Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 683–697

www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

A study on the solar energy storing rock-bed to

heat a polyethylene tunnel type greenhouse
Ahmet Kürklü a,∗, Sefai Bilgin a, Burhan Özkan b
a
Akdeniz University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Mechanisation, 07059
Antalya, Turkey
b
Akdeniz University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics, 07059 Antalya,
Turkey

Received 28 May 2002; accepted 13 July 2002

Abstract

A study was conducted to store solar energy in an underground rock-bed for greenhouse
heating. Experiments were carried out in two identical polyethylene tunnel type greenhouses,
each with 15 m2 ground area. Rocks were filled in two canals excavated and insulated in the
soil of one of the greenhouses. Greenhouse air was pushed through the rock-bed by a centrifu-
gal fan with 1100 m3/h air flow rate and controlled by two thermostats when the energy storage
or release was required. No crops were grown in the greenhouses and the vents were kept
closed unless excessive condensation occurrence inside the greenhouses. The results of this
study showed that the rock-bed system created an air temperature difference of about 10 °C
at night, between the two greenhouses, the control one having the lower temperature. Further-
more, the rock-bed system kept the inside air temperature higher than that of outside air at
night, even in an overcast day following a clear day. Whilst solar energy collection efficiency
of the system was 34%, its energy recovery or release efficiency was higher than 80%. A
numerical mathematical model considered here represented actual data well. An economic
analysis indicated that the rock-bed system is more economical than the LPG or petroleum-
based fuel burning heating systems widely used in Turkish greenhouses.
 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Rock-bed; Greenhouses; Mathematical modeling

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-242 2274560x318; fax: +90-242 2274564.
E-mail address: ahmet@agric.akdeniz.edu.tr (A. Kürklü).

0960-1481/03/$ - see front matter  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 6 0 - 1 4 8 1 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 0 9 - X
684 A. Kürklü et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 683–697

Nomenclature
D diameter (m)
V bulk volume (m3)
n number of particles (dimensionless)
Q heat energy (kW)
m air mass flow rate (kg/s)
C specific heat (kJ/kg °C)
T air temperature (°C)
I solar radiation measured inside the greenhouse (kW/m2)
A area (m2)
dt period of data recording (h)
h heat transfer coefficient, (W/m3 K)
dT
dt temperature gradient of the node (°C/s)
p time step
PV present value
ny number of years
i discount rate
S future sum

Subscripts

e equivalent
r rock
c solar collection
rc recovery
p constant pressure
a air
in inlet
out outlet
g ground
v volumetric
k any rock-bed node in the modeling

Greek symbols

⑀ porosity of rock-bed (dimensionless)

h efficiency, %
⌬x thickness of nodal elements, m
r density, including voids, kg/m3
 A. Kürklü et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 683–697 685

1. Introduction

It is a well-known fact today that due to decline of the world’s fosil energy
resources and the environmental impacts of the use of these resources, utilization
and storage of renewable energies are by no means, issues which should be neglected.
Almost every energy-related trouble-shooting activity, involves the use of renew-
ables. Greenhouses are one of the areas of the effective utilization of renewable
energies, solar energy, in particular. Greenhouses can be considered as a large solar
collector having no air inlet and outlet [1]. As the solar energy is intermittent, it
needs to be stored in clear days to use the energy stored for heating at night [1,2].
Besides water and soil itself as the solar energy storage medium, 20–150 mm rocks
are usually utilized to serve the same purpose [3,4]. Rocks are the materials, which
are loosely packed in a store, take or give up heat from the air and have high energy
storage capacity [5,6]. Rock-bed is also considered to have the required character-
istics such as higher thermal conductivity than those of water and phase change
materials, rapid heat transfer, low cost and long life [7,8]. As the design thumb-nail
rules; a rock-bed volume of 0.3 m3 per m2 greenhouse ground area and a fan capable
of giving 5 m3/min per square meter ground area are assumed sufficient for an
efficient operation of the system [3].
Various researches showed that the rock-bed system could achieve an inside air
temperature 4–20 °C higher than the outside air, in combination with a variety of
energy conservation methods [9], and such systems could supply 20–70% of the
annual heat requirement [10]. Solar energy storage efficiencies of rock-bed systems
varied from 8% to 19% [1,11].
This study is aimed to define the full potential of a rock-bed system, without any
other energy conservation measure, as an alternative to the present expensive heaters
used only to prevent frost accurance in the largest greenhouse concentration area,
Antalya region of Turkey. The results of the study could be beneficial to any country
of similar climatic characteristics.

2. Experimental

2.1. The greenhouses and the rock-bed store

The experiments were carried out in two identical 0.2 mm polyethylene covered
tunnel greenhouses, each with 15 m2 ground area, and one of the greenhouses
included two rock-bed canals excavated in the subsoil of the greenhouse and the
other was without rock-bed, which was used as control. The canal dimensions were
3×1.25×0.75 m. Each rockbed canal was furnished with two 75×60 cm galvanised
sheet baffles to create air turbulence within the rock-bed. The experimental set-up
is shown in Fig. 1. After the rocks were filled in the canals, the top surface was
covered by soil with a depth sufficient for the root development of the plants should
they have been grown. All the canal surfaces were insulated with 5cm glass wool.
A centrifugal fan with 140 mm head, 1100 m3/h air flow rate and 1.1 kW power
686 A. Kürklü et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 683–697

Fig. 1. Schematic front-cut (a) and side-cut (b) views of the experimental set-up.

consumption was used to push the air through the rocks. Two thermostats, both
inside the greenhouse with rock-bed, referred to as experimental in the figures, con-
trolled the operation of the fan.
One of the thermostats commanded the fan below a minimum set-point tempera-
ture, i.e. night operation, and the other above a maximum set-point temperature, i.e.
day operation. Two different maximum and minimum thermostat setting were used,
namely 30, 15, 35 and 20 °C, respectively.

2.2. The measurements

The greenhouse side wents were kept closed during the whole measurement period
to reflect the full energy storage potential of the system, except in cases of high
condensation on the cover surface. The measurements were started on 13 October
2000 and completed on 12 March 2001. Air temperatures outside and inside, at the
rock-bed inlet and exit by T type thermocouples; temperatures in the rock-bed at
0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 and 2.5 m bed lengths on the central line by K type thermocouples;
solar radiation inside by a solar energy sensor (Delta-T Type ES), and air relative
humidity inside both greenhouses by humidity sensors (SKH 2011) were all meas-
ured. Air flow measurement was achieved by a hot wire anemometer. All the sensors
used were new and of high accuracy. The calibration coefficients of the sensors,
except the hot wire anemometer, were built-in the data logger. Making cable connec-
tions and selecting relevant sensor types from the list of sensors of the logger were
enough to start measurements. While the inside air temperature thermocouples and
humidity sensors were located at 1.5 m above ground, the solar radiation sensor was
levelled on the ground.
The data measured were recorded every hour by a Delta T Devices data logger
and then transferred to a PC for further evaluation.
 A. Kürklü et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 683–697 687

2.3. Porosity, equivalent rock diameter and rock density determination

The authors are aware of the effect of the void fraction or the porosity on heat
transfer in a rock-bed. However, the present study did not aim at the definition of
this effect since this would be subject of a seperate research. Nevertheless, to describe
the properties of the rock-bed fully, the porosity was determined by measuring the
amounts of water in a container including no rocks, and in the same container with
rock. Division of the latter one to the former gave the porosity of the rockbed.
Equivalent diameter of the rocks was calculated by using the equation below [7];

冪
3
6Vr(1⫺e)
De ⫽ (1)
pnr
Rock density was determined in a similar way to porosity. For this, the same
container was filled-in with rocks and then weighted. Substracting the container
weight from the total gave the net rock weight. Taking the container volume into
consideration, the density was then expressed as kg/m3. The thermo-physical proper-
ties of the rocks used in this experiment are given in Table 1.
2.4. Energy collection and recovery efficiencies
Following equations were used in the calculations of solar energy collected and
energy recovered respectively;
Qc ⫽ mCp,a(Tin⫺Tout) (2)
Qrc ⫽ mCp,a(Tout⫺Tin) (3)
Daily solar energy collection and energy recovery efficiencies were determined
respectively, as follows;

冕
t2

Qcdt
t1
hc ⫽ (4)

冕
t2

IAgdt
t1

Table 1
Properties of the rock-bed and the air used in the experiment

Equivalent diameter 32 mm (calculated according to [8])

Density 1430 kg/m3 (measured)
Porosity 49% (measured)
Specific heat 0.8 kJ/kgK (assumed)
Thermal conductivity 2.9 W/mK
Air mass flow rate 0.366 kg/s
Air specific heat 1000.5 J/kgK
Volumetric heat transfer coefficient 2304.8 W/ m3 K [calculated from Eq. (6)]
688 A. Kürklü et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 683–697

冕
t2

Qrcdt
t1
hrc ⫽ (5)

冕
t2

Qcdt
t1

Heat loss from the rock-bed to the surrounding was neglected during the calculations.

2.5. Mathematical modeling of the rock-bed

Rock-beds were modeled with various approaches in previous studies [8,12–15].

Here, numerical finite difference approximation was applied to model the rock-bed
used in this study. The rock-bed was divided into equal thickness segments or nodes
in the direction opposite to the air flow. Heat loss from the rock-bed to the surround-
ing and the heat transfer in the rocks in the radial direction were neglected. The air
temperatures at the centre of each node, was then calculated using the model
developed here. During the modeling, hv was calculated as follows [14];

hv ⫽ 652 冉 冊
m
ArDe
0.7
(6)

As the calculated hv was quite high (see Table 1), it was assumed that the air and
rock temperatures were equal in any node under consideration. For the stability of
numerical equations, the rule below was applied [8];
hvAr⌬x
⬍1 (7)
mCp,a
Therefore, the thickness of each node was 0.075 m and the total number of nodes
was 40.Energy balance of any node was expressed as follows;
dTr,k
rrCp,rAr⌬x ⫽ hvAr⌬x(Ta,k⫺1⫺Ta,k) (8)
dt
As indicated above, since hv was quite high, taking Ta,k=Tr,k Eq. (8) was re-written
as below;
rrCp,rAr⌬x(Tp+1
r,k ⫺Tr,k) ⫽ hvAr⌬x(Ta,k⫺1⫺Tr,k)dt
p p+1 p
(9)
⫹1
Here, Tpa,k⫺1 is the temperature of the previous node at the same time step.
Rearranging Eq. (9) gave;
a,k⫺1 ⫹ rrCp,rAr⌬xTr,k
3600mCp,aTp+1 p

r,k ⫽
Tp+1 (10)
3600mCp,a ⫹ rrCp,rAr⌬x
For the calculations in the next time step, Tpr,k was taken equal to Tpr,k⫹ 1 and the
calculations continued till the required final time.
 A. Kürklü et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 683–697 689

3. Results and discussion

The results of this study were presented in nine distinctive parts.

3.1. High outside air temperature and solar radiation days

Fig. 2 shows this situation for two typical days. The data for these two days started
at 00:05 h and finished at 23:00 h. The fan started to operate at about 35 °C for
energy storage during the day, and it started to operate again below 20 °C at night
when the heating was needed. Solar energy was stored for about 5 h, and released
for about 11 h. As indicated by the figure, solar radiation went up as high as 600
W/m2, and the air temperature in the control greenhouse 41 °C during the day. How-
ever, the air temperature in the experimental greenhouse was kept at about set-point
temperature during the whole energy storage period. Perhaps the most important
point to stress for these two days was the temperature difference at night. As depicted
in the figure, whilst air temperatures outside and inside the control greenhouse
dropped below 10 °C at night, air temperature in the experimental greenhouse was
kept above 19 °C all night, due to energy released from the rock-bed.

3.2. Low outside air temperature and high solar radiation day

This is represented by Fig. 3 for 2 days. Again, the data for these two days started
at 00:00 h and ended at 23:00 h. At this period, since the outside air temperatures
were lower, the maximum and minimum thermostat settings were reduced to 30 and
15 °C, respectively. The air temperature in the control greenhouse seemed 2 °C
lower than the outside air. The reasons for this could be the long wave radiation
loss of the plastic cover and the influence of heat loss from the experimental green-
house on the outside air thermocouple. The rock-bed system created more than 8 °C
positive temperature difference between the greenhouses.

Fig. 2. Variation of temperature and solar radiation with time of day.

690 A. Kürklü et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 683–697

Fig. 3. Temperature and solar radiation vs. time of day.

3.3. A high solar radiation day followed by an overcast day

This is indicated in Fig. 4. Though there was no energy storage in low solar
radiation days, due to inside air temperature not reaching the maximum set-point,
whilst the outside and the control greenhouse inside air temperatures dropped to 2
°C at night, this was about 10 °C in the other greenhouse. In other words, most of
the energy stored in a clear day was kept in the rock-bed and carried over to the
other day, ready for use in case of requirement.

3.4. Low solar radiation days followed by overcast days

Fig. 5 depicts this situation. Since there was little energy storage during the day
and no energy left over from the previous days, the air temperatures outside and
inside both greenhouses were all almost same.

Fig. 4. Temperature and solar radiation vs. time for two days.
 A. Kürklü et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 683–697 691

Fig. 5. Temperature and solar radiation vs. time for three days.

3.5. Air relative humidity

Fig. 6 shows the relative humidity variation with time for two ordinary days. As
the temperature difference between the two greenhouses increased, the relative
humidity difference also increased. Since the experimental greenhouse was cooled
down during the day and heated-up at night, its relative humidity was naturally higher
during the day and lower at night, with some 13% difference with the other. Some
water vapour might have condensed during the day and evaporated at night in the
rock-bed.

3.6. Energy budget

Fig. 7 represents the variations of integrals of monthly averages of daily solar

radiation, stored energy and required energy for 10 °C inside air temperature, based
on the measurements. Whilst the lowest incoming solar radiation integral, 7.24

Fig. 6. Variation of relative humidity with time for two typical days.
692 A. Kürklü et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 683–697

Fig. 7. Monthly variations of incoming, stored and required energies.

MJ/m2-day, was in January, the highest, 13.06 MJ/m2-day, was in March during
the experimental period. Therefore, the least energy storage and the highest energy
requirement were in January. As the figure indicates, incoming solar radiation was
well above the predicted energy requirement taking the U value as 7 W/m2 °C [16]
for 10 °C inside air temperature. The U value used here also included the infiltration
losses from the greenhouse. It seems from the figure that, an energy storage system
with about 50% energy storage efficiency could supply all the energy required for
the indicated inside air temperature. Though, with the present 34% solar collection
efficiency, the energy storage system tested here was unable to keep the inside air
temperature above 10 °C only in January when the outside air temperature was 0
o
C, the system was able to keep the inside air temperature above 7 °C.

3.7. Solar collection efficiency relations

Although the inside air temperature is of interest to a user, since the time to keep
the inside air temperature at a required level is greatly effected by the amount of
energy stored, solar radiation and outside air temperature, a special interest was
shown here to solar radiation and outside air temperature. These data could easily
be obtained from the office of meteorology for the prediction and modeling purposes
as well.
Fig. 8 reflects the relationship between the energy collection efficiency and
reduced parameter for the case of greenhouse itself as the solar collector. No radiation
values were excluded in the efficiency calculations. The relationship between these
two variables was not statistically very strong. However, it is suggested that outside
solar radiation values higher than 630 W/m2 should be used in such calculations
[17,18]. Should this have been done, the relationship would probably be much
stronger. Small values of the reduced parameter indicated the weak insulation charac-
teristics of the plastic cover.
 A. Kürklü et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 683–697 693

Fig. 8. Collection efficiency vs. reduced parameter.

Fig. 9 represents the energy collection efficiency versus monthly average outside
air temperature, taking the greenhouse itself as a solar collector. The relationship
between these two variables was represented by a third-order polynome. The
regression coefficient was 49%. This relationship and the regression coefficient were
in perfect agreement with the results of [11]. However, a longer data-recording period
would make the relationship stronger.
Energy collection efficiency of the rock-bed system was 34%. This was quite high
when compared to the existing literature. For example, efficiency was 8% in [1] and
8–19.3% in [11]. The higher efficiency in our study could be attributed to; high air
flow rate, an effective insulation, baffles inside the rock-bed to create air turbulence,
high incoming solar radiation and the properties of the rocks used.
Energy recovery efficiency of the system was higher than 80%. The rest, 20%,
of the energy might have been lost or kept in the store.

3.8. Mathematical modeling

Fig. 10 indicates the variation of measured and calculated temperatures using Eq.
(10) and the parameters given in Table 1, for heating and cooling periods only. The
measured and predicted values were in excellent agreement. This indicated that sim-

Fig. 9. Monthly collection efficiency vs. average outside air temperature.

694 A. Kürklü et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 683–697

Fig. 10. Measured vs. calculated temperatures.

ple mathematical model used here performed effectively and could be used in simi-
lar studies.

3.9. Economic analysis

The rock-bed storage was investigated as an alternative system to improve econ-

omic efficiency of greenhouse operations. Currently, there is no instance of rock-
bed operation in the greenhouse industry in Turkey. The profitability of rock-bed
system will be the key factor in justifying their use.
An economic analysis of a greenhouse rock-bed system was performed by compar-
ing it to the conventional greenhouse systems. All the variable costs were included
in the analysis. However, the replacement costs of the covering materials were
ignored since these costs would not change the final outcome of the analysis. The
alternatives were:

1. Greenhouse with a rock-bed

2. Conventional greenhouse with heating fuel oil or LPG (without a rock-bed).

The comparison of the two alternatives was based on the useful life cycle [19,20].
To simplify the analysis several assumptions were made as follows;

1. The physical and thermal properties of the greenhouse in each alternative were
the same.
2. Plant production and cultivation methods were identical in each alternative.
3. Total revenue from production was received at the end of year.
4. One crop at a time was grown in a greenhouse.
5. Useful lives of the greenhouse and rock-bed system were the same.
6. There was no salvage value for the rock-bed.
7. The annual repair and maintenance cost of the system was assumed as 1% of
the initial.
8. Discount factor for a discount rate used is 8%.
9. Tomato yield was 18 tonnes in rock-bed and 20 tonnes for the conventional sys-
tem.
 A. Kürklü et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 683–697 695

Net present value, a discounted cash flow technique was determined using the
present worth method [21]. Cash flows were converted using the present worth fac-
tors.
S
PV ⫽ (11)
(1 ⫹ i)ny
Each present worth of cash flows was summed to obtain the net present value
(NPV) of the alternative system (Table 2). The results showed that rock-bed was
more profitable than the conventional systems.

4. Conclusions

The results of this study are as follows;

1. The rock-bed system created 6–9 °C temperature difference between the inside
and outside air.
2. The system worked more effectively in day with high solar radiation and air tem-
peratures.
3. Energy collection efficiency of the system was 34%.
4. Even in an overcast day, where there was no energy storage, the system kept the
inside air temperature at about 10 °C at the following night.
5. The rock-bed system proved that it could be utilized effectively for frost preven-
tion applications in greenhouses.
6. This system was more economical then the conventional heating systems in frost
prevention applications under the Turkish economic conditions.

Table 2
Net present values of the projects

Year Present values of the rock-bed ($) Present values of the conventional system ($)

Fuel oil LPG

0 ⫺10,077 ⫺11,131 -11,900

1 9971 9994 9966
2 9232 9253 9227
3 8548 8568 8544
4 7915 7933 7911
5 7329 7346 7326
6 6787 6802 6783
7 6284 6298 6280
8 5819 5832 5815
9 5387 5399 5384
10 4988 4999 4986
Total NPV 62,183 61,293 60,322
696 A. Kürklü et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 683–697

7. A 140 mm head fan seemed larger than the required. Use of a same air flow
capacity but lower head fan will increase the economic benefits of the system.
8. The mathematical model agreed well with the measured data and could be used
as reference in similar studies.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Research Fund of the Akdeniz University
under the Project No. 20.01.0121.14.

References

[1] Bouhdjar A, Belhamel M, Belkhiri FE, Boulbina A. Performance of sensible heat storage in a
rockbed used in a tunnel greenhouse. In: Proc. World Renewable Energy Congress, 1996. p. 724–8.
[2] Walton LR, Henson WH, Jr., McNeill SG, Bunn JM. Storing solar energy in an underground rock
bed. Transactions of the ASAE 1979;1202–7.
[3] Santamouris M, Balaras CA, Dascalaki E, Vallindras M. Passive solar agricultural greenhouses: a
worldwide classification and evaluation of technologies and systems used for heating purposes. Solar
Energy 1994;53(5):411–26.
[4] Bredenbeck H. Rock bed storage inside of greenhouses. Acta Horticulturae 1984;148. Energy in
Protected Cultivation, III, p. 739–44.
[5] Paksoy HÖ, Basçetinçelik A, Öztürk HH. Energy storage and underground energy stotage systems.
In: Proc 5th Turkish–German Energy Symposium, 1995. p.151–60 (in Turkish).
[6] Chandra P, Willits DH. Pressure drop and heat transfer characteristics of air-rockbed thermal storage
systems. Solar Energy 1981;27(6):547–53.
[7] Chandra P, Albright LD, Wilson GE. Pressure drop of unidirectional air flow through rock beds.
Transactions of the ASAE 1981;1010–3.
[8] Garzoli KV. Design of rock piles for greenhouse energy storage. Acta Horticulturae 1989;257:21–8.
[9] Bouhdjar A, Boulbina A. In: Sayigh A, editor. Proc Congress Energy and the Environment, Reading,
UK, 1990. p.23–5.
[10] Bredenbeck H. Energy saving greenhouse system with solar energy and rock bed storage. In: Von
Zabeltitz C, editor. Greenhouse heating with solar energy. FAO, 1987. p. 195–200.
[11] Willits DH, Peet MM. Factors affecting the performance of rockstorages as solar energy
collection/storage systems for greenhouses. Transactions of the ASAE 1987;30(1):221–32.
[12] Sowell EF, Curry RL. A convolution model of rock bed thermal storage units. Solar Energy
1979;24:441–9.
[13] Coutier JP, Farber EA. Two applications of a numerical approach of heat transfer process within
rock beds. Solar Energy 1982;29(6):451–62.
[14] Löf GOG, Hawley RW. Unsteady-state heat transfer between air and loose solids. Indust. Engng
Chem 1948;40(6):1061–70.
[15] Willits DH, Chandra P, Peet MM. Modelling solar energy storage systems for greenhouses. J Agric
Engng Res 1985;32:73–93.
[16] Von Zabeltitz C. Gewächshäuser: Planung und Bau. Stuttgart: Verlag Eugen Ulmer, 1986.
[17] Kreith F, Kreider JF. Principles of solar engineering. pp. 221–230, 1st ed. New York: McGraw
Hill, 1978.
[18] Tiris M, Tiris C, Erdalli Y. Solar water heating systems. TUBITAK-MAM, Kocaeli, 1997. p.151
(in Turkish).
[19] White GB, Fohner GR, Albright LD. The economics of movable interior blankets for greenhouses.
Paper presented at the summer meeting of ASAE, San Antonio TX, 1980.
 A. Kürklü et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 683–697 697

[20] Hanley N, Spash L. Cost–benefit analysis and the environment. London: Elgar, 1994.
[21] Suh WM. Modelling of a greenhouse equipped with a solar rockbed system with carbon dioxide
enrichment. PhD dissertation, Kansas State University, 1986.