Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Life-cycle assessment and cost analysis of residential buildings in South East of Turkey: part 2—a case study

  • BUILDING COMPONENTS AND BUILDINGS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Residential buildings play an important role in consumption of energy resources. About 40 % of all primary energy is used in buildings all over the world. This paper is the second part of the study on the life-cycle energy (LCEA), emissions (LCCO2A) and cost (LCCA) assessment of two residential buildings constructed in urban and rural areas.

Methods

In the first part, the methodology, formulations and procedure for such a comprehensive analysis are provided, while this paper provides an application of the methodology that considers two actual buildings located in Gaziantep, Turkey. The proposed model focused on building construction, operation and demolition phases to estimate energy use, carbon emissions and costs per square meter over a 50-year lifespan. The optimum thickness of insulation used to reduce energy consumption and emissions per square meter is determined.

Results and discussion

It is found that the operating phase is dominant in both urban and rural residential buildings and contributes 87–85 % of the primary energy requirements and 88–82 % of CO2 emissions, respectively. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions were 5.8 and 3.9 tons CO2 eqv. for BT1 and BT2, respectively. It is calculated that the life-cycle energy consumption and CO2 emissions of the residential buildings can be reduced by up to 22.8 and 23.4 %, respectively, by using a proper insulation material for the external walls. The life-cycle cost, consisting of mortgage, energy, maintenance, service and demolition payments are calculated to be 7.28 and 1.72 million USD for BT1 and BT2, respectively.

Conclusions

Building envelope developments, such as better wall insulation, provide noteworthy potential energy savings and contribute to the reductions from cooling and space heating. Therefore, primary strategies and technologies needed for efficient buildings include optimal insulation of external walls. The economic insulation thickness of the residential buildings in Gaziantep is determined to be 80 mm by using a life-cycle cost analysis. The results show that because of the differences in building structures and living standards, life-cycle energy intensity and CO2 emissions in urban residential buildings are 29 and 25 % higher than in rural conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atmaca A (2016) Life cycle assessment and cost analysis of residential buildings in South East of Turkey: part 1—review and methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess (in press)

  • Atmaca A, Atmaca N (2015) Life cycle energy (LCEA) and carbon dioxide emissions (LCCO2A) assessment of two residential buildings in Gaziantep, Turkey. Energ Build 102:417–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atmaca A, Yumrutas R (2014) Analysis of the parameters affecting energy consumption of a rotary kiln in cement industry. Appl Therm Eng 66:435–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atmaca A, Kanoglu M, Gadalla M (2012) Thermodynamic analysis of a pyroprocessing unit of a cement plant: a case study. Int J Exergy 11:152–172

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Aye L, Ngo T, Crawford RH, Gammampila R, Mendis P (2012) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable building modules. Energ Build 47:159–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chau CK, Leung TM, Ng WY (2015) A review on life cycle assessment, life cycle energy assessment and life cycle carbon emissions assessment on buildings. Appl Energy 143:395–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford RH, Treloar GJ, Ilozor BD, Love PED (2003) Comparative greenhouse emissions analysis of domestic solar hot water systems. Build Res Inf 31:34–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dincer I, Acar C (2015) A review on clean energy solutions for better sustainability. Int J Energy Res 39:585–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EIA (2006) International Energy Outlook 2006. Energy Information Administration (EIA), #:DOE/EIA-0484. EIA, Washington, pp 1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R, Wyss F, Knöpfel SB, Stolz P (2015) Life cycle assessment in the building sector: analytical tools, environmental information and labels. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:421–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant A, Ries R (2013) Impact of building service life models on life cycle assessment. Build Res Inf 41:168–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurung N, Mahendran M (2002) Comparative life cycle costs for new steel portal frame building systems. Build Res Inf 30:35–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustavsson L, Joelsson A (2010) Life cycle primary energy analysis of residential buildings. Energ Build 2:210–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keoleian GA, Blanchard S, Reppe P (2001) Life-cycle energy, costs, and strategies for improving a single-family house, applications and implementation. J Ind Ecol 4:135–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langston CA, Ding GKC (2011) Sustainable practices in the built environment. Heinemann, Butterworth

    Google Scholar 

  • Monteiro H, Freire F (2011) Environmental life-cycle impacts of a single-family house in Portugal: assessing alternative exterior walls with two methods. Gazi Univ J Sci 24:527–534

    Google Scholar 

  • Monteiro H, Freire F (2012) Life cycle assessment of a house with alternative exterior walls: comparison of three impact assessment methods. Energ Build 47:575–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman J, MacLean HL, Asce M, Kennedy CA (2006) Comparing high and low residential density: life-cycle analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. J Urban Plan Dev 32:10–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz-Rodríguez O, Castells F, Sonnemann G (2008) Life cycle assessment of two dwellings: one in Spain, a developed country, and one in Colombia, a country under development. Sci Total Environ 408:2435–2443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramesh T, Prakash R, Shukla KK (2010) Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: an overview. Energ Build 10:1592–1600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sartori I, Hestnes AG (2007) Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: are view article. Energ Build 3:249–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shukla A, Tiwari GN, Sodha MS (2009) Embodied energy analysis of a dobe house. Renew Energy 3:755–761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan A, Crawford RH, Myttenaere K (2013) A comprehensive assessment of the life cycle energy demand of passive Houses. Appl Energy 112:23–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterner E (2000) Life-cycle costing and its use in the Swedish building sector. Build Res Inf 28:387–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thormark C (2002) A low energy building in a life cycle its embodied energy, energy need for operation and recycling potential. Build Environ 4:429–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treloar GJ, Fay R, Love PED, Iyer-Raniga U (2000) Analysing the life-cycle energy of an Australian residential building and its householders. Build Res Inf 28:184–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TUIK (2013) Turkish Statistical Institute, Population and housing census, no: 15843. http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=15843

  • Utama A, Gheewala SH (2009) Indonesian residential high rise buildings: a life cycle energy assessment. Energ Build 11:1263–1268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade SH (2002) Measuring changes in energy efficiency. Energy Inf Adm EIA 1:1–17

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the support provided by the Scientific Research Projects Unit (GUBAP) at the University of Gaziantep and greatly appreciate Dr. Nihat Atmaca from University of Gaziantep and Mr. Ahmet Selim Ener and Mr. Murat Evyapan from Edacan Construction Company for their cooperation throughout this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vocational School of Technical Sciences, University of Gaziantep, 27310, Gaziantep, Turkey

    Adem Atmaca

Authors
  1. Adem Atmaca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adem Atmaca.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Alexander Passer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Atmaca, A. Life-cycle assessment and cost analysis of residential buildings in South East of Turkey: part 2—a case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21, 925–942 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1051-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1051-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation