You are on page 1of 16

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy

Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1266–1280

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Pneumatic and thermal design procedure and analysis of earth-to-air heat


exchangers of registry type
Viorel Badescu ⇑, Dragos Isvoranu
Candida Oancea Institute, Polytechnic University of Bucharest, Spl. Independentei 313, Bucharest 060042, Romania

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

Article history: An analytical pneumatic and thermal design procedure is proposed for earth-to-air heat exchangers
Received 5 October 2009 (EAHEs) of registry type. The procedure allows to choosing between different EAHE geometrical config-
Received in revised form 8 May 2010 urations and between the two usual air circulation paths inside the EAHE (i.e. the Z- and P-paths, respec-
Accepted 8 October 2010
tively). The implementation of the design procedure is made for the EAHE of a large passive house (PH)
Available online 11 November 2010
built near Bucharest, Romania (AMVIC PH). A time-dependent simulation of EAHE’s operation is per-
formed. It allows to computing the soil temperature profile at the surface and at various depths and
Keywords:
the air temperature distribution inside the EAHE. This simulation is validated by comparison with exper-
Earth-to-air heat exchanger
Design procedure
imental results. The EAHE heating and cooling potential during the year is investigated. The energy deliv-
Time-dependent model ered by the EAHE depends significantly on its geometrical configuration. A computer fluid dynamics
Computational fluid dynamics analysis (CFD) analysis is also performed. This analysis is validated by comparison with experimental results.
There is good agreement between the results predicted by the design procedure and the CFD analysis
concerning the air pressure drops in the EAHE. From a thermal point of view the Z-path should be pre-
ferred to the P-path. The CFD analysis results confirm the conclusions stressed out from the simple ana-
lytic design procedure and the time-dependent simulation.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction use by designers. They are based on algorithms describing the heat
transfer in soils under a temperature gradient. The evaluation of
The ground surface temperature exhibits fluctuations in time, in eight different simplified models [5] leaded to the conclusion that
correlation with the fluctuations of the atmospheric air tempera- almost all the proposed algorithms can predict with sufficient
ture. The temperature fluctuations are damped deeper in the soil. accuracy the temperature of the outgoing air from the EAHE. The
At some depth the soil temperature is lower than the atmospheric analytical methods allow designers to choose an appropriate EAHE
air temperature in summer and higher in winter. This difference of configuration but their results require validation.
temperature may provide a useful heat flux. There are two main The main scope of the early EAHEs was only to diminish the
techniques of extracting this heat flux. One is based on vertical heating and cooling load of the building. A recent second objective
ground heat exchangers (see [1,2]). The other technique uses in the development of EAHE is to minimize air pressure drops to
horizontal earth-to-air heat exchangers (EAHE), consisting of tubes reduce fan energy consumptions. This additional requirement is a
buried in the soil, through which air is drawn. The fresh air ‘‘must” in case of EAHEs implemented in passive buildings, where
entering the EAHE is thus cooled in summer and heated in winter. limits are prescribed for both thermal and electrical energy con-
Earth-to-air heat exchangers are commonly used to save energy in sumption. Natural ventilation systems are an alternative but their
buildings which are equipped with active ventilation systems. If driving forces, i.e. wind and/or buoyancy cannot always deliver
properly designed the EAHE diminishes the electricity consump- satisfactory airflow rates. Hybrid ventilation systems, combining
tion by the air-conditioning units or make these units unnecessary. natural and mechanical driving forces are also envisaged [6]. Thus,
A number of methods have been developed for EAHE analysis, EAHEs are presently characterized by both thermal and pneumatic
ranging from simple analytical models to 1D, 2D or 3D numerical performance indicators, such as the heat flux transferred to the air
models (for a review see [3]; for a recent method see [4]). The flow and the pressure drop inside the device, respectively. The two
numerical models are of high complexity and often not ready for indicators are not independent and normally improving the ther-
mal performance decreases the pneumatic performance and vice
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +40 21 402 9428; fax: +40 21 318 10 19. versa. The design solution is usually a compromise.
E-mail addresses: badescu@theta.termo.pub.ro (V. Badescu), dragos@aero.pub.ro Most EAHE systems are associated in practice to small air flow
(D. Isvoranu). rates. Consequently, they consist of a single (linear, U-shaped or

0306-2619/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.10.019
Author's personal copy

V. Badescu, D. Isvoranu / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1266–1280 1267

coined) pipe. When larger air flow rates are circulated, using a sin-
gle pipe would lead to unacceptably large pressure drops. In this
case other EAHE configurations are recommended and the registry
type is one of them. Designing of single pipe EAHEs involves deter-
mination of the depth where the pipe is buried, choosing the pipe
material and its diameter (see e.g. [7]). In addition, in case of EAHEs
of registry type, the diameter of the input/output drums should be
determined, as well as the number of parallel pipes in the registry.
The way of circulating the air through the EAHE should also be
stated.
The main novelty of this paper is to present a simple pneumatic
and thermal design method for EAHEs of registry type. The method
proposed here is based on relationships for the main performance
indicators which include parameters describing the drum’s geom-
etry. The influence of the way of circulating the air inside the EAHE
on device’s performance has not been systematically considered by
previous design methods (see e.g. [3,8,9]). These aspects are stud- Fig. 2. Bundle containing n = 3 pipes.
ied in some details in this paper. The usefulness and limits of the
novel design procedure are analyzed by using more elaborate
methods, under both steady state and time-dependent conditions.

2. Pneumatic and thermal design procedure

A simple design procedure is useful for EAHE sizing. Here only


the horizontal part of the EAHE is modeled. This means that the
duct(s) used to extract the air from the atmosphere, as well as
the duct(s) used to send the air from the EAHE to the user are
not included into the model. However, these assumptions are par-
tially relaxed in Sections 3.2 and 3.3. The EAHE consists of an input
Fig. 3. Two standard ways of air circulation within a drum–pipes system: (a) P-
drum, an output drum and N equidistant bundles of pipes placed in
path and (b) Z-path, respectively.
the horizontal plane (see Fig. 1, where N = 3). One denotes by n the
number of similar and equidistant pipes in a bundle and by d the
inner diameter of a pipe. The input drum length (L1) and the output drum equals the inner diameter at the outlet of the output drum.
drum length equal each other. The length of a pipe bundle is L2. When an input (output) drum of variable cross-section area is con-
The width of a bundle of pipes is l1 while the distance between sidered, its inner diameter may be smaller along the drum than the
two neighboring bundles is l2. Fig. 1 shows that the following rela- inlet (outlet) value D.
tionship applies: Other simplifying assumptions will be adopted in the next
L1 ¼ Nl1 þ ðN  1Þl2 ð1Þ sections.

One may assume that the distance between the central axes of 2.1. Pneumatic analysis
two neighboring pipes in a bundle always exceeds (3/2)d. This may
be seen as a technological constraint (a minimal distance should be The air pressure drop Dp across the EAHE (i.e. between the inlet
kept to ensure connections between pipes and drums). Fig. 2 shows of the input drum and the outlet of the output drum) is computed
a bundle of pipes with n = 3. This constraint, and the fact that the by using [10]:
number of pipe is an integer, yields the next inequality:
qair w20
3n  1 Dp ¼ fdc ð3Þ
l1 P d ð2Þ 2
2
where qair and w0 are the air density and the air speed at the inlet of
Two ways of air flow circulation inside the EAHE are usually the input drum, respectively, while fdc is the air overall pressure
considered: the P-path and the Z-path, respectively (Fig. 3) [10]. drop coefficient of the EAHE. One assumes the air at the inlet of
One assumes that the inner diameter D at the inlet of the input the input drum has atmospheric pressure and temperature (patm
and Tatm, respectively). The air mass density may be approximated
by using the ideal gas state equation:
patm
qair ¼ ð4Þ
Rair T atm
In fact, the air pressure at the inlet of input drum is slightly
smaller than the atmospheric pressure (due to pressure losses on
the inlet duct) while the air temperature at the inlet of the input
drum is slightly smaller (in summer) or larger (in winter) than
the atmospheric temperature, due to the heat transfer between
air and the walls of the inlet duct. The air speed at the inlet of
the input drum is given by

4V_ air
Fig. 1. The earth-to-air heat exchanger (EAHE) consists in the input and output w0 ¼ ð5Þ
drums, and N bundles of equidistant pipes in a horizontal plane. pD2
Author's personal copy

1268 V. Badescu, D. Isvoranu / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1266–1280

where V_ air is the air volumic flow rate entering the EAHE. One ne- The next relations apply at the inlet of the segment i:
glects the variation of air density due to temperature variations in-  
side the EAHE. Thus, V_ air is a constant along the pipes. pD2i1 i1
wi1 ¼ V i1 ¼ V_ air 1  ð9Þ
Fig. 4 is used during the computation of the overall air pressure 4 N
drop coefficient fdc of the EAHE. A P-path EAHE has been consid-
ered in that figure. The cross-section area ad at the inlet of the input Here Eq. (7) has been used. By using Eqs. (8) and (9) one finds:
drum equals the cross-section area ac at the outlet of the outlet  
pD2i1 pD 2 i1
drum: w0 ¼ V i1 ¼ w0 1  ð10Þ
4 4 N
2
pD Eq. (10) allows deriving the drum diameter Di1 on the segment
ad ¼ ac  ð6Þ
4 i(i = 1, N):
In the general case when input (output) drums of variable rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
diameter are considered, one denotes by af the cross-section area i1
Di1 ¼D 1 ð11Þ
at the input (output) drum’s end opposite to the inlet (outlet). Of N
course, af 6 ad and af 6 ac. In case of input drum, computation of From Eq. (2) one sees that the input drum diameter at inlet (i.e.
af is as follows [the next relationships apply in case of the output on segment ip=ffiffiffiffi1) is D0 = D while the drum diameter on segment N
drum, too]. One assumes the input drum consists of N segments is DN1 ¼ D= N . Thus, the cross-section area af and the average
of constant diameter (Fig. 5). To each constant diameter segment diameter Dmed of the input drum are given by, respectively:
a bundle of pipe is attached.  
A pneumatically equilibrated EAHE is considered, i.e. the same pD2 D0 þ DN1 D 1
af ¼ ; Dmed  ¼ 1 þ pffiffiffiffi ð12; 13Þ
air volumic rate V_ air =N is flowing through each bundle of pipes. 4N 2 2 N
Consequently, the volumic air flow rate is decreasing along the in- Fig. 4 corresponds to the general cases described in [10] where
put drum. One denotes by V_ i ði ¼ 0; N  1Þ the volumic flow rate various pneumatic devices are placed along the pipes. In that fig-
entering the drum segment attached to the pipe bundle i + 1. Obvi- ure, at and at are the cross-section area of the pipe, before and after
ously, V_ 0 ¼ V_ air and V_ N1 ¼ V_ air =N. The air flow rate entering the the device, respectively. Here pneumatic devices are missing and
drum segment attached to the bundle i + 1 is the air pressure loss associated to them is fap = 0. The following
  relation applies:
V_ air i
V_ i ¼ V_ air  i ¼ V_ air 1  ð7Þ
N N pd2
at ¼ at ¼ ð14Þ
One denotes by wi(i = 0, N  1) and Di(i = 0, N  1) the air speed 4
in the input drum and the input drum’s diameter, respectively, at The air speed inside a pipe is denoted wt (Fig. 4). In a pneumat-
the inlet of the drum segment attached to the bundle i + 1. Obvi- ically equilibrated EAHE, the total volumic air flow V_ air is uniformly
ously, D0 = D. distributed among the Nn pipes. Thus:
One assumes that the air speed wi at the inlet of the drum’s seg-
ment attached to the bundle i + 1 does not depend on i, i.e.: 4V_ air
wt ¼ ð15Þ
w0 ¼ w1 ¼    wN1 ð8Þ
pNnd2
The pipes are characterized by a linear pressure loss coefficient,
ft.
Notation used in Fig. 4 applies to the Z-path EAHE, too. How-
ever, the relationships used to compute the overall pressure loss
coefficient fdc are different for the P-path and Z-path, respec-
tively. In case of the P-path the following relation applies [10]:
1
1dc ¼
0:788B3 þ 0:029K þ 0:115ad =ac  0:130B3 K  0:353B3 ad =ac  0:090
ð16Þ

where K = 1  af/ad. The coefficient B3 in Eq. (16) is given by:



a
B3  ð17Þ
½0:6 þ ðat =at Þ2 þ 1ap þ 1t 1=2
Fig. 4. Geometry used to compute the air pressure loss coefficient fdc in a P-path where
EAHE.
Nnat

a ð18Þ
ad
The linear pressure loss coefficient in a pipe, 1t , is given by:
L2
1t  kt ð19Þ
d
where kt is the friction factor of the pipe, which may be computed
from the relationships [11, p. 225]:
8
>
>
> 0:3164Re0:25
t 3000 < Ret < 105
<
kt ¼ 0:0054 þ 0:3964Re0:3
t 105 < Ret < 2  106 ð20Þ
>
>
>
:
0:0032 þ 0:221Re0:237
t Ret > 2  106
Fig. 5. Geometry of a drum with variable diameter.
Author's personal copy

V. Badescu, D. Isvoranu / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1266–1280 1269

Here the Reynolds number Re is function of the air speed in the pipe different diameters, Dmed is given by Eq. (13). A detailed analysis
(wt), of the inner pipe diameter (d) and of the air kinematic viscosity shows that taking or not taking into consideration the second term
(mair): of the r.h.s. member in Eq. (28), respectively, yield slightly different
results.
wt d
Ret  ð21Þ Because the temperature Tt is a constant, computation of the air
mair temperature Tfe at the EAHE exit may be performed by using the
In case of a Z-path, the above notations for the P-path maintain, theory of fluids heating using serpentines immersed in large quan-
and the next relation applies [10]: tities of liquid at constant temperature. Thus [12, p. 55]:
!
1 aS
1dc ¼ T fe ¼ T t þ ðT fi  T t Þ exp  ð29Þ
0:692B3  0:073K þ 0:128ad =ac  0:424B3 ad =ac  0:013 gtrans V_ air qair cp;air
ð22Þ
where a is the heat transfer coefficient between the pipe walls and
where the coefficient B3 is given by Eq. (17). air, gtrans is the efficiency of the heat transfer (here gtrans = 1 is
To choose between the P-path and Z-path, respectively, the adopted) while cp,air is the air specific heat at constant pressure.
next coefficient fd is computed [10]: Computation of the heat transfer coefficient a is performed for
L1 the N pipe bundles. The next relationship is used [12, p. 55]:
fd ¼ 0:5kd ð23Þ
D Nu ¼ 0:021Re0:8 Pr0:43 ð30Þ
where the coefficient kd , related to the input drum, is computed by
where the Nusselt, Reynolds and Prandtl numbers are given by:
using Eq. (20), where Ret should be replaced by Red computed by:
ad wt d cp;air qair mair
w0 D Nu  Re  Pr  ð31; 32; 33Þ
Red  ð24Þ kair mair kair
mair
Here kair is air thermal conductivity. All air properties are evaluated
The following recommendation applies for a good pneumatic
at inlet air temperature Tfi. The heat flux Q received by the air inside
design [10]:
the EAHE is given by:
fd < 1 ) P-path is to be used
ð25Þ Q ¼ V_ air qair cp;air ðT fe  T fi Þ ð34Þ
fd > 1 ) Z-path is to be used
This completes the presentation of the design method.
For a good pneumatic design, choosing between an input (out-
put) drum with constant or variable cross-section area is based on
3. Case study: the EAHE of AMVIC PH
the value of the parameter B3 as follows [10]:
B3 < 0:3 ) drum with variable cross-section area is to be used 3.1. Implementation of the design procedure
B3 > 0:3 ) drum with constant cross-section area is to be used
ð26Þ The design method has been implemented for the EAHE of the
AMVIC passive house (PH) (a brief description of this large building
The mechanical power Pm required to move the air across the of five stories is given elsewhere [13]). The AMVIC PH requires a
EAHE is computed by using the relationship (design) fresh air volumic flow rate V_ air ¼ 3000 m3N =h (the sub-
Pm ¼ V_ air Dp ð27Þ script N here denotes normal conditions of temperature
(273.15 K) and pressure (1013.25 hPa)). A small orchard is EAHE’s
where Dp is computed by using Eq. (3). location (Fig. 6a). The constraint was that the EAHE’s pipes should
be placed between the eight rows of five trees each (see Fig. 6b,
2.2. Simple thermal analysis where the geometry of the place is also shown).
Two different economical approaches were considered. In the
Several assumptions are adopted. First, steady-state operation first case, the maximum available land surface area from the orch-
is considered. Also, the dependence of air properties on tempera- ard should be used for EAHE construction (i.e. a land surface area
ture is neglected. The walls of drums and pipes are at (uniform about 31  17 m2). This (‘‘expensive case”) is expected to provide
in space and constant in time) known temperature Tt. This is the the highest amount of heat to the air but requires large initial
so called ‘‘static” assumption, which, in addition, means that Tt investments. A smaller land area surface is considered in the sec-
equals the local soil temperature. The assumption is equivalent ond case (i.e. land surface area about 31  5 m2). This (‘‘inexpen-
with neglecting the heat transfer resistance of the pipe wall. This sive case”) provides a smaller amount of heat but requires
is a good approximation when the air velocity in the pipe is low smaller investments. For both cases, two different situations exist,
[7]. One denote by Tfi and Tfe the air temperature at input drum’s depending on the position of the input and output drums. Let us
inlet and output drum’s outlet, respectively. The first of these tem- consider the first (‘‘expensive”) case as an example. If the drums
peratures is known. are placed on the longest side of the orchard, they are about
The heat exchange area between the input drum’s wall, the pipe 31 m long while the associated pipes are about 17 m. This geomet-
walls and the output drum’s wall, on one hand, and the air flow, on rical configuration is denoted D31P17. The other possible configu-
the other hand, is denoted by S and is given by: ration requires the drums to be placed on the shorter orchard side
and is denoted D17P31. The two geometrical configurations associ-
S ¼ pdNnL2 þ 2pDmed L1 ð28Þ
ated to the second (‘‘inexpensive”) case are denoted D31P5 and
The first term in the r.h.s. member of Eq. (28) corresponds to the Nn D5P31, respectively, where the meaning of the notation is obvious.
pipes while the second term corresponds to the input and output Two different ways of air flow in the EAHE may be associated to
drums, which are assumed to have the same geometry. In case any of the four geometrical configurations described above. They
the input and output drums have a constant cross-section area, are the Z- and P-paths, respectively, described in Section 2.1.
their average diameter equals the diameter at the inlet of the input Fig. 7 shows the four geometrical configurations analyzed here
drum (Dmed = D). In case of a configuration with drum segments of and their associated Z- and P-paths.
Author's personal copy

1270 V. Badescu, D. Isvoranu / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1266–1280

Fig. 6. (a) Land area where the EAHE is placed (December 2007; courtesy by Eng. Rodica Martinescu). (b) Geometry of the orchard, showing the existing trees position (small
circles) and the possible placement of the trenches (thicker continuous line).

The simple design procedure of Section 2 is applied to all the Some input values used by the design procedure are shown in
geometrical configurations of Fig. 7. The procedure allows the Table 1. The existing tree rows in the orchard induced constraints
designer: on the trenches width. A small excavator has to be used and the
size of its cup equals the trench width in Fig. 1 (i.e. l1 = 0.6 m). As
(1) To choose between the geometrical configurations D31P17 a consequence, a single pipe per bundle is considered (i.e. n = 1).
and D17P31, respectively. Similarly, to choose between the In all calculations we used V_ air ¼ 3000 m3N =h and the design input
configurations D5P31 and D31P5, respectively. fresh air temperature in the EAHE is T fi ¼ 15  C. Also, the temper-
(2) To size the inner diameters d and D of pipes and drums, ature of the walls of pipes and drums is T t ¼ 8  C.
respectively. The geometrical configurations D31P17 and D17P31 of the
(3) To choose between the Z-path and the P-path, respectively. ‘‘expensive” case are analyzed first. Three quantities were com-
(4) To choose between input (output) drums of constant or var- puted for a large range of values of pipe inner diameter d and input
iable cross-section area, respectively. drum inner diameter D, namely: the heat flux Q provided by the
EAHE, the total air pressure loss Dp and the mechanical power Pmec

Fig. 7. Geometry of various EAHE configurations. Sizing is given in Table 1. ‘‘in” and ‘‘out” denote the air inlet in the input drum and the air outlet in the output drum,
respectively. Z and P denote the two path of air movement in the EAHE.
Author's personal copy

V. Badescu, D. Isvoranu / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1266–1280 1271

Table 1 Consequently, sizing d and D should be made by looking to the val-


Input values for the design procedure used in case of the four geometrical ues of Dp and Pmec in Fig. 8. For values of the thermal flux Q in the
configurations of Fig. 7.
range 18–21 kW, the pipe diameter ranges between 200 and
Geometrical configuration D31P17 D17P31 D31P5 D5P31 300 mm for configuration D17P31 and between 160 and 200 mm
Length of input/output drums, L1 (m) 31.01 17.36 30.8 5 for configuration D31P17. For these values of the pipe inner diam-
Length of pipes, L2 (m) 17.36 31.01 5 30.8 eter and input drum inner diameter larger than 400 mm the pres-
Number of pipe bundles, N 8 5 8 2 sure loss Dp decreases below the (design) acceptable value of
160 Pa. This applies to both configurations D17P31 and D31P17
(Fig. 8c and d). The values (d = 0.2 m; D = 0.5 m) seem to be accept-
needed to move the air inside the EAHE, respectively. Results are able for both configurations D17P31 and D31P17.
shown in Fig. 8. For the same values of the parameters (d, D) the Fig. 8 suggests that configuration D17P31 might be preferred to
geometrical configuration D17P31 provides a higher heat flux Q D31P17. Indeed, it provides a higher heat flux, for rather similar
than the configuration D31P17 (compare Fig. 8a and b, mechanical power consumption. But a too large value of the heat
respectively). However, both Dp and Pmec are slightly smaller for flux Q means a faster decrease of the soil’s temperature. This will
the configuration D31P17 (see Fig. 8b and c, respectively). make the performance of the EAHE to decrease in time. The simple
Fig. 8a and b shows that the heat flux Q is almost independent design procedure provides, however, no information on these
on the drum diameter D, at least for the usual case d < D. time-dependent processes.

Fig. 8. Isolines of (a and b) thermal flux (W), (c and d) air pressure losses (Pa) and (e and f) mechanical power (W) needed to move the air, respectively. Dependence on inlet
input drum inner diameter D and pipe inner diameter d has been considered. Results associated to geometrical configurations (a, c and e) D17P31 and (b, d and f) D31P17,
respectively. D17P31 and D31P17 mean, respectively, drum length 17.37 m (31 m) and pipe length 31 m (17.37 m).
Author's personal copy

1272 V. Badescu, D. Isvoranu / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1266–1280

Fig. 9a and b shows the distribution of the parameter fd for D5P31 and D31P5. A P-path is recommended in both cases for a
some values of d and D. For d = 0.2 m and D = 0.5 m, fd is under- good pneumatic design. Fig. 11c and d shows the distribution of
unitary for both configurations D17P31 and D31P17. Consequently, the parameter B3. For d = 0.2 m and D = 0.4 m, B3 is less than 0.3
for a good pneumatic design a P-path is recommended in both for configurations D5P31 and higher that 0.3 for configuration
cases (see Eq. (25)). D31P5. Therefore, a variable cross-section along the drums is rec-
Fig. 9c and d shows the distribution of the parameter B3 for ommended for D5P31 and a constant cross-section area is recom-
some values of d and D. For d = 0.2 m and D = 0.5 m, B3 is less than mended for D31P5. Of course, in this case the configuration D31P5
0.3 for both configurations D17P31 and D31P17. Therefore, for a is easier to build.
good pneumatic design, a variable cross-section along the drums
length is recommended (see Eq. (26)).
3.2. Simplified time-dependent analysis of EAHE operation
The geometrical configurations D31P5 and D5P31 of the ‘‘inex-
pensive” case are analyzed next. Results are shown in Fig. 10. For
A simplified time-dependent analysis of EAHE operation is per-
the same values of the parameters (d, D) the geometrical configu-
formed now. The model developed in [14] is used for this purpose.
ration D5P31 provides a significantly higher heat flux Q than the
A brief description follows. The EAHE operation model needs the
configuration D31P5 (compare Fig. 10a and b, respectively). Both
temperature distribution in the soil and generally this implies solv-
Dp and Pmec are smaller for the configuration D31P17, as expected
ing a couple set of energy and mass balance equations [15,16]. A
(see Fig. 10b and c, respectively).
number of simplifying assumptions are usually accepted [17,18].
For d < D, the heat flux Q is almost independent on the drum
First, the soil is assimilated to a homogeneous and isotropic media.
diameter D (Fig. 10a and b). Sizing d and D requires looking to
Second, the effect of the mass transfer on the heat transfer is ne-
the values of Dp in Fig. 10. If d decreases below 0.2 m or D de-
glected because of the weak differences of temperatures in the soil.
creases below 0.4 m, the pressure losses become too high. A couple
Third, the longitudinal conduction along the pipe is neglected. The
of values (d = 0.2 m; D = 0.4 m) seem to be reasonable. It yields a
first two assumptions are adopted in this study. The longitudinal
heat flux of about 19 kW in case of configuration D5P31 and about
conduction is assumed weak but is not neglected here. The geom-
7 kW for configuration D31P5. The pressure loss is, however, larger
etry of the model is described in details in [14]. The undisturbed
than the design value 160 Pa for configuration D5P31 and smaller
soil temperature can accurately be modeled by a one dimensional,
than 160 Pa for configuration D31P5. This makes more difficult to
transient, heat conduction equation [15]. Various techniques are
decide between the two configurations. The configuration D5P31
used to solve the conduction equation, including classical finite
provides a significantly larger heat flux but the associated pressure
element method and the convolute response factors method [4].
loss might require a larger fan to be purchased.
Here a bi-dimensional model is adopted and one denotes by
Fig. 11a and b shows the distribution of the parameter fd. For
T(x, y) the soil temperature distribution. The time evolution of
d = 0.2 m and D = 0.4 m, fd is under-unitary for both configurations
T(x, y) is described by the following partial differential equation:

Fig. 9. Isolines of (a and b) coefficient nd defined by Eq. (23) and (c and d) coefficient B3 defined by Eq. (17), respectively. Dependence on inlet input drum inner diameter D
and pipe inner diameter d has been considered. Results associated to geometrical configurations (a and c) D17P31 and (b and d) D31P17, respectively. D17P31 and D31P17
mean, respectively, drum length 17.37 m (31 m) and pipe length 31 m (17.37 m).
Author's personal copy

V. Badescu, D. Isvoranu / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1266–1280 1273

Fig. 10. Isolines of (a and b) thermal flux (W), (c and d) air pressure losses (Pa) and (e and f) mechanical power (W) needed to move the air, respectively. Dependence on inlet
input drum inner diameter D and pipe inner diameter d has been considered. Results associated to geometrical configurations (a, c and e) D5P31 and (b, d and f) D31P5,
respectively. D5P31 and D31P5 mean, respectively, drum length 5 m (30.8 m) and pipe length 30.8 m (5 m).

   
@T @ @T @ @T Eq. (35) in the soil was solved by using PDETWO, a partial differen-
ðqcÞ ¼ k þ k þ qz þ qp ð35Þ
@t @x @x @y @y tial equations solver from the Netlib [20].
The time-dependent model have been developed in [14] for sin-
Here q, c and k are soil mass density, specific heat and thermal con- gle-duct EAHEs. Using it to analyze a registry-type EAHE requires
ductibility, respectively, while qz and qp are heat source density-like additional assumptions. The EAHE operation model assumes the
terms taking account of the heat conduction in the z-direction (i.e. pipes are acting independently from each other. This assumption
along the pipe) and of the heat exchanged with the pipe, respec- is reasonable in case of the EAHE of the AMVIC PH, taking into ac-
tively. Details about the form of qz and qp may be found in [14]. count the large distance between two neighboring pipes and the
The parallelepiped piece of soil where Eq. (35) is solved is assumed small thickness of the thermal skin associated to the pipes (see
to be adiabatic, except for the soil–environment interface [19]. Section 3.2.3). Each pipe has been divided into a number of slices
Appropriate boundary conditions are used to solve Eq (35) (see and a steady state thermal balance equation for the air in each slice
[14]). They take into consideration the convective energy flux ex- has been written [14]. Details about computing the global heat ex-
changed between atmospheric air and ground surface, the long- change coefficient between air and soil are given in [14].
wave radiation flux emitted from the ground surface, the solar irra-
diance absorbed from the ground surface and the latent heat flux 3.2.1. Meteorological database
due to evaporation. Details about all these factors are given in AMVIC PH is located in the small town Bragadiru, 10 km south
[14]. A constant in space temperature distribution has been used of Bucharest. Meteorological data measured in Bucharest (latitude
as the initial conditions used to solve Eq. (35). The heat conduction 45.5°N, longitude 26.2°E, altitude 131 m above sea level) by the
Author's personal copy

1274 V. Badescu, D. Isvoranu / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1266–1280

Fig. 11. Isolines of (a and b) coefficient n defined by Eq. (23) and (c and d) coefficient B3 defined by Eq. (17), respectively. Dependence on inlet input drum inner diameter D
and pipe inner diameter d has been considered. Results associated to geometrical configurations (a and c) D5P31 and (b and d) D31P5, respectively. D5P31 and D31P5 mean,
respectively, drum length 5 m (30.8 m) and pipe length 30.8 m (5 m).

Romanian Meteorological and Hydrological Institute are used in The measured air temperature in 1961 in Bucharest ranges be-
this work [21]. The climate of Bucharest is temperate-continental tween about 18 and 35 °C (yearly excursion of about 53 °C). The
with a climatic index of continentality (Ivanov) of 131.9%. The surface ground temperature matches well the air temperature,
METEORAR database consists of values measured at 1.00, 7.00, with a slightly smaller yearly excursion (Fig. 12). The undisturbed
13.00 and 19.00 local standard time for ambient temperature, air soil temperature at depths of 0.8 m, 2 m and 4 m is positive all over
relative humidity and point cloudiness Also, the database contains the year, with yearly excursion of about 16°, 8° and 3°, respec-
daily average values for the atmospheric pressure. tively. These remarks suggest that using the soil thermal energy
The global solar irradiance is first evaluated on a horizontal for heating and cooling purposes is indeed useful. An EAHE with
surface by using the model proposed in [22]. This model uses as pipes buried at 4 m depth will benefit from the small yearly tem-
entries the point cloudiness, the ambient temperature, the perature excursion (which decreases with depth). The cost of exca-
atmospheric pressure and the air relative humidity. A dry bare soil vation (which increases with depth) is smaller of course when the
(albedo = 0.2) was considered [23]. The typical meteorological year pipes are buried at 2 m depth. A good compromise between good
(TMY) assumption is adopted (see e.g. [24]). This allows meteoro-
logical data from a single year (i.e. TMY 1961) to be used in
computations. The averaged wind speeds are as follows: wwind =
1.8 m/s (warm season, i.e. April–September) and wwind = 2.48 m/s
(cold season, i.e. October–March).

3.2.2. Simulation results


The simulation was performed in two stages. The first stage
started on 1st of January and finished on 31st of December. The ini-
tial temperature distribution in the soil was 10  C and there was no
air mass flowing inside the pipes. This allowed computing the time
evolution of the undisturbed soil temperature distribution. The
second (final) stage started on 1st of January, using as initial data
the results obtained for the soil temperature distribution at the
end of the first stage and the real air mass flow rate inside the
EAHE of the AMVIC PH. The simulation was made by steps of
10 min during which a constant air temperature distribution in Fig. 12. Time variation of undisturbed soil temperature in Bucharest at various
each slice was assumed. depths during the year. 52,561 intervals of 10 min each have been considered.
Author's personal copy

V. Badescu, D. Isvoranu / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1266–1280 1275

Table 2 In practice, choosing between various geometrical configura-


Details about drums and pipes used in the CFD analysis. tions should take into account both the thermal and pneumatic
Geometrical D31P17 D17P31 D31P5 D5P31 performance. Also, economic criteria are of primary importance
configuration (see beginning of Section 3.2.3).
Pipes depth (m) 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6
Pipe inner 0.203 0.203 0.2 0.2 3.2.3. Experimental validation of the time-dependent model
diameter (m) The owner of the AMVIC PH decided to built the EAHE under
Pipe external 0.225 0.225 0.214 0.214
diameter (m)
configuration D31P5 (see Fig. 7c). This is less expensive than the
Drum inner 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 other configurations analyzed in Section 3.1, which are however,
diameter (m) more efficient from an energetic view-point. The REHAU AWA-
Drum external 0.56 0.56 0.429 0.429 DUKT system has been used [25]. The EAHE consists of two parallel
diameter (m)
drums of external diameter 400 mm and thickness of walls
Material Polyethilene Polyethilene Polypropylene Polypropylene
14.5 mm buried at 3.5 m depth. The drums are connected by eight
pipes of external diameter 200 mm and wall thickness 7.3 mm. The
drums and pipes are made of polypropylene PP SN10/SN16 RAUSI-
thermal performance and reasonable cost is somewhere between TO (mass density qPP = 920 kg/m3, specific heat cPP = 1800 J/(kg K)
these values. and thermal conductivity kPP ¼ 0:12 W=ðmKÞ) and their length is
The EAHE operation was simulated during the whole year. The 30.8 m and 5 m, respectively. More details about REHAU AWA-
four geometrical configurations described in Tables 1 and 2 have DUKT system can be found in [25].
been considered. The difference between the outlet air tempera- The EAHE’s heat transfer surface area is associated to (i) the
ture Tout and the (inlet) ambient air temperature Tin = Tamb is shown pipes, (ii) the drums and (iii) the ducts used to extract the air from
in Fig. 13. This temperature difference is mostly positive during the the atmosphere and to send the air from the EAHE to the user,
cold (heating) season and mostly negative during the warm (cool- respectively. Simple geometrical calculations show that the total
ing) season, for all geometrical configurations. In the ‘‘expensive” heat exchange area is about four times larger than the surface area
case, configuration D17P31 provides during the whole year a larger of the pipes themselves.
(in absolute value) temperature difference Tout  Tin than the con- Measurements have been performed on the EAHE of the AMVIC
figuration D31P17 (compare Fig. 13b and a, respectively). In the building between 19 and 23 August 2009, for both inlet and outlet
‘‘inexpensive” case, the geometrical configuration D5P31 is a better air temperatures. They are reported in Figs. 3.2.15 and 3.2.16 of
thermal design solution than D31P5 (compare Fig. 13d and c, [26, p. 92] and presented in Fig. 15a. The measured air flow rate
respectively). is 2646 m3/h (0.61 kg/s) [26, p. 85].
The monthly thermal energy values provided by the EAHE are Due to the low thermal conductivity of the soil, the (cold or hot)
shown in Fig. 14. The EAHE acts as a heater during the cold season air flowing inside the EAHE’s drums and pipes is thermally affect-
and as a cooler during the warm season. In the ‘‘expensive” case, ing the ground on a limited surrounding region, usually called
the best results are given by the geometrical configuration thermal skin. In case the heat source (i.e. the cold or hot air) is act-
D17P31, as expected. This applies during both warm and cold sea- ing during a time interval t, the thermal skin thickness dt is given
sons. Configuration D5P31 is the best ‘‘inexpensive” design solu- by [27]:
tion during the whole year.

Fig. 13. Time variation of the air temperature increase within the EAHE, Tout  Tin, during the year for various geometrical configurations. 52,561 intervals of 10 min each have
been considered. (a) D31P17 and (b) D17P31 mean, respectively, drum length 31 m (17.37 m) and pipe length 17.37 m (31 m) while (c) D31P5 and (d) D5P31 mean,
respectively, drum length 30.8 m (5 m) and pipe length 5 m (30.8 m).
Author's personal copy

1276 V. Badescu, D. Isvoranu / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1266–1280

averages are used as tentative values of the thermal skin tempera-


ture Tground during the period 19–23 August. Fig. 15b shows the re-
sults. Generally, there is good agreement between the measured
and simulated values of air temperature at EAHE’s outlet. First, a
Tground value resulting from the inlet air temperature averaged over
1 week has been used (case 1 in Fig. 15b). One sees that the simu-
lation results for the air outlet temperature generally overestimate
the measurements. Using a Tground value obtained by averaging the
inlet air temperature over 2 weeks slightly underestimates the
measurements (case 2 in Fig. 15b). Further increasing the averag-
ing time interval has not significant influence on the results (case
3 in Fig. 15b). Usual statistical indicators of accuracy are the mean
bias error (MBE) and the root mean square error (RMSE) defined by
[28]:

Fig. 14. Monthly thermal energy provided to/extracted from the air flow by the 1X n

EAHE acting like a heater/cooler, respectively. Results associated to geometrical


MBE ¼ ðT out;c;i  T out;m;i Þ; RMSE
n i¼1
configurations D17P31, D31P17, D5P31 and D31P5 has been considered. D17P31 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
and D31P17 mean, respectively, drum length 17.37 m (31 m) and pipe length 31 m 1 Xn
(17.37 m) while D5P31 and D31P5 mean, respectively, drum length 5 m (30.8 m) ¼ ðT out;c;i  T out;m;i Þ2 ð37; 38Þ
and pipe length 30.8 m (5 m).
n i¼1

where Tout,c,i and Tout,m,i are the computed and measured ith outlet
air temperature values, respectively, while n is the total number
of values. MBE for case 1, case 2 and case 3 in Fig. 15b is 0.59 °C,
0.32 °C and 0.51 °C, respectively. For the same three cases, RMSE
is 0.29 °C, 0.21 °C and 0.21 °C, respectively. Sometimes MBE and
RMSE are expressed as percentages of the average of the measure-
ment values Tout,m,i (i.e. 23.9 °C). Then, for the three cases, the rela-
tive MBE is 2.46%, 1.28% and 1.28%, respectively, while the
relative RMSE is 1.21%, 0.87% and 0.87%, respectively.

3.3. CFD analysis

A more involved computing fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis is


performed in the following. It is used to further checking the sim-
ple design procedure described in Section 3.1. The analysis involves
3D modeling of the registry-type EAHE in SolidWorks environment
[29], meshing the CAD object and fluid/thermal numerical simula-
tion in ANSYS Workbench [30]. The discretization procedure com-
prises the use of 8-nodes tetrahedric and 6-nodes prismatic
elements. For the FLOTRAN CFD elements, the velocities are ob-
Fig. 15. (a) Measured air temperature at EAHE inlet and outlet, respectively, tained from the conservation of momentum principle, and the
between 19 August and 23 August 2009; (b) measured and computed air pressure is obtained from the conservation of mass principle. The
temperature at EAHE outlet. Computation of ground temperature performed by temperature results from the law of conservation of energy. The
averaging air temperature data on 1 week before 19 August 2009 (case 1), 2 weeks
(case 2) and 4 weeks (case 3).
scalable k-epsilon turbulence scheme appropriate for a large Rey-
nolds number of fully developed turbulent flows has been used
as closure turbulence model.
 1=2 The meshing algorithm includes slow transition among differ-
tk
dt ¼ ð36Þ ent regions of the solid model and medium smoothing. The mesh
pqc
was generated in the CFX-meshing module using a 0.075 m body
where k, q and c are the thermal conductivity, the mass density and spacing parameter. Face spacing was controlled by 0.03 m mini-
the specific heat of the ground, respectively (adopted values: mum edge length and 0.075 m maximum edge length conditions.
q = 1800 kg/m3, c = 2200 J/(kg K) and k = 1.2 W/(mK)). As example, In the vicinity of rigid walls, inflated boundary layers have been
for a half day, a week and 4 weeks the thermal skin thickness is considered. The total width of the layer for the small pipes was
0.064 m, 0.24 m and 0.48 m, respectively. The average (in space) 0.03 m and 0.075 m for the large diameter pipes. In these condi-
temperature of the thermal skin is denoted Tground. Measurements tions, the number of elements ranged from approximately
of Tground are missing in case of the EAHE of the AMVIC PH. The usual 200,000 for the simplest configuration and 800,000 for the most
assumption is that the average (in time) thermal skin temperature complex pipes arrangement.
Tground is as large as the time average of the temperature of the heat Boundary conditions for the prismatic slice of soil in which the
source (in our case, the ambient air entering the EAHE). This pipe registry is embedded comprise five adiabatic solid–solid inter-
approximation provides better results for averages over longer time faces and the ground surface with time dependent heat exchange
periods [27]. through convection and radiation (Fig. 17). The inner pipes walls
Fig. 16 shows the daily minimum, mean and maximum ambient were modeled as fluid–solid interfaces featuring conservative heat
air temperatures, respectively, during July and August 2009 at flux. The outer walls of the pipes were considered solid–solid
Bucharest. Average values of the air temperature may be computed interfaces with the same property. The radiative heat transfer is
for various numbers of consecutive days before the day of 19 Au- modeled as a boundary source equal with the time dependent irra-
gust when the measurement series at AMVIC PH started. These diance heat flux.
Author's personal copy

V. Badescu, D. Isvoranu / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1266–1280 1277

Fig. 16. Minimum, mean and maximum daily ambient temperature in Bucharest during (a) July 2009 and (b) August 2009.

The length of that segment is rather short, of the order of a few per-
cent of the total drums and pipes length. One expects an increase
of the pressure loss less than 2% when the segment (i) is taken into
account. Similarly, the large diameter duct used to send the air to
the user consists of two segments: (iii) one segment above that
ground, which is not included into the EAHE model and (iv) one
segment below the ground, which is part of the EAHE model (see
Fig. 17). The segment (iii) is very well insulated and has negligible
influence on the thermal performance. But this segment adds extra
pressure loss to that across the EAHE.

3.3.1. Experimental validation of the CFD model


The CFD model has been validated by using measurements of
inlet and outlet air temperature on the EAHE of the AMVIC building
(Fig. 15a). The measured air mass flow rate is 0.61 kg/s [26, p. 85].
Fig. 17. CAD model used for CFD model validation. The convection coefficient on the ground surface was taken
17 W/m2 K. The initial conditions for the air flow follow from the
first record of the outer temperature and pressure measured data
(24.6 °C and 1003 kPa). A procedure similar to that of Section
Inlet boundary conditions comprise turbulent intensity Tu = 5%,
3.2.3 has been used to assess the ground and pipes initial
null area averaged relative pressure and fresh air temperature and
temperatures.
time dependent atmospheric pressure. Mass flow rate has been im-
There is good agreement between computed and measured air
posed at the outlet boundary.
temperature at EAHE’s outlet (Fig. 18). The MBE and RMSE values
A segregated unsteady upwind sequential solver algorithm was
computed by Eqs. (37) and (38) and expressed as percentages of
used; that is, the matrix system derived from the finite element
the average of the measured air outlet temperature are 1.07%
discretization of the governing equation for each degree of freedom
and 2.74%, respectively.
is solved separately. The flow problem is nonlinear and the govern-
ing equations are coupled together. The sequential solution of all
the governing equations, combined with the update of any temper-
ature- or pressure-dependent properties, constitutes a global iter-
ation. The number of global iterations required to achieve a
converged solution varies between 50 and 80 depending on the
size and stability of the problem. Reaching the steady state consid-
ered in these simulations has been attained by using a false time
step automatically calculated by the unsteady solver. Taking into
account that the flow is subsonic, a 1 atm reference pressure has
been imposed.
A few comments about the geometrical model follow. The EAHE
as described in this section is that part of the AMVIC PH ventilation
system which is below the ground level. The large diameter duct
used to extract the air from the atmosphere consists of two seg-
ments: (i) one segment above that ground, which is not included
into the EAHE model and (ii) one segment below the ground, which
is part of the EAHE model (see Fig. 17). The segment (i) does not
influence the thermal performance, because the temperatures of
the air inside the pipe and in the atmosphere, respectively, equal
each other. However, the segment (i) makes the air pressure loss Fig. 18. Comparison between measured and CFD simulated values for outlet air
to be bigger across the ventilation system than across the EAHE. temperature for the EAHE of AMVIC PH during the time period 19–23 August 2009.
Author's personal copy

1278 V. Badescu, D. Isvoranu / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1266–1280

3.3.2. Results temperature (283 K). The air mass flow rate entering the EAHE
All the four geometrical configurations shown in Fig. 7 are ana- is 1.025 kg/s, which corresponds to the volumic flow rate
lyzed, for both Z- and P-paths of air flow inside the EAHE. Realistic 3000 m3N =h with an air mass density 1.23 kg/m3.
data for pipes existing on the market are used in calculations (Ta- Figs. 19 and 20 show sample results in case of an EAHE of Z-
ble 2). The following data are adopted for polyethylene: mass den- path, geometrical configurations D31P17 and D31P5, respectively.
sity qHDPE = 950 kg/m3, specific heat cHDPE = 296 J/(kg K) and Fig. 19 shows the air temperature distribution inside the EAHE dur-
thermal conductivity kHDPE ¼ 0:28 W=ðmKÞ. Properties for polypro- ing winter. The air inlet is to the figure’s right. There is an obvious
pylene are given in Section 3.2.3. increase of air temperature across the EAHE, which is more visible
Boundary conditions refer to the inlet fresh air temperature along the drums. Fig. 20 refers to summer operation. It shows a
(T fi ¼ 15  C), atmospheric pressure (1013 hPa) and a constant soil noticeable temperature difference on the ground surface in the

Fig. 19. Air temperature distribution inside the EAHE in case of geometrical configuration D31P17, Z-path. The air flow inlet is on the right of the figure.

Fig. 20. The temperature distribution on ground surface in case of an EAHE of geometrical configuration D31P5, Z-path. The air flow inlet is on the left of the figure.
Author's personal copy

V. Badescu, D. Isvoranu / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1266–1280 1279

Table 3
Results from CFD analysis for various EAHE geometrical configurations and air paths. Bolded numbers refer to the best results for the ‘‘expensive” and ‘‘inexpensive” case,
respectively.

Case ‘‘Expensive” ‘‘Inexpensive”


Geometrical configuration D17P31 D31P17 D5P31 D31P5
Air path Z P Z P Z P Z P
Thermal flux, Q (kW) 19,176 18,488 15,322 13,102 18,204 17,531 13,857 11,179
Output air temperature, Tfe (K) 282.9 281.3 283.0 281.0 282.7 280.1 281.6 275.3
Air pressure loss, Dp (Pa) 96.4 95.7 40.3 38.3 478.8 473.7 65.4 52.3
Air average speed (m/s) 3.18 3.17 2.21 2.17 8.40 8.41 2.98 2.67
Average heat transfer coefficient (W/(m2 K)) 22.3 22.2 15.3 15.0 44.3 44.3 18.6 17.3

two regions near the EAHE’s inlet and outlet ducts (left and right of climatic conditions. The energy delivered by the EAHE depends sig-
the figure, respectively). These regions are projections on the nificantly on the geometrical configuration. The simulation results
ground surface of the thermal skin around the ducts in the ground. confirm the conclusions stressed out by using the simple analytic
Table 3 shows the results for all configurations and paths. In the design procedure.
‘‘expensive” case, the configuration D31P17 provides the highest A computing fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis is performed to fur-
thermal flux while the configuration D17P31 is associated to lower ther checking the results predicted by the design procedure. There
pressure loss and consumed mechanical power. These conclusions is good agreement between the outputs predicted by the CFD mod-
validate the results obtained in Section 3.1 by using the simple de- el and existing measurements. Generally, the CFD analysis vali-
sign procedure. The P-path provides a slightly smaller pressure loss dates the results of the design procedure concerning the air
than the Z-path, for both configurations. Again, this validates the re- pressure drops in the EAHE. From a thermal point of view the Z-
sults of the design procedure. However, for both configurations the path EAHE is always preferable to the P-path device.
P-path is associated to smaller values of the heat flux and output air
temperature than the Z-path. This is explained by the larger air Acknowledgements
speed and heat transfer coefficient associated to the Z-path. Conse-
quently, the P-path should be preferred from a pneumatic point of The authors thank Eng. Rodica Martinescu and Dr. Ruxandra
view but the Z-path is recommended from the point of view of the Crutescu (AMVIC Ltd.) for fruitful discussions and the referees
thermal performance. The difference between the two paths is and Editor for useful comments and suggestions. This work
rather small in case of the pneumatic performance but significantly was partially supported by the Romanian Grant AMCSIT 128/
larger when the thermal performance is considered. 28.09.2007.
In the ‘‘inexpensive” case, the qualitative conclusions stressed
out for the ‘‘expensive” case maintain. This confirms, again, the re-
References
sults of the design procedure. Configuration D5P31 is obviously
better than configuration D31P5 from the view-point of the heat [1] Yang W, Shi M, Liu G, Chen Z. A two-region simulation model of vertical U-tube
flux transferred to the air. However, the pressure loss in case of ground heat exchanger and its experimental verification. Appl Energy
D5P31 configuration is much larger than that of the D31P5 config- 2009;86:2005–12.
[2] Michopoulos A, Kyriakis N. Predicting the fluid temperature at the exit of the
uration. Adopting in practice the first configuration should take vertical ground heat exchangers. Appl Energy 2009;86:2065–70.
into account the much larger amount of energy consumed to move [3] De Paepe M, Janssens A. Thermo-hydraulic design of earth–air heat
the air. exchangers. Energy Build 2003;35:389–97.
[4] Tittelein P, Achard G, Wurtz E. Modelling earth-to-air heat exchanger
behaviour with the convolutive response factors method. Appl Energy
2009;86:1683–91.
4. Conclusions [5] Tzaferis T, Liparakis D, Santamouris M, Argirion A. Analysis of the accuracy and
sensitivity of eight models to predict the performance of earth-to-air heat
exchangers. Energy Build 1992;18:35–43.
This paper develops previous research on earth-to-air heat [6] Zhang J, Haghighat F. Simulation of earth-to-air heat exchangers in hybrid
exchangers (EAHE) reported in [14]. An analytical pneumatic and ventilation systems. In: Proc of the ninth international IBPSA conference,
thermal design procedure is proposed for EAHE of registry type. Montréal, Canada, August 15–18, 2005. p. 1417–24.
[7] De Paepe M, Janssens A. Thermo-hydraulic design of earth–air heat
The procedure allows to choosing between different EAHE geomet- exchangers. Universiteit Gent; 2002.
rical configurations and between the two common air circulation [8] Thiers S, Peuportier B. Thermal and environmental assessment of a passive
paths in the EAHE (i.e. the Z- and P-paths, respectively). Also, it building equipped with an earth-to-air heat exchanger in France. Solar Energy
2008;82:820–31.
allows to deciding if input and output drums of constant or [9] Hollmuller P, Lachal B. TRNSYS compatible moist air hypocaust model:
variable cross-sectional area, respectively, should be used. The description and validation. Centre Universitaire d’etudes des problemes de
decision criteria used within the design procedure are of pneu- l’energie, CH – 1205 Geneve; 1998.
[10] Idelcik IE. Indrumator pentru calculul rezistentelor hidraulica. Ed. Tehnica,
matic nature (i.e. the smallest air pressure drops across the EAHE) Bucuresti; 1984. p. 313–5; 357–8 [in Romanian; translated from Russian].
and of thermal nature (i.e. the largest heat flux provided by the [11] Danescu A, Popa B, Radcenco V, Carbunaru A, Iosifescu C, Marinescu M, et al.
EAHE). Termotehnica si masini termice, Ed. Didactica si Pedagogica, Bucuresti; 1985
[in Romanian].
The implementation of the design procedure is made for the [12] Carabogdan IG, Badea A, Ionescu L, Leca A, Ghia V, Nistor I, et al. Instalatii
EAHE of a large passive house built near Bucharest, Romania termice industriale, Ed. Tehnica, Bucuresti; 1978 [in Romanian].
(AMVIC PH). [13] Badescu V, Hera D, Crutescu M, Crutescu Ruxandra Gherasim, Costache N, Ivan
G, et al. Cladire pasiva cu destinatie administrativa. In: Proc of the conference
A time-dependent simulation of EAHE operation is performed.
on energy efficiency and buildings, Asociatia Auditorilor Energetici pentru
The thermal behavior of the EAHE is modeled by means of a Cladiri, 3–4 December, 2007 [CD of the proceedings, Ed. ARTECNO Bucuresti, in
numerical transient bi-dimensional approach by soil slices in Romanian].
perpendicular plans on the pipes. The time-dependent model is [14] Badescu V. Simple and accurate model for the ground heat exchanger of a
passive house. Renew Energy 2007;32:845–55.
validated through comparison with measurements. The heating [15] Mihalakakou G, Santamouris M, Asimakopoulos D. Modelling the thermal
and cooling potential of the EAHE was investigated under realistic performance of earth-to-air heat exchangers. Solar Energy 1994;53:301–5.
Author's personal copy

1280 V. Badescu, D. Isvoranu / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1266–1280

[16] Mihalakakou G, Santamouris M, Asimakopoulos D, Papanikolaou N. Impact of [24] Gazela M, Mathioulakis E. A new method for typical weather data selection to
ground cover on the efficiencies of earth-to-air heat exchangers. Appl Energy evaluate long-term performance of solar energy systems. Solar Energy
1994;48:19–32. 2001;70:339–48.
[17] Nicholls RL. Comparisons of deep well and insulated shallow earth storage of [25] Awadukt Thermo, Schimbator De Caldura Aer-Sol Pentru O Ventilatie
solar heat. Solar Energy 1978;20:127–37. controlata, REHAU 342700 RO 04, 2007, REHAU Polymer SRL Biroul de
[18] Khatry AK, Sodha MS, Malik MAS. Periodic variation of ground temperature Vanzari Bucuresti Soseaua de Centura nr. 14-16, 077180 Tunari, jud. Ilfov.
with depth. Solar Energy 1978;20:425–7. <http://www.rehau.ro> [in Romanian].
[19] Bojic M, Papadakis G, Kytitsis S. Energy from a two-pipe, earth-to-air heat [26] Hera D, Iordache F, Drughean L, Ivan G, Ilie A, Iordache V, et al. Cladire
exchanger. Energy 1999;24:519–23. administrativa pasiv energetic. Contract AMCSIT nr. 128/28.09.2007. Etapa III.
[20] Melgaard DK, Sincovec RF. PDETWO/PSTEM/GEARB: solution of systems of two Finalizarea si experimentarea prototipului de cladire pasiva energetic.
dimensional nonlinear partial differential equations. Algorithm 565. ACM Universitatea Tehnica de Constructii din Bucuresti, Raport final, 9
Trans Math Softw 1981;7(1). September, 2009 [in Romanian].
[21] Anuarul meteorologic, Institutul de Meteorologie si Hidrologie, Bucuresti; [27] Edgett KS, Christensen PR. The particle size of Martian Aeolian dunes. J
1961 [in Romanian]. Geophys Res 1991;96:22765–76.
[22] Badescu V. A new kind of cloudy sky model to compute instantaneous [28] Badescu V. Comment on the statistical indicators used to evaluate the accuracy
values of diffuse and global solar irradiance. Theor Appl Climatol 2002;72: of solar radiation computing models. Solar Energy 1988;40:479–80.
127–35. [29] SolidWorks 2007 SP0.0, Dassault Systèmes, SolidWorks Corporation, 300 Baker
[23] Oancea C, Zamfir E, Gheorghita C. Studiul aportului de energie solara pe Avenue, Concord, MA 01742, USA.
suprafete plane de captare cu orientari si unghiuri de inclinare diferite. [30] Documentation for ANSYS and ANSYS Workbench, Release 11.0, ANSYS, Inc.,
Energetica 1981;29:451–6 [in Romanian]. Southpointe, 275 Technology Drive, Canonsburg, PA 15317, USA; 2007.

You might also like