Energy & Buildings 242 (2021) 110949

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy & Buildings

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

Performance analysis of building-integrated earth-air heat exchanger

retrofitted with a supplementary water system for cooling-dominated
climate in Taiwan
Li-Hao Yang a, Jiun-Wei Hu a,b, Yuan-Ching Chiang b, Sih-Li Chen a,⇑
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Rd, Da’an Dist, Taipei City 106319, Taiwan, ROC
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chinese Culture University, No. 55, Huagang Rd, Shilin Dist, Taipei City 111396, Taiwan, ROC

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

Article history: The thermal performance of a building-integrated earth-air heat exchanger (EAHE) retrofitted with a sup-
Received 3 September 2020 plementary water piping system has been analyzed. The EAHE system has no excavation cost by integrat-
Revised 23 February 2021 ing with the building foundation and gets better cooling performance by flowing supplementary water
Accepted 19 March 2021
from residential water well to the foundation-integrated water-based EAHE (FIWEAHE) system. The
Available online 27 March 2021
experimental and numerical investigation was conducted to analyze the air conditioning performance
of the FIWEAHE system. The simulated bulk temperature and humidity ratio of outlet air were validated
Keywords:
with the year-round experimental data. After mixing with the circulating water from the residential
Earth-air heat exchanger
Hot-humid climate
water well, the cooling capacity of the FIWEAHE system enhanced from 3.21 kW to 4.84 kW, and its mois-
Thermal performance ture removal rate soared from 1.97 kg/h to 4.24 kg/h during summer operation. The outlet air tempera-
Space cooling and heating ture varying from 24 to 26 °C in summer and 20–21 °C in winter can meet the standard of indoor thermal
Thermal comfort comfort. The mean COP of the FIWEAHE system during summer and winter operation is calculated as 10.5
Heat transfer and 1.74, respectively. Relation curves among air velocity and energy-efficient design of pipe geometry
were developed to be the future design guideline of the FIWEAHE system.
Ó 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction system have been studied, such as different climate conditions,

In the subtropical region such as Taiwan, air-conditioning, ven-
tilation are of vital importance for indoor thermal comfort, air
quality of the occupants. According to the Renewable 2019 global
status report, heating, cooling accounted for more than half of total
final energy consumption. Nearly four-fifth of heating, cooling
demand is supplied by non-renewable electricity [1]. Renewable
heating, cooling have become an emerging research topic for
energy conservation of air conditioning technology. Proper design
of air-conditioning integrated with ventilation, humidity control
systems can meet the thermal demand, air quality, high energy
efficiency of residential, commercial buildings all year round. Pas-
sive cooling, heating systems integrated on-site natural Resources
into building design have been widely studied, such as earth-air
heat exchanger (EAHE) [2]. Earth-air heat exchanger, known as
the earth-air pipe heat exchanger (EAPHE), uses the shallow
ground as a heat sink or heat source, air as heat transfer fluid to
control indoor air temperature. Many design factors of the EAHE
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: slchen01@ntu.edu.tw (S.-L. Chen).
ground surface treatment, inlet air velocity, size of buried pipes.
However, as EAHE pipes are typically buried at around 2–3 m
beneath the ground surface or deeper, the high initial excavation
cost may impede its extensive use. Also, the dehumidification
effect of hot-humid air flowing through the EAHE system is rarely
discussed in a humid subtropical climate
Numerous researches have been focused on the thermal perfor-
mance analysis of the EAHE system in various geographical and cli-
mate conditions such as desert [3], steppe [4], cold [5], and hot-
humid regions [6]. K.K. Agrawal et al. [7] summarize and advise
that the annual mean ambient air temperature should be equal
to the undisturbed soil temperature at more than 3 m depth under-
neath the ground surface. Temperature fluctuation of subsoil dis-
tributed in the ground surface zone is exceptionally sensitive to
the short-term change of weather conditions, such as rainfall
events [8] but can be effectively improved by appropriate treat-
ment of the ground surface such as short-grass ground cover [9].
Through a field measurement of long-term weather patterns, the
inlet air properties of the EAHE system can be determined. Proper
design of airflow velocity can meet the ventilation requirement
and thermal comfort of buildings. Mihalakakou et al. [10] found

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110949
0378-7788/Ó 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Li-Hao Yang, Jiun-Wei Hu, Yuan-Ching Chiang et al.
that decreasing air velocity leads to a reduction of the convective
heat transfer coefficient at the inner interface of the buried tubes
hence a decline in maximum hourly cooling and heating. However,
due to the smaller air velocity, the residence time of air parcel
becomes longer, hence the more considerable temperature differ-
ence between the inlet and outlet air. For the hot-humid inlet air,
the decreasing rate of air temperature along with the length of
the earth-air pipes is higher than that of cold inlet air, so that the
quantity of water condensed from the humid air to the inner sur-
face of the buried pipes becomes more significant [11]. A decrease
in airflow velocity also lessens the pressure loss and energy con-
sumption of air blower [12]. Despite a decline in the hourly
amount of convective heat transfer, a significant drop in power
consumption of the air blower results in an increased overall
COP of the EAHE system [13].
Dozens of studies have pointed out that the essential consider-
ation for designing an EAHE system is the selection of pipe proper-
ties such as material, pipe diameter, and pipe length. Bansal et al.
[1415] and Badescu [16] found almost the same thermal perfor-
mance of the EAHE system for concrete, PVC, copper, and steel
pipes under the same dimension. The PVC pipes surpass other
pipes materials not only on its low cost but also on its corrosion
resistance and its hydrophobic property, facilitating the removal
of the condensed droplets in the buried pipes. Mihalakakou et al.
[17] observed that for the given air velocity when the pipe diame-
ter rises, a reduction of convective heat transfer coefficient causes a
lowering of a temperature difference between the inlet and outlet
air. However, Sodha et al. [18] reported that the larger diameter of
the buried pipes results in the higher daily cooling and heating
capacity of the EAHE system. Ascione et al. [19] conducted a per-
formance analysis of an EAHE system in three different Italian cli-
mates and noted that climate conditions and buried depth of EAHE
pipes could influence the optimal design of pipes length. Benham-
mou et al. [20] carried out a geometrical parameter study of EAHE
pipes in the Algerian Sahara climate and discovered that pipe
length could be affected by airflow velocity and pipe diameter.
Singh et al. [21] summarized that the saturation length of the air
tunnels could be shortened from 150 m to 105 m, 78 m, 70 m for
shaded, wet, and wet-shaded treatment of the ground surface,
respectively.
Recently, the design strategies of the EAHE systems cover more
extensive and different aspects. In terms of the designing methods,
researchers rely more on model simulations and future end-use
and climate scenarios. Yusof et al. [22] adopted a developed labo-
ratory simulator to conduct performance analysis of the EAHE sys-
tems and found that the predicted air temperature can be reduced
by 9.62 °C at most. Chiesa et al. [23] developed climate change sce-
narios to evaluate EAHE systems’ applicability and compared those
scenarios with building simulation results for future pre-design
evaluations. Besides, many scientists integrated the EAHE systems
with building structures and HVAC systems to develop energy-
efficient hybrid EAHE systems. Wei et al. [24] coupled the buoy-
ancy effect of dynamic thermal behavior in the buildings with
EAHEs, achieving purely passive and autonomous ventilation and
getting the maximum thermal capacity in hottest or coldest days.
Nemati et al. [25] utilized an EAHE as an efficient pre-cooling sys-
tem for an indirect evaporative cooler and resulted in 62% energy-
saving benefits for the indirect evaporative cooler. Akbarpoor et al.
[26] designed a building-dome-roof-integrated EAHE system that
can reduce up to 0.36kWh of hourly electricity consumption and
about 361.89 kg of carbon dioxide emission annually. It is worth
mentioning that other investigators raised the topics of ground
surface area limitation and end-users thermal comfort. Mathur
et al. [27] designed a helical-shaped EATHE system with a low land
area footprint to deal with the limited land accessibility in residen-
tial and commercial sectors. Yang et al. [28] proposed an inverse
2
Energy & Buildings 242 (2021) 110949
approach to dynamically match the year-round thermal comfort
objective and inversely calculated and determined the required
engineering parameters of EAHE systems, such as pipe length,
PVC diameter, burial depth, and airflow rate.
Moreover, the state-of-the-art EAHE research focuses on multi-
pipe EAHE systems, which shows geometry-dependent pressure
losses of airflow inside the EAHE pipes and new key design param-
eters of the EAHE systems as the pipe number increases. Amanow-
icz et al. [29] and Qi et al. [30] uncovered the impact of airflow
distribution uniformity on the multi-pipe EAHE systems’ thermal
performance. The comparative analysis results demonstrated that
U-type exchangers have better thermal performance uniformity,
while L-type exchangers result in uniform airflow among different
pipes and lower pressure loss. Amanowicz [31] conducted an
experimental and CFD investigation, pointing out the non-
uniform airflow phenomenon near the division between tubes,
and found that the U-type multi-pipe EAHEs have lower total pres-
sure losses than the Z-type ones. He suggested that the ratio of the
primary pipe diameter to the parallel pipe diameter plays a signif-
icant role in determining the multi-pipe EAHE systems’ thermal
performance. Amanowicz et al. [32] further investigated the flow
characteristics of the multi-pipe EAHEs under variable airflow con-
ditions. They observed the pressure losses for the 45° pipe struc-
ture of burial pipes are 30% lower than that of 90° pipe structure
ones. Brum et al. [33] performed a design evaluation with a differ-
ent number of burial ducts. They concluded that the four ducts
configuration is an energy-efficient design since multi-pipe EAHEs
systems with more than five ducts may not compensate the instal-
lation costs.
In terms of modeling EAHE systems, evidence shows that adopt-
ing computational and CFD modeling is very helpful during the
design and evaluation period. Victoria et al. [34] combined the
Standard Penetration Test information and the Era-Interim analy-
sis temperature data into the EAHE system installation procedure
to determine the surrounding soil characteristics and boundary
conditions for conducting numerical simulations. Gan [35] devel-
oped a computer program taking account of dynamic variations
of climate, loading, and subsoil conditions to assess the impact of
engineering parameters on the performance and dynamic thermal
performance of EAHE systems. Bansal et al. [36] introduced a new
concept of derating factor, which is a function of soil thermal con-
ductivity, system operation duration, and pipe length, to evaluate
the performance deterioration of EAHE systems under transient
operating conditions. Congedo et al. [37] verified the experiment
with CFD simulation of the horizontal air-ground heat exchangers
(HAGHE) and suggested that the transient performance of the
HAGHE is independent of the soil thermal conductivity but is
dependent on pipe burial depth. Amanowicz et al. [38] further
applied the CFD model to the multi-pipe EAHEs. He presented that
the airflow in each pipe and the airflow division between tubes are
not equal, and the airflow characteristics are dependent on geo-
metrical parameters. They concluded that utilizing the CFD model
helps HVAC engineers optimize multi-pipe EAHE systems’ geomet-
rical structure during the designing process.
There are several knowledge gaps in the literature that the
authors attempt to fill. Wei et al. [39] performed a full-scale field
experiment of EAHE systems under hot and humid climate condi-
tions and mentioned that the coupled effects of EAHE systems on
connected buildings should be investigated. Mathur et al. [27]
raised the topic of restricted availability of ground space in resi-
dential and commercial sectors. They found that the developed
helical EATHE system can be a viable solution to resolve the space
limitation in the city located in hot-humid regions. Hsu et al. [40]
integrated an EAHE system into a water-backfilled raft foundation
of a residential building to solve the high capital cost and ground
space limitation of the conventional EAHE system but compromis-
Li-Hao Yang, Jiun-Wei Hu, Yuan-Ching Chiang et al.
ing the indoor thermal comfort in summer because of the relatively
higher outlet airflow temperature. Do et al. [41] combined a
closed-loop EAHE system with an air-source heat pump, while
Nemati et al. [25] utilized an EAHE system as an efficient pre-
cooling unit for indirect evaporative coolers. These researchers
found that the hybrid EAHE systems integrated with HVAC equip-
ment showed potential cooling energy savings in hot and humid
climates. Amanowicz et al. [38] adopted CFD software Ansys Fluent
to simulate airflow in each pipe of the multi-pipe EAHEs and sug-
gested that CFD modeling is a proper method to investigate the
flow characteristics of airflow inside the multiple tubes of the
EAHEs. Amanowicz [31] pointed out the non-uniform airflow char-
acteristics near the division between pipes while the distribution
uniformity of airflow temperature and moisture content along
the EAHE pipe length is still uncertain. Hsu et al. [42] indicated that
due to different airflow requirements and required indoor thermal
comfort targets, COP might not be the critical parameter to identify
the operating performance of EAHEs. They proposed that a well-
developed empirical equation based on verified data of various
design criteria and requirements is a more reliable method to eval-
uate the system design of EAHEs. Thus, according to the knowledge
gaps mentioned in the literature above, the authors decided to
investigate an innovative hybrid multi-pipe EAHE system inte-
grated with building raft foundation and air handling unit. Ground-
water from aquifers is circulated to the water-based raft
foundation to increase the operating performance of the
foundation-integrated water-based multi-pipe earth-air heat
exchanger (FIWEAHE) system. CFD simulation was utilized to
explore the distribution uniformity of airflow temperature and
moisture content in different cross-sections along the pipe length.
A design relation curves among inlet airflow velocity, pipe diame-
ter, and suggested pipe length were established to determine the
suitable air blowers and the multi-pipe FIWEAHE system’s geomet-
ric structure. The varying degrees of sensible and latent heat trans-
fer with different simulated airflow velocities can be evaluated in
this research. The correlation among physical-thermal properties
of air and geometric properties of immersed air tunnels is estab-
lished to help future designers and engineers select suitable air
blowers and proper sizing of PVC pipes for newly built FIWEAHE
systems. The cost-benefit analysis is conducted to gain a better
understanding of the advancement of the FIWEAHE system. This
study aims to (1) control supply air in the range of indoor thermal
comfort via the multi-pipe FIWEAHE system, (2) analyze the dehu-
midifying effect of moist air passing through the FIWEAHE tubes,
and (3) further escalate the thermal performance of the retrofitted
FIWEAHE system. The system configuration of the retrofitted
FIWEAHE system is demonstrated in Section 2. The description of
the CFD simulation is given in Section 3. Results and discussion
for the effect of the retrofitted circulating water system, year-
round thermal performance, the impact of airflow velocity on sup-
ply air, and cost-benefit analysis are shown in Section 4, and the
conclusions are provided in Section 5.
2. Experimental investigation
2.1. Brief description of FIWEAHE system
The schematic diagram of the demonstration site of the
FIWEAHE system is shown in Fig. 1. The EAHE system is integrated
with the raft foundation and being immersed in an enormous
amount of water. The foundation water is circulated by a make-
up water pipe and a drain pipe. The forced convection formed
inside the foundation water enhances heat transfer between circu-
lating water and airflow inside the FIWEAHE pipes. The four
FIWEAHE pipes are jointed with an outside air intake duct and a
3
Energy & Buildings 242 (2021) 110949
blower before entering the raft foundation and connected with
an air supply duct and an air handling unit at the outlet of the
foundation. The fresh air enters the blower, passing through the
FIWEAHE pipes and air handling unit and then being distributed
to the interior space of the building. The air handling unit, along
with air supply ducts, registers, and chillers, are included in the
HVAC system of the building. The whole FIWEAHE system is
equipped with a wide array of sensors and be connected with
PLC and HMI control systems in the machine room of the building.
This demonstration site is a three-story residential building located
in Yilan County, Taiwan, experiencing a typical subtropical climate
with humid hot summer and mild winter.
The demonstration building of the FIWEAHE system situated on
the Yilan Plain undergoes a humid subtropical climate. Yilan
County has a significant amount of rainfall during the year, with
an annual average relative humidity of air higher than 80%, which
predominantly affects the indoor thermal comfort. Experimental
data of ambient air temperature and groundwater temperature
was measured in the demonstration site from May 2017 to May
2018 [43]. The ambient air temperature varied from 25 to 35 °C
in the long summer season from May 2017 to November 2017.
The temperature difference between ambient air and underground
soil in shallow depth of 2 m is near 6–8 °C, which shows a substan-
tial amount of cooling potential for the FIWEAHE system compris-
ing sensible and latent heat transfer. The ambient air temperature
fluctuated from 10 to 20 °C in the short winter months from
December 2017 to February 2018. The temperature variation
between the ambient air and the subsoil beneath 2 m underneath
the ground surface is around 4–10 °C, which contains a remarkable
quantity of heating potential for the FIWEAHE system, including
sensible heat transfer but almost no latent heat transfer. Fall run-
ning from November to December 2017 and spring running from
March to May 2018 provide an insignificant thermal performance
of the FIWEAHE system since the tiny temperature difference
between the air and the soil. Thus, in this study, the authors oper-
ated the FIWEAHE system in the summer season from July 2018 to
September 2018 and in winter months from December 2018 to
March 2019 to evaluate the thermal capacity and dehumidifying
effect of the FIWEAHE system.
2.2. System configuration and experimental equipment
To assess the cooling and heating potential of shallow ground
energy to the demonstration building throughout the year, the
authors established the year-round experiment and analyzed the
long-term experimental data. A three-story residential building
with its HVAC system targeting at low energy consumption and
carbon emissions has been designed and constructed in Yilan Plain,
Yilan County, Taiwan. The floor area of the three-story residential
building is about 250 m2 , and thus the ventilation air requirement
for the whole building is around 650–700 CMH, according to ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 62.2 [44]. Taiwan has a high frequency of earth-
quakes per year, so a robust design of the raft foundation is com-
monly seen in the newly-constructed building. A new type of raft
foundation shown in this study is found not only stable during
the earthquake, but also an energy-efficient design for space cool-
ing and heating when backfilled with water. The available space for
water storage in the raft foundation is about 123.2 m2 with the
height of foundation water of 0.8 m, and thus the estimated water
storage capacity is 98.6 tons. Integrated with the water-based raft
foundation, the HVAC system of the demonstration building could
achieve its design goal of low energy consumption and high energy
efficiency.
The FIWEAHE system consists of a blower, four earth air tun-
nels, a raft foundation, and a considerable quantity of water. The
Li-Hao Yang, Jiun-Wei Hu, Yuan-Ching Chiang et al.
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the FIWEAHE system.
blower with a fixed volumetric flow rate of 738.4 CMH and power
consumption of 0.46 W is selected to fit the ventilation air demand
of the building. The four PVC pipes are designed with the average
pipe length of 40 m, the pipe diameter of 0.2 m, the spacing of
the pipes of 0.1 m, the buried depth of 1.3 m immersed in the foun-
dation water. The four earth tubes are set below water level with a
gradient of 0.3–0.05 m and a U-turn to create declined U-shaped
pipes for proper drainage. The dimension of the concrete raft foun-
dation is about 22 m in length, 6.4 m in width, and 1.3 m in depth.
The raft foundation is divided by shear walls into seven parts,
among which six parts are served as water reservoirs and being
integrated with the EAHE pipes. Four PVC pipes pass through the
shear walls, and water in each reservoir can flow among reservoirs
freely. The three-dimensional model of the FIWEAHE system and
related HVAC equipment in the mechanical room are presented
in Fig. 2.
The leading experimental equipment of the FIWEAHE system is
the high-pressure air blower (IL-802-H) adopted to circulate fresh
outdoor air into the four immersed pipes. A programmable logic
controller (PLC) system was established in the machine room of
the demonstration building to collect experimental data of condi-
tioned air and foundation water. The energy measuring module
connected to the PLC control system was applied to measure the
power consumption of the fresh air supply fan. Measuring results
showed that even though the rated power of the air blower is
0.36 kW, its real power raises to 0.46 kW during the system oper-
ation due to the frictional resistance in the immersed pipes. A hot-
wire anemometer (TSI, 8346-M-GB) was employed to measure the
air velocity supplied by the air blower. A fan speed controller
(CHNK, ZADY6000X) was combined with the air blower to adjust
the supply airflow rate to an appropriate operating speed. T-type
thermocouples were integrated with temperature control modules
4
Energy & Buildings 242 (2021) 110949
in the PLC control system to record air and water temperature dur-
ing the year-round experimental operation of the FIWEAHE sys-
tem. The experimental measurements and error analysis
estimating the uncertainties of the experiment are shown below:
R ¼ R ð x1 ; x 2 ;    ; x n Þ
The result R is a function of the independent variables x1 , x2 ,. . .,
xn . The uncertainty of the result is expressed as:
"
2
2
2 #1=2
@R @R @R
WR ¼  w1 þ  w2 þ  þ  wn
@x1 @x2 @xn
The accuracy of the temperature measurement is ±0.2 °C for
temperatures ranging from 0 to 200 °C, which results in a maxi-
mum error of 0.2%. The airflow velocity measurement accuracy is
the great value between ±0.015 m/s and 2% of reading accuracy,
with the maximum errors of 5% ranging from 0 to 30 m/s. For
the heat transfer rate measurement, the maximum error of 5% in
sensible heat measurement and the maximum error of 7.6% in
latent heat measurement is obtained. The detailed measured
parameters and equipment are listed in Table 1.
3. Numerical investigation
3.1. CFD simulation setup
Launder et al. [45] developed the standard k-e model assuming
fully turbulent conditions and neglecting viscosity among mole-
cules, which applies to fully turbulent flow. Yakhot et al. [46] pro-
posed the dynamic renormalization group (RNG) method using
dynamic scaling and invariance with iterated perturbation meth-
ods to evaluate transport coefficients and transport equations
Li-Hao Yang, Jiun-Wei Hu, Yuan-Ching Chiang et al. Energy & Buildings 242 (2021) 110949

Fig. 2. Experimental configuration of the FIWEAHE system.

Table 1 geometric dimensions of the three-dimensional FIWEAHE system

Experimental measurement parameters and its measuring instruments. used for the simulation are itemized in Table 2. Straight immersed
Items Sensor type Accuracy air pipes were assumed in the simulation model to simplify the
Air and water temperature T-type thermocouple
complicated U-turn pipes in the experiment setup, shown in
±0.2 °C for temperature Fig. 3. Fundamental assumptions, governing equations, mesh con-
ranging from 0 to vergence study, and experimental validation of the CFD model are
200 °C presented and discussed in the following paragraphs.
Air humidity Thermocouple-based ±0.5 °C
Fundamental assumptions are made to obtain a simplified but
wet bulb temperature
sensor reasonable CFD analysis process and accurate simulated results.
Air velocity Hot-wire anemometer The great value between ± 0.015 m/ The authors aimed to clarify the applicability range of the simula-
s or 2% of reading ranging from 0 to tion model and applied the following assumptions:
30 m/s
Power consumption Watt-hour meter
±1%
 The steady-state condition of system operation is considered.
 Engineering materials such as polyvinyl chloride and concrete
are deemed as isotropic with constant properties
 Air, water, and water vapor are assumed incompressible fluid
under large-scale hydrodynamic turbulence scenarios. The RNG k- with constant properties.
e model improved the accuracy of turbulence dissipation rate in  Water vapor contained in ambient air is approximated as an
the transport equation by adding a modified parameter, consider- ideal gas.
ing the effect of swirl, and providing an analytical expression for  Buoyancy effects induced by temperature stratification of the
turbulent Prandtl numbers. The RNG k-e model is more suitable foundation water are considered.
for the CFD simulation of the multi-pipe FIWEAHE system since  Contact resistance between the immersed air tunnels and the
it has excellent accuracy for both high and low Reynolds number backfilled foundation water is negligible.
flow, which was supposed to be the case in this study with differ-  The inlet and outlet surface of the shear wall of the raft founda-
ent simulated airflow velocity input. The CFD simulation model tion is adiabatic.
aims to explore the impact of inlet air velocity and pipe diameter  The outer surface temperature of the shear wall of the water
on outlet air thermal properties and various pipe lengths of the reservoirs is fixed as the average experimental value.
FIWEAHE system. Thermal physical properties of the engineering  Inlet air temperature and make-up water temperature are set as
materials used for the steady-state simulation, including air at constant.
28 °C, water at 22 °C, unplasticized polyvinyl chloride (uPVC),  The immersed polyvinyl chloride tubes have spatially uniform
and heavyweight concrete, were set up in the CFD modeling. The temperature distribution and negligible thermal resistance.
 Straight immersed air tunnels and in-line foundation water
reservoirs are assumed to simplify the experimental system.
Table 2
Geometric dimensions of the simulated
FIWEAHE system.
3.2. Governing equations

Model item Unit (m) The governing equations of fluid flow and heat transfer used in
Raft foundation length 46.48 the CFD analysis are given below:
Raft foundation wide 2.65 Continuity equation:
Raft foundation water depth 0.80

* 
PVC pipe diameter 0.22 @q
PVC pipe pitch 0.10 þ V r q ¼ 0
PVC pipe length 46.48
@t
Supply water pipe diameter 0.05
Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equation:
5
Li-Hao Yang, Jiun-Wei Hu, Yuan-Ching Chiang et al. Energy & Buildings 242 (2021) 110949

Fig. 3. Geometric mesh modeling of the simplified simulation model with straight immersed air tunnels and in-line foundation water reservoirs.

*
*  *
** where the model constants areC l = 0.0845, C 1e =1.42, C 2e =1.68,

@V * *
q þ V r V ¼ rp þ q g þlr2 V r  qV V
0 0

@t
rk =0.7194, andre = 0.7194.
Species transport equation in turbulent flows:
Energy equation:
* 


* 
* @ ðqY w Þ rT
@ ðqEÞ * þ r  q V Y w ¼ r  ½qðDw;m þ Dt ÞrY w   Dw;T
q
* *
þ r  q V E ¼ r  q þr  hw J w þ Se þ r  r  V @t T
@t
Conservation of film mass:
* *
þqg V
*
_s
@h m
þ rs  h V l ¼
*
In the above equations, q and V is the density and velocity vec-
@t ql
tor of the flowing air and the foundation water, and E is the total Conservation of film momentum:
energy. The two terms on the left side are the unsteady terms *
* *
and convective terms. The four terms on the right side of the N-S @h V l hrs P L * 3f * 3v l * q_
þ rs  h V l V l ¼  þ h gs þ s s Vl þ
equation are pressure gradient, body force, diffusion term, and @t ql 2ql h ql
Reynolds stress, respectively. The five terms in the right-hand side
of the energy equation are heat diffusion term, mass diffusion term Conservation of film energy:

 
 
of water vapor in the air, source term, strain energy, and potential @hT l * 1 Ts  Tl Tl  Tw
þ rs  hT l V l ¼ kl  þ q_ s þ m
_ cond LðT s Þ
energy, respectively. @t qC p h=2 h=2
Transport equation for turbulence kinetic energy:

*  
  In the above equations, Y w is the mass fraction of water vapor in
@ ðqkÞ l
þ r  q V k ¼ r  l þ t rk þ Gk þ Gb  qe  Y M the air. The two terms on the left-hand side are the unsteady term
@t rk and the convective term. For the species transport equation, the
þ Sk single term on the right-hand side is the mass transport term of
water vapor in the air. The Eulerian wall film equations are consid-
Transport equation for turbulence dissipation rate: ered to simulate the condensation phenomenon of water vapor on

*  
 
@ ðqeÞ l e the inner surface of the immersed pipes. The single term in the
þ r  q V e ¼ r  l þ t re þ C 1e ðGk þ C 3e Gb Þ
@t re k right-hand side of the film mass conservation equation is the mass
source term. For the film momentum conservation equation, the
e2
 C 2e q þ Se five terms in the right-hand side are the pressure term, the gravity
k
term, viscous shear force term, viscous force term, and force
In the above transport equations, k is turbulence kinetic energy, related to droplet collection or separation, respectively. The three
and e is the turbulence dissipation rate. The two terms on the left- terms in the right-hand side of the film energy conservation equa-
hand sides are the unsteady terms and convective terms, respec- tion are heat conduction term, source term, and condensation heat
tively. The first terms on the right sides are the influence of diffu- transfer term, respectively.
sion of k and e. Gk and Gb signify the generation rate of k as a result
of mean velocity gradients and buoyancy effects, respectively. qe is 3.3. Mesh convergence study
the rate of destruction of k due to turbulence dissipation. Y M rep-
resents the overall dissipation rate by the influence of the fluctuat- A Mesh convergence study was conducted to assess the accu-
ing dilatation on compressible turbulence. The term C 1e signifies racy of the converged solution for the FIWEAHE CFD model. The
the source enhancing the e value and the term C 2e represents the mesh number was varied from 561,745 to 2,043,697 to examine
sink diminishing the e value. Sk and Se are user-defined source the simulation results for each mesh. The two main parameters,
terms. The turbulent viscosity is calculated by: air outlet temperature and air outlet humidity ratio were moni-
2 tored to check how their results along the axial direction of the
k
lt ¼ q C l immersed pipes varied with the mesh, shown in Fig. 4. The simu-
e lated result variation of the outlet air temperature is negligible
6
Li-Hao Yang, Jiun-Wei Hu, Yuan-Ching Chiang et al. Energy & Buildings 242 (2021) 110949

Fig. 4. Result variations of (a) temperature and (b) humidity ratio of outlet air for four different grid numbers.

for the four different mesh numbers with a maximum difference of
merely 0.186%. However, the results of the average difference of
the outlet air humidity ratio are remarkable when choosing the
amount of mesh as 561,745 compared to other finer mesh with a
maximum truncation error of 0.811%. Therefore, the results com-
puted from the mesh quantity of 1,191,838 with an average differ-
ence of 0.19% are deemed as reliable and efficient grid-
independent solutions with better accuracy and less computa-
tional time.
humidity ratio of outlet air. Thus, the discrepancies between sim-
ulated and experimental data are insignificant, showing that the
simplified CFD model is able to assess the thermal performance
of the FIWEAHE system appropriately.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Effect of circulating water on foundation water temperature

3.4. Experimental validation of the CFD model
The simplified simulation model of the FIWEAHE system
assumed straight immersed air tunnels and in-line foundation
water reservoirs was built up, referring to the actual dimension
of the experimental system. To examine the validity of the CFD
model, the authors compared the simulated results with the exper-
imental data of air temperature and humidity ratio at the exit of
the FIWEAHE pipes. The input parameters, such as inlet velocity,
inlet air temperature, inlet humidity ratio of air, were set up
according to the long-term experimental data. Table 3 indicates
the validation results of simulated outlet air temperature and
humidity ratio with one of the typical operational days per month
in year-round experimental data from July 2018 to June 2019. Val-
idation results revealed that the discretization error of the simula-
tion model was in the range of 0–2.8% for the outlet air
temperature and 0.1–6.7% for the humidity ratio of outlet air dur-
ing the one year period. The maximum value of discretization error
was 0.7 °C for the outlet air temperature and 0.00138 kg/kg for the
Experimental results of the effect of supplementary water in the
raft foundation are demonstrated in Fig. 5. The foundation water
temperature was monitored during the summertime from July
2nd to August 31st without make-up water in 2017 and with cir-
culating water in 2018. In summer, when ambient air temperature
varied between 30 °C and 37 °C, the foundation water temperature
reached 28.4 °C on average and peaked at 29.5 °C without make-up
water from residential water well in 2017, but for foundation
water mixed with make-up water, the foundation water tempera-
ture dropped to 24.7 °C in average and peaked at 25.7 °C in 2018.
The temperature condition of foundation water was significantly
improved by circulating water in the raft foundation. The experi-
mental results indicated that the cooling potential of the circulat-
ing water in the building foundation 1.3 m underneath the
ground surface was close to that of the loam soil at 3 m based on
the stratified soil temperature at a depth of 3 m beneath the
ground surface last year [43]. However, in winter, when the ambi-
ent air temperature fluctuated between 15 °C and 20 °C, the foun-
dation water temperature maintained at around 20–21 °C on

Table 3
Validation of the simulation model with experimental data of outlet air temperature and humidity ratio.

Data date (M/D/Y) Experimental Outlet Temp. Simulated Outlet Temp. Experimental Outlet humidity ratio Simulated Outlet humidity ratio
(°C) (°C) (kg/kg) (kg/kg)
Jul/30/18 25.0 25.0 0.01934 0.02027
Aug/11/18 25.9 26.3 0.02045 0.02183
Sep/11/18 25.4 25.4 0.01966 0.02064
Oct/31/18 23.4 23.0 0.01556 0.01521
Nov/20/18 23.6 23.2 0.01448 0.01507
Dec/29/18 21.1 20.8 0.00964 0.00963
Jan/23/19 20.4 19.9 0.00801 0.00843
Feb/23/19 20.9 20.7 0.01008 0.01069
Mar/08/19 20.2 19.9 0.009313 0.009417
Apr/30/19 24.3 24.1 0.018234 0.01908
May/19/19 24.9 24.2 0.019408 0.019260
Jun/06/19 25.1 24.4 0.019021 0.019485
Average difference (%) – 1.557% – 3.600%

7
Li-Hao Yang, Jiun-Wei Hu, Yuan-Ching Chiang et al.
Fig. 5. Effect of circulating water in the raft foundation of the FIWEAHE system in (a) summer and (b) winter.
average whether there is make-up water or not because the tem-
perature of circulating water from the residential well was at
around 20 °C as well.
4.2. Year-round operation of FIWEAHE system
The experimental measurement of the year-round operation of
the FIWEAHE system is presented in Fig. 6. The temperature of
foundation water mixed with make-up water from the residential
water well was relatively stable and varied from 21 to 25 °C all
year round. In the summertime, from July to September 2018,
the temperature difference between inlet air and the mixed foun-
dation water was around 5–12 °C, which displayed a considerable
cooling potential of sensible heat transfer of the FIWEAHE system.
It is noteworthy that the temperature variation between the inlet-
air dew point and the mixed foundation water was about 3–5 °C,
which revealed a significant cooling potential of latent heat trans-
fer through condensation, producing an excellent dehumidification
rate from the immersed air tunnels. Thus the outlet-air dew point
temperature was close to the foundation water temperature. In
wintertime, from December 2018 to March 2019, the temperature
difference between inlet air and the foundation water was near 1–
7 °C, which was lower than that of in the summer season, provid-
ing the relatively moderate heating potential of sensible heat
transfer. There is almost no condensation happening during the
Fig. 6. Experimental data of fresh air and foundation water temperature conditions
under year-round operation.
8
Energy & Buildings 242 (2021) 110949
wintertime as the foundation water temperature was higher than
the inlet air temperature, and thus the air dew point temperature
was remained unchanged when flowing through the immersed air
tunnels. In the spring and autumn season, the inlet air temperature
was near the foundation water temperature, and thus there was no
remarkable effect of temperature regulation and dehumidification
from the FIWEAHE system.
The thermal performance of the FIWEAHE system during the
summer operation from July 2nd to September 23rd, 2018, is pre-
sented in Fig. 7. The seasonal temperature of the foundation water
was relatively stable, ranging from 22 °C to 25 °C, with an average
value of 24.7 °C throughout the summer season. The outlet air tem-
perature varied from 24 °C to 26 °C, which was well-regulated by
the FIWEAHE system and met the requirement of indoor thermal
comfort. The mean temperature of foundation water was 8.1 °C
lower than the outdoor air temperature and 4.5 °C lesser than
the dew point temperature of inlet air. The condensation process
happened when the foundation water cooled down the inlet air
temperature to under the dew point temperature of inlet air. The
temperature drop of fresh air passing through the immersed tubes
was 7.4 °C on average, along with the mean dehumidification rate
of 4.237 kg/h. The FIWEAHE system can provide 4.84 kWth cooling
capacity on average, comprising sensible and latent heat transfer.
The cumulative cooling load was 3,214 kWhth assuming the oper-
ating condition of eight hours per day from July 2nd to September
23th 2018. The power consumption of the air blower was fixed at
0.46 kWe so the mean system COP in summer was 10.5. The
FIWEAHE system achieved its maximum cooling capacity of 8.00
kWth with its maximum COP of 17.4. Results show that the
FIWEAHE system has pronounced cooling performance during
summer operation compared to the traditional air conditioning
system with its typical COP ranging from 3 to 6.
The thermal performance of the FIWEAHE system during the
winter operation from December 7th, 2018 to March 16th, 2019,
is demonstrated in Fig. 8. The average temperature of the founda-
tion water was 20.9 °C, with a slight fluctuation of ± 1 °C. The mean
air outlet temperature was 20.9 °C, which was well-regulated by
the foundation water in the vicinity of the immersed air tubes
regardless of the temperature variation of fresh outdoor air. The
minimum air outlet temperature was 19.6 °C, which signified the
FIWEAHE system has sufficient heating performance during the
period of a cold front or cold wave. The temperature rise of ambi-
ent air flowing through the immersed air tunnels was 3 °C on aver-
age without any condensation phenomenon as the foundation
water temperature was higher than the dew point temperature
of the fresh air. The FIWEAHE system can provide a mean and max-
imum heating capacity of 0.8 kWth and 2.57 kWth respectively in
Li-Hao Yang, Jiun-Wei Hu, Yuan-Ching Chiang et al.
Fig. 7. (a) Daily cooling performance and (b) daily dehumidifying effect of the FIWEAHE system for the fresh outdoor air in the summertime.
Fig. 8. Daily heating performance of the FIWEAHE system for the fresh outdoor air
in the wintertime.
winter comprising of merely sensible heat transfer without any
latent heat transfer. Despite almost no effect of dehumidification,
the relative humidity of the cold-humid fresh air can be reduced
during the heating operation in the immersed air tunnels. The
cumulative heating load was 640 kWhth with the premise of
eight-hour operation per day from December 7th, 2018 to March
16th, 2019. The FIWEAHE system has its mean and maximum sys-
tem COP of 1.74 and 5.58, respectively, in the wintertime.
4.3. Effect of inlet air velocity on FIWEAHE system
In this section of CFD simulation, four different air inlet velocity,
1.6 m/s, 3 m/s, 6 m/s, and 9 m/s, were chosen to analyze tempera-
ture profile and moisture variation inside the immersed air tunnels
and then propose a pipe-sizing chart as a part of design guideline
of FIWEAHE system. Four different cross-sectional views of the
immersed pipe at (A) inlet, (B) 15 m from the inlet, (C) 30 m from
the inlet, and (D) outlet, with temperature contours, were deter-
mined to explore the detailed airflow and its heat transfer mecha-
nism through immersed pipes under the summer operating
scenario. Based on the experimental data of the single-day opera-
tion of the FIWEAHE system in summer, the inlet air temperature,
the relative humidity of inlet air, and circulating water tempera-
ture were set constant as 35.2 °C, 72.6%RH, and 20 °C, respectively.
The pipes and foundation water temperature were both initialized
at 26 °C before carrying out the CFD simulation.
9
Energy & Buildings 242 (2021) 110949
Cross-sectional temperature contours of fresh air inside the
immersed pipes and foundation water surrounding the pipe sur-
face with two different air inlet velocity, 1.6 m/s, and 6 m/s, were
shown in Fig. 9. Four different cross-sectional views, at (A) inlet, (B)
15 m from the inlet, (C) 30 m from the inlet, and at (D) outlet of the
air pipes, were selected to investigate the effect of different air
inlet velocity to the temperature distribution and temperature
variation of fresh air along the immersed air tunnels. In the low
flow rate scenario with the air velocity of 1.6 m/s, the fresh air with
its inlet temperature of 34.9 °C was cooled down to 25.2 °C at the
outlet, which fitted the experimental data handsomely. The tem-
perature distribution of the fresh air was axially symmetric at
the inlet and outlet of the pipes but was quite uneven when flow-
ing through 15 m and 30 m from the inlet. The uneven distribution
of air temperature was induced by the effect of natural convection
when heat transfer occurred among the fresh air and inner surface
of the pipes. When the air near the inner surface of the pipes was
cooled down, its density went up, and then the cooled air gradually
accumulated near the bottom surface of the pipes, and the
uncooled air with lower density floated near the top surface of
the pipes, causing unevenly distributed heat transfer on the differ-
ent parts of the pipe surface. For the high flow speed operation
with the air velocity of 6 m/s, the air inlet temperature was cooled
down from 34.9 °C at the inlet to 28.4 °C at the outlet. When the air
velocity increased, the temperature drop of air passing through the
immersed tubes declined, and the effect of forced convection in the
air gradually governed the cooling performance. As can be seen in
the temperature contours of fresh air passing through 15 m and
30 m from the inlet, the temperature distribution of the air was
nearly symmetric around the axial direction of the pipes, and
buoyant force in the air became negligible. It should be underlined
that as the air velocity rose, the foundation water in the vicinity of
the pipe slightly increased, which means that the heat transfer
across the pipe surface was enhanced.
Air temperature profile along the pipe diameter for four differ-
ent cross-sectional views from the inlet to the outlet with an air
velocity of 1.6 m/s and 6 m/s was presented in Fig. 10. In the low
flow rate scenario with the air velocity of 1.6 m/s, the temperature
drop of the air flowing through the pipes was 5.9 °C between (A)
inlet and (B) 15 m from the inlet, 2.6 °C between (B) 15 m from
the inlet and (C) 30 m from the inlet, and 1.2 °C between (C)
30 m from the inlet and (D) outlet. The temperature difference
between the uncooled air and the pipe surface was 10.2 °C at the
inlet, 4.3 °C at 15 m from the inlet, 1.7 °C at 30 m from the inlet,
and 0.5 °C at the outlet. These results revealed that the cooling per-
formance was intense near the inlet and mild near the outlet as the
heat transfer between the uncooled air and the pipe surface
declined along the length of the pipes. For the high flow speed
Li-Hao Yang, Jiun-Wei Hu, Yuan-Ching Chiang et al.
Fig. 9. Cross-sectional airflow temperature contours A to D simulated by two different velocities from pipe inlet to outlet.
Fig. 10. Air temperature profile along the pipe diameter simulated by two different air velocities from pipe inlet to outlet.
operation with the air velocity of 6 m/s, the air inlet temperature
was cooled down from 34.9 °C at the inlet to 32.5 °C at 15 m from
the inlet, 30.3 °C at 30 m from the inlet, and 28.4 °C at the outlet.
The outlet air temperature of 28.4 °C had exceeded the standard of
thermal comfort for occupants in buildings. The temperature drop
between different sections of the pipes got closer since forced con-
vection began to hold the dominant position, and natural convec-
tion became inferior with the climb of air velocity. The
temperature difference between the uncooled air and the pipe sur-
face was 10.2 °C at the inlet, 7.8 °C at 15 m from the inlet, 5.6 °C at
30 m from the inlet, and 3.7 °C at the outlet. These results signified
that as the air velocity increased, the heat transfer between the
uncooled air and the pipe surface in four different cross-sections
heighten.
The temperature contours of fresh air inside the immersed
pipes and foundation water near the pipe surface in two different
cross-sections, 15 m from the inlet and at the outlet, are shown
in Fig. 11. Four different inlet air velocity, 1.6 m/s, 3 m/s, 6 m/s,
and 9 m/s, were chosen to explore how different air velocity
affected the temperature distribution on the same cross-sections.
In the outlet cross-section, the fresh inlet air with an air velocity
of 1.6 m/s was cooled down from 34.9 °C at the inlet to 25.2 °C
at the outlet, which matched the single-day measuring data well.
10
Energy & Buildings 242 (2021) 110949
The temperature distribution of the fresh air was axially symmetric
for the four different air velocities, which means that there was
almost no natural convection occurring at the outlet. As the air
velocity increased, the outlet air temperature rose, the foundation
water temperature surrounding the pipes climbed, and the thermal
penetration depth extended as well. These results signify that the
thermal influence zone is not only affected by the backfilled mate-
rial but also being influenced by the air velocity. In the cross-
section of 15 m from the inlet, the temperature distribution of
the air was nearly symmetric around the axial direction of the
pipes as the air velocity was at 6 m/s and 9 m/s but was asymmet-
rical with an air velocity of 1.6 m/s and 3 m/s. These results indi-
cate that natural convection held a strong position on air cooling
at the cross-section of 15 m from the inlet when air velocity was
at 1.6 m/s and 3 m/s. It should be emphasized that the fresh inlet
air was already cooled down by 6 °C and 4 °C in the first 15 m from
the inlet in low-velocity scenarios of 1.6 m/s and 3 m/s with the
effect of natural convection.
The air temperature profile along the pipe diameter with four
different air velocities at the cross-section of 15 m from the inlet
and at the outlet was represented in Fig. 12. In the cross-
sectional view of 15 m from the inlet, the fresh inlet air was cooled
down to 29.0 °C, 31.0 °C, 32.3 °C, 33.0 °C as the value of air velocity
Li-Hao Yang, Jiun-Wei Hu, Yuan-Ching Chiang et al.
Fig. 11. Airflow temperature contours with four different airflow velocity A to D at two different cross-sections.
Fig. 12. Air temperature profile along the pipe diameter for four different inlet air velocities at two different cross-sections.
was set at 1.6 m/s, 3 m/s, 6 m/s, and 9 m/s, respectively. The tem-
perature difference between the uncooled air and the pipe surface
was 4.3 °C, 6.3 °C, 7.6 °C, and 8.3 °C for the four different air veloc-
ity conditions sequentially. These results imply that the tempera-
ture drop was significant with a low air velocity of 1.6 m/s and
3 m/s, but the amount of heat transfer was substantial with a high
air velocity of 6 m/s and 9 m/s. In the outlet cross-section, the fresh
inlet air was cooled down to 25.2 °C, 26.3 °C, 28.3 °C, and 29.8 °C
when the air velocity was set at 1.6 m/s, 3 m/s, 6 m/s, and 9 m/s,
respectively. The outlet air temperature of 25.2 °C and 26.3 °C
met the standard of indoor thermal comfort while the outlet tem-
perature of 28.3 °C and 29.8 °C needed further cooling from the
auxiliary air conditioning equipment. The temperature difference
between the outlet air and the pipe surface was 0.5 °C, 1.6 °C,
3.6 °C, and 5.1 °C for the four different air velocity conditions
accordingly. To fully utilize the cooling capacity of the raft founda-
tion water of the FIWEAHE system, the temperature difference
between outlet air and the pipe surface should be as small as pos-
sible. Based on the simulation results at the outlet section, fresh air
with its velocity of 1.6 m/s got the maximum cooling effect from
the current length of the immersed air tunnels. The length of the
immersed pipes should be extended to upgrade the cooling perfor-
mance for the other three air velocity higher than 1.6 m/s.
The profile of air temperature and humidity ratio in the pipe
center along the pipe length with four different air inlet velocities
of 1.6 m/s, 3 m/s, 6 m/s, and 9 m/s in the summer case were exhib-
11
Energy & Buildings 242 (2021) 110949
ited in Fig. 13. As can be seen from the air temperature profiles,
when the air velocity climbed, the thermal entry length extended,
and the slope of temperature drop eased. As can be observed from
the air moisture profile, while the air velocity rose, the location
from the inlet at which condensation starts extended, and the
moisture removal rated declined. Based on the simulation results,
the thermal performance of the FIWEAHE with different air veloc-
ities can be evaluated and calculated, including air temperature
drop along with the airflow, heat transfer rate of sensible heat
and latent heat, and dehumidification rate. For the scenario of
1.6 m/s air velocity, air temperature drop throughout the pipes
was 10.2 °C, and the overall heat transfer rate, as well as the dehu-
midification rate, were evaluated as 6.23 kW and 5.56 kg/h, which
highly fitted the experimental data. The temperature drop along
the airflow was 8.7 °C, 6.9 °C, and 5.4 °C, and thus the sensible heat
transfer rate can be calculated as 3.96 kW, 6.29 kW, and 7.38 kW
for air inlet velocity of 3 m/s, 6 m/s, and 9 m/s, respectively. The
dehumidification rate was 7.33 kg/h, 6.84 kg/h, and 2.44 kg/h;
hence the latent heat transfer rate was calculated as 4.95 kW,
4.62 kW, and 1.65 kW, and the overall heat transfer rate can be
evaluated as 8.91 kW, 10.91 kW, and 9.03 kW, for the air inlet
velocity of 3 m/s, 6 m/s, and 9 m/s, sequentially. These results
revealed that as the air velocity increases, the sensible heat trans-
fer soars but levels off in the end, while the latent heat transfer
increases rapidly at first, but shortly reaches the plateau and
declines dramatically. It is worth stating that the effect of
Li-Hao Yang, Jiun-Wei Hu, Yuan-Ching Chiang et al.
Fig. 13. The variation of (a) airflow temperature and (b) humidity ratio of moisture air along with the pipe length for four different air velocities.
dehumidification was more favorable with low air velocity, stable
with moderate air velocity, and was deteriorative with high air
velocity. Evaluation results suggest that the FIWEAHE system can
meet indoor thermal comfort temperature and have effective
moisture removal rates under low velocity operating conditions
without auxiliary air conditioning equipment. The dimension of
the immersed pipes and the raft foundation of the FIWEAHE sys-
tem need to be resized to achieve energy-efficient thermal perfor-
mance for high air velocity operation.
4.4. Energy-efficient design of pipe geometry and air velocity of
FIWEAHE system
Relation curves among inlet flow velocity, pipe diameter, and
energy-efficient pipe length were developed to be the backbone
of the design guideline of the FIWEAHE system, shown in Fig. 14.
The energy-efficient pipe length to achieve a minimum tempera-
ture difference of 0.5 °C between outlet air and pipe surface was
determined for design requirements of air inlet velocity ranging
from 1 m/s to 8 m/s and pipe diameter varying from 0.1 m to
0.3 m. This graph of relation curves was determined based on the
summer operating scenario, including inlet air temperature of
35.2 °C, humidity ratio of air of 0.02653 kg/kg, and foundation
water temperature of 24.7 °C. The minimum pipe length should
be extended with the increase of the inlet air velocity or the pipe
Fig. 14. Energy-efficient design of pipe length for different simulated airflow
velocities scenario and three typical pipe diameters.
12
Energy & Buildings 242 (2021) 110949
diameter. The variation of inlet air velocity to the minimum
required pipe length becomes evident with the growth of pipe
diameter since the convective resistance between air near the pipe
center and the pipe surface raise as well. According to this line
graph of design relation curves, engineers are able to determine
the appropriate pipe diameter, suitable air inlet velocity, energy-
efficient pipe length, and needed pipe number for a design project
of FIWEAHE system with a fixed land area, given the excavation
depth of building raft foundation, and minimum required ventila-
tion rate. A simplified quadratic equation used for nonlinear curve
fitting of the relation curves in Fig. 14. is calculated as:
Lp ¼ 80:9679 þ 406:08Dp þ 22:60732v a þ 364:8D2p  0:6545v 2a
þC
with Lp the energy-efficient pipe length, Dp the pipe diameter,
v a the airflow velocity, and C the modified residuals from the quad-
ratic regression. The modified residuals of the quadratic regression
equations of the energy-efficient pipe length under different pipe
diameters and airflow velocities are listed in Table 4.
4.5. Cost-benefit analysis of FIWEAHE system
The cost-benefit analysis of retrofitting the FIWEAHE system
with a circulating water piping system is demonstrated in Table 5.
Original still water began to flow around the water reservoirs when
mixing with the well water supplied from the inlet side of reservoir
2, and then the average water temperature dropped from 26 to
30 °C to 21–25 °C in the summer operation scenario. With water
circulated in the water reservoirs, the cooling capacity of the
FIWEAHE system rose from 3.21 kW to 4.84 kW, and its moisture
removal rate climbed up from 1.97 kg/h to 4.24 kg/h. Compared
to the considerable benefit mentioned above, the retrofitted water
piping system costs $100, elevating the total capital investment
(TCI) to merely $2,060. If the advanced thermal performance of
the FIWEAHE system would like to be accomplished without the
circulating water piping system, the raft foundation needs to be
constructed at least 1 m deeper than the current design of the
FIWEAHE system. More considerable efforts would be required
during the construction of the raft foundation to obtain a similar
foundation water temperature with still water, such as the extra
trenching cost of $300 and additional material cost of reinforced
concrete of $1,800. The aggregated amount of capital investment
would be raised to $4,060 if doing so. Thus, with the novel idea
of supplying residential well water into the raft foundation, TCI
saving benefit for the FIWEAHE system retrofitted with a
circulating water piping system is 49% compared with a
Li-Hao Yang, Jiun-Wei Hu, Yuan-Ching Chiang et al. Energy & Buildings 242 (2021) 110949

Table 4 and remarkable moisture removal rates of 5.56 kg/h (115%

Modified residuals of quadratic regression equations of energy-efficient pipe lengths
for different design requirements of pipe diameters and airflow velocities.
Pipe diameter (m) Airflow velocity (m/s) C equipment. It is worth noting that the air temperature has uni-
0.1 1 29.75904
2 18.11522
4 0.754571
6 18.3701
8 30.2587
3. Design relation curves among inlet flow velocity, pipe diameter,
0.2 1 0.79296
2 2.663216
4 0.862571
6 1.92208
8 0.81074
0.3 1 33.641
2 14.2848
4 0.64543
6 15.22992
8 33.34126
higher than original FIWEAHE system) under low velocity oper-
ating conditions of 1.6 m/s without auxiliary air conditioning
form distribution in the inlet and outlet sections of the EAHE
pipes but shows the non-uniform distribution in the cross-
sections of 15 m and 30 m from the inlet.
and energy-efficient pipe length were developed to be the back-
bone of the design guideline of the FIWEAHE system. The
energy-efficient pipe length is defined as the minimum pipe
length to achieve a minimum temperature difference of 0.5 °C
between outlet air and pipe surface. The minimum pipe length
should be extended with the increase of the inlet air velocity or
the pipe diameter. The variation of inlet air velocity to the min-
imum required pipe length becomes remarkable with pipe
diameter growth.

Table 5
Cost-benefit comparison between original FIWEAHE system and retrofitted FIWEAHE Declaration of Competing Interest
system with currency unit represented by U.S. dollar.

Original FIWEAHE Retrofitted FIWEAHE The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
system system cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
Flow patterns Still water Circulating water to influence the work reported in this paper.
Water temperature 26–30 °C 21–25 °C
Cooling capacity 3.21 kW 4.84 kW
Moisture removal rate 1.97 kg/h 4.24 kg/h Acknowledgment
Cost of piping system N/A $100
Total capital investment $1,960 $2,060 The financial support was provided by Green Energy Technolo-
gies Joint Research and Development Program under Grant Num-
ber MOST-108-3116-F-002-001-, made by the Ministry of Science
and Technology, and Bureau of Energy, Ministry of Economic
deeper-constructed FIWEAHE system with still water in water Affairs, Taiwan, R.O.C.
reservoirs to reach the similar thermal performance.

References
5. Conclusions
A demonstration site of the retrofitted FIWEAHE system has
been proven to operate robustly all year round and provides 49%
saving benefit for total capital investment compared with a
deeper-constructed FIWEAHE system with still water in water
reservoirs. Experimental processes and CFD simulation of the ret-
rofitted FIWEAHE system have been set up to assess the year-
round air conditioning performance. The simulated outlet air tem-
perature and humidity ratio were validated with the measuring
data. For the retrofitted FIWEAHE system undergoing humid sub-
tropical climate condition in Taiwan, the experimental and numer-
ical investigation highlight:
1. The water-based EAHE pipes buried in the shallow zone at a
depth of 1–2 m and integrated with the building raft foundation
improve the thermal performance and save the excavation cost.
The multi-pipe FIWEAHE integrated with the supplementary
groundwater system gets 50.7% higher cooling performance
than the original FIWEAHE system with still foundation water
or the conventional backfilled soil.
2. The outlet air temperature was well-controlled by the FIWEAHE
system and met the indoor thermal comfort requirement all
year round. In summer, the FIWEAHE system has 4.84 kWth
cooling capacity and the system COP of 10.5 on average, which
is 47.9% higher than that of the original FIWEAHE system. In
winter, the FIWEAHE system gets a mean heating capacity of
[10] G. Mihalakakou, M. Santamouris, D. Asimakopoulos, On the cooling potential
0.8 kWth with a mean system COP of 1.74. Besides, in the peak
summer day, the FIWEAHE system can provide an air tempera-
[11] F. Niu, Y. Yu, D. Yu, H. Li, Heat and mass transfer performance analysis and
ture drop of 10.2 °C and comfortable airflow outlet temperature
of 25 °C (compared to 30 °C in the original FIWEAHE system)
[1] REN 21, Renewables 2019 Global Status Report, Renewable Energy Policy
Network for the 21st Century, France, 2019. https://www.ren21.net/wp-
content/uploads/2019/05/gsr_2019_full_report_en.pdf.
[2] N. Bordoloi, A. Sharma, H. Nautiyal, V. Goel, An intense review on the latest
advancements of Earth Air Heat Exchangers, Revewable Sustainable Energy
Rev. 89 (2018) 261–280, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.056.
[3] S.M.N. Shojaee, K. Malek, Earth-to-air heat exchangers cooling evaluation for
different climates of Iran, Sustainable Energy Techno Assess. 23 (2017) 111–
120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2017.09.007.
[4] M. Khabbaz, B. Benhamou, K. Limam, P. Hollmuller, H. Hamdi, A. Bennouna,
Experimental and numerical study of an earth-to-air heat exchanger for air
cooling in a residential building in hot semi-arid climate, Energy Build. 125
(2016) 109–121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.04.071.
[5] H. Li, L. Ni, G. Liu, Y. Yao, Performance evaluation of Earth to Air Heat Exchange
(EAHE) used for indoor ventilation during winter in severe cold regions, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 160 (2019) 114111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2019.114111.
[6] S.L. Do, J. Baltazar, J. Haberl, Potential cooling savings from a ground-coupled
return-air duct system for residential buildings in hot and humid climates,
Energy Build. 103 (2015) 206–215, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2015.05.043.
[7] K.K. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, R. Misra, M. Bhardwaj, D.K. Jamuwa, A review on
effect of geometrical, flow and soil properties on the performance of earth air
tunnel heat exchanger, Energy build. 176 (2018) 120–138, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.07.035.
[8] M. Cuny, J. Lin, M. Siroux, C. Fond, Influence of rainfall events on the energy
performance of an earth-air heat exchanger embedded in a multilayered soil,
Renewable Energy 147 (2020) 2664–2675, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2019.01.071.
[9] 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. Manage. 201 (2019) 112163, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2019.112163.
of earth to air heat exchangers, Energy Convers. Manage. 35 (5) (1994) 395–
402, https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-8904(94)90098-1.
cooling capacity prediction of earth to air heat exchanger, Appl. Energy 137
(2015) 211–221, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.10.008.

13
Li-Hao Yang, Jiun-Wei Hu, Yuan-Ching Chiang et al.
[12] M. De Paepe, A. Janssens, Thermo-hydraulic design of earth-air heat
exchangers, Energy Build. 35 (4) (2003) 389–397, https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0378-7788(02)00113-5.
[13] H. Wu, S. Wang, D. Zhu, Modeling and evaluation of cooling capacity of earth-
air-pipe systems, Energy Convers. Manage. 48 (2007) 1462–1471, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enconman.2006.12.021.
[14] V. Bansal, R. Misra, G.D. Agrawal, J. Mathur, Performance analysis of earth pipe
air heat exchanger for winter heating, Energy Build. 41 (11) (2009) 1151–
1154, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.05.010.
[15] V. Bansal, R. Misra, G.D. Agrawal, J. Mathur, Performance analysis of earth pipe
air heat exchanger for summer cooling, Energy Build. 42 (5) (2010) 645–648,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.11.001.
[16] V. Badescu, Simple and accurate model for the ground heat exchanger of a
passive house, Renewable Energy 32 (5) (2007) 845–855, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2006.03.004.
[17] G. Mihalakakou, M. Santamouris, D. Asimakopoulos, N. Papanikolaou, Impact
of ground cover on the efficiencies of earth-to-air heat exchangers, Appl.
Energy 48 (1) (1994) 19–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-2619(94)90064-7.
[18] M.S. Sodha, D. Buddhi, R.L. Sawhney, Thermal performance of underground air
pipe: Different earth surface treatments, Energy Convers. Manag. 31 (1991)
95–104, https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-8904(91)90108-U.
[19] F. Ascione, L. Bellia, F. Minichiello, Earth-to-air heat exchangers for Italian
climates, Renewable Energy 36 (8) (2011) 2177–2188, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2011.01.013.
[20] M. Benhammou, B. Draoui, Parametric study on thermal performance of earth-
to-air heat exchanger used for cooling of buildings, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 44 (2015) 348–355, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.12.030.
[21] R. Singh, R.L. Sawhney, I.J. Lazarus, V.V.N. Kishore, Recent advancements in
earth air tunnel heat exchanger (EATHE) system for indoor thermal comfort
application: A review, Revewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 82 (2018) 2162–
2185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.08.058.
[22] T.M. Yusof, H. Ibrahim, W.H. Azmi, M.R.M. Rejab, Thermal analysis of earth-to-
air heat exchanger using laboratory simulator, Appl. Therm. Eng. 134 (2018)
130–140, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.01.124.
[23] G. Chiesa, A. Zajch, Contrasting climate-based approaches and building
simulations for the investigation of Earth-to-air heat exchanger (EAHE)
cooling sensitivity to building dimensions and future climate scenarios in
North America, Energy Build. 227 (2020) 110410, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2020.110410.
[24] H. Wei, D. Yang, Y. Guo, M. Chen, Coupling of earth-to-air heat exchangers and
buoyancy for energy-efficient ventilation of buildings considering dynamic
thermal behavior and cooling/heating capacity, Energy 147 (2018) 587–602,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.067.
[25] N. Nemati, A. Omidvar, B. Rosti, Performance evaluation of a novel hybrid
cooling system combining indirect evaporative cooler and earth-air heat
exchanger, Energy 215 (2021) 119216, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2020.119216.
[26] A.M. Akbarpoor, A.H. Poshtiri, F. Biglari, Performance analysis of domed roof
integrated with earth-to-air heat exchanger system to meet thermal comfort
conditions in buildings, Renewable Energy 168 (2021) 1265–1293, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.12.110.
[27] A. Mathur and S. Kumar, Thermal performance and comfort assessment of U-
shape and helical shape earth-air heat exchanger in India, Energy and Built
Environment, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbenv.2021.01.002
[28] D. Yang, H. Wei, R. Shi, J. Wang, A demand-oriented approach for integrating
earth-to-air heat exchangers into buildings for achieving year-round indoor
thermal comfort, Energy Convers. Manage. 182 (2019) 95–107, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2018.12.071.
[29] Ł. 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, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.geothermics.2020.101896.
14
Energy & Buildings 242 (2021) 110949
[30] D.i. Qi, A. Li, S. Li, C. Zhao, Comparative analysis of earth to air heat exchanger
configurations based on uniformity and thermal performance, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 183 (2021) 116152, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2020.116152.
[31] Ł. Amanowicz, Influence of geometrical parameters on the flow characteristics
of multi-pipe earth-to-air heat exchangers – experimental and CFD
investigations, Appl. Energy 226 (2018) 849–861.
[32] Ł. Amanowicz, J. Wojtkowiak, Approximated flow characteristics of multi-pipe
earth-to-air heat exchangers for thermal analysis under variable airflow
conditions, Renewable Energy 158 (2020) 585–597, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2020.05.125.
[33] R.S. Brum, J.V.A. Ramalho, M.K. Rodrigues, L.A.O. Rocha, L.A. Isoldi, E.D.D.
Santos, Design evaluation of Earth-Air Heat Exchangers with multiple ducts,
Renewable Energy 135 (2019) 1371–1385, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2018.09.063.
[34] L.C. Victoria, V.F. Hermes, J. Vaz, J. Costi, W.C. Marques, L.A.O. Rocha, E.D.D.
Santos, M.K. Rodrigues, C. Biserni, L.A. Isoldi, Methodology Allying Standard
Penetration Test and Era-Interim Data Set for Numerical Simulations of Earth-
Air Heat Exchangers, J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. Therm. Sci. 76 (2) (2020) 43–64,
https://doi.org/10.37934/arfmts.76.2.4364.
[35] G. Gan, Dynamic interactions between the ground heat exchanger and
environments in earth–air tunnel ventilation of buildings, Energy Build. 85
(2014) 12–22, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.09.030.
[36] Vikas Bansal, Rohit Misra, Ghanshyam Das Agarwal, Jyotirmay Mathur,
‘Derating Factor’ new concept for evaluating thermal performance of earth
air tunnel heat exchanger: A transient CFD analysis, Appl. Energy 102 (2013)
418–426, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.07.027.
[37] P.M. Congedo, C. Lorusso, C. Baglivo, M. Milanese, L. Raimondo, Experimental
validation of horizontal air-ground heat exchangers (HAGHE) for ventilation
systems, Geothermics 80 (2019) 78–85, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.geothermics.2019.02.010.
[38] Ł. Amanowicz, J. Wojtkowiak, Validation of CFD model for simulation of multi-
pipe earth-to-air heat exchangers (EAHEs) flow performance, Thermal Science
and Engineering Progress 5 (2018) 44–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tsep.2017.10.018.
[39] H. Wei, D. Yang, J. Wang, J. Du, Field experiments on the cooling capability of
earth-to-air heat exchangers in hot and humid climate, Appl. Energy 276
(2020) 115493, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115493.
[40] C.Y. Hsu, Y.C. Chiang, Z.J. Chien, S.L. Chen, Investigation on performance of
building-integrated earth-air heat exchanger, Energy Build. 169 (2018) 444–
452, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.03.070.
[41] S.L. Do, J.-C. Baltazar, J. Haberl, Juan-Carlos Baltazar, Jeff Haberl, Potential
cooling savings from a ground-coupled return-air duct system for residential
buildings in hot and humid climates, Energy Build. 103 (2015) 206–215,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.05.043.
[42] 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, Renewable Energy 157 (2020) 741–753, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2020.05.009.
[43] 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
greenhouse environmental temperature-control system, Energy Build. 202
(2019) 109381, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109381.
[44] ASHRAE, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.2, Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air
Quality in Residential Buildings, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating,
and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 2019.
[45] B.E. Launder, D.B. Spalding, Lectures in Mathematical Models of Turbulence,
Academic Press, 1972.
[46] V. Yakhot and S.A. Orszag, Renormalization Group Analysis of Turbulence. I.
Basic Theory, Journal of Scientific Computing, 1(1986) 3-51. https://link.
springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01061452.