ARTICLE IN PRESS

Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 11641172 www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

A study on residential heating energy requirement and optimum insulation thickness

O. Kaynakli
Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, University of Uludag, TR-16059 Bursa, Turkey Received 6 April 2007; accepted 5 July 2007 Available online 22 August 2007

Abstract Heat loss from buildings has a considerable share in waste of energy especially in Turkey since no or little insulation is used in existing and new buildings. Therefore, energy savings can be obtained by determining of heat loss characteristics with using proper thickness of insulation. For this purpose, in this study, calculations of optimum insulation thickness are carried out on a prototype building in Bursa as a sample city. Considering long term and current outdoor air temperature records (from 1992 to 2005), degree-hour (DH) values are calculated, and the variation of annual energy requirement of the building is investigated for various architectural design properties (such as air inltration rate, glazing type, and area). Then, the effects of the insulation thickness on the energy requirement and total cost are presented. Based on life cycle cost (LCC) analysis, the optimum insulation thicknesses are determined for different fuel types. As a conclusion, the length of the heating period is average 221 days, and the mean heating DH value is found as 45 113.2 besides changing between 38 000 and 55 000. The optimum insulation thicknesses for Bursa vary between 5.3 and 12.4 cm depending on fuel types. In addition to this, the variation in Turkey is more dramatically. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Heating energy requirements; Degree hour; Optimum insulation thickness

1. Introduction Energy conservation has become an important part of national energy strategies and will continue growing in importance in future, because of the fact that energy is a crucial factor for the social and economic development of societies, and energy consumption is rapidly increasing due to the population growth, urbanization and industrialization. This is particularly important for Turkey since it imports most of energy it uses. Due to the very limited indigenous energy resources, Turkey has to import nearly 5560% of the energy from abroad to meet her needs [1,2]. In general, energy consumption can be examined under four main sectors such as industrial, building (residential), transportation and agriculture. Energy consumption in the residential sector is one of the main parts of the total energy consumption in most countries. According to Buyukalaca and Bulut [3], approximately 2530% of the
Tel.: +90 224 4429183; fax: +90 224 4428021.

E-mail address: kaynakli@uludag.edu.tr 0960-1481/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2007.07.001

total energy consumption in Turkey is used by the residential sector. On the other hand, recent studies reveal that technical potential savings range 2545% in residential buildings in Turkey [4]. The energy consumption of space heating is approximately two times more than that of the other consumption sources (such as water heating, cooking, food refrigeration and freezing) in residential sector. Therefore, use of proper insulation in buildings is quite important for both energy savings and reducing undesirable emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Degree-time concept is used in many practical applications such as power generation, estimation of energy requirementdemandconsumption, plant growth and agriculture [5]. Also, variation in space heating needs can be measured in degree-time methods using the base and outdoor temperatures. The degree time is one of the proper methods to use in order to forecast energy consumption of residential heating [6]. Satman and Yalcinkaya [6] calculated the yearly heating and cooling degree hours (DHs) with the base temperature of 15, 17, 18.3 1C for heating season and with the base

ARTICLE IN PRESS
O. Kaynakli / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 11641172 1165

Nomenclature A ACH C cp DH GAP h i I g k L LCC LHV LT m N PWF Q R area, m2 air exchange per hour cost, $ specic heat, J kg1 K1 total number of degree hours glazing area percentage convective heat transfer coefcient, W m2 K1 ination rate air exchange rates per hour, h1 interest rate thermal conductivity, W m1 K1 total heat transfer coefcient, W K1 life cycle cost lower heating value of fuel, J kg1, J m3, J kW h1 depending on the fuel type lifetime, year fuel consumption, kg, m3, kW h1 depending on the fuel type number of hours present worth factor annual energy requirement, J thermal resistance, m2 K W1

T U V x

temperature, 1C overall heat transfer coefcient, W m2 K1 volume, m3 insulation thickness, m

Greek letters Z r heating system efciency density, kg m3

Subscripts b bm c f h i ins o opt t w wd base basement ceiling fuel heating indoor, inside insulation outdoor, outside optimum total wall window

temperature of 24, 26, 27, 30 1C for cooling season. They documented the DHs for 77 locations in Turkey. Papakostas and Kyriakis [7] studied on heating and cooling DHs for only 1 year at two cities in Greece. Durmayaz et al. [8] calculated the residential heating energy requirement and natural gas consumption in the city of Istanbul using DH concept. Buyukalaca et al. [9] investigated the base temperature effects on the heating and cooling degreeday values for Turkey. In addition, variation of the heating and cooling degree-day was examined depend upon elevation, latitude and longitude. They found that the heating and cooling degree-day exhibit big uctuations throughout Turkey, and the northeastern and the inner regions of Turkey require comparatively more heating energy. The heating degree-day method was used to estimate the natural gas consumption by residential heating in Turkey in the study of Sarak and Satman [10]. Their model was applied on the existing, under construction and planned natural gas pipelines. Applications of the degree-time method have been carried out together with optimum insulation thickness in several studies. In the study of Bolatturk [11], the use of insulation on external walls of buildings was analyzed. The optimum insulation thickness, the amount of energy saved and payback period for different fuel types were calculated using life cycle cost (LCC) analysis. He determined that the optimum insulation thickness varies between 2 and 17 cm, energy savings between 22% and 79%, and payback period between 1.3 and 4.5 years. Al-Sanea and Zedan [12] studied the effect of insulation location on the thermal

performance of building walls under steady periodic conditions. In this study, it is stated on especially two concepts, heating energy requirement and optimum insulation thickness. Bursa is chosen as a model city. Firstly, yearly heating energy requirement for Bursa is determined properly by using long-term measurements. For that reason, 14 years outdoor air temperature data from 1992 to 2005 are used. During these years, the lengths of heating season and startingending points are determined. Then, an optimization model based on the life cycle cost analysis using the present worth method is developed. Using the optimization model, the optimum insulation thicknesses for external walls of buildings are calculated for ve different types of fuel, namely, natural gas, coal, fuel-oil, LPG and electricity. 2. Calculation of heating degree hours One of the methods for estimating the energy requirements for heating purposes in a building over a specied period is the degree-time method. The method assumes that the energy needs for a building are proportional to the difference between the outdoor temperature and the base temperature. The total number of heating DHs for a heating season can be calculated as DH
N X T b T o j ; j 1

for

T o pT b j ,

(1)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1166 O. Kaynakli / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 11641172 Table 1 The mean monthly outdoor air temperatures [13] Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 January 2.5 3.3 7.5 6.4 3.7 5.9 5.4 6.8 2.2 7.9 3.2 8.9 5.0 6.2 February 1.1 3.3 6.2 8.2 6.4 4.3 6.5 6.5 5.4 7.6 9.1 2.8 5.1 6.6 March 7.1 7.3 9.2 9.1 5.3 6.1 6.0 8.9 7.1 14.4 10.3 4.6 9.4 8.5 April 12.6 11.8 15.3 12.2 9.9 9.7 15.4 14.5 14.8 14.1 11.7 9.9 13.1 14.0 May 15.1 15.9 19.0 18.4 19.7 18.1 17.1 19.0 18.0 17.7 17.5 18.8 17.6 17.9 June 21.9 21.8 21.5 24.2 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.9 21.7 23.0 23.0 23.8 22.7 21.6 July 22.0 23.5 24.9 24.5 25.0 24.5 25.1 26.1 26.2 27.0 26.8 25.3 24.7 24.9 August 25.1 24.3 25.3 24.1 24.6 21.8 25.6 25.4 24.5 25.7 24.7 25.6 23.8 25.4 September 19.0 19.7 24.3 20.6 19.5 17.4 20.4 20.9 20.5 21.3 20.8 19.2 20.4 20.4 October 18.8 16.7 18.4 13.8 13.7 14.8 15.8 16.1 14.6 16.2 15.6 16.6 16.7 13.2 November 8.8 8.9 9.1 7.6 11.0 10.6 11.6 10.9 12.2 10.4 10.8 10.0 10.1 9.3 December 3.7 8.7 5.4 8.2 10.3 7.5 6.8 10.1 7.8 5.0 5.0 6.3 6.3 8.0

where To and Tb are the outdoor air and the base temperatures, N is the number of hours providing a condition of TopTb. As it can be seen from Eq. (1), DH values only take on positive values. The base temperature is the outdoor temperature below which heating is needed. In this study, the base temperature is taken as 18 1C [9]. The weather data being used in energy analyses determine the accuracy and characteristics of results. Therefore, the database used in energy requirement calculations should cover a long period and depend on recent values [9]. In this study, ambient temperature (dry bulb) data during 14 years (from 1992 to 2005) were used to determine the heating DHs. These data were taken from The State Meteorological Affairs General Directorate. The mean monthly outdoor air temperatures measured at a meteorology station of Bursa are given according to years in Table 1. Bursa is located in the northwest of Turkey. Turkey is divided into four climate regions which the fourth region has the highest DH values, and Bursa is in second climatic zone. According to ASHRAE [14], the location of Bursa is 40.18 North latitude, 29.07 East longitude and 100 m altitude. Variation of the daily mean outdoor air temperature, for instance in 2005, is shown in Fig. 1. This gure is used for determination of the start and end of the heating season. It is observed in this gure that the beginning and end of the heating season is the 271st day (28 September) and the 128th day (8 May) of the year for the base temperature of 18 1C. It can be calculated from the given values that the heating seasons last totally 223 days. So, the heating season takes about 60% of the year. Variation of the DH values based on 18 1C for Bursa are shown in Fig. 2. Owing to the fact that the outside temperatures are low, the heating DH values are high at the beginning and end days of the year. As there is no need for heating between the 128th and 271st days of the year, the DHs are equal to zero. The total number of DHs is estimated DH 44 657.6 for the heating period in 2005 by aid of Eq. (1) and Fig. 2.

Fig. 1. Variation of the daily mean outdoor air temperature in 2005.

Fig. 2. Variation of the degree hours in 2005.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
O. Kaynakli / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 11641172 1167

For other years, the starting and ending days of the heating period are presented in Table 2. It is observed from the table that the lengths of heating period vary between 206 and 239 days depending on years. The heating period lasts average 7.5 months (221 days) in the all observed years. It is also seen from the table that whereas the earliest beginning (at 267th day) and the last nishing (at 146th day) years of heating season are the years of 1995 and 1992, respectively, the longest heating occurs in the year of 1997. The length of heating season for 1997 is 239 days, which covers 65% of the year. For this reason, it can be expected that the DH value for 1997 is greater than that for other years. But, the year that has the highest DH is 1992 (see Fig. 3). Even if the longest heating season is for 1997, as it is seen in Fig. 3, the year that requires the highest heating energy is 1992 with 55 272 DHs. Because of this, a year that has the longest

heating period does not mean that it needs the highest heating energy requirement. It is also seen in Fig. 3 that the DH values vary in a wide range, from 38 023 to 55 272, according to years. Therefore, in building energy simulations, it should not be decided for only one or several years, it needs to be examined in long period and with recent values. 3. Calculation of heating cost and optimum insulation thickness 3.1. Energy requirement and heating cost Heat losses occur in buildings mainly from external walls, ceiling, windows, basement and by inltration. Physical and thermal properties for the examined building, the parameters used in the calculations and their corresponding values are given in Table 3. With the numerical values given in Table 3, overall heat transfer coefcients for the ceiling, basement, and outside walls of the building can be computed. In this study, the outside dimensions, width depth height, of the prototype building are considered as 15 12 3 m. It is assumed that the seasonal average air exchange rates per hour due to the ventilation and inltration for the example building may be I 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 ACH [8]. The roof, outside walls and oor areas follow 180, 162, 180 m2, and the total volume of the building is V 540 m3. In addition to this, the glazing area (Awd) may be 20% (32.4 m2), 30% (48.6 m2), 40% (64.8 m2) and 50% (81.0 m2) of the total outside wall area. In general, stones, concrete with reinforced iron bars, concrete bricks and clay bricks are used in the walls of the buildings. Wall structures vary with climate. In cold climates, sandwich walls are used. The sandwich wall consists of an insulation layer in the middle of the two brick layers and two plaster layers on the inside and outside surfaces. One of the commonly used for insulation materials is polystyrene [15]. Hence, in this study, polystyrene is chosen for the insulation of the outside walls. The insulation materials for ceiling and basement are taken as berglass and rock wool, the properties of which are given in Table 3 [1618]. The total heat transfer coefcient (L) of the prototype building can be calculated as L
M X i1

Table 2 The starting and ending days of heating period for each year Years 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mean average Heating season (Julian days) 1146, 1138, 1128, 1126, 1134, 1140, 1133, 1125, 1129, 1120, 1127, 1138, 1132, 1128, 281366 274365 287365 267365 272366 267365 282365 277365 279366 280365 282365 277365 279366 271365 Length (days) 232 230 207 225 229 239 217 214 217 206 211 227 219 223 221

1132, 277365

UA I rcp air V =3600,

(2)

where M represents the zones where the heat losses take place (i.e. outside walls, windows, ceiling, and basement). (rcp)air is the volumetric thermal capacity of air, and it is taken as 1200 J m3 K1 [14]. Hence the term of L is rewritten as
L U o;w 162 Awd U wd Awd U bm Abm U c Ac IV =3.
Fig. 3. Variation of the degree hours with years.

(3)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1168 Table 3 Values of parameters used in the calculations Parameter Ceiling under the roof (180 m2) 5 cm 15 cm 2 cm Outside walls (162 m2 minus glazing area) 2 cm 13.5 cm x cm 8.5 cm 2 cm Value k 0.038 W m1 K1 k 2.10 W m1 K1 k 0.72 W m1 K1 U 0.707 W m2 K1 k 0.87 W m1 K1 k 0.45 W m1 K1 k 0.034 W m1 K1 k 0.45 W m1 K1 k 0.87 W m1 K1 hi 8.3 W m2 K1 ho 34.0W m2 K1 U 1/(Rins+0.685) W m2 K1 U 5.91 W m2 K1 U 3.46 W m2 K1 k 1.28 W m1 K1 k 1.40 W m1 K1 k 2.10 W m1 K1 k 0.042 W m1 K1 k 1.74 W m1 K1 U 0.387 W m2 K1 cp (J kg1K1) k (W m1 K1) 0.038 0.034 0.042 O. Kaynakli / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 11641172

Insulation (berglass) Concrete with sand and gravel aggregate Cement plaster with sand aggregate

Internal plaster Hollow brick Insulation (polystyrene) Hollow brick External plaster Inside heat transfer coefcient Outside heat transfer coefcient

Windows (20%, 30%, 40%, 50% of outside walls) Single glass Double glass Basement (180 m2) 3 cm 6 cm 10 cm 10 cm 15 cm Square cement oor tile Alum Concrete Insulation (rock wool) Blockage

Insulation materials Fiberglass Polystyrene Rock wool

r (kg m3) 1930 23 30

1280 837

Table 4 Building heat transfer coefcient (L, W/K) for various glazing type and surface area (GAP), and air inltration rate (I ) (xins 0.03 m) GAP (%) Single glass 0.5 ACH 20 30 40 50 561.1 646.5 731.9 817.3 1.0 ACH 651.1 736.5 821.9 907.3 1.5 ACH 741.1 826.5 911.9 997.3 2.0 ACH 831.1 916.5 1001.9 1087.3 Double glass 0.5 ACH 481.8 527.5 573.2 618.9 1.0 ACH 571.8 617.5 663.2 708.9 1.5 ACH 661.8 707.5 753.2 798.9 2.0 ACH 751.8 797.5 843.2 888.9

The total heat transfer coefcient values of the building are presented in Table 4 for single and double glass, various glazing area percentage of outside walls (GAP), and air exchange rates per hour (I ). The insulation thickness (xins) for outside walls is used generally 3 cm in Bursa. For this reason, in these calculations, the insulation thickness is taken as 3 cm. As it is seen from the table that as expected L values increase with increasing I and GAP values. Besides, L values for double glass are average 20% lower than that for single glass. This average value decreases with increasing I (i.e. inltration losses), and it increases with increasing GAP.

The overall heat transfer coefcient of the outside wall (Uo,w) that includes a layer of insulation is given by U o;w 1 , 1=hi Rw xins =kins 1=ho (4)

where hi and ho are the inside and outside convective heat transfer coefcients, respectively, Rw is the total thermal resistance of the composite sandwich wall materials without insulation, x and k are the thickness and thermal conductivity of insulation material, respectively. Recommended design values for heat transfer coefcients on the inner and outer surfaces of a building are hi 8.3 W m2 K1 and ho 34.0 W m2 K1 [19]. In terms

ARTICLE IN PRESS
O. Kaynakli / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 11641172 Table 5 The annual heating energy requirements (Qheating, GJ) of the building (xins 0.03 m) GAP (%) Single glass 0.5 ACH For the year of 1992 20 111.7 30 128.6 40 145.6 50 162.6 For the year of 1998 20 89.2 30 102.7 40 116.3 50 129.9 For the year of 2005 20 90.2 30 103.9 40 117.7 50 131.4 1.0 ACH 1.5 ACH 2.0 ACH Double glass 0.5 ACH 1.0 ACH 1.5 ACH 2.0 ACH 1169

129.6 146.6 163.5 180.5 103.5 117.0 130.6 144.2 104.7 118.4 132.1 145.9

147.5 164.5 181.5 198.5 117.8 131.3 144.9 158.5 119.1 132.9 146.6 160.3

165.4 182.4 199.4 216.4 132.1 145.6 159.2 172.8 133.6 147.3 161.1 174.8

95.9 105.0 114.1 123.1 76.5 83.8 91.1 98.3 77.4 84.8 92.1 99.5

113.8 122.9 132.0 141.1 90.8 98.1 105.4 112.6 91.9 99.3 106.6 114.0

131.7 140.8 149.9 159.0 105.1 112.4 119.7 126.9 106.4 113.7 121.1 128.4

149.6 158.7 167.8 176.9 119.4 126.7 134.0 141.2 120.9 128.2 135.6 142.9

of DHs, the annual energy requirements can be calculated as Q 3600 LDH. (5)

The annual fuel consumption (mf) for heating season is mf 3600 LDH , Z LHV (6)

where Z is the heating-system efciency, LHV is lower heating value of the fuel. For instance, for the years of 1992, 1998 and 2005, the annual heating energy requirements for the building (Q) are given in Table 5. Energy requirement of the examined building increases with increasing GAP and I values, and shows a considerable variation according to years. In order to calculate long period average energy requirement, outside temperatures and DH values are needed. The average outside temperatures and DH values during 14 years are given in Figs. 4 and 5. Considering the outside temperatures of all examined years, the mean DH value is found as 45 113.2. Taking the DH 45 113.2, variation of the annual heating energy requirement for the building with the architectural design properties such as GAP and ACH for single and double glass is given in Fig. 6. As the glazing area of the building increases, naturally, the heating energy requirements also increase. But, the increase rate of the energy requirement for building with double glass is lower than that for building with single glass. It is also seen in Table 5 and Fig. 6 that the heating energy requirement of the building increases if the air exchange rate boosts due to the natural ventilation and uncontrolled inltration. In condition of increasing GAP from 20% to 30%, I from 0.5 to 1 ACH and using single glass instead of double glass, the energy requirement increases approximately 10%, 15% and 20%, respectively.

Fig. 4. Variation of 14 yearly average outdoor air temperatures for Bursa.

Fig. 5. Variation of 14 yearly average degree hours for Bursa.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1170 O. Kaynakli / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 11641172 Table 6 Prices (Cf) and lower heating values (LHV) of fuels and efciencies of heating systems (Z) [11,23] Fuel Natural gas Coal Fuel-oil LPG Electricity Price 0.259 $ 0.199 $ 0.737 $ 1.244 $ 0.091 $ m kg1 kg1 kg1 kWh1
3

LHV 34.526 10 J m 29.295 106 J kg1 40.594 106 J kg1 46.453 106 J kg1 3.599 106 J kWh1
6 3

Z (%) 93 65 80 90 99

Fig. 6. Annual heating energy requirement for the building vs. GAP for various ACH and glazing type.

3.2. Cost analysis The LCC analysis is an economic evaluation technique that calculates the cost of a system or a component over its lifetime. In this study, LCC analysis is used for the calculation of the total cost of heating. The total heating cost over a lifetime of LT years is converted to present value by multiplying it by present worth factor (PWF). The PWF, which includes the interest rate (i) and ination rate (g), is adjusted for ination [2022]. The interest rate adjusted for ination rate (i*) is given by the following equations: i i g=1 g; i g i=1 i; PWF for for i 4 g , i o g , (7) (8) (9)

Fig. 7. Annual heating cost for the building vs. GAP for various fuel types (single glass, I 0.5 ACH).

insulation thickness in m. The total cost of heating the insulated building in present dollars is given by C t C h PWF C t;ins 3600 LDH C f PWF C ins Ao;w x. Z LHV

13

1 i LT 1 , i 1 i LT

where LT is the expected lifetime, which is taken to be 20 years [16,21]. If i g then PWF LT . 1 i (10)

The annual heating cost for the building (Ch) is determined from Ch 3600 LDH C f , Z LHV (11)

where Cf is the fuel cost in $/kg, $ m3 or $/kW h depending on the fuel type, which can be taken from Table 6. The total cost of insulation is given by C t;ins C ins Ao;w x, (12) where Cins is the cost of insulation material per unit volume in $ m3, Ao,w is the outdoor wall area in m2, and x is the

Comparisons of fuel costs are seen in Fig. 7. In these calculations, the values given in Table 6 such as fuel prices, lower heating values and heating systems efciencies are used. The heating cost is directly proportional to the cost of fuel and the architectural design properties of the building. When the values of GAP increase, the fuel expenses also increase due to heat losses of the building. For GAP 30%, while the annual fuel expenditure is 850$ for natural gas usage, it is 3125$ for LPG. It is determined that the highest annual heating energy cost of the building occurs for LPG usage, on the other hand, the lowest cost is found for the usage of natural gas. The cost ratio of between the mentioned two fuels, LPG and natural gas, is more than three times. Namely, by using LPG instead of natural gas as a fuel, it will be times times greater for heating cost. Furthermore, obtaining the most costly fuel as LPG is agreed with the study of Bolatturk [11]. Fig. 8 shows the change in total cost, including heating energy cost and insulation material cost, with insulation thickness. As the insulation thickness goes up, heat losses

ARTICLE IN PRESS
O. Kaynakli / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 11641172 1171

Fig. 8. Heating, insulation and total costs vs. insulation thickness (single glass, GAP 20%, I 0.5 ACH).

Fig. 9. Total heating costs (Ct) vs. insulation thickness for various fuel types (single glass, GAP 20%, I 0.5 ACH).

and heating energy requirements decrease as expected. But, while heating cost falls by 20% for insulation varying from 0 to 5 cm, it falls by only 5% for varying from 5 to 10 cm. Because, while the overall heat transfer coefcient of outside wall (Uo,w) is 1.460 W m2 K for xins 0 cm, it is 0.464 W m2 K for 5 cm and 0.276 W m2 K for 10 cm. Since the overall heat transfer coefcient does not direct proportionally change with insulation thickness, the heating energy requirement does not decrease the same rate as well. The heating cost decreases by diminishing increments with the increase in thickness of insulation, whereas the initial investment cost of insulation (Ct,ins) increase linearly. For that reason, the total heating cost (Ct) decreases in the beginning, and then increases slowly due to the insulation material cost. The insulation thickness at the minimum of total cost curve is taken as the optimum insulation thickness. As it can be seen in Fig. 8, the optimum insulation thickness is found as 5.3 cm for natural gas. For other fuels, the variation of the total cost and the optimum insulation values are given in Fig. 9. It is clear that the insulation thicknesses take higher values for higher fuel cost. For example, the optimum insulation thicknesses are 10.5, 11.2 and 12.4 cm for relatively costly fuels such as fuel oil, electricity and LPG, respectively. In addition, as the costs of energy are high in Turkey, the optimum insulation thicknesses are generally high. One of the basic parameters affecting the optimum insulation thickness is the thermal conductivity of insulation material. The variation of the optimum insulation thickness with the thermal conductivity of insulation is shown in Fig. 10 for different fuel types. It is seen that when the insulation material having higher thermal conductivity is used, the optimum insulation thickness also increases. But this increase is not linear. So, with using insulation material having higher thermal conductivity, the optimum insulation thickness does not increase at the same rate with the conductivity of material.

Fig. 10. Optimum insulation thickness vs. thermal conductivity of insulation for various fuel types (DH 45 113.2).

Fig. 11. Optimum insulation thickness vs. DH for various fuel types (k 0.034 W m K).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1172 O. Kaynakli / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 11641172

Turkey has four climatic zones, and the DH values in Turkey vary between approximately 22 000 and 135 000 for Tb 18 1C, which is a large range [6]. The variation of the optimum insulation thickness with DH is shown in Fig. 11 for different fuel type. The optimum insulation thickness increases with DH and fuel cost. It is clearly seen from the gure that the insulation thickness take higher values for more severe climate conditions and also for higher fuel costs. But, the optimum insulation thickness increases by diminishing increments with increasing DH. So, a region where the energy requirement is more, the optimum insulation thickness does not increase at the same rate with its energy requirement. Because of a considerably change between the maximum and the minimum values of the DH in Turkey, optimum insulation thickness varies signicantly one region to another. As it can be seen in Fig. 11, the optimum insulation thickness varies between 3.0 and 23.1 cm depending on the DH value and fuel type. 4. Conclusion The heating season for Bursa lasts average 221 days when the all observed years are considered. In the observed years, the lengths of heating periods vary between 206 and 239 days; and the DHs vary between approximately 38 000 and 55 000. Although the longest heating (239 days) occurs in the year of 1997, the highest DH (i.e. the highest energy requirement) is the year of 1992. For that reason, there is not a relation between the length of heating period and the annual heating energy requirement. Moreover, owing to the fact that the values of both length of heating period and DH indicate big change year to year, long-term data obtained from the regular meteorological temperature measurements should be used for accurate and reliable calculations of energy requirement of a city or a region. If the GAP and I increases, the heating energy requirements increase as expected. The heating energy requirement for double glass is average 20% lower than that for single glass. The optimum insulation thicknesses for Bursa vary between 5.3 and 12.4 cm, vary between 3.0 and 23.1 cm for Turkey depending on the fuel types. In general, the optimum insulation thicknesses become high in Turkey because of high costs of energy. The optimum insulation thickness increases when a costly fuel is used. The most suitable fuel with respect to costs appears to be natural gas for all climatic regions. The optimum insulation thickness does not vary linearly with the DH value and thermal conductivity of insulation. It increases by diminishing increments with increasing DH and thermal conductivity. As the DH values vary considerably in Turkey, the optimum insulation thicknesses show a signicant variation

one region to another. For that reason, the insulation calculations should be done separately for each city. References
[1] Ogulata RG. Sectoral energy consumption in Turkey. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2002;6:47180. [2] Kaygusuz K, Kaygusuz A. Energy and sustainable development. Part II: environmental impacts of energy use. Energy Sources 2004;26: 107182. [3] Buyukalaca O, Bulut H. Detailed weather data for the provinces covered by the Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP) of Turkey. Appl Energy 2004;77:187204. [4] Kaygusuz K, Kaygusuz A. Energy and sustainable development in Turkey, Part I: energy utilization and sustainability. Energy Sources 2002;24:48398. [5] Kadioglu M, Sen Z, Gultekin LM. Heating degree-day variations in Turkey. In: International symposium on environmental issues and waste management in energy and mineral productionSWEMP98, 1820 May 1998, Ankara, Turkey, p. 1616. [6] Satman A, Yalcinkaya N. Heating and cooling degree-hours for Turkey. Energy 1999;24:83340. [7] Papakostas K, Kyriakis N. Heating and cooling degree-hours for Athens and Thessaloniki, Greece. Renew Energy 2005;30:187380. [8] Durmayaz A, Kadioglu M, Sen Z. An application of the degree-hours method to estimate the residential heating energy requirement and fuel consumption in Istanbul. Energy 2000;25:124556. [9] Buyukalaca O, Bulut H, Yilmaz T. Analysis of variable-base heating and cooling degree-days for Turkey. Appl Energy 2001;69:26983. [10] Sarak H, Satman A. The degree-day method to estimate the residential heating natural gas consumption in Turkey: a case study. Energy 2003;28:92939. [11] Bolatturk A. Determination of optimum insulation thickness for building walls with respect to various fuels and climate zones in Turkey. Appl Therm Eng 2006;26:13019. [12] Al-Sanea SA, Zedan MF. Effect of insulation location on thermal performance of building walls under steady periodic conditions. Int J Ambient Energy 2001;22(2):5972. [13] Republic of Turkey, Meteorological Service. The State Meteorological Affairs General Directorate. [14] ASHRAE handbook fundamentals. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Inc.; 1997. [15] Mohsen MS, Akash BA. Some prospects of energy savings in buildings. Energy Convers Manage 2001;42:130715. [16] Al-Sallal KA. Comparison between polystyrene and berglass roof insulation in warm and cold climates. Renew Energy 2003;28:60311. [17] Jaber JO. Prospects of energy savings in residential space heating. Energy Build 2002;34:3119. [18] Al-Sanea SA, Zedan MF, Al-Ajlan SA. Effect of electricity tariff on the optimum insulation-thickness in building walls as determined by a dynamic heat-transfer model. Appl Energy 2005;82:31330. [19] Cengel YA. Heat transfer: a practical approach. McGraw-Hill Inc.; 1998. p. 699794. [20] Hasan A. Optimizing insulation thickness for buildings using life cycle cost. Appl Energy 1999;63:11524. [21] Mearing T, Coffee N, Morgan M. Life cycle cost analysis handbook. 1st ed. State of Alaska: Department of Education & Early Development Education Support Services/Facilities; 1999. [22] Al-Sanea SA, Zedan MF, Al-Ajlan SA, Abdul Hadi AS. Heat transfer characteristics and optimum insulation thickness for cavity walls. J Thermal Environ Build Sci 2003;26(3):285307. [23] /www.dosider.orgS (Natural Gas Equipment Manufacturers and Businessmen Association).