Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102838

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments

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

Accessing the thermal performance of Earth–air heat exchangers surrounded

by galvanized structures
J.V.A. Ramalho a , H.J. Fernando b ,∗, R.S. Brum a , A.M.B. Domingues a , N.R. Navarro Pastor a,c ,
M.R. Burlón Olivera a,c
a
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Modelagem Matemática, Universidade Federal de Pelotas (UFPel), Campus Capão do Leão s/n, Pelotas, 96160-000, RS, Brazil
b Instituto de Ciências Exatas (ICEx), Departamento de Matemática, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF), Campus Aterrado, Rua Desembargador Ellis Hermydio
Figueira, 783, Aterrado, Volta Redonda, 27213-145, RJ, Brazil
c Instituto Tecnológico Regional del Norte (ITRN), Universidad Tecnológica (UTEC) del Uruguay, Ruta 5 (Guido Machado Brum), km

496, Rivera, 40000, Uruguay

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Earth–air heat exchangers (EAHE) help heat or cool a building by coupling the ventilation system to buried
Earth–air heat exchangers (EAHE) ducts. Recent efforts have been trying to increase EAHE performance by improving the thermal properties
Fins of the region around the pipes; however, they usually miss connecting its size and shape with efficiency (𝜃)
Galvanized structures
and thermal potentials. This paper studies EAHE with ducts surrounded by galvanized structures. We consider
Thermal conductivity
different layouts, using circular blocks and rectangular ones with at most four fins. Since the arrangements
Thermal performance
Numerical simulations
have high thermal conductivity, they increase 𝜃 to almost 95%. Besides, they allow reducing installation size
by nearly half, keeping 𝜃 above 70%. However, we also show the drawbacks of this method. Among the results,
we see that using only one fin is sufficient to increase the EAHE thermal potential (𝑃𝑡 ) by 33% relative to a
conventional installation, but using them carelessly can reduce the soil thermal potential (𝑃𝑠 ). We show that
circular shapes increase 𝜃, but they have a poor effect on 𝑃𝑠 as their sizes increase. Finally, varying the size
of a rectangular structure with no fins, we obtained the best result, i.e., 𝜃 close to 95%, 𝑃𝑠 and 𝑃𝑡 increased
by 25% and 60.5%, respectively.

1. Introduction
Much of the energy used worldwide is from non-renewable sources,
such as coal, oil, and natural gas, whose burn is also associated with
accelerated climate changes. Alternatives to reverse such a scenario in-
clude increasing the use and improvement of technologies and devices
based on renewable energy sources. In particular, the growing demand
for traditional air conditioning systems and their high electrical energy
consumption is a significant concern, prompting the attention to use
shallow geothermal energy for heating or cooling applications.
The soil partially stores the solar energy as thermal energy through-
out daily and annual cycles. The heat flux flows to the ground during
the day and to the surface at night; a similar process occurs during
summer and winter. Earth–air heat exchangers (EAHE) take advantage
of such a phenomenon by employing one or more horizontally or
vertically buried ducts connected to a building’s ventilation system.
The air flowing inside the ducts exchanges heat with the ground and
enters a building at milder temperatures, close to the average annual
temperature of a region [1]. EAHE can be considered a passive system
as it needs little electrical energy to operate the fans that blow the
air in the ducts. If necessary, the EAHE can also be coupled to an air
conditioning system, reducing their overall energy consumption.
The EAHE literature is already vast, and the articles [2–5] cover
extensive reviews on the state of the art of the subject. Among impor-
tant performance factors for EAHE, it is convenient to distinguish here
the temperature differences between the soil and air; and between the
system outlet and the air; the former is the soil thermal potential (𝑃𝑠 ),
while the latter is the EAHE thermal potential (𝑃𝑡 ). The ratio between
𝑃𝑡 and 𝑃𝑠 is a measure of EAHE efficiency (𝜃). A significant part of
the research covers EAHE models, aiming to increase 𝑃𝑡 and 𝜃 [6].
The main modeling topics concern: (1) the physical location of the
installation, air temperature, humidity, soil composition, compaction,
solar radiation; (2) operating parameters, air velocity, installation
depth, duct shape, and materials. Several works also investigate hybrid
systems, combining EAHE with other technologies that may or may not
use renewable energy sources.

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: honoriofernando@id.uff.br (H.J. Fernando).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102838
Received 24 March 2022; Received in revised form 25 September 2022; Accepted 16 October 2022
2213-1388/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.V.A. Ramalho et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102838

in China. The system reduced the average building cooling and heating
Nomenclature loads by 55.4 and 40.43 W/m2 , respectively.
𝑏 block size (m) A constraint for the use of EAHE with horizontal ducts is the reduced
𝑐𝑝 specific heat (J∕kgK) physical space in urbanized areas (mainly in large cities), but few works
address this issue [3]. In such regard, a spiral-shaped design to reduce
𝐷 duct diameter (m)
installation space, proposed in [9], gave satisfactory results compared
ℎ convection coefficient (W∕m2 K)
to systems employing straight horizontal ducts. Besides, the paper [10]
𝐿 length (m)
evaluated and compared the thermal performances of duct arrange-
𝑚̇ air mass flow (kg/s) ments using linear, spiral, and slinky types of horizontal EAHE. India
𝑁𝑢 Nusselt number is an example of a country with restricted accessibility of ground space
𝑃𝑟 Prandtl number in most residential and commercial sectors. Hence, the article [11]
𝑃𝑠 soil thermal potential presented a numerical study where a helical EAHE system exhibited
𝑃𝑡 EAHE thermal potential better thermal performance and used less space than a conventional
𝑄̇ heat transfer rate (W) U-shaped one.
𝑟 radius (m) Space limitations are also a concern in Brazil. Regarding this theme,
𝑅𝑒 Reynolds number the authors of [12] evaluated 26 EAHE arrangements using the con-
structal design method (CDM) [13], aiming to minimize soil volume
𝑆 size (m)
occupation and airflow pressure drop, maximizing the 𝑃𝑡 of the instal-
𝑡 time (s or days)
lation. They found out that a serpentine type reduced nearly 39% of the
𝑇 temperature (◦ C) soil volume occupied by the device compared to a conventional one.
𝑈𝐿 heat transfer coefficient The authors of [14] also used CDM to study geometrically T-shaped
per duct length (W∕m K) EAHE (with one inlet and two outlets). They achieved a reduction in
𝑈∗ conductance ratio (m) the installation volume of 23%. More articles applying the CDM to
𝑣 speed (m/s) study EAHE installations are [15,16], where the authors access how to
𝑥 horizontal coordinate (m) improve, for instance, the number and spatial distributions of multiple
𝑧 depth (m) ducts. The works [17,18] tackle other issues for multi-duct installations.
The former investigated the influence of airflow uniformity on thermal
Greek letters performance, showing that non-uniform airflow among ducts deteri-
𝜀 thermal diffusivity (m2 ∕s) orates thermal performance. The latter aimed to optimize the EAHE
structure for greenhouses, considering factors such as airflow division
𝛥𝑦 segment size (m)
uniformity, spacing among ducts, their depths, and the angle of the
𝜃 efficiency (%)
branch inlet duct.
𝜆 thermal conductivity (W/mK)
The EAHE performance also depends substantially on the thermal
𝜇 dynamic viscosity (kg/m (s) characteristics of the soil; hence the work [19] experimentally verifies
𝜌 density (kg/m3 ) the effects of soil moisture content. The authors adopted an irrigation
𝜓 area fraction (%) system to simulate natural precipitation and show that wet conditions
𝛺 two-dimensional domain increased the EAHE cooling capacity and coefficient of performance
(COP). Such factors allow reducing duct size or placing the ducts at
Subscripts
a shallow depth.
0 initial (reference) value As pointed out in [20], increasing moisture content at a given
𝑎 air density increases soil thermal conductivity and provides favorable con-
𝑔 galvanized ditions for heat exchanges. Therefore, that last work analyzed the use of
ducts buried under rain gardens, as they can be additionally a natural
ℎ horizontal
way to remove pollutants and recharge the ground-water.
𝑖 inlet
In general, poor soil thermal conductivity is an issue that can
𝑜 outlet degrade the EAHE performance during the operational time; to improve
𝑠 soil it, an alternative given in [21] was placing a layer of phase change
𝑣 vertical material (PCM) around the ducts. The work obtained an additional tem-
perature drop of approximately 0.8 ◦ C, corresponding to a 20% increase
Abreviatures
in the cooling capacity (compared to a conventional installation). The
EAHE Earth–air heat exchanger paper [22] presented another option to deal with soils with low thermal
RMS Root mean square value diffusivity, where they accessed the feasibility of surrounding the duct
with water-saturated quartz sand, enveloping them by a polyethylene
membrane. By the results, using such a methodology allows reducing
duct length significantly.
As many works comprise investigations based on computational Different references have studied the effect of the duct material
fluid dynamics models, their validation and advances demand exper- (especially using those of high thermal conductivity); however, they
imental data. We can cite [7,8] among the recent works reporting did not find significant improvements in the thermal performance of
experimental installations. In [7], the authors analyzed a hybrid multi- the system [23,24]. As argued in [25], for a duct with a reduced
thickness (like 2.7 mm), the wall thermal resistance is very small, and
pipe EAHE system integrated with the building raft foundation and an
its relevance on performance is almost null. Their results for the COP
air handling unit. They used water from aquifers to circulate by the
variations using PVC (polyvinyl chloride) or steel, for instance, were
(water-based) raft foundation, increasing the system operating perfor- very close. Hence, they identified PVC as having the best cost-benefit
mance. They also reduced excavation costs by integrating the structure ratio. In [26], there is a list of many works also concluding that the
with the building foundation. The paper [8] compares two identical material has not a clear and evident effect over EAHE. On the other
buildings, with and without EAHE, during a cooling and heating season hand, this last reference found some relevant increases depending on

2
J.V.A. Ramalho et al.
the material and the local. They claimed that: (a) a zinc EAHE is more
efficient in a temperate climate than in an arid or steppe one; (b) the
PVC EAHE is much better in an arid climate than in a temperate or
steppe one; (c) both cases gave similar behavior in a steppe climate. In a
related direction, considering that polyethylene and other plastic ducts
have a low thermal conductivity, the work [27] pursued thermally
enhanced plastics to improves the heat exchange process with the
soil. The authors proposed to use aluminum wires in a conventional
polyethylene duct, investigating their number and diameter, aiming to
improve the system’s thermal performance.
A different idea, presented in [28], was coupling the ducts with lon-
gitudinal galvanized bridges (fins) to improve the thermal exchanges
with the soil. The authors evaluated several cases changing: (i) the
number and location of the fins around the ducts; (ii) the soil types.
They showed that the heat transfer rates between the ducts and the soil
enhanced significantly by using fins. In Ref. [29], the authors followed
a related path in the context of vertical types of EAHE. To compensate
for the reduction in heat transfer by using a model with low depth, they
numerically evaluated the effects of different parameters; this included
using a duct connected to many horizontal aluminum rods (fins). The
fins increased the heat transfer rates of the system, and they were also
justified to hold the duct firmly inside the ground.
Given this background, we observed that the literature needs more
research addressing the space constraints of the installations. In such
regard, looking at different contributions that tend to improve the
thermophysical properties around the ducts [21,22,28,29], we identify
some gaps in establishing the connections between the geometrical
shape of the improved region and the EAHE performance in terms of
thermal potential and efficiency.
In this paper, we begin considering a variation of the approach
from [28], where the horizontal duct is enveloped by a galvanized
block connected to a maximum of four galvanized fins, sharing the
same high thermally conductive material. We show that surrounding
the ducts with high conductive materials improves heat exchanges with
the soil, as it increases 𝜃. After obtaining the best configuration, using
a block and only one fin, we also analyze reductions in the installation
size, keeping the efficiencies of EAHE with longer ducts.
Another contribution of this work is that we highlight how some
layouts can worsen the system performance and even decrease the
values of 𝑃𝑠 . Hence, we further study how the shape and area of the
high conductive region around the duct (without fins) affect 𝜃, 𝑃𝑠 ,
and 𝑃𝑡 . In particular, we investigate circular and rectangular shapes to
determine how they can improve the EAHE performance. We find a
rectangular shape that allows us to keep the duct at a small depth and
achieve thermal potentials that we would obtain only at higher depths.
This article also comprises novelties in the methodology. We take a
more general framework than [28] to explore different shapes for the
galvanized structure. Besides, we adopt a validated and computation-
ally efficient EAHE numerical model to estimate 𝑃𝑠 , 𝑃𝑡 , and 𝜃. Finally,
we simulate a realistic scenario, considering literature reports from an
experimental EAHE installation [30] in the southern Brazilian city of
Viamão, which has a subtropical climate. Such a factor is relevant for
investors since this region in Brazil has a significant potential for EAHE,
which is still little explored locally [6].
An outline of the paper is as follows. Section 2 gives the method-
ology, introducing the operational parameters, thermophysical data,
adopted model, and validation. Next, Section 3 presents the results
obtained from the different EAHE configurations. We end this article
with some conclusions in Section 4.
2. Methodology
2.1. Settings
This work aims to evaluate how the EAHE performance is af-
fected by coupling the ducts to galvanized structures. In particular,
3
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102838
Table 1
Thermophysical properties.
𝜌 (kg/m3 ) 𝑐𝑝 (J/kg K) 𝜆 (W/m K) 𝜇 (kg/m s)
Soil 1800 1780 2.1 –
Air 1.16 1010 0.0242 1.789 × 10−5
Galvanized materials 7800 446 52 –
(block and fins)
our simulations adapt ideas from Ref. [28], regarding the climate and
soil conditions from an experimental EAHE installation in the south
Brazilian city of Viamão [30].
Here, we consider the straight part of the buried duct, as done
in other references like [31–33]. Moreover, the work assumes that
the soil temperature variations in the (duct) longitudinal direction are
negligible; hence we estimate soil temperatures with a 2D modeling
approach.
The study comprises three types of computational domains. Fig. 1(a)
shows a 2D sketch of the first one, where the strategy is to surround
the duct with a galvanized block coupled to a maximum of four fins,
all made of the same highly conductive material. As for the other two
domains, the duct is enclosed only by circular and rectangular blocks.
Fig. 1(b) sketches the latter type.
In the example of Fig. 1(a), 𝑧0 is the duct center depth, initially
equal to 1.6 m; 𝐷0 = 11 cm is the diameter of the duct; 𝑏0 = 18 cm
refers to the block size (which has a square cross-section). Moreover,
all fins have the same width 𝑆𝑣 = 1 m and thickness 𝑆ℎ = 1 cm. Here,
we placed the duct and the block equally centered in the horizontal
direction. Hence, their centers have the coordinate 𝑥0 = 5 m.
In the supplementary materials, we included Figure 6 to present a
3D sketch of the domain. It illustrates that the duct, block, and fins have
the same length 𝐿0 = 25.77 m. Such values for 𝑧0 , 𝐷0 , and 𝐿0 serve
to emulate the experimental installation from [30]. The values for the
galvanized parts represent an adaptation of the work [28] aimed to the
reality given in [30].
Table 1 gives the thermophysical properties of (1) soil and air in Vi-
amão, (2) galvanized materials (block and fins). The values come from
Refs. [6,28]. As done in other works like [15,32,34], this study does not
consider the duct properties because their thickness is relatively small.
Taking such an approach can overload the numerical study without a
clear necessity.
2.1.1. Second type of computational domain
We also studied two-dimensional domains where a circular region
around the duct is made of a galvanized material, while the rest is com-
posed of soil. Such a case is analogous to the one in Fig. 1(b). However,
the galvanized block has the shape of a disk of radius 𝑟, centered on 𝑥0
and 𝑧0 . Besides, we included Figure 7 in the supplementary materials
to illustrate the arrangement.
Here, the galvanized disk area occupies different proportions of the
computational domain. The variations took into account the following
considerations.
• The domain area is the constant 𝐴𝑐 = 150 m2 , while the disk area
(𝐴𝑑 ) varies as a function of 𝑟.
• The area fraction between disk and domain areas is given by
𝐴𝑑 𝜋 𝑟2
𝜓= 100% = %.
𝐴𝑐 1.5
• The radius 𝑟 is limited to vary between 𝐷0 /2 = 0.055 m and
1.6 m. Otherwise, the disk area is less than the duct cross sectional
area or it leaves the domain.
• For 𝑟 = 0.055 m, 𝜓 ≈ 0.006%, while for 𝑟 = 1.6 m, 𝜓 ≈ 5.4%.
Hence, we simulated 𝜓 varying from 0.1% to a maximum of 5%.
J.V.A. Ramalho et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102838

Fig. 1. Computational domains.

2.1.2. Third type of computational domain 2.2. EAHE model

Fig. 1(b) illustrates the last configuration for the computational

We simulated EAHE with the GAEA model (Graphische Ausle-
domains. We considered the duct surrounded by a rectangular region gung von Erdwärme Austauschern1 ) introduced in [35]. It is a one-
(block shape) composed of galvanized material. dimensional model that computes heat transfer coefficients analytically
Here, 𝑆𝑉 and 𝑆𝐻 represent, respectively, the vertical and horizon- to estimate the heat exchanges among the air, the duct walls, and
the soil. It allows determining the temperatures at several duct parts,
tal sizes of the block. Among the infinite possibilities for the block
including the outlet. Recent references like [6,36] also studied the
configuration, we took the following. model; moreover, the latter validated a version of it considering the
conditions of Viamão.
• The rectangular block is similar to the rectangular domain. As the temperature in the duct walls depends on the thermal ex-
• The block is centered in the horizontal direction. change with the ground and the air, GAEA estimates the conductance
• 𝐻 varies between 0 and 5 m, hence 𝑆𝐻 can range from 0 to 10 m. ratio of heat transfer (from soil to the walls and from the airflow to the
• The vertical variation follows the proportion: walls) using the parameter
15𝑉1 2𝜋𝜆𝑠
𝑆𝑉 = . 𝑈∗ = √ . (1)
𝑧0 ( ( ) )
2𝑧0 2𝑧0 2
𝑈𝐿 ln + −1
Thus, within the variation limits of 𝑉1 , between 0 m and 𝑧0 , 𝑆𝑉 𝐷0 𝐷0

varies from 0 to 15 m. Note that 𝑉2 depends on 𝑉1 , i.e., 𝑉2 = Here, 𝜆𝑠 is the thermal conductivity of the soil around the duct (or the
𝑆𝑉 − 𝑉1 . Therefore, 𝑉2 can only vary between 0 and 15 m − 𝑧0 . thermal conductivity of the galvanized material surrounding it), and
• The block and the domain have proportional areas. To ensure 𝑈𝐿 = 𝜋𝐷0 ℎ (2)
that, we assume
is the overall heat transfer coefficient (per duct length) between the air
2𝑆𝑉 stream and the duct walls.
𝑆𝐻 = .
3 We approximate the convection coefficient at the inner surface of
the duct with
Thus, there are two limiting cases: (a) 𝑆𝑉 = 0 m implies 𝑆𝐻
𝜆 𝑁
= 0 m, and the block converges to a point (the duct center); ℎ = 𝑎 𝑢, (3)
𝐷0
(b) 𝑆𝑉 = 15 m implies 𝑆𝐻 = 10 m, and the block occupies the
where the Nusselt number [35] is
entire computational domain. In short, cases (a) and (b) represent
extremes where the entire domain is composed, respectively, by 𝑁𝑢 = 0.0214 (𝑅0.8 0.4
𝑒 − 100) 𝑃𝑟 . (4)
soil or galvanized material.
Respectively, the Reynolds and Prandtl numbers are
• The domain area is again the constant 𝐴𝑐 = 150 m2 , while the
𝜌𝑎 𝑣𝑎 𝐷0
block area is 𝐴𝑏 = 𝑆𝐻 × 𝑆𝑉 . Hence, the area fraction between 𝑅𝑒 = , (5)
𝜇𝑎
block and domains areas is given by 𝜇𝑎 𝑐𝑝,𝑎
𝑃𝑟 = . (6)
𝐴 𝑆 × 𝑆𝑉 𝜆𝑎
𝜓 = 𝑏 100% = 𝐻 %.
𝐴𝑐 1.5
1
Here, we simulated 𝜓 varying between 1% to 90% German for graphical design of EAHE.

4
J.V.A. Ramalho et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102838

The soil temperature 𝑇𝑠 is estimated disregarding the presence of the Following the illustrations in Fig. 1, we assume that 𝛺 is partitioned
duct. At this point, we assume that it is already known, but we explain into two non-overlapping subdomains 𝛺1 and 𝛺2 . Moreover,
in the following sections how we computed it. Hence, GAEA needs to
𝛺 = 𝛺1 ∪ 𝛺2 , 𝛺1 ∩ 𝛺2 = ∅ , 𝛤 = 𝜕𝛺1 ∩ 𝜕𝛺2 ,
estimate a corrected temperature on the duct walls, i.e.,
𝑈 ∗ 𝑇𝑠 + 𝑇𝑎 where 𝜕𝛺𝑖 denotes the boundary of 𝛺𝑖 , and 𝑖 ∈ {1, 2}. We also
𝑇𝑐,𝑤 = . (7) associated the 𝛺1 subdomain with the soil and the 𝛺2 subdomain with
𝑈∗ + 1
the galvanized material. We indicate by 𝑊𝑖 the restriction to 𝛺𝑖 of the
Here, 𝑇𝑐,𝑤 is a weighted average between the air temperature inside the
solution 𝑇 to (13) complemented by appropriate initial and boundary
duct, 𝑇𝑎 , and the soil temperature on the duct wall (not influenced by
conditions, and by 𝐧𝑖 the normal direction on 𝜕𝛺𝑖 ∩𝛤 , oriented outward.
its presence), 𝑇𝑠 . Therefore, 𝑈 ∗ works as a weighting factor.
Therefore, we consider the case of (13) with a variable thermal
However, instead of calculating 𝑇𝑐,𝑤 directly by Eq. (7), the duct
diffusivity
is divided into 100 segments, where the thermal exchanges are deter-
mined iteratively [35]. The idea is to take sufficiently small pieces to 𝜆(𝑥, 𝑧)
𝜀(𝑥, 𝑧) = ,
assume that the air flows through them at an approximately constant 𝜌(𝑥, 𝑧) 𝑐𝑝 (𝑥, 𝑧)
temperature. Therefore, jumps in temperature values occur between which is discontinuous on 𝛤 . As we can see in [38], this classically
distinct segments of size 𝛥𝑦 = 𝐿0 ∕100. leads to the continuity condictions
For each segment 𝑘, we compute a correction of the soil temperature
in the duct wall using the formula 𝑊1 = 𝑊2 on 𝛤 , 𝜆1 ∇𝑊1 ⋅ 𝐧1 + 𝜆2 ∇𝑊2 ⋅ 𝐧2 = 0 on 𝛤 . (16)

𝑈 ∗ 𝑇𝑠 + 𝑇𝑎,𝑖
𝑘 Such conditions on the interface 𝛤 are also known as transmission
𝑘
𝑇𝑐,𝑤 = . (8) conditions and they are implicitly contained in the variational formu-
𝑈∗ +1
𝑘 is the air temperature at the inlet of the 𝑘th segment, where
lation of the finite element methods [38,39] that was the numerical
Here 𝑇𝑎,𝑖
choice adopted in this work (see Section 2.4).
the heat transfer rate is given by
Following a usual approximation in Refs. [15,32], we also assume
𝑘
𝑄̇ 𝑘 = 𝑈𝐿 (𝑇𝑐,𝑤 𝑘
− 𝑇𝑎,𝑖 )𝛥𝑦. (9) that the temperature at the soil surface is equal to the air temperature,
𝑇𝑎 . Consequently, the last boundary condition is
Such rate is also given by
𝑇 = 𝑇𝑎 at 𝑧 = 0 m. (17)
𝑘 𝑘
𝑄̇ 𝑘 = 𝑚̇ 𝑐𝑝,𝑎 (𝑇𝑎,𝑜 − 𝑇𝑎,𝑖 ), (10)
For this work, we fitted the annual air temperature data in Viamão by
where 𝑇𝑎,𝑜𝑘 is the air temperature at the outlet of the 𝑘th segment and
least squares, as done in other references like [6]. More specifically, 𝑇𝑎
𝑚̇ the air mass flow. As we are considering a circular duct, then is the periodic function
𝜋𝐷02 ( )
2𝜋
𝑚̇ = 𝜌𝑎 𝑣𝑎 . (11) 𝑇𝑎 (𝑡) = 20.49 + 5.66 sin 𝑡 − 5.30 , (18)
4 365
Combining Eqs. (9) and (10), we can isolate 𝑘
𝑇𝑎,𝑜 to obtain where the time 𝑡 is in days.
( ) It is worth remarking that we made the simulations consistently,
𝑘 − 𝑇𝑘
𝛥𝑦 𝑈𝐿 𝑇𝑐,𝑤 using the time t in seconds. It is just a convenience that 𝑡 is in days
𝑎,𝑖
𝑘 𝑘 during pre and post-processing stages, where we used least squares to
𝑇𝑎,𝑜 = 𝑇𝑎,𝑖 + . (12)
𝑚̇ 𝑐𝑝,𝑎
fit all the temperature results by sine-based functions.
In summary, we calculate with Eq. (12) the air temperature at the Following [6], we adopted an initial condition based on a one-
outlet of each segment based on the air temperature at the inlet of it. dimensional analytical model that considers the temperature variations
We note that the outlet of segment 𝑘 is the inlet of the 𝑘 + 1 one. When only in the 𝑧 direction, similar to the approach in [40]. Thus, taking
the iterative process starts, we know the air temperature at the inlet of the conditions from Viamão fitted by least squares, we used the initial
the first segment (𝑘 = 1) because it is also the duct inlet. The algorithm condition
ends by finding the air temperature at the last segment outlet (𝑘 = 100),
𝑇0 = 20.49 − 5.66 sin(5.30 + 0.39𝑧)𝑒−0.39𝑧 at 𝑡 = 0 s. (19)
which coincides with the duct outlet.
Finally, it is worth noting that we simulated the GAEA model using The tests showed that this initial condition affects only the first
an in-house code programmed in the Matlab language [37]. two months of simulation. Hence, we ran simulations covering a total
time 𝑡𝑓 (see Eq. (13)) of one year and two months, then discarded
2.3. Physical model the first two. This approach is advantageous because it reduces the
computational cost to evaluate a year of EAHE operation. To make a
We computed the temperatures in the soil and in regions covered comparison, in references like [15], where the authors assumed that
by galvanized materials, disregarding the presence of the ducts. We the initial condition was equal to the annual mean soil temperature, it
considered two-dimensional domains 𝛺 in the plane 𝑥 − 𝑧, where 0 < affected the solution for almost one year; that means that they needed
𝑥 < 10 m and 0 < 𝑧 < 15 m, corresponding to the Figures 1 and 7 to simulate two years and discard entirely the first one.
(the last one is shown in the supplementary materials). Therefore, we
neglected the temperature variations in the 𝑦 direction and solved the 2.4. Numerical approach
energy conservation equation
( 2 ) The initial-boundary value problem, composed by Eq. (13) to (19),
𝜕𝑇 𝜆 𝜕 𝑇 𝜕2 𝑇
= + , (𝑥, 𝑧) ∈ 𝛺 , 0 < 𝑡 ≤ 𝑡𝑓 . (13) was solved numerically. For the time discretization, we used finite
𝜕𝑡 𝜌 𝑐𝑝 𝜕𝑥2 𝜕𝑧2
differences, more specifically, the first-order implicit Euler method [41,
Based on references like [15,32], we can assume the adiabatic 42]. The finite element method of Galerkin [43–45] was employed
boundary conditions in the spatial discretization. We made all the simulations utilizing
𝜕𝑇 in-house codes, developed in the Matlab software language [37].
= 0 ◦ C/m at 𝑧 = 15 m. (14) To simulate the first type of computational domain, with a block
𝜕𝑧
𝜕𝑇 and fins, the meshes were composed of the following six subdomains:
= 0 ◦ C/m at 𝑥 = 0 m and 𝑥 = 10 m. (15)
𝜕𝑥 soil (1), block (2), left fin (3), right fin (4), upper fin (5), and lower

5
J.V.A. Ramalho et al.
fin (6). In general, we could use the same mesh for different cases.
For example, in a simulation involving the four fins, we just needed
to set the thermal diffusivity of the subdomain (1) equal to the soil,
while for (2) to (6) equal to the galvanized material. However, for a
simulation disregarding the left fin, we would set the thermal diffusivity
of subdomain (3) equal to the soil. The results for such cases are shown
ahead in Section 3.
Regarding the time discretization, we employed discrete time in-
tervals of 1800 s like Ref. [6]. Regarding spatial discretization, we
generated the meshes using the GMSH software,2 and we made various
refining tests, increasing the refinements in the regions close to the
block and fins (where higher temperature gradients could occur). It is
worth noting that the meshes do not represent the duct since we solve
the soil temperatures disregarding it.
In all mesh tests, we compared the annual temperature solution
vectors at the center of the block, i.e., at the coordinates 𝑥 = 5 m
and 𝑧 = 1.6 m. Using the infinite norm,3 we compared the differences
between two successive solution vectors 𝑇 𝑠 . In the supplementary
materials, we included Table 4 to present the conclusive tests and
comparisons. It also gives the number of nodes, elements, and total
simulation time4 for each test. The results converged, as expected, with
the increase in the number of nodes and mesh elements. Following [6],
a maximum difference of the order of 10−4 between two solutions was
considered sufficient to complete the comparisons.
As a general criterion for further simulations in this work (this
includes the second and third types of domains), we adopted meshes
with more than 2000 nodes and more than 4000 elements. Thus, typical
simulations consumed less than 10 min in processing time.
To conclude this subsection, it is worth mentioning that the gal-
vanized structure adopted here is different from [28], where the fins
are connected directly to the duct. The layout presented here has some
advantages: (1) it creates a uniform region around the duct, enabling
the use of less complex modeling, as is the case of GAEA; (2) in
the particular case of a circular disk without fins, it is similar to the
shapes used in other works like [21,22]; (3) it can take multiple forms
regardless of the duct shape, and we explore some of them in this paper.
We should also notice that Ref. [28] did not simulate or estimate the
thermal potential of EAHE; it focused on the problem of improving heat
transfer in the soil.
2.5. Definition of additional parameters
We define the soil thermal potential 𝑃𝑠 as the difference between the
soil temperature 𝑇𝑠 and the air temperature at the EAHE inlet 𝑇𝑖 . It is
worth noting that we are considering 𝑇𝑖 = 𝑇𝑎 , which is the temperature
of the ambient air near the soil surface. Furthermore, as done in other
references like [15], we define the EAHE thermal potential 𝑃𝑡 as the
difference between the air temperatures at the outlet 𝑇𝑜 and at the
inlet of the ducts. Thus, at any time 𝑡, the instantaneous values of these
potentials are given, respectively, by:
𝑃𝑠 (𝑡) =𝑇𝑠 (𝑡) − 𝑇𝑎 (𝑡) , (20)
𝑃𝑡 (𝑡) =𝑇𝑜 (𝑡) − 𝑇𝑎 (𝑡) . (21)
To evaluate the performance of EAHE, it is important to measure
their efficiency, which is given by
𝑃𝑡
𝜃𝑡 = , (22)
𝑃𝑠
at any time 𝑡. Consequently, the bigger the efficiency, the closer 𝑃𝑡
and 𝑃𝑠 are. On the other hand, such formula has some drawbacks,
2
Available online in https://gmsh.info/ — Accessed 23 Sept. 2022.
3
The infinite norm of a vector 𝐱 = (𝑥1 , … , 𝑥𝑛 ) is defined by: ‖𝐱‖∞ =
max𝑖=1,...,𝑛 |𝑥𝑖 | [46].
4
We executed the simulations in a desktop computer running Windows 10
with a CPU Intel i7-9750H and 16 GB of RAM.
6
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102838
particularly in the months near the spring or fall, when 𝑃𝑠 is equal or
close to zero. Hence, we follow Refs. [6,15] and measure the EAHE
annual efficiency by
√
365
∫0 𝑃𝑡2 𝑑𝑡
𝜃= √ . (23)
365
∫0 𝑃𝑠2 𝑑𝑡
In this work, all the results for the potentials are fitted by least
squares to periodic functions, like
𝑃 (𝑡) = 𝑃𝑚 + 𝐴 sin(𝜔𝑡 + 𝜙), (24)
where, 𝑃𝑚 , 𝐴, 𝜔, and 𝜙 represent, respectively, the mean value, ampli-
tude, angular frequency, and phase. To do so, we also used an in-house
code, made in Matlab, following the algorithm given in [47].
Finally, to let clear different comparisons made ahead, we computed
the annual root mean square value (RMS) of periodic functions, 𝑓 ,
written as in Eq. (24), using the formula
√
365
∫0 [ 𝑓 (𝑡) ]2 𝑑𝑡
𝑉𝑅𝑀𝑆 = , (25)
365
where the time 𝑡 here is given in days.
2.6. General description of the methodology
For every simulation, after solving the soil temperatures using the
finite element method (and finite differences), we fitted the results
at the duct center to periodic functions similar to those of Eq. (24),
following the algorithm given in [47]. We emphasize that such fitted
functions corresponded to the temperature 𝑇𝑠 , taken as input to the
GAEA model in Eq. (7), as well as for the calculation of the soil thermal
potential given by Eq. (20).
The next step of the simulations involved using the GAEA model
to compute the outlet temperatures, according to Eq. (12). Finally, we
fitted the outlet temperatures to periodic functions, which allowed us to
find the EAHE thermal potential, as in Eq. (21), calculate its efficiency
using Eq. (23) and get RMS values through Eq. (25).
2.7. Model validation
We validated the model by comparing its results against experi-
mental data from [30]. The main parameters needed for modeling are
the duct length, 𝐿0 = 25.77 m, diameter, 𝐷0 = 11 cm, and depth,
𝑧0 = 1.6 m. Such values also serve as an initial reference for this
study, and they have been presented in Section 2.1. Another important
parameter, not mentioned so far, was the experimental airspeed at the
ducts inlet, i.e., 𝑣0 = 3.3 m∕s; this corresponds to an air mass flow of
𝑚̇ 0 = 0.0364 kg∕s. Table 1 gives the other thermophysical properties of
air and soil. Finally, we modeled the air temperature in the Brazilian
city of Viamão with Eq. (18).
We can find in the literature two other works that validate their
models based on the same experimental data; they are [6], and [32].
The former adopts a GAEA model and computes the soil temperatures
by a one-dimensional methodology based on finite differences. The
latter uses a 3D numerical model based on conservation equations, and
it solves them by finite volume methods with Fluent software.
In the supplementary materials, we added Figure 8 which presents
a comparison among (V) the discrete, daily average temperatures at the
outlet of one EAHE installation from [30]; (VF) the least-squares fitted
curve of the same data, following a periodic function similar to that
given in Eq. (24); (D) and (H) the numerical results from the models
of [6,32], respectively; (CM) our current model results.
As one can see from Figure 8, the current model gives results almost
equal to the ones from [6]. The Pearson correlation coefficient between
such models results and the experimental data is approximately 0.89.
Furthermore, the annual RMS difference between the model results
J.V.A. Ramalho et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102838

Table 2
Annual RMS values of the soil and EAHE thermal potentials for different cases.
Case Description 𝑃𝑠,𝑅𝑀𝑆 (◦ C) 𝑃𝑡,𝑅𝑀𝑆 (◦ C)
0 Reference case: no block nor fins 2.58 1.90
1 Block only 2.58 2.47
2 Top fin 2.46 2.36
3 Bottom fin 2.65 2.53
4 Side fin 2.58 2.47
5 Two fins: top and bottom 2.53 2.42
6 Two side fins 2.58 2.47
7 Two fins: top and side 2.47 2.36
8 Two fins: bottom and side 2.64 2.53
9 Three fins: top and sides 2.48 2.37
10 Three fins: bottom and sides 2.64 2.52
11 Three fins: top, bottom and side 2.53 2.42
12 Four fins 2.53 2.42

Fig. 2. Twelve configuration cases for the block and fins.
and the fitted experimental values is approximately 1.45 ◦ C. In [6],
the authors estimated that the correlation between the model results
from [32] and the experimental data are approximately 0.92, while the
annual RMS difference between their results and the fitted experimental
values is close to 1.58 ◦ C.
Therefore, we concluded that our methodology is valid, providing
accurate and highly correlated results to the experimental ones. Fur-
thermore, the approach is computationally efficient, as the simulations
take a few minutes (see Table 4 in the supplementary materials),
instead of hours, as it happens with the complete 3D model from [32].
Additionally, we present in Figure 9 (see the supplementary mate-
rials) the estimates of our model for the two-dimensional temperature
fields in Viamão during the summer and winter. In summer, the daily
average air temperatures are a little above 25 ◦ C, and the minimum
soil temperature is around 20 ◦ C. In winter, the average air temper-
atures drop to almost 16 ◦ C, while the maximum soil temperature is
approximately 21 ◦ C. As we show ahead, the higher magnitude of the
soil thermal potential is near 6 ◦ C.
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Introducing the block and fins
Using the first type of computational domain, we tested twelve
different configurations for the block and fins. Fig. 2 illustrates all cases,
numbered from 1 to 12. We consider the case from the validation (with-
out block nor fins) as the reference case (number 0). The article [28]
considered seven possible arrangements, which we adapted here with
the cases 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 12. By symmetry, case 4, corresponding
to one fin on the right side of the block, is equivalent to using only one
fin on the left.
Table 2 presents the annual RMS values for the soil and EAHE
thermal potentials for all considered cases.5 The highest values occur
in cases 3, 8, and 10. On the other hand, case 3 requires much less
material, as it uses only one fin (the bottom one). As it is simpler and
more economical, we considered it the best case of the simulations.
Still analyzing the results from Table 2, we note the following. The
best case (3) for 𝑃𝑠 is 7.7% better than the worst-case (2); however, it
is only 2.7% better than the reference case (0). Using the block alone
or side fins (cases 1, 4, and 6) does not affect the thermal potentials.
5
It is worth noting that annual RMS values cannot be as high as the
peaks of 6 ◦ C which occur only in summer or winter, as in Figure 9 (see
the supplementary materials).
All cases using a top fin (cases 2, 5, 7, 9, and 11) had soil thermal
potentials lower than the reference case with no galvanized material.
Physically, it means that a top fin negatively influences the results, as
it increases the thermal influence of the soil surface in the duct region.
In general, we see that careless designs of the galvanized structure can
worsen the EAHE performance. As we see ahead, other shapes for the
structure can provide much better results.
3.2. Potentials and efficiency
Fig. 3 gives an annual comparison among the temperatures of the
soil (𝑇𝑠 ), duct outlet (𝑇𝑜 ), and ambient air (𝑇𝑎 ) for the cases 0 and 3.
It shows a considerable increase in the EAHE efficiency with the use
of galvanized materials. Numerically computing the annual efficiency,
we obtained an approximate value of 73% for case 0 and 95% for case
3. Moreover, one can estimate graphically that the magnitude peaks of
the EAHE thermal potential, both in summer and in winter, go closer
to 4 ◦ C in case 3, while it is close to only 3 ◦ C in the reference case 0.
For all cases using galvanized structures (cases 1 to 12), the com-
puted efficiencies were approximately 95%. Such improvement in effi-
ciency is due to the increase in heat exchanges, as the structures have
high thermal conductivity and diffusivity. However, such an aspect of
the EAHE performance only means that the outlet temperature is close
to the soil one, i.e., it does not imply high thermal potentials.
In terms of EAHE thermal potential (𝑃𝑡 ), the reference case is the
worst in Table 2 since the efficiency of the conventional EAHE was
only 73%. Hence, using the block and bottom fin configuration (case
3) improved 𝑃𝑡 by 33%.
3.3. Thermal efficiency and duct length
Adopting the block and fin configuration from case 3, we made
a parametric study, varying the length 𝐿 of the duct and computing
the EAHE annual efficiency 𝜃. We started using the reference length
𝐿 = 𝐿0 = 25.77 m and kept reducing it by 3 m until reaching an
efficiency of approximately 70%. In the supplementary materials, we
added Table 5 to present the results. In general, they show how 𝜃
reduces by reducing 𝐿.
As observed before, the case 0 has an annual efficiency close to 73%.
It corresponds to the experimental installation from Ref. [30] using a
duct of 25.77 m. To couple the galvanized block and the bottom fin to
such duct yields 𝜃 ≈ 95%. From Table 5, we conclude that it is also
possible to achieve efficiencies above 70% by employing much smaller
ducts, with 𝐿 ranging between 10.77 and 13.77 m. Hence, a galvanized
structure allows reducing by almost half the installation length, keeping
efficiencies similar to a conventional installation.

7
J.V.A. Ramalho et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102838

middle of the year (winter). However, such peaks are achievable at a

depth of 4.6 m.
Due to the high initial excavation costs, the EAHE ducts are typically
buried at around 2–3 m [7]. Hence, we should pursue other shapes for
the galvanized structure, allowing us to obtain thermal potentials close
to the plateau values at a short depth. We further discuss this subject
in the following subsections.

3.5. Thermal potential and the soil thermal conductivity

The authors in [28] measured thermal performance based on the

heat exchange rate in the soil. Regardless of the soil types explored in
that work, they found that a case with four bridges (fins) gave the max-
imum thermal performance, as it increased dissipation flux between
the duct and the ground. Such a case was emulated here by case 12.
Although the addition of fins can increase the general conductivity
around the duct, we found that it increases the EAHE efficiency but
not necessarily the soil thermal potential. The latter performance aspect
was not addressed in the work [28] and, considering it, the best result
here so far was obtained by adding just one fin.
To further explore such a theme, we studied how increasing the soil
thermal conductivity around the duct affects the EAHE potentials. In
particular, we analyze the thermal potential when the shapes of the
high conductive area around the duct change.

3.5.1. Disk shape

Looking at works like [21,22], a disk shape seems to be the first
choice to explore; hence, we started using the second type of com-
putational domain, that was sketched in Figure 7 (included in the
supplementary materials). Here, we note that the installation depth and
the duct length are kept at the reference values of 𝑧0 and 𝐿0 .
The results from Table 6 (added in the supplementary materials)
show that the annual RMS values of 𝑃𝑠 increase with the reduction of
the disk area. Besides, the last line of that table includes the reference
case without any galvanized material. In terms of soil thermal potential,
there is no gain in adopting a disk shape for the galvanized area.
However, as the efficiency increases from 73% to almost 95%, the
EAHE thermal potential can be increased by 30% with 𝜓 = 0.1%.
Another way to see what happens with the introduction of the
Fig. 3. Annual comparison of the soil, outlet, and air temperatures. galvanized circular area is by considering the temperature fields in the
computational domain. Hence, Fig. 4 presents them in the summer (a)
Table 3 and winter (b), taking 𝜓 = 5%. Similarly, we added Figure 11 in the
Annual soil and EAHE thermal potentials varying installation depth. supplementary materials to show them for 𝜓 = 0.1%.
Depth (m) 1.6 2.1 2.6 3.1 3.6 4.1 4.6 5.1 5.6 From Fig. 4, one can see that the presence of a large disk (or a large
𝑃𝑠,𝑅𝑀𝑆 (◦ C) 2.65 3.14 3.50 3.78 3.98 4.12 4.21 4.26 4.28 galvanized region) makes the duct region strongly influenced thermally
𝑃𝑡,𝑅𝑀𝑆 (◦ C) 2.53 2.99 3.34 3.60 3.78 3.91 3.99 4.04 4.06 by what happens on the surface. Due to the high conductivity, the
temperatures at the duct position approach those on the surface. Conse-
quently, such unwanted behavior reduces the soil thermal potential. On
the other hand, in Figure 11, the disk area occupies only 0.1% of the
3.4. Potentials and installation depth domain; for this case, the temperatures on the duct region are much
different from those on the surface, and the soil thermal potential is
Still adopting the block and fin configuration from case 3, we tested close to the reference case.
how the installation depth 𝑧 influences the thermal potentials. We In the supplementary materials, we also added Figure 12 to illus-
started from the reference depth 𝑧 = 𝑧0 = 1.6 m and increased it trate the ambient and outlet air annual temperatures with the disk
by 0.5 m until reaching 𝑧 = 5.6 m. Table 3 shows how the annual occupying 5% and 0.1% of the computational domain. Both cases are
RMS values of 𝑃𝑠 and 𝑃𝑡 increase as 𝑧 increases. Down to 𝑧 = 3.6 m, very different throughout the year, as the EAHE thermal potential in
the potentials increase fast, then decelerate as they approach the local the former is almost half of the latter.
It is also worth looking at the result for case 1 in Table 2, where
plateau values of 4.28 ◦ C and 4.06 ◦ C, for 𝑃𝑠 and 𝑃𝑡 , respectively. For
we used only a square block centered at the duct center. In that
instance, the relative increase between placing the duct at 5.6 m instead
case, the block area also occupied a small part of the computational
of 4.6 m is less than 2%.
domain (about 0.02%). The soil thermal potential for that case was
To complement the results, Figure 10 (added in the supplementary also approximately equal to the reference case without any galvanized
materials) shows an annual comparison among the soil and EAHE materials. Such results suggest that small and symmetric galvanized
thermal potentials considering a duct placed at different depths. As areas around the duct center do not affect the soil thermal potential. In
expected for all cases, their annual RMS efficiencies are above 94%, general, increasing the thermal conductivity of the region around the
and one can notice that graphically. The curves also show that the local duct does not imply increasing the soil thermal potential; however, it
magnitude peaks for the soil thermal potentials are close to 6 ◦ C at can be suitable for increasing the EAHE efficiency and, consequently,
two moments, the beginning of the year (summer in Brazil) and in the the EAHE thermal potential.

8
J.V.A. Ramalho et al.
Fig. 4. Temperature fields for 𝜓 = 5%.
3.5.2. Block shape
We present the results using a block shape, using the third type of
computational domain illustrated by Fig. 1(b). For all cases, we note
that 𝜃 remained almost constant and close to 95%. The behaviors for
𝑃𝑡 and 𝑃𝑠 are shown in Fig. 5.
Using a rectangular block, Fig. 5(a) shows that the maximum for 𝑃𝑠
does not happen when 𝜓 = 0%, as it happened for the case with the
disk. Both thermal potentials decrease when 𝜓 grows or decreases too
much; they achieve maximum values when 1% < 𝜓 < 10%. To better
see such a feature, Fig. 5(b) gives a zoom in the results for 𝜓 varying
from 0 to 10%.
The thermal potentials are relatively constant when 𝜓 varies be-
tween 3% to 10%; in this interval, 𝑃𝑠 and 𝑃𝑡 are close to maximum
values of 3.22 ◦ C and 3.05 ◦ C, respectively. Therefore, 𝑃𝑠 and 𝑃𝑡
increased by 25% and 60.5%, respectively, relative to the reference case
(see Table 2). Besides, taking a look at Table 3, the results show that
we can obtain at a depth of 1.6 m potentials that we would achieve at
more than 2 m.
In the supplementary materials, we also added Figures 13 and 14.
Figure 13 shows the temperature fields in summer and winter for 𝜓 =
90%; while Figure 14 shows them for 𝜓 = 10%. In the latter case, the
block helps make the region around the duct colder or warmer than
the surface; in other words, the block region improves the connection
between the duct and the deeper soil layers. On the other hand, for
𝜓 = 90%, the block connects the regions close to the surface with
the deeper ones. In this situation, the temperatures around the duct
9
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102838
Fig. 5. Thermal potential variations with 𝜓.
position become close to the surface ones, drastically reducing the soil
and EAHE thermal potentials.
4. Conclusions
Recent efforts in the literature are trying to improve the region
around the ducts. Thus, this paper provided new insights into the
connexions between the shapes of those regions and the EAHE perfor-
mance. In particular, we analyzed the efficiency, thermal potentials,
and installation depth of EAHE with a duct surrounded by galvanized
structures with high thermal conductivity. To do so, we considered
three layout patterns: (P1) a relatively small square block coupled to
at most four fins; (P2) a circular block; (P3) a rectangular block.
For pattern P1, we found that the best case was a block with only
one bottom fin. It increased the EAHE efficiency (𝜃), the soil thermal
potential (𝑃𝑠 ), and the EAHE thermal potential (𝑃𝑡 ). As 𝜃 increased from
73% to 95%, the value of 𝑃𝑡 increased 33% relative to a reference case
(using a conventional installation composed of just one duct). On the
other hand, coupling a top fin decreased 𝑃𝑠 ; therefore, we showed that
careless increases in thermal conductivity do not imply improvements
in thermal performance. Still using pattern P1, with a block and bottom
fin, we found that it is possible to reduce the duct length by almost half
keeping 𝜃 above 70% at a depth of 1.6 m.
For pattern P2, we varied the area occupied by the circular block.
We tested different cases with it occupying from 0.1% to 5% of the
J.V.A. Ramalho et al.
total computational domain area. In this case, 𝑃𝑠 increased with the
reduction of the block area. Hence, the best value for 𝑃𝑠 was the same
as the reference case with no galvanized material. In particular, the
results indicate that small and symmetric galvanized areas around the
duct do not affect 𝑃𝑠 , but only 𝜃 and 𝑃𝑡 .
In pattern P3, we also varied the area occupied by the rectangular
block from 1% to 90% of the computational domain. For this case, we
found maximum values for 𝑃𝑠 and 𝑃𝑡 when the block area varied from
1% to 10% of the total domain area. We found that it is possible to
significantly increase 𝜃, 𝑃𝑠 , and 𝑃𝑡 , keeping the duct at a small depth
of only 1.6 m. For the best cases, we not only obtained 𝜃 ≈ 95%,
but we could also increase 𝑃𝑠 and 𝑃𝑡 by 25% and 60.5%, respectively,
relative to the reference case. Therefore, we showed that a suitable
design of the galvanized structure allows increasing simultaneously 𝜃,
𝑃𝑠 , and 𝑃𝑡 with the duct placed at a small depth. Further research for
new arrangements around the pipe, using other materials like PCM or
polyethylene membranes, for instance, should consider new shapes, as
circular ones are not necessarily ideal.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
J.V.A. Ramalho: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Resources Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing, Supervision, Project administration. H.J. Fernando: Con-
ceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project admin-
istration. R.S. Brum: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Resources, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.
A.M.B. Domingues: Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Data cu-
ration, Writing – original draft, Visualization. N.R. Navarro Pastor:
Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing – original
draft. M.R. Burlón Olivera: Software, Validation, Formal analysis,
Data curation, Writing – original draft.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
N.R. Navarro Pastor and M.R. Burlón Olivera welcome the financial
support to the Universidad Tecnológica (UTEC) of Uruguay, as well as
the incentive for permanent training in the Tecnólogo en Mecatrónica
Industrial (TMECI) and Ingeniería Logística (ILOG) careers of the In-
stituto Tecnológico Regional del Norte (ITRN) of the city of Rivera,
Uruguay. A.M.B. Domingues thanks her scholarships to the Fundação
de Amparo à Pesquisa do Rio Grande do Sul (FAPERGS), Brazil. R.S.
Brum thanks the FAPERGS by the following grants: Edital 4/2019–
ARD: Processo 19/2551-0001345-0 and Edital 05/2019– PqG: Processo
19/2551-0001964-5.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found online
at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102838.
10
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102838
References
[1] Estrada E, Labat M, Lorente S, Rocha LA. The impact of latent heat exchanges
on the design of earth air heat exchangers. Appl Therm Eng 2018;129:306–17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.10.007.
[2] Bordoloi N, Sharma A, Nautiyal H, Goel V. An intense review on the lat-
est advancements of earth air heat exchangers. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2018;89:261–80.
[3] Agrawal KK, Misra R, Agrawal GD, Bhardwaj M, Jamuwa DK. The state of
art on the applications, technology integration, and latest research trends of
earth-air-heat exchanger system. Geothermics 2019;82:34–50.
[4] Soares N, Rosa N, Monteiro H, Costa J. Advances in standalone and hybrid
earth-air heat exchanger (EAHE) systems for buildings: A review. Energy Build
2021;253:111532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111532.
[5] Liu Z, Xie M, Zhou Y, He Y, Zhang L, Zhang G, et al. A state-of-the-art review on
shallow geothermal ventilation systems with thermal performance enhancement
system classifications, advanced technologies and applications. Energy Built
Environ 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbenv.2021.10.003.
[6] Domingues AMB, NÓbrega ESB, Ramalho JVA, Brum RS, Quadros RS. Parameter
analysis of earth-air heat exchangers over multi-layered soils in South Brazil.
Geothermics 2021;93:1–14.
[7] Yang L-H, Hu J-W, Chiang Y-C, Chen S-L. Performance analysis of building-
integrated earth-air heat exchanger retrofitted with a supplementary water
system for cooling-dominated climate in Taiwan. Energy Build 2021;242:110949.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110949.
[8] Wei H, Yang D, Du J, Guo X. Field experiments on the effects of an earth-to-air
heat exchanger on the indoor thermal environment in summer and winter for
a typical hot-summer and cold-winter region. Renew Energy 2021;167:530–41.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.11.112.
[9] Mathur A, Mathur S, Agrawal GD, Mathur J. Comparative study of straight and
spiral earth air tunnel heat exchanger system operated in cooling and heating
modes. Renew Energy 2017;108:474–87.
[10] Asgari B, Habibi M, Hakkaki-Fard A. Assessment and comparison of different
arrangements of horizontal ground heat exchangers for high energy required
applications. Appl Therm Eng 2020;167:1–12.
[11] Mathur A, Kumar S. Thermal performance and comfort assessment of U-shape
and helical shape earth-air heat exchanger in India. Energy Built Environ
2022;3(2):171–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbenv.2021.01.002.
[12] Nunes BR, Rodrigues MK, Rocha LAO, Labat M, Lorente S, dos Santos ED,
et al. Numerical-analytical study of earth-air heat exchangers with complex
geometries guided by constructal design. Int J Energy Res 2021;45:1–18. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.7157.
[13] Bejan A, Lorente S. Design with constructal theory. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons;
2008.
[14] Rodrigues GC, Lorenzini G, Victoria LC, Vaz IS, Rocha LA, dos Santos ED, et al.
Constructal design applied to the geometric evaluation of a T-shaped earth-air
heat exchanger. Int J Sustain Dev Plan 2021;16:207–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.
18280/ijsdp.160201.
[15] Brum RS, Ramalho JV, Rodrigues MK, Rocha LA, Isoldi LA, Dos Santos ED.
Design evaluation of earth-air heat exchangers with multiple ducts. Renew
Energy 2019;135:1371–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.09.063.
[16] Rodrigues MK, Brum RS, Vaz J, Rocha LAO, Santo ED, Isoldi LA. Numerical
investigation about the improvement of the thermal potential of an earth-air
heat exchanger (EAHE) employing the constructal design method. Renew Energy
2015;80:538–51.
[17] Qi D, Li A, Li S, Zhao C. Comparative analysis of earth to air heat exchanger
configurations based on uniformity and thermal performance. Appl Therm Eng
2021;183:116152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.116152.
[18] Qi D, Li S, Zhao C, Xie W, Li A. Structural optimization of multi-pipe earth to
air heat exchanger in greenhouse. Geothermics 2022;98:102288. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2021.102288.
[19] Li H, Ni L, Yao Y, Sun C. Experimental investigation on the cooling performance
of an earth to air heat exchanger (EAHE) equipped with an irrigation system to
adjust soil moisture. Energy Build 2019;196:280–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2019.05.007.
[20] Gao Y, Fan R, Li H, Liu R, Lin X, Guo H, et al. Thermal performance improvement
of a horizontal ground-coupled heat exchanger by rainwater harvest. Energy
Build 2016;110:302–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.10.030.
[21] Zhou T, Xiao Y, Liu Y, Lin J, Huang H. Research on cooling performance of
phase change material-filled earth-air heat exchanger. Energy Convers Manage
2018;177:210–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.09.047.
[22] Platts AB, Cameron DA, Ward J. Improving the performance of ground coupled
heat exchangers in unsaturated soils. Energy Build 2015;104:323–35. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.04.050.
[23] Bansal V, Misra R, Agrawal GD, Mathur J. Performance analysis of earth-pipe-air
heat exchanger for winter heating. Energy Build 2009;41:1151–4.
[24] Ascione F, Bellia L, Minichiello F. Earth-to-air heat exchangers for Italian
climates. Renew Energy 2011;36:2177–88.
[25] Rosa N, Santos P, Costa JJ, Gervásio H. Modelling and performance anal-
ysis of an earth-to-air heat exchanger in a pilot installation. J Build Phys
2018;42(3):259–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1744259117754298.
J.V.A. Ramalho et al.
[26] Lekhal MC, Benzaama M-H, Kindinis A, Mokhtari A-M, Belarbi R. Effect of geo-
climatic conditions and pipe material on heating performance of earth-air heat
exchangers. Renew Energy 2021;163:22–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.
2020.08.044.
[27] Bassiouny R, Ali MR, Hassan MK. An idea to enhance the thermal perfor-
mance of HDPE pipes used for ground-source applications. Appl Therm Eng
2016;109:15–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.08.055.
[28] Hassanzadeh R, Darvishyadegari M, Arman S. A new idea for improving the
horizontal straight ground source heat exchangers performance. Sustain Energy
Technol Assess 2018;25:138–45.
[29] Saeidi R, Noorollahi Y, Esfahanian V. Numerical simulation of a novel spiral type
ground heat exchanger for enhancing heat transfer performance of geothermal
heat pump. Energy Convers Manage 2018;168:296–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.enconman.2018.05.015.
[30] Vaz J, Sattler MA, da S. Brum R, dos Santos ED, Isoldi LA. An experimental study
on the use of earth-air heat exchangers (EAHE). Energy Build 2014;72:122–31.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.12.009.
[31] Brum RS, Vaz J, Rocha LAO, Santos EDD, Isoldi LA. A new computational
modeling to predict the behavior of earth-AirHeat exchangers. Energy Build
2013;64:395–402.
[32] Hermes V, Ramalho J, Rocha L, dos Santos E, Marques W, Costi J, et al. Further
realistic annual simulations of earth-air heat exchangers installations in a coastal
city. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 2020;37:100603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.seta.2019.100603.
[33] Rodrigues MK, Coswig FS, Camargo KR, Isoldi LA, Brum RS, Ramalho JVA, et al.
Thermal performance simulations of earth-air heat exchangers for different soils
of a coastal city using in-situ data. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 2018;30:224–9.
[34] Vaz J, Sattler MA, dos Santos ED, Isoldi LA. Experimental and numerical analysis
of an earth–air heat exchanger. Energy Build 2011;43(9):2476–82. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.06.003.
11
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102838
[35] Benkert S, Heidt FD, Schöler D. Calculation tool for earth heat exchangers GAEA.
In: Proceedings building simulation, fifth international IBPSA conference. Vol. 2.
1997, p. 1–8.
[36] Papakostas T, Tsamitros A, Martinopoulos G. Validation of modified one-
dimensional models simulating the thermal behavior of earth-to-air heat
exchangers-comparative analysis of modelling and experimental results.
Geothermics 2019;82:1–6.
[37] MATLAB. Version 7.14.0 (R2012a). Natick, Massachusetts: The MathWorks
Inc. 2012.
[38] Quarteroni A, Valli A. Domain decomposition methods for partial differential
equations. Oxford Science Publications; 1999.
[39] Brezzi F, Fortin M. Mixed and hybrid finite element method. New York: Springer;
1991.
[40] Ozgener O, Ozgener L, Tester JW. A practical approach to predict soil tempera-
ture variations for geothermal (ground) heat exchangers applications. Int J Heat
Mass Transfer 2013;62:473–80.
[41] Özisik MN. Heat conduction. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1993.
[42] Gerald CF, Wheatley PO. Applied numerical analysis. New York: Addison-Wesley;
1990.
[43] Hughes TJR. The finite element method (linear static and dynamic finite element
analysis). New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. 1987.
[44] Becker EB, Carey GF, Oden JT. Finite elements an introduction. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall; 1981.
[45] Logg A, Mardal KA, Wells GN. Automated solution of differential equations by
the finite element method. Berlin: Springer; 2012.
[46] Trefethen LN, Bau D. Numerical linear algebra. SIAM; 1997.
[47] Brum RS, Ramalho JVA, Rocha LAO, Isoldi LA, Santos ED. A matlab code to fit
periodic data. Revista Brasileira de Computação Aplicada 2015;7:16–25.