30
DESIGN OF GREENHOUSE NATURAL VENTILATION SYSTEMS(I) E. Baeza, J.C. Lopez, J.I. Montero EUPHOROS PROJECT WORKSHOP SICILY (RAGUSA) OCTOBER 6 2011

DESIGN OF GREENHOUSE NATURAL VENTILATION SYSTEMS(I) · 2013. 10. 11. · Natural ventilation systems appear to gain more attention in recent years due to increased costs of energy

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    3

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • DESIGN OF GREENHOUSE NATURAL VENTILATION SYSTEMS(I)

    E. Baeza, J.C. Lopez, J.I. Montero

    EUPHOROS PROJECT

    WORKSHOP SICILY (RAGUSA)

    OCTOBER 6 2011

  • Mediterranean greenhouses

    use plastic films as cladding and

    investment is moderate, climate

    control limited to natural ventilation

    and shading (whitening)

    The energy crisis caused the displacement of horticultural

    production to the Mediterranean countries

    Northern glasshouses are

    sophisticated and provide almost

    optimal conditions for plants all year

    round

    INTRODUCTION

  • MAIN GREENHOUSE TYPES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN BASIN

    LOCAL TYPE GREENHOUSES

    Low cost structures with little climate control besides

    natural ventilation; they are built with local materials

    (i.e. wood) and covered with polyethylene plastic

    film. The parral-type greenhouse is probably the

    most extended example of this type of structures in

    terms of surface

    Important problems associated to its design, such as the lack of tightness, low

    radiation transmission in winter, et cetera, but perhaps its main drawback is the lack of

    natural ventilation which is mainly due to three reasons:

    •Low ventilation area, which is a result of a bad combination of side and roof ventilation and to

    the construction of small roof vents due to the grower’s fear of sudden strong winds, as the

    automation is really scarce.

    •Inefficient ventilator designs: for roof ventilation flap ventilators are always preferable to rolling

    ventilators since they provide larger ventilator rates at equal size (almost 3 times larger air flow

    according to Pérez Parra et al., 2004).

    •Use of low porosity insect screens. As discussed hereafter, insect-proof screens strongly

    reduce the air exchange rate.

  • Computer simulations show that during the winter, increasing the roof slope from

    11º to 45 º can increase daily light transmission by nearly 10% (Castilla, 2005) In

    practice it is more useful to find a compromise between good light transmission

    and construction cost, so most of the new greenhouses have 25-30º of roof slope.

    MAIN GREENHOUSE TYPES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN BASIN

  • MAIN GREENHOUSE TYPES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN BASIN

    PLASTIC COVERED INDUSTRIAL TPE GREENHOUSES

    Multi tunnels are more hermetic than the parral type greenhouses and easier to equip with

    cooling, heating and/or computer control.

    In general, this group includes greenhouses which usually have more efficient ventilation

    systems.

    Condensation can occur in the upper inner part of the roof, so dripping is likely to occur

    during humid and cold weather. Attempts have been made to solve this problem by

    increasing the roof slope so that the arches are pointed-shape instead of circular shape,

    but this has not totally eliminated condensation. On the other side for large span

    greenhouses with insect-proof netting ventilation is insufficient, a subject discussed

    hereafter.

  • MAIN GREENHOUSE TYPES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN BASIN

    GLASSHOUSES

    If glasshouses are to be constructed in climate areas warmer than Northern Europe,

    especial attention should be paid to the improvement of ventilation; it is particularly

    important to install sidewall vents and continuous roof vents to increase the ventilator area

    when insect proof screens are a necessity. As discussed later, the combination of roof and

    sidewall ventilation ensures larger ventilation rates, both under windy conditions (Kacira et

    al., 2004) and especially, under low or zero wind conditions with buoyancy driven natural

    ventilation (Baeza et al., 2009)

  • NATURAL VENTILATION

    In mild winter climate areas, natural ventilation is

    essential in greenhouse cultivation:

    • It is the cheapest, easiest and most efficient tool

    that the grower can use to change the greenhouse

    climate.

    • The study of natural ventilaton is quite complex

    becaue it depends on the external climate conditions

    and the geometry of the greenhouse and its vents,

    however, after many years of study we know much

    more on how to optimize it.

  • C02

    RH/VPD

    ET

    TRENDS IN NATURAL VENTILATION

    Ta

    Tc

    At night ventilation is also important to decrease humidity and to avoid

    thermal inversion on clear nights

  • FRUITS WITH CRACKING

    BLOSSOM END ROT

  • BOTRYTIS, BACTERIA AND

    OTHER DISEASES

    ASSOCIATED TO HUMIDITY

    EXCESSES.

  • VENTILATING IS ALSO IMPORTANT…

    AND THERMAL CONFORT OF THE

    WORKERS

  • ONE OF THE MAIN PROBLEMS OF MEDITERRANEAN ARTISAN GREENHOUSES

    INSUFFICIENT NATURAL VENTILATON

    INSUFFICIENT VENTILATION

    AREA AND HIGH GREENHOUSE

    DENSITY

    USE OF LOW POROSITY

    INSECT PROOF SCREENS

    INEFFICIENT VENTILATOR

    DESIGNS

  • Maximizing the screened area

  • MOTOR FORCES OF VENTILATION

    THERMALLY DRIVEN

    VENTILATION 21

    42

    2

    H

    T

    TgC

    Sd

    WIND DRIVEN VENTILATON

    vCCS

    wd2

    DOMINATES IF V3 m s-1

  • Airflow characteristics under wind driven

    ventilation

    a. Windward ventilation b. Leeward ventilation

    Montero et al.

  • Side wall ventilation

    24.0 m4.0 m

    3.6

    m1

    .2 m

    0.9 m

    100.0

    m

    24.0 m4.0 m

    3.6

    m1

    .2 m

    0.9 m

    100.0

    m

    The effect of number of spans on greenhouse ventilation rate

    (a) Fully open windward and leeward side vents and roof vents. (b) Only roof

    Velocity Vectors Colored By Velocity Magnitude (m/s)FLUENT 6.2 (2d, segregated, ske)

    Dec 28, 2006

    5.5

    5.2

    4.9

    4.7

    4.4

    4.1

    3.8

    3.6

    3.3

    3

    2.7

    2.5

    2.2

    1.9

    1.6

    1.4

    1.1

    0.83

    0.55

    0.28

    0.0048

    Kacira et

    al. (2004)

  • Suggestions to improve natural ventilation.

    Sase (2006)

  • Puntos de medida

    y = 0.096 + 0.20x (r = 0.85)

    Ve

    locid

    ad

    inte

    rio

    r a

    ire

    (m/s

    )

    Velocidad viento exterior (m/s) Velocidad viento exterior (m/s)

    Filas Perpendiculares a paredes laterales (1.5 mH) Filas Paralelas a paredes laterales (1.5 mH)

    y = 0.028 + 0.11x (r = 0.83)

    Dirección del viento

    Este Oeste

    (Sase, 1989)

  • EFFECT OF INCREASING THE SLOPE OF THE SPANS

    Wind velocity (m s-1) Tracer gas (4,4 m) CFD (4,4 m) CFD (4,9 m) CFD (5,4 m) CFD 5,9 (m)

    2 7.7 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.8

    3 10.2 9.7 11.9 14.1 15.3

    4 12.7 11.6 19.6 21.5 21.6

    5 15.1 14.2 23.3 27.4 29.5

    6 17.6 17.4 25.8 32.4 35.1

    Ventilation rate (m3 s-1)

    Q = 5,62v

    R2 = 0,96

    Q = 5,28v

    R2 = 0,97

    Q = 4,46v

    R2 = 0,96

    Q = 2,95v

    R2 = 0,93

    0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    30

    35

    40

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

    Velocidad del viento (m/s)

    Cau

    dal d

    e v

    en

    tila

    ció

    n (

    m3/s

    )

    Experimental (gas

    trazador). (Pérez-

    Parra et al., 2004)

    CFD: 4.4 m

    CFD: 5.4 m

    CFD: 4.9 m

    CFD: 5,9 m

  • Velocity Vectors Colored By Velocity Magnitude (m/s)FLUENT 6.1 (2d, segregated, ske)

    May 06, 2004

    5.11e+00

    4.86e+00

    4.60e+00

    4.35e+00

    4.09e+00

    3.84e+00

    3.58e+00

    3.33e+00

    3.07e+00

    2.81e+00

    2.56e+00

    2.30e+00

    2.05e+00

    1.79e+00

    1.54e+00

    1.28e+00

    1.02e+00

    7.68e-01

    5.13e-01

    2.57e-01

    1.46e-03

    Velocity Vectors Colored By Velocity Magnitude (m/s)FLUENT 6.1 (2d, segregated, ske)

    May 06, 2004

    6.30e+00

    5.99e+00

    5.67e+00

    5.36e+00

    5.04e+00

    4.73e+00

    4.41e+00

    4.10e+00

    3.78e+00

    3.47e+00

    3.15e+00

    2.84e+00

    2.52e+00

    2.21e+00

    1.90e+00

    1.58e+00

    1.27e+00

    9.51e-01

    6.37e-01

    3.22e-01

    7.37e-03

    Velocity Vectors Colored By Velocity Magnitude (m/s)FLUENT 6.1 (2d, segregated, ske)

    May 06, 2004

    6.72e+00

    6.38e+00

    6.04e+00

    5.71e+00

    5.37e+00

    5.04e+00

    4.70e+00

    4.37e+00

    4.03e+00

    3.69e+00

    3.36e+00

    3.02e+00

    2.69e+00

    2.35e+00

    2.02e+00

    1.68e+00

    1.34e+00

    1.01e+00

    6.73e-01

    3.37e-01

    1.07e-03

    Velocity Vectors Colored By Velocity Magnitude (m/s)FLUENT 6.1 (2d, segregated, ske)

    May 06, 2004

    6.91e+00

    6.56e+00

    6.21e+00

    5.87e+00

    5.52e+00

    5.18e+00

    4.83e+00

    4.49e+00

    4.14e+00

    3.80e+00

    3.45e+00

    3.11e+00

    2.76e+00

    2.42e+00

    2.07e+00

    1.73e+00

    1.38e+00

    1.04e+00

    6.91e-01

    3.46e-01

    7.68e-04

    Standard slope 11,9º 19º

    25º 30º

  • Contours of Static Temperature (k)FLUENT 6.1 (2d, segregated, ske)

    Dec 02, 2004

    3.12e+02

    3.11e+02

    3.10e+02

    3.09e+02

    3.08e+02

    3.07e+02

    3.06e+02

    3.05e+02

    3.04e+02

    3.03e+02

    Contours of Static Temperature (k)FLUENT 6.1 (2d, segregated, ske)

    Dec 02, 2004

    312

    311

    310

    309

    308

    307

    306

    305

    304

    303

    Contours of Static Temperature (k)FLUENT 6.1 (2d, segregated, ske)

    Dec 02, 2004

    3.12e+02

    3.11e+02

    3.10e+02

    3.09e+02

    3.08e+02

    3.07e+02

    3.06e+02

    3.05e+02

    3.04e+02

    3.03e+02

    Contours of Static Temperature (k)FLUENT 6.1 (2d, segregated, ske)

    Dec 02, 2004

    3.12e+02

    3.11e+02

    3.10e+02

    3.09e+02

    3.08e+02

    3.07e+02

    3.06e+02

    3.05e+02

    3.04e+02

    3.03e+02

    11,9º

    25º 30º

    Contours of custom-function-0FLUENT 6.1 (2d, segregated, ske)

    Dec 07, 2004

    9

    8

    7

    6

    5

    4

    3

    2

    1

    0

    Thermal gradient INT.-EXT. (ºC)

    19º

  • 0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    70

    80

    90

    100

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

    Velocidad del viento (m/s)

    Tasa d

    e v

    en

    tila

    ció

    n (

    m3 s

    -1)

    Gas trazador

    Modelo 2: 0,7 m

    Modelo 1: 0,4 m

    Modelo 3: 1 m

    Modelo 4: 1,4 m

    Modelo 5: 1,6 m

    Modelo 6: 1,9 m

    …increasing the size of the roof vetns has clear an important effect on the ventilation rate

    At 4 m s-1, only vents with width higher to 1 m provide

    acceptable air exchange values (>30 vol. h-1)

  • V=5 m/s; Alerón 0,73 m; Q = 14,22 m3/s ; Vel.( x=16 m) =0,234 m/s

    Effects of size of roof ventilator on the ventilation rate-wind

    speed relationship

  • V=5 m/s; Alerón 1,6 m; Q = 62,36 m3/s ; Vel.( x=16 m) =0,99 m/s

    Effects of size of roof ventilator on the ventilation rate-wind

    speed relationship

  • New greenhouse designs with improved

    ventilation

  • Results

    Temperaturas (ºC) 22/07/2009

    20

    22

    24

    26

    28

    30

    32

    34

    36

    38

    40

    42

    44

    0:00:00 4:48:00 9:36:00 14:24:00 19:12:00 0:00:00 4:48:00

    Hora del día

    Te

    mp

    era

    tura

    (ºC

    )

    Temperatura exterior [ºC]

    Temperatura interior nave 22 con blanqueo(ºC)Temperatura nuevo prototipo sin blanqueo [ºC]

  • Let s have a look to an example to illustrate…

    INTRODUCTION

  • Double roof vents per span

    Most of the climate controllers keep both

    vents opened and open and close all

    leeward and all windward vents at the

    same time. Is this the best management?

    (Sase, 1983)

    INTRODUCTION

    To respond these questions we

    need to measure temperature and

    flow patterns generated in each

    scenario…

    High ventilation capacity with low winds

    when greenhouse ventilates by thermal

    effect (Baeza, 2009)

    If wind velocity is v>2 m s-1

    we know from previous works…

  • Natural ventilation systems appear to gain more attention in recent years due to

    increased costs of energy and maintenance.

    Natural ventilation is generally much cheaper than mechanical ventilation and

    represents potential economical savings because less energy is needed for operations.

    However, natural ventilation process and the control of ventilation rates is complex in

    naturally ventilated greenhouses.

    In addition, the natural ventilation itself may not be sufficient to provide desired

    environment under certain conditions.

    Thus, High Pressure Fogging (HPF) systems coupled with natural ventilation have

    been studied in an aid to improve the performance on control of greenhouse

    temperature and humidity (Arbel et al., 2006; Li et al., 2006; Li and Willits, 2008; Abdel-

    Ghany and Kozai, 2006; Abdel-Ghany et al., 2006).

    However, HPF with natural ventilation still presents some limitations of control.

    One reason is lack of control of air flow and spray rates and advanced control

    strategies for controlling ventilation and fogging events.

    Also, the pressure of these kind of systems is usually constant, limiting control of

    spray rates and pressure itself. Thus, here is a further need for research on developing

    enhanced control strategies for natural ventilated greenhouses equipped with high

    pressure and variable pressure fogging systems.