Accepted Manuscript

Energy ımpact and eco-effıcıencyof the envelope ınsulatıon ın resıdentıal

buıldıngs ın Turkey

Duygu Evin, Aynur Ucar

PII: S1359-4311(18)37631-2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.03.102
Reference: ATE 13531

To appear in: Applied Thermal Engineering

Received Date: 12 December 2018

Revised Date: 5 March 2019
Accepted Date: 21 March 2019

Please cite this article as: D. Evin, A. Ucar, Energy ımpact and eco-effıcıencyof the envelope ınsulatıon ın
resıdentıal buıldıngs ın Turkey, Applied Thermal Engineering (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.
2019.03.102

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ENERGY IMPACT AND ECO-EFFICIENCYOF THE ENVELOPE INSULATION IN
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN TURKEY

Duygu Evin1,*, Aynur Ucar1

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Firat University, 23279 Elazığ, Turkey

Abstract

Approximately 31% of the energy requirement in Turkey is related to residential

buildings. For this reason, residential buildings have an important role in reducing energy

needs and greenhouse gas emissions. In this study, a procedure for determining the optimum

thermal insulation thickness to be applied to the envelope (external walls, column, floor and

roof) of residential buildings by using the heating-cooling energy requirement is presented.

The heating and cooling loads and energy costs for different structures are calculated using

the optimum thermal insulation thicknesses. Turkey is divided into four climatic zones in

relation to their average temperature degree-days of heating according to the Turkish Thermal

Insulation Standard. The methodology is applied to a residential building as a case study by

comparing 4 insulation materials for 20 different energy demand scenarios for four different

cities each representing a different climatic zone of Turkey. Once the global warming

potential and cost indicators that is based on the Life Cycle Assessment have been obtained,

the eco-efficiency analysis for each scenario are represented using eco-efficiency graphs.

Keywords: Thermal insulation; Optimum insulation thickness; Residential buildings;

Envelope Insulation; Eco-efficiency; Life cycle assessment.

*
Corresponding author. E-mail: devin@firat.edu.tr
Tel: +90 0424 2370000/5309; Fax: +90 424 2415526

1
 1. Introduction

Directive 2010/31/EU, EPBD recast is an up-to-date primary legal tool which instructs

Member States (MS) on how to achieve objectives regarding buildings’ energy performance.

In accordance with EPBD recast, MS are obliged to set minimum energy performance

requirements ‘‘with a view to achieving cost-optimal levels’’ using a comparative

methodology framework [1].Since the introduction of the recast of the EPBD European

Directive 2010/31/EU, many studies on the cost-effective feasibility of nearly zero-energy

buildings (NZEBs) were carried out either by academic research bodies and by national

bodies [2].Regarding the progress of NZEBs, Deng et al. [3] summarized the widely-used

research methods, tools and performance evaluation indicators for ZEBs. Weißenberger et al.

[4] presented the historical development and background of life cycle assessment (LCA) and

nearly zero-energy building. Kolokotsa et al. [5] reviewed the technological developments in

various aspects for buildings toward intelligent net zero/positive buildings. The energy and

environmental consequences of EPBD implementation in the residential sector of the

Mediterranean countries analyzed in Spain [6], Italy [7], Greece [8], Cyprus [9] and Portugal

[10].

As energy consumption in the world increases today, environmental pollution and greenhouse

gas emissions are increasing. A large part of this energy consumption is because of the

construction and operation of buildings. Approximately 30-40% of the primary energy

amount in the world is consumed in the buildings [11]. The energy consumption by residential

buildings in Turkey is increased in approximately 48% rate in period from 2001 to 2011.

Approximately, 31% of the energy requirement in Turkey is related to residential buildings.

For this reason, residential buildings have an important role in reducing energy needs and

greenhouse gas emissions [12]. Utlu and Hepbasli [13] analyzed the energy and exergy

utilization of the Turkish residential–commercial sector in the years of 2000 and 2020. They

2
obtained that annual energy consumption of Turkey was expected to increase by 6.5% from

2000 to 2020.

Insulation material cost increases with an increase in the thickness of insulation material,

but the costs of cooling and heating reduce[14].The optimum insulation thickness which the

total cost during the heating and cooling periods is the minimum thought the life of the

building is a suitable insulation thickness. The thickness of insulation material is chosen by

considering the average ambient temperature of the region, thermal conductivity of the

insulation material and its price [15].There are many studies in which the optimum insulation

thickness in Turkey is calculated [16-18].Braulio-Gonzalo and Bovea [19] presented a method

to determine optimum insulation thickness to reduce energy demand in the operation phase

of the building.In Mediterranean countries,it is necessary to achieve comfort in new

residential buildings both in winter and in summer. There are various studies focusing to

calculate energy performance of buildings in Mediterranean countries. [20-21].It can be

concluded that the most commonly used materials in the construction industry are widely

analyzed in the literature, namely rock wool (RW) [16,18,22,23,28] expanded polystyrene

(EPS) [16,19,24], extruded polystyrene (XPS) [16,19,24-26,28] and polyurethane (PUR)

[16,19].

As energy consumption in developing countries such as Turkey increase,

environmental pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are increasing every year. In this

study, the optimum thermal insulation thickness is determined for external walls, column,

floor and roof with various insulation materials considering the heating-cooling energy

requirement and total amount of energy cost. A large part of this energy consumption is due to

the heating and cooling of buildings. Since approximately 31% of the energy requirement in

Turkey is related to residential buildings, the methodology is applied to aresidential building

as a case study by comparing four insulation materials for 20 different energy demand

3
scenarios for four different cities each representing a different climatic zone of Turkey.

Residential buildings have an important role in reducing energy needs and greenhouse gas

emissions. The eco-efficiency analysis for each scenario are represented obtaining the global

warming potential and cost indicators based on the Life Cycle Assessment.

2. Methodology

The methodology is applied to a4-floor residential building as a case study by comparing four

insulation materials for 20 different energy demand scenarios. Methodological framework is

presented in Fig.1.

Fig.1. Methodological framework.

4
2.1. Selection of the building and insulation material

The studied building in this work is a 4-floor residential building, which consists of a ground

floor and three floors and has a gross area about 1539 m2. The each unit has 3 bedrooms, 1

living room, and 1 bathroom. The building has two dwelling units on each floor with about

160 m2 and the floor plan of the house is shown in Fig.2.

Fig.2.The floor plan and 3D views of the studied building

5
Table 1. Layers and thermal conductivities (W/mK) of the building envelope components
Layers Thickness Conductivity
(m) (W/mK)
Ground floor - Sealing 0.005 0.17
2 -Cement mortar 0.03 1.4
3 -Insulation material * 0.024-0.040
4 -Cement mortar 0.02 1.4
5- Porous light weight 0.1 0.22
aggregates

External wall 1-Internal plaster 0.02 0.87

2-Brick 0.2 0.45
3-Insulation material * 0.024-0.040
4-External plaster 0.03 0.87

External Column 1-Internal plaster 0.02 0.87

2-Reinforced concrete 0.25 2.5
3-Insulation material * 0.024-0.040
4-External plaster 0.03 0.87

Roof 1-Sealing 0.005 0.17

2-Cement plaster 0.02 0.72
3-Insulation material * 0.024-0.040
4-Concrete 0.1 1.37
5- Reinforced concrete 0.15 2.5
6-Cement plaster 0.02 0.72

* The optimum thickness of insulation material which is found by the life cycle cost analysis

6
Layers and thermal conductivities (W/mK) of the building envelope components are given in

Table 1. The windows and external doors are double-glazed panels with two layers of 4 mm

flat glass and 9 mm air gap between them. The energy efficiency measures and their

shortened names used in this study are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Energy efficiency measures definition.

Code Definition of the measure
INS1-W External wall insulated with XPS*
INS2-W External wall insulated with EPS*
INS3-W External wall insulated with RW*
INS4-W External wall insulated with PUR*
INS1-R Roofinsulated with XPS*
INS2-R Roofinsulated with EPS*
INS3-R Roofinsulated with RW*
INS4-R Roofinsulated with PUR*
INS1-B External column insulated with XPS*
INS2-B External column insulated with EPS*
INS3-B External column insulated with RW*
INS4-B External column insulated with PUR*
INS1-F Ground floor insulated with XPS*
INS2-F Ground floor insulated with EPS*
INS3-F Ground floor insulated with RW*
INS4-F Ground floor insulated with PUR*
INS1-E All external envelope** insulated with XPS
INS2-E All external envelope** insulated with EPS
INS3-E All external envelope** insulated with RW
INS4-E All external envelope** insulated with PUR
P1 Double glazed window (9 mm gap) with plastic joinery, U=2.4 W/m2K
* the optimum thickness which is found by the life cycle cost analysis
**external wall, roof, external column, ground floor

2.2. Climate zones

The ratio of the heat from a building depends on the temperature difference between

inside and outside of building. Therefore, the energy consumed for heating and cooling of

building is dependent to degree days of location. Heating and cooling degree-days numbers

for various base temperatures are calculated by using temperature data registered over the

longtime in different meteorological stations of Turkey. In this study, the annual heating and

cooling degree-days of studied cities are taken for base temperatures of 18°C for heating and

22°C for cooling.

7
Fig.3. Climate zones of Turkey and selected cities in this study

According to the Turkish Thermal Insulation Standard (TS 825) [22], Turkey is divided into

four climatic zones in relation to their average temperature degree-days of heating.Fig.3

shows the climate zones of Turkey and selected cities in this study. Energy performance of

the different types of buildings, the calculation method of annual heating energy demand,

thermal transmittance ‘‘U’’ values for each region, which is defined by using the ‘‘degree day

method’’ in TS-825, and the maximum heating demand values according to regions were

described. Then, the monthly outdoor temperature and solar radiation, which were taken into

consideration in this standard to calculate heating loads of buildings, were classified

separately according to each region and month. In addition, maximum heating loads were

given according to the A/V (Area/Volume) rates of buildings for each region in terms of area

and volume [23]. The heating and cooling needs of residential, commercial, and industrial

buildings are found by degree-days method.The heating and cooling degree-days of each

region are different from each other.For locations near to seacoasts, the heating degree-days

have lower values compared with the eastern and the inner regions. The higher degree-days

appear in the eastern and northeastern Turkey. A rapid climate change shows within short

distances due to mountainous nature of the landscape in the lower part of the inner region, in

8
the east and in the northeast [15].Mersin has hot and dry summers, warm and wet winters,

which are the characteristics of Mediterranean climate and is the first degree-day region. The

yearly heating degree-days of Mersin in south of Turkey is 852 and its cooling degree-days is

585 at a base temperature of 22 °C. The passage climate of Black Sea and Mediterranean

climates is dominant in Çanakkale. Çanakkale is the second degree-day region and the heating

and cooling degree-daysis 1789 and 249.The yearly heating and cooling degree-days of Elazığ

in east of Turkey is 2653 and 337.Its climate shows a transitional feature between the

Mediterranean and the continental climate. The temperature in Elazığ which is third degree-

day region is vary between -15 ° C and + 42 ° C.The yearly heating and cooling degree-

daysof Van which has a continental climate is 3476 and 32. The winter season is very cold

and long, while the summer season is very rainy and very hot. The average annual

temperature of Van is 8.9 and is the fourth degree-day region. The maximum U-value

requirements according to TS825 are given in Table 3.

Table 3. Maximum U-value requirements according to TS825 [27]

TS 825 Wall Roof Floor Window
climate region U (W/m²K) U (W/m²K) U (W/m²K) U (W/m²K)
1 0.7 0.45 0.70 2.4
2 0.6 0.40 0.60 2.4
3 0.5 0.30 0.45 2.4
4 0.4 0.25 0.40 2.4

2.3. Heating and cooling load of building

Energy consumption in buildings depends on building design, building usage and

climate zone, among other factors [19].The causes of these energy losses are either the

buildings envelopes are not sufficiently insulated, the windows are not firmly mounted and

thermal bridges. The heat losses along the wall decrease with increasing resistance or

decreasing the thermal conductivity coefficient.

The annual heating and cooling energy need can be determined from Eqs. 1-2, respectively
[16];

9
 86400 U HDD
EH 
Hu s (1)

86400 U CDD
EC 
COP (2)

The annual heatingandcooling energy cost of as per the life cycle cost analysis can be

determined eqs. 3-4, respectively.

86400 U HDD C F
C A, H  (3)
Hu s

86400 U CDD C e
C A,C  (4)
COP

The overall heat transfer coefficient U for the insulated walls can be written as[25]
1
U (5)
1 hi  Rw  xins k ins  1 ho

Total heating and cooling costs are the sum of the cost of insulation and the annual energy

cost and they are calculated as follows:

C H C A, H P1  P2 Ci xins (6)

CC C A,C P1  P2 Ci xins (7)

The P1 and P2 as a function of the inflation ratio (i), and the discount ratio (d), are
determined[25]


P1  1  d  d  i 1  1  i  1  d 
N
 (8)

P2  1  P1 M S  Rv 1  d 
N
(9)

Net present value (NPV) of each insulation material are calculated by [29]

N Rt
NPV (i, N )  
t  0 1  d 
t (10)

The net energy savings for heating, cooling and total heating and cooling are calculated as

86400 HDD C f
SH  P1  P2 Ci xins (11)
 x 
 Rwt  ins  H u  s
 kins 

10
 86400 CDD Ce
SC  P1  P2 Ci xins (12)
 xins 
 Rwt  COP
 k ins 

 
 
 86400 HDD C f 86400 CDD Ce 
ST     P1  P2 Ci xins (13)
 x 
  R  ins  H   x  
 
  wt k  u s  Rwt  k COP 
ins

 ins   ins  

The optimum value of insulation thickness is determined by maximizing the net energy

savings for heating, cooling and both heating and cooling. Eqs. (11)-(13) are taken as

objective function and MATLAB optimization Toolbox is used to obtain the optimum value

of insulation thickness. In the second step, heating and cooling loads and energy costs for

various insulation materials and different structures are calculated using the optimum

thicknesses calculated in the previous step. The parameters used in the calculations are given

in Table 4.

Table 4. The parameters used in calculations[24]

Parameter Value
Fuel
Natural gas (Heating)
Cf 0.3601 $/m3
Hu 34.526 x106J/m3
ηs 0.93
Electricity (Cooling)
Ce 0.1059 $/kWh
COP 2.5
Insulation material
Expanded polystyrene (EPS)
Conductivity, k 0.039W/mK
Cost, Ci 120 $/m3
Rock wool (RW)
Conductivity, k 0.040 W/mK
Cost, Ci 80 $/m3
Extruded polystyrene (XPS)
Conductivity, k 0.031 W/mK
Cost, Ci 224 $/m3
Polyurethane (PUR)
Conductivity, k 0.024 W/mK
Cost, Ci 260 $/m3
Interest rate, i 9%
Inflation rate, d 8.81%
Lifetime, N 10

11
2.4. Eco-efficiency analysis

Eco-efficiency is seen as an “administrative philosophy” driving businesses and markets

towards the production and marketing of environmentally friendly, but at the same time cost

effective, products [30]. Eco-efficiency analysis examines products and processes both

economically and ecologically. Eco-efficiency includes efficient use of materials, prevention

of pollution at the source, minimization of waste, recycling and reuse. Eco-efficiency is

usually described as a ratio between two elements: environmental impact, to be reduced, and

value of production, to be increased. The four basic types of eco-efficiency can be derived as

environmental productivity, environmental intensity of production, environmental

improvement cost and environmental cost-effectiveness [31]. [31,32]. Life Cycle Assessment

(LCA) methodology deals with environmental evaluation of products and processes

throughout the entire life of the building; it consists in a multi-step procedure for analyzing

environmental burden of products and processes. The LCA methodology is composed of four

steps: goal and scope definition; inventory analysis; impact assessment (global warning,

ozone depletion, ecotoxicity, human toxicity, photochemical ozone formation, acidification,

eutrophication, resource depletion, and land use); and interpretation of results (Fig. 1). Once

the global warning potential and cost indicators have been obtained for each scenario and for

each insulation material type, the eco-efficiency analysis for each scenario are graphically

represented using an eco-efficiency graph in this study.

3. Results and Discussion

Optimum insulation thickness of each scenario for the studied building according to

the all climate zones is shown in Fig.4. The colder climates having higher degree days require

larger layers of insulation. Required insulation thickness increases with the increase in heating

12
degree-day values. Therefore, the optimum insulation thickness for Van (3476 ºC-days) in

cold region is the highest among the cities in other regions.

Fig.4. Optimum insulation thickness of each scenario for the studied building

13
Table 5. The heating, cooling and total energy demands and costs for the studied buildings
City EH EC ET CH CC CT ST NPV
(kWh/m2year) (kWh/m2year) (kWh/m2year) ($/m2) ($/m2) ($/m2) ($/m2) ($/m2)
INS1-W Mersin 6.881 3.151 10.03 193.4 27.15 220.6 213.5 313.8
Çanakkale 9.972 2.056 12.02 280.3 17.71 298.0 291.3 423.8
Elazığ 12.14 2.392 14.53 341.3 20.60 361.9 353.1 514.7
Van 13.90 0.737 14.63 390.7 6.350 397.0 388.5 564.1
INS1-R Mersin 3.113 1.426 4.540 87.53 12.28 99.82 91.97 141.9
Çanakkale 4.512 0.930 5.442 126.8 8.015 134.8 127.2 191.7
Elazığ 5.494 1.082 6.577 154.4 9.325 163.7 154.0 232.8
Van 6.289 0.333 6.623 176.8 2.873 179.6 170.2 255.4
INS1-B Mersin 2.203 1.009 3.212 17.22 2.417 19.63 10.66 27.92
Çanakkale 3.193 0.658 3.851 24.95 1.577 26.53 17.89 37.73
Elazığ 3.888 0.766 4.654 30.38 1.834 32.22 21.43 45.83
Van 4.451 0.236 4.687 34.78 0.565 35.34 24.86 50.26
INS1-F Mersin 1.946 0.891 2.837 54.70 7.679 62.38 55.39 88.72
Çanakkale 2.820 0.581 3.401 79.27 5.009 23.66 17.00 33.65
Elazığ 3.434 0.676 4.110 96.53 5.828 102.3 93.49 145.5
Van 3.931 0.208 4.139 110.5 1.796 112.2 103.7 159.5
INS2-W Mersin 6.302 2.886 9.188 177.1 24.86 202.0 195.2 287.3
Çanakkale 9.132 1.883 11.01 256.7 16.22 272.9 266.4 388.1
Elazığ 11.12 2.190 13.31 312.6 18.87 331.4 322.9 471.3
Van 12.73 0.675 13.40 357.8 5.815 363.6 355.4 517.1
INS2-R Mersin 2.851 1.306 4.157 80.16 11.25 91.41 83.98 130.0
Çanakkale 4.132 0.852 4.984 116.1 7.341 123.5 116.3 175.6
Elazığ 5.032 0.991 6.023 141.4 8.540 149.9 140.8 213.2
Van 5.760 0.305 6.065 61.92 2.631 164.5 155.6 233.9
INS2-B Mersin 2.018 0.924 2.942 15.77 2.213 17.98 9.616 25.57
Çanakkale 2.924 0.603 3.527 22.85 1.444 24.29 16.22 34.55
Elazığ 3.561 0.701 4.262 27.82 1.680 29.50 19.46 41.96
Van 4.076 0.216 4.292 31.85 0.517 32.37 22.61 46.04
INS2-F Mersin 1.782 0.816 2.598 50.10 7.032 57.13 50.42 81.26
Çanakkale 2.582 0.532 3.115 72.60 4.588 21.93 15.52 31.19
Elazığ 3.145 0.619 3.764 88.41 5.337 93.74 85.36 133.3
Van 3.600 0.190 3.791 101.2 1.644 102.8 94.70 146.2
INS3-W Mersin 5.211 2.386 7.598 146.4 20.56 167.0 160.9 237.5
Çanakkale 7.551 1.557 9.108 212.2 13.41 225.6 219.7 320.8
Elazığ 9.196 1.811 11.00 258.5 15.60 274.1 266.6 389.8
Van 10.52 0.558 11.08 295.8 4.809 300.7 293.4 427.7
INS3-R Mersin 2.358 1.079 3.438 66.28 9.304 75.59 69.06 107.5
Çanakkale 3.417 0.704 4.121 96.05 6.070 102.1 95.82 145.2
Elazığ 4.161 0.819 4.980 116.9 7.061 124.0 116.0 176.3
Van 4.763 0.252 5.015 133.8 2.176 136.0 128.3 193.4
INS3-B Mersin 1.668 0.764 2.433 13.04 1.830 14.87 7.702 21.15
Çanakkale 2.418 0.498 2.916 18.89 1.194 20.09 13.17 28.57
Elazığ 2.944 0.580 3.524 23.01 1.389 24.40 15.85 34.70
Van 3.370 0.178 3.549 26.34 0.428 26.76 18.44 38.06
INS3-F Mersin 1.473 0.675 2.148 41.42 5.815 47.24 41.20 67.19
Çanakkale 2.135 0.440 2.576 60.03 3.793 18.68 12.89 26.57
Elazığ 2.600 0.512 3.113 73.10 4.413 77.52 70.11 110.2
Van 2.976 0.157 3.134 83.68 1.360 85.04 77.86 120.9
INS4-W Mersin 7.277 3.332 10.61 204.5 28.71 233.2 225.9 331.7
Çanakkale 10.54 2.174 12.71 296.4 18.73 315.1 308.2 448.2
Elazığ 12.84 2.529 15.37 360.9 21.79 382.7 373.5 544.3
Van 14.69 0.779 15.47 413.2 6.715 419.9 411.0 597.2
INS4-R Mersin 3.293 1.508 4.801 92.56 12.99 105.5 97.38 150.0
Çanakkale 4.771 0.983 5.755 34.13 8.476 142.6 134.8 202.8
Elazığ 5.810 1.144 6.955 163.3 9.861 173.2 163.1 246.3
Van 6.651 0.352 7.004 186.9 3.038 190.0 180.3 270.2

14
Table 5. (Continued)
City EH EC ET CH CC CT ST NPV
(kWh/m2year) (kWh/m2year) (kWh/m2year) ($/m2) ($/m2) ($/m2) ($/m2) ($/m2)
INS4-B Mersin 2.330 1.067 3.397 18.21 2.556 20.76 11.40 29.52
Çanakkale 3.376 0.696 4.073 26.38 1.667 28.05 19.05 39.89
Elazığ 4.112 0.810 4.922 32.13 1.940 34.07 22.78 48.46
Van 4.706 0.249 4.956 36.78 0.597 37.38 26.43 53.16
INS4-F Mersin 2.058 0.942 3.000 57.85 8.120 65.97 58.82 93.83
Çanakkale 2.982 0.614 3.597 83.83 5.297 24.83 18.04 35.31
Elazığ 3.631 0.715 4.347 102.0 6.163 108.2 99.12 153.9
Van 4.157 0.220 4.377 116.8 1.899 118.7 109.9 168.8
INS1-E Mersin 14.14 6.478 20.62 397.6 55.81 453.4 371,5 644.9
Çanakkale 20.49 4.226 24.72 576.1 36.41 612.6 453,4 871.3
Elazığ 24.96 4.916 29.87 701.6 42.36 744.0 622,0 1058.2
Van 28.57 1.515 30.08 803.1 13.05 816.2 687,3 1160.9
INS2-E Mersin 12.95 5.932 18.88 364.1 51.11 415.2 339,2 590.5
Çanakkale 18.77 3.870 22.64 527.6 33.34 561.0 414,5 797.9
Elazığ 22.85 4.502 27.36 642.5 38.79 681.3 568,6 969.0
Van 26.16 1.387 27.55 735.5 11.95 747.5 628,4 1063.2
INS3-E Mersin 10.71 4.905 15.61 301.1 42.26 343.3 278,9 488.3
Çanakkale 15.52 3.200 18.72 436.3 27.57 463.9 341,6 659.8
Elazığ 18.90 3.723 22.62 531.3 32.07 563.4 468,7 801.3
Van 21.63 1.147 22.78 608.2 9.885 618.1 518,1 879.1
INS4-E Mersin 14.95 6.8506 21.80 420.4 59.02 479.5 393,6 682.0
Çanakkale 21.67 4.4694 26.14 609.3 38.50 647.8 480,1 921.4
Elazığ 26.39 5.1996 31.59 742.0 44.79 786.8 658,6 1119.1
Van 30.21 1.6022 31.81 849.3 13.80 863.1 727,7 1227.6
INS1- Mersin 15.65 7.5124 23.16 439.9 64.72 504.6 422,7 717.7
E+P1 Çanakkale 23.66 4.666 28.32 665.1 40.20 705.3 504,6 1003.2
Elazığ 29.65 5.512 35.16 833.5 47.49 881.0 673,2 1253.1
Van 34.71 1.571 36.28 975.9 13.54 989.5 738,5 1407.4
INS2- Mersin 14.46 6.967 21.42 406.4 60.02 466.5 390,4 663.5
E+P1 Çanakkale 21.93 4.310 26.24 616.5 37.14 653.7 465,7 929.8
Elazığ 27.55 5.098 32.64 774.4 43.92 818.3 619,8 1163.9
Van 32.31 1.444 33.75 908.3 12.44 920.7 679,6 1309.6
INS3- Mersin 12.21 5.940 18.15 343.4 51.17 394.6 330,1 561.2
E+P1 Çanakkale 18.68 3.640 22.32 525.2 31.36 556.6 392,8 791.7
Elazığ 23.59 4.319 27.91 663.2 37.21 700.4 519,9 996.2
Van 27.78 1.204 28.98 781.0 10.37 791.3 569,3 1125.5
INS4- Mersin 16.46 7.884 24.34 462.8 67.93 530.7 444,8 754.8
E+P1 Çanakkale 24.83 4.909 29.74 698.2 42.29 740.5 531,3 1053.2
Elazığ 31.08 5.795 36.88 873.8 49.93 923.7 709,8 1313.8
Van 36.35 1.658 38.01 1022.1 14.29 1036.4 778,9 1474.1

According to the life cycle cost analysis, the heating, cooling and total energy

demands and costs and total energy saving for the studied buildings has been calculated with

Eqs. (1)–(2) and Eqs. (6)–(7),(13), respectively and their results are given in Table 5. Total

energy demand for building heating is immensely high in Van, while energy demand for

building cooling is the highest in Mersin. The external wall insulated with RW at the optimum

thickness (INS3-W) has the least total energy cost among other insulation materials. Thermal

15
conductivity coefficient of RW insulation material is higher than coefficient of the other three

insulation materials, but its cost is lower. If the roof is insulated with XPS (INS1-R), the

energy cost is reduced by 77% compared to the non-insulated roof. If it is insulated with RW

(INS3-R), this reduction is 82%.The variations of heating , cooling and total energy demand

with energy cost for the chosen cities Mersin, Çanakkale, Elazığ, and Van are given in Figs.5-

7, respectively. As can be seen from these figures, the energy cost increases as the energy

demand increases. In addition, if all the walls of the building (outer wall, roof, outer column

and floor) are insulated with PUR insulation material; the highest energy cost is obtained.

Fig.5. Heating energy cost versus energy deamand of each scenariofor selected four cities

16
Fig.6. Cooling energy cost versus energy deamand of each scenario for selected cities

Fig.7. Total energy cost versus energy deamand of each scenario for selected cities

The roof insulation is very important in terms of preventing the undesired damages such as

perspiration and mold and ensuring the comfort of the interior by balancing the temperatures

of the internal media and internal surface. It is seen in Figure 7, the total annual energy

17
requirement of the building for Elazığ province is 6.577 kWh / m2 and the total annual energy

cost is 163.78 $ /m2 for (INS1-R).By eliminating the thermal bridges by insulating the

columns and beams in the building, the amount of energy spent for heating and cooling is

reduced.For the province of Van, the total annual energy requirement in the case of insulating

the columns and beams of the building with PUR(INS4-B) is 4.956 kWh/m2, whereas in case

of insulation with RW (INS3-B) there is a total annual energy requirement of 3.549 kWh/m2.

Fig.8. Heating, Cooling and total energy cost of each scenariofor selected cities

Fig.8 shows the heating, cooling and total energy cost of each measure for selected four cities.

The highest annual cooling cost was obtained for the building in Mersin where all exterior

18
walls, columns, roofs and floors were insulated with PUR and the window was plastic joinery

(INS4-E + P1).The lowest annual cooling costs take place in Van for the building covered

with RW and has plastic joinery windows (INS3-E + P1).

The CO2 emissions of EPS, XPS, PUR and RW with optimum insulation thickness

are shown in Fig.9 for four different cities in Turkey.With the increase in insulation thickness,

annual fuel consumption will be reduced and thus the emissions resulting from the burning of

the fuels will decrease. This will certainly reduce the air pollution caused by the burning of

fossil fuels. Reduction of emissions will also increase the air quality and thus the conditions

of life and comfort. As it is seen from the figure, the lowest values for CO2 emission were

obtained for the building covered with RW insulation in Mersin, while the highest CO2

emissions were obtained for the building covered with PUR insulation material in Van.

Fig.9. CO2 emmisions of each scenariofor selected r cities

19
Fig.10. Eco-efficiency analysis results of each scenario analyzed for selected cities

Figs.10 shows the environmental impact assessments of each scenario for Mersin,

Çanakkale, Elazığ and Van, respectively. Each figure has four regions. These regions are:Eco-

Friendly, Stay Clear, Profiteering, and Eco-Efficient. In Eco-friendly region there is a

reduction of global warming potential but an increase in cost. In profiteering region, there is a

reduction in cost at the expense of increase in global warming potential. This region has the

characteristics opposite of the Eco-friendly region. Stay Clear region has the highest cost and

global warming potential. Finally, both cost and global warming potential are reduced in the

Eco-efficient region. This region has the characteristics opposite of the Stay Clear zone.

While the total environmental impact means the sum of the environmental impact of the

materials and the building’s energy use stages, the total cost is the sum of the cost of the

insulation material and the energy consumption building’s use stage.

20
 It is seen from the figures that the external walls insulated with EPS (INS2-W), PUR

(INS4-W) and XPS (INS1-W) at the optimum thickness are located in Stay Clear quadrant

where global warming potential and cost are higher thanINS3-W (external walls insulated

with RW) in Eco-Friendly quadrant. All the scenarios for roof, external column and ground

floor are positioned in Eco-Efficient quadrant, which has low global warming potential and

cost. It can be concluded from the results that RW insulation material in external wall is the

most eco-efficient materials among the other insulation materials.

4. Conclusion

In this study, the optimum thickness of thermal insulation to be applied to the envelope

building by using the heating-cooling energy requirement is calculated. Calculations are made

for four climatically different locations of Turkey.

As heating degree-day values increase, required insulation thickness increases. The

optimum insulation thickness for Van (3476 ºC-days) in cold region is the highest among the

cities in other regions. The external wall insulated with RW at the optimum thickness (INS3-

W) has the least total energy cost among other insulation materials. If the roof is insulated

with XPS (INS1-R), the energy cost is reduced by 77% compared to the non-insulated roof. If

it is insulated with RW (INS3-R), this reduction is 82%. Degree-day values vary considerably

according to climatic conditions. A building located in Van city, which has high degree-hour

values, needs 2.1 times more energy for heating than the one in Mersin where the degree-hour

values are low.

With the increase in insulation thickness, annual fuel consumption will be reduced and

thus the emissions resulting from the burning of the fuels will decrease. The lowest values for

CO2 emission were obtained for the building covered with RW insulation in Mersin, while the

highest CO2 emissions were obtained for the building covered with PUR insulation material in

21
Van. The life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method was used for environmental impact

assessments of each scenario. It can be concluded from the results that RW insulation material

in external wall is the most eco-efficient materials among the other insulation materials.

This study was applied here in to four floor residential building, but the same

methodology can be replicated to other kinds of buildings and to different climatic conditions.

In addition, the results acquired in this study will be helpful guide the choice of insulation

type for building envelopes in different climates.

Nomenclature

C cost ($/m2 year)

Ci cost of insulation ($/m3)

CF cost of the fuel ($/kg)

CDD cooling degree days (ºC-days)

COP coefficient of performance

d inflation rate (%)

HDD heating degree days (ºC-days)

E annual energy need (J/m2 year)

Hu heating value of the fuel (J/kg)

i interest rate (%)

kins thermal conductivity of the insulation material (W/m K)

N lifetime (years)

22
S energy savings ($/m2)

U overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K)

xins thickness of the insulation material (m)

s efficiency of the heating system

Subscripts

A annual

H heating

C cooling

i insulation

T total

References

[1] EPBD recast, Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of Council of 19 May

2010 on the energy performance of buildings (recast). Official Journal of the European Union;

2010

[2] M. Ferrara,V. Monetti and E. Fabrizio, Cost-Optimal Analysis for Nearly Zero Energy

Buildings Design and Optimization: A Critical Review, Energies 2018, 11(6), 1478

[3] S. Deng, R.Z Wang, Y.J Dai, How to evaluate performance of net zero energy building – a

literature research, Energy 71 (2014) 1–16

23
[4] M. Weißenberger, W. Jenschb, W. Lang, The convergence of life cycle assessment and

nearly zero-energy buildings: The case of Germany, Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 551–

557.

[5] D. Kolokotsa, D. Rovas, E. Kosmatopoulos, K. Kalaitzakis, A roadmap towards intelligent

net zero- and positive-energy buildings, Sol Energy 85 (2011) 3067–84.

[6] López-Ochoa, L.M., Las-Heras-Casas, J., López-González, L.M., Olasolo-Alonso, P.,

Environmental and energy impact of the EPBD in residential buildings in hot and temperate

Mediterranean zones: The case of Spain, Energy, 161(2018) 618-634.

[7] Salvalai, G., Masera, G., Sesana, M.M., Italian local codes for energy efficiency of

buildings: Theoretical definition and experimental application to a residential case study,

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 1245–1259.

[8] Gaglia, A.G., Tsikaloudaki, A.G., Laskos, C.M., Dialynas, E.N., Argiriou, A.A. The

impact of the energy performance regulations’ updated on the construction technology,

economics and energy aspects of new residential buildings: The case of Greece, Energy and

Buildings 155 (2017) 225–237

[9] Fokaides, P.A., Polycarpou, K., Kalogirou, S., The impact of the implementation of the

European Energy Performance of Buildings Directive on the European building stock: The

case of the Cyprus Land Development Corporation, Energy Policy 111 (2017) 1–8.

[10] Figueiredo, A., Figueira, J., Vicente, R., Maio, R., Thermal comfort and energy

performance: Sensitivity analysis to apply the Passive House concept to the Portuguese

climate, Building and Environment 103 (2016) 276-288

[11] UNEP-SBCI Buildings and Climate Change: Status, Challenge and Opportunities, UNEP

Publication, Paris, France, 2007.

[12] B. Berge, The Ecology of Building Materials, (Second ed.), Elsevier, 2009, pp.115–124.

24
[13] Z. Utlu , A. Hepbasli, Analysis of energy and exergy use of the Turkish residential–

commercial sector, Building and Environment 40 (2005) 641–655

[14] P. Zhua , Volker Huckemanna , M. N. Fisch, The optimum thickness and energy saving

potential of external wall insulation in different climate zones of China, Procedia Engineering

21 (2011) 608 – 616

[15] A. Bolattürk, Determination of optimum insulation thickness for building walls with

respect to various fuels and climate zones in Turkey, Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006)

1301–1309

[16] N.A. Kurekci, Determination of optimum insulation thickness for building walls by

using heating and cooling degree-day values of all Turkey’s provincial centers, Energy and

Buildings 118 (2016) 197–213.

[17] K. Çomaklı, B. Yüksel, Optimum insulation thickness of external walls for energy

saving, Applied Thermal Engineering 23 (4) (2003) 473–479.

[18] M. Kayfeci, A. Keçebas, E. Gedik, Determination of optimum insulation thickness of

external walls with two different methods in cooling applications, Applied Thermal

Engineering 50 (2013) 217-224.

[19] M. Braulio-Gonzalo, M. D. Bovea, Department Environmental and cost performance of

building’s envelope insulation materials to reduce energy demand: Thickness optimization,

Energy and Buildings 150 (2017) 527–545.

[20] L. Tronchin, K. Fabbri, Energy performance building evaluation in Mediterranean

countries: Comparison between software simulations and operating rating simulation, Energy

and Buildings 40 (2008) 1176–1187.

[21] G. Dall’O’, L. Sarto, N. Sanna, A. Martucci, Comparison between predicted and actual

energy performance for summer cooling in high-performance residential buildings in the

Lombardy region (Italy), Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 234–242

25
[22] U.Y. A. Tettey, A. Dodoo, L. Gustavsson, Effects of different insulation materials on

primary energy and CO2emission of a multi-storey residential building, Energy and Buildings

82 (2014) 369–377.

[23]M. Ashouri, F.R. Astaraei, R. Ghasempour, M.H. Ahmadi, M. Feidt, Optimum insulation

thickness determination of a building wall using exergetic life cycle assessment, Appl. Therm.

Eng. 106 (2016) 307–315

[24] X. Su, Z. Luo, Y. Li, C. Huang, Life cycle inventory comparison of different building

insulation materials and uncertainty analysis, J. Clean. Prod. 112 (2016) 275–281

[25] Ucar, A., Balo, F., 2009. Effect of fuel type on the optimum thickness of selected

insulation materials for the four different climatic regions of Turkey. Appl. Energy 86, 730-

736

[26] Derradji, L., Imessad, K., Amara, M., Errebai, F. B., A study on residential energy

requirement and the effect of the glazing on the optimum insulation thickness, Applied

Thermal Engineering 112 (2017) 975–985

[27] TS 825, Thermal Insulation Rules in Buildings, Turkish Standard Institution, Ankara,

Turkey, 1998.

[28] Daouas, N., Hassen, Z., Aissia, H.B., Analytical periodic solution for the study of

thermal performance and optimum insulation thickness of building walls in Tunisia, Applied

Thermal Engineering, 30 (2010) 319–326.

[29] Saadatian, S.S., Freire, F., Simões N., Comparative Life-Cycle Analysis of Insulation

Materials in a Dwelling, Addressing Alternative Heating Systems and Life Spans, Journal of

Clean Energy Technologies, 4 (2016) 462-465

[30] Energy and Environmental Systems Magazine (Enerji dünyası dergisi), Teknik yayıncılık

tanıtım AŞ, 2008.

26
[31] Ferrández-García A., Ibánez-Forés V., Bovea M.D., Eco-efficiency analysis of the life

cycle of interior partition walls: a comparison of alternative solutions, J. Clean. Prod. 112

(2016) 649–665.

[32] Huppes, G., Ishikawa, M., Eco-efficiency and its terminology, Journal of Industrial

Ecology 9 (2008) 43–46.

27