1 s2.0 S2468227623000376 Main

Scientific African 19 (2023) e01578
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Scientific African
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/sciaf
Evaluation of CFD and machine learning methods on

predicting greenhouse microclimate parameters with the
assessment of seasonality impact on machine learning
performance
Meryem El Alaoui a,∗, Laila Ouazzani Chahidi b, Mohamed Rougui a,
Abdellah Mechaqrane b, Senhaji Allal c
a
LGCE, Civil Engineering and Environment Laboratory, High school of technology (EST) -Sale, Mohammed V University, PO. Box 227,
Rabat Sale, Morocco
b
SIGER, Intelligent Systems, Georesources and Renewable Energies Laboratory, Faculty of Sciences and Techniques of Fez, Sidi Mohamed
Ben Abdellah University, PO. Box 2202, Fez, Morocco
c
Engineering Science Laboratory, ENSAM, Moulay Ismail University, PO. Box 15290, Meknes, Morocco
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: For cleaner and sustainable greenhouse crops production, it is essential to successfully
Received 6 September 2022 manage the needs and resources. Thus the prediction of the greenhouse microclimate,
Revised 5 January 2023
especially the temperature and relative humidity is of great interest. The research done
Accepted 3 February 2023
in this area is, however, still limited, and a number of machine learning techniques have
not yet been sufficiently exploited. The objective of this paper is to evaluate two green-
Editor: DR B Gyampoh house modeling techniques (machine learning (Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), Support
Vector Machine (SVM), Bagging trees (BG) and Boosting trees (BT)) and Computational
Keywords:
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) methods and assess the impact of the seasonal changes on machine
Agricultural greenhouse
learning performances. The study was carried out in a commercial greenhouse located in
CFD
Artificial intelligence Agadir, Morocco, and the experimental data were collected during October and March. Re-
ANN sults show that all predictive models are capable of predicting the inside air temperature
Bagging trees (Tin ) and relative humidity (Rhin ) of the greenhouse with a quite good precision (R>0.98,
Boosting trees nRMSE<7%). However, the time required by machine learning models was much more less
SVM than the one required by CFD model. For this reason, machine learning models were se-
lected for further analysis and assessment of seasonality impact on their performances. The
analysis and assessment of seasonality impact on Machine learning models prove their ef-
ficiency in predicting Tin and Rhin with a good agreement. A “combined data” model, built
from experimental data of the two months, is tested and proved its efficiency in predicting
Tin and Rhin of March and October separately and at the same time (R>0.98, nRMSE <9%).
© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of African Institute of
Mathematical Sciences / Next Einstein Initiative.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
∗
Corresponding authors.
E-mail address: meryem.elalaoui0@gmail.com (M.E. Alaoui).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2023.e01578
2468-2276/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of African Institute of Mathematical Sciences / Next Einstein Initiative. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
M.E. Alaoui, L.O. Chahidi, M. Rougui et al. Scientific African 19 (2023) e01578
Nomenclature
ANN Artificial Neural Netwoks

BG Bagging trees
BT Boosting trees
cov(x,y) Covariance matrix
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
E Standard error
EF Model efficiency
f SVM Hyperlane function
G Solar radiation
GPR Gaussian Process Regression
K Kernel function
LM Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm
MAPE Mean Absolute Percentage Error
MLP Multi Layer Perceptron
MLR Multiple Linear Regression
N Number of observations
nRMSE Normalized Root Mean Square Error
R Correlation coefficient
RBF Radial Basis Function
RMSE Root Mean Square Error
Rhin Inside relative humidity
Rhout Outside relative humidity
SVM Support Vector Machine
SVR Support vector Regression
Tin Inside temperature
Tout Outside temperature
U Wind speed
WD Wind direction
WS Wind speed
w,b f parameters
{(x1, y1), …, (xn, yn)} Training data example
x Input variables
y Output variables
Greek letters
Ϭ The standard deviation
Ϭx x standard deviation
Ϭy y standard deviation
γ Kernel scale
Introduction
Greenhouse cultivation system is one of the prominent agricultural techniques that makes it possible to create an artifi-
cial microclimate. This technique does not only allow providing a specific growing condition for the plants, but also it allows
protecting them against external aggressors i.e., cold, wind, rain, insects, pollution, and many others. Thus, the greenhouse
makes it possible to better manage the plants’ needs and promote their growth and development.
Protected agriculture has experienced increasing applications in recent years around the world. In Morocco for example,
the area equipped with greenhouses was programmed to reach 27 500 ha in 2020 starting from 15 200 ha over the past
years [1]. This development has been conducted to improve the standard of population living, and to afford fresh prod-
uct throughout the year. Thus, improving greenhouse energy efficiency has become a major concern in the country. The
best way to meet and to optimize the needs of greenhouse is through the optimal knowledge of its interior microclimate.
Thus, the prediction of the greenhouse variables could be of great importance. For this purpose, greenhouse modeling is
a crucial element. The greenhouse models could be classified into two main types: machine learning-based modeling and
physics-based modeling. For machine learning modeling, a large data of experimental measurement is needed for training
the models. The major advantage of this method is that it does not require any knowledge of greenhouse specifications
and component. While physics-based models require the knowledge of the hourly weather parameters and systems speci-
fications. Nevertheless, through those models, it is possible to study the feasibility and profitability of efficient strategies to
optimize the energy consumption.
2
Given the importance of physics-based modeling and the great interest it presents in analyzing greenhouse features,
different models and tools have been presented in the literature. Comparing model predictions and experimental measure-
ment, Mohammadi et al. [2]. have proven the efficiency of a dynamic model, based on physics principle, in predicting some
inside environment variables of a semi-solar greenhouse located in East Azerbaijan, Iran. Their findings demonstrated that
the dynamic model could predict soil and interior air temperatures, with Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) values of 3.45 °C
and 5.3 °C, Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) values of 7.7% and 10.2%, and model efficiency (EF) values of 0.86%
and 0.78%, respectively. Using CFD method, Molinaaiz et al. [3]. have studied the influence of wind speed on the natural
ventilation of an Almeria greenhouse located on the south coast of Spain. The comparison between the model numerical
results and the experimental data showed good accuracy for both air velocity and air temperature. Saberian et al. [4] have
modelled a gable greenhouse located in Ahvaz-Iran using ANSYS Fluent. The accuracy level and reliability of using computa-
tional fluid dynamics (CFD) method for studying dynamic microclimate over a year from June 2017 to June 2018 have been
discussed by the authors and compared by physical experiments. Their Results prove the efficiency of the CFD model in pre-
dicting greenhouse microclimate parameters. In another work, El Jazouli et al. [5] studied the distribution of temperature,
airflow and humidity inside a multispan greenhouse covered with insect nets, located in Agadir, Morocco. The authors used
a CFD model and considered the dynamic effect of their cover using the Darcy and Forchheimer approach for the porous
medium. A good agreement was found between the measured and predicted indoor air temperature and humidity. The au-
thors concluded that, despite the high ventilation rate of the greenhouse, a strong heterogeneity of the internal climate was
detected.
Machine learning methods are relevant solutions that have been widely used in different field of research [6]. In the
agricultural field, Arif et al. [7] proposed two Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) models to estimate soil moisture in paddy
field located in the Nusantara Organics SRI Center (NOSC), Sukabumi, Indonesia. Their models performed under different
weather conditions between the two paddy cultivation periods. According to them, ANN models are efficient in estimating
soil moisture with limited meteorological data with a coefficient of correlation of 0.95. In another work, Nema et al. [8] com-
pared the efficiency of different ANN models, with various combinations of number of neurons and training functions, to
improve the estimation of monthly evaporation in a study station, in sub-humid climatic region of Dehradun, India. An ANN
with nine neurons in a single hidden layer has shown the best results with a coefficient of correlation of 0.996 and 0.990
for model training and testing respectively. Using ANN as well, Hernández-Pérez et al. [9] proposed a predictive model for
temperature and moisture kinetics on-line predictions during the drying of cassava and mango. The authors presented two
separate ANN models for cassava and mango, based on one hidden layer. Best results were obtained using three neurons in
the hidden layer.
However, the studies conducted for greenhouses are still more or less limited. Taki et al. [10] compared the efficiency
of ANN (Radial Basis Function (RBF) and Multi Layer Perceptron (MLP)) and SVM models in predicting temperatures (Inside
air, soil and plant temperatures) and energy exchange of a greenhouse located in Shahreza city in Isfahan province, Iran.
Their results showed that RBF model has the best performance. Ferreira et al. [11] modeled the inside air temperature of a
hydroponic vegetable production greenhouse, using radial basis function (RBF) neural networks methods. The inputs consid-
ered in their study are the outside air temperature, the outside solar radiation and the inside relative humidity. According
to them, the algorithm based on a Levenberg– Marquardt method has achieved the best results regarding the error per-
formance and parameter convergence while having the minimal computational cost compared with the other hybrid batch
and adaptive methods. In another work, Frausto and Pieters [12] estimated the greenhouse inner air temperature by means
of neural networks-auto-regressive model with exogenus inputs (NNARX) based on the air temperature and humidity, the
global solar radiation and the sky cloudiness. The data set used for training and testing of their model was extracted from
the Gembloux dynamic greenhouse climate model (GDGCM) [13]. Their results show that the model gives good estimations
only when the modeling conditions are similar to training periods. A goodness of fit up to 75% was found when using 20
neurons in the hidden layer. Trejo-Perea et al. [14] developed a multilayer perceptron ANN (ANN-MLP) with a cascade ar-
chitecture to predict the electrical power consumption of a greenhouse located in the Queretaro State University, Mexico.
Their models performances were compared to a conventional regression model and the results showed that the MLP model
produced better performance with a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 0.0626 against 0.0921 for the other model.
Taki et al. [15] compared the performance of Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) and dynamic models with ANN models in
predicting the inside air and roof temperatures and energy loss of a semi solar greenhouse, located in the North-West of
Iran. Their results proved the good performance of the ANN method, with a RMSE of 0.23 and 0.17 for air and roof tem-
peratures, respectively. Miranda et al. [16] has predicted the internal climate of a greenhouse using six ANN models. Results
show that ANN models are a good estimator of the greenhouse inside microclimate with and R² that reaches 0.98 for both
temperature and relative humidity.
Ensemble methods remain less exploited in the field of agriculture. Few studies used these techniques in order to predict
greenhouse inside microclimate. Allouhi et al. [17]. assessed the potential of four machine learning models (Multiple Linear
Regression (MLR), Support Vector Regression (SVR), Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) and Ensemble of trees) in predicting
inside temperature of a greenhouse located in Agadir Morocco. All machine learning techniques has proven efficiency with
R²>0.9 with the best statistical metrics scored by GPR model, followed by SVM, MLR and ensemble trees models respectively.
In another work, L. Ouazzani Chahidi et al. [18] used ANN, SVM, GPR and Boosting trees in order to predict energy demand
and production of a greenhouse located in Albenga, north-western Italy. With a correlation coefficient R > 0.9, the findings
demonstrate good agreement across all models between the measured and predicted values.
3
Based on conducted literature review, it has been realized that, machine learning methods remain less exploited in the
field of greenhouse. To assess their capability in predicting the greenhouse variables, their performances in predicting green-
house microclimate are compared to a physics-based model prediction which is CFD model. Four machine learning methods,
namely: Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Bagging trees (BG) and Boosting trees (BT), are
considered. The impact of seasonal changes on ML models’ performance is assessed by comparing the performances of the
models trained and tested using different periods of the year. For those proposes, the experimental data from March and
October were collected in a commercial greenhouse located in Agadir, Morocco. To compare the model’s performances, three
indicators are considered: the coefficient of correlation R, the standard error coefficient SEC and the normalized Root Mean
Square Error nRMSE.
Materials and methods
Greenhouse description and data set acquisition
This study is conducted in a single-chapel greenhouse located in Agadir region covered with polyethylene plastic with a
thickness of 4 mm. Its total surface is 338 m2 (52 m long and 6.5 m wide) with a height of 3.5 m in the gutter and 4.8 m
in the ridge (Fig. 1). Natural ventilation is provided by an opening on the greenhouse roof (1 × 52 m2). The greenhouse was
planted by tomatoes crops with a density of 1.8 plants per m2 with rows oriented west-east.
In order to predict the greenhouse temperature and relative humidity the following parameters are measured:
• The inside and outside relative humidities (Rhin, Rhout), and the air temperatures (Tin,Tout): measurements are con-
ducted with thermo− hygrometers probes (HMP45 AC, Vaisala, Etoile Internationale, Paris, France), with a measuring
accuracy of ± 0.2 °C for temperature and ±1% for relative humidity.
• The outside wind speed (WS) and direction (WD) were measured by a cup anemometer and a wind vane (W200P,
Campbell Scientific, Ltd.) with a measuring accuracy of ± 0.1 m s−1 for wind speed and ± 1° for wind direction.
• The outside global solar radiation (G) is measured with a pyranometer (SP−LITE, Kipp and Zonen, Campbell Scientific,
Ltd.) with a measuring accuracy of ± 5 W.m−2 .
Measurements were performed every five seconds using a sensor positioned in the center of the greenhouse below the
plant canopy. The data are averaged and stored for every 15 min into two dataloggers (21−X and CR23, Campbell Scien-
tific, Ltd.), and then all values were transferred and recorded on a computer for counting and processing. The total data
collected for March and October are respectively 2795 (30 days) and 2193 (24 days) for each measured parameter. Detailed
information concerning training and testing data are mentioned in each subsection.
Description of CFD model
Through the advancement of software, CFD modeling has seen a tremendous amount of improvement recently, enabling
microclimate research to better comprehend the relationships between climate variables inside greenhouses. CFD simulation
has improved in realism and detail over the past few years, leading to more precise results. In the present paper, the studied
greenhouse was modeled in ANSYS Fluent, in order to determine the distribution of its inside temperature and relative
humidity. The model is based on the equations of Navier-Stokes. Performing numerical simulations through ANSYS-Fluent,
the differential equations of fluid mechanics and heat transfer Eqs. (1)-(3) were solved [19]:
Momentum equation
∂ρV
+ ρV
.grad V
= Fext (1)
∂t
Conservation of mass
∇
.ρV
= Sm (2)
Energy conservation
(Uint + Ec ) = W + Q (3)
Before running the CFD model, some approximations and simplifying assumptions were made as follow:
• The flow is considered incompressible.

• The volume forces are reduced to the acceleration of gravity and the forces of inertia.
• The thermo-physical properties of air are independent of temperature.
• Air is considered completely transparent.
The initial conditions were obtained by carrying out a steady-state simulation with the boundary conditions measured at
11 p.m. on October 22. This preliminary simulation thus makes it possible to define the initial conditions used throughout
the domain for an unsteady simulation of a one-day time slot of October 23.
4
Fig. 1. Inside and outside views of the greenhouse and its ventilation opening.
Fig. 2. Schematic of the sensor arrangement.
The boundary conditions are determined from the experimental readings ( Fig. 2). A temperature of 300 K, an absolute
humidity of 0.012 kg/kg and a wind speed of 1.7 m/s are imposed at the left limit (input of the calculation domain) and at
the right limit (exit of the calculation domain). These conditions are introduced into the model using a boundary condition
profile. At all ends of the domain, a sky temperature of 290 K has been set, which corresponds to a flux of long-wavelength
radiation Ratm = 400 W/m²
Concerning the meshing regularity, and in order to ensure that the results do not depend on the number of meshes used,
the mesh has been refined until the resolved variables no longer evolve (Fig. 3). The number of meshes finally retained
guaranteeing a good independence of the results with respect to the mesh.
5
Fig. 3. Schematic of the meshing.
Fig. 4. The architecture of the ANN model.
Description of machine learning methods
Artificial neural networks

An Artificial neural network (ANN) is considered as a Black Box mathematical model that simulates human brain in es-
tablishing relationships between inputs and outputs. It constructs its knowledge background from historical data. Various
neural network types can be found in the literature such as feed-forward, Hopfield, Elman, self-organizing maps, and radial
basis networks [20]. In this study, the modeling of the inside air temperature and relative humidity of the studied green-
house, is done using a feed-forward neural network with the Levenberg-Marquardt backpropagation training algorithm. This
latter was found to be the widely used optimization algorithm in the literature [21]. Also, it was observed in the litera-
ture that a feed-forward ANN and the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm provided good performance [22]. By updating the
weights and biases of neurons, ANN can establish the relationship between input and output. Utilizing the summation of
weighted inputs, the activation function produces output, and by adjusting the weights and biases, the error between the
target and predicted outputs can be reduced [23]. In this study, one hidden layer composed of 16 neurons is adopted and
the hyperbolic tangent sigmoid is selected as the activation function [10] for hidden and output layers [24]. Fig. 4 shows the
architecture of the ANN model.
Support vector machine

Support vector machine (SVM) is among the well-known machine learning algorithms used for approximating any multi-
variate function to any desired degree of accuracy, same as ANN method. There is a difference in the development between
these two most common used methods: SVM was developed from theory, and later it was implemented in practice and
experiments, while the ANN followed the path in reverse order: from application and extensive experiments to theory [25].
6
Fig. 5. Support vector regression parameters.
Supposing that {(x1 , y1 ), …, (xn , yn )} is the training data, the objective of SVM is to find an hyperplane function (Eq. (4))
that regroups the maximum predicted points with a minimal deviation ε (Fig. 5) from the target output vector y.
f (x ) = w, φ (x ) + b (4)
where w and b are the parameters of the function.
The objective of SVM method is to find the best hyperplane characterized by w∗ and b∗ that minimize the error between
f and yi and giving a better fitting model (Eq. (5)).
n

(w∗, y∗ ) = arg minw,b yi − (w, xi ) − b2 (5)
i=1
In this study, the problem can be considered as nonlinear. For this reason, the used function is written in a dot product
form that enables the use of the “kernel function” K(xi,xj) (Eq. (4)).
The selection of a typical Kernel function depends on the degree of nonlinearity between inputs and outputs. Kernel
functions could be linear, polynomial, Gaussian, or others. In this case study, the Gaussian function is chosen to represent
the complex nonlinear relationship between the inputs and outputs [26] (Eq. (6)).
K (xi , x j ) = exp(−γ xi − x2j ) (6)
where γ is the kernel scale chosen equal to 1.7.
Ensemble methods
Ensemble methods are based on combining a set of learners to create a strong one having better performance than a
single independent learner. This technique also helps to minimize the main causes of error in learning that are noise, bias
and variance. In this study, Bagging and Boosting based decision trees are used.
In the training stage, Bagging and Boosting get N learners produced by random sampling with replacement from the
original set. The main difference between the two methods is that in Bagging, each model is built independently and then
the training stage is done in parallel. Theoretically, it is proved that the variance of prediction could be decreased by 1/N in
comparison to the variance of a standalone learner. Therefore, the use of a large number of regressors will help to improve
the prediction accuracy [27] . On the contrary, Boosting builds the new learner in a sequential way, taking into account the
results of the previous regressor: The data elements are reweighted after each training step and the incorrectly predicted
cases from a given step are given increased weight during the next step [28]. It is a stage-wise procedure that helps in
reducing bias [29]. The predicted value of both methods is the average of the predictions of all grown trees.
In this case study, a minimum leaf size of 8 with 30 learners are chosen for both ensemble methods. For boosting trees,
0.1 is selected as a popular choice for the learning rate [30].
Feature’s selection for the machine learning methods

In this section, correlations between the inputs and the outputs are studied in order to select the most relevant features.
Five inputs are investigated, namely: External temperature (Tout ), external relative humidity (Rhout ), global radiation (G),
wind direction (WD ) and wind speed (WS ) to predict the greenhouse internal temperature (Tin ) and relative humidity (Rhin ).
The correlations between the inputs and the outputs are presented in table 1.
For both months, March and October, and according to the results presented in table 1, it can be concluded that wind
speed and wind direction do not correlate with the two outputs. Indeed, they could not provide significant information on
temperature and relative humidity prediction. For this reason, they are omitted from the inputs list. It can be remarked that
Tout , Rhout and G correlate well with the considered outputs of the Machine learning models. For the next parts, only Tout ,
Rhout and G are chosen as input parameters.
7
Table 1
Correlation between the inputs and outputs (in-
side temperature and relative humidity).
Outputs
March October
Inputs
Tin Rhin Tin Rhin
Tout 0.976 0.809 0.879 0.899

Rhout 0.722 0.981 0.660 0.869
G 0.919 0.767 0.858 0.768
WD 0.083 0.112 0.0542 0.0624
WS 0.139 0.160 0.0761 0.0353
Table 2
Model accuracy according to nRMSE.
Classes nRMSE (%) State of precision
1 nRMSE < 10% Excellent

2 10% < nRMSE < 20% Good
3 20% < nRMSE < 30% Fair
4 nRMSE > 30% Poor
Performance indicators
The evaluation of the performance of the previously cited machine learning methods is based on three largely used
statistical indicators: The standard-error coefficient (SEC) (Eq. (7)), the correlation coefficient (R) (Eq. (8)) and the normalized
Root Mean Square Error (nRMSE) (Eq. (9)):
√
SEC = 6/ N (7)
cov(x, y )
R= (8)
σx σy

1
n
1
nRMSE = (x − y )2 (9)
x n
1
where N is the number of observations, 6 is the standard deviation, x is the predicted value and y is the target value.
The correlation coefficient R describes how strong is the relationship between target and predicted values. Its value is
compromises between 0 and 1. When the curves’ trajectories of predicted and target values are comparable, the correlation
coefficient R is close to 1 which indicates a better model performance. The standard-error coefficient (SEC) doesn’t have a
limitation value because it depends on the calculated parameter. Even though, a lower value indicates better model perfor-
mance. The normalized root mean square error (nRMSE) enables the evaluation of the dispersion of the predicted values in
relation to the target ones. Table 2 indicates different states of model accuracy according to nRMSE [31]
Results and discussion
External weather conditions of March and October
Figure 6 presents the variation of the selected meteorological parameters for this study (as presented in sub-section 2.2)
during March and October, in particular; temperature (a), relative humidity (b) and solar radiation (c).
During March, the temperature varies between 4.34 °C and 36.49 °C. For the relative humidity, it varies between 12.1%
and 97.8%. While the solar radiation varies between 0 and 851 W/m². During October, the maximum and minimum temper-
atures are 9.74 °C and 37.22 °C respectively. For the relative humidity, it varies between 13.62% and 96.7%. While the solar
radiation varies between 0 and 621.8 W/m².
Evaluation of machine learning and CFD models
For all machine learning models, Matlab was used in order to build, train and test the different models. 525 randomized
data and 24 for each input parameters were used for training and testing phases respectively.
In this section, an evaluation of results of Tin and Rhin predicted by the greenhouse modeled through ANSYS fluent
and results given by the four machine learning methods (ANN, SVM, Bagging trees and Boosting trees) is established. The
8
Fig. 6. Weather parameters of March and October (a) temperature (b) relative humidity (c) solar radiation.
Table 3
Model’s performances in predicting the inside temperature and relative hu-
midity.
CFD Model ANN SVM BG BT
Tin R 0.980 0.983 0.992 0.991 0.990

SEC ( °C) 1.24 1.21 0.742 0.837 0.874
nRMSE 6% 5% 4% 4% 6%
Rhin R 0.987 0.986 0.986 0.983 0.982
SEC (%) 3.47 3.51 3.56 3.89 3.96
nRMSE 6% 5% 5% 5% 7%
evaluation of CFD and machine learning models is made for the whole day corresponding to 23 October (24 h). Results are
presented in Figs. 7 and Table 3.
The results presented in this section show that both, the greenhouse CFD model and the four machine learning models
performed very well in predicting the greenhouse inside temperature and relative humidity. Almost all models have reached
a correlation coefficient R of at least 0.98, a maximum SEC of 1.24 °C and 3.96% in temperature and relative humidity
respectively and a maximum nRMSE of 7%.
In addition, the time required by machine learning models for both training and testing phases is about few minutes,
whereas, to obtain the results of one day, the execution of the CFD model requires about two days. For this reason, and
in addition to indicators of performance results, the next part corresponding to the impact of the seasonal changes on
predicting greenhouse parameters will be done using machine learning methods.
Impact of the seasonal changes on predicting greenhouse parameters
In this section, only machine learning models are considered. The influence of using different season data in the training
and testing phases is studied.
Temperature and relative humidity prediction using experimental data of the same month
In this section, the prediction of the indoor air temperature and relative humidity of the greenhouse is presented, using
the four-machine learning: Artificial Neurons Network, Support Vector Machine, Bagging Trees and Boosting Trees, for the
same month (for training and testing).
9
Fig. 7. Evaluation of Tin (a) and Rhin (b) predicted by the greenhouse CFD model and the machine learning methods.
Experimental data were collected during 30 days of March and 24 days of October: For March, 20 days (about 1900
values) have been devoted to the training phase, and 10 days (about 900 values) for the testing phase, and for October, 14
days (about 1337 values) have been devoted to the training phase, and 9 days (about 857 values) for the testing phase after
a random data splitting in both steps. The results are presented in figures and tables below.
Predicting March’s parameters using experimental data of March
Figure 8 presents the target (measured) and the predicted (model’s outputs) values, obtained using the four studied ma-
chine learning methods, of the inside temperature and relative humidity, respectively. It can be observed from the presented
figures that the graphs have almost similar trends, whether for temperature and relative humidity. The difference between
the target and predicted curves is observed in the limit values.
Table 4 summarizes the performance of the models obtained during March by considering the indicators; 1) The coeffi-
cient of correlation that ranges between 0.987 (SVM) and 0.993 (BG) in predicting the greenhouse inside air temperature,
and between 0.994 (SVM) and 0.997 (BG) in predicting the greenhouse inside air relative humidity. 2) The standard-error
coefficient that ranges between 1.00 °C (BG) and 1.474 °C (SVM) in predicting the greenhouse inside air temperature, and
between 1.69% (BG) and 2.61% (SVM) in predicting the greenhouse inside air relative humidity. 3) The normalized Root Mean
Square Error that ranges between 5% (BG) and 7% (SVM and BT) in predicting the greenhouse inside air temperature, and
between 3% (BG) and 6% (BT) in predicting the greenhouse inside air relative humidity.
Predicting October’s parameters using experimental data of October
For October, it can be observed from Fig. 9 that the curves of variation of the inside temperature and relative humidity
have quite similar trends comparing the target and the models curves. However, the gap observed between the limit values
10
Fig. 8. Comparison between target and predicted Tin (a) and Rhin (b) for the four machine learning models using March’s data for the training and testing
phase.
Table 4
Model’s performances in predicting the inside temperature and
relative humidity using March’s data for the training and test-
ing phases.
ANN SVM BG BT
Tin R 0.989 0.987 0.993 0.992

SEC ( °C) 1.29 1.474 1.00 1.14
nRMSE 6% 7% 5% 7%
Rhin R 0.995 0.994 0.997 0.996
SEC (%) 2.25 2.61 1.69 2.15
nRMSE 4% 5% 3% 6%
is more important than the one observed for March. This is related to the natural ventilation provided by the opening in
the roof of the greenhouse. In fact, the natural ventilation was manually controlled as needed. There wasn’t any opening
schedule for it. That is why it wasn’t taken into account in input parameters. Thus, the results presented by machine learning
models are deviated from the experimental results (Target values) in the limits of temperature and relative humidity curves.
Table 5 summarizes the performance of the models obtained during October. For the inside air temperature, the corre-
lation coefficient and the standard error coefficient vary between 0.919 and 0.980 and between 3.05 °C and 1.53 °C, using
11
Fig. 9. Comparison between target and predicted Tin (a) and Rhin (b) for the four machine learning models using October’s data for the training and testing
phase.
Table 5
relative humidity using October’s data for the training and test-
ing phase.
ANN SVM BG BT
Tin R 0.978 0.978 0.919 0.980

SEC ( °C) 1.58 1.61 3.05 1.53
nRMSE 7% 7% 14% 8%
Rhin R 0.971 0.965 0.966 0.978
SEC (%) 6.11 6.8 6.69 5.35
nRMSE 12% 12% 11% 9%
12
Table 6
relative humidity of March using experimental data of October.
ANN SVM BG BT
Tin R 0.965 0.958 0.947 0.967

SEC ( °C) 2.49 2.70 3.05 2.39
nRMSE 18% 17% 23% 12%
Rhin R 0.918 0.929 0.966 0.933
SEC (%) 9.82 9.14 6.33 8.89
nRMSE 28% 25% 21% 23%
Table 7
relative humidity of October using experimental data of March.
ANN SVM BG BT
Tin R 0.785 0.956 0.848 0.941

SEC ( °C) 4.28 2.02 3.66 2.33
nRMSE 20% 9% 21% 12%
Rhin R 0.878 0.939 0.913 0.900
SRC (%) 11.8 8.50 10.04 10.74
nRMSE 21% 17% 19% 22%
bagging trees and boosting trees methods respectively. The normalized Root Mean Square Error varies between 7% using
ANN and SVM and 14% using BG. While for the inside relative humidity, the coefficient of correlation varies between 0.965
and 0.978, the standard error coefficient varies between 6.8% and 5.35%, using SVM and boosting methods respectively, and
the normalized Root Mean Square Error varies between 9% (BT) and 12% (ANN and SVM).
The results, presented in part 3.3.1, show that the four machine learning models performed well in predicting internal
temperature and relative humidity for both months. For March, all methods have almost a correlation coefficient of about
0.99, a standard-error of 2% for relative humidity and 1.2 °C for temperature and a maximum normalized Root Mean Square
Error of 7%. October shows a good performance as well: Almost all machine learning models have reached at least 0.96 in
correlation coefficient and a mean standard-error of 6% for relative humidity and 1.9 °C for temperature, and a maximum
normalized Root Mean Square Error of 14%. The results are in the same range and sometime better than results found by
Farhat Mahmood et al. [32] that predicted inside temperature and relative humidity of a closed greenhouse using support
vector machine modeling. Results show that the model predicted accurate values for temperature and relative humidity
with an R² value of 0.930 and 0.911. In our case study, almost all machine learning models have reached an R² higher than
0.93 for temperature and 0.91 for relative humidity. According to other studies [16,10], the finding results are very well and
approach the target values with a very high accuracy.
It can be concluded that predicting temperature and relative humidity of a month using data of the same month for
training approaches very well the target values. The aim of the next part is to analyze the ability of the models to predict
temperature and relative humidity for different seasons.
Temperature and relative humidity prediction of a month using experimental data of the other month
In this section, the same hyperparameters of the above-mentioned models are kept. Data of October are used for training
and the ones of March are used for testing and vice versa. The aim of this part is to analyze the ability of the models in
predicting the temperature and the relative humidity for different seasons.
Figure 10 presents the curves of target and predicted greenhouse inside air temperature and relative humidity, respec-
tively. The predictions are done by using the data measured during October as training database and the one measured
during March as testing database. The indicators of performance of the models, in this case, are calculated and presented in
Table 6.
Predicting March’s parameters using experimental data of October
The capability of the studied models, in predicting the inside air temperature and relative humidity of October using
data from March in training phase, is also evaluated. The obtained results are presented in Fig. 11. Table 7 summarizes the
values of correlation coefficient and standard error coefficient calculated in this case for the four studied machine learning
methods.
Predicting October’s parameters using experimental data of March
The performance of the four machine learning models, presented in part 3.3.2, are less than the ones presented in the
first section. For the temperature prediction, the correlation coefficient is about 0.95 with a SEC of about 2.7 °C and a
13
Fig. 10. Graph of comparison between target values and the predicted Tin (a) and Rhin (b) for the four-machine learning models using October’s data in
training phase and March’s data in testing phase.
maximum nRMSE of 23%, for March, and 0.8 on average with a SEC of about 3 °C and a maximum nRMSE of 21% for
October. For the relative humidity, the correlation coefficient is about 0.93 with an average SEC of 8% and a maximum
nRMSE of 28% for March, and 0.90 with an average SEC of 10% and a maximum nRMSE of 22% for October. This decrease
in performance can be explained by the difference between the weather conditions of the two months. According to Fig. 6,
the temperatures of the two months have the same maximum and different minimum: October minimum temperature is
9 °C while March minimum temperature reaches 4 °C. For relative humidity, the two months have different extreme values
as well. It can be concluded that predicting March temperature and relative humidity based on October’s experimental data
and vice versa, leads to some differences especially in the extreme values caused by the lack of information in training
phase. In the next part, a predictive model combining information from the two months will be studied.
Temperature and relative humidity prediction of March and October using experimental data of both months
In this section, the performance of a predictive model “Combined data” model built from experimental data of both
months will be tested. The aim of this section is to improve results shown in section 3.3.2 by training the model on mixed
14
Fig. 11. Graph of comparison between target values and the predicted Tin (a) and Rhin (b) for the four-machine learning models using March’s data in
training phase and October’s data in testing phase.
experimental values of March and October. The training phase was applied on 1500 randomized values from March and
October, and 439 values were kept for testing the model’s performance.
Predicting March’s and October’s parameters separately using “Combined data” model
Figures 12 and 13 present the variation of target and predicted inside air temperature and relative humidity of March
and October, respectively, using data measured during the both periods to train the models (“Combined data” model).
As previously cited, the model performances are defined by calculating the coefficient of correlation, standard error co-
efficients and normalized Root Mean Square Error coefficients. Tables 8 and 9 summarize the indicators of performance
obtained when predicting the inside air temperature and relative humidity of March and October, respectively.
The results show great improvement of the model’s performances. All machine learning models have reached at least
0.987 in coefficient of correlation, a standard error of 1.4 °C in Tin and 2 to 3% in Rhin , and a maximum nRMSE of 8% for
15
Fig. 12. Graph of comparison between target values and the predicted Tin (a) and Rhin (b) of March for the four machine learning models using “Combined
data” model.
Table 8
relative humidity of March using “Combined data” model.
ANN SVM BG BT
Tin R 0.992 0.992 0.987 0.992

SEC ( °C) 1.15 1.19 1.55 1.17
nRMSE 4% 4% 7% 5%
Rhin R 0.996 0.995 0.995 0.993
SEC (%) 2.02 2.47 2.37 2.78
nRMSE 5% 6% 6% 8%
16
Fig. 13. Graph of comparison between target values and the predicted Tin (a) and Rhin (b) of October for the four machine learning models using “Combined
data” model.
Table 9
relative humidity of October using “Combined data” model.
ANN SVM BG BT
Tin R 0.995 0.995 0.978 0.988

SEC ( °C) 0.65 0.62 1.46 1.05
nRMSE 4% 4% 7% 7%
Rhin R 0.938 0.973 0.974 0.982
SEC (%) 6.87 4.51 4.44 3.67
nRMSE 12% 9% 8% 10%
17
Fig. 14. Graph of comparison between target values and the predicted Tin (a) and Rhin (b) of March and October for the four machine learning models
using “Combined data” model.
March. Concerning October, very satisfying results are presented in this section. For both temperature and relative humidity,
the coefficient of correlation reached at least 0.94, the SEC is 1 °C and 5% on average for temperature and relative humid-
ity, respectively and the nRMSE ranges between 4% and 12% . Comparing the performances presented in tables of section
3.3.2 with those presented in section 3.3.3, it can be observed that the correlation coefficients of the four machine learning
models increase and the standard errors as well as nRMSE decrease. It can be concluded that for predicting microclimate
variables of the studied greenhouse, the training phase should have at least some experimental data of the predicted month
in order to have models that take into account the season’s variations. These models are more accurate to predict temper-
ature and relative humidity than the ones presented in the previous sections. In the next section, inside temperature and
relative humidity of both months will be predicted at the same time using the “Combined data” model. Experimental data
of March and October were randomized, 20 0 0 values of each input parameters were selected for training phase, and 10 0 0
values were kept for the testing phase.
18
Table 10
relative humidity of October and March at the same time, using
the “Combined data” model.
ANN SVM BG BT
Tin R 0.985 0.984 0.970 0.983

SEC ( °C) 1.42 1.46 2.01 1.50
nRMSE 6% 6% 9% 8%
Rhin R 0.986 0.984 0.984 0.985
SEC (%) 4.05 4.41 4.38 4.31
nRMSE 7% 8% 8% 9%
Predicting March and October parameters at the same time, using the “Combined data” model
The “Combined data” model is used to predict greenhouse inside temperature and relative humidity of March and Octo-
ber at the same time and the results are presented in Fig. 14. The models’ indicators of performance are listed in Table 10
for both variables.
The results presented in Fig. 14 and table 10 prove the efficiency of the “Combined data” model in predicting inside
temperature and relative humidity for the whole two studied seasons. All models have reached at least 0.97 in correlation
coefficient, a maximum SEC of 2 °C and 4.41% for temperature and relative humidity and a maximum nRMSE of 9%.
Applying the “Combined data” model on randomized data of March and October extended the ability of the model to
predict not only inside temperature and relative humidity of the two months, but also of the whole two seasons. The use of
this “Combined data” model in the future research will certainly reduce some financial charges related to temperature and
relative humidity measurement, and help in sustainable development of the greenhouse inside environment.
Conclusion
This paper presents an evaluation of CFD model and machine learning methods in predicting inside temperature (Tin ) and
relative humidity (Rhin ) of a commercial greenhouse, and the impact of the seasonal changes in predicting the same param-
eters by four machine learning models using external climatic data measured in Agadir region. The following conclusions
can be made:
• The CFD model and the machine learning methods show quite good results in predicting inside temperature (Tin ) and
relative humidity (Rhin ). Almost all models have reached a correlation coefficient R of at least 0.98, a maximum SEC of
about 1.24 °C and 3.96% in temperature and relative humidity respectively and a maximum nRMSE of about 7%. However,
the time requires to build, train and test machine learning models is more interesting.
• The prediction of Tin and Rhin of a month based on experimental data of the same month shows satisfying results.
For March, all machine learning models reached at least 0.98 in R, a standard error of about 2% for relative humidity
and 1.2 °C for temperature and a maximum nRMSE of about 7%. For October, almost all machine learning models have
reached at least 0.96 in correlation coefficient, a mean standard-error of about 6% for relative humidity and 1.9 °C for
temperature and a maximum nRMSE of about 14%.
• The prediction of Tin and Rhin of a month based on experimental data of the other month, shows good results, despite
the decrease in the model’s performances comparing to the previous ones due to the particularity of the weather during
each month.
• The use of a “Combined data” model built from randomized data of the two months extended the ability of the model
to predict not only inside temperature and relative humidity of the two months, but might also be able to predict the
whole two seasons.
The obtained results can be a reference for future works related to greenhouse microclimate management. As an applica-
tion of the finding results, it is possible to better control the greenhouse inside environment for the future seasons, knowing
just few external environmental data. That will further ameliorate the efficiency of the greenhouse by having a preliminary
idea of its microclimate inside environment, which would help in predicting what and when to program the plantation of
some crops, which is a key factor for sustainable greenhouse crops production.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
19
References
[1] R. Harbouze, Rapport de synthèse sur l’agriculture au Maroc, (n.d.) 105.

[2] B. Mohammadi, S.F. Ranjbar, Y. Ajabshirchi, Application of dynamic model to predict some inside environment variables in a semi-solar greenhouse,
Inf. Process. Agric. 5 (2018) 279–288, doi:10.1016/j.inpa.2018.01.001.
[3] F.D. Molina-Aiz, D.L. Valera, A.J. Álvarez, Measurement and simulation of climate inside Almerıá-type greenhouses using computational fluid dynamics,
Agric. For. Meteorol. 125 (2004) 33–51, doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2004.03.009.
[4] A. Saberian, S.M. Sajadiye, The effect of dynamic solar heat load on the greenhouse microclimate using CFD simulation, Renew. Energy 138 (2019)
722–737, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2019.01.108.
[5] M. El Jazouli, K. Lekouch, A. Wifaya, L. Gourdo, L. Bouirden, CFD study of airflow and microclimate patterns inside a Multispan greenhouse, WSEAS
Trans. Fluid Mech. 16 (2021) 102–108.
[6] W. Ertel, Introduction to Artificial Intelligence, Springer, 2018.
[7] C. Arif, M. Mizoguchi, B.I. Setiawan, R. Doi, Estimation of soil moisture in paddy field using, Artif. Neural Netw. (2013) ArXiv:1303.1868 [Physics]
http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1868 . (accessed June 16, 2021).
[8] M.K. Nema, D. Khare, S.K. Chandniha, Application of artificial intelligence to estimate the reference evapotranspiration in sub-humid Doon valley, Appl
Water Sci 7 (2017) 3903–3910, doi:10.1007/s13201-017-0543-3.
[9] J.A. Hernández-Pérez, M.A. Garcıá-Alvarado, G. Trystram, B. Heyd, Neural networks for the heat and mass transfer prediction during drying of cassava
and mango, Innovat. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 5 (2004) 57–64, doi:10.1016/j.ifset.2003.10.004.
[10] M. Taki, S. Abdanan Mehdizadeh, A. Rohani, M. Rahnama, M. Rahmati-Joneidabad, Applied machine learning in greenhouse simulation; new application
and analysis, Inf. Process. Agric. 5 (2018) 253–268, doi:10.1016/j.inpa.2018.01.003.
[11] P.M. Ferreira, E.A. Faria, A.E. Ruano, Neural network models in greenhouse air temperature prediction, Neurocomputing 43 (2002) 51–75, doi:10.1016/
S0925-2312(01)00620-8.
[12] H. Uchida Frausto, J.G. Pieters, Modelling greenhouse temperature using system identification by means of neural networks, Neurocomputing 56 (2004)
423–428, doi:10.1016/j.neucom.20 03.08.0 01.
[13] J.G. Pieters, J.M. Deltour, Performances of greenhouses with the presence of condensation on cladding materials, J. Agric. Eng. Res. (1997), doi:10.1006/
jaer.1997.0187.
[14] M. Trejo-perea, G. Herrera-ruiz, J. Rios-moreno, R. Castañeda Miranda, E. Rivas-araiza, Greenhouse energy consumption prediction using neural net-
works models, Int. J. Agric. Biol.-Araiza 11 (2009) 1–6.
[15] M. Taki, Y. Ajabshirchi, S.F. Ranjbar, A. Rohani, M. Matloobi, Heat transfer and MLP neural network models to predict inside environment variables and
energy lost in a semi-solar greenhouse, Energy Build. 110 (2016) 314–329, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.11.010.
[16] L. Miranda, I. Schuch, D. Dannehl, T. Rocksch, R. Salazar, U. Schmidt, Using artificial neural networks to predict the climate in a greenhouse: First
simulation results on a semi-closed system, Acta Hortic. (2015) 137–144, doi:10.17660/ActaHortic.2015.1099.13.
[17] A. Allouhi, N. Choab, A. Hamrani, S. Saadeddine, Machine learning algorithms to assess the thermal behavior of a Moroccan agriculture greenhouse,
Clean. Eng. Technol. 5 (2021) 100346, doi:10.1016/j.clet.2021.100346.
[18] L. Ouazzani Chahidi, M. Fossa, A. Priarone, A. Mechaqrane, Evaluation of supervised learning models in predicting greenhouse energy demand and
production for intelligent and sustainable operations, Energies 14 (2021) 6297.
[19] C.G. Popovici, HVAC system functionality simulation using ANSYS-Fluent, Energy Procedia 112 (2017) 360–365, doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1067.
[20] A. Krenker, J. Bester, A. Kos, Introduction to the artificial neural networks, in: K. Suzuki (Ed.), Artificial Neural Networks - Methodological Advances
and Biomedical Applications, InTech, 2011, doi:10.5772/15751.
[21] A. Ranganathan, The levenberg-marquardt algorithm, (n.d.) 5.
[22] F. Rodrigues, C. Cardeira, J.M.F. Calado, The daily and hourly energy consumption and load forecasting using artificial neural network method: a case
study using a set of 93 households in portugal, Energy Procedia 62 (2014) 220–229, doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.12.383.
[23] M. Waseem, Z. Lin, L. Yang, Data-driven load forecasting of air conditioners for demand response using Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm-based ANN,
BDCC 3 (2019) 36, doi:10.3390/bdcc3030036.
[24] S. Fidan, H. Oktay, S. Polat, S. Ozturk, An artificial neural network model to predict the thermal properties of concrete using different neurons and
activation functions, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019 (2019) 1–13, doi:10.1155/2019/3831813.
[25] A. Sretenovic, R. Jovanovic, V. Novakovic, N. Nord, B. Zivkovic, Support vector machine for the prediction of heating energy use, Therm. Sci. 22 (2018)
1171–1181, doi:10.2298/TSCI170526126S.
[26] Y. Fu, Z. Li, H. Zhang, P. Xu, Using support vector machine to predict next day electricity load of public buildings with sub-metering devices, Procedia
Eng. 121 (2015) 1016–1022, doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2015.09.097.
[27] J. Lee, W. Wang, F. Harrou, Y. Sun, Reliable solar irradiance prediction using ensemble learning-based models: a comparative study, Energy Conver.
Manag.. 208 (2020) 112582. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112582.
[28] C.D. Sutton, Classification and regression trees, bagging, and boosting, in: handbook of statistics, Elsevier (2005) 303–329, doi:10.1016/S0169-7161(04)
24011-1.
[29] M.A. Hassan, A. Khalil, S. Kaseb, M.A. Kassem, Exploring the potential of tree-based ensemble methods in solar radiation modeling, Appl. Energy 203
(2017) 897–916, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.06.104.
[30] Ensemble algorithms - MATLAB & simulink, (n.d.). https://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/ensemble-algorithms.html (accessed December 19, 2022).
[31] Z. Bounoua, L.O. Chahidi, A. Mechaqrane, Estimation of daily global solar radiation using empirical and machine-learning methods: a case study of five
Moroccan locations, Sustain. Mater. Technol. 28 (2021) e00261.
[32] F. Mahmood, R. Govindan, A. Bermak, D. Yang, C. Khadra, T. Al-Ansari, Energy utilization assessment of a semi-closed greenhouse using data-driven
model predictive control, J. Clean. Prod. 324 (2021) 129172, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129172.
20

1 s2.0 S2468227623000376 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S2468227623000376 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scientiﬁc African 19 (2023) e01578

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Evaluation of CFD and machine learning methods on

ANN Artiﬁcial Neural Netwoks

Materials and methods

Greenhouse description and data set acquisition

Description of CFD model

• The ﬂow is considered incompressible.

Fig. 2. Schematic of the sensor arrangement.

Fig. 3. Schematic of the meshing.

Fig. 4. The architecture of the ANN model.

Description of machine learning methods

Artiﬁcial neural networks

Support vector machine

Fig. 5. Support vector regression parameters.

where γ is the kernel scale chosen equal to 1.7.

Feature’s selection for the machine learning methods

Tout 0.976 0.809 0.879 0.899

Classes nRMSE (%) State of precision

1 nRMSE < 10% Excellent

Results and discussion

External weather conditions of March and October

Evaluation of machine learning and CFD models

CFD Model ANN SVM BG BT

Tin R 0.980 0.983 0.992 0.991 0.990

Impact of the seasonal changes on predicting greenhouse parameters

Tin R 0.989 0.987 0.993 0.992

Tin R 0.978 0.978 0.919 0.980

Tin R 0.965 0.958 0.947 0.967

Tin R 0.785 0.956 0.848 0.941

Predicting March’s parameters using experimental data of October

Predicting October’s parameters using experimental data of March

Tin R 0.992 0.992 0.987 0.992

Tin R 0.995 0.995 0.978 0.988

Tin R 0.985 0.984 0.970 0.983

Declaration of Competing Interest

[1] R. Harbouze, Rapport de synthèse sur l’agriculture au Maroc, (n.d.) 105.

You might also like