ARTICLE IN PRESS

Building and Environment 41 (2006) 235–244

www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

The cooling potential of earth–air heat exchangers for domestic

buildings in a desert climate
F. Al-Ajmia, D.L. Lovedayb,, V.I. Hanbyc
a
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Technological Studies, Shuwaikh 70654, Kuwait
b
Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK
c
Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development, De Montfort University, Leicester LE7 9SU, UK
Received 30 January 2002; received in revised form 5 July 2004; accepted 13 January 2005

Abstract

A theoretical model of an earth–air heat exchanger (EAHE) is developed for predicting the outlet air temperature and cooling
potential of these devices in a hot, arid climate. The model is validated against other published models and shows good agreement. A
sub-soil temperature model adapted for the specific conditions in Kuwait is presented and its output compared with measurements
in two locations. A building model representative of a typical Kuwaiti dwelling has been implemented and all the models have been
encoded within the TRNSYS-IISIBAT environment. A typical meteorological year for Kuwait was prepared and used to predict the
cooling loads of the air-conditioned dwelling with and without the assistance of the EAHE. Simulation results showed that the
EAHE could provide a reduction of 1700 W in the peak cooling load, with an indoor temperature reduction of 2.8 1C during summer
peak hours (middle of July). The EAHE is shown to have the potential for reducing cooling energy demand in a typical house by
30% over the peak summer season.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction conditioning sector. Methods of reducing this energy

1.1. Background
The achievement of indoor thermal comfort whilst
minimizing energy consumption in buildings is a key
aim in most countries and is a particular challenge in
desert climates. The desert climate can be classified as
hot and arid and such conditions exist in a number of
areas throughout the world. One such area is Kuwait,
with an average ambient temperature of around 45 1C
during summer months [1]. In general, most people feel
comfortable indoors when the temperature is between 22
and 27 1C and relative humidity is within the range of
40–60%. Such conditions are often achieved through the
use of air-conditioning in desert climates; hence there is
a significant use of energy in the domestic air
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: D.L.Loveday@lboro.ac.uk (D.L. Loveday).
demand would thus have clear economic and environ-
mental benefits. In Kuwait, domestic air-conditioning
operates from the beginning of April to the end of
October and buildings in this sector consume about
75–80% of the total electric power, mainly due to the
impact of air-conditioning [2]. Despite the fact that the
Kuwait population decreases during the summer season,
the average electricity peak load for the months
May–September is 33% higher than the yearly average
electricity peak load [2]. For these reasons it would be
beneficial to investigate earth–air heat exchangers as
auxiliary cooling devices together with air-conditioning.
Cooling the outdoor air through buried pipes by
means of an earth–air heat exchanger (EAHE) has been
known for many years to have potential for increasing a
building’s comfort whilst decreasing its energy demand.
There are many reported experimental and analytical
studies on EAHE; however the use of EAHE systems for
buildings has not been investigated in the case of desert

0360-1323/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.01.027
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
236 F. Al-Ajmi et al. / Building and Environment 41 (2006) 235–244
Nomenclature
As annual surface temperature amplitude (1C)
d pipe diameter (m)
L pipe length (m)
k soil thermal conductivity (W/m 1C)
a thermal diffusivity of the soil (m2/h)
v kinematic viscosity of air (m2/s)
T2 exit air temperature delivered through the
pipe outlet (C)
T outlet exit air temperature delivered through the pipe
outlet (C) including increased air temperature
due to the heat caused by fan power (C)
T ðz;tÞ undisturbed soil temperature (1C) at depth z
(m) and time t (hours)
Tm mean annual ground temperature ¼ mean
annual ambient air temperature (1C)
t time of the year (hours)
t0 phase constant, hours (time to occurrence of
minimum surface temperature since start of
year, in hours)
Ta ambient air temperature (1C)
Q1 heat transferred to/from air (W)
Q2 total heat transferred along the pipe inclusive
of fan raised temperature inside buried pipe
(W)
Cp specific heat at constant pressure of air (J/kg K)
climates like that of Kuwait. The EAHE (or earth
cooling pipe) functions by transferring heat from the
sub-soil environment to air flowing in a buried pipe. In
summer this provides pre-cooling of the outdoor
ventilation air, which serves to reduce the cooling load
of the building.
Several experimental and analytical studies on EAHE
have been conducted. Francis [3] presented measured
data showing the performance of an earth cooling tube
system in the Midwest region of the USA. A similar
study was carried out by Akridge et al. [4] and Shingari
[5] in the Punjab Agricultural University in India.
Akridge [6] found that the passive cooling performance
of an EAHE in a humid region was limited. The earth
can provide sufficient sensible cooling, but the latent
cooling cannot be adequately achieved. Dhaliwal et al.
[7] presented a theoretical model of the earth cooling
pipe; the results were compared with experimental data
obtained in North Carolina, USA and showed good
agreement. In Japan, Qingysuan et al. [8] and Ishihara
et al. [9] performed experimental studies using an
earth cooling pipe, which resulted in a reduction in the
indoor temperature of a test house in Kumamoto by
more than 1 1C.
Sodha et al. [10] and Sawhney et al. [11] built a
cooling system that included a large earth–air tunnel
 effectiveness of EAHE system
m_ mass flow rate of air (kg/h)
V average velocity of air (m/s)
DPt fan total pressure difference (Pa)
Pf fan air power (W)
DT f temperature increase of air as it flows
through the pipe (1C)
q volumetric flow rate (m3 /s)
Zfan total fan efficiency
r density of air (kg/m3)
r pipe radius (m)
r1 radius of cylinder denoting thickness of soil
surrounding pipe (m)
Re Reynolds number
Pr Prandtl number
NTU no of transfer units
Nu Nusselt number
h convective film coefficient (W/m2 1C)
f friction factor for smooth pipe
Rc thermal resistance between air and pipe inner
surface (m2 1C/W)
Rs thermal resistance of earth ‘annulus’ (m2 1C/
W)
UA overall conductance of tube (W/m2 1C)
P atmospheric pressure (Pa)
kair thermal conductivity of air (W/m 1C)
z depth below ground (m)
system to provide thermal comfort inside a building
complex in two different regions in India. The two
earth–air tunnel systems were shown to be an effective
way to precondition ambient air during the summer.
From the tables provided, the daily average cooling
capacity produced by the earth cooling tunnel system
was about 512 kWh and the heating capacity of the same
system was about 269 kWh (Fig. 1). Sawhney’s data
showed that the cooling potential of the system in May
reaches 341 kWh, with a monthly average value of about
180 kWh. The reported coefficient of performance
(COP), defined as the useful heat gain divided by the
fan energy consumption of the system, was 3.35.
Mihalakakou et al. [12] produced a parametrical
model of an EAHE using the methodology of regression
analysis through a simulation program developed by the
authors. Parametrical analysis of an extensive set of
input parameter values was used to develop a model that
can be regarded as a ‘‘chart method’’ and is capable of
predicting the air temperature at the pipe outlet. The
model was validated against experimental data.
1.2. The desert climate of Kuwait
Kuwait is typical of a dry desert climate with the
highest air temperature being recorded in July and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Al-Ajmi et al. / Building and Environment 41 (2006) 235–244 237

Fig. 1. Cross-section of the earth tunnel and its connection to the buildings (After Sodha et al. [10]).

55 Kuwait Weather
50 Data

45 Building Model (TRNSYS-Type 56) EAHE (TRNSYS-Type 9)

Type264
Temperature

40
35
30 Underground
25 environment
Ambient air Temperature (Type 263)
20
15
Fig. 3. The building model, buried tube (EAHE), soil environment
1
122
243
364
485
606
727
848
969
1090
1211
1332
1453
1574
1695
1816
1937
2058
2179
2300
2421
2542
2663
2784
2905
3026
3147
3268
3389
3510

and their TRNSYS-subroutines.

Hours [May-Sept]

Fig. 2. Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) for dry bulb temperature

in Kuwait [13].
August with an afternoon average maximum of 45 1C
(see Fig. 2). Summer starts at the beginning of April and
continues until the end of October, with a mean air
temperature of 37 1C [1]. In addition, the air is generally
dry with an average relative humidity ranging from
14–42% in the summer and 42–80% in the winter. In
winter, the weather is comfortably cool, generally mild,
with a monthly mean temperature of 10 1C, and a
minimum temperature recorded being occasionally
below 5 1C. Precipitation is low and dust storms are
common [1]. Kuwait is located between latitude 29 1 130
North and longitude 471 580 East at an elevation above
mean sea level (m.s.l.) of 45 m.
through the pipe wall and convection with the tunnel
air, tempering the air as it flows through the pipe. Fig. 3
illustrates this concept, together with the modelling
strategy adopted. These are described fully in subse-
quent sections of the paper.
3. Earth–air heat exchanger (EAHE)
The EAHE system presented in this paper was
modelled as two coupled heat transfer processes,
namely, convection heat transfer between air flowing
in the pipe and the pipe inner surface, and conduction
heat transfer between the pipe outer surface and the soil
environment.
In order to analyse the EAHE system, the following
assumptions were applied:

2. The earth–air heat exchanger concept
The concept of the EAHE or earth cooling pipe is that
of a pipe or several pipes buried in the ground. One end
of the pipe system (the inlet) acts as the entrance for
outdoor ambient air, whilst the other end of the pipe
system (the outlet) releases air to the interior of a
building. Ambient air is drawn into the pipe inlet, the air
travelling through the pipe exchanging heat with the
pipe walls which are in contact with the surrounding
underground environment. In this way, heat is trans-
ferred to or from the surrounding soil by conduction
1. The soil surrounding the pipe is isotropic, with
homogenous thermal conductivity in all ground
strata.
2. The thermal resistance of the pipe material is
negligible (thickness of the pipe is very small).
3. The surface temperature of the ground can be
approximated to the ambient air temperature, which
equals the inlet air temperature.
4. The pipe is of uniform circular cross-section.
5. The thermal effect of soil surrounding the pipe is
negligible after a distance ‘r’ from the pipe outer
surface, where ‘r’ is the pipe radius.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
238 F. Al-Ajmi et al. / Building and Environment 41 (2006) 235–244

3.1. Soil temperature model 32.0

31
30 30.9 30.5
30.0 30.2

Sub-soil Temperature [C]

29 30 29.2
Kusuda et al. [14], Moreland et al. [15] and Labs [16] 28.7
28 29
28.0 27.2
have mathematically modelled the annual sub-surface 26.7

soil temperature based on heat conduction theory 26.0

25.2 25
26

applied to a semi-infinite homogenous solid. Predictions 24.0

24 24 24
24.8
T(4,t)(0.0038)
25

23.8
of soil temperature exhibit a sinusoidal pattern due to 23.1
23.5 Measured
22.0
the annual temperature fluctuation above. The predic-
tion accuracy of the undisturbed soil temperature is very 20.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Auq Sep Oct Nov Dec
sensitive to the values of the input parameters in the months
following equation:
Fig. 4. Predicted and measured soil temperature at 4 m depth with
0:5
T ðz;tÞ ¼ T m  As eðzðp=8760aÞ Þ thermal diffusivity equal to 0.0038 m2/h [17].
"
 !#
2p z 8760 0:5
 cos t  t0  . ð1Þ
8760 2 pa
Ta = Tinlet Toutlet
However, when the variables are determined from field Soil Cylinder
measurements, the model generally yields errors of no 2r
more than 1:1  C [16]. L
Rc

r Air
3.1.1. Prediction of the Kuwaiti sub-soil temperature
The sub-surface soil temperature in Kuwait was
predicted using Eq. (1) with input parameters measured
at two Kuwaiti sites (a desert region and a coastal Fig. 5. Earth–air heat exchanger (EAHE) system with the layers is
shown in cross-section.
region) at depths of 1, 2 and 3 m in both regions. Values
found for the annual mean ground temperature (T m ),
annual surface temperature amplitude (As ), soil thermal
diffusivity (a), and phase constant (t0 ) were 27 1C,
13.3 1C, 0.0038 m2/h and 552 h, respectively (Al-Ajmi et A steady-state analysis gives the thermal resistance
al. [17]). Substituting these values into Eq. (1), the (Rs ) of the ‘‘soil annulus’’ as
Kuwaiti sub-surface soil temperature can be predicted lnðr1 =rÞ
using the following modified equation: Rs ¼ . (3)
2pLk
T ðz;tÞ ¼ 27  13:3eð0:31zÞ The thermal resistance (Rc ) due to convection heat
  transfer between air in the pipe and the pipe inner
2p
 cos ðt  552  428:31zÞ . ð2Þ surface may be expressed as
8760
1
This equation has been validated against measured soil Rc ¼ , (4)
temperature values (Kuwait International Airport [1] 2prLh
and Allison, [18]). Good agreement between measured where
and predicted values to an accuracy of 1  C has been Nukair
found (see Fig. 4) [17]. Eq. (2) has therefore been used in h¼ . (5)
d
this analysis.
Here, thermal conductivity of the air (kair ) in Eq. (5) is
calculated [22] using Eq. (6):
3.2. EAHE model development

kair ¼ 0:02442 þ 104 ð0:6992T a Þ . (6)

A circular ground cooling pipe was modelled as a
The convective heat transfer coefficient ðhÞ in Eq. (5)
cross-flow heat exchanger with one fluid unmixed (i.e.,
above is a function of Reynolds number Re; and Nusselt
air). An external thermal resistance was provided by a
number, Nu, where
surrounding concentric cylinder of earth of arbitrary
thickness, which was exposed to an undisturbed subsoil Vd
Re ¼ . (7)
temperature as a boundary condition. Several research- n
ers have considered the appropriate thickness of the soil Here, the kinematic viscosity of air ðnÞ in Eq. (7) is
annulus [19–21]. In this work, the thickness of the calculated from [22] using Eq. (8):
annulus was taken as being equal to the radius of the
pipe ðr1 ¼ 2rÞ (Fig. 5). n ¼ 104 ð0:1335 þ 0:000925T a Þ. (8)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Al-Ajmi et al. / Building and Environment 41 (2006) 235–244 239

The Nusselt number for flow inside a pipe is given by where DPt is the fan total pressure difference, q is
Incropera et al. [23] as volumetric flow rate and Zfan is fan total efficiency which
Nu ¼ 4:36 if Reo2300. may be expressed as the ratio of total air power to the
shaft power input.
The Nusselt number for fully developed laminar and The power supplied by the fan is regarded as being
turbulent flow in a circular pipe for the ranges converted to heat and to causing an increase in the
0:5pPrp2000 and 2300oReo5  106 is proposed by temperature of the air as it flows through the pipe,
Gnielinski, [24] as [25,26] hence
ðf =8ÞðRe  1000ÞPr DPt
Nu ¼ . (9) DT f ¼ . (18)
1 þ 12:7ðf =8Þ1=2 ðPr2=3  1Þ Zfan rC p
Here, f is the friction coefficient for smooth pipes and is Therefore the EAHE outlet air temperature may be
determined using Petukhov’s relationship [23], which is given by
expressed as
T outlet ¼ T 2 þ DT f . (19)
f ¼ ð0:79 ln Re  1:64Þ2 . (10)
Hence, total heat transferred along the pipe inclusive of
The total thermal resistance Rtot between pipe air and the fan-raised temperature inside the buried pipe may be
surrounding soil of the EAHE system may then be given by
determined from _ p ðT a  T outlet Þ.
Q2 ¼ mC (20)
Rtot ¼ Rs þ Rc . (11)

The overall coefficient of heat transfer is defined by

1 4. Validation of the EAHE model
U¼ . (12)
Rtot
The EAHE model presented in Section 3.2 was
For a pipe of infinite length, the fluid (unmixed) through validated against two experimental studies (Dhaliwal
a constant temperature ðT pipe surface ¼ T ðz;tÞ Þ; the effec- et al. [7] and Shingari [5]) and one theoretical study
tiveness of the EAHE can be defined as (Mihalakakou et al. [12]).
_ p
 ¼ 1  eUA=mC , (13) The parametrical model of Mihalakakou et al. [12]
was based on a multicorrelation procedure involving
where variation over a range of input parameters such as pipe

2 length, pipe radius, air velocity inside the tube and depth
pd
_ ¼r
m V ¼ qr. of the buried pipe. A parametrical analysis of an
4
extensive set of input parameter values was used to
The definition of temperature effectiveness ðÞ is given develop a model, which can be classified as a ‘‘chart
by method’’. The comparisons between the two models
were performed using TRNSYS-IISBAT [27] and
Ta  T2
¼ . (14) employed Kuwait hourly weather data. Fig. 6 shows
T a  T ðz;tÞ the comparison of the two models: the difference
Setting Eq. (13) equal to Eq. (14) and solving for ðT 2 Þ; between the predicted outlet temperatures is within the
the exponential relation for outlet air temperature of the range 0:1–0:6  C:
earth–air heat exchanger as a function of the surround- The experimental studies having input parameters
ing subsoil temperature ðT ðz;tÞ Þ and inlet air temperature similar to that of the present application were those by
ðT a Þ may be expressed as Shingari [5] and by Dhaliwal et al. [7]. The two systems
T 2 ¼ T a  ðT a  T ðz;tÞ Þ. (15)
40
35
The total heat transferred to/from the air when flowing
30
along the buried pipe may be expressed as 25
°C

_ p ðT a  T 2 Þ.
Q1 ¼ mC (16) 20 Mihalakakou
15 EAHE
The fan energy consumed in blowing air through a pipe 10
2880 3380 3880 4380 4880 5380 5880 6380
is additional energy expenditure in the EAHE system. Time (hours)
The fan air power is given by
DPt q Fig. 6. EAHE model vs. Mihalakakou et al. [12] model predictions of
Pf ¼ , (17) outlet temperatures at depth 2 m using Kuwait TMY hourly weather
Zfan data [13].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
240 F. Al-Ajmi et al. / Building and Environment 41 (2006) 235–244

Table 1
Input parameters for three systems: Mihalakakou et al. [12], Shingari [5] and Dhaliwal et al. [7]

System Mihalakakou et al. Shingari Dhaliwal et al.

Pipe diameter (cm) Table selection 20 cm 30 cm

Pipe length (m) Table selection 13 24.7
Air velocity (m/s) Table selection At 0.5,1.3,4.5, 10.5 1.5
Soil temperature ( C) Input parameter 20 18.89
Pipe depth (m) Table selection (2 m) 1.7 2.13
Soil thermal conductivity — — 1.16 W/m 1C
Soil thermal diffusivity — — 0.00232 m2/h
Ambient temperature ( C) Any weather (Kuwait) Provided Provided

Table 2
EAHE model predictions vs. Dhaliwal et al. [7] experimental measurements

Time Air temperature Distance from the inlet of buried pipe to the outlet

3.35 m 6.4 m 9.451 m 12.5 m 15.55 m 24.7 m

At first hour 25.56 1C (Dhaliwal et al., 1984) 25.00 1C 24.40 1C 25.00 1C 24.40 1C 23.80 1C 23.80 1C
EAHE outlet temperature 24.94 1C 24.43 1C 23.97 1C 23.54 1C 23.15 1C 22.16 1C
After 17.5 h 20.55 1C (Dhaliwal et al., 1984) 20.55 1C 20.00 1C 20.00 1C 20.00 1C 20.00 1C 20.00 1C
EAHE outlet temperature 20.40 1C 20.27 1C 20.16 1C 20.05 1C 19.95 1C 19.71 1C

are outlined in Table 1. The experimental studies by Table 3

Dhaliwal et al. [7] were performed at North Carolina EAHE model predictions vs. Shingari [5] experimental measurements
A&T University using a pipe of 30 cm diameter and Velocity Ambient Shingari EAHE—predicted
length 24.7 m buried in the soil to a depth of 1.7 m. The air temp. (experimental) outlet temperature
system was run for one day and the outlet temperatures (1C) (1C)
predicted by the EAHE model are in good agreement
0.5 m/s 33.6 30:3  C  0:74 25.5
with the measured values. The outlet temperature results 1.3 m/s 38.6 31:1  C  0:47 30.18
for both systems are shown in Table 2. In addition, in 4.5 m/s 37.5 33:5  C  0:59 33.29
the buried pipe system of Shingari [5], the correlation 10.5 m/s 39.6 35:4  C  0:33 35.87
between the airflow in the pipe and the outlet
temperature was examined. The results (based on the
data given in Table 1) show good agreement between the
EAHE model predictions and Shingari’s results (see [7]. Thus, the model can be used to describe the thermal
Table 3). performance of the EAHE system and is suitable for
However, the slight difference in outlet temperature design calculations and feasibility studies.
between the two experimental studies (i.e., Dhaliwal et
al. [7] and Shingari [5]) and the EAHE model predic-
tions presented here could be due to the short period of 5. Description of example building
operation of the two experimental systems, where the
thermal stability of soil mass surrounding the two A typical Kuwaiti domestic building of dimensions
systems at the beginning of the experiment was still 10 m  10 m  3 m was defined for testing EAHE
developing. In both cases, discrepancies between pre- performance, with wall and roof details as shown
dictions and experimental results become insignificant (Fig. 7). The building materials (walls, roof and floor)
after these initial readings. are shown in Table 4, and are in accord with the
From the above, it can be concluded that the EAHE prevailing building materials and practices in the region.
model has been shown to predict an outlet air The building is assumed to have two windows each of
temperature that is in good agreement with data from area 1 m2 in the North/South direction. Windows, door
Mihalakakou et al. [12], Shingari [5] and Dhaliwal et al. details and infiltration are as follows:
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Al-Ajmi et al. / Building and Environment 41 (2006) 235–244 241

10cm Concrete
Block

9cm Sand-Lime Brick

2cm Cement
Plastering

5cm Thermal ConcreteSlab

Insulation Foam Concrete
Thermal Insulation Water
Sand Screed proofing
Mozaic
Tiles

Fig. 7. Building materials and construction for typical classical Kuwaiti walls and roof.

Table 4
Details of building space components and their thermophysical properties

No Name Material Thickness (mm) Thermal conductivity (W/mK) Density (kg/m3) Thermal capacity (KJ/kgK)

1 Exterior walls (Classical) Sand-lime block 90 1.31 1918 0.795

Insulation 50 0.032 30 1.12
Cement block 200 1.64 2011 0.91
Cement plaster 20 1.0 2085 0.84
2 Floor Concrete slab 150 1.77 2297 0.921
Sand 60 0.337 1800 0.920
Sand cement 20 1.0 2080 0.84
Mozaic tiles 20 1.104 2284 0.8

3 Roof Mozaic tiles 20 1.104 2284 0.8

Cement mortar 20 1.0 2085 0.84
Sand screed 20 1.0 2080 0.84
Insulation 50 0.032 30 1.12
Water proofing 3 0.14 934 1.507
Sand screed 20 1.0 2080 0.84
Foam concrete 50 0.21 351 0.879
Concrete slab 150 1.77 2297 0.921

Window type: Double-glazing with U-value ¼ Ground

OUTPUT
Temperature
2:7 W=m2 K; Shading factor ¼ 0:82; Infiltration rate ¼ Type 263 Type 25, 65
KJ/h and °C
0:4 air changes per hour (ach); Door (North facing) with
an area of 1.9 m2. Kuwait
Fan to EAHE
Building
Weather File circulate air
(TMY) Model Model
Type 9 to EAHE Type 264 Using
TRNSYS-
Prebid Type 56
6. Computer simulation of EAHE system and example
Solar Radiation
building Processor
TRNSYS-

The sub-surface soil temperature model (Section 3.1) Sky-Temperature

and the EAHE model (Section 3.2) were cast in the TRNSYS-Type 69

format of TRNSYS types (TYPE 263 and 264,

respectively). In addition, the TMY data, radiation
processor and sky temperature facilities of TRNSYS
[27] were incorporated into the complete model. The
building model was prepared using the PREBID facility
[27] with the option of passing the ventilation air directly
into the building or via the EAHE unit. The complete
simulation program linking these components is shown
in Fig. 8, and illustrates the overall structure of the
Fig. 8. TRNSYS System configuration and formative structure of the
TRNSYS-Types used (inclusive Type 263 and Type 264) for the
simulation of example building thermal performance.
simulation process through the linkages of the relevant
TRNSYS types; these represent the integration of the
EAHE system, the building and the Kuwaiti weather
data.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
242 F. Al-Ajmi et al. / Building and Environment 41 (2006) 235–244

The simulations were conducted with the TRNSYS- and EAHE assistance was 2670 W. The peak cooling load
IISIBAT program using the EAHE model (Type264) reduction due to the operation of the EAHE was thus
and the Kuwaiti sub-soil model (Type263), as developed 1700 W (mid-July). The indoor temperature of the
in the paper, to investigate the thermal characteristics building for the ‘‘free running’’ condition (that is, without
and energy savings of a typical domestic Kuwaiti air conditioning) showed a reduction of 2.8 1C in the peak
building if assisted by an EAHE system. The example hours through use of the EAHE system (Fig. 10). The
building, modelled using TRNSYS-PREBID (which monthly total cooling energy consumptions for the
creates a file that has all building descriptions and period May–September are given in Table 5. It is evident
information) has the capability to let the user define the from Table 5 that the total cooling demand of the air
ventilation air as either ‘‘outside ambient air’’ or conditioning system can be decreased if the EAHE
‘‘other’’ in (each zone of) the building model. The outlet system is employed. The highest cooling capacity saving
air from the EAHE (Type264) is discharged into the is achieved in the months of July and August, with values
building and thus is taken as ‘‘other’’ for the ventilation of 411 and 420 kWh, respectively.
supply. This ventilation supply is in terms of ‘‘energy There are many factors that could be varied so as to
rate control’’ and is defined in TRNSYS-Type 56 as an increase the performance of the EAHE and improve the
energy gain/loss input where its additional energy is thermal comfort in the building. Some of these include
added to or subtracted from the zone. TRNSYS-Type the length of pipe, the number of pipes used, the
56 will then adjust the loads accordingly to the entire diameter of the pipe, velocity of air in the pipe, ground
load (TRNSYS/PREBID 3.0) [27]. moisture content and ground reflectivity. In practice, the
last two can be influenced by shading the ground surface
and by vegetation cover; these effects can in turn be
7. Building simulation with the EAHE model accounted for in the model by varying soil thermal
diffusivity and thermal conductivity (since soil moisture
The simulation was carried out for the period from content can vary—see, for example, Al-Ajmi et al. [17]).
May to September, which is the most arid and the hottest Whilst the indoor temperature cannot be maintained in
time of the year in Kuwait. The hourly cooling load the thermal comfort range by the use of the EAHE
simulation from hour 3650 (May) to 6420 (September) is system alone, such a system could usefully enhance the
shown in Fig. 9 for the example building. The simulation cooling capacity of an air conditioning system, and
was conducted for the case of the building being cooled thereby reduce energy consumption.
by air-conditioning both with and without assistance It can be seen that over the summer period
from the EAHE (Fig. 9). The peak heat removal rate considered, the incorporation of an EAHE system can
from the building with air-conditioning alone was reduce the cooling load on the building by some
calculated to be 4370 W while that with air-conditioning 1693 kWh, a saving of 30%.

4000
.cool of building without EAHE
.Cool of building with EAHE
3500

3000

2500
Cooling Loads

2000

1500

1000

500

0
3646 3796 3946 4096 4246 4396 4546 4696 4846 4996 5146 5296 5446 5596 5746 5896 6046 6196 6346 6496

Hours [3646-6572]

Fig. 9. Heat removed from the building by air conditioning during May–September with and without EAHE assistance (EAHE pipe length 60 m,
pipe diameter 0.25 m at depth 4 m below ground surface, air flow rate 100 kg/h).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Al-Ajmi et al. / Building and Environment 41 (2006) 235–244 243

40

35

30
Indoor Temperature (C)

25

20
Indoor Temp.(C) with out EAHE
Indoor Temp.(C) with EAHE
15

10

0
3650
3720
3800
3870
3940
4020
4090
4170
4240
4310
4390
4460
4540
4610
4680
4760
4830
4910
4980
5050
5130
5200
5280
5350
5420
5500
5570
5650
5720
5790
5870
5940
6020
6090
6160
6240
6310
6390
Hours [3650-6410]

Fig. 10. Indoor air temperature of the building during the period May–September for the ‘‘free-running’’ situation, with and without EAHE
assistance.

Table 5 estimate energy performances. The EAHE was config-

May–September cooling capacity of the building with and without ured so that the ventilation air to the dwelling could be
EAHE assistance
routed through the EAHE, thus affording a means of
Month Total cooling Total cooling Saving due to comparing the performance of the building when free-
capacity with capacity the EAHE running, as well as with the presence of domestic air
EAHE (kWh) without assistance conditioning. The simulation of building cooling loads
EAHE (kWh) (kWh)
and indoor temperature in the summer desert climate of
May 649 952 303 Kuwait led to the following findings:
June 584 996 412
July 839 1250 411
August 1050 1470 420
1. An EAHE system of pipe length 60 m, pipe diameter
September 809 956 147
Seasonal total 3931 5624 1693 0.25 m and an air mass flow rate of 100 kg/h gave a
reduction in indoor temperature of a domestic
building of 2.8 1C at the peak hour of mid-July. The
indoor temperature in the building equipped with
EAHE assistance varies in the summer season
between 32 and 28 1C.
8. Conclusions 2. A TRNSYS simulation of the performance of a
typical domestic building in Kuwait over a period of
In this paper an earth–air heat exchanger (EAHE) 2770 h during May–September has shown that the
model has been presented. The model was validated peak heat removal rate from the air conditioned
against three other studies: Mihalakakou et al. [12], building can be reduced by up to 1700 W through the
Dhaliwal et al. [7], and Shingari [5]. The validation use of the EAHE system
process shows that the proposed EAHE model does 3. A reduction in monthly domestic cooling energy of
agree with all of the three models with respect to the up to 420 kWh (July figure) may be achieved by using
input parameters given and is therefore considered to be an EAHE system simultaneously with an air con-
appropriate for simulating the thermal behaviour of an ditioning system. A reduction of 30% in seasonal
EAHE of the design examined. A mathematical model cooling demand is possible.
for predicting Kuwait sub-surface soil temperatures was 4. The EAHE system alone cannot maintain indoor
also presented, and was validated against measured thermal comfort within the acceptable range
ground temperatures. The sub-surface temperature (22–27 1C), but it could be used to reduce energy
model was then used in conjunction with the EAHE demand in domestic buildings in Kuwait if used in
model and a model of a typical Kuwaiti dwelling to conjunction with an air conditioning system.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
244 F. Al-Ajmi et al. / Building and Environment 41 (2006) 235–244
It is concluded that there is potential for EAHE systems
to make a useful contribution to energy saving in
Kuwait, and in similar desert climate locations.
References
[1] Kuwait International Airport. Climatological summaries year
1962–1982. Meteorological Department climatological division;
(1st ed.). State of Kuwait, 1983.
[2] Ministry of Electricity and Water (MEW). Statistical yearbook
2000, Electrical energy, (25th ed.) State of Kuwait, 2000.
[3] Francis CE. Earth cooling tubes—case studies of three Midwest
installations. Proceedings of the international passive cooling
conference, Miami, Florida, 1981. p. 171–5.
[4] Akridge TM, Benton CC. Performance studies of a thermal
envelope house. Phase II—cooling performance. Atlanta, Geor-
gia: Southern Solar Energy Center; 1981.
[5] Shingari BK. Earth tube heat exchanger. Poultry International
1995;34(PT 14):92–7.
[6] Akridge JM. Investigation of passive cooling techniques for hot-
humid climates. Research report, College of Architecture,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, 1982.
[7] Dhaliwal AS, Goswami DY. Heat transfer analysis environment
control using an underground air tunnel. ASME Solar Energy
Div., Las Vegas, 1984. p. 505–10.
[8] Qingysuan Zhang, Osamu Ishihara, Tetsuo Hayashi. Develop-
ment of residence with solar heating earth cooling, and air
circulation. ASHRAE Transactions, 1994. p. 333–41.
[9] Ishihara O, Zhang Q. Cooling effects of earth tubes on dwellings.
Proceedings of the 1992 ASME/JSES/KSES international solar
energy conference, 1992.
[10] Sodha MS, Sharma AK, Singh SP, Bansal Kumar A. Evaluation
of an earth–air tunnel system for cooling/heating of a hospital
complex. Building and Environment 1985;20(2):115–22.
[11] Sawhney RL, Buddhi D, Thanu NM. An experimental study of
summer performance of a recirculation type underground airpipe air
conditioning system. Building and Environment 1999;34:189–96.
[12] Mihalakakou G, Santamouris M, Asimakopoulos D. Tselepidaki.
Parametric prediction of the buried pipes cooling potential
for passive cooling applications. Solar Energy 1995;55(3):163–73.
[13] Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research (KISR). Typical Meteor-
ological Year (TMY). Engineering Division, Weather Station
Department, Kuwait, 1995.
[14] Kusuda TO, Bean W. Annual variation of temperature field and
heat transfer under heated ground surface, slab-on grade floor
heat loss calculation. Building Science Services 156, Gaithersburg,
MD: National Bureau of Standards; 1983.
[15] Moreland FL, Higgs F, Shih J, (editors.) Earth-covered buildings.
Proceeding of conference in Fort Worth, Texas, U.S., May 1978,
Washington, DC: D.O.E., 1980.
[16] Labs K. In: Cook J, editor. Passive cooling. Cambridge
Massachusetts, London, England: MIT Press; 1989.
[17] Al-Ajmi F, Hanby VI, Loveday DL. Thermal performance of the
sub-soil environment in dry desert climate. ASHRAE Transac-
tion, 2002; 108, Pt. 2.
[18] Allison TR. Heat gains in Kuwait buildings, a simplified code,
Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research (KISR) -PPI/110 ENG-
PT-G-7931, 1979.
[19] Elmer D, Gail S. A preliminary examination of the dehumidifica-
tion potential of earth–air heat exchangers. Proceedings of the
international passive cooling conference, Miami, Florida, 1981. p.
161–5.
[20] Scot NR. Analysis and performance of an earth–air heat
exchanger. Presented at the 1965 Winter meeting, American
Society of Agricultural Engineer, Chicago, Illinois, 1965.
[21] Zoellick B. Predicted and observed performance of a buried
earth–air heat exchanger cooling system. Proceedings of the 6th
national passive solar conference (6th 1 sponsors, Passive system
division); 1981. p. 822–6.
[22] Hanby V. Combustion and pollution control in heating systems.
London, UK: Springer; 1994.
[23] Incropera F, David De W. Introduction to heat transfer. 2nd ed.
New York, NY: Wiley; 1996.
[24] Gnielinski V. New equation for heat and mass transfer
in turbulent pipe and channel flow. Int. Chem. Eng. 1976;16:
359–68.
[25] Jones WP. Air conditioning engineering, 4th ed. London: Edward
Arnold; 1994.
[26] Kreider J, Rabi A. Heating and cooling of buildings. Design for
efficiency. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
[27] Solar Energy Laboratory. TRNSYS user manual. University of
Wisconsin-Madison, 1996.