Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 737–747

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Effect of solar storage wall on the passive solar heating constructions

A.A. Hassanain a,1 , E.M. Hokam b , T.K. Mallick c,∗
a
Agricultural Engineering Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Suez-Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
b
Soil and Water Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Suez-Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
c
Mechanical Engineering, EPS, Herriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH144AS, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Three different greenhouse prototype designs: gable, flat and semi-circle roof shapes were investigated
Received 9 May 2010 at the Faculty of Agriculture, Suez-Canal University, Egypt. Investigations were carried out to find out the
Received in revised form effect of using the adobe (trombe) wall as solar heat storage used for greenhouse passives heating. The
25 September 2010
study was conducted under controllable weather conditions and outdoor under the prevailing weather
Accepted 23 November 2010
conditions of the site of experiments. A range of cheap and readily available materials were said to form
the adobe or adobe wall, i.e. clay (13.3%), clay painted with matt black paint (which has absorbability of
Keywords:
0.95%), sand (96.7% sandy attached by 2.5% gypsum, on the weight basis) and the sandy wall was painted
Green house
Trombe wall
black. These walls were compared with the controlled greenhouse without the wall. Investigations were
Heat transfer carried out on greenhouse sandy soil (96.7%) with five different moisture contents of air dry, 25, 50, 75,
and 100% from the field capacity. Greenhouse air temperature, soil-depth and solar wall temperatures
gradient were investigated for the different walls of the different greenhouses deign under different
investigation conditions. The study revealed that, the flat shape greenhouse surfaces gives higher air
temperatures when the direction of the greenhouse was north–south, while the span surfaces shape for
the east–west direction at the same investigation conditions.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Greenhouses are used to protect the cultivated plants from
the unsuitable growing environmental conditions which can affect
their early stage growth and can increase production. It faces
decreasing air and soil temperatures during winter night time,
which affects plant growth. Therefore, heating the greenhouse air
and/or soil can help to overcome these problems.
Greenhouse soil is a relatively low cost heating storage material,
as it provides a suitable heat exchange, and this consequently
reduces heat energy consumption [1,2]. Solar energy is the main
source of energy used to warm the root area and heat the flowing
water in pipes under the soil surface [3–5]. Electrical energy can
also be used to heat the flowing water in the pipes [6]. Two buried
tubes at 2 m depth connected by two greenhouses were used as
heat exchanger to heat or cool the greenhouse air temperature [7].
Four greenhouses were used to produce cucumbers during winter
and summer season Two greenhouses had gable-even-span form
while the other two involved semicircle–roof. It is reported that
the gable-even-span form reduced the loss of heat between 5.15%
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 0 131 4514379.
E-mail addresses: ahmed hassanain@agr.suez.edu.eg (A.A.
t.mallick@hw.ac.uk (T.K. Mallick).
1
Tel.: +0108648442.
and 8.59% compared with the semi-circle form [7]. This result led
to the increase in cucumber production by 14.64% and 14.73%,
respectively.
In general, solar heating storage systems are classified as active
and passive. The systems are characterized by energy transport in
the fluid loop. Hence, active system is characterized by the flow of
fluids that require devices, pump or blowers to assist the flow. The
passive system of heat transfer is characterized by the free or nat-
urally convection and radiation. Consequently, solar collection and
storage subsystems are combined into one component. Heat stor-
age materials absorb heat through the heat transfer mechanisms
(radiation, conduction and convection). As the materials cool off at
night or on cloudy days, they subsequently release the stored heat
in the same fashion. In passive-solar-heated constructions (build-
ings, greenhouses and animal sheds), because the energy storage
is often thermally coupled to the space, the discharge from stor-
age is determined by governing heat transfer equations and cannot
be switched on or off [8,9]. Also, Abdel-Ghaffar [10] reported that,
many rock storage beds are used to damp out the large fluctuations
in temperature obtained when air is heated by a solar collector
or to alter the phase relationship between the input and output
temperature variation.
The solar wall is the glazed building wall that provides the solar
gain to be estimated. Meanwhile, the solar aperture is that portion
Hassanain),
of the wall that is glazed to admit solar radiation [11,12] according
to specific recommendations on sizing of solar apertures and pro-

0378-7788/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.11.020
738 A.A. Hassanain et al. / Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 737–747

evaluated by considering the physical and thermal properties of

Nomenclature both solar heated air and thermal storage materials.
Based on the sensitivity analysis, that was carried out by Fang
A area, m2 and Li [17], the optimum structural thickness of the passive solar
A thermal admittance, W m−2 ◦ C heated dwelling building is 37 cm for brick and 35–40 cm for low
cp specific heat, J kg−1 ◦ C−1 concrete walls; 40–45 cm for high concrete walls. A design param-
cpc medium capsule specific heat, J kg−1 ◦ C−1 eter of interest (wall-thickness) represents the ratio of the volume
cpw water specific heat, J kg−1 ◦ C−1 of the thermal storage material to the projected area or, the num-
G solar radiation intensity, W m−2 ber of cubic meter of thermal storage material per square meter of
K thermal conductivity, W m−1 ◦ C−1 the projected area [18]. The thermal behaviour and storage capac-
L thickness, m ity of the storage materials under the influence of a driving thermal
M mass, kg source, such as the sun, can be accurately determined by the ana-
Mc mass of the used capsule, kg lytical or simulation method [19], where the thermal storage ratio
Ms mass of the soil sample, kg depends on the wall thickness as a design parameter [20].
Mw water mass, kg This study is designed to solve the greenhouse air and soil tem-
Q heat in Watt perature reduction during winter night time using low-cost and
T temperature, ◦ C readily available materials, such as a passive solar trombe-wall. So
Qwall heat in Watt per the unit of wall area it aims to:
Ta ambient air temperature, ◦ C
Tga greenhouse air temperature, ◦ C • Investigate the suitable orientation for three common green-
T1 soil sample temperature when it was dropped in house types to comprise the passive solar wall, i.e. gable-even-
water, ◦ C span, semi-circle and flat roof types.
T2 final temperature when reaching the equilibrium of • Study the effect of using available local and low-cost materials to
temperature, ◦ C build passive solar wall from soil particles to suit the new valleys
T3 water temperature before dropping in the cap- of Suez-Canal and Sinai regions.
sule, ◦ C • Investigate the passive solar-wall effect on the greenhouse air
t time, h temperature and the greenhouse soil side by side with its mois-
tnight night time, h ture contents.
Greek letters ˛s surface absorptance • Determine the passive solar wall efficiency.
 density, kg m−3
s surface reflectivity
2. Theoretical background
 surface transmittance
Fig. 1 gives a schematic diagram for the heat transfer mecha-
nisms inside a greenhouse with a trombe wall. A part of the incident
viding storage capacity. For a direct-gain system in cold climates, radiation (G) will be absorbed by the greenhouse-covering sheet.
for instance, the ratio of south-facing glass area to the floor area This amount, equal to (˛G), will increase its temperature, while
should be 0.19–0.38, and for masonry storage, the interior walls another part equals to (G) will be reflected and the third part (G)
and floors should be a minimum of 0.1 m thick. Insulation and a will be transmitted. From the experiments that were carried out
tight cover for glazing are also specified. on the used covering sheet, which has a thickness of 60 ␮m, it was
Experimental studies were carried out on the composite found that a transmitivity of 0.93, i.e. 93% of the incident radiation
trombe-wall all year around by Zalewski et al. [13]. The trombe (G) will be the effective part inside the greenhouse.
wall was found to result in huge thermal losses during cold and
less sunny periods in winter as well as in undesirable energy G, (W m−2 ) = 0.93G, (W m−2 ) (1)
transfers in the summer times. The thermal efficiency of different A part of the (G), which will hit the greenhouse-soil-surface,
walls made of different materials (i.e. rammed soil and bricks) with will be absorbed by the greenhouse soil, this part equals to ( ˛s G),
different thicknesses (0–0.05, 0.12, and 0.24 m) was investigated
experimentally by Duansheng et al. [14]. The investigation results
showed that during the daytime the wall can be considered as an
endothermic body and during the night time, when the room air
temperature drops, the wall can be considered as an exothermic
body. They, therefore, proposed that the ideal wall structure
should be as follows.

• Its inside heat preservation layer should consist of materials with

strong endothermic and heat preservation capability.
• Its outside heat preservation layer should consist of materials
with poor heat-conducting and exothermic capability.

The thermal performance for a 35 mm thick thermal passive

heated zone was predicted by Khalifa by calculating the transient
temperature variation of each node in the system using a finite-
difference model [15]. The performance of the wall was affected
by many factors such as the thickness of the wall and the media
used for the heat storage. Abdel-Ghaffar [16] pointed out that both
the phase lag coefficient and the exponential decay coefficient Fig. 1. Illustration of the energy consideration for a cross-section greenhouse with
for heating walls or rocks by solar energy may be controlled and a trombe, passive solar wall.
 A.A. Hassanain et al. / Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 737–747 739

where (˛s ) is the soil absorption. This part will heat up the soil,
though it is not the only part, while another part will be reflected
towards the greenhouse space ( s G); this part will heat up the
greenhouse space. From the literature survey, the sandy soil reflec-
tivity (s ) has range from 0.20 to 0.35 [21] so, ( s G) for this case
will be:

s G, (W m−2 ) = 0.93s × G, (W m−2 ) (2)

A part of the transmitted radiation (G) inside the greenhouse

will hit the trombe masonry wall. A fraction of ( ˛w G) will be
absorbed by the solar wall side by side with that part which was
reflected by the soil. It needs to be noted that the greenhouse soil
in this study is bare soil. The wall heat (Qwall ) can be expressed as:
 
Qwall = ˛w + s ˛w G (3)

Part of Qwall will be absorbed and another will be reflected

towards the greenhouse space. T retransmitted or the reflection
from inside the greenhouse towards the outer space and sky can
be neglected. The gray soils reflectivity (i.e. the sandy-loam solar
wall) ranged from 0.15 to 0.25, according to Brutsaert [21]. The
absorbed heat will heat up the storage wall, as well as the soil, by
two-dimension unsteady state conduction.
Solar wall evaluation as a heat storage and its performance must
be based on the energy balance and standard heat transferred equa-
tions. The following assumptions were made:

• The soil’s physical properties remain constant for the duration of

the study and the greenhouse soil layers are homogeneous.
• Heat distribution in the soil is symmetrical along the greenhouse.

The thermal admittance denoted by (a) is a factor that is

expressed the wall’s ability to absorb and store heat during one
part of a cycle and then release the absorbed heat back through the
same surface during the second part of the cycle; it is given as [18]:
Q
a= (4)
Tw
where, (a) is the thermal admittance, (W m−2 ◦ C−1 ), Q is the stored
heat per the unit of wall area (W m−2 ), Tw the magnitude of the
average storage wall temperature, (◦ C) and it is given for thick walls
as:

Q 2kcp
= (5)
Tw t
where, k, , cp and t are the trombe wall material thermal conduc-
tivity (W m−1 ◦ C−1 ), density (kg m−3 ), specific heat (J kg−1 ◦ C−1 ) and
time (h). There is an optimum wall thickness for which the thermal
Fig. 2. (A) Flat roof green house type (experimental model); (B) gable even span
admittance is in its greater value. This optimum thickness (L) was
green house type (experimental model); (C) semicircle green house type (experi-
[18,22]: mental model).
 2
0.5 Tw
t = (2kcp ) (6)   T 
Q w
L = 1.18 1.41 k (10)
From Eq. (5), solar wall will release its stored heat within time Q
(t) that can be given as: Tw
 L = 1.67k (11)
Q
tk
L = 1.18 (7)
cp
3. Materials and methods
 T 2
w
t = (2kcp ) (8) 3.1. Materials
Q
Substituting (t) from Eq. (8) in (6) to find out the optimum thick- Trials were conducted on experimental models in the current
ness for a given wall, the following is obtained: study to ease controlling the indoor weather conditions within
  T 2 0.5 the experiments and repeating the outdoors tests. Three experi-
w k
L = 1.18 2kcp (9) mental models belong to three greenhouse types and are given in
Q cp
Fig. 2A–C for the flat roof, gable even span and semi circle, respec-
740 A.A. Hassanain et al. / Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 737–747

Fig. 3. Semicircle diagram of the experimental procedure for the three Green Houses.

tively. The three greenhouse types have the same dimensions of 3.2. Methods
0.87 m length, 0.438 m width and 0.425 m height. They were con-
structed and investigated from the beginning of October till the end 3.2.1. Determinations of the incident radiation and the
of April, 2005. Investigations were carried out at the Mechaniza- greenhouse covering sheet transmitivity
tion Branch, Faculty of Agriculture, Suez-Canal University, Ismailia. For the indoor investigations, according to Hassanain [23] solar
A clear plastic sheet of 60 ␮m thick was used as a cover sheet. A simulator lamp arrays were fitted to make an angle of 47◦ with the
wooden prism shape container, wide, 0.42 m height and 0.09 m horizontal-ground-surface to simulate the average tilt angle of the
thick (insulated by 0.03 m insulation material), was formed to fix incident sun-rays for the period of October to April [26]. During
the trombe wall paste material, which was used as passive heat this period, the average incident radiation on the investigated site
storage based on Eq. (11) and the reviews of Duansheng et al. [14]. is 526 W m−2 [27]. The distance between the lamp array and the
These materials were selected to store heat during the daytime in greenhouse was adjusted to have an incident simulated radiation
the field or during lighting the simulator lamps indoors [23] then near that average. A central point (x) was selected at the greenhouse
emit or dissipate this heat within night-time to warm up the green- upper frame to measure the incident radiation to avoid shading-
house inside. A transparent polyethylene container, 0.004 m thick obstacles. The incident solar radiation on the point (x) and on the
and 0.08 m deep, 0.73 m in length and 0.38 m width was filled up greenhouse surfaces were averaged for 30 cells, i.e. 5 rows and 6
with the greenhouse soil. The soil depth was selected to meet the columns and, this relationship was found as:
daily changes that occurred within the upper 0.10 m depth accord-
Average incident radiation on the greenhouse surface (W m−2 )
ing to Hanks and Ashcroft [24]. Sandy soil, 36.7 kg, made up of
96.7% sand was packed into the container to form and simulate = Measured radiation at the selected measuring point (x) − 68.5
the greenhouse sandy soil at its field density of 1590 kg m−3 . The (12)
schematic diagram of the complete test procedure is shown in
Fig. 3. Table 1
As for the wall materials, soil samples were selected from two Trombe-walls and greenhouse soil fraction.
different soil textures commonly presented in the chosen site. They
Separates % Texture Used for
were used to build the passive solar storage trombe-wall; Sandy-
Loam-Wall (S-L-Wall) and Sandy-Wall (S-Wall). Both walls had Course sand 84.3 96.7 Sandy Greenhouse soil
and S-Wall
the same dimensions, 0.40 m × 0.40 m × 0.08 m length, width and
Fine sand 12.4
thickness. The masses of the S-L-Wall and S-Wall were 16.188 and Silt 2.3 3.3
17.159 kg, respectively. The physical properties and the mechani- Clay 1
cal analysis are given for the greenhouse sandy soil as well as the Course sand 61.5 80 Sandy- S-L-Wall
trombe-wall solar storage in Table 1. The mechanical analysis was Fine sand 18.5 loam
carried out using the pipette methods according to Black [25]. Silt 6.7 20
Clay 13.3
 A.A. Hassanain et al. / Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 737–747
Mono-crystalline solar cell with dimensions of 75 mm by 75 mm,
a voltage of 0.5 V and a current of 800 mA was used to determine
the global radiation. The used formula to determine the incident
solar radiation, resulted from a previous calibration against an Aply
Pyranometer is given in the following form [28]:
Global solar radiation W m−2
= 1683.5 (Short circuit current in ampere) + 32.5 (13)
The transmitivity of the greenhouse-covering sheet depends
upon the angle of incidence and number of cover. Accordingly,
Abdellatif and Helmy [29] found that, the transmitivity of the green-
house cover sheet was inversely proportional to the covers number
and the angle of incidence. Investigations were carried out to deter-
mine the greenhouse clear plastic cover sheet transmittance, 60 ␮m
thick. The greenhouse aperture, which faced the lamp arrays, was
divided into cells to determine the cover sheet transmitivity, 300
readings were measured inside and outside the greenhouse for each
cell at the same time. The cover sheet transmitivity was determined
using the following relationship:
Transmitted radiation inside the green house
 =
Incident radiation measured outside the cover material
×100 (14)
The transmitivity () of the used cover sheet was found to be
90.3% from the total incident radiation.
3.2.2. Effect of greenhouse orientation on greenhouse air
temperatures
The effect of greenhouse orientation on greenhouse air tem-
perature was investigated for the three different greenhouse types
(semi-circle, gable-even-span and the flat roof) with no solar wall
and no soil effects. The effect of the orientation on the rise of the
greenhouse air temperature over the fluxed insolation on the green
house surface was addressed.
For the indoor investigations, the greenhouse width was
directed towards the solar simulator lamp array to simulate
north–south greenhouse direction, while the greenhouse length
simulated east–west. This orientation resembles the north–south
direction in the field.
3.2.3. Effect of the soil moisture content on greenhouse air
temperature
The effect of soil moisture contents on the green house air tem-
perature was addressed in this study under fixed dimensions of
the solar passive wall, S-L-Wall, that was fitted inside the flat roof
greenhouse type. These investigations were carried out in both
indoors under the solar simulator and outdoors in the open field
under the prevailing weather conditions. Five soil moisture con-
tents; namely air-dry, 25, 50, 75 and 100% of the soil field capacity
were prepared according to Klute [30]. Different points inside the
greenhouse were selected to determine the greenhouse air tem-
peratures.
3.2.4. Trombe-wall effect on soil temperature
Greenhouse soil temperatures were determined as a result of
the presence of the trombe-wall in and outdoor on flat roof green-
house form. Beside a control for the experimental units (which,
was without wall and soil effects) two wall categories were used;
S-L-Wall and S-Wall. Because the S-Wall was loose, 2.5% gypsum
of the wall mass was used as a cementing material without affect-
ing the wall characteristics. This amount was selected from various
amounts of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5 and 5%. The chosen
percentage achieved no changes to the wall characteristics. The
741
first passive solar wall category included: S-L-Wall, S-L-Wall with
the soil effect, S-L-Wall without the soil effect (no soil), S-L-Wall
painted black with the soil effect and S-L-Wall painted matt black
paint without the soil effect. For the S-Wall category the flowing
walls were addressed: (S-Wall), S-Wall with the soil, S-Wall with-
out soil effect (no soil), S-Wall painted black with the effect of soil
and S-Wall-painted black with no soil effect. Al-Haramain, US Matt
black paint, 0.95 absorpitivety and emissivity [31] was applied on
the wall surface to increase the absorption of the incident radia-
tion. Soil temperatures were measured at the soil surface, 2.5, 5,
7 cm soil depth also the wall temperatures were measured at wall
surface, 2, 4, 6, and 8 cm wall thick.
3.2.5. Trombe wall efficiency:
The efficiency of the solar wall as a passive solar system, was
assumed to be divided into two efficiency types:
(1) Absorption storing efficiency (A-S-Efficiency): This type of effi-
ciency shows the ability of the trombe wall to absorb and store
the incident heat.
(2) Dissipation efficiency (D-Efficiency): This type measures how
the trombe wall dissipates the heat that it gained during the
absorption-storing process. This dissipation must be gradual
after sun-set depending on the wall thermal heat diffusivity.
Trombe wall efficiency was carried out on a greenhouse without
soil effect. Referring to the theoretical analysis and Fig. 1 the
following relationship is expected:
T
(˛AG) ∝ mwall cp (15)
t
where,  is the greenhouse covering sheet transmitivity, ˛ is the
wall absorpitivity, A is wall surface area m2 , G the incident radiation
on the greenhouse (W m−2 ), mwall , wall mass in kg, cp is wall specific
heat in J kg−1 ◦ C−1 , T, is temperature differences in ◦ C in time t, in
seconds.
The absorption-storing efficiency (A-S-Efficiency denoted by
A-S ) can be written as:
mwall cp T/t
A-S = (16)
˛AG
Meanwhile, the dissipation efficiency (D-Efficiency denoted by
D ) is defined as the time that is determined from Eq. (8) divided
by the duration of the night time where the stored heat dissipation
occurs, it is represented as:
t (2kcp ) Ts /Q 2
D = = (17)
tnight tnight
The total solar wall efficiency (total ) is given as:
total = (A-S ) + (D ) (18)
The specific heat (cp ) of the adobe trombe solar wall and the
greenhouse soil as well were determined, J kg−1 ◦ C−1 , using a locally
made calorimeter according to Eq. (19) [30].
(Mw × cpw )(T2 − T3 ) − (Mc × cpc )(T1 − T2 )
cp = (19)
Ms (T1 − T2 )
where, cpw and cpc are the water specific heat and the capsule spe-
cific heat, J kg−1 ◦ C−1 . T1 , T3 and T2 are the sample, water and the
equilibrium temperatures (◦ C). Ms , Mc , and Mw , are mass of the
sample, capsule, and water (kg).
This method was applied on three samples for each of the two-
trombe wall soil categories. The average specific heat was found
to be 840 J kg−1 ◦ C−1 (average of 840, 798 and 924 J kg−1 ◦ C−1 ) for
the S-L-Wall. Meanwhile the greenhouse sandy soil and the S-Wall
specific heat were 800 J kg−1 ◦ C−1 .
742 A.A. Hassanain et al. / Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 737–747

Table 2
Average greenhouse air temperature increase above ambient temperature for a flat roof greenhouse type as affected by soil moisture content at an average insolation of
366 W m−2 and no wind.

Soil moisture content Air dry soil 25% of the F.C. 50% of the F.C. 75% of the F.C. 100% of the F.C.

(Tga − Ta ) during heating period, ◦ C 23.8 21.3 28.7 24.8 20.4

(Tga − Ta ) during heat dissipation period, ◦ C 07.8 04.8 11.2 10.6 05.9

Wall thermal conductivity (k) was determined from Fourier 45

equation for steady state heat transfer as:

Greenhouse air temperature, oC

40
qL
k= (20)
AT
35
where, q is the heat transfer via a sample which has, L thickness, A
the cross-sectional area, and T temperature difference in ◦ C. 30
The used method to determine the walls thermal conductiv-
ity was conducted using an electric heater (heat source) which Flat
25
heated an iron disc of 0.145 m diameter and 1 kg mass with Semi-circle
447 J kg−1 ◦ C−1 specific heat (cp ) [32]. An electronic temperature Span
20
controller (XMTD–2301) from 0 to 399 ◦ C, (110/220) V, was used to
control the heater temperature. Samples were formed in a cylindri-
cal shape and were fitted on the iron disc while a suction fan was 15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
fitted on the sample top (heat sink). All these components were
Time; Minutes
enclosed in a well-insulated enclosure. Then substituted in Eq. (20)
with the sample thickness (L), its area (A), the temperature dif- Fig. 4. Greenhouse air temperature (Tga ) for three greenhouse types oriented
ferences (T) while the flowing heat q was determined from the north–south direction under average incident radiation of 470.3 W m−2 and 22.8 ◦ C
following formula: average outside ambient air temperature.

T
q = mcp
t
where, m is the disc masses (1 kg), and cp is the specific heat and
t, is the time interval. Thermal conductivity of the S-L-Wall was
found 0.78 W m−1 ◦ C−1 while it was 0.27 W m−1 ◦ C−1 for the S-Wall.
Determination of the used S-L-Wall density was carried out
using the Paraffin wax method stated by Black [25]. It was found to
be 1500 kg m−3 . Meanwhile, the S-Wall type and the greenhouse
sandy soil bulk density was determined using a soil core according
to Black [25]. It was found to be 1590 kg m−3 .
Thermal conductivity (k), density () and the specific heats (cp )
were used to determine the thermal diffusivity () according to Eq.
(22) of Incropera and Dewitt [32]. For the two investigated trombe
wall categories materials, the thermal diffusivity () was found to
be 6.17 × 10−7 m2 s−1 for the S-L-Wall and 2.23 × 10−7 m2 s−1 for
the S-Wall, respectively.
k that, if the desired greenhouse direction is the north–south; the
=
cp
(21) dynamic Table 2, CATT2 [34], the relative humidity was determined
from the obtained data of the dry and wet bulb temperatures.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Green house orientation
Greenhouse air temperatures were determined to find out
the best orientation for the three investigated greenhouse types;
namely, gable-even-span, semi circle, and flat roof, under the
indoor controlled investigation conditions.
Figs. 4 and 5 represent the greenhouse air temperature when
the greenhouse was oriented towards the north–south direction
under average incident radiation of 470.3 W m−2 and average
outside ambient air temperature of 22.8 ◦ C as in Fig. 4 and in
east–west direction as in Fig. 5. From Figs. 4 and 5 it is noticed
(22) flat greenhouse roof is preferred for maintaining higher green-

Temperatures of the outside ambient and greenhouse air, the

50
adobe passive solar wall thickness, and the soil surface and depths,
Greenhouse air temperature, C

were measured by Ama-Digit Ad 15th, electronic thermometer

o

45
previously calibrated against a mercury thermometer, −10:100 ◦ C.
The standard deviation between the thermometers reading was of 40
±0.25.
A TESTO 405-V1 Hot Wire Anemometer was used to measure 35
the wind speed (vs ) outside the greenhouse. The importance of
wind speed measuring is to determine the convection heat transfer 30
Flat
coefficient (hc ) by the greenhouse covering sheet with the outside Semi-circle
ambient air according to the following formula [33] as: 25
Span

hc = 2.8 + 3vs (23) 20

To obtain the average wind speed at 2 h interval throughout 24 h 15

from sunrise to sunset of the following day, 60 readings were taken 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
and averaged. The relative humidity of the ambient air outside the Time; Minutes
greenhouse and the inside greenhouse air were measured by a
Fig. 5. Greenhouse air temperature (Tga ) for three greenhouse types oriented east-
dry and wet bulb Psychrometer which was calibrated previously west direction under average incident radiation of 470.3 W m−2 and 22.8 ◦ C average
against mercury thermometer. Using a Computer Aided Thermo- outside ambient air temperature.
 A.A. Hassanain et al. / Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 737–747 743

0.045 50

Greenhouse air temperature, ( C)

air dry

o
45 Field capacity, 25%
0.04
Field capacity,50%
-2

40
(Tga - Ta) / G, C/Wm

0.035 Field capacity, 75%

Field capacity, 100%
35
0.03
o

Flat
30
Semi-circle
0.025 Gable-even-span
25
0.02
20
Heating curve (light on period) Cooling curve (light off period)
0.015 15

0.01 10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
:0
:0
:0
:0

:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0

:0
08
09
10
11

19
20
21
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

22
Heating time in Minutes
Time, (hours)
Fig. 6. Greenhouse air temperature increases above ambient temperature per the
unit of incident radiation, the normalized-values, (Tga − Ta )/I for three-greenhouse Fig. 8. Effect of soil moisture contents on greenhouse air temperature for the S-L-
types oriented north south direction. Wall type (indoor investigations under average insolation of 434.2 W m−2 ).

house air temperature above the outside ambient temperature.
Meanwhile the gable-even-span greenhouse is preferred for the
east-west designs. This result agrees with that obtained by Abdel-
latif and Helmy [29] and El-Sahrigi et al. [7]. This is emphasized
by dividing the greenhouse air temperature increases above ambi-
ent temperature by the incident amount of radiation (Tga − Ta /G)
in ◦ C W−1 m2 , (denotes by Normalized Value, NV). Then, a compar-
ison between the three designs versus the time of investigation for
the north–south direction, in Fig. 6 and east–west in Fig. 7 within
exposing the three greenhouses designs to the artificial light sim-
ulator.
From Fig. 6, the preferable greenhouse type to the north–south
direction either to comprise the passive solar wall or to use it with-
out storage solar wall among the three types is the flat roof type.
The three investigated forms can be arranged in descending order
according to the normalized-value, if it were oriented towards the
north–south direction as follows: flat roof type > semi-circle roof
type > gable even span type. On the contrary, the results for these
types when oriented east–west direction will be completely oppo-
site to the fore-mentioned one as is illustrated in Fig. 5 according to
Tga and in Fig. 7 according to the normalized-value of Tga − Ta /G. The
three greenhouse types for the east–west direction can be arranged
in a descending order as follows: gable even span type > semi-circle
type > flat roof type.
0.07
0.06
-2
(Tga-Ta) /G, C/Wm
4.2. Effect of the soil moisture content on the green house air
temperature
Fig. 8 illustrates the effect of greenhouse soil moisture contents;
air dry soil, 25, 50, 75 and 100% of the soil field capacity, when a
fixed effect of the same solar passive wall occurred (S-L-Wall).
It is noticed that, greenhouse air temperature for 50% of the field
capacity treatment resulted in the highest values. The effect of the
soil moisture content, expressed as percent of the field capacity
on greenhouse air temperatures can be arranged in the follow-
ing descending order: 50, 25, 100 then 75%, respectively. Hence,
increasing the soil moisture content to 75% or 100% of the soil
field capacity is not recommended for heating the greenhouse
air temperature using the passive solar-walls. This may refer to
the incident solar heat, which was consumed by the soil water,
resulting in a reduction in solar-wall temperature and increase
the greenhouse relative humidity. During night-time, water con-
densation is expected, resulting in increasing the greenhouse air
temperature. On the other side exposing the solar wall to less tem-
perature will result in low stored heat and less time to dissipate
this heat within night-time, therefore, cooling the greenhouse (Tga )
faster compared with low soil moisture contents.
The effect of the soil moisture content on the increase in green-
house air temperature above the ambient temperature, which is
given for the passive solar wall and greenhouse sandy soil under
average incident solar radiation of 366 W m−2 is given in Table 2
under a controlled indoor conditions and no wind. Investigations
were carried out indoors under the solar simulator-rays with stable
effect of the same passive type (S-L-Wall). Meanwhile, greenhouse
air temperature increases above ambient temperature per unit of
total insolation flux (Normalized Value, NV) during daytime are

0.05
Table 3
Greenhouse air temperature increase above ambient temperature per unit of inci-
o

0.04 dent solar radiation intensity (NV) for field investigations.

Gable-even-span Date Wall type Normalized value (NV) of

0.03 Semi-circle (Tga − Ta )/G, ◦ C W−1 m2
Flat
22-2-2005 S-L-Wall painted black and 0.0039
0.02 no soil effect
28-2-2005 S-L-Wall painted black and 0.0041
100% soil moisture content
0.01 of the F.C.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
15-3-2005 Control-greenhouse, no 0.0038
Heating time, Minutes effect of walls or soil
24-2-2005 S-L-Wall painted black and 0.0047
Fig. 7. Greenhouse air temperature increases above ambient temperature per unit 50% soil moisture content
of incident radiation, the normalized-values, (Tga − Ta )/I for three-greenhouse types of the F.C.
oriented east–west direction.
744 A.A. Hassanain et al. / Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 737–747

given in Table 3 for the field investigation under the effect of the 55 1
Greenhouse air
prevailing weather conditions. 50 temperature 0.9
To normalize the greenhouse air temperature affected by the Outside ambient air
45 temperature 0.8
soil moisture content, the outside ambient air temperatures were average wind speed

Temperatures, oC

Wind speed, ms-1

subtracted and the obtained temperature increase above the ambi- 40 0.7
ent temperature was divided by the incident solar radiation 35 0.6
(◦ C/W m−2 ). The percentage of the increased normalized value (NV) 30 0.5
for the S-L-Wall) when the greenhouse soil moisture content was
25 0.4
50% of the greenhouse soil field capacity above the control green-
house treatment (no wall and no soil effect) was determined as: 20 0.3
15 0.2
Percentage increase above the control
10 0.1
(NV) for the soil at 50% of the F.C.−(NV) for the control treatment
= 5 0
(NV) for the control treatment

0
0

0
:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0
:0

:0

:0

:0
08

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

00

02

04

06
×100 = 23.7% (24)
Time, Hours

The obtained value was found to be 23.7% increase above the
control. Meanwhile, when the soil moisture content was increased
up to 100% of the F.C. for the same wall, S-L-Wall, and calculated as
follows:
Percentage increase above the control
(NV) for the soil at 100% of the F.C. − (NV) for the control treatment
=
(NV) for the control treatment
×100 = 7.9%
The obtained value was found to be 7.9%. This emphasises
that the most suitable moisture content to obtain satisfied green-
house air temperature for the greenhouse sandy soil heated by
the S-L-Wall is 50% of the F.C. It resulted in raising greenhouse air
temperature by 23.7% above the control treatment. Meanwhile, for
the 100% of the F.C. increased greenhouse air temperature by 7.9%
above the control treatment.
4.3. Trombe wall effect on greenhouse air temperature
The current study involved investigating the effect of trombe
passive solar wall on the greenhouse air temperature compared
with the control treatment (without trombe wall and no soil effect).
For the indoor conditions under the solar simulator and for the
outdoor investigations, the applied Matt black paint (MBP) on
the surface of the S-L-Wall increased its heat absorption (MBP,
S-L-Wall). This effect was determined according to the following
formula:
Fig. 9. S-Wall painted black and air dry soil, under average insolation of 553 7Wm−2
(16-4-2005).
wall, which was 5YR 6/1 (Gray colour) for the S-L-Wall com-
pared with 10YR 7/4 (Very pale brown colour) for the S-Wall [35]
and also the thermal heat diffusivity () calculated by Eq. (22).
The obtained result was 6.17 × 10−7 m2 s−1 for the S-L-Wall and
2.23 × 10−7 m2 s−1 for the S-Wall, respectively. As the thermal dif-
(25) fusivity measures the ability of the wall material to conduct thermal
energy relative to its ability to store thermal energy. S-L-Wall has
large () value compared with S-Wall. Therefore, it respond quickly
to changes in the thermal environment, the S-Wall, which has small
thermal diffusivity, respond sluggishly to reach a new equilibrium
condition. This effect was obvious for the percentage increased in
the NV for that greenhouse.
Table 4 gives the daily average of the prevailing weather con-
ditions within different S-L-Wall investigations. The represented
conditions are: incident solar radiation in W m−2 , relative humidity,
%, outside ambient air temperature greenhouse air temperature, ◦ C,
and the average prevailing wind speed, m s−1 . The greenhouse
air temperature Tga , (◦ C), outside ambient temperatures and wind
speeds are presented in Fig. 9 within investigating the effect of
applying the black paint on the S-Wall on the 16-4-2005 under
average insolation during daytime of 553.7 W m−2 . Meanwhile, rel-
ative humidity of the outside ambient air and the greenhouse air
in %, also, the greenhouse air temperature, the ambient air temper-
ature are presented in Fig. 10 for the same investigations and the
same weather conditions.

55 80
Percentage increase above the control
75
50
(NV) for MBP, S-L wall with no soil effect − (NV) for the control treatment 70
= 45 65
(NV) for the control treatment
Relative humidity, %

60
Temperature, C

×100 = 2.6% (26) 40

55
o

35 50
45
30
This result indicate that painting the sandy-loam-wall with 40
the matt black paint having 0.95 absorpitivity increased the 25 35
30
normalized-value (Tga − Ta )/G by 2.6% above the control treatment 20
Greenhouse air temperature 25
(greenhouse). This emphasises the use of black paint for the passive 15 Outside ambient air temperature 20
solar wall. The effect of using the matt black paint on the same solar Relative humidity, outside, % 15
10
wall was noticed. Relative humidity inside, % 10
Using the same way of determination; black painting sandy 5 5
soil wall over the natural components resulted in 100% while it
0

0
0

0
0

0
:0

:0
:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0
18

22
08

10

12

14

16

20

00

02

04

06

was around 61.63% for the S-L wall as the sandy wall dissipates
Time, Hours
its heat faster, then the S-L-Wall. Therefore, when it was painted
black paint, percentage increase above the control became higher Fig. 10. S-Wall painted black and air dry soil, under average insolation of
than the S-L-Wall. This is referred to the colour value of the S-L 553.7 W m−2 (16-4-2005).
 A.A. Hassanain et al. / Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 737–747 745

Table 4
Daily averages within the investigation conditions of S-Wall at the field trials.

Type No soil no wall (Control) S-Wall and no soil effect Black-S-Wall and air dry soil Black-S-Wall no soil S-Wall and air dry soil

Date 15-3-2005 30-3-2005 16-4-2005 21-4-2005 12-4-2005

Ta , ◦ C 14.7 21.83 19.63 23.1 26.29
Tga , ◦ C 18.43 25.65 25.95 27.67 30.83
Ts , ◦ C – – 27.04 – 32.9
Tw , ◦ C – 26.96 29.65 31.37 33.4
vs , ms−1 0.48 0.48 0.41 0.99 0.45
Outside RH, % 68.0 46.5 57.7 53.4 50.5
Inside RH, % 57.8 44.5 42.9 52.4 49.4
Average (G), within the day 451.4 503.6 553.7 566 543
time, W m−2

Wall surface, 0 cm 44
55
wall at 2cm thick 41 soil surface (o) cm
50 wall at 4cm thick 2cm depth in soil
38
45 wall at 6cm thick 4cm depth in soil
35
Temperature, C

Temperature, oC
soil surface, ocm
o

40 32 6cm depth in soil

Soil depth of 2cm
Soil depth of 4cm 29 ambient dry
35
Soil depth of 6cm 26
30 23
25 20
20 17
14
15
11
10 8
0

0
0

5
:0

:0

:0

:0

:0
:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0
12
11

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

00

01

0
0

0
Time, Hours
:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0
08

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

00

02

04

06
Fig. 11. Temperature profile within the greenhouse soil depth (dry air) and S-L- Time, hours
Wall thickness at an average insolation of 475.9 W m−2 , 21.1 ◦ C average ambient
air temperature outside the greenhouse and no wind condition (15-1-2005 indoors Fig. 13. Greenhouse soil temperature for different soil depths under the effect of
investigations). trombe S-L-Wall investigated in the open field on 24 2-2005 and average incident
radiation of 381.6 W m−2 .

4.4. Effect of solar wall storage on greenhouse soil temperature content of the soil field capacity. The ambient air temperature
outside the greenhouse was 16.4 ◦ C, average solar radiation was
Fig. 11 illustrates the temperature profile for the greenhouse 350.5Wm−2 , average wind speed was 0.78ms−1 and (Tga − Ta ) was
air dry soil depth. It is found that, temperature for the deep soil 5.6 ◦ C. This field investigation was carried out on the 15th February,
layer was lower than the upper layers. Moreover, temperature of 2005.
the storage wall surface during heating period was higher than deep Fig. 13 illustrates the greenhouse soil temperature for the dif-
inside the wall. However, during the heat dissipation period (dur- ferent investigated depths under the effect of S-L-Wall. Meanwhile,
ing night-time or on cloudy days) temperature of the storage wall Fig. 14 illustrates the trombe wall temperature for different thick-
surface was lower than deep inside the wall. Hence, temperatures ness for the same wall and same date, (24th of February 2005)
were higher for deeper soil layers and for thick wall layer. where average ambient was 21.4 ◦ C and with average insolation
Fig. 12 illustrates the S-L-Wall temperature for the flat roof of 381 W m−2 , 0.38 m s−1 average wind speed outside the green-
greenhouse type under field conditions for 100% soil moisture

53
50
47 wall surface
44 wall at 2cm depth
41 wall at 4cm depth
Temperature, oC

38 wall at 6cm depth

35
32 dry ambient air
29
26
23
20
17
14
11
8
5
0

0
:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0
08

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

00

02

04

06

Time. Hours
Fig. 12. S-L-Wall temperature for flat roof greenhouse type and 100% soil moisture
content of the field capacity (field investigations were carried out on 15-2-2005 and Fig. 14. Trombe wall temperature for different wall thickness (S-L-Wall) investi-
average daily incident radiation was 350.5Wm−2 . gated in the open field on 24 2-2005, average incident radiation was 381.6 W m−2 .
746 A.A. Hassanain et al. / Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 737–747

0.3
0.45

0.4
0.25
0.35
S-L-Wall R2 = 0.86
A-S-Efficiency

0.2 0.3

D-Efficiency
S-L-Wall R2 = 0.95 17-2-2005
0.25
0.15 17-2-2005
va = 0.59ms-1 0.2

0.1 Ta = 19.8oC 0.15

RH = 36% 0.1
0.05 G = 357.3Wm-2
0.05

0 0
08:00 10:00 12:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 02:00 04:00

Time, Hours Time, Hour

(A): A-S-Efficiency versus time for the S-L-Wall (B): D-Efficiency versus time for S-L-Wall

0.35
0.55
0.3 0.5
0.45
0.25
A-S-Efficiency

0.4
S-Wall R2 = 0.95

D-Efficiency
0.35
0.2
S-Wall R2 = 0.92 0.3
30-3-2005
30-3-2005
0.15 0.25
vs = 0.48ms-1
Ta = 21.8oC 0.2
0.1 0.15
RH = 46.3 %
0.05 G = 503.6Wm-2 0.1
0.05

0 0
08:20 10:20 12:20 02:20 06:20 08:20 10:20 12:20 02:20 04:20
Time, Hours Time, Hour

(C): A-S-Efficiency versus time for S-Wall (D): D-Efficiency for S-Wall
Fig. 15. Efficiency of passive solar walls.

house, for flat roof greenhouse and 50% sandy soil moisture content
of the field capacity. Average air temperature increase above ambi-
ent temperature during the day was 6.4 ◦ C and 1.1 ◦ C during the
period between 6pm till 6am. Within the soil depth till until 8 cm
deep, temperature increase above ambient temperature was 6.4 ◦ C
during the day and 4 ◦ C over the ambient temperature between
6pm till 6am.
4.5. Passive solar wall efficiency:
Results were obtained for the S-L-Wall with no soil effect on
the 17th February 2005. Eq. (16) was applied to determine the
absorption–storing efficiency and Eq. (17) to determine the dissipa-
tion efficiency and the total according to Eq. (18). The investigations
were carried out on 17th February 2005 with 19.8 ◦ C average ambi-
ent air temperature. It was found that the A-S-efficiency for the
solar wall was 14.2% while the D-efficiency was 12.9%. This means
that S-L-Wall efficiency was 27.1%, while the A-S-Efficiency for the
S-Wall, it was 11.9% and 9.1% for D-Efficiency with a total of 20%.
Fig. 15A represents A-S-Efficiency for the S-L-Wall. The D-Efficiency
is given in Fig. 15B. Fig. 15C and D present the A-S-efficiency and
the D-efficiency for the S-Wall. From these figures it seems that, it
is better to use the S-L Wall, as the peak time requires heat inside
the greenhouse from 2 am untill the next morning this wall cat-
egory is not efficient compared with the same characteristics and
dimensions of the S-L-Wall.
5. Conclusions
The study resulted in the following conclusions:
• The flat roof greenhouse type gave higher air temperatures when
oriented towards the north–south direction, while the gable-
even-span gave the highest when oriented east–west.
• The greenhouse with passive trombe wall gave higher green-
house air temperature compared with that, without wall for the
same greenhouse type.
• The highest greenhouse air temperature increase above ambient
air temperature within heat storing period (day time) and heat
dissipating period (night time), can be achieved with keeping the
moisture content of the greenhouse soil equal to 50% of the field
capacity.
• The percentage increase for the normalized value (NV) for the
sandy-loam wall at 50% moisture content above that for the con-
trol greenhouse was 23.7%. Meanwhile, it was increased by 7.9%
when the moisture content was 100% of the soil field capacity.
• During the heat absorption process, soil-layer temperature
increase was inversely proportional to the soil depth temper-
ature. Also, the same relationship between the thickness of
the wall and the temperature. Meanwhile a direct proportion
between the wall thickness and the soil depth temperature on
one side and wall thickness on the other side occurred during
heat dissipation process (night time or cloudy days).
 A.A. Hassanain et al. / Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 737–747
• The sandy-loam-passive solar wall type achieved total thermal
efficiency of 27.1% compared with 20% for the sandy type.
References
[1] H. Bernier, G.S.V. Raghavan, J. Paris, Evaluation of a soil heat exchanger-storage
system for a greenhouse. Part 1: System Performance, Canadian Agricultural
Engineering 33 (1991) 93–98.
[2] J.V.M. Vogelezang, Effect of rootzone and air temperature on flowering, growth
and keeping quality of Begonia x humalis “Toran”, Scientia Horticulture 44
(1990) 135–147.
[3] K. Kurata, T. Takakura, Underground storage of solar energy for greenhouse
heating. I. Analysis of seasonal storage system by scale and numerical models,
American Society of Agricultural Engineering 34 (2) (1991) 563–569.
[4] A.S. El-Sayed, S.M. AbdEllatif, A.Y. Gnead, I.H. El-Sheikh, Using solar energy in
production of cucumber inside greenhouse under Egyptian conditions, Misr,
Journal of Agricultural Engineering 10-43 (1993) 737–756.
[5] I.H. Elsheikh, Soil Heating and Climate Simulation Model for Greenhouses, Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Hanover, Germany, 87p.
[6] S. Plaza, R.M. Benavente, J.L. Garcia, L.M. Navas, L. Luna, J.M. Duran, N. Ret-
mal, Modelling and optimal design of an electric substrate heating system for
greenhouse crops, Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, (Silso Research
Institute, UK) 73 (1999) 131–139.
[7] A.F. El-Sahrigi, S.M. AbdEllatif, A.M. Matouk, Y.M. El-Hadidi, A.M. Kassem, Envi-
ronmental control effectiveness of growing cucumber crop under different
structural frame of greenhouses, Misr. Journal of Agricultural Engineering 16
(2) (1999) 193–208.
[8] G.C. Bakos, Energy management method for auxiliary energy saving in a
passive-solar heated residence using low-cost off-peak electricity, Energy and
Buildings 31 (2) (2002) 237–241.
[9] L. Zalewski, S. Lassue, B. Duthoit, M. Butez, Study of solar-walls-validating a
simulation model, Building and Environment 37 (2002) 109–121.
[10] E. Abdel-Ghaffar, Steady Periodic Heat Transfer in a Rock Bed Exposed to Sinu-
soidal Air Temperature Variation, Ph.D., Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames,
Iowa, USA, 1980.
[11] J.A. Duffie, W.A. Beckman, Solar Engineering of Thermal Process, Wiley—
Interscine, New York, USA, 1991, 919p.
[12] E. Mazria, The Passive Solar Energy Book, Rodate Press, Emmaus, PA. (C.F), 1979.
[13] L. Zalewski, M. Chantant, S. Lassue, B. Duthoit, Experimental thermal study of
a solar wall of composite type, Energy and Buildings 25 (1997) 7–18.
[14] C. Duansheng, L. Buzhou, N. Hemin, Z. Haishan, Z. Jiangou, T Quan, Technology
of the energy-saving sunlight greenhouse in China, The Proceeding of Interna-
tional Symposium on Applied Technology of Greenhouse (1991) 41–49.
[15] A.N. Khalifa, A study on a passive heated single-zone building using a thermal
storage wall, Renewable Energy 14 (1-4) (1998) 29–34.
747
[16] E. Abdel-Ghaffar, Air temperature distribution in a limestone bed exposed to
soar heated air, in: The Fourth conference of MSAE, 28 October, Faculty of
Agriculture, Alexandria University, 1996, pp. 141–154.
[17] X. Fang, Y. Li, Numerical simulation and sensitivity analysis of lattice passive
solar heating walls, Solar Energy 69 (1) (2000) 55–66.
[18] A.T.H. Taha, Simulation Model of Energy Fluxes in Passive Solar Greenhouses
with a Concrete North-wall, Ph.D., Thesis, Institut fur Techniik in Gratenbau
und Landwirtschaft, Unversitat Hanover, Germany, 2003, p. 132.
[19] P.W.B. Niles, Simulation Analysis. Passive Solar Buildings, The MIT Press Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts, London, UK, 1992.
[20] T.E. Johnson, Materials and Components. Passive Solar Buildings, The MIT Press
Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, UK, 1992.
[21] W. Brutsaert, Evaporation into the Atmosphere, Reidel D. Publishing Co., Dor-
drecht, Holland, 1982, 300p.
[22] J.D. Balcomb, Passive solar energy system for buildings, Solar Energy Handbook
16 (1) (1979) 16–27.
[23] A.A. Hassanain, A study on the engineering considerations for the unglazed
transpired solar air heaters (UTSAH) design under the Egyptian conditions. First
Ain Shams University International Conference on Environmental Engineering,
April 9–11, vol. 2, 2005, pp. 1465–1486.
[24] R.J. Hanks, G.L. Ashcroft, Applied Soil Physics, Springer-Verlag & Berlin Heidel-
berg, New York, 1980.
[25] C.A. Black, Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1, American Society of Agronomy and
American Society of Testing and Materials, No. A, USA, 1965.
[26] S.M. Abdellatif, Solar Energy Collection, Storage and Utilization in Protected
Cropping, Ph.D., Thesis, Wye College, London U., UK, 1985, p. 250.
[27] M.N. Mostafa, Solar Energy Equipment (Textbook), Faculty of Engineering and
Technology, Helwan University, Egypt, 1992.
[28] A.A. Hassanain, Thermal performance for an unglazed transpired solar dryer,
Misr, Journal of Agricultural Engineering 21 (2) (2004) 533–547.
[29] S.M. Abdellatif, M.A. Helmy, Some parameters affecting solar energy avail-
able inside the greenhouses under Kafr El-Sheikh conditions, Misr, Journal of
Agricultural Engineering 5 (2) (1988) 167–178.
[30] A. Klute, Methods of Soil Analysis. Physical and Minarological Methods, vol. 9,
2nd ed., Madison Wisconsin, USA, 1986.
[31] B. Norton, Solar Energy Thermal Technology, Springer-Verlag, London, 1992,
279.
[32] F.P. Incropera, D.P. DeWitt, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, John Wiley
and Sons, 1996, p. 886.
[33] J.H. Watmuff, W.W.S. Charters, D. Proctor, Solar and Wind Induced External
Coefficient in Solar Collectors, COMPLES (C.F.), vol. 2, 1977, p. 26.
[34] R. Sonntag, C. Borgnakke, Fundamental of Thermodynamics, 5th ed., Computer
Aided Thermodynamic-Tables 2 (CATT2) Developed by Intellipro, Inc. Gordon
Van Wylen, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1988.
[35] MDKC, Munsell Soil Color Charts, Macbeth Division of Kollmogen Corporation,
Baltimore, Maryland, USA.21218, 1973.