ARTICLE IN PRESS

Biosystems Engineering (2005) 91 (4), 487–499

doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2005.04.012
SE—Structures and Environment

Influence of the Heating Method on Greenhouse Microclimate and Energy

Consumption
T. Bartzanas1; M. Tchamitchian2; C. Kittas1
1
Department of Agriculture Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, Fytokou Str., 38446, N. Ionia Magnisias, Greece;
e-mail of corresponding author: ckittas@uth.gr
2
Unité PSH Bât B - INRA Domaine St Paul, 84914 Avignon CEDEX 9, France

(Received 19 October 2004; accepted in revised form 20 April 2005; published online 16 June 2005)

The influence of the heating system method on greenhouse microclimate was investigated overnight, using an
experimental greenhouse tunnel with a tomato crop. The heating system consisted of plastic heating pipes
located close to the gutter holding the growing substrate and an air heater, located 2
6 m above the ground. All
the measurements were performed during two periods: (a) a period when only pipe heating was used; and (b) a
period with pipe and air heating together. Heating pipes only could maintain the desired inside air temperature
up to a temperature difference between inside and outside air of 10 1C, whereas this difference was increased to
15 1C with the addition of the air heater. Energy consumption with a system combining heating pipes and an
air heater was 19% higher. The use of the air heater enhanced the vapour pressure difference and thus the crop
transpiration. For both cases crop temperature was lower than air temperature but this difference was larger
with the air heater and resulted in an increase in crop aerodynamic conductance. The use of the air heater for
dehumidification purposes was also investigated. It was shown that with the air heater, although the mass
transfer conductance to the cover was higher, condensation flux was smaller which resulted in less
condensation at the inner surface of the cover.
These results indicate that the use of a mixed system is favourable in greenhouse tunnel conditions since the
use of the air heater, although increasing slightly the energy consumption, improves the control of both air
temperature and humidity, particularly by keeping the inside air dew point temperature lower than the cover
temperature and preventing the occurrence of condensation on the plastic films.
r 2005 Silsoe Research Institute. All rights reserved
Published by Elsevier Ltd

1. Introduction described the basic principles of heat transfer from

Pipe heating is an effective means of warming crops
both by convectively heating the greenhouse air and by
radiating heat directly to the leaves. As warm air rises, it
creates a canopy over the plants under which plants are
usually warmer than the surrounding air and thus above
its dew point. Keeping the temperature of leaf surfaces
above the dew point is an excellent way to prevent
condensation and thus helps limit common plant
diseases, mainly fungal, in greenhouse (Hand, 1988).
Heating pipes on the ground also stimulate air move-
ment through the crop and enhance crop transpiration.
Heating of a greenhouse by hot-water pipe systems was
first analysed by Hoare and Morris (1956) who
pipes and discussed several aspects, including the
arrangement of pipes, rate of water circulation, effect
of pipe diameter, choice of fuels and types of boilers.
The location of the heating pipes for greenhouse heating
was investigated by Popovski (1986) who concluded that
a low location of the heating pipes has significant
advantages, since it minimises radiation to the trans-
parent cover and maximises radiation to the crop, while
reducing the light occultation and the direct radiation
exchanges with outside. On the other hand, from a
radiative point of view, Teitel and Tanny (1998)
demonstrated that the pipes were best placed at the
middle height of the canopy since at this position the
maximum efficiency was achieved.

1537-5110/$30.00 487 r 2005 Silsoe Research Institute. All rights reserved

Published by Elsevier Ltd
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
488 T. BARTZANAS ET AL.
Notation
Ar greenhouse roof area, m2
Ag greenhouse ground area, m2
C condensation flux in the cover, kg m2 s1
Ca heat capacity per unit volume of air, J m3 K1
cw specific heat of the water, J kg1 1C1
Dv molecular diffusion coefficient of water vapour,
m2 s1
d characteristic length of the cover surface, m
dp pipe diameter, m
Eh heating energy consumption per unit area,
Wm2
Gw water flow rate, m3 h1
Gr Grashof number
g gravitational acceleration, m s2
ga crop aerodynamic conductance, m s1
gr mass transfer conductance at the inner surface
of the cover, m s1
HR relative humidity, %
hc,i crop to air convective heat transfer coefficient,
W m2 K1
Le Lewis number
l characteristic length of the tomato leaf, m
Nu Nusselt number
Q heating energy consumption, J
Re Reynolds number
Sh Sherwood number
Air heaters are generally used as the primary heating
source in greenhouses mainly in the Mediterranean area
where the heating needs are low. The main advantage of
air heaters is their facility to promptly respond to
control changes in temperature; while the disadvantage
is the additional consumption of electricity, which may
reach about 10% of the energy required for heating and
less energy efficiency. The data available on air heaters
are not as plentiful as on heating pipes. In a comparison
between the two heating systems Teitel et al. (1999)
concluded that with air heating, the crop was cooler
than the inside air, whereas, with pipe heating the crop is
generally warmer than the surrounding air. Teitel et al.
(1999) also showed that air heating increases the air
humidity content and no differences were observed in
the energy consumption required by the two heating
systems to maintain a given temperature inside the
greenhouse. Using perforated air—heaters, Meneses and
Montero (1990) have reported large thermal gradients in
the longitudinal direction.
As well as the need to maintain temperature control,
humidity regulation is also an important and difficult
task, especially during winter. High levels of humidity
directly affect the crop yield and quality particularly via
T~ virtual temperature, 1C
T temperature, 1C
Tc crop temperature, 1C
Ti air temperature, 1C
Tr roof temperature, 1C
t time, s
U overall heat loss coefficient W m2 1C1
u air velocity inside the greenhouse, m s1
Vc,i crop to air convective heat flux, W m2
v air kinematic viscosity, m2 s1
xi air vapour concentration, kg m3
xr,s saturated vapour concentration of air at the
roof inner surface, kg m3
b thermal expansion coefficient, K1
DT c;i crop to air temperature difference, 1C
DT i;o inside to outside air temperature difference, 1C
Subscripts
c crop
r roof
g ground
i inside air
o outside air
in inlet
out outlet
the occurrence and severity of fungal diseases (Hand,
1988). Bakker (1991) proved that growth and produc-
tion of all major greenhouse crops are affected by
ambient humidity. Holder and Cockshull (1990) have
shown that, especially for tomato crops, high levels of
humidity can lead to yield losses. Low vapour pressure
deficits tend to reduce the transpiration rate and thus the
translocation of elements, particularly calcium (Bakker,
1984) which can result in physiological disorders. Acock
et al. (1976) reported visible effects on the apical growth
of tomatoes, causing reduction of growth, withering of
stems and even the death of the apical section. The
reproductive phase is also affected by high relative
humidity. A review by Picken (1984) concluded that
pollination decreases significantly when relative humid-
ity is too high.
The majority of greenhouses in the Mediterranean
area are simple structures because of their low cost and
easy management. They are usually rudimentary
equipped. Growers use only a small amount of energy
for controlling the greenhouse environment. Most of the
shelters are provided with hand-operated systems of
ventilation and are not heated or, in the best case, have
some rudimentary heating system such as plastic tubes
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
INFLUENCE OF THE HEATING METHOD
or perforated air heaters. The consequence of this
situation is that the resulting microclimate is far from
being satisfactory for the crop during a large part of the
year, since for extreme outside climate conditions the
present (low temperatures) systems cannot maintain
inside temperatures within acceptable levels.
The problem of too low temperatures during winter
can be solved by some heat supply to the greenhouse
during the critical periods. The problem is not technical,
as it is easy to heat an enclosure, but economical, as the
investment and the running costs are relatively high. In a
mild winter season, the extra cost (higher heat supply) is
not covered due to lower product prices. In order to
supply their greenhouses with more heat, growers prefer
to add air heaters as additional heating to the basic
plastic pipe heating rather than to completely change
their heating system with a system with higher heating
capacity such as a network of steel pipes.
The aim of this study is to examine the effect of this
combination (i.e. plastic heating pipes supplemented by
an air heater) on the microclimate and energy consump-
tion within a tunnel greenhouse.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. The tunnel greenhouse
Experiments were performed in an experimental
tunnel greenhouse (Fig. 1) from January to March in
2. 6 m
4.1 m 2. 4 m
Heating pipes
Fig. 1. Cross-sectional view of the experimental greenhouse
489
winter of 2003. The North–South oriented greenhouse
was located at the University of Thessaly near Volos,
(latitude 391440 , longitude 221790 ) on the coastal area of
eastern Greece. The geometrical characteristics of the
greenhouse were: eaves height of 2
4 m; ridge height of
4
1 m; total width of 8 m; total length of 20 m; ground
area of 160 m2. The greenhouse was covered by a
polyethylene film (LDPE, 180 mm, Plastika Kritis S.A
Company Iraklion, Crete, Greece) both on the roof and
the sidewalls. The greenhouse soil was totally covered
with a double - side (black downwards–white upwards)
plastic film. Tomato plants (cv. Beladonna) were grown
in containers filled with perlite with a density of 2
5
plants/m2. Water and fertilisers were supplied by a drip
system, which was automatically controlled by a
fertigation computer.
A network of black plastic heating pipes (diameter, dp
of 28 mm), located close to the gutter holding the
growing substrate, with one supply and return lines for
each crop row, was used to heat the greenhouse.
Additionally, there was an air heater in the entrance of
the greenhouse, at a height of 2
6 m from greenhouse
ground. A water boiler, which maximum capacity was
50 kW, heated water to a temperature of about 60 1C.
The hot water from the boiler was distributed via
plastic pipes (one supply and one return) either to the
heating pipe network or to the air heater or to both of
them (Fig. 1).
The temperature inside the greenhouse was controlled
within the range of 14–16 1C by means of one air
Air heater
Plants
(double row)
1m
8m
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
490 T. BARTZANAS ET AL.
temperature sensor placed at a height of 1
5 m in the
middle of the greenhouse. The water distribution
stopped when sensors sensed temperatures equal or
above 16 1C.
2.2. Measurements
The following parameters were recorded.
(1) Dry and wet bulb temperatures of inside air were
measured by means of three ventilated psychrom-
eters located at the middle of the greenhouse at three
different heights: inside the crop, above the plants
level and near the roof (0
5, 1
5 and 3
5 m from the
greenhouse ground, respectively).
(2) The leaf temperature was monitored by means of
copper-constantan thermocouples (type T), with
wire diameter of 0
1 mm.The thermocouple junc-
tions were positioned on the lower surface of five
leaves located at different levels in the crop (0
2, 0
4,
0
6, 0
8 and 1 m from the top of the crop). The
average crop temperature was then calculated. An
infrared thermometer (model 08406, Cole-Parmer,
Vernon Hills, I11) was used periodically to verify the
temperatures measured by the thermocouples.
(3) Cover temperature was recorded by means of
thermocouples (type T) glued to its inner surface.
(4) Air velocity above the crop was measured with a
two-dimensional sonic anemometer.
Outside dry and wet bulb air temperatures and wind
speed were recorded simultaneously with the measure-
ments of inside climatic variables, on a mast 4 m above
the ground at a distance of 15 m from the greenhouse.
Transpiration rate was measured every 10 min by
means of a weighing lysimeter located in a central row at
the middle of the greenhouse. The device included: an
electronic balance (scale capacity of 60 kg, resolution of
0
1 g) equipped with a tray carrying two plants planted
in bags with mineral wool as substrate, and an
independent system of water supply and drainage.
Considering that the evaporation loss from the substrate
(rockwool) was negligible, the weight loss measured by
the electronic balance was assumed equal to the
transpiration of the two plants; crop transpiration was
deduced from this measurement.
Energy released from the heating pipes and from the
air heater was monitored independently by measuring
the water flow rate and temperature decay between the
inlet and the outlet of each system.
All the above-mentioned sensor measurements were
centralised on a data logger system (DL3000, Delta-T
devices, UK) on which data were recorded every 30 s
Table 1
Average values of outside climate during the two measuring
periods
Air Relative Wind
temperature humidity speed
(To) 1C (HR,o) % (u) m s1
Pipes and air heater 4
6 74 0
9
Pipes only 8
0 78
5 0
1
and averaged on a 10 min time scale before being
processed.
Experiments were conducted for 30 days with pipe
only heating and for another 30 days with the
combination of pipes and air heater. Since the experi-
ments were spread over several weeks, in order to
display the environmental conditions, a typical night
with pipe only heating and one with the combination of
pipe and air heating (combined system) were selected for
the diagrammatic representation of the results. Table 1
summarises the mean values of outside climate variables
during these days.
3. Results
3.1. Energy consumption
The amount of heat transferred to a heated compart-
ment can be calculated from the data on the mass flow
rate of the hot water through the compartment, and on
the inlet and outlet temperatures of the hot water. In the
present study, the heat supply to the greenhouse Q in J,
either from the heating pipes or from the air heater was
calculated from
Q ¼ ½G w cw ðT in  T out Þ Dt (1)
3
where: Gw and cw represent the mass flow rate in m h1
and the specific heat of the water in J kg1 1C1,
respectively; Tin and Tout are the inlet and outlet
temperatures of the water in 1C; and Dt is the time
interval in seconds during which the water circulates.
Figure 2 presents the energy flux released in the
greenhouse for both cases, i.e. with pipe only heating
and with pipe and air heating. Mean energy consump-
tion per unit floor area from the heating pipes was
38 W m2 with only the pipes and 86 W m2 with the
combined system in agreement with the values reported
by Nijeboer and Van Holsteijn (1981). The higher
energy consumption (almost doubled) with the com-
bined system as presented in Fig. 2 is not only due to the
addition of the air heater but due to the different outside
climate conditions as well. In order to compare the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
INFLUENCE OF THE HEATING METHOD 491

180
160

Energy consuption, W m-2

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

0:

1:

2:

3:

4:

5:

6:

7:

8:
18

19

20

21

22

23 Local time, h
Fig. 2. Heating energy released into the greenhouse: (——), pipes only; (- - - - - - -), pipes and air heater

140 3.2. Air temperature and vapour pressure difference

Energy consumption Eh, Wm-2

120
100
80
60
40
20
0 conditions were mild (Fig. 4). At approximately 23:00 h
0 5 10
Temperature difference
Ti,o, °C
Fig. 3. Greenhouse overall heat loss coefficient: (& & &),
pipes only; (’ ’ ’), pipes and air heater; R2, coefficient of
determination
energy consumption for nights with different outside
climate conditions we used the overall heat loss
coefficient U. The overall heat loss coefficient for each
system was evaluated from the values of energy
consumption and temperature difference between inside
and outside air for several days given by the relation
U ¼ E h =DT i;o ; where Eh is the heating energy consump-
tion per unit area in W m2; DT i;o is the inside-to-
outside air temperature difference in 1C; and U is the
overall heat loss coefficient in W m2 1C (Fig. 3). When
pipe heating only was used the overall heat loss
coefficient was 5
7 W m2 1C1 to be compared with a
value of 6
8 W m2 1C1 for the combined system. From
that difference in the overall heat loss coefficient it is
clear that even for the same outside climate conditions
energy consumption with the combined system will be
19% higher.
Eh = 6.83
Ti,o
R2 = 0 .94 With heating pipes only, the desired set-point (i.e
15 1C) could only be maintained for a temperature
difference between inside and outside air DT i;o of 10 1C.
Above this level, heating pipes could not maintain the
desired set-point, indicating that additional heat was
Eh = 5.7
Ti,o required. Cyclic changes in air temperature were
R2 = 0 .85 observed for both systems as long as the ambient
15 20 25
the ambient temperature dropped to a level at which
only continuous operation of the pipe only system could
balance the heat lost from the greenhouse. This situation
(continuous operation) was observed with the combined
system too, but only for 2 h (between 04:30 and 06:30).
At this period, the ambient temperature was close to
zero, indicating that the combined system could main-
tain the desired set-point for a temperature difference
between inside and outside air up to 15 1C.
The hot air stream produced by the air heater resulted
in an increase of the air saturation vapour pressure,
because the air heater increased the air dry bulb
temperature while maintaining unchanged the air water
vapour content of the greenhouse air. According to Fig.
5 the mean vapour pressure difference was only 0
45 kPa
with pipes heating, against 0
6 kPa with the air heater.
With pipe heating only, these measurements also point
out that the vapour pressure difference during the night
was steadily less than 0
5 kPa. 0
5 kPa is the minimum
vapour pressure difference considered optimal for
growing and producing greenhouse crop and is com-
monly used as a threshold for dehumidification. It has
also been shown that for water vapour differences less
than this value, the rate of development of Botrytis
cinerea increases rapidly (Analytis, 1977).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
492 T. BARTZANAS ET AL.

22

20

Air temperature, °C
18

16

14

12

10
0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

0:

1:

2:

3:

4:

5:

6:

7:

8:
18

19

20

21

22

23 Local time, h
Fig. 4. Variation of inside air temperature: (——), pipes only; (- - - - - - -), pipes and air heater

1.00
0.90
Air vapour pressure difference, kPa

0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

0:

1:

2:

3:

4:

5:

6:

7:

8:
18

19

20

21

22

23

Local time, h
Fig. 5. Variation of the vapour pressure difference: (——), pipes only; (- - - - - - -), pipes and air heater

3.3. Leaf to air temperature difference
Crop temperature and how it varies with air
temperature are crucial elements affecting growth, yield
and quality. The rate of development (leaf unfolding
and flowering) responds in most crops linearly to
temperature over a wide range of temperatures (e.g.
Karlsson et al., 1991; De Koning 1994). Likewise, the
temperature difference between leaves and air governs in
a large extend the value of the aerodynamic conductance
of the crop and thus the exchange of sensible and latent
heat between crop and air.
The temperature difference between crop and air
DT c;i is presented in Fig. 6. It is seen that with heating
pipes only, crop temperature was correlated with air
temperature (mean value DTc,i of 0
77 1C), whereas
leaf temperature was much cooler than air when the air
heater was operated (mean value DT c;i of 1
57 1C).
The heat provided by the pipes to the crop both by
convection and radiation allowed the crop temperature
to be more close to air temperature whereas the air
heater transferred heat to the air through an essentially
convective heat process. Thus, leaf temperature was
consistently lower than air temperature.
With the air heater the crop was much cooler than the
air. For this reason the probability of condensation on
the plant surface was examined. In both cases, the crop
temperature did not reach the air dew point temperature
so the probability of condensation on the plant surface
can be excluded.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
INFLUENCE OF THE HEATING METHOD 493

5.0

Crop to air temperature difference, °C

4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
0

0
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0
0:

1:

2:

3:

4:

5:

6:

7:

8:
18

19

20

21

22

23
Local time, h
Fig. 6. Variation of the crop to air temperature: (——), pipes only; (- - - - - - -), pipes and air heater

0 .25
air heater
on air heater
0.2 on
air heater
off
Air velocity, m s-1

air heater
0.15 off

0.1

0.05

0
1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99
Time, min
Fig. 7. Air velocity above the crop with and without the air heater

3.4. Determination of the crop aerodynamic conductance temperatures respectively in K. The use of air heater
increases the temperature difference between crop
The crop aerodynamic conductance ga in m s1 is and air (Fig. 6) and the air velocity above the crop level
linked to the convective heat flux Vc,i in W m2 between (Fig. 7).
canopy and air, and to the convective heat transfer When only heating pipes were working, the mean
coefficient hc,i by the relations value of temperature difference between crop and air
(DT c;i ¼ 0
77 K) and the air velocity above the crop u of
V c;i ¼ C a ðT c  T i Þga (2)
0
03 m s1 indicated that the flow regime can be
considered as free and the heat transfer coefficient can
ga ¼ hc;i =C a (3)
then be calculated according to (Seginer, 1984):
where: hc,i is the convective heat transfer coefficient in  
T c  T i 0
25
W m2 K1; Ca is the heat capacity per unit volume of hc;i ¼ 1
95  (4)
l 
air in J m3 K1; and Tc and Ti are the crop and air

494
where l is the characteristic length of the tomato leaf
(l ¼ 0
15 m, Boulard et al., 2002).
When the air heater is operated (mean
DT c;i ¼ 1
57; u ¼ 0
18 m s1 ), however, the airflow in-
duced a forced flow inside the greenhouse and, in this
case, the heat transfer coefficient must be taken as the
sum of the free convection term and the forced laminar
convection term (Kindelan, 1980):
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. BARTZANAS ET AL.
air velocity and due to the higher crop to air vapour
pressure difference. The higher crop transpiration
with the combined system could partly explain the
lower crop temperature when the combined system was
used (Fig. 6).
3.6. Condensation on the cover
 
T c  T i 0
25 u0
5 The condensation rate of water on the inner surface of

hc;i ¼ 1
95  þ 5
25 (5)
l  l
where u is the mean air velocity in the greenhouse in
m s1.
Figure 8 shows calculated values [Eqn (3)], for crop
aerodynamic conductance for both cases. It is clear that
the use of the air heater increases the crop aerodynamic
conductance, due to both higher temperature differences
between crop and air and higher air velocity above the
crop.
the cover C in kg m2 s1 can be estimated using the
following formula:
C ¼ gr ðxi  xr;s Þ (6)
where, xi and xr,s are the absolute vapour content of the
inside air in kg m3 and the saturated vapour concen-
tration at the cover, respectively. Condensation will
occur only if xi 4xr;s : In that case, the mass transfer
conductance gr in m s1 is (Monteith, 1973):
Dv Sh
3.5. Crop transpiration
The warm air induced by the fan into the boundary
layer of the leaves increased the mean air vapour pre-
ssure difference between the leaves and the air (Fig. 9)
and enhanced the crop transpiration (Fig. 10). For both
cases transpiration showed random fluctuations around
a mean value of 30 W m2 per unit leaf area for pipe
only heating and 40 W m2 per unit leaf area for the
combined system. This increase in crop transpiration
with the combined system can be attributed to the
higher aerodynamic conductance (Fig. 8) due to the
higher crop to air temperature difference and to the higher
gr ¼ Sh  2
49  105 (7)
d d
where: Dv is the molecular diffusion coefficient in m2 s1
of water vapour in air; d is a typical dimension of the
cover surface in m; and Sh is the Sherwood number.
The Nusselt number of a greenhouse cover of small
slope was found by Papadakis et al. (1992) to be similar
to that of a horizontal surface, given the poor accuracy
associated with similarity numbers in practice. Accord-
ingly, the Sherwood number of a horizontal surface will
be applied here and calculated for the case of free
convection (pipe heating only) as proposed by Stan-
ghellini and de Jong (1995):
Sh ¼ Le0
33 Nu ¼ Le0
33 0:13Gr0
33 (8)

20.0
Crop aerodynamic conductance, m s-1

18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

0:

1:

2:

3:

4:

5:

6:

7:

8:
18

19

20

21

22

23

Local time, h
Fig. 8. Variation of crop aerodynamic conductance: (——), pipes only; (- - - - - - -), pipes and air heater
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
INFLUENCE OF THE HEATING METHOD 495

1.20

Crop to air vapour pressure difference, kPa

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

0:

1:

2:

3:

4:

5:

6:

7:

8:
18

19

20

21

22

23

Local time, h
Fig. 9. Variation of leaf to air vapour pressure difference: (——), pipes only; (- - - - - - -), pipes and air heater

60
Transpiration per leaf area, W m-2

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

0:

1:

2:

3:

4:

5:

6:

7:

8:
18

19

20

21

22

23

Local time, h
Fig. 10. Variation of crop transpiration per leaf area: (——), pipes only; (- - - - - - -), pipes and air heater

where Le is the Lewis number and Gr is the Grashof Stanghellini (1987) for the mixed convection:
number which is given by the relation
Nu ¼ 0
13ðGr þ 103Re1
5 Þ0
33 (10)
3
gbd ~ where Re is the Reynolds number, defined as
Gr ¼ ðTi  T~ r Þ (9)
n2
ud
Re ¼ (11)
where: n is the kinematic viscosity in m2 s1; b is the n
thermal expansion coefficient in K1; g the gravitational As C refers to the unit ground area, one has to
acceleration in m s2; and T~ a virtual temperature consider the ratio of cover area to ground area (Ar =Ag ).
accounting for both the buoyancy effects of vapour Combining Eqns (8), (10) and (11) into Eqn (7) gives for
concentration and air temperature. pipe heating only
In the case where the air heater was working parallel
to the pipes, the Sherwood number was calculated using Ar
gr  1
52  103 ðT~ i  T~ r Þ0
33 (12)
an expression for the Nusselt number proposed by Ag
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
496 T. BARTZANAS ET AL.

and for both pipe and air heating xi  xr;s : However with the combined system the
Ar difference xi  xr;s was either negative indicating no
gr  1
52  103 ðT~ i  T~ r Þ0
33 þ 2  104
Ag
Absolute vapour content (xi and xr,s) were estimated
from measurements of dry and wet inside air tempera-
ture and cover temperature respectively. Figure 11
presents the calculated mass transfer conductance to
the cover for both cases. With the combined system
mass transfer conductance was higher mainly due to the
higher air velocity. That means higher condensation rate
with the combined system for the same difference of
(13) condensation or much lower compared to the difference
of xi  xr;s with pipes only heating. The condensation
rate at the inner surface of the cover for both cases is
presented in Fig. 12. With pipes only, condensation
occurs during the whole night period whereas with the
combined system condensation was not continuous and
was lower than with pipe only heating. The mean value
of condensation rate with pipe only was 3
8 mg m2 s1
to be compared with a value of 0
65 mg m2 s1 with the
combined system.

0.0036

0.0034
Mass transfer conductance on the

0.0032
greenhouse cover, ms-1

0.0030

0.0028

0.0026

0.0024

0.0022

0.0020
0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

0:

1:

2:

3:

4:

5:

6:

7:

8:
18

19

20

21

22

23

Local time, h
Fig. 11. Mass transfer conductance at the inner surface of the cover: (——), pipes only; (- - - - - - -), pipes and air heater

7.0

6.0
Condensation flux, mg m-2 s-1

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

0:

1:

2:

3:

4:

5:

6:

7:

8:
18

19

20

21

22

23

Local time, h
Fig. 12. Condensation flux at the inner surface of the cover: (——), pipes only; (- - - - - - -), pipes and air heater
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
INFLUENCE OF THE HEATING METHOD
4. Discussion
The influence of a heating system on greenhouse
microclimate depends on many parameters. For exam-
ple, it depends on the heating method, on the water flow
rate in the pipes, on the temperature of water circulating
in the pipes and on the covering material. In the present
study the greenhouse could be heated in two ways: (a)
with pipes only and (b) with the combination of pipes
and an air heater. Energy consumption with the
combined system was found 19% higher than with the
pipes only system. However with the combined system
the greenhouse microclimate was significantly improved,
since the use of the air heater enhanced the vapour
pressure difference, crop transpiration and reduces the
condensation rate at the inner surface of the cover. On
the contrary, an increase in the energy provided to the
greenhouse only from the pipes would only modify the
air temperature; the vapour pressure difference between
air and cover would not be increased by a large amount
and water condensation at the inner surface of the cover
would still occur.
With a temperature of water circulating in the pipes of
65 1C the used pipe system has a mean output of
60 W m2 and it could maintain a DT i;o of 10 1C, while
mean air vapour pressure difference was 0
42 kPa and
condensation rate at the inner surface of the cover was
3
42 mg m2 s1. If the same heat (i.e 60 W m2) was
provided by the combined system (pipes plus the air
heater) then the system could only maintain a DT i;o of
8
2 1C (due to the higher overall heat loss coefficient) but
the mean vapour pressure deficit would be increased to
0
48 kPa, and the condensation rate at the inner
surface would be reduced to 0
8 mg m2 s1. On the
12
11
Absolute humidty, gr kg-1
10
6
0
00
00
00
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
0:
1:
2:
18
19
20
21
22
23
Local time, h
Fig. 13. Variation of absolute in the crop cover: (——), pipes only; (- - - - - - -), pipes and air heater
497
other hand if we want to keep the same tempera-
ture difference between inside and outside air (i.e 10 1C)
with the combined system then the system should
provide a heat output of 72 W m2. In this case the
mean vapour pressure deficit would be 0
56 kPa and the
condensation rate at the inner surface of the cover
would be 0
5 mg m2 s1. Our experiments show that
providing this additional energy with the air heater (i.e.
19%) results in the possibility to maintain the same
temperature difference (i.e. 10 1C) but also results in an
increase of the vapour pressure difference and in an
important decrease in the condensation rate at the
cover.
In a previous section it has been shown that with the
combined system crop transpiration is higher but that
less water condensates on the inner surface of the cover.
This sounds contradictory since the higher the tran-
spiration rate, the higher the water added into the
greenhouse; so normally more water should condensate
on the cover. In our case it seems that greenhouse air is
split in two sections: one in the region occupied by the
crop and one above the crop where the hot air produced
by the air heater resulted in a different microclimate
from the lower part of the greenhouse (crop). The
variation of absolute humidity inside the region
occupied by the crop for both cases is presented in
Fig. 13. With the combined system absolute humidity
reached higher values as a result of the higher
transpiration rate. The corresponding variation of
absolute humidity 0
5 m from the greenhouse cover is
presented in Fig. 14 where it is clear that with the
combined system the absolute humidity of air was lower
explaining in this way the lower condensation rate of
water on the cover.
00
00
00
00
00
00
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
498 T. BARTZANAS ET AL.

12

11

Absolute humidity, gr kg-1

10

6
0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

0:

1:

2:

3:

4:

5:

6:

7:

8:
18

19

20

21

22

23
Local time, h
Fig. 14. Variation of absolute near the greenhouse cover: (——), pipes only; (- - - - - - -), pipes and air heater

5. Conclusions surface of the cover, while increasing slightly the energy

The influence of the heating system method was
investigated in an experimental tunnel greenhouse with a
tomato crop during nighttime. Heating pipes located
close to the gutter holding the growing substrate was the
basic greenhouse heating system and the use of an
additional air heater, working simultaneously with the
pipes, was also investigated. The following conclusions
can be drawn.
(1) The tested system of heating pipes could maintain
the desired temperature set-point for a temperature
difference between inside and outside air DT i;o of at
most 10 1C.
(2) The crop was 0
77 1C cooler than air with pipe only
heating and 1
57 1C cooler than air with the
additional use of the air heater. In both cases no
condensation was observed in the crop.
(3) Due to the warm air stream produced by the air
heater vapour pressure difference was higher with
the air heater than with pipes only heating.
(4) Crop transpiration was larger with the air heater due
to a larger leaf to air water vapour pressure
difference and to the higher crop aerodynamic
conductance.
(5) With the combined system the condensation rate at
the inner surface of the cover was strongly reduced.
(6) The addition of the air heater resulted in an increase
of energy consumption of 19%.
These results indicate that the use of a mixed system
significantly improves the greenhouse microclimate
since it keeps the inside air at the desirable level and
prevents the occurrence of condensation in the inner
consumption.
References
Analytis S (1977). Über die Relation zwischen biologischer
Entwicklung und Temperatur bei phytopathogenen Pilzen.
[On the relation between biological development and
temperature of some plant pathogenic fungi.]. Phytopatho-
logische Zeitschrift, 90, 64–76
Acock B; Charles-Edwards D A; Hand D W (1976). An analysis
of some effects of humidity on photosynthesis by a tomato
canopy under winter light conditions and a range of carbon
dioxide concentrations. Journal of Experimental Botany, 27,
933–941
Bakker J C (1991). Analysis of humidity effects on growth and
production of glasshouse fruit vegetables. PhD Thesis,
Agriculture University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Bakker R (1984). Physiological disorders in cucumber under
high humilities conditions and low ventilation rates in
greenhouses. Acta Horticulturae, 156, 257–264
Boulard T; Mermier M; Fargues J; Smits N; Rougier M; Roy J
C (2002). Tomato leaf boundary layer climate: implications
for microbiological whitefly control in greenhouses. Agri-
culture and Forest Meteorology, 3(3), 159–176
De Koning A N M (1994). Development and dry matter
distribution in glasshouse tomato: a quantitative approach.
PhD Thesis, Agricultural University, Wageningen, The
Netherlands
Hand D W (1988). Effects of atmospheric humidity on
greenhouse crops. Acta Horticulturae, 229, 143–155
Hoare E R; Morris L G (1956). The heating and ventilation of
glasshouses. Journal of the Institution of British Agricultur-
al Engineers, XII(1), 1–26
Holder R; Cockshull K E (1990). Effects of humidity on the
growth and yield of glasshouse tomatoes. Journal of
Horticultural Science, 65(1), 31–39
Karlsson M G; Heins R D; Gerberick J O; Hackmann M E
(1991). Temperature driven leaf unfolding rate in Hibiscus
Rosa sinensis. Scientia Horticulturae, 45, 323–331
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
INFLUENCE OF THE HEATING METHOD
Kindelan M (1980). Dynamic modeling of greenhouse environ-
ment. Transactions of the ASAE, 23, 1232–1239
Meneses J F; Montero A A (1990). Ducted air heating systems
in greenhouses: experimental results. Acta Horticulturae,
263, 285–292
Monteith J L (1973). Principles of Environmental Physics.
Edward Arnold, London
Nijeboer D G; Van Holsteijn G P A (1981). Perspectief voor
gewasverwarming bij jaarrond chrysanten. [Prospects for
crop heating for year round cultivation of chrysanthe-
mums.]. In: Greenhouse Climate Control: An Integrated
Approach (Bakker J C; Bot G P A; Challa H; Van de Braak
N J, eds), pp 172–179
Papadakis G; Frangoudakis A; Kyritsis S (1992). Mixed, forced
and free convection heat transfer at the greenhouse covers.
Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 51, 191–205
Picken A J F (1984). A review of pollination and fruit set in the
tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum, Mill). Journal of Horti-
cultural Science, 59, 1–13
Popovski K (1986). Location of heating installations in
greenhouses for low temperature heating fluids. In:
499
Industrial Thermal Effluents for Greenhouse Heating
(O’Flaherty T, ed), pp. 51–55. European Cooperative
Networks on Rural Energy. CNRE Bulletin No. 15.
Proceedings of CNRE Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, 17–19
September
Seginer I (1984). On the night transpiration of greenhouse
roses under glass or plastic cover. Agricultural Meteorology,
30, 257–268
Stanghellini C 1987. Transpiration of greenhouse crop: an aid
to climate management. PhD Thesis, Agricultural Univer-
sity, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Stanghellini C; de Jong T (1995). A model of humidity and its
applications in a greenhouse. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology, 76, 129–148
Teitel M; Segal I; Shklyar A; Barak M (1999). A comparison
between pipe and air heating methods for green-
houses. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 72,
259–273
Teitel M; Tanny J (1998). Radiative heat transfer from heating
tubes in a greenhouse. Journal of Agricultural Engineering
Research, 69, 185–188