Accepted Manuscript

Energy/exergy based-evaluation of heating/cooling potential of PV/T and earth-

air heat exchanger integration into a solar greenhouse

Saeed Mahdavi, Faramarz Sarhaddi, Mahdi Hedayatizadeh

PII: S1359-4311(18)34632-5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.12.109
Reference: ATE 13116

To appear in: Applied Thermal Engineering

Received Date: 26 July 2018

Revised Date: 3 November 2018
Accepted Date: 18 December 2018

Please cite this article as: S. Mahdavi, F. Sarhaddi, M. Hedayatizadeh, Energy/exergy based-evaluation of heating/
cooling potential of PV/T and earth-air heat exchanger integration into a solar greenhouse, Applied Thermal
Engineering (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.12.109

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Energy/exergy based-evaluation of heating/cooling potential
of PV/T and earth-air heat exchanger integration into a solar
greenhouse
Saeed Mahdavi1, Faramarz Sarhaddi1, Mahdi Hedayatizadeh2,*
1
Research Laboratory of Renewable Energies and Electromagnetic Fluids, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran
2
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran
*
Corresponding author: mhedayatizadeh@birjand.ac.ir

Abstract

Through the present paper, a solar greenhouse integrated with an Earth-Air Heat Exchanger
(EAHE) and Photovoltaic/Thermal collectors (PV/Ts) was theoretically studied in terms of
energy and exergy and validated against an experimental study presented in literature i.e. a
solar greenhouse with floor area, buried pipe length and PV area of 24m2, 39m and 9.68m2,
respectively. The comparisons showed a fairly good agreement between the theoretical and
experimental results with a relatively high coefficient of correlation around 95%. Afterwards,
the given solar greenhouse was optimized in terms of energy and exergy efficiencies while the
results indicated that only length of EAHE pipes showed an optimum value equal to 38m on
average. Moreover, the results showed that PV/Ts did not have a significant heating potential
for raising the greenhouse air and plant temperatures and only the electricity generation
potential of PVs was favorable. However, the EAHE integration seemed promising in raising and
lowering the temperatures of greenhouse air by 9°C and 8°C in summer and winter,
respectively. Moreover, the Temperature Load Leveling (TLL) due to integration of only EAHE
was achieved 46% and 58% in summer and winter, respectively.

Keywords: Greenhouse; PV/T; Earth-air heat exchanger; Heating potential

Nomenclature Vol Greenhouse volume ( )

Velocity ( ) / Electricity
A Area ( ) V
voltage (V)
a PV ideality factor (-) Greek symbols
b Breadth (m) Density ( )
c specific heat ) Absorptivity (-)
d Diameter (m) Thickness (m)
Energy rate (W) The packing factor of solar cell (-)
Exergy rate (W) Transmittance (-)
Fraction of solar radiation falling on north wall (-) Efficiency (-)
 Fraction of solar radiation falling on plants (-) Emissivity (-)
Stefan–Boltzmann’s constant
g Gravity acceleration ( )
( )
Coefficient of heat transfer from greenhouse
loss pressure factor ( )
floor to greenhouse air
Coefficient of heat transfer from floor to larger
Subscripts
depth of ground
Penalty factor due to presence of solar cell Greenhouse surface
1-5
material,Tedlar, and EVA (-) numbers
Penalty factor due to presence of interface Air flowing through
a
between Tedlar and flowing air (-) collector
Heat transfer coefficient from plant to
amb Ambient
greenhouse air
Conductive heat transfer coefficient through
bs Tedlar back surface
Tedlar ( )
Convective heat transfer coefficient from back
c Cell
surface of Tedlar to the working fluid ( )
I Electricity current (A) conv Convective
Solar irradiance ( ) c.v. Control volume
PV light current (A) des Destruction
Diode reverse saturation current (A) eff Effective
K Thermal conductivity ( ) el Electrical
L Length (m) en Energy
M Mass (kg) G PV glass cover
Mass flow rate ( ) gc Greenhouse cover
N Number of modules connected in series (-) gf Greenhouse floor
Nu Nusselt number (-) i Inlet / insulation
Rate of greenhouse air changes ( ) h-earth Earth heat
P Pressure (pa) lm Logarithm
Pr Prandtl number (-) mp PV maximum power point
Useful energy provided by buried pipes (W h) nw North wall
PV/T useful thermal energy (W h) o Outlet
Total useful thermal energy of array with series
p Pipe
configuration (W h)
Reflectivity of the north wall (-) pl Plant
Series resistance ( ) r Greenhouse air
Re Reynolds number (-) rad Radiative
Temperature (K) ref Reference
t Time (s) s Soil
Down heat loss to surrounding air ( ) sky Sky
Total PV/T heat loss ( ) T Total/Tedlar
Top PV heat loss coefficient ( ) U Useful
Overall heat transfer coefficient from PV glass to
w Wind
Tedlar through solar cell )
Effective overall heat loss from greenhouse
1. Introduction

High energy demand, mostly met by fossil fuels, for cooling/heating the greenhouses is a big
problem which should be economically tackled. Consequently, a roughly cheap cooling/heating
installation has high significance. Therefore, the eco-friendly substitute energy sources, found
abundantly in nature, have been proposed by researchers (Ghosal et al., (2005)). Among the
substitute energy sources, connecting earth and greenhouse through buried pipes showed to
be a promising method for meeting the cooling/heating needs of a greenhouse while solar
energy as a sustainable and pollution-free source of energy seems more applicable and reliable
which can be exploited through PV/Ts (Nayak and Tiwari (2010)). Jain and Tiwari (2003)
developed a model for studying the thermal behavior of a greenhouse with effective floor area
of 24m2 heated via ground air collector. With the developed modeling, the plant and
greenhouse air temperatures could be predicted while the proposed model was validated
against extensive experiments in Delhi. Ghosal at al., (2004) also developed a model providing
the year round effectiveness of an EAHE including buried pipes integrated into a greenhouse
through which the greenhouse air was recirculated. They reported that such a coupling caused
the greenhouse temperature to be on average 6-7°C and 3-4°C more in winter and less in
summer, respectively in comparison to the same greenhouse lacking EAHE. Tiwari et al., (2006)
performed an experiment through which an EAHE was coupled with a greenhouse. They tried
to optimize the working hours of EAHE with the aim of gaining maximum heating/cooling
potential. Their experiment showed that the maximum heating and cooling potential of the
given EAHE were 11.55 and 18.87 MJ, respectively for a day in month of January and June
through two twelve-hour intervals. Ghosal and Tiwari (2006) also developed a thermal model
describing the heating/cooling potential of an EAHE integrated into a greenhouse. Their
parametric study showed that the increase and decrease of greenhouse air temperatures in
winter and summer are along with increasing buried pipe length and depth of burial and also
decreasing pipe diameter and mass flow rate of air passing through buried pipes. Nayak and
Tiwari (2008) theoretically studied the energy and exergy performance of the integration of a
PV/T into a greenhouse in Delhi and performed an experiment to validate their theoretical
results while the comparison exhibited fair agreement. Their exergy calculations also showed
that such integration brought about exergy efficiency around 4%. Nayak and Tiwari (2009) also
developed a model for observing round the year effectiveness of both PV/T and EAHE
integration into a greenhouse. They reported a 7–8°C increase in greenhouse air temperature
at night in winter season. They also mentioned that hourly useful thermal energy generated
through the given coupling was 33 MJ and 24.5 MJ during day and night, respectively.
Moreover, they reported the yearly thermal energy, net electrical energy and thermal exergy
generated were 24728.8, 805.9 and 1006.2 kWh, respectively. Yildiz et al., (2011) also
performed an experiment to investigate the exergy performance of a PV system coupled with
EAHE used for cooling a greenhouse. They studied the effect of climatic and operating
conditions on the given system performance and concluded that the proposed system may be
satisfactorily used for greenhouse cooling in Turkey. Boughanmi et al., (2015) experimentally
examined the performance of a novel geothermal heat exchanger in the shape of a cone for
greenhouse cooling situated 3 meters deep. They reported the maximum average temperature
between the inlet and outlet of the given heat exchanger reaching 30°C along with mass flow
rate of 0.08 . They also reported the greenhouse air temperature of about 12°C which
seems so promising. Hussain et al., (2016) applied concentrated photovoltaic thermal systems,
with an without a glass reinforced plastic enclosure, for heating greenhouse replacing the
electricity and other fossil fuel types already used and developed a model validated against
experimental work. They found that the given system having an enclosure was more efficient.
Romantchick et al., (2017) also calculated the required energy for cooling process in
greenhouses via fan-pad systems fed by photovoltaic system. So, they developed a
mathematical model predicting the greenhouse temperature and ventilation rates. They
concluded that model calibrated against experimental data had an acceptable accuracy
prognosticating the required energy via fans for cooling the greenhouse. Awani et al., (2017)
numerically and experimentally studied the exploitation of horizontal heat exchanger and a
solar collector of 8m2 in surface area coupled with a heat pump for heating a greenhouse of
14.8m2 in Tunisia. Boughanmi et al., (2018) also proposed a heat exchanger of conic shape for
heating greenhouse. They also mentioned the priority of this geometry over the horizontal and
vertical heat exchangers. Their experiments showed that the given exchanger could provide
692.208kW heat into greenhouse increasing the greenhouse temperature by 3 °C
corresponding to 0.6kg s-1 water flow rate. To the best knowledge of authors only few
researches have studied the integration of PV/Ts and EAHEs into greenhouse in terms of energy
and exergy. As mentioned in the literature, only Nayak and Tiwari (2009 & 2010) studied the
energy and exergy of EAHE and PV/T integration into a greenhouse while their researches did
not include the presence of plants in their mathematical modeling. Besides, Nayak and Tiwari
(2008) also investigated the energy and exergy of a PV/T integrated into a greenhouse while
their study did not comprise the effect of EAHE. Hence, through the present study there is an
attempt to not only consider the PV/Ts along with EAHE integration into a greenhouse but also
include the existence of plants in formulation of the problem. Therefore, presenting a
comprehensive thermal modeling of a greenhouse including PV/Ts, EAHE with plants along with
investigation of PV/T and EAHE heating/cooling potentials can be considered the novelty of this
study.

2. System description

The system includes three main elements i.e. greenhouse, EAHE and PV/Ts shown schematically
in Fig.1. The given greenhouse has a plastic cover with a floor area of 24 while it is east-west
orientated. The north side of the greenhouse is constructed of a brick wall being 0.25m wide
while the wall interior side is also blackened for more solar absorption. The height of
greenhouse is 3m in the middle and two exhaust fans are installed on east side of greenhouse.
The EAHE comprises of polymer pipes of 39m long with inner diameter of 0.6m. The given pipes
are buried 1m deep on the west side of greenhouse. A blower with 0.15kW capacity is situated
on south-west of greenhouse and being responsible for air flow through the buried pipes.
Hence, the greenhouse air is blown through the pipes to get heated or cooled and returned
back to the greenhouse.

Fig.1 the schematic view of the greenhouse (Nayak and Tiwari (2010))

PV/T installation dimensions of 6.5×1.62m includes two PV series, attached on the same area of
collectors, is inclined at facing due south. Air inside the greenhouse is also blown into
channels provided beneath the panels to cool the PVs and augment the potential of their
electricity generation while the provided channels being parts of thermal collectors through
which blown air gets heated as the result of heat removal from the PVs and returned back into
greenhouse. So, to know how much PV/Ts and EAHEs could contribute to cooling and heating
the greenhouse air it is required to study the given system from thermal point of view.
3. Thermal analysis

The detailed energy analysis of the given solar greenhouse entitles the thermal analysis of
EAHE, thermal and electrical analyses of PV/Ts and thermal analysis of solar greenhouse while
the main objective is to find the temperatures of solar cells, greenhouse air and plant based on
design, operating and climatic conditions i.e. solar radiation, ambient temperature, plant mass,
mass flow rate of air, number of PV modules, the length of buried pipes etc.

3.1 PV/T

Thermal analysis of PV modules and combined collectors are performed in the following:

3.1.1 PV module

From the total incident solar radiation on PV/T partly is absorbed by PV cells and partly
absorbed by Tedlar while the rest is reflected back into atmosphere. Moreover, solar cells lose
part of absorbed solar radiation to air while the rest of it is conductively transferred to back
surface of Tedlar and the remained part is changed into electricity being all formulated as
followings:

(1)

where , and were the cell, ambient and back surface of Tedlar temperatures.

Hence,

(2)

As a result, calculating the cell temperature is dependent on knowing the Tedlar back surface
temperature.

3.1.2 Tedlar back surface

To cool the PV and consequently improve the electrical efficiency of PVs, transferred heat to
back surface of Tedlar should be removed. So, air continuously flows through channels provided
below Tedlar to fulfill this task. So, the convective heat transfer can be given as:

(3)

while is the mean temperature of air flowing into thermal collectors.

Hence,
 (4)

Substituting Eq.(2) into Eq.(4), one gets:

(5)

which necessitates calculating mean temperature of air flowing through PV/Ts.

3.1.3 Fluid below Tedlar

Part of heat convectively transferred to flowing air through PV/Ts raises the air temperature
and the rest is lost to air. Hence, it can be given as:

(6)

Substituting Eq.(5) into Eq.(6) results in:

(7)

where as the total PV/T heat loss.

Integration of Eq.(7) with the sensible assumption that the temperature of air entering the
channel equals that of greenhouse air, gives:

(8)

where and x are the temperature of greenhouse air entering the thermal collector and the
distance from the PV/T entrance, respectively.

Now, the rate of energy gain from air flowing through PV/T can be calculated as:
 (9)

Two configurations of PV modules placed adjacent are possible i.e. parallel and series while the
total rate of energy gain through series configuration is given as follows (Kumar and Tiwari
(1998)):

(10)

is given in Appendix.

3.2 Earth-air heat exchanger

Air occupying inside the greenhouse flows through pipes buried under the ground surface and
has a heat exchange with surrounding soil. But, for air flowing through the pipes, based on
whether it gains heat from or dissipates heat to soil, the rate of energy gain/loss is calculated by
the following equation (De Paepe and Janssens (2003)):

(11)

where and represent the inner surface area of pipes and mean logarithmic
temperature difference, respectively. Moreover, assuming that there is a close contact
between pipes and surrounding soil along with high soil conductive coefficient in comparison to
thermal resistance of pipes may lead to the following logical assumption (De Paepe and
Janssens (2003)):

where and are the temperatures of pipe wall and soil surrounding the pipe,
respectively. Hence, the rate of energy transfer via EAHE is calculated by:

(12)

where is the inlet air temperature into buried pipes.

3.3 Greenhouse
To thermally model the greenhouse components, some simplifying assumptions have to be
made discussed in detail in Ref. (Nayak and Tiwari (2008)). Hence, the third element is to be
modeled in the following section while its thermal modeling includes thermal modeling of its
constituents as follows:

3.3.1 Plants

The energy balance for a plant enclosed in greenhouse maybe written as (Nayak and Tiwari
(2008)):

(13)

where , and are the temperature of plant, the fraction of solar radiation falling on
plants being considered 0.3 and plant mass, respectively.

Hence:

(14)

3.3.2 Greenhouse floor

For greenhouse floor, the following energy balance can be written:

(15)

where and are the temperatures at larger depth of ground and greenhouse floor
temperature, respectively.

Rearranging Eq.(15) gives the greenhouse floor temperature as follows:

(16)

For the larger depth of ground, is assumed equal to the ambient temperature (Nayak and
Tiwari (2009)).
3.3.3 Greenhouse north wall

Integration of usually brick-made north wall into greenhouse is regarded as a passive heating
way, may partially help with supply of heat. Part of solar radiation is absorbed by the given wall
during sunshine and returned back to greenhouse air for heating. The thermal balance may be
given as follows:

(17)

where and are the temperature of north wall and fraction of solar radiation falling on
north wall, respectively.

Hence, the north wall temperature is given as following:

(18)

3.3.4 Greenhouse air

Greenhouse air is forced to flow through channels beneath PV/Ts to get heated and returned to
greenhouse. Moreover, it also flows through buried pipes to absorb or dissipate heat in case
soil is warmer or cooler than the greenhouse air temperature, respectively. In the following,
these heat exchanges are modeled:

(19)

where , are the heat exchange through EAHE, rate of greenhouse air changes
through installed fans and volume of greenhouse, respectively.

Substituting Eq.(10) and Eq.(12) into Eq.(19), the following relation is found for greenhouse air
temperature:
 (20)

while and are given in Appendix.

Substituting into the right hand of Eq.(13) also gives

(21)

where

(22)

while is given in Appendix.

Solving Eq.(21) for plant temperature gives:

(23)

where represents the temperature of plant at starting point.

4. Electrical analysis of PV/T

Presence of PV electrical efficiency, , in Eq.(1) depicts the thermal analysis dependence on

electrical analysis of the PV/T system. In previous studies, the electrical efficiency of a PV/T
system was calculated by an empirical equation as follows (Evans (1981)):

(24)

where the subscript ‘ref’ indicates the value of parameters at the reference conditions. The
above equation (Eq.(24)) had a big deficiency i.e. at low solar radiation intensity, the PV module
electrical efficiency equals to the electrical efficiency of the PV at reference conditions
( ). Through the present study, a 4-
parameter electrical model, representing the current (I)-voltage (V) relationship of the PV
module is used (Celik and Acikgoz (2007)):
 (25)
where a, , and are ideality factor, light current, diode reverse saturation current and
series resistance, respectively. Hedayatizadeh et el., (2013) discussed the procedure of finding
and as the current and voltage at maximum power point (MPP) in detail and the
resultant electrical power of the given PV based on the specific climatic condition is given by:

(26)

Finally, the electrical efficiency of the PV module can be calculated by:

(27)

5. Energy efficiency

To find the energy efficiency of the given greenhouse ( ) the whole greenhouse including
PV/Ts and EAHE is considered a control volume, shown in Fig.2

Fig.2 Greenhouse as a control volume together with heat transfer components

Hence, the energy balance, based on Fig.2, gives:

 (28)

while the rate of inlet energy into the control volume is given as follows:

(29)

where

(30)

(31)

(32)

while , and are the area of each side of greenhouse, rate of solar radiation upon each
side and the total area of PVs installed.

The rate of outlet Energy from the control volume is also brought as follows:

(33)

while , and are rate of greenhouse energy loss through sides to surrounding
air, rate of generated electrical energy, and energy loss exclusively through greenhouse air
ventilation via fans, respectively.

is the rate of electricity generated by PVs from which electricity consumed by fan should be
subtracted, therefore:

(34)
where n represents the number of modules connected in series and is the rate of electrical
energy consumed for greenhouse air ventilation ( ) together with rate of
electrical energy used for flowing air through channels beneath PVs and pipes buried under the
ground surface:

(35)

The power of fan required for pushing air through a passage is given by the following equation:

(36)

where , , and are rate of air flow, pressure loss through passage, density of air and
fan efficiency considered 0.8, respectively.

Pressure loss through passage is defined as (Garg and Agrawal (1995)):

(37)

where , d, V, and g are the length of passage, diameter of it, average air velocity through
passage, loss pressure factor and gravity acceleration, respectively while

Hence,

(38)

where and are the mass of air occupying the greenhouse and the mass of plant,
respectively.

6. Exergy efficiency
The useful energy inside the given control volume (Fig.3) includes heat and electricity
generated while these two have different qualities from the exergy point of view. Hence,
finding the exergy efficiency has high significance.

The exergy balance leads to:

(39)

where , and represent the total input exergy, output exergy and destroyed
one inside the control volume, respectively.

(40)

(41)

Based on exergy efficiency definition representing the desired output exergy rate over the net
exery input rate, one can obtain:

(42)
 Fig.3 Greenhouse control volume together with exergy transfer components

Referring to Petela’s equation, the rate of exergy on PV panel is as follows (Petela (1964)):

(43)

where is the temperature of sun.

The rate of exergy for solar radiation entering the greenhouse, is also calculated as follows:

(44)

and electricity-related exergy rate is also given by:

while equals formulated above.

The rate of exergy for EAHE is also given by (Nayak and Tiwari (2009)):
 (45)

The rate of exergy change within the control volume is also calculated by:

(46)

Finally, the equation representing exergy efficiency for the given control volum is gained as
follows:

(47)
It is also worth mentioning that for calculation of solar radiation falling on different walls and
roofs of greenhouse, Liu and Jordan formula was applied (Duffie and Beckman (2013)).
7. Validation and optimization

To measure the degree of validity of the current modeling against real situation, the theoretical
results of the current study are validated versus the experimental data introduced by Nayak
and Tiwari (2008) with the exception that through the given experimental study, the effect of
EAHE is not included. Therefore, should be assumed zero through given theoretical modeling
to exclude the effect of EAHE for having the same problem as Nayak and Tiwari (2008). The
design, operating and climatic data extracted from the experiemntal study (Nayak and Tiwari
(2008)) are summarized in Table 1. Afterwards, the optimization of design and operating
parameters with the aim of reaching maximum energy and exergy efficiencies for two distinct
climatic situations, namely summer and winter, is performed.

Table 1 Experimental data based on Ref. (Nayak and Tiwari (2008))

No. of PV modules 16 (-) Air velocity through module 2( )

passages
Area of each PV module 0.605 ( ) Rate of greenhouse air 50 ( )
ventilation
Panel dimension 1.62 × 6.5 (m2) Density of air 1.2 ( )
Fan 12 (W) Packing factor of solar cell 0.83 (-)
Length of buried pipes 39 (m) Efficiency of solar cell 0.12 (-)
Diameter of buried pipe 60 (mm) Absorptivity of solar cell 0.9 (-)
Blower capacity 0.15 (kW) Absorptivity of Tedlar 0.5 (-)
PV module rating ower 75 (W) Absorptivity of greenhouse 0.3 (-)
floor
short circuit current 4.8 (A) Absorptivity of plant 0.5 (-)
Open circuit voltage 21.7 (V) Plant heat removal factor 0.4 (-)
Inclination of PV module 45 ( ) Thermal conductivity of 0.033
Tedlar ( )
Specific heat of air 1012 ( ) Tedlar thickness 0.0005 (m)
Specific heat of plant 4910 ( ) Thermal conductivity of 0.04
insulation ( )
Greenhouse volume 144 ( ) Insulation thickness 0.0018 (m)
Greenhouse floor area 6×4( ) Plant mass in greenhouse 50-250 (kg)
Temperature of soil at 1 22-28 ( ) Module type Single-
meter depth crystalline
silicon, Siemens
Heat transfer coefficient 30.25 ( ) Number of module cells 36
between plant and
greenhouse air

For validation, the temperatures of greehouse air, solar cell and back of Tedlar were
theoretically calculated and compared with those of experiment reported in Ref. (Nayak and
Tiwari (2008)). Moreover, to calculate the error percentage of simulated data in comparison to
experimental data, Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD) and the coefficient of correlation (r)
were calculated.

Moreover, considering the greenhouse, the independent operating/design parameters include

the number of PV/Ts, flow rates of air through PV/T channels and EAHE pipes, length of buried
pipes, plant mass and the rate of greenhouse air changes via fan which can be controlled
independently by the user. Hence, the main objective was to find the maximum possible energy
and exergy efficiencies through determination of the optimized values of those independent
parameters. Due to the fact that there was no control over the climatic parameters, the
optimization was performed for different hours of a day. Furthermore, due to different effects
of EAHE in summer and winter, the optimization problem was performed separately for a
typical day in summer and also in winter. Therefore, formulation of the problem is given as:

Maximize

1. = Eq.(38)
2. = Eq.(47)

Subject to

; ; ; ;
;

where , , , , and represent the number of PV modules, plant mass, air flow
rate through PV/T, air flow rate through EAHE, length of buried pipes and rate of greenhouse
air ventilation. The given objective functions along with the constraints were introduced into
MATLAB and the respective maximum quantities of objective functions were gained.

8. Results and discussion

8.1 Validation

The trends of experiemntal and simulation-based results for solar cell, back surface of Tedlar
and greenhouse air temperatures along with ambient temperature versus time are brought in
Fig.4.
 Fig.4 comparison between experimental (Nayak and Tiwari (2008)) and theoretical studies
based on temperatures of greenhouse air, solar cell and Tedlar back surface

As observed, the simulation data could acceptably follow the trends while the calculated
RMSDs for solar cell, Tedlar back surface and greenhouse air temperatures were gained
12.55%, 9.24% and 6.13% being lower than those of Nayak and Tiwari simulating the same
experiment with reported RMSDs as 13%, 17.58%, 7.05%, respectively (Nayak and Tiwari
(2008)). Moreover, The coefficients of correlation were gained 96%, 98% and 92% which
altogether confirm a fairly good agreement between the experimental and theoretical results.

8.2 Energy and exergy based optimization

The results of optimization showed that the maximum energy efficiency for a typical day in
summer was attained with minimum number of PV/T modules, low air flow rates through PV/Ts
and minimum rate of greenhouse air ventilation via fans. These observations may be attributed
to the fact that during summer the temperature of greenhouse air does not require to be
increased since the greenhouse is excessively exposed to sunshine. So, decreasing the number
of solar collectors and as a result the number of PV/Ts is more favorable. Lowering the rate of
air flow through thermal collectors is also justifiable as the temperature of inside air is warm
enough and there is no need to consume more energy to move air through collector air
channels which means more electricity saving and higher energy efficiency. But, decreasing the
number of PV/Ts is along with less electricity generation. So, it is more favorable to decrease
the rate of greenhouse air ventilation through exhaust fans whose electricity is supplied by PVs.
But, the maximum value of energy efficiency is attained through maximum quantities of
greenhouse plant mass and rate of air flow through EAHE. Higher plant mass means more solar
energy absorption by the target product and less heat loss. Moreover, raising air flow through
buried pipes is fruitful since having higher rate of air flow is also along with temperature
decrease of plants and greenhouse air which both lead to higher energy efficiency.

Maximizing energy efficiency on a typical day in winter also brought the same results except for
one difference i.e. the number of PV/Ts. With regard to low temperature of air surrounding
greenhouse, the necessity of heat delivery to greenhouse for keeping the plants alive is highly
critical. So, increasing the number of solar thermal collectors means more heat delivery which is
along with the results.

Exergy efficiency maximization for a typical day in summer and winter also showed that the
results do not differ from a summer day to a winter day while the maximum exergy efficiency is
along with the maximum values of operating values except for rate of air flow through
collectors, EAHE and fans. From the second law of thermodynamics, electricity has a high
quality and high significance as a result. So, for the case of greenhouse, saving electricity
provided that the product (plant) is not sacrificed has high importance. Moving air through
PV/Ts or buried pipes and starting the fans are all electricity consuming and exergy destructive.
So, optimization confirmed that reaching higher level of exergy efficiency is along with
minimally operated pumps and fans.

But, for all cases studied above the optimized values proposed for variables were either the
minimum or the maximum of limits introduced through constraints while length of buried pipes
was the only parameter that MATLAB optimization could introduce a value as 38.11m on
average. Moreover, it is also worth mentioning that the length of buried pipes found through
optimization is almost near to that of experiment 39m (Nayak and Tiwari (2008)).

8.3 Heating/cooling potential of PV/Ts and EAHE

8.3.1 Heating/cooling potential of PV/Ts and EAHE on greenhouse air and plant temperatures
on a summer day (August 25th)

8.3.1.1 PV/T

To investigate the heating potential of PV/Ts, the new optimized length of buried pipes along
with data summarized in Table 1 and the climatic conditions extracted from Ref (Nayak and
Tiwari (2008)) were used. In this case, to study the effect of only PV/T on temperatures of
greenhouse air and plants, the mass flow rate of air through EAHE was set to zero. Based on
Fig.5 it is obviously observed that the temperatures of greenhouse air and plants are above the
ambient temperature from 6 a.m. to 6.p.m. Moreover, during the day, air flowing through
PV/Ts only showed tiny increase of plant and greenhouse air temperatures in comparison to
the time when there was no air flow through PV/Ts. Furthermore, during the day, the
temperature of plants, due to higher absorptance, was higher than that of greenhouse air.
Therefore, it was concluded that during summer, PV/Ts could not increase the temperatures of
plant and greenhouse air remarkably through integrated thermal collectors and such
integration could only meet the electrical needs of greenhouse rather than heating. The reason
may also be linked to the fact that during summer the greenhouse is sufficiently exposed to sun
radiation and it is fully passively heated. Hence, thermal collectors could not show substantial
potential on temperature increase.
 Fig.5 Trend of plant and greenhouse air temperatures affected only by PV/T on a
summer day

8.3.1.2 Earth-air heat exchanger

To see the performance of EAHE and its effects on temperatures of greenhouse air and plants
alone, mass flow rate of air through PV/Ts was set to zero. As seen in Fig.6, the temperatures of
these two components are 2-9 lower during the day when air flows through the buried pipes.
As the sun vanishes, the cooling effect of EAHE is roughly diminished. It is also worth
mentioning that through the midnight to dawn, EAHE shows a heating potential which leads to
increase in temperatures of greenhouse air. Hence, during summer, the PV/Ts are
recommended only for generation of electricity while EAHE can reduce the greenhouse
temperature fluctuations which positively affect the growth of plants. Finally, to know how lot
EAHE is effective on reducing these fluctuations, TLL (thermal load leveling) was introduced
(Handbook, ASHRAE Fundamentals (2009)) while the lower magnitude of it is more favorable:
in which represents the greenhouse temperature. So, the value of TLL without integration of
EAHE was gained 0.273 while its integration brought about a TLL of 0.147. Therefore, on a
summer day, integration of EAHE could help the greenhouse air temperature experience fewer
fluctuations by 46%.

Fig.6 Trend of plant and greenhouse air temperatures affected only by EAHE on a
summer day

8.3.2 Heating/cooling effect of PV/Ts and EAHE on greenhouse air and plant temperatures on
winter day (December 23th)

8.3.2.1 PV/T

The trend of temperature changes only affected by PV/T integration on a winter day was shown
in Fig.7. As seen, the temperature of plant was a bit more than that of greenhouse air only
during midday while the effect of PV/T integration on raising the temperature of these two
elements was not noticeable. Hence, it was reconfirmed that PV/Ts could only be integrated as
an electricity supplier rather than a heater. So, the PV integration with greenhouse was
recommended rather than PV/T since the greenhouse structure itself could absorb enough heat
through its opaque/transparent covering and trap heat.

Fig.7 Trend of plant and greenhouse air temperatures affected only by PV/T on a winter
day

8.3.3.2 Earth-air heat exchanger

The effect of EAHE on raising or lowering the temperatures of plant and greenhouse air is
illustrated in Fig.8. As seen, the temperatures of plants and greenhouse air are close to each
other while that of plant is a bit higher. Moreover, it is seen that EAHE is effective on raising the
temperatures of both elements during the night by 8 and lowering their temperatures during
the day by 5 . So, it may be conclude that burial of pipes can remarkably found effective and
help with the main objective. For this case, the TLL was achieved 0.619 in absence of EAHE
while its integration resulted in 0.261 which means greenhouse air temperature experiences
fewer fluctuations by 58%.
 Fig.8 Trend of plant and greenhouse air temperatures affected only by EAHE on a winter day

9. Conclusion

In this study, an attempt was made to thermally model a greenhouse integrated with PV/T and
EAHE for finding energy and exergy efficiencies. These equations were then optimized to find
the optimum values of independent operating/design parameters. By optimization it was
concluded that only length of buried pipes could show an optimum value of 38.11m, on
average. Moreover, the heating and cooling potential of PV/Ts and EAHE were separately
evaluated for typical days in summer and winter and it was observed that PV/T could only
provide the greenhouse with electricity rather than significant amount of heat i.e. its heating
potential on greenhouse air and plant temperatures were negligible. But, EAHE could have a
remarkable impact on plant temperatures through cooling at daytime and heating at night. The
value of thermal load leveling without integration of EAHE was gained 0.273 while its use led to
a thermal load leveling of 0.147 on a summer day i.e. integration of EAHE could cause the
greenhouse air temperature to go through less fluctuation by 46%. Moreover, on a winter day,
the thermal load leveling was gained 0.619 in absence of EAHE while its application brought
about a thermal load leveling equal to 0.261 which is proportional to less fluctuation of
greenhouse air temperature by 58%.

10. References

Jain, D., & Tiwari, G. N. (2003). Modeling and optimal design of ground air collector for heating
in controlled environment greenhouse. Energy Conversion and Management, 44(8), 1357-1372.

Evans, D. L. (1981). Simplified method for predicting photovoltaic array output. Solar
energy, 27(6), 555-560.

Ghosal, M. K., Tiwari, G. N., & Srivastava, N. S. L. (2004). Thermal modeling of a greenhouse
with an integrated earth to air heat exchanger: an experimental validation. Energy and
Buildings, 36(3), 219-227.

Ghosal, M. K., Tiwari, G. N., Das, D. K., & Pandey, K. P. (2005). Modeling and comparative
thermal performance of ground air collector and earth air heat exchanger for heating of
greenhouse. Energy and buildings, 37(6), 613-621.

Tiwari, G. N., Akhtar, M. A., Shukla, A., & Khan, M. E. (2006). Annual thermal performance of
greenhouse with an earth–air heat exchanger: An experimental validation. Renewable
Energy, 31(15), 2432-2446.

Ghosal, M. K., & Tiwari, G. N. (2006). Modeling and parametric studies for thermal performance
of an earth to air heat exchanger integrated with a greenhouse. Energy conversion and
management, 47(13-14), 1779-1798.

Nayak, S., & Tiwari, G. N. (2008). Energy and exergy analysis of photovoltaic/thermal integrated
with a solar greenhouse. Energy and Buildings, 40(11), 2015-2021.

Nayak, S., & Tiwari, G. N. (2009). Theoretical performance assessment of an integrated

photovoltaic and earth air heat exchanger greenhouse using energy and exergy analysis
methods. Energy and Buildings, 41(8), 888-896.

Nayak, S., & Tiwari, G. N. (2010). Energy metrics of photovoltaic/thermal and earth air heat
exchanger integrated greenhouse for different climatic conditions of India. Applied
Energy, 87(10), 2984-2993.

Yildiz, A., Ozgener, O., & Ozgener, L. (2011). Exergetic performance assessment of solar
photovoltaic cell (PV) assisted earth to air heat exchanger (EAHE) system for solar greenhouse
cooling. Energy and Buildings, 43(11), 3154-3160.
Boughanmi, H., Lazaar, M., Bouadila, S., & Farhat, A. (2015). Thermal performance of a conic
basket heat exchanger coupled to a geothermal heat pump for greenhouse cooling under
Tunisian climate. Energy and Buildings, 104, 87-96.

Hussain, M. I., Ali, A., & Lee, G. H. (2016). Multi-module concentrated photovoltaic thermal
system feasibility for greenhouse heating: Model validation and techno-economic
analysis. Solar Energy, 135, 719-730.

Romantchik, E., Ríos, E., Sánchez, E., López, I., & Sánchez, J. R. (2017). Determination of energy
to be supplied by photovoltaic systems for fan-pad systems in cooling process of
greenhouses. Applied Thermal Engineering, 114, 1161-1168.

Boughanmi, H., Lazaar, M., & Guizani, A. (2018). A performance of a heat pump system
connected a new conic helicoidal geothermal heat exchanger for a greenhouse heating in the
north of Tunisia. Solar Energy, 171, 343-353.

Celik, A. N., & Acikgoz, N. (2007). Modelling and experimental verification of the operating
current of mono-crystalline photovoltaic modules using four-and five-parameter
models. Applied energy, 84(1), 1-15.

Awani, S., Kooli, S., Chargui, R., & Guizani, A. (2017). Numerical and experimental study of a
closed loop for ground heat exchanger coupled with heat pump system and a solar collector for
heating a glass greenhouse in north of Tunisia. International Journal of Refrigeration, 76, 328-
341.

Kumar, S., & Tiwari, G. N. (1998). Optimization of collector and basin areas for a higher yield for
active solar stills.Desalination, 116(1), 1-9.

De Paepe, M., & Janssens, A. (2003). Thermo-hydraulic design of earth-air heat

exchangers. Energy and buildings,35(4), 389-397.

Garg, H. P., & Agarwal, R. K. (1995). Some aspects of a PV/T collector/forced circulation flat
plate solar water heater with solar cells. Energy Conversion and Management,36(2), 87-99.

Hedayatizadeh, M., Ajabshirchi, Y., Sarhaddi, F., Safavinejad, A., Farahat, S., & Chaji, H. (2013).
Thermal and electrical assessment of an integrated solar photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) water
collector equipped with a compound parabolic concentrator (CPC). International journal of
green energy, 10(5), 494-522.

Petela, R. (1964). Exergy of heat radiation. Journal of Heat Transfer, 86(2), 187-192.

Duffie, J. A., & Beckman, W. A. (2013). Solar engineering of thermal processes. John Wiley &
Sons.
Handbook, A. F. (2009). American society of heating, refrigerating and air-conditioning
engineers. Inc.: Atlanta, GA, USA.

Appendix
A solar greenhouse integrated with PV/T and earth-air heat exchanger was thermally modeled;

Only length of EAHE had an optimum value;

Heating/cooling potential of PV/T and EAHE integration into greenhouse were studied;

PV was recommended rather than PV/T integration while heating/cooling potential of EAHE was
noticeable;