Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 280–292

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy & Buildings

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

Experimental investigation on the cooling performance of an Earth to

Air Heat Exchanger (EAHE) equipped with an irrigation system to
adjust soil moisture
Hui Li a,b, Long Ni a,b,∗, Yang Yao a,b, Cheng Sun a,b,∗
a
School of Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, 150090, PR China
b
Key Laboratory of Cold Region Urban and Rural Human Settlement Environment Science and Technology, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology,
PR China

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

Article history: Earth to Air Heat Exchangers (EAHEs) are reliable complements for conventional HVAC systems. During
Received 18 January 2019 summer, EAHE cooling can help reduce energy consumption. In the present study, to evaluate the cooling
Revised 25 April 2019
performance of a two-layer EAHE ventilating system, experimental work was conducted from May to Au-
Accepted 4 May 2019
gust 2017. Because EAHE performance largely depends on the thermal characteristics of soil, an irrigation
Available online 13 May 2019
system was adopted to experimentally verify the effect of soil moisture content. Air temperature showed
Keywords: an average drop of 14.6 °C and the average total cooling capacity was 8792 W. The system exhibited a
Earth to air heat exchanger maximum coefficient of performance (COP) of 27.2, implying that the system provides fresh-air cooling
Ventilation with little electricity input. Under cooling mode, the surrounding soil temperature increased continuously
Precipitation due to the operation of the system. An irrigation system was adopted to simulate natural precipitation;
Soil moisture content when the soil moisture changed from 0.37 cm3 /cm3 to 0.42 cm3 /cm3 , air temperature decreased by 1.6 °C
Cooling performance
at the pipe outlet. The results show that using EAHE under wet conditions resulted in a large cooling ca-
pacity and COP, which indicates that a short pipe length or shallow depth is required for achieving a
similar cooling capacity under wet soil conditions.
© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction of an EAHE system is simple; it consists of one or several pipes

Energy consumption in buildings represents 40% of the total
global primary energy consumption; in this case, heating and cool-
ing are the most important contributors to energy consumption
[1,2]. In developing countries like China, energy consumption in
buildings is increasing every year, which is expected to result in an
excessive use of primary energy. Thus, developing reliable substan-
tial energy resources has become one of the most urgent issues
for policy makers. Using sustainable techniques to improve ther-
mal environment in buildings is one of the key methods to solve
excessive energy consumption in buildings. Reports are available
in literature on both theoretical and experimental studies to im-
prove indoor thermal comfort using economical techniques, such
as phase change materials (PCMs), passive heating/cooling systems,
and thermal insulation [3–7]. The application of earth to air heat
exchangers (EAHEs) is a potential solution to help solve energy
shortage in the building sector [8,9]. This technique can also help
in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The physical configuration
∗
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: nilonggn@163.com (L. Ni), suncheng@hit.edu.cn (C. Sun).
buried in soil, with one end to outdoor air and another to the in-
door air distribution system. Due to the high thermal inertia of
soil, outdoor temperature variations become progressively smooth
with respect to soil depth. Thus, earth can be regarded as a large
thermal reservoir; its temperature remains low and stable when
compared to outdoor air temperature throughout the year [10].
When the ambient air temperature was –19.8 °C, the original soil
temperature was reported to be 6.9 °C at a depth of 5.0 m [11].
Whether the system can operate effectively depends on soil char-
acteristics, and the soil profile is related to a number of parame-
ters such as depth, soil type, soil thermal conductivity, and local
weather conditions. EAHE systems can usually be applied at the
building scale to reduce heating or cooling loads.
Experiments and simulations were conducted on a global scale
to explore and evaluate the thermal performance of EAHE sys-
tems [12–16]. An important difference between the heating and
cooling operations is that temperature variation is not the only
phenomenon occurring inside buried pipes; changes may occur in
soil moisture content along with heat exchange during the cooling
operation. As reported in literature [17], moisture transfer occurs
along the pipe length and can influence heat transfer efficiency to

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.05.007
0378-7788/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 H. Li, L. Ni and Y. Yao et al. / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 280–292
Nomenclature
B local atmospheric pressure (Pa)
cp specific heat of air at constant pressure (J/(kg·K))
COPs sensible cooling coefficient of performance (-)
COPt total cooling coefficient of performance (-)
d Humidity ratio of air (g/kg)
E power consumption (W)
m˙ mass flow rate (kg/s)
Ps partial pressure of saturated vapor (Pa)
Qs sensible cooling capacity (W)
Qt total cooling capacity (W)
ti air temperature at EAHE inlet (°C)
to air temperature at EAHE outlet (°C)
ts soil temperature (°C)
v air velocity (m3 /s)
Greek letters
ρa air density (kg/m3 )
ϕ relative humidity of air (%)
γ stochastic error
some extent. Condensation takes place inside buried pipes when
the pipe wall temperature is lower than air dew point temperature.
Therefore, it is necessary for buried pipes to have a slight slope in
order to collect condensation water to a low point and pump it
out of the system. Boulard et al. investigated heat and water vapor
transfer inside an EAHE installed in a monitored greenhouse [18];
they estimated that latent heat transfer (due to condensation or
evaporation) accounted for approximately 30% of the total energy
balance. Estrada et al. [19] carried out a simulation study to ana-
lyze latent and sensible heat exchange inside EAHEs; their results
revealed that latent heat exchange is not always welcome during
application. When latent heat exchange occurs, an air conditioning
system would consume more power to remove the extra moisture
from fresh air to maintain a more comfortable and healthier indoor
environment. Peretti et al. [20] discussed the feasibility of adopting
EAHE systems in passive buildings to achieve high levels of indoor
thermal comfort and they concluded that this technique can elim-
inate the need for air-conditioning systems under cooling use.
Studies showed that soil characteristics can significantly influ-
ence the performance of EAHE systems and hence several investi-
gations focused on the influence of soil compaction level [21], soil
type [22], and soil temperature [23] were undertaken. In this con-
text, soil moisture content is a parameter that needs to be paid
attention to. Gao et al. [24] proposed a novel idea to arrange hori-
zontal ground coupled heat exchangers (HGCHEs) under a rain gar-
den; in this scenario, soil moisture can increase due to percola-
tion. A rainfall infiltration experiment with a vertical soil column
was conducted to verify the enhancement effect of an increase
in moisture content on the HGCHE thermal performance. The re-
searchers observed that the heat exchange rate improved with an
increase in the soil moisture content. It is known that soil thermal
conductivity is strongly related to its saturation. Thus, soil mois-
ture content is considered to be an important parameter affecting
the thermal performance of EAHE systems. Gan [25] simulated the
performance of an EAHE system, and the results revealed that ne-
glecting the interactions between buried pipes and rainfall can lead
to wrong conclusions regarding system performance. In later stud-
ies, Gan [26,27] found that the results may be overestimated by as
much as 463% for an earth-liquid heat exchanger (ELHE) and by
more than 100% for an EAHE. Soni [28] conducted an experimental
study during the rainy season in India. Their results showed that
power consumption of the proposed EAHE system was lesser in
the rainy season when compared to summer. The additional power
281
consumption used to lower the humidity level on rainy days was
compensated by better heat transfer efficiency in EAHE systems;
with an increase in soil wetness, the overall power consumption
decreased. Kumar et al. [29] further verified this conclusion exper-
imentally. The authors found that when the soil moisture content
increased, the thermal performance of EAHE systems improved to
an extent. When the soil moisture content rose from 0% to 20%,
the maximum increase in the daily heat transfer rate was more
than 22% and the average coefficient of performance (COP) of the
system increased noticeably at higher soil moisture content levels.
The reports available on EAHE systems prove that it is a
worthy technique from both the thermal performance and eco-
nomic/environmental influence points of view. However, after an
extensive literature survey, we realized that there are several re-
search gaps. These are as follows. (1) EAHE systems is usually used
as an auxiliary cooling and dehumidification measure for fresh air
subsystem of air conditioning system to reduce the consumption
of fresh air treatment cooling capacity. (2) Existing studies mainly
focused on buried pipes with single layer pipes with one pipe or
parallel styles, with other forms being relatively rare. (3) Although
simulation studies on the influence of precipitation can be found,
there are only a few experimental reports on this topic.
To fill the gaps mentioned above, EAHEs were operated as in-
dependent cooling sources to cool down fresh air in Harbin (a city
in Northeast China), where the ventilation and cooling are required
to remain indoor thermal comfort [30]. The thermal parameters of
air and soil were measured and recorded; system performance in-
dexes like cooling capacity, power consumption, COP, and the re-
lationship between cooling capacity and inlet air parameters were
analyzed to evaluate the cooling performance of the system. Both
sensible and latent heat exchange were considered. In addition, ar-
tificial precipitation experiments were conducted to explore the
effect of soil moisture content on system performance. Irrigation
equipment was employed to simulate natural precipitation condi-
tions. The objectives of the present work are as follows. (1) To in-
vestigate the performance of an EAHE as an independent fresh-air
handling unit instead of as a complement to existing HVAC sys-
tems. (2) A novel pipe form with a two-layer U shape was adopted
to ensure heat transfer as well as save land use. (3) To evaluate
the thermal performance of EAHE fresh-air cooling systems with a
novel pipe form and analyze the relationship between air param-
eters and cooling performance. (4) To explore the influence of soil
moisture content on EAHE operation by simulating natural precip-
itation conditions.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Case study
The experiment site is located in Songbei district, Harbin
(45.80° N, 126.55° E), a typical severe cold city [31] in China
(Dwa region based on Köppen-Geiger classification [32]). Detailed
climatic conditions were listed in Table 1 [33]. The building
Table 1
Climate parameters of Harbin.
Parameter Unit Value
Average temperature of the year °C 4.2
Calculated temperature of the exterior ventilating °C 26.8
Calculation relative humidity of the exterior % 62.0%
ventilation
Calculated daily average temperature of the °C 26.3
exterior air conditioning
Extreme maximum temperature °C 36.7
CDD26 °C•day 14
282 H. Li, L. Ni and Y. Yao et al. / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 280–292

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the EAHE fresh-air supply system used in this study.

contained 14 floors and the experimental area was located on the Table 3
Air volume determination for the system.
first floor. The EAHE system employed aims to provide fresh air
to two exhibition rooms; the areas of Room 1 and Room 2 were Useable Occupant Per-person Total air
255.8 and 70.5 m2 , respectively. Due to space constrictions, roof Room No. area density ventilation rate rate
air supply and floor air supply were adopted in Room 1 and Room / m2 m2 /per m3 /h•per m3 /h
2, respectively. The system consisted of two main parts – an out- Room 1 255.8 10 30 780
door EAHE on the buried-pipe side and user-side air supply sys- Room 2 70.5 10 30 210
Total 990
tem. Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram of the EAHE fresh-air supply
system. Main functions of Heat Recovery Unit (HRU) can be con-
cluded as: (1) recover exhausted heat; (2) provide part of the driv-
ing power; (3) purify the outdoor fresh air. Considering the space Table 3. During the cooling operation, ambient fresh air first en-
limitations, an integrated HRU unit was adopted in the present tered the EAHE due to the suction action of the outdoor blower.
work. Heat recovery function is indispensable during heating oper- Fresh air was cooled by the EAHE due to the thermal inertia of
ation and can undertake average 39.5% fresh air heating load [11]. soil, after which it moved into the HRU through a connecting pipe.
However, during cooling, the HRU acts just as a driver and purifi- Well-cooled fresh air was separately sent to Room 1 using roof air
cation device as the heat recovery function is unnecessary and by- supply and to Room 2 using floor air supply.
passed in summer months. Detailed information on the system can It is worth noting that the configuration of the EAHE shown
be found in Table 2. in Fig. 2 is a new design that had not been previously installed
Air from the buried pipes was supplied to two rooms. The to- in China. In order to achieve a large heat exchange as well as
tal volume flow rate of ventilated air through the heat exchanger save land use, a horizontal U-shaped heat exchanger design was
was 985 m3 /h; this value was calculated using the fresh air stan- adopted. The EAHE comprised of two parallel horizontal U-shaped
dard GB50736-2012 [33]. During whole cooling operation, airflow steel pipes, each with an inner diameter of 0.26 m. In order to
rate was maintained at this value. Detailed results are shown in achieve a uniform air distribution, a large diameter was adopted

Table 2
Detailed parameters of the components of the experimental system.

Component Parameter Unit Value

EAHE Pipe diameter m 0.26 (branch pipe) 0.31 (mains)

Pipe length m 15.0 (upper pipe) 16.0 (lower pipe)
36.0 (total length, including vertical pipe)
Buried depth m 2.5 (upper pipe) 5.0 (lower pipe)
Outdoor Rated power W 170.0
blower Frequency Hz 50/60
Nominal airflow rate m3 /h 1808
Head Pa 294
HRU Rated power W 860
Nominal airflow rate m3 /h 1500
 H. Li, L. Ni and Y. Yao et al. / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 280–292 283

Fig. 2. Configuration of buried pipes used in the proposed system.

Table 4 2.2. Experimental measurements

Specific frictional head loss of different pipe diameters (air volume: 990 m3 /h).

Diameter mm 150 200 250 300 Various instruments were used to record and measure the ther-
mal parameters of air and soil at different locations and airflow
Air velocity m/s 15.8 8.8 5.65 3.92
Specific frictional head loss Pa/m 21.5 5.0 1.61 0.65 velocity through the EAHE system. Ten sections along the pipe
length were selected as measurement points for air temperature
and moisture content (Fig. 3). Airflow velocity through the EAHE
pipe was measured using a hot wire-type anemometer. As the
EAHE pipe shown in Fig. 3 was buried underground, two mea-
surement sections of air velocity located at the connection pipe
between outdoor EAHE and indoor HRU, see Fig. 1. The straight
for the main pipes [34]. When selected the pipe diameter, resis- pipe length of the connecting pipe was 17.0 m, which meets the
tance was an important parameter since it will influence both length requirement for straight pipe sections for airflow measure-
system energy consumption and initial cost. After calculation ment. The arrangement of measurement points is depicted in Fig. 4
of pipe specific frictional head loss, present design has been [35].
determined. Results of specific frictional head loss were listed in Soil temperature and moisture content were measured with
Table 4. Under present design, resistance of EAHE occupied 8.5% of two types of sensors. The arrangement of soil sensors is shown in
total system resistance. Fig. 5.

Fig. 3. Monitoring cross sections for air temperature and relative humidity inside the EAHE.
284 H. Li, L. Ni and Y. Yao et al. / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 280–292
Fig. 4. Distribution of velocity measuring points.
As the two buried pipes were identical in size, texture, and con-
figuration, heat transfer between the pipes was generally symmet-
ric and soil sensors were arranged on one side of the central line.
Five cross sections along the pipe length were selected as mon-
itoring sections, with each section including three temperature-
measuring cables (located at 0, 0.5, and 1.0 m from the pipe wall),
and the sensors were embedded in the ground at various locations
and depths. A reference hole was dug at a distance of 3.0 m from
Fig. 5. Detailed arrangement of soil sensors.
the pipe end in soil; the reference hole was free from any heat
exchanger influence. After installing the sensors, the original soil
was used to fill up the measurement holes, while taking care to
maintain the original density. Integrated sensors (see blue marks in
Fig. 5) were adopted in Section B and Section D to acquire mois-
ture data of the soil. Moisture content sensors were installed at
depths lesser than 2.5 m because the influence of natural precipi-
tation hardly reaches 3.0 m according to [36].
Detailed information on the measurement range and measure-
ment precision can be found in Table 5.
2.3. Experimental procedure
In order to evaluate the thermal performance of the EAHE dur-
ing summer, the system was operated from 09:00 h to 17:00 h ev-
ery workday and was then switched off until 09:00 h the next
morning to allow for soil recovery. As soil temperature in this area
is much lower than that of ambient air since end of heating sea-
son (Oct. 20th to Apr. 20th next year), cooling performance eval-
uation of the EAHE was conducted between May 22nd and Aug
20th in 2017. During the experimental period, air status was mea-
sured every five minutes and soil parameters were recorded after
every ten minutes. As for the artificial precipitation experiment, ir-
rigation equipment (see Fig. 6) was adopted to simulate natural
rainfall conditions. Water was supplied to the ground the day be-
fore the experiment for moisture penetration into the soil at pipe
depths. Artificial precipitation readings were taken on Aug 6th and
13th with an average water temperature of 13.0 °C, which can in-
ject ignorable cooling capacity into soil. Details of the precipitation
 H. Li, L. Ni and Y. Yao et al. / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 280–292 285

Table 5
Detailed specifications of the measurement equipment.

Parameters Location Model Measuring Range Measuring Accuracy Testing Frequency

Air temperature Inside EAHE AM2322 –40–80 °C 0%–100% ±0.3 °C ± 2% 5 min

and relative Inlet and outlet of DWL-20E –35–80 °C 0%–100% ±0.3 °C ± 3% 10 min
humidity HRU
Indoor environment GGL-20 –35–80 °C 0%–100% ±0.3 °C ± 3% 10 min
Soil temperature DS18B20 –55–125 °C ±0.3 °C 10 min
and moisture SMTS-T1 –40–80 °C 0–1.00 ±0.3 °C ± 0.02 cm3 /cm3 5 min
content cm3 /cm3
Air velocity Outlet of EAHE Testo 405-v1 0–10 m/s ±(0.3 m/s + 5% rdg) three times after
stable operation
Power LR-D200 0–400 V 0–5 A ±(0.4% rd + 0.1% FS) 4 min
Flow rate (used for LXS-15E 0–2.5 m3 /h ±2% FS /
irrigation test)

Table 6 The mass flow rate inside the system can be calculated using:
Detailed arrangement of precipitation tests.

Operation date Precipitation time Flow rate m˙ = ρa v̄A (2)

where m˙ is the mass flow rate of air (kg/s), ρ a is the density of air
3
Unit h m /h
Aug 6th 1.5 0.95
Aug 13th 3 1.08
(kg/m3 ), and A is the cross sectional area of the pipe (m2 ).
273.15 P − 0.0378ϕ · Ps
ρa = ρ0 × (3)
273.15 + t 0.1013
arrangement can be found in Table 6. Twenty sprayers covered an Here, ρ a is the density of air (kg/m3 ), ρ 0 is air density at 0°C
area of 100 m2 (20 m × 5 m) to ensure uniform irrigation across the (ρ 0 = 1.293 kg/m3 ), t is air temperature (°C), ϕ is the relative hu-
entire buried pipe area. midity of air (%), Ps is the partial pressure of saturated vapor (Pa),
and P is the absolute pressure of wet air [37].
2.4. Calculations The sensible cooling capacity of the EAHE is evaluated using the
following equation:
Considering the measurement method adopted in this experi- Qs = m˙ c p (to − ti ) (4)
ment, the system velocity was calculated using the following equa-
tion: where Qs is the sensible cooling capacity of the EAHE (W), m˙ is
mass flow rate (kg/s), cp is the specific heat of air at constant pres-
1
n
sure (1005 J/(kg·K)), and to and ti are the temperatures at the outlet
v̄ = vi (1)
n and inlet of the EAHE, respectively, in°C.
i=1
For moisture comparison between different interfaces, the hu-
where v̄ is the mean air velocity in the measurement cross section midity ratio of air can be calculated by:
(m/s), n is the number of measurement times, and vi is the velocity
Ps
at the specified location (m/s). d = 622ϕ (5)
(B − ϕ Ps )

Fig. 6. Irrigation equipment used in artificial precipitation experiments.

286 H. Li, L. Ni and Y. Yao et al. / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 280–292

where d is the humidity ratio of air (g/kg). Ps in Eq. (5) is calcu-

lated using the Goff-Gratch equation [38]:
 373.16   373.16 
lgPs = −7.90298 −1 +5.02808lg −1.3816
T T
 
×10−7 1011.344(1− ) −1
373.16
T

 
+ 8.1328 × 10−3.49149( ) −1
373.16
T −1

+ lg(1013.246 ) (T > 273.15 K ) (6)

As moisture transfer occurred inside the EAHE, the enthalpy of
air was used to determine the cooling capacity of the EAHE as fol-
lows

h = cd · t (q + cv · t )d (7)
where h is the enthalpy of air (kJ/kg), cd is the average constant
pressure specific heat of dry air (1.01 kJ/(kg·K)), t is air tempera-
ture (K), q is the vaporization heat of water at 0 °C (2500 kJ/kg),
cv is the average constant pressure specific heat of water vapor
(1.84 kJ/(kg·K)), and d is moisture content in air (kg/kg).
With respect to condensation during the cooling operation, the
Fig. 7. Air temperature variation during the cooling operation (Airflow rate: 985
total cooling capacity (Qt , W) of the EAHE is evaluated using the m3 /h).
following equation:

Qt = m˙ (ho − hi ) (8)
where m˙ is the mass flow rate (kg/s), and ho and hi are the en-
thalpy of fresh air at the outlet and inlet, respectively, of the EAHE
(J/kg).
The COP of the integrated system for cooling fresh air during
summer can be calculated as
Q
COP = (9)
E
where E is the power consumption of the system (W), which in-
cludes power consumption of the outdoor blower and HRU. Both
sensible and total COP were calculated in the following analysis;
sensible cooling COP is represented by COPs and total cooling COP
is represented by COPt .
Average COP (COP ) of the EAHE was calculated using the fol-
lowing equation:

Q
COP =  (10)
E
Error analysis was conducted based on the description provided Fig. 8. Relative humidity of and moisture content variation in air during the cooling
in [39] and the steps taken are described in the appendix. operation (Airflow rate: 985 m3 /h).

3. Results and discussion
3.1. Thermal behavior of the EAHE
Fig. 7 shows the temperature of air at the inlet and outlet. It
is obvious that the ambient air was effectively cooled after passing
through the EAHE; in addition, its temperature range reduced. Dur-
ing the cooling period in the experimental study, air temperature
at the EAHE inlet varied from 9.6 to 36.3 °C, while the outlet tem-
perature varied between 4.0 and 17.1 °C. It should be noted that
the highest outlet temperature was much lower than that of un-
conditioned ambient air, which means that the EAHE can serve as
a cooling source and take up a part of the cooling load. The aver-
age air temperatures at the inlet and outlet were 25.6 and 10.9 °C,
respectively. The mean temperature decrease between EAHE inlet
and outlet was approximately 14.6 °C. Besides, at the fixed airflow
985 m3 /h, a maximum temperature drop of 23.7 °C was observed
during the cooling operation. With respect to local climate con-
ditions, the maximum ambient air temperature occurred during
July, which is the hottest month in a year. The highest inlet tem-
perature occurred at 1330 h on July 6th. Due to the thermal iner-
tia of the soil, oscillations in the air temperature reduced drasti-
cally from 36.3 °C at the pipe inlet to 13.8 °C at the outlet. It can
also be noticed that the drop in outlet air temperature across the
EAHE increased with an increase in inlet air temperature. The rea-
son for this observation can be attributed to enhanced convective
heat transfer between air and the surrounding soil due to the large
temperature difference between them.
Fig. 8 depicts the variation in the relative humidity and mois-
ture content of air at the inlet and outlet of the EAHE. Relative
humidity at the inlet varied across a wide range from 22.9% to
89.5%. At the pipe outlet, although the range of variation was
narrower when compared to the inlet, the actual values were
higher, i.e., from 68.5% to 100%. It is worth noticing that relative
humidity at the outlet was 100% most of the time, which indi-
cates that condensation occurred inside the buried pipes. This
can also be confirmed by observing air moisture content at the
inlet and outlet. Air moisture content at the pipe outlet varied
 H. Li, L. Ni and Y. Yao et al. / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 280–292
Fig. 9. Cooling capacity during the cooling operation (Airflow rate: 985 m3 /h).
between 4.1 and 13.2 g/kg, while that at the pipe inlet varied be-
tween 3.2 and 21.1 g/kg; therefore, air moisture content decreased
inside the EAHE. Another aspect that needs to be noticed is that
when the inlet air had a low temperature as well as relative
humidity, the outlet moisture content was seldom higher than
that at the inlet; this is due to the volatilization of condensed
water in pipes that had not been discharged promptly.
In conclusion, these results show that the EAHE is an efficient
system for air refreshment in buildings under local climate condi-
tions, as it can effectively cool down fresh air temperature during
the summer season. Besides, fresh air at EAHE outlet showed lower
temperature and moisture content than outdoor air, which indi-
cates the fresh air also had ability to bring extra cooling to indoor
environment.
3.2. Cooling capacity of the EAHE
From the above-described analysis of air moisture content vari-
ation, it is obvious that latent heat transfer occurred inside the
EAHE; thus, Eqs. (4) and (8) were used to calculate the sensible
cooling capacity and total cooling capacity, respectively, using the
measured air temperature, moisture content, and velocity. The re-
sults obtained during the entire cooling operation are shown in
Fig. 9. Sensible cooling capacity exhibited a strong correlation with
inlet air temperature when refer to Fig. 7; meanwhile, the outlet
temperature remained at a relatively stable level as compared to
the inlet temperature. In other words, the sensible cooling capacity
showed a clear positive correlation with the drop in air temper-
ature across the EAHE. When the inlet air temperature increased
from 9.6 to 36.3 °C, the plots show that the sensible cooling ca-
pacity of the system increased from 1470 to 8438 W; the average
sensible cooling capacity was 5214 W during the cooling operation.
As for the total cooling capacity, we can notice that it was larger
than the sensible value because of condensation. The total cooling
capacity varied from 1470 to 18,745 W and its average value was
8792 W. It is worth mentioning that at the beginning of the cooling
operation, due to the relatively low inlet temperature and moisture
content, there was little difference between the total and sensible
cooling capacities. The latent cooling capacity also varied across a
wide range from 0 to 11,733 W, which is wider than the sensible
cooling capacity range; this accounted for 36.9% of the total cool-
287
ing capacity. This value is representative of the decisive role of la-
tent heat transfer during the cooling operation. In fact, the cooling
capacity varied depending on the inlet air status as well as local
soil conditions.
Figs. 10 and 11 reveal the correlation between air temperature,
moisture content, and cooling capacity. Fig. 10(a) describes cool-
ing capacity variation with respect to inlet air temperature. In or-
der to obtain a wider range of inlet temperatures, air state points
with moisture contents less than 15.0 g/kg (a representative mois-
ture content during the cooling operation) and different tempera-
tures were selected. The sensible cooling capacity and total cooling
capacity exhibited an obvious linear relationship with the EAHE in-
let temperature, while the latent cooling capacity was not strongly
dependent on temperature changes at a constant moisture content.
Fitting curves were constructed in order to further clarify the rela-
tionship between the variables. The average rate of change in the
sensible cooling capacity was 0.41 kW/ °C while that of the total
cooling capacity was 0.54 kW/ °C. The results in Fig. 10(b) (Pearson
correlation analysis using R language) show that the correlation
coefficient between the inlet temperature and sensible cooling ca-
pacity was 0.88, which indicated a strong correlation between the
two parameters. The inlet temperature also exhibited a significant
correlation with the total cooling capacity; in this case, the cor-
relation coefficient was 0.69. A weaker correlation was observed
between inlet temperature and latent cooling capacity as shown
in Fig. 10(b), where the correlation coefficient was 0.32. Combined
with the variation trend in Fig. 10(a), we can conclude that the
inlet temperature affected the latent cooling capacity to a certain
extent. Considering the various cooling capacities, the coefficient
between sensible cooling capacity and total cooling capacity was
0.9, while that between the total cooling capacity and latent cool-
ing capacity was 0.88. This implies that the total cooling capacity
had a strong correlation with both sensible and latent cooling ca-
pacities.
Fig. 11 shows the changes occurring in the cooling capacities
with respect to inlet moisture content; the data was selected at an
air temperature of 28.2 °C. It can be seen that the sensible cooling
capacity was not significantly influenced by the inlet air moisture
content. When the moisture content varied from 4.4 to 18.4 g/kg,
the sensible cooling capacity changed from 4258 to 7894 W. On the
other hand, the total and latent cooling capacities responded dra-
matically to changes in the moisture content. In the figure, it can
be noticed that the total cooling capacity and latent cooling capac-
ity exhibited similar trends. The latent heat transfer was close to
zero when the moisture content was low; thus, the total and la-
tent cooling capacities remained constant. At the same time, the
total cooling capacity was close to the sensible cooling capacity.
When the moisture content was higher than 8.8 g/kg, latent heat
transfer increased and the latent and total cooling capacities in-
creased linearly. The average rate of increase in the total cooling
capacity was 0.42 kW/(g/kg). Hence, it becomes clear that changes
in the moisture content significantly affected the latent cooling ca-
pacity. When the moisture content changed from 8.8 to 18.4 g/kg,
the latent cooling capacity changed from 926 to 6254 W with an
average rate of change of 0.57 kW/(g/kg).
Fig. 11(b) presents the results of correlation analysis between
moisture content and various cooling capacities. For this analy-
sis, the Spearman method was used as the relationships between
moisture content and different cooling capacities were not linear.
It is obvious that there was a strong correlation between the mois-
ture content and latent cooling capacity with a correlation coeffi-
cient of 0.86. The total cooling capacity exhibited a correlation co-
efficient of 0.58 with moisture content when the inlet temperature
stayed constant. The sensible cooling capacity was also affected
by changes in the moisture content; the correlation coefficient be-
tween these parameters was –0.76. This implies that at the same
288 H. Li, L. Ni and Y. Yao et al. / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 280–292
Fig. 10. Correlation between cooling capacity and inlet temperature. (a) Scatter plot and (b) correlation analysis.
inlet air temperature, the sensible cooling capacity decreased with
an increase in air moisture content and led to a high outlet air
temperature. After examining the correlation coefficients between
different cooling capacities, it can be inferred that the strongest
correlation existed between the latent and total cooling capacities.
3.3. Temperature and moisture content variation in soil during
irrigation experiments
Soil is composed of air, water, and solid particles; its moisture
content strongly affects its thermal conductivity. In order to ex-
plore the effect of soil moisture content on EAHE performance, an
artificial precipitation device was adopted to change the soil mois-
ture content. Irrigation tests were conducted on Aug 6th and 13th
and Fig. 12 shows the relationship between soil temperature and
moisture content. It is clear that soil temperature decreased after
irrigation, thus conforming to the objective law of natural precip-
itation. During first precipitation, soil moisture at the upper pipe
depth (–2.5 m) increased from 0.33 cm3 /cm3 to 0.36 cm3 /cm3 . The
second precipitation resulted in a 0.05 cm3 /cm3 rise in moisture
content on an average. The EAHE system was operated the day af-
ter precipitation to obtain an even distribution in soil temperature
and moisture content. The results obtained were also confirmed
by the data in Fig. 12; moisture content at the upper pipe depth
(–2.5 m) reached the highest value on the second day after irriga-
tion, after which it decreased gradually, which means that water
migration requires time to reach a constant level.
Experiments on the enhancement function of soil moisture con-
tent were conducted on two days (Aug 7th and 14th) after irriga-
tion to ensure uniform moisture distribution. The operation data of
Aug 4th and 9th was chosen as it was similar to the test day data.
Ambient air temperature and moisture content values of the com-
pared specimens are shown in Fig. 13 and summarized in Table 7.
In the field test, outer climatic conditions were hard to control. Al-
though differences existed between the selected days, the general
trend of these days was fairly consistent.
Fig. 14 shows the drop in air temperature when the EAHE sys-
tem was operated on the selected days. The average inlet tem-
perature was 25.5 °C on both Aug 4th and 7th, while the average
outlet temperature on Aug 7th was 0.6 °C lower than that on Aug
4th, since the soil moisture content on Aug. 7th was 0.03 cm3 /cm3
higher than that of Aug. 4th.
Fig. 14(b) shows the changes occurring in air temperature
on Aug 9th and 14th. Comparison between these two days was
stronger than the previous condition. Soil moisture content was
0.37 cm3 /cm3 on Aug 9th and 0.42 cm3 /cm3 on Aug. 14th, av-
erage air temperature at pipe outlet were 13.0 °C and 11.4 °C, re-
spectively. This phenomenon indicated that lower air temperature
can be achieved under larger soil moisture content. Besides, it
can be noticed that the outlet temperature under wet conditions
 H. Li, L. Ni and Y. Yao et al. / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 280–292
Fig. 11. Correlation between cooling capacity and inlet moisture content. (a) Scatter plot and (b) correlation analysis.
Fig. 12. Soil moisture content variation during precipitation experiments.
fluctuated to a lesser extent when compared to that in dry condi-
tions. The inlet air temperature changed from 27.8 to 30.4 °C on
Aug 9th, while the outlet air temperature changed from 12.1 to
14.0 °C. In other words, the outlet temperature varied by only 1.7 °C
while the inlet temperature exhibited a 4.5 °C difference under wet
conditions.
Fig. 13. Temperature and moisture variation on precipitation experiment days.
289
Putting aside the temperature drop, the cooling capacity and
COP are suitable parameters for evaluating the thermal perfor-
mance of an EAHE system. Fig. 15 compares the sensible cooling
capacity and COPs values at different soil moisture contents. Sim-
ilar to the case of temperature variation, the cooling capacity was
higher at higher soil moisture contents. Sensible cooling capacity
of EAHE was larger under wetter soil. For instance, cooling capac-
ity was 4251 W on Aug. 4th when soil moisture content was 0.33
cm3 /cm3 , and it reached 4485 W when soil moisture content was
0.36 cm3 /cm3 on Aug. 7th. Similarly, when soil moisture content
increased by 4.7% from Aug 9th to Aug 14th, the sensible cool-
ing capacity increased by 10.4%. In addition, COPs increased with
an increase in the soil moisture content; it increased by 6.3% from
Aug 4th to 7th. When soil moisture was 0.37 cm3 /cm3 on Aug. 9th,
COPs was 8.9, and this value reached to 9.7 when moisture content
was 0.42 cm3 /cm3 on Aug. 14th.
3.4. Soil temperature variation during the cooling operation
Fig. 16 shows the soil temperature variation of Section A-1
(see Fig. 5). Soil temperature at different depths similar increas-
ing trends with respect to seasonal variation and influence of op-
eration. What should be noticed is the daily temperature variation
during EAHE operation. Among the various curves shown in the
figure, we can observe that the ones near pipe walls exhibited the
largest fluctuation; these changes gradually reduced with an in-
crease in distance from the pipe wall. When soil temperature near
the pipe wall changed from 5.9 to 7.4 °C on July 3rd, the variation
290 H. Li, L. Ni and Y. Yao et al. / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 280–292

Table 7
Climate parameters of comparison days.

Date Temperature (°C) Moisture content (g/kg)

Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average

Aug 4th 27.5 23.3 25.6 14.3 12.2 12.9

Aug 7th 27.6 23.1 25.6 13.1 11.5 12.2
Aug 9th 32.3 25.5 29.5 15.5 11.4 13.5
Aug 14th 32.3 24.4 29.5 15.1 10.9 13.3

Fig. 14. Air temperature variations in dry and wet conditions on (a) Aug 4th and
7th and (b) Aug 9th and 14th (Airflow rate: 985 m3 /h).

at a distance of 0.3 m from the pipe wall was 0.8 °C. Meanwhile, al- Fig. 15. Sensible cooling capacity and COPs in dry and wet conditions on (a) Aug
though system operation increased soil temperature during week- 4th and 7th and (b) Aug 9th and 14th (Airflow rate: 985 m3 /h).

days, the soil recovered during weekends when the system was not
operated. Soil temperature near the pipe wall changed from 5.9 to
8.9 °C after operation from July 3rd to 10th and then reduced to
7.5 °C during the weekend.
3.5. Power consumption and coefficient of performance
Fig. 17 illustrates the changes occurring in power consumption
and COP during the cooling operation. The power consumption of
the system was measured using a power meter. Though the heat
recovery function was bypassed during the cooling operation, HRU
still acted as a driving equipment and hence the total power con-
sumption of the system was composed of the consumption of the
outdoor fan and HRU. The average power consumption was 676 W
during cooling use.
As for COP, it varied with respect to the cooling capacity (refer
to Fig. 9). Both sensible and total cooling capacities were consid-
ered when measuring the system COP. During cooling operation,
sensible COPs varied between 2.2 and 13.1 with average value of
7.1. Value of total cooling COPt was similar to COPs since there ex-
isted no latent heat transfer at the beginning of cooling operation.
As inlet temperature rose, latent heat transfer occurred and COPt
gradually increased. The average COPt was 12.5 and its maximum
value was 27.2, which occurred at 16:45 on July 5th. The results
 H. Li, L. Ni and Y. Yao et al. / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 280–292
Fig. 16. Soil temperature variation from May 20th to Aug 20th.
Fig. 17. Power consumption and COP during cooling operation (Airflow rate: 985
m3 /h).
illustrate that this EAHE system can result in effective fresh air-
cooling while consuming only a little electric power.
4. Conclusions
In this study, a detailed analysis was conducted on an exist-
ing EAHE fresh-air supply system in China. Factors such as out-
let air parameters, cooling potential, and power consumption were
discussed to evaluate the thermal performance of this system dur-
ing summer. Further, artificial precipitation experiments were con-
ducted to change soil moisture content in order to evaluate its
influence on the EAHE performance. The main conclusions of this
study are as follows:
(1) A fresh air supply system based on EAHE was proposed;
it can operate independently and reliably during the entire
cooling season without any auxiliary fresh air cooling and
dehumidification equipment. A novel double-layer configu-
ration was adopted to ensure heat exchange as well as min-
imize land use.
(2) The cooling performance of an EAHE fresh-air supply sys-
tem was recorded and analyzed. During cooling, the EAHE
resulted in an average temperature drop of 14.4 °C. When
ambient air temperature changed from 5.2 to 36.3 °C during
the cooling operation, air temperature at the outlet varied
between 3.1 and 17.1 °C.
291
(3) Due to condensation inside buried pipes, both sensible and
latent heat transfer occurred during the cooling operation.
From the results of cooling capacity analysis, it is obvious
that the sensible cooling capacity was mainly affected by
variations in the inlet air temperature; the average rate of
change in the sensible cooling capacity was 0.41 kW/ °C. The
latent cooling capacity was strongly related to air moisture
content and the average rate of change was 0.57 kW/(g/kg).
Meanwhile, the total cooling capacity responded to changes
in both parameters. During the entire cooling operation, the
latent cooling capacity accounted for 36.9% of the total ca-
pacity, which indicates the dominant role of latent heat
transfer.
(4) The influence of precipitation on EAHE operation was ex-
perimentally verified. It was found that the EAHE thermal
performance was better under wet conditions than in dry
conditions in terms of air temperature drop, sensible cool-
ing capacity, and COPs . Air temperature dropped faster un-
der wet conditions than in dry conditions, which indicates a
higher heat transfer rate in wet conditions. Thus, short pipes
or shallow depths are required for maintaining a constant
cooling capacity under wet soil conditions.
(5) Soil temperature varied with both seasonal changes and sys-
tem operation. The ambient environment injected heat into
soil, which led to seasonal temperature changes. At the same
time, system operation induced noticeable short-term fluc-
tuations. In the case of systems operated in the intermittent
mode, soil temperature recovered during the stop time.
(6) Total cooling COPt of the system was affected by changes in
the regulated cooling capacity from 1.7 to 27.2; the average
COPt was 12.5. The results indicated that EAHE systems can
result in effective cooling while using only small amounts of
electricity.
(7) The present work can be further improved by taking into
account the following aspects. a) Control strategy of the
proposed system can be improved. EAHE and HRU should
be individually controlled based on the climate (e.g., air
temperature and air quality). b) More soil moisture content
measurement points should be installed in order to obtain
a more comprehensive distribution. c) As field test and
climatic parameters were hard to control, conclusions in the
irrigation test need further confirmation from simulations.
d) Connections may be established between irrigation and
measurement systems to maintain high soil moisture con-
tents to enhance system performance. e) Pressure loss and
air distribution inside multi-pipe EAHE should be studied to
evaluate the relationship between airflow dynamics and the
heat transfer process. These aspects will be the focus of our
future research.
Conflict of interest statement
We declare that we have no financial and personal relationships
with other people or organizations that can inappropriately influ-
ence our work, there is no professional or other personal inter-
est of any nature or kind in any product, service and/or company
that could be construed as influencing the position presented in
the manuscript entitled “Experimental investigation on the cooling
performance of an Earth to Air Heat Exchanger (EAHE) equipped
with an irrigation system to adjust soil moisture”.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of
China for the 13th Five-Year Plan (No. 2017YFC0702600).
292 H. Li, L. Ni and Y. Yao et al. / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 280–292
Appendix
Error analysis
Precise measurement values from the sensors used in the
present study are listed in Table 5. In the current investigation,
there were several indirect measurement parameters. Suppose an
indirect measurement parameter Y is a function of the direct mea-
surement parameters X1 , X2 , . . . Xn , then:
Y = f (X1 , X2 , . . . Xn )
Then the error transfer formula can be written as:
  2

n
∂f
γY = γ (10)
i=1
∂ Xi i
where γ Y is the relative error of the indirect measurement param-
eter Y and γ i is the relative error of the direct measurement pa-
rameter Xi .
Based on the maximum error associated with measuring pa-
rameters, the propagation of uncertainties associated with the cal-
culated COPs can be evaluated as follows.
  2
 t −t 2  v 2  −v 2 v(to −ti )
γCOPs = ρ cp A o i
γv 2 + γt o 2 + γt i 2 + 2
γE 2 (11)
E E E E
where γ is the relative error,%; the values of γ v , γto , γti , and γ E
are ±5.7%, ±0.25%, ±0.25%, and ±1.4%, respectively, as obtained
from instrument specifications. Substituting these experimental
data into Eq. (11), we calculated the maximum value of γ COP as
±5.68%.
References
[1] K. Amasyali, N.M. El-Gohary, A review of data-driven building energy con-
sumption prediction studies, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 81 (2018) 1192–1205.
[2] M. Zhang, M. Qin, C. Rode, Z. Chen, Moisture buffering phenomenon and
its impact on building energy consumption, Appl. Thermal Eng. 124 (2017)
337–345.
[3] I. Oropeza-Perez, P.A. Østergaard, Active and passive cooling methods for
dwellings: A review, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 82 (2018) 531–544.
[4] A. Sharifi, Y. Yamagata, Roof ponds as passive heating and cooling systems: A
systematic review, Appl. Energy 160 (2015) 336–357.
[5] A. Kasaeian, F. Pourfayaz, E. Khodabandeh, W.M. Yan, Experimental studies on
the applications of PCMs and nano-PCMs in buildings: A critical review, Energy
Build. 154 (2017) 96–112.
[6] C.Y. Jim, Air-conditioning energy consumption due to green roofs with differ-
ent building thermal insulation, Appl. Energy 128 (2014) 49–59.
[7] G.M. Stavrakakis, A.V. Androutsopoulos, J. Vyörykkä, Experimental and numer-
ical assessment of cool-roof impact on thermal and energy performance of a
school building in Greece, Energy Build 130 (2016) 64–84.
[8] T. Woodson, Y. Coulibaly, E.S. Traoré, Earth-air heat exchangers for passive air
conditioning: Case study Burkina Faso, J. Constr. Develop. Countries 17 (2012)
21–33.
[9] S. Thiers, B. Peuportier, Thermal and environmental assessment of a passive
building equipped with an earth-to-air heat exchanger in France, Solar Energy
82 (2008) 820–831.
[10] J. Vaz, M.A. Sattler, R.D. Brum, E.D. dos Santos, L.A. Isoldi, An experimental
study on the use of Earth-Air Heat Exchangers (EAHE), Energy Build. 72 (2014)
122–131.
[11] H. Li, L. Ni, G. Liu, Z. Zhao, Y. Yao, Feasibility study on applications of an Earth-
-air Heat Exchanger (EAHE) for preheating fresh air in severe cold regions, Re-
new. Energy 133 (2019) 1268–1284.
[12] A. Mathur, S. Mathur, G.D. Agrawal, J. Mathur, Comparative study of straight
and spiral earth air tunnel heat exchanger system operated in cooling and
heating modes, Renew. Energy 108 (2017) 474–487.
[13] D. Belatrache, S. Bentouba, M. Bourouis, Numerical analysis of earth air heat
exchangers at operating conditions in arid climates, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42
(2017) 8898–8904.
[14] 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.
[15] T.S. Bisoniya, A. Kumar, P. Baredar, Experimental and analytical studies of
earth–air heat exchanger (EAHE) systems in India: A review, Renew. Sust. En-
ergy Rev. 19 (2013) 238–246.
[16] J. Vaz, M.A. Sattler, E.D. dos Santos, L.A. Isoldi, Experimental and numeri-
cal analysis of an earth–air heat exchanger, Energy Build. 43 (2011) 2476–
2482.
[17] V. Bansal, R. Misra, G.D. Agrawal, J. Mathur, Performance evaluation and
economic analysis of integrated earth–air–tunnel heat exchanger–evaporative
cooling system, Energy Build. 55 (2012) 102–108.
[18] T. Boulard, E. Razafinjohany, A. Baille, Heat and water vapour transfer in a
greenhouse with an underground heat storage system part I. Experimental re-
sults, Agricult. Forest Meteorol. 45 (1989) 175–184.
[19] E. Estrada, M. Labat, S. Lorente, L.A. Rocha, The impact of latent heat exchanges
on the design of earth air heat exchangers, Appl. Thermal Eng. 129 (2018)
306–317.
[20] C. Peretti, A. Zarrella, M. De Carli, R. Zecchin, The design and environmental
evaluation of earth-to-air heat exchangers (EAHE). A literature review, Renew.
Sust. Energy Revi. 28 (2013) 107–116.
[21] N.A.S. Elminshawy, F.R. Siddiqui, Q.U. Farooq, M.F. Addas, Experimental inves-
tigation on the performance of earth-air pipe heat exchanger for different soil
compaction levels, Appl. Thermal Eng. 124 (2017) 1319–1327.
[22] M. Cuny, J. Lin, M. Siroux, V. Magnenet, C. Fond, Influence of coating soil types
on the energy of earth-air heat exchanger, Energy Build. 158 (2018) 10 0 0–
1012.
[23] F. Niu, Y. Yu, D. Yu, H. Li, Heat and mass transfer performance analysis and
cooling capacity prediction of earth to air heat exchanger, Appl. Energy 137
(2015) 211–221.
[24] Y. Gao, R. Fan, H. Li, R. Liu, X. Lin, H. Guo, Y. Gao, Thermal performance im-
provement of a horizontal ground-coupled heat exchanger by rainwater har-
vest, Energy Build. 110 (2016) 302–313.
[25] G. Gan, Dynamic interactions between the ground heat exchanger and envi-
ronments in earth–air tunnel ventilation of buildings, Energy Build. 85 (2014)
12–22.
[26] G. Gan, Dynamic thermal simulation of horizontal ground heat exchangers for
renewable heating and ventilation of buildings, Renew. Energy 103 (2017)
361–371.
[27] G. Gan, Simulation of dynamic interactions of the earth–air heat exchanger
with soil and atmosphere for preheating of ventilation air, Appl. Energy 158
(2015) 118–132.
[28] S.K. Soni, M. Pandey, V.N. Bartaria, Energy metrics of a hybrid earth air heat
exchanger system for summer cooling requirements, Energy Build. 129 (2016)
1–8.
[29] K.K. Agrawal, R. Misra, T. Yadav, G.D. Agrawal, D.K. Jamuwa, Experimental study
to investigate the effect of water impregnation on thermal performance of
earth air tunnel heat exchanger for summer cooling in hot and arid climate,
Renew. Energy 120 (2018) 255–265.
[30] Z. Wang, L. Zhang, J. Zhao, Y. He, Thermal comfort for naturally ventilated res-
idential buildings in Harbin, Energy Build. 42 (2010) 2406–2415.
[31] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of
China, Code For Thermal Design of Civil Building (GB50176-2016), China: China
Architecture and Building Press, Beijing, 2016.
[32] H.E. Beck, et al., Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps
at 1-km resolution, Sci. Data. 5 (2018) 180214.
[33] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic
of China, Design Code For Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning of Civil
Buildings (GB50736-2012), China: China Architecture and Building Press, Bei-
jing, 2012.
[34] Ł. Amanowicz, Influence of geometrical parameters on the flow characteris-
tics of multi-pipe earth-to-air heat exchangers–experimental and CFD investi-
gations, Appl. Energy 226 (2018) 849–861.
[35] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of
China, Standard For Energy Efficiency Test of Public Buildings (JGJ/T177-2009),
China: China Architecture and Building Press, Beijing, 2010.
[36] X. Liu, et al., Study and Simulation of soil water infiltration on slopes un-
der different rainfall conditions, J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 32 (2018) 114–
118.
[37] C. Yuan, in: Hydraulic and Pneumatic Transmission, 2nd edition, Beijing: China
Machine Press, 2011, pp. 98–99.
[38] J.A Goff, S. Gratch, Low-pressure properties of water from -160 to 212 °F, in:
The 52nd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Heating and Ventilating
Engineers, New York, USA, 1946, pp. 95–121.
[39] Quality and Technology Supervision Bureau of the People’s Republic of
China, Technical Norm For Error of Measurements and Interpretation of Data
(JJG1027-91), China: China Architecture and Building Press, Beijing, 1991.