ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY  GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SCIENCE

ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

A NEW APPROACH TO EVALUATE THE NEARLY ZERO ENERGY

CONCEPT OF EPBD RECAST AT DISTRICT SCALE

Ph.D. THESIS

Ece KALAYCIOĞLU

Department of Architecture

Building Science Programme

OCTOBER 2017
ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY  GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SCIENCE
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

A NEW APPROACH TO EVALUATE THE NEARLY ZERO ENERGY

CONCEPT OF EPBD RECAST AT DISTRICT SCALE

Ph.D. THESIS

Ece KALAYCIOĞLU
(502112069)

Department of Architecture

Building Science Programme

Thesis Advisor: Prof. Dr. A. Zerrin YILMAZ

OCTOBER 2017
 ISTANBUL TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ  FEN BİLİMLERİ ENSTİTÜSÜ

EPBD RECAST’IN BELİRLEDİĞİ YAKLAŞIK SIFIR ENERJİ KONSEPTİNİN

YERLEŞİM ÖLÇEĞİNDE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ İÇİN YENİ BİR
YAKLAŞIM ÖNERİSİ

DOKTORA TEZİ

Ece KALAYCIOĞLU
(502112069)

Mimarlık Anabilim Dalı

Yapı Bilimleri Programı

Tez Danışmanı: Prof. Dr. A. Zerrin YILMAZ

EKİM 2017
Ece Kalaycıoğlu, a Ph.D. student of İTU Graduate School of Science Engineering and
Technology student ID 502112069, successfully defended the dissertation entitled “A
NEW APPROACH TO EVALUATE THE NEARLY ZERO ENERGY CONCEPT
OF EPBD RECAST AT DISTRICT SCALE”, which she prepared after fulfilling the
requirements specified in the associated legislations, before the jury whose signatures
are below.

Thesis Advisor : Prof. Dr. A. Zerrin YILMAZ ..............................

Istanbul Technical University

Jury Members : Prof. Dr. Alpin KÖKNEL YENER .............................

Istanbul Technical University

Prof. Dr. Soofia TAHIRA ELIAS ÖZKAN............................

Middle East Technical University

Doç. Dr. İkbal ÇETİNER ............................

İstanbul Technical University

Prof. Dr. Yalçın YAŞAR ............................

Karadeniz Technical University

Date of Submission : 20 September 2017

Date of Defense : 06 October 2017

v
vi
 To my mother,

vii
viii
FOREWORD

I have interest in energy efficient and sustainable architectural design since my

education in bachelor degree. Just after the completing my master study, in 2010, I
have started to work as a consultant for building energy efficient design. A couple of
years in the field, I felt the need to intensify my knowledge and experience and that
was the primary driving force for me to start my Phd study in 2012.
During my both master and Phd studies, my superviser Prof. Zerrin Yılmaz provided
me a broad perspective and a great challenge of work that strengthens my dissertation.
I would like to thank her for her continuous academic and personal support during my
study and work life.
I also appreciate the support provided by Murat Karakaş on mechanical systems on
which I have very limited knowledge as an architect.
Lastly, I have to express my gratitudes to my mother for her moral support, especially
at the last year of the study, when I had to really concentrate and be motivated to finish
and achieve my Phd.

September 2017 Ece KALAYCIOĞLU

(Architect)

ix
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

FOREWORD ............................................................................................................. ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... xi
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. xiii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... xv
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... xvii
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. xix
ÖZET…………………………………………………………………………………………..…xxiii
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
Purpose of Thesis ............................................................................................... 7
Literature Review ............................................................................................... 8
1.2.1 Building energy performance legislations .................................................. 8
1.2.2 EPBD related literature ............................................................................... 9
1.2.3 District heating and cooling related literature ........................................... 12
Hypothesis ........................................................................................................ 16
BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF
BUILDINGS DIRECTIVE METHODOLOGY ................................ 19
Definitions ........................................................................................................ 20
2.1.1 Reference building .................................................................................... 20
2.1.2 Energy Performance Calculation .............................................................. 21
2.1.3 Cost optimal building ................................................................................ 22
2.1.4 Nearly zero energy building ...................................................................... 23
2.1.5 District energy systems ............................................................................. 23
Global cost calculation procedure .................................................................... 24
A NEW APPROACH TO EVALUATE THE NEARLY ZERO ENERGY
CONCEPT OF EPBD RECAST AT DISTRICT SCALE ................ 27
Evaluation of the District Area and Energy Performance Related Parameters 30
Definition of the Reference Buildings ............................................................. 31
Definition of the Energy Efficiency Measures ................................................. 32
Application of the Measures to the Buildings and Calculation of Energy
Performance and Global Costs to Determine the Cost Optimal and Nearly Zero
Energy Scenarios .................................................................................................... 33
3.4.1 Calculation of energy performance ........................................................... 33
3.4.2 Calculation of global cost ......................................................................... 34
Determination of the District Level Energy Demand ...................................... 35
Definition of the Reference District ................................................................. 36
Definition of the District Level Energy System Alternatives .......................... 37
Calculation of Energy Performances and Global Costs of the District Energy
System Alternatives to Determine the Cost Optimal and Nearly Zero Energy
Scenarios ................................................................................................................ 38
APPLICATION OF THE NEW APPROACH TO A CASE STUDY
DISTRICT AREA................................................................................. 39
Evaluation of the District Area and Energy Related Parameters ..................... 39
xi
 Definition of the Reference Buildings .............................................................. 44
4.2.1 Residential building................................................................................... 45
4.2.2 Office building .......................................................................................... 46
4.2.3 Data center building .................................................................................. 48
Definition of the Energy Efficiency Improvement Measures .......................... 50
4.3.1 Energy efficiency improvement measures for residential building .......... 50
4.3.2 Energy efficiency improvement measures for office building .................. 52
4.3.3 Energy efficiency improvement measures for data center building .......... 54
Application of the Measures to the Buildings and Calculation of Energy
Performance and Global Costs to Determine the Cost Optimal and Nearly Zero
Energy Scenarios .................................................................................................... 55
4.4.1 Residential building................................................................................... 57
4.4.2 Office building .......................................................................................... 64
4.4.3 Data center building .................................................................................. 71
Determination of the District Level Energy Demand....................................... 77
Definition of the Reference District ................................................................. 79
Definition of the District Level Energy System Alternatives .......................... 81
Calculation of Energy Performances and Global Costs of the District Energy
System Alternatives to Determine the Cost Optimal and Nearly Zero Energy
Scenarios................................................................................................................. 82
Evaluation of the Results by Further Financial Instruments ............................ 87
DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 93
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 101
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 105
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 113
CURRICULUM VITAE ........................................................................................ 125

xii
ABBREVIATIONS

ASHRAE : American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

Engineers
BEP-TR : National Building Energy Performance Calculation Methodology of
Turkey
CHP : Combined Heat and Power Systems – Cogeneration Units
CO2 : Carbon Dioxide
COP : Coefficient of Performance
DHW : Domestic Hot Water
ECEEE : European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy
EPBD : Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
EPC : Energy Performance Certification System
EU : European Union
GDP : Gross Domestic Product
GHG : Green House Gas
HVAC : Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning
LED : Light Emitting Diode
MS : Member States
NEEAP : National Energy Efficiency Action Plan
nZEB : Nearly Zero Energy Building
PEF : Primary Energy Factor
PV : Photovoltaic
SEER : Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio
SHGC : Solar Heat Gain Coefficient
Tvis : Visible Transmittance
U Value : Heat Transfer Coefficient
VRV : Variable Refrigerant Volume

xiii
xiv
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 4.1 : Building areas in the settlement. ............................................................. 44

Table 4.2 : U values for Eskişehir in TS 825 standard. ............................................. 44
Table 4.3 : Design parameters of the residential building’s reference case. ............. 46
Table 4.4 : BEP-TR office buildings people densities (m2 per person). ................... 47
Table 4.5 : BEP-TR office buildings electrical equipment densities (W/m2). .......... 47
Table 4.6 : Lighting power densities for different space types. ................................ 47
Table 4.7 : Design parameters of the office building’s reference case. .................... 48
Table 4.8 : Design parameters of the data center building’s reference case. ............ 50
Table 4.9 : Energy efficiency measures for residential building............................... 51
Table 4.10 : Energy efficiency measures for office building. ................................... 53
Table 4.11 : Energy efficiency measures for data center building. ........................... 55
Table 4.12 : Energy consumption breakdown of residential building’s reference case
................................................................................................................ 57
Table 4.13 : Residential building cost optimal and nearly zero energy cases energy
consumption values. ............................................................................... 62
Table 4.14 : Residential building reference, cost optimal and nearly zero energy
cases comparison. ................................................................................... 62
Table 4.15 : Office building reference case energy consumption values.................. 64
Table 4.16 : Office building cost optimal and nearly zero energy cases energy
consumption values ................................................................................ 64
Table 4.17 : Office building reference, cost optimal and nearly zero energy cases
comparison .............................................................................................. 64
Table 4.18 : Data center building reference case energy consumption values. ........ 71
Table 4.19 : Data center building cost optimal and nearly zero energy cases energy
consumption values. ............................................................................... 76
Table 4.20 : Data center building reference, cost optimal and nearly zero energy
cases comparison. ................................................................................... 76
Table 4.21 : Reference district yearly energy consumption with reference
buildings…………………………………………..………….……………………... 80
Table 4.22 : Reference district yearly energy consumption with cost optimal
buildings………......………….…………………………………………………...… 80
Table 4.23 : Reference district yearly energy consumption with nearly zero energy
buildings…………...……………..……………………………………………….… 81
Table 4.24 : District system alternatives ................................................................... 82
Table 4.25 : Payback periods of district energy system alternatives with reference
buildings.………………………………………………………….………………... 89
Table 4.26 : Payback periods of district energy system alternatives with cost optimal
buildings…………………………….……………………………….……………… 89

xv
Table 4.27 : Payback periods of district energy system alternatives with nearly zero
energy buildings……………………….……………………………….…………. 90
Table 4.28 : Payback periods of all district energy system alternative. .................... 91
Table 5.1 : Energy performance comparison of some district cases. ........................ 98
Table A.1 : Packages of energy efficiency measures for residential building. ....... 114
Table A.1 (continued) : Packages of energy efficiency measures for residential
building. ................................................................................................ 115
Table A.2 : Packages of energy efficiency measures for office building. ............... 116
Table A.3 : Packages of energy efficiency measures for data center building. ...... 120

xvi
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

World total primary energy supply by fuel (Mtoe) [1]............................ 1

World final energy consumption intensities [2]. ..................................... 2
World final energy consumption by Nations [3]. .................................... 2
European energy production by fuel [3]. ................................................. 4
European net energy imports by fuel [3]. ................................................ 4
2014 National primary energy consumption and indicative national
energy efficiency targets for 2020 [9]. ..................................................... 5
Defining a cost optimum [70]................................................................ 23
Figure 3.1 : Flow diagram of the proposed methodology. ........................................ 28
Figure 3.2 : System boundaries in buildings and districts. ....................................... 36
Figure 4.1 : Annual drybulb temperature variation in Eskişehir. .............................. 40
Figure 4.2 : Shading pattern on the 1st January at 9:00. ............................................ 40
Figure 4.3 : Sahing pattern on the 1st January at 12:00. ............................................ 41
Figure 4.4 : Shading pattern on the 1st January at 15:00. .......................................... 41
Figure 4.5 : Shading pattern on the 21st March at 08:00. .......................................... 41
Figure 4.6 : Shading pattern on the 21st March at 12:00. .......................................... 42
Figure 4.7 : Shading pattern on the 21st March at 16:00. .......................................... 42
Figure 4.8 : Shading pattern on the 21st July at 08:00............................................... 42
Figure 4.9 : Shading pattern on the 21st July at 12:00............................................... 43
Figure 4.10 : Shading pattern on the 21st July at 16:00. ........................................... 43
Figure 4.11 : Residential building geometric model. ................................................ 45
Figure 4.12 : Office building geometric model. ....................................................... 47
Figure 4.13 : Data center building geometric model. ............................................... 49
Figure 4.14 : Global costs and annual primary energy consumptions graph of
residential building. ................................................................................ 59
Figure 4.15 : Residential building annual end-use energy consumptions of measure
packages. ................................................................................................. 60
Figure 4.16 : Residential building annual primary energy consumptions of measure
packages. ................................................................................................. 61
Figure 4.17 : Residential building global costs and investment costs of measure
packages. ................................................................................................. 63
Figure 4.18 : Global costs and annual primary energy consumptions of measure
packages for office building. .................................................................. 66
Figure 4.19 : Office building annual energy consumptions of measure packages. .. 67
Figure 4.20 : Office building annual primary energy consumptions of measure
packages. ................................................................................................. 68
Figure 4.21 : Office building global costs and investment costs of measure packages.
................................................................................................................ 70
Figure 4.22 : Data center building global costs and annual primary energy
consumptions of measure packages. ....................................................... 73
Figure 4.23 : Data center building annual end-use energy consumptions of measure
packages. ................................................................................................. 74
xvii
Figure 4.24 : Data center building annual primary energy consumptions of measure
packages. ................................................................................................. 75
Figure 4.25 : Data center building global costs and investment costs of measure
packages. ................................................................................................. 78
Figure 4.26 : District energy system alternatives global costs and yearly primary
energy consumptions. ............................................................................. 84
Figure 4.27 : District energy system alternatives global costs and yearly primary
energy consumptions. ............................................................................. 86
Figure 4.28 : Global and investment costs of all district cases ................................. 88

xviii
 A NEW APPROACH TO EVALUATE THE NEARLY ZERO ENERGY
CONCEPT OF EPBD RECAST AT DISTRICT SCALE

SUMMARY

Throughout the world, energy was the primary worrisome point for all nations as the
sustainability of the daily life depends on it for conditioning the buildings,
transportation and production. While the population and the need for consumer goods
are increasing, the overall energy consumption is increasing, too. Researches and
statistics show that worldwide energy demand is being met mostly by fossil fuels and
continuously increasing energy demand awaken the concerns about extinction of the
energy sources. Moreover, through the world, the most energy consumed and produced
areas are distinct, which makes some countries dependent on external energy sources
and some others exporters who benefit high profits. As a result, the potential source
extinction and high financial sources spent on external energy sources created the
need to take action for decreasing the energy demand and external dependency.
Beside the other sectors, buildings are responsible about one third of the overall energy
consumed in the World. European Union (EU), identified the incremental targets for
the years 2020, 2030, 2040 and 2050 to be reached by building energy sector. Energy
Performance of Buildings Directives (EPBD) was published in 2002 and 2010 to
assure and instruct the Member States (MS) to reach the 2020 goals, which are 20%
of energy efficiency, 20% of renewable energy share and 20% decrease in greenhouse
gasses (GHGs), compared to 1990 levels. Other directives like Energy Efficiency
Directive and Renewable Energy Directive are also supporting these goals. Turkey,
where the case study takes place, follows also the EPBD. Building energy performance
certification system was completed and started to certify the buildings in 2008 and
energy performance targets for 2023 were defined in National Energy Efficiency
Action Plan. However, further and stricter directives are expected as we are coming
closer to 2020 and 2030 targets are ahead.
The last EPBD, which was published in 2010, presented the new terms of cost optimal
and nearly zero energy levels for buildings. According to the methodology that EPBD
propose, energy efficiency improvement measures should be analysed together with
long term costs (global costs) including investment, replacement, maintenance and
energy costs. Cost optimal energy level was defined precisely as the solution of
measures causing the lowest global cost. On the other hand, nearly zero energy
building was defined questionably as the building which has very high energy
performance with renewable energy contribution. Determination of the nearly zero
energy levels were left to the MS’s responsibility to be defined nationally.
In line with the energy efficiency targets for the building sector, in the dissertation
EPBD methodology was implemented to several types and numbers of buildings
aiming to reveal the energy efficiency potential at the settlement scale. According to
the hypothesis set in the dissertation, buildings energy performances cannot be
dissociated from the location in the settlements. As well as the design parameters such
as distance between buildings, orientation, heights, etc., district energy systems should

xix
be analysed to reach higher levels of energy efficiency. The contribution of the district
energy systems to the energy efficiency was already proven in numerous studies in the
literature. Differently, in the this study, EPBD methodology was proposed to be
implemented not only to buildings, but also to the district energy systems, as a new
approach. In this way, it was aimed to analyse the long term financial effects of the
district energy system alternatives together with their contribution to the energy
efficiency. As it was explained above, nearly zero energy levels require very high
energy performance with renewable energy contribution. However, renewable energy
contribution may be limited at building scale because of space limitations. Another
objective of the study was the increasing the renewable energy usage at the district
scale, while more convenient space would be available; so that nearly zero energy
districts could be achieved.
EPBD methodology phases can be decribed briefly as the definition of the reference
building, definition of the energy improvement measures, calculation of the energy
performance and global cost of the building with each measure and/or measure
package and the determination of global cost and nearly zero energy solutions. In the
new approach proposed in the study, additional phases were added for the district scale
analysis. The proposed approach can be implemented both on existing and newly
planned settlements and first step is the evaluation of the district scale parameters
which affect the energy demand and consumption. In this step, all building types and
numbers exist or will exist in the district is determined and for each type of the
building, EPBD methodology is applied. Reference, cost optimal and nearly zero
energy cases are determined for each type of the building by the application of EPBD
methodology, which means the three cases of the settlement are also determined.
Afterwards, the alternatives for the district energy systems are defined and similar to
the building scale analysis, energy performances and global costs of each alternative
with the three cases of the settlement is calculated. Finally, among each alternative and
case, cost optimal and nearly zero energy solutions are determined.
Proposed approach was implemented to a virtual district area close to Eskişehir,
Turkey as a case study in the case study. In the case district area, it was assumed to be
located 34 residential, 7 office and 1 data-center buildings. For each type of building,
the reference, cost optimal and nearly zero energy cases were determined by EPBD
methodology. Then 8 different district energy system alternative was proposed
including cogeneration, boiler and chiller units with photovoltaic (PV) systems. The 8
alternative was applied to the settlement cases with reference, cost optimal and nearly
zero energy buildings. Energy performances, as annual primary energy consumptions,
and global costs, including investment, replacement, maintenance and energy costs,
were calculated.
According to the results of the case study, cost optimal levels provide about 35%-40%
of improvement in primary energy consumption, while nearly zero energy levels
provide more the 50% of improvement. Nonethless, improvement percentage of nearly
zero energy levels depends on mostly renewable energy usage. In case of data-center
building, available roof area for PV usage was extremely large and the primary energy
improvement was about 70% compared to reference case. It should be remembered
also that, nearly zero energy level definitions should be made nationally and in Turkey,
the definition was not set yet, during the case study.
Another interesting result of the building scale analyses was the investment cost
differences obtained by cost optimal and nearly zero energy level buildings compared

xx
to reference cases. Cost optimal levels caused up to 3% of increase in the investment
costs and even for the office building, investment cost of the cost optimal level was
lower than the reference case. But when it comes to the nearly zero energy levels,
investment costs were highly variable changing from 3% for office building to 40%
for data center building. Again, this is the result of renewable energy usage levels.
At the district level, district energy system (DES) alternatives were analysed with all
cases of buildings. Thus the settlements with reference, cost optimal and nearly zero
energy buildings had different results. If the alternatives were compared to the
settlement cases without DES, then the energy performance improvement levels were
the highest with reference case buildings and the lowest with nearly zero energy case
buildings.Even more interestingly, in the analysis with nearly zero energy buildings,
global costs of DES alternatives were always higher than the case without DES, which
means usage of DES was not profitable with nearly zero energy buildings. On the other
hand, if all the alternatives were compared to the settlement with reference buildings
and without DES, then the best DES alternative with nearly zero energy level buildings
had 17.4% of improvement in the global costs. It can be said that the decision making
for district energy system alternatives were more complex than buildings and require
further financial analyses. In the case study, payback periods were also analysed and
different alternatives were found to be beneficial.
The case study also showed the limitations, weak points and benefits of the proposed
methodology. Reaching the energy efficiency target, maybe EU or national targets,
political actions play a critical role, as the design of buildings and district energy
systems should be in compliance with related regulations and standards. Furthermore,
relatively high investment costs to reach nationally determined nearly zero energy
levels in building or district design should be supported by governmental incentives,
as their efficiency both in energy and finance are proven in the long term.

xxi
xxii
 EPBD RECAST’IN BELİRLEDİĞİ YAKLAŞIK SIFIR ENERJİ
KONSEPTİNİN YERLEŞİM ÖLÇEĞİNDE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ İÇİN
YENİ BİR YAKLAŞIM ÖNERİSİ

ÖZET

Dünya genelinde enerji, binaların iklimlendirilmesi, ulaşım ve üretim gibi günlük

hayatın devamlılığını sağlayan aktivitelerin vazgeçilmez kaynağı olduğundan, ülkeler
için birincil derecede öneme sahiptir ve yine en önemli endişe kaynaklarındandır.
Dünya nüfusu ve tüketim ürünlerine olan ihtiyaç her geçen gün artarken, toplam enerji
tüketimi de buna parallel olarak artmaktadır. Araştırma ve istatistikler göstermektedir
ki dünya genelinde ençok kullanılan yakıt türü fosil yakıtlardır ve sürekli artan enerji
ihtiyacı, fosil kaynakların tükenme tehlikesini doğurmaktadır. Bununla beraber,
dünyada en çok enerji tüketen ve üreten ülkeler birbirlerinden farklıdır, bu da bazı
ülkeleri enerjide dış kaynaklara bağımlı hale getirirken, bazı ülkeleri de yüksek
kazançlar sağlayan enerji ihracatçılarına dönüştürmektedir. Sonuç olarak, enerji
kaynaklarının tükenme endişesi ve enerji ithalatı için ayrılan yüksek bütçeler, bazı ülke
ve kuruluşları enerji ihtiyaçlarını düşürme ve dışa bağımlılıklarını azaltma yönünde
harekete geçirdi.
Diğer sektörlerin yanı sıra, binalar tüm dünya enerji tüketiminin yaklaşık üçte birini
kapsamaktadırlar. Avrupa Birliği (AB) de bu nedenle, binaların sebep olduğu enerji
tüketimini ve etkilerini azaltmak üzere bir dizi hedef belirlemiştir. Bu hedefler, 2020,
2030, 2040 ve 2050 yıllarını kapsamakta ve kademeli olarak binalarda enerji
verimliliğinin artırılması, karbon salımının azaltılması ve yenilenebilir enerji oranının
artırılmasını öngörmektedir. Bu bağlamda, AB Binalarda Enerji Performansı
Direktifi’ni (EPBD), ilki 2002’de ve revizyonunu da 2010’da olmak üzere,
yayınlamıştır. EPBD’nin amacı, üye ülkelerin öncelikle 2020 hedeflerine ulaşmalarını
sağlamak ve onlara kullanacakları temel yöntemi bildirmektir. 2020 hedefleri, 1990
seviyelerine kıyasla, enerji verimliliğnde %20 artış, sera gazı salımlarında %20 azalış
ve yenilenebilir enerji oranının %20’ye çıkarılmasıdır. Bununla beraber, Enerji
Verimliliği Direktifi ve Yenilenebilir Enerji Direktifi de bu hedefler doğrultusunda
yayınlanmıştır. Bu tez kapsamında yapılan örnek çalışma Türkiye’de yer almaktadır
ve Türkiye de, AB’ne aday ülke olarak, EPBD hükümlerini yerine getirmekle
yükümlüdür. 2008 yılında Ulusal Bina Enerji Performansı Hesaplama Methodu
tamamlanmış ve binalar sertifikandırılmaya başlamıştır. Ayrıca, 2016 yılında
yayınlanan Ulusal Enerji Verimliliği Eylem Planı’nda 2023 yılı hedefi olarak, birim
gayri safi yurt içi hasıla başına tüketilen enerjinin en az %20 oranında azaltılması
belirlenmiştir. Ancak, 2020 yılına oldukça yaklaştığımız bu dönemde, AB 2030
hedefleri doğrultusunda yeni direktiflerin yayınlanması beklenmektedir.
En son 2010 yılında yayınlanan EPBD, binalarda maliyet optimum ve yaklaşık sıfır
enerji seviyeleri olmak üzere yeni terimlerin tanımını yapmaktadır. EPBD’nin
hesaplamalarda kullanılmasını öngördüğü yönteme göre, enerji verimliliğini artırıcı
tedbirlerin, bina enerji performansına etkileri, bina uzun dönem maliyetleri ile birlikte
incelenmelidir. Bina uzun dönem maliyeti, diğer adıyla global maliyet, ise ilk yatırım,

xxiii
değişim, bakım-onarım ve enerji maliyetlerini kapsamaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, maliyet
optimum seviye, en düşük global maliyete sebep olan enerji verimliliği tedbirlerinin
uygulandığı binayı tanımlamaktadır. Ancak, yaklaşık sıfır enerji seviye tanımı bu
kadar net değildir. Direktif’te yaklaşık sıfır enerjili bina, çok yüksek enerji
performansına sahip ve tükettiği enerjinin bir miktarını yenilenebilir enerji
kaynaklarından karşılayan bina olarak tanımlanmıştır. Yaklaşık sıfır enerji
seviyelerinin her bir bina türü için net olarak tanımlanması, Direktirf tarafından üye
ülkelerin sorumluluğuna bırakılmıştır.
Bina sektörüne yönelik yukarda bahsedilen hedefler doğrultusunda, tez çalışmasında
EPBD methodolojisinin bir yerleşimde yer alabilecek bir çok farklı bina türüne
ugulanması ve böylece yerleşim ölçeğinde enerji verimliliği potansiyelinin
belirlenmesi hedeflenmiştir. Tezde belirtilen hipoteze göre, binaların enerji
performansı, içinde yer aldıkları yerleşimlerden bağımsız düşünülemez. Daha yüksek
enerji verimliliği seviyelerine ulaşmak için, bina aralıkları, yönlenme, yapı
yükseklikleri gibi parametrelerin yanı sıra, bölgesel enerji sistemleri de analiz
edilmelidir. Bölgesel enerji sistemlerinin, enerji verimliliğne etkisi bir çok farklı
çalışmada kanıtlanmıştır. Fakat diğerlerinden farklı olarak bu çalışmada, EPBD
metodolojisi hem binalara hem de bölgesel enerji sistemlerine uygulanmıştır. Böylece,
bölgesel enerji sistemlerinin enerji verimliliğine katkılarının yanısıra, uzun dönem
finansal etkileri de analiz edilebilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Daha önce açıklandığı üzere,
yaklaşık sıfır enerji seviyesi, çok yüksek enerji performansı ve yenilenebilir enerji
katkısı gerektirmektedir. Ancak bina ölçeğinde, yenilenebilir enerji kullanımı, uygun
alan kısıtlılığı nedeniyle sınırlı olabilmektedir. Tezin bir diğer amacı da, yenilenebilir
enerji katkısını, yerleşim ölçeğinde daha geniş ve uygun alan kullanımı öngörülerek,
daha da artırabilmektir.
EPBD’nin önerdiği yöntemin adımları kısaca, referans binanın tanımlanması, enerji
verimliliği tedbirlerinin tanımlanması ve her bir tedbirin veya tedbir paketinin sebep
olduğu yıllık birincil enerji tüketim ve global maliyet değerlerinin hesaplanması ve
son olarak da maliyet optimum ve yaklaşık sıfır enerji çözümlerinin belirlenmesi
olarak tanımlanabilir. Tezde önerilen yeni yöntemde ise, yerleşim ölçeğindeki
analizleri yapabilmek üzere yeni adımlar eklenmiştir. Bu yeni yöntem hem mevcut
hem de yeni planlanan yerleşimlere uygulanabilmektedir ve ilk adımı, yerleşimin
enerji ihtiyaç ve tüketimini etkileyen parametrelerinin değerlendirilmesidir. Bu
aşamada, yerleşimde yer alacak tüm bina tipleri, kapalı alan büyüklükleri ve sayıları
belirlenmelidir. Belirlenen her bir bina türü için bir referans bina tanımı yapılmalı ve
yukarıda özetlenen EPBD metodolojisi uygulanmalıdır. Böylece her bir bina türü için,
maliyet optimum ve yaklaşık sıfır enerji çözümleri ve bunların birincil enerji tüketim
değerleri ile global maliyetleri belirlenmiş olmaktadır. Bu aşama sonunda, aynı
zamanda, referans, maliyet optimum ve yaklaşık sıfır enerji seviyesi olmak üzere 3
farklı yerleşim durumu da elde edilmiş olmaktadır. Bu aşama sonrasında, bölgenin
kaynaklarına ve potansiyeline uygun bir şekilde, farklı bölgesel enerji sistemleri ile
çeşitli alternatifler oluşturulmalıdır. Her bir farklı alternatif, elde edilen 3 farklı
yerleşim durumu ile test edilmeli, yani yıllık birincil enerji tüketim değerleri ile global
maliyetleri hesaplanmalıdır. Bu noktada referans olarak, yerleşimlerde bölgesel enerji
sistemlerinin kullanılmadığı durumlar, ya da eğer ulusal standart ya da yönetmelikler
mevcutsa, gerekli minimum koşulları sağlayan bölgesel enerji sistemlerine sahip
yerleşimler kabul edilebilir. Bina ölçeği hesaplamalarda olduğu gibi, hesaplanan tüm
alternatifler arasından en düşük global maliyete sahip olan alternatif, maliyet optimum

xxiv
çözüm ve en düşük yıllık birincil enerji tüketim değerine sahip olan alternatif ise
yaklaşık sıfır enerji çözümü olarak kabul edilebilir.
Önerilen bu yeni yöntem, tez çalışması kapsamında Eskişehir yakınlarında ayrılan
rezerv alan üzerinde uygulanmıştır. Bu bölgede mevcut bir yerleşim bulunmadığından,
örnek ve sanal bir yerleşim, tez çalışması uygulaması için tasarlanmıştır. Tasarımda,
bina aralıkları, bina yüksekliklikleri ve yönlenmeler, binalar birbirlerini minimum
gölgeleyecek ve bölgesel enerji system dağıtım kayıpları en az olacak şekilde
tasarlanmıştır. Ayrıca, yenilenebilir enerji sistemleri (Fotovoltaik paneller) için de
oldukça geniş ve gölgelenmeyen bir alan ayrılmıştır. Örnek yerleşimde, 34 adet konut,
7 adet ofis ve 1 adet data-center binasının yer alacağı öngörülmüştür. Her bir bina türü
için öncelikle, mevcut ulusal ve very yetersizliği durumunda da uluslararası
standartlardan faydalanılarak referans binalar oluşturulmuş ve referans enerji
performansları ve global maliyetler belirlenmiştir. Daha sonra, her bir bina türüne
uygun olarak, enerji verimliliği tedbirleri uygulanmış, her bir tedbir ile elde edilen
enerji performansı, yıllık birincil enerji tüketim değeri cinsinden belirlenmiştir. Her
bir tedbirin ilk yatırım, değişim, bakım-onarım maliyetleri ile ve uzun dönem enerji
maliyetleri toplanarak global maliyetler hesaplanmış ve sonuç olarak her bir bina türü
için maliyet optimum ve yaklaşık sıfır enerji çözümleri belirlenmiştir. Sonraki
aşamada, kojenerasyon, kazan ve çiller üniteleri ile fotovoltaik panelleri içeren 8 farklı
bölgesel enerji sistem kombinasyonu belirlenmiştir. Bu 8 alternatif, önceki aşamada
belirlenmiş referans, maliyet optimum ve yaklaşık sıfır enerji binalardan oluşan 3
yerleşim durumuna uygulanmıştır. Çalışma kapsamında, Türkiye’de hali hazırda
bölgesel ısıtma ve soğutma sistemleri ile ilgili bir yönetmelik veya standart
bulunmadığından, referans yerleşim olarak, yerleşimlerde bölgesel enerji sistemlerinin
bulunmadığı durumlar kabul edilmiştir. Her bir yerleşim durumu ve bölgesel enerji
sistem alternatifi için, yine yıllık birincil enerji tüketim değerleri ve global maliyetler
hesaplanmıştır ve en düşük global maliyete sahip olan çözüm maliyet optimum ve en
düşük birincil enerji tüketim değerine sahip olan çözüm ise yaklaşık sıfır enerji
çözümü olarak belirlenmiştir.
Elde edilen sonuçlara göre, bina ölçeğinde, maliyet optimum seviyeler, birincil enerji
tüketiminde %35 - %40 civarında iyileşme sağlamakta ve yaklaşık sıfır enerji
seviyelerinde ise iyileşme oranı %50’lerin üzerine çıkmaktadır. Bununla beraber,
yaklaşık sıfır enerji seviyelerinde iyileşme oranı, büyük ölçüde yenilenebilir enerji
kullanımına bağlıdır. Örneğin, data-center binasında, fotovoltaik kullanımına uygun
çatı alanı oldukça geniş olduğundan, iyileşme oranı %70’lere ulaşmıştır. Bu noktada
hatırlanmalıdır ki, yaklaşık sıfır enerji seviye tanımı her ülkede ulusal koşullara bağlı
olarak yapılmalıdır ve çalışmanın yapıldığı Türkiye’de henüz bu tanım yapılmamıştır.
Bina ölçeğindeki bir diğer ilginç sonuç, ilk yatırım maliyetleri ile ilgilidir. Referans
binalarla karşılaştırıldığında, maliyet optimum binaların ilk yatırım maliyetlerinde
sebep oldukları artış en fazla %3 olmuştur. Hatta ofis binasında, maliyet optimum
seviyenin ilk yatırım maliyeti, referans durumdan daha düşüktür. Fakat, yaklaşık sıfır
enerji seviyelerinin ilk yatırım maliyetleri incelendiğinde, referans seviyelere göre
%3’ten %40’lara kadar değişen bir aralıkta artış gözlenmektedir. Bu da yine, birincil
enerji tüketimlerinde olduğu gibi, ilk yatırım maliyetleri görece yüksek olan
yenilenebilir enerji sistemlerinin kullanım oranları ile yakından ilişkilidir. Ancak,
global maliyetler incelendiğinde görülmüştür ki, tüm binalarda maliyet optimum ve
yaklaşık sıfır enerji seviyelerin tamamının global maliyetleri, referans bina
seviyelerinin altında kalmaktadır. Bu da, yapılan yatırımların, uzun vadede enerji
tüketimlerinde olduğu kadar, ekonomik olarak da faydalı olduğunun göstergesidir.

xxv
Bölgesel ölçekte elde edilen sonuçlara göre ise, bölgesel sistemlerin verimliliği ve
karlılığı büyük ölçüde enerji ihtiyacına, yani binaların enerji etkinlik seviyelerine
bağlıdır. Yapılan çalışmada, daha önce de açıklandığı üzere, bölgesel enerji sistem
alternatifleri, binaların 3 farklı enerji etkinlik seviyesi için de analiz edilmiştir ve farklı
sonuçlar elde edilmiştir. Bölgesel sistem alternatifleri, her bir enerji etkinlik seviyesi
(referans, maliyet optimum ve yaklaşık sefır enerji) için, yerleşimdeki binaların
bölgesel sistemlere bağlı olmadıkları, yani referans olarak kabul edilen durumlarla
karşılaştırıldığında, enerji performansında elde edilen iyileşme seviyeleri referans
binalarla olan durumda en fazla, %42,3 ve yaklaşık sıfır enerji binalarla olan durumda
ise en düşük, %24,6’dır. Daha da ilginç olanı, yaklaşık sıfır enerji binalarla kullanılan
bölgesel enerji sistemlerin global maliyetleri, referans durumdan, yani yaklaşık sıfır
enerji binaların bölgesel enerji sistemine bağlanmadığı durumdan her zaman daha
yüksek çıkmaktadır. Bu durumda, yaklaşık sıfır enerji binaları, bölgesel enerji
sistemine bağlamak uzun vadede dahi ekonomik olarak uygulanabilir olmamaktadır.
Ancak, farklı bir bakış açısıyla değerlendirildiğinde, tüm alternatifler için referans
durum, referans binalardan oluşan ve bölgesel enerji sistemine bağlanmayan durum
kabul edildiğinde, yaklaşık sıfır enerji binalarıyla kullanılan en iyi bölgesel enerji
sistem alternatifi, global maliyetlerde %17.4 iyileşme sağlamaktadır. Bu sonuçlar
göstermektedir ki, bölgesel enerji sistemleri için karar verme süreci, binalara göre
biraz daha karmaşıktır ve daha fazla finansal analiz gerektirmektedir. Çalışma
kapsamında, ayrıca her bir altenatif için geri ödeme süreleri de hesaplanmış ve
uygulanabilir bulunan alternatifler değişmiştir.
Tez kapsamında yapılan çalışma, önerilen yöntemin zayıf ve güçlü noktalarını,
kısıtlayıcı öğeleri ve avantajlarını görmemize yardımcı olmuştur. Kısaca bahsetmek
gerekirse, elde edilen sonuçlar büyük oranda, ekonomik parametreler, piyasada
gerçekleşen maliyetler, binalarla ilgili kabul edilen standartlar ve minimum değerler,
birincil enerji dönüşüm katsayıları gibi ulusal parametrelere bağlıdır. Aynı zamanda,
belirlenen hedefler doğrultusunda atılan adımlar, politik ve finansal olarak da
desteklenmelidir. Yaklaşık sıfır enerji seviyelere ulaşmak için gerekli olan
yenilenebilir enerji sistemleri ve bölgesel enerji sistemleri ilk yatırım maliyetleri
oldukça yüksek ve özel olarak yönetilmesi gereken sistemlerdir ve bu çalışma
kapsamında da enerji ve ekonomideki verimliliğe katkıları gösterilmiştir.

xxvi
 INTRODUCTION

Energy is the key element to sustain a living, as it is needed not only for heating,
cooling, ventilation of the spaces but also for farming, cooking, industrial production,
transportation, etc. It is one of the most important issues that concerns all nations to
acquire, to produce or to import, enough energy to meet the demand of all sectors.
Worldwide energy consumption is continuously increasing and today primary energy
sources are still based on fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas as seen in Figure
1.1 [1]. In the world, while final energy consumption is concentrated on more
populated and industrialised areas as seen in Figure 2 [2], energy extraction areas are
mostly Middle East, Russia and Asian lands [1]. This situation causes inconsistency
between energy import and export balances of nearly all countries and all energy
importing countries suffer from high energy prices [1,3].

World total primary energy supply by fuel (Mtoe) [1].

1
 World final energy consumption intensities [2].

When the worldwide energy consumption by nations is analysed, which is displayed

in Figure 1.3 [3], China is the country where the consumption was increased the most
drastically in the last 20 years. Also, It can be seen that in Europe (EU-28) and United
States, there was a declining trend in final energy consumption in the last decade
(Figure 1.3) [3].

World final energy consumption by Nations [3].

The final energy consumption decrease in Europe may be the consequences of several
actions of European Commision. It has introduced targets and strategies to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, to increase the renewable energy share and energy

2
efficiency compared to 1990 levels [4]. European Union (EU) member states are
agreed to follow the objectives which are 20% energy efficiency and 20% cut in
greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, 27% energy efficiency and 40% cut in GHGs by
2030 and 80% cut in GHG emissions by 2050 through a low-carbon economy [4].
Consistent with these strategies, in 2002 the first Energy Performance of Buildings
Directive (EPBD) [5] was published binding the Member States (MS) to set minimum
energy requirements for new constructions and deep renovations of buildings and to
set national energy certification systems both for new and existing buildings.
Afterwards, in 2010, EPBD was revised (EPBD recast) and new terms such as cost-
optimal and nearly zero energy buildings were introduced [6]. EPBD recast obliged
the MS to set the minimum energy requirements for cost-optimal level of buildings, to
define the nearly zero energy level and to adopt it to their legislation system for the
energy certification of buildings. Additionally, EPBD recast put targets such as by the
end of 2018, all new public buildings and by the end of 2020, all new buildings should
be designed and constructed as nearly zero energy building [6].

As a result of these actions, gross inland consumption, in other words primary energy
consumption, was decreased by 4%, final energy consumption was decreased by 2%
and CO2 intensity was decreased about 12%, owing to increase of the renewable
energy share by 2014 compared to 1995 [3]. The increasing trend of the renewable
sources in the energy production sector of Europe can be seen in the Figure 1.4. Until
1998, energy production from solid fuels had been decreasing excessively and
petroleum, natural gases and nuclear energy usage were increasing instead. Renewable
energy usage was being raised also and in 2014, it became the second most used source
after nuclear energy. On the way of 20% renewable energy share target of European
Commission, in 2014, renewable energy share was reported as 16% in the Statistical
Pocketbook of European Commission published in 2016 [3]. Additionally, according
to the same report, among the renewable energy sources used through Europe, hydro
power was the leader and solar power was in the fourth place after wind and
biomass/wastes [3].

Implementation of directives, as building energy certification systems and nearly zero

energy objectives, initiated a reduction of energy consumption in Europe (Figure 1.3)
and also made contribution to diminish the energy imports, as seen in Figure 1.5.
However, in 2014 energy import level was still 20% more than the 1995 values [3],

3
which means further measures should be taken to lessen the dependency on external
energy sources.

European energy production by fuel [3].

European net energy imports by fuel [3].

It is also interesting to note that the capacities of cogeneration (CHP) units and the heat
generation by them through the Europe was getting less since 2005 [3] and this may
be the result of the decreased heat demand from the buildings.

4
Turkey, as a candidate to EU and a signee to Kyoto Protocol, has to follow the EU
targets and fulfill the requirements of the Directives on energy performance of the
buildings. Decreasing the energy demand through buildings is important also because
Turkey importing a significant portion of its energy from external sources [7]. Turkey
is one of the most coal and natural gas importing countries in the World [1], so
following the EU targets would decrease the fossil fuel usage share in energy sector
and also the dependency on external sources in Turkey. It was asserted in the
Mediterranean Energy Perspectives (MEP) – Turkey Report, prepared by Observatiore
Mediterraneen de l’Enegie, that 90% of Turkey’s energy demand was met by fossil
fuels and this trend seems to continue until 2030 according to several scenarios [7].

Primary energy consumption of Turkey has increased by 35% between 2005 and 2014
[8] and according to the European Environment Agency data of the year 2014, which
is displayed in Figure 1.6, Turkey was the fifth most primary energy consuming
country among EU countries and it still didn’t have a national 2020 target [9].
However, energy efficiency target of Turkey was set in Energy Efficiency Strategy
Document 2012-2023 as to decrease the energy consumption per GDP (gross domestic
product) by 20% until 2023 compared to 2011 [10].

2014 National primary energy consumption and indicative national

energy efficiency targets for 2020 [9].

5
In 2007, Turkey has published Energy Efficiency Law [11] and in 2008, Building
Energy Performance Regulation [12]. In compliance with the regulation, national
calculation methodology was developed for building energy certification system [13]
to meet the first EPBD [5] requirements as a strategic coherence framework to EU.
Then following the EPBD recast, like all MS of Europe, in Turkey, as a candidate,
researches were focused on definition of reference building specifications, cost
optimum and nearly zero energy building calculation methodologies. Additionally,
Turkey has published the first national energy efficiency action plan (NEEAP) [14] in
2016 in compliance with 2012/27/EU Directive on energy efficiency [15]. In the
NEEAP, 2023 target of Energy Efficiency Strategy Document 2012-2023 [10] was
adopted and several actions were proposed such as supports, agreements and financial
incentives for energy efficiency in buildings, industry, transportation and agriculture
[14].

According to the EU statistics, with about 1-3% of replacement rate of buildings, the
majority of the buildings, which are already built today, will exist in 2050 [16].
However in Turkey, there is a high rate of building replacements. Starting from 2000s,
municipality management laws (5216 and 5393) started to autorise the municipalities
about urban renewals [17]. In 2012, Ministry of Environment and Urbanization has
published the Law about Renewal of the Areas Under Disaster Risk (6306) [18] and
the renewals of buildings and settlement lots were accelarated. According to the
statistics, in 2016, 55 buildings were demolished everyday to be renewed only at the
European part of İstanbul [19]. This high rate of replacement should be utilised as an
opportunity to reach the targets declared in NEEAP [14] and Energy Efficiency
Strategy Document 2012-2023 [10].

In line with these developments, further directives and action plans in Europe are
foreseen. More detailed research on cost optimal energy performance levels in
buildings and renewable energy sources will be needed to meet 2030, 2040 and 2050
targets of European Commision. Similarly, in Turkey, where the developments are
being followed by one step behind of the Europe, research activities and political
actions should be focused on the measures to meet the further targets already. In the
dissertation, purpose of the study has been determined with this perspective.

6
 Purpose of Thesis

In 2010, by the revision of EPBD 2002 [5] and the publication of EPBD recast [6],
new terms, cost-optimal and nearly zero energy levels, were introduced to be adopted
to the building energy certification systems in Europe. Dependently, EU set a new
calculation methodology to determine the cost-optimal levels of buildings by the
Regulation 244/2012 [20]. The study includes a number of purposes and the primary
one is to implement the EPBD methodology to several types of buildings and so, to
reveal the energy efficiency and CO2 (Carbondioxide) emission reduction potentials of
constructing cost-optimal and nearly zero energy buildings in comparison to the
buildings constructed compliant to current standards of Turkey.

Another objective of the top priority of this study is to propose a new approach which
is the application of the EPBD methodology also at district scale, together with the
building scale analyses. In this way, it is aimed to search for more energy efficiency at
settlement scale by financially feasible investments for buildings and district energy
systems.

The EPBD methodology includes the calculation of global cost, which is the sum of
long term energy costs and investment, maintenance/renewal, residual costs of the
energy efficiency measures implied to the buildings. In the study, building energy
consumptions and global costs are proposed to be calculated not only for building
measures, but also for district energy system alternatives, aiming to investigate the
global cost and energy consumption reductions through an entire settlement and also
to display the relationship between the investment costs and global costs of buildings
and districts.

What’s more, in EPBD, nearly zero energy building definition is rather ambiguous as
it was defined as a building with very high energy performance and a significant
portion of its energy is covered by renewable energy sources. Therefore, in the study,
nearly zero energy levels of buildings and district energy systems were investigated
by the contribution of renewable energy systems. Another purpose of the
implementation of methodology framework of EPBD at district scale is to increase the
effect of renewable energy systems to diminish the gap between cost-optimal levels
and nearly zero energy levels.

7
 Literature Review

In the study, a new approach to implement the EPBD methodology at the settlement
scale both on buildings and district energy systems was proposed. Thus, several
directives, regulations, standards and research results were utilised to build up a
unique methodology. In this section, the review of these literature, including legislative
documents and research papers about the energy politics, EPBD implementations and
district energy systems, will be summarised.

1.2.1 Building energy performance legislations

The legislative documents mentioned here are also described detailly in other sections
of the dissertation. Here, a comprehensive summary is given.

In Europe, building energy performance certification studies were initiated by the

Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) published in 2002 [5]. This first
directive obligated the MS to set minimum requirements of the energy performance of
the buildings and constitute a national calculation methodology for building energy
performance certifications [5]. Following this directive, all MS revised or renewed
their legislations about energy performance of buildings and established their national
calculation methodologies for building energy certification.

Turkey, also, had taken action following the EPBD 2002 [5] and Energy Efficiency
Law was published in 2007 [11]. Before the Law, building energy performance criteria
was defined by the TS 825 Thermal Insulation Rules in Buildings Standard which was
published first in 1981 and revised lastly in 2013 [21]. The standard sets the minimum
U values (heat transfer coefficients) and condensation control criteria for building
envelope elements for different climate types and in Turkey. However, Energy
Efficiency Law sets the general extent of financial incentives for energy efficiency
invetments, energy management and energy certification of buildings. It also
mandated a regulation to be published to set the detailed framework of building energy
certification system [11]. Thus, the Building Energy Performance Regulation was
published first in 2008 and revised in 2010 [12].

Turkish National Building Energy Certification System [13] was constituted by the
Regulation [12] and the calculation procedure was based on EN 13790 Energy
performance of buildings - Calculation of energy use for space heating and cooling

8
[22]. The simple hourly dynamic calculation method was chosen for the certification
system and it was completed in 2010 to be used to certificate the buildings [13].

Meanwhile in Europe, the EPBD was revised and in 2010 EPBD recast was published
[6]. The building energy performance certification systems were also obliged to be
revised complying with the EPBD recast, as it requires to set minimum energy
performance requirements for cost optimal levels of buildings. Global cost calculation
procedure had to be adopted to the certification calculation procedures. But
principally, MS should have to revise their legislations related to the building energy
certification systems and determine the nearly zero energy levels for buildings taking
into account their national economic and social conditions.

Another directive was published in 2012 about energy efficiency (Energy Efficiency
Directive 2012/27/EU) [15] to set the measures to ensure the achievement of 2020
target of the Union. It obligates the MS to set their 2020 energy efficiency targets in
line with the Union overall target and explaines the necessary measures about periodic
renovation of buildings, especially public ones, implementing regulatory actions,
energy audits and management systems reaching these targets. The same directive also
requires a comprehensive assessment of the potential for the application of high-
efficiency cogeneration and efficient district heating and cooling systems which will
be renewed every 5 years. This assessment should include a cost-benefit analysis
taking into account the climate conditions, economic feasibility and technical
suitability of the systems.

For the European Union 2020, 2030, 2040 and 2050 targets, decrease in renewable
energy share takes also a significant role and a directive about renewable energy usage
(Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EU) has been taken in force in 2009 to promote
the national targets about renewable energy share in MS [23]. The mentioned
renewable energy usage is not limited with buildings and the directive binds the MS
to develope national renewable energy action plans setting the target for 2020
renewable energy share in energy consumption of transport, electricity, heating and
cooling.

1.2.2 EPBD related literature

After EPBD recast was published in 2010 [6], all member states (MS) in EU began to
work to adopt their national legislation and energy performance certificate systems,

9
which were set according to EPBD 2002. D’aggostino summarized the progress of all
member states had been taken until 2014 to implement the EPBD requierements, to
elaborate the nZEB (nearly zero energy building) definition in their legislation and to
set cost optimum methodology in building energy certifiction systems [24]. All MS
has recorded a progress more or less, but assuring to meet the 2018 and 2020 targets.
Additionally several multinational reserach projects funded by EU has been completed
to accelarate the progress and to specify possible problematic points of the
methodology and to examine the solutions. Projects such as TABULA and EPISCOPE
considered the existing residential buildings, their classification for reference building
definitions and refurbishment measures for cost optimal levels [25, 26, 27]. Also
another research project called IEE RePublic_ZEB was completed which was focused
on public building through EU, while EPBD recast target for public buildings is getting
closer [28, 29, 30].

Individual studies were also focused recently on implementing the cost-optimal

methodology of EPBD recast on different types of buildings, under different climate
conditions. Pikas et al. examined the nearly zero energy levels for different types of
buildings according to Estonian legislation and calculated the necessary renewable
energy (PV) contribution and required subsidy amount to cover the financial gap
between nearly zero energy and cost-optimal levels. They also searched about the
effect of this renewable energy usage to the country budget in terms of energy savings,
subsidies, taxes, employement, etc. They concluded that PV investments are
profittable both for building investors and government [31]. Brinks et al. investigated
the cost-optimal nearly zero energy levels of industrial buildings which are
significantly different from other buildings with high internal loads and internal
temperatures. Thus, they carried out a parametric analysis including different functions
of buildings with different geometries, several internal gains caused by process loads,
interior temperatures, glazing types and envelope configurations. As a result, they
specified the cost-optimal U values for different configurations of the industrial
buildings [32]. Tsalikis and Martinopoulos investigated the renewable energy potential
of four different cities in Greece to reach nearly zero energy levels in residential
buildings. They analysed several configurations of solar pannels, storage tanks, boilers
and photovoltaic panels and calculated net present values and payback periods for each
investment alternatives [33]. Becchio et al. used the cost-optimal methodology of

10
EPBD as a decision-making tool and analyzed the effect of the energy and economic
aspects to the architectural and mechanical system design of a building [34].

There are several studies which are combining the cost-optimal methodology with
other methodologies to reach higher precision in the final decisions. Zavadskas et al.
adapted the Multi Attribute Decision Making (MADM) methodology in Passive Hause
and nearly zero energy building design and defined the cost-optimal solution by
proposing a new approach called “MADM optimal” [35]. Ferrara et al. combined the
cost-optimal methodology of EPBD and optimization analysis to investigate the effect
of building envelope and energy systems to the nearly zero energy levels. They
conducted the study for two different climate and proved that the solutions leading to
nearly zero energy levels of buildings are highly dependent on climate [36]. Lindberg
et al. used a mixed-integer optimisation model to define the nearly zero energy
building parameters which are affecting the grid the most in Germany. They have
analysed several mechanical and renewable energy systems and found that nationally
determined ZEB level is crucial as it affects the renewable energy system type and
capacity [37]. In another study, Seljom et al. analysed the effect of zero energy
buildings (ZEB) on the Scandinavian energy grid in a time period from 2010 to 2050.
They used the bottom-up optimization modelling and concluded that electricity
generation will be increased and heating demand will be lowered by ZEBs. Finally
they explained the effects of decreased energy demands on the energy prices,
investments, and operational risks that Scandinavian energy systems would face in the
future (38).

Abela et al. wanted to investigate the current building energy performance certification
systems (EPC) in Mediterranean countries such as Malta, Italy, Greece and Cyprus to
see the differences among them, to compare and to check their reliability. They
compared the certification system results with dynamic simulation results and metered
data of four residential buildings. The researchers resulted that, EPCs methodology
was developed by EPBD considering mostly the nothern countries where heating is
primary energy load. What’s more, the energy performance of an average
mediterranean house without any measures stays already below the maximum limits
of Passifhous standard [39]. Gonzales and Yousif shown that the main energy
consuming areas are lighting and water heating in a mediterranean hotel in Malta and
cooling energy consumption is nearly 5 times higher than heating energy consumption.

11
Therefore they analysed some measures for lighting and mechanical systems
combined with renewable energy systems. Finally they achieved nearly 50% of
improvement in energy consumption of the hotel which corresponds to class A in
Building Energy Performance Certification system of Malta [40]. Zaca et al.
investigated the cost optimal solutions for mediterranean apartment blocks in Italy.
They have used national building energy performance certification tool which is
developed under EPBD recast (2010) requirements [41]. Ascione et al. aimed to
achieve a guideline for nearly zero energy building design in typical Mediterranean
climate and coupled the optimization techniques with building energy performance
simulations. The problem includes the minimizing both the heating and cooling loads.
They performed a case study which was a building envelope optimization of a small
residential building in four different Mediterranean cities [42]. Oliveira Panao et al.
analysed the primary energy consumption of the residential buildings in Lisbon and
tried to define a threshold for primary energy consumptions of nearly zero energy
residential buildings in Mediterranean climate conditions. They concluded that total
primary energy consumption can be between 90 and 110 kWh/m2 per year, depending
on the different primary energy conversion factors given in different national and
international standards [43].

Turkey, where the case study takes place, has cities in mediterranean and cold climates.
Ganiç and Yılmaz analysed the cost optimal levels of a theoretical office building in
different cities in Turkey by utilizing the EPBD methodology. They focused on the
national parameters affecting the cost optimal levels [44]. Ashrafian et al. also used
the EPBD methodology to define the affordable refurbishment steps for existing
residential buildings in different cities of Turkey[45].

1.2.3 District heating and cooling related literature

District energy systems are being used since the 14th century and since then the fluid
temperature is getting lowered, from steam to low temperature water, and fuel types
are getting diversified such as wood chips, wastes, renewable energy, etc.; so that the
efficiency is getting higher [46, 47]. Throughout Europe, in 2012, there were about
6000 district heating and cooling systems which produced 12% of energy for
residential and service sectors [47]. Rezaie and Rosen asserted that district energy
systems have several advantages for society and energy efficiency. The users within a

12
district system have the flexibility of chosing the heat source. Local energy resources
can be managed more effecteively while biomass from biological wastes and waste
heat from severeal processes in buildings can be added to district heating loop easily.
On the contrary, high investment costs, planning restraints and monopoly potential are
listed as drawbacks of the district energy systems[48].

There are severeal studies which are focused on pricing mechanisims of district energy
companies, as it is crucial to persuade the customers to select them. Song et al.
investigated district heating price models in Sweden, while building regulations are
getting stricter in energy performance, lowered energy demands may cause a price
increase in district heating componies. They asserted that current pricing methods does
not reflect the users’ consumption behaviours and proposed that integrating new
pricing schemes, which allow the customers to see their behaviour effect on
consumption, may lead more energy efficien and smart grid systems [49]. Li et al. also
analysed the pricing schemes of district heating systems and indicated that the price
and efficiency difference between stand alone systems and district heating systems
determine the competitiveness of the district heating systems [50].

Another factor for competitiveness is the density of the settlements; as the heat density
increase, distribution losses decrease [46]. Rimanchi discussed about district energy
network in his paper and he also asserted that according to several studies, disrict
energy systems are economically feasible for high density settlements and industrial
complexes where heat density is high. However, according to him, in order to
determine the feasibility of a district energy system, long-term financial analyses
should be performed, and depending on several other factors, low-dense areas may be
also feasible for district energy systems [47]. Paiho and Reda also asserted that reduced
energy consumption of buildings, which means reduced heat demand hinder the
efficient usage of district energy systems, as it depends on the heat density [51].

The declarations of EPBD recast are explained before, as it requires a long-term

economical analyses for buildings to determine the energy efficiency measures to be
implemented. Similarly, several studies proposed to implement the EPBD
methodology to district energy systems. In this point, determination of the district
energy demand requires attention. Kazas et al. explained the approaches for obtaining
district scale energy demand profiles and developed a methodoly by using “bottom-up
engineering approach” and implemented it to a case study [52]. Aguaci et al.

13
implemented the cost-optimal methodology of EPBD at settlement level and
developed a decision making tool for Spain to accelarate the building scale decisions
and support urban planning and renewal projects dependent on building types, climate
and macroeconomic scenarios [16].

Under the EU Seventh Framework Programme, Marie Curie Initial Training Network
funded the CI-NERGY Project aiming to train young scientists about urban scale
energy analysis and to promote them for developing software tools for operational
optimization and maximisation the renewable energy usage [53]. Outcomes and
achievements of the programme were summarised in several papers. Cajot et al.
focused on the energy planning integration on urban planning and they asserted that it
would be a complex problem. Conflicting objectives and values of multiple
stakeholders, need for iterative decision making with scientific, political and
administrative complexity and long term vision for change in economic parameters
and energy prices, new technologies, population growth, etc. are some of the
problematic points they summarised [54]. Wate and Coors identified the necessary
input parameters and explained their characterization for thermal energy simulations
at the district scale in their paper [55]. Other reserchers focused on urban scale energy
demand estimation methods. Tardioli et al. explained the different approaches for the
estimation. White-box based approaches require simulation of representative buildings
and then the results are aggregated for the urban scale energy demand. Black-box
based approaches use data analysis tools to predict directly larger scale energy
demand. Grey-box based approaches are the hybrid and combine the collected data
and simulation results [56]. Shüler et al. implemented the multiple linear regression
model to the data obtained for 47000 buildings in the canton of Geneva in Switzerland.
They identified the most critical parameters affecting the energy demand depending
on building function [57]. Monsalvete et al. developed building physical models in
INSEL (simulation program) in connection with CityGML (urban modelling tool) and
integrated them into SimStadt, which is an urban energy simulation platform, to
predict the urban scale energy demand [58].

Several studies showed that net zero energy buildings require in-site energy production
such as photovoltaic system (PV) [16]. Paiho and Reda indicated that EPBD recast
2020 targets are leading not only buildings but also the districts to be nearly zero
energy. Nearly or net zero energy buildings in district systems are defined as

14
“prosumers” as they produce and consume energy and their effect on district energy
systems, in terms of energy efficiency, financial, or even pipe dimentioning, should be
analysed deeply. They also assume that nearly zero energy districts can be achieved
by reducing the supply temperatures and renewable energy contribution [51]. Nielsen
and Möller aimed to investigate the excess heat production by solar collectors in
district heating areas. They classified the district heating areas in Denmark according
to their main plant and fuel type and developed a future projection for 2050 of newly
built net zero houses and existing building with 50% decreased heat demand within
several district heating areas. They finally asserted that prioritization between building
level and district level solar heat production is crucial as it affects the storage capacity
and system efficiency [59].

Rismanchi asserted that the fundamental discrepancy between a conventional building

stand alone system and district energy system is thermal energy storage facility [47].
Paiho et al. focused on seasonal heat storage in distric energy systems and compared
the usage of renewable energy systems, solar pannels and PVs, with seasonal storage
in a district with zero energy buildings (SunZED) with a district consisted of standard
buildings according to 2012 Finnish building codes. Their analyses on renewables at
district scale included self sufficiency, uncovered energy demand and emissions.
Generally speaking, they concluded that renewable energy systems with thermal
storage are more efficient in standard district while the emissions are lower in the
SunZED [60].

District energy systems are widely used especially in Nordic countries in EU [48]. In
nothern countries, the district systems are mostly providing heat to the customers, as
it is the main energy demand. Joelsson and Gustavssons showed that energy efficiency,
in terms of primary energy, of residential buildings in a district heating system is
highly dependent on the heating system in Sweden. The electricity supply system and
envelope measures are less effective on primary energy consumption [61]. In more
milder climates, also cooling may be a demanding function. Rodriguez-Aumente et al.
proposed a sizing methodology for the trigeneration plants which provide heating,
cooling and electricity for office buildings in Spain and analysed different operation
modes. They also integrated thermal solar system to the trigeneration and calculated
the investment costs and payback periods [62]. In Turkey, district energy systems are

15
mostly based on geothermal heating systems as Turkey has one of the richest sources
in the World [63-66].

Kılkış has proposed a new four-step analysis methodology to achieve scenarios for
nearly or net zero exergy districts and she implemented the proposed methodology to
a case study for Östra Sala backe district in Uppsala, Sweden [67]. Malliotakis and
Founti have proposed a new energy management strategy for districts, which is district
micro-grids. They create thermal and electric micro-grids including one building and
micro-chps and they interconnect each micro-grid with backup boilers and heat storage
tanks in the district. They have simulated the proposed case and compared the results
with a reference case with building specific gas boilers. Micro-grid energy
management system achieved a 11.7% improvement in primary energy consumption
[68].

Hypothesis

In recent years, the concerns about energy are not only limited with the supply; but
also with affordability, sustainability, security and social approval [47, 69]. EU, by
EPBD recast and other energy related directives explained before in section 1.2.1,
aimed to reduce external dependence on energy sources, to decrease the money spent
on energy in all sectors and to increase the sustainability by introducing clean and
renewable energy sources. However, after 2020, European Union long term targets of
2030 and 2050 obviously requires further measures and stricter policies. These low
energy and low carbon targets would require the increase the usage of renewables.
Even though the prices of renewable energy technologies are continuosly decreasing,
they still require high investment costs. From this point of view, the principal problem
that EPBD put in front of the MS to solve was how to close the financial gap between
the cost-optimal and nearly zero energy levels.

Considering the recent studies, explained above chapters, the researches were focused
on efficient usage, financial feasibility, flexibility and sustainability of energy, both at
building and district level. Nevertheless, the number of papers which study the
buildings together with district energy systems are limited as a new research theme.
According to the hypothesis of this study, even though the building scale measures are
fundamental and inevitable, they are restricted with the urban scale design parameters.
Because the cities and settlements are being planned by top-down approach, beginning

16
from larger scales to smaller scales. Thus, the energy efficiency, affordability,
sustainability, security and social acceptance should be secured by upper scale
decisions, then in buildings.

Furthermore, the recent studies also showed that today the energy systems should
integrate all available energy systems such as electricity, heat, cooling, gas, etc for
flexibility, security and sustainability of the service. This integration, however, makes
it necessary to assess the economic and environmental benefits of the several
alternative district energy systems [69].

In the study, it is hypothesized that more energy efficiency, affordability and

sustainability can be obtained by implementing energy efficiency measures endorsed
by long-term financial analyses, as proposed in EPBD recast, to buildings and to
district energy systems. There are studies searching the urban scale energy efficiency
and using the urban design and simulation tools for mapping, benchmarking and
identifying the potentials of waste heat, peak power demand and retrofit needs [53-
58]. There are also studies which are aiming to extend the implementation of EPBD in
buildings and they use mostly statistical data to predict the district scale energy
demand [16]. The methodology proposed in the dissertation is closer to the second
type of researches, but in this study the district scale energy demand and consumption
data were obtained by simulations, and not derived by statistical work. Furthermore,
differently from other researches, EPBD methodology was proposed to implement at
the district energy system alternatives as a decision making process.

17
18
 BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF
BUILDINGS DIRECTIVE METHODOLOGY

Building energy performance can be expressed as final energy consumption/demand,

primary energy consumption/demand, energy costs, CO2 emissions etc. and they are
all the annual/seasonal sum of heating, cooling, electricity, domestic hot water,
lighting, and any other energy consuming activity. Building energy efficiency, on the
other hand, depends on several parameters. There are site related -such as location,
orientation, climate-, building design related –such as form, surface to volume ratio,
plan scheme, materials used, mechanical systems, renewable energies, etc.-, and
occupancy related –such as usage schedules and habits- parameters. All these
parameters affect the building energy efficiency in a way that conflict with any other.
Thus, high energy efficiency requires the optimization of all these parameters to reach
lower total values of final/primary energy consumptions, energy costs etc., which
means high energy performance, at the same time. Energy consumed by buildings has
a great portion of total consumption, generally about 30% - 40% [57, 58], so the
legislative actions to increase the building energy performance were started to be taken
in the last decades by several nations.

European Commission has published the first Energy Performance of Buildings

Directive (EPBD) on 2002 [5]. EPBD 2002 has obliged the Member States (MS) to
set minimum requirements on energy performance of new buildings. It also has given
a general methodology to calculate the energy performance of buildings and obliged
the MS to set their national calculation methodology to certificate the energy
performance of the new buildings or existing buildings under a major renovation.
Additionally it has set regular inspection of plants including boilers and air
conditioning systems to ensure their efficiency and sizing requirements.

EPBD 2002 has aimed a general energy consumption reduction on buildings through
Europe, but in 2010 European Commission has revised EPBD with more precise
targets. EPBD Recast [6] introduced the cost-optimal energy performance level and

19
rearranged the objective of the minimum energy performance requirements of MS to
achieve cost-optimal levels. Furthermore, EPBD Recast put the objective that all MS
shall set up national plans to increase the number of nearly-zero energy buildings. So
that, after 2018 all new public buildings and after 2020 all new buildings shall be
constructed as nearly-zero energy building.

European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ECEEE) has published a

document titled “Cost optimal building performance requirements, Calculation
methodology for reporting on national energy performance requirements on the basis
of cost optimality within the framework of the EPBD” in 2011 in which a calculation
methodology is proposed to determine cost optimal and nearly zero energy building
requirements, just after EPBD recast is published in 2010 [70].

European Council on the energy performance of buildings has published a regulation

(244/2012) [20] to set the common framework of the cost-optimal levels calculation
for buildings in 2012. According to the regulation, calculation can be divided into
following steps:

- Definition of reference buildings for different building categories stated in the

regulation,
- Determination of energy related measures and/or packages,
- Calculation of primary energy consumption resulting from the application of
measures and/or packages to the reference buildings,
- Calculation of the global costs of each measures and/or packages,
- Sensitivity analyses for cost input data,
- Determination of cost-optimal levels for each different building category,
- Definition of minimum energy requirements for each different building
category.

Definitions

2.1.1 Reference building

Reference building concept is used basically to accept a base to compare the energy
performance of the designed or studied building. Reference building can be a real
building or it can be constituted virtually representing similar function, geometry, year
of construction and other relevant data of a cluster of buildings [16, 71].

20
According to the purpose of the study or to the national objectives, reference building
definition may differ. If, for example, the study is about a specific building, the
reference building should have the same location and form as the designed building,
but its envelope and energy systems should reflect the minimum requirements of the
existing standards. In American standard ASHRAE 90.1 [72], for instance, there are
rules to define transparency ratio and orientation of the reference buildings, so that
these parameters related to the building envelope may be different than the actual
building. If the study is about a major renovation of an existing building, reference
building shall reflect the building’s existing conditions before renovation; so that the
renovated parameters’ effect on energy performance can be evaluated. If the study
aims to achieve energy performance requirements not for a specific building, but for a
general category of building in a determined location or climate, the geometry,
including orientation and transparency ratio, of the reference building should be
representative for the same type of buildings in that region. For the new constructions,
again, reference building’s envelope and energy systems shall reflect the standard
values. However for the existing building renovations, if the national standards differ
by years, several reference buildings may be defined for building envelope and energy
systems for different construction years.

2.1.2 Energy Performance Calculation

Energy performance calculation is divided into 3 steps in ECEEE document [70].

Firstly energy demand for heating, cooling and ventilation is calculated. As a second
step, annual delivered energy including heating, cooling, ventilation, domestic hot
water and lighting systems are calculated. Finally, delivered energy is converted into
primary energy, CO2 emissions, etc. as an indicative parameter.

EN ISO 13790 [22] explains the heating and cooling energy demand calculation
procedures in different detail levels, which are monthly quasi-steady-state, simple
hourly dynamic and detailed dynamic calculation procedures. In monthly quasi-
steady-state calculation method, calculation time step is a month or season. For the
calculation of annual heating and cooling energy need, separate calculations should be
performed for each month. Utilization factors are used to take into account the heat
gains or heat losses. Compared to quasi-steady-state calculation, dynamic methods
have shorter calculation time steps, such as one hour. Simple hourly dynamic method

21
is as transparent and robust as monthly method and also it requires reduced input data
and allows a simplified calculation with limited set of equations compared to detailed
dynamic method. For each time step (an hour) the calculation, which is based on
simplified heat transfer between the internal and external environment and between
thermal zones, is repeated and then the results are cumulated to find out the annual
heating and cooling needs. Finally, detailed dynamic calculation can be defined as
‘simulation of the building’s behaviour’ and uses highly complex algorithms with
numerous input data to calculate heat transfer, solar heat gains, internal heat gains,
shadings, air flows and other various parameters in a time step of one hour or even
shorther intervals.

Annual delivered energy is calculated depending on the energy demand of the

building. It is the amount of energy delivered to the building, so it takes into account
the efficiencies and losses of the HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning)
systems. Finally, delivered energy can be converted into primary energy, CO 2
emissions, etc., by utilizing the conversion factors which are determined by national
and/or governmental bodies or international standards [73].

A general framework is also given for energy performance calculation in the ANNEX
I of EPBD recast [6].

2.1.3 Cost optimal building

Cost-optimal level of buildings is defined as “the energy performance level which

leads to the lowest cost during the estimated economic lifecycle” in EPBD recast [6].
Estimated economic lifecycle asserted in the definition is determined by the
Regulation 244/2012 [20] as 30 years for residential buildings and 20 years for non-
residential buildings. The lifecycle cost should include investment costs of energy-
related measures, their maintenance costs, energy costs during the determined lifecycle
and residual costs, as it will be explained in detail under “Global cost calculation
procedure” title.

Life cycle costs, which are named as global costs, expressed in €/m2, are compared
together with their projections in annual primary energy consumptions, expressed in
kWh/m2. An example graph was produced by ECEEE in Figure 2.1, where energy
related measures are shown together with their global costs and primary energy

22
consumptions, so that economic optimum solution can be determined as the package
with the lowest global cost [70].

Defining a cost optimum [70].

2.1.4 Nearly zero energy building

Nearly zero energy building is defined in EPBD recast [6] as a building which has a
very high energy performance. However, it doesn’t state exact values for primary
energy consumptions or other energy performance indicators to reach nearly zero
energy levels. There are two main steps to achieve nearly zero energy level in a
building design, which are minimizing the energy demand and minimizing the primary
energy demand, respectively [24, 36]. Clearly, renewable energy sources should be
introduced to the buildings. In the light of this information, each MS is responsible for
the determination of the nearly zero energy levels and renewable energy contribution
for different types of buildings in their building stock [28]. Renewable energy systems
have relatively high investment costs, but fortunately, lifecycle cost (global cost) takes
into account also the produced energy during the determined lifecycle period. Thus,
the nearly zero energy level solution can be placed as number 1 solution in Figure 2.1
with primary energy consumption close to zero and relatively high global cost.

2.1.5 District energy systems

District energy systems refering to ‘district heating’ or ‘district cooling’ were defined
in EPBD recast as “the distribution of thermal energy in the form of steam, hot water
or chilled liquids, from a central source of production through a network to multiple

23
buildings or sites.” [6]. Actually, district energy systems are among the listed ‘high-
efficiency alternative systems’ in EPBD for new buildings to meet minimum energy
performance requirements and it was asserted that their contribution to the energy
efficiency shall be taken into account.

Global cost calculation procedure

There are two possible long-term cost calculation methods suggested in EN

15459:2007 [74]. “Equivalent annuity calculation” in which each costs during a time
period are converted to annual costs by annuity factor and “Net present value
calculation” in which each costs during a time period are converted to the present
values of starting year of the project (building). In the Regulation 244/2012 [20], net
present value method is accepted as global cost calculation and in this study also it is
used for global cost calculations. Both calculation procedures are described in detail
in EN 15459:2007 and here is given the net present value calculation steps. Basic input
parameters are energy related investments, periodic replacement costs of these
investments, maintenance and operation costs, energy costs, as asserted in ECEEE
document [70]. Following equation (3.1) is the formula for global cost (Cg) calculation.

 
Cg    CI    Ca ,i  j xRd i   V f ,  j  (3.1)
j  i 1 

Global cost in the starting year (Cg(τ)) is equal to the sum of investment costs (CI) and
long term (τ years) energy costs, operational costs, replacement costs, periodic
maintenance costs related to investment j (Ca,i(j)) multiplied by discount rate for year
i (Rd(i)) and subtraction of residual value of component j (Vf,τ(j)). Discount rate
depends on the real interest rate RR on the year I, as given in equation (3.2).

i
 1 
Rd    (3.2)
 1  RR 

Real interest rate (RR) depends on the market rate (R) and on the inflation rate (Ri) on
the year i, as given in equation (3.3).

24
  R  Ri 
RR    (3.3)
 1  Ri 

Estimated economic lifecycle asserted in the definition is determined by the

Regulation 244/2012 [20] as 30 years for residential buildings and 20 years for non-
residential buildings. Non-energy related construction investments may be added in
the global cost calculations, but they should be fixed for all different packages of
measures. The package with the lowest global cost is chosen as “cost optimum
solution” and the one with the lowest annual primary energy consumption is chosen
as “nearly zero energy solution”.

25
26
 A NEW APPROACH TO EVALUATE THE NEARLY ZERO ENERGY
CONCEPT OF EPBD RECAST AT DISTRICT SCALE

In the previous section, the general framework of the EPBD methodology was
explained. The proposed methodology in the dissertation to evaluate the district energy
systems to reach nearly zero energy levels is based on this framework. As the aim of
this study is achieving the very high energy efficiency, so called nearly zero energy
level, with possible minimum global cost, it is proposed applying the EPBD
methodology framework at district level. Thus, the proposed methodology is divided
into actions basically including reference building description, cost-optimal and nearly
zero energy level buildings determination, reference district description and cost-
optimal and nearly zero energy level district determination.

The following diagram shown in Figure 3.1 displays all actions of the proposed
methodology.

The hypothetical actions of this new approach are explained below.

27
Figure 3.1 : Flow diagram of the proposed methodology.

28
Figure 3.1 (continued): Flow diagram of the proposed methodology.

29
 Evaluation of the District Area and Energy Performance Related
Parameters

Total energy consumption of a settlement is the sum of energy consumed by buildings,

transportation and public services like lighting, water refining, waste disposal, etc. In
the study, however, energy performance of a settlement is limited to building related
systems, to be in line with the scope.

Prior to the nearly zero energy district calculations, the characteristics of the selected
area should be evaluated. For the further calculations several data should be collected
related to region, settlement and buildings. These data can vary for newly planned or
existing settlements, however basically the same parameters should be detected.
Existing districts would have less opportunity to reach a high level of energy efficiency
because of their completed design. On the other hand, newly planned settlements have
higher chance to reach closer to the zero energy levels, but there are less numbers of
them.

Regional data of the settlement may include the climate, location and orientation of
the territory, available fuel types and local energy sources. The regional data will be
the same for existing or newly planned settlements. Climate data should include annual
temperature, humidity, radiation, wind speed and orientation values at hourly detail
level to be used in calculations and simulations. Location and orientation would have
impact on insolation and shadowing patterns, so the heat gains of buildings and solar
renewable energy system design would be affected. Available fuel types and local
energy sources in the region would affect the single building and district energy system
selection. Organic wastes or biomass product potential should be carefully analyzed to
achieve a more environmentally friendly and sustainable district.

When evaluating the district area, settlement related data would be different in newly
planned settlements and existing ones. Building locations and distances between them
will be unchangable in existing settlements and these affect the energy density of the
district depending on the energy consumptions of the buildings. On the other hand, in
newly planned settlements, building locations and distances should be decided to
optimize the shadings, solar heat gains and district energy system distribution
structure. In existing settlements, green infrastructure is more easy to control or change
to eliminiate unwanted solar heat gains and to increase shading effect on desired

30
seasons. District energy system location is also an important factor to minimize the
distribution losses, so the most appropriate area for the disrict energy systems should
be found in the existing or new settlements. Similarly, for renewable energy system a
proper area should be selected, such as unshaded area for photovoltaics or wind
receiving area for wind turbines. In existing settlements, the proper areas for renewable
energy systems may be limited, while in newly planned settlements these areas can be
reserved easily.

In the district, building related data includes building types and numbers, their energy
consumptions and waste energy usage possibility. Building types and numbers are
decided to settlement needs, so in new or existing districts may not differ. However,
their energy performance is affected by their locations, orientations, shading patterns,
etc, so newly planned districts give more opportunity for high energy efficiency.
Additionally, in the settlements, there may be buildings which have high internal heat
sources and produce waste heat which can be used for heating in other buildings. If
this effect is not considered in existing settlements, the waste heat can be lost during
transformation from the source building to the others, so the waste heat usage may not
feasable. In the new settlements, the waste heat potential should be examined the
source and receiving buildings should be planned closer to decrease the distribution
losses.

Definition of the Reference Buildings

Reference buildings for all building types which are planned to be situated in the
district should be defined to represent the building stock and standard
implementations. They should represent the general geometry, orientation, shading,
electrical and mechanical features of the real buildings of the same type and should be
designed according to minimum requirements of the standards related to building
envelope, electrical and mechanical systems. Energy saving measures will be implied
to the reference building later on, thus they are basically the reference cases to compare
and demonstrate the energy efficiency and the global costs differences of each
measure.

There are two different approaches in literature to define the reference buildings, as it
is mentioned under 2.1.1. A real building to represent the building stock the best can
be chosen in existing settlements. On the other hand, a virtual reference building can

31
be determined according to the standards and conventional building parameters in
newly planned disticts, where the building designs are not completed.

Energy performance of the reference buildings should be calculated by the determined

methodology and expressed as annual primary energy consumption (kWh/m2 – y). The
different calculation methodologies are explained under 2.1.2.

Global costs of the reference buildings should be calculated by the net present value
calculation methodology explained under 2.2 and global costs should include the
investment cost and long term running costs. Investment costs of the reference
buildings can be calculated by market values or statictical data, depending on which
one is available and most appropriate for the study. Statistical data may also include
the unit prices to construct the whole building based on typology and function. If this
kind of data is used, the building elements should be distinguished whether they affect
the energy performance or not. The investment costs of the building elements, such as
load bearing structure, which do not have direct effect on energy performance, may be
assumed as fixed costs. So that, for each different energy efficiency measure or
measure package applied to the reference building, global cost can be calculated by
changing only the applied measures’ investment and maintenance costs.

Definition of the Energy Efficiency Measures

Energy performance of the reference buildings will be improved by various measures

that affect energy efficiency of the buildings. These measures may include
improvements of building envelope, such as insulation thickness, fenestration type,
transparency ratio, shadings, etc, improvements of lighting system and mechanical
systems. Measures can be combined to packages to reach higher level of improvements
which lead to nearly zero energy level. As it was asserted in ECEEE document, the
final result would be more distinct if the variaty of measures and their combinations
will be as much as possible [70]. It is also important that the data collected about the
measures should be consistent with the energy performance calculation methodology
chosen.

All measures or packages applied to the buildings should comply with related technical
regulations and minimum requirements of the standards. They shouldn’t conflict with

32
regional application techniques or social needs. Measures should be defined with their
investment costs including material, transportation, labour and tax costs.

Additionally, applying a measure or a package may lead to lower sizes of mechanical

systems in the building, because of decreased energy demands. So, for each package
the sizing of the mechanical systems should be calculated. It should be remembered
that, the smaller sizes of mechanical systems would have lower investment costs.

Application of the Measures to the Buildings and Calculation of Energy

Performance and Global Costs to Determine the Cost Optimal and Nearly Zero
Energy Scenarios

Application of the measures to the buildings means changing the building elements,
such as insulation thickness in the external wall, more efficient lighting fixtures or
more efficienct boilers, in the reference building to increase the energy performance.
For each package of measures applied to the reference buildings, energy performance
as annual primary energy use and global costs which include the investment,
replacement, maintenance, residual and long term running costs will be calculated in
this step.

3.4.1 Calculation of energy performance

The three possible calculation procedure for energy performance of the buildings,
given in ISO/EN 13790 [22], were explained in Section 2. Each may be selected
depending on data availibility, tool availability and the desired result coherence levels.
In most European Countries the building energy certification tools were developed
mostly by monthly quasi-steady-state or simple hourly dynamic methods. In Turkey,
the national building energy certification tool also uses the simple hourly dynamic
method [13]. Besides that, the detailed dynamic calculation, for instance, requires the
usage of simulation tools because of its complex calculation algorithm. EN 15265 [75]
explains inputs and calculation procedure for different parameters of the energy
performance such as solar distribution, infiltration or internal loads, and also it gives a
set of validation tests for simulation tools. Generally, simulation tools, which are based
on dynamic detailed calculation, should have the ability to make calculations in hourly
and/or shorter time steps, to model wide range of architectural and mechanical
systems, to make demand calculations, to do mechanical system sizings, to give

33
detailed reports for results, etc. Energy performance should be calculated as annual
primary energy consumption (kWh/m2-year) for each measure package.

3.4.2 Calculation of global cost

The global cost calculation procedure was explained in the section 2.2 and it can be
defined basically as the sum of investment costs and net present values of long term
energy, maintenance and replacement costs.

The most critical inputs in the calculation are the investment costs, discount rate, and
calculation period. Investment costs of the building elements generally vary a lot
depending on the brand, location, amounts in the building, etc. For that reason,
reaching the real market values, especially for the research projects, may be difficult.
Discount rates are used to convert the value of a building component in a specific time
in future into present’s value. They depend on the market conditions and the values to
be used should represent the long term averages and future foresights. The unstabilities
of the market in a country make it difficult to determine the appropriate value for the
discount rate and this may cause misleading results. Some parametric calculations may
be performed to reveal the effect of discount rate to the final results. Calculation period
also represents the economic life time of the buildings. In the Regulation 244/2012
[20], economic life time for residential buildings are assumed to be 30 years and for
non-residential buildings it is assumed to be 20 years.

The energy costs and annual maintenance costs for building elements should be added
to the sum after converting their future values into present day values by disvcount
rates, as explained. Additionally, some building components have shorter lifespan
periods than the determined calculation period, thus they need to be replaced/renewed
a couple of times during the calculation period. Lifespan periods and annual
maintenance cost requirements for mechanical components are defined in the Annex
A of EN15459 [74]. Building materials, in spite of mechanical equipments, have
longer lifespan periods, which are determined by manufacturers, than the calculation
period. In this case, at the end of the calculation period, the residual value of the
building materials should be converted into present day values again and excluded
from the total sum.

Global costs (euro/m2) should be calculated for each package of measures of each
building under the scope of these mentioned criteria. Global cost and primary energy

34
consumption results for each building type should be evaluated together and compared
to each other. The package with the lowest global cost would be chosen as “cost
optimum” and the one with the lowest primary energy consumption would be chosen
as the “nearly zero energy” case.

Determination of the District Level Energy Demand

There are basically two approaches in the literature for the determination of the district
level energy demand. Top-down approach is based on easily found aggregated data
and associate the building energy consumptions with econometric and technological
long-term changes. Bottom-up approach starts investigating the building energy
consumption at lower scales, such as one building, and then aggregate the separate
results by statistical or deterministic methods to achieve a district scale result [52].
Bottom-up deterministic (engineering) approach is based on physical models and
simulations of the buildings and in the case study, the “bottom-up engineering
approach” was used to determine the district scale hourly energy demand profile.

Some configurations should be made to connect the building to the district energy
systems and to calculate the energy demand for district systems, both in real life and
in simulation tools. Mechanical systems in buildings which are not connected to a
district energy system, so called building specific systems, have 3 main components:
Terminal units, distributors and generators. Terminal units are used to condition the
zones to the desired temperature/humidity level. Generators (supply side), or plants,
supply hot or cold water/air to the terminal units (demand side) by distributor
components, such as pipes, ducts, etc. Similarly, district level energy systems are
consisted of 3 components which are generation units as supply side, distribution
system and buildings as demand side. Additionally in district energy systems, storage
units can be used to ensure the flexibility. As it can be seen schematically in Figure
3.2, the buildings, which are connected to a district energy system, do not have their
own plants (generators) but only zone level systems (distributors and terminal units).
Their hot water, chilled water and electricity demand is supplied by district systems.
Then the hot and chilled water is utilized in the terminal units by heat exchangers.

35
 Figure 3.2 : System boundaries in buildings and districts.

In the simulation tool, to calculate the energy demand for district energy systems,
building specific generation systems (boilers, chillers, cooling towers, etc.) should be
replaced by district heating and cooling units. So the annual hot and chilled water
demands of the buildings could be calculated. The demand value should be normalized
by the unit floor area for each building type.

District level energy demand can be calculated by accumulating the building level
results. Total floor area for each building type in the settlement should be calculated
and annual energy demand value for each building type (kWh/m2-y) will be multiplied
by that total floor area. Energy demand for district energy system should be calculated
for all three cases, with reference buildings, with cost-optimal buildings and with
nearly zero energy buildings. Finally, when calculating the demand, district
distribution losses should be added also to the building demands.

Definition of the Reference District

As using the same framework methodology of EPBD, for the district level analyses, a
reference case should be defined. Further proposed alternatives and measures will be
compared to the reference case to reveal the effectiveness in energy consumption and
cost saving. This reference case may include district energy systems, if a standard or
regulation defining the minimum requirements. Conversely, reference case may not
include district energy systems and the effects of proposed district energy system
alternatives are displayed comparing this case.

Similar to the building level evaluation, firstly, energy performance in terms of

primary energy consumption of the reference district should be calculated. In case a
district energy system is defined for the reference case, annual energy performance
simulation should be run by using energy demands calculated in the previous step.

36
Thus, three different results will be obtained, one with reference buildings, the second
with cost-optimal buildings and the third with nearly zero energy buildings. If a district
energy system is not defined for the reference case, then the primary energy
consumption of the district will be the sum of each building’s primary energy
consumption.

Secondly, global cost of the reference case should be calculated. As in the building
level calculations, global cost includes similar parameters for districts. At this point, it
is deterministic whether the reference case includes the district energy system or not.
District investment cost can be calculated as the sum of investment costs of all
buildings in the district and district energy system investment cost is added, if it exists
in the reference case. It is important to note that, if the buildings are connected to a
district energy system, investment costs of their plants (boilers, chillers, cooling
towers, etc.) should be excluded from the total investment cost. Another crucial
decision is the length of the calculation period, as it is not determined by any legal
documents. It should be decided in consistent with the building level calculation
periods. Maintenance and replacement costs of the district energy systems should be
added according to their economic life cycle. Financial parameters, such as interest
and inflation rate, should be the same as building level calculations. However, energy
costs may be different for the district energy systems.

Definition of the District Level Energy System Alternatives

After the determination of the reference district, as in buildings, several district energy
system alternatives should be proposed for energy performance improvement of the
district. The alternatives should be evaluated by their efficiencies, investment costs
and long term management costs, as done in the buildings. Moreover, they should be
consistent with local available energy sources, standards and if available, incentives.
Parameters related to settlement configuration would also affect the district energy
system scenarios. Energy density, result of the distances between buildings and the
district energy system, affects the overall distribution losses. Building locations and
shadowing patterns affect the proper area quantity for renewable energy systems.

At district level, there are different potentials such as waste heat transfer and utilization
between buildings, bio-mass usage for fuel extraction and larger capacity usage of
renewable sources. Additionally, combined energy systems such as cogeneration units

37
which produce hot water in combined with electricity and trigeneration units together
with absorption chillers, which produce also chilled water beside electricity and hot
water may be used to meet the heating, cooling and electricity demands of the
settlement.

Calculation of Energy Performances and Global Costs of the District Energy

System Alternatives to Determine the Cost Optimal and Nearly Zero Energy
Scenarios

For each alternative of district energy systems, energy performance as annual primary
energy use and global costs that include the investment costs together with long term
operating and maintenance costs will be calculated as explained for reference districts.

Simulation programs to be used here should be capable to use the hourly demand data
and so to calculate hourly energy generation and hourly not met demands, if exist.
Simulation program should allow the users to analyse different types of energy
carriers, generators, storage units and renewable energy systems.

Global cost calculation procedure is basically the same as building level calculation.

Similarly as the building level calculations, alternative with the lowest global cost is
chosen as “cost optimum solution” and the one with the lowest annual primary energy
consumption is chosen as “nearly zero energy solution”.

38
 APPLICATION OF THE NEW APPROACH TO A CASE STUDY
DISTRICT AREA

The details of the proposed methodology was given in the previous section. A case
study, in this section, was conducted to display the application details and decision
making mechanism of the approach. The same headings of the methodology will be
followed as given in the section 3.

Evaluation of the District Area and Energy Related Parameters

A virtual settlement area was selected to be used in the analyses of this study.
Evaluation of the energy related parameters of the district was made as it was explained
under 3.1

Firstly region related data about location, orientation, climate, local energy sources
and available fuel types were examined. The case study area is assumed to be located
on the south of Eskişehir. It’s a south oriented territory with a slope towards the south.
According to the annual dry bulb temperature variation given for Eskişehir in Figure
4.1, the climate is cold during winter. It can also be seen from the same figure that day
and night temperature differences are high with rather cold nights during summer.
Annual hourly climatic data of dry bulb temperatures, humidity, solar radiation and
wind speed and orientation were retrieved from National Building Energy
Performance Calculation Methodology (BEP-TR) [13]. In the region there are hot
water sources, however the source temperatures are not sufficient to be used in the
heating of the buildings [76]. Natural gas is available in the region as a fossil fuel,
besides the region is appropriate for farming activities to be used as biomass.

Settlement related data were evaluated assuming that it will be newly constructed.
Building locations and distances between each building are determined according to
the annual shadow analyses. For the winter period when the shades are the longest,
shading patterns on the 1st January, at 9:00, 12:00, and 15:00 are analyzed as shown in
Figures between 4.2 and 4.4. The distances between the buildings were determined

39
basically with winter shading patterns, and additionally, spring and summer shading
patterns were tested on 21st March and 21st July, respectively, as given in Figures
between 4.5 and 4.10.

Figure 4.1 : Annual drybulb temperature variation in Eskişehir.

The distances between the buildings would affect the energy density of the settlement.
Long distances between the buildings mean decreasing the energy density and it causes
the increase of the energy delivery losses. Thus an optimization study should be
performed.

Figure 4.2 : Shading pattern on the 1st January at 9:00.

40
Figure 4.3 : Sahing pattern on the 1st January at 12:00.

Figure 4.4 : Shading pattern on the 1st January at 15:00.

Figure 4.5 : Shading pattern on the 21st March at 08:00.

41
Figure 4.6 : Shading pattern on the 21st March at 12:00.

Figure 4.7 : Shading pattern on the 21st March at 16:00.

Figure 4.8 : Shading pattern on the 21st July at 08:00.

42
 Figure 4.9 : Shading pattern on the 21st July at 12:00.

Figure 4.10 : Shading pattern on the 21st July at 16:00.

On the southern border of the settlement a proper area for renewable energy systems
are reserved also, so that the building shadows wouldn’t affect the solar energy
systems’ performances.

Building related data to evaluate include building types and numbers, energy
consumptions of the buildings and the waste energy transfer potential between the
buildings.The case study settlement consists of 34 residential buildings, 7 office
buildings and 1 data center building. The total floor areas of each building type are
given in Table 4.1. Energy consumptions of the buildings will be calculated on the
further steps of the study and waste energy usage potential through heat recovery was
excluded from this study’s scope. However, in settlements it is an important factor for
energy efficiency.

43
 Building areas in the settlement.
Residential Office Data Center
Number of
34 7 1
Buildings
Single Building
5,353.83 16,802.71 10,729.13
Area (m2)
Total Buildings Area
182,030.22 117,618.97 10,729.13
(m2)

Definition of the Reference Buildings

In the case study district area, three different building types were assumed to be
located. Thus the reference cases were determined according to national and
international standards and local building statistics to represent these types of
buildings. As the district area was assumed to be newly constructed, virtual reference
buildings were defined as it was mentioned in 3.2.

The geometry, sizes of the dwelling units, transparency ratio of the residential building
was determined according to the residential building statistics in Eskişehir [76].
Similarly, the form and the plan scheme of the office building was determined
according to the conventional office design practice. Transparency ratio of the building
was determined according to reference case building definition rule of ASHRAE 90.1
2007 standard [72]. The geometry and the transparency ratio of the data-center
building was determined according to the similar small scale industry buildings.

Reference building envelope for each building was designed similarly according to the
limit U values given for Eskişehir (climate zone 3) in TS 825 [21]. These limit values
are shown in Table 4.2.

U values for Eskişehir in TS 825 standard.

External Wall U Roof U Value Floor U Value Glass U Value
Value [W/m2K] [W/m2K] [W/m2K] [W/m2K]
0.48 0.28 0.43 1.8

Internal gains for each building were determined according to the national statistics,
national building energy performance calculation methodology (BEP-TR) [13] and
where the relevant data was not found, ASHRAE 90.1 standard [72] was used.

Mechanical system of the residential building was determined according to the

Building Energy Efficiency Regulation [12]. Due to insufficient data for non-

44
residential and more complex buildings, mechanical systems of office and data center
building were determined according to ASHRAE 90.1 standard [72].

The details are given in the following chapters for each building.

4.2.1 Residential building

Residential building has 2 below grade floors where car parking, refuge area and
technical areas are located and 8 above grade floors where dwelling units with different
sizes are located. Additionally two separate commercial units are situated on the
ground floor. Building has a pitched roof with unconditioned attic area. Figure 4.11
displays the geometric model of the building generated in DesignBuilder [77].

As it is asserted before, residential building’s envelope was designed in accordance

with TS 825 Standard [13] and the U values of building envelope are given in the Table
4.2. Transparency ratio of the building is 23% which is consistent with average
transparency ratio of residential buildings in Eskişehir [76]. Glass SHGC value is 0.56
and Tvis value is 0.8.

Figure 4.11 : Residential building geometric model.

Internal gains and usage schedules of residential building were determined according
to the Eskişehir average family size [76], which is 3 people per flat. Lighting power is
618 W for a dwelling unit with three bedroom and a living room and 10 W/m2 for
common halls [78].

45
Mechanical systems of the residential building were determined according to Building
Energy Performance Regulation [12]. Heating system of the building should be a
central natural gas boiler and radiators in each room according to the Regulation, as
whole building is bigger than 2000 m2. Cooling demand is met by split air conditioners
for each apartment and no mechanical ventilation system is considered as natural
ventilation is specified. However, fresh air need of the commercial stores in the ground
floor was met by air handling units (AHUs), which are used also for heating and
cooling. Domestic hot water demand is determined according to Annex XIII-I of
Radiator Installation Book [79] as 20L per day per person and to meet the demand an
electric water heater is added to the model. The summary of internal gains and
mechanical system of the reference case of the residential building is given in Table
4.3.

Design parameters of the residential building’s reference case.

People Lighting Equipment
Mechanical System
Density Density Density
Radiators connected to a
Residential 3 people 540 W 3200 W
central boiler and split air
Building per unit per unit per unit
conditioners

4.2.2 Office building

Office building has 2 below grade floors where car parking, technical areas, depots
and refuge area are located and 10 above grade floors where office areas are located.
Plan scheme is basically core and shell type. Service and circulation areas are situated
in the core, while office areas constitute the shell. Additionally on the upper floor, a
dining hall with terrace area and some technical areas are located. Figure 4.12 displays
the geometric model of the building generated in DesignBuilder [77].

Office building’s envelope was designed in accordance with TS 825 Standard [21] and
the U values of building envelope were given in the Table 4.2. Transparency ratio of
the building is 40 % which is consistent with ASHRAE 90.1 2007 Standard [72]. Glass
SHGC value of reference case is 0.56 and Tvis value is 0.8.

Internal gains and usage schedules are determined in accordance with Turkish
Building Energy Performance National Calculation Methodology (BEP-TR) [13].
Number of people and electric equipment density in the office areas are determined as
high dense office as shown in Table 4.4 and Table 4.5. Lighting power densities for

46
different function areas in the office building were determined according to ASHRAE
90.1-2007 Standard [72] and summed in the Table 4.6.

Figure 4.12 : Office building geometric model.

BEP-TR office buildings people densities (m2 per person).

Low Dense Middle Dense Dense High Dense
15.5 11.6 9.3 7.8

BEP-TR office buildings electrical equipment densities (W/m2).

Low Dense Middle Dense Dense High Dense
5.4 10.8 16.1 21.5

Lighting power densities for different space types.

Space Type Lighting Power Density (W/m2)
Office Areas 12
Entrance - Lobby 14
Cafeteria 15
Dining Area 10
Circulation Halls 5
Restrooms - WCs 10
Service - Storage 9
Mechanical – Electrical 16
Parking 2

In the office building, set temperatures were assumed to be 22°C for heating and 24°C
for cooling. Mechanical system of the building was designed according to the
ASHRAE 90.1-2007 Annex G [72]. A separate packaged rooftop VAV with reheat

47
(system 7) is serving each floor of the office building. Two water-cooled chillers with
cooling towers for cooling, two natural gas fired boilers for heating are modelled, and
efficiency values, system fan and pump power values were chosen and calculated in
accordance with the standard. Minimum fresh air values were calculated in accordance
with ASHRAE 62.1-2010 Standard [80]. Domestic hot water demand is determined
according to Annex XIII-I of Radiator Installation Book [79] as 25L per day per person
and to meet the demand an electric water heater is added to the model. The summary
of internal gains and mechanical system of the reference case of the office building is
given in Table 4.7.

Design parameters of the office building’s reference case.

People Lighting Equipment
Mechanical System
Density Density Density
VAV reheat units on each
7.8
Office 2 12 W/m2 for 21.5 W/m2 for floor connected to a
m /person for
Building office areas office areas central boiler and water
office areas
cooled chiller

4.2.3 Data center building

Data center building has 1 below grade floor where car parking and technical areas are
located. Above grade floors are distinguished as office (administration) areas and the
data center area. Office areas are distributed into 3 floors in total including a dining
hall and data center is located in a 3 floors-height area. Office areas have a transparent
part of the roof on the circulation core and the rest of the terrace roof is used for
renewable energy installation. Figure 4.13 shows the geometric model of the building
generated in DesignBuilder [77].

Data center building’s envelope was designed in accordance with TS 825 Standard
[21] and the U values of building envelope were given in the Table 4.2. Transparency
ratio of the building is 28 %. Glass SHGC value of reference case is 0.56 and Tvis
value is 0.8.

Internal gains and usage schedules for office areas of the building were determined in
accordance with Turkish Building Energy Performance National Calculation
Methodology (BEP-TR) [13]. Number of people and electric equipment density in the
office areas were determined as ‘high dense office’ as shown in Table 4.4 and Table
4.5. Besides, data center area was assumed to have a high electrical equipment power
density and dependently high internal gain for 24 hour 7 days a week. Lighting power

48
densities of office areas of the building were determined according to ASHRAE 90.1-
2007 Standard [72] and summed in the Table 4.6 and additionally, lighting power
density of data center area was chosen again from the standard [72] as 13 W/m2.

Figure 4.13 : Data center building geometric model.

In the data center building, set temperatures were assumed to be 22°C for heating and
24°C for cooling for office areas. On the other hand, for data center area, no heating is
modelled and cooling set temperature is assumed to be 26°C. Mechanical system of
the building was designed according to the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 Annex G [72]. A
separate packaged rooftop VAV with reheat (system 5) is serving each floor of the
administrational part and a single packaged rooftop air conditioner (system 3) is
serving to data center. A natural gas fired boiler for heating were modelled, and
efficiency values, system fan and pump power values are chosen and calculated in
accordance with the standard [72]. Minimum fresh air values are calculated in
accordance with ASHRAE 62.1-2010 Standard [80]. Domestic hot water demand is
determined according to Annex XIII-I of Radiator Installation Book [79] as 25L per
day per person for office users and 40L per day per person for data center workers and
to meet the demand a water heater, which works in conjunction with the boiler, is
added to the model. The summary of internal gains and mechanical system of the
reference case of the office building is given in Table 4.8.

49
 Design parameters of the data center building’s reference case.
People Lighting Equipment
Mechanical System
Density Density Density
VAV reheat units on each
7.8 m2/person 2 2 floor with dx cooling coils
12 W/m for 21.5 W/m for
for office and connected to a central
office areas office areas
Data areas boiler
Center
Building 100 people
13 W/m2 for 120 W/m2 for Separate CAV unit with dx
per 2600m2
production production cooling coils and with fossil
production
area area fuel furnace
area

Definition of the Energy Efficiency Improvement Measures

Several measures to improve the energy performance of each reference building were
defined. These measures included generally different insulation thicknesses,
fenestration types, transparency ratios, shading types, lighting fixtures, natural and
hybrid ventilation, efficiencies of mechanical systems, several alternatives for
mechanical systems and renewable energy systems. The measures were then grouped
to packages to perform parametric analyses and to obtain higher energy efficiency
levels. For all buildings, the elements, which do not affect the energy efficiency or
which are left out of scope, were supposed to be fixed in all cases. These fixed
parameters included the zone and building geometries, usage time schedules, set
temperatures, equipment loads, etc. The all analysed packages are given in details
under the relevant titles for each building type.

4.3.1 Energy efficiency improvement measures for residential building

Energy efficiency measures applied to the residential building are listed in Table 4.9.
Analysed insulation thicknesses of building envelope elements and relevant U values
can be seen in the table. Similarly, different glass specifications and analysed
infiltration rates depending on different frame types are indicated. Reference building
lighting was designed with incandescent fixtures, while first and second option
measures, which have 20% and 40% less power densities respectively, were designed
with fluorescence and led fixtures keeping the same lighting levels as reference case.
Boilers indicated in the Table 4.8 (central and separate) have 0.8 efficiency, while
condensing boilers have 0.9 efficiency. Split air conditioners SEER values changes
between 5.63 and 5.86, while high efficiency multi split air conditioners have 6.61

50
SEER. For the domestic hot water usage, reference case fixtures were changed to water
efficient fixtures. As renewable energy system, glazed flat plate solar panels and
monochristalline 280 Wp photovoltaic panels were used. In the Table A.1 in
Appendices, all measures combined into packages can be followed with the options of
measures applied. In the following step, final energy consumption values, primary
energy consumption values, investment costs and global costs were calculated for each
of these packages.

Energy efficiency measures for residential building.

Reference 1st Option - 2nd Option - 3rd Option -

Building Measure Measure Measure

Wall 12cm
Wall 5cm Wall 8cm
Rockwool
Rockwool U: [0.48 Rockwool
U: [0.26
Envelope W/m2K]; U: [0.36 W/m2K];
W/m2K];
Insulation Roof 12cm Roof 15cm
Roof 18cm -
Thickness Rockwool Rockwool
Rockwool
and U Values U: [0.28 W/m2K]; U: [0.23 W/m2K];
U: [0.2 W/m2K];
Floor 6cm XPS Floor 7cm XPS
Floor 7cm XPS
U: [0.43 W/m2K] U: [0.42 W/m2K]
U: [0.42 W/m2K]

U:1.8 W/m2K; U:1.3 W/m2K; U:0.9 W/m2K;

Glass Type 0.56 SHGC; 0.44 SHGC; 0.48 SHGC; -
0.8 Tvis 0.71 Tvis 0.69 Tvis
In compliance with
20% less than 40% less than
Lighting ASHRAE 90.1 -
Reference Reference
2007
Infiltration
due to frame 0.5 ach 0.3 ach - -
type
Radiators with Radiators with Heated Floors with
Radiators with
Heating Type Condensing Separate Boilers Condensing
Central Boiler
Central Boiler for each Unit Central Boiler

High Efficiency
Split Air
Cooling Type Multi Split Air - -
Conditioners
Conditioners

DHW
(Domestic Standard Faucets Efficient Faucets - -
Hot Water)

26 Solar Panels
26 PV Panels [65.5 m2]
Renewable 26 Solar Panels
None [43.5 m2 with and 26 PV Panels
Energy [65.5 m2]
7280Wp] [43.5 m2 with
7280Wp]

51
4.3.2 Energy efficiency improvement measures for office building

Energy efficiency measures applied to the office building are listed in Table 4.10.
Analysed insulation thicknesses and relevant U values of the building envelope
elements are given in the table. Glass types and infiltration rates due to frame types
are also included. As it was mentioned under 4.2.2, office building reference case
lighting power densities were determined according to ASHRAE 90.1 2007 [72].
Similar to the residential building, incandescent fixtures were selected to meet
indicated lighting power densities and minimum lighting levels in office and other
service areas. 20% and 40% less power density cases, proposed as energy efficiency
measures, were designed with the combination of fluorescence and led fixtures with
the same lighting levels for all spaces. Reference case office building has 40% of
transparency on each façade as it is indicated in ASHRAE 90.1 2007 [72]. However,
in reality, as office buildings generally have large transparent facades, higher
transparency ratio of 60% was suggested. However, generally speaking, cooling loads
in the office buildings compose a large portion of the energy consumption and higher
transparency ratios, depending on the glass type, may increase the cooling loads. For
this reason two different configuration of high transparency ratios were analysed.
Several shading types including internal and external textiles, manually or automated
controls and external fixed elements were examined to control summer heat gaind and
so the cooling loads in the office building. Several natural ventilation configuration
were also examined again aiming to decrease the cooling loads. Natural ventilation
was modelled additional to the mechanical ventilation which was determined
according to ASHRAE 90.1 2007 [72]. However, measures included also the night
time natural ventilation, when the mechanical ventilation is off, benefiting the cool and
dry nights of Eskişehir and hybrid ventilation, which stops the mechanical ventilation
if the natural ventilation doesn’t increase the heating and cooling loads. Reference
building boilers have 0.8 efficiency, while condensing boilers have 0.95 efficiency.
Similarly reference building has water cooled chillers with 5.5 COP value, while high
efficiency water cooled chillers with 6.5 COP and air cooled chillers with 3 COP value
were used in the energy efficiency measures. As renewable energy system,
monochristalline 280 Wp photovoltaic panels were used for office building and total
capacity is given in Table 4.10.

52
 Energy efficiency measures for office building.
Reference 1st Option - 2nd Option - 3rd Option - 4th Option
Building Measure Measure Measure - Measure

Wall 4cm Wall 8cm Wall 12cm

Rockwool Rockwool Rockwool
U: [0.48 W/m2K]; U: [0.31 W/m2K]; U: [0.23 W/m2K];
Envelope Below Grade Wall Below Grade Wall Below Grade Wall
Insulation 6cm EPS 8cm EPS U: [0.38 12cm EPS
Thickness U: [0.48 W/m2K]; W/m2K]; U: [0.27 W/m2K]; - -
and Roof 10cm Roof 15cm Roof 20cm
Rockwool Rockwool Rockwool
U Values U: [0.28 W/m2K]; U: [0.21 W/m2K]; U: [0.16 W/m2K];
Floor 4cm EPS Floor 6cm EPS Floor 6cm EPS
U: [0.43 W/m2K] U: [0.42 W/m2K] U: [0.42 W/m2K]

U:1.8 W/m2K; U:1.3 W/m2K; U:0.9 W/m2K; 0.48

Glass Type 0.56 SHGC; 0.44 SHGC; SHGC; - -
0.8 Tvis 0.71 Tvis 0.69 Tvis

In compliance
20% less than 40% less than
Lighting with ASHRAE
Reference Reference
Daylight Sensor -
90.1 2007
Infiltration
due to frame 0.5 ach 0.3 ach - - -
type

60% on south
Transparenc 40% on all 60% on all façade;
- -
y Ratio facades facades 40% on other
facades

Interior Textile – Exterior Textile – Fixed Exterior

Shading None
Manual Control Automated Control Shade
-

Natural
Ventilation +
Natural
Hybrid Ventilation Night
Natural Ventilation +
None (Mechanical System Ventilation -
Ventilation Night Ventilation
Automation) during Summer
during Summer
+ Hybrid
Ventilation

Condensing
Heating Boiler 80% 3 Boilers (cascade
Boiler 95 %
Type Efficiency system)
Efficiency
Fancoils + VRVs +
Cooling Water Cooled Chiller with 6.5 Air Cooled Chiller Energy Energy
Type Chiller 5.5 COP COP with 3 COP Recovery Recovery
Ventilators Ventilators
(No AHUs) (No AHUs)
REFERENCE + 3 REFERENCE +
Ventilation VAV Reheats for
VAV AHU with VAV AHU No
Type each Floor
reheat Reheat + Radiator

250 PV Panels
Renewable
None [419 m2 with - - -
Energy 70,000 Wp]

53
All the measures were then combined into packages which are listed in Table A.2 in
Appendices section. Capacities for mechanical plants were calculated seperately for
each package listed in Table A.2 and final and primary energy consumptions,
investment and global costs were determined according to this calculated capacities.

4.3.3 Energy efficiency improvement measures for data center building

All energy efficiency measures examined for the data center building are given in
Table 4.11. Several insulation thicknesses and relevant U values of the building
envelope are applied to the reference building. Similarly, several glass types were also
analysed for data center building. As mentioned before in 4.2.3, data center building
can be divided into two sections as administral and data center areas. Building
envelope specifications, as insulation thickness and glass type, are similar in first and
second options of measures. On the other hand, in the third option, these two areas has
differentiated envelope specifications. A diminished infiltration rate was also added to
measures due to fenestration frame type alteration. Reference building lighting was
designed with incandescent fixtures and in accordence with ASHRAE 90.1 2007 [72].
Lighting efficiency measures with 20% and 40% less power densities were designed
with the combination of fluorescence and led fixtures, trying to keep the same lighting
levels of spaces, as in the residential and office buildings. Different shading
alternatives, including manually controlled interior and automated exterior textile
elements and fixed external elements, were also analysed for data center building.
Boilers have 0.80 efficiency, while condensing boilers have 0.95 efficiency. Reference
building doesn’t have chiller as it is asserted in ASHRAE 90.1 2007 [72]. However,
air cooled chillers with 3.1 COP were used with fancoil units, as one of the measures.
Automated natural ventilation additional to mechanical ventilation alternatives was
examined as a measure. Night time natural ventilation and hybrid ventilation was not
applied to data center building, as the mechanical ventilation of the building should
run continously 24 hours and 7 days. As the renewable energy system,
monochristalline 280 Wp photovoltaic panels were used and total capacity is expressed
in the table. The measures were then combined to packages which are listed in Table
A.3 and final energy consumptions, primary energy consumptios, investment costs and
global costs were calculated for each package in the next phase.

54
 Energy efficiency measures for data center building.
Reference 1st Option- 2nd Option - 3rd Option -
Building Measure Measure Measure

Wall 12cm Rockwool

Wall 4cm Rockwool Wall 8cm Rockwool U: [0.24 W/m2K];
Wall 12cm Rockwool
U: [0.48 W/m2K]; U: [0.32 W/m2K]; Below Grade Wall
U: [0.24 W/m2K];
Envelope Below Grade Wall Below Grade Wall
Below Grade Wall
12cm EPS
Insulation 6cm EPS 8cm EPS U: [0.27 W/m2K];
12cm EPS
U: [0.48 W/m2K]; U: [0.38 W/m2K]; Roof 20cm Rockwool
Thickness U: [0.27 W/m2K];
Roof 10cm Roof 15cm U: [0.18 W/m2K];
and U Roof 20cm Rockwool
Rockwool Rockwool Floor 8cm EPS
U: [0.18 W/m2K];
Values U: [0.28 W/m2K]; U: [0.23 W/m2K]; U: [0.28 W/m2K] -
Floor 8cm EPS
Floor 4cm EPS Floor 5cm EPS Production Area
U: [0.28 W/m2K]
U: [0.43 W/m2K] U: [0.37 W/m2K] Insulation -
REFERENCE

U:0.9 W/m2K;
0.48 SHGC;
U:1.8 W/m2K; U:1.3 W/m2K; U:0.9 W/m2K;
0.69 Tvis -
Glass Type 0.56 SHGC; 0.44 SHGC; 0.48 SHGC;
Production Area
0.8 Tvis 0.71 Tvis 0.69 Tvis
Glazing -
REFERENCE

In compliance with 20% less than 40% less than

Lighting ASHRAE 90.1 2007 Reference Reference
Daylight Sensor

Infiltration
due to frame 0.5 ach 0.3 ach - -
type
Interior Textile – Exterior Textile –
Shading None
Manual Control Automated Control
Fixed Exterior Shade

Natural Automated Natural

None - -
Ventilation Ventilation

Heating Boiler 80 % Condensing Boiler

Type Efficiency 95 % Efficiency Fancoils + Energy VRVs +
Recovery Ventilators Energy Recovery
REFERENCE + (No AHUs) + 3.1 COP Ventilators
Ventilation VAV Reheats for Air Cooled Chiller (No AHUs)
VAV AHU No
Type each Floor
Reheat + Radiator

950 PV Panels
Renewable
None [1591 m2 with - -
Energy 266,000Wp]

Application of the Measures to the Buildings and Calculation of Energy

Performance and Global Costs to Determine the Cost Optimal and Nearly Zero
Energy Scenarios

All packages of energy efficiency measures were listed in the previous section for
each type of the building. In this phase, all the packages were applied to the buildings,
their energy performances were calculated as annual building (end-use) energy
consumption and annual primary energy consumption (kWh/m2 – year). Primary
energy conversion factors are based on Turkish National Building Energy Certification

55
Methodology and determined governmentally as 1 for natural gas and 2.36 for
electricity [13].

It was also explained that ISO/EN 13790 [22] refers to three calculation procedures.
In this study, detailed dynamic calculation procedure was chosen because it simulates
the buildings’ annual energy performance closest to the real behaviour, of course
depending on the input data. Detailed dynamic calculations for the determination of
energy performance of the buildings were performed using EnergyPlus (version 8.6)
simulation program [81]. EnergyPlus is capable to model building energy demand and
consumption, for heating, cooling, ventilation, lighting and other processes, and water
use in user defined sub-hourly time steps using highly complex and continuously
developing algorithm. It also generates detailed output reports to allow the user
diagnose the errors and discrepencies in the model. Disadvantageously, it requires
numerous input data which may not be always attainable easily, so making precise
assumptions and high level expertise are necessary.

Additional to the energy performance calculation, global costs of each package of

measures were calculated by net present value calculation methodology which was
explained in Section 2.2. Global cost includes total energy costs togather with
investment costs, annual maintenance costs, periodic replacement costs and residual
costs of each measurement for a determined period of time. In the case study,
investment costs were obtained from the “Unit Prices Book” of 2015 published by
Ministry of Environment and Urbanization [82]. Unit prices listed the book includes
material costs, labour costs and taxes. Even so, there were some building elements
which were not listed in the Book, such as shading devices, air cooled chillers, PV
panels automized shading devices, cogeneration unit, etc. Market prices for these
elements were used, by necessity. For the market prices obtained in Euro (€), 3.1
exchange rate for Euro to TL was used, as in 2015. Similarly interest rates and inflation
rates are determined according to 2010-2015 averages and predictions for future years.
Energy costs for electricity and natural gas are also based on 2015 tariff of Eskişehir.

Calculation periods of global costs are determined according to the Regulation

244/2012 [20], 30 years for residential buildings and 20 years for non-residential
buildings.

56
4.4.1 Residential building

In this section, all energy performance and global cost results of the residential
building will be given. According to the results, packages of measures which are
leading to cost optimal and nearly zero energy solutions will be determined.

Details of the Residential building’s reference case design was explained in the Section
4.2.1. Reference building annual energy consumption values according to the detailed
dynamic simulation results are given in the Table 4.12. According to the results,
heating energy consumption is the main energy consumption entry because of the cold
climate of Eskişehir and relatively low internal thermal loads of residential buildings.
Electricity consumed for cooling and other mechanical equipments (Other HVAC) are
much more lower than the heating energy consumption.

Energy consumption breakdown of residential building’s reference case

Electricity Natural Gas

Consumption Consumption
[kWh/m2-y] [kWh/m2-y]
Heating 0.06 49.10
Cooling 6.25 0.00
Lighting 8.17 0.00
Equipments 26.31 0.00
Other HVAC
5.75 0.00
(Pumps, fans, etc.)
Total 46.54 49.10
109.83 49.10
Primary Energy Total
158.93

Building (end-use) energy consumptions, primary energy consumptions, annual

energy costs, investment costs and global costs were calculated for each packages of
measures which are listed in Table A.1. Then all results are displayed in the x-y graph
in Figure 4.14, where x-axis shows the primary energy consumptions (kWh/m2 – year)
and y-axis shows the global costs (€/m2).

The package 35 is the cost optimal case for the residential building, as it is package
with the minimum global cost. It includes 8cm external wall, 15cm roof and 10cm
floor insulation. Glass U value is 1.3 W/m2K, solar heat gain coeffient is 44 % and

57
visible transmittance value is 71 %. Besides the infiltration value was decreased to 0.3
ach by more air tight frames. Lighting demand was met by led fixtures which decreases
the power density 40 % compared to reference case. Low efficiency central boiler was
changed to a condensing boiler with 0.9 COP. The package 54 is the nearly zero energy
case of the residential building, as it has the lowest primary energy consumption
among the other packages. It includes the same architectural measures as the cost
optimal case. However, in the mechanical system, beside the condensing boiler,
radiators were also changed to heated floor system. Solar panels were assisting the
heating and domestic hot water system. Water efficient fixtures also decreased DHW
water consumption. Split air conditioners were changed with the ones that have higher
energy efficiency values. Additionally, for each dwelling unit one photovoltaic panel
was used to decrease the electricity consumption.

Residential building cost optimal and nearly zero energy cases are also pointed out in
the Figure 4.15 and 4.16 where annual end-use energy consumptions and annual
primary energy consumptions of all packages are shown.

Energy consumption breakdown of the residential building cost optimal and nearly
zero energy cases are given in the Table 4.13. When compared to Table 4.12, the major
energy consumption reduction was obtained in the heating loads.

Table 4.14 gives a comparison of reference, cost optimal and nearly zero energy cases
of residential building. According to the results, cost optimal solution decreases the
primary energy consumption by 36 % as it increases the investment costs only 0.5 %
compared to reference case. Besides, primary energy consumption improvement is
increased to 55 % for the nearly zero energy case as the investment cost increases 10
%. On the other hand, when the global costs are considered, both cost optimal and
nearly zero energy case have lower global costs compared to reference case.

58
Figure 4.14 : Global costs and annual primary energy consumptions graph of residential building.

59
 Cost Optimal

nZEB

Figure 4.15 : Residential building annual end-use energy consumptions of measure packages.

60
 Cost Optimal

nZEB

Figure 4.16 : Residential building annual primary energy consumptions of measure packages.

61
 Residential building cost optimal and nearly zero energy cases energy
consumption values.
Cost Optimal Nearly Zero Energy
Electricity Natural Gas Electricity Natural Gas
Consumtpion Consumption Consumtpion Consumption
[kWh/m2-y] [kWh/m2-y] [kWh/m2-y] [kWh/m2-y]
Heating 0.06 25.48 0.00 12.66
Cooling 5.62 0.00 4.43 0.00
Lighting 4.90 0.00 3.97 0.00
Equipments 26.31 0.00 26.31 0.00
Other
HVAC
4.82 0.00 1.70 0.00
(Pumps,
fans, etc.)
Total 41.66 25.48 38.74 12.66
Primary 98.32 25.48 91.42 12.66
Energy
Total 123.8 104.08

Residential building reference, cost optimal and nearly zero energy

cases comparison.
Nearly Zero
Reference Cost Optimal
Energy
Primary Energy
Consumption
(Equipment 96.83 61.69 43.57
excluded)
kWh/m2-y
Improvement
Percentage - 36.29 % 55.00 %
%
Global Costs
2926.31 2765.94 2902.58
€/m2
Investment Costs
2325.01 2335.70 2559.01
€/m2
Investment Cost
Difference - + 0.5 % + 10 %
%

Global cost and investment cost comparison for each package can be seen on the
Figure 4.17. Fixed costs line shown in the figure indicates the constructional costs of
building elements which do not affect the building energy performance and so they are
the same for all packages.

62
 Cost Optimal nZEB

Figure 4.17 : Residential building global costs and investment costs of measure packages.

63
4.4.2 Office building

In this section, all energy performance and global cost results of the office building
will be given. According to the results, packages of measures which are leading to cost
optimal and nearly zero energy solutions will be determined.

Office building’s reference case design configuration was explained in the section
4.2.2. Annual energy consumption values of the reference building were calculated by
detailed dynamic simulation and given in Table 4.15. According to the results,
reference building heating energy load is the main energy consumption entry, but
compared to residential building, it is much lower because of higher internal heat
gains. Mechanical equipment, indicated as Other HVAC in Table 4.15 including fans
and pumps, are the most energy consuming parameters because of the mechanical
ventilation system.

Office building reference case energy consumption values.

Electricity Natural Gas

Consumption Consumption
[kWh/m2-y] [kWh/m2-y]
Heating 0.00 20.68
Cooling 7.23 0.00
Lighting 18.81 0.00
Equipments 32.36 0.00
0.00
Other HVAC
39.35
(Pumps, fans, etc.)
Total 97.75 20.68
230.69 20.68
Primary Energy Total
251.37

Building (end-use) energy consumptions, primary energy consumptions, annual

energy costs, investment costs and global costs were calculated for each packages of
measures which are listed in Table A.2. Then all results are displayed in the x-y graph
in Figure 4.18, where x-axis shows the primary energy consumptions (kWh/m2 – year)
and y-axis shows the global costs (€/m2).

The package 65 is the cost optimal case for the office building, as it has the lowest
global cost among all the packages. This package included first level insulation on
building envelope, which are 8 cm rockwool on external walls, 8cm EPS on below

64
grade walls, 15 cm rackwool on the roof and 6cm EPS on basement floor. Glass U
value is 1.3 W/m2K, solar heat gain coefficient is 44 % and visible transmittance value
is 71 %. Window frames were changed to more tight ones, and so the infiltration rate
was decreased to 0.3 ach. All building transparency ratio is 40% which is the same as
reference case and manually controlled interior textile based shades were used for high
solar gains. Led fixtures achieving 40 % reduction of lighting power were used for
lighting. Energy recovery ventilation units were used for fresh air requirements and
natural ventilation during day and summer nights were introduced to the system with
automation depend on interior and exterior temperatures. Heating and cooling
demands were met by VRV units. The package 68 is the nearly zero energy case of the
office building, as it has the lowest primary energy consumption compared to other
packages. This package included 12 cm wall and below grade wall, 20 cm roof and 6
cm floor insulation. Glass U value is 0.9 W/m2K, solar heat gain coefficient is 48 %
and visible transmittance value is 69 %. More air tight frames were used to achieve
0.3 ach infiltration. South façade of the building has 60 % transparency ratio while
other facades keeps the reference case value of 40 %. Interior textile shades and led
fixtures were used as the cost optimal case. Ventilation and mechanical systems are
the same as cost optimal case, but additionally 250 PV panels with 70,000 Wp total
capacity were also introduced to system.

Figure 4.19 shows the annual end-use energy uses and Figure 4.20 shows primary
energy consumptions of each package of measures for the office building. Cost optimal
and nearly zero energy solutions are also pointed out in the both figures.

Table 4.16 sums the annual energy consumptions of cost optimal and nearly zero
energy cases of the office building. Furthermore, Table 4.17 gives a comparison of
reference, cost optimal and nearly zero energy cases of office building. Primary energy
consumption improvement of the cost optimum case is nearly 40 % while investment
cost is nearly 1 % below the reference case. Additionally, primary energy consumption
improvement is increased to nearly 50 % for the nearly zero energy case as the
investment cost in this case increases about 3 % compared to reference case.
Additionally, when the global costs are considered, while global cost of both the cost
optimal and nearly zero energy cases are always below the reference case.

65
Figure 4.18 : Global costs and annual primary energy consumptions of measure packages for office building.

66
 Cost Optimal

nZEB

Figure 4.19 : Office building annual energy consumptions of measure packages.

67
 Cost Optimal

nZEB

Figure 4.20 : Office building annual primary energy consumptions of measure packages.

68
 Office building cost optimal and nearly zero energy cases energy
consumption values.
Cost Optimal Nearly Zero Energy
Electricity Natural Gas Electricity Natural Gas
Consumption Consumption Consumtpion Consumption
[kWh/m2-y] [kWh/m2-y] [kWh/m2-y] [kWh/m2-y]
Heating 4.08 0.00 3.36 0.00
Cooling 25.71 0.00 21.44 0.00
Lighting 5.08 0.00 3.66 0.00
Equipments 32.36 0.00 32.36 0.00
Other HVAC
9.88 0.00 9.17 0.00
(Pumps, fans, etc.)
Total 77.12 0.00 70.00 0.00
Primary Energy 182.00 0.00 165.2 0.00
Total 182.00 165.2

Office building reference, cost optimal and nearly zero energy cases
comparison.
Nearly Zero
Reference Cost Optimal
Energy
Primary Energy
Consumption
175.00 105.63 88.83
(Equipment excluded)
kWh/m2-y
Improvement Percentage
- 39.64 % 49.24 %
%
Global Costs
3744.88 3349.26 3357.60
€/m2
Investment Costs
2666.00 2636.95 2740.89
€/m2
Investment Cost
Difference - - 1.08 % + 2.81 %
%

Global cost and investment cost comparison for each package can be seen on the
Figure 4.21. Fixed costs line shown in the figure indicates the constructional costs of
building elements which do not affect the building energy performance and so they are
the same for all packages.

69
 Cost
Optimal nZEB

Figure 4.21 : Office building global costs and investment costs of measure packages.

70
4.4.3 Data center building

In this section, all energy performance and global cost results of the data center
building will be given. According to the results, packages of measures which are
leading to cost optimal and nearly zero energy solutions will be determined.

Data center building’s reference case design was explained in the Section 4.2.3.
Energy consumption values of the reference building are given in Table 4.18.
According to the results, reference case heating energy load of the data center building
is higher than the cooling load. However, compared to the other buildings, cooling
load is the highest because of the high process loads of the data center.

Data center building reference case energy consumption values.

Electricity Natural Gas
Consumption Consumption
[kWh/m2-y] [kWh/m2-y]
Heating 0.00 74.75
Cooling 24.99 0.00
Lighting 32.88 0.00
Equipments 264.28 0.00
Other HVAC
76.7 0.00
(Pumps, fans, etc.)
Total 398.85 74.75
941.29 74.75
Primary Energy Total
1016.04

Building (end-use) energy consumptions, primary energy consumptions, annual

energy costs, investment costs and global costs were calculated for each packages of
measures which were listed in Table A.3. Then all results are displayed in the x-y graph
in Figure 4.22, where x-axis shows the primary energy consumptions (kWh/m2 – year)
and y-axis shows the global costs (€/m2).

Measure package 54 is the cost optimal case for the data center building. This package
includes 12 cm wall and below grade wall, 20 cm roof and 8 cm floor insulation.
However for data center area which has a quite high internal gain, insulation
thichnesses are kept on the reference level where 4 cm wall, 6 cm below grade wall,
10 cm roof and 4 cm floor insulation was used. Glass U value is 0.9 W/m2K, solar heat
gain coefficient is 48 % and visible transmittance value is 69 %. More air tight frames
were used to achieve 0.3 ach infiltration. Interior textile shades were used with manual

71
control. Led fixtures achieving 20 % reduction of lighting power met lighting demand.
In the mechanical system, the condensing boilers with 95 % efficiency were used.
Instead of separate VAV AHUs on each floor, fancoil system for heating and cooling
was introduced and energy recovery ventilation units were used for ventilation
requirements. For the cooling part of fancoil system, an air cooled chiller with 3.1 COP
was added to the system. Measure package 59 is the nearly zero energy case of the
data center building. This package includes 12 cm wall and below grade wall, 20 cm
roof and 6 cm floor insulation, but no different insulation thicknesses for the data
center area. Other architectural features of the nearly zero energy case are the same
with the cost optimal case. Led fixtures achieving 40 % reduction of lighting power
met lighting demand. In the mechanical system, again the same system was used as
cost optimal case and additionally 950 PV panels with 266,000 Wp capacity were
introduced to the system.

Data center building cost optimal and nearly zero energy cases are pointed out in the
Figure 4.23, in which the end-use energy consumption of all packages are displayed,
and also in Figure 4.24, in which the primary energy consumptions of all packages are
shown.

72
Figure 4.22 : Data center building global costs and annual primary energy consumptions of measure packages.

73
 Cost Optimal

nZEB

Figure 4.23 : Data center building annual end-use energy consumptions of measure packages.

74
 Cost Optimal

nZEB

Figure 4.24 : Data center building annual primary energy consumptions of measure packages.

75
Table 4.19 gives the overall energy consumptions of the cost optimal and nearly zero
energy cases. Table 4.20 gives a comparison of reference, cost optimal and nearly zero
energy cases of data center building. Primary energy consumption improvement is 41
% as the investment cost increase is only about 3 % for the cost optimal case. Besides,
primary energy consumption improvement was increased to 70 % for the nearly zero
energy case as the investment cost increased nearly 41 %. On the other hand, when the
global costs were considered, both cost optimal and nearly zero energy cases have
lower global costs compared to reference case.

Data center building cost optimal and nearly zero energy cases energy
consumption values.
Cost Optimal Nearly Zero Energy
Electricity Natural Gas Electricity Natural Gas
Consumption Consumption Consumtpion Consumption
[kWh/m2-y] [kWh/m2-y] [kWh/m2-y] [kWh/m2-y]
Heating 0.00 20.81 0.00 21.17
Cooling 28.15 0.00 16.44 0.00
Lighting 22.72 0.00 4.77 0.00
Equipments 264.28 0.00 264.28 0.00
HVACs 38.41 0.00 19.43 0.00
Total 353.56 20.81 304.93 21.17
Primary 834.39 20.81 719.63 21.17
Energy Total 855.2 740.8

Data center building reference, cost optimal and nearly zero energy
cases comparison.
Nearly Zero
Reference Cost Optimal
Energy
Primary Energy
Consumption
392.34 231.51 117.10
(Equipment excluded)
kWh/m2-y
Improvement Percentage
- 40.99 % 70.15 %
%
Global Costs
3854.25 3302.90 3528.22
€/m2
Investment Costs
2067.13 2134.43 2911.76
€/m2
Investment Cost
Difference - + 3.25 % + 40.86 %
%

76
Global cost and initial investment cost comparison can be seen on the Figure 4.25 for
each measurement package. As in other buildings, fixed costs line shown in the figure
indicates the constructional costs of building elements which do not affect the building
energy performance and so they are the same for all packages.

Determination of the District Level Energy Demand

District level energy demand is the sum of the energy need to be supplied to the all
buildings in the district to meet their heating, cooling and electricity loads. As it was
explained in the section 3.5, building specific generation units should be replaced with
the district energy system connections to be a consumer in the district network. In the
case study, building specific plants were exchanged to district heating and cooling
modules in EnergyPlus simulation program [81] to calculate the district energy
demand. District heating and cooling model in EnergyPlus [81] doesn’t include the
district system efficiencies, but calculates the hot and chilled water rates (in kW per
hour) necessary to fulfill the building HVAC system requirements. In this way,
practically, it was aimed to find out buildings’ district energy demands, as hot and
chilled water rate together with electricity loads.

According to the previous study results, each building has three cases, which are the
reference, cost optimal and nearly zero energy cases. Thus, the simulations to calculate
the each buildings’ demand from the district energy systems were repeated for each
case -reference, cost optimal and nearly zero energy- of the each type of the building.
Consequently, three different demand types were obtained for each building type. As
an important note, some cases of the buildings don’t have plants. For example, nearly
zero energy case of the office building uses VRV system for heating and cooling, so it
uses only electricity, not hot or chilled water. In this case, only electricity consumption
was calculated as district electricity demand.

Building types, numbers and total floor areas in the district were defined in the first
phase of the study under 4.1. The hourly district (purchased) energy demand results
obtained by dynamic simulations of EnergyPlus were normalized by floor areas of the
relevant building, first; and then they were cumulated hourly by total floor areas of
each building type. District level energy demand was obtained finally by summing the
all buildings’ district energy demands.

77
 Cost Optimal
nZEB

Figure 4.25 : Data center building global costs and investment costs of measure packages.

78
The calculated hourly hot water, chilled water demands and electricity consumption
data were then transferred to EnergyPro simulation program [83]. EnergyPro is a
simulation program to calculate annual energy consumption, energy storages,
renewable energy productions, cash flows and operational parameters of district
energy systems for several sites, if desired.

Definition of the Reference District

As in building level analyses, a reference case for the district should be determined. It
was explained in 3.6 that the reference case may include district energy systems, if any
standards or regulations which sets the minimum conditions exists. As another
alternative, the reference case may not have district energy systems, but just buildings.
In the case study, reference district was defined without district energy systems, as
there is no legislations for district energy systems in Turkey.

In the previous step, it was explained that the energy demands for the district energy
systems were calculated for three cases with reference buildings, cost optimal
buildings and nearly zero energy buildings. This means that different analyses should
be performed for each demand type. Thus, for each demand type, reference cases were
determined as single buildings where any district energy system exists. In the
following Tables 4.21, 4.22 and 4.23, single buildings energy consumptions were
cumulated multiplying by their total building areas in the district for each case and
accepted as district reference cases for reference, cost optimal and nearly zero energy
demand types, respectively.

79
 Reference district yearly energy consumption with reference buildings.
Reference Reference
Building Building Total Area
District District
Electricity Natural Gas in the
Electricity Natural Gas
Consumption* Consumption District
Consumption Consumption
kWh/m2 kWh/m2 m2
kWh kWh
Residential 20.23 49.10 182,030.22 3,682,471.35 8,937,172.34
Office 65.39 20.68 117,618.97 7,691,104.45 2,432,249.75
Data
134.57 74.75 10,729.13 1,443,819.02 802,010.48
Center

Energy Consumptions kWh 12,817,394.82 12,171,432.57

Primary Energy Consumptions kWh 30,249,051.78 12,171,432.57

Total Primary Energy Consumptions kWh 42,421,098.35
2
Total Primary Energy Consumptions kWh/m 136.67

* Equipment loads are excluded.

Reference district yearly energy consumption with cost optimal

buildings.
Reference Reference
Building Building Total Area
District District
Electricity Natural Gas in the
Electricity Natural Gas
Consumption* Consumption District
Consumption Consumption
kWh/m2 kWh/m2 m2
kWh kWh
Residential 15.35 25.48 182,030.22 2,794,163.88 4,638,130.01
Office 44.76 0.00 117,618.97 5,264,625.10 0.00
Data
89.28 20.81 10,729.13 957,896.73 223,273.20
Center

Energy Consumptions kWh 9,016,685.70 4,861,403.20

Primary Energy Consumptions kWh 21,279,378.25 4,861,403.20

Total Primary Energy Consumptions kWh 26,140,781.45
Total Primary Energy Consumptions kWh/m2 84.21

* Equipment loads are excluded.

80
 Reference district yearly energy consumption with nearly zero energy
buildings.
Reference Reference
Building Building Total Area
District District
Electricity Natural Gas in the
Electricity Natural Gas
Consumption* Consumption District
Consumption Consumption
kWh/m2 kWh/m2 m2
kWh kWh
Residential 12.43 12.66 182,030.22 2,262,635.63 2,304,502.59
Office 37.64 0.00 117,618.97 4,427,178.03 0.00
Data
40.65 21.17 10,729.13 436,139.13 227,135.68
Center

Energy Consumptions kWh 7,125,952.80 2,531,638.27

Primary Energy Consumptions kWh 16,817,248.61 2,531,638.27

Total Primary Energy Consumptions kWh 19,348,886.88
Total Primary Energy Consumptions kWh/m2 58.45

* Equipment loads are excluded.

Definition of the District Level Energy System Alternatives

District energy system alternatives should be proposed according to the energy

demands, available fuel types at the district, waste energy usage potential and other
related parameters. At the district level, several types of plants can be used to meet the
hot water, chilled water and electricity demands of the buildings.

As it was mentioned before, at the study district area, there are geothermal sources,
but the source temperatures are low to be used in space heating systems. Additionally,
some farming activities can be done for biomass extraction in the area. Whatsmore, in
the case study, data center building has a very high internal heat gain to be removed
and there may be a potential that the removed waste heat can be used in other
buildings’ as preheating. However, mentioned energy sources require detailed
analyses and further calculations. As the case study here aims to display the basic
phases of the proposed methodology, main fuel source at the district was assumed to
be natural gas.

In the study, although there may be various alternatives, cogeneration and boiler units
were used to meet heating demand and air cooled chillers were proposed for cooling.
Photovoltaic panels, as renewable energy system, were proposed to be used for

81
electricity demand of the buildings. Several alternatives were constituted including the
aforesaid systems and they are listed in Table 4.27.

District system alternatives.

Cogeneration Boiler Chiller PV
A01 •
A02 • •
A03 • •
A04 • •
A05 • • •
A06 • • •
A07 • • •
A08 • • • •

Cogeneration units used in the calculations has the production capacity of 501 kWe
and 518 kWth. 1000kW capacity and 0.9 COP boilers were used as a supplementary
system for the cogeneration and they were sized according to the unmet demands in
the alternatives. For cooling demands, 700 kW and 3 COP air cooled chillers were
used. Photovoltaics used in the analyses were monocrystalline 280 Wp panels, like
which were used in the buildings and the total capacity was assumed to be 280,000
Wp for the whole district.

As it was explained in previous section, the district level analyses were made for three
different demand types. Thus, for each demand type, the capacities of the systems are
different, so that in different alternatives and in different demand types, numbers of
cogeneration units, boilers and chiller were changed.

Calculation of Energy Performances and Global Costs of the District Energy

System Alternatives to Determine the Cost Optimal and Nearly Zero Energy
Scenarios

As it was explained, three references for three demand types were determined by
combining the single building results. The references constituted with reference
buildings, cost optimal buildings and nearly zero energy buildings are displayed in
Figure 4.26. These will be the base points to compare and reveal the effects of district
energy system alternatives used with reference, cost optimal or nearly zero energy case
buildings.

82
Afterwards, eight district energy system alternatives shown in Table 4.27 were
analized for each of the three demand types. Annual hourly energy simulations were
run in EnergyPro simulation program [83] and annual energy consumptions as natural
gas and electricity consumption, hourly energy production for buildings as hot water,
chilled water and electricity, were determined according to the simulation results.
System capacities (number of the cogeneration, boiler and chiller units) were
determined to meet the peak hot and chilled water demands, and for electricity, the
hours when produced energy exceeding and/or not meeting the demand were
established. Produced electricity which was exceeding the demand in a certain hour
was supposed to be sold to the grid and in hours when it was not enough to meet the
demand, grid electricity was bought. Thus, for any district energy system, any storage
facility was not used. On the other hand, it should be noted that the storage systems
are one of the significant elements of the district energy system to increase the
flexibility.

As in single building calculations, global costs including investment costs of buildings

and district energy systems, maintenance costs of the energy systems and annual
energy costs were calculated. Calculation period was determined as 20 years as most
of the buildings in the case district area and proposed energy systems have 20 years of
economic life period. Primary energy consumptions were calculated based on
simulation results and with the same conversion factors [13] which were determined
governmentally. All results are shown in Figure 4.26 where demand types are
expressed with R for reference case buildings, C for cost optimal case buildings and N
for nearly zero energy case buildings. District system alternatives are expressed as
A01, A02, etc. as shown in Table 4.27.

According to the graph given in Figure 4.26, for each demand type, similar results
were obtained. For each demand type, alternative 06 (A06) had the lowest global cost
and it could be defined as cost optimal alternative. Similarly, alternative 04 (A04) had
always the lowest primary energy consumption value which made it the nearly zero
energy alternative. However, again in each demand type, alternative 06 (A06) had also
a very low primary energy consumption which was slightly higher than alternative 04
(A04). Thus, alternative 06 which includes cogeneration units with back up boilers and
PV panels can be chosen as district energy system, instead of alternative 04 which has
only cogeneration units and PV system.

83
Figure 4.26 : District energy system alternatives global costs and yearly primary energy consumptions.

84
After determining the district energy system configuration, there are several interesting
results to mention. In the graph, the effects of district energy system utilization with
different demand types can be seen clearly. From the primary energy consumption
point of view, the consumptions are getting lower from reference buildings to nearly
zero energy buildings, as expected. However, the contribution of the district energy
systems to the energy efficiency is also getting lower. For the reference case buildings,
alternative 06 decreased the primary energy consumption by 42.3%, while its
decreasing effect was 29.3% for cost optimal buildings and 24.6% for nearly zero
energy buildings. It can be said that the district energy systems provide more energy
efficiency when the building energy consumptions are high; but, as the buildings are
getting more energy efficient, district energy systems provide less contribution to the
efficiency.

As it comes to the global costs, the situation is getting even more critical. Global cost
decrease obtained by alternative 06 was 14% for reference case buildings and 15.5%
for the cost optimal buildings. Cost optimal buildings bring their financial advantage
to the district energy systems. However, none of the district energy system alternatives
for the nearly zero energy buildings had lower global costs than the reference case with
no district energy system. It can be explained that, closing to the zero energy levels,
buildings require higher investment costs and in return provide lower energy savings.
Therefore, for nearly zero energy buildings, district energy systems have to financial
benefits, when compared to the reference case with nearly zero energy buildings
without the district energy system connection.

On the other hand, if all the demand types were compared to the reference buildings
case, as seen in Figure 4.27 (same graph with Figure 4.26), district energy systems had
always an advantageous position both in global costs and primary energy
consumptions. 17.4% of global cost reduction would be obtained by nearly zero energy
buildings connected to the district energy system (alternative 06) compared to the same
buildings as reference cases without district energy system connection. In this
comparison, global cost reduction of the cost optimal buildings with district energy
system alternative 06 would reach up to 35.5%.

85
Figure 4.27 : District energy system alternatives global costs and yearly primary energy consumptions.

86
Global costs, together with investment costs, of each district case are also shown in
Figure 4.28. Previously explained global cost comparison can also be seen in this
figure. Even though the global costs of all cases are below the reference buildings
global cost level; differently from other cases, global costs of district energy system
alternatives with nearly zero energy buildings are higher than the reference case with
nearly zero energy buildings. When the investment costs were considered, they were
always above the reference case levels. The highest increases were occurred with
reference case buildings, while the lowest increases were occurred with cost optimal
buildings, as expected. However, when all the cases are considered, district system
alternatives with nearly zero energy case buildings had the highest investment costs,
which explains the above mentioned global cost increase issue.

Evaluation of the Results by Further Financial Instruments

Another economic instrument to analyse an investment is paypack period time. Here,

payback period indicates the required length of time to amortize the additional
investment cost of district energy system by obtained energy savings as the given
formula (4.1). Additional investment cost of an alternative district energy system is
found by subtracting the investment cost of the reference case (C I(R)) from the
investnment cost of the analysed alternative (CI(A)). Annual energy saving of the
alternative district energy system compared to reference case is calculated by
subtracting the annual energy cost of the anternative (CE(A)) from the annual energy
cost of the reference case (CE(R)).

PP  CI  A  CI R/CE R  CE  A (4.2)

It can be seen that the shorter payback periods are preferred by investors. A similar
approach as the evaluation of global costs above Section 4.8 was followed and payback
periods were calculated in two manners. Firstly, each demand type was analysed
separately, so the payback periods were calculated by dividing the investment cost
difference of each alternative by annual energy savings. The results are displayed in
Tables 4.25, 4.26 and 4.27.

According to the first results, annual energy savings obtained by district energy
systems are getting lower from the case with reference buildings to nearly zero energy
buildings. On the other hand, payback periods are not following the same trend and

87
Figure 4.28 : Global and investment costs of all district cases

88
district systems with cost optimal buildings have the lowest periods which are in an
acceptable range as the ones with nearly zero energy cases are relatively high which
may be unacceptably long for investors. It can be summarized that the district energy
systems with nearly zero energy buildings provide less energy saving with the long
payback periods.

Payback periods of district energy system alternatives with reference

buildings
Annual Energy Annual Energy Payback
Investment Cost Cost Saving Period
[€] [€] [€] [Year]
Reference 103,599,589.75 17,454,804.54 - -
Buildings
R A01 162,123,201.39 8,191,119.39 9,263,685.15 6.32
R A02 157,997,430.30 8,637,738.73 8,817,065.81 6.17
R A03 148,832,323.39 8,276,895.75 9,177,908.79 4.93
R A04 - PV1 169,108,518.19 7,471,040.30 9,983,764.24 6.56
R A04 - PV2 176,093,834.99 6,750,961.20 10,703,843.34 6.77
R A05 171,968,063.90 7,197,580.55 10,257,223.99 6.67
R A06 162,802,956.99 6,836,623.01 10,618,181.53 5.58
R A07 144,706,552.30 8,723,515.09 8,731,289.45 4.71
R A08 158,677,185.90 7,283,242.35 10,171,562.19 5.41

Payback periods of district energy system alternatives with cost optimal

buildings
Annual Energy Annual Energy Payback
Investment Cost Cost Saving Period
[€] [€] [€] [Year]
Cost Optimal 102,850,119.18 11,434,531.47 - -
Buildings
C A01 119,676,728.13 7,031,207.44 4,403,324.03 3.82
C A01 - 3chp 115,063,928.13 7,045,860.13 4,388,671.35 2.78
CA02 - 4chp 119,996,772.13 7,109,227.78 4,325,303.69 3.96
C A03 110,724,889.13 7,403,418.10 4,031,113.37 1.95
C A04 126,662,044.93 6,311,128.35 5,123,403.12 4.65
C A05 126,982,088.93 6,389,148.69 5,045,382.78 4.78
C A06 117,710,205.93 6,683,224.45 4,751,307.02 3.13
C A07 111,044,933.13 7,481,438.44 3,953,093.03 2.07
C A08 118,030,249.93 6,761,244.79 4,673,286.68 3.25

Just to remember, for each demand type (building case), alternative 04 (A04) was the
nearly zero energy solution and alternative 06 (A06) was the cost optimal solution.
Another point to discuss here, in none of the cases, A04 or A06 has the lowest payback
periods, but alternative 07 (A07) with reference buildings and alternative 03 (A03)

89
with cost optimal and nearly zero energy buildings have the lowest payback periods.
This was also an interesting outcome to verify that checking only payback periods,
may not lead the investors to the most economic solutions for the longer periods of
usage.

Payback periods of district energy system alternatives with nearly zero

energy buildings
Annual Energy Annual Payback
Investment Cost Cost Energy Period
[€] [€] Saving [€] [Year]
Nearly Zero
Energy 164,063,587.08 8,151,494.67 - -
Buildings
N A01 190,262,554.93 6,015,286.24 2,136,208.43 12.26
N A02 190,582,598.83 6,088,877.13 2,062,617.54 12.86
N A03 181,310,715.93 6,050,961.74 2,100,532.92 8.21
N A04 197,247,871.73 5,295,207.15 2,856,287.52 11.62
N A05 197,567,915.63 5,368,339.82 2,783,154.85 12.04
N A06 188,296,032.73 5,330,882.65 2,820,612.02 8.59
N A07 181,630,759.83 6,124,552.63 2,026,942.04 8.67
N A08 188,616,076.63 5,404,473.54 2,747,021.13 8.94

Secondly, the payback periods of each case were calculated compared to reference
buildings case which means that investment cost differences and annual energy
savings were calculated in comparison with reference buildings case. The results were
shared in Table 4.28.

According to the last results, payback periods seem even more advantageous. District
energy systems with cost optimal buildings, for instance, have mostly payback periods
shorter than two years. Additionally, in this second point of view, district energy
systems with nearly zero energy buildings have slightly higher payback periods than
the ones with reference buildings. Whatsmore, the highest annual energy savings were
obtained by nearly zero energy buildings. Thus, it can be said that nearly zero energy
buildings are beneficial compared to reference buildings, but the cost optimal buildings
offer the best choices.

90
 Payback periods of all district energy system alternative.
Investment Cost Annual Energy Annual Energy Payback Period
[€] Cost [€] Saving [€] [Year]
Reference
103,599,589.75 17,454,804.54 - -
Buildings
R A01 162,123,201.39 8,191,119.39 9,263,685.15 6.32
R A02 157,997,430.30 8,637,738.73 8,817,065.81 6.17
R A03 148,832,323.39 8,276,895.75 9,177,908.79 4.93
R A04 - PV1 169,108,518.19 7,471,040.30 9,983,764.24 6.56
R A04 - PV2 176,093,834.99 6,750,961.20 10,703,843.34 6.77
R A05 171,968,063.90 7,197,580.55 10,257,223.99 6.67
R A06 162,802,956.99 6,836,623.01 10,618,181.53 5.58
R A07 144,706,552.30 8,723,515.09 8,731,289.45 4.71
R A08 158,677,185.90 7,283,242.35 10,171,562.19 5.41
Cost Optimal
102,850,119.18 11,434,531.47 6,020,273.07 -0.12
Buildings
C A01 - 4chp 119,676,728.13 7,031,207.44 10,423,597.10 1.54
C A01 - 3chp 115,063,928.13 7,045,860.13 10,408,944.41 1.10
C A02 119,996,772.13 7,109,227.78 10,345,576.76 1.58
C A03 110,724,889.13 7,403,418.10 10,051,386.44 0.71
C A04 126,662,044.93 6,311,128.35 11,143,676.19 2.07
C A05 126,982,088.93 6,389,148.69 11,065,655.85 2.11
C A06 117,710,205.93 6,683,224.45 10,771,580.09 1.31
C A07 111,044,933.13 7,481,438.44 9,973,366.10 0.75
C A08 118,030,249.93 6,761,244.79 10,693,559.75 1.35
Nearly Zero
Energy 164,063,587.08 8,151,494.67 9,303,309.87 6.50
Buildings
N A01 190,262,554.93 6,015,286.24 11,439,518.30 7.58
N A02 190,582,598.83 6,088,877.13 11,365,927.41 7.65
N A03 181,310,715.93 6,050,961.74 11,403,842.80 6.81
N A04 197,247,871.73 5,295,207.15 12,159,597.40 7.70
N A05 197,567,915.63 5,368,339.82 12,086,464.72 7.77
N A06 188,296,032.73 5,330,882.65 12,123,921.89 6.99
N A07 181,630,759.83 6,124,552.63 11,330,251.91 6.89
N A08 188,616,076.63 5,404,473.54 12,050,331.00 7.06

91
92
 DISCUSSION

In this study, the framework of EPBD recast methodology for the determination of
cost optimal energy performance levels of buildings [6] was investigated and a
research was performed to propose a new approach to reach cost optimal and nearly
zero energy levels not only at building scale, but also at district (settlement) scale.
Implementation of EPBD recast methodology necessitates also the determination of
national minimum energy performance requirements for cost optimal levels of
buildings and the definiton of nearly zero energy levels; while EU energy efficiency
and renewable energy usage targets are supposed to be met by nearly zero energy
buildings after 2020. Nationally set nearly zero energy level definition is the
expression of the national energy efficiency target and leads the reserachers and
professionals to investigate the technical, social and economic solutions to reach this
target. The case study of the dissertation has taken place in Eskişehir, Turkey and
Turkey, as not a member state but a candidate to EU, hasn’t set the minimum energy
performance requirements for cost optimal levels and nearly zero energy level
definition for buildings, yet. For this reason, in the study, some assumptions for cost
optimal and nearly zero energy levels should have done.

Cost optimal levels were determined by the packages of energy efficiency measures
which leads to minimum global cost. Nearly zero energy levels were defined as the
minimum primary energy consumption level obtained by possible maximum on-site
renewable energy usage togather with energy efficiency measures. According to the
results of the study, the parameters which are affecting the energy performance of the
buildings in the climate of Eskişehir can be determined. Cost optimal and nearly zero
energy levels of each building type were determined by applying several architectural
and mechanical system measures. If we consider the residential building, two levels of
insulation were analyzed for the building envelope, as seen in Table 4.9 and both for
opaque and transparent elements first level measures resulted as cost optimal. The
second option of lighting level, which was configured with LED armatures, was the
cost-optimal lighting solution. Reduced infiltration level was also more effective and

93
using the condensing boiler for the central heating system was again cost-optimal.
Nearly zero energy level of the residential building has the same architectural features
but also the heated floors connected to the central condensing boiler which is also
supported by solar panels. Additionally, efficient faucets reduced the water
consumption and so the energy consumption for domestic hot water. Moreover,
photovoltaic panels were used in nearly zero energy level residential building. Cost-
optimal level of the residential building had 36% of primary energy consumption
reduction compared to the reference building with only 0.5% of increase in the
investment costy. Nearly zero energy level reduced the primary energy consumption
by 55% compared to the reference building with 10% of investment cost increase.In
both cost-optimal and nearly zero energy cases, global costs remained below the
reference building.

Similarly, looking to the office building in Eskişehir’s climate conditions, again the
first level of insulations for opaque and transparent building envelope elements with
reduced infiltration level was determined as cost-optimal. Daylight sensors which are
dimming the LED armatures according to the natural lighting levels were the cost-
optimal solution for the office building. Transparency ratios of each façade of the
building were 40% with manually controlled interior textile sun control elements.
Hybrid ventilation system was automized by energy recovery ventilation units and
VRV units were used for heating and cooling demands of the cost-optimal level office
building. Nearly zero energy level of office building had the second level of insulation
both for opaque and transparent building envelope elements and 70,000 Wp PV panels
as renewable energy source. All other features for façade, sun control and mechanical
system was the same as cost optimal building. When comparing the primary energy
consumption levels, cost-optimal solution of the office building had nearly 40% of
improvement and nearly zero energy level had 49% of improvement compared to the
reference case. As nearly 10% of primary energy consumption difference occurred
between the cost-optimal and nearly zero energy cases, their global costs are very close
to each other as seen in Figure 4.18. Looking at the investment costs, cost-optimal
office building had even lower value than reference case, while nearly zero energy
level investment cost was only 3% higher.

When it comes to the data center building, there were three options for building
envelope insulation levels, as seen in Table 4.11. For the cost-optimal solution, the

94
third option where the production area insulation level is the same as reference case
was determined. However, for the nearly zero energy level, maximum insulation
levels, as the second option, were used for the whole building. The second option for
the transparent building envelope elements was used both for cost-optimal and nearly
zero energy levels. In the lighting levels, there is also a difference that in cost-optimal
case 20% of reduction in lighting power densities were used, while in nearly zero
energy case 40% of reduction was applied. However, in both cases, daylight sensors
were utilized. Infiltration amounts were the same and no natural ventilation option was
found feasible both for cost-optimal and nearly zero energy levels of data center
building. Manually controlled interior textile shadings were used for nearly zero
energy level, while for cost-optimal solution no shading element was used. Mechanical
systems of the cost-optimal and nearly zero energy cases were the same as condensing
boiler and air-cooled chiller with fan coil units and heat recovery ventilators for fresh
air supply. 266,000Wp capacity photovoltaic panels were used in nearly zero energy
data center building. Results showed that cost-optimal level obtained 41% of
improvement in primary energy consumption compared to the reference case, while
its investment cost was only 3.25% higher. In nearly zero energy level, as a result of
high amount of renewable energy usage, energy performance improvement rose to
70% and accordingly, the investment cost increase rose to 41%. However, for both
cases, global costs remained below the reference building.

Generally speaking, according to the results of the study, in building level, energy
efficiency measures provide 35%-40% improvement for cost optimal levels and 50%-
70% improvement for nearly zero energy levels. These obtained improvements are
enough to meet even the EU’s 2050 targets [4], but the national socio-economic effects
should be assessed also. When we consider the global costs, for each type of building,
global costs of cost optimal and nearly zero energy level solutions remain always
below the reference levels, which means each solution is financially advantageous for
long time periods. However, when we compare the investment costs, generally, only
cost optimal solutions have acceptable increase rates over reference case investment
cost levels. Even some cases, cost optimal office building in this study, may have lower
investment cost than reference case building. When it comes to the nearly zero energy
levels, depending on the type of building, the investment costs are much more higher

95
than the reference cases. High portion of renewable energy usage is the main parameter
which increases the investment costs in this study.

According to the district scale analyses results, shown in Figure 4.26, the settlements
without district energy system were accepted as reference cases and the settlement
with reference case buildings had the highest primary energy consumption reduction
(42%) with district energy system usage, while the settlement with nearly zero energy
case buildings had the lowest improvement as 24.6%. This result showed that the
district energy system contribution to the energy efficiency in the settlements with high
energy performance buildings is lower than its contribution in the settlements with low
energy performance buildings. Additionally, when it comes to the global costs, the
settlement with nearly zero energy buildings, global cost of reference case (settlement
without district energy system) were lower than the all cases with district energy
system alternatives.

Secondly, the results were evaluated with another perspective where only one
reference district case was determined as the settlement with reference case buildings
and without district energy system. The results were similar to the building scale
results, as shown in Figure 4.27, where the district energy systems used with cost
optimal buildings were resulted as cost optimal solutions and the district energy
systems used with nearly zero energy buildings were the nearly zero energy solutions.
Furthermore, in this perspective, global costs of all alternatives, even with nearly zero
energy buildings, were remained below the reference district case.

While evaluating the district scale results, actually several cases should be compared
to reach the optimum solution with low primary energy consumption, low global cost,
low investment cost and low payback periods. An example evaluation of the results
were made by comparing the several cases, aiming to display the energy, carbon
dioxide and cost saving potentials of the case district with the buildings complying
with existing standards (reference buildings). In Table 5.1, the results of the districts
with reference buildings and nearly zero energy buildings can be compared. If all the
buildings in the district were constructed as nearly zero energy buildings, instead of
reference buildings, about 57% of primary energy consumption and 58% of CO2
emission reduction would be achieved. This case requires 58% more investment
compared to the reference buildings case. According to the simulation results, when

96
the district energy system alternative 04 used with nearly zero energy buildings, the
lowest energy consumption was achieved. In this case, the primary energy
improvement was achieved to 68% and CO2 emissions were reduced about 67%.
However, in this case the investment costs were nearly doubled compared to reference
buildings case and the payback period time was nearly 8 years. If a financially
beneficial solution was sought, district energy system alternative 06 used with the cost
optimal buildings had the lowest global cost among other alternatives. Besides, its
primary energy improvement percentage was 56% which was very close to the nearly
zero energy buildings, while the investment cost increase was only 13.6%. As it was
also mentioned before, all cases have lower global costs than the reference buildings
case. According to the results summarized in Table 5.1, it should be mentioned that a
careful investment decisions should be made. Investing more money on buildings to
achieve nearly zero energy levels provide the same energy efficiency with cost optimal
solutions both on buildings and district energy system with much less investment costs.

There are, of course, several parameters affecting the outcomes of this study and an
important one of them is the primary energy conversion factors (PEF) which should
be determined nationally. The conversion factors can be calculated scientifically by
assessing the country’s energy sources by their conversion amounts for final usage. As
there are several calculation methods [84], this would indicate the real energy
consumption at source including the conversion and distribution losses throughout the
country. On the other hand, the factors can be determined politically to direct and
control the energy sources, consumption patterns and implementations of the systems.
As an example, a higher PEF for electricty reflect better the energy efficiency for
electricity consuming systems, but it may restrict the implementation of them while
primary energy consumption will be high also [84]. Thus the political decision should
be made in line with the national targets.

In Turkey, primary energy conversion factors were decided governmentally in 2008

by the implementation of the national building energy performance certification
system (BEP-TR) [13]. In any case of change in politics of energy efficiency, by means
of National Energy Efficiency Action Plan [14], for instance, the obtained energy
efficiency levels declared in this study would be changed also.

97
 Table 5.1 : Energy performance comparison of some district cases.
Alternative 06 with Cost
Reference Buildings Nearly Zero Energy Alternative 04 with nZEBs
Optimal Buildings
Consumptions Buildings Consumptions Consumptions
Consumptions

Electricity Natural Gas Electricity Natural Gas Electricity Natural Gas Electricity Natural Gas

End Use Energy [kWh/m2-y] 41.30 39.22 21.59 8.16 11.62 16.47 12.56 29.89
Primary Energy [kWh/m2-y] 97.47 39.22 50.95 8.16 27.42 16.47 29.65 29.89

Total Primary Energy 136.69 59.11 43.89 59.54

[kWh/m2-y]
Primary Energy Improvement - 56.75 % 67.89 % 56.44 %
Percentage
CO2 Emmisions [kg] 7,909,091.39 4,017,102.44 4,134,558.91 835,786.74 2,224,684.27 1,687,356.00 2,405,778.37 3,061,311.00
Total CO2 Emmisions [kg-y] 11,926,193.83 4,970,345.65 3,919,040.27 5,467,089.37
Total CO2 Emmisions
38.42 16.01 12.60 17.61
[kg/m2-y]
CO2 Emissions Improvement - 58.32 % 67.20 % 54.16 %
Percentage
Investment Costs [€/m²] 333.78 528.59 635.51 379.25
Investment Costs Difference
- +58.32 % + 90.39 % +13.62 %
[%]
Global Costs [€/m²] 974.09 802.60 845.24 628.30
Payback Periods [years] - 6.5 7.7 1.31

98
The cost optimal methodology of EPBD recast and the proposed methodology in the
dissertation are both based on long term energy related costs (global costs) of the
buildings. Global cost calculation requires financial indicators to foresee the future
costs in a 20 or 30 years period of a building’s life cycle. These parameters are inflation
and interest rates which were determined based on last 5 years (2010 - 2015) average
values of Turkey. These rates are also the indicators of economic stability of a country.
If the change of these rates are fluctuating in time, so the future provisions made by
global cost calculations will be affected also. Thus, several parametric analyses should
be performed, while determining the cost optimal and nearly zero energy levels of
buildings. However, in this study, it was aimed to reveal the contributions of district
energy systems to the energy efficiency level by utilizing the EPBD methodology. For
that reason, the parametric analyses were neglected on purpose, for the simplified
demonstration of the proposed methodology.

According to the results of the case study, renewable energy systems are the integral
part of the nearly zero energy scenarios both for buildings and districts. The usage of
renewable energy systems carried the cost optimal levels to nearly zero energy levels,
but also they increased the investment costs. As the nearly zero energy levels for
buildings are not determined yet in Turkey, the renewable energy system capacities
were not limited as far as the building roof spaces are proper for the installation. This
means the only limitation for renewable energy systems in buildings was the available
roof areas. That is why the investment costs causing by the renewable energy systems
increase the most in data center building and the least in residential building,
depending on their roof area. In this way, it was also aimed to reach the maximum
energy efficiency level in buildings and the maximum possible renewable energy
share.

At the district level, on the other hand, although the territory allowed more, renewable
energy system usage was limited to 280,000 Wp capacity, with high investment cost
concerns. Only for alternatives with reference buildings, two different capacities were
analyzed. PV1 alternative had 280,000 Wp capacity, as the others, while PV2
alternative had 560,000 Wp capacity. In the previous Figure 4.26, it can be seen that
while the building energy consumptions were high with reference buildings, higher
PV capacities were required to reach the nearly zero energy levels. When the building
energy demands were getting lower with cost optimal and nearly zero energy

99
buildings, lower capacities of renewable energy systems could reach the nearly zero
energy levels at the district level.

At the district level, fuel alternatives are getting diversified in direct proportion to
district potentials. Alternative fuels can be methane -derived from domestic wastes,
domestic sewage wastes-, biomass -derived from agricultural wastes and wood chips-
, waste heat -obtained from activities causing high internal heat in some buildings-,
etc. As building specific plants mostly use fossil fuels and electricity, the energy
efficiency measures should be focused on building energy performance. However at
the district level, after reaching the desired energy efficiency level, alternative fuels
can be integrated into district energy systems to get closer to the zero energy level.
Thus, the alternative fuel potentials should be carefully examined. In this study, the
proposed methodology was applied to a case study district area, even so, the chosen
area was assumed to be located at the south of Eskişehir. Therefore, the alternative fuel
usage was ignored, because it requires planned activities to acquire the mentioned fuel
types. It was shown that district energy systems may add up nearly 10% of
improvement in energy efficiency with the nearly zero energy building level solutions
(Table 4.32). This improvement may be increased with alternative fuels obtained
within the boundaries of the district.

Another point to discuss about district energy systems is the storage systems. In the
case study, the capacities of district energy systems were determined according the
peak hot water and chilled water demands without any storage plants. So the plants
were run based on the hourly hot and chilled water demands in the simulations.
However, in this way, the electricity production of the cogeneration units were limited
with hot water demands, even if the electricity demand exists in an hour. There are
some studies asserting that the storage systems provide flexibility to the district energy
systems [60]. Energy production is not limited with hourly demands with the storage
system integration and surplus energy may be used in the following hours. However
these systems require carefull design and operation with expertise. Further studies for
this study of the dissertation should be done with the storage system analyses and it is
anticipated that the energy efficiency will be increased more.

100
 CONCLUSION

In the last decades, significant energy efficiency plans and actions were put into
practice in the most of the countries in the world and also in Europe. Acquired energy
efficiency and other achievements were reported in several documents [24]. The new
approach proposed in this study for settlement level energy efficiency improvement in
the frame of EPBD recast has been applied to Eskişehir, Turkey. The study was
performed in accordance with the national conditions of Turkey, which is also a
candidate to European Union. In Turkey, national building energy performance
calculation methodology was set in 2008 and the energy certification system of
buildings was started to be used in 2010. However this system was not adopted yet to
cost optimal energy performance calculations. For this reason, in the study, it was
aimed to demonstrate the energy efficiency potential by applying the cost optimal
methodology to the buildings. What’s more, considering the Europe’s further energy
efficiency targets for 2030, 2040 and 2050 years, the same methodology was proposed
to applied to the district energy systems aiming to increase the energy efficiency at the
district scale.

The results of the study showed that, even with the building level measures, EPBD
recast 2020 targets were achieved and exceeded with cost optimal energy levels
reaching up to nearly 40% of improvement on energy efficiency. In the study, much
more efficiency was shown to be achieved by several measures at district level and
discussed at the Discussion section of the dissertation. However, as the proposed
methodology includes the long term cost analyses, long term costs and their effects on
economy, existing standards, application procedures and social stucture should be
analysed.

The importance of renewable energy was explained in the Discussion section. As

European Union targets include renewable energy share beside the energy savings and
greenhouse gas emission reductions, renewable energy systems became essential for
new buildings and settlements. However, they have still relatively high investment
costs, even a decreasing trend exists in the unit costs. The results of the case study also

101
showed that, nearly zero energy solutions at building level were achieved by renewable
energy contributions, but the investment cost increase was not in the acceptable range
for investors. Global costs of the nearly zero energy levels stayed always below the
reference cases, but high investment costs build a financial gap between cost optimal
and nearly zero energy levels. On the other hand, for the district energy systems, the
renewable enrgy situation was more complicated, as the results were highly dependent
on building energy level and reference case assumptions. However, investment cost
increases and longer payback periods were obtained with the alternatives including
renewable energy systems.

In the market, the process of building construction is desired to be completed in the

shortest possible time and with the smallest possible investment budget. Thus, the
implementation of the EPBD may come across some obstacles which may vary depend
on country specific conditions. High investment costs to reach the nearly zero energy
levels, which is explained above, may be one of the major problems. Thus each MS,
and also Turkey, should define the nearly zero energy levels by carefully examining
the investment cost increases, payback periods, their effect on economy and the
financial gap between the cost optimal and nearly zero energy levels. This requires
detailed scientific, politic and economic evaluations. The national building energy
performance calculation and certification systems should be adopted to assess the cost
optimal and nearly zero energy levels of buildings, to achieve nation wide energy
savings and to avoid high expertise costs and long time delays in the projects. As a
result, barriers to implement the EPBD methodology focus on the financial issues. In
a fluctuating economy, where interest and inflation rates vary a lot in time and make
it difficult to predict the future rates for long-term periods, the results of the EPBD
methodology may give a misleading forecasting. In a more stable economic
conditions, on the other side, a more confidential investment area may be achieved in
the market and acceptable payback period times may be longer, for instance.

In the EPBD methodology, it was proposed to use the net present value calculation
procedure for global cost calculations and financial evaluations [70], and so the
proposed methodology was based on this procedure. In the study, payback period times
were investigated, additionally. However, there may be several economic evaluation
instruments. Each different evalualtion may lead to different best solution, like the the
conflict explained between global costs and payback periods of district energy system

102
alternatives. In this point it should be mentioned that beside the dictating targets of
European Comission, national targets for energy efficiency and renewable enrgy usage
are important, as they affect the selection of the economic evaluation instruments. If
necessary, a decision making mechanism with multi-directional approach should be
adapted.

National energy efficiency target is important to set the politics about nearly zero
energy level definitions, renewable energy usage, incentives, etc. Results showed that
similar energy efficiency levels may be obtained by two different cases at buildings
and district levels. Their investment and global costs, payback period times should be
analysed in terms of economic, social and environmental effects. As an example, with
nearly zero energy buildings nearly 57% of energy performance improvement was
achieved. On the other side, district energy systems with cost optimal buildings also
provide the same energy efficiency. However their effects on econıomy, the settlement
management, the municipality, mechanical heating and cooling sector will be
different.

The results of this study, and other several studies [61, 62, 68], showed the
contributions of district energy systems to the energy efficiency. However, foundation
of district energy systems require the use of local sources and alternative energy
providers instead of national electricity and natural gas grid. This require governmental
and municipial regulations and politics for prices, source usage and energy providing.
For Turkey, where several district heating systems utilizing the local geothermal
sources are managed by local municipalities. Besides these, there are no district
heating or cooling energy systems. For that reason, this study was based on mostly
assumptions for pricing, network lossess, and system management. As well as the
reference building desriptions, reference district energy system descriptions should be
based on standards and legislative documents which will determine the minimum
requirements, taking into account the national energy efficiency targets. Thus, the
national standards and regulations should be published by governmental bodies for a
sustainable district energy system constitution.

Consequently, the proposed methodology summarised in this dissertation should be

evaluated and advanced by further studies. One of the significant phases to be added
to the methodology, as it was explained before, is the sensibility analyses of the
economic parameters, such as energy costs and inflation and interest rates. Detailed

103
parametric analyses would help to understand better the effects of economic
parameters on the results and eliminate the misleading results by misestimated future
values. As, the proposed methodology suggests the implementation of cost-optimal
methodology, which was developed for buildings, both to buildings and district energy
systems at the settlement scale; the implementation phase for district energy systems
should be elaborated. Storage system usage, for example, is an integral part of the
district energy system, but it was excluded to develop a methodology through a simpler
case. However, in further studies, storage systems shouldn’t be excluded to evaluate
the effects of district energy systems on the energy efficiency. Similarly, district
energy systems allow to use a wide range of fuel sources, not limited with fossil fuels.
Biomass, woodchips, methane from organic wastes etc. can be byproducts of the
settlements and can be utilized in the district energy plants. Thus, less fossil fuel
consumption would lead to less primary energy consumption. This potential should
also be carefully examined while studying on the district energy systems. While
studying at a settlement scale, waste energy usage between buildings can be also an
advantageous situation for energy efficiency. If a building produces heat in all seasons
of the year, and this heat should be dissipated from the building, then this dissipated
waste heat can be used for the heating of nearby buildings, swimmingpool, etc.
Settlement plan should be developed also considering the waste heat usage potential
for newly planned settlements and in further studies, this potential should be examined
and included in the energy performance calculations and simulations.

104
REFERENCES

[1] International Energy Agency. (2016). Key World Energy Statistics. Retrieved
from https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/
KeyWorld2016.pdf
[2] International Energy Agency. (2015). Atlas of Energy. Retrieved from
http://energyatlas.iea.org/#!/tellmap/-1002896040/1
[3] European Commission (2016). EU Energy in Figures. Statistical Pocketbook.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved
from https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/
c3d179b2-9a82-11e6-9bca-01aa75ed71a1
[4] Url-1 <https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy-and-energy-union>,
date retrieved 10.05.2017.
[5] European Commission (2003). Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the Energy Performance of
Buildings, Official Journal of the European Union, L 001 65-71.
[6] European Commission (2010). 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, L 153 13-35.
[7] Boru Hatları ile Petrol Taşıma A.Ş. (2014). 2014 Yılı Sektör Raporu. Retrieved
from http://www.botas.gov.tr/docs/raporlar/tur/sektorap_2014.pdf
[8] European Environment Agency (2017). IND-16-en (aka CSI 027, ENER 016)
Final Energy Consumption by Sector and Fuel. Fig. 8: Final energy
consumption and estimated national 2020 targets. Retrieved from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/final-energy-
consumption-by-sector-9/assessment-1
[9] European Environment Agency (2017). IND-01-en (aka CSI 029, ENER 026)
Primary Energy Consumption by Fuel. Fig. 4: National primary energy
consumption and indicative national energy efficiency targets for 2020.
Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/
primary-energy-consumption-by-fuel-6/assessment-1
[10] Turkish Republic Ministry of Energy and Natural Sources (2012). Enerji
Verimliliği Strateji Belgesi (Energy Efficiency Strategy Paper) 2012-
2023. T.C. Resmi Gazete, 28215, 25.02.2012.
[11] 5627 Enerji Verimliliği Kanunu (2007). (Energy Efficiency Law). T.C. Resmi
Gazete, 26510, 18.04.2007.
[12] Turkish Republic Ministry of Public Works and Settlements (2008).
Binalarda Enerji Performansı Yönetmeliği (Building Energy

105
 Performance Regulation). T.C. Resmi Gazete, 27075, 05.12.2008. Last
revision: Turkish Official Gazzette, 30051, 28.04.2017.
[13] Turkish Republic Ministry of Public Works and Settlements (2010).
Binalarda Enerji Performansı Ulusal Hesaplama Yöntemine Dair
Tebliğ (Building Energy Performance National Calculation Method).
T.C. Resmi Gazete, 27778, 07.12.2010.
[14] Turkish Republic Ministry of Energy and Natural Sources (2016). Türkiye
Ulusal Enerji Verimliliği Eylem Planı (Turkish National Energy
Efficiency Action Plan).
[15] European Commission (2012). Directive 2012/27EU of the European
parliament and of council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency,
amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing
Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC. Official journal of the
European Union L 315 1-56.
[16] Aguacil, S., Lufkin, S., Rey, E., Cuchi, A. (2017). Application of the cost-
optimal methodology to urban renewal projects at the territorial scale
based on statistical data—A case study in Spain. Energy And
Buildings, 144, 42-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.03.047
[17] Genç, F. N. (2008). Türkiye’de Kentsel Dönüşüm: Mevzuat ve Uygulamaların
Genel Görünümü. Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 15-1. Retrieved from
http://www2.bayar.edu.tr/yonetimekonomi/dergi/pdf/C15S12008/115
_130.pdf
[18] Turkish Republic Ministry of Energy and Natural Sources (2012). Afet Riski
Altındaki Alanların Dönüştürülmesi Hakkında Kanun (Law about
Renewal of the Areas Under Disaster Risk). T.C. Resmi Gazete, 28309,
31.05.2012.
[19] Url-2 <https://www.ckbogazici.com.tr/tr/basin-odasi/basinBulteni/268>, date
retrieved 02.08.2017.
[20] European Commission (2012). Commıssıon Delegated Regulatıon (EU) No
244/2012 of 16 January 2012 supplementing Directive 2010/31/EU of
the European Parliament and of the Council on the energy performance
of buildings by establishing a comparative methodology framework for
calculating cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance
requirements for buildings and building elements. Official journal of
the European Union, L 81 18-36.
[21] Turkish Standardization Institute (2013). TS 825 Binalarda Isı Yalıtım
Kuralları (Thermal insulation requirements for buildings).
[22] International Organization for Standardization (2008). ISO 13790:2008
Energy performance of buildings - Calculation of energy use for space
heating and cooling.
[23] European Commission (2009). Directive 2009/28/EC of the European
parliament and of council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use
of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently
repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Official journal of
the European Union, L 140 16-62.

106
[24] D’Agostino, D. (2015). Assessment of the progress towards the establishment of
definitions of Nearly Zero Energy Buildings (nZEBs) in European
Member States. Journal of Building Engineering, 1, 20-32.
[25] Ballarini, I., Corgnati, S. P., Corrado, V. (2014). Use of reference buildings to
assess the energy saving potentials of the residential building stock: The
experience of TABULA project. Energy Policy, 68, 273-284.
[26] IEE Project TABULA (2012). Intelligent Energy Europe Project “Typology
Approach for Building Stock Energy Assessment”. Retrieved from
http://episcope.eu/iee-project/tabula/
[27] IEE Project EPISCOPE (2016). Intelligent Energy Europe Project
“Energy Performance Indicator Tracking Schemes for the Continuous
Optimisation of Refurbishment Processes in European Housing Stocks”
Retrieved from http://episcope.eu/iee-project/ episcope/
[28] Aelenei, L., Petran, H., Tarrés, J., Riva, G., Ferreira, A., Camelo, S.,
Corrado, V., Šijanec-Zavrl, M., Stegnar, G., Gonçalves, H.,
Magyar, Z., Salom, J., Polychroni, E., Sfakianaki, K. (2015). New
Challenge of the Public Buildings: nZEB Findings from IEE
RePublic_ZEB Project. 6th International Building Physics Conference,
IBPC 2015. Energy Procedia, 78, 2016-2021.
[29] Aelenei, L., Paduos, S., Petran, H., Tarrés, J., Ferreira, A., Corrado, V.,
Camelo, S., Polychroni, E., Sfakianaki, K., Gonçalves, H., Salom,
J., Riva, G., Murano, G. (2015). Implementing Cost-optimal
Methodology in Existing Public Buildings. 6th International Building
Physics Conference, IBPC 2015. Energy Procedia, 78, 2022-2027.
[30] IEE Project RePublic_ZEB (2015). Intelligent Energy Europe Project
“RePublic_ZEB. Retrieved from http://www.republic zeb.org/index.jsp
[31] Pikas, E., Kurnitski, J., Thalfeldt, M., Koskela, L. (2017). Cost-benefit analysis
of nZEB energy efficiency strategies with on-site photovoltaic
generation. Energy, 128, 291-301.
[32] Brinks, P., Kornadt, O., Oly, R. (2016). Development of concepts for cost-
optimal nearly zero-energy buildings for the industrial building sector.
Applied Energy, 173, 343-354.
[33] Tsalikis, G., Martinopoulos, G. (2015). Solar energy systems potential for
nearly net zero energy residential buildings. Solar Energy, 115, 743-
756.
[34] Becchio, C., Bottero, M. C., Corgnati, S. P., Ghiglione, C. (2015). nZEB
design: Challenging between energy and economic targets. 6th
International Building Physics Conference, IBPC 2015. Energy
Procedia, 78, 2070-2075.
[35] Zavadskas, E. K., Antucheviviene, J., Kalibatas, D. (2017). Achieving nearly
zero-energy buildings by applying multi-attribute assessment. Energy
and Buildings, 143, 162-172.
[36] Ferrara, M., Fabrizio, E., Vigone, J., Filippi, M. (2015). Appraising the effect
of the primary systems on the cost optimal design of nZEB: A case

107
 study in two different climates. 6th International Building Physics
Conference, IBPC 2015. Energy Procedia, 78, 2028-2033.
[37] Lindberg, K. B., Fischer, D., Doorman, G., Korpas, M. (2016). Cost-optimal
energy system design in Zero Energy Buildings with resulting grid
impact: A case study of a German multi-family house. Energy and
Buildings, 127, 830-845.
[38] Seljom, P., Lindberg, K. B., Tomasgard, A., Doorman, G., Sartori, I. (2017).
The impact of zero energy buildings on the Scandinavian energy
system. Energy, 118, 284-296.
[39] Abela, A., Hoxley, M., McGrath, P., Goodhew, S. (2016). An investigation of
the appropriateness of current methodologies for energy certification of
Mediterranean housing. Energy and Buildings, 130, 210-218.
[40] Gonzalez, J. P., Yousif, C. (2015). Prioritising energy efficiency measures to
achieve a zero net-energy hotel on the island of Gozo in the central
Mediterranean. 7th International Conference on Sustainability in
Energy and Buildings. Energy Procedia, 83, 50-59.
[41] Zaca, I., D’Aggostino, D., Congedo, P. M., Baglivo, C. (2015). Assessment of
cost-optimality and technical solutions in high performance multi-
residential buildings in the Mediterranean area. Energy and Buildings,
102, 250-265.
[42] Ascione, F., De Masi, R. F., de Rossi, F., Ruggiero, S., Vanoli, G. P. (2016).
Optimization of building envelope design for nZEBs in Mediterranean
climate: Performance analysis of residential case study. Applied
Energy, 183, 938-957.
[43] Oliveire Panao, M. J. N., Rebelo, M. P., Camelo, S. M. L. (2013). How low
should be the energy required by a nearly zero-energy building? The
load/generation energy balance of Mediterranean housing. Energy and
Buildings, 61, 161-171.
[44] Ganiç, N., Yilmaz, A. Z. (2014). Adaptation of the cost optimal level calculation
method of Directive 2010/31/EU considering the influence of Turkish
national factors. Applied Energy, 123, 94-107.
[45] Ashrafian T., Yilmaz, A. Z., Corgnati, S. P., Moazzen, N. (2016). Methodology
to define cost-optimal lşevel of architectural measures for energy
efficient retrofits of existing detached residential buildings in Turkey.
Energy and Buildings, 120, 58-77.
[46] Lake, A., Rezaie, B., Beyerlein, S. (2017). Review of district heating and cooling
systems for a sustainable future. Renewable ans Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 67, 417-425.
[47] Rismanchi, B. (2017). District energy network (DEN), current global status and
future development. Renewable ans Sustainable Energy Reviews, 75,
571-579.
[48] Rezaie, B., Rosen, M. A. (2012). District heating and cooling: Review of
technology and potential enhancements. Applied Energy, 93, 2-10.
[49] Song, J., Wallin, F., Li, H., Karlsson, B. (2016). Price models of district heating
in Sweden. CUE2015-Applied Energy Symposium and Summit 2015:

108
 Low carbon cities and urban energy systems. Energy Procedia, 88,
100-105.
[50] Li, H., Sun, Q., Zhang, Q., Wallin, F. (2015). A review of the pricing
mechanisms for district heating systems. Renewable ans Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 42, 56-65.
[51] Paiho, S., Reda, F. (2016). Towards next generation district heating in Finland.
Renewable ans Sustainable Energy Reviews, 65, 915-924.
[52] Kazas, G., Fabrizio, E., Perino, M. (2017). Energy demand profile generation
with detailed time resolution at an urban district scale: A reference
building approach and case study. Applied Energy, 193, 243-262.
[53] FP7 European Project CINERGY (2015). CINERGY, Smart cities with
sustainable energy systems. Retrieved from http://www.ci-nergy.eu/.
[54] Cajot, S., Peter, M., Bahu, J. M., Koch, A., Marechal, F. (2015). Energy
planning in the urban contex: challenges and perspectives. 6th
International Building Physics Conference, IBPC 2015. Energy
Procedia, 78, 3366-3371.
[55] Wate, P., Coors, V. (2015) 3D data models for urban energy simulation. 6th
International Building Physics Conference, IBPC 2015. Energy
Procedia, 78, 3372-3377.
[56] Tardioli, G., Kerrigan, R., Oates, M., O’Donnel, J., Finn, D. (2015). Data
driven approaches for prediction of building energy consumption at
urban level. 6th International Building Physics Conference, IBPC 2015.
Energy Procedia, 78, 3378-3383.
[57] Schüler, N., Mastrucci, A., Bertrand, A., Page, J., Marechal, F. (2015). Heat
demand estimation for different building types at regional scale
considering building parameters and urban topography. 6th
International Building Physics Conference, IBPC 2015. Energy
Procedia, 78, 3403-3409.
[58] Monsalvete, P., Robinson, D., Eicker, U. (2015). Dynamic simulation
methodologies for urban energy demand. 6th International Building
Physics Conference, IBPC 2015. Energy Procedia, 78, 3360-3365.
[59] Nielsen, S., Möller, B. (2012). Excess heat production of future net zero energy
buildings within district heating areas in Denmark. Energy, 48, 23-31.
[60] Paiho, S., Hoang, H., Hukkalainen, M. (2017). Energy and emission analyses
of solar assisted local energy solutions with seasonal heat storage in a
Finnish case district. Renewable Energy, 107, 147-155.
[61] Joelsson, A., Gustavsson, L. (2009). District heating and energy efficiency in
detached houses of differing size and construction. Applied Energy, 86,
126-134.
[62] Rodriguez-Aumente, P. A., Rodriguez-Hidalgo, M. delC., Nogueira, J. I.,
Lecuona, A., Venegas, M. delC. (2013). District heating and cooling
for business buildings in Madrid. Applied Thermal Engineering, 50,
1496-1503.

109
[63] Oktay, Z., Aslan, A. (2007). Geothermal district heating in Turkey: The Gonen
case study. Geothermics, 36, 167-182.
[64] Yürüsoy, M., Keçebaş, A. (2017) Advanced exergo-environmental analyses and
assessments of a real district heating system with geothermal energy.
Applied Thermal Engineering, 113, 449-459.
[65] Keçebaş, A., Coşkun, C., Oktay, Z., Hepbaşlı, A. (2014). Comparing advanced
exergetic assessments of two geothermal district heating systems for
residential buildings. Energy and Buildings, 81, 141-151.
[66] Erdogmus, B., Toksoy, M., Özerdem, B., Aksoy, N. (2006). Economic
assessment of geothermal district heating systems: A case study of
Balcova–Narlidere, Turkey, Energy and Buildings, 38, 1053-1059.
[67] Kılkış, Ş. (2015). Exergy transition planning for net-zero districts. Energy, 92,
515-531.
[68] Malliotakis, E., Founti, M. (2017). Energy management and primary energy
optimization of a thermally interconnected semi-autonomus
commercial district via optimized μ-CHP dispatch strategy. Sustainable
Cities and Society, 32, 160-170.
[69] Good, N., Martinez Cesena, E. A., Mancarella, P. (2017). Ten questions
concerning smart districts. Building and Environment, 118, 362-376.
[70] European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (2011). Cost optimal
building performance requirements. Calculation methodology for
reporting on national energy performance requirements on the basis of
cost optimality within the framework of the EPBD. Sweden.
[71] Reinhart, C. F., Cerezo Davila, C. (2016). Urban building energy modeling – A
review of a nascent field. Building and Environment, 97, 196-202.
[72] American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(2007). ASHRAE 90.1 Energy Standard For Buildings Except Low-
Rise Residential Buildings. SI Edition.
[73] European Standard (2008). EN 15603 Energy Performance of Buildings –
Overall Energy Use and Definition of Energy Ratings.
[74] European Standard (2007). EN 15459 Energy Performance of Buildings –
Economic Evaluation procedure for energy systems in buildings.
[75] European Standard (2007). EN 15265 Energy Performance of Buildings –
Calculation of energy meeds for space heating and cooling using
dynamic methods – General criteria and validation procedures.
[76] Turkish Republic Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, General
Management of Urban Transformation and Infrastructure
Services (2015). Development of Ecological Settlement Standard and
Pilot Scheme Implementation in Eskişehir, Odunpazari District,
Kocakir Site.
[77] Url-3 < https://www.designbuilder.co.uk/>, date retrieved 02.08.2017.
[78] Yılmaz, A. Z., Ashrafian, T., Ganiç, N., Gali, G., Akgüç, A. (2015).
Determination of Turkish Reference Residential Buildings and
National Method for Defining Cost Optimum Energy Efficiency Level

110
 of Buildings. Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey
(TUBITAK), Project no:113M596.
[79] Chamber of Mechanical Engineers (2008). Kalorifer Tesisatı (Central Heating
/Radiators Installation). MMO/352/5
[80] American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(2007). ASHRAE 62.1 Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality.
[81] Url-4 <https://energyplus.net/>, date retrieved 02.08.2017.
[82] Turkish Republic Ministry of Environment and Urbanization (2015). Unit
Prices of Construction and Installations.
[83] Url-5 <https://www.emd.dk/energypro/>, date retrieved 02.08.2017.
[84] Esser, A., Sensfuss, F. (2016). Final Report – Evaluation of primary energy factor
calculation options for electricity. Review of the default primary energy
factor (PEF) reflecting the estimated average EU genera-tion efficiency
referred to in Annex IV of Directive 2012/27/EU and possible extension
of the approach to other energy carriers. Fraunhofer-Institut für System-
und Innovationsforschung (ISI).

111
112
APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Tables of energy efficiency measure packages for each type of

building.

113
APPENDIX A

Table A.1 : Packages of energy efficiency measures for residential building.

Opaque Transparent Renewable
MP NO Element Element Infiltration Lighting Heating Cooling DHW Energy
(Reference
Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
Building)
P01 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P02 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P03 Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P04 Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P05 Reference Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P06 Reference Reference Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P07 Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
P08 Reference Reference Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference

P09 Reference Reference Reference Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference
rd
P10 Reference Reference Reference Reference 3 Level Reference Reference Reference
P11 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference

P12 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 1st Level Reference

P13 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 1st Level

P14 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 2nd Level

P15 1st Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P16 1st Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P17 1st Level Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference
P18 1st Level Reference Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P19 1st Level Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P20 2nd Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P21 2nd Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P22 2nd Level Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P23 2nd Level Reference Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P24 2nd Level Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P25 1st Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P26 1st Level 1st Level Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P27 1st Level 2nd Level Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P28 1st Level 2nd Level Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P29 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P30 2nd Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P31 2nd Level 1st Level Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference
P32 2nd Level 2nd Level Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P33 2nd Level 2nd Level Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P34 2nd Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference
P35 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference

P36 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference

114
 Table A.1 (continued) : Packages of energy efficiency measures for residential
building.
Opaque Transparent Renewable
MP NO Infiltration Lighting Heating Cooling DHW
Element Element Energy
P37 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level 3rd Level Reference Reference Reference
P38 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level 4th Level Reference Reference Reference
P39 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level Reference 1st Level Reference Reference
P40 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference Reference
P41 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level 2nd Level 1st Level Reference Reference
P42 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level Reference Reference 1st Level Reference
P43 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level Reference
P44 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference 1st Level
P45 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level 1st Level Reference Reference 1st Level
P46 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level
P47 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level
P48 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference 2nd Level
P49 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level 1st Level Reference Reference 2nd Level
P50 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 3rd Level
P51 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level 3rd Level Reference Reference 1st Level
P52 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level 3rd Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level
P53 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level 3rd Level 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level
P54 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level 3rd Level 1st Level 1st Level 3rd Level
P55 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level Reference 1st Level Reference 1st Level

115
 Table A.2 : Packages of energy efficiency measures for office building.
Opaque Transparent Transparency Natural Renewable
MP NO Element Element Infiltration Ratio Shading Lighting Ventilation Heating Cooling Ventilation Energy

Reference
Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
Building

P01 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P02 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P03 Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P04 Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P05 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P06 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P07 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 3rd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P08 Reference Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P09 Reference Reference Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P10 Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P11 Reference Reference Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P12 Reference Reference Reference Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P13 Reference Reference Reference Reference 3rd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P1415 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P16 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P17 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference

P18 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference

P19 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference

116
 Table A.2 (continued) : Packages of energy efficiency measures for office building
Opaque Transparent Transparency Natural Renewable
MP NO Infiltration Shading Lighting Heating Cooling Ventilation
Element Element Ratio Ventilation Energy
P20 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference

P21 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 1st Level Reference

P22 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 2nd Level Reference

P24 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 3rd Level Reference

P25 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 4th Level Reference

P27 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 1st Level

P28 1st Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P29 1st Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P30 2nd Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P31 2nd Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P32 1st Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P33 1st Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P34 2nd Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P35 2nd Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

2nd Level +
P36 1st Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P37 2nd Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P38 1st Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P39 1st Level 1st Level Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

117
 Table A.2 (continued) : Packages of energy efficiency measures for office building
Opaque Transparent Transparency Natural Renewable
MP NO Infiltration Shading Lighting Heating Cooling Ventilation
Element Element Ratio Ventilation Energy
2nd Level +
P40 2nd Level 2nd Level Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P41 2nd Level 2nd Level Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P42 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P43 2nd Level 2nd Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P44 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P45 2nd Level 2nd Level 1st Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P46 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P47 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P48 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 3rd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P49 2nd Level 2nd Level 1st Level 2nd Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P50 2nd Level 2nd Level 1st Level 2nd Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P51 2nd Level 2nd Level 1st Level 2nd Level 3rd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P52 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P53 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

118
 Table A.2 (continued) : Packages of energy efficiency measures for office building
Opaque Transparent Transparency Natural Renewable
MP NO Infiltration Shading Lighting Heating Cooling Ventilation
Element Element Ratio Ventilation Energy
2nd Level +
P54 2nd Level 2nd Level 1st Level 2nd Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level
2nd Level +
P55 2nd Level 2nd Level 1st Level 2nd Level 1st Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level
2nd Level +
P56 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level 3rd Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level
2nd Level +
P57 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level 3rd Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level
2nd Level + 1st Level +
P58 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level 3rd Level Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level 2nd Level
2nd Level +
P59 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level 3rd Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level Reference
3rd Level
2nd Level +
P60 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level 3rd Level 2nd Level Reference 1st Level Reference
3rd Level
2nd Level +
P61 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level 3rd Level 1st Level Reference 2nd Level Reference
3rd Level
2nd Level +
P62 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level 3rd Level 2nd Level Reference 2nd Level Reference
3rd Level
2nd Level +
P63 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level 3rd Level Reference
3rd Level
2nd Level +
P64 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level 1st Level 2nd Level 3rd Level Reference
3rd Level
2nd Level +
P65 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level 2nd Level 4th Level Reference
3rd Level
2nd Level +
P66 2nd Level 2nd Level 1st Level 2nd Level 1st Level 2nd Level 4th Level Reference
3rd Level
2nd Level +
P67 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level 2nd Level 4th Level 1st Level
3rd Level
2nd Level +
P68 2nd Level 2nd Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level 2nd Level 4th Level 1st Level
3rd Level

119
 Table A.3 : Packages of energy efficiency measures for data center building.
Opaque Transparent Natural Mechanical Renewable
MP NO Element Element Infiltration Shading Lighting Ventilation Heating Ventilation Energy

Reference
Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
Building

P01 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P02 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P03 3rd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P04 Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P05 Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P06 Reference 3rd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P07 Reference Reference Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P08 Reference Reference Reference Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P09 Reference Reference Reference Reference 3rd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P10 Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P11 Reference Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P12 Reference Reference Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P13 Reference Reference Reference 3rd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P14 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference

P15 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference

P16 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 1st Level Reference

P17 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 2nd Level Reference

P18 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 3rd Level Reference

P20 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 1st Level

120
 Table A.3 (continued) : Packages of energy efficiency measures for data center building.
Opaque Transparent Natural Mechanical Renewable
MP NO Infiltration Shading Lighting Heating
Element Element Ventilation Ventilation Energy
P21 1st Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P22 1st Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P23 1st Level 3rd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P24 2nd Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P25 2nd Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P26 2nd Level 3rd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P27 3rd Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P28 3rd Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P29 3rd Level 3rd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

P30 1st Level 2nd Level Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P31 1st Level 2nd Level Reference Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P32 2nd Level 2nd Level Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P33 2nd Level 2nd Level Reference Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P34 3rd Level 2nd Level Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

P35 3rd Level 2nd Level Reference Reference 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference

1st Level +
P36 2nd Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P37 2nd Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

1st Level +
P38 3rd Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P39 3rd Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

121
 Table A.3 (continued) : Packages of energy efficiency measures for data center building.
Opaque Transparent Natural Mechanical Renewable
MP NO Infiltration Shading Lighting Heating
Element Element Ventilation Ventilation Energy
2nd Level +
P40 2nd Level 2nd Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

1st Level +
P41 3rd Level 2nd Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P42 2nd Level 2nd Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P43 2nd Level 2nd Level 1st Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P44 2nd Level 2nd Level 1st Level 3rd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

1st Level +
P45 3rd Level 2nd Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

1st Level +
P46 3rd Level 2nd Level 1st Level 2nd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

1st Level +
P47 3rd Level 2nd Level 1st Level 3rd Level Reference Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

1st Level +
P48 3rd Level 2nd Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P49 2nd Level 2nd Level 1st Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference Reference Reference
3rd Level

1st Level +
P50 3rd Level 2nd Level 1st Level Reference Reference 1st Level Reference Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P51 2nd Level 2nd Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level Reference Reference
3rd Level

1st Level +
P52 3rd Level 2nd Level 1st Level Reference Reference 1st Level 1st Level Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P53 2nd Level 2nd Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level 1st Level Reference
3rd Level

122
 Table A.3 (continued) : Packages of energy efficiency measures for data center building.
Opaque Transparent Natural Mechanical Renewable
MP NO Infiltration Shading Lighting Heating
Element Element Ventilation Ventilation Energy
1st Level +
P54 3rd Level 2nd Level 1st Level Reference Reference 1st Level 2nd Level Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P55 2nd Level 2nd Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level 2nd Level Reference
3rd Level

1st Level +
P56 3rd Level 2nd Level 1st Level Reference Reference 3rd Level Reference
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P57 2nd Level 2nd Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 3rd Level Reference
3rd Level

1st Level +
P58 3rd Level 2nd Level 1st Level Reference Reference 1st Level 2nd Level 1st Level
3rd Level

2nd Level +
P59 2nd Level 2nd Level 1st Level 1st Level Reference 1st Level 2nd Level 1st Level
3rd Level

123
124
CURRICULUM VITAE

Name Surname : Ece Kalaycıoğlu

Place and Date of Birth : Ankara, 18.10.1985

E-Mail : kalayciogluece@gmail.com, kalayciogl@itu.edu.tr

EDUCATION:

 B.Sc. : 2007, Istanbul Technical University, Architectural Faculty,

Department of Architecture
 M.Sc. : 2010, Istanbul Technical University, Architectural Faculty,
Department of Architecture

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND REWARDS:

 2010 - 2016 Ekomim Ekolojik Mimarlık Hizmetleri.

 2010 - 2017 Bina Performansı Modelleme ve Simülasyonları Derneği Yönetim
Kurulu Üyeliği
 2015 – 2016 T.C. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı, Eskişehir Kocekır Mevkii Afet
Riski Altındaki Alanların Dönüştürülmesinde Ekolojik Yerleşim Birimi
Uygulama Standardı ve Alt Yapısının Oluşturulması Projesi

PUBLICATIONS, PRESENTATIONS AND PATENTS ON THE THESIS:

 Kalaycıoğlu E., Yılmaz A. Z. 2017. A New Approach for the Application of
Nearly Zero Energy Concept at Distrıct Level to Reach EPBD Recast
Requirements through a Case Study in Turkey, Energy and Buildings, 152, 680-
700.
 Kalaycıoğlu E., Yılmaz A. Z. 2017. Örnek Bir Yeşil Yerleşimde Enerji Tüketimi
ve Karbon Salımını Maksimum Düzeyde Azaltmak için Bir Yaklaşım Önerisi. 13.
Ulusal Tesisat Mühendisliği Kongresi, April 2007 İzmir, Turkey.

125
 Kalaycıoğlu E., Yılmaz A. Z. 2017. A Methodology of Building Design in a Green
Settlement to Achieve Maximum CO2 and Energy Consumption Reduction, 12th
REHVA World Congress – CLIMA 2016, Aalborg, Denmark.

OTHER PUBLICATIONS, PRESENTATIONS AND PATENTS:

 Kalaycıoğlu E., Akgüç A., Yılmaz A. Z. 2012. Energy Modelling Examples for
Energy Efficient Green Building Design in Turkey. Building Simulation and
Optimization – BSO12, Loughborough, UK.
 Kalaycıoğlu E., Akgüç A., Yılmaz A. Z., Bayraktar M. 2012. Enerji Etkin ve Yeşil
Bina Tasarımında Dinamik Enerji Modellemenin Önemi. X. Uluslararası Yapıda
Tesisat Teknolojisi Sempozyumu, May 2012, İstanbul, Turkey.
 Kalaycıoğlu E., Atmaca M., Yılmaz A. Z. 2011. Comparison and Evaluation of
National Energy Performance Calculation Methodology and EnergyPlus Energy
Need Results of a Case Residential Unit . 11th International Conference for
Enhances Building Operations – ICEBO 2011, New York, USA.
 Kalaycıoğlu E., Yılmaz A. Z., Saka İ. 2011. Problems of Energy Performance
Simulation under LEED Credits: A Case Office Building in Ayvalık, Turkey. VI.
Mediterranean Congress of Climatization – Climamed 2011, June 2011, Madrid,
Spain.
 Kalaycioglu E. 2010. Comparison of Energy Certification Systems of Turkey and
Italy. Master Thesis, February 2010.

126