Building and Environment 193 (2021) 107648

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Ventilation performance of solar chimney in a test house: Field

measurement and validation of plume model
Guoqing He a, *, Qian Wu b, **, Zhengguang Li b, Wenqing Ge a, Da Lv a, Lei Cong c
a
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China
b
School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University of Science and Technology, Hangzhou, 310023, China
c
Zhejiang Xinzhonghuan Construction Design Co.Ltd., Hangzhou, 310023, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The potential of solar chimney in building ventilation has long been recognized. However, very few data have
Field measurement been reported on its ventilation performance in actual buildings. In this study, the field performance of a solar
Solar chimney chimney attached to a test house was studied under Hangzhou climate conditions. The ventilation rates were
Ventilation
determined by measuring the airflow rate in the chimney channel. The results show that the solar chimney
Validation
Plume model
provided relatively consistent air changing rates of about 2–5 h− 1 on average 24 h a day despite that it was
installed on the south-east wall. With the wind influence suppressed using a windproof net at the chimney outlet,
the solar radiation and the temperature difference between the room and the outside were two major sources
contributing to the stack flow. The inverse condition, higher room temperature than the outside, was the major
driving force of stack flow during the absence of solar radiation. The limiting effect of the room inlet size was also
demonstrated. The field data validated the plume model, which predicted all the data with reasonable accuracy.
Our study indicates that a properly designed solar chimney can provide reliable ventilation round the clock
during most time of the year in Hangzhou or cities with similar climate. Extra measures are only needed in
summer times when neither the solar radiation nor the inverse condition is available.

1. Introduction
Solar chimneys use solar energy to generate airflow movements that
could be used for building ventilation [1], cooling of PV panels [2], crop
dry [3] etc. The solar chimney is especially effective in improving indoor
thermal comfort when combined with other technologies, such as
evaporative cooling [4,5], wind towers [6], and ground heat sources [7,
8]. The energy saving potentials of solar chimneys in buildings have
been discussed [9–11]. Monghasemi and Vadiee [12] provided a review
on the possible applications of solar chimneys in space heating and
cooling.
One of the key indicators for the solar chimney performance is the
produced stack flow given the amount of heat. Although several studies
have discussed the influences of heat sources [13,14], geometry pa­
rameters [15,16], and various enhancement measures including the use
of thermal storage [17–20], novel structures [21,22], and new materials
[23], the physical modeling approach is a more effective way to
understand the design basics. In the fundamental modeling of the solar
chimney, the key issue is to correctly represent the buoyancy force in the
heated chimney channel. For vertically heated channels, the widely used
single zone model represents the airflow field by one density [1]. A
popular approach is to use a weighted temperature of the outlet and inlet
temperatures [24,25] to calculate the density. Energy equations are
solved for the outlet temperature. The uncertainty with the single zone
model is associated with the choice of the discharge coefficient. In
different studies, different values of the discharge coefficient were used
even when the geometries of the chimney were similar [24–26]. Sand­
berg and Moshfegh [27] proposed a different model by considering the
vertical stratification of the density in the channel. They produced a
correlation between the mass flow rate and the heat flux. The stratifi­
cation model assumes a uniform temperature (thus density) at the same
height inside the chimney. This assumption may be valid for chimneys
with a small gap-to-height ratio. As demonstrated by experimental data
[28,29], the model predicts poorly for chimneys with larger

* Corresponding author.Yu Hang Tang Rd 866, Yue Ya Lou 405, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310058, China.
** Corresponding author. School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University of Science and Technology, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310058, China.
E-mail addresses: guoqinghe@zju.edu.cn (G. He), wuqian@zust.edu.cn (Q. Wu), Lizhgu@zust.edu.cn (Z. Li), gewenqing@zju.edu.cn (W. Ge), 21812123@zju.edu.
cn (D. Lv), 123@zjxzh.com (L. Cong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107648
Received 18 November 2020; Received in revised form 4 January 2021; Accepted 22 January 2021
Available online 29 January 2021
0360-1323/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G. He et al.
gap-to-height ratios. He et al. [30] proposed a model that uses a plume of
constant width to represent the boundary layer attached to the wall. The
plume model therefore considers the density variations both vertically
and horizontally. The model was validated by multiple datasets from
various references [31,32].
While most studies focused on the solar chimney performance in the
presence of solar radiation, relatively fewer studies have reported its
performance in real buildings subject to actual environments regardless
the fact that this technology has found applications in many buildings.
Khedari et al. [33] demonstrated that the solar chimney could still
enhance the ventilation effect of a test room in a school building that
was subjected to single-sided natural ventilation with an open window
and an open door. In a different test house in Thailand, Khedari et al.
[34] reported that the solar chimney could save cooling energy in a hot
climate based on the measurement of the electrical consumption of an
air-conditioner. Chungloo and Limmeechokchai [10] reported ventila­
tion flows of an inclined roof top chimney at different times of the year
with discussion focused on the influence of solar radiation and hardly on
the night time performance. They used a wind shield at the room inlet to
reduce the wind effect and found the solar chimney delivered an air
change rate (ACH) of 1.13–2.26. Arce et al. [26] reported one day’s
measurements with an outdoor solar chimney model that was not
attached to a building. Both the wind effect and the thermal gradients
were responsible for the induced flow rates. Four studies reported the
performance of four solar chimneys in actual buildings. Tan et al. [35]
reported that the solar chimney improved the thermal environment in a
zero energy classroom in Singapore based on measurements that lasted
for 120 days. Cheng et al. [36] and Yu et al. [37] used solar chimney to
Fig. 1. Photos of experimental set-up. (a) An overview of the test house, (b) Surroundings, (c) Windproof net, (d) The channel extension with velocimeters, (e) The
lower part of the solar chimney channel with a pyranometer installed inside the channel, and (f) The room inlet with a pipe connected for flow calibration. (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
2
Building and Environment 193 (2021) 107648
enhance the utilization of earth tubes for energy saving. Thateenaranon
et al. [38] demonstrated the application of solar chimney technology in
a full-scale bio-climatic house that featured roof top-solar chimneys,
Tromble walls, and a vertical glazed solar chimney. The resulting ben­
efits included the improved thermal environment as well as the illumi­
nance. However, the ventilation rate of the solar chimney was not
specifically addressed in these studies, and no modeling of the chimney
flows was discussed. To our knowledge, despite the large volume of solar
chimney studies, the actual ventilation performance in the real envi­
ronment has not been examined sufficiently. There is a lack of the
validation of solar chimney models by field data. In practice, it is
important to understand how a solar chimney will impact building
ventilation around the clock with and without solar radiation.
The objective of this study is to understand the ventilation perfor­
mance of the solar chimney in the real environment and to provide field
data for model validation. This study explores the ventilation potential
of a thermal-driven solar chimney in a test house by minimizing the
impact of wind using a windproof net at the outlet. The flow rates of the
solar chimney were monitored consecutively for multiple weeks. The
influence of related factors such as the solar radiation, ambient tem­
perature, wind, and inlet size were studied. A general analytical model
developed earlier [39] was validated. The results of this study will be
helpful for architects and building engineers.
G. He et al.
2. Experiment
2.1. Solar chimney and test house
The test house was in Hangzhou city (30◦ 16ʹN, 120◦ 12ʹE), which lies
in the lower basin of the Yangtze River. Its climate produces a strong
demand for both cooling (summer) and heating (winter). Based on the
Typical Meteorological Year data [40], the daily average temperature
varies between – 5 ◦ C and 37 ◦ C, and the average total horizontal solar
irradiation is 13.5 MJ/(m2∙day).
The solar chimney was attached to a test house on a university
campus (Fig. 1). It was surrounded by hills to the north and a five-story
high building to the south. The hills and the building were considerably
higher than the test house. There was a 40 m by 100 m relatively open
area between the hill and the test house on the north-west side and two
open roads on the south-east and the south-west corners (Fig. 1b). There
were relatively dense bushes on the west side of the building (Fig. 1a).
The test house was south facing, eight degrees to the east, with one room
on each side. The east room was chosen for the study. It had one window
on the east wall and one on the south wall. A full-scale solar chimney
was attached to the south-east wall and connected to an extension inside
the room. The extension was a 2.75 m long horizontal metal duct
(Fig. 1d). On the north wall, there was a 0.3 m (height) by 0.4 m (width)
opening functioned as the room inlet.
Fig. 2 shows a schematic diagram of the experiment system. The
solar chimney was a vertical air channel of 3.5 m high, 1.0 m wide and
0.13 m deep. The vertical channel of the chimney had a 12 mm thick
plywood panel painted black as the absorber plate and a 10 mm thick
plain tempered glass pane on each of the three out-facing sides. At the
bottom and top of the channel, the channel was connected to a metal
elbow with the same cross-area (0.13 m2). At the top of the solar
chimney, the discharge outlet was covered with a windproof net to
minimize the wind interference (also see Fig. 1c). The net was dense so
Fig. 2. Plane view of the test house and details of the solar chimney.
(a) Plane view (b) Section view (c) Sketches of windproof measures. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the
Web version of this article.)
3
Building and Environment 193 (2021) 107648
that it was hard for the wind to blow through. The main purpose was to
prevent the wind from blowing directly at the outlet in either leeward or
windward direction. The two sides of the outlet were open and a grill
was placed at each side to reduce direct wind blowing.
There could be cracks and gaps at places such as the door, the win­
dow frames, and the joint where the horizontal duct met the wall. The
air tightness of the room was measured using the tracer decay method on
September 28, 2019. After the door and windows were closed and the
door seams and the opening to the chimney channel were sealed with
duct tape, an amount of CO2 was released in the room. The air then was
mixed using two small fans inside the room. The concentration of CO2
was measured using two CO2 data loggers (ZDR-CJ, 0–5,000 ppm, 2%).
The concentration was observed to drop from about 2,000 ppm to
around 1,400 ppm within 1 h. The air change rates were calculated
based on the concentration decay profile recorded by the two loggers.
They were very close in terms of air change rate (ACH): 0.33 h− 1 and
0.34 h− 1. These values were slightly smaller than the leakage rate of 0.5
h− 1 measured in a test house in the same region by Ge et al. [41]. In both
cases the door frames were sealed. The values in this study were slightly
smaller possibly because a casement type of windows was used in this
study while a sliding window was used in Ref. [41]. The casement type is
normally more airtight than the sliding type. In Ref. [41], it was further
observed that the leakage rate dropped to 0 when the window frames
were also sealed in addition to the door seams, suggesting that the air
leakage mainly came from the gaps in the door and window frames.
2.2. Instrument and calibration
The solar irradiation on the absorbing wall was recorded by a pyr­
anometer (QTS-4, <5%) as shown in Fig. 1e. The temperatures in the
room, along the chimney channels, and at the chimney outlet were
measured using T-type thermocouples (±0.5 ◦ C). Temperatures were
recorded every minute using the NI 9213 data acquisition module. The
G. He et al.
outdoor temperature and wind data were collected using a portable-
meteorological station (Jingzhou PC-5, T: ±0.2 ◦ C, wind speed: ±0.3
m/s, wind direction: ±3◦ ) installed on the roof, close to the solar
chimney outlet. All data were recorded every minute unless otherwise
noted.
Flow rates in the chimney channel were determined by measuring
the flow velocity in the horizontal extension (or duct) of the channel
using velocimeters (JTR07, ±0.04 m/s). Four velocimeters were placed
in the duct to measure the air speed across the channel (Figs. 1d and 2a)
at a frequency of 10 Hz. The average speed of every 60 s was recorded.
The flow rate in the duct was determined based on the average ve­
locity and the cross-sectional area. The velocities at the four locations in
the duct did not necessarily represent the average velocity because the
flow in the duct may not be uniform or developed. A calibration of the
flow measurement was carried out by connecting the room inlet with
one 3.65 m long PVC pipe with an inner diameter of 105 mm (Fig. 1f).
The flow rates in the round pipe could be measured more reliably, and
they were used to calibrate the flow rate in the square duct. A variable
speed fan was used to draw air from outside into the room through the
pipe to simulate the chimney flow. A velocimeter (JTR07), calibrated in
a mini-tunnel, was located in the middle of the round pipe to measure
the velocity at the center line of the pipe. The calibration procedures
produced the following equation for the conversion of flow rates in the
square duct to the correct flow rates.
∑ using the following formula
A ui
Qpipe = 2.5874 (1)
4 q = I(1 + 0.5α⁄ τ)
where A is the cross-sectional area of the channel and ui (i = 1 to 4) are
the readings of the four velocimeters. Fig. 3 shows the calibration results
of the measured flow rates in the duct. It shows that the probe had fair
accuracy but good consistency. The calibration was necessary and
improved the accuracy of the flow measurement in the square duct. The
correction coefficients resulting from the two calibration tests in 2018
and 2019 were consistent. Using the method in Ref. [42], the un­
certainties for the flow measurement in the pipe and the square duct
were estimated as 0.0005 m3/s and 0.017 m3/s, respectively.
3. Model
An analytical model called the plume model was developed earlier
by He et al. [30] for the prediction of flow rates in a vertically-heated
channel. Its improved version [39] can be used to predict flow rates in
Fig. 3. Calibration results for the flow measurement in the square duct. (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the Web version of this article.)
4
Building and Environment 193 (2021) 107648
a vertical solar chimney that is connected with multiple ducts or pipes.
This model assumes that the non-uniform density distribution across the
solar chimney, caused by thermal boundaries along the heated walls, is
an important factor on the stack flow. Furthermore, the model assumes
that the buoyancy effect of each thermal boundary can be represented
by a plume of constant thickness, the density of which varies only with
height. In the plume model, the plume thickness is a key parameter and
was found to be correlated with the channel Reynolds number. He [39]
proposed a set of correlations that apply for a wider range of Reynolds
number: 17 < Re < 23,151. The plume model has been shown to explain
successfully 15 laboratory datasets from the literature with reasonable
accuracy: 75% of the predictions are within 17% difference. Compared
with the alternative single zone model [1] and the stratified model [27],
the plume model needs no further calibration of discharge coefficients.
However, like the two other models, the plume model has not been
tested against the field data.
To apply the plume model, three types of input data are needed. The
first is the environment temperatures. These include the temperature of
the ambient environment the solar chimney discharges air to and the
temperature of the intake air by the solar chimney. In this study, the
ambient temperature was the outside air temperature recorded by the
weather station. The intake temperature was the room temperature
measured by one thermocouple. The second is the heat flux applied to
the solar chimney channel. In this study, the heat flux was estimated
(2)
where I is the recorded solar irradiation on the absorbing plate (W/m2).
α and τ are the solar absorption coefficient and transmittance, respec­
tively, of the glazing panel. The solar irradiation intensities on the
absorbing plate and on the glazing surface were measured using two
pyranometers and their ratios were used to estimate the transmittance of
the glazing panel. A week’s daytime measurement resulted in an average
value of τ = 0.75. The absorption coefficient was assumed to be α = 0.2
and it was assumed that half of the heat absorbed by the glazing panel
was lost to the outside air. More accurate estimation of the heat flux
could be performed; however, based on the authors’ experience, the
model prediction was not sensitive to the heat flux. Equation (2) is a
sufficient estimation. Two plumes were considered: one along the
absorbing plate, one along the glazing wall opposite to the absorbing
plate.
The third type of input data is the geometrical information and the
flow resistance coefficients. The flow resistance coefficients are deter­
mined independently. These coefficients are based mainly on the ge­
ometries of the solar chimney system and to a less extent on the flow
itself. Using Ref [43] as a guide, the following resistance coefficients
were identified: entrance to the room from outside (via round pipe or
square room inlet), sudden expansion (pipe to square room inlet),
discharge of room inlet to the room, entrance from room to the chimney
channel, inflow bend, outflow bend, and discharge outlet. These resis­
tance coefficients are shown in Fig. 4. The flow resistance coefficients of
the two inflow ducts were also considered. The final input parameters
are summarized in Table 1.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Ventilation performance
The field test was carried out from October 30 to December 13 in
2018 and from September 12 to October 5 in 2019. Totally 56 days of
data were recorded. The monitoring period in 2018 spanned three
months from fall to winter. This period experienced decreasing solar
radiations and declining atmosphere temperatures. More than 50% of
the days had precipitation events.
Fig. 5 plots the measured ventilation rates along with their 60-min
G. He et al. Building and Environment 193 (2021) 107648

Fig. 4. Sketch of the solar chimney system with identified flow resistance Fig. 6. Frequency distribution of the hourly moving average ACH during the
coefficients. measurement periods. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.) (For interpretation
of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web
Table 1 version of this article.) (For interpretation of the references to color in this
Summarized geometrical information and resistance coefficients for the execu­ figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.) (For
tion of the codea. interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is
Case 1:Without Φ105 pipe
referred to the Web version of this article.)

Area, m2 k Area, m2 dh, Length,

mb m occurrence, which shows that the ventilation rate was greater than 1 h− 1
Inflow 0.13 0.925 Inflow 0.13 0.23 2.75 for 95% of the time, meeting the standard for this region [44]. For about
duct 84% of the time, the ACH was higher than 2 h− 1. The most
Outflow 0.13 1.06 Outflow 0.13 0.23 0.195 frequently-occurring ACH was between 2 and 5 h− 1, which occurred
duct
Room 0.12 1.5
69% of the time.
inletc The observed ventilation rates in ACH were higher than those
Case 2:With Φ105 pipe measured in Ref. [10] and were comparable to those in Refs. [45,46] at a
Area, m2 k Area, m2 dh, m Length, similar size of rooms. Among these studies, only this study and the Ref
m
[46] measured comparable night time ventilation rates. However, direct
Inflow 0.13 0.925 Inflow 0.13 0.23 2.75
duct comparison should be done with caution as the actual flow rate depends
Outflow 0.13 1.06 Inflow 0.008659 0.105 3.65 on the size of the solar chimney in addition to the climate conditions.
pipe Nevertheless, these field studies confirm that achieving sufficient
Room 0.008659 2.72 Outflow 0.13 0.23 0.195 ventilation round the clock is feasible using the solar chimney in
inlet duct
practice.
a
Refer to Ref. [39] for the input parameters. The pipe connecting to the room
inlet is considered as an inflow pipe. Plume number n = 2, solar chimney height
H = 3.5 m, depth d = 0.13 m, width w = 1.0 m. 4.2. Inverse conditions
b
Hydraulic diameter of the duct.
c
The height of the room inlet relative to the chimney inflow entrance is h0 = Solar radiation is the well-recognized source to induce stack effect.
− 0.2 m (The negative sign means the center of the room inlet is lower than the Fig. 7 plots the data in the period from November 24 to 30 in 2018. This
center of the chimney inlet inside the room).
period was characterized by warm days due to strong solar radiation and
cool nights. As expected, the spikes of the flow rate coincided with the
peaks of the solar radiation. Interestingly, considerable flow rates in the
chimney, 2.45 h− 1 on average, were observed even during the night
when there was no solar radiation. A close examination revealed that the

Fig. 5. Measured flow rates and their 60-min moving averages in terms of ACH.
(Data periods: 10/30 13:00 to 12/13 3:41, 2018; 9/12 12:00 to 9/15 23:59,
2019; and 9/29 15:00 to 10/5 23:59, 2019). (For interpretation of the refer­
ences to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of
this article.)
Fig. 7. Measured data from November 24 to December 1, 2018. (Tr: indoor
temperature; Tamb: outdoor temperature; To: outlet temperature; irradiation is
moving averages. The 60-min moving average represents the actual the vertical irradiation on the absorbing wall; step = 8 min). (For interpretation
ventilation effect in terms of ACH. The ACH varied from 0.1 to 9.7 h− 1 of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web
with an average value of 3.45 h− 1. Fig. 6 plots the frequency of the version of this article.)

5
G. He et al. Building and Environment 193 (2021) 107648

indoor temperature (Tr) was higher than the outdoor temperatures

(Tamb) during these nights. Such temperature profile, identified as the
“inverse conditions” in Ref. [11] is unstable and is actually the working
principle in solar chimney power plant [47]. A smoke test was con­
ducted by burning a mosquito-repellent incense and placing it next to
the inlet of the solar chimney (Fig. 8). The released smoke was entrained
immediately by the flow into the duct confirming that the flow will
choose to enter from the room inlet and exit from the chimney in such
conditions.
The ventilation performance under the inverse conditions is
confirmed in Fig. 9, which shows the measured data from December 4 to
11 in 2018. During this week, the solar radiation was very weak. The Fig. 9. Measured data and the flow rates from December 4 to 11, 2018 (Step =
room temperature was consistently higher than the outside temperature. 1 min).
The average ACH was 3.7 h− 1. The fluctuation of the ventilation rate (color online, black and white in print). (For interpretation of the references to
followed that of the temperature differences between the indoors and color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of
outdoors and became zero when the temperature difference was reduced this article.)
to zero. Obviously, the solar radiation was not the only source for the
thermal stack here. The positive temperature difference (Tr - Tamb) extend solar chimney ventilation to such periods [17–20].
contributed to the stack effect as well. This implies that as long as the
indoor temperature is higher than the outside, considerable ventilation
4.3. Wind influence
can be produced by the solar chimney even if the solar radiation is
absent.
The effectiveness of the windproof net in reducing the wind effect
Correlations between the flow rate and the temperature difference
was examined. The outlet of the solar chimney was north-west facing, or
(Tr - Tamb) were examined at various ranges of solar irradiation. It was
307◦ from the north (Fig. 10). The wind directions were divided into
found that the correlation was highest for the range from 0 to 10 W/m2
four groups relative to the outlet normal: windward (262◦ ~352◦ ), right
(R2 = 0.27) and declined as the increase of solar irradiation range. The
parallel (172◦ ~262◦ ), left parallel (352◦ ~82◦ ), and leeward
correlation dropped below 0.1 at the range from 50 to 60 W/m2 and
(82◦ ~172◦ ). Fig. 10 shows the wind speed frequency at the four direc­
became extremely weak (R2 < 0.05) when the solar radiation was
tion groups. The wind speed frequency on the leeward side was the
beyond 60 W/m2. This indicates that in terms of effectiveness, the in­
highest, and it was the second highest on the right parallel side. On the
verse condition starts to yield to the solar radiation when the vertical
windward side, the wind speed frequency was less than 20%. The less
irradiation exceeds 50 W/m2.
frequent occurrence of the windward wind was probably due to the
The inverse condition is a quite common phenomenon. It is the
blockage of the hills to the north of the test house.
condition where the room temperature is higher than the outside. It
Fig. 11 shows the correlations between the outdoor wind speed and
could be easily caused when the building, heated up by the sun during
the solar chimney flow rate for the four groups. The correlation was
the daytime, cools much slower than the outside air after sunset. In
extremely weak (R2 < 0.017) in any of the groups, suggesting that the
winter, the room temperature is usually higher than the outside because
wind influence on the airflow rates in the solar chimney may have been
of space heating. Our study shows that the inverse condition can provide
suppressed by the windproof net. However, the 1-min recording interval
adequate ventilation even without solar radiation. This implies that with
of wind speed and direction may be too coarse to catch the instantaneous
the solar chimney, the room ventilation rate can be guaranteed around
influence of the wind. More studies are needed to examine the wind
the clock in winter and part of the transition seasons. The thermal mass
influence.
and insulation are beneficial to maintain an inverse condition in winter.
In summer, the room is often air-conditioned; therefore, the inverse
condition is less likely to occur. When both the solar radiation and the 4.4. Inlet size influence
inverse condition are not available, thermal storage can be used to
A round pipe with an inner diameter of 105 mm was used at the room
inlet from September 24 to 27, 2019. The pipe effectively reduced the
inlet area from 0.12 m2 to 0.0087 m2. A velocimeter was placed at the
center of the round pipe to measure the flow velocity, which was used to
calculate the flow rates, or the ventilation rates. The ventilation rates are
shown in Fig. 12 along with the solar irradiation and temperatures.
Comparisons between Figs. 12 and 7 show that the ventilation rates with
reduced inlet size were considerably lower although the solar radiation
levels were similar in both cases. The average ACH was 0.32 h− 1, only
one tenth of that in Fig. 7. The maximum ventilation rate was no more
than 1.0 h− 1, considerably lower than the previous cases when the open
square inlet was used. At night with no solar radiation, the flow rate was
hardly detected in the chimney. The results show the importance of the
size of the room inlet. For the thermal chimney to function properly, the
room entrance should be large enough.

4.5. Model validation

Fig. 8. Smoke test used to confirm the flow direction. Although not obvious in
the picture, the white smoke could be easily seen on site to rise from the
burning incense before being entrained immediately into the solar chimney
inflow duct. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
The reference [31] contains the executable code and supporting files
to implement the plume model [39] for a solar chimney case that con­
sists only a vertical solar chimney channel with connecting ducts. The
code was slightly modified so that it could address the inverse condition.

6
G. He et al.
Fig. 10. Four wind directions shown in the top view of the solar chimney (left) and their frequencies (right).
Fig. 12. Measured irradiation, temperature difference, ventilation rates from
September 25 to 27, 2019, when a round pipe of diameter 105 mm was con­
nected to the room inlet (step = 1 min). (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this
article.) (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
In the inverse conditions, when there was no heating in the solar
chimney, the density of the air in the channel was assumed to be the
same as that of the room air. This is because the warmer room air
entered the channel as a result of inertia from the previous solar driven
7
Building and Environment 193 (2021) 107648
Fig. 11. Correlations between the flow rate and the
outdoor wind speed at the four wind directions
(a) Windward side (b) Leeward side
(a) Left parallel side (d) Right parallel side
(For interpretation of the references to color in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web
version of this article.)
flow. It was the warmer room air that provided the draft for the solar
chimney flow. The heat loss of the flow in the chimney channel could be
considered. Based on the average flow rate (0.05 kg/s, see Fig. 13), the
convective heat transfer coefficient on the internal side of the chimney
channel was estimated to be 5 W/(m2⋅K). The convective heat transfer
coefficient on the external side was assumed to be 23 W/(m2⋅K). With
these two values, the overall heat transfer coefficients were estimated to
be 4.1 and 2.8 W/(m2⋅K) for the glazing wall and plywood absorbing
board, respectively. It took only a few seconds for the code to finish the
run of 9 days of 12,959 records from Nov. 22 to 30 on a regular desktop
pc (Intel i7-7700 CPU @3.60 GHz).
Fig. 13 shows the model prediction along with the measured values
during two periods with strong daytime solar radiation. Case 1 was from
November 22 to 30, 2018 when the room inlet was the square opening
(0.3 m × 0.4 m). Case 2 was the test from September 24 to 28, 2019
when a 3.65 m long pipe with a diameter of 105 mm was connected to
the room inlet. The agreement between the model and the measurement
is reasonably good in Case 1. The model follows the trend of the
measured flow rates. It captures the spikes of the solar-driven flows and
the sags during the transitions from solar-driven daytime to the room-
air- driven nighttime. For the solar-driven part, 46% of the data have
Model|
a deviation (|EXP−EXP × 100%) less than 30% and 63% have a deviation
G. He et al.
Fig. 13. Comparison between the model prediction and the measurement. Case 1: 11/22–30, 2018, Case 2: 9/24–28, 2019. (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.) (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the Web version of this article.)
less than 50%. For the nighttime part (inverse condition), the model
appeared to over-predict the flow by 20%. In case 2, however, the de­
viations of the model prediction from the experimental measured were
more notable. For solar-driven flows (irradiation intensity > 5 W/m2),
the peak flows were over-predicted by 30%. But half of the data were
over-predicted by 38%–146%. These deviations were obviously larger
than those encountered in Ref. [39] for the similar range (Re < 1400).
The difference is even larger for the nighttime inverse condition.
For case 2 further examination revealed that the average difference
between the predictions and the measurements is 0.0044 kg/s, which is
very close to the room leakage rate of about 0.0035 kg/s (or 0.335 h− 1
from the tracer decay test). Therefore, we suspect that when the
entrance resistance increased with the addition of a small pipe, a sig­
nificant part of the air entered the room through the leaking cracks. The
actual solar chimney flow rate should be the sum of the flow in the pipe
(room inlet) and the leakage rate through cracks and gaps. When the
leakage rate of the room was accounted for, the agreement between the
model prediction and the measurement improved considerably as shown
in Fig. 14. About 52% of the data have a deviation less than 30% and
84% have a deviation less than 50%. The prediction accuracy is com­
parable to that of Case 1.
After the consideration of the leakage rate and the correction for the
inverse conditions, the plume model predicted well the solar chimney
flow as shown in Fig. 14. The final recommended use of plume model is
show in Equation (3):
Fig. 14. Comparison between the model prediction and the measurement for
Case 2 after the measured data are corrected with the leakage rate from the air
tightness test. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
8
Building and Environment 193 (2021) 107648
⎛ ⎞
⎜
ṁpl ， q ≥ q0
⎟
⃒( )
ṁ = ⎜
⎝ ⃒ plume thickness ⎟
⎠ (3)
⃒
0.8ṁpl ⃒ ρSC = ρroom ,
channel depth
= 1 , q < q0
where ṁpl is the mass flow rate calculated by the plume model [39]. The
coefficient 0.8 is the correction for the inverse condition cases. q0 is the
threshold of the solar irradiation. Normally q0 = 0. However, due to the
uncertainties associated with the measurement of radiation, a slightly
higher value is recommended. In Fig. 14, q0 = 5 W/m2 is used. With
Equation (3), 70% of the data points were predicted within 30% dif­
ference and 80% were predicted within 50% in case 1. The plume model
with Equation (3) is the first model ever demonstrated to be able to
predict independently the solar chimney ventilation rates in the real
environment 24 h a day. By independently, it means no adjustment of
resistance coefficients or discharge coefficients based on the field data is
needed in using the model. Similar attempts were made in a few studies
for the round-the-clock simulation, such as those by Naraghi et al. [48]
and by Marti-Herrero and Heras-Celemin [49], but the models they used
were dependent on the temperature differences between the chimney
gap and the outside. Influence of the room temperature was not dis­
cussed in their models. In fact, solar radiation has been the main focus in
the solar chimney studies, and few studies have mentioned the role of
the room temperature, which was demonstrated as a key factor in this
study. To address the influence of the room temperature, Hong et al.
[11] revised the single-zone model [50] so that it could be used to
correctly predict the inverse conditions. The difficulty with the use of
single zone model is that the discharge coefficient has to be adjusted for
a better match.
This study shows that the solar chimney is able to provide ventilation
not only at sunny daytime but also at night with inverse conditions. The
inverse condition is more popular in the heating season or in the colder
region. In warmer areas or in the summer cooling time, the inverse
condition is rare. Solar radiation is likely the only heating source and the
solar chimney-driven ventilation may behave periodical cycles as
demonstrated in the simulations [11]. In such cases, heat storage many
be needed to extend the solar chimney effect to times when the solar
radiation is not available [51,52].
5. Conclusions
The performance of a solar chimney attached to a test house was
studied in the fall and winter seasons. The measurement data show that
G. He et al.
the solar chimney provided satisfactory ventilation rates to the room 24
h a day regardless the fact that the solar chimney was installed only on
the south-east wall. The air change rate was greater than 1 h− 1 95% of
the time and was between 2 and 5 h− 1 69% of the time during the
measurement periods.
With the wind influence minimized by the use of a windproof net at
the chimney outlet, the solar radiation and the temperature difference
between the room and the outside were the two main factors on the
thermal stack in the solar chimney. When the solar radiation is absent or
weak (below 50 W/m2), the “inverse condition” (room temperature >
ambient temperature) can provide a more robust and relatively constant
driving force for room ventilation in winter and possibly during most of
the time in the transition seasons. In summer, the inverse condition is
difficult to occur at night due to the use of air-conditioning systems.
Therefore, additional measures, such as heat storage etc., may be needed
to enhance solar chimney effect in periods when the solar radiation is
not available.
The inlet size of the room is critical. It should be large enough for the
solar chimney to function properly. The field data validated the earlier
developed plume model, which predicted all the data with reasonable
accuracy. It successfully addressed the influences of the two major heat
sources and the inlet size. The successful validation shows that the
model has good potential for the design purpose.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China [grant number 51678518].
References
[1] N.K. Bansal, R. Mathur, M.S. Bhandari, Solar chimney for enhanced stack
ventilation, Build. Environ. 28 (3) (1993) 373–377, https://doi.org/10.1016/
0360-1323(93)90042-2.
[2] M. Sandberg, Cooling of building integrated photovoltaics by ventilation air, in:
Proceedings of HybVent Forum ’99, First International One-day Forum on Natural
and Hybrid Ventilation, The University of Sydney, Darlington, New South Wales,
Australia, 1999 September 28, pp. 10–18.
[3] S. Khaldi, A.N. Korti, S. Abboudi, Applying CFD for studying the dynamic and
thermal behavior of solar chimney drying system with reversed absorber, Int. J.
Food Eng. 13 (11) (2017) 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1515/ijfe-2017-0081.
[4] M. Rabani, V. Kalantar, A.A. Dehghan, A.K. Faghih, Empirical investigation of the
cooling performance of a new designed Trombe wall in combination with solar
chimney and water spraying system, Energy Build. 102 (2015) 45–57, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.05.010.
[5] M. Maerefat, A.P. Haghighi, Natural cooling of stand-alone houses using solar
chimney and evaporative cooling cavity, Renew. Energy 35 (9) (2010) 2040–2052,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.02.005.
[6] L. Moosavi, M. Zandi, M. Bidi, E. Behroozizade, I. Kazemi, New design for solar
chimney with integrated windcatcher for space cooling and ventilation, Build.
Environ. (2020), 106785, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106785.
[7] M. Maerefat, A.P. Haghighi, Passive cooling of buildings by using integrated earth
to air heat exchanger and solar chimney, Renew. Energy 35 (10) (2010)
2316–2324, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.03.003.
[8] A.A. Serageldin, A. Abdeen, M.M.S. Ahmed, A. Radwan, A.N. Shmroukh,
S. Ookawara, Solar chimney combined with earth to-air heat exchanger for passive
cooling of residential buildings in hot areas, Sol. Energy 206 (2020) 145–162,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.05.102. February.
[9] T. Miyazaki, A. Akisawa, T. Kashiwagi, The effects of solar chimneys on thermal
load mitigation of office buildings under the Japanese climate, Renew. Energy 31
(7) (2006) 987–1010, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2005.05.003.
[10] S. Chungloo, B. Limmeechokchai, Application of passive cooling systems in the hot
and humid climate: the case study of solar chimney and wetted roof in Thailand,
Build. Environ. 42 (9) (2007) 3341–3351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2006.08.030.
[11] S. Hong, G. He, W. Ge, Q. Wu, D. Lv, Z. Li, Annual energy performance simulation
of solar chimney in a cold winter and hot summer climate, Build. Simul. 12 (5)
(Oct. 2019) 847–856, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-019-0572-y.
9
Building and Environment 193 (2021) 107648
[12] N. Monghasemi, A. Vadiee, A review of solar chimney integrated systems for space
heating and cooling application, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 81 (2018)
2714–2730, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.078.
[13] W.F.M. Yusoff, E. Salleh, N.M. Adam, A.R. Sapian, M. Yusof Sulaiman,
Enhancement of stack ventilation in hot and humid climate using a combination of
roof solar collector and vertical stack, Build. Environ. 45 (10) (2010) 2296–2308,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.04.018.
[14] J.L. Partridge, P.F. Linden, Steady flows in a naturally-ventilated enclosure
containing both a distributed and a localised source of buoyancy, Build. Environ.
125 (2017) 308–318, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.08.023.
[15] H.H. Al-Kayiem, S.K. V, S.I.U.-H. Gilani, Mathematical analysis of the influence of
the chimney height and collector area on the performance of a roof top solar
chimney, Energy Build. 68 (2014) 305–311, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2013.09.021.
[16] L. Shi, G. Zhang, W. Yang, D. Huang, X. Cheng, S. Setunge, Determining the
influencing factors on the performance of solar chimney in buildings, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 88 (2018) 223–238, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2018.02.033.
[17] Y. Li, S. Liu, Experimental study on thermal performance of a solar chimney
combined with PCM, Appl. Energy 114 (2014) 172–178, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2013.09.022.
[18] J.C. Frutos Dordelly, M. El Mankibi, L. Roccamena, G. Remion, J. Arce Landa,
Experimental analysis of a PCM integrated solar chimney under laboratory
conditions, Sol. Energy 188 (2019) 1332–1348, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2019.06.065. February.
[19] H. Wang, C. Lei, A numerical investigation of combined solar chimney and water
wall for building ventilation and thermal comfort, Build. Environ. 171 (December
2019) 106616, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106616, 2020.
[20] R. Vargas-López, et al., Mathematical models of solar chimneys with a phase
change material for ventilation of buildings: a review using global energy balance,
Energy 170 (2019) 683–708, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.148.
[21] S.S. Hosseini, A. Ramiar, A.A. Ranjbar, Numerical investigation of rectangular fin
geometry effect on solar chimney, Energy Build. 155 (2017) 296–307, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.09.017.
[22] Y. Lei, Y. Zhang, F. Wang, X. Wang, Enhancement of natural ventilation of a novel
roof solar chimney with perforated absorber plate for building energy
conservation, Appl. Therm. Eng. 107 (2016) 653–661, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2016.06.090.
[23] M.A. Hosien, S.M. Selim, Effects of the geometrical and operational parameters and
alternative outer cover materials on the performance of solar chimney used for
natural ventilation, Energy Build. 138 (355) (2017) 13.
[24] J. Hirunlabh, W. Kongduang, P. Namprakai, J. Khedari, Study of natural
ventilation of houses by a metallic solar wall under tropical climate, Renew.
Energy 18 (1999) 11.
[25] K.S. Ong, C.C. Chow, Performance of a solar chimney, Sol. Energy 74 (1) (2003)
1–17, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-092X(03)00114-2.
[26] J. Arce, M.J. Jiménez, J.D. Guzmán, M.R. Heras, G. Alvarez, J. Xamán,
Experimental study for natural ventilation on a solar chimney, Renew. Energy 34
(12) (Dec. 2009) 2928–2934, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.04.026.
[27] M. Sandberg, B. Moshfegh, Ventilated-solar roof air flow and heat transfer
investigation, Renew. Energy 15 (1) (1998) 287–292, https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0960-1481(98)00175-X.
[28] Z.D. Chen, P. Bandopadhayay, J. Halldorsson, C. Byrjalsen, P. Heiselberg, Y. Li, An
experimental investigation of a solar chimney model with uniform wall heat flux,
Build. Environ. 38 (7) (2003) 893–906, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(03)
00057-X.
[29] H. Jing, Z. Chen, A. Li, Experimental study of the prediction of the ventilation flow
rate through solar chimney with large gap-to-height ratios, Build. Environ. 89
(2015) 150–159, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.02.018.
[30] G. He, J. Zhang, S. Hong, A new analytical model for airflow in solar chimneys
based on thermal boundary layers, Sol. Energy 136 (Oct. 2016) 614–621, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.07.041.
[31] G. He, Data for: A General Model for Predicting the Airflow Rates of a Vertically
Installed Solar Chimney with Connecting Ducts, vol. 3, Mendeley Data, 2020,
https://doi.org/10.17632/57f7j7rhgg.3.
[32] J.C. Ortiz Lizcano, et al., Photovoltaic chimney: thermal modeling and concept
demonstration for integration in buildings, Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 28 (6)
(Jun. 2020) 465–482, https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.3194.
[33] J. Khedari, B. Boonsri, J. Hirunlabh, Ventilation impact of a solar chimney on
indoor temperature fluctuation and air change in a school building, Energy Build.
32 (1) (2000) 89–93, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(99)00042-0.
[34] J. Khedari, N. Rachapradit, J. Hirunlabh, Field study of performance of solar
chimney with air-conditioned building, Energy 28 (11) (2003) 1099–1114, https://
doi.org/10.1016/s0360-5442(03)00092-6.
[35] A.Y.K. Tan, Natural ventilation performance of classroom with solar chimney
system, Energy Build. 53 (2012) 9.
[36] M.Y. Cheng, K.C. Chiu, L.C. Lien, Y.W. Wu, J.J. Lin, Economic and energy
consumption analysis of smart building - MEGA house, Build. Environ. 100 (2016)
215–226, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.02.023.
[37] Y. Yu, H. Li, F. Niu, D. Yu, Investigation of a coupled geothermal cooling system
with earth tube and solar chimney, Appl. Energy 114 (2014) 209–217, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.09.038.
[38] P. Thateenaranon, M. Amornkitbamrung, J. Hirunlabh, J. Khedari, J. Waewsak,
Full-scale field investigation of a bio-climatic house under Thailand tropical
climate, Build. Environ. 126 (2017) 54–67, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2017.09.027.
G. He et al.
[39] G. He, A general model for predicting the airflow rates of a vertically installed solar
chimney with connecting ducts, Energy Build. 229 (2020) 110481, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110481.
[40] China Meteorological Administration and T. University, Meteorological Data Set
for China Building Thermal Environment Analysis, China Architecture and
Building Press, Beijing, 2005.
[41] J. Ge, D.H. Wang, K. Zhao, “Influencing factors on infiltration rate of heating rooms
in hot summer and cold winter zone,” Zhejiang Daxue Xuebao (Gongxue Ban),
J. Zhejiang Univ. Eng. Sci. 53 (7) (2019) 1415–1422, https://doi.org/10.3785/j.
issn.1008-973X.2019.07.022.
[42] C.S. Park, G. Augenbroe, T. Messadi, M. Thitisawat, N. Sadegh, Calibration of a
lumped simulation model for double-skin facade systems, Energy Build. 36 (11)
(2004) 1117–1130.
[43] I.E. Idel’chik, D. Grunaer, I. Staff, A. Barouch, Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance:
Coefficients of Local Resistance and of Friction, third ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton,
1994.
[44] Design Standard for Energy Efficiency of Residential Buildings in Hot Summer and
Cold Winter zone（JGJ1342001, China Architecture & Building Press, ”, 2001.
[45] J. Mathur, N.K. Bansal, S. Mathur, M. Jain, Anupma, Experimental investigations
on solar chimney for room ventilation, Sol. Energy 80 (8) (2006) 927–935, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2005.08.008.
10
Building and Environment 193 (2021) 107648
[46] J. Waewsak, J. Hirunlabh, J. Khedari, U.C. Shin, Performance evaluation of the
BSRC multi-purpose bio-climatic roof, Build. Environ. 38 (11) (2003) 1297–1302,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(03)00116-1.
[47] A.B. Kasaeian, S. Molana, K. Rahmani, D. Wen, A review on solar chimney systems,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67 (2017) 954–987, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2016.09.081.
[48] M.H. Naraghi, S. Blanchard, Twenty-four hour simulation of solar chimneys,
Energy Build. 94 (2015) 218–226, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2015.03.001.
[49] J. Martí-Herrero, M.R. Heras-Celemin, Dynamic physical model for a solar
chimney, Sol. Energy 81 (5) (2007) 614–622, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2006.09.003.
[50] K.H. Lee, R.K. Strand, Enhancement of natural ventilation in buildings using a
thermal chimney, Energy Build. 41 (6) (2009) 615–621, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2008.12.006.
[51] S. Liu, Y. Li, An experimental study on the thermal performance of a solar chimney
without and with PCM, Renew. Energy 81 (2015) 338–346, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2015.03.054, 0.
[52] R. Khanal, C. Lei, An experimental investigation of an inclined passive wall solar
chimney for natural ventilation, Sol. Energy 107 (2014) 461–474, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2014.05.032, 0.