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

net/publication/367655939

CFD Modeling of the Microclimate in a Greenhouse Using a Rock Bed Thermal

Storage Heating System

Article  in  Horticulturae · February 2023

DOI: 10.3390/horticulturae9020183

CITATIONS READS

0 129

9 authors, including:

Abderrahim Bazgaou Hicham Fatnassi

University Ibn Zohr - Agadir International Centre for Biosaline Agriculture Dubai United Arab Emirates
17 PUBLICATIONS   356 CITATIONS    129 PUBLICATIONS   2,018 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rachid Bouharroud Rachid Tiskatine

Institut National de Recherche Agronomique, Agadir Morocco Abdelmalek Essaâdi University
122 PUBLICATIONS   745 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   440 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Local materials for thermal storage applications View project

Emergency plan to prevent the spread of cactus scale pest Dactylopius opuntiae View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abderrahim Bazgaou on 02 February 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 horticulturae
Article
CFD Modeling of the Microclimate in a Greenhouse Using a
Rock Bed Thermal Storage Heating System
Abderrahim Bazgaou 1,2,3 , Hicham Fatnassi 4, * , Rachid Bouharroud 5 , Rachid Tiskatine 6 , Ahmed Wifaya 5 ,
Hassan Demrati 1 , Lahcen Bammou 1 , Ahmed Aharoune 1 and Lahcen Bouirden 1
Citation: Bazgaou, A.; Fatnassi, H.;
Bouharroud, R.; Tiskatine, R.; Wifaya,
A.; Demrati, H.; Bammou, L.;
Aharoune, A.; Bouirden, L. CFD
Modeling of the Microclimate in a
Greenhouse Using a Rock Bed
Thermal Storage Heating System.
Horticulturae 2023, 9, 183.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
horticulturae9020183
Academic Editors: Edwin Andres
Villagran Munar and Jorge
Flores-Velázquez
Received: 3 November 2022
Revised: 10 January 2023
Accepted: 12 January 2023
Published: 1 February 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Horticulturae 2023, 9, 183. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9020183
1 Thermodynamics and Energetics Laboratory, Faculty of Science, Ibn Zohr University, BP8106,
Agadir 80006, Morocco
2 Institute for Research in Solar Energy and New Energies IRESEN, Rabat 10001, Morocco
3 National Center for Energy, Sciences and Nuclear Techniques CNESTEN, Rabat 10001, Morocco
4 International Center for Biosaline Agriculture (ICBA), Al Ruwayyah 2, Academic City,
Dubai P.O. Box 14660, United Arab Emirates
5 Integrated Crop Production Unit, Regional Center of Agricultural Research of Agadir, National Institute of
Agricultural Research (INRA), Avenue Ennasr, B.P. 415 Rabat Principale, Rabat 10090, Morocco
6 Engineering Sciences and Applications Laboratory, National School of Applied Sciences Al Hoceima ENSAH,
Abdelmalek Essaadi University, Tetouan 93000, Morocco
* Correspondence: h.fatnassi@biosaline.org.ae
Abstract: The rock bed heating system is a more cost-effective concept for storing thermal energy use
in greenhouses at night during the cold winter season. This system is considered an environmentally
friendly solution compared to conventional heating systems that rely on fossil fuels. Despite the
abundance of research on thermal energy-based heating systems, only limited work on climate
modeling in greenhouses using rock bed heat storage systems has been reported. To fill this research
gap, this study aims to simulate the microclimate in a greenhouse equipped with a rock bed heating
system using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models. User-defined functions have been
implemented to account for the interactions between the plants and the air within the greenhouse.
Crop rows and rock bed blocks have been considered as porous media with their dynamic and
thermal proprieties. The model’s accuracy was approved by comparing simulated and experimental
climate parameter data from the greenhouse. The model’s ability to predict temperature, humidity,
and air velocity fields in the greenhouse as well as in the rock bed system during both phases of
energy storage and restitution was demonstrated. The thermal, dynamic, and hygric fields were
accurately replicated with this numerical model. The growing zone had a vertical temperature
gradient between the ground and the greenhouse roof, as well as high humidity. The distribution of
temperature fields along the rock bed blocks showed a significant temperature gradient between the
air inlet and outlet in the blocks during the two phases of heat storage and restitution. As a result,
the model could be useful for sensitivity studies to improve the performance of this thermal storage
heating system.
Keywords: thermal energy storage; renewable energy; climate; crop model; greenhouse heating
1. Introduction
The good plant growth in greenhouses mainly depends on surrounding climate pa-
rameters such as CO2 concentration, temperature, relative humidity, and solar radiation. A
greenhouse provides the advantage of being able to better control these environmental con-
ditions compared to the open field. In greenhouses, climate parameters can be maintained
around set points using several climate control systems to provide optimal plant growth
conditions. In winter, the optimum temperature can be maintained thanks to greenhouse
heating systems [1]. However, most conventional heating systems use fossil fuels, which
have a negative impact on the environment. In view of the emergence of concerns and
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/horticulturae
Horticulturae 2023, 9, 183 2 of 17

awareness on environment protection and sustainable development, the transition to more

environmentally friendly heating systems is a necessity.
Among the eco-friendly heating systems using renewable energies are systems based
on the storage of solar thermal energy. The principle is based on the use of materials with
high thermal inertia that store energy from the sun during the day and release it into the
greenhouse air at night.
Several thermal solar systems have been proposed by researchers to heat greenhouses.
The most widespread are based on the storage of solar thermal energy in rock beds or in
phase change material.
The rock bed heating system is based on sensible heat storage with air as the energy
transport mechanism. The rock bed blocks are placed under the soil of the greenhouse.
During the day, excess heat is transferred from inside the greenhouse to the underground
storage with the help of fans. At night, the process is reversed. The cool air is moved
through the storage, where heat is transferred from the rocks to the colder air and then
returned to the greenhouse.
The phase change material (PCM) heating system is based on latent heat storage. The
PCM absorbs solar energy during the day and releases that heat at night, keeping the
greenhouse much warmer during cold winter nights.
A number of studies have described the use of these solar thermal storage systems for
heating greenhouses and examined the relationship between the properties of the storage
materials and their thermal performance [1–6].
Kooli et al. [7] experimentally tested a solar heating system with latent heat storage
in a greenhouse in Tunisia. Following the same approach, Bazgaou et al. [8] analyzed the
performance of a rock bed heating system in a conventional Canarian-type greenhouse in
Morocco. For their side, Berroug et al. [9] investigated the impact of phase change materials
(PCMs) on greenhouse temperature and humidity.
Guan et al. [10] experimentally studied the heat storage and release characteristics of
a novel greenhouse wall with microheat pipe arrays (MHPAs) and phase change materi-
als (PCMs).
The modeling approach has also been used as an effective tool to optimize solar
thermal heating systems for greenhouses. In this vein, Ntinas et al. [11] developed a
mathematical model to predict the thermal efficiency of a novel hybrid solar energy-saving
system used to heat greenhouses. Mobtaker et al. [12] developed a dynamic model to
predict the internal temperature in a solar greenhouse in northwestern Iran.
Recently, CFD models have been used to investigate the spatial and temporal distribu-
tion of climate parameters inside greenhouses equipped with heating systems in order to
improve their performance [13,14]. The advantage of using CFD models is that the climate
in the greenhouse and heating system can be studied in more detail in contrast to energy
balance models, where climatic variables in the greenhouse are considered to be uniform
and homogeneous.
CFD modeling has been applied to several greenhouses equipped with different
heating systems. Rouboa and Monteiro [15] simulated the effects on temperature and
velocity fields by the introduction of hot water tubes into a greenhouse in night conditions.
Chen et al. [16] proposed an optimized design of hot air piping in the greenhouse based on
the CFD technique. Discrete ordinates (DO) and k-ε turbulence models were used. The
discrete ordinates (DO) radiation model solves the radiative transfer equation (RTE) for a
finite number of discrete solid angles. Mezrhab et al. [17] analyzed the effects of the heat
exchange inside a greenhouse in winter according to the number of squared heating tubes
used. Grigoriu et al. [18] proposed a CFD model to simulate the inside air temperature in a
greenhouse equipped with a heating system based on the use of parabolic trough collectors
(GHPTC). The proposed CFD model had two components: the greenhouse model and the
collector’s model. A proportional–integral–derivative (PID) controller was tuned and used
to control the temperature and humidity inside the greenhouse based on the linearized
 and used to control the temperature and humidity inside the greenhouse based on the
linearized model. This control method was suited for the system according to the obtained
stationary and transient response performances.
For their part, Couto et al. [19] conducted a CFD analysis of the artificial heating tubes
Horticulturae 2023, 9, 183 with natural ventilation. This CFD model was validated experimentally to obtain the
3 of 17 tem-
perature variation and air velocity inside the greenhouse.
Tadj et al. [20] conducted a CFD study to analyze the internal convective fluxes gen-
erated in aThis
model. closed-tunnel
control method greenhouse
was suitedheated with a according
for the system polyethyleneto theblanket.
obtained stationary
Morille et al. [21] performed
and transient response performances. a CFD study to predict the time evolution of the tem-
peratureForandtheirhumidity distribution
part, Couto in the greenhouse,
et al. [19] conducted considering
a CFD analysis both radiative
of the artificial heating heat
tubes with
transfer natural
and the ventilation.
interactions This CFD
between modelwith
plants was the
validated
indoorexperimentally
microclimate. toChen
obtainetthe al. [16]
temperature variation and air velocity inside the greenhouse.
optimized the design of a hot air duct in a greenhouse through a CFD simulation of the
Tadj et
greenhouse al. [20] conducted
environment with aaforced
CFD study to analyze
air heating systemthe by
internal convective
the diameter of fluxes
the hot air
generated in a closed-tunnel greenhouse heated with a polyethylene blanket.
pipe (HAP) taking into account the shape, arrangement, and number of exhaust outlets in
Morille et al. [21] performed a CFD study to predict the time evolution of the tem-
theperature
pipe. and humidity distribution in the greenhouse, considering both radiative heat
Despite
transfer andthethelarge volume
interactions of published
between studies
plants with on modeling
the indoor heated
microclimate. greenhouses,
Chen et al. [16] the
solar heatingthe
optimized system
design based on sensible
of a hot air duct inheat storage inthrough
a greenhouse a rock bed
a CFDdoes not appear
simulation of the to have
been studied much.
greenhouse Therefore,
environment with the aim air
a forced of our work
heating is to study
system by the the microclimate
diameter of the hotinair green-
pipe (HAP) taking into account the shape, arrangement, and number of
houses equipped with such a heating system using a CFD model in order to test the pa- exhaust outlets in
the pipe.
rameters affecting its performance.
Despite the large volume of published studies on modeling heated greenhouses, the
solar heating
2. Materials andsystem
Methods based on sensible heat storage in a rock bed does not appear to
have been studied much. Therefore, the aim of our work is to study the microclimate in
2.1.greenhouses
Greenhouseequipped
Geometrywithand such
Description of system
a heating the Heating
usingSystem
a CFD model in order to test the
parameters affecting its performance.
The simulation study was designed and carried out in a Canarian-type greenhouse
located in the Regional Center for Agronomic Research (CRRA) in Agadir, Morocco (lati-
2. Materials and Methods
tude 30° 13’, longitude 9° 23’, altitude 80 m). The greenhouse area is 165 m2, i.e., 15 m long
2.1. Greenhouse Geometry and Description of the Heating System
and 11 m wide and 4 m high at the gutter level and 5 m at the span (Figure 1).
The simulation study was designed and carried out in a Canarian-type greenhouse
The greenhouse was oriented perpendicular to the prevailing north–south wind di-
located in the Regional Center for Agronomic Research (CRRA) in Agadir, Morocco (latitude
rection. It longitude
30◦ 13’, was covered with
9◦ 23’, polyethylene
altitude 80 m). Theplastic with area
greenhouse 75%islight transmission
165 m andand
2 , i.e., 15 m long 200 µm
thickness.
11 m wide The
andgreenhouse
4 m high at was naturally
the gutter level ventilated by span
and 5 m at the west (Figure
and east 1).roll-up side walls.

Figure 1. Greenhouse
Figure 1. Greenhouse geometry
geometryandandrock
rockbed
bedheating
heatingsystem.
system. Three-dimensional coordinates rep-
Three-dimensional coordinates
resent x as east, y as zenith, and z as south.
represent x as east, y as zenith, and z as south.

The greenhouse was oriented perpendicular to the prevailing north–south wind

direction. It was covered with polyethylene plastic with 75% light transmission and 200 µm
thickness. The greenhouse was naturally ventilated by west and east roll-up side walls.
The greenhouse was equipped with a rock bed heating system. The system consisted
of six blocks of rocks and 12 PVC pipes. Each block was connected at both ends with two
pipes for supply and exhaust air. At the end of each pipe was a fan that was used to either
 The greenhouse was equipped with a rock bed heating system. The system consisted
of six blocks of rocks and 12 PVC pipes. Each block was connected at both ends with two
pipes
Horticulturae for
2023, supply and exhaust air. At the end of each pipe was a fan that was used to either 4 of 17
9, 183
draw in air or blow air out. The functional principle of the heating system is shown in
Figure 2. The air is sucked through the air inlet pipes into the rock bed blocks, i.e., heat
storage media, and draw passed in air or blowthe
through air spaces
out. Thebetween
functionalthe
principle
pebbles. of the heating
Heat system takes
exchange is shown in
Figure 2. The air is sucked through the air inlet pipes into the rock bed blocks, i.e., heat
place, and the pebbles store the heat contained in the air. By reversing the direction of the
storage media, and passed through the spaces between the pebbles. Heat exchange takes
air flow during theplace,night,andthethestored
pebblesenergy
store theisheat
released intoin the
contained greenhouse
the air. viathethe
By reversing air of
direction
outlet pipes. the air flow during the night, the stored energy is released into the greenhouse via the air
outlet pipes.

Figure
Figure 2. The operating 2. The operating
principle principle
of the rock of the rock
bed heating bed heating system.
system.
2.2. Experimental Measurements
2.2. Experimental Measurements
To verify the accuracy and performance of the model, we performed experimental
measurements
To verify the accuracy and of temperature and
performance of humidity
the model,in the
wegreenhouse,
performed which were used to com-
experimental
pare experimental with simulated data from the numerical model. The temperature and
measurements of temperature and humidity in the greenhouse, which were used to com-
relative humidity inside the greenhouse were measured using the HMP60 sensor at three
pare experimental with simulated
heights data from
in the greenhouse the1 numerical
center: m, 2 m, and 3model.
m from The temperature
the ground. and
All measurements
relative humidity inside the greenhouse were measured using the HMP60 sensor at three
were sampled and recorded every 10 min using a CR3000 data logger (Campbell Scientific).
heights in the greenhouse
For morecenter:
details, 1see
m,Bazgaou
2 m, and
et al.3[8].
m from the ground. All measurements
were sampled and recorded every 10 min using a CR3000 data logger (Campbell Scien-
tific). For more details, see Bazgaou et al. [8].

2.3. CFD Governing Equations

Modeling (CFD) is widely used to study the behavior of mass, momentum, and heat
transfer processes as well as to determine the distribution of air flows and climate param-
Horticulturae 2023, 9, 183 5 of 17

2.3. CFD Governing Equations

Modeling (CFD) is widely used to study the behavior of mass, momentum, and
heat transfer processes as well as to determine the distribution of air flows and climate
parameters in a given geometry.
CFD modeling was used in this study to simulate the processes of heat transfer in the
greenhouse, including solar radiation and heat convection, caused by natural ventilation
and heating. This model’s governing equations are as follows (Campen and Bot [22]):
  !
∂ρϕ ∂ ρu j ϕ ∂ ∂ϕ
+ = Γ + Sϕ (1)
∂t ∂Xj ∂Xj ∂Xj

where ϕ is the transport concentration in dimensionless form, t (s) is the time, Γ m2 /s

is the diffusion coefficient, u j (m/s) represents each component of the velocity, X j is the
coordinate in each direction, ρ kg/m3 is the air density, and Sϕ is the generalized source

term (per unit volume-time).

The Rayleigh number R a of a fluid in natural convection is given by Gholamalizadeh
and Kim [20]:
gρβ∆Tp L3
Ra = (2)
µα
where µ is the dynamic viscosity, α is the thermal diffusivity, L is the characteristic length
of the greenhouse, ∆Tp is the temperature difference between the plants and the roof of
the greenhouse, g is the gravity acceleration, and β is the coefficient of thermal expansion.
When the Rayleigh number is below 108 , the air flow is laminar. However, the air flow
is turbulent when it is larger than 108 . When the heating system is operational, forced
ventilation results in R a values greater than 1010 , indicating that the air flow inside the
greenhouse is turbulent. Therefore, a k − ε turbulence model is used to describe the flow in
the heated greenhouse [23–25].
The k − ε turbulence model is the most common model used in CFD modeling to
simulate airflow characteristics for turbulent flow conditions. This model is given in these
two transport equations.
For turbulent kinetic energy k:

∂2 k ∂2 k ∂2 k
 
∂(ρuk) ∂(ρvk) ∂(ρwk) µ
+ + = µ+ t + + 2+ 2 + µt ρ(P − GB ) − ρε (3)
∂x ∂y ∂z σk ∂x2 ∂y ∂z

For dissipation ε:

∂2 ε ∂2 ε ∂2 ε ε2
 
∂(ρuε) ∂(ρvε) ∂(ρwε) µ ε
+ + = µ+ t + + + + C1 µt ρ (f1 P − GB ) − C2 f2 ρ (4)
∂x ∂y ∂z σε ∂x2 ∂y2 ∂z2 k k

where k is the turbulent kinetic energy, ε is the dissipation rate, σk and σε are the Prandtl
numbers of the turbulence kinetic energy and of the dissipation rate, respectively, P is the
calculated pressure, and µt is the turbulent viscosity. GB is the production of turbulent
kinetic energy, which is defined as follows [26]:

gβ ∂(Ti − Tref )
GB = (5)
ρσt ∂y

where Ti is the inside air temperature, σt is the turbulence Prandtl number, Tref is the
reference temperature, β = T1 is the voluminal coefficient of thermal expansion, and
ref
f 1 and f 2 are the auxiliary relations of viscous dissipation. The constants of the (k − ε)
turbulence model are the following: C1 = 1.44, C2 = 1.92, σk = 1, σε = 1.3, and σt = 0.85.
Horticulturae 2023, 9, 183 6 of 17

2.4. Radiation Modeling

The discrete ordinates model (DO) is used to describe the radiative transfers inside the
greenhouse. This model solves the radiative heat flow in a discrete number of directions in
→
space. According to the multidirectional s , the radiation intensity transfer equation can be
→
solved. This model considers the radiative transfer equation in the s direction as a field
equation given in this formula [27]:

σT4
Z 4π 
→ →
 → →→ → → σs  → →
∇ Iλ r , s s + (aλ + σs )Iλ r , s = aλ n2λ + × Iλ r , s0 Φ r , s0 dΩ (6)
π 4π 0

→ →
where r is the position vector, s is the direction vector, Iλ is the radiation intensity as a
→ → →
function of the position ( r ) and of the direction ( s ), ∇ is the divergence operator, s0 is
the diffusion direction vector, aλ is the absorption coefficient, σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann
constant, σs is the dispersion coefficient, nλ is the refractive index, T is the local temperature,
Φ is the phase function, and Ω is the solid angle of the radiation.
Ansys Fluent 16 provides a solar loading model that can be used to calculate the effects
of radiation from the sun entering a computational domain [25]. In this work, the solar
loading model ray tracing algorithm was used to predict the direct light energy source
resulting from incidental solar radiation. The ray tracing approach is a very efficient and
practical way to apply solar loads as a heat source term in the energy equation. Solar
charge is only available in the three-dimensional solver and can be used to model stable
and unstable fluxes. The resulting heat flux calculated with the solar ray tracing algorithm
was coupled to the calculation through a source term in the energy equation.

2.5. Crop Porous Medium

The crop was assimilated to an equivalent homogeneous porous medium of a solid
matrix with interconnected pores with a porosity of 70% [28]. The source term for momen-
tum in the basic transport equation was caused by the drag action of plants. This effect
was achieved through the environmental parameters and the transformation relationship
between the equivalent diameters of the crop volume and the porosity rate [29]. Plant tran-
spiration and sensitive heat exchanges depend on local climate and convective exchange,
which control their aerodynamic and stomatic resistance.
As the crop was considered a porous medium, the Darcy–Forchheimer equation can
be used to describe the dynamic effect of the plant on the airflow inside the medium. The
source term in the momentum equation Sϕ1 includes the viscous loss and the internal
resistance, and is expressed as follows [26]:
 
µ Y
Sϕ1 = − u + ρ|u|u (7)
a 2

where a is the permeability of the porous medium, Y is the nonlinear coefficient of momen-
tum loss, and u is the air velocity.
During the heating process of the greenhouse, an exchange of mass and energy takes
place between the indoor air and the crop. The energy exchange includes the sensible heat
Qsen caused by heat exchange between the leaves and the surrounding air as well as the
latent heat Qlat caused by transpiration. The source terms in the energy equation S ϕ2 and
the sensible heat equation Qsen are given by Kichah et al. [30]:

Sϕ2 = Qsen + Qlat (8)

Tf − Ti
Qsen = 2ρLai Ca (9)
ra
Horticulturae 2023, 9, 183 7 of 17

where Lai is the leaf area index, Ca is the air specific heat at atmospheric pressure, T f and Ti
are the temperature of the plant leaves and that of the inside air, respectively, and r a is the
aerodynamic resistance of the canopy.
According to air velocity, the aerodynamic resistance of the canopy in the greenhouse
studied by Boulard and Wang [28] is as follows:
 0.25
d
ra = 840 ; if u < 0.1 m/s (10)
|Tf − Ti |

d0.2
ra = 220 ; if u > 0.1 m/s (11)
u0.8
where d is the characteristic length of the leaf.
The stomatal resistance of the canopy rs is given by Boulard and Wang [28]:
  
1 Di
rs = 200 1 + 1 + 0.11 exp(0.34 − 10 (12)
exp(0.05(Rn − 50)) 100

where Rn is the net solar radiation, Di is the pressure difference of saturated water vapor,
and u is the air velocity.
The vegetation cover transpiration rate model is based on the Penman–Monteith
equation. According to Impron et al. [31], the transpiration rate of the canopy is expressed
as follows:
Rn ∆ + 2Lai (ρca /ra )(es − ea )
Qlat = (13)
∆ + γ(1 + rs /ra )
where es is the vapor pressure of saturated water at T, ea is the actual air vapor pressure, γ
is the psychrometric constant, and ∆ is the slope of the vapor pressure curve for saturated
water at the temperature T (◦ C). This slope is defined by Boulard and Wang [28] as follows:
 
2504.6 17.27 Ti
∆= exp (14)
(Ti + 237.3)2 Ti + 237.3

2.6. CFD Numerical Model

CFD Model Settings
The widely used commercial CFD code Fluent module from ANSYS [27] was used
to simulate the microclimate in the greenhouse equipped with a rock bed heating system.
This code discretizes space and time using the finite volume method together with the
pressure–velocity coupling algorithm SIMPLE (semi-implicit method for pressure-related
equations). To obtain accurate results, second-order upwind discretization schemes were
used for momentum and turbulence equations. The convergence criterion for all variables
was 1 × 10−6 .
The CFD software was customized in the C++ coding language to account for energy
and water vapor transfers that occur at the plant level. Practically, the canopy was divided
into several layers of adjacent cells. Each cell consisted of a solid matrix (i.e., leaves and
stems) and air. It was assumed that the cell size was small enough compared to the volume
of the canopy that the temperature of the solid matrix could be considered homogeneous
within a given cell.
The physical and thermal parameters of the various materials that constituted the
greenhouse and the crop are listed in Table 1.
 Horticulturae 2023, 9, 183 8 of 17

Table 1. Physical and thermal parameters of the different materials that constituted the greenhouse
and the crop.

Thermal
Specific Heat
Materials Density (kg/m3 ) Conductivity
Capacity (J/kg·K)
(W/m·K)
Horticulturae 2023, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Air Incompressible ideal gas 1006.43 0.0242 8 of 1
Water vapor 0.5542 Piecewise polynomial 0.0261
Soil 1500 1350 0.75
PVC 1380 1046 0.2
For the ground around
Canopy 700 the rock bed blocks,
2310we assumed that0.173
its temperature re
mained constant.
For the ground around the rock bed blocks, we assumed that its temperature remained constant.
2.7. Mesh Details
2.7. Mesh Details
The geometry of the greenhouse with the rock bed heating system, the rows of plants
andThe
thegeometry of the domain
surrounding greenhouse waswith the rock
created bed heating
using system,
the Design the rowstool
Modeler of plants,
under Ansy
and the surrounding domain was created using the Design Modeler tool under Ansys
Fluent. An unstructured mesh was created with 1,014,811 elements and 224,659 nodes. A
Fluent. An unstructured mesh was created with 1,014,811 elements and 224,659 nodes. A
finer mesh was generated near the heating system and crop rows, and a relatively coarse
finer mesh was generated near the heating system and crop rows, and a relatively coarser
meshwas
mesh was generated
generated in areas
in areas remote
remote fromfrom
these these
zones,zones, as shown
as shown in3a–c.
in Figure Figure
The3a–c.
meshThe mes
qualitywas
quality was verified,
verified, andand it satisfied
it satisfied the skewness
the skewness and orthogonality
and orthogonality parameters.
parameters.

Figure3.3.Mesh
Figure Mesh used
used to simulate
to simulate the calculation
the calculation domain
domain (a), the(a), the greenhouse
greenhouse equippedequipped with the roc
with the rock
bedheating
bed heating system
system (b),(b),
andand the crop
the crop (c). (c).

2.8. Boundary Conditions

2.8. Boundary Conditions
The boundary conditions used are listed in Table 2 and correspond to the climate
The boundary
parameters measured on conditions used
15 February 2017are listedand
at noon in midnight.
Table 2 and
Thecorrespond
selected day to the climat
corre-
parameters
sponds measured
to a typical winteron 15when
day February 2017 at noon
the greenhouse has and
to bemidnight. The selected
heated in order day corre
to achieve
sponds to a typical winter day when the greenhouse has
optimal climatic conditions for the plants in the greenhouse [32]. to be heated in order to achiev
optimal
Table climatic conditions
2 illustrates for
the average the plants
values in the greenhouse
of the outdoor [32]. humidity, wind
temperature, relative
speed, and solar radiation applied as boundary conditions to the computational domain.
Table 2. Used boundary conditions.

Average Weather Conditions in Two Hours

At Solar Noon At Midnight
Outside temperature (°C) 26.94 10.24
Relative humidity (%) 39.22 91.65
Outside wind velocity (m/s) 1.27 0.64
Global radiation (W/m2) 812.72 0
 Horticulturae 2023, 9, 183 9 of 17

ulturae 2023, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Table 2. Used boundary conditions. 9 of 1

Average Weather Conditions in Two Hours

At Solar Noon At Midnight
This section is divided by subheadings.
Outside temperature (◦ C) 26.94
There should be a concise
10.24
and accurate de
scription ofRelative
the experimental
humidity (%) results, their39.22
interpretation, and the 91.65
experimental conclu
Outside wind velocity
sions that can be drawn. 2 (m/s) 1.27 0.64
Global radiation (W/m ) 812.72 0
Wall temperature (◦ C) 28.43 12.52
3.1. Soil temperature (◦ C)
Model Validation 21.33 17.21

The accuracy of the developed model was evaluated by comparing model simula
3. Results and Discussion
tions with the experimental data of air temperature and humidity inside the greenhouse
This section is divided by subheadings. There should be a concise and accurate de-
Figures 4 and 5 show simulated and measured air temperature values at three differ
scription of the experimental results, their interpretation, and the experimental conclusions
ent heights in the
that can greenhouse center at noon (in Figure 4) and midnight (in Figure 5).
be drawn.
When these values are compared, they show that the simulated and calculated values
3.1. Model
agree well. The Validation
average difference between observed and simulated air temperature is
0.65 °C during the day,ofand
The accuracy the developed
0.25 °C atmodel
night.was evaluated by comparing model simulations
with the experimental data of air temperature and humidity inside the greenhouse.
Figures 4 and 5 show simulated and measured air temperature values at three different
heights in the greenhouse center at noon (in Figure 4) and midnight (in Figure 5).

43 Experimental Simulated 43

42 42

41 41
Air temperature (° C)

40 40

39 39

38 38

37 37

36 36

35 35

34 34
1m 2m 3m

Greenhouse height
Figure 4. Simulated and measured air temperatures at three different heights (1 m, 2 m and 3 m) at
Figure 4.noon on 15 February
Simulated 2017.
and measured air temperatures at three different heights (1 m, 2 m and 3 m) a
noon on 15 February 2017.
When these values are compared, they show that the simulated and calculated values
agree well. The average difference between observed and simulated air temperature is
0.65 ◦ C during the day, and 0.25 ◦ C at night.
orticulturae 2023, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 17

Horticulturae 2023, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 17

Horticulturae 2023, 9, 183 10 of 17

Figure 5. Evolution of simulated and measured air temperatures inside the greenhouse as a function
of height (1 m, 2 m and 3 m) at midnight.
Figure 5. Evolution
Figure 5. Evolutionofofsimulated
simulated and
and measured
measured air temperatures
air temperatures insideinside the greenhouse
the greenhouse as a function
as a function
Toof
further(1confirm the validity of the model, we also compared the air humidity data
of height m,22mmand
height (1 m, and3 m)
3 m)at at midnight.
midnight.
from the measurements and simulations. Figure 6 shows the simulated and measured
values of theTo inside
To further
furtherrelative
confirm
confirm air humidity
thethe
validity of variations
validity the model,
of the as aalso
we
model, function
we comparedof greenhouse
the airthe
also compared airheight
humidity dataat data
humidity
from the measurements
noon. from
Accordingly, relative and simulations.
humidity Figure
correlates 6 showswith
inversely the simulated
air and measured
temperature. It de-
the measurements and simulations. Figure 6 shows the simulated and measured
values
creasesvalues of
from the the inside
bottom relative
torelative air
the top of humidity variations as a function of greenhouse height at
of the inside airthe greenhouse.
humidity The measured
variations andof
as a function simulated
greenhousevalues
height at
noon.
are almost Accordingly, relative humidity correlates inversely with air temperature. It decreases
noon.identical with minor
Accordingly, relativedifferences
humidityofcorrelates
0.42% to 1.59%.
inversely with air temperature. It de-
from the bottom to the top of the greenhouse. The measured and simulated values are
creases from thewith
almost identical bottom todifferences
minor the top of of
the0.42%
greenhouse.
to 1.59%. The measured and simulated values
are almost identical with minor differences of 0.42% to 1.59%.
32 Experimental Simulated 32
Relative humidity of the greenhouse (%)

30 32 Experimental Simulated 30 32
Relative humidity of the greenhouse (%)

28 30 28 30

26 28 26 28

24 26 24 26

22 24 22 24

20 22 20 22
1m 2m 3m

Greenhouse height
20 20
Figure 6. Evolution of the1simulated
m 2 m values of
and measured 3 m
the relative humidity as a function of
Figure 6.
theEvolution ofheight
greenhouse the simulated
(1 m, 2 m,and
and measured
3Greenhouse values
m) at noon. of the relative humidity as a function of
height
the greenhouse height (1 m, 2 m, and 3 m) at noon.
These results show that there is no significant difference between the experimental
Figure 6. Evolution of the simulated and measured values of the relative humidity as a function of
measurements
These and those
results show that from is
there theno
simulation, thus giving credibility to the CFD model
the greenhouse height (1 m, 2 m, and 3significant
m) at noon. difference between the experimental
measurements and those from the simulation, thus giving credibility to the CFD model
for simulating theresults
These thermal performance
show that thereofisano
rock bed heating
significant systembetween
difference and confirming the
the experimental
accuracy of the simulation
measurements results.
and those from the simulation, thus giving credibility to the CFD model
for simulating the thermal performance of a rock bed heating system and confirming the
accuracy of the simulation results.
 Horticulturae 2023, 9, 183 11 of 17
Horticulturae 2023, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17
Horticulturae 2023, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17

for simulating the thermal performance of a rock bed heating system and confirming the
3.2.accuracy of the simulation results.
Solar Radiation
3.2. Using
Solar Radiation
this model with boundary conditions corresponding to noon allowed us to
3.2. Solar Radiation
simulateUsing
the this
solarmodel withreceived
radiation boundary onconditions corresponding
the sidewalls and roof oftothenoon allowed us
greenhouse. Theto
simulate
results Using
are the this
shown model
solarin with
radiation
Figure boundary
7. received onconditions
Accordingly,the
thesidewallscorresponding
solar flux and roof
on the ofto
roof noon
the
was allowed
than us
greenhouse.
greater on to
The
thesimulate
results
side walls.the
are shown solar
Its value radiation
in Figure received on
7. Accordingly,
was around the
850 W/mthe sidewalls
2 onsolar and
fluxand
the roof roof
on the
from of
roof the
708was greenhouse.
greater
to 786 W/mthan
2 fromThe
on
results are
the sidetowalls.
bottom shown
top onItsthe in
value Figure
sidewas 7. Accordingly, the solar flux on the roof was greater
around 850 W/m on the roof and from 708 to 786 W/m from
walls. 2 than
2 on
the side walls. Its value was around 850 W/m 2 on the roof and from 708 to 786 W/m2 from
bottom to top on the side walls.
bottom to top on the side walls.

Figure 7. Simulated solar flux received on the side walls and roof of the greenhouse at solar noon.
Figure
Figure7.7.Simulated
Simulatedsolar
solarflux
fluxreceived
receivedon
onthe
theside
sidewalls
wallsand
androof
roofofofthe
thegreenhouse
greenhouseatatsolar
solarnoon.
noon.
Part of this solar flux received by greenhouse walls was transmitted inward and re-
Part
ceivedPart ofofthis
by the thissolar
internalsolar flux
flux received
received
components by by
(air, greenhouse
greenhouse
plants, walls
walls
soil, and waswas
internal transmitted
transmitted
structure). The inward
inward and
solar fluxand
re-
received
ceived by by
the the internal
internal components
components (air,
(air, plants,
plants, soil,
soil, andand internal
internal structure).
structure).
received on the ground was approximately 630 W/m , as shown in Figure 8. This value
2 The
The solar
solar flux
flux
received on the ground was approximately 630 W/m 2 , as shown in Figure 8. This value
received on to
corresponds theapproximately
ground was approximately
75% of the global 630 W/m
solar ,flux
2 as shown
received in by
Figure 8. This value
the greenhouse,
corresponds
corresponds
which totoapproximately
corresponds approximately 75%ofofthe
75%
to the transmittance ofthe global
global
the solar
solar
plastic fluxreceived
flux
cover. receivedby bythe
thegreenhouse,
greenhouse,
which corresponds to the transmittance of the plastic
which corresponds to the transmittance of the plastic cover. cover.

Figure 8. Simulated
Figure solar
8. Simulated flux
solar received
flux at at
received thethe
indoor ground
indoor level
ground of of
level thethe
greenhouse at at
greenhouse solar noon.
solar noon.
Figure 8. Simulated solar flux received at the indoor ground level of the greenhouse at solar noon.
Radiation
Radiation receivedinside
received insidethe
thegreenhouse
greenhouseisis important
important for thethe thermal
thermalheating
heatingprocess.
pro-
It warms
cess. warmsthethe
ItRadiation air in the
received
air greenhouse
inside
in the byby
turning
the greenhouse
greenhouse isitimportant
turning into heat.
it into The
for
heat. excess
the
The heat
thermal
excess isisfed
heating
heat fedtotothe
pro-
cess.
the It warms
storage the air
medium in the greenhouse
through by turning
the pipes from inside theit into heat. Theduring
greenhouse excess the
heatdayis fed
andto
the storage
released medium
again at night.through the pipes from inside the greenhouse during the day and
released again at night.
 The developed model was also used to simulate the air temperature inside the green-
house due to its importance in plant photosynthesis and metabolic reactions as well as in
water and mineral intake and transpiration.
Figure 9 shows the air temperature distribution in the frontal and longitudinal planes
Horticulturae 2023, 9, 183 drawn in the center of the greenhouse. According to this figure, the air temperature varied 12 of 17
from 302 K as the minimum value in the lower part of the greenhouse to 313 K in the
upper part of the greenhouse. This temperature gradient can be explained by the differ-
ence in density between warm and cold air: hot air rises from the bottom to the top, form-
storage medium through the pipes from inside the greenhouse during the day and released
ing an air pocket over the rows of plants. The relatively lower temperature at ground level
again at night.
was due to thetointrusion
In order improve the of fresh cooling
efficiency air from
of the thermaltheheating
rock bed system
system, during
the the storage
greenhouse cover
phase.
must be as transparent as possible for solar radiation to reach almost 100% efficiency.
This thermal stratification is common to all greenhouses. Warm and humid air rises
to the top
3.3. Air of the greenhouse,
Temperature Profile whereas cool air remains trapped in the lower part at plant-
level.The
Saberian et al. [33]
developed modelobserved
was also theused
same tophenomenon
simulate the air in atemperature
gabled greenhouse covered
inside the green-
with semitransparent materials.
house due to its importance in plant photosynthesis and metabolic reactions as well as in
water This
andtemperature
mineral intake stratification on the vertical plane, with hot air rising towards the
and transpiration.
top ofFigure
the greenhouse, explains the
9 shows the air temperature positioning
distributionof the
in air
the intake
frontalducts at the level planes
and longitudinal of the
greenhouse vault in order to better recover heat from the warm air during
drawn in the center of the greenhouse. According to this figure, the air temperature varied the day. The
thermal
from 302energy
K as theisminimum
drawn through
value in the
thepipes
lowerand partstored
of the in the rock bed.
greenhouse to 313 The
K inanalysis
the upperof
Figure
part of10theclearly shows this
greenhouse. Thisheat storage. This
temperature figurecan
gradient illustrates the temperature
be explained gradient
by the difference in
in the rock bed blocks during the thermal storage phase. This gradient
density between warm and cold air: hot air rises from the bottom to the top, forming an air is symmetrical on
both
pocketsides
overofthe
the rows
rock blocks. TheThe
of plants. supplied air was
relatively lower warmer than the
temperature at extract
groundair, with
level wasinput
due
and output temperatures of 34 °C and 17 °C, respectively.
to the intrusion of fresh cooling air from the rock bed system during the storage phase.

Figure
Figure 9.
9. Temperature
Temperature distribution
distribution (K)
(K) in
in the
the center
center of
of the
the greenhouse
greenhouse at
at noon
noon during
during 15
15 February
February
2017: frontal (a) and longitudinal (b) view.
2017: frontal (a) and longitudinal (b) view.

This thermal stratification is common to all greenhouses. Warm and humid air rises to
the top of the greenhouse, whereas cool air remains trapped in the lower part at plant-level.
Saberian et al. [33] observed the same phenomenon in a gabled greenhouse covered with
semitransparent materials.
This temperature stratification on the vertical plane, with hot air rising towards the
top of the greenhouse, explains the positioning of the air intake ducts at the level of the
greenhouse vault in order to better recover heat from the warm air during the day. The
thermal energy is drawn through the pipes and stored in the rock bed. The analysis of
Figure 10 clearly shows this heat storage. This figure illustrates the temperature gradient in
the rock bed blocks during the thermal storage phase. This gradient is symmetrical on both
sides of the rock blocks. The supplied air was warmer than the extract air, with input and
output temperatures of 34 ◦ C and 17 ◦ C, respectively.
Horticulturae 2023, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 17

23, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 17

Horticulturae 2023, 9, 183 13 of 17

Figure 10. Temperature distribution (K) in the blocks of the rock bed heating system during the
storage
Figure 10. Temperature phase at noon(K)
Figuredistribution
(273indistribution
10. Temperature
Kthe
= 0blocks
°C). (K)
of in
the
therock bedofheating
blocks the rock system during
bed heating the during the
system
storage phase at noon (273 K = 0 °C). ◦
storage phase at noon (273 K = 0 C).
The heat release phase at night is visualized in Figure 11. This figure shows the cross-
The heat section The
of
release phasetheheat releaseisphase
simulated
at night at night
inisFigure
air temperature
visualized visualized
gradientin Figure
11. This 11.shows
atfigure
night This
in thefigure showsmedian
vertical
the cross- the cross-
plane of
section of the simulated air temperature gradient at night in the vertical median plane of
the greenhouse and the rock bed row. The temperature at
section of the simulated air temperature gradient at night in the vertical median plane of the extremities of the rock bed
the greenhouse and the rock bed row. The temperature at the extremities of the rock bed
the greenhouseblocks
and dropped
the rock bedto 10.5
row.°C due
The to the coldatair
temperature theingested by the
extremities inlet
of the fans.
rock bed
blocks dropped to 10.5 ◦ C due to the cold air ingested by the inlet fans. The outlet fans
The outlet fans in
blocks droppedthetocenter
in10.5
the °C duereleased
center to the
released thecold
the air ingested
stored
storedheat, by the
heat,raising
raising inlet
the
the fans. Theinternal
greenhouse’s
greenhouse’s outlet fans
internal
air in temperature
air
temperature to to
the center released
13.513.5the
°C. stored heat, raising the greenhouse’s internal air temperature to
◦ C.
13.5 °C.

Figure 11. Air temperature

Air temperature distribution (in (inK)
K)ininthe
the greenhouse and the bed
rockblocks
bed blocks during the
Figure
Figure 11. Air temperature 11.
distribution (in K)distribution
in the greenhouse andgreenhouse andblocks
the rock bed the rock
during the during the
destocking phasedestocking phase
atdestocking
midnight (273atKat
phase midnight
0 °C). (273
=midnight K == 00 ◦°C).
(273 K C).

3.4. 3.4. Relative Air Humidity Profile

RelativeProfile
Air Humidity Profile
3.4. Relative Air Humidity
The contours of relative humidity in vertical and longitudinal sections in the center of
The contoursthe The contours
of greenhouse
relative of relative
humidity humidity
in shown
at noon are verticalin and
in
Figure
vertical and
longitudinal longitudinal
sections
12. This figure in the
shows that
sections in the center
the center
relative humidity
of the
of the greenhouse atgreenhouse
noon are
correlated at noon
shown
inversely are
in Figure
with shown
12. This
the temperaturein Figure
figure 12.
the This
insideshows figure
that shows
the relative
greenhouse. that
hu- the
The highest relative hu-
humidity
midity
midity correlated values correlated
inversely
werewith inversely with
the temperature
observed the
in the lowerinsidetemperature
part ofthe inside
thegreenhouse.
greenhouse, andthe greenhouse.
The the
highest
lowest values highest
hu- The were hu-
midity valuesmidity values were
were observed in theobserved
lower part in the
of thelower part of the
greenhouse, andgreenhouse, and the lowest values
the lowest values
were recordedwere recorded
in the in the
upper part upper
of the part of the
greenhouse. greenhouse.
These values were These values20%
between wereandbetween 20% and
36% from the 36%
top to from the top of
the bottom to the
the greenhouse.
bottom of the The greenhouse.
observed high Thevalues
observed high values of humidity
of humidity
in the
in the crop rows cancrop rows canby
be explained bethe
explained by theoftranspiration
transpiration of thethe
the plants during plants
day. during the day.
 This finding was also reported by Kim et al. [34], who have shown that the evolution
of relative humidity in the greenhouse was strongly related to temperature variation.
Horticulturae 2023, 9, 183 The humidity stratification observed in the greenhouse and particularly in the14plant
of 17
canopies was mainly due to the moisture generated by transpiration. The air movement
caused by the heating process of the rock bed can play an important role in controlling
the humidity in the growing area. It can also help prevent condensation on the surface of
recorded in the upper part of the greenhouse. These values were between 20% and 36%
the leaves. Moving air keeps the leaves dry, which helps prevent the development of cryp-
from the top to the bottom of the greenhouse. The observed high values of humidity in the
togamic diseases, especially at night when the temperature drops.
crop rows can be explained by the transpiration of the plants during the day.

Figure 12. Relative air humidity contour (%) at the center of the greenhouse: vertical section (a) and
horizontal section (b)
horizontal section (b) at
at noon.
noon.

This
3.5. Air finding
Velocity was also
Profile reported
Inside by Kim et al. [34], who have shown that the evolution
the Greenhouse
of relative humidity in the greenhouse
Figure 13 depicts the simulation of was
airstrongly related
circulation to temperature
within variation.
the greenhouse and in the
The humidity stratification observed in the greenhouse and particularly
rock bed blocks. The general air pathlines in the greenhouse and in the heat storage in the plant
me-
canopies
dium are was
shownmainly
in thisdue to the moisture generated by transpiration. The air movement
figure.
caused by the heating process of the rock bed can play an important role in controlling
the humidity in the growing area. It can also help prevent condensation on the surface
of the leaves. Moving air keeps the leaves dry, which helps prevent the development of
cryptogamic diseases, especially at night when the temperature drops.

3.5. Air Velocity Profile Inside the Greenhouse

Figure 13 depicts the simulation of air circulation within the greenhouse and in the
rock bed blocks. The general air pathlines in the greenhouse and in the heat storage medium
are shown in this figure.
During the day, warm air from the greenhouse moves through the rock bed during
this storage phase. This passage causes heat to be transferred from the air to the rocks and
stored for later use. Remember that this air circulation is forced convection caused by fans.
The inlet pipes draw in hot air at a velocity of 4.56 m/s from the top of the greenhouse
and circulate it through the rock bed blocks. At a velocity of 4.21 m/s, the outlet pipes
release cool air into the greenhouse. It should be noted that air flows slowly through the
porous medium formed by the rock bed, allowing the rocks to increase their heat storage
capacity and thermal efficiency.
Transpiration creates higher humidity near plants than in the rest of the greenhouse.
The air flow provided by the outlet pipes allows for the renewal of air near the plant leaves
as well as the removal of humidity, reducing the likelihood of free water condensing on
the leaves.
 Figure 12. Relative air humidity contour (%) at the center of the greenhouse: vertical section (a) and
horizontal section (b) at noon.

3.5. Air Velocity Profile Inside the Greenhouse

Figure 13 depicts the simulation of air circulation within the greenhouse and in the
Horticulturae 2023, 9, 183 15 of
rock bed blocks. The general air pathlines in the greenhouse and in the heat storage me-17

dium are shown in this figure.

Figure 13. Pathlines of air circulation and its velocity (m/s) at the greenhouse center and the rock
bed of the longitudinal plane during the day.

Knowing that the presence of this free water on the leaves favors the development of
cryptogamic diseases, the movement of air over the rock bed blocks would have a positive
impact on plant health and, as a result, would reduce the use of chemical products.
The air circulation generated by air inlets and outlets through the rock bed also allows
for uniform air temperature and the breakdown of air stratification at the crop level. This
temperature uniformity is highly desired by growers who want to unify crop production
and avoid heat accumulation at the top of the greenhouse at all costs. Heat losses are
mainly caused by thermal stratification. The use of the rock bed heating system could help
save energy in protected agriculture.

4. Conclusions
In this study, the microclimate in a greenhouse with a rock bed thermal storage heating
system was simulated using a CFD model. The heat and mass exchanges between the
different elements of the greenhouse, the rock bed blocks, and the surrounding environment
have been considered, making it possible to reproduce the dynamic, thermal, and hygric
fields in the Canarian greenhouse equipped with the rock bed heating system.
This model was successfully validated by comparing simulation results to experimen-
tal data. The comparison of measured and simulated temperature and relative humidity
values in the greenhouse demonstrates the model’s good accuracy and gives confidence in
its use as a tool to optimize the system and improve its performance. Using this model,
it is thus possible to conduct a global sensitivity study to test several adjustments that
would increase the efficiency of the rock bed heating system. This sensitivity study will
be based on the variation of (i) the parameters related to the thermal properties of storage
media namely density, thermal conductivity, and specific heat; (ii) the porosity of the
materials used as the energy storage medium; (iii) airflow rates to increase heat discharge
by adjusting fan speed.
The model developed in this study is a useful tool for greenhouse climate simulation
as well as a decision support system for solar greenhouse management. Furthermore, this
model can be used to predict energy savings in other types of greenhouses and climate
zones when using rock bed heating systems.
Continued modeling efforts are required to optimize the design parameters of the
heating system in order to improve its thermal performance.
Horticulturae 2023, 9, 183 16 of 17

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.B. and H.F.; methodology, H.F.; software, A.B.; valida-
tion, A.B., H.F. and R.B.; formal analysis, R.T. and A.W.; investigation, A.A.; resources, L.B. (Lahcen
Bammou); data curation, H.D.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B. and H.F.; writing—review
and editing, A.B.; supervision H.F. and L.B. (Lahcen Bouirden); project administration, L.B. (Lahcen
Bouirden); funding acquisition, L.B. (Lahcen Bouirden). All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Morocco’s National Center for Scientific and Technical
Research (CNRST) grant number PPR 2015/56.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments: Special thanks to Morocco’s National Center for Scientific and Technical Research
(CNRST) for funding this research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they are not aware of any competing financial interests
or personal relationships that may have influenced the work described in this document.

References
1. Sethi, V.P.; Sharma, S.K. Survey and evaluation of heating technologies for worldwide agricultural greenhouse applications. Sol.
Energy 2008, 82, 832–859. [CrossRef]
2. Chau, J.; Sowlati, T.; Sokhansanj, S.; Preto, F.; Melin, S.; Bi, X. Economic sensitivity of wood biomass utilization for greenhouse
heating application. Appl. Energy 2009, 86, 616–621. [CrossRef]
3. Attar, I.; Farhat, A. Efficiency evaluation of a solar water heating system applied to the greenhouse climate. Sol. Energy 2015, 119,
212–224. [CrossRef]
4. Sethi, V.P.; Sumathy, K.; Lee, C.; Pal, D.S. Thermal modeling aspects of solar greenhouse microclimate control: A review on
heating technologies. Sol. Energy 2013, 96, 56–82. [CrossRef]
5. Lazaar, M.; Bouadila, S.; Kooli, S.; Farhat, A. Comparative study of conventional and solar heating systems under tunnel Tunisian
greenhouses: Thermal performance and economic analysis. Sol. Energy 2015, 120, 620–635. [CrossRef]
6. Li, C.Y.; Sari, F.N.I.; Ting, J.M. Reactive magnetron sputter-deposited TiNxOy multilayered solar selective coatings. Sol. Energy
2019, 181, 178–186. [CrossRef]
7. Kooli, S.; Bouadila, S.; Lazaar, M.; Farhat, A. The effect of nocturnal shutter on insulated greenhouse using a solar air heater with
latent storage energy. Sol. Energy 2015, 115, 217–228. [CrossRef]
8. Bazgaou, A.; Fatnassi, H.; Bouhroud, R.; Gourdo, L.; Ezzaeri, K.; Tiskatine, R.; Demrati, H.; Wifaya, A.; Bekkaoui, A.; Aharoune,
A.; et al. An experimental study on the effect of a rock-bed heating system on the microclimate and the crop development under
canarian greenhouse. Sol. Energy 2018, 176, 42–50. [CrossRef]
9. Berroug, F.; Lakhala, E.K.; El Omaria, M.; Faraji, M.; El Qarniac, H. Thermal performance of a greenhouse with a phase change
material north wall. Energy. Build 2011, 43, 3027–3035. [CrossRef]
10. Guan, Y.; Meng, Q.; Ji, T.; Hu, W.; Li, W.; Liu, T. Experimental study of the thermal characteristics of a heat storage wall with
micro-heat pipe array (MHPA) and PCM in solar greenhouse. Energy 2023, 264, 126183. [CrossRef]
11. Ntinas, G.K.; Fragos, V.P.; Nikita-Martzopoulou, C. Thermal analysis of a hybrid solar energy saving system inside a greenhouse.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 81, 428–439. [CrossRef]
12. Mobtaker, H.G.; Ajabshirchi, Y.; Ranjbar, S.F.; Matloobi, M. Simulation of thermal performance of solar greenhouse in north-west
of Iran: An experimental validation. Renew. Energy 2019, 135, 88–97. [CrossRef]
13. Lee, I.-B.; Bitog, J.P.P.; Hong, S.-W.; Seo, I.-H.; Kwon, K.-S.; Bartzanas, T.; Kacira, M. The past, present and future of CFD for
agro-environmental applications. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2013, 93, 168–183. [CrossRef]
14. Norton, T.; Sun, D.W.; Grant, J.; Fallon, R.; Dodd, V. Applications of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in the modelling and
design of ventilation systems in the agricultural industry: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 2386–2414. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Rouboa, A.; Monteiro, E. Computational fluid dynamics analysis of greenhouse microclimates by heated underground tubes.
J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2007, 21, 2196–2204. [CrossRef]
16. Chen, J.; Xu, F.; Yang, J.; Ai, Q. Optimized design of hot air pipe in greenhouse based on CFD technique. In Proceedings of the
ICAE 2011 International Conference on New Technology of Agricultural, Zibo, China, 27–29 May 2011. [CrossRef]
17. Mezrhab, A.; Elfarh, L.; Naji, H.; Lemonnier, D. Computation of surface radiation and natural convection in a heated horticultural
greenhouse. Appl. Energy 2010, 87, 894–900. [CrossRef]
18. Grigoriu, R.O.; Voda, A.; Arghira, N.; Calofir, V.; Iliescu, S.S. Temperature control of a greenhouse heated by renewable energy
sources. In Proceedings of the Joint International Conference 2015 Intl Aegean Conference on Electrical Machines & Power
Electronics (ACEMP), 2015 Intl Conference on Optimization of Electrical & Electronic Equipment (OPTIM) & 2015 Intl Symposium
on Advanced Electromechanical Motion Systems (ELECTROMOTION), Side, Turkey, 2–4 September 2015; pp. 494–499. [CrossRef]
19. Couto, N.; Rouboa, A.; Monteiro, E.; Viera, J. Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of Greenhouses with Artificial Heat Tube.
World J. Mech. 2012, 2, 181–187. [CrossRef]
Horticulturae 2023, 9, 183 17 of 17

20. Constantinos, K.; Tadj, N.; Nahal, M.A.; Draoui, B. CFD simulation of heating greenhouse using a perforated polyethylene ducts.
Int. J. Eng. Syst. Model. Simul. 2017, 9, 3. [CrossRef]
21. Morille, B.; Genez, R.; Migeon, C.; Bournet, P.E.; Ali, H.B. Night Time CFD simulations of the distributed climate inside a
glasshouse. Acta Hortic. 2013, 1008, 201–206. [CrossRef]
22. Campen, J.B.; Bot, G.P.A. Determination of greenhouse-specific aspects of ventilation using three-dimensional computational
fluid dynamics. Biosyst. Eng. 2003, 84, 69–77. [CrossRef]
23. Gholamalizadeh, E.; Kim, M.H. Three-dimensional CFD analysis for simulating the greenhouse effect in solar chimney power
plants using a two-band radiation model. Renew. Energy 2014, 63, 498–506. [CrossRef]
24. Lam, C.K.G.; Bremhorst, K. A modified form of the k-ε model for predicting wall turbulence. J. Fluids Eng. Trans. ASME 1981,
103, 456–460. [CrossRef]
25. Misra, R.; Bansal, V.; Das Agrawal, G.; Mathur, J.; Aseri, T.K. CFD analysis based parametric study of derating factor for Earth Air
Tunnel Heat Exchanger. Appl. Energy 2013, 103, 266–277. [CrossRef]
26. Hoff, S.J.; Janni, K.A.; Jacobson, L.D. Three-dimensional buoyant turbulent flows in a scaled model, slot-ventilated, livestock
confinement facility. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 1992, 35, 671–686. [CrossRef]
27. Fluent INC. FLUENT 6.3 User’s Guide. 2006. Available online: https://romeo.univ-reims.fr/documents/fluent/fluentUserGuide.
pdf (accessed on 11 January 2023).
28. Boulard, T.; Wang, S. Experimental and numerical studies on the heterogeneity of crop transpiration in a plastic tunnel. Comput.
Electron. Agric. 2002, 34, 173–190. [CrossRef]
29. Boulard, T.; Wang, S. Greenhouse crop transpiration simulation from external climate conditions. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2000, 100,
25–34. [CrossRef]
30. Kichah, A.; Bournet, P.E.; Migeon, C.; Boulard, T. Measurement and CFD simulation of microclimate characteristics and
transpiration of an Impatiens pot plant crop in a greenhouse. Biosyst. Eng. 2012, 112, 22–34. [CrossRef]
31. Impron, I.; Hemming, S.; Bot, G.P.A. Simple greenhouse climate model as a design tool for greenhouses in tropical lowland.
Biosyst. Eng. 2007, 98, 79–89. [CrossRef]
32. Haxaire, C. D’une rationalité à l’autre: Ce que masque parfois la prescription de psychotropes. Sci. Soc. Sante 1999, 17, 53–57.
[CrossRef]
33. Saberian, A.; Sajadiye, S.M. The effect of dynamic solar heat load on the greenhouse microclimate using CFD simulation. Renew.
Energy 2019, 138, 722–737. [CrossRef]
34. Kim, R.-W.; Kim, J.-G.; Lee, I.-B.; Yeo, U.-H.; Lee, S.-Y.; Decano-Valentin, C. Development of three-dimensional visualisation
technology of the aerodynamic environment in a greenhouse using CFD and VR technology, part 1: Development of VR a
database using CFD. Biosyst. Eng. 2021, 207, 33–58. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

View publication stats