b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 6 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 8 8 e1 9 9

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/issn/15375110

Research Paper

Day-to-night heat storage in greenhouses: 2 Sub-

optimal solution for realistic weather

Ido Seginer a,*, Gerrit van Straten b, Peter J.M. van Beveren b,1
a
Technion, Haifa, Israel
b
Wageningen UR, Wageningen, The Netherlands

article info
Day-to-night heat storage in water tanks (buffers) is common practice in cold-climate
Article history: greenhouses, where gas is burned during the day for carbon dioxide enrichment. In Part
Received 24 October 2016 1 of this study, an optimal control approach was outlined for such a system, the basic idea
Received in revised form being that the virtual value (shadow price) of the stored heat (its ‘co-state’) could be used to
14 June 2017 guide the instantaneous control decisions. The results for daily-periodic weather showed: (1)
Accepted 22 June 2017 The optimal co-state is constant in time. (2) The optimal solution is associated with min-
Published online 24 July 2017 imum time on the storage bounds (buffer empty or full). With these conclusions as
guidelines, a semi-heuristic procedure of optimisation for realistic (i.e. not strictly periodic)
Keywords: weather is developed. The co-state remains constant while the storage trajectory is between
Greenhouse the heat storage bounds. It is gradually increased while the buffer is empty, and decreased
Heat buffer when the buffer is full, attempting to push the trajectory away from the bounds, thus
Optimal control minimising the time that the buffer is idle. The main outcomes are: (1) No information
Self-adjusting co-state about the future is required. (2) The algorithm changes the co-state automatically, pro-
CO2 enrichment ducing the correct annual variation (high in winter and low in summer). (3) The predictions
of yield and heat requirement compare favourably with practice. (4) The gain in perfor-
mance achievable with the suggested method is probably 75% or more of the true opti-
mum. (5) The procedure can be used in the design stage to determine the optimal buffer
size and the usefulness of other modifications of the system.
© 2017 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

such systems has been recently proposed (Seginer, van

1. Introduction
In cold-climate locations, where natural gas is burned during
the day to enrich greenhouses with carbon dioxide (CO2),
water tanks (heat buffers) are often used to store the extra
daytime heat for heating at night (De Zwart, 1996; Salazar,
Miranda, Schmidt, Rojano, & Lopez, 2014). Considering
initially a daily periodic weather, an optimal control strategy for
Straten, & van Beveren, 2017). The strategy, in which the co-
state (virtual value, shadow price) of the stored heat is used
to guide the instantaneous control decisions, was illustrated
with square-wave and natural periodic weather sequences, as
well as with piecewise and simulation solution techniques. The
task now is to extend this approach to realistic, non-periodic,
weather sequences.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: segineri@tx.technion.ac.il (I. Seginer).
1
Now at B-Mex, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2017.06.023
1537-5110/© 2017 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 6 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 8 8 e1 9 9 189

Notation Y carbon growth rate of saleable fruit (yield), mol

[fruit-C] m
2 [ground] s
1
[ground] greenhouse ground surface
b temperature exponent of respiration, K
1
Symbols G gain from installing a buffer ð≡JfSc g
Jf0gÞ, $ m
2
A on-bounds adjustment rate of co-state, $ J
1 [heat] [ground]
h
1 3 efficiency of heat storage
B Bowen (sensible to latent heat) ratio hFH heating coefficient of global (solar) radiation, J
C CO2 concentration. mol [C] m
3 [air] [heat] J
1 [global]
c specific heat of air, J [heat] kg
1 [air] K
1 hFL conversion factor solar energy to photosynthetic
F global (solar) radiation flux, J [global] m
2 [ground] light, mol [PAR] J
1 [global]
s
1 hHX conversion factor heat to CO2, mol [C] J
1 [heat]
f sunlit leaf area index, m2 [sunlit-leaf] m
2 hLX conversion factor light to CO2 (photosynthetic
[ground] ‘efficiency’), mol [C] mol
1 [PAR]
G crop growth rate, mol [C] m
2 [ground] s
1 z fraction growth of saleable fruit out of total
H heat flux, J [heat] m
2 [ground] s
1 growth
H Hamiltonian, $ m
2 [ground] s
1 k temperature correction coefficient, K
2
I infiltration rate, m3 [air] m
2 [ground] s
1 L co-state of S, $ J
1 [heat]
J performance criterion (objective function), $ m
2 r air density, kg [air] m
3 [air]
[ground] s leaf conductance to CO2, m3 [air] m
2 [sunlit-leaf]
L photosynthetic light flux, mol [PAR] m
2 [sunlit- s
1
leaf] s
1 ¼ mol [PAR] m
2 [ground] s
1 t transmissivity of greenhouse-cover to light
M carbon content of crop, mol [C] m
2 [ground]
Subscripts
N carbon growth rate of non-fruit organic matter,
A dissipated to atmosphere
mol [C] m
2 [ground] s
1
B supplied from boiler
P gross photosynthesis rate, mol [C] m
2 [ground]
c installed capacity
s
1
F due to global (solar) radiation
p gross photosynthesis rate at optimal temperature,
G to greenhouse
mol [C] m
2 [sunlit-leaf] s
1
i indoor
Q ventilation rate, m3 [air] m
2 [ground] s
1
max maximum value
q temperature response of photosynthesis
min minimum value
R respiration rate, mol [C] m
2 [sunlit-leaf] s
1
o outdoor
S stored heat, J [heat] m
2 [ground]
p optimal for photosynthesis
T air temperature, K, oC
r at reference temperature
t time, s
s heat storage (in buffer)
U overall heat transfer coefficient across greenhouse
T total loss from greenhouse
cover, J [heat] m
2 [ground] K
1 s
1
V by ventilation
uH unit price of boiler heat, $ J
1 [heat]
uQ unit price of ventilation, $ m
3 [air] Acronyms
uY unit market price of produce (fruit) dry matter, $ FM fresh matter (in fruit)
mol
1 [fruit-C] KWIN KWantitatieve INformatie voor de Glastuinbouw
X CO2 flux, mol [C] m
2 [ground] s
1 PAR photosynthetically active radiation

The main conclusions of the previous study, which relate
directly to the current task, are: (1) The co-state of the optimal
solution for periodic weather is constant. (2) Simulation-opti-
misation produces optimal solutions for periodic weather. (3)
The optimal co-state varies between seasons. (4) Performance
is improved by minimising the time that the heat buffer is
completely empty or full. These results are now used to
develop a semi-heuristic approach to the more realistic
problem of operation under actual weather. The general
argument is as follows: It has been shown that the co-state of
the stored heat remains constant while the buffer is not
completely empty or full (storage not on bounds). It is also
clear that while the buffer is completely empty or full it is
ineffective in terms of operational storage. Hence a plausible
strategy might be to simulate-optimise with a constant co-
state while the storage trajectory is between the bounds,
increase the co-state gradually when storage is on the lower
bound (empty buffer) and decrease it when on the upper
bound (full buffer). The adjustment of the co-state at the
bounds is intended to push the trajectory away from the
bounds, thus minimising the time that the buffer is idle.
In the following sections the system model is first briefly
summarised, then applied to realistic year-long weather se-
quences to study some aspects of the control method.
Finally, the effect of various parameters on the results is
explored.
2. Methods
The essentials of the system model and method of optimisa-
tion are described in the next five sub-sections. A fuller
190 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 6 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 8 8 e1 9 9

description was provided in Seginer et al. (2017) but a sum-
mary is included here for completeness.
2.1. Heat and CO2 balances
A simplified schematic of the system is presented in Fig. 1. It
involves three compartments: Greenhouse (including crop),
gas-fired boiler, and water filled heat-storage (buffer). The
only state variable to be considered is the stored heat, S.
Heat fluxes are denoted by H and CO2 fluxes e by X. All
fluxes are one directional (positive), except HS, which is
positive when charging the buffer, and negative when
discharging.
The balance equations of the compartments and of the 4-
way junction of Fig. 1 are (see Notation for symbols and units):
Buffer heat balance:
dS=dt ¼ HS ;
2.2. Control variables
Altogether there are 8 fluxes (Fig. 1) and 5 equality constraints
(Eqs. (2)e(6)), leaving 3 fluxes free as control (decision) vari-
ables. A sensible choice of the control variables is the venti-
lation rate, Q, and the heat fluxes HB and HS. Finding the
optimal control combination requires, therefore, a three
dimensional search over the feasible control domain. If the
heat storage trajectory lies on either the upper or the lower
bound (full or empty buffer), then
dS=dt ¼ HS ¼ 0: (7)
This removes HS from the control vector, leaving just two
variables to search for.
The three control variables are constrained (limited) by
0  Q  Qc ; (8)
(1)

Greenhouse energy balance: 0  HB  HBc ; (9)

and
HG þ HF
HT ¼ 0; (2)

Greenhouse CO2 balance:
HSc  HS  3 HB : (10)

In addition, there is a constraint on the heat storage, namely

XB
XV
G ¼ 0; (3)

Junction heat balance: 0  S  Sc : (11)

HB
HS
HA
HG ¼ 0: (4) 2.3. Crop growth

In addition, there are 2 process equalities

The crop is assumed to be in a ‘steady’ state, similar to a
CO2/heat equivalence:
mature greenhouse tomato crop (Seginer et al., 2017). The size
XB ¼ hHX HB ; (5) of the ‘unchanging’ plants is M, and its rate of growth is

Heat loss from buffer: G≡N þ Y ¼ ðP
RÞf fMg; (12)

HA ¼ ½absf
HS g þ HS ð1
3 Þ=23 : (6) where G, N and Y are, respectively, the growth rates of the
whole plant, non-saleable material and saleable fruit. Y is
assumed to be proportional to G:

Y ¼ zG; (13)

where z is a constant. P is gross photosynthesis rate, R is

respiration rate, and f{M} is the sunlit leaf area index, here a
constant. Gross photosynthesis is formulated as

PfLi ; Ci ; Ti g ¼ pfLi ; Ci gqfTi g; (14)

where Li, Ci and Ti are, respectively, indoor (photosynthetic)

light intensity, CO2 concentration and temperature. The
functions pfLi ; Ci g and qfTi g are further formulated as

h Li sCi
pfLi ; Ci g≡ LX ; (15)
hLX Li þ sCi

and
Fig. 1 e Schematic representation of a greenhouse system

  
with a gas fired boiler producing heat HB, and carbon qfTi g≡ 1
k Ti
Tp 2 ; (16)
dioxide, XB. Some of the heat, HS, is transferred to a water-
where hLX , s, Tp and k are constants (see Notation). Respiration
filled heat-storage tank (buffer), some is lost from the
is formulated as
buffer, HA, some is recovered later (negative HS), and the
balance, HG, heats the greenhouse. HF is greenhouse solar RfTi g ¼ Rr expfbðTi
Tr Þg; (17)
heating, HT is total greenhouse heat loss, XV is CO2 loss by
where Rr, Tr and b are constants. There are only two (tem-
ventilation, and G is (net) CO2 taken up by the crop. The
perature) constraints on the crop environment, namely
only state variable is the stored heat, S.
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 6 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 8 8 e1 9 9
Tmin  Ti  Tmax ;
and there are no upper limits on light and CO2 concentration.
2.4. Greenhouse environment
The outdoor conditions are given in terms of hourly global
(solar) radiation flux, Fo, hourly air temperature, To, and a
constant carbon dioxide concentration, Co. Outdoor photo-
synthetic light, Lo, is derived from global radiation according
to
Lo ¼ hFL Fo ;
where hFL is a constant. The indoor light is obtained via
Li ¼ tLo ;
where t is a constant. The formulation of HF, HT and XV is
HF ¼ hFH Fo ;
 
ð1 þ BÞ
HT ¼ U þ rcðQ þ IÞ ðTi
To Þ;
B
XV ¼ ðQ þ IÞðCi
Co Þ;
where hFH, U, r, c, I and B are constants. While U, I and B are in
reality variables, they are treated here as constants (B differs
between day and night). By properly substituting into Eqs. (2)
and (3), explicit equations for Ti and Ci can be obtained.
2.5. Performance criterion, Hamiltonian and
computations
The (operational) performance criterion, J, of the greenhouse
system is measured in terms of the value of the saleable fruit,
minus the cost of control, over the relevant period of time
(here one month or one year). Capital and labour costs are not
considered, assuming that they are independent of the control
decisions (Seginer et al., 2017). Hence,
Z
J¼ ðuY Y
uQ Q
uB HB Þdt;
where uY, uQ and uB are, respectively, the unit value of the
saleable fruit and the unit costs of ventilation and of heat.
Note that the fruit-carbon, Y, is valued as soon as it is photo-
synthesised, meaning that green fruit is part of the ‘saleable’
fruit as defined by our model. The virtual value of the stored
heat, the co-state, L, enters the decision process via the
Hamiltonian, H, which represents the incremental increase in
value of the greenhouse system as a whole (including stored
heat):
H ¼ LdS=dt þ uY Y
uQ Q
uB HB :
The control and storage trajectories are obtained by max-
imising the Hamiltonian at each time step (real or simulated)
over the feasible domain, with the current value of the co-
state L. When the stored heat is within its bounds, 0 < S < Sc
(Eq. (11)), the (local) optimisation is attained by a three
dimensional search over Q, HB and HS (Eqs. (8)e(10)). When the
buffer is empty or full (storage on the bounds), HS is known to
191
be zero (Eq. (7)), and the search is two dimensional, over Q and
(18) HB. The control vector is then used to evaluate the greenhouse
indoor environment, as well as the increments of growth and
heat storage.
While 0 < S < Sc , the co-state, L, remains constant (Seginer
et al., 2017, Eq. (34)), but as soon as S hits a bound, our heu-
ristic rule takes effect. The co-state is modified so as to push
the storage trajectory away from the bound: When the tra-
jectory is on the upper bound (full buffer), the co-state is
slightly reduced each time step, to increase the incentive for
emptying the buffer, and vice versa when on the lower bound.
The adjustment rate of L, A (positive on the lower bound and
(19) negative on the upper bound), is a parameter of the compu-
tation algorithm. All calculations in this study were done with
this simulation-optimisation method, sometimes, however,
(20) with A ¼ 0, namely with a strictly constant co-state. More
detail regarding the optimisation may be found in Seginer
et al. (2017). In particular, the resolution of the search for the
optimal Hamiltonian was adapted from that study (Seginer
(21)
et al., 2017, Fig. 4).
Most of the calculations in this study were carried out for
(22) ‘realistic’ weather sequences: the so called SEL year, a syn-
thetic year-long hourly data-set characteristic of Dutch
weather (Breuer & Van de Braak, 1989), and actual weather
(23)
data of 10 years (2001e2010) at Hoek van Holland, The
Netherlands (Station 330; Royal Dutch Meteorological Insti-
tute, KNMI). The results for the SEL weather were sometimes
compared with equivalent periodic sequences: (1) ‘natural’, a
single-day periodic weather composed of hourly means across
the days of individual months, and (2) ‘pairs’, a two-day pe-
riodic sequence where the first day is ‘natural’ multiplied by
1.2, and the second day e by 0.8 (as in Seginer et al., 2017). For
each of the months the daily means of all approximations are
the same.
The model parameter values have been collected from
various sources and are considered to be representative of
greenhouse tomato in The Netherlands. The complete set of
parameters defining the ‘standard’ case is given in Appendix A.
(24) 3. Results
3.1. Typical solution
Figure 2 shows the essentials of the solution of the standard
case (Appendix A and SEL year with Co ¼ 0.015 mol [C] m
3
[air]). The top panel shows the co-state (continuous fluctu-
ating line) and the monthly potential gain from having a
buffer capacity of S ¼ 3 MJ [heat] m
2 [ground] (circles). In
winter the co-state fluctuates around the cost of boiler heat,
uB ¼ 0.0085 $ MJ
1 [heat], and in summer it fluctuates around a
small negative value. The monthly gain, G, has a maximum in
(25)
March, a secondary maximum in September and is effectively
zero in mid-winter. These results are visually very similar to
the results in Figs. 9 and 11 of Seginer et al. (2017) for periodic
weather based on the SEL year. The centre panel shows two
aspects of the stored heat. The continuous line is the storage
trajectory, S, fluctuating between the lower and upper bounds,
and the circles are the mean amount of heat stored (and later
recovered) per day in a given month. The stored amount
192 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 6 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 8 8 e1 9 9
Fig. 2 e Solution of the standard case. SEL year. Buffer
capacity Sc ¼ 3 MJ m¡2 [ground]. Top panel: Continuous
line ‒ co-state, L; Circles ‒ mean monthly gain over not
having a buffer, G; Dashed lines ‒ upper: uB ¼ 0.0085 $ MJ¡1
[heat]; lower: zero. Numbers on top ‒ months. Centre panel:
Continuous line ‒ storage trajectory, S; Circles ‒ mean
monthly stored (and then discharged) heat, HS. Bottom
panel: Continuous line ‒ indoor air temperature, Ti.
(circles) in winter is low relative to the rest of the year. High
activity (and usefulness) is also indicated by high-frequency
charge/discharge cycles (summer). The bottom panel shows
the indoor temperature, Ti, which should be within the
12e33  C range (Eq. (18); Appendix A). For 73 h (out of 8760) the
control was unable to maintain the desired range, the tem-
perature dropping below 12  C in winter (for 52 h) and
exceeding 33  C in summer (for 21 h). The indicated temper-
ature is the best which could be achieved with the available
equipment and control algorithm.
An example of what happens when the indoor tempera-
ture cannot be maintained within the specified bounds is
presented in Fig. 3 for a cold-spell which happened in
December 2002 at Hoek van Holland (not SEL year). Towards
the end of Day 339 the outdoor temperature, To, dropped
below 5  C, not recovering for at least 15 days and reaching a
freezing e7  C on the night between Days 343 and 344. As a
result, the (standard) system was unable to maintain the
specified minimum temperature Tmin ¼ 12  C for about 5 days
(Ti). Unaware of the approaching cold spell, the heat storage, S,
emptied a couple of days earlier, and the alarm bells sounded
only when the minimum temperature could no longer be
maintained, turning on the boiler to its maximum capacity,
HB ¼ 150 J m
2 s
1, almost continuously for about 7 days, while
the heat storage, S, remained on its lower bound. As a result, Ti
did not drop below 5  C. The co-state, starting at its normal
winter level, L ¼ ~uB ¼ 0.0085 $ MJ
1, tries for more than 5 days
to lift S from its lower bound by continuously increasing the
incentive to store heat. However, the full boiler capacity was
Fig. 3 e Solution for a period of cold spell, December 2002 at
Hoek van Holland. Top panel ‒ outdoor, To, and indoor, Ti,
temperatures. Centre panel ‒ state variable, S, and co-state
variable, L. Bottom panel ‒ boiler, HB, and stored, HS, heat
fluxes.
required to just keep the greenhouse temperature as high as
possible, leaving no reserve for storage. Only when Tmin could
be maintained again, on Day 346, did the buffer fill again,
stopping the co-state growth.
This example shows that, as a whole, the thermal design of
the greenhouse was adequate (not over-designed and not
under-designed): in a severe cold spell, the greenhouse was
prevented from reaching freezing temperatures. Obviously, if
a weather forecast was incorporated into the control algo-
rithm, the buffer could be full rather than empty at the start of
the cold period, thus keeping the greenhouse temperature
above the minimum for a while longer. It should be noted,
however, that the available buffer can only store the full ca-
pacity of the boiler for about 7 h, not enough relative to a cold
spell of 15 d.
Examining Fig. 2 once again, the top panel shows the most
important new information, namely that (1) the algorithm is
capable of adjusting the co-state automatically on-line, and (2)
the gain is similar to the optimal gain obtained for a corre-
sponding periodic weather in Seginer et al. (2017). Before these
findings are properly discussed and interpreted, however,
further analysis of the model and control method is required.
3.2. Co-state adjustment rate
The effect of the co-state adjustment rate, A, is illustrated in
Figs. 4 and 5. The decision to use symmetrical adjustments
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 6 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 8 8 e1 9 9
on the upper and lower bounds, as well as selecting the
value A ¼ 1e
4 $ MJ
1 h
1 (Appendix A), are based on these
figures. Figure 4 shows two selection criteria: (1) the
improvement G (gain) of the annual performance criterion, J,
resulting from the introduction of a buffer, and (2) the
fraction of time over the year that the buffer is full or empty
(storage lying on the bounds), both criteria as a function of A
(logarithmic scale). The gain has a maximum (optimum) at
A ¼ 1e
4 $ MJ
1 h
1, and the residence time on the bounds
decreases asymptotically as A increases, staying about
constant at 0.19 from the optimal A and on. For A smaller
than optimal (slow adjustment), the two criteria are nega-
tively correlated, the gain increasing as the time on the
bounds decreases.
An explanation for the maximum in the gain curve can
be found in Fig. 5, where the co-state trajectory for 4 sym-
metric co-state adjustment rates and one asymmetric
adjustment are plotted. Common to the first four is the
winter level of L, around the cost of producing heat by the
boiler, uB ¼ 0.0085 $ MJ
1 (Appendix A), and the summer
level is slightly negative and noticeably uniform. The rate of
adjustment has two effects: (1) In the short term (daily
scale), the co-state fluctuates more vigorously as the
adjustment rate is increased. When the fluctuations are
extreme (#1; thin line), this apparently reduces the effec-
tiveness of the adjustment and, hence, the gain. (2) In the
long term, the seasonal adjustment is delayed as the
adjustment rate decreases (#4; dotted line), resulting, again,
in diminishing gain. The heavy line (#2, where A ¼ 1e
4 $
MJ
1 h
1), seems an optimal choice from these conflicting
points of view, with sufficiently rapid seasonal adjustment
and tolerable fluctuations. Not surprisingly, this value co-
incides with the value found in Fig. 4.
Curve #5, with faster adjustment downwards than up-
wards, adjusts rapidly downwards in spring, producing,
apparently, excessively negative values of L in summer, and
lags behind during autumn. Nevertheless, this considerable
deviation from the co-state for the best A value reduces the
gain from the buffer very little (G ¼ 4.0 rather than 4.5 $
m
2 y
1).
Fig. 4 e Effect of co-state adjustment rate at the storage
bounds, A, on the gain, G, from having a 3.0 MJ m¡2
[ground] buffer and on the resulting time-on-bounds.
193
Fig. 5 e Five co-state trajectories covering the SEL year. The
first four are for symmetric (top and bottom) adjustment
rates, A, slowing down from #1 to #4. The fifth (#5) adjusts
downwards faster than upwards.
3.3. Closeness to optimal solution
Not having produced truly optimal solutions for realistic
weather sequences, we therefore try to estimate how far our
heuristic solution might be away from the optimum. Figure 6
compares the ‘on-line’ co-state adjustment suggested here
with some alternatives. The results for the ‘on-line’ method
are indicated by large full circles. All results with full markers
are for the same realistic year-long (SEL) weather data, while
those with empty markers are for the corresponding monthly
‘natural’ and ‘pairs’ periodic weather (Section 2.5). The general
impression is that the periodic weather results are consider-
ably better that those for the realistic weather (top panel),
despite the similarity of co-states (bottom panel).
Looking at the results more closely, the following may be
observed:
1. There is an indication in the bottom panel of Fig. 6 that
perhaps the 'on-line' downwards adjustment of the co-
state in spring is not sufficiently fast. Increasing the
downwards adjustment rate (throughout the whole year)
from A ¼ 1e
4 to A ¼ 3e
4 $ MJ
1 h
1 results, however, in
only a slightly improved annual gain, increasing the gain,
G, from 4.50 (top panel) to 4.61 $ m
2 y
1 (not shown).
2. Replacing the ‘natural’ weather by ‘pairs’, namely
increasing the day-to-day variation while still solving
properly for a (two-day) periodic weather (empty squares),
reduces the annual gain by about 4% (top panel), still a
minor contribution towards reducing the gap between ‘on-
line’ and ‘natural’.
3. Selecting the best constant co-state for each month in
conjunction with the ‘on line’ method (full squares) also
shows only a very slight improvement in terms of closing
the gap.
4. The best year-long constant co-state value (triangles), is
more representative of summer than winter conditions
(slightly negative; bottom panel of Fig. 6). This indicates that
the gain resulting from having a buffer is mainly due to CO2
enrichment in summer and not due to heating in winter, in
agreement with Conclusion 7 of Seginer et al. (2017). That
194 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 6 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 8 8 e1 9 9

summarised for The Netherlands by Vermeulen (2012) in what

is known as KWIN. The data for ‘round’ greenhouse tomatoes,
planted on week 51 (mid-December) and coded G54 (p. 108),
include yield and gas consumption for each of the 13 4-week
periods of the year. They may be compared with the yield, Y,
and boiler heat, HB, produced by our computations. The
comparison is made in Fig. 7, where the top panel compares
the saleable fruit according to our model with that of KWIN,
and the bottom panel compares the heat produced by the
boiler. The comparison is made on per one square metre and
one day basis. The necessary conversions assume that (1)
1 mol of carbon is equivalent to 30 g of dry matter, (2) 1 m3 of
gas produces 35.2 MJ [heat], and (3) the dry matter content of
ripe tomatoes is 5.6%. In practice, the harvest continues for
nine months, not including December, January and February,
as indicated in the figure. Our scheme assumes a permanently
mature crop, and hence only the results of the 9 harvest
months are comparable.
Generally speaking, the agreement between the results is
fair. Our predicted yield is advanced by about one month
relative to the KWIN data, the reason being that in our model
green (unripe) fruit is counted as yield, while in reality it is
harvested a while later. The total production over the 9
months harvest period is in our scheme about 61.4 kg [FM]
m
2, compared with 65.6 kg m
2 according to KWIN. The heat
consumed during the same period by our computations is
Fig. 6 e Gains from having a buffer, by various methods.
1010 MJ m
2, while it is expected to be 1060 MJ m
2 in a real
Means for all months of the SEL year. ‘on-line’ ‒ realistic
setup. The heat distribution pattern over the harvest period is
weather with on-line adjustment of the co-state. ‘best’ ‒
also similar to that in Fig. 13 of Seginer et al. (2017).
best constant co-state for individual months. ‘annual’ ‒
best annual constant co-state. ‘natural’ ‒ daily periodic
3.5. Effect of buffer size and efficiency
weather averaged monthly. ‘pairs’ ‒ periodic day-pairs,
one 20% higher and the other 20% lower than ‘natural’. Top
The heat buffer is characterised by two parameters: thermal
panel ‒ mean daily gains, G, for the months of the year. The
size, Sc, and thermal efficiency, 3 . The efficiency is a parti-
annual gains are given at the top-right corner. Bottom
tioning parameter, stating how much of the heat available for
panel ‒ co-state, L, trajectories corresponding to the gains.

the gain is minimal in winter is also clearly shown in the top

panel.

In conclusion, it is not clear how much of the difference in

gain, between the optimal solution to the periodic ‘natural’
approximation of the SEL year and the sub-optimal ‘on-line’
solution, should be assigned to the difference in weather
patterns, and how much to blame on failing to find a truly
optimal ‘on-line’ solution. It is also not clear how much of the
discrepancy is created by the short- and long-term variations
of the co-state. Further exploration of this point is, however,
beyond the scope of the present report. Two points are,
nevertheless, evident: (1) ‘On-line’ is the only method tried
here that adjusts the co-state automatically on-line to the
changing circumstances (here weather) and requires no
forecasts or prior knowledge of the co-state. (2) Even as is, it is
expected to add about 4.50 $ m
2 y
1 to the income, compared
to not using the buffer, which is rather significant. Fig. 7 e Comparison of simulated standard case (‘on-line’)
with Dutch practice (‘KWIN’; Vermeulen, 2012). Simulation
3.4. Comparison with practice results are on calendar months' basis, while practice data
are per 4-week periods. Top panel: Saleable tomatoes, Y, in
The results for the standard case (Appendix A) may be kg [FM] m¡2 [ground] d¡1. Bottom panel: Heat generated by
compared with the achievable production goals as boiler, HB, in MJ m¡2 [ground] d¡1.
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 6 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 8 8 e1 9 9
storage, HS þ HA , is lost directly to the atmosphere, HA, and
how much is eventually dissipated via the greenhouse, HS.
The current model assumes a constant 3 throughout the
whole year, but in principle 3 could be varied over time, for
instance by treating HA as an independent (fourth) control
variable. Fig. 14 of Seginer et al. (2017) shows that the gain
from a buffer of a given size may be increased if 3 would be
high (~1.0) in winter and low (<0.5) in summer (positively
correlated with the co-state). This is intuitively reasonable,
because in summer the heat may become an undesirable by-
product of CO2 enrichment, which, if possible, should be
prevented from entering the greenhouse. Here, firstly the ef-
fect of buffer size on the economic (monetary) gain is
explored, then the interaction between size and storage effi-
ciency is investigated.
Figure 8 shows the effect of buffer size on the optimal per-
formance of a greenhouse system with a constant storage
efficiency (here 3 ¼ 0.8). The main effects change asymptoti-
cally: the annual heat generation (gas consumption), HB, de-
creases somewhat with increasing storage capacity, while the
fraction stored ðHS =HB Þ increases from zero to almost half. As
the storage capacity, Sc, increases, the time the storage tra-
jectory stays on the bounds diminishes to just a few percent of
the time, and the operational gain from having a buffer (not
considering capital cost), increases. The increasing gain
(mostly due to increased yield; not shown) is positively
correlated with the amount of heat stored, HS (namely with
CO2 concentration in the greenhouse), and negatively corre-
lated with time on the bounds.
The gain of Fig. 8, for a constant storage efficiency, 3 ¼ 0.8
(our standard), is copied into Fig. 9 as Curve 1 and compared
with results for more sophisticated storage systems. If any
desired, yet constant, storage efficiency could be incorporated
into a greenhouse system at the design stage, then Curve 4
Fig. 8 e The annual effects of increasing buffer capacity for
a system with a constant storage efficiency, 3 ¼ 0.8
(standard). SEL year. The vertical dashed lines indicate the
size of the standard buffer (Appendix A).
195
shows that it should be larger for larger buffers. Starting with
zero when the buffer is small, the optimal efficiency increases
steadily, until it hits the maximum, 1.0, when the capacity
reaches about 4 MJ m
2. As a result, the optimal gain, Curve 2,
which by definition must be above or just touching the gain for
3 ¼ 0.8, increases approximately linearly; the largest
improvement over the standard case being when the buffer
vanishes ðSc ¼ 0Þ.
The improvement at Sc ¼ 0, almost 3.5 $ m
2 y
1, can be
explained as follows: It has been already established that most
of the gain from having a buffer is related to CO2 enrichment
in summer. Let us consider a summer day, a non-zero buffer
and two extreme values of 3 : 0 and 1. If 3 ¼ 0, the buffer is
useless, but CO2 enrichment may still go on, while all the
generated heat, HB, either goes directly into the greenhouse
via HG, or is wasted into the atmosphere via HA (Fig. 1). The
maximum gain from CO2 enrichment when 3 ¼ 0, is the
intercept of Curve 2 in Fig. 9. If, on the other hand, 3 ¼ 1 and all
the daytime heat must go through the buffer, it very quickly
fills up and cannot accept more heat and hence stops
enrichment. If the daytime heat is delivered directly to the
greenhouse, the temperature in the greenhouse may become
too high, unless a high ventilation rate is applied, which di-
minishes the effect of CO2 enrichment. This should explain
Curve 4 of Fig. 9, where a large buffer may accumulate heat all
day to be used only at night when heat may be needed.
Finally, if 3 could be controlled continuously, one would
expect the best possible operational outcome. Curve 3, based
on the best constant-per-month 3 (large in winter and small in
summer), is an approximation of that situation. The gain
represented by Curve 3 is, by definition, higher than that of
Curve 2, except when Sc ¼ 0, where 3 must be zero, as just
explained for Curve 2.
The advantage of the variable-3 scheme over the constant-3
scheme is significant, provided that the additional investment
cost involved is not prohibitive. At this point in time we only
have an estimate of the investment cost of a standard
installation, which is represented in Fig. 9 by the sloping
Fig. 9 e Gain, G, as a function of buffer capacity for three
efficiency strategies. 1 ‒ Gain for a fixed efficiency, 3 ¼ 0.8
(standard). 2 ‒ Gain for best (constant) annual efficiency, as
shown by curve 4. 3 ‒ Gain for best monthly efficiency. SEL
year.
196 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 6 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 8 8 e1 9 9
dashed line at the top (~0.2 $ MJ
1 y
1; Vermeulen, 2012, p. 42).
With this estimate of the installation cost, the optimal size of a
standard system would be about Sc ¼ 4 MJ m
2, somewhat
larger than used here. The more sophisticated system with
variable 3 would be more expensive, increasing the slope of
the dashed line, and thus reducing the optimal size. If the
optimal size of the variable-3 system is not smaller than
Sc ¼ 2 MJ m
2, it might still be better than a standard system of
Sc ¼ 4 MJ m
2.
3.6. Effect of prices
If all money-related variables were changed proportionally to
each other, then, obviously, the physical solution would
remain unchanged. The solution is only affected by a relative
change in prices. In the present model, the three prices, uQ, uB
and uY and the adjustment rate, A, are money-related. How-
ever, as uQ is negligible (zero, Appendix A) and the effect of A,
in the neighbourhood of the standard parameter set, is small
(Fig. 4), the price-ratio heat/yield, uB =uY , is effectively the only
factor which may influence the outcome of the control
calculations.
Changing the price ratio may affect decisions in both the
design and operation stages. The effect on the optimal size of
the buffer turns out to be negligible (not shown). The effect on
the optimal control decisions and the economic outcome is,
however, very significant. Figure 10 shows four annual co-
state trajectories generated by our simulation-optimisation
algorithm for three different levels of uB (0.010, 0.015 and 0.020
$ MJ
1) and two levels of uY (0.5 and 1.0 $ mol
1 [fruit-C]).
Curves 1e3 (solid) are for uY ¼ 0.5 $ mol
1 [fruit-C] and the
dotted curve, 4, is for the same price ratio as Curve 1, except
that both uB and uY are twice as large. In all cases the winter
value fluctuates around uB and the summer value ‒ around
zero. All curves are roughly proportional to one another.
While Case 4 produces the same annual sums for HB, HS and Y
as Case 1, and the criterion of Case 4 is twice as large as that of
Case 1 (as expected), the corresponding co-states are quite
different, mainly in winter.
The effect of prices on the co-state (Fig. 10) is not particu-
larly important. The question is whether, and how, the control
of the system is affected by changing the price ratio, for
instance by increasing the cost of heat, and thus of uB =uY . It is
Fig. 10 e On-line generated co-state trajectories for fruit
price uY ¼ 0.5 $ mol¡1 [fruit-C] (standard) and three prices
of boiler generated heat: uB ¼ 0.010, 0.015 and 0.020 $ MJ¡1
(continuous curves). The dotted curve is for uY ¼ 1.0 $
mol¡1 [fruit-C] and uB ¼ 0.020 $ MJ¡1 SEL year.
obvious that by doing so the (monetary) performance criterion
J must decrease (expensive input, unchanged revenue), as is
shown in Fig. 11 (Criterion). It also results in a decreasing heat
consumption and yield (not shown), indicating a reduction in
cultivation intensity (reduced input and output). The useful-
ness of the buffer, however, increases as the heat becomes
more expensive (Fig. 11; Gain), presumably because although
the amount stored diminishes as uB =uY increases, the value of
the stored heat increases (Fig. 10).
3.7. Variation among years
Figure 12 compares the optimal monthly performance crite-
rion of the SEL year with the mean monthly values for the
years 2001e2010 at Hoek van Holland. The standard de-
viations about the monthly means are also shown. The mean
is smoother than the SEL year, which on some of the months,
and most visibly in April, deviates from the mean by more
than one standard deviation. Both curves are slightly skewed
to the left, compared to the global radiation curves, which are
symmetrical around June (not shown). The annual criterion
for the SEL year is 44.7 $ m
2 y
1; 12% less than the mean
criterion.
4. Discussion
The discussion covers three items. Firstly, a summary list of
findings is presented. The capabilities of the proposed method
are then briefly discussed, and finally it is placed in the general
context of co-state-based control.
4.1. Summary of findings
General properties of the co-state on-line adjustment method
1. The on-line, automatic method of adjusting the co-state,
produces a useful sub-optimal solution to the day-to-
night heat storage problem (Fig. 6).
Fig. 11 e Optimal performance criterion, J, and gain over a
system without a buffer, G, as a function of the price ratio
heat/yield ðuB =uY Þ. The vertical dashed line is the standard
price ratio, 0.017 mol [C] MJ (the crossing of all three curves
at a point is just a coincidence). SEL year.
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 6 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 8 8 e1 9 9
Fig. 12 e Optimal monthly performance criteria, J, for the
SEL year and for the years 2001e2010 at Hoek van Holland.
The error bars about the mean for 2001e2010 indicate one
standard deviation.
2. The co-state adjustment rate, A, has an effect on both the
short-term (day-to-day) time scale and the long-term
(seasonal) adjustment (Figs. 4 and 5).
3. A weather forecast could, in principle, improve the control
decisions (Fig. 3), but the magnitude of this improvement
is, as yet, unclear.
4. The procedure could be readily transferred to a different
location (different weather, prices, installation), provided
that the configuration (Fig. 1) is the same. Note, however,
that heat storage is practised mostly in cold climates.
Other findings
5. The predictions of the model compare favourably with
practice in The Netherlands (Fig. 7).
6. Under the conditions of this study (weather and prices
in The Netherlands), CO2 enrichment (in summer)
rather than heating (in winter) contributes most to the
usefulness of a day-to-night heat buffer (Figs. 2 and 6).
7. Controlling independently the direct heat dissipation
into the atmosphere, HA, increases the usefulness of the
buffer (Fig. 9).
8. Off-line analysis at the design stage may be used to
determine the optimal buffer size (Fig. 9).
9. Increasing the cost of heat, uB, affects proportionally the
co-state (Fig. 10), reduces the income (Fig. 11), and leads
to a less intensive cultivation (less input and less
output).
10. Increasing the price ratio uB =uY has little effect on the
optimal buffer size (section 3.6), yet it does increase the
operational usefulness of the buffer (Fig. 11).
11. The weather variation among years has a minor effect
on the co-state (not shown) and on the performance
criterion (Fig. 12).
4.2. Capabilities of the method
The simple greenhouse model used here was intended to
emulate a tomato-greenhouse facility in The Netherlands.
Most of the calculations were made for the SEL year, which
197
represents local weather well enough. Several simplifications
of the model have been mentioned, among them the steady
state view of the crop. Correcting these shortcomings often
involves the addition of new processes, state variables (such
as total mass, non-structural substrate, green fruit) and
possibly their corresponding co-states. These additions are
worth trying only after having gained some experience with
the current simple model. At the moment, the focus is on an
efficient operation of the day-to-night heat storage, not so
much on overall optimisation.
It is not clear how close are the solutions of our semi-
heuristic method to the truly optimal solutions of the stor-
age problem, because the effect of method (exact vs heuristic)
is confounded with the effect of weather (periodic vs realistic).
Judging by Fig. 6, our approach produces probably 3/4 or more
of the maximum gain achievable by introducing a buffer.
An alternative solution to the storage problem might be to
use a-priori calculated co-states, either the same co-state for
the whole year, or individual values for each of the months.
The dotted curves of Fig. 6 show that using the same co-state
for the whole year results in a considerable loss of perfor-
mance, while a ‘best’ constant co-state for individual months
produces an annual gain which is about the same as the ‘on-
line’ solution. The usefulness of the best monthly (a priori)
values depends on the uniformity among years, which, judged
by Fig. 12 and a study of Van Henten (1994, Fig. 7.21), is a
reasonable assumption at a particular location. If prices
change, recalculation of co-states may be required.
The fair results using constant monthly co-states (Fig. 6),
means that buffer capacity is sufficiently large to accommo-
date the needs of most short-term weather fluctuations. Only
when the disturbance is several days long, as in Fig. 3, is it
worthwhile to consider future events. A good weather forecast
could possibly improve the solution by filling, or emptying, the
buffer prior to irregular weather events. This, however, is an
improvement which may not be easy or worthwhile to
implement.
While it is not possible to judge exactly how far the sub-
optimal results obtained with our semi-heuristic strategy are
from the truly optimal solution, it is possible to show what can
be achieved by using this procedure, at both the design and
operation modes. As an example, Fig. 9 provides an estimate
of how much can be gained by installing buffers of various
sizes and how large the optimal buffer might be. Figure 9 also
shows that adjustable partitioning of the generated heat be-
tween heating the greenhouse and dissipation to the atmo-
sphere (variable-3 ), may add to the improvements from having
a buffer.
The system configuration used here to illustrate our
strategy is just one of several possible day-to-night storage
systems. A currently popular system is ‘co-generation’, for
simultaneous generation of electricity and heat (and CO2),
mostly during the day, while using some of the heat for night-
time heating. In that case a second driving force, besides CO2
enrichment, is present: the day-to-night price difference of
electricity. Otherwise, however, the two problems are quali-
tatively similar. The inverse approach of night-to-day saving
of CO2, presently at the experimental stage (Sa  nchez-Molina,
Reinoso, Acie  n, Rodrı́guez, & Lo  pez, 2014), could also be
treated in a similar manner.
198 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 6 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 8 8 e1 9 9
Right now, the method as suggested has several obvious
strengths:
1. It is simple to implement on-line.
2. The adjustment of the co-state, L, to the varying weather,
and in particular to the change of seasons, is automatic.
3. The strategy does not require any information about the
future. The co-state is adjusted according to the current
weather, prices, state, S, and co-state, L, the latter two
depending on the recent history of the system.
If a reliable system model is lacking, measured heat actually
stored in the buffer could be used to adapt the co-state on-line,
similarly to Seginer (2013).
4.3. Greenhouse control by co-state adjustment
The day-to-night heat storage is but one of many greenhouse
process-control problems. It differs from seasonal growth
problems by focussing on the short term scale and having
state bounds (constraints) which are reached almost every
day. Otherwise, however, when observed from the co-state
point of view, they all have much in common, and in partic-
ular the distinction between the strategic and tactical levels,
which will now be briefly described.
Conventional computerised control of greenhouses (Kamp
& Timmerman, 1996), requires the setting of numerous pa-
rameters, which, in turn, define the set-points for the various
indoor environmental variables, such as temperature.
Adjusting these parameters manually is problematic, mainly
because the interactions between their effects are often rather
complex. At the same time, growers are reluctant to relin-
quish all control to the computer, partly because the computer
models have proved not to be all that reliable, and partly
because the weather, biology, or economics may turn out to be
different than initially anticipated. A typical grower makes
set-point adjustments, when deemed necessary, based mostly
on observations of the state of the crop (size, developmental
stage, vigour, infestation, etc.) and possibly other information
(prices, logistics, weather, etc.). This information is mentally
translated into processes (growth, development, transpiration,
infection etc.) to be accelerated or retarded by changing the
set-points. The actions taken by the grower are usually meant
to affect the long-term development of the crop, leaving the
short term adjustments to the computer. This means that the
grower makes the strategic decisions, while the computer is
responsible for the tactical level. With this in mind, the
problem of adjusting a large number of set-points may,
perhaps, be replaced by adjusting a limited number of dials,
each associated with a certain process, which the grower can
turn up or down, indicating which process to accelerate and
which to retard. These dials may be labelled ‘growth’, ‘devel-
opment’, or ‘botrytis’, depending on relevance to a particular
situation. In the present context it could be a ‘fill (buffer)’ dial.
It seems that the co-states are the equivalents of such
dials. The proper choice of the few most appropriate state
variables, and hence the associated co-states, is critical. They
should be relevant to the problem, meaningful to the grower,
observable (measurable) and controllable (respond to the avail-
able controls). In our case, the heat stored in the buffer meets
these requirements. By changing the values of certain co-
states, a grower could correct (compensate) on-line for inac-
curate parameters of the underlying model, for an unexpected
weather spell, or for changing market conditions. The main
reason that changing the co-states can compensate for model
inaccuracies (e.g., inaccurate 3 ) is that an erroneous model
often just affects the rate of progress (here storage rate), which
can be usually rectified by changing the appropriate co-state
value (Seginer, 2013). Eventually (at the end of the season),
the model may be re-calibrated.
If the heat buffer is consistently full (or empty), reducing
(or increasing) the incentive to ‘fill’ should rectify the situa-
tion. The dial (co-state) adjustment could be manual or auto-
matic. In the heat storage problem, where automatic
monitoring (feedback from buffer) is simple (unlike esti-
mating, for example, the ‘vigour’ of a crop), the adjustment
could be automatic.
Co-states are generally better agents of control policy
transfer from one situation to the other than are control fluxes
or set-points (Van Straten, van Willigenburg, van Henten, &
van Ootegem, 2011, Section 9.4.7.4). The co-states are often
constant, night and day (as in our case), unlike the set-points
and control fluxes, and remarkably robust with respect to the
year-to-year variation in weather (Van Henten, 1994; our re-
sults for 2001 to 2010, not shown). Furthermore, a single co-
state may generate several control fluxes (here three: Q, HB
and HS). Finally, having an economic connotation, such as
LyuB in winter and Ly0 in summer, is also helpful.
Acknowledgement
We thank Ep Heuvelink of WUR for important information
regarding the tomato crop.
Appendix A. Parameter values for the standard
case
The following are the standard parameter values. The stan-
dard case utilises the SEL year weather data. When non-
standard values are used, this is indicated in the text and
figures. The parameters are arranged alphabetically (Latin,
then Greek) within each topic.
Crop growth (Eqs. (13), (15)e(18))
f ¼ 0.91
Rr ¼ 0.75e
6, mol [C] m
2 [ground] s
1
Tmin ¼ 12,  C
Tmax ¼ 33,  C
Tp ¼ 23,  C
Tr ¼ 0,  C
b ¼ 0.0693, K
1
hLX ¼ 0.07, mol [C] mol
1 [PAR]
z ¼ 0.7
k ¼ 0.0015, K
2
s ¼ 0.004, m s
1
Greenhouse environment (Eqs. (19e22))
Bday ¼ 0.3
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 6 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 8 8 e1 9 9 199

Bnight ¼ 0.8 references

c ¼ 1005, J [heat] kg
1 [air] K
1
I ¼ 0.0015, m3 [air] m
2 [ground] s
1
U ¼ 7, J [heat] m
2 [ground] K
1 s
1 Breuer, J. J. G., & Van de Braak, N. J. (1989). Reference year for
hFL ¼ 2.1e
6, mol [PAR] J
1 [global] Dutch greenhouses. Acta Horticulturae, 248, 101e108.
hFH ¼ 0.5, J [heat] J
1 [global] De Zwart, H. F. (1996). Analyzing energy-saving options in greenhouse
r ¼ 1.2, kg [air] m
3 [air] cultivation using a simulation model (PhD dissertation).
Wageningen, The Netherlands: Landbouwuniversiteit.
t ¼ 0.65
Kamp, P. G. H., & Timmerman, G. J. (1996). Computerized
environmental control in greenhouses. A step by step approach (p.
Control equipment (Eqs. (5,6), (8)e(11)) 272). Netherlands: IPC-Plant, Ede.
HBc ¼ 150, J [heat] m
2 [ground] s
1 KNMI (Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute). Hoek van Holland
HSc ¼ 100, J [heat] m
2 [ground] s
1 (station 330) years 2001 to 2010. http://www.knmi.nl/
Qc ¼ 0.02, m3 [air] m
2 [ground] s
1 nederland-nu/klimatologie/uurgegevens.
Salazar, R., Miranda, L., Schmidt, U., Rojano, A., & Lopez, I. (2014).
Sc ¼ 3.0, MJ [heat] m
2 [ground]
Simulation of energy harvesting in a semiclosed greenhouse.
3 ¼ 0.8
Acta Horticulturae, 1037, 461e468.
hHX ¼ 1.15, mol [C] MJ
1 [heat]  nchez-Molina, J. A., Reinoso, J. V., Acie
Sa n, F. G., Rodrı́guez, F., &
Lo pez, J. C. (2014). Development of a biomass-based system for
Prices (Eq. (24)) nocturnal temperature and diurnal CO2 concentration control
uB ¼ 0.0085, $ MJ
1 [heat] in greenhouses. Biomass and Bioenergy, 67, 60e71.
uQ ¼ 0, $ m
3 [air] Seginer, I. (2013). Co-state variables as strategic set-point
generators for greenhouse environmental control. Agricontrol,
uY ¼ 0.5, $ mol
1 [fruit-C]
4(1), 225e230.
Seginer, I., van Straten, G., & van Beveren, P. Day-to-night heat
Initial conditions storage in greenhouses: 1 Optimisation for periodic changes in
Sinit ¼ Sc/2, MJ [heat] m
2 [ground] weather (accepted for publication 2017).
Linit ¼ uB, $ MJ
1 [heat] Van Henten, E. J. (1994). Greenhouse climate management: An optimal
control approach (Ph.D. thesis). The Netherlands: Wageningen
Co-state adjustment Agricultural University.
Van Straten, G., van Willigenburg, G., van Henten, E., & van
A ¼ 1e
4, $ MJ
1 h
1
Ootegem, R. (2011). Optimal control of greenhouse cultivation (p.
296). Boca Raton, London, New York: CRC Press.
The initial values of the state and co-state are based on Vermeulen, P. C. M. (Ed.). (2012). Kwantitatieve Informatie voor de
prior experience: The simulation starts in winter (1 January) Glastuinbouw 2012e2013. [KWIN 2012e2013]. Kengetallen voor
when the co-state is known to fluctuate around uB. Hence Groenten e Snijbloemen e Potplanten teelten (22nd ed.).
Linit ¼ uB . The storage fluctuates symmetrically between the Wageningen: Wageningen UR Glastuinbouw (Quantitative
information for the greenhouse industry: Key figures for
bounds, hence Sinit ¼ Sc/2. The standard adjustment rate, A,
vegetables e cut flowers e pot plants).
was taken from Fig. 4.