4.7 Article

Investigation of earth air heat exchangers functioning in arid locations using Matlab/Simulink

期刊

RENEWABLE ENERGY
卷 209, 期 -, 页码 632-643

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2023.04.042

关键词

Earth air heat exchanger; Multiple-single pipes; MATLAB; Simulink; Passive cooling; Subtropical climate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study introduces a MATLAB/Simulink model for efficiently predicting soil temperature distribution and designing Earth-to-Air Heat Exchangers (EAHEs). Four EAHE configurations (single-pipe, multi-pipe, multiple-single pipes, and twisted-single pipes) are compared. The model is validated and allows for easy modifications. Results demonstrate that the MS-pipe EAHE has lower pressure losses and higher cooling potential. The study proves the high efficiency of EAHEs in Kufa, Iraq and analyzes the impact of geometric configuration on flow behavior and thermal efficiency.
This study presents a MATLAB/Simulink model to predict the distribution of soil temperatures and design Earth-to-Air Heat Exchangers (EAHEs) efficiently. It compares four EAHE configurations, including single-pipe, multi-pipe, multiple-single pipes (MS-pipes), and twisted-single pipes (TS-pipes) systems. The presented model is validated with reliable results and allows for easy modifications to obtain the final design. Results show that MS -pipe EAHE is the better in terms of pressure losses and good in terms cooling potential. The study proves that the installation of the EAHEs in Kufa, Iraq, is highly efficient, achieving cooling potential of 1626 W in August and 129.8 W in March. Additionally, the study highlights the influence of the geometric configuration of EAHEs on both their flow behavior and thermal efficiency, presenting an equation for comparing pipe lengths at different soil depths. This study fills the knowledge gap in the use of MATLAB simulation for designing EAHEs and estimating soil temperatures distribution and it compares four EAHEs configurations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据