Pasif İklimlendirme Yöntemi Olarak Termit Yuvası Prensibinin Biyomimikri Bağlamında İncelenmesi: Eastgate Centre ve TMB Binası

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, termit yuvası prensibinin biyomimikri bağlamında pasif iklimlendirme stratejisi olarak mimarlık alanına nasıl aktarılabileceğini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma, mantar yetiştiren Macrotermes türlerinin yuvalarında gözlemlenen hava hareketi, termal tamponlama, ısı değişimi ve mikroklimatik düzenleme süreçlerinden hareketle, bu biyolojik ilkelerin farklı iklim koşullarındaki ofis yapılarında hangi mimari ve teknik sistemlerle karşılık bulduğunu Eastgate Centre ve Türkiye Müteahhitler Birliği (TMB) Binası örnekleri üzerinden değerlendirmektedir.

Yöntem: Çalışmada, termit yuvası analojisiyle literatürde yaygın biçimde ilişkilendirilen Eastgate Centre (Harare, Zimbabve) ile Türkiye’de düşük enerjili çevresel kontrol yaklaşımı bakımından öne çıkan Türkiye Müteahhitler Birliği (TMB) Binası (Ankara), karşılaştırmalı vaka analizi yöntemiyle ele alınmıştır. İnceleme; iklimsel bağlam, havalandırma mekanizması, termal kütle kullanımı, enerji performansı ve biyomimetik ilişki parametreleri üzerinden yürütülmüştür. Çalışmada birincil saha ölçümü veya yeni bir enerji simülasyonu yapılmamış; akademik yayınlar, teknik raporlar, proje dokümanları ve kurumsal kaynaklarda yer alan ikincil veriler değerlendirilmiştir.

Bulgular: Bulgular, Eastgate Centre’ın termit yuvası prensibini doğrudan bir biyomimetik referans olarak yorumladığını; TMB Binası’nın ise benzer çevresel ilkeleri yer altı termal labirenti, termal kütle, atrium ve hibrit iklimlendirme bileşenleri aracılığıyla bağlamsal bir sistem olarak ele aldığını göstermektedir. Eastgate Centre için literatürde yaklaşık %35 düzeyinde enerji tasarrufu aktarılırken, TMB Binası’nda termal labirent sisteminin ısıtma ve soğutma maliyetlerinde yaklaşık %35–40 oranında tasarruf sağlayacağı raporlanmaktadır. Ancak bu değerler, aynı baz bina modeli, kullanıcı yoğunluğu, işletme senaryosu ve iklim normalizasyonu üzerinden üretilmiş eşdeğer veriler olmadığından, doğrudan sayısal karşılaştırma aracı olarak değil; her yapının kendi bağlamında raporlanmış göreli performans göstergeleri olarak değerlendirilmiştir.

Sonuç: Çalışma, biyomimetik pasif iklimlendirme stratejilerinin değerlendirilmesinde biçimsel taklitten çok, biyolojik ilkelerin süreç ve performans düzeyinde mimari tasarıma aktarılmasının belirleyici olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Eastgate Centre ve TMB Binası karşılaştırması, termit yuvası prensibinin tekil ve evrensel bir model olmaktan ziyade; iklimsel, teknolojik ve bağlamsal koşullara göre uyarlanabilen esnek bir tasarım stratejisi olarak ele alınması gerektiğini göstermektedir. Bu doğrultuda çalışma, biyomimikri temelli pasif iklimlendirme için “Bağlam–Prensip–Mekanizma–Performans” ilişkisine dayalı kavramsal bir sistem önerisi sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Biyomimikri
• Pasif İklimlendirme
• Termit Yuvası Prensibi
• Ofis Yapıları
• Enerji Verimliliği

Evaluation of the Termite Mound Principle as a Biomimicry-Based Passive Climate-Control Strategy: Eastgate Centre and the TMB Building

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to examine how the termite mound principle can be transferred to the field of architecture as a passive climate-control strategy within the context of biomimicry. Based on the processes of air movement, thermal buffering, heat exchange, and microclimatic regulation observed in the mounds of fungus-growing Macrotermes species, the study evaluates how these biological principles correspond to architectural and technical systems in office buildings located in different climatic contexts, through the examples of Eastgate Centre and the Turkish Contractors Association (TMB) Building.

Method: In this study, Eastgate Centre in Harare, Zimbabwe, which is widely associated in the literature with the termite mound analogy, and the Turkish Contractors Association (TMB) Building in Ankara, Turkey, which stands out in terms of its low-energy environmental control approach, were examined through a comparative case study method. The analysis was conducted through the parameters of climatic context, ventilation mechanism, use of thermal mass, energy performance, and biomimetic relationship. No primary field measurements or new energy simulations were carried out within the scope of the study; instead, secondary data obtained from academic publications, technical reports, project documents, and institutional sources were evaluated.

Findings: The findings indicate that Eastgate Centre interprets the termite mound principle as a direct biomimetic reference, whereas the TMB Building addresses similar environmental principles as a contextual system through its underground thermal labyrinth, thermal mass, atrium, and hybrid climate-control components. While an energy saving of approximately 35% is reported in the literature for Eastgate Centre, the thermal labyrinth system in the TMB Building is reported to provide approximately 35–40% savings in heating and cooling costs. However, since these values are not equivalent data produced through the same base building model, occupancy density, operational scenario, or climate normalization, they were not considered as a means of direct numerical comparison, but rather as relative performance indicators reported within the specific context of each building.

Conclusion: The study reveals that, in the evaluation of biomimetic passive climate-control strategies, the transfer of biological principles to architectural design at the level of process and performance is more decisive than formal imitation. The comparison of Eastgate Centre and the TMB Building demonstrates that the termite mound principle should be considered not as a singular and universal model, but as a flexible design strategy that can be adapted according to climatic, technological, and contextual conditions. In this regard, the study proposes a conceptual framework for biomimicry-based passive climate control based on the relationship between “Context–Principle–Mechanism–Performance”.

Keywords

• Biomimicry
• Passive Climate Control
• Termite Mound Principle
• Office Buildings
• Energy Efficiency

References

1. AGKATHIDIS, A. (2017). Biomorphic structures: Architecture inspired by nature: Form + technique. Laurence King Publishing.
2. AL-SHAMKHEE, D., AL-AASAM, A. B., AL-WAELI, A. H. A., ABUSAIBAA, G. Y., & MORIA, H. (2022). Passive cooling techniques for ventilation: An updated review. Renewable Energy and Environmental Sustainability, 7, Makale 23. https://doi.org/10.1051/rees/2022011
3. ANDREW, N. Y., UWA, J. N., & ODION, A. (2023). Passive cooling techniques in historical building versus contemporary bio mimic concepts: An overview. American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 11(4), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajcea-11-4-2
4. ARKİV. (t.y.). Türkiye Müteahhitler Birliği Merkez Binası. https://www.arkiv.com.tr/proje/turkiye-muteahhitler-birligi-merkez-binasi/2851
5. AZIZ, M. S., & EL SHERIF, A. Y. (2016). Biomimicry as an approach for bio-inspired structure with the aid of computation. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 55(1), 707–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2015.10.015
6. BENYUS, J. M. (1997). Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by nature. HarperCollins.
7. CHAYAAMOR-HEIL, N. (2023). From bioinspiration to biomimicry in architecture: Opportunities and challenges. Encyclopedia, 3(1), 202–223. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3010014
8. DE TOLDI, T., CRAIG, S., & SUSHAMA, L. (2022). Internal thermal mass for passive cooling and ventilation: Adaptive comfort limits, ideal quantities, embodied carbon. Buildings and Cities, 3(1), 42–67. https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.156

9. EL KHOULI, S., JOHN, V., & ZEUMER, M. (2015). Sustainable construction techniques: From structural design to interior fit-out: Assessing and improving the environmental impact of buildings. DETAIL Green Books.
10. FARAGALLA, A. M. A., & ASADI, S. (2022). Biomimetic design for adaptive building facades: A paradigm shift towards environmentally conscious architecture. Energies, 15(15), Makale 5390. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155390
11. GIVONI, B. (1998). Climate considerations in building and urban design. John Wiley & Sons.
12. HAILE, M. G., GARAY-MARTINEZ, R., & MACARULLA, A. M. (2024). Review of evaporative cooling systems for buildings in hot and dry climates. Buildings, 14(11), Makale 3504. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14113504
13. INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY. (2023). Buildings. https://www.iea.org/energy-system/buildings
14. KARACA, N. K., & GÜLTEKİN, A. B. (2017). Business management in sustainable buildings: Ankara-Turkey case. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 245, Makale 062008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/245/6/062008
15. KORB, J., & LINSENMAIR, K. E. (2000). Ventilation of termite mounds: New results require a new model. Behavioral Ecology, 11(5), 486–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/11.5.486
16. LÜSCHER, M. (1961). Air-conditioned termite nests. Scientific American, 205(1), 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0761-138
17. OCKO, S. A., KING, H., ANDREEN, D., BARDUNIAS, P., TURNER, J. S., SOAR, R., & MAHADEVAN, L. (2017). Solar-powered ventilation of African termite mounds. Journal of Experimental Biology, 220(18), 3260–3269. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.160895
18. OLGYAY, V. (1963). Design with climate: Bioclimatic approach to architectural regionalism. Princeton University Press.
19. PEARCE, M. (t.y.). Eastgate Building Harare. https://www.mickpearce.com/Eastgate.html
20. PEDERSEN ZARI, M. (2007). Biomimetic approaches to architectural design for increased sustainability. Proceedings of the SB07 New Zealand Sustainable Building Conference.
21. RIANI, U., MELKOUMIAN, N., HARVEY, D., & AKMELIAWATI, R. (2025). Learning from nature: Bio-inspired designs and strategies for efficient on-Earth and off-Earth ventilation systems. Biomimetics, 10(11), Makale 754. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics10110754
22. SEVIM, H., & ESER, A. (2025). Mimarlıkta biyomimikri üzerine bir literatür çalışması. Karatay Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi, 1(1), 47–62. https://izlik.org/JA28EG29ZY
23. SEYMOUR, C. L., KORB, J., JOSEPH, G. S., HASSALL, R., & COETZEE, B. W. T. (2023). Need for shared internal mound conditions by fungus-growing Macrotermes does not predict their species distributions, in current or future climates. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 378(1884), Makale 20220152. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0152
24. SHAVIV, E., YEZIORO, A., & CAPELUTO, I. G. (2001). Thermal mass and night ventilation as passive cooling design strategy. Renewable Energy, 24(3–4), 445–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(01)00027-1
25. SMITH, F. (1997). Eastgate, Harare, Zimbabwe. The Arup Journal, 32(1), 3–8. https://www.arup.com/globalassets/downloads/arup-journal/the-arup-journal-1997-issue-1.pdf
26. SOMA ARCHITECTS. (2012). One Ocean Pavilion. https://www.soma-architecture.com/index.php?page=theme_pavilion&parent=2#
27. SOMMESE, F., BADARNAH, L., & AUSIELLO, G. (2022). A critical review of biomimetic building envelopes: Towards a bio-adaptive model from nature to architecture. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 169, Makale 112850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112850
28. SZOKOLAY, S. V. (2014). Introduction to architectural science: The basis of sustainable design (3. bs.). Routledge.
29. THE BIOMIMICRY INSTITUTE. (2017). Biomimicry design spiral. Biomimicry Toolbox. https://toolbox.biomimicry.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Design.Spiral-Diagram_10.17.pdf
30. TURKISH CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION. (t.y.). General information. https://www.tmb.org.tr/en/p/606588d64e2c483e72ff8f9d/general-information
31. TURNER, J. S. (2001). On the mound of Macrotermes michaelseni as an organ of respiratory gas exchange. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, 74(6), 798–822. https://doi.org/10.1086/323990
32. TURNER, J. S., & SOAR, R. C. (2008). Beyond biomimicry: What termites can tell us about realizing the living building. Industrialised, integrated, intelligent sustainable construction içinde (s. 233–248). I3CON/BSRIA.
33. TÜRKİYE MÜTEAHHİTLER BİRLİĞİ. (t.y.a). TMB yeşil bina. https://www.tmb.org.tr/tr/p/606581c54e2c483e72ff8f95/tmb-yesil-bina
34. TÜRKİYE MÜTEAHHİTLER BİRLİĞİ. (t.y.b). Labirent sistemi. https://www.tmb.org.tr/tr/p/606588f24e2c483e72ff8f9f/labirent-sistemi
35. TÜRKİYE MÜTEAHHİTLER BİRLİĞİ. (t.y.c). LEED Platin Sertifikası. https://www.tmb.org.tr/tr/p/606588ac4e2c483e72ff8f9b/leed-platin-sertifikasi
36. VERBRUGGHE, N., RUBINACCI, E., & KHAN, A. Z. (2023). Biomimicry in architecture: A review of definitions, case studies and design methods. Biomimetics, 8(1), Makale 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics8010107
37. WILSON, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.
38. WORLD ARCHITECTURE COMMUNITY. (2014, 3 Kasım). The Turkish Contractor’s Association HQ. https://worldarchitecture.org/architecture-projects/hzhfh/the-turkish-contractors-association-hq-building-page.html
39. YANILMAZ, Z. (2023). Evaluation of facade features in green building certified office buildings in terms of energy efficiency. International Journal of Energy Studies, 8(4), 685–700. https://doi.org/10.58559/ijes.1185136
40. ZHONG, W., SCHRÖDER, T., & BEKKERING, J. (2022). Biophilic design in architecture and its contributions to health, well-being, and sustainability: A critical review. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 11(1), 114–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.07.006