日光温室墙体蓄放热层温度变化规律研究

    Temperature variations in energy storage layers in Chinese solar greenhouse walls

    • 摘要: 墙体的蓄热保温性能决定了日光温室在室外环境作用下的温度变化。该文建立了单一材料墙体的温度变化估算模型,对黏土砖墙、砾石墙、加草黏土墙及夯土墙的温度变化进行了预测;采用CFD方法分析了墙体总厚度相同(0.60 m)和总厚度不同(0.60和0.72 m)情况下,复合墙体各方案中蓄热材料层的温度变化特点。单一材料墙体温度变化预测结果显示,导温系数较大的砾石墙内部温度变化较其他墙体传播快;温度波动厚度还与墙内表面温度振幅有关,黏土砖墙内表面振幅从5 ℃增加到15 ℃,墙体内部振幅达到0.1 ℃时的波动厚度从0.42 m增加到0.54 m。此外,由预测的墙体温度变化可以确定单一材料墙体蓄放热层厚度。模型估算的夯土墙温度变化及蓄放热层厚度与已有文献测试值比较,吻合较好。复合墙体温度CFD模拟分析表明,墙总厚度0.60 m不变,蓄热材料层越厚内部温度衰减越快;蓄热材料层厚保持0.36 m,墙总厚度从0.60 m增加到0.72 m时,蓄热材料层温度均值最大升高1.7 ℃。研究还发现,复合墙体较厚的蓄热材料层比同材料单一材料墙体同厚度处温度衰减快,复合墙体蓄放热层厚度的确定取决于隔热层的位置。单一材料墙体及复合墙体蓄热材料层温度模拟模型可以为日光温室墙体的厚度及组成设计提供理论参考。

       

      Abstract: Chinese solar greenhouse (CSG) walls can be made of a single material or can be layered walls that are conceptually divided into three layers (from the inside to the outside) as the energy storage layer, the thermally stable layer and the thermal preservation layer. The temperature variations in the energy storage layer then greatly influence the thermal characteristics of CSG walls during the winter. This study compares the storage layer temperature variations inside single material walls during clear winter days predicted by an analytical solution of the one-dimensional (1D) transient conduction equation with the storage layer temperature distributions inside two-and three-layer layered walls predicted by a previously validated CFD model. This study used single material walls made of clay brick, gravel, clay with grass or rammed clay with the gravel having the largest thermal diffusivity (9.24×10-7m2/s) and the clay brick having the smallest thermal diffusivity (4.29×10-7m2/s). The single material wall temperature predictions show that for an inside wall surface temperature variation amplitude of 15℃and temperature variation amplitudes at the interface between the energy storage layer and the thermally stable layer of less than 0.1℃, the gravel wall had to be 0.25 m thicker than the clay brick wall. When the inside wall surface temperature variation amplitude was only 5℃, the gravel wall had to be 0.2 m thicker. Also, for interface wall temperature variation amplitudes of less than 0.1℃ and an inside wall surface temperature variation amplitude of 15℃, the clay brick wall had to be 0.54 m thick, but the wall had to be only 0.42 m thick for an inside wall surface temperature variation amplitude of 5℃. The model can predict the required thicknesses of the heat storage layer for any single material wall based on the interior wall temperature variations. The predicted temperature variations in a single material wall and the predicted storage layer thicknesses agree well with the measured values for a rammed clay wall. The simulation results for layered walls also show how the interior temperatures in the heat storage layer change with the insulation layer arrangement. For a total wall thickness of 0.6 m and heat storage layer thicknesses of 0.12, 0.24, 036 or 0.48 m, the temperatures across the energy storage layer decrease more quickly with the thicker energy storage layers. Additionally, the wall temperatures in the energy storage layer decrease more quickly in a layered wall than in a single material wall made of the same material since the energy storage layer thickness of 0.48 m was thinner than the single material wall thickness with the same material. Thus, the expected energy storage layer needs to be thicker than the thermal wavelength in the wall. When the total wall thickness changed from 0.6 to 0.72 m while the heat storage layer thickness was kept at 0.36 m, the average wall temperature in the thermal storage layer increased by up to 1.7℃. The results also show that the required thicknesses of the heat storage layer for layered walls depend on the insulation layer arrangement. The results for single material walls and layered walls give good guidance for wall thickness and wall composition selections for CSG.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回