Upload
gideon-obee
View
213
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Pieter de Visser& Gerhard Buck-Sorlin
Wageningen UR Greenhouse Horticulture* P.O. Box 430, 6700 AK Wageningen, The Netherlands
Simulation of light absorption and photosynthesis in a
greenhouse crop: effect of light node types & shaders
Evolution of lighting systems
Observed light distribution
bed1
pad1
bed2
pad2
bed3
pad3
bed4
pad4
bed5
pad5
bed6
pad6
bed7
14m
13m
12m
11m
10m
9m
8m
7m
6m
5m
4m
3m
2m
1m
C3 - afd 6.06 - 11nov09 - LEDs boven (20%af)
190-200
180-190
170-180
160-170
150-160
140-150
130-140
120-130
110-120
100-110
bed1
pad1
bed2
pad2
bed3
pad3
bed4
pad4
bed5
pad5
bed6
pad6
bed7
14m
13m
12m
11m
10m
9m
8m
7m
6m
5m
4m
3m
2m
1m
A3 - afd 6.06 & 7 - 28oct09 - SONT-50%
110-120
100-110
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Why studying this?
• improve light interception, being driver of production
• even only 1% yield increase is appreciated: fine-tuning
• check stakeholders’ ideas about light climate with model
• efficient lighting strategies reduce energy use
Modelling platform: GroIMP
Main model parts:
Inversed path tracer model from GroIMP
3D mockup in XL of existing crop
Photosynthesis (Kim & Lieth, 2004)
Iight distribution
Iight absorption/reflection/transmission
?
Design of the virtual greenhouse
Measuring light with virtual sensors
• Sensor types• perceiving
• sphere with radius r • hemispheric view
(upper or upper/lower hemisphere)
• absorbing • planar• area amount of absorbed light∼• any planar object (e.g. leaf) can measure its light absorption directly
LENi
LENi+1
RU (divergence)
RL
LEN
DIAMRH (tilting)
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
T
RL (“hanging down”of leaflets)
SONT + LED at Improvement Centre, Bleiswijk, NL
Shader parameterization: a virtual set-up
Light types
Point light Directional light
Spotlight
SONT HPS-lamps
Measured light distribution
(two vertical planes,
perpendicular):
max. opening angle 140°
• New class SONT: extension of PointLight class of GroIMP
• Directional distribution of emitted light incorporated into the rendering process by overwriting method getDensityAt() (computes for a given direction probability density of choosing this direction.):
1) Transformation of direction vector ω = (x,y,z), |ω| = 1 into a polar form, where polar angles are:
Model of a SON-T lamp
φ = atan2
where atan2 = variant of arcus tangens function
ϕ = atan2(y,x)
θ = acos(z)
azimuth [-π < ϕ < π]
elevation [-π < θ < π]
2) Angles ϕ and θ used as indices for the lookup table λ of luminosity values. λ is discretized as an array of 36 by 180 values, for ϕ, respectively θ.
Mapping the values of ϕ and θ to λ and obtaining lower and higher indices for the two angles:
float a = (phi+PI) * 18 / PI;
float b = (theta+PI) * 90 / PI;
int phi0 = (int) a % 36;
int phi1 = (phi0+1) % 36;
int theta0 = (int) b;
int theta1 = min(179, theta0+1);
3) Bilinear interpolation to weight four drawn array values smoothing of spatial light distribution:float wa = 1 - (a-floor(a));
float wb = 1 - (b-floor(b));
Obtaining the array values from the lookup table:float d00 = li[phi0][theta0];
float d01 = li[phi0][theta1];
float d10 = li[phi1][theta0];
float d11 = li[phi1][theta1];
float w00 = wa*wb;
float w01 = wa*(1-wb);
float w10 = (1-wa)*wb;
float w11 = (1-wa)*(1-wb);
Multiplication of weighting factors with read luminosity values to obtain probability density of the ray for the given direction: float density = w00*d00 + w01*d01 + w10*d10 + w11*d11;
• Visualisation of light distribution of a SON-T assimilation lamp.
• Next step: implementation of such a lamp as a new light source in the modelling environment
Implementation of a Hortilux GreenPower SON-T lamp
First version (improper
interpolation between array
values)
Update: bilinear interpolation between array values; 3 different lamp angles to a reflecting sheet
Grid of 21 SON-T broad beam reflector lamps
reflection screen at
increasing distance
below the lamps
0.5 m
Quantifying light distribution in row crop: light type
Effect light type on distribution
light: SPOT DIRECT SPOT DIRECT
wall height (m) 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5
South wall: fraction
40%unshaded
34% 16% 4%
North wall: 41% 38% 13% 15%
West wall: 41% 46% 13% 20%
East wall: 36% 38% 13% 29%
Plant shading is more stable at use of spot lights:
How many buffer rows?
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
0 0 1 2
nr. of border rows
Lig
ht
abso
rpti
on
by
inn
er p
lan
ts incl.front&back
no front&back
Validation of light module of tomato model
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 1 2 3 4 5
Height above ground (m)
Lig
ht in
tens
ity
.
model
observed
Check poster on comparison of two light models of tomato
Lighting strategies:
1. change SON-T position (horizontal & vertical) & angle
2. LED position above or between crop rows
3. path width between rows (at same plant density)
4. SON-T distribution wide vs. deep reflector
5. reflection via screen increases light use efficiency?
6. Effect lamp colour
Lamp light direction
Angle from vertical
Light absorbed(umol s-1)
Light level floor(umol s-1 m-2)
22° 1372 55
67 1890 30
90 1807 15
Lamp type, height; crop structure
Scenario: Absorbed light% of input
Light level on floor(umol m-2 s-1)
Default 92.7 9.00
Wide reflector 93.3 8.16
Lamp height -1m
95.2 7.95
Path width +0.4m
89.7 13.07
Idem, plants+24%
91.3 10.96
Testing opening angle
Effect opening angle (≃ type reflector):Available light in scene and crop absorption at 27
Phyto:
(umol in total)Opening angle: SONT
(Phyto) very small small wide wide deep
Light in (3) 1789 1790 1813 0.073 0.38
Light in (27) 1806 1811 1822 0.073 0.38
CropAbs 1213 1210 1213 0.049 0.25
% of IN 68% 68% 67% 68% 65%
LED scenarios:
Relation to LED position in the crop:
in path, in row, height
Wireframe in
sideview
Virtual crop
White: rows of virtual sensors
Vertical light distribution depending on LED position
N.B.: data averaged from 2 rows incl. path
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Height from ground (m)
Lig
ht
leve
l (u
mo
l m-2
s-1
)
LED on top
LED in row (3.5m)
LED in path (3.5m)
LED in row (2.5m)
Light absorption in crop: LED positioning in rowHeight 2.5m 3.5m top (4.6m)
Leaf 86.1% 93.2 89.8
Young fr 3.3 0.1 0.6
Ripe fr 0.2 0.0 0.1
Stems 4.7 0.9 1.0
Total: 94.2 94.2 91.6
RoofFloor
0.50.0
5.40.0
7.80.0 no aging:
RUE (rel.) 62.2 40.3 100 132
Light absorption in crop: LED positioning in pathHeight 2.5m 3.5m top (4.6m)
(row)
Leaf 86.0% 91.0 89.8
Young fr 6.0 0.8 0.6
Ripe fr 0.2 0.0 0.1
Stems 6.5 1.6 1.0
Total: 98.7 93.4 91.6
RoofFloor
0.50.0
5.80.0
7.80.0
RUE (rel.) 70.5 70.6 100
Conclusions:
1. Type of reflector hardly affects light utilization
2. Row structure (path width) has some impact on light use
3. LED positioning strongly affects light use
4. GroIMP platform suitable for this approach
Next steps and outlook:
1. Further optimize lighting strategy incl. screens
2. Include wavebands in light source and photosynthesis
3. Determine energy requirements for scenarios
4. Light on rose
5. Not a static, but a growing, adapting crop
6. Improve path tracer (Göttingen)
7. ..
Thank you for your attention!
Funded by:
Horticultural Production Board & Ministry of Agriculture