Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Strengthening Techniques for Greenhouses

Profile image of Chrysanthos MaraveasChrysanthos Maraveas

2020, AgriEngineering

https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering2010003
visibility

…

description

18 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Steel greenhouse structures are generally constructed by individual sole contractors using quick empirical structural calculations (pre-engineered solutions). It is also common to import standard greenhouses from other countries, mainly from the Netherlands, Italy, and France, and sometimes from Great Britain and Israel. Evidently, these countries differ concerning the local wind and snow conditions. Therefore, there is a need for a better design of structures accepted as satisfactory, while installation can be done in a different location. Many greenhouse structures incorporating poor designs or inappropriate pre-engineered solutions are currently in use. At the same time, demolition and reconstruction represent a very expensive solution considering the loss of crop production and the demolition and construction costs; thus, strengthening is a reasonable alternative. This paper presents strengthening techniques for steel greenhouses that are code-deficient according to EN 13031 and Eurocodes. Consequently, two case studies are presented as typical applications of greenhouse structure strengthening.

Figures (27)

Figure 1. Collapse of greenhouse under snow load [9]. 4 atl bt Traditionally, many greenhouse structures experience natural disasters and various types of collapses occur, which usually do not involve loss of human life but significant loss of money and wealth. Thus, to protect them from collapse, appropriate repair and retrofitting techniques are in need, but there is scattered knowledge to date. This paper summarizes various core methods of repairing and retrofitting of such lightweight steel structures according to the code requirements. The assessment and retrofitting of two types of existing greenhouses are also presented as case studies.
Figure 1. Collapse of greenhouse under snow load [9]. 4 atl bt Traditionally, many greenhouse structures experience natural disasters and various types of collapses occur, which usually do not involve loss of human life but significant loss of money and wealth. Thus, to protect them from collapse, appropriate repair and retrofitting techniques are in need, but there is scattered knowledge to date. This paper summarizes various core methods of repairing and retrofitting of such lightweight steel structures according to the code requirements. The assessment and retrofitting of two types of existing greenhouses are also presented as case studies.
Table 1. Greenhouse classification according to expected design working life [1]. 3. Greenhouse Structural Assessment Methodology Greenhouses are also classified based on the expected life of the design. The life span of the cladding may differ from the design working life of the structural system. The minimum values of the design working life are given in EN 13031 [1] and presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Greenhouse classification according to expected design working life [1]. 3. Greenhouse Structural Assessment Methodology Greenhouses are also classified based on the expected life of the design. The life span of the cladding may differ from the design working life of the structural system. The minimum values of the design working life are given in EN 13031 [1] and presented in Table 1.
Figure 2. Different shapes of greenhouses [11]. modified Quonset, Quonset, parabolic/hyperbolic, spherical dome, modified arch, and modifiec IARI, as indicated in Figure 2. Typical frames are formed by columns, main beams or trusses, purlins, vertical bracings, roof bracings, and gutters. The structural framing is most usually made of steel or aluminum. Smaller sreenhouses constructed by farmers are sometimes made of wood. Moreover, another major classification parameter for greenhouses is the type of cladding. Typical coverings are made of glass, plastic film, PVC, or polyethylene [11].
Figure 2. Different shapes of greenhouses [11]. modified Quonset, Quonset, parabolic/hyperbolic, spherical dome, modified arch, and modifiec IARI, as indicated in Figure 2. Typical frames are formed by columns, main beams or trusses, purlins, vertical bracings, roof bracings, and gutters. The structural framing is most usually made of steel or aluminum. Smaller sreenhouses constructed by farmers are sometimes made of wood. Moreover, another major classification parameter for greenhouses is the type of cladding. Typical coverings are made of glass, plastic film, PVC, or polyethylene [11].
GREENH E ASSESMENT METHODOLOGY Figure 3. Flowchart of greenhouse assessment methodology. Abbreviations: Ultimate Limit State ULS, Serviceability Limit States-SLS.
GREENH E ASSESMENT METHODOLOGY Figure 3. Flowchart of greenhouse assessment methodology. Abbreviations: Ultimate Limit State ULS, Serviceability Limit States-SLS.
Figure 4. Welding steel plates (a) in hollow sections, and (b) in I or H sections [12]. This method is used to enhance the flexural capacity, when reinforcing plates are welded in the bending direction (on each side of hollow sections of in the flanges of I/H sections), or the shear strength increment, when the plates are welded in the vertical sides of a hollow section or the web of I/H sections. Welding steel plates can also increase the stiffness on the weak axis of I or H sections, which leads to a decrease in buckling resistance of the member and increase in axial resistance. The increase in stiffness is generally limited by this method. Typical details are shown below in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Welding steel plates (a) in hollow sections, and (b) in I or H sections [12]. This method is used to enhance the flexural capacity, when reinforcing plates are welded in the bending direction (on each side of hollow sections of in the flanges of I/H sections), or the shear strength increment, when the plates are welded in the vertical sides of a hollow section or the web of I/H sections. Welding steel plates can also increase the stiffness on the weak axis of I or H sections, which leads to a decrease in buckling resistance of the member and increase in axial resistance. The increase in stiffness is generally limited by this method. Typical details are shown below in Figure 4.
Figure 5. Strengthening with Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP) (a) sheets or (b) plates [13]. Abbreviation: Carbon FRPs-CFRP. The conventional method of attaching external steel plates as mentioned before is sometimes challenging due to fatigue and corrosion. FRPs and especially Carbon FRPs (CFRPs) have ideal mechanical properties such as a high strength-to-weight ratio, as well as resistance to corrosion. In addition, its inherent flexibility makes it easy to form different shapes; thus, handling during construction is easy. However, the use of this non-standard material presents several issues that require to be addressed before it is implemented in the provision of suitable retrofitting of existing structures A major reason is that it cannot be used in closed areas due to toxic smoke if it is burning. Also, the adhesives used to connect FRPs with steel are sensitive to heating—cooling cycles that appear ir greenhouse structures. Another area of concern is the bond of adhesives concerning the surfaces’ durability and preparation [13]. On the contrary, they are not sensitive to corrosion due to moisture and chemicals which are often present in greenhouses. Figure 5 below shows the typical details.
Figure 5. Strengthening with Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP) (a) sheets or (b) plates [13]. Abbreviation: Carbon FRPs-CFRP. The conventional method of attaching external steel plates as mentioned before is sometimes challenging due to fatigue and corrosion. FRPs and especially Carbon FRPs (CFRPs) have ideal mechanical properties such as a high strength-to-weight ratio, as well as resistance to corrosion. In addition, its inherent flexibility makes it easy to form different shapes; thus, handling during construction is easy. However, the use of this non-standard material presents several issues that require to be addressed before it is implemented in the provision of suitable retrofitting of existing structures A major reason is that it cannot be used in closed areas due to toxic smoke if it is burning. Also, the adhesives used to connect FRPs with steel are sensitive to heating—cooling cycles that appear ir greenhouse structures. Another area of concern is the bond of adhesives concerning the surfaces’ durability and preparation [13]. On the contrary, they are not sensitive to corrosion due to moisture and chemicals which are often present in greenhouses. Figure 5 below shows the typical details.
Figure 6. Strengthening connection by side plates [8]. Inadequate steel connections can be strengthened in several ways. These include enhancement of braced connections, adding steel cover and web stiffener plates, conversion of sing connections to double shear connections through plates and/or angles, addition of welding a e shear ong the connection perimeter, or thorough cleaning of the existing welds and replacement of bolts with fasteners of high strength. For example, the connection between a column and a beam strengthened with the so-called side-plate retrofitting system (Figure 6), where parallel fu side plates are applied to provide the physical separation between the column face (flange) edge of the beam to moderate concentration of stress. The parallel full-depth side plates achie can be I-depth and the ve their role by acting as discrete continuity elements connecting the column and the beam [11]. They are, therefore, designed with suitable strength and stiffness to enhance the transmission of significant plastic behavior to the beam from the connection system. Strengthening of connections must c maintenance issues as the greenhouse environment is aggressive. onsider
Figure 6. Strengthening connection by side plates [8]. Inadequate steel connections can be strengthened in several ways. These include enhancement of braced connections, adding steel cover and web stiffener plates, conversion of sing connections to double shear connections through plates and/or angles, addition of welding a e shear ong the connection perimeter, or thorough cleaning of the existing welds and replacement of bolts with fasteners of high strength. For example, the connection between a column and a beam strengthened with the so-called side-plate retrofitting system (Figure 6), where parallel fu side plates are applied to provide the physical separation between the column face (flange) edge of the beam to moderate concentration of stress. The parallel full-depth side plates achie can be I-depth and the ve their role by acting as discrete continuity elements connecting the column and the beam [11]. They are, therefore, designed with suitable strength and stiffness to enhance the transmission of significant plastic behavior to the beam from the connection system. Strengthening of connections must c maintenance issues as the greenhouse environment is aggressive. onsider
The most efficient and popular strengthening method is the use of braces (Figure 7). This can be attributed to the fact that braces do not require other complex strengthening methods and they provide the capacity needed; they represent a good implementation, as they have a lower overall cost and are easily applied.
The most efficient and popular strengthening method is the use of braces (Figure 7). This can be attributed to the fact that braces do not require other complex strengthening methods and they provide the capacity needed; they represent a good implementation, as they have a lower overall cost and are easily applied.
Figure 10. Typical frame of Venlo-type greenhouse [15]. The main truss beam consists of RHS 60.030.0 x 3.0 and @14 diagonals. The trusses are supported by columns of profile RHS 120.0 x 60.0 x 3.0. Vertical bracings are @12. Longitudinal beams are SHS 140.0 x 3.0. The greenhouse cladding is made of glass, and the type of greenhouse is A15 [15].
Figure 10. Typical frame of Venlo-type greenhouse [15]. The main truss beam consists of RHS 60.030.0 x 3.0 and @14 diagonals. The trusses are supported by columns of profile RHS 120.0 x 60.0 x 3.0. Vertical bracings are @12. Longitudinal beams are SHS 140.0 x 3.0. The greenhouse cladding is made of glass, and the type of greenhouse is A15 [15].
Figure 9. Longitudinal view of the vaulted greenhouse [14].
Figure 9. Longitudinal view of the vaulted greenhouse [14].
Figure 11. Snow load distribution for (a) vaulted and (b) Venlo-type greenhouses. Case (1), uniform snow load distribution; case (2), snow accumulation [1]. Table 3. Design actions for the assessment of the two greenhouses.
Figure 11. Snow load distribution for (a) vaulted and (b) Venlo-type greenhouses. Case (1), uniform snow load distribution; case (2), snow accumulation [1]. Table 3. Design actions for the assessment of the two greenhouses.
Figure 12. Zones for global pressure coefficients for walls and single- and multi-span roof: (a) vaulted greenhouse; (b) Venlo-type greenhouse.
Figure 12. Zones for global pressure coefficients for walls and single- and multi-span roof: (a) vaulted greenhouse; (b) Venlo-type greenhouse.
Table 4. External pressure coefficients. 5.4. Combination of Actions
Table 4. External pressure coefficients. 5.4. Combination of Actions
Figure 13. The three-dimensional (3D) model of the vaulted greenhouse. SOFiSTiK [16] software was employed to generate the three-dimensional (83D) model of the entire structure of the greenhouse. Beam elements were used to represent the bracing, purlins, truss bars, arches, and columns, while cable elements were used to represent the tension ties. The cross- sectional properties and the material used for the steel represented the real structure. All main members were considered monolithically connected. To improve the accuracy of the generated model, boundary conditions at the structural member ends such as braces and diagonals were taken as hinged elements. Glass panels in Type A greenhouses should be considered as structural elements placed in the greenhouse structure to close the building, and they do not contribute to the stability of the main structure [1]. Typical models are shown in Figures 13 and 14.
Figure 13. The three-dimensional (3D) model of the vaulted greenhouse. SOFiSTiK [16] software was employed to generate the three-dimensional (83D) model of the entire structure of the greenhouse. Beam elements were used to represent the bracing, purlins, truss bars, arches, and columns, while cable elements were used to represent the tension ties. The cross- sectional properties and the material used for the steel represented the real structure. All main members were considered monolithically connected. To improve the accuracy of the generated model, boundary conditions at the structural member ends such as braces and diagonals were taken as hinged elements. Glass panels in Type A greenhouses should be considered as structural elements placed in the greenhouse structure to close the building, and they do not contribute to the stability of the main structure [1]. Typical models are shown in Figures 13 and 14.
Figure 14. The 3D model of the Venlo-type greenhouse.
Figure 14. The 3D model of the Venlo-type greenhouse.
Table 6. Buckling resistance of members.
Table 6. Buckling resistance of members.
Table 7. Limits of horizontal displacements. More specifically, according to the structural calculations, the capacity of the bending moment at the cross-section of the main columns on the perimeter of both the vaulted and Venlo-type greenhouses was exceeded (Figures 16 and 17). The ULS is the critical combination with the wind as a leading variable action. In the Venlo-type greenhouse, the horizontal displacement parallel to the gutter due to wind actions was greater than the limit of 60 mm (Figure 18 and Table 8).
Table 7. Limits of horizontal displacements. More specifically, according to the structural calculations, the capacity of the bending moment at the cross-section of the main columns on the perimeter of both the vaulted and Venlo-type greenhouses was exceeded (Figures 16 and 17). The ULS is the critical combination with the wind as a leading variable action. In the Venlo-type greenhouse, the horizontal displacement parallel to the gutter due to wind actions was greater than the limit of 60 mm (Figure 18 and Table 8).
Figure 15. Horizontal displacement (a) perpendicular and (b) parallel to the gutter. Serviceability limit state (SLS) checks were also performed for the Venlo-type greenhouse where rame displacement limits the cladding system. The horizontal displacements of the greenhouse ai the gutter level, as well as perpendicular to the gutter, were checked. The limit values depend on the U nigw/swLiim, U n;rLiim, which are the limiting values of the displacement in the horizontal direction o: the gable wall at the gutter level perpendicular or parallel to the gutter, as a result of the cladding panel clearance in the gable wall and displacement of the roof in the horizontal direction parallel o1 perpendicular to the gutter, respectively, due to cladding panel clearances on the roof (Figure 15 anc Table 7).
Figure 15. Horizontal displacement (a) perpendicular and (b) parallel to the gutter. Serviceability limit state (SLS) checks were also performed for the Venlo-type greenhouse where rame displacement limits the cladding system. The horizontal displacements of the greenhouse ai the gutter level, as well as perpendicular to the gutter, were checked. The limit values depend on the U nigw/swLiim, U n;rLiim, which are the limiting values of the displacement in the horizontal direction o: the gable wall at the gutter level perpendicular or parallel to the gutter, as a result of the cladding panel clearance in the gable wall and displacement of the roof in the horizontal direction parallel o1 perpendicular to the gutter, respectively, due to cladding panel clearances on the roof (Figure 15 anc Table 7).
Table 8. Design inadequacies of the two greenhouses. Figure 16. The ratio of design bending moment to design bending resistance of the cross-section, Myea/Myra, of columns of Venlo-type greenhouse
Table 8. Design inadequacies of the two greenhouses. Figure 16. The ratio of design bending moment to design bending resistance of the cross-section, Myea/Myra, of columns of Venlo-type greenhouse
Figure 17. The ratio of design bending moment to design bending resistance of the cross-section, Myea/Myra, of columns of the vaulted greenhouse.
Figure 17. The ratio of design bending moment to design bending resistance of the cross-section, Myea/Myra, of columns of the vaulted greenhouse.
Figure 18. Maximum horizontal displacement on the roof parallel to the gutter of the Venlo-type greenhouse.
Figure 18. Maximum horizontal displacement on the roof parallel to the gutter of the Venlo-type greenhouse.
Figure 19. Reinforcing steel columns by welding steel plates: (a) Venlo-type and (b) vaulted greenhouse. The columns of both greenhouses have insufficient design resistances due to combined compression and bending. Strengthening the columns by welding steel plates to increase their capacity was selected as the strengthening technique because it is a safer and simple way to strengthen a cross-section compared to FRPs as alread sections are indicated in Figure 19 for each structure. Venlo-type greenhouse roof, bracing @12 was added strengthened structures were re-analyzed and re-c y mentioned before. The final proposed cross- To decrease the design displacements on the in the structure as indicated in Figure 20. The hecked following the assessment procedure presented in Section 3.4, and their adequacy was con checks (Table 10). irmed for both ULS checks (Table 9) and SLS
Figure 19. Reinforcing steel columns by welding steel plates: (a) Venlo-type and (b) vaulted greenhouse. The columns of both greenhouses have insufficient design resistances due to combined compression and bending. Strengthening the columns by welding steel plates to increase their capacity was selected as the strengthening technique because it is a safer and simple way to strengthen a cross-section compared to FRPs as alread sections are indicated in Figure 19 for each structure. Venlo-type greenhouse roof, bracing @12 was added strengthened structures were re-analyzed and re-c y mentioned before. The final proposed cross- To decrease the design displacements on the in the structure as indicated in Figure 20. The hecked following the assessment procedure presented in Section 3.4, and their adequacy was con checks (Table 10). irmed for both ULS checks (Table 9) and SLS
Table 9. Utilization ratios of the two greenhouses after strengthening. Table 10. Horizontal displacement uh, after strengthening.
Table 9. Utilization ratios of the two greenhouses after strengthening. Table 10. Horizontal displacement uh, after strengthening.
5.8. Cost Estimation
5.8. Cost Estimation
Table 11. Weight of steel for initial structure and strengthening.
Table 11. Weight of steel for initial structure and strengthening.
Figure 20. Additional roof bracing to decrease horizontal displacement.
Figure 20. Additional roof bracing to decrease horizontal displacement.

Key takeaways

  • [8] showed that the design of greenhouse steel structures has several deficiencies.
  • As the greenhouses have limited mass, the earthquake loading might not be of critical design importance when the greenhouse is built in a seismic area.
  • Two greenhouse structures, a vaulted and a Venlo-type, presented in studies "Analysis of the collapse of a greenhouse with vaulted roof" [14] and "Additional design requirements of steel commercial greenhouses in high seismic hazard EU countries" [15], respectively, were used in this study.
  • Glass panels in Type A greenhouses should be considered as structural elements placed in the greenhouse structure to close the building, and they do not contribute to the stability of the main structure [1].
  • As this information is not generally available, the cost estimation of the strengthening of both greenhouses was determined as the ratio of strengthening versus the initial construction cost of the steel structure and, for simplicity, the ratio of the steel weight needed for strengthening vs. steel weight of the initial steel structure , e.g., the increase in steel structure weight after the strengthening.

Related papers

Structural analysis of greenhouses: A case study in Turkey
Berna Kendirli

Building and Environment, 2006

This study was carried out to determine the structural and functional characteristics of the greenhouses in greenhouse enterprises of Turkey. Greenhouse enterprises are widely common along the Marmara, Aegean and Mediterranean cost lines. Marmara region was selected as the study area since it is the pioneering region and has large areas allocated to greenhouses, and has various greenhouse types. Information about greenhouse types, material properties, placement, and arrangement of greenhouses in the study area was gathered by a questionnaire; then greenhouses in enterprises were divided into groups based on cover material, load bearing materials and directional placement. A total of four types of greenhouse with the most economic cross-section, one from each group, were selected and load acting on structural members of greenhouses were calculated. Loads acting on beams of each greenhouse were analysed by Force Method and Moment Distribution Method. The results obtained were compared statistically to determine the best methodology for structural analysis of greenhouses. As a result, no statistical difference was found between moments and shear forces obtained from both methods. However, a difference occurred based on greenhouse types and it was determined that the values obtained for trussed block greenhouse were higher than the other ones. r

View PDFchevron_right
Structural analysis and functional characteristics of greenhouses in the Mediterranean region of Turkey
Berna Kendirli

Afr. J. Biotechnol, 2010

This study was carried out to determine the structural analysis and functional characteristics of the greenhouses in the Mediterranean region where 87% of the greenhouse production area in Turkey is concentrated. Information about types, material and construction properties, placement and arrangement of greenhouses in the research area was gathered by questionnaires; then greenhouses in enterprises were divided into three groups based on the covering material, load bearing materials and directional placement. Five greenhouse types with the most economic cross-section were selected and loads acting on structural members of these were calculated. The stretch ratios, resulting from loads acting on beams of each greenhouse, were analyzed by SAP2000 program. Also, the stretch ratios as per whether greenhouse types and covering materials have a statistically significant effect were examined. According to the obtained data, it was found that all of the selected greenhouses could not carry the dead and/or dynamic loads safely. It was also obtained that covering material has a significant effect on dead loads but not on dynamic loads at 0.05 probability levels whereas dead and dynamic loads were significantly affected by structural materials of the greenhouses.

View PDFchevron_right
Review of Structural and Functional Characteristics of Greenhouses in European Union Countries: Part I, Design Requirements
A. Mistriotis

Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 2000

The present work is an overview of the factors in#uencing the greenhouse design such as the climate, the local building regulations the indoor climate requirements and the necessary functional characteristics. The variations with respect to these factors observed throughout most of the European Union countries are described in detail and their in#uence to the greenhouse design is critically investigated. Such an analysis of the main factors in#uencing the greenhouse design is considered necessary before the most common greenhouse types used in Europe are presented (Part II). This systematic review is expected to support the e!ort for developing a common design methodology for greenhouses at European level.

View PDFchevron_right
Structural Analysis Example of Steel Construction Greenhouses
Burak Saltuk

2019

Sera, bitki uretimi icin gerekli buyume faktorlerini saglayan ve bitki yetistiriciligi icin mekanizasyon imkanlarini kolaylastiran tarimsal yapidir. Sera tarimi, tarimin en onemli gelir getirici kollarindan birisidir. Gunumuzde, bilgisayar yazilimlari seralari planlarken de kullanilmaktadir bu sekilde daha saglam ve ekonomik bir yapi elde edilebilmektedir. Isletme sahipleri, seralara sermaye yatirimi yaparlarken, mevcut seralarin yapisal ozelliklerini tum yanlis hesaplamalarla ve hatalarla birlikte kopyalayip yeni projelere aktarmaktadirlar. Tum yatirimlar ve yatirimlarin gelecegi yanlis hesaplamalarla ve yapisal sorunlu projelerle tehlikeye atilmaktadir. Sonuc olarak, statik ve mukavemet hesaplamalari yapilmadan insa edilen seralar, daha fazla malzeme kullanilmasi, yapisal hasarlar ve bunlara bagli olarak meydana gelen ekonomik kayiplarla yuz yuzedir. Bu calisma, Antalya ilinde bulunan 720 m 2 alana sahip tek aciklikli cam kapli ucgen catili bir seranin yapisal analizlerini icermek...

View PDFchevron_right
Design and Construction of Bioclimatic Wooden Greenhouses 2. Design of Construction: Structure and Systems
Gian Luca Brunetti

2022

This is the second volume of a four-volume work on passive solar greenhouses. This particular volume deals with the design of greenhouse frames using timber, presenting both mainstream and experimental techniques. In doing so, it addresses both agricultural greenhouses and greenhouses or sunspaces intended to serve architectural purposes, including the ones that may be typical of urban agriculture, and both self-standing greenhouses and attached ones. The topics range from connections of timber components to light-frame techniques, timber frame techniques, truss-frame techniques, foundations, and wind-bracing. The entire treatment has an emphasis on facilitated techniques suitable for self-construction. In the final part of the volume, the topic of auxiliary heating and cooling systems is addressed, which has strong links to the subjects covered in the other three volumes.

View PDFchevron_right
Loads Interaction Domains Methodology for the Design of Steel Greenhouse Structures
sergio castellano

Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 2007

View PDFchevron_right
Wind Pressure Coefficients on Greenhouse Structures
Chrysanthos Maraveas

Agriculture

Commercial production greenhouses are widely used to produce plants and crops. From the structural engineering viewpoint, among the loads that act on greenhouses, wind and snow loads are the major ones. This paper focuses on the former, particularly on wind pressure coefficients. Design and construction of greenhouses should consider wind loads in order to ensure seamless operation, overall stability, durability, and safety, even though human occupancy is limited. Classification and design of greenhouses is typically based on European standards, which cover a variety of geometries and conditions. Some recent research studies suggest, however, that greenhouse design standards should be revised to ensure structural safety of greenhouses subject to strong wind loads. Triggered by this recent outcomes, this paper reviews existing literature on the topic: (a) briefly presenting the state of the art methods for determining wind pressures on greenhouses; (b) comparing the EN 13031-1 pressu...

View PDFchevron_right
Practical Structural Design and Construction of an Innovative Composite Plastic Greenhouse
Meng-Hao Tsai

Agriculture

A composite plastic material made of recycled Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), Nylon, and glass fiber reinforced Nylon was innovated and applied to the construction of a prototype simple greenhouse in this study. With reference to the mechanical properties of a conventional galvanized steel greenhouse, sectional dimensions of the composite plastic structural members were determined. Structural performances of the conventional galvanized steel and the composite plastic greenhouse models were analyzed under static design wind loads. It was realized that the greenhouse model designed with composite plastic 田-sections of 5 mm wall thickness could have peak displacement response and sectional forces comparable to that of the galvanized steel greenhouse. Therefore, the 田-sections with 5 mm wall thickness were manufactured and used to construct the prototype simple greenhouse. On-site free vibration tests were conducted to estimate the dynamic characteristics of the prototype for validati...

View PDFchevron_right
Collapse and Reinforcement of Pipe-Framed Greenhouse under Static Wind Loading
Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture DPC

Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 2020

The present paper investigates the collapse process of a pipe-framed greenhouse under static wind loading based on a non-linear finite element analysis. The purpose is to establish a more reasonable wind resistant design method for such structures. The structures are so flexible that the fluid-structure interaction (FSI) is considered in the analysis. In practice, iterative analyses of the structure's response and the wind pressure distribution on the deformed structure are made. The wind direction is normal to the ridge. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis with a RANS turbulence model is used for evaluating the time-averaged wind pressure coefficient distribution on the structure. Both the geometric and the material non-linearity are considered in the structural analysis. The collapse behavior obtained is consistent with the practical one often observed in damage investigations. Based on the results, discussion is made of the validity of the current design guideline commonly used in Japan. The same analysis is carried out for various reinforced models. The effect of each reinforcement method on the improvement of wind resistance of the structure is investigated on the basis of the allowable stress and deformation limits specified in the current design guideline.

View PDFchevron_right
Design and Construction of Bioclimatic Wooden Greenhouses 4. Architectural Integration and Quantitative Analyses
Gian Luca Brunetti

2022

This is the fourth volume of a four-volume work on passive solar greenhouses, presenting both consolidated and experimental techniques. This particular volume focuses on strategies for preliminarily calculating the thermal performance of greenhouses, simulating it with transient environmental performance simulation programs, sizing structural elements through both explicit simplified calculations and advanced structural simulation programs, and exploring design options automatically using optimization programs and surrogate modeling techniques. The second part of the volume presents real-life examples, many drawn from the field of architecture, analyzing both their environmental and constructional choices.

View PDFchevron_right
Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

Related papers

Design and Construction of Bioclimatic Wooden Greenhouses 1. Preliminary Design
Gian Luca Brunetti

2022

View PDFchevron_right
Numerical estimation of external pressure coefficients of a pitched-type roof greenhouse and comparison with Eurocode in different flow-type circumstances
G. Ntinas

2014

View PDFchevron_right
Estimation of Various Loads of a Naturally Ventilated Saw Tooth Type Greenhouse
Chandra Kant Saxena

The Andhra Agriculture Journal, 2018

View PDFchevron_right
Evaluation of Structural Characteristics of Naturally Ventilated Multi-Span Greenhouses Using Computer Simulation
In-bok Lee

Jarq-japan Agricultural Research Quarterly, 2000

View PDFchevron_right
Structural Analysis of Bamboo Trusses Structure in Greenhouse
putthadee ubolsook

2011

View PDFchevron_right
Structural characteristics and heat requirements of modern greenhouses in southern of Turkey
Nuri Çağlayan

Akdeniz Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 2012

View PDFchevron_right
Dynamic response analysis of a whole steel frame solar greenhouse under wind loads
Yingchun Jiang

Scientific Reports

View PDFchevron_right
Development of a building-integrated roof top greenhouse in Barcelona, Spain
Pere llorach

Acta Horticulturae, 2017

View PDFchevron_right
Procedural criteria for the design and construction of a low-cost solar greenhouse
Gian Luca Brunetti

PLEA 2017 Conference Proceedings, 2017

View PDFchevron_right
Comparative study of geometrical configuration at the thermal performances of an agricultural greenhouse
Abdelouahab Benseddik

E3S Web of Conferences

View PDFchevron_right
Structural modeling and optimization of agrozootechnical building
Ovidiu Rata

2019

View PDFchevron_right
Recycled Plastic Composite Rod-Based Design of Fasteners in the Simplified Greenhouse
Meng-Hao Tsai

International Journal of Materials, Mechanics and Manufacturing, 2019

View PDFchevron_right
Design, technology, and management of greenhouse: A review
Abdelouahab Benseddik

Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022

View PDFchevron_right
Analysis and design of greenhouses with SAP2000 software Seraların SAP2000 programı ile analiz ve tasarımı
Sedat Karaman

ANADOLU JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, 2013

View PDFchevron_right
Research of building structures in extreme climate conditions
Dusan Katunsky

Selected Scientific Papers - Journal of Civil Engineering, 2019

View PDFchevron_right
Greenhouse Project Construction and Planning Design
Roxana Dana Bucur

revagrois.ro

View PDFchevron_right
Heating requirement and its costs in greenhouse structures: A case study for Mediterranean region of Turkey
Nuri CAGLAYAN

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2013

View PDFchevron_right
Numerical Estimation of Pressure Coefficients Over Single and Multispan Duo Pitched Roof Greenhouses
Thomas Kotsopoulos

Acta Horticulturae, 2012

View PDFchevron_right
Climate adapted design of masonry structures
Kim R Lisø

Building and Environment, 2009

View PDFchevron_right
Greenhouses covering materials: a comparative study
Moustafa Fadel

2016

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

Agricultural EngineeringSteel StructureSustainable Agriculture (Sustain...Steel StructuresRetrofitting and Strengthening o...Greenhouse Technology