Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 2 November 2013
Received in revised form 14 February 2014
Accepted 22 February 2014
Keyword:
Earth-to-air heat exchanger
a b s t r a c t
A numerical study was conducted for prediction the thermal behavior of an Earth-to-Air Heat Exchanger
(EAHE) for three cities in Mxico. The climate conditions correspond to an extreme heat in summer and
low temperature in winter (Cd. Jurez, Chihuahua), mild weather (Mxico city) and hot weather (Mrida,
Yucatn). A Computational Fluid Dynamics code based on the Finite Volume Method has been developed
in order to model the EAHE. Simulations have been conducted for sand, silt and clay soil textures for the
cities of Cd. Jurez, Mxico city and Mrida, respectively. Also, for different Reynolds numbers, Re = 100,
500, 1000, 1500 through one year. For Cd. Jurez, and Mxico city, simulation results reveal that the
thermal performance of the EAHE is better in summer than in winter, decreasing the air temperature in
an average of 6.6 and 3.2 C for summer and increasing it in 2.1 and 2.7 C for winter, respectively. By
contrast for Mrida, EAHE had its best thermal performance in winter, increasing the air temperature in
3.8 C. It is concluded that the use of EAHEs is appropriate for heating or cooling of buildings in lands of
extreme and moderate temperatures where the thermal inertia effect in soil is higher.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Nowdays, most of the energy demand in buildings is used for
air-conditioning, which runs by burning fossil fuels, however, its
high cost and negative environmental impact makes it necessary
to implement passive systems to reduce the energy consumption.
Coupling an earth-to-air heat exchanger to a building is an alternative to improve thermal comfort at low cost, reducing or even
replacing the use of active systems by taking advantage of soils
thermal inertia.
Recent studies aimed to evaluate the temperature proles in soil
are still implementing 1-D analytic formulation proposed over 50
years ago by Carslaw and Jaeger [1], that are still distant from representing reality since they do not consider soils thermophysical
variation [29]. A study of this kind was carried out by Salah ElDin [10], who predicted the variation of the soil temperature with
depth in a 1-D model based on an energy balance at the ground
surface. They considered the variation of the solar radiation, air
temperature and latent heat ux due to evaporation; however, it
was considered that soil has uniform thermophysical properties.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +52 777 3 62 77 70; fax: +52 777 3 62 77 95.
E-mail addresses: atthedrive 7@hotmail.com (L. Ramrez-Dvila),
jxaman@cenidet.edu.mx (J. Xamn), jesuso@cenidet.edu.mx (J. Arce),
gaby@cenidet.edu.mx (G. lvarez), ivan@cenidet.edu.mx (I. Hernndez-Prez).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.02.073
0378-7788/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Nomenclature
Cp
G
Hy
P
Q
Ra
Re
T
out
Tave
u, v
x, y
Greek symbols
thermal diffusivity, m2 s1
emissivity
thermal conductivity, W m1 K1
dynamic viscosity, kg m1 s1
density, kg m3
Subscripts
ave
average
cond
conduction heat transfer
convection heat transfer
conv
rad
radiation heat transfer
239
Table 1
Geometric dimensions for the EAHE.
Section
Dimension
Soils depth
Pipe depth
Pipe diameter
Pipe length
Length of soil at left and right sides
Hy = 12 m
Hy3 = 10 m
Hx2 = Hx4 = Hy2 = 0.15 m
Hx3 = 5 m
Hx1 = Hx5 = 0.5 m
240
modeled in the Cartesian coordinate system and described by continuity, momentum and energy equations [28]:
(u)
(v)
+
=0
x
y
(1)
(uu)
(vu)
P
u
=
+
+
y
x
x
x
x
(vv)
P
v
(uv)
+
=
+
x
y
y
x
x
(uT )
(vT )
+
=
x
y
x
T
CP x
u
y
y
v
+
y
y
T
CP y
(2)
(3)
T
|y=0 = CE LR + SR LE
y
where
Tamb is the air temperature above the ground surface and hsur
is the convective heat transfer coefcient at the soil surface and
can be calculated from the following equation:
hsur = 5.678
vel
wind
0.304
vel
0.775 + 0.35
wind
0.304
0.78
(10)
CE = hsur (Tamb )
(9)
The next energy balance [7] is used for the ground surface:
LR = R
SR = G
(4)
(7)
241
Table 3
Average Nusselt number in the hot wall for aspect ratios of 2, 4, 6 and 10.
Ra
Present study
Absolute differences
percentage (%)
A=2
103
104
105
106
4.34
4.28
5.91
12
4.10
4.03
5.92
11.82
5.53
5.78
0.25
1.52
A=4
103
104
105
106
4.23
4.18
5.35
10.42
3.99
3.95
5.26
10.34
6.63
5.51
1.53
0.76
A=6
103
104
105
106
4.21
4.18
5.10
9.61
3.96
3.93
5.01
9.65
5.96
5.88
1.73
0.37
A = 10
103
104
105
106
4.18
4.17
4.81
8.58
3.94
3.92
4.69
8.64
5.82
5.94
2.56
0.81
calculate, that increases nonlinearity of the equations. This problem has been tackled by implementing the SIMPLEC algorithm, a
pressure-velocity coupling technique that allows calculating the
ow eld [29].
It is known that the solution of the algebraic equations
approaches the exact solution once a pre-establish convergence
criterion is reached, which has to be rigorous enough to warranty
that the change of in the subsequent iterations is negligible. In
the present work the convergence criterion for all the unknown
variables is 1010 .
The methodology previously described can be summarized as
follows:
(12)
Since in the governing differential equation for convectiondiffusion the velocities eld is unknown, they need to be calculated.
Velocity is governed by the momentum equations, where a pressure term is included, which is another unknown variable to
Table 2
Nodes distribution in EAHE.
Section
Number of nodes
Nx1 , Nx5
Nx2 , Nx4 , Ny2
Nx3
Ny1
Ny3
21
71
91
41
201
242
1.0
(b)
0.6
0.6
*
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
Experimental Results
Present Study
0.0
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
1.2
(d) 0.4
1.0
0.3
0.8
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.8
Experimental Results
Present Study
0.0
0.4
0.6
Experimental Results
Present Study
0.0
-0.4
(c)
1.0
0.8
(a)
-0.1
0.2
-0.2
Experimental Results
Present Study
0.0
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.4
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.0 0.5
3.0
2.5 3.0
Fig. 4. Comparison of the u -velocity between Nielsen (1990) and the present study in: x = 1.0, (b) x = 2.0, (c) y = 0.972 y (d) y = 0.028.
Table 4
Climatic conditions in Cd. Jurez, Chihuahua for the year 2010.
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Average temp. ( C)
8.1
10.4
14.9
19.4
25.0
28.2
28.7
27.3
24.2
19.2
12.0
7.3
Max temp. ( C)
Min temp. ( C)
RH (%)
Irradiance (W/m2 )
31-Jan
22-Feb
17-Mar
11-Apr
20-May
19-Jun
9-Jul
19-Aug
4-Sep
11-Oct
11-Nov
18-Dec
25.3
31.1
33.3
33.6
31.3
29.1
-0.6
3.2
7.5
11.3
3.3
0.8
53.3
36.8
30.0
26.5
22.0
18.2
38.5
50.3
42.1
39.0
48.1
42.7
312.3
461.1
392.8
593.3
715.8
565.3
574.0
282.0
316.9
394.6
339.5
415.2
3.4
4.3
4.8
3.4
2.2
5.3
4.6
2.9
2.1
1.5
3.2
3.2
243
Table 5
Climatic conditions in Mxico city for the year 2010.
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Average temp. ( C)
13.8
15.5
17.5
18.8
19.1
18.0
17.7
17.6
17.0
16.6
14.6
13.9
Max temp. ( C)
13-Jan
15-Feb
3-Mar
12-Apr
20-May
6-Jun
25-Jul
14-Aug
10-Sep
7-Oct
7-Nov
2-Dec
27.2
28.0
27.9
25.1
25.0
25.2
Min temp. ( C)
1.8
4.1
6.8
7.0
3.1
3.2
RH (%)
Irradiance (W/m2 )
43.0
40.0
33.0
40.0
46.0
58.0
63.0
64.0
69.0
63.0
55.0
49.0
369.8
408.0
462.5
451.7
570.4
380.5
375.6
382.7
328.6
329.5
380.6
359.8
2.4
7.0
3.3
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.0
3.0
2.9
3.0
2.7
2.3
Table 6
Climatic conditions in Mrida, Yucatn for the year 2010.
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Average temp. ( C)
21.5
23.9
26.4
28.1
30.0
28.8
28.8
28.1
27.2
26.4
23.7
22.6
Max temp. ( C)
Min temp. ( C)
RH (%)
Irradiance (W/m2 )
12-Jan
15-Feb
9-Mar
11-Apr
20-May
15-Jun
21-Jul
19-Aug
3-Sept
1-Oct
3-Nov
26-Dec
39.6
41.2
38.2
38.4
37.0
36.3
10.1
12.0
14.3
16.8
14.2
12.3
70.0
68.0
63.0
64.0
63.0
71.0
72.0
73.0
76.0
75.0
75.0
73.0
458.0
643.1
659.2
639.7
704.3
555.8
489.5
568.0
619.0
590.3
489.8
508.1
3.8
4.3
8.8
3.0
2.1
1.4
1.9
3.1
0.4
2.9
3.8
2.9
Inlet temperature
out
Nutlet average temperature Tave
Re = 100
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
0.6
3.2
7.5
25.3
31.1
33.3
33.6
31.3
29.1
11.3
3.3
0.8
1.6
4.6
5.9
19.8
27.4
23.6
25.5
24.4
22.8
13.7
4.7
3.8
Re = 500
1.8
4.8
6.1
19.9
27.4
23.6
25.5
24.4
22.8
13.7
4.9
4
Re = 1000
Re = 1500
2.1
5
6.4
20
27.3
23.7
25.6
24.4
22.9
13.8
5.1
4.2
2.4
5.3
6.7
20.1
27.1
23.8
25.6
24.4
22.9
13.8
5.4
4.5
244
For the aspect ratio A = 2, Ra = 105 shows the smaller difference with
0.25%, while Ra = 104 the larger one with 5.78%. For the aspect ratios
of A = 4 and A = 6, Ra = 103 is the larger difference reported with
6.63% and 5.96%. Finally, for A = 10, Ra = 104 shows the larger difference with 5.94%. This comparison reveals that the results obtained
are satisfactory.
Also, in order to validate the numerical code, a comparison against the experimental results reported by Nielsen [31]
was made. The isothermal ventilated cavity has the following
dimensions: 3.0 m 3.0 m 9.0 m (Height, H = 3.0 m). The air enters
through an aperture located in the upper side of the left wall and
leaves the cavity by an aperture on the lower side of the right wall;
all the walls were considered adiabatic. The inlet gap is 0.056 H
and the outlet gap is 0.16 H. Fig. 4 shows results for the nondimensional velocity horizontal component u* for four different
non-dimensional sections of the cavity. Fig. 4a and b shows velocities along y* on the positions x* = 1.0 and x* = 2.0, in the same way,
Fig. 4c and d shows velocities along x* on the position y* = 0.972
and y* = 0.028. It can be concluded from both gures that numerical results have an acceptable qualitative approximation, and from
a quantitative point of view, the maximum error respect to the
experimental results is 16.14%.
5. Results
The numerical results obtained for the conjugated heat transfer for the EAHE are shown. A laminar ow regime in function of
Reynolds number is considered for monthly climatic conditions in
Cd. Jurez, Mxico city and Mrida for 12 months over sand, silt and
clay, respectively.
The meteorological conditions for Cd. Jurez, Mxico city and
Mrida during a year are shown in Tables 46, where the following information was reported: a monthly average ambient
temperature; a representative day for each month, which registers
the corresponding maximum or minimum monthly temperature
for the hot or cold season; nally, the daily averages of relative
humidity (HR), incident diurnal solar radiation and wind speed
corresponding to the representative day are shown. The variable
parameters entered in the simulation code consist of Reynolds
numbers of 100, 500, 1000 and 1500 for each month of the
year.
For results analysis, the effect of Reynolds number in the EAHE
for Cd. Jurez will primarily be shown. Subsequently, the thermal
evaluation for the three cities (Cd. Jurez, Mxico city and Mrida)
will be presented.
Re=100
T out
T in
Re=500
T out
T in
34
32
32
30
30
o
T( C)
T( C)
34
28
28
26
26
24
24
5.64
5.66
5.68
5.70
5.72
5.74
5.76
5.78
5.80
5.82
5.64
5.66
5.68
5.70
5.72
x(m)
5.74
5.76
5.78
5.80
5.82
x(m)
Re=1000
T out
T in
Re=1500
T out
T in
34
34
32
32
30
o
T( C)
T( C)
30
28
28
26
26
24
24
5.64
5.66
5.68
5.70
5.72
x(m)
5.74
5.76
5.78
5.80
5.82
5.64
5.66
5.68
5.70
5.72
5.74
5.76
x(m)
Fig. 5. Temperature prole at the inlet and outlet of the EAHE for Re = 100, 500, 1000 and 1500 for July (Cd. Jurez).
5.78
5.80
5.82
In this section, the inuence of Reynolds number (Re) in the convective heat transfer taking place inside of the pipe is discussed. To
do so, the weather conditions of Cd. Jurez were chosen. Therefore,
the results shown below have only been evaluated for sandy soil.
The temperature proles at the pipes outlet for July and January
(months that registered the highest and lowest ambient temperature in the year) in function of Reynolds number are shown in
Figs. 5 and 6. It is observed that the temperature prole at the outlet of the pipe for January is a parabolic curve that reaches higher
temperature values as the Reynolds number increases. This contradicts the results obtained by [5], where it is reported that as the Re
increases, EAHEs efciency decreases. This is because a higher ow
velocity reduces the contact of the air with the pipe, decreasing the
amount of heat exchanged with the soil. However, in several studies the physical model considers that the EAHE is just composed
of a horizontal pipe, disregarding the effect that the vertical tube
sections have in the heat transfer. It was found for this case that
the effect obtained from those vertical tube sections was negative
since the thermal energy gained for the pipe is lost once it gets in
contact with the cold soil near to the surface. This explains why
Re=100
T out
T in
T( C)
T( C)
245
-1
-1
5.64
5.66
5.68
5.70
5.72
5.74
5.76
5.78
5.80
5.82
5.64
5.66
5.68
5.70
x(m)
5.72
5.74
5.76
5.78
Re=1000
T out
T in
5.82
Re=1500
T out
T in
T( C)
T( C)
5.80
x(m)
-1
-1
5.64
5.66
5.68
5.70
5.72
x(m)
5.74
5.76
5.78
5.80
5.82
5.64
5.66
5.68
5.70
5.72
5.74
5.76
x(m)
Fig. 6. Temperature prole at the inlet and outlet of the EAHE for Re = 100, 500, 1000 and 1500 for January (Cd. Jurez).
5.78
5.80
5.82
246
out obtained with Re = 100 and with Re = 1500, indibetween the Tave
cates an average difference of 19%. For heating purposes, the EAHE
behaved better with higher Re; a higher velocity does not let the
uid stay long enough in contact with the cold soil near the surface, what diminishes the loss of heat. In this city, the increase of air
temperature provided by the EAHE averaged 2.1 C. In December,
the EAHE was able increase the air temperature up to 3.7 C above
the inlet temperature. On the other hand, during warm months,
out
the Reynolds number did not have a signicant inuence on Tave
since the temperature variations in the soil are small. The EAHE had
a more important contribution for cooling than for heating, in all
warm months (from April to September) the EAHE highly decreased
the temperature. The reductions of temperature averaged 6.6 C. In
June, the EAHE provided the maximum cooling effect; it reduced
the air temperature up to 9.7 C. As can be seen in Fig. 7, the EAHE
does not require to be buried in great depths to work appropriately, after 2 m depth the temperature of the soil remains constant
for summer and winter.
out in function of Reynolds number for Mexico
Fig. 8 presents Tave
City. For all months and Reynolds numbers, the EAHE behaves as
out increased during the cold months (JanMar,
expected; the Tave
out decreased during the hot months (AprSep).
OctDec) and the Tave
out for all months;
The Reynolds number has a small inuence on Tave
Table 8
Inlet and outlet average temperatures ( C) in function of Reynolds number for a year
(Mrida).
Month
Inlet temperature
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
10.1
12.0
14.3
39.6
41.2
38.2
38.4
37.0
36.3
16.8
14.2
12.3
out
Outlet average temperature Tave
Re = 100
Re = 500
Re = 1000
12.5
15.4
17
38.7
43.4
43.2
39.9
37.5
36.1
21.6
16.7
16.4
12.7
15.5
17.1
38.5
43.1
42.8
39.6
37.3
35.8
21.6
16.9
16.5
13.0
15.7
17.3
38.2
42.6
42.3
39.3
37
35.5
21.6
17.0
16.7
Re = 1500
13.3
15.9
17.5
37.9
42.1
41.7
38.9
36.6
35.2
21.6
17,2
16.8
greater than 60% during all the year, which causes an increment
of the soil temperature. Therefore, by increasing the soil temperature, the uid toward the outlet of the EAHE signicantly raises
its temperature. Then, to avoid the undesirable gains of heat, it is
recommended to insulate the vertical section at the outlet of the
EAHE. This modication will be analyzed in a future work.
Finally, Table 9 presents the temperature difference (Tave )
out ) and the inlet (T inlet ) of the EAHE for the
between the outlet (Tave
ave
three selected cities during the year. These values are given for
Re = 1500. The results in the table demonstrate that the use of EAHE
is appropriate for heating or cooling in locations with extreme and
moderate climates, and not for humid hot climates.
Table 9
Average temperature difference ( C) between the outlet and inlet temperature for
Re = 1500 for Cd. Jurez, Mxico City and Mrida.
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
out
inlet
Tave = Tave
Tave
Cd. Jurez
Mxico city
1.8
2.1
0.8
5.2
4.0
9.5
8.0
6.9
6.2
2.5
2.1
3.7
3.7
2.1
1.5
5.4
3.5
3.9
2.3
2
1.9
1.9
3.5
3.5
Mrida
3.2
3.9
3.2
1.7
0.9
3.5
0.5
0.4
1.1
4.8
3
4.5
247
Fig. 8. Inlet and outlet average temperatures ( C) in function of Reynolds number for a year (Mxico city).
6. Conclusions
Acknowledgement
248
[10] M.M. Salah El-Din, On the heat ow into the ground, Renewable Energy 18
(1999) 473490.
[11] V. Badescu, Simple and accurate model for the ground heat exchanger of a
passive house, Renewable Energy 32 (2007) 845855.
[12] M. Cucumo, S. Cucumo, L. Montoro, A. Vulcano, A one-dimensional transient
analytical model for earth-to-air heat exchangers, taking into account condensation phenomena and thermal perturbation from the upper free surface as well
as around the buried pipes, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 51
(2008) 506516.
[13] P. Hollmuller, B. Lachal, Cooling and preheating with buried pipe systems:
monitoring, simulation and economic aspects, Energy and Buildings 33 (2001)
509518.
[14] V.A.F. Costa, Thermodinamic analysis of building heating or cooling using the
soil as heat reservoir, Heat and Mass Transfer 49 (2006) 41524160.
[15] A. Benazza, E. Blanco, M. Aichouba, Jos Luis Ro, S. Laouedj, Numerical investigation of horizontal ground coupled heat exchanger, Energy Procedia 6 (2011)
2935.
[16] M. Bojic, N. Trifunovic, G. Papadakis, S. Kyritsis, Numerical simulation, technical
and economic evaluation of air-to-earth heat exchanger coupled to a building,
Energy 22 (1997) 11511158.
[17] G. Florides, P. Christodoulides, P. Pouloupatis, An analysis of heat ow
through a borehole heat exchanger validated model, Applied Energy 92 (2012)
523533.
[18] R. Misra, V. Bansal, G. Das Agrawal, J. Mathur, T.K. Aseri, CFD analysis based
parametric study of derating factor for earth air tunnel heat exchanger, Applied
Energy 103 (2012) 266277.
[19] M. Santamouris, G. Mihalakakou, C.A. Balaras, J.O. Lewis, M. Vallindras, A.
Argiriou, Energy conservation in greenhouses with buried pipes, Energy 21
(1995) 353360.