 2019/9/12 to 7:00 on 2019/
9/13) and all the external surface temperatures are lower than the
outdoor air temperature.
During the winter operation period, the temperature at the
external surface of the roof wall varies from 7.8 to 38.03
C
(temperature difference of 45.83
C), as shown in Fig. 7 (b). The
temperatures at the external surfaces of the eastern and western
walls vary from 0.87 to 16.56
C and from 0.87 to 25.2
C,
respectively, corresponding to temperature ranges of 18.43 and
26.07
C, respectively. The temperatures of the southern and
northern external walls vary from 0.69 to 28.4
C and from 0.97
H. Wei, D. Yang, J. Du et al.
Fig. 7. Variation in the temperature at the external surfaces of the building envelope in different orientations: (a) summer and (b) winter.
to 15.02
C, respectively, and corresponding to temperature ranges
of 29.09 and 15.99
C, respectively. The external surface tempera-
tures of the vertical walls facing east, west, south, and north vary in
the same manner from 17:00 on 2020/1/19 to 13:30 on 2020/1/20
and differently from 13:30 on 2020/1/20 to 17:00 on 2020/1/20. In
addition, all the external surface temperatures are lower than the
outdoor air temperature, which is mainly due to the cold sky ra-
diation in winter.
3.2.2. Internal surface temperature
Fig. 8 (a) and (b) show the variation in the temperatures at the
internal surface of the building envelop in different orientations
during the summer operation period with and without the EAHE,
respectively. It is evident that all the temperatures at the internal
surface vary as a sinusoidal function with a period of 24 h, but their
fluctuation amplitudes are different. For the building with the
EAHE, as shown in Fig. 8 (a), the temperature at the internal surface
of the roof wall varies within a range of 23.84e34.74
C (the tem-
perature difference and average of approximately 10.9 and 27.66
C,
respectively). The internal surface temperature of the south wall
varies as that of the roof, but with slightly lower fluctuation
amplitude and maximal values; it oscillates within a range of
23.9e33.65
C (the temperature difference and average of 9.75 and
27.27
C, respectively). The internal surface temperatures of the
west and north walls oscillate in the same manner within a range of
Fig. 8. Variation in the temperatures at the internal surfaces of the building envelop in different orientations in summer: (a) with EAHE and (b) without EAHE.
536
Renewable Energy 167 (2021) 530e541
23.81e33.38
C with temperature range and average value of
approximately 9.57 and 26.98
C, respectively.
For the building without the EAHE, as shown in Fig. 8 (b), the
temperatures at the internal surfaces of the roof and south wall
oscillate in the same manner within a range of 25.89e46.54
C (the
corresponding temperature range and average value are approxi-
mately 20.65 and 33.54
C, respectively). The internal surface
temperatures of the east and north walls oscillate in the same
manner within a range of 25.74e42.96
C (their corresponding
temperature difference and average value are approximately 17.22
and 32.7
C, respectively). By comparing the results of Fig. 8 (a) and
(b), it is found that the average value of the building internal surface
temperatures with EAHE is approximately 6
C lower than that
without the EAHE, and the corresponding temperature range of the
internal surface temperature of the building wall is reduced by
approximately 9.5
C. This indicates that the EAHE ventilation
system can help reduce and stabilize the internal surface temper-
ature in summer and winter.
Fig. 9 (a) and (b) show the variation in the temperatures at the
internal surface of the building envelop with and without the EAHE,
respectively, in different orientations during the winter operation
period. From Fig. 9 (a), it can be seen that all the internal surface
temperatures of the building with EAHE oscillate in the same
manner within a range of 9.75e16.97
C (the temperature differ-
ence and average are approximately 7.2 and 12.41
C, respectively).
H. Wei, D. Yang, J. Du et al.
From Fig. 9 (b), it can be seen that for the building without EAHE, all
the internal surface temperatures also oscillate in the same manner
within a range from 2.71e13.72
C, except between 13:30 and 17:00
on 2020/1/20. Their corresponding temperature range and average
are approximately 11.01 and 6.62
C, respectively. By comparing the
results of Fig. 9 (a) and (b), it is found that the average value of the
building internal surface temperature with EAHE are approxi-
mately 5.8
C higher than that without EAHE, and the corre-
sponding range of the internal surface temperature of building wall
is reduced by approximately 3.8
C. This indicates that the EAHE
ventilation system can help increase and stabilize the internal
surface temperature in winter.
3.2.3. Temperature and relative humidity of indoor environment
Fig. 10 (a) and (b) show that a comparison between the indoor
air temperature and relative humidity of the buildings with and
without the EAHE during the summer and winter operation pe-
riods, respectively. As shown in Fig. 10 (a), during the summer
operation period, the indoor air temperature of the building
without EAHE oscillates within a range of 25.97e43.16
C (the
temperature difference and average are 17.19 and 32.74
C,
respectively). For the building with EAHE, the indoor air tempera-
ture oscillates within a range of 23.89e32.21
C (the temperature
difference and average are 8.32 and 26.86
C, respectively). Fig. 10
(a) also indicates that the indoor air relative humidity of the
building with and without EAHE varies within a range of
51.7e84.1% (average of 71.48%) and 31.6e70.7% (average of 53.63%),
respectively. Furthermore, the results indicate that compared to the
building without the EAHE, the average indoor air temperature and
range are reduced by approximately 5.9 and 8.9
C when using the
EAHE. In addition, the average indoor air relative humidity is
increased by approximately 17.85% when using the EAHE.
As shown in Fig. 10 (b), during the winter operation period, the
indoor air temperature of the building without the EAHE oscillates
within a range of 3.61e18.33
C (the temperature difference and
average are 14.72 and 8.6
C, respectively). For the building with
EAHE, the indoor air temperature oscillates within a range of
10.54e16.48
C (the temperature difference and average are 5.94
and 12.89
C, respectively). Fig. 10 (b) also indicates that the indoor
air relative humidity of the building with and without the EAHE
varies within a range of 47.3e69.8% (average of 61.15%) and
55.2e89.2% (average of 82.35%), respectively. Furthermore, the re-
sults indicate that compared to the building without the EAHE, the
average indoor air temperature is increased by approximately
4.29
C when using the EAHE, and the corresponding range of the
Fig. 9. Variation in the temperatures at the internal surface of the building envelop in different orientations in winter: (a) with EAHE and (b) without EAHE.
537
Renewable Energy 167 (2021) 530e541
indoor air temperature is reduced by approximately 8.8
C. In
addition, the average indoor air relative humidity is decreased by
approximately 21.2% when using the EAHE.
Fig. 11 (a) and (b) show the frequency of occurrence of the in-
door air temperature with and without EAHE during the summer
and winter operation periods, respectively. It can be seen from
Fig. 11 (a) that during the summer operation period, when the EAHE
is not employed, the indoor temperature is greater than 28
C for
more than 67.18% of the 24 h period; in contrast, when the EAHE
ventilation system is used, the indoor air temperature exceeds
28
C for only 32.89% of the 24 h period. From Fig. 11 (b), it can be
seen that during the winter operation period, when the EAHE
ventilation measure is not adopted, the indoor temperature is less
than 12
C for more than 82.99% of the 24 h period; in contrast,
when the EAHE ventilation system is used, the indoor air temper-
ature is below 12
C for only 22% of the 24 h period. Therefore, the
EAHE ventilation measure can effectively improve the thermal
comfort of the indoor environment.
4. Performance evaluation of EAHE
4.1. Thermal capacity and coefficient of performance of EAHE
The heating/cooling capacity of EAHE is determined as follows
[16,19,33]:


mCp ðTin  Tout Þ Summer
Q¼ (1)
mCp ðTout  Tin Þ Winter
where Q is the EAHE heating/cooling capacity (W), Cp is the air
specific heat (1005 J/(kg K)), Tin is the inlet air temperature of EAHE
(
C), Tout is the outlet air temperature of EAHE (
C). The air mass
flow rate through the buried pipe is m ¼ ra pd2 V=4, ra is the air
density (1.29 kg/m3), V is the air velocity (m3/s), d is the diameter of
the buried pipe (m).
The coefficient of performance (COP) of the EAHE is based on the
amount of cooling/heating produced by EAHE and the total elec-
tricity consumptions required for circulating air through heat
exchanger, and determined by Ref. [19,34]:
Q
COP ¼ (2)
W
where W is the blower power consumption (W).
Fig. 12 (a) and (b) show the variation in the thermal capacity and
H. Wei, D. Yang, J. Du et al.
Fig. 10. Variation in the indoor air temperature and relative humidity with and without EAHE during the operation period: (a) summer and (b) winter.
Fig. 11. Frequency of occurrence of the indoor air temperature with and without EAHE: (a) summer and (b) winter.
COP of the EAHE during the summer and winter operation periods,
respectively. The average energy consumption of the blower is
approximately 110 W during the summer and winter operation
periods. As shown in Fig. 12 (a), during the summer operation
period, the cooling capacity and COP of the EAHE vary in the range
of 409.11e1272.63 W and 3.72e11.57, respectively, and their cor-
responding average values of 773.59 W and 7.03. As shown in Fig. 12
(b), during the winter operation period, the heating capacity and
COP of the EAHE vary from 67.52 to 772.67 W and from 0.62 to
7.02, respectively, and their corresponding average values of
469.07 W and 4.26. As the average COPs of the EAHE in summer and
winter are almost 7.03 and 4.26, respectively, the cooling and
heating energy provided by the EAHE is almost seven and four
times greater than the electrical energy consumed by the system,
respectively. Thus, it can be concluded that the integration of the
EAHE in buildings is an economic technique permitting the air
conditioning of buildings with a lower cost.
4.2. Heat transfer efficiency of EAHE
The heat transfer efficiency of EAHE system is the ratio of actual
temperature drop/rise of EAHE outlet air to the maximum possible
temperature drop/rise of EAHE outlet air, the theoretical heat ex-
change efficiency of EAHE was calculated using the following
equation [35,36]:
538
Renewable Energy 167 (2021) 530e541
8
>
> Tin  Tout
>
<  100% Cooling
Tin  Ts
h¼ (3)
>
> Tout  Tin
>
:  100% Heating
Ts  Tin
where h is the heat exchange efficiency of EAHE (%), Ts is the soil
original temperature at the pipe buried depth (
C). The corre-
sponding soil original temperature can be obtained according to
section 3.1.1.
Fig. 13 shows the relation of the heat transfer efficiency (h) and
inlet air temperature for the EAHE during the summer and winter
operation periods. It can be seen that under the heating mode, the
heat transfer efficiency decreases sharply with the increase in the
EAHE inlet temperature. When the EAHE inlet temperature varies
from 3.95 to 15.54
C, h varies from 71.48% to 0, and h is zero when
the inlet air temperature is very close to the original soil temper-
ature (15.54
C). In contrast, under the cooling mode, the heat
transfer efficiency shows a slow growth with the increase in the
EAHE inlet temperature. The variation range of heat transfer effi-
ciency under the cooling mode is much narrower than that under
the heating mode. When the EAHE inlet temperature varies from
27.79 to 38.51
C, h varies from 62.82 to 81.71%, which maintains a
high level as the inlet air temperature is higher than the soil tem-
perature in this range. Ref. [32] presented a similar relation be-
tween the heat transfer efficiency and inlet air temperatures of the
H. Wei, D. Yang, J. Du et al.
Fig. 12. Variation in the thermal capacity and COP of EAHE: (a) summer and (b) winter.
Fig. 13. Relation of the heat transfer efficiency and inlet air temperature.
EAHE during the summer and winter operation periods, except for
the change rate. In addition, the heat transfer efficiency of the EAHE
system depends on several parameters, e.g., EAHE engineering
parameters, the inlet air temperature, and, in particular, the soil
temperature [32]. In addition, the soil temperature distribution
around the buried pipe is also dependent on the operation mode,
time duration, and outside weather conditions.
4.3. Reduction in building heating/cooling load
In order to evaluate the potential of EAHE for reducing the
building cooling/heating load, it can be calculated by following
equation:


mCp ðT2  T1 Þ Summer
QR ¼
mCp ðT1  T2 Þ Winter
where QR is the reduction in the building cooling/heating load by
EAHE (W), T1 and T2 are the indoor air temperature for the Room 1
and Room 2 (
C), respectively.
Fig. 14 (a) and (b) show the reduction in the cooling and heating
loads from the building obtained using the EAHE ventilation system
during the summer and winter operation periods, respectively.
Renewable Energy 167 (2021) 530e541
Generally, the reduction in the cooling/heating load by the EAHE
depends on the building parameters, EAHE engineering parame-
ters, and outdoor environmental conditions. The results of simple
calculations showed that the reduction in the cooling/heating load
using the EAHE exhibits harmonic changes with time due to the
combined effects of the building cooling/heating load and the EAHE
ventilation system. Fig. 14 (a) shows that during the summer
operation period, the reduction in the cooling load by EAHE varies
within a range of 160.77e984.39 W with an average value of
498.58 W, leading to an energy saving of 11.97 kWh for the
continuous 24 h period. Fig. 14 (b) indicates that during the winter
operation period, the reduction in the heating load by EAHE varies
within a range of 191.94e599.93 W with an average value of
363.9 W and a corresponding energy saving of 9.17 kWh for the
continuous 24 h period. The results indicate that the average
reduction in the cooling and heating loads of the building can be
reduced by approximately 55.4 and 40.43 W/m2 using the EAHE,
respectively.
5. Conclusions
A full-scale experiment was performed to investigate the effects
of an EAHE on the indoor thermal environment in a typical hot-
summer and cold-winter region. Experiments were performed in
a typical summer and winter day for 24 h each. According to the
experimental data, the thermal behavior of the EAHE and building
were quantified. The following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The EAHE could significantly pre-cool and pre-heat the inhaled
air in the hot-summer and cold-winter region, respectively. It is
seen that, at the pipe outlet, a decrease in the air temperature of
9.12
C in a summer day and an increase of 5.53
C in a winter
day could be obtained. Compared to that of the outdoor air
temperature, the corresponding temperature range at the pipe
outlet are reduced by 8.27 in summer and 8.95
C in winter,
respectively, the corresponding average air relative humidity
increased by 46.89% and decreased by 27.41%, respectively.
2. Compared to the building without EAHE, the average values of
(4)
the indoor air temperature of the building with EAHE decreased
by 5.9
C under cooling mode and increased by 4.29
C under
heating mode, and the corresponding range of the indoor air
temperature is decreased by 8.9
C in each case. The average
temperatures of the internal surface of external walls decrease
by approximately 6
C in summer and increases by approxi-
mately 5.8
C in winter, and the corresponding range of the
internal surface temperature of external walls decrease by
539
H. Wei, D. Yang, J. Du et al.
Fig. 14. Variation in the reduction in the building cooling/heating load by the EAHE from the building: (a) summer and (b) winter.
approximately 9.5
C and 3.8
C in summer and winter,
respectively.
3. During the summer operation period, the EAHE inlet tempera-
ture varies from 3.95e15.54
C, and the heat transfer efficiency
(h) varies from 71.48% to 0. The average cooling capacity and
COP of the EAHE are 773.59 W and 7.03, respectively. During the
winter operation period, the EAHE inlet temperature and h
varies from 27.79 to 38.51
C and 62.82 to 81.71%, respectively.
The average value of the heating capacity and COP of EAHE are
469.07 W and 4.26, respectively.
4. The EAHE ventilation system could reduce the indoor cooling
and heating load by 11.97 kWh and 9.17 kWh for the continuous
24 h period, respectively. The average reductions of the building
cooling and heating loads per unit floor area are approximately
55.4 W/m2 and 40.43 W/m2, respectively. In the summer oper-
ation period, the frequency of occurrence of the indoor air
temperature above 28
C decreased from 67.18% without EAHE
to 32.89% with EAHE, whereas in the winter operation period,
the frequency of occurrence of the indoor air temperature below
12
C decreased from 82.99% without EAHE to 22% with EAHE.
The experimental results proved that the EAHE ventilation
system has a significant potential for reducing the building cooling
and heating energy demand in hot-summer and cold-winter re-
gions. The findings of this study can be utilized as guidelines by
energy policymakers, design engineers, and inhabitants for the
deployment of passive techniques. In addition, although the initial
investment cost of EAHEs is relatively high, economic benefits can
be obtained through the energy-saving operation of EAHE, which
also reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Haibin Wei: Experiment, Writing - original draft. Dong Yang:
Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision. Jinhui Du: Experiment.
Xin Guo: Experiment, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge support from the National Natural
540
Renewable Energy 167 (2021) 530e541
Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Grant No. 51578087, the
Project No. XmT2018037 funded by Chongqing Special Postdoctoral
Science Foundation, the Project No. cstc2019jcyj-bshX0079 spon-
sored by Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing, 2020CDJQY-
A062 and 2018CDXYCH0015 supported by the Fundamental
Research Funds for the Central Universities.
References
[1] P. Nejat, F. Jomehzadeh, M.M. Taheri, M. Gohari, M.Z. Abd Majid, A global
review of energy consumption, CO2 emissions and policy in the residential
sector (with an overview of the top ten CO2 emitting countries), Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 43 (2015) 843e862.
[2] F. Zhang, J.Y. Cai, J. Ji, K.D. Han, W. Ke, Experimental investigation on the
heating and cooling performance of a solar air composite heat source heat
pump, Renew. Energy 161 (2020) 221e229.
[3] L. Amanowicz, J. Wojtkowiak, Approximated flow characteristics of multi-pipe
earth-to-air heat exchangers for thermal analysis under variable airflow
conditions, Renew. Energy 158 (2020) 585e597.
[4] D. Yang, R. Shi, H.B. Wei, J.H. Du, J.L.B. Wang, Investigation of the performance
of a cylindrical PCM-to-air heat exchanger (PAHE) for free ventilation cooling
in fluctuating ambient environments, Sustain. Cities Soc. 51 (2019) 101764.
[5] R.S. Brum, J.V.A. Ramalho, M.K. Rodrigues, L.A.O. Rocha, L.A. Isoldi, E.D. Dos
Santos, Design evaluation of earth-air heat exchangers with multiple ducts,
Renew. Energy 135 (2019) 1371e1385.
[6] J. Lin, H. Nowamooz, S. Braymand, P. Wolff, C. Fond, Impact of soil moisture on
the long-term energy performance of an earth-air heat exchanger system,
Renew. Energy 147 (2020) 2676e2687.
[7] J.J. Gao, A.B. Li, X.H. Xu, W.J. Gang, T. Yan, Ground heat exchangers: applica-
tions, technology integration and potentials for zero energy buildings, Renew.
Energy 128 (2018) 337e349.
[8] P. Hollmuller, Analytical characterisation of amplitude-dampening and phase-
shifting in air/soil heat-exchangers, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 46 (2003)
4303e4317.
[9] V. Bansal, R. Misra, G.D. Agrawal, J. Mathur, Performance analysis of earth-
pipe-air heat exchanger for summer cooling, Energy Build. 42 (2010)
645e648.
[10] V. Bansal, R. Misra, G.D. Agrawal, J. Mathur, Performance analysis of earth-
pipe-air heat exchanger for winter heating, Energy Build. 41 (2009)
1151e1154.
[11] Z.X. Liu, Z. Yu, T.T. Yang, S.S. Li, M. El Mankibi, L. Roccamena, D. Qin,
G.Q. Zhang, Experimental investigation of a vertical earth-to-air heat
exchanger system, Energy Convers. Manag. 183 (2019) 241e251.
[12] Z.X. Liu, Z. Yu, T.T. Yang, L. Roccamena, P.C. Sun, S.S. Li, G.Q. Zhang, M. El
Mankibi, Numerical modeling and parametric study of a vertical earth-to-air
heat exchanger system, Energy 172 (2019) 220e231.
[13] Z.X. Liu, Z. Yu, T.T. Yang, M. El Mankibi, L. Roccamena, Y. Sun, P.C. Sun, S.S. Li,
G.Q. Zhang, Experimental and numerical study of a vertical earth-to-air heat
exchanger system integrated with annular phase change material, Energy
Convers. Manag. 186 (2019) 433e449.
[14] H.B. Wei, D. Yang, J.L.B. Wang, J.H. Du, Field experiments on the cooling
capability of earth-to-air heat exchangers in hot and humid climate, Appl.
Energy 276 (2020) 115493.
[15] A. Pakari, S. Ghani, Performance evaluation of a near-surface earth-to-air heat
exchanger with short-grass ground cover: an experimental study, Energy
Convers. Manag. 201 (2019) 112163.
[16] H.B. Wei, D. Yang, Performance evaluation of flat rectangular earth-to-air heat
exchangers in harmonically fluctuating thermal environments, Appl. Therm.
H. Wei, D. Yang, J. Du et al.
Eng. 162 (2019) 114262.
[17] D. Yang, Y.H. Guo, J.P. Zhang, Evaluation of the thermal performance of an
earth-to-air heat exchanger (EAHE) in a harmonic thermal environment,
Energy Convers. Manag. 109 (2016) 184e194.
[18] H. Li, L. Ni, G. Liu, Z.S. Zhao, Y. Yao, Feasibility study on applications of an
Earth-air Heat Exchanger (EAHE) for preheating fresh air in severe cold re-
gions, Renew. Energy 133 (2019) 1268e1284.
[19] M. Benhammou, B. Draoui, M. Hamouda, Improvement of the summer cooling
induced by an earth-to-air heat exchanger integrated in a residential building
under hot and arid climate, Appl. Energy 208 (2017) 428e445.
[20] B. Rosti, A. Omidvar, N. Monghasemi, Optimum position and distribution of
insulation layers for exterior walls of a building conditioned by earth-air heat
exchanger, Appl. Therm. Eng. 163 (2019) 114362.
[21] P. Tittelein, G. Achard, E. Wurtz, Modelling earth-to-air heat exchanger
behaviour with the convolutive response factors method, Appl. Energy 86
(2009) 1683e1691.
[22] F. Ascione, D. D’Agostino, C. Marino, F. Minichiello, Earth-to-air heat
exchanger for NZEB in Mediterranean climate, Renew. Energy 99 (2016)
553e563.
[23] F. Al-Ajmi, D.L. Loveday, V.I. Hanby, The cooling potential of eartheair heat
exchangers for domestic buildings in a desert climate, Build. Environ. 41
(2006) 235e244.
[24] H.B. Wei, D. Yang, Y.H. Guo, M.Q. Chen, Coupling of earth-to-air heat ex-
changers and buoyancy for energy-efficient ventilation of buildings consid-
ering dynamic thermal behavior and cooling/heating capacity, Energy 147
(2018) 587e602.
[25] D. Yang, J.P. Zhang, Theoretical assessment of the combined effect of building
thermal mass and earth-air-tube ventilation on the indoor thermal environ-
ment, Energy Build. 81 (2014) 182e199.
[26] L. Amanowicz, Influence of geometrical parameters on the flow characteristics
of multi-pipe earth-to-air heat exchangers-experimental and CFD in-
vestigations, Renew. Energy 226 (2018) 849e861.
541
Renewable Energy 167 (2021) 530e541
[27] L. Amanowicz, J. Wojtkowiak, Thermal performance of multi-pipe earth-to-air
heat exchangers considering the non-uniform distribution of air between
parallel pipes, Geothermics 88 (2020) 101896.
[28] Design Standard for Energy Efficiency of Public Buildings (GB 50189-2015),
Beijing, 2015 ([in Chinese]).
[29] M.R. Akhtari, I. Shayegh, N. Karimi, Techno-economic assessment and opti-
mization of a hybrid renewable earth-air heat exchanger coupled with electric
boiler, hydrogen, wind and PV configurations, Renew. Energy 148 (2020)
839e851.
[30] D. Yang, H.B. Wei, R. Shi, J.L.B. Wang, A demand-oriented approach for inte-
grating earth-to-air heat exchangers into buildings for achieving year-round
indoor thermal comfort, Energy Convers. Manag. 182 (2019) 95e107.
[31] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People Republic of
China, Standard for Energy Efficiency Test of Public Buildings (JGJ/T177-2009),
China Architecture and Building Press, Beijing, China, 2010.
[32] H. Li, L. Ni, G. Liu, Y. Yao, Performance evaluation of Earth to Air Heat Ex-
change (EAHE) used for indoor ventilation during winter in severe cold re-
gions, Appl. Therm. Eng. 160 (2019) 114111.
[33] T.M. Yusof, H. Ibrahim, W.H. Azmi, M.R.M. Rejab, The thermal characteristics
and performance of a ground heat exchanger for tropical climates, Renew.
Energy 121 (2018) 528e538.
[34] L.H. Yang, B.H. Huang, C.Y. Hsu, S.L. Chen, Performance analysis of an earth-air
heat exchanger integrated into an agricultural irrigation system for a green-
house environmental temperature-control system, Energy Build. 202 (2019)
109381.
[35] K.K. Agrawal, R. Misra, G. Das Agrawal, Thermal performance analysis of
slinky-coil ground-air heat exchanger system with sand-bentonite as back-
filling material, Energy Build. 202 (2019) 109351.
[36] C.Y. Hsu, P.C. Huang, J.D. Liang, Y.C. Chiang, S.L. Chen, The in-situ experiment
of earth-air heat exchanger for a cafeteria building in subtropical monsoon
climate, Renew. Energy 157 (2020) 741e753.