Renewable Energy 175 (2021) 486e500

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

An experimental investigation on the passive ventilation and cooling

performance of an integrated solar chimney and eartheair heat
exchanger
Yongcai Li a, *, Tianhe Long a, Xi Bai a, Linfeng Wang a, Wuyan Li a, b, Shuli Liu c, Jun Lu a,
Yong Cheng a, Kai Ye a, Sheng Huang a
a
School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing, 40045, China
b
Department of Building Science, School of Architecture, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China
c
School of Mechanical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China

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

Article history: Eartheair heat exchangers (EAHEs) and solar chimneys (SCs) can be used to improve indoor air quality
Received 16 November 2020 and thermal comfort, and reduce the energy consumption of buildings. The ventilation and cooling
Received in revised form performance of an SC integrated with an EAHE system (SCEAHE) on a typical sunny summer day is
28 April 2021
investigated herein, using a full-scale experimental test rig. The SC provides the driving force required to
Accepted 1 May 2021
Available online 12 May 2021
draw airflow through the EAHE pipe, and the air is cooled by the surrounding soil. The experimental
results indicate that the buoyant driving force induced by the SC can drive the EAHE during the daytime.
The maximum airflow rate achieved during the day was 252 m3/h. Furthermore, an airflow rate of 50
Keywords:
Eartheair heat exchanger
e70 m3/h was achieved when the solar radiation intensity was low or zero due to the building thermal
Solar chimney mass. Therefore, the combined effects of the building thermal mass and the SC provided 24 h of natural
Natural ventilation ventilation. The maximum reduction in the temperature of the outlet air compared to that of the inlet air
Cooling capacity was 12.5
C. The maximum total cooling capacity, sensible cooling capacity, and latent cooling capacity of
Full-scale experimental study the EAHE were approximately 1398.0 W, 892.0 W, and 611.7 W, respectively.
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction promising passive cooling and heating techniques that have

Geothermal and solar energy are two of the most practical al-
ternatives to fossil fuels for powering buildings as they are rela-
tively mature, abundant, clean, and easily accessible [1e3].
Therefore, integrating active solar and geothermal energy systems
is an extremely attractive proposition. A solareground source heat
pump system (SGSHPS) is widely used in cold regions that have a
high availability of solar energy [4]. In an SGSHPS, the solar energy
is stored in the soil during the warm season and extracted by a
ground source heat pump to provide heating during winter.
Entirely passive renewable energy systems that utilise solar and
geothermal energy for building heating and cooling have not been
widely researched, although several passive renewable energy
techniques have been designed and studied. Solar chimneys (SCs)
and eartheair heat exchangers (EAHEs) are two interesting and
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yongcail85@163.com (Y. Li).
attracted significant attention in recent years.
An SC is a natural passive technique that utilises solar energy to
generate buoyancy effects that drive airflow through an air channel
[5,6]. It can be used to regulate the temperature of a building as well
as to provide ventilation. Ong and Chow [7] performed experi-
mental studies on an SC with a height of 2 m, a width of 0.45 m, and
air gaps of 0.1 m, 0.2 m, and 0.3 m. The SC generated air velocities of
0.25e0.39 m/s at radiation intensities of up to 650 W/m2.
MartieHerrero and HeraseCelemin [8] numerically evaluated the
ventilation performance of a SC with thermal inertia in Mediter-
ranean climates. For a 2 m high SC, an air mass flow rate of 0.011 kg/
s was achieved at 450 W/m2. The 24 cm thick thermal inertia
maintained its temperature during the night, thereby achieving
nocturnal ventilation. Al-Kayiem et al. [9] mathematically investi-
gated the performance of a roof-inclined SC in Malaysia. The results
demonstrated that the average velocity, average mass flow rate, and
system performance gradually increased with the increase in the
area of the collector. For an area of 600 m2, the average velocity

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.05.004
0960-1481/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Li, T. Long, X. Bai et al.
between 08:00 and 17:00 was 4.65 m/s and the average mass flow
rate was 0.084 kg/s; for an area of 150 m2, the average velocity was
3.29 m/s and the average mass flow rate was 0.05 kg/s. Aboulnaga
and Abdrabboh [10] theoretically predicted the induced air flow
rate of a combined walleroof solar chimney with different chimney
heights in a hot arid climate. A maximum airflow rate of 2.3 m3/s
was achieved for an SC with a height of 3.45 m.
Miyazaki et al. [11] numerically and analytically studied an SC
based on the climate of Tokyo, Japan. They reported that the SC
could reduce the fan shaft power consumption over the course of a
year by about 50% due to natural ventilation, and by up to 90%
during January and February. Lee and Strand [12] designed a
module to simulate and determine the energy impact of thermal
chimneys on a residential building with dimensions of
20 m  10 m  3 m, considering three local climates in the USA.
They concluded that the chimney reduced the annual cooling en-
ergy demand by 20.4%, 18.9%, and 13.1% in Spokane, Phoenix, and
Minneapolis, respectively.
An EAHE system uses underground soil as a heat source or sink
and air as the medium of heat exchange [13]. Essentially, it dissi-
pates heat to and/or captures heat from the ground by taking
advantage of the near-constant subterranean temperature present
on Earth. A typical EAHE system consists of an inlet shaft and a
network of pipes that are buried underground through which air is
cooled or heated and transported indoors using a fan [14]. B. Givoni
claimed that the use of EAHE can provide high rate of air change, is
of special interest for low mass buildings which usually have large
diurnal swings and high temperatures during the hot hours of the
day [15].
One of the main areas of research on EAHE systems is the
quantitative assessment of the energy saving potential and the
indoor thermal comfort offered by such systems [16e21]. Sawhney
and Mahajan [22] evaluated the annual heating and cooling po-
tential of an EAHE system in Jodhpur (hotedry climate), Leh
(coldedry climate), and Delhi (composite climate). The EAHE was
composed of a pipe with a length of 50 m and a radius of 10 cm,
which was installed at a depth of 6 m. With a wet, shaded earth
surface, the cooling potential of the EAHE in the Jodhpur climate
was found to be 4472 kWh. In the Leh climate with glazed and
blackened earth surface conditions, the heating potential of the
EAHE was found to be 9097 kWh. In addition, they also recom-
mended the intermittent application of a tunnel system to achieve
comfortable conditions.
Freire et al. [23] evaluated the energy saving potential of a
compact multi-layer EAHE system that was applied to residential
buildings with limited available space. During the warm season, the
system was able to store 266 kWh in the soil, and during the cold
season, the system provided 871 kWh, a difference of 605 kWh,
which was extracted from the soil. Incorporating the heat exchange
system reduced the temperature range inside the building, further
increasing thermal comfort. The system was also able to maintain
temperatures of less than 25
C throughout the warm season.
During the cold season, the purpose of a heat exchanger is to
maintain the indoor temperature of a building above the outdoor
temperature. However, as expected, the system was unable to
sustain comfortable temperatures on its own. Kumar et al. [24]
studied the energy conservation potential of an EAHE in a non-air-
conditioned building in Indian climatic conditions. The EAHE sys-
tem consisted of an 80 m long pipe with a cross-sectional area of
0.53 m2. The average daily cooling potential of the EAHE system
was 456 kWh and the average daily heating potential was 296 kWh.
However, additional energy was required to achieve comfortable
conditions during winter. Yang et al. [25,26] performed a series of
numerical and experimental studies on the feasibility of an EAHE
system in a hot-summer/cold-winter climate. They observed that a
487
Renewable Energy 175 (2021) 486e500
deep buried EAHE pipe could reduce the air temperature by 7
C on
a summer day. The maximum cooling and heating capacities were
observed during the springesummer and autumnewinter transi-
tional seasons, respectively, and the use of the EAHE pipe could
provide a 3 kW cooling or heating capacity. The proposed system
could remarkably decrease the indoor air temperature on summer
days and increase the indoor air temperature on winter days.
Although SC and EAHE systems have been widely investigated
and applied practically in different parts of the world, they have
numerous shortcomings. An SC induces ambient air into the indoor
environment but is unable to reduce or increase the ambient air
temperature. Therefore, it is only suitable for use during transi-
tional seasons or in mild climates.
Khedari et al. [27] conducted an experimental study using SCs to
improve the indoor thermal conditions of a single room school-
house in a hot climate. They found that when the solar chimney
was in use, the room temperature was almost equal to that of the
ambient air, and the SC provided little comfort. To increase the
speed of the air in the test room, they installed and tested two roof
solar collectors, and three different types of solar chimneys [28] in
the same building. Although the resulting air change rate per hour
(8e15) was high, the air movement induced by the solar chimneys
was still too low (an average of 0.04 m/s) to provide thermal
comfort to the occupants at an indoor temperature of 35e37
C.
Conventionally, the cooled or heated air from an EAHE system is
transported to an indoor environment using a fan. The fan con-
sumes power, which generates heat. This heat partly offsets the
benefits provided by the EAHE and increases the temperature of the
cool air supplied during summer.
An integrated SCeEAHE system provides a pure passive venti-
lation, cooling, and heating system, wherein the SC is used as the
driving force to draw airflow through the EAHE. This resolves the
drawbacks of the individual SC and EAHE systems, and offers sig-
nificant energy savings and high indoor air quality and thermal
comfort inside buildings. In recent years, the advantages and ben-
efits of integrated SCEAHE systems have been realised. Numerous
preliminary studies have been conducted to explore the synergistic
performance of SCEAHE systems. Maerefat and Haghighi [29] per-
formed a theoretical analysis to investigate the cooling and venti-
lation of an SCEAHE system. Their findings demonstrated that the
SC can power the EAHE during the daytime, without the need for
electricity. Haghighi and Maerefat [30] numerically designed and
investigated an SCEAHE system to meet the thermal needs of
buildings, considering adaptive thermal comfort criteria. Li et al.
[31,32] investigated a coupled passive energy system with a solar
collectoreenhanced solar chimney and an eartheair heat
exchanger. The results showed that the coupled geothermal system
could provide sufficient cooling to the test facility. The indoor air
temperature was maintained at 21.3e25.1
C, while the indoor
humidity ratio was maintained at 50%e78%. As an entirely outdoor
air system, the maximum cooling capacity of the coupled system
was 2582 W, which almost fully covered the designed cooling load
of the building. Serageldin et al. [33,34] designed and numerically
investigated an SCEAHE system, and observed that the indoor air
temperature was approximately 9
C less than the ambient air
temperature during summer. The total annual electrical energy and
CO2 emission savings were 42.9 kWh/m2/y and 4.545 tons/y,
respectively.
The existing literature suggests that most studies on SCEAHE
systems have been performed using theoretical or numerical
methods, and very few experimental studies have been conducted
to systematically assess the performance of SCEAHE systems. In
particular, full-scale experimental studies have rarely been re-
ported. Notably, SCEAHE systems are extremely complex, as the
buoyant driving force plays a key role in determining the airflow
Y. Li, T. Long, X. Bai et al.
rate through the EAHE, while the frictional resistance of the system
weakens the buoyant force, thereby reducing the airflow rate.
However, some important information such as the EAHE outlet air
temperature, solar collector surface temperature and air tempera-
ture variation inside EAHE pipe, etc. was not reported in afore-
mentioned literatures. Furthermore, the existence of building
thermal mass has the capacity of storing heat during a warm period
on a summer day and releasing it into indoor environment at a later
time in the day [35]. This means that the buildings have the po-
tential to generate buoyancy to drive natural airflow during night
time. Hence, it could realize 24 h natural ventilation in the build-
ings with the help of solar chimney and thermal mass.
Therefore, a full-scale experimental study is required to obtain
further insight into SCEAHE systems. The objectives of this study
are to investigate the ventilation and cooling performance of an
SCEAHE system on a typical sunny summer day in a hot and humid
climate using a full-scale experimental test rig. The airflow rate,
inlet and outlet air temperatures of the EAHE pipe, relative hu-
midity variations of the inlet air and outlet air, absorber surface
temperature of the SC, air temperature of the air inside the air
channel, cooling capacity, and temperature variation of the sur-
rounding soil are discussed in detail. Besides, the feasibility of 24 h
natural ventilation of SCEAHE system is experimentally verified
herein.
2. Experimental test rig and measurement procedure
2.1. Experimental test rig
A full-scale experimental test rig was constructed in Tongling
City, Anhui Province, China, which is located in the hot summer and
cold winter climatic zone. The outdoor air temperature and relative
humidity during summer are generally high. As shown in Fig. 1, the
test rig consists of an eartheair heat exchanger and a solar chimney.
The EAHE pipe with a diameter of 0.3 m is made of PVC and consists
of an inlet, outlet, and effective buried pipe. The inlet of the EAHE
pipe was inclined at 45
to minimise the frictional resistance
caused by the elbow, while the outlet of the EAHE pipe was verti-
cally aligned to provide uniform air velocity distribution along the
diameter. The pipe inlet and outlet were insulated using poly-
styrene, which largely alleviates the heat exchange between the air
and the surrounding soil. The 30 m long effective main pipe was
buried horizontally at a depth of 3 m below the ground and con-
nected to the inlet and outlet.
Two single-story chambers with internal dimensions of
3 m  3 m  3 m (length  width  height) was constructed using
perforated brick. One chamber is used as the test room, and another
chamber is the facility room, in where the computer and data
logger were placed. The solar chimney consists of two
componentsda horizontal solar collector and a vertical chimney.
The solar collector provides a temperature difference and the ver-
tical chimney provides a height difference that drives the stack
effect. The horizontal solar collector is 7 m long, 1.5 m wide, and
0.3 m high. The solar collector was installed on the roof of the
chamber. This setup allows the proposed system to take advantage
of the buoyant driving force created by the building thermal mass
(if it exists). A solar absorber made of stainless steel was painted
using a black paint with high thermal absorption. The four lateral
sides and the back of the solar absorber were insulated using a
polystyrene board. Four glass covers were used as the top wall of
the solar collector, allowing solar radiation to pass through and be
absorbed by the absorber surface. The vertical chimney has a height
and diameter of 6 m and 0.3 m, respectively, and was insulated to
reduce heat loss.
The solar collector was oriented towards the south and inclined
488
Renewable Energy 175 (2021) 486e500
at an angle of 30
for maximum utilisation of solar energy during
the daytime. Both the vertical chimney outlet and the EAHE inlet
were equipped with rain hats to prevent rain penetration and
reduce the effect of unwanted wind pressures. The door and win-
dow of the chamber is well airtight during test period to prevent
airflow short circuit.
2.2. Measurement procedure and instrumentation
The experiment was performed for 24 h in sunny summer
weather. To measure the temperature of the different components
of the solar chimney and the air temperature inside the solar col-
lector and the buried pipe, calibrated K-type thermocouples, with a
measurement range of 17
C to 260
C and an accuracy of ±0.5
C,
were distributed on the glass cover and the absorber plate, and
inside the buried pipe and the air channel. Eight K-type thermo-
couples (SC-A1 to SC-A8) were evenly distributed to measure the
air temperature profile across the width, 15 cm away from the
absorber plate, as shown in Fig. 2 (a) and (b). Three thermocouples
were evenly distributed along the vertical centreline of the inlet
and outlet. The mean value of the three measurements was
considered to be the inlet and outlet air temperature. Four ther-
mocouples were evenly distributed across the absorber surface to
measure its temperature. The surface temperature of the glass
cover was measured using four thermocouples as well. The ther-
mocouples were inserted inside the reflective aluminium shields to
reduce the measurement error as much as possible.
To measure the air temperature profile along the effective main
pipe, six K-type thermocouples (T1 to T6) were evenly distributed
along the centre of the pipe, 5 m away from each other, as shown in
Fig. 1. The temperature of the soil around the pipe was measured
using 36 K-type threaded probe thermocouples that were inserted
into the soil such that the location of these thermocouples corre-
sponded to that of the thermocouples inside the buried pipe. Six
thermocouples were distributed at distances of 15 mm, 30 mm, and
45 mm away from the buried pipe at each corresponding ther-
mocouple location inside the pipe, along the vertical and horizontal
directions. The distribution of these thermocouples is illustrated in
Fig. 3 (a).
Three thermocouples were placed at heights of 1.1 m, 1.7 m, and
3 m from the floor of the central plane of the chamber to measure
the room air temperature. The mean value of the three measure-
ments was recorded as the room air temperature.
All temperature data were automatically collected and recorded
on a computer using a data logger (Agilent 34980A), which oper-
ated at an interval of 60 s. The variations in the relative humidity of
the inlet and outlet air were measured using temperature and
humidity sensors (HIOKI 3641e20). The air velocity at the EAHE
outlet was measured using 3 U FMA902A-MA airflow sensors. The
velocities measured at three pointsd5 cm, 10 cm, and 15 cm away
from the pipe centredwere considered to be the average air ve-
locity inside the EAHE, as shown in Fig. 3 (b). The airflow sensors
were connected to a data collection module, which in turn was
connected to the computer and the data were recorded at intervals
of 60 s. During the experiment, the solar irradiation intensity was
measured using a TBQ-2 solar radiation meter. The specifications of
all the devices used herein are listed in Table 1.
2.3. Instrumentation and uncertainty analysis
The experimental uncertainties are divided into internal un-
certainties and external uncertainties. The internal uncertainties
are calculated based on statistical analysis [36]:
Y. Li, T. Long, X. Bai et al. Renewable Energy 175 (2021) 486e500

Fig. 1. Full-scale experimental test rig.

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn  2
i¼1 xi  x
si ¼ (1)
n1
e
where si is the internal uncertainty; xi is the value of single mea-
mi ¼ piffiffiffi (2)
3
surement; x is the average value of multiple measurements; n is the
total number of measurements. where mi is the external uncertainty; ei is the maximum error of
For the external uncertainties, they are calculated based on measuring instrument.
uniform distribution [36]: The total uncertainty can be obtained by Ref. [36]:
489
Y. Li, T. Long, X. Bai et al. Renewable Energy 175 (2021) 486e500

Fig. 2. Distributions of thermocouples inside solar collector.

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi between the air and the inner surface of the buried pipe (W), ra is
u p
uX X r the air density (1.18 kg/m3), cp is the specific heat of air (1005 J/
s ¼ t si 2 þ mi 2 (3) kg∙
C), Ti is the inlet air temperature of the EAHE (
C), and To is the
i¼1 i¼1 outlet air temperature of the EAHE (
C).
The total cooling capacity of the EAHE is:
where s is the total uncertainty; p is the number of internal un-
certainties; r is the number of external uncertainties.  
Qt ¼ Va ra ha;i  ha;o (6)
The specifications of all the devices used herein and the
maximum error margins (99% confidence interval) calculated based where, Qt is the total cooling capacity (W), ha;i and ha;o are the
on Eqs. (1)e(3) are listed in Table 1. enthalpies of inlet and outlet air (J/kg).
The enthalpy of air ha is [37]:
3. Experimental calculations
ha ¼ 1:01T þ ð2500 þ 1:84TÞu (7)
The airflow rate through the EAHE driven by the buoyant force
The humidity ratio of the inlet air and outlet air is [16]:
is:

1 Ps
Va ¼ ,3600,pva R2 (4) u ¼ 622f (8)
4 ðP0  fPs Þ

where, Va is the airflow rate (m3/h), va is the air velocity measured where, f the relative humidity of air (%), Ps is the partial pressure of
at the EAHE outlet (m/s), and R is the diameter of the buried pipe saturated vapour (Pa), and P0 is the standard atmospheric pressure
(m). (101,325 Pa). The partial pressure of saturated vapour Ps is [38]:

0   1 0   1
   11:344 1 373:15
3:49149 373:15
1
373:15 373:15 T T
log Ps ¼ C1  1 þ C2 log þ C3 @10  1A þ C4 @10  1A þ log P0 (9)
T T

The sensible cooling capacity of the EAHE is:

where, C1 ¼ 7.90298, C2 ¼ 5.02808, C3 ¼ 1.3816  107,
Qs ¼ Va ra cp ðTi  To Þ (5) C4 ¼ 8.1328  103.
If the inner surface temperature of the buried pipe is lower than
where, Qs is the sensible cooling capacity due to heat transfer the dew point of air, condensation can occur, the latent cooling

490
Y. Li, T. Long, X. Bai et al. Renewable Energy 175 (2021) 486e500

Fig. 3. Distributions of measuring devices used herein.

Table 1
Specifications of different measurement devices.

Device Type Measuring range Accuracy Maximum error

K-type Thermocouples Omega SA3-K-120 17
Ce260
C ±0.5
C 2.29%

K-type threaded probe thermocouples WRNT-01 0
Ce800
C ±0.5
C 2.65%
Humidity and temperature meter HIOKI 3641-20 Temperature: Temperature: 2.77%
20.0
Ce70.0
C ±0.5
C
Relative humidity: Relative humidity: 6.86%
0.0%e100.0% ±5%
Airflow sensors Omega FMA902A-MA 0 m/s to 5.08 m/s ±2% 2.67%
Solar radiation meter TBQ-2 0e2000 W/m2 <2% 2.36%
280e3000 nm

491
Y. Li, T. Long, X. Bai et al.
Fig. 4. Hourly solar radiation density and outdoor air temperature.
capacity provided by the EAHE is:
Ql ¼ Qt  Qs (10)
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Solar radiation density and air temperature
As a pure passive system, the cooling and ventilation perfor-
mance of the SCEAHE are strongly dependent on the local solar
energy and ambient air temperature variation, which determine
the buoyant driving force and cooling capacity of the system. Fig. 4
depicts the daily transient variations in solar energy density and air
temperature recorded on August 1, 2020. During the test period, the
weather was sunny and the sky was cloudless. The outdoor air
temperature followed a similar pattern to the solar energy density.
This is because the variation in outdoor air temperature is primarily
affected by solar radiation intensity. The maximum solar density of
1102 W/m2 occurred at 12:00. However, the air temperature did not
reach its maximum value when the solar density was at its peak,
and was delayed by about 3 h. The air temperature over the course
of the day varied between 26.9
C and 40.1
C, a difference of
13.2
C. The measured weather data illustrated in Fig. 4 indicates
that August 1, 2020, was a typical sunny summer day.
4.2. Undisturbed soil temperature
The subsoil temperature fluctuates annually and daily and is
primarily affected by the variations in air temperature and solar
radiation. Subsoil temperature plays a vital role in the process of
designing an EAHE system and is a major determinant in the
evaluation of ground cooling and heating potential. Therefore, the
subsoil temperature variation characteristics must be studied in
order to determine the depth at which the EAHE components must
be installed, which in turn determines the performance and
installation cost of the system.
The variations in the undisturbed soil temperature at three
different depthsd1 m, 2 m, and 3 mdwere measured from 00:00
August 1, 2020 to 23:59 August 1, 2020. Fig. 5 illustrate the variation
in the subsoil temperature at the three depths over 24 h. As shown,
492
Renewable Energy 175 (2021) 486e500
the greater the depth, the lesser the temperature fluctuation. The
subsoil temperature at a depth of 1 m is significantly affected by the
temperature fluctuations on the ground surface, varying between
27
C and 28
C: a rise of 1
C during the 24 h measurement period.
Furthermore, at a depth of 1 m, the maximum temperature (28
C)
was recorded at 06:00, while the minimum temperature of
approximately 27
C was recorded at 12:00. Thus, a time lag exists
between the ambient air temperature and the underground tem-
perature profile. At a depth of 2 m, the soil temperature decreased
to approximately 24.5
C, and the temperature fluctuation reduced,
varying within a range of 0.2
C. The subsoil temperature at a depth
of 3 m further reduced to 23
C and remained almost constant
during the 24 h period. Thus, the subsoil at this depth has good
ability to serve as a heat sink for the heat dissipated from the EAHE.
4.3. Airflow rate
The airflow rate is a direct measure of the amount of cooled air
delivered to the indoor environment. Hence, it is a critical factor for
evaluating the ventilation and cooling performance of the SCEAHE
system. Fig. 6 depicts the airflow rate variation during the 24 h test
period. When the solar radiation intensity was low or even zero
between 00:00 and 06:30, an airflow rate of approximately 50 m3/h
was recorded. The airflow is driven by the buoyancy generated due
to the heat released from the building thermal mass during the
night. After 08:00, there was an abrupt increase in the airflow rate
until 10:00, after which the airflow rate increased gradually,
reaching a peak value of approximately 252 m3/h at 13:30. The
airflow rate reduced rapidly after 17:00 to about 70 m3/h at 19:00,
and then continued to gradually increase afterwards. Natural
ventilation at night can further improve indoor thermal conditions
and reduce the cooling load. In addition, compared with the solar
radiation density, the airflow rate fluctuates throughout the day.
The fluctuation is probably caused by the outdoor wind though the
rainhats were equipped to reduce the impact of wind pressure.
Furthermore, as seen in Fig. 6, the airflow rate follows the
similar pattern as the solar radiation intensity during the daytime;
the higher the solar density, the larger the induced airflow rate. This
is because the solar radiation drives the SC draft power and in-
creases the airflow rate. It is noteworthy that despite solar radiation
was recorded between 05:00 and 06:30, the buoyancy caused by
the thermal mass dominated the ventilation process during this
Y. Li, T. Long, X. Bai et al.
Fig. 5. Subsoil temperature variation with time at three different depths.
Fig. 6. Airflow rate induced by buoyant driving force over 24 h test period.
period. Essentially, a 1.5 h time lag exists between the solar density
and the airflow rate due to the SC at initial ventilation period. The
similar finding was reported in Ref. [31]. This is because the tem-
perature of the absorber plate increases slowly owing to the rela-
tively low solar intensity in the morning.
The results indicate that by utilising the buoyant driving force
generated by the SC and the thermal mass, 24 h natural ventilation
can be achieved using the EAHE. This can significantly reduce the
energy demand of regulating the thermal environment of a
building.
4.4. Temperature distributions of absorber and glass cover
The temperature profiles of the absorber surface measured at
four different locations are shown in Fig. 7. The absorber surface
493
Renewable Energy 175 (2021) 486e500
temperatures varied slightly before 05:00 and then increased
sharply during the initial hours of the day, indicating that the solar
radiation intensity increased. In addition, a shift in the trend of the
increase in temperature was observed at 06:30 (red circle in Fig. 7),
indicating an increase in the airflow rate. After 08:00, the surface
temperatures increased with the increase in the length of the
absorber surface. The temperature of the absorber surface closer to
the solar collector inlet was lower than that of the absorber surface
away from the solar collector inlet. This is because the initial
temperature difference between the solar collector inlet and the
absorber surface is large, which accelerates the heat transfer pro-
cess. The heat absorbed by the absorber plate is gradually trans-
ferred to the inlet air through convection, and consequently, the
temperature of the absorber surface reduces and the air tempera-
ture increases. As the air passes along the absorber surface, the
Y. Li, T. Long, X. Bai et al. Renewable Energy 175 (2021) 486e500

Fig. 7. Temperature profile of absorber surface.

Fig. 8. Temperature of glass cover at different locations along length of solar collector.

Fig. 9. Air temperatures inside air channel along length of solar collector.

494
Y. Li, T. Long, X. Bai et al.
temperature difference decreases further, resulting in a smaller
reduction in the surface temperature. Peak surface temperatures of
nearly 100
C were achieved at 14:00. After 16:00, the surface
temperatures rapidly reduced until they plateaued at approxi-
mately 30
C. Eventually, the surface temperatures at the four lo-
cations were almost equal, with slight variations.
The glass temperatures at different locations along the length of
the solar collector are shown in Fig. 8. The distribution of the four
thermocouples is shown in Fig. 2 (a) and (b). These temperatures
varied in accordance with the absorber surface temperature, indi-
cating that the absorber plate has a significant effect on the glass
temperature. Additionally, owing to the influence of the inlet air on
the solar collector, the temperature of the front surface of the glass
was lower than that of the rear surface.
Fig. 9 illustrates the air temperature variations inside the air
channel along the length of the solar collector. As shown, the
temperature distribution along the channel width was not uniform.
The temperature readings of the thermocouples in the low posi-
tions were lower than those of the corresponding thermocouples in
the high positions, with a maximum temperature difference of
31
C. This is possibly due to the occurrence of natural convection in
the air channel along the width of the channel due to the inclined
solar collector. Due to convection, the hot air in the lower region
rises to the upper region. Although the temperature distribution is
altered by convection, the general temperature variation trend of
the inlet air is similar to that of the absorber surface along the
length of the collector. The air temperature inside the channel
gradually increases with the increase in the temperature of the
absorber. Furthermore, the air temperature in the front of the
channel is lower than that in the middle and rear of the channel
during the day.
4.5. Ventilation driving force during nigh time
Building envelops separate the outdoor and indoor environment
and store heat during a warm period on a summer day. Therefore,
the existence of building thermal mass can alleviate fluctuation
amplitude of indoor air temperature. Actually, the buildings have
the potential to generate buoyancy to drive natural airflow if the
heat stored in thermal mass releases into indoor air, while the
outdoor air temperature reduces. The occurrence possibility of
Fig. 10. Room air temperature and ambient air temperature.
495
Renewable Energy 175 (2021) 486e500
buoyancy force generated by thermal mass is mainly based on the
relative difference between the outdoor and indoor temperatures.
The average value of the temperature recorded by the three
thermocouples at different locations along the central plane of the
room was considered to be the room air temperature. The room air
temperature and ambient air temperature are compared in Fig. 10.
As shown, the variation in the room air temperature was consid-
erably lower than that in the ambient air temperature during the
daytime. The room air temperature fluctuated between 28.0
C and
29.5
C, with a difference of 1.5
C, over 24 h. The maximum tem-
perature difference between the two was 10
C. Hence, the buoy-
ancy force generated by can be ignored, while the buoyancy
induced by SC dominated the ventilation process during this
period. As described in section 4.3, the airflow rate had the similar
variation with the solar radiation intensity during the daytime.
The outdoor air temperature gradually deceased with the solar
radiation vanished, and the temperature difference between indoor
air and outdoor air was reduced. The room air temperature was
1.6
C averagely higher than the outdoor air temperature between
00:00 and 06:30, and between 19:00 and 23:59, and the airflow
rate of 50e70 m3/h was measured during these periods. The
ventilation driving force is dominated by the thermal mass-
induced buoyancy as the absence of solar energy. Furthermore,
the variation in the airflow rate is consistent with that in the dif-
ference between the indoor and outdoor air temperature, i.e., the
higher the air temperature difference, the larger the airflow rate,
particularly between 19:00 and 23:59. Meanwhile, considering the
height of the timber itself, total 9 m height difference was provided
for night ventilation. Therefore, the airflow rate of 50e70 m3/h
occurred over this period though the temperature difference is low.
4.6. EAHE inlet and outlet air temperature variation
Fig. 11 depict the inlet and outlet air temperature profiles for the
EAHE buried at a depth of 3 m. As shown, the outlet air temperature
remained stable during the 24 h test period, even during the day-
time. The inlet air temperature varied between 26.8
C and 40.1
C,
while the outlet air temperature decreased significantly, and varied
between 26.5
C and 27.4
C. The air temperature difference ex-
hibits a similar trend to that of the outdoor air temperature, and the
maximum temperature difference between the inlet air and outlet
Y. Li, T. Long, X. Bai et al.
Fig. 11. Inlet and outlet air temperature profiles of EAHE.
Fig. 12. Air temperature variation along pipe length at different times of day.
air was approximately 12.5
C.
As shown in Fig. 5, the undisturbed soil temperature at a depth of
3 m was 23.0
C, which is 3e4
C lower than the outlet air tem-
perature of EAHE. In this study, an effective length of 30 m was used
for the buried pipe, as the resistance increases with the increase in
the length of the pipe. The resistance in the buried pipe reduces the
buoyant driving force, which in turn reduces the airflow rate. The air
temperature variation along the length of the pipe is illustrated in
Fig. 12. As shown, the higher the inlet air temperature, the higher the
reduction in air temperature. For an air inlet temperature of 31.1
C,
the reduction in air temperature was 15.4
C, and for an inlet tem-
perature of 39.6
C, the reduction in air temperature was 13.6
C. This
is because the higher the inlet air temperature, the higher the
temperature difference between the air and the surrounding soil,
resulting in a higher heat exchange rate.
At a specific inlet air temperature, the reduction rate is not
constant and decreases with the increase in pipe length. It de-
creases more rapidly in the initial 20 m of pipe than in the final
496
Renewable Energy 175 (2021) 486e500
10 m, as the temperature difference between the air and the sur-
rounding soil decreases along the length of the buried pipe.
Although the rate of reduction in the temperature of the inlet air
decreases with the increase in the length of the buried pipe, the
buried pipe length can be increased to further cool the inlet air. This
is because, given the same overall heat transfer coefficient of the
pipe, the increased length provides a longer path for heat transfer
between the pipe and the surrounding soil [39]. Therefore, if the
pipe is long enough, the outlet air temperature of the EAHE ideally
approaches the undisturbed soil temperature at the buried depth.
Further research to optimise the pipe length to ensure a balance
between the ventilation and cooling performance of the SCEAHE
system is required.
4.7. Temperature distribution of underground soil
Subsoil temperature plays a vital role in determining the cooling
capacity of the SCEAHE. Fig. 13 (a) and (b) illustrate the variations in
Y. Li, T. Long, X. Bai et al.
Fig. 13. Soil temperature variation with time: (a) along vertical direction (b) along horizontal direction.
soil temperature 5 m away from the entrance of the effective main
pipe, at distances of 0.15 m, 0.3 m, and 0.45 m along the vertical
(1V-1, 1V-2, and 1V-3) and horizontal directions (1H-1, 1H-2, and
1H-3). As shown, the soil temperature profiles in the vertical and
horizontal directions have a similar variation trend over the 24 h
test period. Between 00:00 and 07:00, the soil temperatures varied
slightly, even though ventilation occurred through the buried pipe.
This is because the outdoor air temperature during the night was
low, and was only 3
C higher than the subsoil temperature.
Furthermore, as illustrated in Fig. 6, the ventilation flow rate
during the night was much lower than that during the day. After
07:00, as the outdoor air temperature increased, the thermocouples
located 0.15 m away from the pipe along the vertical and horizontal
directions registered an increase in temperature, while the soil
temperatures 0.3 m and 0.45 m away from the pipe were still
constant. The soil temperatures in the vertical and horizontal di-
rections 0.3 m away from the pipe started to increase at around
10:00. The soil temperatures in both directions 0.45 m away from
the pipe started to increase at around 13:00. The soil temperatures
497
Renewable Energy 175 (2021) 486e500
in both directions 0.15 m away from the pipe reached their
maximum values at 18:00, and then decreased slowly. However, the
soil temperatures at 0.3 m and 0.45 m continued to increase
slightly. This is because the airflow rate and outdoor air tempera-
ture dropped sharply after 18:00, and the combined effect of the
airflow rate and the air temperature reduced the heat exchange
between the air and surrounding soil. Meanwhile, the heat absor-
bed by the soil closer to the EAHE pipe was continuously trans-
ferred to the soil further away from the pipe.
Over a 24 period, the soil temperature 0.15 m from the EAHE
pipe increased by about 0.8
C in the horizontal direction and 0.9
C
in the vertical direction. Thus, the temperature increase in the
horizontal direction is almost the same as that in the vertical di-
rection, which indicates that heat dissipation in the subsoil is
uniform. This finding is beneficial for the application of the SCEAHE
system. However, the soil temperature variation and heat dissipa-
tion characteristics must be studied over a longer duration to
confirm this finding.
Y. Li, T. Long, X. Bai et al. Renewable Energy 175 (2021) 486e500

Fig. 14. Variations in inlet and outlet air relative humidity and humidity ratio.

4.8. Relative humidity and humidity ratio of the inlet and outlet air
Fig. 14 illustrates the variations in the relative humidity and
humidity ratio of the inlet and outlet air. The relative humidity of
the inlet air varied between 46.7% and 94.1%, while that of the
outlet air varied between 91.6% and 96.5%. As shown in Fig. 14, the
difference between the relative humidity of the inlet and outlet air
during the initial test period (00:00e06:00) was small owing to the
low outdoor air temperature. The relative humidity of the inlet air
decreased with the increase in the outdoor air temperature, while
the relative humidity of the outlet air remained constant. Conse-
quently, the difference between the relative humidity of the inlet
and outlet air increased during the test period. This is because the
inlet air was remarkably cooled inside the EAHE pipe, thereby
increasing the relative humidity of the outlet air.
After 17:00, the relatively humidity of the inlet air increased
with the decrease in the outdoor air temperature. Consequently,
the difference between the relative humidity of the inlet and outlet
air reduced. The inlet and outlet air humidity ratios have a similar
variation trend to the relative humidity of the inlet and outlet air.
The air humidity ratio at the outlet varied between 20.69 g/kg and
22.2 g/kg, whereas that at the inlet varied between 19.82 g/kg and
26.02 g/kg. The maximum reduction in the air humidity ratio was
approximately 4.95 g/kg. This indicates that when the surface
temperature was below the dew point, condensation occurred on
the inner surface of the EAHE pipe. The results also indicate that
both sensible and latent heat exchanges occurred inside the EAHE
pipe. Therefore, the SCEAHE system can reduce the latent cooling
load, however, it increases the relative humidity of the outlet air
which may reduce indoor thermal comfort.
4.9. Cooling capacity of SCEAHE system
Fig. 15 shows the total, sensible, and latent cooling capacities of
the EAHE. During the night and early morning, the total cooling
capacity was close to zero owing to the low airflow rate and out-
door air temperature. The EAHE achieved the maximum total
cooling capacity, sensible cooling capacity, and latent cooling ca-
pacity of 1398.0 W, 892.0 W, and 611.7 W, respectively, during the
day. The total cooling capacity and sensible cooling capacity exhibit

Fig. 15. Cooling capacities of the SCEAHE system over a 24 h period.

498
Y. Li, T. Long, X. Bai et al.
a similar variation trend, although they did not reach their maximal
values at the same time. This is because the sensible cooling ca-
pacity is significantly affected by the buoyant driving force induced
by the SC, and was the main part of the total cooling capacity for
most of the test period. However, the variation in the latent cooling
capacity was different from those in the total cooling capacity and
sensible cooling capacity.
As shown in Fig. 15, the latent cooling capacity was negative
even after 17:00. This suggests that the outdoor air may be hu-
midified as it flows through the EAHE pipe. This is because the
buoyancy-driven force weakens with the decrease in solar radia-
tion intensity, which reduces the air velocity through the EAHE
pipe. Meanwhile, the relative humidity of the outdoor air was still
low, and the low air velocity provided enough time for the outdoor
air to be humidified by the condensate water on the inner surface
wall of EAHE pipe. The maximum negative latent cooling capacity
was 174.7 W.
5. Conclusions
The ventilation and cooling ability of an EAHE powered by an SC
was studied using a full-scale experimental test rig on a typical
sunny summer day characterised by hot and humid weather. The
following conclusions were drawn:
1) The buoyancy-driven force generated by the building thermal
mass induced an airflow rate of 50e70 m3/h between 00:00 and
06:30, and after 19:00, during which the solar radiation in-
tensity was low or zero. The airflow rate induced by the SC
reached a peak value of 252 m3/h at 13:30. Therefore, 24 h
natural ventilation was achieved owing to the joint effects of the
thermal mass and SC.
2) The outlet air temperature of the EAHE pipe was stable during
the 24 h test period, even during the daytime. The inlet air
temperature varied between 26.8
C and 40.1
C, while the
outlet air temperature decreased significantly and varied be-
tween 26.5
C and 27.4
C. The maximum temperature differ-
ence between the inlet air and outlet air was approximately
12.5
C.
3) The relative humidity and humidity ratio of the inlet air of the
EAHE pipe varied between 46.7% and 94.1%, and 19.82 g/kg and
26.02 g/kg, respectively, and those of the outlet air varied be-
tween 91.6% and 96.5%, and 20.69 g/kg and 22.2 g/kg,
respectively.
4) Over the 24 h test period, the soil temperature at a distance of
0.15 m away from the EAHE pipe increased by 0.8
C in the
horizontal direction and 0.9
C in the vertical direction. Thus the
increase in the soil temperature along the horizontal and ver-
tical directions was almost equal, indicating that heat dissipa-
tion in the subsoil was uniform.
5) The maximum total cooling capacity, sensible cooling capacity,
and latent cooling capacity of the EAHE were 1398.0 W, 892.0 W,
and 611.7 W, respectively.
This study provided essential insight into the feasibility of
ventilation and cooling of buildings using an SCEAHE system in hot
and humid summer weather, without using any electric power. As a
pure passive integrated system, the ventilation and cooling per-
formance of the SCEAHE depends almost on solar and geothermal
energy.
A long-term study is required to evaluate the performance of the
system under various operating conditions. For example, the soil
temperature at a distance of 0.15 m away from the EAHE pipe
increased by nearly 1
C during the 24 h test period. However, as
this was a short-term study, the thermal recovery characteristics of
499
Renewable Energy 175 (2021) 486e500
the soil were not observed. The heat accumulation and thermal
recovery of the soil that surrounds the EAHE pipe is of significant
importance to the long-term operation and feasibility of the
SCEAHE system. Moreover, this study was conducted in sunny
weather, and the performance of the system in different weather
conditions must be evaluated in future studies. A long-term study
could help improve the understanding and adoption of SCEAHE
systems.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yongcai Li: Resources, Writing e review & editing, Supervision.
Tianhe Long: Data curation, Writing e original draft. Xi Bai:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing e orig-
inal draft. Linfeng Wang: Data curation, Investigation. Wuyan Li:
Formal analysis, Investigation. Shuli Liu: Project administration,
Funding acquisition. Jun Lu: Project administration, Funding
acquisition. Yong Cheng: Writing e review & editing. Kai Ye:
Formal analysis, Investigation. Sheng Huang: Formal analysis,
Investigation.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge support from the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Grant No. 51708054 and
52078075, the Chengdu Science and Technology Project under
Grant No. 2019-YF05-01377-SN, 2019YFG0058 supported by the
Sichuan Science and Technology Plan Project, and
2018CDXYCH0015 supported by the Fundamental Research Funds
for the Central Universities.
References
[1] Y. Zhou, D. Wang, Y. Liu, J. Liu, Diffuse solar radiation models for different
climate zones in China: model evaluation and general model development,
Energy Convers. Manag. 185 (2019) 518e536.
[2] Y. Liu, Y. Zhou, Y. Chen, D. Wang, Y. Wang, Y. Zhu, Comparison of support
vector machine and copula-based nonlinear quantile regression for estimating
the daily diffuse solar radiation: a case study in China,, Renew. Energy 146
(2020) 1101e1112.
[3] A. Behzadi, E. Gholamian, P. Ahmadi, A. Habibollahzade, M. Ashjaee, Energy,
exergy and exergoeconomic (3E) analyses and multi-objective optimization of
a solar and geothermal based integrated energy system, Appl. Therm. Eng. 143
(2018) 1011e1022.
[4] T. Long, Z. Qiao, M. Wang, Y. Li, J. Lu, W. Li, L. Zeng, S. Huang, Performance
analysis and optimization of a solar-air source heat pump heating system in
Tibet, China, Energy Build. 220 (2020), 110084.
[5] S. Liu, Y. Li, An experimental study on the thermal performance of a solar
chimney without and with PCM, Renew. Energy 81 (2015) 338e346.
[6] Y. Li, S. Liu, J. Lu, Effects of various parameters of a PCM on thermal perfor-
mance of a solar chimney, Appl. Therm. Eng. 127 (2017) 1119e1131.
[7] K.S. Ong, C.C. Chow, Performance of a solar chimney, Sol. Energy 74 (2003)
1e17.
[8] J. Marti-Herrero, M.R. Heras-Celemin, Dynamic physical model for a solar
chimney, Sol. Energy 81 (2007) 614e622.
[9] H. Al-Kayiem, K. Sreejaya, S. Gilani, Mathematical analysis of the influence of
the chimney height and collector area on the performance of a roof top solar
chimney, Energy Build. 68 (Part A) (2014) 305e311.
[10] M.M. AboulNaga, S.N. Abdrabboh, Improving night ventilation into low-rise
buildings in hot-arid climates exploring a combined wall-roof solar chim-
ney, Renew. Energy 19 (2000) 47e54.
[11] T. Miyazaki, A. Akisawa, T. Kashiwagi, The effects of solar chimneys on ther-
mal load mitigation of office buildings under the Japanese climate,, Renew.
Energy 31 (2006) 987e1010.
[12] ] Lee Kh, Strand RK. Enhancement of natural ventilation in buildings using a
thermal chimney, Energy Build. 41 (2009) 615e621.
[13] D.G.L. Samuel, S.M.S. Nagendra, M.P. Maiya, Passive alternatives to mechanical
Y. Li, T. Long, X. Bai et al.
air conditioning of building: a review, Build. Environ. 66 (2013) 54e64.
[14] R. Singh, R.L. Sawhney, I.J. Lazarus, V.V.N. Kishore, Recent advancements in
earth air tunnel heat exchanger (EATHE) system for indoor thermal comfort
application: a review,, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82 (2018) 2162e2185.
[15] B. Givoni, Cooled soil as a cooling source for buildings, Sol. Energy 81 (2007)
16e328.
[16] H. Li, L. Ni, G. Liu, Z. Zhao, Y. Yao, Feasibility study on applications of an Earth-
air Heat Exchanger (EAHE) for preheating fresh air in severe cold regions,
Renew. Energy 133 (2019) 1268e1284.
[17] H. Li, L. Ni, G. Liu, Y. Yao, Performance evaluation of Earth to Air Heat Ex-
change (EAHE) used for indoor ventilation during winter in severe cold re-
gions, Appl. Therm. Eng. 160 (2019), 114111.
[18] A.A. Serageldin, A.K. Abdelrahman, S. Ookawara, Earth-Air Heat Exchanger
thermal performance in Egyptian conditions: experimental results, mathe-
matical model, and Computational Fluid Dynamics simulation, Energy Conv-
ers. Manag. 122 (2016) 25e38.
[19] M. Benhammou, B. Draoui, M. Hamouda, Improvement of the summer cooling
induced by an earth-to-air heat exchanger integrated in a residential building
under hot and arid climate, Appl. Energy 208 (2017) 428e445.
[20] S.M. Jafarian, S.M. Jaafarian, P. Haseli, M. Taheri, Performance analysis of a
passive cooling system using underground channel (Naghb), Energy Build. 42
(2010) 559e562.
[21] S.F. Ahmed, M.M.K. Khan, M.T.O. Amanullah, M.G. Rasul, N.M.S. Hassan, Per-
formance assessment of earth pipe cooling system for low energy buildings in
a subtropical climate, Energy Convers, Manage 106 (2015) 815e825.
[22] A.J. Freire, J.L.C. Alexandre, V.B. Silva, N.D. Couto, A. Rouboa, Compact buried
pipes system analysis for indoor air conditioning, Appl. Therm. Eng. 51 (2013)
1124e1134.
[23] Y. Zhao, R. Li, C. Ji, C. Huan, B. Zhang, L. Liu, Parametric study and design of an
earth-air heat exchanger using model experiment for memorial heating and
cooling, Appl. Therm. Eng. 148 (2019) 838e845.
[24] R. Kumara, S. Ramesh, S.C. Kaushik, Performance evaluation and energy
conservation potential of eartheairetunnel system coupled with non-air-
conditioned building, Build. Environ. 38 (2003) 807e813.
[25] D. Yang, J. Zhang, Analysis and experiments on the periodically fluctuating air
temperature in a building with earth-air tube ventilation, Build. Environ. 85
(2015) 29e39.
[26] D. Yang, Y. Guo, J. Zhang, Evaluation of the thermal performance of an earth-
to-air heat exchanger (EAHE) in a harmonic thermal environment, Energy
500
Renewable Energy 175 (2021) 486e500
Convers, Manage 109 (2016) 184e194.
[27] J. Khedari, W. Mansirisub, S. Chaima, N. Pratinthong, J. Hirunlabh, Field
measurements of performance of roof solar collector, Energy Build. 31 (2000)
171e178.
[28] G.S. Barozzi, M.S. Imbabi, E. Nobile, A. Sousa, Physical and numerical modeling
of a solar chimney-based ventilation system for buildings, Build. Environ. 27
(4) (1992) 433e445.
[29] M. Maerefat, A.P. Haghighi, Passive cooling of buildings by using integrated
earth to air heat exchanger and solar chimney, Renew, Energy (2010)
2316e2324.
[30] A.P. Haghighi, M. Maerefat, Design guideline for application of earth-to air
heat exchanger coupled with solar chimney as a natural heating system, Int,
J. Low-Carbon Tec 10 (2013) 294e304.
[31] H. Li, Y. Yu, F. Niu, M. Shafik, B. Chen, Performance of a coupled cooling system
with earth-to-air heat exchanger and solar chimney, Renew. Energy 62 (2014)
468e477.
[32] Y. Yu, H. Li, F. Niu, D. Yu, Investigation of a coupled geothermal cooling system
with earth tube and solar chimney, Appl. Energy 114 (2014) 209e217.
[33] A.A. Serageldin, A. Abdeen, M.M.S. Ahmed, A. Radwan, A.N. Shmroukh,
S. Ookawara, Solar chimney combined with earth to-air heat exchanger for
passive cooling of residential buildings in hot areas, Sol. Energy 206 (2020)
145e162.
[34] A.A. Serageldin, A.K. Abdelrahman, S. Ookawara, Parametric study and opti-
mization of a solar chimney passive ventilation system coupled with an earth-
to-air heat exchanger, Sustain. Energy Techn 30 (2018) 263e278.
[35] C.A. Balaras, The role of thermal mass on the cooling load of buildings. An
overview of computational methods,, Energy Build. 24 (1) (1996) 1e10.
[36] L. Kirkup, R. Frenkel, An Introduction to Uncertainty in Measurement Using
the GUM (Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement), first ed.,
Cambridge University Press, , Cambridge, 2006.
[37] H. Li, L. Ni, G. Liu, Z. Zhao, Y. Yao, Feasibility study on applications of an Earth-
air Heat Exchanger (EAHE) for preheating fresh air in severe cold regions,
Renew. Energy 133 (2019) 1268e1284.
[38] J.A. Goff, S. Gratch, Low-pressure Properties of Water from -160 to 212F, the
52nd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Heating and Ventilating
Engineers, 1946, pp. 95e122. New York, USA.
[39] K. Lee, R.K. Strand, The cooling and heating potential of an earth tube system
in buildings,, Energy Build. 40 (2008) 486e494.