Characterizing of Cooling Equipment for Closed Greenhouses

H.F. de Zwart and F.L.K. Kempkes

Wageningen UR Greenhouse Horticulture
P.O. Box 16, Bornsesteeg 65, 6700 AA
Wageningen
The Netherlands

Keywords: Heat exchange, electricity consumption, energy requirement, climate

management

Abstract
The application of air conditioning devices for cooling greenhouses in
summer is becoming increasingly popular in Dutch horticulture. Cooling reduces the
ventilation requirement and, thereby, increases the benefits of carbon dioxide
fertilisation. Moreover, when having enough cooling power, excessive temperatures
can be prevented. Both improvements of the controllability of the greenhouse
climate can enhance production in terms of quantity and quality. However, in
commercial greenhouse industry, these benefits must more than balance the costs
associated with the cooling equipment. An informed decision about the most apt
equipment must rely on the computation of these costs. This is not a trivial issue
because there are a lot of variables that determine the performance of an air
conditioning unit. These variables comprise a combination of physical properties of
the cooling devices, the greenhouse air conditions and the way of controlling the
units. Since the specifications of air conditioning units are commonly available for
only one, or only a small number of benchmark points, usually based on quite
different applications from greenhouse horticulture, the department Greenhouse
Horticulture of Wageningen UR has developed a software tool that translates
arbitrary benchmark points to performance characteristics in a specified
horticultural context. The tool relies on a mechanistic simulation model, based on
solving heat and mass balances in a cross flow heat exchanger. This paper presents
the design of this model, describes the relevant physics and shows some results.
INTRODUCTION
The history of horticulture in greenhouses shows a gradual increment of the level
of ambient control. First, greenhouse climate control was synonym with ventilating and
some heating. Then, watering and nutrition gained attention followed by carbon dioxide
enrichment and artificial illumination. Currently, starting around the new millennium,
mechanical cooling started to come in the picture. Contrary to the already widespread
application of passive cooling, like pad and fan systems that are based on turning a
sensible heat excess into latent heat at equal enthalpy, when using mechanical cooling
energy is really extracted from the greenhouse air. This technique is attractive because it
gives a much higher degree of freedom in air conditions that can be obtained. Moreover,
contrary to evaporative cooling, greenhouses can be kept almost closed. Furthermore, the
heat extracted from the greenhouse can be used to serve a sustainable heat source for the
evaporator of a heat pump (see other contributions to GREENSYS 2007 (Bot et al., 2007;
de Zwart, 2007)).
However, mechanical cooling is expensive, even if the extracted heat can be
reused for heating purposes. The major reason is that cooling devices have to work with
small temperature differences between coolant and the greenhouse air. This implies that
cooling devices require a large exchanging surface and/or a high heat exchange
coefficient (de Zwart, 2007). A large surface costs a lot of material and a high exchange
coefficient means forced convection, and thus a serious electricity demand of ventilators.
In order to relieve the capital and running costs, industry tries to improve the
characteristics of cooling devices for horticulture. However, since there are 5 variables

Proc. IS on Greensys2007
Eds.:S. De Pascale et al. 409
Acta Hort. 801, ISHS 2008
that determine the heat exchange capacity of a cooling device (water flow rate, air flow
rate, temperature of the water and the temperature and humidity of the air) and the
description of specs of cooling units is not standardized, comparison between the one and
the other device is difficult. Moreover, rather than the capacity of a device, eventually it is
the combination of capital and running cost that count. Therefore, there is a demand for a
tool that enables to translate an arbitrary set of performance specifications into
operational costs, providing a specified set of greenhouse air condition demands.
To be able to meet this objective a mechanistic model was developed, based on the
experiences and measurements on the FiWiHEx heat exchanger (see www.fiwihex-
international.com). It appeared that this model, having only three parameters, was very
well capable to describe the measured heat exchanging process of this specific heat
exchanger.
Since the model was built from mechanistic relations, after adjusting some
parameters it can give reasonable predictions for the behaviour of other heat exchangers
as well. Therefore, the simulation tool was interfaced by a user friendly Excel worksheet
enabling to evaluate the characteristics of arbitrary coolers in particular greenhouse
ambient conditions. Moreover, the tool enables the user to determine the best way of
operating the device.

MODEL DESCRIPTION
Figure 1 shows a photograph of the FiWiHEx heat exchanger that provided the
experiences and data that fed the development of the simulation model presented. Figure
2 shows a sketch of the inner architecture. The heat exchanger is designed to be able to
heat, to cool and to dehumidify the greenhouse. In heating and in cooling mode, both
elements are used in series meaning that water flows in the directions indicated in Figure
2. In dehumidification mode the first (front) element is fed with cold water, whereas the
second element can be used to reheat the dehumidified (and therefore cooled down) air.
One element consists of two main header pipes to which 114 heat exchanging
sheets are attached parallel. This means that the heat exchange process across one element
can be modelled as 114 times the heat exchange process in one sheet.
A detailed sketch of the sheets from which the FiWiHEx heat exchanger is
composed is shown in Figure 3. This graph clearly shows the cross-flow character since
the cooling water flows from the top sub-header through 7 parallel capillaries to the
bottom and then, on the left side in the sketch, back upwards to the collecting sub-header.
The air flows from left to right in the picture, so perpendicular on the direction of the
water.
In order to simulate the heat exchanging process, a model consisting of a grid of
interconnected air, sheet and water cells is constructed. The air cells exchange heat (in
cooling mode sensible as well as latent heat) with preceding air cells and the sheet cells.
Also, the water cells exchange heat with the sheet cells and preceding water cells, but in a
perpendicular direction. This cascade of heat exchange is depicted in Figure 4.
The flow driven energy exchange from the one to the adjacent cell is simply
determined by Φ ρ Cp ΔT where Φ represents the flow rate [m³/s], ρ represents the density
[kg/m³], Cp denotes the heat capacity [J/(kg K)] and ΔT the temperature difference
between two cells [K]. In cooling mode, not only the energy balance, but also the mass
balance plays a role. Moisture is flowing in from the preceding air cell according to Φair
ΔXv where Φair represents the air flow rate [m³/s] and ΔXv the difference in volumetric
moisture content between two air cells. Differences in density are neglected.
The heat exchange from an air to sheet cell is determined by αair,sheet (Tair– Tsheet),
with αair,sheet the heat exchange coefficient between air and sheet.
In cooling mode, besides a sensible heat exchange, there can also be a latent heat
input to the sheet surface when moisture from the air condensates on the sheet. The
condensation rate can be computed by kair,sheet (Xv,air– Xv,sheet), with kair,sheet the mass
transfer coefficient of vapour in air to a surface Xv,air the volumetric moisture content of
the air cell and Xv,sheet the saturated volumetric vapour content at the sheet surface

410
temperature. Because in a stationary situation the sheet will not evaporate water, a
negative condensation is prohibited. The condensation rate extracts moisture from the air
cells and supplies a latent heat input of 2.45 106 times that rate, being the latent heat of
evaporation, to the sheet.
Finally there is a heat transfer process from the sheet to the water, described by
αsheet,water (Tsheet – Twater).
The parameterization of the model consists of defining suitable values for αair,sheet,
kair,sheet and αsheet,water. On theoretical grounds, kair,sheet can be coupled to αair,sheet by stating
that kair,sheet = 1.1 10-3 αair,sheet (de Zwart, 1996; Appendix B).
With all equations above an iterative procedure was developed that solved the
coupled sets of equations in a 8x4 grid representing a sheet like shown in Figure 3 in such
a way that, after a number of iterations (typically around 200) the net energy fluxes to and
from all the sheet cells approaches zero. At a particular quality criterion (being that the air
side enthalpy change differs less than 0.5% of the water side energy change) the iteration
process is stopped and the energy transfer rate (cooling or heating) can be read from
either the water or the air side of the model.
Having this solver, a parameter estimation procedure fitted suitable parameters for
αair,sheet and αsheet,water. On theoretical grounds αair,sheet was made dependent on the air speed
through the heat exchanger with an equation of the type αair,sheet = a speed b, with speed
expressed in m/s. αsheet,water is treated as a constant value because it is assumed that, the
bottleneck in the heat transfer from the water to the sheet is restricted more by the heat
transport through the sheet than by the heat exchange between water and sheet. The result
of this parameter estimation for a mean FiWiHEx heat exchanger, like shown in Figure 1
is that a = 35 W/(m²sheet K)/(m/s) , b = 1.20 and αsheet,water = 130 W/(m² K). From this data
it is clear that below air speeds of 3 m/s the air side of the heat exchanger is the most
limiting factor, whereas at higher air speeds the heat exchange between water and the
sheet will prevail in the heat exchange limitations.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

First of all, Table 1 shows the comparison of model results and measurements.
The measurements were carried out with a full FiWiHEx (two elements in series) in
cooling mode. The ingoing air and water conditions and the flowrates are stated as input
variables. From the Table it can be seen that the cooling powers are simulated with an
accuracy of around 7% for low cooling power levels and around 2% for high cooling
power levels. This accuracy was considered to be acceptable, mainly because the
performance at high levels are always the more challenging ones.
Having a model that describes the mechanistics of a heat exchanger the model was
integrated in a user friendly environment that enables to study arbitrary FiWiHEx-like
cooling devices in horticultural circumstances. When specifications of a cooling device
are obtained, a list like shown in Figure 5 can be expected. This figure is a screen dump
of the actual user interface built around the simulation tool. Input field (1) defines the
rated cooling power. However, this figure only makes sense within the context of the 5
relevant operation conditions that are stated in the input fields (2) till (6). The temperature
of the outgoing water is interesting, but not an independent variable since, at a given
cooling power and supply water temperature, flow rate and return temperature are
mutually dependent.
Besides the physical parameters of the heat exchanging process, on behalf of the
computation of electricity demand involved, the model needs to know the electric power
of the ventilator at the specified flow rate (input filed (8)) and to take some account for
likely non-linearities, also the power consumption at half speed needs to be entered (input
field (7)). Then there is one more figure relevant to compute the electricity demand,
which is the pressure loss in the water circuit at the specified flow rate (input field (9)).
After having described the specs of a cooling device, the program will select a
suitable set of parameters for a, b and αsheet,water. Since there is only one benchmark
point, the program will make a selection from a number of predefined sets of parameters

411
ranging from a set holding for a very bad cooling device to a set that describes a very
good cooling unit. One of the results from this parameter browsing will give the best
result, giving a well matching set of values for a, b and αsheet, water for the specific
cooling device.
Then, having a matching set of parameters, the simulation tool can be used to
study the evaluation of the performance of the cooler in the operation conditions to be
expected in the greenhouse. Suppose a set of greenhouse climate control settings that
control the cooling power of a cooling unit by increasing the cooling water flow per
cooling unit from 0 to 1 m³/hr in a greenhouse temperature range of 24 till 27°C (this
means that the cooler control has a proportional band of 3°C). Besides the control of the
water flow, the ventilator has to be controlled as well. In the input fields defining the
operation strategy of the cooler (see Fig. 6), it can be seen that the user apparently has
chosen to speed up the ventilator quite fast compared to the increment of the water flow,
but has restricted the maximal air flow to 3000 m³/hr instead of the 3500 m³/hr for which
the benchmark points were given (see Fig. 5, input field (6)). Probably this choice is made
to prevent too high electricity consumption levels.
The bottom left graph of the set of output graphs indicate that indeed at high
cooling power levels, the overall performance, being defined as the COP (the cooling
power per unit of electric power), is clearly lower than at low cooling demands.
Apparently, at low demands the electricity consumption of the ventilator is still modest,
enabling to achieve a high temperature lift (centre graph in Fig. 6) without too much
electricity input.
Because, at 100% of its capacity the ventilator runs at 3000 m³/hr only and
because at that point the greenhouse is supposed to be 27°C (namely 24 + a proportional
band of 3) instead of 28°C holding for the benchmark point, the end point of the upper
left graph in Figure 6 stops at 6 kW. This is the point at which the controller has reached
saturation. However, when the greenhouse, because of this saturation of the controller
gets hotter, the cooling power will still grow, although with a flattened slope, because the
water and air flow cannot be increased further.
The lower right graph shows that about 38% of the cooling power comes from
dehumidification. With this figure it can be computed easily that, at 100% of the cooling
load the cooler extracts 3.3 kg of water per hour from the greenhouse air.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
With the model developed and the user friendly interface, detailed analyses can be
made of the performance of arbitrary coolers (providing that they are FiWiHEx-like) in
the context of arbitrary greenhouse operation conditions. This facilitates a quantitative
based selection of suitable coolers, especially when this cooler model is used in
combination with the Synergy-Compass, presented in another contribution to
GREENSYS 2007 (de Zwart, 2007).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The development of the tool described in this paper was one of the work packages
in the project “Energy Producing Greenhouse”. This 3 years project is funded by the
Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality of the Netherlands and by the Dutch
Horticultural Product Board.

Literature Cited
Bot, G.P.A., Hansen, K., Logan, A., Witte, H. and de Zwart, H.F. 2007. The Living
Rainforest Sustainable Greenhouses, Contribution to the Greensys 2007 symposium.
De Zwart, H.F. 1996. Analyzing energy-saving potentials in greenhouse cultivation using
a simulation model. Ph.D. Dissertation, Wageningen University, Wageningen
De Zwart, H.F. 2007. Overall energy analysis of (semi) closed greenhouses, Contribution
to the Greensys 2007 symposium.

412
Tables

Table 1. Operation conditions, measured and simulated cooling power of a FiWiHEx heat
exchanger.

air water Cooling power [kW]

T [°C] RH [%] Φ [m³/s] T [°C] Φ [kg/s] measured simulated deviation
25.1 75.8 0.475 14.4 0.48 4.040 4.349 7.6%
25.1 74.5 0.633 14.4 0.48 4.850 5.175 6.7%
25.2 74.2 0.776 14.5 0.48 5.460 5.727 4.9%
25.0 74.8 0.905 14.4 0.48 6.270 6.234 -0.5%
24.6 82.7 1.010 14.5 0.48 7.280 7.094 -2.5%
24.9 80.1 1.120 14.5 0.48 7.480 7.317 -2.1%
25.1 78.4 1.200 14.5 0.48 7.680 7.522 -2.1%

Figures

Fig. 1. A photo of the first series of FiWiHEx heat exchangers (2006).

Fig. 2. A sketch of the two elements inside a FiWiHEx heat exchanger. In cooling or
heating mode the elements are connected in series.

413
Fig. 3. A sketch of one of the 114 sheets from which a 2006-type FiWiHEx element is
composed. The flow direction of the water through the sheet is perpendicular to
the flow direction of the air.

Fig. 4. A sketch of the heat exchange cascade in the modelled grid cells.

414
 Benchmark points of the cooling unit
Manufacturers describe the performance of their cooling device with a set of performance data

Holding for the following ambient conditions

Fig. 5. A sample of the input fields that describe the benchmark points of a cooler.

Fig. 6. A screen dump of the performance characteristics of a particular cooler (whose

specifications are presented in Fig. 5.) subject to the operation conditions in a
greenhouse.

415
416