Energy Conversion and Management 114 (2016) 324–337

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Parametric study on thermal performance of horizontal earth pipe

cooling system in summer
S.F. Ahmed a,b,⇑, M.T.O. Amanullah a, M.M.K. Khan b, M.G. Rasul b, N.M.S. Hassan b
a
School of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong Waurn Ponds Campus, Victoria 3220, Australia
b
School of Engineering and Technology, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton Campus, Queensland 4702, Australia

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

Article history: Rational use of energy and its associated greenhouse gas emissions has become a key issue for a sustain-
Received 22 October 2015 able environment and economy. A substantial amount of energy is consumed by today’s buildings which
Accepted 24 January 2016 are accountable for about 40% of the global energy consumption. There are on-going researches in order
Available online 23 February 2016
to overcome these and find new techniques through energy efficient measures. Passive air cooling of
earth pipe cooling technique is one of those which can save energy in buildings with no greenhouse
Keywords: gas emissions. The performance of the earth pipe cooling system is mainly affected by the parameters,
Parametric study
namely air velocity, pipe length, pipe diameter, pipe material, and pipe depth. This paper investigates
Earth pipe cooling
Thermal performance
the impact of these parameters on thermal performance of the horizontal earth pipe cooling system in
Hot humid climate a hot humid subtropical climate at Rockhampton, Australia. For the parametric investigation, a thermal
model was developed for the horizontal earth pipe cooling system using the simulation program, FLUENT
15.0. Results showed a significant effect for air velocity, pipe length, and pipe diameter on the earth pipe
cooling performance, where the pipe length dominated the other parameters.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The global energy consumption has increased in different forms
during the last decades. In 2009, it was about 480 quadrillion Btu
that increased to 524 quadrillion Btu in 2012. This signifies an
annual average increase rate of 3.06% from 2009 throughout
2012 [1]. Population growth and higher income leads to this high
energy demand. The world population is projected to reach 8.3 bil-
lion from its current 7 billion by 2030 [2]. Therefore, more energy
will be needed for an additional 1.3 billion people.
The residential sector is a substantial energy consumer all over
the world. Nationally, the energy consumption of this sector
accounts for 16-50% and averages roughly 30% worldwide [3]. This
use of energy is mainly due to the space cooling and heating the
buildings. It is therefore important to apply energy efficient tech-
niques in these buildings through new and novel building designs,
which can be developed by employing several passive air cooling
strategies. Earth pipe cooling system is one of the passive air cool-
ing systems, which can reduce the cooling loads of the buildings.
The earth pipe cooling system operates with long buried pipes
in which intake air comes through one end and passes through
⇑ Corresponding author at: School of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong
Waurn Ponds Campus, Victoria 3220, Australia.
the buried pipes, and thus gets cooled by the soil. The cooled air
is then blown out of the other end into a space. Since the system
uses the underground spaces, it offers several additional
advantages, for example, noise, protection from dust, partial air
infiltration, storms and radiation, etc. It also offers a great potential
for energy saving for any hot humid climate, like Queensland, since
it can supplement the air conditioning load of many homes [4].
As a reasonable and economical option to ordinary cooling, the
earth pipe cooling system is a type of choice, since no customary
mechanical units are needed. In this system, the earth’s near
constant underground temperature is used for cooling air in
industrial, residential and agricultural buildings [5–7]. The infinite
thermal capacity of earth has made it a very useful heat sink for
building cooling. The rationale behind this is that the daily and
regular temperature variation is significantly diminished in the
ground below a certain depth where the soil temperature remains
constant. The soil temperature decreases in summer with increas-
ing depth, which allows the utilisation of earth as a heat sink [8].
Meanwhile, the soil temperature increases in winter with
increasing depth to a certain point, hence the use of earth as a heat
source [9].
Thermal performance assessment is very important in order to
measure the cooling capacity of the earth pipe cooling system. To
assess the thermal performance of this system, several researches

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.01.061
0196-8904/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S.F. Ahmed et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 114 (2016) 324–337
Nomenclature
k kinetic energy for turbulent flow (m2 s
2)
e turbulent energy dissipation rate (m2 s
3)
q air density (kg/m3)
qv air flow rate (m3/s)
v air velocity (m/s)
A area of a region (m2)
Jj component of diffusion flux (m
2 s
1)
xi component


of length (m)



C 3e ¼ tanh
uu12
constant, u1 and u2 are the velocity components
parallel and perpendicular to the gravitational vector
respectively
C 1e , C 2e constants
YM contribution of the fluctuating dilatation in compress-
ible turbulence to the overall dissipation rate
(kg m
1 s
2)
D diameter of the pipe (m)
DT difference in temperature (K)
i, j, k (=1, 2, 3) direction vector index
Dx distance of heat transfer between two surfaces (m)
keff effective conductivity (W m
1 K
1)
Pef effective fan power (W)
_ in
W energy input rate into the earth pipe cooling system (J)
h enthalpy (J kg
1)
were conducted in different hot humid climatic conditions. It’s
thermal performance was evaluated in a subtropical climate in
Queensland, Australia by the authors [10–13]. A 1–2 °C reduction
in temperature was attained in those studies for a 27.23 m3 room.
The cooling performance of the horizontal earth pipe cooling sys-
tem was investigated in an agriculture greenhouse in Thailand by
Mongkon et al. [14]. The study shows that this system has the
potential to cool the greenhouse during daytime.
In most of the cases, the earth pipe cooling system is supported
by a heat pump as a heat exchanger positioned within the buried
pipe [15]. This is also identified as an earth pipe air heat exchanger,
which can be used for cooling the buildings during summer and for
heating in winter [16–19]. Bansal et al. [20] evaluated the cooling
capacity of the earth pipe air heat exchanger by a numerical model.
The model was developed to assess the impact of different pipe
materials and air velocities on the thermal performance of the heat
exchanger using FLUENT. The results showed that the pipe materi-
als have no noticeable impact whereas the air velocity has greater
influence. Another numerical model was also developed for the
earth pipe air heat exchanger [21]. It was found that the model is
computationally fast and simple to be implemented into building
thermal insulation programs.
As mentioned earlier, the cooling performance of the earth pipe
cooling system is mainly influenced by pipe length, pipe radius,
buried underground pipe depth and air flow rate used in the earth
pipe cooling system. The impact of these parameters on the perfor-
mance of the earth pipe cooling system was assessed by an implicit
and transient model using PHOENICS in Southern China [22]. The
results revealed that a daily cooling capacity up to 74.6 kW h can
be achieved using the system. Many researchers found that the
resulting outlet temperature at the buried pipe decreases with
decreasing pipe radius, decreasing mass flow rate in the pipe,
increasing pipe length and increasing depths up to 4 m [23].
Various pipe diameters produce different cooling rates in an
earth pipe cooling system. A study was carried out to investigate
the earth pipe cooling performance using three different buried
325
ui ; uj fluid velocity components (m s
1)
l fluid viscosity (kg m
1 s
1)
Gb generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to buoy-
ancy (kg m
1 s
2)
Gk generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to the mean
velocity gradients (kg m
1 s
2)
Q heat flow rate (J/s)
r  ðkeff rTÞ heat transfer due to convection
r  ðseff  ~v Þ heat transfer due to viscous diffusion
l length of the pipe (m)
m mass of a substance (kg)
t ¼ l=q molecular kinetic viscosity of the fluid (m2 s
1)
p pressure (Pa)
DP t pressure loss (Pa)
 
P !
r j hj J j species diffusion
cp specific heat capacity (J/kg K)
T temperature (K)
t time (s)
Sh total entropy (J K
1)
e turbulent energy dissipation rate (m2 s
3)
rk turbulent Prandtl numbers for k
re turbulent Prandtl numbers for e
SK ; Se user-defined source terms
pipe radius of 0.125 m, 0.180 m and 0.250 m [24]. The outlet tem-
perature of the buried pipe got higher with increased pipe radius. A
buried pipe of small radius allows air to transfer excess heat to the
soil quickly, since the centre point of the pipe gets closer to the
outside soil [25,26]. Ghosal and Tiwari [23] agreed with these
and reported that the pipe outlet temperature can be decreased
with reducing the pipe radius.
Length of the buried pipes is one of the major factors that influ-
ence the earth pipe cooling performance. A longer buried pipe pro-
duces lower air temperature at the buried pipe outlet, which has
been proved by several researches [23–25]. But, in some cases
the longer pipes are not acceptable from the economic point of
view. Moreover, the pipes need to be cost effective in case of an
efficient cooling system. Their cost efficiency was evaluated for a
hot, arid climate in Kuwait [27]. It was measured by calculating
the payback time of the system. The payback time for the optimum
configuration was obtained as 7.24 years, where the pipe diameter,
the pipe length, and the pipe depth were 0.35 m, 56.97 m and
5.47 m respectively.
Material of the pipe is another factor that also affects the perfor-
mance of the earth pipe cooling system. Each material has different
thermal conductivity. The materials of higher thermal conductivity
have higher heat transfer rate, and therefore can reduce the buried
pipe outlet temperature. The impact of different pipe materials
were analysed through a number of studies [28]. It was observed
that the pipe material has no noticeable impact on the cooling
performance.
Mihalakakou et al. investigated the impact of different pipe
depths of 1.2 m, 2 m and 3 m on the earth pipe cooling perfor-
mance [24]. The deeper pipe depth of 3 m provided the lowest
temperature at the pipe outlet. They also conducted a similar study
with different pipe depths of 2.5 m, 4 m and lower than 4 m [29].
The outcomes of this study also gave similar result. Air velocity
is another key factor that influences the earth pipe cooling perfor-
mance. To analyse the impact of different air velocities, 2 m/s and
5 m/s were considered for a study conducted in summer [20].
326 S.F. Ahmed et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 114 (2016) 324–337

The pipe outlet temperature was increased in this study by increas-

ing the air velocity at the pipe inlet.
The low energy cooling techniques using the earth became pro-
gressively popular in America and Europe after the oil emergency in
1973 [26]. It has been commonly applied in Germany, Denmark,
Austria and India since the 1990s, and are gradually being imple-
mented in North America [30]. However, there have been a few
researches on the earth pipe cooling system comprising both exper-
imental and numerical studies. In particular, no extensive paramet-
ric study is seen to have been undertaken on the performance of the
earth pipe cooling system. Moreover, it has not been practiced in
any hot and humid climate in Australia. Therefore, the parametric
study for the earth pipe cooling system is very important and timely Fig. 2. Diagram for horizontal earth pipe cooling (HEPC) system.

for the Australian economy and environment. This study aims to

assess the horizontal earth pipe cooling performance by a paramet-
underground, transfers excess heat to the earth and thus gets cooler.
ric analysis in a hot humid climate in Rockhampton, Australia.
A CFD model, namely the realisable k
e turbulence model was
used for modelling the heat transfer process. This model deals with
2. Experimental design and measurement an extensive class of turbulent flows in heat transfer and industrial
flow simulations. The turbulence model was selected for modelling
An excavation of dimension 8.1 m  2.0 m was made (Fig. 1) the HEPC system because of the turbulent flow occurred at the out-
using an excavator for installing the horizontal earth pipe cooling let. Using the CFD code ‘‘FLUENT in ANSYS 15.0”, the problem was
(HEPC) system. The HEPC piping layout involves two simple Poly- solved numerically that performs with the finite volume method
vinyl Chloride (PVC) pipes of diameter 0.125 m with thickness for discretisation of the computational domain.
0.004 m, which are also known as manifolds. The atmospheric air A 2D geometry was created for the HEPC model using Design-
comes through one of the manifolds, goes down under the ground Modeller in ANSYS 15.0 that consists of all the pipes used in the
and passes through a series of buried pipes, and finally moves into HEPC system. A typical mesh was generated for the model as
the room via another manifold. Each manifold contains 20 holes of shown in Fig. 3. The element size of 0.01 m was used to generate
21 mm diameter each to accept 20 PVC tubes of 20 mm each. The the mesh, which produced 46,245 elements in the meshing of
tubes, each of length 7.5 m with diameter 20 mm, were connected the model. To check the impact of grid variation and to establish
with the manifolds. These PVC tubes with a wall thickness of 2 mm an optimum mesh size, a study was carried out to ensure consis-
were pressed (friction fitting) into the manifold horizontally, i.e. all tent results for every mesh size as discussed in Section 3.3.
the PVC tubes were aligned in a single row. Each tube in the row
was separated from its neighbour by approximately 20 mm.
3.1. Modelling equations
Fig. 2 shows the horizontal earth pipe cooling diagram.
A fan was fitted inside one of the manifolds as shown in Fig. 2.
The Realisable k
e model is derived from the Navier–Stokes
The fan sucks intake air from the pipe inlet and pushes it through
equations. The Navier–Stokes equation of motion and the transport
the series of buried pipes, and finally into the room. Small grasses
equations for the Realisable k
e model are given by [34]:
and trees were planted to shade the soil as well as to cover the
underground pipes to increase the cooling effect of the system. @ui @ui 1 @p @ 2 ui
þ uj ¼
þt ð1Þ
This was planned to reduce the solar radiation absorbed by the @t @xj q @xi @xj @xj
ground surface [31].
and
  
3. CFD model description @ðqkÞ @ðqkuj Þ @ lt @k
þ ¼ lþ þ Gk þ Gb
qe
Y M þ SK
@t @xj @xj rk @xj
Heat transfer process is used in the horizontal earth pipe
cooling system, where the air passes through the buried pipes ð2Þ

  
@ðqeÞ @ðqeuj Þ @ lt @ e e2
þ ¼ lþ þ qC 1 Se
qC 2 pffiffiffiffiffi
@t @xj @xj re @xj k þ te
e
þ C 1e C 3e Gb þ Se ð3Þ
k
where ui ; uj are the fluid velocity components (m s
1), xi is the com-
ponent of length (m), p is the pressure (Pa), t ¼ l=q is the molecular
kinetic viscosity of the fluid (m2 s
1), l is the fluid viscosity
(kg m
1 s
1), q is the fluid density (kg m
3), t is the time (s), k is
the kinetic energy (m2 s
2), e is the dissipation rate (m2 s
3), Gk is
the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to the mean veloc-
ity gradients (kg m
1 s
2), Gb is the generation of turbulence kinetic
energy due to buoyancy (kg m
1 s
2), Y M represents the contribu-
tion of the fluctuating dilatation in compressible turbulence to the
overall dissipation rate (kg m
1 s
2), C 1e and C 2e are constants,






C 3e ¼ tanh
uu12
where u1 and u2 are the velocity components parallel
and perpendicular to the gravitational vector respectively, rk and re
Fig. 1. Excavation made for installing HEPC system. are the turbulent Prandtl numbers for k and e respectively, SK and Se
 S.F. Ahmed et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 114 (2016) 324–337 327

Fig. 3. Mesh created for HEPC model. (a) Showing inlet. (b) Showing outlet.

are user-defined source terms, and i, j, k (=1, 2, 3) are the direction 3.3. Grid Independence study
vector index.
The energy equation for this heat transfer problem is solved Three grids were generated for the HEPC model using three dif-
throughout the entire domain and is given by: ferent element sizes as summarised in Table 1. The model consists
of the element sizes of 0.01 m, 0.005 m and 0.003 m for generating
@ðqEÞ X !
v ðqE þ PÞÞ ¼ r  ðkeff rT
hj J j þ ðseff  ~
þ r  ð~ v ÞÞ þ Sh the mesh of the model, where 0.01 m element size was used for
@t j this study. Grid 2 and Grid 3 in the table represent different mesh
size, which was obtained by changing 0.01 m element size to
ð4Þ
0.005 m and 0.003 m respectively.
The temperature profiles for different mesh size are shown at
where keff is the effective conductivity (W m
1 K
1), kt is the ther-
the outlet of the pipe model (Fig. 4). The simulated pipe outlet tem-
mal conductivity for turbulent flow, Jj is the component of diffusion
perature using Grid 1 agrees well with the outlet temperature
flux (m
2 s
1), T is the temperature (K), r  ðkeff rTÞ is the heat
using Grid 2 and Grid 3. The simulated outlet temperature using
P !
transfer due to convection, h is the enthalpy (J kg
1), r  ð j hj J j Þ Grid 2 and Grid 3 lie within 1–2% of values attained with Grid 1.
v Þ is the heat transfer due to vis-
is the species diffusion, r  ðseff  ~ Consequently, this study was progressed using Grid 1 for simulat-
cous diffusion and Sh is the total entropy (J K
1). ing the model as this grid size takes less time for numerical
computations.

3.2. Solver approaches

4. Results and discussion
A 2D pressure-based-coupled solver was used for the simula-
tions of the model. The solver solves a coupled system of equations A series of experiments and measurements were carried out to
along with the pressure-based continuity and momentum equa- assess the cooling performance of the HEPC system. Average air
tions [32,33]. Although it has some limitations, the solver offers velocity and air temperature were measured at the pipe inlet and
some additional advantages over a segregated or non-coupled outlet of the HEPC system, and soil temperature data was recorded
approach. The coupled scheme allows a robust and efficient single at 5 different depths under the ground and 2 different ground sur-
phase execution for steady-state flows with high performance face conditions with bare soil and short grass covered soil. All the
compared to the other solution schemes [34]. Pressure was discre- measurements were conducted during summer (December 2013–
tised with a PRESTO scheme because of its strong convergence February 2014), where the fan was running 24 h daily.
ability [35]. This scheme is available for all types of meshes such
as triangular, tetrahedral, hexahedral, quadrilateral and hybrid
meshes. Since the second-order discretisation of the viscous terms
is always accurate in FLUENT, spatial discretisation with second-
order upwind scheme was used for the turbulent dissipation rate,
turbulent kinetic energy and momentum. Moreover, the differenc-
ing scheme of second-order upwind was utilised to overcome the
numerical dispersion. The standard initialisation in the entire
domain used in this study allows setting the initial values of the
flow variables and initialising the solution with these values.

Table 1
Different grid sizes for HEPC model.

Grid size Element size (m) Nodes Elements

Grid 1 0.01 59,066 127,367
Grid 2 0.005 179,759 199,464
Fig. 4. Temperature profiles for different mesh size at the pipe outlet of HEPC
Grid 3 0.003 447,920 509,296
system.
328 S.F. Ahmed et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 114 (2016) 324–337

4.1. Soil temperature investigation

Soil temperature investigation is a key part for evaluating the

HEPC performance. The soil temperature was investigated to seek
the cooling potential using the HEPC system buried in the soil of
Rockhampton, Australia. Soil temperatures were recorded at every
20 min interval, when the ground surface was covered by grass.
The temperature sensors of the data logger, Lutron 12 channels
temperature recorder was buried into the ground at different
depths of 0.60 m, 0.73 m, 0.85 m, 0.97 m, and 1.10 m. The soil tem-
peratures were recorded at these points to compare them with the
outdoor temperature. Fig. 5 shows a typical soil temperature pro-
file over a 24 h period at different depths. It is noted that the buried
pipes were fitted at the maximum depth of 1.10 m in this study to
keep the installation cost within the budget.
Fig. 5 illustrates the hourly average soil temperature, which
ranges from 20.72 °C to 21.75 °C at the various depths. The lowest
Fig. 6. Temperature distribution of soil at 0.6 m depth and outdoor air.
average soil temperature distribution was observed at the depth of
1.10 m underground, while the maximum occurred at 0.6 m depth.
The maximum average temperature reduction was found between night (4:20 am). This reduction contributes to cool the room during
these two depths that was 0.70 °C. This reduction occurred at the the day. As the soil temperature was below the outdoor minimum
middle of the day (12:20 pm) on 12 January 2014. Usually, soil temperature during the peak warming hours of the day, it worked
temperature gets cooler during the hot peak hours than during as an effective heat sink to cool the room.
the off peak hours in summer. However, the soil temperature at Surface condition of the ground is an important factor that
0.60 m depth (where the pipes were buried) was compared with affects the earth pipe cooling performance. A bare ground surface
the outdoor air temperature to find the maximum temperature dif- allows exposure to solar radiation especially in a hot, humid cli-
ference as shown in Fig. 6. mate like Rockhampton, Australia. The ground surface with bare
It is seen that the underground soil temperatures decreases soil is comparatively warmer than the ground surface with covered
with the increasing depth. However, from various literature, it is grass soil as the heat generated due to the solar radiation dissi-
seen that this temperature reduction continues up to a depth of pated into the soil. Fig. 7 shows the temperature distribution of
4 m underground as the soil temperature is fairly constant and the ground surfaces between the grass covered soil and bare soil.
stable at that depth [25]. Short grass covered soil offers more cooling potential than the
Fig. 6 shows the hourly average temperature on a typical day at bare soil [24]. An average temperature reduction of 3.12 °C was
0.6 m depth and at the outdoor, where the outdoor temperature found between the two ground surfaces of bare soil and grass cov-
varies from 21.22 °C to 35.10 °C. The maximum diurnal tempera- ered soil, where the grass covered soil temperature was found to be
ture during this period was 14.9 °C, which occurred on 7 December lower. This result also agrees with the other studies [24,36]. This
2013. Meanwhile, the minimum diurnal temperature was 3.6 °C, difference occurred due to the effect of high solar radiation on
which occurred on 19 December 2013. The outdoor air tempera- uncovered or unshaded soil.
ture was found as lower after midnight from 4:20 am to 5:40
am. The outdoor air temperature normally falls during the late
night and increases during the day. 4.2. Horizontal earth pipe cooling performance
The average temperature reduction between the outdoor and
soil temperature at 0.6 m depth was observed as 5.25 °C, while 4.2.1. Experimental investigation
the temperature reduction varies from 0.1 °C to 13.35 °C. The max- To evaluate the horizontal earth pipe cooling performance, the
imum temperature reduction occurred at middle of the day air temperature and velocity were measured at the pipe inlet and
(12:40 pm), whereas the minimum reduction was observed at late outlet of the HEPC system. For measuring the inlet air temperature,

Fig. 5. Hourly average soil temperature distribution during summer 2013–2014. Fig. 7. Ground surface temperatures of grass covered soil and bare soil.
 S.F. Ahmed et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 114 (2016) 324–337 329

the waterproof data logger of HOBO U23-001 Pro v2 was set at the
pipe inlet to protect it from heavy rain. Meanwhile, HOBO U10-003
data logger was placed at the pipe outlet to observe the outlet air
temperature.
The inlet and outlet temperature profiles are shown in Fig. 8
over 24 h duration, where both the profiles present a similar trend.
The inlet temperature varies from a minimum of 21.22 °C at 3:40
am to a maximum of 35.10 °C at 12:20 pm, while the outlet tem-
perature varies from 19.74 °C at 4:40 am to 27.42 °C at
12:40 pm. The inlet air temperatures get lower during the night
and started to rise during the day. The rising temperatures reach
to peak from around 10:00 am to 5:00 pm. The inlet temperature
was found quite lower during the late night and early morning
from 2:35 am to 2:50 am and 3:35 am to 6:00 am respectively.
Usually, the outdoor temperature in Rockhampton falls at the late
night and early morning. When the cooler outdoor temperature
comes to the inlet and goes through the buried pipes, it gains heat
from the soil as the soil works as a heat source in cool weather. Fig. 9. Temperature profile at pipe inlet and outlet during hot pick hours.
Then the heated air moves to the pipe outlet and hence the higher
temperature arises during this period.
The inlet and outlet data were recorded over the summer 2013–
2014 (92 days). The average of these data showed 3.08 °C temper-
ature reduction at the pipe outlet. This reduction increases to
5.45 °C during the hot peak hours of the day from around 10:00
am to 5:00 pm. The temperature profiles at the pipe inlet and out-
let is shown in Fig. 9. As the outside temperature warmed up due
to the sun light, the soil temperature remained cooler. The higher
temperature differential between the inlet air temperature and
the soil temperature improves the cooling process and thus pro-
duces more temperature reduction during this period.
Although the pipe outlet temperature dropped more during the
warming hours, a 24 h data collection and measurement were
taken for evaluating the overall performance of the earth pipe cool-
ing system during the whole summer. This approach is consistent
with other studies undertaken elsewhere. The higher temperature
reduction at the pipe outlet indicates that the earth pipe cooling
system has the potential to reduce more temperature in the room,
and hence save more energy during the warming hours from 10:00 Fig. 10. Trend of air velocity at pipe inlet and outlet.
am to 5:00 pm. Air velocity plays an important role to reduce the
air temperature at the pipe outlet. The velocity profiles at the pipe
inlet and outlet are shown in Fig. 10. velocity is 1.01 m/s. A fan was set at the pipe outlet to suck the air
As seen from Fig. 10, the air velocity at the pipe inlet ranges from the pipe inlet. This increases the air velocity at the pipe outlet
from 0.2 m/s to 0.6 m/s and the mean value of these velocities of which is cooled by the soil under the ground. This cooler outlet
0.41 m/s was taken for the simulation of the model. Meanwhile, velocity produces cooler temperature, which assists the HEPC sys-
the outlet velocity varies from 1 m/s to 1.1 m/s, while the average tem to cool the room. The amount of the cooling rate of the air at
the pipe outlet depends on several factors, for example, the resi-
dence time of the air flow in the buried pipe, temperature differ-
ence between soil temperature and ambient air temperature, and
the thermal conductivity of the buried pipe.

4.2.2. Numerical investigation

Fig. 8. Temperature profile at pipe inlet and outlet of HEPC system.
The HEPC performance was calculated numerically using simu-
lation in FLUENT. The flow and thermal variables for the boundary
and cell zone conditions were set on the boundaries of the models.
No slip boundary conditions were applied on the pipe walls. The
cell zone condition for the surface body was defined as fluid.
All the simulations were run on an Intel Xeon CPU E3-1225 V3
@ 3.20 GHz processor computer of RAM 16.0 GB (15.8 GB usable).
For the HEPC model, the solution was convergent at 139 iterations,
which required the total CPU time of 44.20 s. The total CPU time
does not include any waiting time for communications or load
imbalances.
The simulation results were obtained using the boundary condi-
tions which are shown in Table 2. The measured average air veloc-
ity of 0.41 m/s and the average air temperature of 26.76 °C at the
pipe inlet were set as the inlet velocity and inlet temperature
330 S.F. Ahmed et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 114 (2016) 324–337

Table 2 atmosphere due to conduction. Air velocity may be another reason

Parameters used in boundary conditions of the HEPC pipe model. for this higher air temperature at the pipe outlet.
Parameters Value An average outlet temperature of 22.65 °C and air velocity of
Inlet velocity 0.41 m/s 0.89 m/s were found in the simulation results, which shows a good
Inlet temperature 26.76 °C agreement with the measured average outlet temperature of
Soil temperature at 0.60 m 21.51 °C 23.08 °C and velocity of 1.01 m/s. These results make a 1.90% and
Thermal conductivity of PVC pipe 0.16 W/m K 11.88% difference with the average outlet temperature and outlet
Density of PVC pipe 1390 kg/m3
Specific heat of PVC pipe 1000 J/kg K
velocity respectively. Differences between the numerical and
Air thermal conductivity 0.024 W/m K experimental results at different heights of the pipe outlet
Air density 1.204 kg/m3 (Fig. 17) are shown in Table 3.
Specific heat of air 1006.43 J/kg K Fig. 18 shows the temperature profile plotted by experimental
Air viscosity 1.850387e-05 kg/m s
and numerical results along the centre of the pipe outlet, where
both the outlet shows higher temperature. This is due to the solar
impact on the outlet ends. The temperature at the top end of the
respectively in the boundary conditions of the model. The exhaust outlet (0.12 m) is higher than that of the bottom end (0.0 m) as
fan operated in the HEPC system was set as the pipe outlet. A soil there is a direct solar impact on the top end, while the bottom
temperature of 21.51 °C at 0.6 m depth (where the 20 PVC pipes end is slightly shaded by the pipe. The minimum temperature
were laid and aligned) was also used in the boundary conditions. occurs close to the middle of the pipe outlet.
Figs. 11–13 show the temperature distribution throughout the The overall simulated results are in very good agreement with
pipes, at the pipe inlet and pipe outlet respectively, while Figs. 14– the corresponding experiments as shown in Fig. 18, though there
16 show the velocity distribution through the entire pipes, at the are some slight variations (Table 3) between these results. The
pipe inlet and pipe outlet respectively. probable reason for these variations is the measurement uncer-
The air temperature varies from 21.50 °C and 26.76 °C through- tainties due to the experiments as discussed in Section 5. Other
out the pipes, where the maximum occurs at pipe inlet and the reason is the uncertainties and errors in CFD simulations because
minimum occurs in the buried pipe underground as shown in of the auxiliary physical models [37] of turbulence model used in
Fig. 11. The reason is that the outside hot air moves to the pipe this study. Additionally, this may also occur due to the initial and
inlet, goes down to the buried pipes, gets cooler by transferring boundary conditions, discretization and solution.
heat to the soil, and finally moves the cooler air to the pipe outlet.
When the air moves through the 7.5 m long buried pipes, it gets
sufficient time to transfer heat to the soil, and thus the air is cooled. 5. Error analysis
The outlet air temperature was found to be higher than that in
the buried pipes as shown in Fig. 13. This higher outlet tempera- The errors and uncertainties can be produced by instrument
ture occurs because of the heat generated by the motor of selection, reading, observation, test planning, environment, condi-
the fan set at the pipe outlet. When the cooler air comes through tion and calibration. An uncertainty analysis is essential to evalu-
the buried pipes to the pipe outlet, the air absorbs heat from the ate the accuracy of the experiment. The percentage uncertainties

Fig. 11. Temperature fields throughout the pipes. (a) Temperature magnitude. (b) Temperature vector.
 S.F. Ahmed et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 114 (2016) 324–337 331

Fig. 12. Temperature fields at the pipe inlet. (a) Temperature magnitude. (b) Temperature vector.

Fig. 13. Temperature fields at the pipe outlet. (a) Temperature magnitude. (b) Temperature vector.

of the parameters used in this study are calculated using the
instruments’ uncertainties as shown in Table 4.
The uncertainty analysis in percentage is performed by the fol-
lowing method [38]. Total uncertainty of the experiment for the
HEPC system
= square root of [(uncertainty of air temperature)2 +
(uncertainty of air velocity)2 + (uncertainty of soil
temperature)2]
= square root of [{(0.02)2 + (0.01)2} + (0.2)2 + (0.02)2]
= ± 0.20%.
6. Parametric study on HEPC performance
The parameters affecting the HEPC performance are investi-
gated in this section. The HEPC model is optimised by a parametric
study using FLUENT. The parameters, namely air velocity, pipe
length, pipe diameter and thickness, pipe material, and pipe depth
are considered for this parametric study.
6.1. Air velocity
The impact of four different inlet air velocities on the HEPC per-
formance has been studied here. The other variables such as pipe
material, pipe diameter and thickness, pipe length, and pipe depth
were kept constant. The average air velocities of 0.41 m/s, 1.0 m/s,
1.5 m/s and 2.0 m/s were taken into account for the investigation.
The outlet temperature fields for these air velocities are shown in
Fig. 19. As stated before, the average inlet air velocity measured
in the field work experiment was 0.41 m/s.
As seen from Fig. 19, the temperature at the top of the pipe out-
let is comparatively higher than that at the bottom and other
points. There is a direct solar impact on the top outlet end whereas
the bottom end is slightly shaded by the pipe. As a result, the max-
imum outlet temperature occurs at 0.12 m height, while the min-
imum is found at 0.02 m.
Fig. 19 shows the pipe outlet temperature for the air velocity of
0.41 m/s, which varies from 21.02 °C to 26.45 °C. This outlet tem-
perature is decreased when the velocity is increased to 1.0 m/s,
and ranged from 21.56 °C to 26.16 °C. When the velocity is
increased to 1.5 m/s, the temperature is further decreased and var-
ied from 21.53 °C to 26.14 °C. But, when the air velocity is
increased to 2.0 m/s, the outlet temperature is increased and var-
ied from 21.70 °C to 26.31 °C. These indicate that an air velocity
of 1.5 m/s provides a better outcome whereas a higher air velocity
shows less performance. This result is also consistent with
Khedari’s thermal comfort chart as the chart demonstrated that
thermal comfort can be achieved at 0.5 m/s, 1.0 m/s, or 1.5 m/s
depending on the climate conditions [39].
332 S.F. Ahmed et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 114 (2016) 324–337

Fig. 14. Velocity fields throughout the pipes. (a) Velocity magnitude. (b) Velocity vector.

Fig. 15. Velocity fields at the pipe inlet. (a) Velocity magnitude. (b) Velocity vector.

6.2. Pipe length
The influence of different pipe lengths (7.5 m, 15.0 m, 30.0 m
and 60.0 m) on the HEPC performance is analysed to determine
the most efficient length. The air velocity of 1.5 m/s was picked
from the previous investigation since it showed the best perfor-
mance. The other variables such as pipe material, pipe diameter
and thickness, and pipe depth remain as constants. The outlet tem-
peratures for the different pipe lengths at the air velocity of 1.5 m/s
are shown in Fig. 20.
Fig. 20 illustrates that the average outlet temperature increases
(Table 5) when the length of the buried pipe is halved or quartered,
and it is reduced when the length is increased. For example, when
the length is doubled from 30.0 m to 60.0 m long, the average out-
let temperature is reduced and becomes more stable. For longer
buried pipes, the heat transfer process becomes longer as the air
flow stays for a longer period inside the pipe, which allows more
time for the heat transfer to take place between the air and soil.
Therefore, the 60.0 m long buried pipe provides more of a cooling
effect than by a shorter pipe length.
It should be noted that the parametric study for the HEPC sys-
tem started with a 7.5 m long buried pipe, 0.125 m diameter,
4 mm pipe thickness, and inlet air velocity of 0.41 m/s produced
by a 8.0 W powered fan. But, this fan may not have the capacity
to draw the air velocity of 1.5 m/s from the pipe inlet. Therefore,
this parametric study needs to take the fan power into considera-
tion. For example, it is seen from Table 5 that a length of 60.0 m
does give an average temperature of 19.78 °C. However this would
mean that a length of this size will need more fan power to pro-
duce the air velocity of 1.5 m/s. Hence, it is necessary to calculate
the effective fan power (P ef ), which can be calculated using the fol-
lowing formula [40,41]:
 S.F. Ahmed et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 114 (2016) 324–337 333

Fig. 16. Velocity fields at the pipe outlet. (a) Velocity magnitude. (b) Velocity vector.

Fig. 17. Height at the pipe outlet in HEPC system.

Table 3
Comparison of temperature between experimental and numerical (simulation)
results at pipe outlet.

Height (m) Experimental (°C) Numerical (°C) Differences (%)

0.13 26.95 26.45 2.21
0.11 24.18 22.98 5.30
0.10 22.85 22.55 1.32
0.08 22.75 22.27 2.12
0.07 22.35 22.05 1.32
0.06 21.85 21.95 0.41
0.04 22.15 21.92 1.05
0.03 22.18 21.94 1.06
0.01 22.21 22.02 0.85
0.00 23.33 22.40 4.11
Fig. 18. Numerical data plotted against experimental data at the pipe outlet.
334 S.F. Ahmed et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 114 (2016) 324–337

Table 4
Instruments used in the HEPC experiment and the accuracy, range and percentage uncertainties.

Instruments Parameters Accuracy Range Percentage Uncertainties

HOBO U10-003 Air temperature ±0.4 °C
20 °C to 70 °C
0.02 to +0.02
HOBO U10-001 Pro V2 Air temperature ±0.2 °C
40 °C to 70 °C
0.01 to +0.01
Reed Vane Anemometer Air velocity ±(2% reading + 0.2 m/s) 0.4–30.0 m/s
0.2 to +0.2
BTM-4208SD Soil temperature ±(0.4% + 0.5)
50 °C to 400 °C
0.02 to +0.02

where f ; D; l; q; v are the constant, pipe diameter, pipe length, air

density, and air velocity respectively.
After substituting the value of DPt in Eq. (5), it becomes
flqv 2 qv
Pef ¼ ð7Þ
2D go
Let the effective fan power for the buried pipe length of 7.5 m
with 0.41 m/s air velocity and the buried pipe length of 60.0 m
with 1.5 m/s air velocity be Pef 1 and P ef 2 respectively. All the vari-
ables in the Eq. (7) except the air velocity (v), pipe length (l) and
diameter (D) are considered as constant. Then Eq. (7) becomes
lv
2
Pef ¼ constant x ð8Þ
D
Eq. (8) can be written in terms of Pef 1 and Pef 2 as
 2
Pef 1 l1 D2 v1
¼ ð9Þ
Pef 2 l2 D1 v2
Fig. 19. Temperature profiles for different air velocities at pipe outlet.
The variable D1 and D2 are calculated from the following formula:
qi
vi ¼ ð10Þ
Ai
 2
where qi is the air flow (m3/s), and Ai ¼ p Di
2
is the area of the
2
pipe (m ).
Assuming a constant flow, the following expression can be
obtained from the above equation,
sffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffi
4 1 4 1
D1 ¼ and D2 ¼
p v1 p v2
After substitution the values of D1 and D2 in Eq. (9), the equa-
tion becomes
 1=2  2
Pef 1 7:5 v1 v1
¼ ð11Þ
Pef 2 60 v2 v2
After substituting the values of v 1 and v 2 in Eq. (11),
Fig. 20. Temperature profiles for different pipe lengths at pipe outlet.
Pef 2 ¼ 204:81  Pef 1 ð12Þ
It is found that the effective fan power, Pef 2 is 204.81 times
Table 5
Pipe outlet temperature for different pipe lengths.
greater than P ef 1 . This is equal to 8  204.81 = 1638.48 W. There-
fore, a 1638.48 W fan is needed to generate 1.5 m/s air velocity
Pipe length (m) Outlet temperature (°C)
at the pipe inlet for the 60.0 m long pipe. As the 60.0 m long pipe
Min Max Avg provides the lowest outlet temperature, this has been considered
7.5 21.53 26.14 22.34 for the next parametric study to continue the analysis, although
15.0 20.68 25.15 21.43 it is expensive to operate a 1638.48 W fan in the HEPC system.
30.0 20.16 24.79 20.94
60.0 19.80 24.40 20.58
6.3. Pipe diameter and thickness

The third parametric study measures the impact of different

pipe size in terms of pipe diameter and thickness. Each pipe size
DP t q v
Pef ¼ ð5Þ has its own diameter, area and thickness as shown in Table 6.
go The most efficient outcomes from the previous investigations
where P ef is the effective fan power (W), DPt is the pressure loss (1.5 m/s air velocity and 60.0 m pipe length) have been used for
(Pa), qv is the volume air flow (m3/s), and go is the efficiency.The this study. The other variables such as PVC pipe material and
pressure loss, DPt is given by: 0.6 m pipe depth were kept constant.
The temperature profile for various pipe diameters is shown
flqv 2 along the centre of the pipe outlet (Fig. 21). As seen, the pipe outlet
DP t ¼ ð6Þ
2D temperature increases with increasing pipe inlet diameter. For the
 S.F. Ahmed et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 114 (2016) 324–337
Table 6
Different configuration of pipes in terms of pipe diameter, area and thickness.
Pipe size Pipe size-1 Pipe size -2
Manifold Buried Manifold
Diameter (m) 0.062 0.0100 0.125
Inlet Area (m2) 0.003 0.0001 0.012
Thickness (m) 0.003 0.0020 0.004
Fig. 21. Temperature profiles for different pipe diameters.
0.062 m pipe inlet diameter, the outlet temperature ranges from
19.55 °C to 24.29 °C. When this diameter is increased to 0.125 m,
the outlet temperature increases and varies from 19.79 °C to
24.40 °C. For an increased diameter of 0.20 m, the outlet tempera-
ture is further increased, and ranges from 19.92 °C to 24.48 °C. The
same result is also observed for the 0.40 m inlet diameter, where
the outlet temperature varies from 20.02 °C to 24.55 °C. Thus, the
pipe inlet having a diameter 0.062 m provides the lower outlet
temperature than that for the other pipe diameters used in this
study. These results demonstrate that the pipe of smaller diameter
can increase the cooling rate.
For a pipe of smaller diameter, air stays in the centre of the pipe,
gets closer to the surrounding soil, allowing more heat transfer to
the soil, and therefore the air temperature tends to get closer to the
surrounding soil temperature. The impact of the pipe thickness is
another reason. A smaller pipe has less thickness, which enables
to transfer more heat to the soil quickly. The 0.062 m pipe diame-
ter has the lowest thickness of 0.003 m and therefore, this pipe size
provides the efficient result for the HEPC system.
Fig. 22. Temperature profiles for various pipe materials at the pipe outlet.
335
Pipe size -3 Pipe size -4
Buried Manifold Buried Manifold Buried
0.0200 0.200 0.040 0.400 0.080
0.0003 0.031 0.001 0.126 0.005
0.0020 0.008 0.003 0.012 0.005
6.4. Pipe material
Four different pipe materials have been considered here to
investigate their impact on the thermal performance of the HEPC
system. PVC, polyethylene, concrete and clay were taken into
account for this parametric study (Fig. 22). The other parameters,
air velocity (=1.5 m/s), pipe length (=60.0 m), pipe diameter and
thickness (=0.062 m and 0.003 m), and pipe depth (=0.6 m) were
kept constant.
Usually, the earth pipe cooling performance depends on the
thermal conductivity of the particular material. The higher the
thermal conductivity, the more is the heat transfer. The pipes of
different materials that are widely used for the earth pipe cooling
system were considered for this study. The thermal conductivity of
each of the pipe materials is summarised in Table 7.
Table 8 summarises the average outlet temperature for the dif-
ferent pipe materials, PVC, polyethylene, concrete and clay. The
PVC pipe produces higher temperature at the pipe outlet that var-
ies from 19.55 °C to 24.29 °C, which is greater than that for the
other materials. The PVC pipe has the lowest thermal conductivity
while the pipe of clay material has the highest. The materials with
high thermal conductivity assist in transferring more heat from the
air inside the buried pipe to the soil, while the materials with low
thermal conductivity transfer less heat. Therefore the clay pipe
provides the lowest average outlet temperature as 20.05 °C
(Table 8), and so clay has been considered here. Similar result
was found in other studies, for example in the study by Sanusi [41].
Although the literatures suggest that the materials of high ther-
mal conductivity give more cooling effect, those have not been
considered in this study as they are too expensive and not com-
monly used. So the cheaper pipe materials of PVC, polyethylene,
concrete and clay have been considered. Furthermore, these four
materials were used by other researchers as stated before.
6.5. Pipe depth
The buried pipe depths of 0.6 m, 2.0 m, 4.0 m and 8.0 m have
been taken into consideration in order to evaluate their impact
on the thermal performance of the HEPC system. The other param-
eters such as air velocity (1.5 m/s), pipe length (60.0 m), pipe diam-
eter and thickness (0.062 m and 0.003 m), and pipe material (clay)
remain as constants.
At a 0.6 m buried pipe depth, the pipe outlet temperature varies
from 19.28 °C to 23.92 °C as shown in Fig. 23. This outlet temper-
ature is decreased and ranges from 18.34 °C to 22.90 °C for the
increased buried pipe depth of 2.0 m. For the depth of 4.0 m, the
temperature is further reduced and varies from 18.09 °C to
22.75 °C. The lowest average outlet temperature was found as
18.88 °C at 8.0 m depth, which ranges from 18.08 °C to 22.72 °C.
It is seen that the outlet temperature decreases with increasing
Table 7
Thermal conductivity of different pipe materials.
Material PVC Polyethylene Concrete Clay
Thermal conductivity, W/(m K) 0.19 0.42 0.70 1.80
336 S.F. Ahmed et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 114 (2016) 324–337
Table 8
Outlet temperature ranges for various materials.
Pipe Material Outlet Temperature (°C)
Min Max
PVC 19.55 24.29
Polyethylene 19.40 24.09
Concrete 19.32 24.04
Clay 19.28 23.92
Fig. 23. Temperature profiles at different pipe depths.
depth, where 8.0 m pipe depth provides the best result. The outlet
temperature depends on the soil temperature, which is decreased
with the increasing depths. It was also found that the temperature
range at the depths of 4.0 m and 8.0 m are nearly the same as the
soil temperature is fairly constant and stable at 4.0 m depth as
mentioned earlier. Moreover, the laying of pipes at such depths
can be expensive and operationally cumbersome.
7. Conclusion
Thermal performance of the horizontal earth pipe cooling sys-
tem was evaluated through a good number of experiments and
numerical investigations. A CFD model for the HEPC system was
developed using FLUENT. In particular, a parametric study was car-
ried out to investigate the impact of the parameters, namely air
velocity, pipe length, pipe diameter and thickness, pipe material,
and pipe depth on the thermal performance of the HEPC system.
The parametric study commenced with four different air velocities
of 0.41 m/s, 1.0 m/s, 1.5 m/s and 2.0 m/s, where 1.5 m/s showed
the better cooling performance. Four different buried pipe lengths
of 7.5 m, 15.0 m, 30.0 m and 60.0 m were considered for the second
parametric study. The 60.0 m long buried pipe provided the maxi-
mum performance at the inlet velocity of 1.5 m/s, while a smaller
pipe offered inferior performance.
The impact of different pipe diameters (0.062 m, 0.125 m,
0.200 m, and 0.400 m) with different pipe thickness (0.01 m,
0.02 m, 0.04 m and 0.08 m) was investigated in the third parametric
study. The smaller pipe diameter with smaller thickness presented
the most efficient cooling effect. The different pipe materials (PVC,
polyethylene, concrete and clay) having different thermal conduc-
tivity were considered for the fourth parametric study, where the
higher thermal conductivity material provided better cooling per-
formance. The last parametric study assessed the impact of various
pipe depths of 0.6 m, 2.0 m, 4.0 m and 8.0 m on the HEPC perfor-
mance. The study revealed that the deeper pipe depths can deliver
more cooling effect compared to the smaller depths.
A noticeable effect of air velocity, pipe length and pipe diameter
was observed on the thermal performance of the HEPC system by
the parametric analysis, where the pipe length showed a signifi-
Avg cant influence. Although the parameters of 1.5 m/s air velocity,
60.0 m pipe length, 0.062 m pipe diameter, 0.003 m pipe thickness,
20.35
20.21
clay pipe material, and 8.0 m depth were found as the most effi-
20.12 cient configuration, an optimum length and air velocity are
20.05 required to be adopted for the optimal performance in terms of
energy savings.
The HEPC system contributed to reduce an average outlet tem-
perature of 4.11 °C, which will assist to cool a room and save
energy in the buildings during summer. The outcomes of this study
are recommended to be utilised as guidelines by the manufactur-
ers, regulators, and inhabitants for the deployment of the HEPC
system in all hot humid climates.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by
Central Queensland University, Australia, and Ergon Energy, Aus-
tralia for supplying earth pipe cooling system and the installation
cost of the measuring tools.
References
[1] EIA. Energy Information Administration. International Energy Statistics [cited
on 4 October 2015]; Available from: <http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/
iedindex3.cfm?tid=44&pid=44&aid=2&cid=regions,&syid=2008&eyid=2012&
unit=QBTU>; 2015.
[2] Ahasan T, Ahmed SF, Rasul MG, Khan MMK, Azad AK. Performance evaluation
of hybrid green roof system in a subtropical climate using fluent. J Power
Energy Eng 2014;2:113.
[3] Swan LG, Ugursal VI. Modeling of end-use energy consumption in the
residential sector: A review of modeling techniques. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2009;13:1819–35.
[4] Ahmed SF, Khan MMK, Amanullah MTO, Rasul MG. Selection of suitable
passive cooling strategy for a subtropical climate. Int J Mech Mater Eng
2014;9:1–11.
[5] Benhammou M, Draoui B, Zerrouki M, Marif Y. Performance analysis of an
earth-to-air heat exchanger assisted by a wind tower for passive cooling of
buildings in arid and hot climate. Energy Convers Manage 2015;91:1–11.
[6] Zarrella A, Emmi G, De Carli M. Analysis of operating modes of a ground source
heat pump with short helical heat exchangers. Energy Convers Manage
2015;97:351–61.
[7] Shen P, Lukes JR. Impact of global warming on performance of ground source
heat pumps in US climate zones. Energy Convers Manage 2015;101:632–43.
[8] Whalen SA, Dykhuizen RC. Thermoelectric energy harvesting from diurnal heat
flow in the upper soil layer. Energy Convers Manage 2012;64:397–402.
[9] Al-Sarkhi A, Abu-Nada E, Nijmeh S, Akash B. Performance evaluation of
standing column well for potential application of ground source heat pump in
Jordan. Energy Convers Manage 2008;49:863–72.
[10] Ahmed SF, Khan MMK, Amanullah MTO, Rasul MG, Hassan NMS. Numerical
modeling of vertical earth pipe cooling system for hot and humid subtropical
climate. In: Progress in clean energy. Springer International Publishing; 2015.
[11] Ahmed SF, Khan MMK, Rasul MG, Amanullah MTO, Hassan NMS. Comparison
of earth pipe cooling performance between two different piping systems.
Energy Procedia 2014;61:1897–901.
[12] Ahmed SF, Khan MMK, Amanullah MTO, Rasul MG, Hassan NMS. Thermal
performance analysis of earth pipe cooling system for subtropical climate. In:
12th international conference on sustainable energy technologies. Hong Kong;
2013. p. 1795–803.
[13] Ahmed SF, Khan MMK, Rasul MG, Amanullah MTO, Hassan NMS. Performance
assessment of earth pipe cooling system for low energy buildings in a
subtropical climate. Energy Convers Manage 2015;106:815–25.
[14] Mongkon S, Thepa S, Namprakai P, Pratinthong N. Cooling performance
assessment of horizontal earth tube system and effect on planting in tropical
greenhouse. Energy Convers Manage 2014;78:225–36.
[15] Ahmed SF, Khan MMK, Amanullah MTO, Rasul MG, Hassan NMS. Performance
evaluation of hybrid earth pipe cooling with horizontal piping system. In:
Thermofluid Model for Energy Efficiency Applications. USA: Elsevier; 2015. p.
1–30.
[16] Hepbasli A, Akdemir O. Energy and exergy analysis of a ground source
(geothermal) heat pump system. Energy Convers Manage 2004;45:737–53.
[17] Hepbasli A, Akdemir O, Hancioglu E. Experimental study of a closed loop vertical
ground source heat pump system. Energy Convers Manage 2003;44:527–48.
[18] Chel A, Tiwari G. Stand-alone photovoltaic (PV) integrated with earth to air
heat exchanger (EAHE) for space heating/cooling of adobe house in New Delhi
(India). Energy Convers Manage 2010;51:393–409.
 S.F. Ahmed et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 114 (2016) 324–337
[19] Lior N. Thoughts about future power generation systems and the role of exergy
analysis in their development. Energy Convers Manage 2002;43:1187–98.
[20] Bansal V, Misra R, Agrawal GD, Mathur J. Performance analysis of earth–pipe–
air heat exchanger for summer cooling. Energy Build 2010;42:645–8.
[21] Gallero FJG, Maestre IR, Gómez PÁ, Blázquez JLF. Numerical and experimental
validation of a new hybrid model for vertical ground heat exchangers. Energy
Convers Manage 2015;103:511–8.
[22] Wu H, Wang S, Zhu D. Modelling and evaluation of cooling capacity of earth–
air–pipe systems. Energy Convers Manage 2007;48:1462–71.
[23] Ghosal M, Tiwari G. Modeling and parametric studies for thermal performance
of an earth to air heat exchanger integrated with a greenhouse. Energy Convers
Manage 2006;47:1779–98.
[24] Mihalakakou G, Santamouris M, Asimakopoulos D, Papanikolaou N. Impact of
ground cover on the efficiencies of earth-to-air heat exchangers. Appl Energy
1994;48:19–32.
[25] Santamouris M, Mihalakakou G, Balaras C, Argiriou A, Asimakopoulos D,
Vallindras M. Use of buried pipes for energy conservation in cooling of
agricultural greenhouses. Sol Energy 1995;55:111–24.
[26] Krarti M, Kreider JF. Analytical model for heat transfer in an underground air
tunnel. Energy Convers Manage 1996;37:1561–74.
[27] Hanby VI, Loveday D, Al-Ajmi F. The optimal design for a ground cooling tube
in a hot, arid climate. Build Serv Eng Res Technol 2005;26:1–10.
[28] Goswami D, Sinha R, Klett D. Theoretical and experimental analysis of passive
cooling using underground air pipe. In: Proceedings of ISES meeting, Brighton,
England; 1981.
[29] Mihalakakou G, Santamouris M, Asimakopoulos D. Modelling the thermal
performance of earth-to-air heat exchangers. Sol Energy 1994;53:301–5.
[30] Bisoniya TS, Kumar A, Baredar P. Experimental and analytical studies of earth–
air heat exchanger (EAHE) systems in India: a review. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2013;19:238–46.
337
[31] Ghosal M, Tiwari G, Srivastava N, Sodha M. Thermal modelling and
experimental validation of ground temperature distribution in greenhouse.
Int J Energy Res 2004;28:45–63.
[32] Tan X-H, Zhu D-S, Zhou G-Y, Zeng L-D. Experimental and numerical study of
convective heat transfer and fluid flow in twisted oval tubes. Int J Heat Mass
Transf 2012;55:4701–10.
[33] Ahmed SF, Khan MMK, Amanullah MTO, Rasul MG, Hassan NMS. Integrated
model of horizontal earth pipe cooling system for a hot humid climate. In: 7th
international exergy, energy and environment symposium, Valenciennes,
France; 2015.
[34] ANSYS. FLUENT User’s Guide [cited on 23 January 2015]; Available from:
<http://aerojet.engr.ucdavis.edu/fluenthelp/html/ug/node998.htm>; 2006.
[35] Ahmed SF, Khan MMK, Amanullah MTO, Rasul MG, Hassan NMS. Numerical
modelling of hybrid vertical earth pipe cooling system. In: The 19th
Australasian fluid mechanics conference, Melbourne, Australia; 2014.
[36] Jacovides C, Mihalakakou G, Santamouris M, Lewis J. On the ground
temperature profile for passive cooling applications in buildings. Sol Energy
1996;57:167–75.
[37] Oberkampf WL, Helton JC, Sentz K. Mathematical representation of
uncertainty. AIAA Non-Deterministic Approaches Forum; 2001. p. 16–9.
[38] Mani M, Nagarajan G. Influence of injection timing on performance, emission
and combustion characteristics of a DI diesel engine running on waste plastic
oil. Energy 2009;34:1617–23.
[39] Khedari J, Yamtraipat N, Pratintong N, Hirunlabh J. Thailand ventilation
comfort chart. Energy Build 2000;32:245–9.
[40] CIBSE. CIBSE Guide B: Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration.
Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers; 2001.
[41] Sanusi ANZ. Low energy ground cooling system for buildings in hot and humid
Malaysia. De Montfort University; 2012.