Binaların yapım ve kullanımı boyunca çevresel etki değerlendirmesini gerçekleştiren çerçeve sistemin geliştirilmesi

Öz

Binaların inşaatı ve kullanımı sırasında oluşan olumsuz çevresel etkilerin değerlendirilmesinde yapı malzemelerinin tamamının üretim sürecinde ortaya çıkan çevresel etkilerin bilinmemesi, çevresel etki değerlendirmesinde çok fazla etkenin bulunması, iş kalemlerinin yapımı için çok fazla yapım alternatifinin olması, binaların çok farklı mimaride inşa edilmesi karşılaşılan güçlerin bazılarıdır. Belirtilen nedenlerden dolayı bütünsel biçimde binaların inşaat ve kullanımı boyunca gerçekleşecek çevresel etkilerin değerlendirmesini yapacak yöntem ve araçlar geliştirilmemiştir. Bu çalışmada binaların yapım ve kullanım aşamalarında ortaya çıkan çevresel etkilerin değerlendirmesini yapan çerçeve bir sistem tasarlanmış ve faaliyete geçirilmiştir. Bina inşaatlarında kullanılan binlerce yapı malzemesinin 7 çevresel performans göstergesini içeren Çevresel Ürün Beyanı ve bina inşaatı ile ilgili iş kalemlerinin her biri için yapım alternatifleri Çevre Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı’nın yapım analizlerinden derlenerek oluşturulan veritabanına kaydedilmiştir. Metraj değerleri, yapım tarifleri ve tariflerdeki malzemelerin Çevresel Ürün Beyanları eşleştirilerek inşaat sürecinin çevresel etki değerlendirmesi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ayrıca yapının kullanım ömrü boyunca yenilenmesi veya onarılması gereken iş kalemlerinin çevresel etkileri de değerlendirilmiştir. Buna ek olarak yapının ısı iletkenliği TS825’e göre hesaplanmış ve kullanımı boyunca ihtiyaç duyulacak ısıtma enerjisi farklı yakıt türlerine göre hesaplanmıştır. Elde edilen çevresel performans göstergelerine ve maliyete en fazla katkı yapan iş kalemleri belirlenmiş ve her bir çevresel performans göstergesi için en fazla iyileşmeyi sağlayan yapım alternatifleri tespit edilerek tasarım revize edilmiş ve çevresel etki analizleri tekrarlanarak tüm çevresel performans değerlerindeki yüzdelik değişimler hesaplanmıştır. En fazla toplam iyileşmeyi sağlayan alternatif tercih edilerek en az tasarım revizyonu ile en fazla faydanın elde edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Geliştirilen çerçeve sistem sayesinde maliyet etkin ve çevreci yapıların tasarlanması daha az emek ve sürede gerçekleştirilebilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• çevresel ürün beyanı
• çevresel performans göstergeleri
• Yaşam döngüsü analizi
• Yeşil Bina

Development of a framework system to perform environmental impact assessment of the construction and utilization of the buildings

Öz

Some of the difficulties encountered through the evaluation of the environmental effects which occur during the construction and utilization of the buildings can be stated as not knowing the environmental effects of the production process of all of the building materials, involvement of too many factors in the environmental impact assessment, containment of too many construction alternatives for the construction of the work items, and the vast architectural differences of the buildings. Owing to the stated reasons, methods and tools have not been developed to evaluate the environmental impacts of the construction and utilization of buildings in a holistic manner. In this study, a framework system to evaluate the environmental impacts that occur during the construction and utilization of buildings has been designed and implemented. The Environmental Product Declaration of thousands of building materials which includes 7 environmental performance indicators are derived from the manufacturers’ declarations, and the construction alternatives for each work item of building construction are compiled from the construction analyzes of the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change. The environmental impact assessment of the construction process is carried out by matching the quantity take-off values, job descriptions and Environmental Product Declarations of the materials. Moreover, the environmental effects of the work items that need to be renewed or repaired during the life-cycle of the building are also evaluated. Furthermore, the thermal conductivity of the building is evaluated according to TS825 and the heating energy required during the life-cycle of the building is calculated by considering different fuel types. The work items that contributed the most to the environmental performance indicators and cost are determined, and the construction alternatives that provide the most improvement for each environmental performance indicator are determined, the design is revised and the environmental impact analyzes are repeated and the percentage changes in all environmental performance values are calculated. The proposed method aims to obtain the most benefit with the least design revision by choosing the alternative that provides the most total improvement. Cost-effective and environmentally friendly designed structures will be realized in less effort and time by the developed frame system.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Environmental Product Declaration
• environmental performance indicators
• Life cycle analysis
• Green Building

Kaynakça

1. 1. Azapagic, A., Emsley, A., Hamerton, I., Polymers: the environment and sustainable development, John Wiley and Sons, 2003.
2. 2. EPA, LCA database. US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, 2008.
3. 3. Adalberth, K., Energy use during the life cycle of single-unit dwellings: examples, Building and environment, 32 (4), 321-329, 1997.
4. 4. Nematchoua, M. K., Sendrahasina, R. M., Malmedy, C., Orosa, J. A., Simo, E., & Reiter, S., Analysis of environmental impacts and costs of a residential building over its entire life cycle to achieve nearly zero energy and low emission objectives, Journal of Cleaner Production, 373, 133834, 2022.
5. 5. Norouzi, M., Haddad, A. N., Jiménez, L., Hoseinzadeh, S., Boer, D., Carbon footprint of low-energy buildings in the United Kingdom: Effects of mitigating technological pathways and decarbonization strategies, Science of The Total Environment, 882, 163490, 2023.
6. 6. TSE 825, Binalarda Isı Yalıtım Kuralları, 2008.
7. 7. Gazete, R., Yağmursuyu toplama, depolama ve deşarj sistemleri hakkında yönetmelik. Web sayfası: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2017/06/20170623-8. htm)(Erişim tarihi: Aralık 2020), 2017.
8. 8. Gazete, R., Binalarda Enerji Performansı Yönetmeliği’nde Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Yönetmelik, 2022. Erişim adresi: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2022/02/20220219-2. htm ve https://www. mevzuat. gov.tr/File/GeneratePdf.

9. 9. ÇŞİDB Emisyon Ticaret Sistemi Yönetmeliği Taslağı, https://iklim.gov.tr/taslaklar-i-2124, 2026.
10. 10. Guan, L., Walmsely, M., Chen, G., Life cycle energy analysis of eight residential houses in Brisbane, Australia, Procedia Engineering, 121, 653-661, 2015.
11. 11. Adalberth, K., Energy use during the life cycle of buildings: a method. Building and Environment, 32 (4), 317-320, 1997.
12. 12. Fay, R., Treloar, G., Iyer-Raniga, U., Life-cycle energy analysis of buildings: a case study, Building Research & Information, 28 (1), 31-41, 2000.
13. 13. Hammond, G., Jones, C., Inventory of carbon & energy: ICE (Vol. 5), Bath: Sustainable Energy Research Team, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, Version 1, 2008.
14. 14. Hammond, G., Jones, C., Lowrie, E. F., Tse, P., Embodied carbon, The inventory of carbon and energy (ICE) Version (2.0), 2011.
15. 15. Ceylan, E. Z., Dijital İkizler ve İnşaat Sektöründeki Yeri, Yapı Bilgi Modelleme, 1 (2), 53-61, 2019.
16. 16. Göktürk, İ., İnşaat sektöründe fizibilite aşamasında maliyet tahmini yapmakta karşılaşılan zorluklar ve çözüm önerileri üzerine bir değerlendirme, Doktora Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 2007.
17. 17. International Energy Agency. Energy End-uses and Efficiency Indicators Data Explorer. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/energy-end-uses-and-efficiency-indicators-data-explorer. Erişim Tarihi: 11.06.2023.
18. 18. Edwards, B., Sürdürülebilirlik Kültürü ve Mimari Tasarımın Önündeki Güçler, Ekolojik Mimarlık ve Planlama Ulusal Sempozyumu, Antalya, 22-34, 2007.
19. 19. Carbon Brief. Carbon Brief Türkiye Profili. https://www.carbonbrief.org/carbon-brief-turkiye-profili/. Erişim Tarihi: 11.06.2023.
20. 20. Öztok, M., Menlik, T., Energy Economy and Carbon Emission Potential Comparison of Heating Systems by Using Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods (AHP, VIKOR and TOPSIS). Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 8 (2), 320-335, 2022.
21. 21. Süt N.İ., Hamurcu M., Tamer E., An Application of Green Transportation in Campus: A DecisionMaking Process for Selection of Ring Vehicles, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 5 (1), 9-21, 2019.
22. 22. Özeler Kanan, N., Gültekin, A., Çelebi, G., Yaşam döngüsü değerlendirme yöntemi kapsamında enerji verimli cephe sistemlerine ilişkin bir literatür araştırması, 2. Uluslararası Bina Sempozyumu, Ankara, 2015.
23. 23. Akgül M.C., Gürsel Dino İ., Climate change impact assessment in residential buildings utilizing RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 35 (3), 1665-1684, 2020.
24. 24. Akköse G., Duran A., Gürsel Dino İ., Meral Akgül Ç., Machine learning based evaluation of window parameters on building energy performance and occupant thermal comfort under climate change, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 38 (4), 2069-2084, 2023.
25. 25. Akkose, G., Akgul, C. M., & Dino, I. G., Educational building retrofit under climate change and urban heat island effect. Journal of Building Engineering, 40, 102294, 2021.
26. 26. Dino, I. G., & Akgül, C. M., Impact of climate change on the existing residential building stock in Turkey: An analysis on energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and occupant comfort, Renewable energy, 141, 828-846, 2019.
27. 27. Iyer-Raniga, U., & Wong, J. P. C., Evaluation of whole life cycle assessment for heritage buildings in Australia, Building and Environment, 47, 138-149, 2012.
28. 28. Azzouz, A., Borchers, M., Moreira, J., & Mavrogianni, A., Life cycle assessment of energy conservation measures during early stage office building design: A case study in London, UK. Energy and Buildings, 139, 547-568, 2017.
29. 29. Asif, M., Muneer, T., & Kelley, R., Life cycle assessment: A case study of a dwelling home in Scotland. Building and environment, 42 (3), 1391-1394, 2007.
30. 30. Karimpour, M., Belusko, M., Xing, K., Bruno, F., Minimising the life cycle energy of buildings: Review and analysis. Building and environment, 73, 106-114, 2014.
31. 31. Shukla, A., Tiwari, G. N., Sodha, M. S., Embodied energy analysis of adobe house. Renewable Energy, 34 (3), 755-761, 2009.
32. 32. Dixit, M. K., Fernández-Solís, J. L., Lavy, S., Culp, C. H., Identification of parameters for embodied energy measurement: A literature review, Energy and buildings, 42 (8), 1238-1247, 2010.
33. 33. Ekundayo, D., Perera, S., Udeaja, C., Zhou, L., Carbon review and qualitative comparison of selected carbon counting tools, In RICS COBRA Research Conference, 2012.
34. 34. Marosky, N., Dose, J., Fleischer, G., Ackermann, R., Challenges of data transfer between CAD and LCA software tools, In 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management, University of Zurich at Irchel, 2007.
35. 35. Erzurum, T., Bettemir, Ö. H., Sustainability Analysis for the Construction of Temporary Houses, 14th Internatıonal Congress on Advances ın Cıvıl Engıneerıng- ACE 2020-21, 354-360, 2021.
36. 36. Erzurum, T., Bettemir, Ö. H., Sustainability Analysis for the Construction of Rural Houses, 7th International Project and Construction Management Conference- IPCMC2022, 1292-1303, 2022.
37. 37. Anand, C. K., Amor, B., Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: A critical review, Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 67, 408-416, 2017.
38. 38. Cabeza, L. F., Rincón, L., Vilariño, V., Pérez, G., Castell, A., Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review, Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 29, 394-416, 2014.
39. 39. EN, B. 15804; Sustainability of Construction Works-Environmental Product Declarations-Core Rules for the Product Category of Construction Products. The British Standards Institution, 2012.
40. 40. Emami, N., Marteinsson, B., Heinonen, J., Environmental impact assessment of a School building in Iceland using LCA-including the effect of long distance transport of materials, Buildings, 6 (4), 46, 2016.
41. 41. Pomponi, F., Moncaster, A., Embodied carbon mitigation and reduction in the built environment–What does the evidence say?, Journal of environmental management, 181, 687-700, 2016.
42. 42. Säynäjoki, A., Heinonen, J., Junnila, S., Horvath, A., Can life-cycle assessment produce reliable policy guidelines in the building sector?, Environmental Research Letters, 12 (1), 013001, 2017.
43. 43. De Wolf, C. C. E. L., Material quantities in building structures and their environmental impact, Doctoral Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2014.
44. 44. Chastas, P., Theodosiou, T., Kontoleon, K. J., Bikas, D., Normalising and assessing carbon emissions in the building sector: A review on the embodied CO2 emissions of residential buildings, Building and Environment, 130, 212-226, 2018.
45. 45. Pomponi, F., Moncaster, A., Scrutinising embodied carbon in buildings: The next performance gap made manifest, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 2431-2442, 2018.
46. 46. Bettemir, Ö. H., “Recommendations on the solution of accommodation problem and recovery after destructive earthquakes”, International Journal of Emergency Management, 12 (2), 168-184, 2016.
47. 47. Sartori, I., Hestnes, A. G., Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: A review article, Energy and buildings, 39 (3), 249-257, 2007.
48. 48. Adalberth, K., Almgren, A., Petersen, E. H. Life cycle assessment of four multi-family buildings, International Journal of Low Energy and Sustainable Buildings, 2, 2001.
49. 49. Bettemir, Ö. H., & Erzurum, T., Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Post-Disaster Housing According to Ground Type-Outdoor Temperature-Lifespan Relationship: Carbon, Energy and Cost. Journal of Building Engineering, 113388, 2025.
50. 50. Vukotic, L., Fenner, R. A., Symons, K., Assessing embodied energy of building structural elements, In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability, 163 (3), 147-158, 2010.
51. 51. Cui, H. Z., Sham, F. C., Lo, T. Y., Lum, H. T., Appraisal of alternative building materials for reduction of CO2 emissions by case modeling, Int. J. Environ. Res., 5 (1), 93-100, 2011.
52. 52. Gauch, H. L., Hawkins, W., Ibell, T., Allwood, J. M., Dunant, C. F., Carbon vs. cost option mapping: A tool for improving early-stage design decisions, Automation in Construction, 136, 104178, 2022.
53. 53. Bettemir, Ö. H., & Erzurum, T., Comparative Life cycle assessment of post-disaster housing according to ground type-outdoor temperature-lifespan relationship: Carbon, energy and cost. Journal of Building Engineering, 111, 113388, 2025.
54. 54. Bettemir Ö.H. and Erzurum T., Collection of environmental performance indicator data and comparison with inventory of carbon and energy data, 3rd International Civil Engineering and Architecture Conference (ICEARC'23), 150-173, 2023.
55. 55. Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı, Rayiç ve Analizler (2022/3), https://yfk.csb.gov.tr/birim-fiyatlar-i-100468, Erişim Tarihi: 02/09/2022.
56. 56. Bettemir, Ö.H., Gündüz, E., Akkurt, O., Hilal, E., Arslan, M.A., Detection of Variability of Cash-Flow of Construction Activities Due To Schedule, Journal of Engineering Sciences and Design, 7 (1), 211-223, 2019.
57. 57. Ergen F., Bettemir Ö.H., BIM-driven software and algorithm for optimal floor tile layout minimizing material waste. Automation in Construction, 173, 106115, 2025.
58. 58. Ergen F., Bettemir Ö.H., Development of ontological algorithms for exact QTO of reinforced concrete construction items. In Structures, 60, 105907, Elsevier, February 2024.
59. 59. Ergen F., Bettemir Ö.H. Yüksek doğrulukta kaba inşaat kalemlerinin metrajını hesaplayan YBM tabanlı prototip yazılımın geliştirilmesi, Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 13 (1), 86-105, 2023.
60. 60. Erzurum T., Bettemir Ö.H., Tek katlı Kırsal Bölge Yapısının Gömülü Enerji ve Karbon Salınımının Analizi, Politeknik Dergisi, 2023.
61. 61. Global Constructıon Products. LCA Database. https://lcadatabase.com/. Erişim Tarihi: 02/09/2022. 62. International EPD System. EPD Database. https://www.environdec.com/library. Erişim Tarihi: 02/09/2022.
62. 63. Erzurum T., Yapıların çevresel etkilerinin değerlendirilmesi için çok kriterli karar destek sistemi geliştirilmesi, İnönü Ü., FBE, Doktora Tezi, 2024.