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

net/publication/334943210

Energy consumption in greenhouses and selection of an optimized heating

system with minimum energy consumption

Article  in  Heat Transfer-Asian Research · August 2019

DOI: 10.1002/htj.21540

CITATIONS READS

6 411

2 authors, including:

Ali Rezaei
Arak University
2 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Modeling of Refinery fired Heaters to determine the state of thermal efficiency and fuel consumption View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Rezaei on 23 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received: 1 June 2019
| Accepted: 24 June 2019

DOI: 10.1002/htj.21540

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Energy consumption in greenhouses and

selection of an optimized heating system with
minimum energy consumption

Seyed Alireza Mostafavi | Ali Rezaei

Department of Mechanical Engineering,

Faculty of Engineering, Arak University,
Arak, Iran
Correspondence
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, Arak University,
Arak, Iran.
Email: a-mostafavi@araku.ac.ir
Abstract
In this paper, heat loss is precisely computed by a
proposed code considering different climates. Estimat-
ing the costs of different central heating system, unit
heaters were selected as the most feasible system.
Finally, considering the heating capacity and unit
heater's dimensions a computational fluid dynamics
model was developed to find the optimized configura-
tion of unit heaters in a typical greenhouse. Using this
model, the required thermal load for a greenhouse based
on the daily temperature of Arak city in 2017 was
computed with a smart control system. It was found that
savings in energy consumption were approximately
5447 m3 of natural gas each year.

KEYWORDS
CFD, greenhouse, heating system, smart control, unit heater

1 | INTRODUCTION

Energy consumption optimization is a beneficial measure for the national economy. Energy
safety and reduction of environmental pollutions are some advantages of such optimization in
the agriculture sector. Plants have certain needs in terms of light intensity, day/night
temperature, relative humidity of the air and soil to have an appropriate growth rate.
Greenhouse is a need for commercially feasible growth of plants. Temperature is a key
parameter of plant growth and the rate of its metabolism reactions. Photosynthesis and
respiration in plants need a certain temperature range. Therefore, justifying the temperature in
a certain range using a proper heating system is a must. Constructors, generally, use rules of
thumb in computing heat losses of greenhouses to choose heating systems. Overall, two active
and passive methods can be used to provide heat for the greenhouse which was studied by

Heat Transfer—Asian Res. 2019;1-21. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/htj © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | 1

2 | MOSTAFAVI AND REZAEI

many researchers.1 The advantages of greenhouses include production all the year, controlling
environment conditions, planting different corps even in harsh climate conditions, controlling
of pests and chancres, lower water consumption for irrigation, high productivity, high life
span after harvest, and higher profit due to selling in seasons coincident with natural shortage
of a certain crop.2 Energy cost is the major obstacle of greenhouse production and energy price
is growing globally.3 On the other hand, production in a green house can be potentially
optimized.
Development and extension of greenhouses, mostly, have a quantitative ground and
qualitative design fundamentals have not been addressed properly. Therefore, in many cases,
there were problems in an actual greenhouse that put designers into shock. High fuel
consumption of greenhouse heating systems due to improper design has caused higher
production costs, economical infeasibility, and bankruption.4 Using renewable energies like
heat pumps in the top or on the ground, thermal‐photovoltaic systems and biomass to control
temperature can also decrease fuel consumption.5
Teitel et al6 suggested a semi‐closed model of a greenhouse reduce vermin, water
consumption, and energy consumption. Geoola et al7 studied the thermal conductivity
coefficient of different insulations for a greenhouse for different thickness of polyethylene. All
scenarios of dry and wet with and without thermal screens with different temperatures and
speeds were examined. They found that with applying a thermal shield thermal transfer
coefficient decreases approximately 30% and consequently energy usage decreases approxi-
mately 30%.7 Attar et al8 investigated the application of geothermal energy for cooling and
heating of the greenhouse. They also used both air floating and underground exchangers with
the ability to keep further solar energy.8 Raviv et al9 accentuated that temperature setpoint
depends on environmental, physiological, and economical factors. The most important factor
on temperature set point was the growth factor of the plants. They found a thermodynamic
model to relate growth rate to the temperature set point.9 Van Beveren et al3 developed a
dynamic optimizing tool based on optimized control theory to find flux evolution line. Their
tool reduced input energy of the greenhouse while it maintained the humidity and
temperature.3
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is growing in the field of agriculture. High accuracy of
CFD facilitates many agricultural engineers.10 To increase the efficiency of greenhouse heat
system applying renewable energy resources with control systems was studied. CFD is an
effective method to find flow speed and temperature distributions as a function of space and
time. Bourneta and Boulard11 used CFD to analyze the HVAC vents on air circulation in a
greenhouse. Chen et al5 proposed a novel control system based on CFD to minimize energy
usage and maximize the efficiency of the system. A model for a greenhouse was developed
using turbulence foundations k‐ɛ which was used to analyze thermal efficiency of the system. It
was found that energy could be saved in the range of 8.7%‐15.1% using this model when the
temperature was controlled in the range of 0.1‐0.6°C.5 Tominaga et al12 investigated the air flow
in oblique roofs with different slopes using wind tunnel and CFD simulation in a RANS model.
Results showed that the flow field was considerably influenced by the slope of the roof.12 Peren
et al13 studied natural ventilation flow with asymmetrical inner and outer apertures. Results
showed a good correlation between k‐ɛ model results and experiments.13 Environmental
controlling of a greenhouse is intricate since there are many interconnected variables like
greenhouse light, temperature, relative humidity, CO2 concentration, and ambient temperature.
An algorithm to integrate all variables within a smart energy control system for greenhouses
was proposed.14 Kim et al15 found humidity distribution using three‐dimensional (3D) CFD
MOSTAFAVI AND REZAEI | 3

simulation. Simulation results were evaluated by measured data of a single‐entrance

greenhouse. It was shown that 3D CFD analysis can be a great tool in analysis of the
greenhouses.15 Piscia et al16 used a CFD model for climate simulation of a greenhouse at nights.
The model was tested for a greenhouse with four aperture and plastic cover. The effect of cover
temperature on the humidity of greenhouse and results were compared with experimental
measurements. Results proved the importance of radiative heat loss especially for lower heat
flux from the bottom of the greenhouse.16 Cakir and Sahin17 investigated five different types of
greenhouse in terms of solar energy adsorption and found out that Quonset shape is the
best one.
As can be inferred from current literature all greenhouses’ design is object‐oriented, for
example, they are adapted for a specific climate or specific greenhouse shape, product, and
heating system. All parameters have never been included in any of the previous studies.
Therefore, this paper seeks a comprehensive system for decision making in which all
parameters like climate condition, greenhouse size, desired temperature, and greenhouse shape
are considered for different heating systems and an optimized one with the lowest cost can
be selected.

2 | THERMAL LOAD COMPUTATION AND EFFECT OF

G R E E N H O U S E PA R A M E T E R S ON TO T A L T H E R M A L L O A D
A N D VO L U M E O F T H E H E A T I N G S Y S T E M

During cold days of winter, many greenhouses face temperature instability due to downsizing
thermal capacity of their heating systems. Therefore, a careful computation of heat loss
facilitates better selection of the central heating system. To compute heat loss, thermal
hysteresis from all walls and ceiling and then heat loss from the floor and finally heat loss from
the convection of ambient air should be computed. The ambient atmosphere can penetrate to
the greenhouse from either seam, gaps or forced ventilation.

2.1 | Heat loss from greenhouse walls and ceiling

Heat loss from walls and ceiling can be computed using Equation (1)

Q = AU (t − t )
i o (1)

where Q is heat loss from walls and ceiling in Btu/hr,

A is wall area in ft2,

U is total thermal transfer coefficient Btu/ft2.hr.F,
ti is the inner temperature in F
and to is outer temperature in F.

Inner temperature is selected based on the required condition for plant growth. To consider
geographical direction, northern and eastern walls are given an added 10% coefficient and
western walls are given an added 5% coefficient to compensate the sunlight beam effect. These
4 | MOSTAFAVI AND REZAEI

added coefficients are included in the computation of thermal load. To compute heat loss from
the floor Equation (2) can be used.

H = 0.6 P (t − t ) + 0.05 A (t − t )
i o i g (2)

where H is heat loss from the floor in Btu/hr,

P is the portion of the floor boundary in contact with the ambient atmosphere in ft,
A is floor area in ft2,
ti is the inner temperature in °F,
to is outer temperature and tg is floor temperature in °F.
The temperature of the floor can be computed using outer temperature.

To compute heat loss from penetrating ambient atmosphere into greenhouse first the
volume of the penetrating air should be computed according to Equation (3) (Table 1).

V= v × n (3)

where V is the volume of penetrating air in CFH,

v is the volume of greenhouse ft3,

n is the number air replacement inside a room by outer air per hour according to Table 1 which
is based on natural air ventilation.

When the volume of the penetrating air is computed, its thermal load can be computed using
Equation (4)

Q2 = V × 0.0749 × 0.0749 × 0.241 × ti − to( ) (4)

Where Q2 is the thermal load of penetrating air in Btu/h,

V is the volume of the penetrating air in CFH,

T A B L E 1 Number of air circulation

Number of times inner air is replaced

Type of the room by outer air per hour (n)
For rooms that have only one wall with a door or window 1
interface with an ambient atmosphere
For rooms that have two walls with a door or window 1.5
interface with the ambient atmosphere
For rooms that have three or more walls with a door or 2
window interface with the ambient atmosphere
For corridors entrance of the building 2.5
For rooms with no interface with the ambient atmosphere 0.5
MOSTAFAVI AND REZAEI | 5

0.0749 is air specific mass in a standard condition (sea level at a temperature of 70°F and 29.92
in mercury) for other conditions modifying coefficients should be considered.
0.241 is specific heat at a constant pressure Btu/lbf.

Greenhouse thermal load is the summation of all heat losses. A number of exchanges like
radiators, unit heaters, and so on depends on total thermal load. Therefore, Equation (5) can be
presented.

QG = (Q1 + Q2) × SF (5)

QG is the total thermal load of greenhouse in Btu/h,

Q1 is total heat loss from walls and ceiling in Btu/h,
Q2 is thermal load due to penetrating air and SF is the safety factor to justify computational
errors which are chosen approximately 5%‐10%.

Required warm air flow to heat the greenhouse is computed using Equation (6)

QG
RCFM = (6)
1.08 (th − tr )

where, th is warm air temperature entering the house and its maximum amount is 105°F.
Higher temperature would harm plants.

2.2 | Energy consumption

Here it is assumed that greenhouse has a straight entrance structure. To compute heat loss, a
graphical user interface code was developed according to Figure 1.
This code requests input parameters like inner and outer temperatures, dimensions,
greenhouse orientation, type of cover, and wind speed to perform computation. To estimate
energy consumption, a sample of five greenhouses with areas of 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, and
5000 m2 is considered. Generally, in single‐unit greenhouses, the width of the greenhouse is
between 8 and 11 m and in multiunit greenhouses, its width is approximately 8 m. Since in this
study the total surface area of sample greenhouses is quite big the width of the greenhouse is

FIGURE 1 GUI code snapshot. GUI, graphical user interface [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
6 | MOSTAFAVI AND REZAEI

FIGURE 2 Schematic of 1000 m2 greenhouse

T A B L E 2 Heat loss calculations

CFM QB, Btu/hr QG, Btu/hr Area, m2

9180 1 154 010 961 678 1000
17 032 2 141 090 1 784 240 2000
24 676 3 102 100 2 585 080 3000
32 203 4 048 280 3 373 570 4000
39 655 4 985 150 4 154 290 5000

T A B L E 3 Greenhouse selected dimensions

Number of apertures Height of roof, m Height of walls, m Withe, m Length, m Area, m2

4 1 2.5 32 31.25 1000
5 1 2.5 40 50 2000
6 1 2.5 48 62.5 3000
7 1 2.5 56 71.43 4000
8 1 2.5 64 78.125 5000

considered equal to 8 m. as seen in the Figure 2, the total width of the greenhouse is the
multiplication of each unit width. The height of the walls is 2.5 m and the highest point of the
ceiling is 3.5 m height.
Greenhouses have different covers; plastic covers are very common in today's greenhouses.
Because plastic covers have lower thermal transfer coefficients and lower thermal loss.
Considering bilayer plastic cover, thermal transfer coefficient equal to 0.7 Btu/ft2·h·°F is
considered in computations.18,19 To make this coefficient closer to reality, modifying
coefficients of structure and wind speed should be considered. The structure‐modifying
coefficient is 1 for wooden structures and 1.02 for steel structure. Steel structures are very
common and are considered in this study.20 Moreover, wind speed modifying coefficient is
considered 1 for wind speed up to 24 km/h.21 Suitable inner temperature can be derived from
Table A‐1 in Appendix. The required temperature for Rose is considered 25°C in this study.22
Ambient temperature for cold days in Arak is considered to be 8°F equal to −13.33°C. Ground
temperature is calculated based on outer temperature and it is considered 59°F in Arak.23 Heat
loss and proper size for greenhouses are listed in Table 2 and 3.
MOSTAFAVI AND REZAEI | 7

2.3 | Effect of the number of apertures and greenhouse area on heat

loss
Selecting a number of apertures pertains to the size of the greenhouse. Singh and Tiwari24
investigated five different types of greenhouse like Standard Peak Even Span, Standard Peak
Uneven Span, Vinery shape, Arch and Quonset shape to find the best shape to maintain the
temperature inside the greenhouse that saw in the Figure 3.
Here, for each size of a greenhouse, a different number of apertures is considered and using
the proposed code, heat loss is computed for each set. Table 4 lists the best dimensions for
reduction of heat loss. As can be seen from Table 4, for a greenhouse with are of 1000, 2000, 3000,
4000, 5000 m2 the best optimum number of the aperture is 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, respectively. This
difference is attributed to the orientation coefficients which were discussed in the previous
section. With variation in a number of apertures, the dimension of the greenhouse varies and
therefore heat loss differs. This try and error continue until an optimum state is achieved.
Therefore, with proper selection of the number of apertures energy consumption can be reduced.

2.4 | Effect of greenhouse geometry on heat loss

Figure 4 shows a thermal load of different apertures of a greenhouse. The thermal load is the
lowest for Standard Peak Even Span. This form is ubiquitous in practice. Standard Peak Uneven
Span (3,5) stands on the second stage with a slight difference with Standard Peak Even Span.
The (3,5) is the horizontal distance between the wall and ceiling which is 3 m from one
direction and 5 m from another direction. In total, it means that the width of the greenhouse is
approximately 8 m.
According to Figure 4, maximum heat loss belongs to the greenhouse with Arch shape. As
stated before, four apertures are optimum for a 1000 m2 greenhouse. Figure 5 compares heat

FIGURE 3 Greenhouse with A, Standard Peak Even Span; B, Standard Peak Uneven Span; C, Vinery shape;
D, Arch; and E, Quonset shape
 8
|

T A B L E 4 Energy consumption in different greenhouses with different sizes and spans (Btu/hr)

Number of aperture
8 Aperture 7 Aperture 6 Aperture 5 Aperture 4 Aperture 3 Aperture 2 Aperture 1 Aperture Area, m2
1 241 190 1 212 340 1 186 610 1 165 920 1 154 010 1 159 860 1 210 580 1 446 100 1000
2 177 200 2 157 650 2 144 060 2 141 100 2 155 440 2 205 190 2 344 860 2 854 040 2000
3 113 210 3 102 910 3 102 100 3 116 280 3 156 870 3 250 680 3 479 140 4 261 990 3000
4 049 220 4 048 300 4 059 690 4 091 460 4 158 300 4 295 930 4 613 420 5 669 940 4000
4 985 240 4 993 610 5 017 550 5 066 640 5 159 710 5 341 420 5 747 710 7 077 880 5000
MOSTAFAVI
AND
REZAEI
MOSTAFAVI AND REZAEI | 9

FIGURE 4 Required thermal load for different aperture geometry [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIGURE 5 Compares heat loss for a different number of apertures in the range of 1 to 4 [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

loss for when four greenhouses each with one aperture are replaced with one greenhouse with
four apertures, keeping the total area constant.
It can be inferred from Figure 5 that apart from the shape of the greenhouse, if, for example,
four greenhouses each with one entrance are replaced with one greenhouse with four apertures
and the total size is kept constant, heat loss is always decreased. This is attributed to the lower
surface of the latter.

2.5 | Effect of greenhouse cover on heat loss

Covers of the greenhouse have different thermal transfer coefficients. Different coefficients for
different covers are implemented in developed code and results are provided for a 1000 m2
greenhouse. Figure 6 shows that the lower thermal transfer coefficient is, the less heat is
lost and polystyrene cover with thermal transfer coefficient of 0.1 Btu/ft2·hr·°F has the lowest
heat loss.

2.6 | Effect of inner temperature on heat loss

Using this proposed code heat loss can be computed for each product based on the required
inner maximum daily temperature. Maximum temperature here is selected because heating
system should be able to provide such temperature. Figure 7 shows a direct relation between
inner temperature and heat loss. Therefore, the higher inner temperature is, the more energy
should be consumed.
10 | MOSTAFAVI AND REZAEI

FIGURE 6 Required thermal load for different covers for a 1000 m2 greenhouse [Color figure can be viewed
at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIGURE 7 Required thermal load for different plants for a 1000 m2 greenhouse [Color figure can be viewed
at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIGURE 8 Increase in thermal load with a 1°C increase in inner temperature [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Minimum inner temperature is for planting carrots. Therefore, it can be suggested that
plants that need higher temperatures should be raised in more tropical areas of the country to
reduce thermal loads. Figure 8 shows the effect of a 1°C increase in inner temperature on
increase of lost heat.
MOSTAFAVI AND REZAEI | 11

It can be seen from Figure 8 that with an increase in inner temperature for only 1°C, 25 875 Btu/h
more heat loss occurs; thus plant selection is a key in the reduction of energy consumption.

2.7 | Effect of outer temperature on heat loss

Ground temperature varies with outer temperature. Moreover, outer temperature and air
density modifying coefficient vary for different cities. All these three variables are considered
for three different cities and heat loss is computed and listed in Figure 9.
According to Figure 9 and Table A‐2 in Appendix there is a reversed relation between outer
temperature and heat loss. The higher outer temperature means lower heat loss. Therefore,
establishing greenhouses in tropical regions would be economically more feasible.

3 | S E L E C T I O N O F HE A T I N G S Y S T E M T O R E D U C E
C A P I T A L IN V E S T M E N T

Three general configurations of heating system for greenhouses include central heating water
system with a radiator and unit heater, central heating air with hot air furnace, and ventilator
and finally central radiation system. The last one has not been thoroughly studied due to
limitations of ground temperature of the floor. Radiative system can be combined with another
system and with a unit heater. However, due to the high capital costs of such system, they rarely
have been used for greenhouses.
Costs of central heating water with a radiator can be computed considering costs of its
components like radiator, burner, expansion vessel, pump, boiler, and piping that details
provided in the Table 5. Costs of central warm water with a unit heater can be computed
considering costs radiator, burner, expansion tank, pump, boiler, and piping. Costs of a central
system with air furnace include furnace, burner, and canal. Moreover, cost of a central warm air
system with ventilator includes boiler, burner, expansion tanks, pumps, ventilator, and piping.
Table 6 lists the costs for different heating systems.
Central heating systems with radiator are very expensive and almost three times more
expensive than systems with unit heaters. Next is system with ventilators which is more
expensive than the other two systems. Cost of the system with a ventilator is twice higher than
the unit heater. Price of central system with unit heater and warm air furnace is economically
feasible for greenhouses.

F I G U R E 9 Thermal load for different cities with different outer temperature [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
12 | MOSTAFAVI AND REZAEI

T A B L E 5 Components for a 1000 m2 greenhouse's heating system

Total price, $ Unit price, $ Number Capacity Equipment

1660 1660 1 31 600 kcal/h Boiler
479 479 1 34 000 kcal/h Furnace
121 121 1 800 L Expansion tank
245 245 1 110 GPM, 20 ft Pump
10 614.1 5.9 1799 135 kcal/h Radiator
1274 – 620.5 m – Pipe (radiator)
310.25 0.5 620.5 m – Wage plumbing
1008 336 3 260 000 Btu/h Unit Heater
300 300 1 22 000 Btu/h
725 – 160 m – Pipe (unit heater)
405 – 160 m – Wage plumbing
3642 3642 1 330 000 kcal/h, Hot air boiler
13 000 CFM
479 479 1 340 000 kcal/h Furnace (hot air boiler)
563 4.5 125.1204 m 2
– Channel
626 5 125.1204 m2 – Wage making and installing
channels
6134 6134 1 9180 CFM Air conditioner

T A B L E 6 Costs of different heating systems, $

Area (m2)

5000 m2 4000 m2 3000 m2 2000 m2 1000 m2 Systems

11 022.5 8879.7 7231.2 5234.6 2503.8 Powerhouse
66 502.3 53 884.5 41 653.6 28 458 14 581.9 Radiator
22 298.4 18 072.3 13 937.2 10 258.5 4941.6 Unit heater
25 093.9 20 743.9 15 614.5 11 118.6 5309.2 Hot air boiler
39 039.4 33 458.8 25 104.7 19 221.8 9825.8 Air conditioner

4 | OPTIMUM C O N FI G U RA TI ON O F G R EEN H O US E
H E A T I N G SY S T E M

As mentioned in the previous section, unit heaters are cheaper than other systems. However,
the configuration of unit heaters is crucial in the performance of the system. Each unit heater
warms the atmosphere in a certain distance. Therefore, the distance between unit heaters
should be selected in the way that all area reaches the desired temperature. If this distance is
too much, the temperature between each two unit heaters decreases and consequently plants
are damaged. Similarly, if this distance is too little, the temperature between unit heaters
increases and it harms plants. Numerical modeling can be used to find the optimum
MOSTAFAVI AND REZAEI | 13

FIGURE 10 Different configurations for unit heater [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

T A B L E 7 Mean temperature of the greenhouse with different configurations of unit heaters

Average greenhouse temperature Configurations of unit heater

16.659 A
−5.2825 B
−7.6247 C
−11.575 D
14.183 E
−5.948 F
−3.7493 G

distribution of unit heaters. For a 1000 m2 greenhouse, four unit heaters with constant thermal
transfer coefficient are considered. By assuming a constant inner temperature radiative heat
transfer can be neglected. Therefore, governing thermal transfer equation can be written as
presented in Equation (7)

∂ 2T ∂ 2T q
+ 2 + =0 (7)
∂x 2 ∂y k
14 | MOSTAFAVI AND REZAEI

where, q is thermal heat in W/m3. Thermal transfer coefficient for air is assumed to equal to
0.025 W/m·°C.22 Surface temperature of unit heaters is assumed 80°C. To model convective
heat transfer around unit heaters a boundary as an input boundary condition with 2 m/s speed
and another boundary as output boundary were considered. Two other boundaries are
considered to define wall boundary condition.
Moreover, flow equations should be solved according to Equations (8)

⎡ ∂V ⎤
ρ⎢ + (V.∇) V⎥ = –∇P + ρg + μ∇2 V (8)
⎣ ∂t ⎦

Turbulent flow with k‐ɛ turbulence model is assumed. Transfer equations for k and ɛ in this
model can be computed using Equations (9) and (10).

⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤
ρ (u. ) k = ∇.⎢ ⎜μ + T ⎟ ∇k ⎥ + Pk –ρε (9)
⎣⎝ σk ⎠ ⎦

⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ ε ε2 k2
ρ(u.∇) ε = ∇.⎢ ⎜μ+ T ⎟ ∇ε ⎥ + Ce1 Pk –Ce2 ρ ; μ T = ρCμ (10)
⎣⎝ σe ⎠ ⎦ k k ε

Different configurations for unit heaters are developed and temperature distribution
contours are derived for each set. In Figure 10 configuration A is when greenhouse is divided
into four equal parts and each unit heater is located in the center of each division. In
configuration B, two unit heaters are located near one of the walls and two other unit heaters
are located exactly across them. In configuration C, a unit heater is in the center of one wall
and another one is exactly across it on the other wall. Two other unit heaters are located in
the corners of the greenhouse. In configuration D four unit heaters are located in the four
corners of greenhouse. In configuration E four unit heaters are located on the central line.
The first unit heater has 4‐m distance with wall and intermittent heaters have 8‐m distance to
next heaters. In configuration F, all unit heaters are located along one of the walls with the
same distance as presented in configuration F, and in configuration G, each unit heater is
located in the center of each wall. Schematic of different configurations are presented in
Figure 10.
As can be inferred from Table 7 and temperature distribution contours in Figure 10,
configuration A has the best temperature distribution compared with other proposed
configurations. Next is configuration E with a slight difference with configuration A.
Configurations G, B, and F are next configurations, respectively. Finally, configurations C
and D possess the lowest average temperature.

T A B L E 8 Annual thermal load with smart control and savings in natural gas consumption

QG, Btu/h Qmax, Btu/h Qreq, Btu/h LHV, Btu/ft3 V, m3/h Cost, $
961 678 277 924 942 96 353 600.5 943.9 5447.140244 4357.7
MOSTAFAVI AND REZAEI | 15

T A B L E 9 Costs of thermal load with smart control

Total price, $ Unit price, $ Number or quantity Control equipment

933.3 933.3 1 Smart control CorrigoE28
150 50 3 Sensor TG‐AH/PT100
40 40 1 Sensor TG‐UH/PT1000
266.7 266.7 1 Panel+Relay+Power supply+Fuse
266.7 266.7 1 System installation
63.3 0.5 126.5 m Cable
1720 Total, $

5 | SMART C ONTROL AND R EDUCTION OF ENERGY

C ON S U M P T I O N

Smart control means to use controlling devices to justify different parameters of the greenhouse, for
example, temperature. Using sensors far from walls and affected locations by solar beams and/or
outer temperature, the temperature of greenhouse is specified. To better understand economical
feasibility of smart controlling, savings for a 1000 m2 greenhouse can be investigated. Greenhouse
with Standard Peak Even Span with four spans is considered. Greenhouse with the length of 31.25 m,
width of 32 m, wall height of 2.5 m, and the ceiling height of 1 m is assumed. Cover is assumed to be
bilayer plastic with steel structure and wind speed is considered 24 km/h. Ground temperature is 59°F
according to the outer temperature of Arak city. Inner temperature is assumed to be 25°C appropriate
for a red rose. For outer temperature, the temperature of Arak in 2017 was elicited from weather
station. Minimum, maximum, and mean values of these temperatures are listed in Table A‐1 in
Appendix. Daily thermal load values in 2017 are presented in Table A‐3 for a 1000 m2 greenhouse.
With adding positive values of daily thermal load, in case of using smart control, required annual
thermal load is computed Qreq that listed in Table 8.
The annual required thermal load without smart control is computed using proposed code
Qmax. The reduction in natural gas consumption for heating system with its price, considering
each cubic meter of natural gas equal to $0.03, can be calculated.

Qmax = QG × 289 (11)

Qmax − Qreq
V= (12)
LHV

Cost = V × 24 × 0.03 (13)

To avoid fluctuation in greenhouse temperature, sensors, and controllers are inevitable.

Sensors in a greenhouse can stimulate contactors to either on or off state which can govern a
variational valve in the water line after pump or unit heater fan. Flow rate can be controlled and
therefore greenhouse temperature can be kept constant as seen in the Figure 11.
Table 9 shows the required equipment for a smart controlling system with their costs.
Currently, costs for implementing such smart control are approximately $1720. This is so
much lower than up to $4360 saving by implementing smart control. This proves that this
mechanism is economically feasible.
16 | MOSTAFAVI AND REZAEI

FIGURE 11 Smart control circuit for greenhouse's thermal load [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

6 | C ON C LU S I O N

The goal of this study was to prepare a decision system to find the optimum configuration of
greenhouse in terms of energy consumption considering all related parameters like climate,
greenhouse dimension, desirable temperature, and shape. Following remarks can be highlighted.

• The suitable number of spans for 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, and 5000 m2 greenhouses is four,
five, six, seven, and eight, respectively. With a change in the size of the greenhouse, the
dimension of greenhouse perimeter changes and therefore heat loss deviates. Therefore,
selecting a proper number of spans can decrease energy consumption.
• Apart from the type of greenhouse span, if four greenhouses each with one span are replaced
by one greenhouse with four spans while keeping the total area of the greenhouse constant
less energy will be consumed. This is attributed to the lower surface of the unitary
greenhouse.
• The lower heat transfer coefficient of cover material is, the lower heat loss occurs. The lowest
heat loss belongs to 2’’ polystyrene cover with heat transfer coefficient equal to 0.1 Btu/
ft2·h·°F
• With increasing inner temperature by only 1°C, heat loss increases approximately 25 875 Btu/
h. Therefore, proper selection of a plant based on the climate of the location can remarkably
reduce energy consumption
• Neglecting central heating system with warm water, the cost of central heating system with a
unit heater and warm air furnace is lower compared to other heating systems.
• If the smart control system for controling temperature is used, $2640 is saved in consuming
natural gas for a 1000 m2 greenhouse.

NOMEN C LAT U RE
Q1 total heat loss from walls
QG thermal load of greenhouse
MOSTAFAVI AND REZAEI | 17

SF safety factor for thermal load calculation

th air temperature to the room (maximum 109℉)
tr cold winter day temperature
RCFM or CFM air flow rate for heating system
QB minimum boiler capacity for heating system
Qmax thermal load without smart control
Qreq thermal load with smart control
LHV minimum heating value or low heating value of fuel
cost fuel price
Q Btu/hr))heat loss from walls
ti inner temperature
to outer temperature
A area
U total heat transfer coefficient
tg ground temperature
H heat loss from floor
P floor area in contact with ambient
V penetrating air to green house
v volume of the green house
n number of air circulation
Q2 heat loss due to penetrating air

ORCID
Seyed Alireza Mostafavi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1091-5541

REFERENCES
1. Sethi VP, Sharma SK. Survey and evaluation of heating technologies for worldwide agricultural greenhouse
applications. Sol Energy. 2008;82.9:832‐859.
2. Vadiee Amir, Martin V. Energy management strategies for commercial greenhouses. Appl Energy.
2014;114:880‐888.
3. Van Beveren PJM, Bontsema J, Van Straten G, Van Henten EJ. Minimal heating and cooling in a modern
rose greenhouse. Appl Energy. 2015;137:97‐109.
4. Montero JI, et al. Greenhouse engineering: new technologies and approaches. International Symposium on
High Technology for Greenhouse Systems: GreenSys (2009) 893. 2009.
5. Chen J, Xu F, Tan D, Shen Z, Zhang L, Ai Q. A control method for agricultural greenhouses heating based
on computational fluid dynamics and energy prediction model. Appl Energy. 2015;141:106‐118.
6. Teitel M, Montero JI, Baeza EJ. "Greenhouse design: concepts and trends." International Symposium on
Advanced Technologies and Management Towards Sustainable Greenhouse Ecosystems: Greensys (2011)
952. 2011.
7. Geoola F, Kashti Y, Levi A, Brickman R. A study of the overall heat transfer coefficient of greenhouse
cladding materials with thermal screens using the hot box method. Polym Test. 2009;28:470‐474.
8. Attar I, Naili N, Khalifa N, Hazami N, Lazaar M, Farhat A. Experimental study of an air conditioning system
to control a greenhouse microclimate. Energy Convers Manage. 2014;79:543‐553.
9. Raviv M, Medina S, Wendin C, Lieth JH. Development of alternate cut‐flower rose greenhouse temperature
set‐points based on calorimetric plant tissue evaluation. Sci Hort. 2010;126:454‐461.
18 | MOSTAFAVI AND REZAEI

10. Norton T, Sun DW, Grant J, Fallon R, Dodd V. Aplications 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.
11. Bourneta PE, Boulard T. Effect of ventilator configuration on the distibuted climate of greenhouses: a review
of experimental and CFD studies. Comput Electron Agric. 2010;74:195‐217.
12. Tominaga Y, Akabayashi S, Kitahara T, Arinami Y. Air flow around isolated gable‐roof buildings with
different roof pitches: wind tunnel experiments and CFD simulations. Build Environ. 2015;84:204‐213.
13. Peren JI, van Hoff T, Leite BCC, Blocken B. CFD analysis of cross‐ventilation of a generic isolated building
with asymmetric opening positions: impact of roof angle and opening location. Build Environ. 2015;85:
263‐276.
14. Kolokotsa D, Saridakis G, Dalamagkidis K, Dolianitis S, Kaliakatsos I. Development of an intelligent indoor
environment and energy management system for greenhouses. Energy Convers Manage. 2010;51:155‐168.
15. Kim K, Yoon JY, Kwon HJ, et al. 3‐D CFD analysis of relative humidity distribution in greenhouse with a fog
cooling system and refrigerative dehumidifiers. Biosyst Eng. 2008;100:245‐255.
16. Piscia D, Montero JI, Baeza E, Bailey BJA. CFD greenhouse night‐time condensation model. Biosyst Eng.
2012;111:141‐154.
17. Cakir U, Sahin E. Using solar greenhouses in cold climates and evaluating optimum type according to sizing,
position and location: a case study. Comput Electron Agric. 2015;117:245‐257.
18. Badgery‐Parker J, James L, Jarvis J, Parks S. Commercial Greenhouse Cucumber Production. 2010 Edition.
NSW, Australia: NSW Department of Primary Industries; 2010.
19. Newman JP, ed. Container Nursery Production and Business Management Manual. Richmond, CA:
University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources; 2014.
20. Castilla N. Greenhouse Technology and Management. 2nd Edition. Spain: Ediciones Mundi‐Prensa; 2013
21. Bergman TL, Lavine AS, Incropera FP, Dewitt DP. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer. 7th edition.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2011.
22. Versteeg HK, Malalasekera W. An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Finite Volume
Method. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2007.
23. Blasco X, Martinez M, Herrero JM, Ramos C, Sanchis J. Model‐based predictive control of greenhouse
climate for reducing energy and water consumption. Comput Electron Agric. 2007;55:49‐70.
24. Singh RD, Tiwari GN. Energy conservation in the greenhouse system: a steady state analysis. Energy.
2010;35:2367‐2373.

How to cite this article: Mostafavi SA, Rezaei A. Energy consumption in green houses
and selection of an optimized heating system with minimum energy consumption. Heat
Transfer—Asian Res. 2019;1‐21. https://doi.org/10.1002/htj.21540
MOSTAFAVI AND REZAEI | 19

APPENDIX A

Tables A‐1–A‐3

T A B L E A‐1 Required inner temperature for different plants20

Night temperature, °C Day temperature, °C Product

16‐13 26‐22 Tomato
20‐18 28‐24 Cucumber
21‐18 30‐24 Melon
18‐16 28‐21 Green beans
18‐16 28‐22 Pepper
18‐15 26‐22 Eggplant
12‐10 18‐15 Lettuce
13‐10 22‐18 Strawberry
12‐10 21‐18 Carnation
16‐14 25‐20 Rose flower
15‐13 24‐20 Gerbera
12‐10 20‐16 Lily

T A B L E A‐2 Ground temperature for different outer temperature

Outdoor temperature, °F −30 −20 −10 0 10 20

Ground temperature, °F 40 45 50 55 60 65

T A B L E A‐3 Required thermal load for greenhouse in 2015

Daily heat requirement of the studied greenhouse, Btu/h

Thermal load
2017 April May June July August September
1 380 181 169 378 191 698 −86 064/9 −38 944/9 −9184
2 412 421 204 099 114 818 −93 505 −93 505 10 656/3
3 494 262 221 459 92 497/3 −68 704/7 −162 946 −21 584/1
4 462 022 206 579 112 338 −53 824/5 −150 546 −26 544/2
5 414 901 228 899 97 457/3 −58 784/6 −150 546 −19 104/1
6 385 141 218 979 82 577/1 −58 784/6 −78 624/8 736/2
7 352 900 238 819 132 178 −98 465/1 −9184 3216/2
8 330 580 253 699 104 897 −108 385 −24 064/2 −21 584/1
9 283 460 209 059 112 338 −93 505 −24 064/2 −19 104/1
10 293 380 174 338 55 296/8 −93 505 −63 744/6 10 656/3
11 400 021 186 738 5696/2 −100 945 −71 184/7 20 576/4
(Continues)
20 | MOSTAFAVI AND REZAEI

T A B L E A ‐ 3 (Continued)

Daily heat requirement of the studied greenhouse, Btu/h

Thermal load
2017 April May June July August September
12 481 862 191 698 97 457/3 −38 944/3 −76 144/8 −6703/9
13 397 541 206 579 65 216/9 5696/2 −66 224/7 −33 984/3
14 509 142 191 698 137 138 20 576/4 −56 304/5 −4223/9
15 459 542 189 218 161 938 −26 544/2 −83 584/9 62 736/9
16 402 501 176 818 85 057/2 −33 984/3 −68 704/7 37 936/6
17 355 380 161 938 37 936/6 −56 304/5 −76 144/8 32 976/5
18 318 180 139 618 23 056/4 −43 904/4 −110 865 736/2
19 278 500 114 818 −11 664 −38 944/3 −123 265 35 456/6
20 256 179 122 258 3216/2 −66 224/7 −118 305 60 256/9
21 273 539 159 458 −14 144 −11 3345 −113 345 25 536/5
22 263 619 149 538 8176/2 −105 905 −98 465/1 37 936/6
23 276 020 156 978 92 497/3 −143 106 −91 025 28 016/5
24 352 900 223 939 104 897 −130 705 −58 784/6 23 056/4
25 338 020 248 739 57 776/8 −98 465/1 −36 464/3 42 896/7
26 315 700 233 859 18 096/4 −88 544/9 −51 344/5 65 216/9
27 246 259 189 218 −14 144 −128 225 −21 584/1 67 697
28 280 980 186 738 −26 544/2 −140 626 −41 424/4 62 736/9
29 204 099 179 298 −36 464/3 −120 785 −73 664/8 52 816/8
30 181 778 169 378 −19 104/1 −93 505 −51 344/5 82 577/1
31 226 419 201 619 −48 864/5 −46 384/4 −11 664 30 496/5
Total 10 627 429 5 905 451 1 994 252 26 272/6 0 794 924/9
Daily heat requirement of the studied greenhouse, Btu/h
Thermal load
2017 October November December January February March
1 97 457/3 325 620 367 781 553 783 568 663 576 103
2 82 577/1 303 300 335 540 600 903 511 622 605 864
3 109 857 278 500 454 582 548 823 516 582 672 824
4 82 577/1 295 860 481 862 573 623 586 023 682 744
5 104 897 345 460 564 502 568 663 593 463 603 383
6 112 338 370 261 501 702 556 263 533 943 595 943
7 109 857 372 741 514 102 434 741 390 101 521 542
8 90 017/2 370 621 531 463 481 862 444 662 543 863
9 104 897 357 861 538 903 541 383 407 461 469 462
10 112 338 375 221 563 703 553 783 449 622 452 102
11 127 218 357 861 449 622 556 263 424 821 429 781
12 92 497/3 323 140 412 421 422 341 466 982 466 982
13 199 139 390 101 437 221 382 661 439 701 496 742
14 144 578 524 023 528 983 444 662 404 981 486 822
(Continues)
MOSTAFAVI AND REZAEI | 21

T A B L E A ‐ 3 (Continued)

Daily heat requirement of the studied greenhouse, Btu/h

Thermal load
2017 October November December January February March
15 134 658 573 623 496 742 496 742 375 221 524 023
16 238 819 514 102 521 542 476 902 367 781 489 302
17 261 139 499 222 546 343 427 301 511 622 387 621
18 251 219 481 862 519 062 528 983 486 822 377 701
19 231 379 476 902 481 862 675 304 295 860 516 582
20 248 739 496 742 471 942 652 984 323 140 588 503
21 226 419 509 142 531 463 640 584 395 061 491 782
22 280 980 479 382 484 342 603 383 442 182 489 302
23 241 299 471 942 484 342 605 864 375 221 390 101
24 216 499 407 461 538 903 563 703 427 301 372 741
25 231 379 404 981 491 782 524 023 449 622 380 181
26 283 460 454 582 541 383 489 302 494 262 320 660
27 273 539 466 982 563 703 528 983 528 983 390 101
28 206 579 528 983 551 303 615 784 432 261 387 621
29 335 540 506 662 419 861 620 744 414 901 370 261
30 325 620 491 782 590 983 620 744 444 662 –
Total 5 557 512 12 754 562 14 817 945 16 291 084 13 503 529 14 080 639

View publication stats