| 논문명 |
실측 및 모델베이스 계산을 통한 계사의 온열환경파악 및 THI 예측식 개발 / Verification of Thermal Environment and THI Prediction Equation of Hen House by Field Measurement and Model-based Simulation |
| 저자명 |
하주완(Ha, Ju-Wan) ; 송영학(Chang, Hong-Hee) ; 장홍희(Cha, Kwang-Jun) ; 차광준(Song, Young-Hak) |
| 수록사항 |
한국건축친환경설비학회 논문집, Vol.14 No.2 (2020-04) |
| 주제어 |
계사; 산란계사; 스마트 팜; 온습도지수; 온열환경; 시뮬레이션; 실측데이터 ; Hen house; Laying house; Smart farm; THI Index; Simulation; Measured data |
| 요약2 |
The heat waves cause heat stress to livestock thereby degrading productivity and increasing the mortality rate. Thus, this study aims to identify the thermal environment of hen house through on-site measurements and depending on ventilation type to increase the efficiency of management of the laying house during severely hot weather by deriving a Temperature and Humidity Index (THI Index) prediction equation from the viewpoint of productivity. To do this, this study comparatively analyzed the exposure risk level to the heat stress of layers according to the ventilation method in the hen house using the THI, which was an index to quantitatively evaluate heat stress, for 26 summer days. In addition, the laying house in this study were modeled through simulations. The simulation results exhibited the highest reliability values under 25°C inside the cage and an 85.7% fan operating rate in the case of the cross ventilation method, which had 0.46 of mean bias error (MBE) and 10.58 coefficient of variation of the root mean square error (CVRMSE), while the tunnel ventilation method had 1.14 MBE and an 8.64 CVRMSE with temperature values under 27°C inside the cage, and a 100% fan operating rate.
Since the above conditions were found for a simulated target building, the calculated values were utilized to derive the prediction equation. The regression analysis results showed that the coefficients of determination, which displayed the reliability of the correlation between THI and the outdoor air temperature and between THI and enthalpy, which were 0.9328 and 0.5149 respectively in the case of the cross ventilation method and 0.9551 and 0.6044 respectively in the case of the tunnel ventilation method. |
