See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/5827963

Modelling heat and mass transfer in a naturally ventilated greenhouse in

Zimbabwe

Article  in  Communications in Agricultural and Applied Biological Sciences · February 2007

Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

4 922

4 authors, including:

Emmanuel Mashonjowa Frederik Ronsse

University of Zimbabwe Ghent University
48 PUBLICATIONS   548 CITATIONS    177 PUBLICATIONS   4,052 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jan G Pieters
Ghent University
231 PUBLICATIONS   2,988 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

UAV simulation platform View project

Site specific weed management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Emmanuel Mashonjowa on 27 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights
 Author's personal copy

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Solar Energy 91 (2013) 381–393

www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Modelling the thermal performance of a naturally ventilated

greenhouse in Zimbabwe using a dynamic greenhouse climate model
E. Mashonjowa a, F. Ronsse b, J.R. Milford a, J.G. Pieters b,⇑
a
University of Zimbabwe, Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, P.O. Box MP167, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
b
Ghent University, Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Coupure Links 653, 9000 Gent, Belgium

Received 9 April 2012; received in revised form 2 September 2012; accepted 17 September 2012
Available online 18 October 2012

Communicated by: Associate Editor I. Farkas

Abstract

The Gembloux Dynamic Greenhouse Climate Model (GDGCM), previously validated for a tomato crop in European greenhouses,
was adapted to simulate the microclimate in a naturally ventilated Zimbabwean greenhouse containing a rose crop. The GDGCM con-
sists of a system of differential equations based on the heat and mass balances of the layers of a greenhouse, and were worked out within
the Transient System Simulation (TRNSYS) program. Modified sub-models to calculate the greenhouse air renewal rates and crop can-
opy resistance to water vapour transfer were introduced. Numerical results obtained using the model were compared to experimental
measurements carried out in a full-scale commercial naturally ventilated Azrom type greenhouse with a rose crop. The simulated results
showed good agreement with the observed values of all parameters for most parts of the day. For the period of observation (the whole
year from May 2007 to April 2008) the mean standard errors between the predicted and experimental greenhouse air temperature and
relative humidity, canopy temperature and crop transpiration were 1.8 °C, 14.8%, 1.9 °C and 14.2 W m2, respectively, in winter and
1.3 °C, 8.6%, 1.6 °C and 21.8 W m2, respectively, in summer. The model adequately simulated the internal greenhouse microclimate
using outside climate data including incident solar radiation, cover transmittances and greenhouse configuration as inputs and can thus
be used to predict the inside greenhouse climate and as a design tool to evaluate and optimise the effects on the inside greenhouse climate
of ventilation, cover properties, the settings of the control system and other climate management practices.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Greenhouse microclimate; Solar collector; Gembloux Dynamic Greenhouse Climate Model; Natural ventilation; Plant evapotranspiration

1. Introduction thus reducing convective heat losses by the inside environ-

The greenhouse acts as a solar collector, in which heat-
ing is caused in part, by the selective transmission of solar
energy and by a trapping of the infrared radiation from the
soil and plants in the greenhouse by the covering material
(Mashonjowa et al., 2009; Sethi and Sharma, 2008).
Another factor contributing to the greenhouse warming
is the cover material acting as a barrier to the outside air,
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 9 264 61 88; fax: +32 9 264 62 35.
E-mail addresses: emash@science.uz.ac.zw (E. Mashonjowa),
Frederik.Ronsse@Ugent.be (F. Ronsse), milfojf@yahoo.co.uk
(J.R. Milford), Jan.Pieters@UGent.be (J.G. Pieters).
ment. Consequently, the climatic conditions inside a
naturally ventilated greenhouse directly depend upon the
solar radiation intensity, the cover material, the ambient
external air temperature, the overall heat transfer coeffi-
cient, and the external wind velocity (Mashonjowa, 2010;
Sethi and Sharma, 2007). A proper understanding of the
thermal behaviour of greenhouses is essential for the choice
and effective use of the most appropriate climate control
strategies that give satisfactory performance in commercial
agricultural production.
Greenhouse construction and operation in Zimbabwe
have developed considerably during the last three decades
and several designs of greenhouses are currently in use.

0038-092X/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2012.09.010
 Author's personal copy
382 E. Mashonjowa et al. / Solar Energy 91 (2013) 381–393
Nomenclature
Agr greenhouse floor surface area, (m2)
AL plant leaf area, (m2)
Ar, As, vent (roof, side) opening surface area (m2)
CD discharge coefficient (dimensionless)
Cw wind effect coefficient (dimensionless)
Fs stem sap flow rate (kg s1)
G ventilation rate (m3 s1)
g gravitational constant, 9.81 m s2
LAIc crop leaf area index (dimensionless)
Mr crop transpiration rate (kg s1)
N air renewal rate (h1)
PV floor area fraction covered by crop, dimension-
less
QSint global solar radiation (W m2)
R2 coefficient Of determination
RH relative humidity (dimensionless)
rst plant stomatal resistance (s m1)
rc canopy resistance to water vapour transfer
(s m1)
Tc cover temperature (°C)
Te external temperature (°C)
The majority of the greenhouses consist of traditional, low-
investment, non-heated, plastic-covered shelters, compati-
ble with the low investment capacity of the growers. How-
ever, modern greenhouses equipped with computerised
climate control systems already cover a substantial and
increasing hectrage. Most of these high-investment green-
houses were imported (typically from Europe and Israel)
as showcases of modern agriculture, but few have been eco-
nomically successful in Zimbabwe. The major causes for
the discrepancy in performance of these production sys-
tems between Europe/Israel and Zimbabwe have been
identified as the climatic differences and the lack of experi-
ence of local growers for the complex management needed
in these greenhouses (Davies, 2000). It is, therefore, very
important to adapt greenhouse designs or climate control
strategies to local conditions. This may be achieved by
monitoring conditions within the greenhouse and adjusting
the greenhouse controls using empirical predictions of the
effects of such adjustments. However, because of the com-
plexity of the interactions between the greenhouse con-
struction elements, the crop within it and the greenhouse
climate parameters, it is often impossible to predict the
effect of different designs or climate control strategies on
the production system before implementing them. While
tests in real greenhouses will no doubt provide the most
reliable data, the results obtained from such tests are site-
specific and so are only valid for that particular greenhouse
and its local climatic conditions. In addition, the financial
implications and risks associated with these tests, particu-
larly for commercial enterprises, make them unattractive.
Ti internal temperature (°C)
Tv crop (canopy) temperature (°C)
Tvent ventilation set point temperature (°C)
ue wind velocity (m s1)
V volume (m3)
VPDm vapour pressure deficit (kPa)
x height (m)
yexp, ysim measured, simulated output
r standard deviation
Dt time step (s)
Abbreviations
GDGCM Gembloux Dynamic Greenhouse Climate
Model
GGDM Gembloux Greenhouse Dynamic Model
LAI leaf area index
PTFE polytetrafluoroethylene
TRNSYS Transient System Simulation program
VPD vapour pressure deficit
WPT whole plant transpiration
Laboratory tests in small-scale experimental greenhouses
may also be used, but the results from such tests are often
difficult to upscale to full scale conditions.
Greenhouse climate and crop models can be used to
enhance our understanding of the physical greenhouse cli-
mate and to test the effectiveness of any greenhouse design
or climate management strategy, and thus to control green-
house microclimate optimally. The use of models that pre-
dict the greenhouse microclimate using external weather
data from local meteorological stations have proved to be
useful for understanding and improving greenhouse climate
control and management elsewhere (Fitz-Rodrı́guez et al.,
2010; Impron et al., 2007; Luo et al., 2005a, 2005b; Nebbali
et al., 2012; Pawlowski et al., 2009; Panwar et al., 2011;
Sethi, 2009; Tavares et al., 2001; Roy et al., 2002; Uchida
Frausto et al., 2003; Wang and Boulard, 2000; Zhang
et al., 1997). However, any such model must be calibrated
and validated over a full range of conditions and types of
construction before it can be used operationally.
In this study, the Gembloux Dynamic Greenhouse Cli-
mate Model (GDGCM) (Pieters and Deltour, 1997) was
adapted, calibrated and validated to predict the microcli-
mate in a naturally ventilated plastic greenhouse with a
rose crop (Rosa hybrida) in Zimbabwe. The model was
originally developed by the “Centre d’Etude pour la Régu-
lation Climatique des Serres” of the “Faculté des Sciences
Agronomiques de Gembloux” in Belgium and was vali-
dated for a tomato crop in naturally ventilated multi-span
European glasshouses in Western Europe by Deltour et al.
(1985), and under Mediterranean climatic conditions by
 Author's personal copy
E. Mashonjowa et al. / Solar Energy 91 (2013) 381–393
Wang and Boulard (2000). Initial confidence in the model’s
ability to simulate accurately the thermal performance of
greenhouse systems arose from previous validation
programmes which had confirmed the suitability of the
Transient System Simulation program (TRNSYS) and
GDGCM to simulate the performance of solar heat gener-
ating systems and greenhouses (Cooper and Sheridan,
1982; Deltour et al., 1985; Pieters and Deltour, 1997; Wang
and Boulard, 2000). A natural ventilation model was intro-
duced in the GDGCM. The greenhouse ventilation rates,
which were required to calibrate and validate this model,
were obtained by measurement and application of physical
mechanisms of natural ventilation. The modelling of
transpiration was modified by considering the climatic
dependence of the rose crop stomatal resistance.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Greenhouse model
2.1.1. Model description
The GDGCM is a multiple component semi-one dimen-
sional dynamic greenhouse climate model which calculates
eight heat balances for the following greenhouse layers:
cover, air, vegetation, soil surface and four soil layers
(Pieters and Deltour, 1997). It also includes a mass balance
for the simulation of the relative humidity of the green-
house air. Although the model can be regarded as relatively
simple, especially compared to more recent greenhouse cli-
mate models using finite element or fine volume methods
(i.e. computational fluid dynamics, CFD) such as Majdou-
bi et al. (2009), Molina-Aiz et al. (2010) and Nebbali et al.
(2012), its required numerical load is low. Consequently,
the model described in this study is suited for use in process
(i.e. climate) controllers in greenhouse applications.
Convection Far IR radiation
Ventilation system
Conduction
Fig. 1. The schematic diagram showing the heat and mass exchanges between the greenhouse layers (after Pieters and Deltour, 1997).
383
Detailed descriptions of the equations in the GDGCM
model are given in Pieters and Deltour (1997). As a conse-
quence, only a short model description is presented and
emphasis is put on the description of the modified ventila-
tion and transpiration submodels in this study.
The greenhouse microclimate is the result of heat and
mass exchanges between the greenhouse layers, including
heat transfers by conduction, convection, solar radiation
and thermal radiation, as well as the latent heat exchanges
(Fig. 1). It is assumed that these layers are homogeneous
and that all fluxes are vertical. However, since the solar
radiation absorptance of some layers depends on the angle
of incidence, and thus on the sun’s position in the sky, the
model is not strictly one-dimensional. For that reason it is
said to be semi-one dimensional. To describe the solar radi-
ation fluxes, the solar radiation transmittances of the
greenhouse frame and cover, the slope angle and the orien-
tation of the greenhouse roof and the latitude at which the
greenhouse is situated must be specified. The energy and
mass balance equations are solved for given input parame-
ters (external air temperature and relative humidity, global
solar radiant flux density, wind speed, cover transmittances
and the climate control system settings for ventilation and
heating) and boundary conditions (the subsoil) using an
iterative procedure to obtain the temperatures of the differ-
ent layers and humidity of the inside air. To allow the sim-
ulation of the effect of control procedures for the inside air,
several user-selectable heating and ventilation strategies are
built into the model.
2.1.2. Modifications to the original model
The GDGCM, was developed, calibrated and validated
for a soilless culture of tomato plants in large multi-span
and naturally ventilated European glasshouses. It was there-
fore necessary to modify and adapt the model for another
Sky
Solar radiation Latent heat
Outside air
Cover
vapour Inside air
Vegetation
Soil cover
Soil layers (4)
Subsoil
 Author's personal copy
384 E. Mashonjowa et al. / Solar Energy 91 (2013) 381–393
crop (roses in this study) and for a naturally ventilated
plastic greenhouse typical of Zimbabwe. The main sub-
models modified were the vegetation and ventilation
sub-models.
2.1.2.1. Vegetation sub-model. As the crop transpiration
rate is the main component of the greenhouse air water
vapour balance, its estimation is critical for climate control.
The modified transpiration rate sub-model considered the
climatic dependence of the rose stomatal (rst) and canopy
resistance (rc) to water vapour transfer. At ambient CO2
levels and for well-watered crops, the leaf stomatal resis-
tance, rst (in s m1) can be considered as depending mainly
on global radiation above the crop and vapour pressure
deficit (Baille et al., 1994; Jarvis, 1985; Kittas et al., 1999;
Papadakis et al., 1994). If it is considered that the canopy
resistance includes most of the characteristics of the leaf
stomatal behaviour, rst can be normalised by the crop leaf
area index, LAIc, to obtain the canopy resistance, rc. For
greenhouse roses, the relationship suggested by Baille
et al. (1994) was adopted:
 
rst;min a þ QS i nt
rc ¼ f1 þ exp½cðVPD  VPDm Þg ð1Þ
LAI c b þ QS i nt
where rst,min is the minimum possible value for rst in condi-
tions of optimal water supply and environment and VPDm
is the vapour pressure deficit of the air at which the resis-
tance is minimal and was taken to be 2.5 kPa (Baille
et al., 1994; Kittas et al., 1999). The parameters a, b and
c were derived statistically by fitting experimental data to
the canopy resistance model (Mashonjowa, 2010).
2.1.2.2. Ventilation sub-model. Ventilation is characterised
by the air renewal rate, N (in h1), which expresses the
ratio of the total volume of fresh air supplied to the green-
house volume in one hour. For the greenhouse used in this
study, the air renewal rates were assumed to be described
by an equation reported by Fatnassi et al. (2003) and Kit-
tas et al. (1997) for a greenhouse with continuous roof and
side vents (Mashonjowa et al., 2010b):
20 12
   
3600 6B A r As C Ti  Te
N¼ q
C D 4@  ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
A 2g  x 
V A2r þ A2s Ti
 2 #0:5
Ar þ A s 2 of histograms showing the relative frequency of each devia-
þ C w ue
2 tion class. Since some heat and water vapour fluxes cannot
where V is the greenhouse volume (m3), CD is the discharge
coefficient for the openings (dimensionless), Ti and Te are
the internal and external air temperature (K), respectively.
Further, Ar and As are the total opening area (m2) of the
roof and side vents, respectively; g is the acceleration due
to gravity (=9.81 m s2), x is the vertical height from the
midpoints of the side and roof vents (m), Cw is the wind
effect coefficient (dimensionless) and ue is the external wind
speed at a height of 2 m (m s1).
Eq. (2) applies when Ti > Te. If Ti < Te, Ti in the denom-
inator is replaced by Te and (Ti  Te) in the numerator is
replaced by (Te  Ti) (ASHRAE, 2005). If the greenhouse
is closed (Ar + As = 0), the ventilation rate was set to equal
the leakage rate, (N = N0). The parameters CD and Cw
were determined statistically in a previous study by fitting
the experimental data to the ventilation model
(Mashonjowa et al., 2010b).
2.1.3. Model implementation
The system of differential equations was implemented in
the Transient System Simulation program (TRNSYS v16),
a computer package developed by the Solar Energy Labo-
ratory at the University of Wisconsin–Madison for the
treatment of solar energy problems (Klein et al., 2004).
The simulation engine was programmed in Compaq Visual
FORTRAN Version 6.6. Simulations were carried out for
a whole year from May 2007 to April 2008. The time-step
for integration was one minute. In this way, simulating a
whole year on an Intel Pentium IV, 1.6 GHz personal com-
puter took less than 5 min.
2.1.4. Model calibration
A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine which
parameters highly affected the simulation results and hence
should be calibrated most carefully. The rest of the param-
eters were either determined less accurately or adapted
from other studies. The calibration was based on the mea-
surements and the simulation results obtained for a period
of four weeks each in June 2007 (for winter) and December
2007 (for summer). The quality of the calibration was
assessed mainly in terms of the mean value of the absolute
deviations between the measured and simulated results.
Table 1 shows the values of the parameters that were used
in the model as obtained from the calibration or adapted
from other studies.
2.1.5. Model validation
The validation was based on the measured and simulated
results of a winter period (12–31 May 2007 and 1–17 August
2007) and a 4-month period in summer (4 October 2007–29
February 2008, but excluding the calibration period) for
which continuous data was available. For each time step,
the deviation between the measured and simulated values
was calculated. The results were then visualised by means
ð2Þ
be measured directly, the validation results are given for
the temperatures of the inside air, vegetation, cover and
the inside air relative humidity and not for the fluxes
themselves.
2.2. Experimental measurements
2.2.1. Description of the site and greenhouse
Input and calibration data for the model were collected
in a commercial 3-span Azrom type greenhouse (Fig. 2) at
 Author's personal copy

E. Mashonjowa et al. / Solar Energy 91 (2013) 381–393 385

Table 1
Values for the Gembloux Dynamic Greenhouse Climate Model parameters (after Mashonjowa, 2010; Pieters and Deltour, 1997; Pollet and Pieters, 2000).
Soil characteristics First layer Second layer Third layer Fourth layer
1 1
Thermal conductivity (W m K ) 0.70 1.95 1.9 1.9
Layer thickness (m) 0.05 0.15 0.3 0.7
Density of soil layer (kg m3) 1300 1450 1600 1650
Heat capacity of soil layer (kJ kg1 K1) 1.35 1.25 1.20 1.20
Subsoil temperature (°C) 18.5
Thickness of the subsoil layer (m) 8.8
Floor
Floor reflectance for solar radiation (–) 0.79
Floor emittance for far infrared radiation (–) 0.79
Characteristic length of greenhouse floor (m) 1001
Cover characteristics, 200 lm diffused polyethylene (DPE)
Outer cover emittance for far infrared radiation (–) 0.79
Inner cover emittance for far infrared radiation (–) 0.79
Transmittance for far infrared radiation (–) 0.18
Cover absorptance for diffuse solar radiation (–) 0.04
Dry cover transmittance for diffuse solar radiation (–) 0.69
Wet cover transmittance for diffuse solar radiation (–) 0.55
Frame transmittance for solar radiation (–) 0.95
Dry cover heat capacity per unit area (kJ m2 K1) 0.725
Maximum condensation water film thickness (mm) 0.12
Transmittances and reflectances (beam radiation) at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75 and 90° (–)
Dry cover transmittance 0.75 0.74 0.72 0.69 0.63 0.46 0.00
Wet cover transmittance 0.61 0.61 0.59 0.59 0.57 0.46 0.00
Dry cover reflectance 0.21 0.22 0.25 0.27 0.33 0.50 1.00
Wet cover reflectance 0.35 0.35 0.37 0.37 0.39 0.50 1.00
Vegetation characteristics
Reflectance for solar radiation (–) 0.16
Canopy attenuation coefficient (–) 0.61
Characteristic length of the leaves (m) 0.06
Emittance for far infrared radiation (–) 0.95
Specific heat capacity (kJ kg1 K1) 4.18
Air characteristics
Humid air density (kg m3) 0.99
Volumetric heat capacity of humid air (kJ m3 K1) 1.0
Latent heat of condensation of water (kJ kg1) 2442
Inside air velocity (m s1) 0.30
Lewis Number (–) 0.89

Floraline Pvt Ltd. located within Harare, Zimbabwe
(17.8°S, 31.1°E, altitude 1500 m above mean sea level).
Each span of the greenhouse was 9.6 m wide by 44 m
long, with ridge and gutter heights of 6.5 and 4.1 m, respec-
tively. The ridges were oriented north–south and the clad-
ding material was a 200 lm polyethylene film with far
infrared and UV absorbing additives (Ganeigar Co.,
Israel). The polyethylene sidewall roll-up curtains could
be rolled up from 2 m above the floor to 3.45 m on the
south wall and to 3.35 m on the north wall. Plastic nets
(50 mesh, that allow the passage of 0.35 mm diameter
spheres) covered the openings. A ventilation window (1 m
wide) opened along the ridge, on the west side of each roof
span. The side and roof vents positions were controlled by
an automated climate control system (NETAFIM NETA-
GROW Version 718.3, Priva, Israel), operating when the
temperature rose above a calculated ventilation tempera-
ture (Tvent). The crop included several cultivars of roses
(commercial ones like Myrthe, Nectarine, Respect, Orches-
tra, Bonfire, and Romeo and several trial cultivars) at dif-
ferent growth stages, grown in vermiculite in slightly raised
20  0.45  0.2 m (length  width  depth) containers and
watered through an automated drip system of two drip
lines 25 cm apart. All the cultivars were grafted onto Natal
Brier rootstocks.
2.2.2. Climate and physiological measurements
Climatic data were measured in two meteorological sta-
tions, one inside and the other outside the greenhouse. Cli-
mate parameters that were continuously monitored in the
greenhouse during the experimental runs included net all-
wave radiation and incoming solar radiation above the can-
opy, air temperature and relative humidity and air velocity.
Table 2 summarises the measurements of the different envi-
ronmental variables and the sensors used in this research
while Table 3 summarises the measurements of the different
plant parameters and the sensors used. Position of measure-
ment instruments in the greenhouse is indicated in Fig. 2c.
 Author's personal copy

386 E. Mashonjowa et al. / Solar Energy 91 (2013) 381–393

28.8 m
9.6 m

7.3 m

12 m
Z8 Z1

44 m
a
c

DOOR
N
Top vents b CONCRETE PATH
N
Z5

12 m
Z4 Z6

7.3 m
Side vents

Automatic weather station 2.4 m

Fan (showing blowing direction) 1.35 m

4.1 m
Air temperature & relative humidity sensors 2.0 m

Fig. 2. (a) The greenhouse in which measurements were taken, (b) orientation of the side and roof vents and (c) the geometrical characteristics of the
greenhouse (top and side view dimensions in metres) with indication of placement of measurements instruments in the greenhouse.

2.2.3. Ventilation rate determination
Full scale ventilation rates (ventilators open) and leak-
age rates (ventilators closed) were measured throughout
the day using the water vapour balance method (Boulard
and Draoui, 1995; Kittas et al., 2002; Harmanto et al.,
2006; Teitel et al., 2008) during the periods 5–16 August
2007 and 1–30 June 2008 (winter) and 8–31 December
2007, 1–16 January 2008 and 3–20 February 2008 (sum-
mer) as described in Mashonjowa et al. (2010a). Assuming
(i) perfect mixing of water vapour in the volume of the
greenhouse, and (ii) that evaporation from the soil and/
or other medium is negligible (justified by the presence of
a plastic mulch on the soil surface and the cover offered
by the crop); the greenhouse ventilation rate, G (m3 s1),
can be calculated from the mass balance of water vapour
of the greenhouse using measured values of outside and
inside greenhouse air absolute humidity, the crop transpi-
ration rate, Mr(t), leaf area and the leaf area index. The
ventilation model was validated by comparing the mea-
sured ventilation rates for the period 1–16 January 2008
and 3–20 February 2008 (summer) and 1–30 June 2008
(winter) with predicted values calculated for the same peri-
ods using Eq. (2). The areas of the vent openings were cal-
culated by using the control algorithm of the ventilation
control system and compared to a few values measured
on selected days and at selected times of the day. Leakage
rates were calculated as the average value of the ventilation
rates when the greenhouse was closed. In summer there
were no sufficiently long periods when the greenhouse
was fully closed by the system, so the leakage rates were
measured on selected days by manually closing the green-
house and then after allowing some time for steady state
conditions to be attained, monitoring the rate of decrease
of absolute humidity while the greenhouse was closed
(Mashonjowa et al., 2010a).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Climatic and physiological parameters
Table 4 gives a summary of the prevailing outside
weather conditions during the experimental periods.
3.2. Determination of the model parameters
3.2.1. Vegetation sub-model
Table 5 shows calculated values of the parameters a, b and
c for the stomatal resistance model (Eq. (1)) obtained in this
study and the same parameters as were obtained experimen-
tally by Baille et al. (1994) and Kittas et al. (1999) for two
 Author's personal copy

E. Mashonjowa et al. / Solar Energy 91 (2013) 381–393 387

Table 2
Summary of the sensors used to measure environmental variables and their accuracy as stated by the manufacturers. All the variables were automatically
recorded by data loggers every 5 s and averaged over 30 min.
Parameter Measurement method or height Sensor Sensor type Accuracy Manufacturer
or model
Air temperature 1.5 m Above soil height or floor Temperature and humidity RHT2 nl ±0.2 °C Delta T Devices Ltd.,
(°C) and relative (located at five different positions in probes with radiation and and ±5% Cambridge, UK and Vaisala,
humidity (%) the greenhouse) shields HMP45C UK
Solar radiation 2 m Above soil height or floor Pyranometer (external Li-200SZ, ±5% Kipp and Zonen, Delft,
(W m2) AWS) and tube CM3 and Netherlands and Delta T
solarimeter (internal AWS) TSL Devices Ltd., Cambridge, UK
PAR 2 m Above ground or floor Quantum sensors PAR-LITE ±5% Kipp and Zonen, Delft,
(lmol m2 s1) Netherlands
Net radiation 2 m Above floor (above canopy) Net radiometer NR-LITE ±10 W m2 Kipp and Zonen, Delft,
(W m2) Netherlands
Wind speed (m s1) 2 m Above ground Cup anemometer A100 L2 ±0.25 m s1 Vector Instruments, N. Wales,
UK
Wind direction (°) 2 m Above ground Wind vane (potentiometer W200P ±5° Vector Instruments, N. Wales,
type) UK
Greenhouse air 3 Places at 2 m above floor Air velocity transducer TSI 8475 ±0.05 m s1 TSI Inc., shoreview, USA
velocity (m s1)
Greenhouse cover Thermocouples stuck directly to the PTFE twin twist fine Copper – ±0.2 °C RS components, Northants, UK
temperature (°C) inner cover surface. thermocouple (0.2 mm constantan
diameter) (type T)

Table 3
Summary of the sensors used to measure plant parameters and their accuracy as stated by the manufacturers. Canopy temperature and sap flow rates were
automatically recorded by data loggers every 5 s and averaged over 30 min, while leaf area, LAIc and stomatal resistance were measured manually on
selected days.
Parameter Measurement method or height Sensor Sensor type Accuracy Manufacturer
or model
Canopy Taken as average of leaf temperatures at different PTFE twin twist fine Chromel– ±0.2 °C RS components,
temperature positions in the canopy thermocouple (0.2 mm alumel Northants, UK
(°C) diameter) (Type K)
Crop Upscaled from WPT (taken as stem sap flow rate) Heat balance sap flow SG10WS ±10% Dynamax, Inc.,
transpiration gauges Houston, USA
rate (kg s1)
Leaf area (m2) Destructive sampling Colour image analysis WinDIAS ±10% Delta T
system Devices,
Cambridge, UK
Canopy Leaf Non-destructive sampling Sunscan canopy analysis SS1-UM ±10% Delta T
Area Index, system Devices,
LAIc (–) Cambridge, UK
Canopy Taken as the average of several leaf stomatal Dynamic diffusion AP4 ±2 s m1(@<80% Delta T
resistance resistances divided by the canopy leaf area index, porometer RH) Devices,
(s m1) LAIc Cambridge, UK

varieties of roses grown in rockwool and perlite substrates,
respectively. In this study LAIc averaged 1.9 in winter and
2.1 in summer (with small fluctuations due to harvesting)
and the cultivated fraction of the greenhouse floor area aver-
aged 0.4 throughout the year.
The vegetation sub-model was used to compute the
expected transpiration flux density from measured param-
eters and its value was compared to that measured by sap
flow gauges and extrapolated to the entire canopy during
that period. The results indicate that the transpiration rate
may be as high as 9 kg m2 day on a sunny summer day,
and only about 2 kg m2 day on cloudy summer days or
winter days. The calculated transpiration flux density fol-
lowed the same trends as those measured. The results also
show that measured crop transpiration flux density in the
early morning and late afternoon were generally higher
than the corresponding simulated values. This may have
been due to errors in the experimental method used to
determine crop transpiration rates. While the heat balance
sap flow gauge error is expected to be no more than 10%
(Dynamax, 2005), the main source of error with their use
in estimating crop transpiration rates lies in the scaling
up from single to whole canopy transpiration. In addition,
overestimation of WPT just after sunrise and just before
sunset was observed. These have also been reported by
Baker and van Bavel (1987), Baker and Nieber (1989)
and Grime et al. (1995) and explained as follows: in the
mornings and late afternoon when soil temperature exceeds
 Author's personal copy

388 E. Mashonjowa et al. / Solar Energy 91 (2013) 381–393

Table 4
Summary of outside weather conditions for the experimental measurement periods. Prevailing winds were mostly north to north-easterly.
Month Air temperature (°C) Relative humidity (%) Total solar radiation, (MJ m2 d1) Mean wind speed (m s1) Total rain (mm)
Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean
May ‘07 6.8 23.9 15.6 33.1 96.9 74.5 18.4 0.9 4.7
June ‘07 4.8 21.4 11.5 28.0 90.1 60.1 15.6 0.7 0.0
July ‘07 5.0 20.5 12.6 27.6 83.0 54.6 16.9 1.8 0.0
August ‘07 5.7 22.9 14.5 23.7 82.2 50.4 20.9 1.2 0.0
September ‘07 9.7 25.1 17.5 25.8 80.1 50.9 22.2 2.0 4.0
October ‘07 13.7 27.3 20.4 27.8 78.0 51.4 23.6 2.7 12.4
November ‘07 15.8 27.0 20.8 39.9 88.7 65.9 21.1 2.3 153.4
December ‘07 16.4 23.6 19.2 64.6 96.1 84.8 16.7 2.0 328.6
January ‘08 16.6 24.1 19.5 63.1 97.0 85.4 17.7 1.3 212.2
February ‘08 14.6 25.5 19.6 47.2 94.9 74.0 23.9 1.0 31.2
March ‘08 13.3 24.4 18.6 48.9 96.4 75.8 22.1 1.1 42.0
April ‘08 8.8 24.8 16.2 38.2 96.9 72.3 21.1 1.8 33.7

air temperature, there is a negative temperature gradient in
the sensor as warm sap enters a cooler stem, causing a tem-
porary overestimation of WPT if the sensor is near the soil
(as was the case in this study).
3.2.2. Ventilation sub-model
The values of CD and Cw were found to be 0.414 and
0.029, respectively (R2 = 0.857), while the leakage rate
was 2.9 h1 in summer and 1.7 h1 in winter (Mashonjowa
et al., 2010b). During summer, the ventilation strategy
employed maintained air renewal rates above 10 h1 dur-
ing the day, resulting in no more than a 10 °C difference
between the inside and the outside even on sunny days,
while adequately lowering the humidity in the early morn-
ing periods to avoid condensation on the leaves and cover.
In winter, the ventilation settings, coupled with the rela-
tively low wind speeds characteristic of most winter days,
maintained low air exchange rates (N averaged around 5–
10 h1 during the day), while keeping the greenhouse air
warmer than outside for the greater part of the day. The
air renewal rates during the night in both winter and sum-
mer were mostly low (even when the greenhouse was fully
open), owing to the very low external wind speed and dif-
ference in temperature between inside and outside.
The ventilation sub-model was tested by comparing the
modelled (Eq. (2)) and measured air renewal rates. Table 6
summarises the results. The results show a good fit between
measured and predicted values, particularly during the day.
Most of the significant differences between measured and
predicted ventilation rates were observed during the night,
in the early mornings (around sunrise) and during rain.
This may be explained in terms of instrument errors in
the measurement of the high relative humidity that occurs
at night, early morning and during rain periods, errors in
the estimation of the crop transpiration rates in general,
and particularly in the early morning and late afternoon
and the fact that there may be some night-time transpira-
tion and soil or medium evaporation; yet the assumption
is that these are negligible (Seginer, 1984; Blom-Zandstra
et al., 1995).
3.3. Greenhouse model (GDGCM) validation
Figs. 3 and 4 show the validation results for the most
important parameters of the greenhouse climate for winter
and summer, respectively. Due to instrument limitations,
validation data for the greenhouse cover temperature was
only available for the summer season. The coefficient of
determination, R2, and the standard error (SE) for the
regression analysis between simulated and measured results
are listed in Table 7.
The results from Figs. 3 and 4 and Table 7 show that in
general there is reasonable agreement between predicted
and measured values for all the parameters under both win-
ter and summer conditions, although the air temperature
and relative humidity simulations were in better overall
agreement with observations than temperatures for the
cover and vegetation. The model underestimates the green-
house air relative humidity during the night, while over-
estimating it during the day, particularly in winter; hence
the double peaks in the humidity in Figs. 3b and 4b. The
disagreement between measured and simulated vegetation
temperature was ascribed to the inevitable scatter in mea-
sured leaf temperatures. Leaf temperatures depend on cul-
tivar, leaf orientation, exposure to direct solar radiation,
age, etc. Since these conditions are different for all leaves,
vegetation temperature can therefore not be considered to
be a unique value for the whole canopy while the model
only considers a mean vegetation temperature. In addition,
the greenhouse contained several varieties of roses, each
with different properties and at different stages of growth.
This further complicated and reduced the accuracy of the
measurement of the vegetation temperature. The differ-
ences between measured and simulated cover temperatures
can be explained as follows: the thermocouples used to
measure cover temperature were exposed to direct solar
radiation, which disturbed the accurate measurement of
the cover temperature, despite the application of a correc-
tion factor. The unavailability of infrared thermometer
measurements prevented the determination of a more suit-
able correction factor. Furthermore the sensor disturbed
 Author's personal copy

E. Mashonjowa et al. / Solar Energy 91 (2013) 381–393 389

Table 5
Model-specific parameters obtained in this study compared to those found by Baille et al. (1994) and Kittas et al. (1999) for two cultivars of roses (Rosa
hybrida).
Cultivar & substrate This study Baille et al. (1994) Kittas et al. (1999)
Average of several cultivars in vermiculite cv Sonia in rockwool (LAIc = 2.3) cv First red in perlite (LAIc = 1.7)
a 532.1 ± 145.9 349 566
b 76.5 ± 21.6 28 90
c 0.319 ± 0.056 1.45 0.276
rst,min 150.0 ± 57.7 100 100
R2 0.93 0.84 0.52

Table 6
Results of regression analysis between the predicted and observed air renewal rates, including the standard error (r), 95% confidence intervals in the slope
(m) and intercept (c), for the equation Nexp = m  Nsim + c.
No. of obs., R2 m r 95% confidence interval c (h1) r 95% confidence
n of m interval of c
Winter
Calibration 5–16 August ‘07 426 0.86 0.93 0.02 [0.90; 0.98 0.28 0.07 [0.13; 0.42]
Validation 1–30 June ‘08 630 0.80 0.85 0.02 [0.82; 0.89] 0.85 0.08 [0.70; 1.00]
Summer
Calibration 8–31 December ‘07 764 0.87 0.93 0.01 [0.90; 0.96] 1.04 0.17 [0.71; 1.34]
Validation 1–16 January and 3–20 1165 0.81 0.86 0.01 [0.83; 0.88] 1.77 0.15 [1.48; 2.06]
February ‘08

the thermal behaviour of the cover, particularly around
noon under sunny conditions, when differences of up to
10 °C between measured and simulated cover temperatures
were obtained. Mean differences between measured and
simulated cover temperatures at night were mostly lower
than 2 °C under all conditions.
4. Conclusions
The Gembloux Dynamic Greenhouse Climate Model
(GDGCM) was adapted and used to simulate the climate
inside a naturally ventilated Azrom type greenhouse con-
taining a rose crop in Zimbabwe. The selected ventilation
model, based on the stack and wind effects, was fitted to
experimental data of air renewal rates, and discharge and
wind effect coefficients of 0.414 and 0.029 (R2 = 0.86),
respectively, were determined. The model was validated
by comparison with measured air renewal rates. The results
showed a good fit between measured and predicted values
(R2 = 0.80 and 0.81 for winter and summer, respectively),
although there was a general overestimation of the green-
house ventilation rates, particularly during the night. The
theoretical approach of predicting ventilation rates
adopted in this study enabled the greenhouse air renewal
rate to be modelled, but requires that two parameters,
the discharge and wind effect coefficients, be determined
in situ by fitting the model to experimental data. A compar-
ison of the values of these parameters obtained in this
study with published values showed that not only are they
greenhouse and ventilation system dependent, but are also
dependent on the prevailing weather conditions. Nonethe-
less, the results obtained show sufficient accuracy for the
model to be used to simulate the ventilation rates all year
round in a naturally ventilated Azrom type greenhouse
and give good estimates of ventilation rate without involv-
ing specialised and expensive equipment, provided the
ambient conditions and geometrical data of the greenhouse
are available.
The modelling of transpiration was modified by consid-
ering the climatic dependence of the rose crop stomatal
resistance. Although measurement showed that the canopy
resistances were strongly dependent on cultivar, the agree-
ment between the canopy resistance model and measure-
ment was generally good (R2 = 0.95), but there was a
general loss of prediction of the model in conditions of high
vapour pressure deficit in excess of 4 kPa, particularly in
summer. The calculated transpiration flux density followed
the same trends as those measured. Good overall agree-
ment was found between the experimental and simulated
inside air temperature and humidity, cover temperature
and vegetation temperature. The mean standard errors
between the predicted and experimental greenhouse air
temperature and relative humidity, canopy temperature
and crop transpiration were 1.8 °C, 14.8%, 1.9 °C and
14.2 W m2, respectively, in winter and 1.3 °C, 8.6%,
1.6 °C and 21.8 W m2, respectively, in summer.
These values are higher than the results of other research-
ers’ studies using the same model (Deltour et al., 1985; Piet-
ers and Deltour, 1997, 2000; Wang and Boulard, 2000;
Uchida Frausto et al., 2003). This may have been caused
by the present validation which was carried out in a commer-
cial horticultural enterprise with different cultivars at differ-
 Author's personal copy

390 E. Mashonjowa et al. / Solar Energy 91 (2013) 381–393

(a) 20

18

16

14
Frequency (%)

12

10

0
-7 --7.5
-6.5 --7
-6 --6.5
-5.5 --6
-4.5 --5
-4 --4.5
-4 --3.5
-3.5--3
-3--2.5
-2.5--2
-2--1.5
-1.5--1
-1--0.5
-0.5-0
0-0.5
0.5-1
1-1.5
1.5-2
2-2.5
2.5-3
3-3.5
3.5-4
4-4.5
4.5-5
5-5.5
5.5-6
6-6.5
6.5-7
Frequency class (°C)

(b) 12
10
Frequency (%)

0
-32.5 --35
-30 --32.5
-27.5 --30
-25 --27.5
-22.5 --25
-20 --22.5
-17.5 --20
-47.5--50

-37.5--40
-35--37.5

-15--17.5
-12.5--15
-10--12.5
-7.5--10

10-12.5
12.5-15
15-17.5
17.5-20
20-22.5
22.5-25
25-27.5
27.5-30
30-32.5
32.5-35
35-37.5
37.5-40
40-42.5
42.5-45
45-47.5
47.5-50
-42.5--

-5--7.5
-2.5--5

7.5-10
-2.5-0
0-2.5
2.5-5
5-7.5

Frequency class (%)

(c) 14

12

10
Frequency (%)

0
-7 --7.5
-6.5 --7
-6 --6.5
-5.5 --6
-4.5 --5
-4 --4.5
-4 --3.5
-3.5--3
-3--2.5
-2.5--2
-2--1.5
-1.5--1
-1--0.5
-0.5-0
0-0.5
0.5-1
1-1.5
1.5-2
2-2.5
2.5-3
3-3.5
3.5-4
4-4.5
4.5-5
5-5.5
5.5-6
6-6.5
6.5-7

Frequency class (°C)

Fig. 3. Distribution of residuals between modelled and measured (a) greenhouse air temperature, (b) greenhouse air relative humidity, and (c) canopy
temperature (simulated – measured values) for the winter season (May–August 2007) calculated from 30 min averages of the parameters.

ent stages of development, whereas the other studies were niques could be applied. Nonetheless, the model is a good
conducted in experimental greenhouses where conditions indicator of the microclimate in naturally ventilated green-
could be more closely controlled, and better measuring tech- houses and where solar radiation is the main energy input
30 min averages of the parameters.
Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%)

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
5

0
2
4
6
8
0
2
4
6
8
10
15
20
25

10
12
14
10
12
14
16
18
20
-15.5--15 -7 --6.5 -22.5 --25 -7 --6.5
-15--14.5
-14.5--14 -6.5 --6 -20 --22.5 -6.5 --6
-14--13.5
(a)

(c)
-13.5--13 -6 --5.5 -6 --5.5

(d)
(b)
-17.5 --20
-13--12.5 -5.5 --5 -5.5 --5
-12.5--12
-12--11.5 -15--17.5
-5 --4.5 -5 --4.5
-11.5--11
-11--10.5 -4.5 --4 -12.5--15 -4.5 --4
-10.5--10
-10--9.5 -4 --3.5 -10--12.5 -4 --3.5
-9.5--9
-9--8.5 -3.5--3 -7.5--10 -3.5--3
-8.5--8
-8--7.5 -3--2.5 -3--2.5
-5--7.5
-7.5--7 -2.5--2 -2.5--2
-7 --6.5 -2.5--5
-6.5 --6 -2--1.5 -2--1.5
-6 --5.5
-5.5 --5 -1.5--1 -2.5-0 -1.5--1
-5 --4.5
-4.5 --4 -1--0.5 0-2.5 -1--0.5
-4 --3.5
-3.5--3 -0.5-0 2.5-5 -0.5-0
-3--2.5
-2.5--2 0-0.5 0-0.5
5-7.5
-2--1.5 0.5-1 0.5-1
-1.5--1 7.5-10
-1--0.5 1-1.5 1-1.5
-0.5-0
0-0.5 1.5-2 10-12.5 1.5-2
Frequency class (°C)

0.5-1
1-1.5 2-2.5 12.5-15 2-2.5

Frequency class (°C)

Frequency class (%)
1.5-2

Frequency class (°C)

2-2.5 2.5-3 15-17.5 2.5-3
2.5-3 3-3.5
3-3.5 3-3.5 17.5-20
Author's personal copy

3.5-4 3.5-4 3.5-4

4-4.5 20-22.5
4.5-5 4-4.5 4-4.5
E. Mashonjowa et al. / Solar Energy 91 (2013) 381–393

5-5.5 22.5-25
5.5-6 4.5-5 4.5-5
6-6.5
6.5-7 5-5.5 25-27.5 5-5.5
7-7.5
7.5-8 5.5-6 27.5-30 5.5-6
8-8.5 6-6.5 6-6.5
8.5-9 30-32.5
9-9.5 6.5-7 6.5-7
9.5-10 32.5-35

Fig. 4. Distribution of residuals between modelled and measured (a) greenhouse air temperature, (b) greenhouse air relative humidity, (c) canopy
temperature, and (d) greenhouse cover temperature (simulated – measured values) for the summer season (September 2007–April 2008) calculated from
391
 Author's personal copy

392 E. Mashonjowa et al. / Solar Energy 91 (2013) 381–393

Table 7
Results of regression analysis between 30 min averages of the predicted and observed greenhouse climate parameters and crop transpiration rate, including
the standard error (r), 95% confidence intervals and the slope (m) and intercept (c) for the equation yexp = m  ysim + c, where y represents the parameter
of interest. Differences in the number of observations were a result of availability of validation data.
Parameter na r in y R2 m r in m 95% Confidence interval of m c r in c 95% Confidence interval of c
Winter: May–August 2007
Ti (°C) 2745 1.82 0.94 1.02 0.01 [1.01; 1.03] 0.55 0.08 [0.39; 0.70]
RHi (%) 2745 14.75 0.57 1.15 0.03 [1.10; 1.21] 11.401 2.22 [15.76; 7.05]
Tv (°C) 1879 1.85 0.92 0.78 0.01 [0.77; 0.79] 3.58 0.10 [3.39; 3.77]
Summer: September 2007–April 2008
Ti (°C) 8905 1.26 0.95 1.07 0.01 [1.07; 1.08] 2.15 0.06 [1.46; 1.29]
RHi (%) 8905 8.58 0.78 1.25 0.01 [1.23; 1.26] 22.72 0.56 [23.82; 21.62]
Tv (°C) 7000 1.60 0.88 0.79 0.01 [0.79; 0.80] 4.29 0.08 [4.13; 4.44]
Tc (°C) 4203 3.52 0.80 1.24 0.01 [1.22; 1.26] 1.61 0.18 [1.97; 1.25]
a
Remarks: number of observation.

contributing to the greenhouse climate. The model can be
used as a design tool to evaluate and optimise the effects of
ventilation, cover properties, the settings of the control sys-
tem and other climate management practices on the inside
greenhouse climate. The model can also be used to predict
the effects of certain specific devices like thermal screens.
Acknowledgements
This research was partially supported by the VLIR-UOS
Programme Institutional University Cooperation (IUC) in
partnership with the University of Zimbabwe in the form
of a PhD scholarship for Emmanuel Mashonjowa and pur-
chase of equipment. We also wish to thank Mr. Dror Jack-
son and the staff of Floraline (Pvt.) Ltd for providing
access to their greenhouses and for the invaluable informa-
tion and assistance rendered.
References
Baille, M., Baille, A., Delmon, D., 1994. Microclimate and transpiration
of greenhouse rose crops. Agric. For. Meteorol. 71, 83–97.
Baker, J.M., Nieber, J.L., 1989. An analysis of the steady state heat
balance method for measuring sap flow in plants. Agric. For.
Meteorol. 48, 93–109.
Baker, J.M., van Bavel, C.H.M., 1987. Measurement of mass flow of
water in the stems of herbaceous plants. Plant Cell Environ. 10, 77–
782.
Blom-Zandstra, M., Sander Pot, C., Maas, F.M., Schapendonk,
A.H.C.M., 1995. Effects of different light treatments on the nocturnal
transpiration and dynamics of stomata1 closure of two Rose cultivars.
Sci. Horticult. 61, 251–262.
Boulard, T., Draoui, B., 1995. Natural ventilation of a greenhouse with
continuous vents: measurements and data analysis. J. Agric. Eng. Res.
61, 27–36.
Cooper, P.I., Sheridan, J.C., 1982. The simulated and experimental
performance of a solar heat generating system. Am. Sot. Mech. Eng. J.
Sol. Energy Eng. 104, 317–325.
Davies, R., 2000. The Impact of Globalization on Local Communities: A
Case Study of the Cut-Flower Industry in Zimbabwe. ILO, Geneva.
Deltour, J., de Halleux, D., Nijskens, J., Coutisse, S., Nisen, A., 1985.
Dynamic modelling of heat and mass transfer in greenhouses. Acta
Horticult. 174, 119–125.
Dynamax Inc., 2005. Dynagage Sap Flow Sensor User Manual. Dynamax
Inc., 10808 Fallstone Rd. Houston TX 77099, USA. <http://
www.dynamax.com>.
Fatnassi, H., Boulard, T., Bouirden, L., 2003. Simulation of climatic
conditions in full-scale greenhouse fitted with insect-proof screens.
Agric. For. Meteorol. 118, 97–111.
Fitz-Rodrı́guez, E., Kubota, C., Giacomelli, G.A., Tignor, M.E., Wilson,
S.B., McMahon, M., 2010. Dynamic modelling and simulation of
greenhouse environments under several scenarios: a web-based appli-
cation. Comput. Electr. Agric. 70 (1), 105–116.
Grime, V.L., Morison, J.I.L., Simmonds, L.P., 1995. Including the heat
storage term in sap flow measurements with stem heat balance method.
Agric. For. Meteorol. 74, 1–25.
Harmanto, Tantau, H.J., Salokhe, V.M., 2006. Microclimate and air
exchange rates in greenhouses covered with different nets in the humid
tropics. Biosys. Eng. 94 (2), 239–253.
Impron, I., Hemming, S., Bot, G.P.A., 2007. Simple greenhouse climate
model as a design tool for greenhouses in tropical lowland. Biosys.
Eng. 98 (1), 79–89.
Jarvis, P.G., 1985. Coupling of transpiration to the atmosphere of
horticultural crops. Acta Horticult. 171, 187–205.
Kittas, C., Boulard, T., Papadakis, G., 1997. Natural ventilation of a
greenhouse with ridge and side openings: sensitivity to temperature
and wind effects. T. ASAE 40 (2), 415–425.
Kittas, C., Katsoulas, N., Baille, A., 1999. Transpiration and canopy
resistance of greenhouse soilless roses: measurements and modelling.
Acta Horticult. 507, 61–68.
Kittas, C., Boulard, T., Bartzanas, T., Katsoulas, N., Mermier, M., 2002.
Influence of an insect screen on greenhouse ventilation. T. ASAE 45
(4), 1083–1090.
Klein, S.A., Beckman, W.A., Cooper, P.I., Duffie, N.A., Freeman, T.L.,
Mitchell, J.C., Beekman, D.M., Oonk, R.L., Hughes, P.J., Eberlein,
M.E., Karman, V.D., Pawelski, M.J., Utzinger, D.M., Duffie, J.A.,
Brandemuehl, M.J., Arny, M.D., Theilacker, J.C., Morrison, G.L.,
Clark, D.A., Braun, J.E., Evans, B.L., Kummer, J.P., 2004. TRNSYS:
A Transient System Simulation Program. Engineering Experiment
Station Report 38-12, Solar Energy Laboratory, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, USA.
Luo, W., de Zwart, H.F., Dai, J., Wang, X., Stanghellini, C., Bu, C.,
2005a. Simulation of greenhouse management in the subtropics, Part I:
Model validation and scenario study for the winter season. Biosys.
Eng. 90 (3), 307–318.
Luo, W., Stanghellini, C., Dai, J., Wang, X., de Zwart, H.F., Bu, C.,
2005b. Simulation of greenhouse management in the subtropics, Part
II: Scenario study for the summer season. Biosys. Eng. 90 (4), 433–441.
Majdoubi, H., Boulard, T., Fatnassi, H., Bouirden, L., 2009. Airflow and
microclimate patterns in a one-hectare canary tpe greenhouse: An
 Author's personal copy
E. Mashonjowa et al. / Solar Energy 91 (2013) 381–393
experimental and CFD assisted study. Agric. For. Meteorol. 149 (6–7),
1050–1062.
Mashonjowa, E., 2010. Modelling Heat and Mass Transfer in a
Greenhouse: An Aid to Greenhouse Design and Climate Control for
Greenhouse Rose Production in Zimbabwe. PhD thesis, Ghent
University, Belgium, 292p.
Mashonjowa, E., Ronsse, F., Mhizha, T., Milford, J.R., Lemeur, R.,
Pieters, J.G., 2009. The effects of whitening and dust accumulation on
the microclimate and canopy behaviour of rose plants (Rosa hybrida)
in a greenhouse in Zimbabwe. Sol. Energy 84 (1), 10–23.
Mashonjowa, E., Nhiwatiwa, D., Ronsse, F., Meixner, F.X., Milford,
J.R., Lemeur, R., Pieters, J.G., 2010a. Application of a tracer aerosol
technique using atomised NaCl particles for measuring ventilation
rates in a naturally ventilated Azrom type greenhouse in Zimbabwe.
Appl. Eng. Agric. 26 (2), 275–286.
Mashonjowa, E., Ronsse, F., Milford, J.R., Lemeur, R., Pieters, J.G.,
2010b. Measurement and simulation of the ventilation rates in a
naturally ventilated greenhouse in Zimbabwe. Appl. Eng. Agric. 26 (3),
475–488.
Molina-Aiz, F.D., Fatnassi, H., Boulard, T., Roy, J.C., Valera, D.L.,
2010. Comparison of finite element and finite volume methods for
simulation of natural ventilation in greenhouses. Comput. Electr.
Agric. 72 (2), 69–86.
Nebbali, R., Roy, J.C., Boulard, T., 2012. Dynamic simulation of the
distributed radiative and convective climate within a cropped green-
house. Renew. Energy 43, 111–129.
Panwar, N.L., Kaushik, S.C., Kothari, S., 2011. Solar greenhouse an
option for renewable and sustainable farming. Renew. Sust. Energy
Rev. 15 (8), 3934–3945.
Papadakis, G., Frangoudakis, A., Kyritsis, S., 1994. Experimental
investigation and modelling of heat and mass transfer between a
tomato crop and the greenhouse environment. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 57,
217–227.
Pawlowski, A., Guzman, J.L., Rodrı́guez, F., Berenguel, M., Sánchez, J.,
Dormido, S., 2009. Simulation of greenhouse climate monitoring and
control with wireless sensor network and event-based control. Sensors
9, 232–252.
Pieters, J.G., Deltour, J.M., 1997. Performances of greenhouses with the
presence of condensation on cladding. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 68, 125–137.
View publication stats
393
Pieters, J.G., Deltour, J.M., 2000. Modelling solar energy input in
greenhouses. Sol. Energy 67 (1–3), 119–130.
Pollet, I.V., Pieters, J.G., 2000. Condensation and radiation transmittance
of greenhouse cladding materials, Part 3: Results for glass plates and
plastic films. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 77 (4), 419–428.
Roy, J.C., Boulard, T., Kittas, C., Wang, S., 2002. Convective and
ventilation transfers in greenhouses, Part 1: The greenhouse considered
as a perfectly stirred tank. Biosys. Eng. 83 (1), 1–20.
Seginer, I., 1984. On night transpiration of greenhouse roses under glass or
plastic cover. Agric. For. Meteorol. 30, 257–268.
Sethi, V.P., 2009. On the selection of shape and orientation of a
greenhouse: thermal modeling and experimental validation. Sol.
Energy 83, 21–38.
Sethi, V.P., Sharma, S.K., 2007. Survey of cooling technologies for
worldwide agricultural greenhouse applications. Sol. Energy 81, 1447–
1459.
Sethi, V.P., Sharma, S.K., 2008. Survey and evaluation of heating
technologies for worldwide agricultural greenhouse applications. Sol.
Energy 82, 832–859.
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engi-
neers (ASHRAE), 2005. ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals,
Ventilation and infiltration. Atlanta, GA (Chapter 27)
Tavares, C., Goncalves, A., Castro, P., Loureiro, D., Joyce, A., 2001.
Modelling an agriculture production greenhouse. Renew. Energy 22,
15–20.
Teitel, M., Liran, O., Tanny, J., Barak, M., 2008. Wind driven ventilation
of a mono-span greenhouse with a rose crop and continuous screened
side vents and its effect on flow patterns and microclimate. Biosys. Eng.
101, 111–122.
Uchida Frausto, H., Pieters, J.G., Deltour, J.M., 2003. Modelling
greenhouse temperature by means of auto regressive models. Biosys.
Eng. 84, 147–157.
Wang, S., Boulard, T., 2000. Predicting the microclimate in a naturally
ventilated plastic house in a Mediterranean climate. J. Agric. Eng. Res.
75, 27–38.
Zhang, Y., Mahrer, Y., Margolin, M., 1997. Predicting the microclimate
inside a greenhouse: an application of a one-dimensional numerical
model in an unheated greenhouse. Agric. For. Meteorol. 86, 291–297.