Korean Journal of Agricultural Science (농업과학연구)

Institute of Agricultural Science, CNU (충남대학교 농업과학연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of single-span plastic greenhouse in Korea and high tunnel in North America

우리나라 단동 비닐하우스와 북미지역 하이터널의 비교

  • Nam, Sang-Woon (Dept. of Agricultural and Rural Engineering, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Both, Arend-Jan (Dept. of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey)
  • Received : 2011.07.08
  • Accepted : 2011.09.19
  • Published : 2011.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Structural characteristics for standard models of single-span plastic greenhouse in Korea and high tunnels in North America were analyzed, and comparative analysis for greenhouse environments measuring in Korean farmhouse and Rutgers high tunnel was carried out to find structural and environmental improvements of single-span plastic greenhouses that occupy most of Korean greenhouse. Widths of high tunnels are similar to single-span plastic greenhouses but their heights are high comparatively and their side heights are fairly higher than single-span plastic greenhouses specially. Rafters, which are main frames, section sizes of high tunnels are bigger and their intervals are wider than single-span plastic greenhouses. Relative bending resistances compared with representative Korean greenhouse were analyzed by 0.92 to 1.42 in single-span plastic greenhouses, and 1.38 to 2.96 in high tunnels. Frame ratios of single-span plastic greenhouses were 6.8 to 8.6%, and those of high tunnels were 5.5 to 8.7%. We analyzed air temperatures and solar radiations measured in single-span plastic greenhouse and high tunnel on clear days in late March. There were outside temperatures in generally similar range, and judging by rise of indoor temperatures, ventilation performance of high tunnel is more excellent than single-span plastic greenhouse. Solar radiations of two areas were no big difference but light transmittance of high tunnel was a little bit higher than single-span plastic greenhouse. Single-span plastic greenhouses are disadvantageous in environmental managements such as ventilation performance and light transmittance because distance between greenhouses is too narrow and length of greenhouse is too long compared to high tunnels. To get the environmental improvement effects as well as to increase the structural resistance of single-span plastic greenhouses are achievable by widening the width of greenhouse in possible range, widening the space between rafters, and enlarging the section size of rafters. Also, we need to secure enough distance between greenhouses and to restrict the length of greenhouse by maximum 50 m in order to improve the ventilation performance and the light transmittance.

Keywords

References

  1. ASAE. 1997. Agricultural building snow and wind loads. ASAE Standards. pp. 615-622.
  2. Blomgren T, Frisch T. 2007. High tunnels using low-cost technology to increase yields, improve quality and extend the season. The University of Vermont Center for Sustainable Agriculture. pp. 1-22.
  3. Both AJ, Reiss E, Sudal J, Holmstrom K, Garrison S, Kline W. 2006. Rutgers High Tunnel Research Update (2003-2005). Rutgers, The state university of New Jersey.
  4. Cook R, Calvin L. 2005. Greenhouse tomatoes change the dynamics of the North American fresh tomato industry. Economic research service, USDA.
  5. Cornell University (CU). 2011. High tunnel. Assessed in http:// www.hort.cornell.edu/hightunnel on 1 July 2011.
  6. Hanan JJ. 1998. Greenhouses. CRC Press. pp. 1-13.
  7. Hightunnels Organization (HO). 2011. What is a high tunnel?. Assessed in http://www.hightunnels.org on 1 July 2011.
  8. Kamp PGH, Timmerman GJ. 1996. Computerized Environmental Control in Greenhouses. IPC-Plant. Ede, The netherlands. pp. 47-48.
  9. Kim YH, Bae JH, Son JE, Lee YB, Jang HK, Jun HJ, Jung BR. 2003. Bio-Environment Control Engineering. Hayangmoonsa Pub. 61 pp. (in Korean).
  10. Lamont WJ, McGann MR, Orzolek MD, Mbugua N, Dyeand B, Reese D. 2002. Design and construction of the Penn State high tunnel. HortTechnology 12(3): 447-453.
  11. Ledgewood Farm. 2011. Ledgewood farm greenhouse frames. Assessed in http:// www.ledgewoodfarm.com on 1 July 2011.
  12. Lee YB, Jun HJ, Son JE. 2010. Protected Horticulture New Edition. Hyangmoonsa Pub. pp. 32-45. (in Korean).
  13. Lindley JA, Whitaker JH. 1996. Agricultural buildings and structures. ASAE. pp. 140-143 and p. 463.
  14. Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MIFAFF). 2011. Greenhouse Status for Protected Cultivation and Vegetable Productions. (in Korean).
  15. Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MIFAFF), Rural Development Administration(RDA). 2010. Designated Notice of Standards to Endure Disaster for Horticultural and Herbal Facilities. (in Korean).
  16. Nam SW, Kim YS, Both AJ. 2011. Analysis on the ventilation performance of single-span tomato greenhouse with roof windows. Journal of Bio-Environment Control 20(2): 78-82. (in Korean).
  17. Nam SW, Yu IH. 2000. A field survey on the structures and maintenance ststus of pipe framed greenhouses. Journal of the KSAE 42(4): 106-114. (in Korean).
  18. National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2011. Seasonal high tunnels funded in FY 2010. Assessed in http://www.nrcs.usda.gov /programs on 1 June 2011.
  19. Park KS, Kwon JK, Cho MH, Kang YI. 2010. Conversion of light unit using spectral distribution by light source. Proceeding of the KJHST 28(2): 58-59. (in Korean).
  20. Penn State University (PSU). 2011. High tunnel. Assessed in http:// plasticulture.cas.psu.edu/H-tunnels.htm on 1 July 2011.
  21. Rutgers University (RU). 2011. High tunnel. Assessed in http://aesop. rutgers.edu/-horteng on 1 July 2011.
  22. Tachibana K, Hanekura K, Takahashi K, Ohtsuka E. 1979. Design and construction of greenhouses for protected horticulture. Ohm Pub. Tokyo. p.7-12. (in Japanese).
  23. USDA. 2009. Census of Agriculture (2007). National agricultural statistics service. pp. 566-579.
  24. USDA. 2010. Census of Horticultural Specialties (2009). National agricultural statistics service. pp. 34-39.