City and Environment Interactions 8 (2020) 100054

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

City and Environment Interactions

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

Influence of daily temperature behavior on earth-air heat exchangers: A case

study from Aichi, Japan
Andrew Zajch a,⇑, William A. Gough a, Gyuyoung Yoon b
a
Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences, University of Toronto Scarborough, 1265 Military Trail, Toronto, Ontario M1C 1A4, Canada
b
Graduate School of Design and Architecture, Nagoya City University, 2-1-10, Kitachikusa, Chikusa, Nagoya, Aichi Pref. 464-0043, Japan

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

Keywords: Urban climate modifications are evolving the heating and cooling regime. Earth‐air heat exchangers (EAHE)
Earth‐air heat exchanger are a potential solution in addressing these needs opposite of conventional approaches which are intrinsically
Urban climate ill‐suited for the urban environment. Heating and cooling were classified by detrimental and beneficial condi-
Daily temperature tions based on a degree hours approach for a multi‐tube EAHE system in Aichi, Japan. Linear models were also
constructed for a winter and summer season based on the inlet air and surrounding soil temperatures. Inputting
temporally decomposed model inputs (annual, weekly and random) into the linear models highlighted the
importance of diurnal inlet air temperature variations on producing beneficial cooling in the summer.
Weekly signals in the inlet air temperature also perturbed the surrounding soil, although this had a smaller
effect on system performance relative to inlet air temperature variations. Beneficial cooling was maximized
during the diurnal temperature maximum when inlet air was typically warmer than the soil. This implies a sus-
ceptibility to increased cooling needs during daily temperature minimums. As a result, urbanizing sites where
enhanced morning cooling may arise should consider the impacts of urban climate during the pre‐design stage.

1. Introduction over, lower changes in day‐to‐day daily minimum temperatures

1.1. Urban heat island (UHI)
The built environment modifies the climate of urban areas by alter-
ing the local energy balance. These effects manifest in the form of
urban heat islands (UHI), identified by a temperature difference
between urban and surrounding rural locations. Urban morphological
site characteristics and climate control the magnitude of the UHI effect
[10,15,27]. A robust review by Santamouris [27] identified an annual
average UHI and annual average maximum UHI effect of 1.0 ± 0.7 K
and 3.1 ± 0.8 K, respectively, for Australian and Asian sites using stan-
dard measurement sources. However, the UHI effect is typically best
represented by changes to daily air temperature patterns.
Diurnal and day‐to‐day temperature signal changes provide observ-
able metrics for understanding UHI effects. Asymmetrical warming
patterns throughout the diurnal cycle are symptomatic of changes
brought on by urban modification [33]. Warming temperatures exhibit
biases towards cooler portions of the diurnal cycle. Typically, the UHI
effect generates an increase in night‐time and early morning tempera-
tures coinciding with the release of anthropogenic heat [19,21]. More-
relative to daily maximum temperatures have been shown to be char-
acteristic of urban climates [3,12,31]. UHI can also lengthen the per-
sistence of warm temperatures leading to the occurrence of heat
waves without the reprieve of natural nighttime cooling [32]. Daily
temperature behavior can therefore behave as a proxy for urban cli-
mate modifications.
Urban climate modifications have created a new challenge for
meeting cooling needs handicapped by the inherent disadvantages of
conventional cooling approaches. Rising ambient temperatures in
urban settings can lower heating needs and increase cooling needs,
with the latter presenting a challenge in cooling dominated regions
[26,28]. The application of conventional space cooling techniques
can be deleterious or incompatible with the urban environment. Air
conditioners, for example, release sensible heat into their surroundings
and exacerbate warming air temperatures [21,42]. The feedback
mechanism produced by air conditioner use can therefore negate the
benefits of urban climate modification mitigation strategies [29]. This
is amplified by the reduction of the coefficient of performance (COP)
for an air conditioner, which in some cases may decrease by 25%
due to raised air temperatures [28]. These factors demonstrate that

⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences, University of Toronto Scarborough, 1265 Military Trail, Toronto, Ontario M1C 1A4, Canada.
E-mail address: andrew.zajch@utoronto.ca (A. Zajch).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cacint.2020.100054
Received 26 August 2020; Revised 23 October 2020; Accepted 25 October 2020
Available online 2 November 2020
2590-2520/© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A. Zajch et al. City and Environment Interactions 8 (2020) 100054

air conditioners are not ideal for use in an urban environment. Natural
ventilation is another approach for potentially meeting cooling needs
in urban areas, although it also has its drawbacks. Findings by Duan
et al. [9] show that dense urban environments employing natural ven-
tilation observe a lower magnitude of the UHI effect relative to scenar-
ios where air conditioners are used. However, natural ventilation
possesses practical limitations. For example, in Athens, the feasibility
of natural ventilation was hampered by enhanced air temperatures,
lower wind speeds and noise pollution [11]. While a robust analysis
on cooling strategies in urban environments is outside the scope of this
paper, these examples highlight the incompatibility of conventional
cooling approaches in evolving urban climatic conditions and empha-
sizes the importance of finding cooling systems complimentary to an
urban environment.
1.3. Objectives
The fundamental objective of this work was to determine the influ-
ence of daily temperature behavior on EAHE heating and cooling
potential. This was done from the perspective of the changes to air
temperature as well as the possible alterations to subsurface tempera-
tures due to system‐soil thermal interactions. These results will pro-
vide a qualitative understanding of diurnal temperature pattern
importance for determining EAHE potential. Extrapolating these find-
ings based on expected urban climate changes can help inform their
hypothetical impacts on EAHE feasibility. This can help advise stake-
holders whether they will need to integrate possible urban climate
modifications into their evaluation of EAHE systems within urban
settings.

1.2. Earth air heat exchanger and built environments

2. Methodology
Earth air heat exchangers (EAHE) are a demonstrated method for
2.1. Dataset and study area
supplying heating and cooling to buildings which may be a potential
solution in addressing evolving energy needs in urban settings. These
Data collected from a multi‐seasonal observational study of an
systems rely on the natural temperature difference between ambient
EAHE system installed in Aichi, Japan, was used in this study
air and subsurface conditions surrounding buried tubing responsible
(Fig. 1). Aichi has a subtropical climate with annual range of temper-
for transporting tempered air into the building. Displacing heat into
atures varying between a minimum ~7 °C during the winter and a max-
the subsurface rather than the ambient air has the added benefit of
imum of ~30 °C in the summer. Moreover, the site is in the vicinity of
mitigating the warming of urban air temperatures [13]. Like other con-
Nagoya which has an observed UHI [30]. A complete description of
ventional cooling approaches, EAHE systems are also connected to the
the study site and system can be found in Yoon et al. [40]. The system
local environment. Climate influences on EAHE potential have been
is installed beneath a four‐story steel structure. The EAHE consists of 9
demonstrated in the literature through modelling and observational
PVC tubes with a diameter of 0.5 m and varying length (34–44.4 m).
studies (e.g. [2,5,14,23,39]). However, to these authors’ knowledge,
Starting outside the building, the tubing runs underneath the build-
there is a lack of work exploring the impacts of urban climate modifi-
ing’s extent with the buried area comprising up 20% of the total build-
cations on EAHE systems explicitly.
ing area (1330 m2). The building utilizes an outdoor air heating unit
The climate sensitivity of EAHEs warrants an investigation into the
which works under heating, cooling and a transitional mode where
potential impacts of urban climate modification. Thermal variations
the system only supplies unmodified outdoor air.
from the urban environment have been already been shown to pene-
Surveying provided an informative illustration of the working
trate into the subsurface and alter the subsurface temperature regime
fluid’s air temperature and speed in addition to surrounding soil tem-
for geothermal systems (e.g. [1,16,41]). While the results from other
peratures. The complete dataset contains nearly three years of data
geothermal systems can be used to inform some possible urban climate
from January 1st 2002‐ April 1st 2005 with a total of 24,360 h after
impacts, EAHEs have the added complexity of relying on the ambient
removal of hourly measurements where one of the measured variables
air temperatures as the working fluid. Therefore, the evolution of air
was missing. This represented a smaller subsection of the surveyed
temperatures in the urban environment need to be examined beyond
period due to several data gaps which mostly occurred during the first
their effects on the subsurface thermal regime. Changing daily temper-
year of monitoring, particularly for soil temperature measurements.
ature behavior, a side effect of urban climate modification, is a consid-
This complete dataset was used for analysis of EAHE behavior on a
eration which has only been implicitly presented in the EAHE
monthly and hourly basis. As well, smaller seasonal subsets were used
literature through examination of the diurnal variations in EAHE per-
for analysis requiring continuous time series. Near‐field and far‐field
formance. Xamán et al. [39] revealed that irrespective of three stimu-
soil temperatures were measured at roughly 0.15 and 3.5 m from
lated sites and climates, heating peaked during the daily air
the nearest tube in the radial direction, respectively (Fig. 1). Relative
temperature minimums and cooling was highest during the daily air
to the system and the building, the soil temperature sensors were 10 m
temperature maximums. Similarly, Rosa et al. [25] showed predictable
from the inlet of the system and 3.5 m below the ground surface. A
diurnal, in addition to seasonal, variations in COP. Work examining a
copper‐constantan thermocouple (type T with a precision of ± 0.5 °
hypothetical natural‐buoyancy driven EAHE system in a hot summer/-
C) was used for these measurements. The air speed was measured at
cold winter climate demonstrated maximum heating or cooling was
the outlet of three tubes (T5, T3, and T1) using a hot‐wire anemometer
achieved during the respective coldest and warmest periods on both
(type DME‐1 with a precision of ± 10% of the reading value). The
annual and diurnal scales [34]. Air temperature also has ancillary
average of these three air speeds was assigned as the air speed for anal-
effects on the EAHE system’s performance. Notably, system operation
ysis. Lastly, the inlet and outlet were measured at the entrance of the
can influence the surrounding soil temperature. Heat exchange in the
system and air handler unit, respectively.
soil surrounding the subsurface conduits generates soil derating, or
thermal saturation, conditions due to the warming or cooling of soil
relative to undisturbed conditions [4,17,18,22]. Allowing the soil to 2.2. Heating and cooling characterization
recover between operational periods has been shown to be beneficial
to the reduction of soil derating [18,22]. While the operation and Heating and cooling generated by the system was characterized
design are undoubtedly integral in determining the degree of soil der- based on its usability (Table 1). The change in degree hours between
ating, there may be a potential link between climate and this behavior the system’s outlet and inlet air were used to estimate heating and
as the persistence of air temperatures can also prolong heat exchange. cooling. Baselines of 20 °C and 26 °C were used to calculate heating
Ultimately, air temperature changes from both a working fluid and soil and cooling degree hour metrics, respectively. The baselines were con-
derating perspective need to be considered to understand the possible sistent with comfort conditions at the site [40]. This analysis, as well
impacts of an urban climate on EAHE potential. as subsequent work, was conducted in the R environment with rele-

2
A. Zajch et al.
Fig. 1. A schematic of the cross section of the system with orientation of the tubes and the location of near-field and far-field soil sensors indicated. This image is
modified from the original in Yoon et al. [40] to show sensors used for this study.
Table 1
Criteria for beneficial and detrimental heating and cooling based on the inlet air
temperature and the temperature change generated by the EAHE. Beneficial
conditions occurred when the desired mode of heating or cooling was possible,
whereas detrimental conditions were coincident with counterproductive
changes to air temperature.
Outlet-inlet air temperature Inlet air temperature
difference (ΔT)
Tin < 20 °C Tin > 26 °C Tin < 26 °C and
Tin > 20 °C
>0 °C (Heating) Beneficial Detrimental N/A
<0 °C (Cooling) Detrimental Beneficial N/A
vant software packages [24,36,37,38,35]. The characterization of
heating and cooling was conducted on the entire, multi‐year, dataset
following the removal of hours with missing data for any of the sur-
veyed parameters.
2.3. Fitting linear models for winter and summer seasons
Linear models of EAHE temperature changes, ΔT, between system
outlet (Tout) and inlet (Tin), were constructed based on an empirical cli-
mate based approach (Eq. (1)) [5,6]. The equation allows for a direct
investigation of climate influence without inclusion of the system’s
dimensions or operational control explicitly Moreover, it was ideal
since it relied on ambient and subsurface temperatures recorded dur-
ing surveying while being recognized in other observational studies
as an applicable relationship to describe efficiency (e.g. [7,23,25]).
The system’s efficiency, ɛ, describes the actual changes in air temper-
ature between outlet and inlet relative to the hypothetical capacity
determined by the inlet air and surrounding soil (Tground) temperature
contrast (ɛ, Eq. (1)) [6,8,23]. The literature shows that the efficiency
(ɛ) is generally in the 0.5–0.9 range, converging to 1 at high pipe
length [7,23,25]. By deriving an estimate of efficiency using experi-
mental data, the equation can be re‐arranged to study the impact of
Tin and Tground on the temperature change produced by the system
(ΔT, or Tout‐Tin).
T in  T out
ɛ¼
T in  T ground
Two linear models were developed for each season, differentiated
by the operational condition of the EAHE system and based on the
climate‐based approach (Eq. (1)). Hourly measurements concurrent
with air speeds > 0.2 m/s and ≤ 0.2 m/s were classified as “ON”
City and Environment Interactions 8 (2020) 100054
and “OFF”, respectively. The slope (ɛ) of a re‐arrange form of Eq. (1)
with an additional intercept (B) was derived for each seasonal and
operational scenario (Eq. (2)). Use of the additional constant (B) was
justified since the models were not used for extrapolation beyond
the studied interval. As a result, ‘efficiency’ values derived for the lin-
ear models in this work are not necessarily comparable with those
shown in other studies. This model allowed for an investigation of
the, input parameters, inlet air temperature (Tin) and the surrounding,
near‐field soil temperature (Tground) during the separate seasons. It is
important to note that the linear models were not used to extrapolate
the performance beyond the given seasons, but rather they provided a
description of behavior that could be used to gauge the sensitivity to
varying model inputs.
(
ΔT ¼ T out  T in ¼ ɛ ON ðT ground  T in Þ  BON Airspeed > 0:2m=s
ð2Þ
ΔT ¼ T out  T in ¼ ɛ OFF ðT ground  T in Þ  BOFF Airspeed ≤ 0:2m=s
The creation of linear models was conducted for two subsets of
data, a winter and summer period. The summer period contained three
months, June‐August, in 2004. This consisted of 2031 h of data start-
ing on June 1st and ending on August the 24th due to missing data.
Four months were included in the winter period, November‐
December 2003 and January‐February 2004, for a total of 2904 h,
starting on November 1st and ending on February 29th. Both subsets
were chosen due to the completeness of the data with no missing val-
ues for the inlet and outlet air temperature or surrounding soil
temperature.
2.4. Time series decomposition for temporal component sensitivity analysis
The inlet air temperature and the near‐field soil temperature
(Fig. 1) were decomposed into three temporal components using the
additive approach of the ‘decompose’ function within the R environ-
ment [24]. This approach utilizes a moving average to extract a trend
component, deemed the annual component for this work, as well as
periodic and random components. The moving average was carried
out using the same window length as that assigned to the periodic win-
dow. The periodic component length was set to a week (168 h) to emu-
late the weekly operational schedule of the EAHE and is hereafter
ð1Þ referred to as the weekly component. After removal of the annual
(trend) component from the original time series, the periodic compo-
nent is derived by calculating the average value for each time slice
in a period window over all the periods within the dataset [24]. The
random component is the residual signal after removal of annual
and weekly components. Observations were truncated at the start
3
A. Zajch et al.
and end of the time series equal to the half the window size (84 h) due
to the use of a moving average filter during extraction of the annual
signal. The subsequent analysis was carried out on the truncated time
series of 1863 and 2736 hourly data points for the summer and winter,
respectively.
The decomposed inlet air and near‐field soil temperature data were
grouped into varying combinations of temporal components as inputs
into the linear models describing the temperature change between sys-
tem outlet‐inlet (ΔT). To account for the magnitude of the values, the
weekly and random outputs from decomposition were added to the
annual component (ΔTAnnual) to produce weekly (ΔTWeekly) and ran-
dom (ΔTRandom) inputs, respectively. This allowed for three cases of
temporal components to be considered. A baseline case was also
formed using the original values of the tested variable, termed the
combined case (ΔTcombined) since all temporal components were
included. The original values for the other input variable was used
in these runs. This meant that when examining the varying temporal
components for inlet air temperature, the original surrounding ground
temperature was used as an input in the model without any modifica-
tion. Comparing the temporal component input (ΔTcomponent), against
the baseline combined case provides a measure of each temporal com-
ponents’ contribution to the description of the ΔT (Eq. (3)). A value
approaching 100% demonstrates an increased influence on ΔT for
the given component. The ¼ and ¾ quantiles were used to describe
the variability in the influence calculated for the hourly results in addi-
tion to the median of %ΔT.
  
ΔT component  ΔT Combined 
%ΔT component ¼ 1   
 ð3Þ
ΔT Combined
Annual and combined inputs for both near‐field soil and inlet air tem-
perature were also compared on an hourly basis. The time series for
winter and summer seasons were filtered to include only hourly data
points requiring heating and cooling, respectively, based on the site’s
heating and cooling threshold temperatures (Table 1). The difference
between calculated outputs of ΔTAnnual and ΔTcombined for each of these
hourly data points were determined. This was done for the near‐field
soil and inlet air temperatures separately. This analysis illustrated
whether the importance of weekly‐daily frequency temperature sig-
nals, only present in the combined case, varied within the diurnal cycle
for heating and cooling.
3. Results
3.1. Observing diurnal and annual variations in surveyed data
Inlet and outlet air temperature as well as air speeds within the
tube demonstrated a discernable synchronized pattern on both diurnal
and annual scales (Fig. 2). Daily maximums of inlet air temperature
occurred during the afternoon, 15:00–16:00. This was mimicked by
the air speed alternating between “ON” (>0.2 m/s) from
8:00–17:00 and “OFF” (≤0.2 m/s) conditions during the remaining
hours. The system’s outlet air temperature experienced a reduced diur-
nal and annual variability relative to the inlet air temperature. It also
exhibits a consistent temperature during “OFF” hours when the air is
not being driven through the system. On an annual scale, the air tem-
perature and air speeds within the tube reached a maximum during the
summer months, while minimums occurred in the winter. Outlet air
temperature is lower and higher than the inlet air temperature during
the summer (June‐August) and fall‐winter (October‐March) seasons,
respectively. These observations reveal that the operational regime
and air temperature exhibited comparable timings of maximums and
minimums.
4
City and Environment Interactions 8 (2020) 100054
Similarities between the near‐field soil and inlet air temperature
display the expected effects of system operation on the surrounding
soil. This leads to a reduced contrast in near‐field soil and inlet air tem-
peratures, particularly in the late spring‐summer months when the two
temperatures converge. As a result, inlet air temperature varied from
the near‐field soil temperature only during daily air temperature max-
imums or minimums. From September to March the inlet air tempera-
ture was consistently lower than the near‐field soil temperature. This
difference was even greater for the far‐field soil temperature. It was
markedly warmer through October to March and cooler through
May to August when compared to near‐field soil temperatures. Besides
the delay in the timing of maximum annual temperature, the ampli-
tude was also smaller for the far‐field soil temperature. The monthly
soil temperature ranges by ~16 °C and ~10 °C at the near‐field and
far‐field temperature sensors, respectively. These results demonstrate
that the near‐field temperature is being influenced by EAHE activity
at the studied site in Aichi, Japan.
3.2. Characterizing EAHE heating and cooling
Beneficial heating and cooling occurred during periods of favorable
contrasts between inlet air and near‐field soil temperatures (Fig. 3).
Beneficial heating was observed from September to June, with the lar-
gest benefits observed within the winter months during daily air tem-
perature minimums. Minimal detrimental heating was witnessed
during August and September when the surrounding soil temperature
can potentially be higher than both the cooling baseline and inlet air
temperature. This happens during the latter half of the summer
(August and September) after the surrounding soil has warmed
through operation earlier in the summer. Beneficial cooling was seen
from May‐September throughout the day, peaking during daily air
temperature maximums. Detrimental cooling was observed from
February‐May during daily air temperature maximums as well. This
can be attributed to high daytime air speeds stimulating heat exchange
during the sporadic incidence of daily air temperature maximums
above the surrounding soil temperature while remaining below the
heating baseline. This results in cooling despite the need for heating.
It is was evident that in a subtropical climate such as Aichi’s, there
was a larger tendency for beneficial heating rather than cooling. This
can be credited to a larger temperature difference between inlet air
and near‐field soil temperatures during the winter, leading to benefi-
cial heating. The larger difference between inlet air and near‐field soil
temperatures in the winter (October‐March) meant that the daily‐
weekly scale variations in air temperature were not as vital for gener-
ating beneficial conditions. Ultimately, the diurnal variations in heat-
ing and cooling potential can be correlated with the variations in inlet
air temperatures relative to surrounding soil temperatures.
3.3. Modelling summer and winter cases
Linear models capable of describing ΔT were developed for a sum-
mer (2004) and winter (2003–2004) season, distinguishing between
both “ON” and “OFF” conditions. A correction factor, identified as
the constant of the linear fit, was also used to improve the ability of
the models. This had a noticeable improvement on the correlation
coefficient (r2) during the summer of 2004, especially for the “OFF”
subset. The use of the derived intercepts was deemed acceptable as
the purpose of this work was not to determine a model for extrapola-
tion of data but rather for a sensitivity analysis of the different tempo-
ral components. As constructed, the linear model for the “ON” subset,
which comprised ~70% of the observational period, was more effective
at describing the variation in ΔT when compared to the “OFF” subset
during the summer season (Table 2). A smaller difference in the corre-
lation coefficient was observed for “ON” and “OFF” conditions during
the winter season, likely the result of a lower contrast between air
speeds during “ON” and “OFF” conditions. Lower air speeds increase
A. Zajch et al. City and Environment Interactions 8 (2020) 100054

Fig. 2. Average hourly and monthly air temperatures (top) and air speed (middle) in the EAHE tubing, as well as the subsurface soil temperatures (bottom).
Months are shown from January (1) to December (12), while hours range from midnight (hour 0) to 11:00 PM (hour 23).

interaction time between air and the surrounding soil which is 3.4. Analyzing sensitivity of outlet temperature
reflected by the higher slopes (ɛ) during the winter season. These lin-
ear models were deemed acceptable for emulating system behavior for Results from the time series decomposition demonstrated that the
comparison of input parameter influence. dominant descriptor of ΔT was the annual inlet air temperature pat-

5
A. Zajch et al. City and Environment Interactions 8 (2020) 100054

Fig. 3. Average hourly and monthly classified heating and cooling represented by temperature changes between system inlet and outlet (see Table 1). Months are
shown from January (1) to December (12), while hours range from midnight (hour 0) to 11:00 PM (hour 23). Transitional seasons are evidently most susceptible to
detrimental cooling or heating, with the latter being minimal.

Table 2 season (87.3%). The changes are reflected in the ¼ and ¾ quantiles
Coefficients of the linear fits generated for “ON” and “OFF” conditions during as well for each case. During the summer the inter‐quantile range is
the summer of 2004 and winter of 2003–2004. much larger for the random temporal component, indicating a spo-
Summer 2004 radic response to high frequency behavior of inlet air temperature.
Operational conditions Slope (ɛ) Intercept (B) r2 The seasonal preference in temporal components was less evident for
“ON” 0.584 ± 0.005 2.05 ± 0.02 0.939 the surrounding soil temperature.
“OFF” 0.57 ± 0.01 1.56 ± 0.02 0.613
Improvements in describing ΔT are primarily observed with the
Winter 2003–2004
Operational Conditions Slope (ɛ) Intercept (B) r2 addition of the weekly soil temperature temporal component for both
“ON” 0.78 ± 0.01 1.88 ± 0.09 0.847 seasons. This is despite the seasonal contrast in prominent inlet air
“OFF” 0.98 ± 0.01 1.56 ± 0.05 0.821 temperature temporal components. The annual signal is still the deter-
mining factor for ΔT. It describes 91.4% and 96.5% for the summer
and winter seasons, respectively. This shows an increased importance
tern, with weekly and random temporal components being important of the surrounding soil’s annual temperature signal relative to the inlet
for summer and winter seasons, respectively (Table 3). For both sea- air temperature which is ~20% lower. Addition of the weekly compo-
sons the annual temporal signal contributed ≈72% to ΔT. The largest nent during the summer produces a marked increase in %ΔT (98.1%).
%ΔT was observed with the addition of the weekly component in the This is expected as the stronger weekly inlet air temperature signal
summer season (84.2%) and random component during the winter during the summer is reflected in the surrounding soil (Fig. 4). Mean-

6
A. Zajch et al.
Table 3
The proportion of outlet-inlet air temperature difference described by using different temporal components as input in the EAHE linear models. A median was used due
to the data being non-normal. Erroneous points where the temperature change was ~0 °C, but a significant temperature change between inlet and outlet was still
recorded, were filtered out before the median values were calculated.
Season Temporal components Inlet air temperature
¼ quantile
Summer 2004 %ΔTAnnual 54.9%
%ΔTWeekly 73.9%
%ΔTRandom 57.1%
Winter 2003-2004 %ΔTAnnual 54.3%
%ΔTWeekly 61.7%
%ΔTRandom 74.0%
while, a small difference of ~1% is observed with the addition of
weekly (97.1%) and random (97.5%) components during the winter.
This can be explained by the dampening of high frequency random sig-
nals, which dominate the winter inlet air temperature, by the subsur-
face (Fig. 4). Therefore, comparing the seasonal cases it was evident
that lower frequency weekly inlet air temperature patterns can perturb
the surrounding soil temperature.
A comparison of ΔT for annual and combined temporal component
cases highlighted the sensitivity of system potential to the diurnal fluc-
tuations in inlet air temperature (Fig. 5). Since the annual input was
devoid of weekly‐daily scale behavior for the input parameter, com-
paring it against the combined input provides a measure of the
weekly‐daily scale effects. The results for inlet air temperature demon-
strated that during the daytime, the predominant period of operation,
there was a diurnal variation in the difference between ΔTAnnual and
ΔTcombined for both summer and winter seasons. The effect appeared
largest in the summer when operation was most consistent. During
the morning and overnight periods, conditioning was hampered by
the addition of the weekly and random components. This had a pro-
nounced effect during the early morning hours (8:00–10:00) when sys-
tem operation commenced. Conversely, from roughly 11:00–19:00,
cooling tended to benefit from the weekly and random components
with a median increase in magnitude of roughly 0–2 °C for modelled
ΔTcombined. On the other hand, during the winter season, warming
was enhanced by several degrees for the ΔTcombined, relative to
ΔTAnnual, case in the morning (8:00–12:00). In comparison to the diur-
nal fluctuations for inlet air temperature the differences witnessed
between ΔTAnnual and ΔTcombined for surrounding soil temperature
were negligible (<0.1 °C). These results provide further evidence that
diurnal variability in inlet air temperature drives the favourability of
conditioning, particularly for cooling during the summer season.
4. Discussion
4.1. Implications of daily inlet air temperature on EAHE systems in an
urban climate
EAHEs appear well equipped for addressing peak cooling needs in
an urban climate. While other conventional systems may see a reduc-
tion in effectiveness related to daily air temperature maximums, the
EAHE system reached its optimal cooling potential during this time.
The EAHE system in Aichi, Japan, therefore showed highest beneficial
cooling when needs are greatest. The diurnal variations in inlet air
temperature directly generate the air–soil temperature contrast neces-
sary for cooling to occur. This is highlighted by similar peak magni-
tudes of beneficial cooling and daily‐weekly scale temperature
influences on ΔT coincident with daily air temperature maximums
during the cooling season. However, this same mechanism also makes
the EAHE system susceptible to potential urban climate impacts.
Increased cooling needs during daily air temperature minimums
may pose issues for the implementation of EAHEs in urban climates.
City and Environment Interactions 8 (2020) 100054
Surrounding ground temperature
median ¾ quantile ¼ quantile median ¾ quantile
72.1% 86.4% 86.6% 91.4% 95.9%
84.2% 92.0% 95.7% 98.1% 99.1%
74.6% 90.2% 86.2% 91.4% 95.9%
72.0% 86.0% 92.6% 96.5% 98.8%
76.8% 88.4% 94.9% 97.1% 98.7%
87.3% 94.8% 95.4% 97.5% 98.9%
Unlike heating, which could observe beneficial heating throughout
the operational schedule, the occurrence of beneficial cooling was pri-
marily driven by diurnal variations in inlet air temperature. Conver-
gence of near‐field soil and inlet air temperatures in the summer
meant that soil would be warmer than the air during daily air temper-
ature minimums. These detrimental heating conditions were often
avoided due to the operational schedule being limited to the daytime
for the system explored in Aichi. However, if operation was expanded
into overnight and early‐morning hours when air and surrounding soil
temperature contrasts are less favorable, as seen in Fig. 5, there is a
possibility for detrimental conditions to occur. This implies that the
EAHE system would be vulnerable to increased daily air temperature
minimums and cooling needs expected in urban climates experiencing
an enhanced UHI. EAHEs are therefore ill suited for sites expected to
have significant cooling needs during overnight or morning periods
as a result of urban climate modifications.
Heat waves may also pose a risk to EAHE cooling as persistent heat
exchange can cause an undesirable convergence of surrounding soil
and inlet air temperatures. In the summer, daytime operation took
advantage of the optimal inlet air temperature and near‐field soil tem-
perature contrast for cooling, promoting heat exchange with the sur-
rounding soil as a result. Extreme and persistent daily maximum
temperatures brought on by a heat wave can similarly be expected
to lead to a perturbation of the surrounding soil. Continually warm
air temperatures on a weekly scale could warm the soil and produce
detrimental conditions for cooling, particularly after the heat wave
concludes and air temperatures decrease relative to the warmed sur-
rounding soil. More work needs to be done to evaluate the behavior
of EAHE systems under heat wave conditions to ensure systems remain
effective during and following a such an extreme event.
4.2. Limitations
Since the work was done using a single observational case, the
results have several limitations. While the length and robustness of
the dataset allowed for various forms of analysis using several seasons
of data, the case study was limited to a single system configuration and
climate. This meant that other system configurations and operation
schedules were not contrasted for the study as only the case system
was investigated. As a result, the full effects of night or early morning
warming brought on by the urban climate could not be explored as the
operational schedule was limited to business hours. Also, different
pipe configurations, aside from the multi‐tube system of the case
study, were not considered. In terms of climate, the analysis was lim-
ited to the sub‐tropical climate of Aichi. This meant that the impact of
soil freezing was not considered due to the above freezing tempera-
tures (>0 °C). This work also did not address changes to the surface
conditions, such as overlying anthropogenic surfaces, and atmospheric
conditions other than temperature, such as moisture, wind and shade.
However, since the system was implemented beneath the receiving
building, these factors are not expected to have much influence on
7
A. Zajch et al. City and Environment Interactions 8 (2020) 100054

Fig. 4. The summer 2004 (top) and winter 2003–2004 (bottom) temporal component inputs of hourly inlet air (red) and surrounding soil (teal). The summer
season extended from June 1st at midnight to August 24th at 2:00 pm. The winter reason started on November 1st 2003 at midnight and ended on February 29th
2004 at 11:00 pm. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

the specific system. The release of anthropogenic heat release capable
of elevating soil temperatures was also not explicitly surveyed. Heat
permeating from the building above would be expected to reduce cool-
ing and increase heating potential. Further study is required to build
upon the analysis conducted in this work by using newer datasets rep-
resentative of different climate regimes. Ideally, EAHE systems compa-
rable in design and operation employed in varying land‐use
environments, for example urban and rural sites, could be compared
to better identify the impact of local climate modification. Neverthe-
less, the analysis and discussion carried out in this case study is a use-
ful introduction to designers examining EAHE systems as a space
conditioning strategy in an urban climate.
5. Conclusion
This work provides a qualitative considerations for designers look-
ing to implement an EAHE system in an urban environment. The

8
A. Zajch et al.
Fig. 5. Hourly boxplots for the difference between ΔTAnnual and ΔTCombined for both ground and inlet air temperature signals. Winter values > 0 and summer
values < 0 indicate the addition of weekly and random components to the annual component (combined case) were detrimental for system conditioning.
results from this case study highlight that median air temperature
reductions of approximately 2 °C can be attributed to the daily maxi-
mum air temperature driven by diurnal variations. This constitutes a
large component of the beneficial cooling, with an average value peak-
ing at 3°C during this coincident afternoon period. A greater diver-
gence between soil and air temperatures in the winter season meant
that beneficial heating was much greater than the heating attributed
to diurnal air temperature variations during cooler morning periods.
While these results are limited to our case study, two inferences can
be made based on the results that can be useful for stakeholders and
warrant further investigation.
(1) Daily temperature variations, and possible changes to the diur-
nal temperature regime through urban climate modification,
should be considered during the evaluation of EAHE potential
(2) EAHE cooling may be sensitive to growing cooling needs during
cooler periods in the diurnal cycle generated by urbanization
due to its reliance on diurnal temperature variations
Stakeholders should be conscious of their climate data source to
ensure the weather information used in EAHE evaluation is represen-
9
City and Environment Interactions 8 (2020) 100054
tative of the EAHE’s hypothetical site, particularly if rural weather sta-
tion data is being used to describe an urban or urbanizing site. This
will ideally help avoid sub‐optimal performance in a changing urban
environment. Due to the investment costs of implementing shallow
geothermal systems, designers need to be certain that the EAHE system
will be effective in both the near and distant future. Ultimately, the
analysis provides a preliminary look at the potential influence of urban
climate which can be expanded upon by the study of additional sites in
contrasting environments. Further work is required to account for the
additional complexities of an urban environment and quantify the
change in capacity for EAHE systems in order to improve the ability
of designers to assess feasibility.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Andrew Zajch: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing ‐ original
draft, Visualization. William A. Gough: Conceptualization, Writing ‐
review & editing, Supervision. Gyuyoung Yoon: Data curation, Writ-
ing ‐ review & editing.
A. Zajch et al.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The measurement data was provided by KANKYO SETUBI SEKKEI
Co., Ltd. and Okumiya Laboratory in Nagoya University. The author
would like to acknowledge the funding which made this research pos-
sible from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada (NSERC), Discovery Grant, RGPIN‐2018‐06801.
References
[1] Allen A, Milenic D, Sikora P. Shallow gravel aquifers and the urban “heat island”
effect: A source of low enthalpy geothermal energy. Geothermics 2003;32:569–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-6505(03)00063-4.
[2] Alves ABM, Schmid AL. Cooling and heating potential of underground soil
according to depth and soil surface treatment in the Brazilian climatic regions.
Energy Build 2015;90:41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.12.025.
[3] Anderson CI, Gough WA, Mohsin T. Characterization of the urban heat island at
Toronto: Revisiting the choice of rural sites using a measure of day-to-day
variation. Urban Clim 2018;25:187–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
uclim.2018.07.002.
[4] Bansal V, Misra R, Agarwal GD, Mathur J. “Derating Factor” new concept for
evaluating thermal performance of earth air tunnel heat exchanger: A transient
CFD analysis. Appl Energy 2013;102:418–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2012.07.027.
[5] Chiesa G. Climate-potential of earth-to-air heat exchangers. Energy Procedia
2017;122:517–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.300.
[6] Chiesa G. EAHX – Earth-to-air heat exchanger: Simplified method and KPI for early
building design phases. Build Environ 2018;144:142–58. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.08.014.
[7] Chiesa G, Simonetti M, Grosso M. A 3-field earth-heat-exchange system for a school
building in Imola, Italy: Monitoring results. Renewable Energy 2014;62:563–70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.08.020.
[8] De Paepe M, Janssens A. Thermo-hydraulic design of earth-air heat exchangers.
Energy Build 2003;35:389–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(02)00113-5.
[9] Duan S, Luo Z, Yang X, Li Y. The impact of building operations on urban heat/cool
islands under urban densification: A comparison between naturally-ventilated and
air-conditioned buildings. Appl Energy 2019;235:129–38. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.108.
[10] Fujibe F. Urban warming in Japanese cities and its relation to climate change
monitoring. Int J Climatol 2011;31:162–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.2142.
[11] Ghiaus C, Allard F, Santamouris M, Georgakis C, Nicol F. Urban environment
influence on natural ventilation potential. Build Environ 2006;41:395–406.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.02.003.
[12] Gough WA, Hu Y. Day-to-day temperature variability for four urban areas in
China. Urban Clim 2016;17:80–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2016.06.002.
[13] Kikegawa Y, Genchi Y, Yoshikado H, Kondo H. Development of a numerical
simulation system toward comprehensive assessments of urban warming
countermeasures including their impacts upon the urban buildings’ energy-
demands. Appl Energy 2003;76:449–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-2619
(03)00009-6.
[14] Lee KH, Strand RK. The cooling and heating potential of an earth tube system in
buildings. Energy Build 2008;40:486–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2007.04.003.
[15] Lee T-W, Choi HS, Lee J. Generalized scaling of urban heat island effect and its
applications for energy consumption and renewable energy. Adv Meteorol
2014:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/948306.
[16] Luo Z, Asproudi C. Subsurface urban heat island and its effects on horizontal
ground-source heat pump potential under climate change. Appl Therm Eng
2015;90:530–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.07.025.
[17] Mathur A, Srivastava A, Mathur J, Mathur S, Agrawal GD. Transient effect of soil
thermal diffusivity on performance of EATHE system. Energy Rep 2015;1:17–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2014.11.004.
10
City and Environment Interactions 8 (2020) 100054
[18] Mathur A, Surana AK, Verma P, Mathur S, Agrawal GD, Mathur J. Investigation of
soil thermal saturation and recovery under intermittent and continuous operation
of EATHE. Energy Build 2015;109:291–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2015.10.010.
[19] Memon RA, Leung DYC, Liu C. An investigation of urban heat island intensity
(UHII) as an indicator of urban heating. Atmos Res 2009;94:491–500. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2009.07.006.
[21] Narumi D, Kondo A, Shimoda Y. Effects of anthropogenic heat release upon the
urban climate in a Japanese megacity. Environ Res 2009;109:421–31. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envres.2009.02.013.
[22] Niu F, Yu Y, Yu D, Li H. Investigation on soil thermal saturation and recovery of an
earth to air heat exchanger under different operation strategies. Appl Therm Eng
2015;77:90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.11.069.
[23] Pfafferott J. Evaluation of earth-to-air heat exchangers with a standardised method
to calculate energy efficiency. Energy Build 2003;35:971–83. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0378-7788(03)00055-0.
[24] R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL ; 2018
[25] Rosa N, Santos P, Costa J, Gervásio H. Modelling and performance analysis of an
earth-to-air heat exchanger in a pilot installation. J Build Phys 2018:1–29. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1744259117754298.
[26] Santamouris M. On the energy impact of urban heat island and global warming on
buildings. Energy Build 2014;82:100–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2014.07.022.
[27] Santamouris M. Analyzing the heat island magnitude and characteristics in one
hundred Asian and Australian cities and regions. Sci Total Environ
2015;512–513:582–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.01.060.
[28] Santamouris M, Papanikolaou N, Livada I, Koronakis I, Georgakis C, Argiriou A,
et al. On the impact of urban climate on the energy consuption of building. Sol
Energy 2001;70:201–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-092X(00)00095-5.
[29] Takane Y, Ohashi Y, Grimmond CSB, Hara M, Kikegawa Y. Asian megacity heat
stress under future climate scenarios: impact of air-conditioning feedback. Environ
Res Commun 2020;2. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ab6933.
[30] Takebayashi H, Senoo M. Analysis of the relationship between urban size and heat
island intensity using WRF model. Urban Clim 2018;24:287–98. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.uclim.2016.12.003.
[31] Tam BY, Gough WA, Mohsin T. The impact of urbanization and the urban heat
island effect on day to day temperature variation. Urban Clim 2015;12:1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2014.12.004.
[32] Tan J, Zheng Y, Tang X, Guo C, Li L, Song G, et al. The urban heat island and its
impact on heat waves and human health in Shanghai. Int J Biometeorol
2010;54:75–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-009-0256-x.
[33] Wang K, Li Y, Wang Y, Yang X. On the asymmetry of the urban daily air
temperature cycle. J Geophys Res Atmos 2017;122:5625–35. https://doi.org/
10.1002/2017JD026589.
[34] Wei H, Yang D, Guo Y, Chen M. Coupling of earth-to-air heat exchangers and
buoyancy for energy-efficient ventilation of buildings considering dynamic
thermal behavior and cooling/heating capacity. Energy 2018;147:587–602.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.067.
[35] Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-
Verlag; 2016.
[36] Hadley Wickham. stringr: Simple, Consistent wrappers for common string
operations. R package version 1.3.1. https://CRAN.R-project.
org/package=string; 2018.
[37] Hadley Wickham, Romain François, Lionel Henry, Kirill Müller. dplyr: A grammar
of data manipulation. R package version0.7.8. https://CRAN.R-project.
org/package=dplyr; 2018
[38] Hadley Wickham, Jim Hester, Romain Francois. readr: Read rectangular text data.
R package version 1.2.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=reader; 2018.
[39] Xamán J, Hernández-López I, Alvarado-Juárez R, Hernández-Pérez I, Álvarez G,
Chávez Y. Pseudo transient numerical study of an earth-to-air heat exchanger for
different climates of México. Energy Build 2015;99:273–83. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.04.041.
[40] Yoon G, Tanaka H, Okumiya M. Study on the design procedure for a multi-cool/
heat tube system. Sol Energy 2009;83(8):1415–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2009.03.010.
[41] Zhu K, Blum P, Ferguson G, Balke KD, Bayer P. The geothermal potential of urban
heat islands. Environ Res Lett 2010;5. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/5/4/
044002.
[42] de Munck C, Pigeon G, Masson V, Meunier F, Bosquet P, Tréméac B, et al. How
much can air conditioning increase air temperatures for a city like Paris, France?.
Int J Climatol 2013;33:210–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3415.