Mevcut Bina Iyileştirmelerinde Ulaşılabilir Yaklaşık Sıfır Enerji Hedeflerinin Belirlenmesi Için Yeni Bir Yaklaşım

ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY  GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SCIENCE
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
A NEW APPROACH TO IDENTIFY ACHIEVABLE NEARLY-ZERO ENERGY

BUILDING TARGETS FOR EXISTING BUILDING RETROFITS
Ph.D. THESIS
Neşe GANİÇ SAĞLAM
Department of Architecture
Construction Sciences Programme
NOVEMBER 2017
ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY  GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SCIENCE
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
A NEW APPROACH TO IDENTIFY ACHIEVABLE NEARLY-ZERO ENERGY

BUILDING TARGETS FOR EXISTING BUILDING RETROFITS
Ph.D. THESIS

(502122066)
Department of Architecture
Construction Sciences Programme
Thesis Advisor: Prof. Dr. A. Zerrin YILMAZ

Thesis Co-Advisor: Prof. Dr. Stefano P. CORGNATI
NOVEMBER 2017
ISTANBUL TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ  FEN BİLİMLERİ ENSTİTÜSÜ
MEVCUT BİNA İYİLEŞTİRMELERİNDE ULAŞILABİLİR YAKLAŞIK SIFIR

ENERJİ HEDEFLERİNİN BELİRLENMESİ İÇİN YENİ BİR YAKLAŞIM
DOKTORA TEZİ

(502122066)
Mimarlık Anabilim Dalı
Yapı Bilimleri Programı
Tez Danışmanı: Prof. Dr. A. Zerrin YILMAZ

Eş Danışman: Prof. Dr. Stefano P. CORGNATI
KASIM 2017
Neşe GANİÇ SAĞLAM, a Ph.D. student of ITU Graduate School of Science
Engineering and Technology student ID 502122066, successfully defended the
dissertation entitled “A NEW APPROACH TO IDENTIFY ACHIEVABLE
NEARLY-ZERO ENERGY BUILDING TARGETS FOR EXISTING BUILDING
RETROFITS”, 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
Co-advisor : Prof.Dr. Stefano P. CORGNATI ..............................

Politecnico di Torino
Jury Members : Prof. Dr. Alpin KÖKNEL YENER .............................

Prof. Dr. Rengin ÜNVER ..............................

Yıldız Technical University
Doç. Dr. Emrah ACAR ..............................

Doç. Dr. Ahmet Murat ÇIRACI ..............................

Yrd. Doç. Dr. Cristina BECCHIO ..............................

Politecnico di Torino
Date of Submission : 10 October 2017

Date of Defense : 22 November 2017
v
vi
FOREWORD
Firstly, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my supervisor Prof. Dr. A.

Zerrin YILMAZ for her continuous and positive guidance on my academic career and
her encouragement, instructions and feedbacks on all of my graduate research
activities. I am also very grateful to my co-supervisor Prof. Dr. Stefano P. CORGNATI
for providing an opportunity to continue this research in Politecnico di Torino and
guide my research activities with his sincere contribution and enlightening perspective.
I thank to TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey)
who had supported my period in Politecnico di Torino with an appreciated scholarship.
I would like to thank my committee members Prof. Dr. Alpin KÖKNEL YENER, Prof.
Dr. Rengin ÜNVER and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Emrah ACAR for their comments and
contributions. I am also grateful to the members of my working group in ITU Faculty
of Architecture for their support and patience during the period that I have been
working as a research assistant.
Special thanks goes to my friends in Taşkışla, Dr. Mine DİNCER, Dr. Feride ŞENER
YILMAZ, Dr. F. Pınar ÇAKMAK and Dr. Bahriye İLHAN for sharing their
experience with a warm friendship whenever I need. I also thank to Dilara DEMIR
and Ecem TEZEL who have joined us in recent years and show friendship and patience
ever after. During my PhD, we completed a research project together with our
supervisor and my colleuges Gözde GALİ, Dr. Touraj ASHRAFIAN BONAB and
Alpay AKGÜÇ. I thank these friends for their cooperation and effort on our research.
I also owe a debt of gratitude to my friends in Politecnico di Torino. I would like to
thank Dr. Tiziana BUSO, my officemate in both Istanbul and Torino, for making my
visiting period easier with her great friendship and hospitality. I would like to thank
also Dr. Cristina BECCHIO for contributing to my research by sparing her extremely
rare time with me and show sincere friendship. I thank to Mara Bianchetti for dealing
with all my bureaucratic issues with her energetic smile everyday. I thank to Cinzia
Bello, Federico Dell’Anna, Verena Barthelmes, Dr. Valentina Fabi, Giorgia
Spigliantini, Chiara Casalino and Chiara Delmastro for their warm hospitality. I also
thank to Cristina Tanasa and Jana Kmetkova for their great friendship in Torino.
Finally, I would like to thank my mother Güzin GANİÇ, my father Faruk GANİÇ and
my sister Çiğdem GANİÇ for their tireless and unconditional efforts throughout my
life and their support beyond words.
My special thanks goes to my dear husband Mehmet SAĞLAM for his great support,
incredible patience and permanent belief in me.
October 2017 Neşe GANİÇ SAĞLAM

(Architect, M.Sc.)
vii
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD ............................................................................................................ vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ix
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. xiii
SYMBOLS ................................................................................................................ xv
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. xvii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ xxi
SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... xxiii
ÖZET....................................................................................................................... xxv
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
NEARLY ZERO ENERGY BUILDING CONCEPT......................................... 5
Buildings as a Part of European Energy Strategy .............................................. 5
Directive 2010/31/EU ........................................................................................ 6
2.2.1 Relation between cost-optimality and NZEB concepts .............................. 6
2.2.2 Cost-optimal methodology framework ....................................................... 8
Latest Research Activities on NZEB Concept ................................................. 16
Progress in EU Countries ................................................................................. 19
BUILDING ENERGY PERFORMANCE ISSUE IN TURKEY ..................... 23
Significance of Building Energy Performance ................................................. 23
Legislative Framework in Turkey .................................................................... 24
3.2.1 Energy Efficiency Law ............................................................................. 24
3.2.2 Building Energy Performance Regulation ................................................ 25
3.2.3 National Heat Insulation Standard TS 825 ............................................... 25
Progress in Turkey ........................................................................................... 26
A NEW APPROACH TO IDENTIFY ACHIEVABLE NEARLY-ZERO
ENERGY BUILDING TARGETS FOR EXISTING BUILDING
RETROFITS ........................................................................................................ 31
Objective and Concept of the Approach .......................................................... 31
National Adaptation of Cost-Optimal Methodology Framework .................... 33
4.2.1 Establishment of the reference buildings .................................................. 34
4.2.2 Identification of energy retrofit scenarios ................................................. 35
4.2.3 Calculating primary energy use of the RB for retrofit scenarios .............. 37
4.2.4 Calculating global cost of the RB for retrofit scenarios ............................ 38
4.2.5 Comparative analyses ............................................................................... 40
4.2.6 Analysing the effect of occupant behaviour on cost-optimal levels ......... 40
Development of Proposals for Achievable NZEB Targets .............................. 42
4.3.1 Determination of boundary conditions for sensitivity analyses ................ 43
4.3.2 Sensitivity analyses on economic indicators ............................................. 43
4.3.3 Sensitivity analyses on investment cost decreases .................................... 44
4.3.4 Sensitivity analyses on cost calculation periods ....................................... 45
4.3.5 Identification of potential NZEB levels .................................................... 45
ix
4.3.6 Determination of the financial gaps between cost-optimal and potential
NZEB levels ....................................................................................................... 46
4.3.7 Investigation of solutions and terms for bridging the gap between cost-
optimal and potential NZEB levels .................................................................... 46
4.3.8 Development of proposals for achievable NZEB levels ........................... 48
Decision-Making on NZEB Levels of Existing Building Retrofits ................. 50
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE APPROACH FOR A REFERENCE
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IN TURKEY ....................................................... 53
Adaptation of Cost-Optimal Methodology Framework ................................... 54
5.1.1 Reference building .................................................................................... 54
5.1.1.1 General description of the reference building .................................... 54
5.1.1.2 Envelope properties ............................................................................ 56
5.1.1.3 Occupancy .......................................................................................... 57
5.1.1.4 Equipment use .................................................................................... 58
5.1.1.5 Building service systems .................................................................... 59
5.1.1.6 Climatic regions ................................................................................. 60
5.1.2 Energy efficiency measures and packages ................................................ 62
5.1.2.1 Architectural measures ....................................................................... 63
5.1.2.2 Measures related to building service systems .................................... 66
5.1.2.3 Measures for renewable energy use ................................................... 67
5.1.2.4 Composition of packages ................................................................... 67
5.1.3 Energy performance calculations .............................................................. 68
5.1.3.1 Energy model of the reference building ............................................. 68
5.1.3.2 Calculation of primary energy consumptions .................................... 69
5.1.4 Global cost calculations ............................................................................ 71
5.1.4.1 General assumptions for the cost calculations ................................... 71
5.1.4.2 Assumptions on economic indicators ................................................. 72
5.1.4.3 Investment cost calculations............................................................... 74
5.1.4.4 Replacement cost calculations ........................................................... 76
5.1.4.5 Calculation of running costs ............................................................... 76
5.1.5 Comparative cost-optimal analyses ........................................................... 78
5.1.5.1 Results of envelope retrofit scenarios analysed for Istanbul .............. 78
5.1.5.2 Comparative analyses of all retrofit scenarios for Istanbul ................ 81
5.1.5.3 Results of envelope retrofit scenarios analysed for Antalya .............. 85
5.1.5.4 Comparative analyses of all retrofit scenarios for Antalya ................ 88
5.1.5.5 Results of envelope retrofit scenarios analysed for Erzurum ............. 91
5.1.5.6 Comparative analyses of all retrofit scenarios for Erzurum ............... 94
5.1.6 Analysing the effect of occupant behaviour on cost-optimal levels ......... 97
5.1.7 Evaluation of the first phase .................................................................... 102
Development of Proposals for Achievable NZEB Targets ............................ 103
5.2.1 Boundary conditions for sensitivity analyses .......................................... 104
5.2.2 Results of sensitivity analyses for Istanbul ............................................. 105
5.2.3 Results of sensitivity analyses for Antalya ............................................. 110
5.2.4 Results of sensitivity analyses for Erzurum ............................................ 115
5.2.5 Identification of potential NZEB levels .................................................. 120
5.2.6 Financial gaps between cost-optimal and potential NZEB levels ........... 122
optimal and potential NZEB levels .................................................................. 124
5.2.8 Proposals for bridging the gap between cost-optimal and NZEB levels. 129
DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 133
x
Discussion on the Proposed Approach ........................................................... 133
Discussion on the Results of Sample Implementation ................................... 135
CONCLUSION................................................................................................... 139
Further research .............................................................................................. 140
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 143
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 151
xi
xii
ABBREVIATIONS
AC : Abbreviation of Split Type Air Conditioners Retrofit

ASHRAE : American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers
BEP-TR : National Building Energy Performance Calculation Methodology of
Turkey
BPIE : Building Performance Institute Europe
BOI : Abbreviation of Boiler Retrofit
CBRT : Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey
CEN : European Committee for Standardization
CHW : Abbreviation of Central Domestic Hot Water System Retrofit
COP : Coefficient of Performance
DHW : Domestic Hot Water
EC : European Commission
EN : European Standards
EPBD recast : Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings
EPS : Expanded Polystrene
EU : European Union
GL : Abbreviation of Glazing Retrofit
HVAC : Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
IEA : International Energy Agency
IESNA : The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America
IN : Abbreviation of Heat ınsulation Retrofit
IWEC : International Weather for Energy Calculations
LED : Lighting Emitting Diode
LPD : Lighting Power Density
MS : Member States
NPV : Net Present Value
NZEB : Nearly Zero Energy Building
PV : Photovoltaic
R&D : Research and Development
RB : Reference Building
REHVA : Federation of European Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
Associations
RF : Abbreviation of Raidant Floor Heating System Retrofit
SEER : Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio
SHGC : Solar Heat Gain Coefficient
SP : Solar Thermal System
TL : Turkish Lira
TS : Turkish Standard
TSE : Turkish Standards Institution
TUBITAK : The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey
xiii
TURKSTAT : Turkish Statistical Institute
VRV : Variable Refrigerant Volume System
XPS : Extruded Polystrene
xiv
SYMBOLS
Cg (𝝉) : Global cost over the calculation period

CI : Initial investment cost
Ca,i (j) : Annual cost during yera i for measure j
Cs,a : Annual energy cost savings
𝒇𝒑𝒗 : Present value factor
PP : Simple payback period
Rd (i) : Discount factor of year i
RR : Real discount rate
R : Market interest rate
Ri : Inflation rate
Tvis : Visible transmittance
U : Heat transfer coefficient
𝑽𝒇,𝝉 (j) : Residual value at the end of calculation period
λ : Thermal conductivity
xv
xvi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3.1 : Reference residential buildings defined in project 113M596. ................ 28

Table 5.1 : Thermal properties of the building envelope. ......................................... 56
Table 5.2 : Occupancy and Activity Level Schedules. ............................................. 57
Table 5.3 : Power and Operating Time of the Electrical Equipment. ....................... 58
Table 5.4 : Properties of compact fluorescent lamps considered in the calculations.60
Table 5.5 : Calculated lighting power densities and illuminance levels for rooms. . 60
Table 5.6 : Energy efficiency measures related to heat insulation. ........................... 63
Table 5.7 : Maximum limits of heat transfer coefficients allowed by TS 825:2013
standard. ................................................................................................................ 64
Table 5.8 : Calculated heat transfer coefficients for the heat insulation measures. .. 65
Table 5.9 : Glazing properties considered in energy efficiency measures. ............... 65
Table 5.10 : Energy efficiency measures related to building service systems. ......... 66
Table 5.11 : Lighting power densities and illuminance levels for rooms achieved by
LED measure. ........................................................................................................ 67
Table 5.12 : Energy efficiency measures for renewable energy use. ........................ 67
Table 5.13 : Inflation rates occurred between 2005 and 2014. ................................. 72
Table 5.14 : Market interest rates occurred between 2005 and 2014. ....................... 73
Table 5.15 : Energy price development rates between 2010 and 2014. .................... 73
Table 5.16 : Total investment cost for implementation of heat insulation on the RB.
............................................................................................................................... 74
Table 5.17 : Total investment cost for glazing renovations and shading devices. .... 75
Table 5.18 : Total investment cost for implementation of measures related to
building service systems. ....................................................................................... 75
Table 5.19 : Assumptions on lifespan of the building materials and components. ... 76
Table 5.20 : 2015 Energy prices. .............................................................................. 77
Table 5.21 : Results of the selected envelope retrofit scenarios for the RB in
Istanbul. ................................................................................................................. 81
Table 5.22 : Selected scenarios for the second phase (Istanbul). .............................. 85
Antalya. ................................................................................................................. 86
Table 5.24 : Selected scenarios for the second phase (Antalya). .............................. 91
Erzurum. ................................................................................................................ 93
Table 5.26 : Selected scenarios for the second phase (Erzurum). ............................. 95
Table 5.27 : Financial gap between potential NZEB levels and cost-optimal scenario
for the RB retrofit in Istanbul. ............................................................................. 122
for the RB retrofit in Antalya. ............................................................................. 123
for the RB retrofit in Erzurum. ............................................................................ 123
xvii
Table 5.30 : Summary of convenient subsidy and loans for different climates. ..... 131
Table 6.1 : Primary energy consumption of different target levels. ........................ 136
Table A.1 : Results of envelope retrofit scenarios for Istanbul. .............................. 153
Table A.2 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI and AC retrofits in Istanbul.
.......................................................................................................................... 154
Table A.3 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, AC and SHD retrofits in
Istanbul. ............................................................................................................ 155
Table A.4 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, AC and LED retrofits in
Istanbul. ............................................................................................................ 156
Table A.5 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, AC and CHW retrofits in
Istanbul. ............................................................................................................ 157
Istanbul. ............................................................................................................ 158
Table A.7 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, AC, CHW, LED and SP
retrofits in Istanbul. .......................................................................................... 159
Table A.8 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, CHW, LED, SP and PV
Table A.9 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, AC, CHW, LED and RF
Table A.10 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, AC, CHW, LED, RF and
SP retrofits in Istanbul. ..................................................................................... 162
Table A.11 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, VRV, CHW, LED and SP
Table A.12 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, VRV, CHW, LED, RF, SP
and PV retrofits in Istanbul. ............................................................................. 164
Table B.1 : Results of envelope retrofit scenarios in Antalya. ................................ 165
Table B.2 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL and BOI or AC retrofits in
Antalya. ............................................................................................................ 166
Table B.3 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI and AC retrofits in Antalya.
.......................................................................................................................... 167
Table B.4 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, AC and LED retrofits in Antalya.
.......................................................................................................................... 168
Table B.5 : Results of scenarios including GL, CHW, LED and SHD retrofits in
Antalya. ............................................................................................................ 168
Table B.6 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, AC, CHW and LED retrofits in
Antalya. ............................................................................................................ 169
Table B.7 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, AC, CHW, LED and SP retrofits
in Antalya. ........................................................................................................ 170
Table B.8 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, AC, LED, SHD2 and SP retrofits
in Antalya. ........................................................................................................ 171
Table B.9 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, LED, SP and PV retrofits in
Antalya. ............................................................................................................ 172
Antalya. ............................................................................................................ 173
Table B.11 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, VRV, CHW, LED and SP
retrofits in Antalya. .......................................................................................... 174
Table B.12 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, VRV, CHW, LED SP and PV
retrofits in Antalya. .......................................................................................... 175
Table C.1 : Results of envelope retrofit scenarios in Erzurum……………………177
xviii
Table C.2 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI or AC retrofits in Erzurum.
.......................................................................................................................... 179
Table C.3 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI and AC retrofits in Erzurum.
.......................................................................................................................... 179
Table C.4 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, CHW or LED retrofits in
Erzurum. ........................................................................................................... 180
Table C.5 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, CHW, LED and SP retrofits
in Erzurum........................................................................................................ 181
Table C.6 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, CHW, LED, SP and PV
retrofits in Erzurum. ......................................................................................... 182
Table C.7 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, CHW, LED, RF, SP and PV
Table C.8 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, CHW, LED, RF and SP
xix
xx
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.1 :Final energy consumption by sector and buildings energy mix, 2010 ..... 1
Figure 2.1 :Retrofit Categories.................................................................................. 11
Figure 2.2 :A sample cost-optimal graph. ................................................................. 15
Figure 2.3 :Retrofit rates of residential buildings in MS .......................................... 20
Figure 2.4 : Retrofit progress of residential buildings in MS towards NZEB .......... 21
Figure 4.1 : Main phases of the introduced approach. .............................................. 32
Figure 4.2 : Flowchart of the first phase of the introduced approach. ...................... 34
Figure 4.3 : Flowchart representing identification of retrofit scenarios. .................. 36
Figure 4.4 : Flowchart representing primary energy calculation procedure. ............ 38
Figure 4.5 : Flowchart of global cost calculation...................................................... 41
Figure 4.6 : Decrease in the PV System Price, 1976-2010. ...................................... 44
Figure 4.7 : Flowchart of the second phase of the introduced approach. ................. 49
Figure 4.8 : Flowchart of the third phase of the introduced approach. ..................... 51
Figure 5.1 : Geometry of the reference building. ...................................................... 55
Figure 5.2 : Typical floor plan of the reference building. ......................................... 55
Figure 5.3 : Locations of the representative cities analysed in the . ......................... 61
Figure 5.4 : Monthly average air temperatures of analysed cities ............................ 62
Figure 5.5 : Total solar radiation map of Turkey. ..................................................... 62
Figure 5.6 : Sample illustrations of analysed shading devices for SHD1 and SHD2
retrofits. ................................................................................................................. 66
Figure 5.7 : Thermal zones of a standard floor of the reference building................. 68
Figure 5.8 : End use energy consumption of the RB. ............................................... 70
Figure 5.9 : Primary energy consumption of the RB. ............................................... 70
Figure 5.10 : Ownership of the residential buildings in Turkey ............................... 71
Figure 5.11 : Results of initial cost-optimal analyses on building envelope retrofits
for Istanbul. ........................................................................................................... 80
Figure 5.12 : Cost-optimal graph of retrofit scenarios for the RB in Istanbul. ......... 83
Figure 5.13 : Results of initial cost-optimal analyses on building envelope retrofit
for Antalya. ............................................................................................................ 87
Figure 5.14 : Cost-optimal graph of retrofit scenarios for the RB in Antalya. ......... 90
Figure 5.15 : Results of initial cost-optimal analyses on building envelope retrofit
for Erzurum. .......................................................................................................... 92
Figure 5.16 : Cost-optimal graph of retrofit scenarios for the RB in Erzurum. ........ 96
Figure 5.17 : Effect of occupant behaviour related to window openings on cost-
optimality of RB retrofit scenarios in Istanbul. ..................................................... 99
optimality of RB retrofit scenarios in Antalya. ................................................... 100
optimality of RB retrofit scenarios in Erzurum. .................................................. 101
xxi
Figure 5.20 : Sensitivity analyses on discount rates and investment cost decreases
for the RB retrofits in Istanbul............................................................................. 107
Figure 5.21 : Sensitivity analyses on energy price development rates and investment
cost decreases for the RB retrofits in Istanbul. .................................................... 108
Figure 5.22 : Sensitivity analyses on global cost calculation periods for the RB
retrofits in Istanbul. ............................................................................................. 109
for the RB retrofits in Antalya. ............................................................................ 112
cost decreases for the RB retrofits in Antalya. .................................................... 113
retrofits in Antalya. .............................................................................................. 114
for the RB retrofits in Erzurum............................................................................ 117
cost decreases for the RB retrofits in Erzurum. ................................................... 118
retrofits in Erzurum. ............................................................................................ 119
Figure 5.29 : Investment costs and the payback periods of the potential NZEB levels
for the RB retrofits in Istanbul............................................................................. 126
for the RB retrofits in Antalya. ............................................................................ 127
for the RB retrofits in Erzurum............................................................................ 128
Figure 6.1 : Primary energy consumption of different target levels. ...................... 136
xxii
ENERGY BUILDING TARGETS FOR EXISTING BUILDING RETROFTIS
SUMMARY
Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010
on the energy performance of buildings aims to improve energy performance of
buildings since the building sector represents 40% of the energy consumption. Nearly-
zero energy building (NZEB) concept was also introduced with this directive called
EPBD recast.
NZEB is described in EPBD recast as a building with a very high energy performance.
It is also expected that the required energy is mainly met by the renewable energy
sources. As seen from this definition, a certain energy performance level has not been
identified for NZEBs, thus the NZEB level should be identified at national level. The
target of the Directive related to NZEBs points at year 2021 as the deadline for
ensuring all new buildings are constructed as NZEBs. This requirement directly links
the NZEB concept with the cost-optimality concept by expecting that starting from
2021 NZEB level will be the minimum energy performance requirement for buildings.
Besides the new buildings, EPBD recast includes NZEB requirements for existing
building retrofits as well. Cost-effective transformation of the existing buildings into
NZEBs is obliged and correspondingly increasing number of NZEBs is targeted.
However, any deadline has not yet been specified for these requirements related to
retrofitted NZEBs.
This dissertation presents an approach to identify achievable NZEB targets for existing
building retrofits. The approach regards the NZEB level as future cost-optimal level
and adopts the comparative methodology framework introduced by the European
Commission for cost-optimality calculations as the first phase for investigating
potential NZEB levels. This phase of the approach extends the cost-optimality
calculations by integrating the analyses related to the effect of occupant behaviour on
the cost-optimal levels. The second phase offers the sensitivity analyses as the main
tool to investigate potential NZEB levels and determine the financial gap between
existing cost-optimal levels and the NZEB level. At the end of this phase proposals are
prepared for bridging these gaps. Finally, the third phase focus on the national decision
making procedure on NZEB definitions. Although the policy-makers are in charge of
this phase, this approach proposes a general frame to present the relation between
decision-making process and the previous analyses.
A sample implementation of the proposed approach is also presented in this
dissertation. It was applied on a reference residential building in Turkey. Results
obtained from this sample implementation emphasize the necessity of following a
comprehensive approach in order to achieve promising cost-optimal levels for building
retrofits. Moreover, this implementation displays the significant effect of conscious
occupant behaviour on the results and points at the importance of awareness-raising
activities for building occupants in terms of achieving improved NZEB levels.
xxiii
The approach proposed in this dissertation provides a whole approach for identifying
national targets for retrofitted NZEBs. It brings a new perspective by moving from
scientific point of view to enforcement and presents an improved approach by
integrating the occupant behaviour effect into the calculations. Moreover, by regarding
the sensitivity analyses as the main tool for investigating NZEB levels, the approach
is expected to guide further research activities. Through sample implementation,
coherence between the obtained results and the European NZEB targets is also
demonstrated.
This approach also encourages further studies related to cost-optimality and NZEB
concepts. The further studies can also be adapt the proposed approach to new buildings
in order to be used in periodic assessment and revisions of NZEB definitions.
Moreover, the approach can also be exended by integrating thermal comfort related
calculations.
xxiv
MEVCUT BİNA İYİLEŞTİRMELERİNDE ULAŞILABİLİR YAKLAŞIK
SIFIR ENERJİ HEDEFLERİNİN BELİRLENMESİ İÇİN YENİ BİR
YAKLAŞIM
ÖZET
Artmakta olan enerji tüketiminin dünyada yol açtığı çevresel ve ekonomik etkiler, bu
konudaki kaygıların yükselmesine sebep olmuş ve enerji tüketiminin azaltılmasına
yönelik planlama yapılması ihtiyacını ortaya çıkarmıştır. Enerji tüketiminde en büyük
payın bina sektörüne ait olması sebebiyle, binalarda enerji verimliliğinin arttırılması,
birçok ülkenin enerji tüketimini azaltmaya yönelik planında ana hedefler arasındadır.
Avrupa Komisyonu tarafından da, bina sektöründeki enerji tasarrufu potansyelinden
yararlanma konusunda hedeflerin belirlenmesi ve yaptırımların gerçekleştirilmesi
amacıyla Binalarda Enerji Performansı Revize Direktifi (2010/31/EU) yayımlanmıştır.
Yaklaşık sıfır enerji bina kavramı kısaca EPBD recast olarak adlandırılan bu direktifle
ortaya çıkmıştır.
Yaklaşık sıfır enerji bina, EPBD recast tarafından çok yüksek enerji performanslı bina
olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Binanın ihtiyaç duyduğu az miktardaki enerjinin ise
çoğunlukla yenilenebilir enerji kaynakları kullanılarak karşılanması beklenmektedir.
Bu açıklamadan anlaşıldığı gibi, binalarda yaklaşık sıfır enerji seviyesi için standart
bir enerji tüketimi seviyesinden veya izlenmesi gereken bir hesaplama yönteminden
bahsedilmemektedir. Ancak, EPBD recast, 2021 yılından itibaren inşa edilecek tüm
yeni binaların yaklaşık sıfır enerji bina olmasını şart koşmaktadır ve bu nedenle her
ülkenin kendi koşullarına uygun yaklaşık sıfır enerji hedefini belirlemesi
gerekmektedir. 2021 yılını hedefleyen bu koşul, yaklaşık sıfır enerji seviyesini
önümüzdeki yılların minimum enerji performansı gereksinimi haline getirmektedir ve
aynı direktifle getirilen enerji verimliliğinde optimum maliyet kavramı ile doğrudan
ilişkilendirmektedir. Bu açıdan bakıldığında, 2021 yılından itibaren binalarda yaklaşık
sıfır enerji seviyesinin aynı zamanda uzun dönemde en düşük maliyetle sonuçlanan
enerji performansı seviyesi olması beklenmektedir. Direktife göre, yeni bilanarın yanı
sıra mevcut binalarda da maliyet etkin iyileştirmeler yapılarak, binaların yaklaşık sıfır
enerji seviyesine ulaştırılması istenmektedir. Bu doğrultuda ulusal planların hem yeni
binaları hem de mevcut binaların iyileştirilmesi dikkate alarak, yaklaşık sıfır enerji
bina sayısını arttırma yönünde hazırlanması beklenmektedir.
Bu tezde, mevcut bina iyileştirmelerinde yaklaşık sıfır enerji seviyesine yönelik
ulaşılabilir hedeflerin belirlenebilmesi için bir yaklaşım önerilmektedir. Yaklaşım,
binalarda yaklaşık sıfır enerji seviyesi ile optimum maliyet seviyesi arasındaki ilişki
üzerine kurulmuştur ve potansiyel yaklaşık sıfır enerji seviyelerinin belirlenmesinde,
gelecekte optimum maliyet seviyesine erişebilecek en yüksek enerji performansı
düzeyleri dikkate alınmaktadır.
Önerilen yaklaşım, üç aşamadan oluşmaktadır. İlk aşama, Avrupa Komisyonu
tarafından binalarda enerji performansı seviyelerinin optimum maliyet düzeyinin
belirlenmesi amacıyla yayımlanan çerçeve yöntemin ulusal koşullara uyarlamasıdır.
xxv
Ancak bu aşamada, Avrupa Komisyonu tarafından önerilen çerçeve yönteme kullanıcı
davranışlarının etkisi de entegre edilerek yöntemin kapsamı genişletilmiştir.
Böylelikle, bina enerji performansı üzerinde etkili olan kullanıcı davranışlarının
optimum maliyet seviyesine etkisi de dikkate alınmaktadır.
Yaklaşımın ikinci aşaması, potansiyel yaklaşık sıfır enerji seviyelerinin duyarlılık
analizleri aracılığıyla belirlenmesidir. Duyarlılık analizleri, hâlihazırda Avrupa
Komisyonu tarafından yayımlanan çerçeve yöntemin bir adımıdır ancak bina enerji
performansında optimum maliyet seviyesinin özellikle ekonomik değişkenlere karşı
duyarlılığını analiz etmede kullanılmaktadır. Bu yaklaşımda ise duyarlılık analizlerine
farklı bir işlev yüklenmiştir. Bu analizler binalar için potansiyel yaklaşık sıfır enerji
seviyelerinin belirlenmesinde temel araç olarak kullanılmakta ve yaklaşımın en önemli
aşamasını oluşturmaktadır. İkinci aşamanın sonucunda, bina enerji performansı
konusunda karar vericiler için potansiyel yaklaşık sıfır enerji seviyeleri ve seviyenin
ulaşılabilir olması için gerekli koşullar sunulabilmektedir.
Yöntemin üçüncü aşaması, önceki iki aşamada elde edilen sonuçların karar verici
yetkililer tarafından değerlendirilmesi, buna bağlı olarak mevcut binalar için yaklaşık
sıfır enerji seviyelerinin belirlenmesi ve belirli aralıklarla takip edilerek
güncellenmesini içermektedir. Her ne kadar bu aşamada izlenecek yöntem karar
vericilerin tercihine bağlı olsa da, hem yaklaşımın bütüncül olarak ifade edilmesi, hem
de yetkililere yol yostermesi açısından bu aşama için de öneri getirilmiştir.
Yukarıda özetlenmiş olan yaklaşım açıklandıktan sonra, yaklaşımın örnek uygulaması
da gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu uygulama, Türkiye’deki çok katlı apartman binalarını temsil
eden bir referans bina üzerinde ve üç farklı iklim bölgesi dikkate alınarak yapılmıştır.
Sıcak nemli iklim bölgesini temsilen Antalya ili, ılımlı menli iklim bölgesini temsilen
İstanbul ili ve soğuk iklim bölgesini temsilen Erzurum ili iklim verileri kullanılmıştır.
Örnek uygulamada öncelikle, ele alınan referans binanın enerji performansı seviyeleri
için optimum maliyet düzeyi tespit edilmiştir. İlk hesaplamalarda, istatistiklere bağlı
olarak belirlenen referans kullanıcı davranışları dikkate alınmıştır. Daha sonra,
kullanıcıların binanın enerji performansına etki eden davranışlarında değişiklik olması
durumu için hesaplamalar tekrarlanmıştır. Bu analizler için örnek olarak pencere
açıklıklarının kullanıcılar tarafından bilinçli kontrolüyle doğal havalandırmadan
yararlanılarak, binanın soğutma ihtiyacının azaltılması ele alınmıştır.
Önerilen yaklaşımın ilk aşamasının seçilen referans bina için uygulanması sonucunda,
Türkiye’deki çok katlı apartman binalarında maliyet etkin enerji tasarrufu
potansiyelinin %70’in üzerinde olduğu görülmüştür. Kullanıcıların pencere
açıklıklarının kontrolüne yönelik bilinçli davranışları ise enerji tüketimini ve bu
tüketimden kaynaklı enerji giderlerini azaltarak maliyet etkin enerji tasarrufu
potansiyelini %80’in üzerine çıkarmaktadır. İlk aşamanın sonucunda ayrıca, iklim
özelliklerinin beklenildiği gibi hem ulaşılan enerji performansı seviyeleri açısından
hem de etkin iyileştirme tedbirleri açısından etkili olduğu görülmüştür. Elde edilen
sonuçlar, analiz edilen enerji verimliliği tedbirlerinin tekil olarak uygulanmasının
yerine bir araya getirilerek tedbir paketleri halinde uygulanmasının hem enerji
performansı hem de uzun dönem maliyet açısından daha etkili olduğunu göstermiştir.
Seçilen referans bina ve iklim koşulları için optimum maliyet seviyesinin
belirlenmesinin ardından önerilen yaklaşımın ikinci aşaması uygulanmıştır. Bu
aşamada öncelikle uygulanacak duyarlılık analizi senaryoları belirlenmiştir. Seçilen
senaryolar indirim oranı ve enerji fiyat artışı gibi ekonomik değişkenlerin yanı sıra
yardım ve teşvikler veya araştırma geliştirme faaliyetleri sonucunda meydana
xxvi
gelebilecek potansiyel ilk yatırım maliyeti azaltımları ve maliyet hesaplama sürelerini
de kapsamaktadır. Analizler sonucunda, referans konut binası için her üç iklim koşulu
altındaki potansiyel yaklaşık sıfır enerji seviyeleri belirlenmiştir. Potansiyel yaklaşık
sıfır enerji seviyelerinin mevcut optimum maliyet seviyesi ile arasındaki finansal açık
tespit edilerek, bu açığın kapatılmasına yönelik öneriler geliştirilmiştir. Öneri
geliştirme aşamasında enerji verimliliği iyileştirme yatırımlarının geri ödeme süreleri
hesaplanmış ve teşvik amaçlı sunulabilecek düşük faizli kredi seçeneği için sağlanması
gereken kredi miktarları ve geri ödeme süreleri belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca, Türkiye’deki
kentsel dönüşüm süreci göz önünde bulundurularak kredi ödeme süreleriyle mevcut
binanın kalan ömrü arasında kurulması gereken bağlantı da açıklanmıştır.
Önerilen yaklaşımın üçüncü aşaması karar verici ve kanun koyucu yetkililer tarafından
uygulanacağından bu bölümün örnek uygulaması gerçekleştirilmemiştir. Ancak hem
yaklaşımın ikinci aşamasının sonunda hem de tartışma bölümünde bu aşamaya yönelik
öneriler bulunmaktadır.
Literatürdeki yaklaşık sıfır enerji binalar ile ilgili çalışmalar, konuya çoğunlukla bu
binaların çok yüksek enerji performansı seviyesine sahip olması yönünden
yaklaşmakta ancak optimum maliyet düzeyi ile ilişkilendirmemektedir. Mevcut
binaların maliyet etkin iyileştirilmesiyle ilgili bazı çalışmalar ise yalnızca ulaşılan
sonuçları tartışırken elde edilen bulguları yaklaşık sıfır enerji hedefleriyle
ilişkilendirmektedir. Mevcut bina iyileştirmeleri için hem yüksek enerji performansı
seviyesini, hem de bu seviyenin optimum maliyet seviyesiyle ilişkisini dikkate alan az
sayıda araştırma bulunmaktadır. Ancak bu çalışmalarda da karar vericilere öneri
sunulmasını hedefleyen ve potansiyel yaklaşık sıfır enerji seviyelerinin belirlenmesine
yönelik kapsamlı bir yaklaşım sunulmamaktadır. Bu açıdan bakıldığında, tezde
önerilen yaklaşım, konuya yeni bir bakış açısı kazandırmaktadır. Ayrıca, kullanıcı
davranışlarının optimum maliyet seviyesi hesaplarına dahil edilmesi ve duyarlılık
analizlerinin yaklaşık sıfır enerji seviyelerinin araştırılmasında bir araç olarak
kullanılması gibi yeni yaklaşımlar gelecek araştırmalara yol gösterici olacaktır.
Tezde önerilen yaklaşım kullanılarak elde edilen sonuçlara göre, Türkiye’deki mevcut
çok katlı konut binalarındaki iyileştirmeler için potansiyel yaklaşık sıfır enerji
seviyeleri arasında ulaşılabilir en düşük enerji tüketimi seviyesi, analiz edilen iklim
bölgesine bağlı olarak, yıllık 41.8 kWh/m2y ve 63.2 kWh/m2y arasında değişmektedir.
Bu değer Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinin belirlemiş oldukları yaklaşık sıfır enerji
seviyeleriyle kıyaslandığında benzerlik göstermektedir.
Elde edilen sonuçlar kullanıcı davranışlarının maliyet optimum enerji seviyesi
üzerinde etkili olduğunu ve kullanıcıların bina enerji tüketimi konusunda
bilinçlendirilmesinin hem enerji kaynakları açısından hem de ekonomik açıdan
tasarrufla sonuçlanacağını göstermektedir.
Yaklaşımın örnek uygulamasına ait sonuçlar ayrıca bina enerji perofrmansında
optimum maliyet düzeyinin belirlenebilmesi için yapılan çalışmalarda, bina kabuğuna,
bina servis sistemlerine ve yenilenebilir enerji kullanımına yönelik enerji verimliliği
iyileştirmelerinin birlikte değerlendirildiği kapsamlı yöntemlerin izlenmesi gerektiğini
göstermektedir.
Duyarlılık analizlerinin, potansiyel yaklaşık sıfır enerji hedeflerinin belirlenmesinde
yararlı bir araç olduğu görülmüştür. Bu nedenle, önerilen yaklaşımın yeni binalar için
uyarlanması önerilmektedir. Ayrıca, bu uyarlamanın yanı sıra, referans konut binası
için uygulanmış olan bu yaklaşımın diğer mevcut bina tipleri için de uygulanması
önerilen bu yaklaşımı güçlendirecektir. Ek olarak, önerilen yaklaşım, ilerideki
xxvii
araştırmalarda ısıl konfor analizlerinin de adapte edilmesiyle detaylandırılarak
geliştirilmeye açıktır.
xxviii
INTRODUCTION
Energy consumption in the world has been increased in recent years. The report of
International Energy Agency (IEA) declares that world’s total final energy
consumption increased from 4661 Mtoe to 9425 Mtoe in forty-one years between 1973
and 2014 (International Energy Agency, 2016). The report also demonstrates that,
although energy generation from renewable energy sources showed an increase in this
period, non-renewable energy sources still constitute the majority. Therefore,
depletion of energy sources is a critical problem and moreover, environmental
problems also occurred as a consequence of increasing energy consumption. These
problems have raised deep environmental concerns about future and necessity of
taking precautions appeared.
Precautions against the increase in energy consumption are primarily directed at the
sectors consuming the highest amount of energy which constitute the largest energy
saving potential accordingly. The sector consuming the highest amount of energy in
the world was declared as buildings sector by IEA as shown in Figure 1.1 below
(International Energy Agency, 2013). Therefore, buildings sector is seen as one of the
key fields to introduce actions targeting energy efficiency.
Figure 1.1 :Final energy consumption by sector and buildings energy mix, 2010
(International Energy Agency, 2013).
1
In order to utilize energy saving potential lying on the building sector in practice,
governments have been establishing different mechanisms based on specific laws,
regulations, standards, incentives, subsidies and other various promoting activities.
European Union (EU) has also focused on utilizing this potential and has given
consequence to building energy performance upgrades in recent years. In this context,
the European Commission brought forward targets and policies to increase buildings’
energy efficiency.
The main instrument of European Commission related to the energy performance of

buildings is Directive 2010/31/EU (The European Parliament and The Council of The
European Union, 2010). This directive is also called as EPBD recast and promotes
improvement of energy performance of buildings considering cost effectiveness. In
order to emphasize cost effectiveness for building energy performance improvements,
EPBD recast introduced two new concepts: cost optimal levels of building energy
performance and nearly zero energy buildings (NZEB). As explained in detail in
Chapter 2, these two concepts are tightly linked with each other and both aim to keep
expenses under control while increasing energy efficiency in buildings.
EPBD recast defines cost optimal level as the building energy performance level that
results with the lowest cost for the considered calculation period and obliges EU
Member States to identify national cost optimal levels. Existing requirements for
minimum energy performance levels are needed to be revised if these are weaker than
the cost optimal level.
NZEB, on the other hand, is a further target that points future and was defined in the
Directive as “a building that has a very high energy performance”. Briefly, NZEB level
is assumed as not cost-optimal presently but represents a better energy performance
level which is expected to be converged with the cost-optimal level in the future. The
clarification of both the definition and numerical indicators for NZEB were left to the
national decisions. These national definitions and targets are required to be
approachable and realistic since all new buildings in EU are obliged to be NZEBs by
2021.
EPBD recast specifically address existing buildings as well and obliges Member States
to provide cost effective transformation of existing buildings to NZEB. This
transformation is crucial to ensure energy saving since Energy Efficiency Directive
2
2012/27/EU indicates that the highest energy saving potential is represented by
existing building stock and therefore increasing the building renovation rate is
essential to achieve future targets (The European Parliament and The Council of The
European Union, 2012). Therefore EPBD recast also requires to present national plans
for increasing the number of nearly zero energy buildings.
In order to achieve the targets set by European Commission, Member States are
initially required to identify cost optimal and NZEB levels by following a national
approach. The Commission intended to guide these national approaches and published
a methodology framework to be adapted at national level (The European Commission,
2012a). The methodology framework is based on comparative assessment of expenses
and savings within a long term period. In this way, it provides opportunity to select
appropriate actions for increasing building energy performance and leads to the path
for deriving cost-optimal levels. Since the cost-optimal and NZEB concepts are
interrelated, this methodology framework also guides the national approaches for
NZEB level definitions. However, a certain calculation method or an approach was
not identified for NZEB level. Since NZEB definitions are required to be reasonable
and achievable in terms of energy and economy and also required to be revised
periodically, a convenient approach to identify achievable NZEB targets is necessary.
This PhD dissertation concentrates on the NZEB concept considering the deficiency
in this area. Since the energy saving potential lying on the existing building stock is
significant and the NZEB definitions for building retrofits are incomplete (BPIE,
2016), cost effective transformation of existing buildings to NZEBs is the main focus
of the research.
Objective of the dissertation is to propose a new approach to identify achievable NZEB

levels for retrofit of existing buildings by adapting the EU methodology framework at
national level. The study regards NZEB level as the “future cost optimal level” and
principally uses the sensitivity analyses as a tool to investigate the relevance of
different energy performance levels as the future target. Although the last stage of the
proposed approach refers directly to the policy, it mainly deals with the scientific
approach that should be lied behind the decision. Therefore the study guides to develop
solutions for bridging the financial gap between cost optimal and NZEB levels by
determining the favourable fields which have priority to be supported for the national
interests.
3
The approach introduced in this dissertation has three main phases. The first one is
related to adaptation of the cost-optimal methodology framework with an innovative
perspective incorporating the effect of occupant behaviour in cost-optimality analyses.
The second phase is the main phase of the approach which utilises the sensitivity
analyses as a tool to obtain potential NZEB levels which represent future cost-optimal
levels. The third phase is related to decision-making on NZEB level that is in policy-
makers’ charge. Therefore only the main frame is put forward for this step in order to
present the general context and relation with the previous phases. A sample
implementation is also presented to demonstrate the proposed approach.
Regarding the target, the study first introduces the nearly zero energy building concept
and the relation between cost-optimal and NZEB concepts within the frame of EU
legislation in Chapter 2 and presents related literature on this recent notion. After this
chapter was concluded with the recent progress in EU countries, building energy
performance issue in Turkey was discussed in Chapter 3 since the sample
implementation of the proposed approach was applied in Turkey as presented in the
following chapters. The existing legislation in Turkey was examined in detail and up
to date status is presented. Chapter 4 is the essence of the dissertation where the
proposed approach is described in. In this chapter, proposed approach to identify
achievable NZEB levels for renovation of existing buildings is explained in detail
together with the conceptual context. In order to demonstrate the approach, it is
implemented to a reference building representing existing high rise residential
buildings in Turkey as presented in Chapter 5. The study is finalized with Chapter 6
and Chapter 7 where discussion and conclusion are introduced to discuss the main
outcomes of this research activity, to explain concluding remarks and to display future
research areas that have been opened after this dissertation.
With this context and structure, this research represents a global point of view on the
NZEB concept. The procedure followed to propose solutions to bridge the gap between
cost optimal and NZEB levels, which is based on an extended perspective of sensitivity
analyses, can be followed in different countries to shape their national policy.
Moreover, since the approach supports the decision making procedure for the national
future plans, outcomes open new research areas for the near future.
4
NEARLY ZERO ENERGY BUILDING CONCEPT
Nearly zero energy building (NZEB) concept takes its origin from European Union
(EU) legislation related to the building energy performance (The European Parliament
and The Council of The European Union, 2010). Therefore, this chapter initially
presents the significance of building energy performance within the whole energy
strategy of EU in order to clarify the necessity of NZEBs. Afterwards, the chapter
explains the NZEB concept within the legislative frame by providing information on
definition, basis and requirements of the concept. Subsequently, a literature review on
the concept and the recent progress in EU countries are illustrated.
Buildings as a Part of European Energy Strategy
In Europe, the largest share of the final energy consumption belongs to the building
sector with 40% (The European Commission, 2011a). Therefore, maximizing energy
performance of buildings is one of the key tools to achieve energy targets and is
referred in future plans of EU.
In 2010, strategical targets were introduced with 2020 Energy Strategy of EU which
are known as 20-20-20 targets (The European Commission, 2010). These targets aim
to achieve 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, 20% increase in energy
efficiency and 20% share of renewable energy. This strategy regards buildings and
transport as prior sectors for the following actions related to energy efficiency.
Moreover, Energy Efficiency Plan 2011 of the European Commission (EC) indicates
that buildings carry the biggest energy saving potential and correspondingly the plan
focuses on the strategies to activate energy efficient renovation procedure for existing
buildings (The European Commission, 2011a).
Beyond 2020, Energy Roadmap 2050 also puts particular emphasis on building energy
performance in terms of both new buildings and existing building renovations and
declares that NZEB should be the standard criteria to provide higher energy efficiency
in buildings (The European Commission, 2011b).
5
In order to utilise the existing energy saving potential which lies in buildings, EC
enacted specific legislation focusing on the energy performance of buildings. The
recast of Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, Directive 2010/31/EU, is
currently the main legal tool that leads EU Member States (MS) to set up minimum
requirements for the energy performance of buildings (The European Parliament and
The Council of The European Union, 2010). The NZEB concept was introduced within
this directive which is also called EPBD recast. The Directive is explained in the
following section.
Directive 2010/31/EU
Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings, also called EPBD

recast (The European Parliament and The Council of The European Union, 2010), was
established in 2010 to amend Directive 2002/91/EC (The European Parliament and
The Council of The European Union, 2003). The aim of this Directive is to upgrade
energy performance of buildings in EU considering indoor climatic conditions and
cost-effectiveness. Although the previous directive (Directive 2002/91/EC) was also
addressing the cost effectiveness of building energy performance measures, economic
evaluation of the energy efficiency measures became more apparent with the new
articles introduced in EPBD recast.
Specific to the economic evaluation of building energy performance levels, EPBD

recast introduced the cost-optimality and NZEB concepts. These two interrelated
concepts and relationship between them are explained below.
2.2.1 Relation between cost-optimality and NZEB concepts
Cost-optimality and NZEB are two concepts associated with each other. Cost optimal
level definition provided in Article 2 of EPBD recast refers to the building energy
performance level that results with the lowest cost for the considered calculation
period. Article 5 of EPBD recast obliges Member States (MSs) to calculate cost
optimal levels of building energy performance levels and to compare obtained results
with the present national requirements for minimum energy performance of buildings.
The national requirements are needed to be revised if these are less ambitious than the
calculated cost optimal levels. The comparison and revisions are expected to be
performed periodically.
6
In order to clarify the cost optimal calculation for MSs, the basis of the method is
explained in Annex III and the European Commission was obliged and authorized to
constitute a methodology framework in line with this basis. This expected framework
was published in 2012 by EU Regulation No 244/2012 which supplements EPBD
recast (The European Commission, 2012a). MSs are required to adapt this method to
their national conditions and calculate the cost-optimal levels of energy performance
requirements using the method.
Nearly zero energy building, instead, is defined in EPBD recast as “a building that has
a very high energy performance” and the greater part of the energy demand is expected
to be supplied by renewable energy sources. However, the absolute definition is left to
the decision of national authorities. Article 9 of EPBD recast requires MS to identify
NZEB levels since by 2021 all new buildings are expected to be NZEB while the
deadline is 2019 specifically for public buildings. The European Parliament and the
Council of the European Union (2010) sets the deadline as 2021 for new NZEBs while
a certain deadline is not referred for existing buildings. However, MSs are obliged to
draw national plans with the aim of increasing number of NZEBs considering both
new and existing buildings. New buildings shall be designed and constructed as NZEB
while existing buildings are required to be converted to NZEBs through a cost effective
retrofit procedure. Therefore, MSs should propose a plan for cost effective
transformation of the existing buildings into NZEBs in their national plans that are
reported to European Commission.
Accordingly, while cost-optimality is a criteria for the existing actions, NZEB concept
may be described as being a model for 2021. NZEB concept refers to a very high
energy performance level which is not certain yet but known as more ambitious than
cost-optimal level. Based on the requirements of EPBD recast regarding the regular
review of national building energy performance requirements and the expectations
related to NZEB, it is expected that by 2021 cost-optimal and NZEB concepts are
needed to be converged (The European Commission, 2016). Therefore, cost-optimal
methodology framework may also be used for investigating supportive tools and
actions for achieving NZEB level (Buildings Performance Institute Europe, 2011).
7
2.2.2 Cost-optimal methodology framework
In order to supplement EPBD recast and provide a methodology framework for the
cost optimal calculations, European Commission issued the EU Regulation No
244/2012 (The European Commission, 2012a). Annex I of this Regulation introduces
the cost-optimal methodology framework which complies with Annex III of EPBD
recast. In order to derive cost optimal energy efficiency levels for buildings, MS are
obliged to adopt this framework in their national context. Moreover, national
calculation approach, obtained results and comparison with the existing requirements
in force are required to be reported to the Commission by MSs.
The cost optimal methodology framework, introduced with Annex I of the Regulation,
is based on the following six stages (The European Commission, 2012a):
1) Definition of reference buildings representing the characters and energy

performance related properties of national building stock,
2) Identification of energy efficiency measures and packages combining the
measures to be analysed for reference buildings,
3) Calculation of reference buildings’ net primary energy consumptions under the
effect of energy efficiency measures and packages of measures applied,
4) Evaluating the global cost of the reference buildings that occur as a result of
different energy efficiency measures and packages of measures,
5) Sensitivity analyses on the input data used in global cost calculations,
6) Derivation of cost optimal levels of energy performance requirements based
on an assessment through coupling primary energy consumption and global
cost results for each reference building.
As seen from the above-mentioned calculation steps, the cost-optimal methodology

framework is based on the comparative analyses of the energy performance and
economic provisions of different energy efficiency actions through an investigation on
the representative buildings. Therefore each step of the methodology requires expertise
and needed to be supported by research activities.
Due to the fact that climatic and economic circumstances are different in each country,
the cost-optimal approach is required to be contextualized at national level. In order
to guide MSs to adapt this framework into their national frame, European Commission
published accompanying Guidelines for EU Regulation No 244/2012 (The European
8
Commission, 2012b) and EPBD recast (The European Parliament and The Council of
The European Union, 2010). Guidelines is not a legally binding document however, it
aims to provide extended explanations for the national applications in the structure of
cost optimal methodology framework. Based on the EU Regulation No244/2012 and
the Guidelines, requirements for the above-mentioned stages of the cost-optimal
methodology framework are explained below.
As the first stage of cost-optimal methodology, national reference building

establishment procedure requires specific attention since all of the following
calculations and analyses are developed on established reference buildings and
correspondingly obtained results through these representative buildings affect the main
decisions at larger scales.
Reference building definition procedure mentioned in Regulation 244/2012 refers to a

building which is representative of typical national building characteristics related to
geometry, systems, energy performance, functionality, cost structure, climatic
conditions and geographic location. These representative buildings should allow
generalisation of the obtained results for the represented building stock since it is not
possible to perform individual cost-optimal analyses for every single building.
The Regulation requires establishment of reference buildings for at least single-family

houses, multifamily buildings, office buildings and other non-residential buildings
with particular energy performance requirements. This procedure should cover both
new and existing buildings. Although minimum numbers of reference buildings for
each category are indicated as one for new buildings and two for existing building
retrofits in the Regulation, Guidelines recommends having also sub-categories in order
to represent the stock in a realistic way.
In order to ensure that reference buildings are definitely representative of the existing
buildings, available data related to the existing building stock should be regarded as
the main input to be analysed by the experts.
In order to define reference buildings with all properties affecting their energy
performance, the required data refers to at least followings:
- the general information about building age, function, location and climatic
condition
- architectural properties (i.e. building geometry, form, orientation, facades)
9
- thermo-physical properties of the building envelope (i.e. thermal transmittance
(U value) and solar heat gain coefficients of the components, thermal bridges)
- building energy systems and their properties (i.e. system types, component
efficiency and capacity, control systems)
- operation and occupancy patterns (i.e. schedules related to operating hours,
internal heat gains, power densities, ventilation rates)
In accordance with the reference building definition in the Regulation, a reference

building may be a hypothetical or a real building. Based on this, three different
reference building definition methods are described in the literature (Corgnati et al.,
2013):
1. Selection of real reference buildings

2. Establishment of hypothetical reference buildings
3. Establishment of example reference buildings
As a result of examination based on the above-mentioned statistical data; a real

building, which represents typical characteristics of the building stock, may be selected
if the real building is likely to represent these typical features (second method).
Another method is to establish a theoretical reference building by combining typical
building characteristics (third method). Considering that detailed data about the
building stock may not be entirely available in every case, Corgnati et. al. (2013) refers
to the TABULA project (Loga and Diefenbach, 2010) and recommends to use the first
method to identify example reference buildings. This method is only acceptable in case
of lack of data and requires substantial expertise to have convenient assumptions.
In order to analyse cost-optimal energy performance levels for the reference buildings,
the second stage is the identification of the energy efficiency measures. The energy
efficiency measures should be identified for each reference building considering the
parameters affecting energy performance of buildings. Besides analysing the energy
efficiency measures individually, The European Commission (2012b) recommends to
analyse them as combined within energy efficiency packages. Moreover, the
Regulation requires to include measures needed for achieving existing minimum
energy performance requirements and measures needed for meeting NZEB levels.
Indeed, single measures are insufficient to achieve NZEB level since a comprehensive
10
renovation approach is required as shown in Figure 2.1 (The European Commission,
2014).
Figure 2.1 :Retrofit Categories (The European Commission, 2014).
The third stage of the cost-optimal methodology framework is the calculation of

primary energy use achieved by means of identified energy efficiency measures and
packages of measures applied to the reference buildings. In this step, according to the
European Commission (2012a), energy consumptions for space heating and cooling,
ventilation, domestic hot water (DHW) and lighting systems are required to be
included in the calculations considering the whole year. The calculation procedure is
based on the calculation of building energy use and conversion of the results to primary
energy using primary energy conversion factors for each energy carrier. Energy
produced by on-site renewable energy systems should also be calculated and
subtracted from energy use and primary energy. The results should be expressed as net
primary energy demand per unit useful floor area. MSs are independent to follow
relevant CEN standards or to use their national calculation methods, however,
Guidelines recommends to use a dynamic method in order to achieve reliable results.
With the aim of ensuring reliable NZEB calculations, Federation of European Heating,
Ventilation and Air Conditioning Associations (REHVA) published a book in
cooperation with CEN, which clarifies the energy balance calculations for NZEB
definitions (REHVA, 2013).
11
Since the methodology framework is based on comparative analyses of energy
performance and economic assessment of different measures, the next stage of the
method is calculating the global cost of energy efficiency measures. EU Regulation
244/2012 requires calculating global cost of different energy efficiency scenarios in
terms of net present value. Net present value (NPV) is one of the tools used for
investment decisions and considers the changes in the worth of money within time
(Warnacut, 2016). In order to reflect time value of the money in NPV calculations,
present value of future cash flows are calculated by using a discount rate and the
evaluation considers the sum of these present values of cash flows (Rist and Pizzica,
2015).
The global cost calculation method introduced with EU Regulation 244/2012 relies on
EN 15459 Standard (CEN, 2007) however, it offers two options for the calculation
perspective. The first option is financial perspective which is also called individual
end user perspective. This perspective regards the global cost as the sum of initial
investment cost, annual costs and the residual value at the end of the calculation period.
The financial perspective includes the taxes, charges and subsidies within the related
cost categories and is calculated with Equation 2.1.
𝐶𝑔 (𝜏) = 𝐶𝐼 + ∑ [∑(𝐶𝑎,𝑖 (𝑗) × 𝑅𝑑 (𝑖)) − 𝑉𝑓,𝜏 (𝑗)] (2.1)

𝑖=1
𝑗
In Equation 2.1, 𝜏 indicates calculation period, in years. Cg (𝜏) is global cost over the
calculation period, CI is initial investment cost for the measure, 𝐶𝑎,𝑖 (𝑗) is annual cost
during year i for measure 𝑗, 𝑉𝑓,𝜏 (𝑗) is residual value at the end of calculation period
and 𝑅𝑑 (𝑖) is discount factor of year 𝑖. The discount factor is calculated using Equation
2.2. given below.
𝑝
1
𝑅𝑑 (𝑝) = ( ) (2.2)
1 + 𝑅𝑅
In Equation 2.2, p is number of years and RR is real discount rate. Real discount rate
was calculated using Equation 3.
𝑅 − 𝑅𝑖
𝑅𝑅 = (2.3)
1 + 𝑅𝑖
12
In the formula 𝑅 is the market interest rate and 𝑅𝑖 is the inflation rate.
The second option for global cost calculation is macroeconomic perspective where the
taxes, charges and subsidies are excluded while the cost of greenhouse gas emission
are taken into consideration under another cost category which is called carbon cost.
Both options attempt to provide a comparative economic evaluation related to the

energy performance of buildings. Therefore, the fixed expenses and the costs related
to the building elements that does not affect the energy performance of the building
are not included in the global cost calculations (The European Commission, 2012a).
As equations express, the calculation of the global cost in terms of present value is
directly linked with the financial data such as market interest rate and inflation rate.
Therefore a financial data gathering step is initially required. The financial data is
mainly used for calculating the present value of annual costs.
After financial data gathering, calculation for each cost category should be made
depending on the calculation perspective. Detailed descriptions and the calculation
methods for the cost categories included in global cost calculation are explained below
within the frame of existing building retrofits.
In order to calculate the initial investment cost (CI) of retrofit measures, market cost
based data should be collected. As identified by the European Commission (2012b),
cost data gathering sources are construction projects, offers of companies and the
databases based on market costs. It is important to include the taxes and charges when
following financial perspective and exclude these in case of following macroeconomic
perspective.
Annual cost (𝐶𝑎,𝑖 ) includes both replacement cost and running costs such as
maintenance, operation and energy costs. The costs related to these cost categories
should be calculated separately and be converted to the present value by using the
calculated discount factor for their realization year.
Replacement cost represents periodic cost of a building component that occurs at the
end of the lifespan as a result of change or repair. Accordingly, replacement cost
calculation requires the investment cost and the lifespan of the component as the
inputs. Information related to building envelope components are required to be derived
from the manufacturers and/or related literature while the lifespan of the energy system
components are provided within Annex A of EN 15459 standard (CEN, 2007).
13
Disposal costs at the end of the lifespan may also be included in the calculations
however, it is not mandatory in accordance with the Regulation (The European
Commission, 2012a).
Together with the lifespan of the components, maintenance costs including operation,
repair and service costs are also expressed as the percentage initial investment cost
within Annex A of EN 15459. Maintenance costs should be calculated using these
percentages and investment costs of the components or systems.
Energy costs are one of the main input data of the global cost calculation. This cost
category is classified separately from other operational costs since energy costs
correspond to the annual energy consumption and related charges. Therefore energy
costs calculation procedure has a direct connection with the outputs of third step where
the energy consumption calculations are performed. Results related to the delivered
energy, not covered by renewable energy systems, should be used for the calculation
of energy costs. Moreover, data related to energy prices and tariffs should also be
gathered for this cost category to obtain the annual energy cost. In order to calculate
the present value of the energy costs, energy price development rates are needed.
Information related to the energy prices development rates for EU Member States is
provided within Annex II of the Regulation and the Guidelines of the European
Commission (2012a, 2012b).
In order to calculate the periodic annual costs for certain number of years or for the
whole calculation period, such as energy costs, present value factor may be used as an
alternative simple approach instead of calculating the sum of the discounted costs for
each year. Present value factor is calculated using Equation 2.4 [CEN, 2007].
1 − (1 + 𝑅𝑅 )−𝑛
𝑓𝑝𝑣 = (2.4)
𝑅𝑅
Residual value (𝑉𝑓,𝜏 ) is the total remaining value of the building components based on
their remaining lifespan at the end of the cost calculation period. The cost calculation
period is indicated in the Regulation as 30 years for residential and public buildings
while it is given as 20 years for other non-residential buildings. Present value of the
residual value should also be calculated using the discount factor.
If the cost calculation considers macroeconomic perspective, carbon cost should be

calculated based on annual greenhouse gas emissions and their prices provided in the
14
Regulation. The carbon price developments are also provided within Annex II of this
Regulation.
Based on the calculation perspective, global cost of the energy performance scenarios
are needed to be calculated for the reference buildings considering the above-
mentioned cost categories.
After the completion of initial four stages, primary energy consumption and the global
cost results are required to be assessed comparatively in order to obtain cost-optimal
energy performance levels for reference buildings. For this assessment, primary
energy consumption and the global cost results of different energy performance
measures or packages of measures should be expressed on a cost-optimal graph. As
shown in Figure 2.2 cost-optimal graph ensures to make a comparison between energy
efficiency measures and packages by consisting of the horizontal axis showing the
primary energy uses and the vertical axis showing the global costs of them. In the
graph, the energy efficiency measure or package of measures which correspond to the
lowest cost represents the cost optimal level for the analysed reference building.
Figure 2.2 :A sample cost-optimal graph (The European Commission, 2012b).
The cost-optimal methodology framework requires sensitivity analyses on the global

cost calculation inputs. Aim of these sensitivity analyses is to analyse the effect of
main parameters which have an influence on the cost-optimal results. The
requirements of EU Regulation are mainly related to the sensitivity analyses on
economic indicators. For instance, it requires analysing at least two discount factors
15
where one of them is 3%. Moreover, the Regulation requires to consider different
energy price development scenarios within sensitivity analyses.
The obtained results of cost-optimal calculations should also be compared with the
existing national requirements for minimum energy performance levels of buildings
since the Regulation obliges to revise the regulations in case of a significant difference
between cost-optimal levels and existing requirements.
Latest Research Activities on NZEB Concept
The number of studies related with NZEB concept is limited because this concept is
almost recent. Since the calculation methodology explained by EPBD recast and
complementary instruments is only an instructive framework and left the national
definitions of NZEBs to national assessment of MS, research activities related directly
with NZEB are commonly at national or regional level. The focus of these studies vary
from NZEB requirements to policy implications related to NZEB definitions.
Szalay and Zöld (2014) proposed a method for setting NZEB requirements based on a
large building sample and demonstrated this method for residential buildings in
Hungary. The results are justified considering future projections and the suggested
method is validated by comparing the results with European targets. Their research
shows that primary energy consumption of potential NZEB levels are higher than the
EU target, however, according to future projections the target level can be achieved in
Hungary. The NZEB concept pointed at this research mainly focuses on achieving a
very high energy performance level and does not apparently link the cost-optimal level
with the NZEB concept.
Oliveira Panão et al. (2013) also explored NZEB requirements but focused on
Mediterranean residential buildings. For the residential buildings in Lisbon,
considerations about NZEB level is presented. According to the obtained results, they
indicated that, primary energy consumption for heating, cooling and domestic hot
water can be decreased until 60 kWh/m²y excluding the effect of renewable energy
systems. Unlike Szalay and Zöld (2014), Oliveira Panão et al. (2013) regarded the
relation between cost-optimal and NZEB levels and search for a NZEB definition
beyond the cost-optimal level. Although they provided the critical analysis of the
results in terms of different assessment criteria, such as EN standard or national codes,
16
the variations of the NZEB definitions and the boundary conditions which affect their
achievability in the future were not described.
Schimschar et al. (2011) investigated previous and current energy policy and also
provided future scenarios based on transition potential of residential buildings in
Germany towards NZEB. The research shows that the highest potential share of nearly
zero energy dwellings by 2020 is 6% in Germany. This study also does not point at the
cost-effectiveness of NZEB level.
The studies mentioned above are directed at residential buildings since these buildings
represent the majority. However, there are also studies focusing on NZEB targets for
non-residential building stock. E. Pikas et. al. (2014) investigated design solutions for
an office building in Estonian climate within the frame of cost-optimal and NZEB
concepts. The paper follows a three stage approach to determine economically feasible
solutions for cost optimal and nearly zero-energy levels. This approach involves
parameters such as wall insulation thickness, window/wall ratio and electricity
generation with PV. The study considers the relation between the cost-optimal and
NZEB levels. The effect of façade construction costs, PV costs and cost of exported
electricity was analysed but the sensitivity analyses were not addressed in this paper.
As the result, it is mentioned that NZEB level, which is defined as ≤100 kWh/m², is
not cost optimal for the office building in Estonian climate yet but it is possible to
become cost optimal with the reduction of PV cost in the near future.
As mentioned in the previous subchapter, cost optimal and NZEB concepts refer not
only to new constructions but also to existing building renovations since cost effective
evolution of those buildings into NZEB is subsequently binding. Moreover, Energy
Efficiency Directive 2012/27/EU indicates that the highest energy saving potential is
represented by existing building stock and therefore increasing the building renovation
rate is crucial to achieve 2050 targets (The European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union, 2012). With this inspiration, a large number of research activities
in MS focused on cost optimal renovations of existing buildings from the viewpoint
of EPBD recast.
Research of Brown et al. (2013) analyses residential building stock in Sweden and
proposes to include national environmental ratings in the building energy retrofit
analyses to integrate indoor environmental quality assessment. Another study in
17
Sweden deals with the future targets on building energy retrofits and declares that by
2050, 50% energy saving potential exists in Swedish multi-family buildings despite
the challenges (Liu et al., 2014). Bonakdar et al. (2014) compares different financial
scenarios and assesses the national building codes of Sweden and accordingly
introduces a method for cost optimal analysis of multifamily building retrofits. These
studies all show that a significant energy saving potential lies behind the Swedish
residential building stock and put forward different methods for transformation of
these buildings.
In another country at northern Europe, Estonia, Arumägi and Kalamees (2014) reveal
that building envelope retrofits are required to be supported by service systems retrofits
to provide cost-effective transformation of wooden apartment buildings. Brick
apartments, on the other hand, analysed by Kuusk et al. (2014) and similarly, the
essentiality of a deep renovation perspective and financial support for the retrofit of
these buildings is emphasized. These research activities result with Estonian energy
roadmap as explained by Kurnitski et al. (2014) and Pikas et al. (2015).
Another series of research activities which resulted with proposals for policy-makers
can be recognized in Portugal. Research activities of Brandão de Vasconcelos et al.
(2015) move from reference building definition process for the residential building
stock to a comprehensive cost-optimal approach for Portuguese residential buildings
(Brandão de Vasconcelos et al., 2016a). Based on the sensitivity analyses, the authors
introduce policy implications (Brandão de Vasconcelos et al., 2016b). They reveal that
the energy efficiency measures should be combined within retrofit packages to
enhance the advantages and discount rates are effective on cost-optimal calculation
results.
Studies in Italy focused on the cost-optimal approach for transformation of existing

buildings. While Corrado et al. (2014) introduced a new optimization approach for
residential buildings, Becchio et al (2015) offer the cost-optimal methodology as an
architectural decision-making tool for single family building retrofits.
These studies mainly present analyses reaching cost-optimal levels and make
proposals on NZEB concept based on their outcomes. The shared outcomes of these
research activities point at importance of cost-effectiveness in building energy retrofits
to reach related future targets and also the necessity to consider retrofit packages
18
supported by both envelope and system retrofits instead of considering only single
retrofit measures. Despite this, passive energy strategies for buildings are the most
commonly addressed measures in studies related to cost-effective energy retrofit of
residential buildings (Pombo et al., 2016). Although the studies in the literature specify
that a comprehensive approach is required to be followed for the cost-effective
transformation of the existing buildings to NZEB, it is not the common approach.
Therefore there should be a method guiding the further research activities on NZEB
definitions for existing buildings.
Meanwhile, different perspectives were developed on the cost-optimality concept.

Barthelmes et al. (2016) and Becchio at al. (2016) emphasize the significance of the
occupant behaviour effect on building energy performance which is more than 150%.
They reveal that it is important to extend the frame of cost-optimal analyses to include
occupant behaviour effect in order to achieve future targets such as post-carbon cities.
Progress in EU Countries
Requirements of EPBD recast related to NZEB concept consist of providing all new
buildings after 2020 are NZEB and transforming the existing buildings towards NZEB.
Within the recent years, the MSs have been studying on NZEB definitions and to
prepare their national plans for increasing the number of NZEBs. Their progress has
been followed by the reports sent to the European Commission (Url-1).
In accordance with the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and
the Council on Progress by Member States towards Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings
(2013), 14 MS submitted their progress report by 2012. Eight of them were considered
in the report since the other lately arrived. Among this eight MS, only four of them
have the full definition of NZEB which includes both the numerical primary energy
use indicator and the renewable energy share.
This progress report was updated in October 2014 (Ecofys, 2014). The updated report
mentions that 13 Member States submitted their NZEB definitions including
numerical indicator while 8 of them also include share of the renewable energy.
According to this report, primary energy levels of NZEB definitions extend up to 270
kWh/m²y. Specific to residential buildings in Member States, NZEB level is between
33 kWh/m²y and 95 kWh/m²y (Ecofys, 2014).
19
Afterwards in 2016, the European Commission (2016) published Recommendation
2016/1318 on guidelines for achieving NZEB targets. The Recommendations also
summarizes the progress in MSs. According to this document, NZEB level for the new
residential buildings in MSs is commonly not higher than 50 kWh/m²y. According to
BPIE (2016), for the existing buildings, three MSs, which are Austria, France and
Brussels Capital Region, have more tolerant NZEB requirements according to the new
buildings. Three more MSs (Germany, Ireland and Slovenia) intend to do the same.
Other five MSs has the same definition with the new NZEBs. More than the half of
the MSs have not yet defined the maximum primary energy target for the NZEB level
for the existing buildings. The tightest NZEB target for existing residential buildings
was defined by Denmark which is set as 20 kWh/m²y while the most tolerant one is in
Austria and at 200 kWh/m²y (BPIE, 2016).
With regard to the progress, the Commission introduces the recommendations on

NZEB applications and policy implementation in order to speed up the transformation
since the retrofit rates are still low as shown in Figure 2.3 below.
Figure 2.3 :Retrofit rates of residential buildings in MS (Artola et al, 2016).
Another report prepared by D’Agostino et al. (2016) also presents the progress in MS.
Figure 2.4 shows the summary table given with this report related to the progress on
NZEB definition for new buildings, determination of renewable energy share expected
in NZEB, intermediate targets and set measures for promoting deep retrofits towards
NZEB. In the table, green coloured cells represent the satisfactory development in the
MSs while the orange colour represents the partial development and the red colour is
for uncertainty or undefined target. As shown in this figure, NZEB concept still draws
20
attention. Intermediate targets are mainly incomplete yet. NZEB targets for new
buildings are ahead of the targets for building retrofits.
Figure 2.4 : Retrofit progress of residential buildings in MS towards NZEB

(D’Agostino et al., 2016).
21
22
BUILDING ENERGY PERFORMANCE ISSUE IN TURKEY
Turkey has been keeping up with EU legislation through EU harmonization process.

Throughout this process, related legal instruments were established in Turkey such as
Building Energy Performance Regulation (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Public
Works and Settlement, 2008) which complies with the earlier version of EPBD before
the recast (The European Parliament and The Council of The European Union, 2003).
Presently, the following stages for Turkey to be progressed in the immediate future are
adaptation of cost optimal methodology framework, identification of cost optimal and
NZEB levels and preparation of national plans for increasing number of NZEBs. This
chapter presents the building energy performance issue and related legislation in
Turkey since the sample application of the proposed approach (Chapter 4) is applied
to a reference building in Turkey as presented in Chapter 5.
Significance of Building Energy Performance
In Turkey, buildings sector is the second biggest energy consumer that is responsible
for 30% of total final energy consumption (The World Bank, 2010) and moreover, the
consumption in buildings has tendency to increase (International Energy Agency,
2015).
On the other side, in G20 countries that Turkey is also involved in, 74% energy saving
potential exists in final energy consumption of buildings (International Energy
Agency, 2015) and this potential represents a strong opportunity considering the fact
that 73% of energy is imported in Turkey (The World Bank, 2010). Therefore, in
accordance with the Energy Efficiency Strategy Paper 2012-2023, ensuring energy
efficiency in buildings is among the future strategic targets of the country (Republic
of Turkey High Planning Council, 2012). This strategic target is indeed related to
recent EU legislation on building energy performance that Turkey follows within the
EU harmonization process.
23
The actions needed to be taken in Turkey are not only necessary for EU harmonization
process but are also required to utilize energy saving potential lying on the buildings.
The energy saving potential is needed to be revealed through a cost effective approach
in order to direct investments to the accurate activities. A particular national plan based
on this approach is able to provide long term environmental and economic benefits.
Legislative Framework in Turkey
Until 2007, the only binding tool related to building energy performance was the
national heat insulation standard TS 825 (Republic of Turkey Official Gazette, 2000).
After EPBD was enacted in 2003 (The European Parliament and the Council of the
European Union, 2003), considering the EU harmonisation process, the requirements
were followed by Turkey as well. In parallel with the EU Harmonization process and
the national strategic targets, necessary legal arrangements linked with energy
performance of buildings including laws and regulations have been bringing in since
2007 in Turkey. In this frame, Energy Efficiency Law (Republic of Turkey Official
Gazette, 2007) and based on this law Building Energy Performance Regulation were
introduced by Republic of Turkey Ministry of Public Works and Settlements (2008).
Detailed information about this legislation is provided in the subchapters below.
3.2.1 Energy Efficiency Law
Energy Efficiency Law was enacted in April 2007 as the law with number 5627 in
Turkey (Republic of Turkey Official Gazette, 2007). Ensuring energy efficiency,
decreasing energy costs and protecting the environment are among the aims of this
law. The law points at providing energy efficiency in industry, buildings sector and
transportation. In addition, use of renewable energy sources and increase of
consciousness level in public are addressed in the law.
Specific to buildings, the law authorises the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement
for publishing the norms related to building energy performance including
architectural design, heating, cooling, electric wiring, lighting and heat insulation. It
requires a regulation for these norms and energy performance certificates for buildings.
24
3.2.2 Building Energy Performance Regulation
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Public Works and Settlements brought Building

Energy Performance Regulation (2008) into force at the end of 2008 based on the
requirements of Energy Efficiency Law (Republic of Turkey Official Gazette, 2007).
This regulation follows the requirements of EPBD (The European Parliament and the
Council of the European Union, 2003) and aims to classify buildings in terms of their
energy performance levels, to set minimum energy performance requirements for new
and existing buildings, to utilize renewable energy sources, to control HVAC systems
and correspondingly to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to protect environment.
The regulation also requires to establish a calculation method that considers climatic
conditions, requirements of the space and function and also cost efficiency.
Article 5 of the Building Energy Performance Regulation requires to follow EU course

related to minimum building energy performance applications and introduce related
revisions. In accordance with this article, revisions referring to EPBD Recast (The
European Parliament and The Council of The European Union, 2010) are mandatory
for Turkey.
3.2.3 National Heat Insulation Standard TS 825
Heat insulation rules for buildings was published in the Planning Regulation for the
first time in 1981 (Republic of Turkey Official Gazette, 1981). This regulation refers
to four categories in terms of heat insulation applications and requires heat insulation
project for the new buildings in accordance with the given thermal resistance and heat
transfer coefficients. The regulation refers to TS825 standard for the calculations.
In 1985, the Regulation addressed three different regions for heat insulation
requirements instead of the previously defined four regions. (Republic of Turkey
Official Gazette, 1985). Later revisions in 1989, 1999 and 2000 points at tighter and
more detailed requirements in terms of limiting the heat loss of the buildings (Republic
of Turkey Official Gazette, 1999, 2000).
In 2008, required heat insulation levels in Turkey are increased once more (Turkish
Standards Institution, 2008). This standard is still binding for getting the construction
licences of buildings. The standard considers four degree day regions according to
their heating degree days. Figure 3.1 shows the degree day regions on the map.
25
Since TS825 considers only heating degree days, the south-east part of Turkey which
is characterized by dry and hot summers and the north and west part which has mild
climate are assumed in the same region in this standard as shown in Figure 3.1.
Therefore, the building envelope requirements are the same for these regions.
Figure 3.1 : Degree day regions given in TS825:2008.
The last revision on TS825 was introduced recently in 2013 (Turkish Standards
Institution, 2013). Although this new version cancels the previously published TS 825
standards, it is not still binding for building constructions because it has not been
published in the national official gazette yet.
Progress in Turkey
Since Building Energy Performance Regulation was introduced in 2008, actions

related to EPBD has been taken. As this regulation requires, in 2010 a national method
for calculating building energy performance (BEP-TR) was developed for certifying
the buildings (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Public Works and Settlements, 2010).
Although the regulation brought into force in 2009 requires energy performance
certificates for sale and rent of buildings starting from 2017, the Ministry of
Environment and Urbanization (2017) postponed this date to 2020.
Presently, any legislation or officially identified energy performance level referring to

cost-optimal or NZEB concepts does not exist in Turkey. On the other hand, there are
research activities directed at these concepts.
One of the research activities in this area is the project entitled “Determination of
Turkish Reference Buildings and National Method for Defining Cost Optimum Energy
26
Efficiency Level of Buildings”. The project, numbered as 113M596, was supported by
Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) and conducted
between 2013 and 2015 (Yılmaz et al., 2015).
By the project 113M596, a legislation compatible framework for national cost optimal
energy efficiency level calculations was developed. The first stage of the cost-optimal
methodology framework, reference building establishment, was given great
importance since the further stages are constructed on this first one and it is important
to have reliable assumptions on the building stock.
In the project, reference buildings were identified for a selected pilot region and the
cost-optimal calculation methodology was nationally adapted for the residential
building typologies since these buildings have the priority.
In order to draw a picture of the stock, general information about residential buildings
was collected and the initial categorization was made according to the typology. The
categories are single family houses (SFH), apartment blocks (APT) and luxury high-
rise residential buildings (R). Afterwards, available information related to physical
properties, transparency ratios, number of floors, thermo-physical properties (heat
transfer coefficients, solar heat gain coefficients, air change rates, material
properties…) and HVAC system properties were gathered. The missing information
was obtained from the existing building investigations, national and international
standards and building projects. At the end of this investigation, 26 reference buildings
for three different time period between 1985 and 2012 were identified (Table 3.1).
In addition to the reference buildings, reference building occupants are also identified
in the project. For the most frequent family type in Turkey, a couple with two children,
people, equipment and lighting schedules were defined. In addition, for 1+1 flats in
luxury high rise residential buildings, a family consisting of a couple without any
children was established. These families constitute 15.8% of Turkish households.
After the reference buildings and reference occupants were identified, the cost-optimal
methodology framework was adapted nationally. The comparative analyses were
performed by detailed dynamic simulation tools and global cost calculations. After the
conclusion of the project, framework of the national method for calculating cost
optimum energy performance level was defined in coherence with national
27
circumstances. Through sample applications of the method on defined reference
buildings, solutions for future obstacles were also developed.
Table 3.1 : Reference residential buildings defined in project 113M596.

1985-1999 2000-2008 2009-2012
Single Family
Houses
SFH111 SFH112 SFH121 SFH122 SFH131
APT231
APT211 APT212 APT221
APT232
APT213 APT214-A APT222-A
Apartments
APT214-B APT215 APT233

APT222-B
APT216 APT234
APT223
R321 R331
Luxury High
Rise Residential ---
Buildings
R322 R332
R323 R333
As explained, this research project numbered 113M596 provides a comprehensive

national application of cost-optimality concept. However, number of these research
activities are limited and required to be increased to cover all aspects of the cost
optimality concept and for all types of buildings.
28
On the other hand, NZEB concept has not been given much attention in Turkey yet. It
is necessary to conduct research on this concept since it refers to the future actions and
also to the national plans for providing a continuous increase of building energy
performance level through a cost effective approach. Definitely, the accurate definition
of national NZEB level requires to be concluded by policy makers however, it is
needed to be based on a reliable scientific approach considering national interests.
As a further step, considering both EU harmonization process and necessary

improvement in environment and economy, it is compulsory to develop a national
calculation methodology for cost effective transformation of existing buildings into
NZEBs as defined in EPBD recast. In order to have a realistic perspective, the targeted
energy performance levels should be reasonable and achievable within the targeted
time period. future plans, outcomes open new research areas for the near future.
29
30
ENERGY BUILDING TARGETS FOR EXISTING BUILDING RETROFITS
The recast of European Directive on the Energy Performance of Buildings (Directive

2010/31/EU) obliges the Member States to ensure transformation of existing buildings
into nearly-zero energy buildings (NZEBs) through a cost-effective renovation
strategy as comprehensively explained in Chapter 2 (The European Parliament and the
Council of the European Union, 2010). Considering that it is also obliged to prepare
national plans for increasing the number of these transformed buildings, NZEB level
definitions appear as essential prior to these national plans. In order to be consistent
with the national plans in the future, NZEB targets have to be achievable in terms of
both energy and economic points of view. Achievability of these targets is also
necessary for providing a rapid increase in the retrofit rates which are still lower than
supposed (Artola et al, 2016). Therefore an approach is required to be developed in
order to identify achievable NZEB targets for building retrofits.
This chapter introduces an approach in order to be followed for identification of

achievable NZEB targets for existing building retrofits. The approach is presented
below explaining objectives and concept, main phases included and detailed
description of the stages.
Objective and Concept of the Approach
The approach introduced in this study was developed regarding NZEB level as the
future cost-optimal level since these two concepts are required to be converged in the
future with respect to periodically revised requirements for energy performance of
buildings. Considering the context of NZEB concept, the focus was on the
investigation of cost-effective energy performance levels which corresponds to a
higher energy performance levels than the present cost-optimal level.
Although this approach was developed for NZEB definitions for existing building
retrofits, innovation of the approach may be applied to NZEB definitions both for
existing and new building types. The innovation lies mainly behind the two bases. The
31
first one is the extension of the scope of cost-optimal calculation methodology in a
way that effect of the occupant behaviour is also integrated within the concept since
the existing cost-optimal approach is needed to be extended by considering effect of
occupant behaviour (Barthelmes et al, 2016). The second main innovation is the
utilization of sensitivity analyses within cost-optimal calculations as a tool to
investigate relevance of different energy performance levels as the future NZEB target.
This approach aims to identify potential NZEB levels for building energy retrofits and
to obtain achievable NZEB targets at national level. Directed at this aim, the approach
consists of three main phases; national adaptation of cost-optimal methodology
framework, development of proposals for achievable NZEB targets and decision-
making procedure assessing these potential NZEB targets. These phases are shown in
Figure 4.1 below.
Figure 4.1 : Main phases of the introduced approach.
The first phase adopts the EU cost-optimal calculation methodology, which is

explained in Section 2.2.2 in detail, considering the national context. This phase
involves the steps of cost-optimal methodology based on national application of the
methodology for existing building retrofits. The aim of this phase is to identify present
cost-optimal levels for building energy retrofits and to determine the scenarios which
achieve further energy performance levels in order to investigate in the second phase.
The effect of occupant behaviour is also taken into account as an integral part of the
cost-optimal approach. It is considered both for cost-optimal analyses and for
determination of the scenarios to be analysed in the second phase.
The second phase is the main part that directly serves to the aim of the approach and
uses the sensitivity analyses with an extended context. The approach offers sensitivity
analyses as a tool to investigate potential NZEB levels and correspondingly to
demonstrate the financial gap between cost-optimal and NZEB levels. Besides
financial variables, these analyses also consider the investment cost, payback periods
and expected remaining lifetime of the existing building. The main outputs of this
32
phase are solutions developed for bridging the gap between cost-optimal and NZEB
levels and proposals for policy-makers on potential NZEB targets.
The third phase is a complementary phase of the whole approach. Since policy-makers
are in charge of the legal NZEB level definitions based on the national policy, the
approach introduces only the frame of a procedure for them to assess both the potential
NZEB levels and the developed solutions for bridging the gap between cost-optimal
and NZEB levels based on their policy.
Detailed descriptions and stages of the above-mentioned three phases of the introduced
approach are explained below.
National Adaptation of Cost-Optimal Methodology Framework
National adaptation of the cost-optimal methodology framework, which was provided

by EU Regulation No 244/2012, is the first main phase of the approach. In compatible
with the cost-optimal methodology framework, the steps involved in this phase are;
establishment of reference buildings (RB), identification of energy efficient retrofit
scenarios, calculation of primary energy consumptions of the RB for different retrofit
scenarios, calculation of the global costs of the RB for different retrofit scenarios and
comparative analyses of the energy performance and global cost results. In addition to
these stages based on EU legislation, content of the cost-optimal approach is extended
and analysing the effect of occupant behaviour on cost-optimal levels is also included
as a step within this phase since occupant behaviour is one of the main factors
influencing energy performance of the buildings.
In order to display relations between the steps of this phase, a flowchart is provided
with Figure 4.2. Detailed explanations regarding each step are provided under the
related subtitles below.
At the end of this phase, building retrofit scenarios are expected to be determined for
the analyses in the second phase to investigate potential NZEB levels.
33
Figure 4.2 : Flowchart of the first phase of the introduced approach.
4.2.1 Establishment of the reference buildings
Establishment of the reference buildings is the first stage of the cost-optimal

methodology framework as explained in Section 2.2.2. Accordingly, it is the first step
of this first phase of the introduced approach. Since the introduced approach points at
building retrofits, reference buildings, which are established in this step, refer to the
existing buildings.
Reference buildings should be defined in accordance with one of the three methods
which are selection of RB, establishment of hypothetical RB or establishment of
example RB as described in Section 2.2.2.
Data related to national existing building stock is the main input of this step. Based on
the availability of this data, one of the reference building establishment methods
should be selected and national reference buildings representing the existing building
34
stock should be identified in this first step of the approach. RB definitions should
include general information about the building, architectural properties, thermo-
physical properties of the building envelope, building energy systems and their
properties and also occupancy patterns. Accordingly, output of this step is reference
building definitions to be used in the following stages.
4.2.2 Identification of energy retrofit scenarios
Subsequent to reference building establishment stage, cost-optimal methodology

framework requires to identify energy efficiency measures and packages of measures
for the analyses of these reference buildings (The European Commission, 2012a).
Since this approach is proposed for existing buildings, energy efficiency measures
identified in this step should refer to the energy retrofit actions.
This approach requires to follow a comprehensive approach, covering the actions

related to all three main constituents of an overall building retrofit process. These main
constituents are; building envelope, energy systems and renewable energy use.
Therefore identified retrofit measures should at least refer to improvements in opaque
and transparent building envelope components, space heating and cooling system
retrofits, upgrade of hot water preparation and lighting systems and integration of
renewable energy sources on-site.
In addition, this approach requires inclusion of the analyses related to packages of

energy efficient retrofit measures since constituting packages of retrofit measures
ensures to achieve higher energy performance level in comparison to the individual
application of measures (The European Commission, 2012b). Moreover, combining
high-priced energy efficient retrofit measures, which are not cost-effective
individually, with low-cost energy efficient retrofit measures may also bring
reasonable global cost results in comparison to individual applications of them.
Accordingly, in this approach, the term “retrofit scenarios” is associated with both
individual energy efficient retrofit measures and packages of these measures which
should be identified as described below.
Since it is not practical and realistic to analyse all possible combinations of retrofit
measures as packages, a procedure is needed for constitution of packages to be
considered in cost-optimal analyses. Therefore, this approach includes the following
procedure for the constitution of packages. In order to constitute packages, the initial
35
focus of this procedure is identifying envelope retrofit scenarios that include envelope
retrofit measures and packages consist of their combinations. These scenarios should
be identified considering the climatic conditions in which the analysed reference
building is located. Afterwards, the cost-optimal calculation procedure should be
applied only for identified envelope retrofit scenarios. In order to have a rapid progress
in this stage, inputs that are the same for all scenarios may be excluded. According to
the results obtained from these analyses, cost optimal building envelope retrofit
scenarios and the scenarios which lead to the highest energy performance level should
be selected for including within further packages. The further packages should be
constituted by combining the selected envelope retrofit scenarios with the building
energy system retrofits and installation of renewable energy systems. This procedure
is summarized in the flowchart given with Figure 4.3 below.
Figure 4.3 : Flowchart representing identification of retrofit scenarios.
36
Although this procedure introduces a systematic way in identifying packages, it still
requires expertise in the field since energy efficient retrofit measures are required to
be selected considering the climatic conditions and building typology. In addition, at
the end of this step, the experts are required to make sure that the scenarios, as the
output of this step, include measures needed for achieving existing minimum energy
performance requirements and measures needed for meeting NZEB levels as expected
by EU cost-optimal methodology.
4.2.3 Calculating primary energy use of the RB for retrofit scenarios
As the third step of EU cost-optimal methodology framework is calculating primary

energy use of the RB for retrofit scenarios, this step of the approach is also associated
with calculations for each RB in order to determine energy performance levels as a
consequence of different retrofit scenarios.
In compliance with the Guidelines, energy consumption calculations in this approach

are based on detailed dynamic simulation method in order to consider the synergic
influence of many different variables affecting the absolute thermal behaviour of a
building and also interaction between them (The European Commission, 2012b).
In order to use detailed dynamic simulation tools, an energy model should be prepared
for each RB. These models should reflect the properties affecting their energy
performance which are identified in the first step. After performing energy simulations
for actual status of the reference buildings, simulations should be repeated for each
energy retrofit scenario in order to analyse the effect of these scenarios on the energy
performance of the reference buildings. Analyses for the actual status of reference
building and for different energy retrofit scenarios should be performed using the same
building energy performance modelling and simulation tool.
Energy generated by on-site renewable energy systems should be subtracted from

energy use in order to obtain net primary energy results. Figure 4.4 presents the
flowchart of the calculation scheme that is required to be followed for the reference
buildings and for each energy retrofit scenarios.
37
Figure 4.4 : Flowchart representing primary energy calculation procedure.
4.2.4 Calculating global cost of the RB for retrofit scenarios
Calculation of global cost which occurs as a result of applying different energy retrofit
scenarios on the reference buildings is the fourth stage to be adapted at national level.
The global cost should be calculated for each energy retrofit scenario in compliance
with EU cost-optimal methodology framework. According to this method, net present
value of initial investment costs, annual costs, energy costs and residual value should
be calculated and their sum represents the global cost as presented in Section 2.2.2.
Besides, this proposed approach brings some specific additional requirements and
suggestions as described below.
Prior to the global cost calculations, a comprehensive data gathering process is

required. The data should include market-based prices of the retrofit investments for
calculating the initial investment costs and correspondingly replacement costs, running
costs except energy costs and residual value. In order to be able to represent flexible
market conditions, this approach requires to collect at least three different market-
based investment costs for each of the retrofit measures and use average of them in the
global cost calculations.
38
Other data, which are required to be gathered for global cost calculations, are financial
data such as market interest rate, inflation rate and discount rate as mentioned in
Section 2.2.2 and price development rates.
Using the average market prices, initial investment costs should be calculated for
energy retrofit scenarios. It is not necessary to calculate the present value of the
investment costs since the calculation period starts with investment and it already
represents the present value of the expenditure. In order to calculate the present value
of replacement costs, investment costs and discount factors for the replacement year
are required. The discount factor is calculated using inflation rate, interest rate and
number of years pass until replacement as presented with Equation 2.2 and Equation
2.3 in Section 2.2.2. Lifespan of the HVAC components are provided within EN 15459
Standard (CEN, 2007). Running costs except energy costs should be calculated by
using the percentages of annual costs per investment costs given in EN 15459. Since
running costs are periodic costs that occur every year within calculation period, it
should be multiplied by the present value factor, which should be calculated using
Equation 2.4 (see Chapter 2), to calculate total present value of running costs.
For calculating energy costs, required input data are; annual energy consumption
results from third step, energy tariffs and energy price development rates. Annex II of
the EU Regulation, provides energy price development rates for calculating the net
present value of the energy costs (The European Commission, 2012a). However,
considering the countries in which the energy price developments occurred in recent
years are significantly different than the rates provided in Regulation (as observed in
the sample application of this method presented in Chapter 5), the approach proposed
in this dissertation offers an additional alternative method. For these countries, energy
price development rates may be assumed based on the statistics of previous years.
However, in this case, addressing energy price developments in sensitivity analyses is
mandatory and requires particular attention in order to take into account the effect of
different rates.
Present worth of residual value of the retrofit investment that will exist at the end of
considered calculation period should also be considered for the global cost
calculations. Discount factor at the end of the calculation period, RB lifespan and
calculation period are required for this calculation.
39
Taxes, charges and subsidies should be included in case of an individual end user
perspective (financial perspective) is followed and should be excluded for applying
macroeconomic calculation perspective. Macroeconomic perspective requires to
include also carbon costs.
Figure 4.4 presents the flowchart of the global cost calculation approach. As explained
in Section 2.2.2, inclusion of carbon costs is optional based on the selected cost
calculation perspective. It should be included in macroeconomic calculation
perspective.
4.2.5 Comparative analyses
This step includes the comparative assessment of the results of primary energy use and
global cost calculations obtained for the retrofit scenarios defined for each reference
building. Therefore this step incorporates all of the previous stages in order to define
the cost-optimal levels. In this step, results should be analysed on a cost-optimal graph
for each of the reference buildings.
Using the cost-optimal graphs, initially, cost-optimal levels achieved with the existing
assumptions should be identified. One of the main targets of this step is to select the
retrofit scenarios to be analysed in the second phase. Therefore, in the selection
process, it should be considered that the second phase focuses on the investigation of
potential NZEB levels and the NZEB concept refers to a raised energy performance
level in comparison to the existing cost-optimal solution. Therefore, this approach
requires to include the retrofit scenarios corresponding the cost-optimal range and the
scenarios pointing at lower primary energy consumptions than the cost-optimal level
among the selected scenarios.
4.2.6 Analysing the effect of occupant behaviour on cost-optimal levels
Besides climatic conditions, building properties and installation; energy performance

of a building is also directly affected by the occupant behaviour. Therefore, recent
studies indicate the importance of occupant behaviour effect on NZEBs as explained
in Chapter 2. Considering this aspect, the proposed approach extends the scope of cost-
optimal calculations by suggesting to integrate effect of occupant behaviour into the
energy and economic assessment of building retrofits. In this way the approach regards
40
Figure 4.5 : Flowchart of global cost calculation.
41
occupant behaviour as an integral part of cost-effective retrofit of existing buildings to
guide actualization of future targets.
This step includes a sort of sensitivity analyses on the occupant behaviour variations
which are different than the reference occupancy pattern identified for the reference
buildings.
Analyses on the effect of occupant behaviour should at least include the existing status
of the reference building and the retrofit scenarios which are determinative for the cost-
optimal curve, as being resulted as on the boundary of the curve, in order to examine
the possible variation of the cost-optimal level.
For the analyses on these selected retrofit scenarios, initially the boundary conditions
should be identified. The boundary conditions may cover the inputs affecting the
following aspects of occupancy pattern: schedules related to operating hours, internal
heat gains, power densities or ventilation rates.
Cost-optimal calculations should be repeated for the selected retrofit scenarios

considering the effect of identified occupant behaviour variations on energy
consumptions and corresponding energy costs. The results should be compared with
the reference occupant behaviour on the cost-optimal graph. In case of the analysed
occupant behaviour lead to a noteworthy change in cost-optimal results, the scenario(s)
in discussion should be added among selected retrofit scenarios in order to be taken
into account in the second phase.
Development of Proposals for Achievable NZEB Targets
The second phase of the approach aims to introduce proposals for policy makers about
achievable NZEB targets related to building retrofits. The proposals are determined by
identifying potential NZEB levels for existing building retrofits and then developing
solutions for bridging the gap between cost-optimal and proposed NZEB levels in
order to ensure that the NZEB target is achievable as the future cost-optimal level.
These processes may have feedbacks to each other.
In order to determine the potential NZEB levels, sensitivity analyses should be carried
out by focusing on the building retrofit scenarios which are selected in accordance with
the results of cost-optimal analyses in the first phase.
42
Although the aim of sensitivity analyses is explained in the Regulation as determining
the substantial parameters of the cost-optimal calculations, this approach attributes an
additional function to the sensitivity analyses by utilizing them as a tool to investigate
achievability of potential NZEB levels. Particularly, sensitivity analyses are not used
only to visualize the influence of economic scenarios on the cost-optimal results but
also to investigate a future cost-optimal level which corresponds to an improved
energy performance in comparison to the existing cost-optimal level.
This phase involves:
 sensitivity analyses on economic indicators as obliged by the Regulation,

 sensitivity analyses on probable investment cost decreases,
 analyses on cost calculation periods and
 investigation of beneficial loans to promote retrofits up to NZEB level.
Results of these analyses refer to specific future conditions which may ensure the
NZEB levels are cost-optimal and lead to develop achievable proposals on NZEB
targets. In addition, this approach allows including further sensitivity analyses in case
of other necessary investigation is regarded as convenient.
Method, details of the analyses and the assessment procedure for the results are
explained below.
4.3.1 Determination of boundary conditions for sensitivity analyses
Prior to the sensitivity analyses, boundary conditions should be set for every category
of sensitivity analyses. The boundary conditions for sensitivity analyses on economic
indicators should be in compliance with the EU Regulation and the national
circumstances should also be considered in the process.
4.3.2 Sensitivity analyses on economic indicators
Cost-optimal analyses are built on assumptions about the future economic indicators.
Therefore, sensitivity analyses on these indicators are necessary to visualise whether
variations of them leads to significant change in the cost-optimal graph.
Sensitivity analyses on economic indicators include analyses for real discount rate (RR)
and the energy price development rate regarding the requirements of the Regulation.
43
As mentioned above, further sensitivity analyses may be adapted to this approach
considering other economic indicators as well.
In addition to the minimum requirements of EU Regulation, this approach requires to

consider at least two different rates for energy price development where one of them
is lower and the other one is higher than the existing assumptions for energy price
development.
Results of the sensitivity analyses on economic indicators should be assessed by

investigating the new cost-optimal levels with an increased energy performance which
may be obtained through variations. The retrofit scenarios which may be regarded as
in cost-optimal range but still require further support should also be considered in the
evaluation of the results.
4.3.3 Sensitivity analyses on investment cost decreases
The investment cost of retrofit actions may decrease in the future as a result of
technological development, invention of new fields to use existing technologies or
increase in industrialization of a technology due to expanded use. PV system costs can
be given as an example for this as has been decreased continuously as shown in Figure
4.6 below.
Figure 4.6 : Decrease in the PV System Price, 1976-2010 (Feldman et al., 2014).
Besides the autogenous decrease in the investment cost of retrofit actions, the decrease
may also be triggered by the governments in order to upgrade the market towards
NZEBs. This upgrade may be provided by subsidies or incentives for building retrofit
investments.
44
Nevertheless, independent from the origin, effect of the investment cost decrease on
the cost-optimal analyses is based on the amount of decrease. Therefore different
occasions appearing with similar cost-decreases may result in the same way in terms
of their effects on cost-optimal analyses.
Sensitivity analyses on investment cost decreases are required to be coupled with the
analyses related to the economic indicators in order to see the synergic effect of these
two variables. This conjugation is crucial especially for the applications of the
approach where the financial rates used in the first phase are based on the statistical
data.
Results of the sensitivity analyses on investment cost decreases should be examined

considering cost-decreases in certain technologies or applications which come up with
a more ambitious cost-optimal level and thus refer to an achievable NZEB level as
future cost-optimal.
4.3.4 Sensitivity analyses on cost calculation periods
The cost calculation periods are fixed in the Regulation as mentioned in Section 2.2.2.
However, this approach requires performing a sensitivity analyses on the cost
calculation periods. Analysing longer calculation periods in comparison to the periods
fixed by the Regulation is required in order to have results enabling policy
development considering long term benefits. Moreover, shorter calculation periods
may also be analysed optionally considering the national market expectations related
to shorter term benefits.
Results of the sensitivity analyses on cost calculation periods should be analysed with
the aim of investigating both cost-optimal levels and beneficial investments for the
visions targeting different time periods.
4.3.5 Identification of potential NZEB levels
NZEB level is expected to be the norm for deep retrofits of existing buildings in the
near future according to the legislative frame and the existing literature as presented
in Chapter 2. Therefore, NZEB targets are required to be achievable and also
acceptable for the building market.
The analyses should initially consider the retrofit scenarios which may be remarked as
achieving a more ambitious cost-optimal level in the future. The scenarios which show
45
positive response as a result of sensitivity analyses should be selected and reported as
potential future cost-optimal levels and correspondingly potential NZEB levels under
certain future conditions. Results obtained for these selected scenarios should be
investigated with a specific focus on closing the financial gap between cost-optimal
and NZEB levels.
4.3.6 Determination of the financial gaps between cost-optimal and potential

NZEB levels
In order to ensure that NZEB targets are achievable, financial gaps between the cost-
optimal levels and the potential NZEB levels should be determined and plans to close
this gap should be developed. Therefore in this step, for each retrofit scenario, which
were marked as representing potential NZEB level in the previous step, the financial
gap between them and cost-optimal level should be calculated for each of them. For
this calculation, global cost of the cost-optimal scenario should be subtracted from the
global cost of the scenario that was marked as a potential NZEB level.
optimal and potential NZEB levels
The sensitivity analyses display the retrofit scenarios which are not cost-optimal at the
moment however based on the economic indicators have the potential to be
autonomously cost-optimal in the future. On the other hand, this step aims to identify
the potential future cost-optimal levels which can be achieved by taking certain actions
to force more ambitious energy efficiency levels. Therefore in this step, solutions
should be investigated to bridge the financial gap. These solutions should refer to the
national plans for increasing the number of retrofitted NZEBs.
This stage includes investigation of the followings:
 determination of the tax reductions which are effective on bridging the gap
 determination of fields to give priority in R&D activities
 determination of beneficial low-interest loans
Effective tax reductions should be defined by analysing the results of sensitivity

analyses. The retrofit scenarios that lead to a more ambitious cost-optimal level or a
cost-optimal range with the help of tax reductions should be determined by analysing
these results. The scenarios which achieve more ambitious cost-optimal level under
46
certain financial conditions should also be identified. These certain conditions may be
specific values or ranges of discount rates, energy price developments or cost
calculation periods. Especially when individual end user perspective is used, results of
sensitivity analyses on investment cost decreases constitutes the main input.
Determination of fields to give priority in Research and Development (R&D) activities

needs a similar approach as determination of effective tax reductions however it is also
related with technological developments in products and attraction of market.
Therefore this part requires information or knowledge about the latest activities. With
this point of view, potential NZEB levels which can be achieved in practice through
R&D support and corresponding cost decreases should be defined considering the
results of sensitivity analyses.
The above-mentioned potential NZEB levels represent the future cost-optimal energy
performance levels which can be conditionally achieved depending on investment cost
decreases. However, based on the decisions at national level, NZEB definitions may
also be more ambitious than conditionally expected future cost-optimal levels. In this
case, building market is needed to be externally supported to achieve this ambitious
NZEB target. Low-interest loan is one of the tools for this support to ensure that the
target is an acceptable investment by the market.
In order to identify useful and beneficial loans, investment cost and payback periods
of the selected scenarios should be calculated. Payback period should consider the
investment cost of the retrofit scenario and annual energy cost savings obtained.
Simple payback period is calculated as below.
𝐶𝐼
𝑃𝑃 = (4.1)
𝐶𝑠,𝑎
In Equation 4.1, PP is payback period in years, 𝐶𝐼 is investment cost of the retrofit

scenario and 𝐶𝑠,𝑎 is annual energy cost savings obtained by the retrofit investment.
Regarding the calculated investment costs and the payback periods of the retrofit
investments, amount of the beneficial loans and the repayment period of them that are
required for supporting the retrofit actions towards NZEB level should be determined.
Assessment of beneficial loans should consider the relation between payback period
of the investment and the remaining lifespan of the reference building. This
47
consideration is important especially in countries where the building lifespans are not
long since demolishing and reconstruction is common.
4.3.8 Development of proposals for achievable NZEB levels
Development of proposals for achievable NZEB levels is the last step of the second
phase. Subsequent to the sensitivity analyses and investigation solutions and terms for
bridging the gap between cost-optimal and potential NZEB levels, obtained results
should be assessed together with the aim to have an overall composition of potential
NZEB levels.
Both the autogenous cost-optimal levels that can be achieved by certain financial
conditions and beneficial incentives which are able to close the gap between a potential
NZEB level and existing cost-optimal level should also be reported as a proposal
together with the tools to achieve this level such as tax exemptions or low-interest
loans. This step aims to ensure policy makers to assess the opportunity of regarding
these as NZEB target depending on their policy and economic expectations.
In the proposal development procedure, attention should be paid to the tendency of the
prices and preferences in building market within recent years. Moreover obtained
solutions for bridging the financial gap between existing cost-optimal levels and
NZEB levels should consider the building characteristics and potential actions related
to both economy and policy.
The proposals for potential NZEB levels and the effective tools to close the gap
between these and existing cost-optimal levels should be the main output of the second
phase.
The flowchart of the second phase explained above is given with Figure 4.7. in order
to provide a better understanding of this main phase of the introduced approach.
48
Figure 4.7 : Flowchart of the second phase of the introduced approach.
49
Decision-Making on NZEB Levels of Existing Building Retrofits
The last phase of the introduced approach is giving decision on national NZEB levels
for building retrofits. Although policy makers are in charge of this phase, a general
frame is necessary regarding the two previous phase.
The main inputs of this phase are the proposed potential NZEB levels and the tools
which are labelled as effective in closing the financial gap between cost-optimal and
NZEB levels. These inputs, which are the outputs of the second phase, should be
assessed by policy makers in terms of applicability, acceptability and effectiveness
within the policy frame. Therefore other input data should be the energy policy,
economy policy and national targets based on the expectations.
All of the proposals on NZEB definitions, which were determined in the second phase,
are required to be assessed individually considering the national policy until the
appropriate target is achieved. Once the appropriate NZEB target is determined, the
provisions of the application should also be identified legally. The provisions should
refer to the practical application and inspection mechanisms while it may also refer to
tax reductions, amount and repayment period of low-interest loans or other subsidies
if the accepted proposal requires.
Based on the accepted proposal for NZEB target and related provisions for the
application, NZEB levels should be defined as a certain energy performance level
indicated as kWh/m²y. In accordance with the NZEB definition, national legislation
on energy performance of buildings should be revised in a way that NZEB targets are
identified.
The flowchart of this decision-making procedure (third phase) is given in Figure 4.8.
It should be stated that NZEB definitions should not be regarded as permanent due to
the minimum energy performance requirements are expected to be revised in each five
years. These revisions are based on the cost-optimality and aim to gradually achieve
more ambitious cost-optimal building energy performance levels in order to meet the
aim of NZEB concept of EPBD referring to “a very high energy performance level”
(The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2010).
50
Figure 4.8 : Flowchart of the third phase of the introduced approach.
51
52
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE APPROACH FOR A REFERENCE
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IN TURKEY
This chapter illustrates a sample implementation of the approach to identify achievable

targets for NZEB levels of existing building retrofits. The first and second phases of
the approach were implemented in this chapter since the third phase is directly
associated with policy makers.
The approach was implemented to a reference building in Turkey. As thoroughly

explained in Chapter 3, in accordance with national legislation, Turkey is in charge of
adapting requirements of EPBD recast. Since this country involves different climatic
regions which show significant distinction from each other, this sample application
may refer to the various building refurbishment strategies in Europe. On the other
hand, both economic indicators and the practices in the building market of Turkey
show significant distinctions in comparison to EU. Considering the excessive building
stock in this country, it is necessary to point out achievable NZEB targets for building
retrofits.
Residential buildings were selected for this sample implementation since these
buildings represent the majority (75%) of the building stock in Turkey (State Institute
of Statistics Prime Ministry Republic of Turkey, 2001). Furthermore, 23.1% of the
households reside in dwellings which have 6 or more floors (TURKSTAT, 2011). This
ratio corresponds to a large population around 4.5 million Turkish families. Therefore,
the reference building selected for the implementation is a high rise apartment
building.
For retrofit of the reference building, cost-optimal energy performance levels were
identified considering different climates by implementing the first phase of the
approach. In the second phase, sensitivity analyses were performed to determine
potential NZEB levels. Within the whole implementation, more than 1300 energy
retrofit scenarios for three different climates were analysed in terms of cost-optimality
and their potential to refer NZEB level. In accordance with the results, proposals for
53
bridging the gap between cost optimal and NZEB levels were constituted as the output
of this implementation.
Adaptation of Cost-Optimal Methodology Framework
This part explains sample implementation of the first phase of the approach introduced
with this dissertation. Since the first phase is national adaptation of cost-optimal
methodology framework, this section presents reference building definition, analysed
energy efficiency scenarios and their selection method, primary energy consumption
calculations, global cost calculations, comparative analyses and sensitivity analyses
related to occupant behaviour. These steps concluded with determination of cost-
optimal energy performance levels.
5.1.1 Reference building
The reference building (RB) represents a group of existing high rise residential
buildings in Turkey to achieve generalized results about cost-effectiveness of energy
efficiency renovations applied on them. Therefore, RB definition includes the general
description, architectural layout, physical and thermo-physical properties, occupancy
pattern and equipment use and building service system properties together with
schedules and boundary conditions for their operation.
5.1.1.1 General description of the reference building
The studied reference building (RB) is one of the reference apartment buildings which
are determined within the national research project indicated in Section 3.3 (Yılmaz
et. al, 2015). RB is a multi-storey apartment building which has a basement floor and
twelve floors with four flats in each. Illustrations displaying building geometry are
given in Figure 5.1 and the typical floor plan is given in Figure 5.2 below. It is assumed
as constructed between years 1985 and 1999. Total floor area of the building is 5186
m², total facade area is 3823 m² with 590 m² glazing area.
54
Figure 5.1 : Geometry of the reference building.
Figure 5.2 : Typical floor plan of the reference building.
55
5.1.1.2 Envelope properties
Construction type of the reference building is reinforced concrete tunnel form system
and the facades were completed using concrete panel walls. Table 5.1 explains
thicknesses and thermal conductivities (λ) of the layers and the calculated heat transfer
coefficients (U value) of the building envelope components. Windows located on the
external walls are considered as double glazing with two layers of 4 mm flat glass and
12 mm air gap between them while the frame material is considered as polyvinyl
chloride (PVC). Heat transfer coefficient (U value) of the window glazing is 2.9
W/m²K, visible transmittance (Tvis) is 0.80 and solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) is
0.75.
Table 5.1 : Thermal properties of the building envelope.
Thickness λ U
Layers
(m) (W/mK) (W/m²K)
External Plaster 0.005 1.4

Reinforced Concrete 0.2 2.1
External
1.04
Concrete Wall Herapor Heat 0.035 0.051
Insulation
Internal Plaster 0.005 0.7
External
Herapor Heat
Concrete 0.035 0.051 1.09
Insulation
Panel Wall
Internal Plaster 0.005 0.7
Oak Parquet 0.016 0.2
Asphalt 0.005 0.7
Basement
Concrete Screed 0.03 1.4 1.25
Ceiling
Herapor Insulation 0.025 0.09
Rockwool 0.05 0.045
Attic slab Reinforced Concrete 0.16 2.1 0.71

Ceiling Plaster 0.01 0.87
56
5.1.1.3 Occupancy
User profile, schedules related to occupancy and activities were previously defined in
the national research project considering national and international standards and
statistical data gathered from Turkish Statistical Institute (TURKSTAT) database (Url-
2). The findings which were used as the input of this research are explained below.
According to 2011 Population and Housing Census of TURKSTAT (2011), in Turkey,

average household size is 3.8. In addition, Income and Living Conditions Survey of
TURKSTAT (2012) indicates that 54% of the households in Turkey consist of a couple
with children. Therefore, in this sample implementation, it was assumed as in each
apartment flat, a family consists of four people (parents and two children) lives.
Moreover, in accordance with the Family Structure Survey conducted by Ministry of
Family and Social Policies (2011, 2013), 67% of women older than 18 years old are
housewives in Turkey. Family members frequently come together at weekends (80%)
and dinners (81%). Also 64% of the families make breakfast together often.
Considering these statistical information, occupancy schedules for each flat were
defined as given in Table 5.2. Activity levels are gathered from ASHRAE-55 -
Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy standard according to the
related activity (ASHRAE, 2010).
Table 5.2 : Occupancy and Activity Level Schedules.
Number Activity Name of the

Hours of Activity Level Space
Person (W/m²)
00:00 - 07:00 4 Sleeping 40 Bedrooms
07:00 - 07:30 4 Breakfast 60 Kitchen
07:30 - 12:30 1 Housework 115 All spaces
12:30 - 15:30 1 Rest 45 Living Room
15:30 - 16:30 1 Housework 115 All spaces
16:30 - 19:00 3 1 person: Housework 115 All spaces
WEEKDAYS
2 people: Rest 45
19:00 - 20:00 4 1 person: Housework 115 Kitchen
3 person: Reclining, 60 Living Room
Light work, Reading
20:00 - 20:30 4 Dinner 60 Kitchen
20:30 - 23:00 4 60 Living
Reclining, Light work,
Room,
Reading
Bedrooms
57
Table 5.2 (continued) : Occupancy and Activity Level Schedules.
Number Activity Name of the

Hours Activity Level
of Person Space
(W/m²)
00:00 - 00:30 4 Reclining, Light 60 Living Room,
work, Reading Bedrooms
WEEKEND

12:30 - 15:30 0 - - -
22:30 - 24:00 4 Rest 45 Living Room,
Bedrooms
Based on these assumptions, heat gain from occupant were considered in the energy
performance calculations.
5.1.1.4 Equipment use
In this implementation, home appliances were considered as the equipment used by

the occupants. In order to take heat gain from home appliances into account in the
energy performance calculations, power and operating time of the appliances were
analysed and were defined as given in Table 5.3 for each flat (Url-3, Url-4, Url-5).
Table 5.3 : Power and Operating Time of the Electrical Equipment.
Home Appliance Power (W) Operating Time

Refrigerator 37,8 All day (24 hours)
Oven 2600 4 hours in a week
Dishwasher 1030 5 hours in a week
Washing Machine 851 4 hours in a week
Tea Kettle 1650 Weekdays: 3 hours in a day
Weekend: 2 hours in a day
Iron 2300 2 hours for 2 days in a week
Vacuum Cleaner 2000 2 hours for 2 days in a week
TV 105 Weekdays: 5 hours in a day
Weekends: 4 hours in a day
Notebook 120 3 hours in a day
Stove 1800 2,5 hours in a day
Cooker hood 290 1.5 hours in a day
58
5.1.1.5 Building service systems
Building service systems were also a part of the RB identification procedure followed
in the national research project 113M596 (Yılmaz et. al, 2015). Since heating, cooling,
ventilating, domestic hot water (DHW) and lighting systems were defined together
with this RB, these inputs were considered in this research.
The heating energy demand of the building is met by a central hot water boiler using
natural gas. The nominal thermal efficiency of this natural gas boiler is 80%. In each
flat, there are radiators for emitting the heat generated by the boiler by circulating hot
water.
The cooling energy demand is met by individual split air conditioners using electricity.
SEER (seasonal energy efficiency ratio) of the split air conditioners are equal to 5.8
kWh/kWh.
DHW system is also individual and an electric water heater with 80% thermal
efficiency exists in each flat in order to provide hot water for the occupants.
Since the RB is a residential building, the heating and cooling systems were assumed
as being operated continuously in order to ensure the required setpoints in the building.
The heating setpoint is assumed as 20°C and cooling setpoint is 26°C (Republic of
Turkey Ministry of Public Works and Settlements, 2010).
Ventilation was assumed as provided naturally and the air change rate per hour is
0.5 h-1 for this apartment building according to BEP-TR (National Calculation
Methodology for Building Energy Performance in Turkey) considering that the
building has a high air tightness (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Public Works and
Settlements, 2010).
In order to calculate the lighting energy consumption and also consider the heat gains
from the lighting equipment, lighting power density (LPD) values were calculated
using DIALux evo software (Url-6). In the lighting simulations, boundaries for
minimum average illumination levels are 200 lux for kitchen, 300 lux for children
bedroom and 100 lux for living room, bedroom, corridor and bathroom (Sümengen
and Yener, 2013) (IESNA, 2011). The required luminous flux is met by compact
fluorescent lamps and their properties are explained in Table 5.4.
59
The calculated LPD values considering these compact fluorescent lamps achieved
average illumination level in the work plane and the operating time of the lighting
system are provided with Table 5.5 below. The lighting power densities were used in
the RB energy model as an input.
Table 5.4 : Properties of compact fluorescent lamps considered in the calculations.

Power Luminous flux Color Temperature
20W 1160 lm 2500K
14W 800 lm 2500K
7W 430 lm 2500K
Table 5.5 : Calculated lighting power densities and illuminaton levels for rooms.
Average
Area LPD
Room illumination Operating Time
(m²) (W/m²)
level (lux)
Bedroom 1 12.5 9.6 115 2 hours/day
Bedroom 2 10.0 8.0 112
Children Bedroom 1 13.8 17.4 300 Manually controlled
depending on the
Children Bedroom 2 14.0 20.0 313 illuminance provided by
Living Room 28.0 5.7 104 daylight in occupied hours
Kitchen 9.0 10.7 215 4 hours/day
Bathroom 1 5.4 7.4 103 2 hours/day
Bathroom 2 4.8 8.3 104
WC 2.1 10 111
Corridor 4.5 8.9 105
Entrance 8.0 10 124
5.1.1.6 Climatic regions
In order to have a complete view, three different climatic regions of Turkey, which are
considerably different from each other, were considered for this sample
implementation of the approach. These are tempered humid climatic region that is
observed in the north-west, hot humid climatic region, which appears in the
Mediterranean coast of Turkey with hot humid summers and warm wet winters, and
cold climatic region, which is able to refer Northern Europe since it is characterized
by cold, strong and long winter period where the air temperatures are mostly below
60
zero. Representative cities for these climates are respectively Istanbul, Antalya and
Erzurum. Locations of these cities are provided on the map given with Figure 5.3.
Figure 5.3 : Locations of the representative cities analysed in the .
Istanbul is located at 40°58´ North latitude and 29°05´ East longitude. The tempered
humid climatic region of Turkey that is represented by this city has warm summers
and cold wet winters longer than summers.
Antalya is located at 36°53´ North latitude and 30°42´ East longitude. The hot humid
climatic region, where Antalya is located, has Mediterranean climate with hot
summers and mild and rainy winters. Relative humidity is high in this region.
In the cold climatic region, winters are long and cold while summers are short and
cool. The representative city Erzurum is located at 39°57´ North latitude and 41°10´
East longitude.
Monthly average of outdoor air temperatures occurred in these three cities between
years 1950 and 2015 are reported by Turkish State Meteorological Service as shown
in Figure 5.4 (Url-7).
Global solar radiation map is given with Figure 5.5 (Republic of Turkey Ministry of
Energy and Natural Sources, 2016). As seen from this map, among the analysed cities,
Antalya receives the highest global solar radiation and Istanbul receives the lowest
global solar radiation. Although Erzurum is in the cold climatic region, this city is
more advantageous than Istanbul in terms of total global solar radiation.
61
Figure 5.4 : Monthly average air temperatures of analysed cities (Url-7).
Figure 5.5 : Total solar radiation map of Turkey (Republic of Turkey Ministry of
Energy and Natural Sources, 2016).
5.1.2 Energy efficiency measures and packages
In order to calculate expected energy performance levels of the RB as a consequence

of different retrofit practices, energy efficiency measures and packages were identified
in accordance with the method explained in Section 4.2.2. A global approach was
followed and architectural measures, measures related to building service systems and
measures for renewable energy use were all considered for the calculations. Besides
these energy efficient renovation measures, packages of measures were also
constituted. In this section, the selected measures and packages of measures are
explained.
62
5.1.2.1 Architectural measures
Architectural measures analysed in this research refer to the application of heat

insulation on the opaque building envelope, replacement of window glazings and use
of solar control devices. Table 5.6 explains the selected energy efficiency measures
related to heat insulation.
Table 5.6 : Energy efficiency measures related to heat insulation.
Abbrev. Definition of the measure

IN1-W Application of xps heat insulation on external walls to meet the
maximum allowed limits of U values in national heat insulation
standard (TS 825) (TSE, 2013).
IN2-W Application of xps heat insulation on external walls to meet 25%
lower U values than the maximum limits given in TS 825.
IN1-R Application of rock wool heat insulation on attic slab to meet
maximum allowed limits of U values given in TS 825.
IN2-R Application of rock wool heat insulation on attic slab to meet 25%
IN1-F Application of xps heat insulation at ceiling of basement floor to meet
maximum allowed limits of U values given in TS 825.
25% lower U values than the maximum limits given in TS 825.
IN1-E Application of heat insulation on the whole envelope (external walls,
roof, ground floor) to meet maximum allowed limits of U values given
in TS 825.
IN2-E Application of heat insulation on the whole envelope to meet 25%
63
As explained in Section 3.2, although TS 825 Standard was amended by the new
version in 2013, it has not been mandatory for new buildings in Turkey yet (TSE,
2013). However, in this research, TS 825:2013 was considered in order to analyse the
latest version of this national standard.
Since the maximum limits of heat transfer coefficients (U values) allowed by the
national heat insulation standard TS 825:2013 differ based on climatic regions, the
analysed heat insulation thicknesses applied on the building envelope differ according
to the analysed city as well (TSE, 2013). The maximum allowed limits of U values for
the building components in three cities are provided in Table 5.7 below.
Table 5.7 : Maximum limits of heat transfer coefficients allowed by TS 825:2013

standard (TSE, 2013).
Maximum Limits for Heat Transfer Coefficients (U) - (W/m²K)

Istanbul Antalya Erzurum
Uwall 0.57 0.66 0.36

Uroof 0.38 0.43 0.21
Ufloor 0.57 0.66 0.36
Uwindow 1.80 1.80 1.80
Considering the available options in the market, heat insulation materials in different
thicknesses were considered for the building envelope in order to ensure previously
identified levels given in Table 5.6. Below mentioned Table 5.8 displays calculated
heat transfer coefficients considering the heat insulation application.
The second focus of energy efficiency measures was on the glazing renovation. For
this renovation, it is considered that window glasses were replaced with new double
or triple glazings. Heat transfer coefficient (U), visible transmittance (Tvis) and solar
heat gain coefficient (SHGC) properties and the configuration of the analysed glazing
types are selected according to the availability in the national market. These
thermophysical and optical properties are explained in Table 5.9.
As an addition to the improvements in the opaque and transparent components of the

existing envelope, installation of the shading devices were also examined among the
energy efficiency measures. Two different types of shading devices were considered.
The first related measure was abbreviated as SHD1 and represents installation of fixed
aluminium shading devices on the facades. These shading devices are assumed as
64
overhangs on south facade and as overhangs and fins on east and west facades. The
width of the shading devices is 60cm. Second related measure which was abbreviated
as SHD2, represents installation of external roller blinds with semi-transparent textile.
These roller blinds were in south east and west facades and were assumed as manually
controlled by the occupants. Solar transmittance of the textile is 0.35, solar reflectance
is 0.60, visible transmittance is 0.35 and visible reflectance is 0.65. Figure 5.6 shows
sample illustrations for these shading devices (Url- 8).
Table 5.8 : Calculated heat transfer coefficients for the heat insulation measures.
Heat Transfer Coefficients - W/m²K
Istanbul Antalya Erzurum
IN1-W 0.56 0.60 0.34
IN1-R 0.36 0.39 0.21
IN1-F 0.56 0.66 0.35
IN1-E INS 1 level for the whole envelope
IN2-W 0.42 0.48 0.26
IN2-R 0.27 0.32 0.15
IN2-F 0.42 0.48 0.25
IN3-W 0.29 0.31 0.18
IN3-R 0.175 0.18 0.11
IN3-F 0.29 0.29 0.18
IN4-W 0.14 0.16 0.12
IN4-R 0.095 0.11 0.085
IN4-F 0.14 0.17 0.09
Table 5.9 : Glazing properties considered in energy efficiency measures.
Abbrev. U Tvis SHGC Glazing Configuration

GL1 1.8 0.79 0.56 4mm glass + 9mm air + 4mm glass
GL5 1.1 0.71 0.44 4mm glass + 16mm argon + 4mm glass
GL6 0.9 0.69 0.48 4mm glass + 12mm air + 4mm glass +
12mm air + 4mm glass
GL7 0.9 0.63 0.39 4mm glass + 12mm air + 4mm glass +
12mm air + 4mm glass
65
SHD1 – Overhang SHD1 – Fin SHD2
Figure 5.6 : Sample illustrations of analysed shading devices for SHD1 and SHD2
retrofits (Url-8).
5.1.2.2 Measures related to building service systems
Examined energy efficiency measures related to building service systems refer to the
selected improvements in heating system, cooling system, domestic hot water
preparation system and lighting system. Abbreviations and the explanations of the
measures are provided in Table 5.10 below.
Table 5.10 : Energy efficiency measures related to building service systems.

Replacement of the existing central boiler with a new condensing boiler.
BOI
Nominal thermal efficiency of the new boiler is 95%.
RF Replacement of the existing heating system to radiant floor heating system.
Change of the existing individual domestic hot water systems to a central hot
CHW
water system supplied by a central boiler.
Replacement of the existing split type air conditioners with more energy efficient
AC
air conditioners. The SEER of the new air conditioners is 8.5 kWh/kWh.
Replacement of the existing split air conditioners with a central variable
VRV refrigerant volume (VRV) system. Gross rated cooling coefficient of
performance (COP) of the system is 3.1.
Replacement of the existing compact fluorescent lamps to the LED (lighting
LED
emitting diode) to provide same illumination levels.
For LED measure, as in the RB model, DiaLUX evo software was used to calculate
the lighting power densities which correspond to the minimum required illumination
levels in spaces (Url-6). The lighting power densities and average illumination levels
in the work plane that were achieved with this retrofit are expressed with Table 5.11
below.
66
Table 5.11 : Lighting power densities and average illumination for rooms achieved
by LED measure.
Room LPD Average illuminance
Bedroom-1 5.3 W/m² 110 lux
Bedroom-2 4.4 W/m² 102 lux
Children Bedroom-1 10.4 W/m² 302 lux
Children Bedroom-2 11.0 W/m² 303 lux
Living Room 3.1 W/m² 102 lux
Kitchen 6.9 W/m² 225 lux
Bathroom-1 4.1 W/m² 101 lux
Bathroom-2 4.6 W/m² 102 lux
WC 7.6 W/m² 123 lux
Corridor 4.9 W/m² 103 lux
Entrance 5.5 W/m² 113 lux
5.1.2.3 Measures for renewable energy use
Energy efficiency measures which were analysed for renewable energy use are related
to electricity production by photovoltaic panels and hot water obtainment from solar
thermal panels. The measures and their explanations are provided with Table 5.12
below. Available roof area is considered for selection of the measures.
Table 5.12 : Energy efficiency measures for renewable energy use.

SP Installation of solar thermal system at roof. The system involves 48 solar
thermal panels and each solar panel has 2.5m² gross area.
PV Installation of photovoltaic system at roof. Rated power of the system is
11 kW.
Cell efficiency is 16%.
Solar thermal panels were assumed as supporting the central hot water boiler in heating
and also domestic hot water preparation in case of the hot water system is also
centralized.
5.1.2.4 Composition of packages
Energy efficiency measures were analysed both individually and as packages of

measures. In order to constitute the packages, initially energy efficiency measures
referring to heat insulation retrofits, glazing retrofits and their combinations were
analysed for all three cities. Energy performance and global cost calculations were
performed for these architectural measures and packages. In the global cost
67
calculations, cost related to building service systems were not considered since these
are same for all compared scenarios. According to the results of calculations, cost
optimal scenarios and the most energy efficient solutions were selected to be combined
with other energy efficiency measures. Therefore the analysed packages are different
for different cities. Selected energy efficiency packages for different cities are
explained in Section 5.6.
5.1.3 Energy performance calculations
As explained in Section 4.2, both energy performance level of actual status of the RB
and energy performance levels achieved a consequence of implementing energy
efficiency measures to the RB were calculated using a building energy simulation
software. Therefore this stage of the approach involves to set up an energy model for
the RB and development of studies related to energy performance simulations.
5.1.3.1 Energy model of the reference building
In order to constitute energy model of the reference building, primarily the building
was divided into thermal zones. Every single flat was assumed as a thermal zone and
the main circulation areas are assumed as different thermal zones at each floor. The
schematic drawing about the zones is given with Figure 5.7 below.
Figure 5.7 : Thermal zones of a standard floor of the reference building.
Based on these thermal zones, geometry of the building was modelled using Legacy
Open Studio Plug-in for SketchUp 8 which is a 3D modelling software (Url-9, Url-10)
68
Afterwards, the model was exported to a detailed dynamic simulation software
EnergyPlus version 8.2 and building model was completed by taking the following
variables into consideration: physical and thermophysical properties of the materials
and building components, internal heat gains from lighting, equipment and people,
types and properties of HVAC and DHW equipment, system efficiencies (Url-11).
5.1.3.2 Calculation of primary energy consumptions
Energy consumption of the RB before and after implementation of the energy

efficiency measures and packages are calculated using EnergyPlus building energy
simulation software.
EnergyPlus is a modular building energy analysis and thermal load simulation

program, developed by U.S. Department of Energy. It is an open-source free software
and widely used all over the world for building and HVAC system design and dynamic
simulation (Crawley et al, 2008).Therefore it has been chosen for the analyses of this
implementation. The calculations were performed using conduction transfer function
method.
For each scenario, a detailed sub-hourly simulation of the building was conducted. In
the calculations, IWEC (International Weather for Energy Calculations) weather file
was used for Istanbul while the weather files for Antalya and Erzurum were derived
by integrating national weather data representing typical meteorological year with
meteonorm files since there is no available international weather data for these cities
(Url-12).
Energy consumptions for heating, cooling, DHW preparation, lighting, fans and
pumps were examined in this study. The energy consumption results were converted
to primary energy using national primary energy factors and are expressed in kWh/m²
per year. Primary energy conversion factors are 1 for natural gas and 2.36 for
electricity in Turkey. In case of renewable energy production exists, the produced
energy was subtracted from the total energy consumption.
The calculated end use energy consumption of the RB subdivided into end uses and
energy sources are presented in Figure 5.8 for Istanbul, Antalya and Erzurum. Final
energy use for space heating is extremely high in Erzurum while energy use for space
cooling is the highest in Antalya due to their climatic character.
69
Primary energy equivalences of the energy consumptions are given with Figure 5.9.
Primary energy consumption of the RB is the highest in Erzurum and the lowest in
Istanbul. These results were affected also by the primary energy conversion factors.
Especially in Antalya, where the cooling energy consumption met by electricity is
dominant, primary energy conversion factor of electricity has a big share in the high
primary energy consumption.
Primary energy consumption results of the RB as a consequence of retrofit scenarios

are presented in the following sections within comparative analyses of cost-optimality.
Figure 5.8 : End use energy consumption of the RB.
Figure 5.9 : Primary energy consumption of the RB.
70
5.1.4 Global cost calculations
As the cost-optimal methodology requires, global cost of analysed retrofit scenarios

were calculated using Net Present Value Method which is a method explained in
Chapter 2. This implementation concerns micro-economic (individual end-user)
perspective for cost calculations.
Global cost calculations are dependent on the assumptions related to economic

indicators, building lifespan, calculation periods and prices. This section explains the
assumptions and the calculation practices while the results are presented under the
following sections with cost-optimal analyses.
5.1.4.1 General assumptions for the cost calculations
General assumptions are related to ownership, building lifespan, cost calculation

period and beginning year of the calculations. Since Income and Living Conditions
Survey carried out by TURKSTAT indicates that 67% of the residential buildings in
Turkey are occupied by the owner as shown in Figure 5.10, the reference building is
considered as owner occupied in the calculations (TURKSTAT, 2012).
Figure 5.10 : Ownership of the residential buildings in Turkey (TURKSTAT, 2012).
For the global cost calculations, future lifespan of the RB was assumed as 50 years and
the global cost calculation period is 30 years in accordance with EU Regulation no
244/ 2012 (The European Commission, 2012a). The beginning year of the cost
calculations is 2015. For the calculations, initial investment cost, replacement cost,
energy costs and the residual value are considered. In accordance with The European
Commission (2012a), the costs that are the same for all analysed scenarios and the
costs related to the building elements that does not affect the energy performance of
71
the building may be omitted. Therefore, in this sample implementation, these costs
were not included in the cost calculations.
5.1.4.2 Assumptions on economic indicators
Assumptions related to economic indicators such as inflation rate, market interest rate
and energy price developments are determined based on the statistical data. In order to
define the interest rate that is used in the cost calculations, Central Bank of the
Republic of Turkey (CBRT) statistics were investigated for the last 10 years before the
starting year of the calculations (2015) (Url-13). According to the findings presented
in Table 5.13, the average of the general inflation rate occurred in Turkey during the
last 5 years was selected as the rate to be used in the global cost calculations. According
to this procedure followed, the inflation rate is assumed as 8,054% for the global cost
calculations.
Table 5.13 : Inflation rates occurred between 2005 and 2014 (Url-13).
General Maintenance and Repair General General General

Turkey of Residences -Turkey Istanbul Antalya Erzurum
2005 8.18 % 8.94 % 8.98 % 8.80 % 8.11 %
2006 9.61 % 6.91 % 10.16 % 9.48 % 9.24 %
2007 8.75 % 6.44 % 9.16 % 8.42 % 9.76 %
2008 10.44 % 6.97 % 11.24 % 9.02 % 11.69 %
2009 6.26 % 6.40 % 5.75 % 5.81 % 5.50 %
2010 8.55 % 2.53 % 7.72 % 8.10 % 8.76 %
2011 6.49 % 4.70 % 5.56 % 6.76 % 8.39 %
2012 8.87 % 7.61 % 9.14 % 8.29 % 9.17 %
2013 7.50 % 6.17 % 7.90 % 7.25 % 7.68 %
2014 8.86 % 9.16 % 9.14 % 8.85 % 8.90 %
Average
8.054 % 6.034 % 7.892 % 7.85 % 8.58 %
2010-2014
Average
8.351 % 6.583 % 8.475 % 8.078 % 8.72 %
2005-2014
The market interest rate used in the calculations was identified with a similar approach
with the inflation rate. TURKSTAT statistics were investigated for the last 10 years
before the beginning year of the cost calculations. The accessed data are as shown in
Table 5.14 below (Url-2) and the average of the last 5 years was selected as the market
interest rate to be used in the main calculations. Therefore, 14.30% is used as the
market interest rate within the calculations.
72
Table 5.14 : Market interest rates occurred between 2005 and 2014 (Url-2).
Interest of Long Term Loans Given by Banks
2005 20.87
2006 21.01
2007 20.98
2008 20.59
2009 17.77
2010 12.52
2011 13.93
2012 15.58
2013 11.80
2014 14.22
Average (2010-2014) 14.30
Average (2005-2014) 16.93
The inflation rate and the market interest rate were used to calculate real discount rate
by applying the formula 2.3 given in Chapter 2. The real discount rate (RR) calculated
using this formula is equal to 5.78%. This discount rate was used to calculate the
discount factors based on the year of the investment using the formula given with 2.2.
Amount of future investments are multiplied by the discount factors (based on the year
they occur), in order to find their equivalent present value.
Another required input for the global cost calculations is the energy price
developments. TURKSTAT statistics were examined for the last 5 years as given in
Table 5.15 (Url-2).
Table 5.15 : Energy price development rates between 2010 and 2014 (Url-2).
Energy Price Development Rates
Electricity Natural Gas
2010 7.9 % -9.7 %
2011 2.2 % 4.4 %
2012 19.5 % 27.2 %
2013 9.8 % 11.9 %
2014 2.4 % 3.4 %
Average 8.34 % 7.43 %
Since these values are close to the inflation rate and they are not exactly coherent with
the data provided by producers, energy price developments were assumed as the same
with the inflation rate for the initial analyses. Afterwards, different energy price
development rates were considered for sensitivity analyses.
73
The costs in foreign currency were converted to Turkish Lira (TL) to include in cost
calculations. Since beginning year of the calculations is 2015, exchange rates for the
United States Dollar/Turkish Lira and Euro/Turkish Lira are assumed as the average
of 2015 and are respectively equal to 2.72 and 3.02 (Url-13).
5.1.4.3 Investment cost calculations
Investment cost calculations performed in this study are based on 2015 market prices.
The required data is obtained by calculating the average of three cost data gathered
from the standard offers of different companies. Total investment costs for
implementation of energy efficiency measures related to heat insulation are listed in
Table 5.16 below.
Table 5.16 : Total investment cost for implementation of heat insulation on the RB.
Cost per Cost per
unit floor unit floor
Total Investment area Total Investment area
Cost (TL) (TL/m²) Cost (TL) (TL/m²)
Istanbul: 281934.9 54.4 Istanbul: 23379.8 4.5
IN1–W Antalya: 275852.9 53.2 IN1–F Antalya: 23090.0 4.5
Erzurum: 335659.9 64.7 Erzurum: 24251.4 4.7
Erzurum: 390574.9 75.3 Erzurum: 25426.6 4.9
Erzurum: 646988.0 124.8 Erzurum: 27130.6 5.2
Erzurum: 855883.8 165.0 Erzurum: 31831.7 6.1
IN1–R Antalya: 6678.8 1.3 IN1–E Antalya: 305621.7 58.9
Erzurum: 8982.2 1.7 Erzurum: 368893.5 71.1
Erzurum: 15113.5 2.9 Erzurum: 431115.0 83.1
Erzurum: 17364.9 3.3 Erzurum: 691483.5 133.3
Erzurum: 20305.4 3.9 Erzurum: 908020.9 175.1
74
Investment costs for implementation of energy efficiency measures related to glazing
renovations and shading devices are presented in Table 5.17 and average investment
costs for implementation of energy efficiency measures related to building systems are
given in Table 5.18 below.
Table 5.17 : Total investment cost for glazing renovations and shading devices.
Total Investment Cost Cost per unit floor area

(TL) (TL/m²)
GL1 51985.3 10.0
GL2 53377.7 10.3
GL3 59177.0 11.4
GL4 60569.4 11.7
GL5 65213.1 12.6
GL6 69153.5 13.3
GL7 74723.1 14.4
SHD1 114903.7 22.2
SHD2 517108.6 99.7
Table 5.18 : Total investment cost for implementation of measures related to

building service systems.
Total Investment Cost Cost per unit floor area
(TL) (TL/m²)
Istanbul: 43348.8 8.4
BOI* Antalya: 43348.8 8.4
Erzurum: 46013.8 8.9
RF* 367067.4 70.8
CHW 22157.7 4.3
AC* Istanbul: 311788.2 60.1
Antalya: 323294.3 62.3
Erzurum: 302035.2 58.2
VRV* Istanbul: 386300.5 74.5
Antalya: 451824.3 87.1
LED 84052.4 16.2
SP 107941.8 20.8
PV 53744.7 10.4
75
5.1.4.4 Replacement cost calculations
Periodic replacement cost is regarded as another cost category in the calculations and
was calculated considering the lifespan of the building materials and components. It is
considered that, at the end of each cycle of lifespan the components are replaced.
Lifespan of the building materials and components are gathered using EN 15459:2007
standard and assumptions of producing companies (CEN, 2007).
Table 5.19 : Assumptions on lifespan of the building materials and components.
Building component/material Lifespan
Heat insulation on the façade (XPS) 50 years

Heat insulation on the attic slab 40 years
(Rockwool)
Heat insulation at basement ceiling 40 years
(XPS)
Glazing 30 years
Overhang and Fin 30 years
External Roller Blind 30 years
Boiler 20 years
Radiators 40 years
Radiant Floor System 50 years
Individual water heaters 20 years
Central Water tank 20 years
Pipes 30 years
Air conditioners 15 years
Compact Fluorescent Lamps 7.5 years
LED 15 years
Solar Panels 25 years
Photovoltaic Panels 25 years
5.1.4.5 Calculation of running costs
Running cost category covers energy costs, operational costs and maintenance costs.
Operational and maintenance costs for building components and products were
gathered from EN15459:2007 standard that expresses these costs in percentage of
initial investment cost.
76
The biggest share of running costs belongs to the energy costs. Energy consumption
outputs from the energy simulations are utilised in energy cost calculation as an input.
In order to take energy costs into consideration, annual average energy prices of the
calculation beginning year 2015 were investigated (Url-14, Url-15, Url-16, Url-17).
The monthly unit prices and the annual average values that were used in the
calculations are given with Table 5.20 below.
Since these are periodic annual costs that occur every year of the whole calculation
period, present value factor was used for calculating the sum of the discounted costs
for each year as explained in Chapter 2. Annual energy consumptions were multiplied
with average cost of related energy carrier and multiplied with present value factor to
obtain present value of long term energy costs.
Table 5.20 : 2015 Energy prices (Url-14, Url-15, Url-16, Url-17).
2015 Energy Prices (TL/kWh)

Electricity Natural Gas Natural Natural
(Turkey) (Istanbul) Gas Gas
(Antalya) (Erzurum)
January 0.310484 0.09418233 0.08190423 0.08813158
February 0.310484 0.09408900 0.08190423 0.08808421
March 0.310484 0.09412923 0.08190423 0.08810461
April 0.310485 0.09427594 0.08190423 0.08817904
May 0.310485 0.09440583 0.0997703 0.08824493
June 0.310485 0.09458459 0.10002575 0.08833562
July 0.310485 0.09472538 0.10022688 0.08840705
August 0.310485 0.09475742 0.10027265 0.08842331
September 0.310485 0.09471626 0.10021391 0.08840244
October 0.310485 0.09484182 0.10039333 0.08846617
November 0.310485 0.09503976 0.10067622 0.08905855
December 0.310485 0.09501344 0.10063872 0.08953525
AVERAGE 0.3104848 0.094563417 0.09415289 0.08844773
Average
including 0.366372 0.1115848 0.1111004 0.1043683
VAT
77
5.1.5 Comparative cost-optimal analyses
After energy performance and cost calculations had been performed in accordance
with the assumptions explained in the previous sections, results were comparatively
analysed in order to investigate cost-optimal levels.
As previously mentioned, in order to identify all retrofit scenarios, envelope retrofits

were initially analysed for selecting convenient scenarios to combine with further
measures. Therefore, comparative analyses were initially applied to building envelope
retrofit scenarios for each of the three climates. Since these initial calculations were
made only to compare envelope retrofit measures, cost of the other measures which
are same for all scenarios are not included. Therefore the final results are different than
the preliminary analysis since final results also involve HVAC and lighting system
maintenance costs.
As presented in Section 5.1.2, initial analyses include cost optimality assessment of

heat insulation and glazing retrofits. It covers wall insulation, floor insulation, roof
insulation and whole envelope insulation retrofits as well as glazing retrofits and
retrofit packages combining wall insulation and glazing retrofits. Since it is possible
to provide the same heat transfer coefficient using different heat insulation materials,
the cost calculations were performed for XPS (extruded polystyrene), EPS (expanded
polystyrene) and rock wool (RWL) materials.
5.1.5.1 Results of envelope retrofit scenarios analysed for Istanbul
Results of the envelope retrofit scenarios analysed for Istanbul are presented in Figure
5.10. As seen from the figure, among the analysed scenarios, only glazing retrofits
(GL) achieve cost-efficient results. The most efficient glazing retrofit is GL7 which
provides 10% primary energy saving with %5 global cost saving comparing to the
existing situation of the reference building which is named as RB. Heat insulation
retrofits (IN) provide better energy efficiency levels in Istanbul, in comparison to
glazing retrofits, however, these are not cost effective. Combining heat insulation
retrofits with the glazing retrofits works well to decrease the global costs but the
calculated costs are still higher than the RB. According to the results of this initial
analyses, GL7 is the cost-optimal solution among the envelope retrofit scenarios. In
comparison with the RB, the scenario combining insulation level 4 (IN4-E) and
78
glazing (GL) retrofits provides 38.2 kWh/m² annual primary energy saving which
corresponds to 26% decrease without cost efficiency in terms of global cost.
As seen from Figure 5.11, heat insulation retrofits using rock wool as the insulation
material, resulted with the comparatively highest cost since the investment cost of rock
wool is the highest. EPS has the lowest investment cost and correspondingly scenarios
with EPS result with the lowest global cost among the insulation retrofits. However,
cost cannot be the only consideration for the retrofit decision. In example, Fire Code
of Turkey brings some legal limitations on the heat insulation materials depending on
the building properties. On the other hand, this approach does not focus on single
building retrofits but aims to obtain general results that can be expanded to similar
buildings through the analyses on RB which represents a crowded group of apartment
buildings higher than 6 floors. Therefore, requirements for a single building were not
considered in this sample application of the method. Aim of the comparison between
heat insulation materials aims to display that the results of cost optimality calculations
can be affected by the material choice.
As the result of these analyses, cost optimal scenarios and the scenarios which lead to
the highest energy performance level among the building envelope retrofits were
selected for further energy efficiency packages for Istanbul: GL5, GL6, GL7, IN2-
W+GL7, IN3-W+GL4, IN3-W+GL5, IN3-W+GL7, IN4-W+GL4, IN4-W+GL5, IN4-
W+GL7, IN2-E+GL7, IN3-E+GL4, IN3-E+GL5, IN3-E+GL7, IN4-E+GL4 IN4-
E+GL5 and IN4-E+GL7. Primary energy consumption and the global cost results of
these selected scenarios are given with Table 5.21.
Further analyses consider XPS as the heat insulation material for the external walls
since the results have to serve for a large group of residential buildings higher than 6
floors and XPS represents the average cost among the analysed heat insulation
materials.
79
Figure 5.11 : Results of initial cost-optimal analyses on building envelope retrofits for Istanbul.
80
Istanbul.
Primary
Energy Global Cost
Scenario Consumption (TL/m²)
(kWh/m² y)
RB 145.3 293.6
GL5 132.3 279.1
GL6 132.3 281.1
GL7 131.0 278.5
IN2-W + GL7 114.9 309.5
IN3-W + GL4 114.0 317.6
IN3-W + GL5 113.5 318.1
IN3-W + GL7 112.0 317.0
IN4-W + GL4 111.4 377.9
IN4-W + GL5 111.0 378.6
IN4-W + GL7 109.4 377.4
IN2-E + GL7 112.7 313.7
IN3-E + GL4 111.6 321.0
IN3-E + GL5 111.2 321.7
IN3-E + GL7 109.7 320.5
IN4-E + GL4 109.0 383.9
IN4-E + GL5 108.7 384.7
IN4-E + GL7 107.1 383.4
5.1.5.2 Comparative analyses of all retrofit scenarios for Istanbul
After the first set of calculations on envelope retrofits, the selected building envelope
scenarios were combined with the measures referring to heating, cooling, DHW and
lighting systems, shading devices and renewable energy systems which were
previously explained under Section 5.1.2.
Obtained results were displayed in cost-optimal graph in order to enable a comparison

between different retrofit scenarios. In the graph, each retrofit scenario is represented
by a different point. Annual primary energy consumptions in kWh/m²y as the result of
retrofit actions are expressed on horizontal axis of the cost-optimal graph and the
calculated global costs in TL/m² are displayed on vertical axis. The calculations
consider total net floor area of the RB. Figure 5.12 presents the cost-optimal graph for
81
the retrofit scenarios analysed for Istanbul. For substantial scenarios, numerical result
of primary energy consumption and global cost are specified and highlighted with
horizontal and vertical dashed lines. Results of scenarios which are not specified with
their names in the graph are given with tables in Appendix A for Istanbul.
The cost-optimal level for the RB in Istanbul was achieved by the scenario combining
GL7, BOI, CHW, LED and PV retrofits. This scenario results with 79.8 kWh/m²y
primary energy consumption and 253.2 TL/m² global cost, correspondingly achieves
65.5 kWh/m² annual primary energy saving and 93.1 TL/m² economic saving in
comparion with the RB. These savings correspond to 45% of the primary energy
consumption and 27% of the global cost of the RB.
As shown in the graph, minimum primary energy consumption level that was cost-
effectively achieved is equal to 39.8 kWh/m²y for the RB retrofits in Istanbul. This
level is obtained by applying the scenario involving GL5, BOI, VRV, CHW, LED,
RF, SP and PV retrofits. The scenario provides 73% primary energy saving while the
global cost is not considerably different than existing global cost of the RB. Applying
heat insulation retrofits together with these retrofits provides higher energy
performance level while it results with higher global cost. The scenario including IN3-
E, GL7, BOI, CHW, LED, RF, SP, VRV and PV retrofits corresponds to 29.8
kWh/m²y primary energy consumption level and 406.3 TL/m² global cost level. In
comparison to the scenario referring to cost-effective minimum energy consumption
level, 10 kWh/m²y additional primary energy saving is obtained by affording 60.2
TL/m² higher global cost for thermal insulation retrofit. Primary energy saving amount
that corresponds to the unit global cost increase is much lower beyond this level. When
the heat insulation level is increased until IN4, only 1.2 kWh/m²y additional primary
energy saving is provided by 64.7 TL/m² increase in the global cost. Effect of this
high-cost heat insulation investment is limited in terms of primary energy
consumption.
82
Figure 5.12 : Cost-optimal graph of retrofit scenarios for the RB in Istanbul.
83
When the retrofit measures are analysed in detail, it has been seen that glazing retrofits
(GL) have positive effect in terms of both primary energy consumption and global
cost. In addition, when the GL retrofits are combined with high-cost measures,
decrement in the global cost is ensured.
Since Istanbul represents tempered humid climatic region of Turkey, retrofits referring
to both heating and cooling systems are effective in increasing energy performance of
the RB. However, from cost point of view, BOI retrofit is more acceptable within
packages while AC retrofit does not refer to cost-effective results. VRV is more
reasonable cooling system retrofit since the efficiency is high.
Thermal insulation level 4 (IN4), shading devices (SHD2) and installation of air
conditioners (AC) have respectively high initial investment costs, therefore retrofit
scenarios covering at least two of these measures resulted with a global cost higher
than 480 TL/m². Correspondingly, these scenarios are far from the cost-optimal level.
Overall heat transfer coefficients stated in the latest Turkish National Heat Insulation
Standard (TS 825:2013) were represented by the scenario combining IN1-E and GL1
retrofits. This retrofit scenario provides 27.4 kWh/m²y decrease in primary energy
consumption of the RB in Istanbul, however, it is not cost-effective when applied
individually. In order to achieve cost-effective results, these retrofits are required to be
combined with other measures.
As mentioned in Section 4.2.5, this step aims also to select retrofit scenarios to be
analysed in the second phase. According to the results of cost-optimal analyses, 10
retrofit scenarios, which are on the boundary of the cost-optimal curve, were selected.
The selection was made considering potential future cost-optimal levels that will give
opportunity to investigate NZEB levels in the further phases. Existing status of the RB
was also selected in order to examine the effect of occupant behaviour on the building
energy performance. The selected scenarios for the retrofits of RB in Istanbul are listed
in Table 5.22 below. In the table, each line describes a different scenario and expresses
the energy retrofit measures that were included in the scenario. As seen from the table,
all of the selected retrofit scenarios for the RB in Istanbul include GL, BOI, CHW and
LED measures.
84
Table 5.22 : Selected scenarios for the second phase (Istanbul).
1) RB
2) GL7 + BOI + CHW + LED
3) GL7 + BOI + CHW + LED + PV
4) IN2-W + GL7 + BOI + CHW + LED + PV
5) GL7 + BOI + CHW + LED + SP + PV
6) IN2-W + GL7 + BOI + CHW + LED + SP + PV
7) IN3-E + GL7 + BOI + CHW + LED + SP + PV
8) GL7 + BOI + VRV + CHW + LED + RF + SP + PV
9) IN2-W + GL7 + BOI + VRV + CHW + LED + RF + SP + PV
10) IN4-E + GL4 + BOI + VRV + CHW + LED + RF + SP + PV
5.1.5.3 Results of envelope retrofit scenarios analysed for Antalya
As in the analyses for Istanbul, the calculations for envelope retrofit scenarios for the
RB in Antalya were analysed on the cost-optimal graphs as well. Results of these
calculations are given in Figure 5.13.
As seen from the figure, glazing (GL) retrofits are the optimum retrofit measures in
Antalya as well. Based on the low global cost of the glazing retrofits, these are also
effective on decreasing the cost of the packages when they are used together with the
heat insulation retrofits. The cost-optimum glazing retrofit is GL7 which results with
21.1 kWh/m²y primary energy saving that corresponds to 13% of RB energy
consumption and 31.9 TL/m² global cost saving that is equal to 9% of total global cost.
It is seen that, some of the scenarios combining heat insulation (IN) and glazing (GL)
retrofits are cost-effective in Antalya. The first reason of this is the global cost
decrement effect glazing retrofits. Another reason is that the heat insulation
thicknesses used in Antalya are lower in comparison to Istanbul and correspondingly
initial investment cost of heat insulation is comparatively lower.
The scenario combining IN4-E and GL7 provides 37.7 kWh/m²y primary energy
saving which is 23% of primary energy consumption of the RB in Antalya. However,
this scenario is not cost-effective. Among the envelope retrofits, minimum primary
energy consumption level that was achieved cost-effectively is obtained by retrofit
scenario combining IN3-W and GL7 when the heat insulation material is EPS. This
scenario achieves 34,3 kWh/m²y (21%) primary energy saving and 1.8 TL/m² global
85
cost saving in Antalya. In case of a different heat insulation material use, calculated
global cost of the scenario is higher than the global cost of RB.
As explained for Istanbul under Section 5.1.5.1, based on their initial investment costs,
use of rock wool (RWL) as the heat insulation material increases the global cost while
EPS leads to the lowest global cost among these three heat insulation material. In the
following stages of this study, XPS was assumed as the heat insulation material also
for Antalya.
According to the obtained results, the following scenarios were selected for the further
retrofit scenario combinations for the RB in Antalya: GL3, GL4, GL5, GL6, GL7, IN2-
W+GL7, IN3-W+GL3, IN3-W+GL4, IN3-W+GL5, IN3-W+GL7, IN4-W+GL7, IN2-
E+GL7, IN3-E+GL3, IN3-E+GL4, IN3-E+GL5, IN3-E+GL7 and IN4-E+GL7.
Primary energy consumption and global cost results of these selected envelope retrofit
scenarios, considering XPS as the heat insulation material, are given with Table 5.23.
Antalya.
Primary
Energy Global Cost
(kWh/m² y)
RB 160.9 347.0
GL5 141.4 316.6
GL6 143.5 322.7
GL7 139.8 315.1
IN2-W + GL7 128.8 347.4
IN3-W + GL4 128.4 354.8
IN3-W + GL5 128.7 356.4
IN3-W + GL7 126.6 353.9
IN4-W + GL4 127.0 409.3
IN4-W + GL5 127.4 411.2
IN4-W + GL7 125.3 408.5
IN2-E + GL7 126.8 350.3
IN3-E + GL4 126.1 356.6
IN3-E + GL5 126.4 358.4
IN3-E + GL7 124.3 356.4
IN4-E + GL7 123.2 412.6
86
Figure 5.13 : Results of initial cost-optimal analyses on building envelope retrofit for Antalya.
87
5.1.5.4 Comparative analyses of all retrofit scenarios for Antalya
As described in the approach, selected building envelope scenarios for the RB in

Antalya were combined with other measures related to retrofit of active systems and
renewable energy use. Cost-optimal graph reflecting the calculation results for the RB
in Antalya is given with Figure 5.14 below. Similar to Figure 5.12, which is given
above and displays results for Istanbul, numerical results and names of substantial
scenarios are highlighted in the graph while results of other scenarios are explained
with tables in Appendix B.
The retrofit scenario that achieves the cost-optimal energy efficiency level for the RB
retrofits in Antalya is the scenario combining GL7, CHW, LED and PV retrofits. This
scenario results with 96.4 kWh/m²y annual primary energy consumption and 295.5
TL/m² global cost. Primary energy saving obtained by this retrofit package is 64.5
kWh/m²y (40%) and expected global cost saving is 105.5 TL/m² (26%) comparing to
the existing status of the RB in Antalya.
Compared to the optimum retrofit scenario for the RB in Istanbul, the only difference
is absence of BOI retrofit in the cost-optimal scenario. This mainly proceed from the
hot-humid climate of Antalya where the BOI retrofit provides unremarkable amount
of energy saving in response to the investment and correspondingly was not included
in the further retrofit scenarios (see Appendix B).
In comparison to the cost-optimal retrofit solution, affording 13.9 TL/m² additional

global cost for applying also VRV and SP measures provides 43.8 kWh/m²y more
energy saving and carry the primary energy consumption level up to 52.6 kWh/m²y in
a cost-effective way in Antalya. As an addition to the retrofits in this scenario,
investing also on the thermal insulation results cost-effectively as seen from the
scenario combining IN3-E, GL7, VRV, CHW, LED, SP and PV retrofits. This scenario
results with 39.7 kWh/m²y primary energy consumption and 356.4 TL/m² global cost,
correspondingly achieve 75% primary energy saving in a cost-effective way.
Additional investments on heat insulation until IN4 decreases the primary energy
consumption of the reference building while cost-effectiveness is not provided. This
strategy provides 1.3 kWh/m²y primary energy saving by 56.8 TL/m² increase in
global cost. A similar tendency is observed for an extra SHD2 retrofit on this package
88
where additional 2.2 kWh/m²y primary energy saving is achieved with 94.9 TL/m²
increase in global cost.
Detailed examination on the retrofit measures shows that glazing retrofits (GL) work
well also in Antalya which is in hot-humid region of Turkey. Heat insulation retrofits,
instead, increase the global cost of the scenario which they are involved in although
they provide primary energy saving. The scenario representing the heat transfer
coefficients given with the national standard (IN1-E+GL1) is not cost-effective in
Antalya as well. However, use of more efficient glazing types together with the heat
insulation, such as GL7, provides a decrease in the global cost. In example, the
scenario combining IN2-W and GL7 retrofits is cost-effective even though the initial
investment cost is higher than IN1+GL1 scenario. Moreover, it is possible to provide
further global cost decrease by combining the envelope retrofits with other measures
referring to energy systems and renewable energy use.
BOI retrofit is not effective both on the energy consumption and global cost in this
climate. In the same manner, because of the climate, AC and VRV retrofits provide
efficiency in terms of primary energy while VRV retrofit exists in cost-effective
scenarios as well.
IN4, AC and SHD2 measures are expensive investments comparing to their benefits
related to primary energy consumption. The scenarios resulted with a global cost
higher than 500 TL/m² in Antalya include at least two of these retrofit measures.
Using the same perspective applied for the RB in Istanbul, among the analysed
retrofits, 8 scenarios were selected for the investigation of occupant behaviour effect
and also for the sensitivity analyses in the second phase. Selected scenarios are listed
in Table 5.24. As seen from the table, all of the selected retrofit scenarios for the RB
in Antalya which are on the boundary of the cost-optimal curve, include GL, CHW
and LED measures.
89
Figure 5.14 : Cost-optimal graph of retrofit scenarios for the RB in Antalya.
90
Table 5.24 : Selected scenarios for the second phase (Antalya).
1) RB
2) GL7 + CHW + LED
3) GL7 + CHW + LED + PV
4) GL7 + CHW + LED + SP + PV
5) GL7 + VRV + CHW + LED + PV
6) GL7 + VRV + CHW + LED + SP + PV
7) IN2-W + GL7 + VRV + CHW + LED + SP + PV
8) IN4-E + GL7 + VRV + CHW + LED + SP + PV
5.1.5.5 Results of envelope retrofit scenarios analysed for Erzurum
Primary energy consumption and global cost results of the envelope retrofit scenarios
analysed for the RB in Erzurum are presented with Figure 5.15. As seen from this
figure, scenarios combining heat insulation retrofits and glazing retrofits are the
optimum solutions for Erzurum while glazing retrofits are not that much effective
individually since this city represents the cold climatic region of Turkey. The cost-
optimum point was achieved with the combination of heat insulation level 1 (IN1) and
glazing type 6 (GL6) retrofits.
Since XPS was considered as the heat insulation material in the following stages of
the analyses, some of the retrofit scenarios for Erzurum were only analysed
considering XPS material. According to the analyses, the scenario combining IN1-E
and GL6 retrofits achieves 149.2 kWh/m²y primary consumption and 365.7 TL/m²
global cost level as the cost optimum envelope retrofit scenario. The cost optimum
envelope retrofit scenario provides 31% primary energy saving and 5.4% global cost
saving for the RB in Erzurum. On the other hand, the combination of IN2-E and GL6
provides 5.7 kWh/m²y additional primary energy saving with 3.1 TL/m² higher global
cost in comparison to the cost-optimal envelope retrofit scenario.
Cost-effective primary energy saving potential of building envelope retrofits are the
highest in Erzurum comparing to other two cities. Moreover, since it has a cold
climate, the heat insulation retrofits are more effective while the glazing retrofits are
less effective in terms of both primary energy and global cost.
91
Figure 5.15 : Results of initial cost-optimal analyses on building envelope retrofit for Erzurum.
92
In accordance with the results obtained, the following scenarios are selected for the
RB in Erzurum: GL6, GL7, IN1-W+GL6, IN2-W+GLZ6, IN2-W+GLZ7, IN3-
W+GLZ5, IN3-W+GLZ6, IN3-W+GLZ7, IN4-W+GLZ5, IN4-W+GLZ6, IN4-
W+GLZ7, IN1-E+GL6, IN2-E+GLZ6, IN2-E+GLZ7, IN3-E+GLZ5, IN3-E+GLZ6,
IN3-E+GLZ7, IN4-E+GLZ5, IN4-E+GLZ6 and IN4-E+GLZ7. Primary energy
consumption and global cost results of these selected envelope retrofit scenarios,
considering XPS as the heat insulation material, are given with Table 5.25.
Erzurum.
Primary
Energy Global Cost
(kWh/m² y)
RB 216.3 386.0
GL6 200.5 372.9
GL7 202.1 375.4
IN1-W+GL6 155.6 368.6
IN2-W + GL6 150.7 371.4
IN2-W + GL7 151.3 371.8
IN3-W + GL5 147.9 411.5
IN3-W + GL6 145.7 410.4
IN3-W + GL7 145.9 410.0
IN4-W + GL5 143.9 443.3
IN4-W + GL6 141.6 442.1
IN4-W + GL7 141.9 441.7
IN1-E + GL6 149.2 365.7
IN2-E + GL6 143.5 368.9
IN2-E + GL7 143.8 368.8
IN3-E + GL5 140.0 408.7
IN3-E + GL6 137.8 407.8
IN3-E + GL7 137.9 407.0
IN4-E + GL5 135.5 441.3
IN4-E + GL6 133.5 440.8
IN4-E + GL7 133.3 439.6
93
5.1.5.6 Comparative analyses of all retrofit scenarios for Erzurum
Selected envelope retrofit scenarios for the RB in Erzurum were combined with further
retrofit measures as in other climates presented previously. Cost-optimal graph for the
RB retrofit in Erzurum is presented with Figure 5.16. Results and names of the
scenarios which are not highlighted in the graph are given in Appendix C. The cost-
optimal energy efficiency level is achieved by the scenario including GL6, BOI, CHW,
LED and PV retrofits. This cost-optimal scenario results with 132.1 kWh/m²y primary
energy consumption and 313.4 TL/m² global cost. This level achieves 84 kWh/m²y
(39%) primary energy saving and 124 TL/m² (28%) global cost saving comparing to
RB without retrofit.
Besides the exact cost-optimal scenario, it is important that only 3.2 TL/m² increase in
the global cost leads to 43.5 kWh/m²y higher primary energy saving. In order to
achieve this level, IN1-E retrofit should also be adjoined. Likewise, 11.2 TL/m²
increase in the global cost enables 17.1 kWh/m²y further primary energy saving and
reaches 71.5 kWh/m²y with the scenario consisting of IN2-E, GL6, BOI, CHW, LED,
SP and PV retrofits. On the other hand, investment cost of this scenario is 310 TL/m²
higher than the cost-optimal retrofit scenario. Insertion of RF retrofit to this scenario
and use of GL7 instead of GL6 decrease the primary energy consumption of the RB
until 53.3 kWh/m²y, however, this scenario increases the global cost up to 361.5
TL/m². After this point, increasing the heat insulation level up to IN4-E results with
47.7 kWh/m²y primary energy consumption level which corresponds to a global cost
level close to the global cost of the RB before retrofit. In comparison with the RB, this
scenario (IN4-E+GL6+BOI+CHW+LED+RF+SP+PV) provides 78% primary energy
saving with 168.6 kWh/m²y decrease in primary energy consumption in Erzurum.
When retrofit scenarios were analysed in detail, it is seen that, contrary to Istanbul and
Antalya, the package representing the national heat insulation standard (IN1E + GL1)
is cost-effective in Erzurum. Although this scenario leads to 58 kWh/m²y primary
energy saving, achieved energy performance level is not potentially reliable for NZEB
targets when it is compared with more effective retrofit scenarios.
Results reveal that, in Erzurum, retrofit measures related to space cooling systems
(AC, VRV) are not effective in terms of energy and cost for the analysed RB.
Therefore, these measures were not included in greater number of scenarios. BOI
94
retrofit gives effective results as expected for this cold climate. Although RF retrofit
has a high initial investment cost, it is included in the cost-effective retrofit scenarios
as shown in Figure 5.16.
In order to serve to the following stage and the second phase of the approach, 11 retrofit
scenarios were selected for Erzurum and listed in Table 5.26. Common retrofits
included in the selected scenarios are GL, BOI, CHW, LED and PV and LED
measures.
Table 5.26 : Selected scenarios for the second phase (Erzurum).
1) RB
2) GL7 + BOI + CHW
3) GL6 + BOI + CHW + LED
4) GL6 + BOI + CHW + LED + PV
5) IN1-E+ GL6 + BOI + CHW + LED + PV
6) IN1-E+ GL6 + BOI + CHW + LED + SP+ PV
7) IN1-E+ GL6 + BOI++ CHW + LED + SP + PV
8) IN1-E+ GL6 + BOI + CHW + LED + RF+ SP + PV
95
Figure 5.16 : Cost-optimal graph of retrofit scenarios for the RB in Erzurum.
96
5.1.6 Analysing the effect of occupant behaviour on cost-optimal levels
As described in Section 4.2.6, analysing the effect of occupant behaviour on cost-

optimal levels is an innovative part of this approach. Sample implementation presented
in this section examines the effect of occupant behaviour related to window openings.
However, it is possible to widen this approach to all other aspects of occupancy pattern.
In this implementation, besides the reference occupant behaviour that was considered
in the previous calculations, an alternate occupant behaviour (OB) representing much
more use of window openings was analysed. For the alternate occupant behaviour
(OB), it was assumed that RB occupants control up to 3.6 m² opening area and leave
windows open while the outdoor temperature is between 21°C and 26°C. These
analyses on alternate occupant behaviour (OB) were performed for the scenarios
selected in the previous stage considering three different climates.
Figure 5.17 displays the results obtained from the analyses on the effect of alternate
occupant behaviour (OB) for the RB in Istanbul. Primary energy consumption of the
cost-optimal scenario, which includes GL7, BOI, CHW, LED and PV retrofits, was
affected from OB and achieved 60.4 kWh/m²y, with a decrease around 19.4 kWh/m²y,
while the global cost of this scenario decreased from 253.2 TL/m² to 210.7 TL/m² in
Istanbul.
Not only the cost-optimal scenario but also other cost-effective scenarios were affected
by the occupant behaviour change related to window openings. The scenario including
IN3-E, GL7, BOI, CHW, LED, SP and PV retrofits responds to this change with 23
kWh/m²y primary energy saving and 50.5 TL/m² global cost saving by achieving 28.7
kWh/m²y primary energy consumption and 254.6 TL/m² global cost. With this
scenario, 80% primary energy saving, in comparison with the RB without OB, can be
achieved in a cost-effective way.
Results show that it is possible to decrease primary energy consumption of the RB in

Istanbul until 17 kWh/m² by applying the alternate occupant behaviour (OB) and the
scenario including IN4-E, GL7, BOI, VRV, CHW, LED, RF, SP and PV retrofits. This
result corresponds to 88% primary energy saving (128.3 kWh/m²y), however, it is not
cost-effective in Istanbul.
Effect of alternate occupant behaviour (OB) on the RB performance in Antalya is

presented with Figure 5.18 below. Appropriate use of window openings changes the
97
primary energy consumption of the cost-optimum scenario from 96.4 kWh/m²y to 74.3
kWh/m²y. Global cost of this cost-optimum scenario decreases around 48.4 TL/m²
considering OB comparing to the scenario with the reference occupant behaviour. As
the result of this, cost-optimum scenario with alternate occupant behaviour (OB)
reaches 247.1 TL/m² global cost level.
In accordance with the calculations, among the analysed scenarios for Antalya, the
lowest primary energy consumption level was achieved by the scenario including IN4-
E, GL7, VRV, CHW, LED, SP and PV retrofits and also the alternate occupant
behaviour (OB). Conscious use of window openings ensures changes in the primary
energy consumption and global cost results of this scenario. Primary energy
consumption of this scenario was decreased from 38.4 kWh/m²y to 26.9 kWh/m²y and
global cost of the scenario was decreased from 413.2 TL/m² to 387.9 TL/m². In
comparison to the RB before retrofit and with reference occupant behaviour, this
scenario achieves 83% primary energy saving and 3% decrease in global cost.
Results obtained from the analyses related to OB for the RB in Erzurum are presented
with Figure 5.19. As seen from this figure, in comparison to other two cities, effect of
OB is limited in Erzurum. Among the scenarios involving OB effect, the scenario
combining IN1-E, GL6, BOI, CHW, LED and PV measures appears as the cost-
optimal solution for Erzurum. This scenario results with 80.7 kWh/m²y primary energy
consumption and 299.9 TL/m² global cost. However, similar to the results of scenarios
without OB, cost-optimal range of scenarios considering OB, which is between 299.9
TL/m² and 303.5 TL/m², refers to very different primary energy consumption levels
between 68.8 kWh/m²y and 127.5 kWh/m²y.
The scenario consisting of IN4-E, GL7, BOI, CHW, LED, RF, SP, and PV retrofits
and OB option for the occupant behaviour, results with 39.1 kWh/m²y primary energy
consumption and 420.6 TL/m² global cost which is almost same with the RB global
cost with OB option. This scenario achieves 81% primary energy saving in comparison
to the RB with OB and 82% primary energy saving in comparison to the RB without
OB in Erzurum.
98
Figure 5.17 : Effect of occupant behaviour related to window openings on cost-optimality of RB retrofit scenarios in Istanbul.
99
Figure 5.18 : Effect of occupant behaviour related to window openings on cost-optimality of RB retrofit scenarios in Antalya.
100
Figure 5.19 : Effect of occupant behaviour related to window openings on cost-optimality of RB retrofit scenarios in Erzurum.
101
5.1.7 Evaluation of the first phase
The first phase of the approach includes adopting cost-optimal methodology with an
extended context by integrating analyses related to occupant behaviour effect and aims
to select the retrofit scenarios for investigating potential NZEB levels in the second
phase. In parallel with this aim, within the implementation of this phase, proper retrofit
scenarios were selected for the second phase and OB effect was analysed on the results.
Selected scenarios at the end of this first phase represent the candidates for the
potential NZEB levels for the RB retrofit. Besides these, obtained results reveal some
additional specific outcomes as explained under this section.
Obtained results show that, it is possible to achieve cost-effective primary energy

saving higher than 70% by retrofitting existing high-rise apartment buildings in the
three climatic region of Turkey. In addition, conscious occupant behaviour can change
this percentage in a positive way.
Results also reveal that climate is effective on the cost-optimal analyses and the cost-
optimal points for the retrofit of same reference building show significant differences
according to the variations in climate. The cost-optimal primary energy consumption
level of the analysed reference building is 79.8 kWh/m²y in tempered-humid climatic
region and 96.4 kWh/m²y in hot-humid region while it changes between 88.6 kWh/m²y
kWh/m²y and 132.1 in the cold climatic region of Turkey.
The cost-optimum and highly energy efficient retrofit scenarios include measures
related to envelope retrofits, retrofits referring to HVAC system improvements and
installation of renewable energy systems. This result shows that building energy
retrofits should be targeted at whole building retrofit instead of focusing on individual
measures.
Results obtained for the scenario including the retrofit actions which ensures the
maximum limit values of heat transfer coefficients given in the national standard TS
825 show that, this national standard and the national regulations should be revised
because these are far from the cost-optimal levels of energy performance.
For all analysed climates, there are common effects of some specific retrofit measures.
Common retrofits included in the cost-optimal scenarios in all climates are GL, LED,
CHW, DHW and PV retrofits and this shows that these measures are needed to be
supported for the building retrofits. Not only the building itself but also occupant
102
behaviour is effective both on the primary energy consumption and global cost in all
analysed cities. Therefore, the occupants are required to be conscious in terms of
energy consumption of their building. In example, OB has a significant effect on the
primary energy consumption and global cost of the cost-optimal retrofit scenarios for
the RB in Istanbul and Antalya. On the other hand, since climate of Erzurum is cold,
effect of OB, to increase the natural ventilation through windows, on the results of the
scenarios are not that much significant, however, OB switches the cost-optimal
solution. This positive change in the occupant behaviour brings 24% further primary
energy saving for the cost-optimal scenario in Istanbul, 23% primary energy saving in
Antalya and depending on the selected cost-optimal level 22% or 39% primary energy
saving in Erzurum in comparison with the RB without OB.
The analyses in this implementation considered different retrofit measures with a

whole building retrofit approach. However, some of the retrofit measures, such as
CHW and RF retrofits, may not be applicable for all residential buildings which were
represented by this RB since these require certain conditions to implement. However,
these measures provide higher energy efficiency, especially in cold climatic region.
Therefore they should be examined in the cost-optimal analyses in order to display
their effect for the available buildings.
Development of Proposals for Achievable NZEB Targets
As mentioned in Chapter 4, the second phase of the approach is development of

proposals for achievable NZEB targets for building retrofits. Through the sensitivity
analyses, it aims to identify potential NZEB levels by regarding NZEB as the future
cost-optimal level and to develop solutions for bridging the gap between cost-optimal
and NZEB levels. In accordance with the stages described for the approach in Chapter
4, this section presents implementation of the second phase and explains the boundary
conditions for sensitivity analyses, application of sensitivity analyses, identification of
potential NZEB levels, determination of the financial gaps, investigation of the
solutions for bridging the gaps and prepared proposals for policy-makers. As in the
first phase, this phase also considers three different climates.
103
5.2.1 Boundary conditions for sensitivity analyses
In this sample implementation of the proposed approach, economic indicators,

investment cost decreases and cost calculation periods were considered within the
sensitivity analyses. For the boundary conditions explained below, changes in the
results of cost-optimal analyses were examined.
Sensitivity analyses on economic indicators focused on the real discount rate (RR) as
required by EU Regulation and also energy price development rates. The global cost
calculations in the first phase considered the average rates of previous years and
assumed the discount rate (RR) as 5.78% and energy price development rates were
assumed as equal to the inflation rate which is 8.054%. Sensitivity analyses conducted
in this second phase focused on two rates for each of discount rate and energy price
development. The selection procedure considered the requirements of EU regulation
and selected one of the analysed discount rates as 3%. Accordingly, the rate which is
higher than the existing assumption is 9% in the analyses. For the sensitivity analyses
related to energy price developments, rates were selected as 5% and 10% as
respectively being lower and higher according to the existing assumption.
Sensitivity analyses on investment cost decrease focused on a discount which is equal

to value added tax (VAT) of the retrofit investments. Although the analyse seems as
focusing on the exemption from tax, this value may be obtained by autogenous
decrease in the cost or decrease as the result of technological development or may be
triggered by some subsidy and incentives and these will come up with the same result
from individual end user point of view. Retrofit measures which were selected for the
sensitivity analyses on investment cost decrease are different for each climate. For the
retrofit of RB in Istanbul and Erzurum, effect of investment cost decreases for SP
(installation of solar thermal system) and IN (heat insulation) measures were analysed
while for the retrofit in Antalya effect of investment cost decreases for VRV
(installation of central variable refrigerant volume system) and SP measures were
analysed since these measures were seen as the opportunity for decreasing the global
cost of the scenarios which were slightly higher in comparison to the cost-optimal
scenarios for the climate. These options were also analysed under different financial
rates.
104
As required by the EU Regulation, global cost calculation period was assumed as 30
years for the analyses in the first phase. Within the scope of sensitivity analyses, 20
years, 40 years and 50 years of cost calculation periods were also analysed.
Summarily, boundary conditions determined for the sensitivity analyses are as below:
 Discount Rate (RR) = 3%

 Discount Rate (RR) = 9%
 Energy Price Development = 10%
 Energy Price Development = 5%
 Investment cost decrease (around VAT of retrofit measure investment)
 Global calculation periods of 20 years, 40 years and 50 years.
5.2.2 Results of sensitivity analyses for Istanbul
Results of the sensitivity analyses for the RB retrofit in Istanbul are presented with
Figure 5.20, Figure 5.21 and Figure 5.22 below. These graphs are cost-optimal graphs
including the results of sensitivity analyses for the selected scenarios. The quadrangle
points refer to the scenarios considering the reference occupant behaviour while the
circle shaped points refer to the scenarios considering alternate occupant behaviour
(OB). As explained in the legend, in the initial two graphs, the light colours represent
the results without any investment cost decrease for the retrofits and the colour gets
darker when the cost decreases are considered. Variations of the cost-optimal curve
under different discount rates and investment cost decreases are also shown in the
graph.
Figure 5.20 reflects the results of the analyses related to the discount rates (RR) and
investment cost decreases around VAT for the retrofit measures SP and IN. Results
show that lower discount rates result with higher global cost while higher discount
rates lead to lower global cost results. When the exact cost-optimal scenarios are
investigated, it is seen that, in case of a discount rate of 3%, tax exemption for SP
measure or an investment cost decrease at same value enables to include also SP
measure in the cost-optimal scenario and move the cost-optimal primary energy
consumption level from 79.8 kWh/m²y to 70.4 kWh/m²y. The scenarios including also
heat insulation, such as the one combining IN2-W, GL7, BOI, CHW, LED, SP and PV
measures, are not exactly cost-optimal, however the investment cost decrease enables
to cover these scenarios within cost-optimal range and move towards 56.2 kWh/m²y
105
in retrofit decision since the global cost variation between this scenario and the exact
cost-optimal scenario (GL7, BOI, CHW, LED, SP and PV) is only 15 TL/m² when the
discount rate is 3%.
When the discount rate appears as assumed in the initial analyses (5.78%) or higher,
investment cost decreases in SP and IN measures motivate to move towards higher
energy efficiency level, however these are not effective on switching the exact cost-
optimal results as in the analyses with 3% discount rate. When SP measure is supported
with an investment cost decrease, the SP measure may be included in the decided
investment scenario also under the discount rate of 5.78% with a 2.5 TL/m² higher
global cost in comparison to the previous cost-optimal result.
Figure 5.21 displays the results for sensitivity analyses regarding investment cost
decreases for IN and SP measures under different energy price development rates for
the retrofit of RB in Istanbul. As shown in the graph, higher energy price development
rates result with higher global cost as expected. Results of the scenarios with higher
energy price development rate are similar to the results obtained for lower discount
rates.
Investment cost decrease for IN and SP measures ensures that retrofit scenarios with
higher energy efficiency are more affordable in Istanbul. This works better when the
energy price development rate is higher than assumed. In case of an energy price
development rate of 10%, the cost-optimal scenario includes GL7, BOI, CHW, LED,
SP and PV retrofits and achieves 70.4 kWh/m²y.
Figure 5.22 shows the results regarding different calculation periods for global cost
calculations. Results show that the higher calculation period comes up with the higher
global cost mainly due to the energy costs. Although the exact cost-optimal scenario
remains as the same, higher calculation periods provides to obtain more convenient
global cost results for the retrofit scenarios which achieves lower primary energy
consumption levels.
106
Figure 5.20 : Sensitivity analyses on discount rates and investment cost decreases for the RB retrofits in Istanbul.
107
Figure 5.21 : Sensitivity analyses on energy price development rates and investment cost decreases for the RB retrofits in Istanbul.
108
Figure 5.22 : Sensitivity analyses on global cost calculation periods for the RB retrofits in Istanbul.
109
In all three graphs, the scenarios including alternate occupant behaviour (OB) show
similar tendency with the scenarios considering reference occupant behaviour under
different financial rates and investment cost decreases. However, scenarios
considering OB refer to more ambitious cost-optimal levels. Under the effect of 3%
discount rate and the investment cost decreases for IN and SP measures, the scenario
including GL6, BOI, CHW, LED, SP and PV retrofits is the cost-optimal level with
50.3 kWh/m²y primary energy consumption and 270.2 TL/m² global cost under OB
effect. With this occupant effect, the retrofit scenario including IN2-W, GL7, BOI,
CHW, LED, SP and PV measures and the scenario including IN3-E, GL7, BOI, CHW,
LED, SP and PV measures resulted with the same global cost, 279.3 TL/m², while their
primary energy consumptions are respectively 34.9 kWh/m²y and 28.7 kWh/m²y.
5.2.3 Results of sensitivity analyses for Antalya
Results of the sensitivity analyses for the RB retrofit in Antalya are presented with
Figure 5.23, Figure 5.24 and Figure 5.25. The symbolisation used in the graphs are
the same with the graphs for Istanbul.
Figure 5.23 displays the results for the analyses on discount rate and investment cost
decrease for VRV and SP measures. In comparison to Istanbul, cost-optimal results
for the RB retrofits in Antalya are more sensitive to the changes in economic
indicators. Decrease in the discount rate definitely changes the cost-optimally resulted
scenario from “GL7+CHW+LED+PV” scenario to “GL7+VRV+CHW+LED+PV”
scenario and correspondingly decrease the cost-optimal primary energy consumption
level from 96.4 kWh/m²y to 61.8 kWh/m²y.
Another opportunity to achieve more ambitious cost-optimal energy performance level

is to ensure investment cost decrease around VAT for VRV and SP retrofits. With the
support of this cost decrease, the cost-optimal energy performance level is obtained by
the retrofit scenario including GL7, VRV, CHW, LED, SP and PV measures in case
of a 3% discount rate. This scenario leads to 52.6 kWh/m²y primary energy
consumption. When the discount rate is equal to the reference assumption (5.78%), the
cost-optimal level is obtained by the scenario combining GL7, VRV, CHW, LED and
PV retrofits which results in 61.8 kWh/m²y. However, additional global cost of
inclusion of SP within the retrofit scenario is only 3 TL/m² in case of an investment
cost decrease in SP and VRV.
110
Figure 5.24 shows the results obtained for the sensitivity analyses on energy price
development rates and investment cost decrease for SP and VRV retrofits. As in the
results for Istanbul, results obtained for higher energy price development rates are
similar to the results obtained for lower discount rates and the results obtained for
lower energy price development rates are similar to the results obtained for higher
discount rates in Antalya as well. In case of 3% discount rate, the highest cost-optimal
energy performance level can be achieved with the investment cost decrease around
VAT for both VRV and SP measures and is equal to 52.6 kWh/m²y primary energy
consumption. This level is also cost-effectively achievable under other two rates of
energy price developments when the investment cost decreases occur.
Results obtained for the RB in Antalya are more sensitive also to the global cost
calculation periods (Figure 5.25). The global cost calculation periods of 40 and 50
years ensure alteration in the cost-optimal scenario and in this case the scenario
consisting of GL7, VRV, CHW, LED and PV, which achieves 61.8 kWh/m²y primary
energy consumption, appears as the cost-optimal scenario for Antalya. Analyses for
20 years calculation period result with the same cost-optimal scenario with the
analyses for 30 years calculation period.
The scenarios including alternate occupant behaviour (OB) act in a similar way with
the scenarios considering reference occupant behaviour in response to the variations
of economic indicators and investment cost. The cost-optimal solution achieves
41.8kWh/m²y primary energy consumption level under the effect of investment cost
decrease and different economic indicators. This level can be obtained by the scenario
combining GL7, VRV, CHW, LED, SP and PV retrofits which also includes OB effect.
111
Figure 5.23 : Sensitivity analyses on discount rates and investment cost decreases for the RB retrofits in Antalya.
112
Figure 5.24 : Sensitivity analyses on energy price development rates and investment cost decreases for the RB retrofits in Antalya.
113
Figure 5.25 : Sensitivity analyses on global cost calculation periods for the RB retrofits in Antalya.
114
5.2.4 Results of sensitivity analyses for Erzurum
Results obtained from the sensitivity analyses for the RB retrofits in Erzurum are
presented with Figure 5.26, Figure 5.27 and Figure 5.28.
As seen from figure 5.26, depending on the discount rate, the relation between the
global cost results of the retrofit scenarios changes. If the discount rate occurs lower
than assumed (as 3%) the global costs for all scenarios are higher than previously
calculated reference case. Therefore, the cost optimum scenario changes and the
package involving IN1-E, GL6, BOI, CHW, LED, SP and PV retrofits evolves into
the cost optimum scenario for Erzurum. In accordance with this result, cost optimum
scenario achieves 76.3 kWh/m²y and provides 65% primary energy saving. Moving
towards 71.5 kWh/m²y primary energy consumption level increases the global only
0.7 TL/m² which enables to consider this level within the cost-optimal range. In case
of an increase in discount rate, all of the cost results decreases and the cost optimum
scenario is clearly the package including GL6, BOI, CHW, LED and PV.
Results show that, if the VAT equal cost is discarded from the investment cost of IN
and SP measures, the cost-optimum level involves these retrofits and moves towards
76.3 kWh/m²y also when the existing assumption of discount rate (5.78%) takes place.
Moreover, under the effect of 3% discount rate, 71.5 kWh/m²y primary energy
consumption level appears as the cost-optimum level with this investment cost
decrease in Erzurum.
In any case, while the discount rate is more than assumed and occurs as 9%, the exact
cost-optimum level for the RB retrofit in Erzurum stays at 132.1 kWh/m²y primary
energy consumption level.
The results of the sensitivity analyses on energy price developments and investment
cost decreases for IN and SP measures are presented in Figure 5.27. As shown in this
figure, if the energy price development occurs above than it is assumed (10%), cost
calculations results are higher than the existing scenario. The cost optimum scenario
also changes in this case and the package involving IN1-E, GL6, BOI, CHW, LED,
SP and PV, achieving 76.3 kWh/m²y primary energy consumption level, gives the
optimum result since energy savings become much more important in this case. On
the contrary, when the energy price development is lower than assumed (as 5%), the
global costs of all scenarios are lower than expected and the cost optimum scenario
115
does not change but the position of this scenario as the cost optimum level becomes
clearer. Analyses for investment cost decreases for IN and SP measures under different
energy price development rates reveal that these cost decreases ensure the ambitious
retrofit scenarios are more convenient.
Figure 5.28 displays the sensitivity analyses on the global cost calculation periods.
This figure shows that, relation between the retrofit scenarios remains almost the same
for the calculation periods of 20 years, 30 years and 40 years. However, when the
calculation period is increased up to 50 years, the retrofit scenario including IN1-E,
GL6, BOI, CHW, LED and PV retrofits, which results with 88.3 kWh/m²y primary
energy consumption and 364.8 TL/m², is the cost optimal solution with an insignificant
difference in global cost in comparison to other two scenarios. These two scenarios are
GL6+BOI+CHW+LED+PV and IN1+GL6+BOI+CHW+LED+SP+PV which are
respectively resulted with 132.1 kWh/m²y and 76.3 kWh/m²y primary energy
consumption in response to the same global cost around 366.5 TL/m². Therefore 76.3
kWh/m²y primary energy consumption level can be assessed within the cost-optimal
range for the RB retrofit when 50 years of cost calculation period is considered.
As previously presented in Section 5.1.6, OB affected the results of cost-optimal

analyses in a positive way in terms of moving towards more ambitious cost-optimal
levels. With the effect of investment cost decreases for IN and SP measures, the future
cost-optimal level can move to 68.8 kWh/m²y primary energy consumption level
achieved by the scenario involving IN1-E, GL6, BOI, CHW, LED, SP and PV
measures. Under the effect of OB, the scenario including IN2-E, GL6, BOI, CHW,
LED, SP and PV measures is able to achieve cost-optimal level with 63.3 kWh/m²y
primary energy consumption when the discount rate is lower or the energy price
development rate is higher than assumed.
116
Figure 5.26 : Sensitivity analyses on discount rates and investment cost decreases for the RB retrofits in Erzurum.
117
Figure 5.27 : Sensitivity analyses on energy price development rates and investment cost decreases for the RB retrofits in Erzurum.
118
Figure 5.28 : Sensitivity analyses on global cost calculation periods for the RB retrofits in Erzurum.
119
5.2.5 Identification of potential NZEB levels
In accordance with the results of the comparative analyses conducted in Section 5.1.5,
which are based on reference assumptions related to economic indicators, the cost-
optimal level for the RB retrofit in Istanbul is retrieved as 79.8 kWh/m²y primary
energy consumption level. The retrofit scenario achieving this level includes GL7,
BOI, CHW, LED and PV retrofits. Involving also SP measure within the cost-optimal
scenario for the RB retrofit in Istanbul requires certain economic conditions and
support for cost decreases referring to SP measure (installation of solar thermal
system). Therefore the primary energy consumption level of 70.4 kWh/m²y, which can
be achieved by the retrofit scenario including GL7, BOI, CHW, LED, PV and SP
retrofits, is identified as one of the potential NZEB levels which can be the future cost-
optimal level based on the economic conditions. On the other hand, if the required
economic conditions are not observed in the future, the investment cost decrease may
be provided through subsidy and incentives for SP investments.
Moreover, 65.5 kWh/m²y and 56.2 kWh/m²y primary energy consumption levels are
also considered as potential NZEB levels. Although these primary energy consumption
levels are not referring to autonomous future cost-optimal levels in any financial
conditions, due to their cost effectiveness, these levels may be considered as potential
NZEB levels for the RB retrofit in Istanbul. In order to motivate the market towards
these levels, subsidy and incentives are needed. The alternate occupant behaviour on
window openings (OB) moves the lowest primary energy consumption among
potential NZEB levels (56.2 kWh/m²y) until 28.7 kWh/m²y by allowing to include also
IN3-E measure in the retrofit scenario.
Summarily, the scenarios identified as the potential NZEB levels for the RB retrofits
in Istanbul are as following:
 GL7 + BOI + CHW + LED + PV (79.8 kWh/m²y)
 GL7 + BOI + CHW + LED + SP+ PV (70.4 kWh/m²y)
 IN2-W + GL7 + BOI + CHW + LED + PV (65.5kWh/m²y)
 IN2-W + GL7+ BOI + CHW + LED + SP + PV (56.2 kWh/m²y)
Based on the initial assumptions, the cost-optimal level for the RB retrofit in Antalya
is retrieved as 96.4 kWh/m²y primary energy consumption level that can be achieved
120
by the scenario involving GL7, CHW, LED and PV retrofits. However, the changes in
the discount rate, energy price development rates, global cost calculation periods and
the initial investment costs of VRV and SP measures are able to shift the cost-optimal
level to a more ambitious primary energy consumption level. This further cost-optimal
energy performance level is able to reach until 52.6 kWh/m²y which is provided by the
retrofit scenario including GL7, VRV, CHW, LED, SP and PV retrofits. Result of this
further cost-optimal scenario leads to 41.8 kWh/m²y in case of the alternate occupant
behaviour (OB) is considered. Therefore, the scenarios representing the identified
potential NZEB levels for the RB retrofits in Antalya and their primary energy
consumption levels with the reference occupant behaviour are as listed below:
 GL7 + CHW + LED + PV (96.4 kWh/m²y)
 GL7 + CHW + LED + SP + PV (86.9 kWh/m²y)
 GL7 + VRV + CHW + LED + PV (61.8 kWh/m²y)
 GL7 + VRV + CHW + LED + SP + PV (52.6 kWh/m²y)
Results obtained for the RB retrofits in Erzurum showed that the range of the cost-
optimal primary energy consumption level can be identified as between 88.3 kWh/m²y
and 132.1 kWh/m²y. The variations of discount rate, energy price development rates
and the investment expenditures affect the cost-optimal levels and enables to move
towards 71.5 kWh/m²y primary energy consumption. GL6, BOI, CHW, LED and PV
retrofits are the common measures which are included within this range while IN and
SP measures are conditionally involved to the cost-optimal scenario with positive
impact on the primary energy consumption level. OB shifts the minimum primary
energy consumption level among the potential NZEB levels, which is achieved with
the scenario including IN2-E, GL6, BOI, CHW, LED, SP and PV, from 71.5 kWh/m²y
to 63.3 kWh/m²y. Correspondingly the retrofit scenarios representing the potential
NZEB levels for the RB retrofits in Erzurum are as following:
 GL6 + BOI + CHW + LED + PV (132.1 kWh/m²y)
 IN1-E + GL6 + BOI + CHW + LED + PV (88.3 kWh/m²y)
 IN1-E + GL6 + BOI + CHW + LED + SP + PV (76.3 kWh/m²y)
 IN2-E + GL6 + BOI + CHW + LED + SP + PV (71.5 kWh/m²y)
121
5.2.6 Financial gaps between cost-optimal and potential NZEB levels
In accordance with the previous analyses, results for the retrofit scenarios identified as
potential NZEB levels are compared with the cost-optimal scenarios in order to show
the financial gap between these primary energy consumption levels. In this sample
implementation, these analyses considered the results obtained using the reference
assumptions on economic indicators and reference occupant behaviour. However,
other scenarios may also be involved in this process for the further implementations of
this approach.
The financial gap between potential NZEB levels and cost-optimal levels for the RB
retrofits in Istanbul are summarized in Table 5.27. Results for Antalya and Erzurum
are given with Table 5.28 and Table 5.29 respectively.
for the RB retrofit in Istanbul.
Retrofit Scenario Primary Primary Global Financial

(Istanbul) Energy Energy Saving Cost gap
Consumption Ratio
GL7 + BOI + 79.8 kWh/m²y 45% 253.2 (cost-
Reference Assumptions
CHW + LED + PV TL/m² optimal)

GL7 + BOI + 70.4 kWh/m²y 52% 259.5 6.3 TL/m²
CHW + LED + SP+ PV TL/m²
IN2-W + GL7 + BOI + 65.5 kWh/m²y 55% 286.6 33.4 TL/m²
CHW + LED + PV TL/m²
IN2-W + GL7+ BOI + 56.2 kWh/m²y 61% 293.2 40 TL/m²
CHW + LED + SP + PV TL/m²
GL7 + BOI + 253.2 (cost-

79.8 kWh/m²y 45%
Decrease for IN and SP
TL/m² optimal)
with Investment Cost
CHW + LED + PV
GL7 + BOI + 70.4 kWh/m²y 52% 255.7 2.5 TL/m²
IN2-W + GL7 + BOI + 65.5 kWh/m²y 55% 278.1 24.9 TL/m²
IN2-W + GL7+ BOI + 56.2 kWh/m²y 61% 280.8 27.6 TL/m²
122
for the RB retrofit in Antalya.
Retrofit Scenario Primary Energy Primary Energy Global Financial
(Antalya) Consumption Saving Ratio Cost gap
GL7 + CHW + 96.4 kWh/m²y 40% 295.5 (cost-
LED + PV TL/m² optimal)
Assumptions
GL7 + CHW + 86.9 kWh/m²y 46% 301.9 6.4 TL/m²

Reference
LED + SP + PV TL/m²
GL7 + VRV + CHW + 61.8 kWh/m²y 62% 302.5 7 TL/m²
LED + PV TL/m²
GL7 + VRV + CHW + 52.6 kWh/m²y 67% 309.4 13.9
LED + SP + PV TL/m² TL/m²
Decrease for VRV and SP
GL7 + BOI + 295.5

96.4 kWh/m²y 40% -

GL7 + BOI + 86.9 kWh/m²y 46% 298.1 -

IN2-W + GL7 + BOI + 61.8 kWh/m²y 62% 284 (cost-
CHW + LED + PV TL/m² optimal)
IN2-W + GL7+ BOI + 52.6 kWh/m²y 67% 287 3 TL/m²
for the RB retrofit in Erzurum.
Retrofit Scenario Primary Energy Primary Global Financial
(Erzurum) Consumption Energy Saving Cost gap
Ratio
GL6 + BOI + CHW + 132.1 kWh/m²y 39% 313.4 (cost-
LED + PV TL/m² optimal)

IN1-E + GL6 + BOI + 88.3 kWh/m²y 59% 316.7 3.3 TL/m²
IN2-E + GL6 + BOI + 71.5 kWh/m²y 67% 324.6 11.2
CHW + LED + SP + PV TL/m² TL/m²
GL6 + BOI + CHW + 313.4
Decrease for IN and SP
132.1 kWh/m²y 39% -

LED + PV TL/m²
IN1-E + GL6 + BOI + 88.3 kWh/m²y 59% 306.5 -
IN1-E + GL6 + BOI + 76.3 kWh/m²y 65% 305.5 (cost-
CHW + LED + SP + PV TL/m² optimal)
123
As shown in the tables, the highest financial gap between the cost-optimal levels and
potential NZEB levels are 40 TL/m² in Istanbul, 13.9 TL/m² in Antalya and 11.2 TL/m²
in Erzurum. When the investment cost decreases are considered, these gaps decrease
until 27.6 TL/m² in Istanbul, 3 TL/m² in Antalya and 2.7 TL/m² in Erzurum. The
highest financial gap was observed in Istanbul where the global cost of the RB retrofit
is less sensitive to the economic indicators and investment cost decreases.
optimal and potential NZEB levels
Cost-optimal levels may change autonomously based on the economic indicators and
investment cost variations for the retrofit actions. However, although the economic
indicators does not occur to ensure more ambitious cost-optimal levels in the future,
these can be achieved by subsidy and incentives or by giving priority to R&D
activities. Therefore, these opportunities are investigated under this step.
Sensitivity analyses show that decrease in the discount rate and investment costs are
effective for achieving more ambitious future cost-optimal levels. In the contrary case,
increase in the discount rate or in the retrofit costs requires additional actions in all
analysed climates. SP is an effective retrofit measure to move towards higher energy
performance level in all climates. Therefore, this retrofit should be supported by tax
exemptions or by encouraging R&D activities on the solar thermal systems in order to
stimulate cost decreases.
Other retrofit measures which require to be supported changes with the climate in
which the RB is placed. In Istanbul and Erzurum, heat insulation is needed to be
supported while in Antalya VRV system should be encouraged if the market conditions
and economic indicators do not seem to be positive in the future in terms of energy
efficiency and global cost. Especially in hot-humid climate represented by Antalya,
the effect of the support is significant.
Besides the tax exemptions and R&D activities, low-interest loans can also inspire the
building owners to retrofit their residential buildings. In order to identify convincing
loan amounts and repayment period, investment cost and payback periods of the
retrofit scenarios are calculated for the scenarios referring to potential NZEB levels.
The scenarios which represent the national heat insulation standard TS 825:2013 (IN1-
124
W + GL1 and IN1-E + GL1) are also involved in these analyses in order to compare
them with the present and future cost-optimal levels.
Figure 5.29 presents the initial investment cost and the payback period of the potential
NZEB levels for the RB retrofits in Istanbul. The graph shows that payback periods of
the scenarios representing the national heat insulation standard are higher than 20
years. On the other hand, there are some other retrofit possibilities which correspond
to a lower primary energy consumption with lower investment cost and shorter
payback period. In case of cost decrease provision for solar thermal systems (tax
exemption, R&D, etc.), the cost optimal level results with 70.4 kWh/m²y primary
energy consumption and this level can be considered as a potential NZEB level for the
near future. In order to boost the market, low-interest loans can be considered for the
retrofit activities including these retrofits. Based on the future expectations and policy,
it is possible to define more ambitious NZEB levels. In case of tax exemption for IN
and SP retrofits and low cost loan provision for IN2 + GL7 + BOI + CHW + LED +
SP + PV retrofit package, NZEB level may reach at 56.2 kWh/m²y in Istanbul. A loan
around 622 000 TL for ten years repayment period is able to provide a cost effective
energy retrofit and after 10 years this retrofit saves money together with the energy
saving. Considering that there are 48 owners for 48 flats in the RB, the loan may be
around 13 000 TL for every flat owner which is not high for 10 years repayment.
Figure 5.30 presents the payback periods and initial investment costs of the potential
NZEB levels for the RB retrofits in Antalya. Similar to Istanbul, payback periods of
IN1-W+GL1 and IN1-E+GL1 packages are higher than 20 years in Antalya as well.
On the other hand while IN1-E+GL1 package results with 138.3 kWh/m²y primary
energy consumption level with 21 years payback period, it is possible to achieve 52.6
kWh/m²y level with maximum 8.9 years payback period by applying the scenario
including GL7, VRV, CHW, LED, SP and PV retrofits. However, the initial
investment cost of this scenario is higher than IN1-E+GL1 package and therefore it
needs financial support in order to be achieved. A loan around 702 000 TL with more
than 9 years repayment will encourage the building owners for applying the retrofits
in order to increase energy efficiency of their building. The loan required per flat owner
is around 14 650 TL for achieving 52.6 kWh/m²y primary energy consumption level.
As presented in Figure 5.31 below, results in Erzurum are more sensitive to different
financial scenarios.
125
Figure 5.29 : Investment costs and the payback periods of the potential NZEB levels for the RB retrofits in Istanbul.
126
Figure 5.30 : Investment costs and the payback periods of the potential NZEB levels for the RB retrofits in Antalya.
127
Figure 5.31 : Investment costs and the payback periods of the potential NZEB levels for the RB retrofits in Erzurum.
128
The cost optimal level moves from 132.1 kWh/m²y to 71.5 kWh/m²y depending on the future
scenarios and the possible cost decreases. Contrary to Istanbul and Antalya the payback period
of the scenarios representing the national heat insulation standard are between 11 and 13 years
in Erzurum. However, by investing on the other scenarios, it is possible to decrease the payback
period while increasing the energy performance level of the reference building. If the
expectations on the market and economic indicators does not provide the ambitious primary
energy consumption levels, tax exemptions should be considered for IN and SP measures and
the amount of loan required to achieve 71.5 kWh/m²y is around 721 000 TL with repayment
period more than 7.4 years. The share of the loan per flat owner is around 15 000 TL. After this
point, the additional global cost difference to achieve the next primary energy consumption
level which is 57.2 kWh/m²y is around 30 TL/m².
Nevertheless, being talked about the existing buildings in Turkey, it is important to identify the
future lifespan of the building as well. As an example, if the building is not expected to exist
for next 10 years, the loan may not be a suitable option and other options are needed to be
examined. This is important for the residential buildings in Turkey considering the urban
transformation procedure and should be considered for NZEB targets.
5.2.8 Proposals for bridging the gap between cost-optimal and NZEB levels
This step introduces the proposals for NZEB definitions and for bridging the gap between cost-
optimal and NZEB levels as the output of overall composition of the outcomes.
The results reveal that, for the retrofit of high-rise apartment buildings in temperate-humid
climatic region, as in Istanbul, the achievable future cost-optimal level can be identified
between 79.8 kWh/m²y and 56.2 kWh/m²y in terms of primary energy consumption. One of the
main factors to be considered for this decision is the expectations on discount rate. If the
discount rate is expected to be equal to or higher than 5.78%, the achievable cost-optimal
primary energy consumption level is 79.8 kWh/m²y. In order to move towards 70.4 kWh/m²y
primary energy consumption level without any support, the discount rate is required to be lower
or the investment cost of solar thermal systems should be decreased. Nonetheless, NZEB
concept needs further improvements in the building energy performance. As mentioned in BPIE
Factsheet on NZEB definitions, NZEB levels defined in EU countries for new residential
buildings aim to have a primary energy use lower than 50 kWh/m²y (Buildings Performance
129
Institute Europe, 2016). Indeed, NZEB levels for existing residential buildings are different
than the new buildings; but it is also expected to become lower in time. Therefore, policy-
makers should take additional actions to achieve lower energy consumption levels through
building retrofits. There are two convenient actions to be considered by policy-makers for
closing the financial gap for high-rise apartment building retrofits in tempered-humid climate.
These are tax exemptions for heat insulation and especially solar thermal system retrofits and
providing low-interest loans for the comprehensive building retrofit actions including heat
insulation application, glazing replacement, boiler improvement, use of central hot water
system, use of LED for lighting, installation of solar thermal system and PV systems. Using
these tools, policy-makers are able to motivate the market and the building owners to retrofit
their high-rise residential buildings in temperate-humid climatic region and achieve 56.2
kWh/m²y primary energy consumption level.
Achievable NZEB level for the high-rise apartment building retrofits in hot-humid climate, as
in Antalya, ranges between 96.4 kWh/m²y and 52.6 kWh/m²y primary energy consumption
level. The discount rate which is equal to or higher than 5.78% leads to an achievable cost-
optimal primary energy consumption level of 96.4 kWh/m²y. Lower discount rate, on the other
hand, enables to achieve 61.8 kWh/m²y primary energy consumption level cost optimally.
Similarly, energy price development rates that are higher than expected also promotes this
energy performance level. In order to move towards 52.6 kWh/m²y, cost decreases for solar
thermal system and VRV system are only appropriate with low discount rate. If the cost
decrease is not expected, the policy-makers ensure this by tax exemptions. Different course of
events require additional actions from policy makers such as low-interest loans. The convenient
loan amount is 702 000 TL with more than 9 years repayment. Therefore, policy-makers should
examine the possibility of these loans.
In cold climatic region of Turkey, as in Erzurum, achievable NZEB level for the retrofit of high-
rise apartments is between 132.1 kWh/m²y and 71.5 kWh/m²y in primary energy consumption.
This range is higher comparing to temperate-humid and hot-humid region since the RB energy
consumption is also higher in this cold climate. Future expectations of policy-makers related to
both discount rates and energy price development rates should be effective on identifying
achievable NZEB levels for the cold climate. If low discount rates around 3% or high energy
price development rates around 10% are expected based on national economy and policy, the
130
achievable NZEB level can move until 76.3 kWh/m²y without any external support. Another
probability to autonomously achieve this level is the cost decreases in heat insulation and solar
thermal system investments. On the contrary, if these do not take place, the market is required
to be supported by policy-makers. The possibility of tax exemption for heat insulation and solar
thermal systems enables to set NZEB target as 76.3 kWh/m²y. Moreover, in case of a low
discount rate around 3%, 71.5 kWh/m²y is also convenient as NZEB target in cold climate. If
the expected discount rate is not that much low, low-interest loan around 721 000 TL may
provide to set 71.5 kWh/m²y primary energy consumption level as NZEB target.
As explained above, the useful and convenient encouragement actions refer to different retrofits
according to climatic region. Table 5.30 presents these convenient subsidy and loans for
different climates. As shown in this table, support in solar thermal panels is required in all three
climates. The required low-interest loans range between 622 000 TL and 808 000 TL based on
the climatic region and availability of subsidies.
Table 5.30 : Summary of convenient subsidy and loans for different climates.
Climatic region
Tempered-humid Hot-humid
Cold (Erzurum)
(Istanbul) (Antalya)
Use of VRV Application of heat

Use of solar
system for insulation on the
thermal panels
Retrofit actions which have priority in cooling building envelope
subsidy and R&D support
Use of solar Use of solar
-
thermal panels thermal panels
Minimum loan amount required for

motivating the comprehensive building 622 000 TL 702 000TL 721 000 TL
retrofits in the market (with subsidy)
Minimum required payback period of

10 years 8 years 8 years
the loan (with subsidy)
Minimum loan amount required for

motivating the comprehensive building 690 000 TL 790 000TL 808 000 TL
retrofits in the market (without subsidy)
Minimum required payback period of

11 years 9 years 9 years
the loan (without subsidy
131
Results obtained from sample implementation of the second phase of proposed approach reveal
that discount rate and energy price development rate are among the main aspects to consider
for setting NZEB targets for high-rise apartment retrofits in Turkey. Policy-makers should
initially have a reliable examination on the expected economic indicators in order to set NZEB
target. Tax exemptions and low-interest loans will be effective to stimulate the market in any
case, however, the benefits will be higher if the opportunity is directed at the correct
investments by policy-makers considering also the climate.
132
DISCUSSION
In EPBD recast requires that new buildings are NZEBs from 2021 onwards and
existing buildings go under cost-effective transformation towards NZEBs (The
European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2010). Although the
highest energy saving potential lies behind the existing building stock (The European
Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2012), NZEB definitions for these
buildings have not been progressing with the same acceleration of the NZEB
definitions for new buildings (BPIE, 2016) since a deadline for the existing buildings
has not been defined yet. Moreover, as explained in Chapter 2, a specific methodology
for determining the NZEB targets is not available. Considering the present
circumstances, this dissertation has been designed with the aim of introducing an
approach to determine achievable NZEB levels for building retrofits.
Discussion on the Proposed Approach
As previously described in Chapter 2, some of the limited number of available methods

and approaches in the literature which focused on NZEB definitions gave the full
attention to the requirement of achieving “very high energy performance level”
without considering the relation with cost-optimality (The European Parliament and
the Council of the European Union, 2010; Szalay and Zöld, 2014; Schimschar et. al,
2011). Some other researchers which focused on the cost-effective retrofits in
buildings mostly referred to NZEB target within the concluding remarks by linking
with their outcomes (Vasconcelos et. al, 2016b). Very few studies, such as presented
by Oliveira Panão et al. (2013) and Pikas et al. (2014), considered the direct relation
between cost-optimality and NZEB concepts, however, none of these research
activities presented a comprehensive approach resulting with the proposals for policy-
makers.
The approach proposed in this research fulfil the need of an approach for identifying
achievable NZEB targets for building retrofits. Starting from the fact that cost-optimal
and NZEB concepts are expected to converge after 2020 (The Commission to the
133
European Parliament and the Council, 2013), this approach regards the NZEB level as
the future cost-optimal level and uses the sensitivity analyses as the main tool to
investigate achievability of the future targets related to NZEB. As presented in Chapter
4, the approach involves two main phases which results with proposals for potential
NZEB levels with the specific boundary conditions and actions required to provide
their achievability or speed up the process. The third phase following these two phases
describes the main frame of the assessment procedure for the policy-makers and
concludes the whole process by drawing the link between the calculations and NZEB
targets.
As indicated by Kuusk et al. (2014) and Pombo et al. (2016) a comprehensive approach
referring to deep retrofits is required. The first phase of the approach which includes
the national implementation of the cost-optimal methodology meets this demand
specified in the literature. This phase combines three main constituents of whole
building retrofit by referring to envelope retrofits, building service system retrofits and
installation of renewable energy systems. Moreover, it is not only a direct
implementation of the cost-optimal approach since it takes the effect of occupant
behaviour into account.
The sensitivity analyses already exist in the cost-optimal methodology (The European
Commission, 2012a). However, the second phase of the approach proposed in this
dissertation attributes an extensive function to the sensitivity analyses and uses them
as the main tool to investigate the potential NZEB levels for building retrofits. This
tool is supported with payback calculations in order to identify complementary actions
to be taken by policy-makers as a part of their plan to increase the number of NZEBs.
With this perspective, the approach proposed in this study constitutes an overall
process to define the boundary conditions for NZEB definitions by combining the
effect of climate, building properties, occupant behaviour, economic indicators and
financial conditions on NZEB definitions. Beyond this, the approach also enables to
display the gap between present cost-optimal and potential NZEB levels and develop
solutions for bridging this gap in order to guide the policy-makers to plan their actions.
Although the approach was developed for the building retrofits, it can be easily adapted
for the new constructions to be used for determining the NZEB targets which are
134
required to be revised periodically by EPBD recast (The European Parliament and the
Council of the European Union, 2010).
Discussion on the Results of Sample Implementation
A sample implementation of the introduced approach is presented in Chapter 5. The

results of this implementation came up with both general outcomes and specific
suggestions for Turkish policy-makers.
Results of the sample implementation verify that climate is the main aspect affecting
the achievable NZEB level. As presented with the results, the same approach followed
for the same RB results with different primary energy consumption ranges that were
associated with the potential NZEB levels in different climates. In example, the lowest
primary energy consumption levels among the potential NZEB targets obtained with
sensitivity analyses are 79.8 kWh/m²y in tempered-humid climate (Istanbul), 61.8
kWh/m²y in hot-humid climate (Antalya) and 76.3 kWh/m²y in cold climatic region
(Erzurum) of Turkey. Support of incentives moves this lowest primary energy
consumption level among potential NZEBs until 70.4 kWh/m²y in tempered-humid
climate, 52.6 kWh/m²y in hot-humid climate and 71.5 kWh/m²y in cold climate.
Furthermore, the conscious occupant behaviour related to window openings (OB)
moves the highest potential NZEB targets towards 50.3 kWh/m²y in tempered-humid
climate, 41.8 kWh/m²y in hot-humid climate and 63.3 kWh/m²y in the cold climatic
region. The primary energy consumption levels of these different target levels are
summarized in Table 6.1 below in order to provide a better understanding on the
variations between the climatic regions.
While some research activities focus on improving the skills of building energy
professionals in NZEB design, Table 6.1 displays the significant effect of conscious
occupant behaviour (Peñalvo-López et. al, 2017). Taking the advantage of conscious
occupant behaviour requires training programs also for these occupants as the part of
the national action plans.
It is important to note that the table displays the highest energy performance levels
among different potential NZEB targets. Correspondingly it represents a positive
perspective in terms of economic indicators. However, results of the sensitivity
analyses show that potential variations in the economic indicators lead to alteration in
135
the cost-optimal and NZEB levels. Therefore, strong forecasts on the economic
indicators are required to ensure that NZEB targets represent the future cost-optimal.
Independent from the economic indicators, subsidy and incentives appear as the most
effective and practical actions to be taken and included in the plans for the
transformation of existing buildings towards NZEB. Another important fact to
consider while discussing the results is that the market costs used in this calculation
may not reflect the highest discounts as a consequent of the bargains or the competition
between the companies. Therefore the required incentives may be more pleasant for
the policy-makers in comparison to the presented results.
Figure 6.1 : Primary energy consumption of different target levels.
Climatic region
Tempered-humid Hot-humid
Cold (Erzurum)
(Istanbul) (Antalya)
Existing cost-optimal primary energy 132.1 kWh/m²y
79.8 kWh/m²y 96.4 kWh/m²y
performance level (88.6 kWh/m²y)
Existing cost-optimal primary energy
60.4 kWh/m²y 74.3 kWh/m²y 80.7 kWh/m²y
performance level with OB effect
Minimum primary energy
consumption level among potential 79.8 kWh/m²y 61.8 kWh/m²y 76.3 kWh/m²y
NZEB targets
consumption level among potential 70.4 kWh/m²y 52.6 kWh/m²y 71.5 kWh/m²y
NZEB targets with incentives
consumption level among potential
50.3 kWh/m²y 41.8 kWh/m²y 63.3 kWh/m²y
NZEB targets with incentives and OB
effect
The primary energy consumption levels of potential NZEB targets identified for the
existing high-rise residential buildings in Turkey is between 41.8 kWh/m²y and 96.4
kWh/m²y. Apart from the extreme definitions of Denmark (20 kWh/m²y) and Austria
(200 kWh/m²y), this range is not far from the existing NZEB definitions among EU
MSs (BPIE, 2016).
The obtained results support the proposed method in terms of recommending

comprehensive retrofit concept for investigating NZEB targets. In all climatic regions,
the retrofit scenarios which are associated with potential NZEB levels combine the
retrofit actions referring to envelope, service systems and renewable energy systems.
136
The scenarios which are not combining these three fields are not sufficient to achieve
potential NZEB levels. On the other hand, the content of these retrofit scenarios
achieving potential NZEB levels varies according to the climate since it is the main
determinant of NZEB analyses.
Installation of renewable energy systems is a key retrofit action to achieve NZEB

levels in the following years. Besides the results showing the necessity of involving
the installation of solar thermal and photovoltaic systems within the retrofit scenarios,
the expected decrease in the prices of these systems also makes these systems
promising (Brown et al., 2011).
Results of the sample implementation are encouraging by showing that very high
energy performance levels are achievable for the analysed high-rise residential
buildings. Considering that the NZEB levels defined for the new building in EU
countries are mainly no more than 50 kWh/m²y, it is significant to display that the
potential NZEB target is able to reach a range between 41.8 kWh/m²y and 63.3
kWh/m²y depending on the climatic region (BPIE, 2016). Nevertheless, it is important
to bear in mind that achieving these levels are dependent to certain boundary
conditions.
It is important to emphasize that, the presented sample implementation followed the

individual end user perspective in global cost calculations. However, the governments
may prefer using calculations made with macroeceonomic perspective. In this case,
higher energy performance levels may result as cost-optimal and future cost-optimal.
Moreover, the required amount of subsidy and loans may be lower since the taxes are
excluded and carbon prices are included in the calculations. Therefore the cost
calculation perspective is also decisive on national actions.
137
138
CONCLUSION
Precautions referring to the buildings sector are a substantial part of decreasing the
worldwide final energy consumption. In this context, NZEB concept of EPBD recast
can be regarded as a milestone since it represents binding targets for 28 member
countries and drives 5 candidate countries as well. The NZEB concept does not only
force the governments to improve energy performance of buildings but also considers
their economy by paying significant attention to cost-effectiveness. In this respect, it
constitutes applicable and coherent requirements.
NZEB concept of EPBD recast requires to ensure that buildings have a very high
energy performance and the very low amount of required energy is met by renewable
energy sources. Moreover, NZEB concept should converge with cost-optimal level
after 2020. Although NZEB concept is a whole with these three aspects, many studies
in the literature focus only the first of the first two aspects when they mention about
the NZEB target. Nevertheless, it is very important to take into consideration all these
aspects in order to refer NZEB concept certainly and thoroughly. Therefore the
approach presented in this dissertation comprises all these three aspects of NZEB
concept.
Based on the approach, the sample implementation and the discussion on them which
were presented in the previous chapters, this research obtained important remarks for
both researchers and policy-makers. Regarding the national decisions on retrofitted
NZEBs, the following remarks can be specified:
 Occupant behaviour should be included in the analyses due to their significant

effect on achievable NZEB targets
 Both the followed approach and analyses should consider a comprehensive
perspective including the retrofits referring to envelope, service systems and
renewable energy systems installation
 Sensitivity analyses are beneficial for determining boundary conditions of
potential NZEB targets
139
 Training of the building occupants should be a part of national plans to obtain
higher efficiency in buildings
Although the methodology followed by the researchers is definitive on the NZEB

decisions, the final decision relies on politic arrangements. Therefore ensuring the
reliable transfer of findings into practice is mainly related to policy introduced by the
policy-makers participates in the process.
This dissertation demonstrates that national policy-makers should appeal to the

subsidy and incentives in order to achieve NZEB targets through a smooth and rapid
progress. The proposals obtained by the introduced approach includes convenient
actions which are not unrealistic in terms of applicability.
The introduced approach is an instructive guide to achieve EPBD recast targets and
requirements of Article 4 of Directive 2012/27/EU. An important action to be taken
after the approach has been implemented is to monitor the progress in the market on
introduced targets in order to provide the sustainability of the process. Results of the
monitoring activity are required for the revision of NZEB targets as future cost-optimal
levels in every 5 years.
As a whole, this dissertation exhibits a promising future in terms of great energy and
cost savings through building retrofits when the existing building stock is considered.
However, this promising development requires deep research, reasonable planning and
absolute effort in the following years.
Further research
Initially, further adaptations of the proposed approach are required. One of the main
recommended adaptation is for new buildings to lead the national targets on new
constructions. This implementation should also include implementation for different
building types.
Besides the adaptation, different implementations of the approach will support the
methodology within time. In example, implementations of this approach for different
building types or different occupancy patterns would be worthwhile.
140
Due to the effectiveness of occupancy patterns on building energy performance, future
studies may focus on determining reference occupancy patterns for the reference
buildings.
The proposed approach in this research can be upgraded by equipping with more
details. Integrating also the comfort analyses into the approach would be interesting to
provide an extensive point of view.
141
142
REFERENCES
Artola, I., Rademaekers, K., Williams, R., Yearwood, J., (2016). Boosting Building
Renovation: What potential and value for Europe? Report prepared for
European Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy.
Brussels, European Union, 2016.
Arumägi, E. and Kalamees, T. (2014) Analysis of energy economic renovation for
historic wooden apartment buildings in cold climates. Applied Energy
115, 540–548.
ASHRAE (2010). ASHRAE STANDARD 55-2010, Thermal Environmental
Conditions for Human Occupancy, ISSN 1041-2336, American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 2010.
Barthelmes, V. M., Becchio, C., Corgnati, S. P. (2016). Occupant Behavior
Lifestyles in a residential nearly zero energy building: Effect on energy
use and thermal comfort. Science and Technology for the Built
Environment, 22, 960-975.
Becchio, C., Bottero, M.C., Corgnati, S.P., Ghiglione, C. (2015). nZEB design:
challenging between energy and economic targets, Energy Procedia 78,
2070-2075.
Becchio, C., Corgnati, S.P., Delmastro, C., Fabi, V., Lombardi, P. (2016). The role
of nearly-zero energy buildings in the transition towards Post-Carbon
Cities, Sustainable Cities and Society 27, 324-337.
Bonakdar, F., Dodoo, A., Gustavsson, L. (2014). Cost-optimum analysis of building
fabric renovation in a Swedish multi-story residential building. Energy
and Buildings 84, 662–673.
Brandão de Vasconcelos, A., Pinheiro, M.D., Manso, A., Cabaço, A. (2015). A
Portuguese approach to define reference buildings for cost-optimal
methodologies. Applied Energy 140, 316–328.
Brandão de Vasconcelos, A., Pinheiro, M.D., Manso, A., Cabaço, A. (2016a).
EPBD cost-optimal methodology: Application to the thermal
rehabilitation of the building envelope of a Portuguese residential
reference building. Energy and Buildings 111, 12–25.
Brandão de Vasconcelos, A., Cabaço, A., Pinheiro, M.D., Manso, A., (2016a). The
impact of building orientation and discount rates on a Portuguese
reference building refurbishment decision. Energy Policy 91, 329–340.
Brown, A., Müller, S., Dobrotkova, Z. (2011). Renewable Energy Markets and
Prospects by Technology, International Energy Agency (IEA), 2011.
Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/
publication/Renew_Tech.pdf
143
Feldman, D., Barbose, G., Margolis, R., James, T., Weaver, S., Darghouth, N.,
Fu, R., Davidson, C., Booth, S., Wiser, R. (2014). Photovoltaic
System Pricing Trends – Historical, Recent and Near-Term Projections,
2014 Edition, U.S. Department of Energy. Retrieved from
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/62558.pdf
Buildings Performance Institute Europe – BPIE (2011). Principles For Nearly
Zero-Energy Buildings - Paving the way for effective implementation
of policy requirements, 2011, Belgium. ISBN: 9789491143021.
Buildings Performance Institute Europe – BPIE (2016). Nearly Zero Energy
Buildings Definitions Across Europe, Factsheet, BPIE, 2016. Retrieved
from
http://bpie.eu/uploads/lib/document/attachment/128/BPIE_factsheet_n
ZEB_definitions_across_Europe.pdf.
CEN (2007). EN 15459 Energy performance of buildings - Economic evaluation
procedure for energy systems in buildings, European Committee for
Standardization (CEN), Brussels.3
Corgnati, S.P., Fabrizio, E., Filippi, M., Monetti, V. (2013). Reference buildings
for cost optimal analysis: Method of definition and application. Applied
Energy, 102, 983–993. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2012.06.001.
Corrado, V., Ballarini, I., Paduos, S. (2014). Assessment of cost-optimal energy
performance requirements for the Italian residential building stock.
Energy Procedia, 45, 443–452.
Crawley, D.B., Hand, J.W., Kummert, M., Griffith, B.T., (2008). Contrasting the
capabilities of building energy performance simulation programs,
Building and Environment 43 (2008) 661–673.
D’Agostino, D., Zangheri, P., Cuniberti, B., Paci, D., Bertoldi, P. (2016). Synthesis
Report on the National Plans for Nearly Zero Energy Buildings
(NZEBs) – Progress of Member States towards NZEBs. JRC Science
for Policy Report, European Commission, Italy.
Ecofys (2014). Overview of Member States information on NZEBs. Report prepared
by Jan Groezinger, Thomas Boermans, Ashok John, Jan Seehusen,
Felix Wehringer, Martin Scherberich.
IESNA (2011). Illuminating Engineering Society–The Lighting Handbook Reference
and Application, 10th Edition, editors D.L. DiLaura, K.W. Houser, R.G.
Mistrick, G.R. Steffy, 2011.
International Energy Agency (2013). Transition to Sustainable Buildings - Strategies
and Opportunities to 2050, retrieved from https://www.iea.org/
publications/freepublications/publication/Building2013_free.pdf.
ISBN:978-92-64-20241-2.
International Energy Agency (2015). Building Energy Performance Metrics,
Supporting Energy Efficiency Progress in Major Economies, Building
Energy Efficiency Task group, 2015, retrieved from
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/building
-energy-performance-metrics.html.
144
International Energy Agency (2016). Key World Energy Statistics, retrieved from
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWor
ld2016.pdf.
Kurnitski, J., Kuusk, K., Tarka Aivar Uutar, T., Kalamees, T., Pikas, E. (2014).
Energy and investment intensity of integrated renovation and 2030
cost-optimal savings. Energy and Buildings 75, 51–59.
Kuusk, K., Kalamees, T., Maivel, M. (2014). Cost-effectiveness of energy
performance improvements in Estonian brick apartment buildings.
Energy and Buildings 77, 313–322.
Liu, L., Moshfegh, B., Akander, J., Cehlin, M. (2014). Comprehensive investigation
on energy retrofits in eleven multi-family buildings in Sweden. Energy
and Buildings 84, 704–715.
Loga, T., Diefenbach, N., editors (2010). Use of building typologies for energy
performance assessment of national building stocks. Existent
experiences in European countries and common approach. First
TABULA synthesis report. Institut Wohnen und Umwel, Darmstadt-
Germany, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.building-
typology.eu/tabula.html. ISBN: 978-3-941140-14-1.
Oliveira Panãoa, M.J.N., Rebelo, M.P., Cameloa, 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.
Pikas, E., Kurnitski, J., Liias, R., Thalfeldt, M. (2015). Quantification of economic
benefits of renovation of apartment buildings as a basis for cost-optimal
2030 energy efficiency strategies. Energy and Buildings, 86, 151–160.
Pikas, E., Thalfeldt, M., J. Kurnitski, J. (2014). Cost optimal and nearly zero energy
building solutions for office buildings. Energy and Buildings, 74, 30-
42.
Peñalvo-López, E., Cárcel-Carrasco, F. J., Christoforidis, G.C., Nousdilis, A.,
Riccetti, A., Melandri, D., Papagiannis, G.K. (2017). Upgrading
Qualifications of European Energy Professionals in NZEB – The MEnS
project. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 38, 898 – 904.
Pombo, O., Rivela, B., Neila, J. (2016). The challenge of sustainable building
renovation: assessment of current criteria and future outlook. Journal
of Cleaner Production 123, 88-100.
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Energy and Natural Sources 2016. Solar Radiation
map of Turkey, General Directorate of Renewable Energy, retrieved
from http://www.eie.gov.tr/MyCalculator/Default.aspx.
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanization (2017). Binalarda
Enerji Performansı Yönetmeliğinde Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair
Yönetmelik [Regulation on Recast of Building Energy Performance
Regulation], Republic of Turkey Official Gazette, 30051, Ankara,
2017.
145
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Family and Social Policies (2011). Family
Structure Survey 2011, Ankara.
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Family and Social Policies (2013). Family
Structure Survey 2013, Ankara.
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Public Works and Settlements (2008). Binalarda
Enerji Performansı Yönetmeliği [Building Energy Performance
Regulation], Republic of Turkey Official Gazette, 27075, Ankara,
2008.
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Public Works and Settlements (2010). Bina Enerji
Performansı Hesaplama Yöntemi, Bina Enerji Performansı – Isıtma ve
Soğutma için Net Enerji İhtiyacının Hesaplanması [Building Energy
Performance Calculation Method, Building Energy Performance -
Calculation of net energy demand for heating and cooling], Republic of
Turkey Official Gazette, 27778, Ankara, 2010.
Republic of Turkey High Planning Council (2012). Energy Efficiency Strategy
Paper 2012-2023, Republic of Turkey Official Gazette, 28215, Ankara,
2012.
Republic of Turkey Official Gazette (1981). Belediyelerin İmar Yönetmeliklerinde
Değişiklik Yapılması ve Bu Yönetmeliklere Teni Maddeler Eklenmesi
Hakkında Yönetmelik [Regulation for the Recast of Planning
Regulation of Municipalities], Republic of Turkey Official Gazette,
20.10.1981, 17499, p.5-22.
Republic of Turkey Official Gazette (1985). Belediyelerin İmar Yönetmeliklerinde
Değişiklik Yapılması ve Bu Yönetmeliklere Teni Maddeler Eklenmesi
Hakkında Yönetmelik [Regulation for the Recast of Planning
Regulation of Municipalities], Republic of Turkey Official Gazette,
16.01.1985, 18637, p.9-34.
Republic of Turkey Official Gazette (1999). Mecburi Standart Tebliği [Notification
for Binding Standard], Republic of Turkey Official Gazette,
14.06.1999, 23725.
Republic of Turkey Official Gazette (2000). Binalarda Isı Yalıtımı Yönetmeliği
[Regulation for Heat Insulation of Buildings], Republic of Turkey
Official Gazette, 08.05.2000, 24043, p.1-33.
Republic of Turkey Official Gazette (2007). Enerji Verimliliği Kanunu [Energy
Efficiency Law]; Law No. 5627, Republic of Turkey Official Gazette,
26510, Ankara, 2007.
Rist, M. & Pizzica, A.J. (2015) Financial Ratios for Executives: How to Assess
Company Strength, Fix Problems, and Make Better Decisions.
PENHAGENCO LLC, New York. ISBN: 978-1-4842-0732-1.
Schimschar, S., Blok, K. Boermans, T., Hermelink A. (2011). Germany’s path
towards nearly zero-energy buildings - Enabling the greenhouse gas
mitigation potential in the building stock. Energy Policy, 39, 3346-
3360.
State Institute of Statistics Prime Ministry Republic of Turkey (2001). Building
Census 2000. Ankara, Turkey. ISBN 975 - 19 - 2819 – 2.
146
Sümengen, Ö. & Yener, A. K. (2013). Konutlarda Aydınlatma Enerjisi Performansı
ve Görsel Konfor Koşulları [Lighting Energy Performance and Visual
Comfort Conditions in Residential Buildings], 7. Ulusal Aydınlatma
Sempozyumu, 2013, İzmir, [in Turkish].
Szalay, Z., Zöld, A. (2014). Definition of nearly zero-energy building requirements
based on a large building sample. Energy Policy, 74 (2014) 510-521.
The Commission to the European Parliament and the Council (2013). Progress by
Member States Towards Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings, Brussels,
7.10.2013, COM (2013) 483 final/2.
The European Commission (2010). Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Energy 2020 A strategy
for competitive, sustainable and secure energy, Brussels, 10.11.2010
COM (2010) 639 final.
The European Commission (2011a). Communication from the Commission to the
Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Energy Efficiency Plan
2011, Brussels, 8.3.2011 COM (2011) 109 final.
The European Commission (2011b). Communication from the Commission to the
Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Energy Roadmap 2050,
Brussels, 15.12.2011 COM (2011) 885 final.
The European Commission (2012a). Commission Delegated Regulation (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, 21.3.2012, L81/18.
The European Commission (2012b). Guidelines accompanying Commission
Delegated Regulation (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 (2012/C 115/01), 19.4.2012, C 115/1.
The European Commission (2014). Financing the energy renovation of buildings
with Cohesion Policy funding, Final Report. ISBN:978-92-79-35999-
6.
The European Commission (2016). Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/1318
of 29 July 2016 on guidelines for the promotion of nearly zero-energy
buildings and best practices to ensure that, by 2020, all new buildings
are nearly zero-energy buildings, Official Journal of the European
Union, 2.8.2016, L208/46.
147
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2003).
Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (recast),
Official Journal of the European Union, 4.1.2003, L1/65.
Directive 2010/31/EU of The European Parliament and of the Council
of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (recast),
Official Journal of the European Union, 18.6.2010, L153/13.
Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the 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, 14.11.2012,
L315/1.
The World Bank (2010). Tapping the Potential for Energy Savings in Turkey,
Sustainable Development Department (ECSSD) Europe and Central
Asia Region (ECA), 2010, retrieved from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/TURKEYEXTN/Resources/361711
-1294661147811/TurkeyEE-en.pdf.
Turkish Standards Institution (2008). TS825 Binalarda Isi Yalitim Kurallari, Türk
Standartları Enstitüsü (TSE) [Turkish Standards Institution], Ankara.
Binalarda Isı Yalıtım Kuralları [Thermal Insulation Requirements for
Buildings], ICS 91.120.10 Ankara [in Turkish].
Turkish Standards Institution (2013). TS825 Binalarda Isi Yalitim Kurallari, Türk
Standartları Enstitüsü (TSE) [Turkish Standards Institution], Ankara.
Binalarda Isı Yalıtım Kuralları [Thermal Insulation Requirements for
Buildings], ICS 91.120.10 Ankara [in Turkish].
TURKSTAT (2011). Population and Housing Census, 2011, Turkish Statistical
Institute, No: 15843, 2013.
TURKSTAT (2012). Income and Living Conditions Survey 2012, Turkish Statistical
Institute Publication Number 4143, 2014.
Url-1 <https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/buildings/nearly-
zero-energy-buildings> retrieved on December 2016.
Url-2 < http://tuik.gov.tr> retrieved January 2015.
Url-3 < http://www.arcelik.com.tr> retrieved September 2014.
Url-4 < http://www.bosch-home.com > retrieved September 2014.
Url-5 < http://www.vestel.com.tr > retrieved September 2014.
Url-6 < https://www.dial.de > retrieved February 2016.
Url-7 < https://www.mgm.gov.tr/ > retrieved February 2016.
Url-8 < http://www.sun-set.com.tr/> retrieved September 2015.
Url-9 < www.sketchup.com > retrieved November 2014.
Url-10 < www.openstudio.net > retrieved November 2014.
148
Url-11 < https://energyplus.net > retrieved November 2014.
Url-12 < www.meteonorm.com > retrieved May 2014.
Url-13 < http://www.tcmb.gov.tr> retrieved on February 2016.
Url-14 < http://www.tedas.gov.tr> retrieved on February 2016.
Url-15 < http://www.bedas.com.tr> retrieved on February 2016.
Url-16 < http://www.palen.com.tr> retrieved on February 2016.
Url-17 < http://www.enerya.com.tr> retrieved on February 2016.
Warnacut, J.I. (2016) The Monetary Value of Time: Why Traditional Accounting
Systems Make Customers Wait. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis,
Florida. ISBN: 978-1-4987-3729-6 (e-book).
Yılmaz A.Z., Ganiç Sağlam N., Gali G., Akgüç A., Ashrafian T. (2015).
Determination of Turkish Reference Residential Buildings and
National Method for Defining Cost Optimum Energy Efficiency Level
of Buildings (Project no:113M596), Ankara: Türkiye Bilimsel ve
Teknolojik Araştirma Kurumu (TUBITAK).
149
150
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Primary energy consumption and global cost results for the RB
retrofit scenarios in Istanbul.
APPENDIX B: Primary energy consumption and global cost results for the RB
retrofit scenarios in Antalya.
APPENDIX C: Primary energy consumption and global cost results for the RB
retrofit scenarios in Erzurum.
151
152
APPENDIX A: Primary energy consumption and global cost results for the RB
retrofit scenarios in Istanbul
Table A.1 : Results of envelope retrofit scenarios for Istanbul.

Primary Global Primary Global
Scenario Energy Cost Scenario Energy Cost
(kWh/m²y) (TL/m²) (kWh/m²y) (TL/m²)
BASE 145.3 346.3 IN3-W+GL3 114.9 371.1
IN1-W 134.0 380.7 IN3-W+GL4 114.0 375.6
IN2-W 131.4 381.8 IN3-W+GL5 113.5 370.7
IN3-W 129.0 390.2 IN3-W+GL6 114.3 374.3
IN4-W 126.9 451.5 IN3-W+GL7 112.0 369.6
IN1-F 144.8 350.8 IN4-W+GL1 116.5 439.9
IN2-F 144.7 351.3 IN4-W+GL2 116.2 439.9
IN3-F 144.6 350.3 IN4-W+GL3 112.2 431.2
IN4-F 144.5 351.0 IN4-W+GL4 111.4 430.6
IN1-R 144.3 346.0 IN4-W+GL5 111.0 431.2
IN2-R 144.0 345.6 IN4-W+GL6 112.0 435.3
IN3-R 143.7 345.6 IN4-W+GL7 109.4 430.1
IN4-R 143.4 346.7 IN1-E+GL1 123.0 375.2
IN1-E 132.7 385.4 IN1-E+GL2 122.4 374.8
IN2-E 129.9 386.8 IN1-E+GL3 119.2 367.8
IN3-E 127.2 394.6 IN1-E+GL4 118.0 366.7
IN4-E 125.0 458.5 IN1-E+GL5 117.4 367.0
GL1 137.1 338.8 IN1-E+GL6 118.0 370.0
GL2 136.4 338.2 IN1-E+GL7 116.0 365.9
GL3 134.3 333.4 IN2-E+GL1 119.7 376.0
GL4 133.1 331.9 IN2-E+GL2 119.3 375.8
GL5 132.3 331.8 IN2-E+GL3 115.7 368.0
GL6 132.3 333.7 IN2-E+GL4 114.8 367.0
GL7 131.0 331.2 IN2-E+GL5 114.2 367.5
IN1-W+GL1 124.5 370.9 IN2-E+GL6 115.0 371.0
IN1-W+GL2 124.0 370.6 IN2-E+GL7 112.7 366.4
IN1-W+GL3 121.1 364.0 IN3-E+GL1 116.9 383.1
IN1-W+GL4 120.0 362.8 IN3-E+GL2 116.5 383.1
IN1-W+GL5 119.3 363.0 IN3-E+GL3 112.5 374.3
IN1-W+GL6 119.8 365.8 IN3-E+GL4 111.6 373.7
IN1-W+GL7 117.9 362.1 IN3-E+GL5 111.2 374.3
IN2-W+GL1 121.7 371.3 IN3-E+GL6 112.3 378.4
IN2-W+GL2 121.2 371.1 IN3-E+GL7 109.7 373.2
IN2-W+GL3 117.9 363.8 IN4-E+GL1 114.4 446.3
IN2-W+GL4 116.9 362.8 IN4-E+GL2 114.1 446.5
IN2-W+GL5 116.4 363.2 IN4-E+GL3 109.7 436.9
IN2-W+GL6 117.0 370.8 IN4-E+GL4 109.0 436.5
IN2-W+GL7 114.9 362.1 IN4-E+GL5 108.7 437.4
IN3-W+GL1 119.0 379.2 IN4-E+GL6 110.0 442.1
IN3-W+GL2 118.5 379.1 IN4-E+GL7 107.1 436.1
153
Table A.2 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI and AC retrofits in Istanbul.
Primary Global Primary Global Primary Global
Energy Cost Energy Cost Energy Cost
Scenario (kWh/m²y) (TL/m²) Scenario (kWh/m²y) (TL/m²) Scenario (kWh/m²y) (TL/m²)
BOI 139.1 346.4 AC 133.2 403.5 BOI+AC 127.0 403.6
GL5+BOI 126.5 332.5 GL5+AC 123.7 396.6 GL5+BOI+AC 117.8 397.4
IN2-W+BOI 127.9 386.1 IN2-W+AC 118.2 436.4 IN2-W+BOI+AC 114.6 440.7
IN2-E+BOI 126.7 391.7 IN2-E+AC 116.2 440.7 IN2-E+BOI+AC 113.1 445.6
IN2-W+GL7+BOI 111.9 367.3 IN2-W+GL7+AC 105.9 426.1 IN2-W+GL7+BOI+AC 102.9 431.3
IN2-E+GL7+BOI 110.3 372.3 IN2-E+GL7+AC 103.7 429.9 IN2-E+GL7+BOI+AC 101.1 435.7
154
Table A.3 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, AC and SHD retrofits in Istanbul.
Primary Global Primary

Global Cost
Scenario Energy Cost Scenario Energy
(TL/m²)
(kWh/m²y) (TL/m²) (kWh/m²y)
SHD1 140.9 357.2 SHD2 134.2 422.7

GL5+BOI+AC+SHD2 116.3 494.0 GL5+BOI+SHD2 124.2 427.5
IN2-W+GL7+BOI+AC+SHD2 101.7 528.5 IN2-W+GL7+BOI+SHD2 110.0 463.0
IN2-E+GL7+BOI+AC+SHD2 99.8 532.8 IN2-E+GL7+BOI+SHD2 108.3 467.7
155
Table A.4 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, AC and LED retrofits in Istanbul.

Global Cost
Scenario Energy Cost Scenario Energy
(TL/m²)
(kWh/m²y) (TL/m²) (kWh/m²y)
LED 133.4 332.2

GL5+BOI+AC+LED 106.4 384.6 GL5+BOI+LED 114.2 318.1
IN2-W+GL7+BOI+AC+LED 90.7 417.3 IN2-W+GL7+BOI+LED 98.8 351.2
IN2-E+GL7+BOI+AC+LED 88.9 421.5 IN2-E+GL7+BOI+LED 97.1 355.9
156
Table A.5 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, AC and CHW retrofits in
Istanbul.

GL5+ GL5+BOI+
101.3 273.6 92.6 338.4
BOI+CHW AC+CHW
GL6+ GL6+BOI+
101.6 276.0 92.3 339.4
BOI+CHW AC+CHW
GL7+ GL7+BOI+
100.1 273.0 91.7 338.5
BOI+CHW AC+CHW
IN2-W+GL7+ IN2-W+GL7+
86.6 308.1 77.6 372.1
BOI+CHW BOI+AC+CHW
86.0 316.7 76.6 379.8
BOI+CHW BOI+AC+CHW
85.7 317.4 76.0 380.1
BOI+CHW BOI+AC+CHW
84.2 316.4 75.0 379.8
BOI+CHW BOI+AC+CHW
83.9 377.8 74.1 440.2
BOI+CHW BOI+AC+CHW
83.7 378.7 73.7 440.6
BOI+CHW BOI+AC+CHW
82.2 377.7 72.6 440.3
BOI+CHW BOI+AC+CHW
IN2-E+GL7+ IN2-E+GL7+
85.0 313.1 75.8 376.5
BOI+CHW BOI+AC+CHW
84.2 320.9 74.5 383.2
BOI+CHW BOI+AC+CHW
84.0 321.8 74.0 383.6
BOI+CHW BOI+AC+CHW
82.5 320.7 72.9 383.3
BOI+CHW BOI+AC+CHW
82.2 384.8 71.9 446.0
BOI+CHW BOI+AC+CHW
82.0 385.9 71.5 446.5
BOI+CHW BOI+AC+CHW
80.5 384.7 70.3 446.1
BOI+CHW BOI+AC+CHW
157
Istanbul.

GL5+BOI+ GL5+BOI+
89.0 259.1 81.2 325.6
CHW+LED AC+CHW+LED
GL6+BOI+ GL6+BOI+
89.2 261.3 80.7 326.4
CHW+LED AC+CHW+LED
GL7+BOI+ GL7+BOI+
87.8 258.5 80.2 325.6
CHW+LED AC+CHW+LED
IN2-W+GL7+ IN2-W+GL7+BOI+
73.5 291.9 65.4 358.0
BOI+CHW+LED AC+CHW+LED
72.7 300.2 64.3 365.5
72.3 300.8 63.7 365.7
70.9 299.7 62.6 365.3
70.4 360.9 61.7 425.5
70.1 361.6 61.2 425.8
68.5 360.4 60.0 425.3
IN2-E+GL7+ IN2-E+GL7+BOI+
71.8 296.6 63.6 362.2
70.8 304.1 62.1 368.7
70.4 304.7 61.5 368.9
68.9 303.5 60.3 368.4
68.3 367.2 59.2 430.9
68.1 368.2 58.7 431.3
66.5 366.8 57.5 430.8
158
Table A.7 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, AC, CHW, LED and SP
retrofits in Istanbul.

GL5+BOI+ GL5+BOI+AC+
79.6 263.9 71.8 330.6
CHW+LED+SP CHW+LED+SP
79.8 266.0 71.4 331.3
78.4 263.2 70.9 330.6
IN2-W+GL7+BOI+ IN2-W+GL7+BOI+
64.1 296.8 56.2 363.1
CHW+LED+SP AC+CHW+LED+SP
63.4 305.2 55.0 370.6
63.0 305.8 54.5 370.8
61.5 304.7 53.3 370.5
61.0 365.8 52.4 430.7
60.7 366.6 51.9 431.0
59.2 365.4 50.7 430.5
IN2-E+GL7+BOI+ IN2-E+GL7+BOI+
62.5 301.8 54.3 367.5
61.6 309.3 52.9 374.0
61.2 310.0 52.3 374.2
59.7 308.8 51.2 373.8
59.2 372.6 50.0 436.2
58.9 373.6 49.5 436.7
57.4 372.2 48.4 436.2
159
Table A.8 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, CHW, LED, SP and PV
retrofits in Istanbul.

PV 137.2 341.1
GL5+BOI+ GL5+BOI+
81.1 253.8 71.6 260.2
CHW+LED+PV CHW+LED+SP+PV
GL6+BOI+ GL6+BOI+
81.2 256.0 71.8 262.3
GL7+BOI+ GL7+BOI+
79.8 253.2 70.4 259.5
65.5 286.6 56.2 293.2
64.8 294.9 55.4 301.5
64.4 295.5 55.0 302.1
62.9 294.4 53.6 301.0
62.5 355.6 53.1 362.2
62.1 356.3 52.8 362.9
60.6 355.1 51.2 361.7
63.9 291.3 54.6 298.1
62.8 298.8 53.6 305.6
62.5 299.4 53.3 306.3
60.9 298.2 51.7 305.1
60.4 361.9 51.2 368.9
60.2 362.9 51.0 369.9
58.6 361.6 49.4 368.6
160
Table A.9 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, AC, CHW, LED and RF retrofits in Istanbul.

Energy Cost Energy Cost
Scenario (kWh/m²y) (TL/m²) Scenario (kWh/m²y) (TL/m²)
GL5+BOI+AC+LED+RF 98.1 444.1 GL5+BOI+AC+CHW+LED+RF 68.2 370.4
IN2-W+GL7+BOI+AC+LED+RF 86.4 476.3 IN2-W+GL7+BOI+AC+CHW+LED+RF 57.0 410.4
IN2-E+GL7+BOI+AC+LED+RF 85.0 481.2 IN2-E+GL7+BOI+AC+CHW+LED+RF 55.6 415.2
161
Table A.10 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, AC, CHW, LED, RF and SP retrofits in Istanbul.

Global Cost
Energy Cost Energy
(TL/m²)
Scenario (kWh/m²y) (TL/m²) Scenario (kWh/m²y)
GL5+BOI+AC+CHW+LED+RF+SP 52.2 371.2 GL5+BOI+CHW+LED+RF+SP 60.1 304.9
IN2-W+GL7+BOI+AC+CHW+LED+RF+SP 44.9 417.3 IN2-W+GL7+BOI+CHW+LED+RF+SP 53.1 351.5
IN2-E+GL7+BOI+AC+CHW+LED+RF+SP 44.0 423.1 IN2-E+GL7+BOI+CHW+LED+RF+SP 52.3 357.5
162
Table A.11 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, VRV, CHW, LED and SP retrofits in Istanbul.

GL5+BOI+VRV+CHW+LED 76.8 304.3 GL5+BOI+VRV+CHW+LED+SP 67.5 310.9
IN2-W+GL7+BOI+VRV+CHW+LED 60.8 336.3 IN2-W+GL7+BOI+VRV+CHW+LED+SP 51.6 343.1
IN2-E+GL7+BOI+VRV+CHW+LED 58.8 340.2 IN2-E+GL7+BOI+VRV+CHW+LED+SP 49.6 347.1
163
Table A.12 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, VRV, CHW, LED, RF, SP and PV retrofits in Istanbul.

GL5+BOI+VRV+CHW+LED+RF+SP 47.7 351.4 GL5+BOI+VRV+CHW+LED+RF+SP+PV 39.8 346.1
IN2-W+GL7+BOI+VRV+CHW+LED+RF+SP 40.3 397.0 IN2-W+GL7+BOI+VRV+CHW+LED+RF+SP+PV 32.3 391.8
IN2-E+GL7+BOI+VRV+CHW+LED+RF+SP 39.3 402.6 IN2-E+GL7+BOI+VRV+CHW+LED+RF+SP+PV 31.3 397.3
164
APPENDIX B: Primary energy consumption and global cost results for the RB
retrofit scenarios in Antalya
Table B.1 : Results of envelope retrofit scenarios in Antalya.

BASE 160.9 401.0 IN3-W+GL2 136.6 423.7
IN1-W 153.6 435.6 IN3-W+GL3 128.5 406.5
IN2-W 152.4 436.8 IN3-W+GL4 128.4 406.9
IN3-W 151.1 445.0 IN3-W+GL5 128.7 408.5
IN4-W 150.5 501.1 IN3-W+GL6 131.9 416.6
F-INS1 160.2 402.7 IN3-W+GL7 126.6 405.9
F-INS2 160.0 402.8 IN4-W+GL1 135.3 477.9
F-INS3 159.8 401.7 IN4-W+GL2 135.7 479.1
F-INS4 159.6 402.1 IN4-W+GL3 126.9 460.7
R-INS1 160.1 398.9 E-INS1+GL1 138.3 418.4
R-INS2 159.9 398.7 E-INS1+GL2 138.4 419.1
R-INS3 159.6 398.4 E-INS1+GL3 131.2 403.7
R-INS4 159.4 399.5 E-INS1+GL4 130.9 403.6
E-INS1 152.4 439.3 E-INS1+GL5 130.9 404.9
IN2-E 151.0 440.5 E-INS1+GL6 133.6 411.9
IN3-E 149.5 448.3 E-INS1+GL7 129.0 402.5
IN4-E 149.1 506.8 IN2-E+GL1 136.4 418.6
GL1 148.0 380.7 IN2-E+GL2 136.6 419.5
GL2 147.9 381.0 IN2-E+GL3 128.9 403.1
GL3 142.0 368.1 IN2-E+GL4 128.7 403.3
GL4 141.5 367.7 IN2-E+GL5 128.8 404.7
GL5 141.4 368.7 IN2-E+GL6 131.8 412.3
GL6 143.5 374.8 IN2-E+GL7 126.8 402.2
GL7 139.8 367.1 IN4-W+GL6 131.0 472.1
IN1-W+GL1 139.7 415.1 IN4-W+GL7 125.3 460.6
IN1-W+GL2 139.8 415.8 IN3-E+GL1 134.3 425.1
IN1-W+GL3 132.8 400.8 IN3-E+GL2 134.7 426.2
IN1-W+GL4 132.5 400.7 IN3-E+GL3 126.0 408.1
IN1-W+GL5 132.5 401.9 IN3-E+GL4 126.1 408.6
IN1-W+GL6 135.0 408.7 IN3-E+GL5 126.4 410.5
IN1-W+GL7 130.6 399.6 IN3-E+GL6 129.9 419.2
IN2-W+GL1 138.1 415.5 IN3-E+GL7 124.3 407.8
IN2-W+GL2 138.3 416.3 IN4-E+GL1 133.4 482.5
IN2-W+GL3 130.9 400.5 IN4-E+GL2 133.9 484.0
IN2-W+GL4 130.6 400.5 IN4-E+GL3 124.4 464.2
IN2-W+GL5 130.7 401.9 IN4-E+GL4 124.7 465.2
IN2-W+GL6 133.5 409.2 IN4-E+GL5 125.3 467.5
IN2-W+GL7 128.8 399.5 IN4-E+GL6 129.4 477.2
IN3-W+GL1 136.4 422.7 IN4-E+GL7 123.2 464.7
165
Table B.2 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL and BOI or AC retrofits in
Antalya.

BOI 159.6 407.3 AC 129.8 419.1
GL3+BOI 140.5 375.9 GL3+AC 117.8 403.2
GL4+BOI 140.1 375.6 GL4+AC 117.3 402.7
GL5+BOI 140.1 376.7 GL5+AC 117.0 403.4
GL6+BOI 142.2 382.7 GL6+AC 118.0 406.9
GL7+BOI 138.3 374.8 GL7+AC 115.9 402.7
IN2-W+BOI 151.9 446.1 IN2-W+AC 122.4 459.2
IN3-W+BOI 150.9 454.7 IN3-W+AC 121.2 467.5
IN4-W+BOI 150.3 510.9 IN4-W+AC 120.5 523.5
IN2-E+BOI 150.6 450.1 IN2-E+AC 121.2 463.4
IN3-E+BOI 149.4 458.2 IN3-E+AC 119.8 471.2
IN4-E+BOI 149.1 511.7 IN4-E+AC 119.3 529.5
IN2-W+GL7+BOI 128.3 403.8 IN2-W+GL7+AC 106.7 439.2
IN2-E+GL7+BOI 126.5 406.7 IN2-E+GL7+AC 105.1 442.6
166
Table B.3 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI and AC retrofits in Antalya.
Primary
Global Cost
Scenario Energy
(TL/m²)
(kWh/m²y)
BOI+AC 128.6 427.3
GL3+BOI+AC 116.3 411.0
GL4+BOI+AC 115.9 410.6
GL5+BOI+AC 115.7 411.4
GL6+BOI+AC 116.9 415.2
GL7+BOI+AC 114.6 410.8
IN2-W+BOI+AC 122.0 468.6
IN3-W+BOI+AC 120.9 477.1
IN4-W+BOI+AC 120.4 533.3
IN2-E+BOI+AC 120.9 472.9
IN3-E+BOI+AC 119.6 481.1
IN4-E+BOI+AC 119.2 534.4
IN2-W+GL7+BOI+AC 106.3 443.5
IN3-W+GL3+BOI+AC 106.0 450.5
IN3-W+GL4+BOI+AC 105.8 450.6
IN3-W+GL5+BOI+AC 105.9 451.9
IN3-W+GL7+BOI+AC 104.6 450.9
IN4-W+GL7+BOI+AC 103.6 506.0
IN2-E+GL7+BOI+AC 104.8 447.1
IN3-E+GL3+BOI+AC 104.1 453.2
IN3-E+GL4+BOI+AC 104.0 453.5
IN3-E+GL5+BOI+AC 104.2 454.9
IN3-E+GL7+BOI+AC 102.8 453.8
IN4-E+GL7+BOI+AC 101.9 511.2
167
Table B.4 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, AC and LED retrofits in Antalya.

GL3+LED 128.0 352.3 GL3+AC+LED 104.9 387.9
GL4+LED 127.4 351.8 GL4+AC+LED 104.4 387.2
GL5+LED 127.3 352.6 GL5+AC+LED 104.1 387.8
GL6+LED 129.1 358.0 GL6+AC+LED 104.9 391.1
GL7+LED 125.5 350.6 GL7+AC+LED 102.9 387.1
IN2-W+GL7+LED 113.7 381.6 IN2-W+GL7+AC+LED 92.9 422.2
IN2-E+GL7+LED 111.5 383.9 IN2-E+GL7+AC+LED 91.1 425.3
Table B.5 : Results of scenarios including GL, CHW, LED and SHD retrofits in
Antalya.
Primary
Global Cost
Energy
(TL/m²)
Scenario (kWh/m²y)
SHD1 151.4 399.7
SHD2 141.9 457.6
GL3+CHW+LED+SHD2 104.5 397.3
GL4+CHW+LED+SHD2 104.2 397.3
GL5+CHW+LED+SHD2 104.0 398.0
GL6+CHW+LED+SHD2 104.5 400.5
GL7+CHW+LED+SHD2 103.2 398.0
168
Table B.6 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, AC, CHW and LED retrofits in Antalya.
GL3+AC+CHW 99.2 359.2 GL3+AC+CHW+LED 86.4 343.8 GL3+CHW+LED 109.4 308.2
IN2-W+GL7+AC+CHW 88.1 395.0 IN2-W+GL7+AC+CHW+LED 74.3 377.9 IN2-W+GL7+CHW+LED 95.0 337.3
IN2-E+GL7+AC+CHW 86.5 398.5 IN2-E+GL7+AC+CHW+LED 72.5 381.1 IN2-E+GL7+CHW+LED 92.9 339.7
169
Table B.7 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, AC, CHW, LED and SP retrofits in Antalya.

GL3+CHW+LED+SP 99.9 314.6 GL3+AC+CHW+LED+SP 77.0 350.4
IN2-W+GL7+CHW+LED+SP 85.6 343.7 IN2-W+GL7+AC+CHW+LED+SP 65.0 384.7
IN4-W+GL7+CHW+LED+SP 81.1 402.9
IN2-E+GL7+CHW+LED+SP 83.6 346.5 IN2-E+GL7+AC+CHW+LED+SP 63.3 388.0
IN4-E+GL7+CHW+LED+SP 78.8 406.8
170
Table B.8 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, AC, LED, SHD2 and SP retrofits in Antalya.
GL3+AC+SHD2 114.8 496.5 GL3+AC+CHW+LED+SHD2 83.1 436.4 GL3+AC+CHW+LED+SHD2+SP 73.7 443.1
IN2-W+GL7+AC+SHD2 IN2-W+GL7+AC+ IN2-W+GL7+AC+
104.3 533.8 CHW+LED+SHD2 71.7 471.9 CHW+LED+SHD2+SP 62.3 478.6
IN3-W+GL3+AC+ IN3-W+GL3+AC+
IN3-W+GL3+AC+SHD2
IN3-W+GL4+AC+SHD2
IN3-W+GL5+AC+SHD2
IN3-W+GL7+AC+SHD2
IN4-W+GL7+AC+SHD2
IN2-E+GL7+AC+ IN2-E+GL7+AC+
IN2-E+GL7+AC+SHD2
IN3-E+GL3+AC+SHD2
IN3-E+GL4+AC+SHD2
IN3-E+GL5+AC+SHD2
IN3-E+GL7+AC+SHD2
IN4-E+GL7+AC+SHD2
171
Antalya.

PV 150.3 387.4
GL3+CHW+ GL3+CHW+
LED+PV 98.9 297.2 LED+SP+PV 89.4 303.6
GL4+CHW+ GL4+CHW+
LED+PV 98.3 296.7 LED+SP+PV 88.9 303.1
GL5+CHW+ GL5+CHW+
LED+PV 98.1 297.5 LED+SP+PV 88.7 303.9
GL6+CHW+ GL6+CHW+
LED+PV 100.0 302.9 LED+SP+PV 90.4 309.3
GL7+CHW+ GL7+CHW+
LED+PV 96.4 295.5 LED+SP+PV 86.9 301.9
CHW+LED+PV 84.5 326.4 CHW+LED+SP+PV 75.0 332.8
172
Antalya.
GL3+AC+CHW+ IN2-W+GL7+AC+CHW+
66.5 339.5 51.7 467.6
LED+SP+PV LED+SHD2+SP+PV
65.9 338.8 50.3 472.2
65.6 339.4 50.1 472.3
66.4 342.7 50.0 473.2
64.4 338.7 49.4 473.6
IN2-W+GL7+AC+ IN4-W+GL7+AC+CHW+
54.4 373.7 47.7 527.6
CHW+LED+SP+PV LED+SHD2+SP+PV
IN3-W+GL3+AC+ IN2-E+GL7+AC+CHW+
54.7 381.5 50.0 470.8
53.6 380.1 48.1 474.4
53.5 381.1 47.9 474.6
52.1 379.9 47.9 475.6
IN2-E+GL7+AC+ IN3-E+GL7+AC+CHW+
52.7 377.1 47.2 476.0
IN3-E+GL3+AC+ IN4-E+GL7+AC+CHW+
51.8 382.8 45.5 531.8
IN3-E+GL4+AC+
51.5 382.7
CHW+LED+SP+PV
IN3-E+GL5+AC+
51.5 383.8
CHW+LED+SP+PV
IN3-E+GL7+AC+
50.1 382.6
CHW+LED+SP+PV
173
Table B.11 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, VRV, CHW, LED and SP retrofits in Antalya.
GL3+VRV+CHW+LED 74.2 313.8 GL3+VRV+CHW+LED+SP 65.0 320.6
IN2-W+GL7+VRV+CHW+LED 63.4 350.7 IN2-W+GL7+VRV+CHW+LED+SP 54.2 357.6
IN2-E+GL7+VRV+CHW+LED 61.9 354.4 IN2-E+GL7+VRV+CHW+LED+SP 52.7 361.4
174
Table B.12 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, VRV, CHW, LED SP and PV retrofits in Antalya.
GL3+VRV+CHW+LED+PV 63.7 302.8 GL3+VRV+CHW+LED+SP+PV 54.4 309.7
IN2-W+GL7+VRV+CHW+LED+PV 52.9 339.7 IN2-W+GL7+VRV+CHW+LED+SP+PV 43.6 346.6
IN2-E+GL7+VRV+CHW+LED+PV 51.4 343.5 IN2-E+GL7+VRV+CHW+LED+SP+PV 42.2 350.5
IN4-W+GL7+VRV+CHW+
LED+SP+SHD2+PV 38.2 503.3
IN4-E+GL7+VRV+CHW+
LED+SP+SHD2+PV 36.2 508.1
175
176
APPENDIX C: Primary energy consumption and global cost results for the RB
retrofit scenarios in Erzurum
Table C.1 : Results of envelope retrofit scenarios in Erzurum.

BASE 216.3 437.4 IN3-W+GL3 153.5 469.2
IN1-W 173.5 437.0 IN3-W+GL4 150.2 465.0
IN2-W 168.8 440.3 IN3-W+GL5 147.9 462.9
IN3-W 163.9 479.4 IN3-W+GL6 145.7 461.8
IN4-W 160.3 511.8 IN3-W+GL7 145.9 461.4
IN1-F 213.2 437.7 IN4-W+GL1 150.7 503.7
IN2-F 212.8 437.4 IN4-W+GL2 148.7 501.5
IN3-F 212.5 437.3 IN4-W+GL3 149.4 500.7
IN4-F 212.2 437.7 IN4-W+GL4 146.1 496.6
IN1-R 213.0 434.2 IN4-W+GL5 143.9 494.6
IN2-R 212.6 434.7 IN4-W+GL6 141.6 493.4
IN3-R 212.3 434.7 IN4-W+GL7 141.9 493.1
IN4-R 212.0 434.9 IN1-E+GL1 158.3 427.5
IN1-E 167.6 435.0 IN1-E+GL2 156.3 425.1
IN2-E 162.2 438.8 IN1-E+GL3 157.4 425.3
IN3-E 156.9 478.2 IN1-E+GL4 154.1 421.0
IN4-E 152.8 511.6 IN1-E+GL5 151.8 418.8
GL1 209.3 434.3 IN1-E+GL6 149.2 417.0
GL2 207.1 431.5 IN1-E+GL7 149.8 417.3
GL3 209.8 434.9 IN2-E+GL1 152.6 430.7
GL4 206.3 430.3 IN2-E+GL2 150.7 428.4
GL5 203.9 427.7 IN2-E+GL3 151.4 427.9
GL6 200.5 424.3 IN2-E+GL4 148.2 423.8
GL7 202.1 426.7 IN2-E+GL5 145.9 421.7
IN1-W+GL1 164.7 430.4 IN2-E+GL6 143.5 420.3
IN1-W+GL2 162.7 427.9 IN2-E+GL7 143.8 420.1
IN1-W+GL3 164.1 428.8 IN3-E+GL1 146.9 469.4
IN1-W+GL4 160.8 424.4 IN3-E+GL2 145.0 467.3
IN1-W+GL5 158.4 422.1 IN3-E+GL3 145.4 465.9
IN1-W+GL6 155.6 419.9 IN3-E+GL4 142.2 461.9
IN1-W+GL7 156.4 420.7 IN3-E+GL5 140.0 460.0
IN2-W+GL1 159.8 433.2 IN3-E+GL6 137.8 459.1
IN2-W+GL2 157.7 430.7 IN3-E+GL7 137.9 458.4
IN2-W+GL3 158.9 431.2 IN4-E+GL1 142.5 502.2
IN2-W+GL4 155.6 426.8 IN4-E+GL2 140.7 500.2
IN2-W+GL5 153.3 424.6 IN4-E+GL3 140.7 498.2
IN2-W+GL6 150.7 422.7 IN4-E+GL4 137.6 494.4
IN2-W+GL7 151.3 423.2 IN4-E+GL5 135.5 492.6
IN3-W+GL1 154.6 471.7 IN4-E+GL6 133.5 492.2
IN3-W+GL2 152.6 469.4 IN4-E+GL7 133.3 490.9
177
Table C.2 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI or AC retrofits in Erzurum.
BOI 197.1 423.0 AC 212.2 510.6

GL6+BOI 183.1 412.5
GL7+BOI 184.3 414.3
IN1-W+BOI 161.5 427.8 IN1+AC 168.1 507.1
IN2-W+BOI 157.6 433.7 IN2-W+AC 163.1 509.9
IN3-W+BOI 153.7 474.1 IN3-W+AC 157.9 548.3
IN4-W+BOI 150.7 507.6 IN4-W+AC 154.0 580.1
IN1-E+BOI 156.6 428.8 IN1-E+AC 161.7 504.2
IN2-E+BOI 152.3 434.1 IN2-E+AC 156.0 507.2
IN3-E+BOI 147.9 474.9 IN3-E+AC 150.2 545.7
IN4-E+BOI 144.7 509.5 IN4-E+AC 145.7 578.2
178
Table C.3 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI and AC retrofits in Erzurum.
Primary
Global Cost
Energy
(TL/m²)
(kWh/m²y)
BOI+AC 193.2 496.5
GL6+BOI+AC 180.5 488.8
GL7+BOI+AC 182.2 491.7
IN1-W+BOI+AC 156.1 499.3
IN2-W+BOI+AC 151.9 503.3
IN3-W+BOI+AC 147.6 543.0
IN4-W+BOI+AC 144.4 575.8
IN1-E+BOI+AC 150.7 497.9
IN2-E+BOI+AC 146.0 502.4
IN3-E+BOI+AC 141.2 542.4
IN4-E+BOI+AC 137.6 576.1
IN1-W+GL6+BOI+AC 141.8 488.9
IN2-W+GL6+BOI+AC 137.5 492.5
IN2-W+GL7+BOI+AC 138.5 494.0
IN3-W+GL5+BOI+AC 135.4 533.8
IN3-W+GL6+BOI+AC 133.0 531.9
IN3-W+GL7+BOI+AC 133.8 533.1
IN4-W+GL5+BOI+AC 131.9 566.1
IN4-W+GL6+BOI+AC 129.6 564.4
IN4-W+GL7+BOI+AC 130.2 565.3
IN1-E+GL6+BOI+AC 136.2 486.9
IN2-E+GL6+BOI+AC 131.1 490.9
IN2-E+GL7+BOI+AC 131.9 492.0
IN3-E+GL5+BOI+AC 128.3 531.9
IN3-E+GL6+BOI+AC 126.1 530.4
IN3-E+GL7+BOI+AC 126.7 531.1
IN4-E+GL5+BOI+AC 124.3 565.0
IN4-E+GL6+BOI+AC 122.3 563.8
IN4-E+GL7+BOI+AC 122.6 564.1
179
Table C.4 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, CHW or LED retrofits in
Erzurum.
GL6+BOI+CHW 152.1 337.5
GL7+BOI+CHW 153.2 336.5
IN1-W+GL6+BOI+CHW 114.3 339.6 IN1-W+GL6+BOI+LED 134.1 401.5
IN1-E+GL6+BOI+CHW 109.0 338.5 IN1-E+GL6+BOI+LED 128.7 399.9
IN4-E+GL5+BOI+CHW 97.5 417.3
IN4-E+GL7+BOI+CHW 95.6 415.9
180
Table C.5 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, CHW, LED and SP retrofits in Erzurum.
GL6+BOI+CHW+LED 141.3 321.4 GL6+BOI+CHW+LED+SP 129.4 327.1
GL7+BOI+CHW+LED 142.6 323.4 GL7+BOI+CHW+LED+SP 130.7 329.2
IN1-W+GL6+BOI+CHW+LED 102.9 326.1 IN1-W+GL6+BOI+CHW+LED+SP 91.1 328.1
IN1-W+GL7+BOI+CHW+LED 103.4 326.5
IN1-E+GL6+BOI+CHW+LED 97.4 324.6 IN1-E+GL6+BOI+CHW+LED+SP 85.5 326.5
IN1-E+GL7+BOI+CHW+LED 97.8 324.6
181
Table C.6 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, CHW, LED, SP and PV retrofits in Erzurum.
PV 207.1 416.3
GL6+BOI+CHW+LED+PV 132.1 313.4 GL6+BOI+CHW+LED+SP+PV 120.2 319.1
GL7+BOI+CHW+LED+PV 133.4 315.5 GL7+BOI+CHW+LED+SP+PV 121.6 321.3
IN1-W+GL6+BOI+CHW+LED+PV 93.7 318.2 IN1-W+GL6+BOI+CHW+LED+SP+PV 81.9 320.2
IN1-W+GL7+BOI+CHW+LED+PV 94.3 318.6
IN1-E+GL6+BOI+CHW+LED+PV 88.3 316.7 IN1-E+GL6+BOI+CHW+LED+SP+PV 76.3 318.5
IN1-E+GL7+BOI+CHW+LED+PV 88.6 316.6
182
retrofits in Erzurum.
Primary
Global Cost
Energy
(TL/m²)
(kWh/m²y)
IN1-W+GL6+BOI+CHW+LED+RF+SP+PV 61.2 354.0
IN1-E+GL6+BOI+CHW+LED+RF+SP+PV 57.2 354.7
183
Table C.8 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, CHW, LED, RF and SP retrofits in Erzurum.
IN1-W+GL6+BOI+CHW+LED+RF 82.2 359.6 IN1-W+GL6+BOI+CHW+LED+RF+SP 70.3 362.0
IN1-W+GL7+BOI+CHW+LED+RF 81.6 358.2
IN1-E+GL6+BOI+CHW+LED+RF 78.3 360.3 IN1-E+GL6+BOI+CHW+LED+RF+SP 66.4 362.7
IN1-E+GL7+BOI+CHW+LED+RF 77.5 358.6
184
Table C.9 : Results of scenarios including IN, GL, BOI, CHW, LED, RF, SP and PV retrofits in Erzurum.

IN1-E+GL6+BOI+CHW+LED+RF+SP+AC 62.9 437.0 IN1-E+GL6+BOI+CHW+LED+RF+SP+SHD2 64.4 458.0

185
186
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name Surname : Neşe GANİÇ SAĞLAM
Place and Date of Birth : Istanbul, 07.03.1989
E-Mail : [email protected]
EDUCATION
 B.Sc. : 2010, Istanbul Technical University, Architecture

 M.Sc. : 2012, Istanbul Technical University, Enironmental
Control and Construction Sciences
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND REWARDS:
 Research Assistant: December 2011 – continues in 2017, Istanbul Technical

University, Faculty of Architecture.
 Guest Researcher: September 2011 – January 2012 and February 2016 -
February 2017, Politecnico di Torino, Italy.
 Project: 2016-2017, Guidance for National Sustainable Green Building and
Green Settlement Certification, İTÜ- Turkish Ministry of Environment and
Urbanization.
 Project: August 2014 – August 2016, Determination of Reference Buildings for
Cost-Optimal Energy Efficiency Level and Investigation of Nearly-Zero Energy
Level for Buildings. ITU Scientific Research Projects Unit, Support for PhD
Thesis.
 Project: October 2013 – October 2013, Determination of Reference Buildings
and Methodology for Cost Optimal Energy Efficiency Level in Turkey,
(Researcher) TUBITAK, 2013-2015. TUBITAK 1001 The Support Program for
Scientific and Technological Research Projects, Project Manager: A. Zerrin
Yılmaz.
 Voluntary contribution: Constitution of Energy Performance Credits for
Turkish National Green Building Certification System, with ÇEDBİK (Turkish
Green Building Council).
187
 Grant: May 2016- February 2017, TUBITAK 2214-A Research Scholarship for
PhD Students
 Grant: September 2011 – January 2012, Erasmus Grant.
 Prize: ITU Faculty of Architecture, Graduation Degree – 3Rd Prize, 2010.
PUBLICATIONS, PRESENTATIONS AND PATENTS ON THE THESIS:

 Ganiç Sağlam, N., Yılmaz, A. Z., Becchio, C., Corgnati, S.P. 2017. A
comprehensive cost-optimal approach for energy retrofit of existing multi-family
buildings: Application to apartment blocks in Turkey, Energy and Buildings, vol
150 (2017) 224-238.
DOI:10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.06.026
WOS: 000407183800019
 Ganiç Sağlam, N., Yılmaz, A. Z. 2015. Progress towards EPBD Recast Targets in
Turkey: Application of cost optimality calculations to a residential building,
Energy Procedia vol 78 (2015) 973-978. (Published from the paper in 6th
International Building Physics Conference, IBPC 2015)
DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.036
WOS: 000370934401006
 Ganiç Sağlam, N., Yılmaz, A. Z., Corgnati, S.P. 2017. Soğuk İklim Bölgesindeki
Konut Binalarının Maliyet Optimum Enerji Verimliliği Seviyeleri için Duyarlılık
Analizleri. Tesisat Mühendisliği, ISSN 130-3399, May-June 2017, vol. 159, p.73-
83 [in Turkish]. (The study was presented in a national congress called 13. Ulusal
Tesisat Mühendisliği Kongresi and then selected to be published in this national
journal.)
 Ganiç Sağlam, N., Yılmaz, A. Z., Corgnati, S.P. 2017. İstanbul’da Bulunan
Referans Konut Binası için Maliyet Optimum Enerji Verimliliği Analizleri [in
Turkish]. IV Enerji Verimliliği Kongresi, October 2017, Kocaeli.
 Ganiç Sağlam, N., Yılmaz, A. Z. 2015. Avrupa Birliği Direktifi Doğrultusunda
Binalarda Yaklaşık Sıfır Enerji Düzeyinin Akdeniz Ülkesi olan Türkiye’de Konut
Binaları için Belirlenmesine Yönelik Uygulama Örneği [in Turkish]. 12. Ulusal
Tesisat Mühendisliği Kongresi, April 2015, İzmir.
OTHER PUBLICATIONS, PRESENTATIONS AND PATENTS:

 Ganiç, N., Yılmaz, 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, vol. 123 (2014), p. 94-107.
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.02.045
WOS: 000336017400011
 Ganiç, N., Yılmaz, A. Z. 2015. Energy Effıcıent Renovatıon Approach in Turkey:
Targets, Barrıersand Practice. The Rehva European HVAC Journal, vol. 52 (2015),
issue: 6, p. 50-53.
 Ganiç Sağlam, N., Yılmaz, A. Z., Gali, G., Ashrafian Bonab., T., Akgüç, A. 2016.
Reference Building Establishment Procedure for the Residential Buildings in
Turkey, CLIMA 2016: 12th REHVA World Congress, 22-25 May 2016, Aalborg,
Denmark.
188
 Becchio, C., Corgnati, S.P., Fabrizio, E., Ganiç, N., Monetti, M., Yılmaz, A. Z.
2014. Application of the cost optimal methodology to two European case studies:
an Italian and a Turkish retrofitted existing office building. 49th AiCARR
International Conference, p. 427-441, February 26-28, 2014, Rome, Italy.
 Ganiç, N., Corgnati, S.P., Yılmaz, Z., 2013. Calculation of Cost Optimal Levels
of Minimum Energy Performance Requirements for Retrofit Measures on an
Examplar Office Building. CLIMA 2013: 11th REHVA World Congress & 8th
International Conference on IAQVEC, Prague.
189
190

Mevcut Bina Iyileştirmelerinde Ulaşılabilir Yaklaşık Sıfır Enerji Hedeflerinin Belirlenmesi Için Yeni Bir Yaklaşım

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mevcut Bina Iyileştirmelerinde Ulaşılabilir Yaklaşık Sıfır Enerji Hedeflerinin Belirlenmesi Için Yeni Bir Yaklaşım

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mevcut Bina Iyileştirmelerinde Ulaşılabilir Yaklaşık Sıfır Enerji Hedeflerinin Belirlenmesi Için Yeni Bir Yaklaşım

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY  GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SCIENCE

ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

A NEW APPROACH TO IDENTIFY ACHIEVABLE NEARLY-ZERO ENERGY

Neşe GANİÇ SAĞLAM

Construction Sciences Programme

A NEW APPROACH TO IDENTIFY ACHIEVABLE NEARLY-ZERO ENERGY

Neşe GANİÇ SAĞLAM

Construction Sciences Programme

Thesis Advisor: Prof. Dr. A. Zerrin YILMAZ

MEVCUT BİNA İYİLEŞTİRMELERİNDE ULAŞILABİLİR YAKLAŞIK SIFIR

Neşe GANİÇ SAĞLAM

Mimarlık Anabilim Dalı

Yapı Bilimleri Programı

Tez Danışmanı: Prof. Dr. A. Zerrin YILMAZ

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

Co-advisor : Prof.Dr. Stefano P. CORGNATI ..............................

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

Prof. Dr. Rengin ÜNVER ..............................

Doç. Dr. Emrah ACAR ..............................

Doç. Dr. Ahmet Murat ÇIRACI ..............................

Yrd. Doç. Dr. Cristina BECCHIO ..............................

Date of Submission : 10 October 2017

Firstly, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my supervisor Prof. Dr. A.

October 2017 Neşe GANİÇ SAĞLAM

FOREWORD ............................................................................................................ vii

AC : Abbreviation of Split Type Air Conditioners Retrofit

Cg (𝝉) : Global cost over the calculation period

Table 3.1 : Reference residential buildings defined in project 113M596. ................ 28

The main instrument of European Commission related to the energy performance of

Objective of the dissertation is to propose a new approach to identify achievable NZEB

Buildings as a Part of European Energy Strategy

Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings, also called EPBD

Specific to the economic evaluation of building energy performance levels, EPBD

2.2.1 Relation between cost-optimality and NZEB concepts

1) Definition of reference buildings representing the characters and energy

As seen from the above-mentioned calculation steps, the cost-optimal methodology

As the first stage of cost-optimal methodology, national reference building

Reference building definition procedure mentioned in Regulation 244/2012 refers to a

The Regulation requires establishment of reference buildings for at least single-family

In accordance with the reference building definition in the Regulation, a reference

1. Selection of real reference buildings

As a result of examination based on the above-mentioned statistical data; a real

Figure 2.1 :Retrofit Categories (The European Commission, 2014).

The third stage of the cost-optimal methodology framework is the calculation of

𝐶𝑔 (𝜏) = 𝐶𝐼 + ∑ [∑(𝐶𝑎,𝑖 (𝑗) × 𝑅𝑑 (𝑖)) − 𝑉𝑓,𝜏 (𝑗)] (2.1)

Both options attempt to provide a comparative economic evaluation related to the

If the cost calculation considers macroeconomic perspective, carbon cost should be

Figure 2.2 :A sample cost-optimal graph (The European Commission, 2012b).

The cost-optimal methodology framework requires sensitivity analyses on the global

Latest Research Activities on NZEB Concept

Studies in Italy focused on the cost-optimal approach for transformation of existing

Meanwhile, different perspectives were developed on the cost-optimality concept.

With regard to the progress, the Commission introduces the recommendations on

Figure 2.3 :Retrofit rates of residential buildings in MS (Artola et al, 2016).

Figure 2.4 : Retrofit progress of residential buildings in MS towards NZEB

Turkey has been keeping up with EU legislation through EU harmonization process.

Significance of Building Energy Performance

Legislative Framework in Turkey

3.2.1 Energy Efficiency Law