• Korean Journal of Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
• /
• v.18 no.4
• /
• pp.307-319
• /
• 2016

A Land-Atmosphere Modeling Package (LAMP) for supporting agricultural and forest management was developed at the National Center for AgroMeteorology (NCAM). The package is comprised of two components; one is the Weather Research and Forecasting modeling system (WRF) coupled with Noah-Multiparameterization options (Noah-MP) Land Surface Model (LSM) and the other is an offline one-dimensional LSM. The objective of this paper is to briefly describe the two components of the NCAM-LAMP and to evaluate their initial performance. The coupled WRF/Noah-MP system is configured with a parent domain over East Asia and three nested domains with a finest horizontal grid size of 810 m. The innermost domain covers two Gwangneung deciduous and coniferous KoFlux sites (GDK and GCK). The model is integrated for about 8 days with the initial and boundary conditions taken from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) Final Analysis (FNL) data. The verification variables are 2-m air temperature, 10-m wind, 2-m humidity, and surface precipitation for the WRF/Noah-MP coupled system. Skill scores are calculated for each domain and two dynamic vegetation options using the difference between the observed data from the Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA) and the simulated data from the WRF/Noah-MP coupled system. The accuracy of precipitation simulation is examined using a contingency table that is made up of the Probability of Detection (POD) and the Equitable Threat Score (ETS). The standalone LSM simulation is conducted for one year with the original settings and is compared with the KoFlux site observation for net radiation, sensible heat flux, latent heat flux, and soil moisture variables. According to results, the innermost domain (810 m resolution) among all domains showed the minimum root mean square error for 2-m air temperature, 10-m wind, and 2-m humidity. Turning on the dynamic vegetation had a tendency of reducing 10-m wind simulation errors in all domains. The first nested domain (7,290 m resolution) showed the highest precipitation score, but showed little advantage compared with using the dynamic vegetation. On the other hand, the offline one-dimensional Noah-MP LSM simulation captured the site observed pattern and magnitude of radiative fluxes and soil moisture, and it left room for further improvement through supplementing the model input of leaf area index and finding a proper combination of model physics.

• Journal of Bio-Environment Control
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.215-235
• /
• 1996

The thermal analysis by mathematical model simulation makes it possible to reasonably predict heating and/or cooling requirements of certain greenhouses located under various geographical and climatic environment. It is another advantages of model simulation technique to be able to make it possible to select appropriate heating system, to set up energy utilization strategy, to schedule seasonal crop pattern, as well as to determine new greenhouse ranges. In this study, the control pattern for greenhouse microclimate is categorized as cooling and heating. Dynamic model was adopted to simulate heating requirements and/or energy conservation effectiveness such as energy saving by night-time thermal curtain, estimation of Heating Degree-Hours(HDH), long time prediction of greenhouse thermal behavior, etc. On the other hand, the cooling effects of ventilation, shading, and pad ||||&|||| fan system were partly analyzed by static model. By the experimental work with small size model greenhouse of 1.2m$\times$2.4m, it was found that cooling the greenhouse by spraying cold water directly on greenhouse cover surface or by recirculating cold water through heat exchangers would be effective in greenhouse summer cooling. The mathematical model developed for greenhouse model simulation is highly applicable because it can reflects various climatic factors like temperature, humidity, beam and diffuse solar radiation, wind velocity, etc. This model was closely verified by various weather data obtained through long period greenhouse experiment. Most of the materials relating with greenhouse heating or cooling components were obtained from model greenhouse simulated mathematically by using typical year(1987) data of Jinju Gyeongnam. But some of the materials relating with greenhouse cooling was obtained by performing model experiments which include analyzing cooling effect of water sprayed directly on greenhouse roof surface. The results are summarized as follows : 1. The heating requirements of model greenhouse were highly related with the minimum temperature set for given greenhouse. The setting temperature at night-time is much more influential on heating energy requirement than that at day-time. Therefore It is highly recommended that night- time setting temperature should be carefully determined and controlled. 2. The HDH data obtained by conventional method were estimated on the basis of considerably long term average weather temperature together with the standard base temperature(usually 18.3$^{\circ}C$). This kind of data can merely be used as a relative comparison criteria about heating load, but is not applicable in the calculation of greenhouse heating requirements because of the limited consideration of climatic factors and inappropriate base temperature. By comparing the HDM data with the results of simulation, it is found that the heating system design by HDH data will probably overshoot the actual heating requirement. 3. The energy saving effect of night-time thermal curtain as well as estimated heating requirement is found to be sensitively related with weather condition: Thermal curtain adopted for simulation showed high effectiveness in energy saving which amounts to more than 50% of annual heating requirement. 4. The ventilation performances doting warm seasons are mainly influenced by air exchange rate even though there are some variations depending on greenhouse structural difference, weather and cropping conditions. For air exchanges above 1 volume per minute, the reduction rate of temperature rise on both types of considered greenhouse becomes modest with the additional increase of ventilation capacity. Therefore the desirable ventilation capacity is assumed to be 1 air change per minute, which is the recommended ventilation rate in common greenhouse. 5. In glass covered greenhouse with full production, under clear weather of 50% RH, and continuous 1 air change per minute, the temperature drop in 50% shaded greenhouse and pad ＆ fan systemed greenhouse is 2.6$^{\circ}C$ and.6.1$^{\circ}C$ respectively. The temperature in control greenhouse under continuous air change at this time was 36.6$^{\circ}C$ which was 5.3$^{\circ}C$ above ambient temperature. As a result the greenhouse temperature can be maintained 3$^{\circ}C$ below ambient temperature. But when RH is 80%, it was impossible to drop greenhouse temperature below ambient temperature because possible temperature reduction by pad ||||&|||| fan system at this time is not more than 2.4$^{\circ}C$. 6. During 3 months of hot summer season if the greenhouse is assumed to be cooled only when greenhouse temperature rise above 27$^{\circ}C$, the relationship between RH of ambient air and greenhouse temperature drop($\Delta$T) was formulated as follows : $\Delta$T= -0.077RH＋7.7 7. Time dependent cooling effects performed by operation of each or combination of ventilation, 50% shading, pad ＆ fan of 80% efficiency, were continuously predicted for one typical summer day long. When the greenhouse was cooled only by 1 air change per minute, greenhouse air temperature was 5$^{\circ}C$ above outdoor temperature. Either method alone can not drop greenhouse air temperature below outdoor temperature even under the fully cropped situations. But when both systems were operated together, greenhouse air temperature can be controlled to about 2.0-2.3$^{\circ}C$ below ambient temperature. 8. When the cool water of 6.5-8.5$^{\circ}C$ was sprayed on greenhouse roof surface with the water flow rate of 1.3 liter/min per unit greenhouse floor area, greenhouse air temperature could be dropped down to 16.5-18.$0^{\circ}C$, whlch is about 1$0^{\circ}C$ below the ambient temperature of 26.5-28.$0^{\circ}C$ at that time. The most important thing in cooling greenhouse air effectively with water spray may be obtaining plenty of cool water source like ground water itself or cold water produced by heat-pump. Future work is focused on not only analyzing the feasibility of heat pump operation but also finding the relationships between greenhouse air temperature(T$_{g}$ ), spraying water temperature(T$_{w}$ ), water flow rate(Q), and ambient temperature(T$_{o}$).