Next Article in Journal
Screening for Referral of Serious Pathology by Physical Examination Tests in Patients with Back or Chest Pain: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Development and Psychometric Validation of the Athletes’ Perceived Body Pressures from Coaches Questionnaire (APBPCQ)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Measuring the Air Quality Using Low-Cost Air Sensors in a Parking Garage at University of Minnesota, USA
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 24
10.3390/ijerph192416417
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of Thermal Insulation Thickness for a Container House in the Yanqing Zone of the Beijing 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games

by
Yurou Tong
1,2,
Hui Yang
1,2,
Li Bao
3,
Baoxia Guo
1,2,
Yanzhuo Shi
1,2 and
Congcong Wang
1,2,*
1
School of Environment and Energy Engineering, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Beijing 100044, China
2
Beijing Municipality Key Laboratory of Heating, Gas Supply, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Engineering, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Beijing 100044, China
3
School of Humanities, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Beijing 100044, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(24), 16417; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416417
Submission received: 2 November 2022 / Revised: 1 December 2022 / Accepted: 5 December 2022 / Published: 7 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Reducing Air Pollution in Smart and Sustainable Future Cities)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A large number of temporary housings (THs) were used in the Yanqing zone of the Beijing 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Taking a kind of container house (CH) used in Yanqing zone as a model, the objective of this paper is to analyze the effect of insulation thickness on heating energy consumption and corresponding carbon emission. The effect of service life of THs on economic thickness was also discussed. The simulation model was developed using EnergyPlus and the heating energy consumption with different insulation materials was simulated based on the meteorological parameters of the top of Xiaohaituo Mountain (2177.5 m) and the Olympic/Paralympic Village (950 m) in Yanqing zone. In the simulation process, the thermal insulation performance of the CH was enhanced with reference to the requirements of GB/T 51350-2019 Technical Standard for Nearly Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB) on one hand. Additionally, the insulation performance was evaluated in terms of payback period and carbon emission. On the other hand, the economic thickness of different insulation materials (rock wool (RW), extruded polystyrene (XPS), polyurethane (PU)) and the high performance vacuum insulation panel (HVIP)) for different service lives of CH was studied. Results show that the U-values of the envelope meeting the NZEB standard can decrease approximately 21.4–32.8% of the heating energy consumption, compared with the original envelope. When the service life of CH is extended to 20 years, the carbon emission is reduced by 18.5% and 29.5%. The payback period of HVIP is longest, up to 31.4 a, and the results of economic thickness show that when the service life of the CH ranges from 1 year to 20 years, the economic thickness range of RW is 47–235 mm, XPS is 41–197 mm, PU is 33–149 mm and HVIP is 4–18 mm at the altitude of 2177.5 m. At the altitude of 950 m, the economic thickness range of RW is 28–158 mm, XPS is 26–131 mm, PU is 25–118 mm, and HVIP is 2–12 mm. From an economic point of view, the service life of a CH has a significant impact on the choice of insulation thickness.

1. Introduction

Temporary housings (THs), as a special type of building, have been widely used for refuging survivors of natural disasters [1], for sheltering patients during widespread disease, for residency of constructors in large engineering projects or for accommodating people in great public activities. The lifetime of TH is usually from 6 months to 5 years [2], or even longer depending on its function and quality. THs are generally prefabricated with lightweight structures and easy to be built, dismantled and stored for future reuse [3,4]. Compared to constructing permanent buildings, the utilization of THs can not only progress the construction but also improve the energy efficiency and decrease carbon dioxide emission on these special occasions. Container houses (CHs), as a kind of THs, are increasingly and widely used, which originated from the reuse of shipping containers in architecture [5]. They are manufactured in standard dimensions, which makes them an excellent modular building [6]. However, some problems with the indoor environment are found for THs including for CHs. Air quality is recognized as an important factor having a major effect on human health and has been studied by many scholars [7,8,9]. For temporary shelters, there are survey results showing that the total concentration of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Particulate Matter (PM) in the room is very high [10]. While more problems are focused on the indoor thermal environment. Chen et al. [11] found that poor sound and heat insulation are common problems for THs. Some scholars studied the indoor thermal environment of THs in cold regions and hot summer and cold winter zones in China, finding that the natural indoor temperature sometimes was not within the comfort range of the human body [12,13,14]. The occupants’ satisfaction with the thermal insulation performance of CHs is predominantly low [15]. Thapa et al. [16,17] conducted a series of surveys on the indoor thermal environment and thermal comfort in four main earthquake affected districts in Nepal and analyzed the total heat loss coefficient per floor area of five shelters in Lalitpur during winter, which ranged from 11.3 to 15.2 W/(m2·K), suggesting that thermal insulation was very low.
While the thermal performance of temporary buildings is receiving a lot of attention, the thermal technology is also improving. Honma [18] introduced that according to the special specification of the Hokkaido government, glass wool insulation of 100 mm should be applied in the wall and ceiling of emergency temporary housing. Soga et al. [19] mentioned that different solutions on thermal technology of THs had be taken in different regions of Japan, such as increasing the thickness of insulation in Hokkaido. In the Mediterranean area, Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) technology was applied to THs [20,21], which provides high insulation and good air tightness. It enables building structures to avoid thermal bridging and allows achieving remarkable energy savings in the heating season [22]. For CHs, Grębowski et al. [23] proposed that the envelope can be internally insulated, using glass wool or insulated with sprayed polyurethane foams. Additionally, Berbesz et al. [24] also pointed out that proper insulation is an important aspect for container house design.
In cold and severe cold regions, it is important to improve the insulation performance of the envelope of THs. Mario et al. [25] proposed that increasing the thickness of the insulation was required to achieve the adequate thermal transmittance coefficient that corresponds to the location of the deployment of the troops by comparing the energy efficiency requirements of the tents and containers that were used in military camps and the energy-efficient design requirements that were demanded by the energy efficiency standards for buildings in the civil sector. A simulation study by Liu et al. [26] on increasing the different thickness of rock wool (RW) to the walls of a TH at a construction site in Tianjin showed that the average indoor temperature increased with increasing insulation thickness. Yang et al. [27] analyzed the energy performance of portable houses composed of loess and porous materials in different climate zones and showed that the benefits of increased insulation were higher in areas where heating energy was dominant, and an insulation thickness of at least 100 mm is recommended. Furthermore, in Cornaro et al.’s study [28], the average heating power demand decreased by 59.4% when they incorporated aerogel into the walls and roof as well as used the modular floor consisting of polyethylene grids to enhance the insulation performance of an emergency shelter tent.
In order to reduce energy consumption in buildings, many countries have introduced measures to improve their building energy-efficiency standards and increasingly deployed the zero/low energy buildings. The zero energy container units were investigated based on a variety of energy efficiency technologies, where insulation is always a crucial consideration [29,30,31]. Meanwhile, the heat transfer coefficient (U-values) of the envelope in these studies is designed to be very low (0.1 or 0.26 W/(m2·K)), and Vacuum Insulation Panels (VIPs) are mostly used, while considering the interior space of the CH. Yet, both the improvement of energy-efficiency standards and the deployment of low-energy buildings typically focus on reducing the energy use in building operation [32]. It is also important to consider the contribution of insulation materials to the life cycle environmental impact. Pargana et al. [33] evaluated the environmental impacts on the production of conventional thermal insulation materials (extruded and expanded polystyrene (XPS and EPS), polyurethane, expanded cork agglomerate and expanded clay lightweight aggregates (LWA)) by means of a cradle to gate LCA methodological approach, and concluded that different materials contribute differently to the environmental impact, with a low contribution in EPS to all impact categories and the largest impact of LWA on global warming potential. Llantoy et al. [34] developed a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of different insulation materials (polyurethane, XPS, and mineral wool) in the Mediterranean continental climate, whose results showed that XPS presented the worst environmental performance, and the best environmental performance was for the mineral wool and the cubicles with three insulation materials achieving an energy saving of 27%, 25%, 23%, respectively, in comparison to the non-insulated cubicle. Tettey et al. [32] improved the original design of a residential building to achieve reference buildings to different energy-efficiency levels and at the same time varied the insulation materials in different parts of the reference buildings to achieve hypothetical options with similar energy-efficiency levels. Furthermore, they compared the production primary energy and CO2 emission of the reference and optimum designs of the buildings under the different energy-efficiency standards. The results showed a reduction of approximately 6–7% in primary energy use and 6–8% in CO2 emission when the insulation material in the reference buildings is changed from RW to cellulose fiber in the optimum versions. On the other hand, economic rationality is also one of the factors that must be considered in the design of energy-saving buildings. With these consideration, both environmental sustainability and cost should be highly concerned in selecting the insulation material of a building. Annibaldi et al. [35] considered environmental and economic factors to develop a framework to identify the optimal material to be used to achieve the highest level of energy efficiency in building retrofits, and the research was applied to an industrial factory in Italy. The optimal thickness of ten materials with different origin were obtained and their results showed that all materials analyzed displayed economical savings, and three of them showed reductions in the production of emissions from an environmental point of view. Considering that the increase in insulation thickness makes the cost of insulation higher, some studies used life cycle cost (LCC) to evaluate the cost and benefit of the envelope and to find the optimal thickness of insulation material [36,37,38,39]. However, most researches of the assessment of envelope insulation at present were aimed at permanent buildings, rather than THs.
In this paper, the geometric model was created based on a CH that was used in the Yanqing zone of the Beijing 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. We resorted to EnergyPlus to simulate the indoor air temperature and validated the simulation results with the measured values tested in the Yanqing zone. Then, the heating energy consumption of CH with different insulation materials was simulated under the meteorological parameters of the Yanqing zone. In the simulation process, we enhanced the thermal insulation performance of the CH with reference to the limit values of the U-values of the envelope according to energy-efficiency standards of permanent buildings. Environmental and economic benefits were analyzed for the production stage of insulation materials and the operation stage of the building. Furthermore, considering that the service life of the CH variables in the application situation, the economic thickness of the insulation materials with a service life of 1 to 20 years was analyzed using the life cycle cost method.

2. Methodology

2.1. Environmental Conditions

Yanqing National Alpine Skiing Centre is located in the south of Xiaohaituo Mountain, which has a wide range of altitude variations and a distinct vertical distribution of climate. The altitude of the Yanqing Olympic/Paralympic Village is approximately 950 m, while the altitude of the Top Starting Area is approximately 2177.5 m. Figure 1 shows the monthly mean temperature of the two altitudes and of the typical year in Beijing. Compared to the typical year in Beijing, the monthly mean temperature ranged from 7.3 to 17.1 °C lower at the altitude of 2177.5 m and from 0.9 to 6.6 °C lower at the altitude of 950 m. It can be seen that the hottest monthly average temperature at both sites did not exceed 21 °C, and the lowest average daily temperature was −36.2 °C at the altitude of 2177.5 m and −24.2 °C at the altitude of 950 m. Heating degree days (HDD18) represents the sum of the daily difference between the conventional heating temperature of 18 °C and the average monthly outdoor air temperatures according to GB 50176-2016 Code for Thermal Design of Civil Building [40]. In addition, the HDD18 were calculated to be 6520 °C·d and 3748 °C·d for the two altitudes, indicating a high heating demand. Since the daily mean temperature at both sites did not exceed 26 °C, summer cooling was not considered. According to different heating degree days, the high altitude location (2177.5 m) belongs to severe cold A regions and the low altitude location (950 m) belongs to cold regions [40], while the two locations belong to very cold and cool regions, respectively, according to Table Annex1-4 of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 [41]. With reference to the regulations for the heating season in the severe cold region of Harbin and the cold region of Beijing, the heating energy consumption calculation periods for the two regions are determined in this paper: 20/10-20/4 (2177.5 m) and 15/11-15/3 (950 m), respectively.

2.2. Experimental CH and Model Validation

A large number of THs (tents, cabins and CHs) were used in the Yanqing zone of the Beijing 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Figure 2 shows the grandstand and CHs whose functions are Commentary Position, Broadcast Information office and so on of the Technical Finish Area. In this research, a CH with dimensions of 6.00 m (L) × 3.00 m (W) × 2.9 m (H) was studied, which was the Traffic service Staff Lounge at Road Two, as shown in Figure 3a. A window (2.67 m × 0.9 m) and a glazed door (1.47 m × 2.57 m) on a 3 m × 2.9 m wall, respectively (Figure 3b). The thermophysical parameters of envelope enclosure is demonstrated in Table 1 and Table 2.
A simulation model for the CH was established using EnergyPlus, as shown in Figure 3c. For the purpose of model validation, a field research of the CH was carried out. The indoor air temperature and internal surface temperature of glass door were measured. Figure 4 shows the position of temperature measuring points. Indoor air temperature was measured in the corner of the CH at a height of 0.45 m from the floor to avoid the effects of solar radiation and the measuring point of surface temperature was 1.3 m from the floor. The USB temperature and humidity recorder with an accuracy of ±0.1 °C and SMD temperature recorder with an accuracy of ±0.2 °C were used to measure air temperature and surface temperature, respectively, as shown in Figure 5a,b. In addition, weather parameters including outdoor air temperature, relative humidity, horizontal global solar radiation, horizontal diffuse radiation, atmospheric pressure, wind direction and wind speed were recorded by a meteorological station nearby, as shown in Figure 5c.
All the measuring instruments were calibrated before use. The measurement time interval for all parameters was 5 min. The measurement started on 1 October 2021 and ended on 10 October 2021 to collect experimental data for model validation. During the measurements, the indoor temperature was affected on 6 October by the entry of staff into the room, so the data from the 6th was excluded when comparing the actual measurement with the simulated data later. The door and the windows were closed at all other times of the measurements, and there were no occupants and heat-generation equipment inside the experimental CH.
The comparisons between the simulated and measured temperature are as shown in Figure 6. As seen, a good agreement between the simulated and measured indoor air temperatures was achieved. To further ascertain the validation accuracy, two basic statistical parameters were calculated. One was the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and the other coefficient of Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), using Equations (1) and (2), as follows:
M A E = 1 N ∑ i = 1 N | m i − s i |
R M S E = ∑ i = 1 N ( m i − s i ) 2 / N
where mi and si are the respective measured temperature and simulated temperature for each time interval ‘i’, and N is the total number of hours used for validation.
The MAE and RMSE for air temperature are 0.98 °C and 1.22 °C, respectively, and are 1.23 °C and 1.69 °C for the surface temperature of the glass door, which are within the permissible error range [42]. Therefore, the accuracy of the simulation was verified with experiments. Then, the simulation method was utilized to calculate the heating energy consumption of the CH.

2.3. Numerical Simulation

2.3.1. Simulation Parameters Setting

EnergyPlus was used to simulate the heating energy consumption of the CH, and the parameters were set according to the actual conditions of the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. The occupancy schedule is 07:00–17:00. The density of lighting is 4 W/m2, and the number of people in the room is 1. Given the function of the room, no consideration was given to electrical equipment, such as printers, computers, etc. No mechanical ventilation was set up, the airtightness of the doors and windows was class V [43], and the infiltration air volume was 0.01 m3/s, meeting the minimum fresh air volume of 30 m3/s required by personnel [44]. Electric heaters were used for heating, with an electric heat conversion efficiency of 90%, and the design heating temperature is 18 °C from 07:00 to 17:00, and 10 °C for the rest of the time.
In this research, we conducted the comparative simulations between the conventional insulation materials (rock wool (RW), extruded polystyrene (XPS) and polyurethane (PU)) and the high performance vacuum insulation panel (HVIP) of which core material is fumed silica. Related studies have proposed a linear temperature-dependent law that displays a decreased thermal conductivity at low temperatures [45,46,47]; the thermal conductivity of the HVIP was tested at different temperatures and the results showed 0.0039 W/m·K at −20 °C and 0.0048 W/m·K at 25 °C. Thus, in order to unify the temperature conditions, the thermal conductivity of the material at room temperature is used in this paper. Despite that, the results calculated at room temperature conditions will be larger than actual results since the actual environment has a low temperature, this is for the sake of safer consideration. The performance parameters of materials are shown in Table 3, where the parameters of HVIP are provided by qualified third-party testing institution and other materials are referred to [40,48,49,50].

2.3.2. Insulation Thickness under the NZEB Standard

The original envelope of CH was improved with reference to the limits on the U-values of the envelope by permanent building standard GB/T 51350-2019 Technical Standard for Nearly Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB) [51]. Table 4 shows the U-values for severe cold regions and cold regions. It is noted that the U-values are within the range required by the standard, rather than the lower limit value in order to ensure that the thicknesses of the materials are all integers. Table 5 is insulation materials with required thicknesses in the different building parts under the NZEB standard. The walls, roof and floor of the original envelope are insulated with 75 mm RW.

2.4. Indicators of Economic and Environmental Analysis

Economic rationality is one of the factors that must be considered in the design of energy-saving buildings and is equally important for THs. Using original envelope as the baseline scheme, the financial payback effect of the energy efficiency schemes under the NZEB standard is measured by calculating the payback period. There are two methods to calculate the payback period: the simple payback and discount payback. However, simple payback period is usually shorter than the latter in an inflationary economic context since it is calculated by omitting the time value of currency. So, the discount payback period that is calculated by taking into account the time value of currency and converting the future energy savings into the present value is more likely to be in line with the economic reality. Hence, this paper calculated the discount payback period of each insulation material under NZEB standard by Equations (3) and (4) [52].
P D = T ′ − 1 + | ∑ t = 0 T ′ − 1 ( C I − C O ) t ( P / F , r , t ) | ( C I − C O ) T ′ ( P / F , r , T ′ )
( P / F , r , t ) = 1 ( 1 + r ) t
where PD is the discount payback period, T′ is the number of years with positive cumulative discounted value, CI represents cash inflow and its value equals to annual saving electric charge, CO represents cash outflow and its value equals to the increased cost of insulation, P/F is present-value compound interest factor and r is discount rate.
As the service life of a container house varies with application situation, it is necessary to determine the thickness of the insulation according to its service life. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) is one of the popular financial analysis methods, which has been used to evaluate the cost and benefit of the building envelope [53]. This analysis method considers the initial cost of the insulation materials plus the ongoing energy cost over the expected lifetime of the insulation [37]. Through the use of the LCC, the optimal isolation level may be defined keeping costs to a minimum. Equations (5) and (6) are the proposed LCC calculation expressions.
L C C = E H × E T × P V F × ( C P + C I ) × c
P V F = ( 1 + r ) N − 1 r × ( 1 + r ) N
where EH is the heating energy consumption per unit area, which is simulated by EnergyPlus; ET is electricity tariff, which was based on the field investigation after the Paralympic Winter Games in Yanqing; PVF is the Present Value Function; CP is the price of thermal insulation; CI is the installation cost of the insulation material; c is the consumption of insulation materials; N is the service life for the CH in a place. The details of calculation parameters are shown in Table 6.
In this paper, the maximum service life of the CH is 20 years. For the long-term application of insulation materials, there are aging phenomena that exist. Relevant research related to the variation of thermal conductivity of insulation materials influenced by aging showed that the thermal conductivity of different insulation materials affected by multiple factors, such as material properties, production process level, and application conditions [60,61,62,63,64], while the variation of thermal conductivity of four insulation materials with the practical climate conditions has not been conducted in this paper. So, it was assumed that the thermal conductivity of the four materials is fixed in this paper.
Accurate accounting of building carbon emissions can promote the healthy development of green buildings and can enable them to truly achieve their original goal of energy saving and emission reduction. Scholars have developed process-based method, input–output method, and hybrid method for the emission assessment of buildings [65]. Process-based method combines activity data with relevant emission factors to assess the emissions and has been widely used in the analysis of individual buildings [66]. Therefore, the process-based method was chosen to calculate the carbon emissions. The total carbon emissions in this research include the production stage of insulation material and the operation stage of the CH, as shown in Equation (7):
C T = M × E F P R O + W × E F O P E
where M and EFPRO are the consumption and emission factor for insulation materials, respectively; W and EFOPE are the electricity consumption and electricity carbon emission factors, respectively. Although renewable energy was used in the Beijing 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, the carbon emission factor of electricity issued by Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China was used to make the study more universal. Carbon emission factors are presented in Table 6.

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. High Insulation Performance CH

3.1.1. Usable Area and Volume of the Room

From Table 5, it can be seen that when the U-values are within the range required by NZEB standard in severe cold region, the required thickness of RW can be as high as 200 mm, which is far beyond 25 mm, the maximum thickness of HVIP. HVIP insulation consistently gives the lowest thickness required. For the internal insulation of container houses, the thickness of the insulation material will greatly affect the internal usable area and volume of the room. Table 7 shows the usable area (S) and the usable volume (V) of the room under different schemes. With the improvement of insulation performance, both S and V drop steeply when conventional insulation materials are used for insulation due to the dramatic increase in material thickness. However, if HVIP is used, the usable area of the room when reaching the NZEB standard is also larger than the original envelope.

3.1.2. Heating Energy Consumption

Table 8 shows the heating energy consumption based on both of the two meteorological parameters. The heating energy consumption is 32.8% and 21.4% lower than the original envelope at the altitude of 2177.5 m and 950 m, respectively, when the U-values of CH meet the NZEB standard. It is important to improve the insulation performance of CHs, from the point of view of building energy efficiency. The annual heating energy consumption per floor area under the NZEB standard was 193.3 kW·h/(m2·a) and 113.92 kW·h/(m2·a) on average at the altitude of 2177.5 m and 950 m, respectively. One of the main reasons for the high energy consumption is that CH, as a single building, has a shape factor of 1.69 in this paper, while GB 55015-2021 General Code for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Application in Buildings [67] specifies a shape factor of 0.5 or less for public buildings in severe cold and cold regions. An excessively large shape factor will lead to a great heat dissipation on the external surface and more energy consumption.

3.1.3. Economic and Environmental Assessment

The payback period for schemes under the NZEB standard was calculated as shown in Table 9. HVIP has long payback periods at both the altitudes. On one hand, the upfront investment cost of HVIP is high and, on the other hand, the energy savings in the operational phase of the CH are not significant especially for the altitude of 950 m. As a result, the savings in the operational phase of the CH take a longer time (even more than 20 years) to cover the upfront capital investment. It is revealed that the payback period of conventional insulation materials lasts less than 10 years.
Figure 7 shows the total carbon emissions of the CH at the altitude of 2177.5 m and 950 m, in terms of different service lives. Carbon emissions are reduced as the service lives of CH increase and energy efficiency standards improve. At the altitude of 2177.5 m, the reduction in carbon emissions increased from 13.6% to 29.5% compared to original envelope when the service life of CH is extended from 3 years to 20 years, and at the altitude of 950 m, the carbon emissions of cases under the NZEB standard are reduced by 15.6% and 18.5% at 10 and 20 years, respectively, compared to original envelope. So, from an environmental point of view, energy saving becomes equally important when CHs are used in the long term. The difference in total carbon emissions when CH is insulated with conventional and high performance insulation materials, respectively, is not significant, with a maximum difference of 0.9 t when the service life of CH is 20 years under the same meteorological parameter. Although the carbon emission factor of conventional insulation materials is seven times smaller than that of HVIP, its high dosage puts it at a disadvantage. On the other hand, the difference in heating energy consumption between the two under the same standard is not large either.

3.2. Economic Thickness

Figure 8 shows the variation of cost with insulation thickness for a container house with a service life of 5 years. As expected, the cost of heating energy consumption decreases with the increase in insulation thickness while the initial cost increases. The total cost decreases and then increases as the thickness of the insulation increases.
The minimum total life cycle cost of the four insulation materials and the corresponding insulation thickness for each year from 1 to 20 years were calculated, and, the variation of economic thickness and total cost with service life are presented in Figure 9. It can be seen that the service life of CH has a significant effect on economic thickness and total life cycle cost whose values increase with the length of the service life, showing a trend of rapid increase and then slow growth, which is consistent with the results in [68,69].
Therefore, from an economic point of view, the thickness of insulation materials can be selected according to the service life (1–20 years) of the CH: at the altitude of 2177.5 m, the economic thickness range of RW is 47–235 mm, with a total cost of 1–4.97 × 104 RMB; the economic thickness range of XPS is 41–197 mm, with a total cost of 0.92–4.66 × 104 RMB; the economic thickness range of PU is 33–149 mm, with a total cost of 0.93–4.73 × 104 RMB; the economic thickness range of HVIP is 4–18 mm, with a total cost of 1.28–6.41 × 104 RMB. At the altitude of 950 m, the economic thickness range of RW is 28–158 mm, with a total cost of 0.65–3.26 × 104 RMB; the economic thickness range of XPS is 26–131 mm, with a total cost of 0.59–3 × 104 RMB; the economic thickness range of PU is 25–118 mm, with a total cost of 0.55–2.8 × 104 RMB; the economic thickness range of HVIP is 2–12 mm, with a total cost of 0.76–3.89 × 104 RMB. It can be seen that the economic thickness of conventional insulation materials spans a wide range, especially for RW.
Meanwhile, the carbon emissions corresponding to the economic thickness of the four insulation materials were calculated, as shown in Figure 10. Due to the high price of HVIP, its economic thickness is much smaller compared to conventional insulation materials in the same year, while the heating energy consumption required will be larger than conventional insulation materials, so its carbon emission is higher than conventional insulation materials.

4. Conclusions

In this study, the insulation of a CH was improved with reference to the requirements of NZEB standard for thermal performance of the envelope, the heating energy consumption of CH with different insulation materials was simulated and their economic and environmental benefits were analyzed. Meanwhile, the economic thickness of different insulation materials was calculated considering the service life of the CH.
Improving the insulation performance of CH has a great energy-saving effect. The annual heating energy consumption of CH is reduced by 32.8% at the altitude of 2177.5 m and 21.4% at the altitude of 950 m compared to the original envelope when the U-values of the envelope meet the NZEB standard. In addition, carbon emissions are reduced as the service lives of CH increase. After reducing the U-values of the envelope to meet NZEB standard, carbon emissions are 18.5% lower at the altitude of 2177.5 m and 29.5% lower at the altitude of 950 m, if the CH is used for 20 years. Therefore, it is evidently seen that HVIP has the longest payback period, up to 31.4 years at the altitude of 950 m, which is less economically beneficial when meeting the NZEB standard.
What is more, the service life of the CH has a great impact on the economic thickness. When the service life is from 1 to 20 years, the economic thickness range is 47–235 mm for RW, 41–197 mm for XPS, 33–149 mm for PU, and 4–18 mm for HVIP at the altitude of 2177.5 m. At the altitude of 950 m, the economic thickness range is 28–158 mm for RW, 26–131 mm for XPS, 25–118 mm for PU, and 2–12 mm for HVIP. The total cost and carbon emission of the economic thickness of HVIP is still higher than that of conventional insulation materials. If HVIP is widely used in the future, the price may be reduced, which is likely to result in the reduction of the total cost and carbon emission reduced.
CHs are now a commonly used prefabricated element in the building industry. The CHs achieved a variety of functional applications during the Beijing 2022 Olympic Winter Games. After the game, as sustainable legacies, the CHs have been recycled and transformed as convenience stores, reading bars, hotel rooms and so on to play an important role in urban comprehensive development and urban renewal. Although the research of this paper is based on the meteorological parameters of Xiaohaituo Mountain, the results are also appropriate for similar climate conditions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.Y.; Investigation, Y.S.; Data curation, B.G.; Writing—original draft, Y.T.; Writing—review & editing, L.B. and C.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Ministry of Science and Technology under project number 2021YFF0306305 and Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission under project number Z201100005820007.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Acknowledgments

This study is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program (2021YFF0306305) and the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Project (Z201100005820007).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wang, Y.; Long, E.; Deng, S. Applying passive cooling measures to a temporary disaster-relief prefabricated house to improve its indoor thermal environment in summer in the subtropics. Energy Build. 2017, 139, 456–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Atmaca, A.; Atmaca, N. Comparative life cycle energy and cost analysis of post-disaster temporary housings. Appl. Energy 2016, 171, 429–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. D’Orazio, M.; Maracchini, G. An experimental investigation on the indoor hygrothermal environment of a reinforced-EPS based temporary housing solution. Energy Build. 2019, 204, 109500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Song, Y.; Mithraratne, N.; Zhang, H. Life-time performance of post-disaster temporary housing: A case study in Nanjing. Energy Build. 2016, 128, 394–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Elrayies, G.M. Thermal Performance Assessment of Shipping Container Architecture in Hot and Humid Climates. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2017, 7, 1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Islam, H.; Zhang, G.; Setunge, S.; Bhuiyan, M.A. Life cycle assessment of shipping container home: A sustainable construction. Energy Build. 2016, 128, 673–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Liu, C.; Chen, R.; Sera, F.; Vicedo-Cabrera, A.M.; Guo, Y.; Tong, S.; Coelho, M.S.Z.S.; Saldiva, P.H.N.; Lavigne, E.; Matus, P.; et al. Ambient Particulate Air Pollution and Daily Mortality in 652 Cities. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 381, 705–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ren, J.; Tang, M.; Novoselac, A. Experimental study to quantify airborne particle deposition onto and resuspension from clothing using a fluorescent-tracking method. Build. Environ. 2022, 209, 108580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ren, J.; He, J.; Kong, X.; Xu, W.; Kang, Y.; Yu, Z.; Li, H. A field study of CO2 and particulate matter characteristics during the transition season in the subway system in Tianjin, China. Energy Build. 2022, 254, 111620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Albadra, D. Measurement and analysis of air quality in temporary shelters on three continents. Build. Environ. 2020, 185, 107259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chen, P.-T.; Yao, G.C.; Yu, C.; Liu, L.-F.; Wen, J.-H.; Huang, C.-H. A comparison of residents’ satisfaction with temporary housing: A case study of two temporary housing types in southern Taiwan. J. Chin. Inst. Eng. 2014, 37, 635–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Li, R.; Wang, M.; Zhu, J. Indoor Thermal Environment Monitoring and Evaluation of Double-Deck Prefabricated House in Central China—Taking Zhengzhou Area as an Example. Energy Procedia 2019, 158, 2812–2819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Huang, L.; Long, E.; Ouyang, J. Measurement of the Thermal Environment in Temporary Settlements with High Building Density after 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake in China. Procedia Eng. 2015, 121, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, Y.; Wang, L.; Long, E.; Deng, S. An experimental study on the indoor thermal environment in prefabricated houses in the subtropics. Energy Build. 2016, 127, 529–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yoo, H.-Y.; Park, Y.-J.; Yoon, J.-Y. A Study on the Improving Direction of Container Housing through Field Survey—Based on the Analysis of 12 cases in the Urban Area. J. Korean Hous. Assoc. 2012, 23, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Thapa, R.; Rijal, H.B.; Shukuya, M. Field study on acceptable indoor temperature in temporary shelters built in Nepal after massive earthquake 2015. Build. Environ. 2018, 135, 330–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Thapa, R.; Rijal, H.B.; Shukuya, M.; Imagawa, H. Study on the wintry thermal improvement of makeshift shelters built after Nepal earthquake 2015. Energy Build. 2019, 199, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Honma, Y. Case study on ventilation for improving the hygrothermal behaviour of emergency temporary housing under japanese conditions. Int. J. Vent. 2015, 14, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Soga, N.; Fujiga, M. Research on the preparedness activities for provision of the emergency temporary housing. Aij J. Technol. Des. 2022, 28, 1442–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Avlar, E.; LϊMoncu, S.; Tizman, D. Post-earthquake temporary housing unit: CLT E-BOX. J. Fac. Eng. Archit. Gazi Univ. 2022, 38, 471–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nocera, F.; Castagneto, F.; Gagliano, A. Passive House as Temporary Housing after Disasters. In Proceedings of the 18 th International Conference on Renewable Energies and Power Quality (ICREPQ’20), Granada, Spain, 1–2 April 2020; Volume 18, pp. 42–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nocera, F.; Gagliano, A.; Detommaso, M. Energy performance of cross-laminated timber panel (X-Lam) buildings: A case study. Math. Model. Eng. Probl. 2018, 5, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Grębowski, K.; Kałdunek, D. Using Container Structures in Architecture and Urban Design. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 245, 042087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Berbesz, A.M.; Szefer, I.M. Innovations in shaping the residential and retail buildings. Functional and pro-environmental potential of shipping containers in architecture. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 415, 012052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Garzón-Juan, M.; Nieto-Morote, A.; Ruz-Vila, F. Review of NZEB Criteria: Design of Life Containers in Operations Area. Energies 2022, 15, 467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Liu, P.; Zhang, Z. Study on indoor thermal environment of temporary building envelope in cold area. Energy Conserv. 2019, 38, 1–3. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  27. Yang, S.; Wi, S.; Cho, H.M.; Park, J.H.; Yun, B.Y.; Kim, S. Developing energy-efficient temporary houses for sustainable urban regeneration: Manufacturing homes with loess, pearlite, and vermiculite. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 61, 102287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cornaro, C.; Sapori, D.; Bucci, F.; Pierro, M.; Giammanco, C. Thermal performance analysis of an emergency shelter using dynamic building simulation. Energy Build. 2015, 88, 122–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bowley, W.; Mukhopadhyaya, P. A sustainable design for an off-grid passive container house. Int. Rev. Appl. Sci. Eng. 2017, 8, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Satola, D.; Kristiansen, A.B.; Houlihan-Wiberg, A.; Gustavsen, A.; Ma, T.; Wang, R.Z. Comparative life cycle assessment of various energy efficiency designs of a container-based housing unit in China: A case study. Build. Environ. 2020, 186, 107358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kristiansen, A.B.; Satola, D.; Lee, K.; Zhao, B.; Ma, T.; Wang, R.Z.; Gustavsen, A.; Novakovic, V. Feasibility study of an off-grid container unit for industrial construction. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 61, 102335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tettey, U.Y.A.; Dodoo, A.; Gustavsson, L. Effects of different insulation materials on primary energy and CO2 emission of a multi-storey residential building. Energy Build. 2014, 82, 369–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pargana, N.; Pinheiro, M.D.; Silvestre, J.D.; de Brito, J. Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of thermal insulation materials of buildings. Energy Build. 2014, 82, 466–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Llantoy, N.; Chàfer, M.; Cabeza, L.F. A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of different insulation materials for buildings in the continental Mediterranean climate. Energy Build. 2020, 225, 110323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Annibaldi, V.; Cucchiella, F.; Rotilio, M. Economic and environmental assessment of thermal insulation. A case study in the Italian context. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2021, 15, e00682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, L.; Liu, Z.; Hou, C.; Hou, J.; Wei, D.; Hou, Y. Optimization analysis of thermal insulation layer attributes of building envelope exterior wall based on DeST and life cycle economic evaluation. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2019, 14, 100410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gounni, A.; Mabrouk, M.T.; El Wazna, M.; Kheiri, A.; El Alami, M.; El Bouari, A.; Cherkaoui, O. Thermal and economic evaluation of new insulation materials for building envelope based on textile waste. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2019, 149, 475–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dylewski, R. Optimal Thermal Insulation Thicknesses of External Walls Based on Economic and Ecological Heating Cost. Energies 2019, 12, 3415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Özel, G.; Açıkkalp, E.; Görgün, B.; Yamık, H.; Caner, N. Optimum insulation thickness determination using the environmental and life cycle cost analyses based entransy approach. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2015, 11, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. GB 50176-2016; Code for Thermal Design of Civil Building. China Architecture and Building Press: Beijing, China, 2016. (In Chinese)
  41. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019; Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. Available online: https://ashrae.iwrapper.com/ASHRAE_PREVIEW_ONLY_STANDARDS/STD_90.1_2019 (accessed on 20 August 2021).
  42. Dong, B.; Widjaja, R.; Wu, W.; Zhou, Z. Review of onsite temperature and solar forecasting models to enable better building design and operations. Build. Simul. 2021, 14, 885–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. GB/T 31433-2015; General specification for building curtain walls, windows and doors. Standards Press of China: Beijing, China, 2015. (In Chinese)
  44. GB 50736-2012; Design Code for Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning of Civil Buildings. China Architecture and Building Press: Beijing, China, 2012. (In Chinese)
  45. Berardi, U. The impact of temperature dependency of the building insulation thermal conductivity in the Canadian climate. Energy Procedia 2017, 132, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hung Anh, L.D.; Pásztory, Z. An overview of factors influencing thermal conductivity of building insulation materials. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 102604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Khoukhi, M.; Fezzioui, N.; Draoui, B.; Salah, L. The impact of changes in thermal conductivity of polystyrene insulation material under different operating temperatures on the heat transfer through the building envelope. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2016, 105, 669–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. DB11/891-2020; Design Standard for Energy Efficiency of Residential Buildings. Beijing Municipal Bureau of market supervision and Administration: Beijing, China, 2020. (In Chinese)
  49. GB/T 25975-2018; Rock Wool Products for External Thermal Insulation Composite Systems (ETICS). Standards Press of China: Beijing, China, 2018. (In Chinese)
  50. GB/T 10801.2-2018; Rigid Extruded Polystyrene Foam Board for Thermal Insulation (XPS). Standards Press of China: Beijing, China, 2018. (In Chinese)
  51. GB/T 51350-2019; Technical Standard for Nearly Zero Energy Buildings. China Architecture and Building Press: Beijing, China, 2019. (In Chinese)
  52. Hou, J.; Zhang, T.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, L.; Fukuda, H. Application evaluation of passive energy-saving strategies in exterior envelopes for rural traditional dwellings in northeast of Sichuan hills, China. Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol. 2022, 17, 342–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhao, J.; Li, S. Life cycle cost assessment and multi-criteria decision analysis of environment-friendly building insulation materials—A review. Energy Build. 2022, 254, 111582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Atmaca, N. Life-cycle assessment of post-disaster temporary housing. Build. Res. Inf. 2017, 45, 524–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wang, R.; Lu, S.; Feng, W.; Zhai, X.; Li, X. Sustainable framework for buildings in cold regions of China considering life cycle cost and environmental impact as well as thermal comfort. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 3036–3050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Corporate Greenhouse Gas Emission Accounting Methodology and Reporting Guidelines, Power Generation Facilities (Revision 2021) (Draft for Comments). Available online: https://www.mee.gov.cn/xxgk2018/xxgk/xxgk06/202112/t20211202_962776.html (accessed on 15 September 2022).
  57. GB/T 51366-2019; Standard for Building Carbon Emission Calculation. China Architecture and Building Press: Beijing, China, 2019. (In Chinese)
  58. Wang, Z. Study and Optimization of Life Cycle CO2 Emission Performance of Exterior Wall Insulation System in Cold Area. Master’s Thesis, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China, 2020. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  59. Resalati, S.; Okoroafor, T.; Henshall, P.; Simões, N.; Gonçalves, M.; Alam, M. Comparative life cycle assessment of different vacuum insulation panel core materials using a cradle to gate approach. Build. Environ. 2021, 188, 107501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Johansson, P.; Adl-Zarrabi, B.; Sasic Kalagasidis, A. Evaluation of 5 years’ performance of VIPs in a retrofitted building façade. Energy Build. 2016, 130, 488–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Batard, A.; Duforestel, T.; Flandin, L.; Yrieix, B. Prediction method of the long-term thermal performance of Vacuum Insulation Panels installed in building thermal insulation applications. Energy Build. 2018, 178, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mao, S.; Kan, A.; Zhu, W.; Yuan, Y. The impact of vacuum degree and barrier envelope on thermal property and service life of vacuum insulation panels. Energy Build. 2020, 209, 109699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Berardi, U. The impact of aging and environmental conditions on the effective thermal conductivity of several foam materials. Energy 2019, 182, 777–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wang, Y.; Liu, K.; Liu, Y.; Wang, D.; Liu, J. The impact of temperature and relative humidity dependent thermal conductivity of insulation materials on heat transfer through the building envelope. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 46, 103700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Abanda, F.H.; Tah, J.H.M.; Cheung, F.K.T. Mathematical modelling of embodied energy, greenhouse gases, waste, time–cost parameters of building projects: A review. Build. Environ. 2013, 59, 23–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zhang, X.; Liu, K.; Zhang, Z. Life cycle carbon emissions of two residential buildings in China: Comparison and uncertainty analysis of different assessment methods. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 266, 122037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. GB 55015-2021; General Code for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Application in Buildings. China Architecture and Building Press: Beijing, China, 2021. (In Chinese)
  68. Hou, J.; Zhang, T.; Liu, Z.; Hou, C.; Fukuda, H. A study on influencing factors of optimum insulation thickness of exterior walls for rural traditional dwellings in northeast of Sichuan hills, China. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 16, e01033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Daouas, N. A study on optimum insulation thickness in walls and energy savings in Tunisian buildings based on analytical calculation of cooling and heating transmission loads. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 19 16417 g001 550
Figure 1. Monthly mean temperature (a) 2177.5 m; (b) 950 m; (c) typical year.
Figure 1. Monthly mean temperature (a) 2177.5 m; (b) 950 m; (c) typical year.
Ijerph 19 16417 g001
Ijerph 19 16417 g002 550
Figure 2. The grandstand and CHs of the Technical Finish Area.
Figure 2. The grandstand and CHs of the Technical Finish Area.
Ijerph 19 16417 g002
Ijerph 19 16417 g003 550
Figure 3. (a) The photo of the experimental CH; (b) The dimensions of the CH; (c) Simulation model.
Figure 3. (a) The photo of the experimental CH; (b) The dimensions of the CH; (c) Simulation model.
Ijerph 19 16417 g003
Ijerph 19 16417 g004 550
Figure 4. The location of the temperature measuring point in the experimental CH.
Figure 4. The location of the temperature measuring point in the experimental CH.
Ijerph 19 16417 g004
Ijerph 19 16417 g005 550
Figure 5. (a) USB temperature and humidity recorder; (b) SMD temperature recorder; (c) meteorological station.
Figure 5. (a) USB temperature and humidity recorder; (b) SMD temperature recorder; (c) meteorological station.
Ijerph 19 16417 g005
Ijerph 19 16417 g006 550
Figure 6. Comparisons between the measured and simulated (a) indoor air temperatures; (b) internal surface temperatures of glass door.
Figure 6. Comparisons between the measured and simulated (a) indoor air temperatures; (b) internal surface temperatures of glass door.
Ijerph 19 16417 g006
Ijerph 19 16417 g007 550
Figure 7. Carbon emissions of the original envelope and the optimized envelope, in terms of different service lives (a) 2177.5 m; (b) 950 m. Note: The U-values of the optimized envelope meet the NZEB standard.
Figure 7. Carbon emissions of the original envelope and the optimized envelope, in terms of different service lives (a) 2177.5 m; (b) 950 m. Note: The U-values of the optimized envelope meet the NZEB standard.
Ijerph 19 16417 g007
Ijerph 19 16417 g008 550
Figure 8. Variation of cost with insulation thickness (a) RW; (b) XPS; (c) PU; (d) HVIP.
Figure 8. Variation of cost with insulation thickness (a) RW; (b) XPS; (c) PU; (d) HVIP.
Ijerph 19 16417 g008
Ijerph 19 16417 g009 550
Figure 9. Variation of economic thickness and total cost with service life (a) RW; (b) XPS; (c) PU; (d) HVIP.
Figure 9. Variation of economic thickness and total cost with service life (a) RW; (b) XPS; (c) PU; (d) HVIP.
Ijerph 19 16417 g009
Ijerph 19 16417 g010 550
Figure 10. Carbon emissions corresponding to the economic thickness (a) 2177.5 m; (b) 950 m.
Figure 10. Carbon emissions corresponding to the economic thickness (a) 2177.5 m; (b) 950 m.
Ijerph 19 16417 g010
Table
Table 1. Thermophysical parameters of non-transparent envelope.
Table 1. Thermophysical parameters of non-transparent envelope.
EnvelopeStructuresThickness mmThermal Conductivity W/(m·K)Specific Heat J/(kg·K)Density kg/m3
WallSteel panel1.2453007800
RW750.041220160
Aluminum honeycomb panel90.8830010
FloorSteel panel1.2453007800
RW750.041220160
Cement pressure plate180.039900350
reflective coating10.0398372710
Composite wood board120.241500800
RoofSteel panel1.2453007800
RW750.041220160
Aluminum honeycomb panel50.8830010
Table
Table 2. Thermophysical parameters of transparent envelope.
Table 2. Thermophysical parameters of transparent envelope.
EnvelopeStructureHeat Transfer
Coefficient of Glass W/(m2·K)		Solar Heat Gain
Coefficient (SHGC)
Window/Door6 mm Low-E glass1.80.43
12 mm air layer
6 mm clear glass
Table
Table 3. Characteristics of the selected insulation materials.
Table 3. Characteristics of the selected insulation materials.
Insulation MaterialThermal Conductivity (W/m·K)Specific Heat (J/kg·K)Density (kg/m3)Fire Rating
RW0.041220160A
XPS0.03138035B1
PU0.024138035B1
HVIP0.005876200A
Table
Table 4. U-values of envelope under the NZEB standard.
Table 4. U-values of envelope under the NZEB standard.
Building PartU-Value (W/m2·K)
Severe Cold RegionCold Region
Wall0.240.298
Roof0.1940.299
Floor0.30.395
Table
Table 5. Insulation material thicknesses for different parts of envelopes required under the NZEB standard.
Table 5. Insulation material thicknesses for different parts of envelopes required under the NZEB standard.
Building Part2177.5 m950 m
RWXPSPUHVIPRWXPSPUHVIP
Wall1601209620128967716
Roof20015012025128967716
Floor1047862.5137254439
Table
Table 6. Calculation parameters.
Table 6. Calculation parameters.
ParameterValue Unit
CPRW750RMB/m3
XPS800
PU1100
HVIP15,000
CI240RMB/m3
ET1.05RMB/kWh
N1~20 [30,54]year(s)
r5% [53,55]-
EFOPE0.5839 [56]kgCO2/(kW·h)
EFPRORW316.8 [57]kgCO2/m3
XPS296.6 [58]
PU363.7 [58]
HVIP2220 [59]
Table
Table 7. Usable area (S) and usable volume (V) under the NZEB standard.
Table 7. Usable area (S) and usable volume (V) under the NZEB standard.
S (m2)/V (m3)Original Envelope2177.5 m950 m
RWXPSPUHVIPRWXPSPUHVIP
S16.715.215.916.317.615.816.316.617.7
V45.839.542.544.350.542.644.846.350.9
The thickness corresponding to different insulation materials are shown in Table 5.
Table
Table 8. The heating energy consumption.
Table 8. The heating energy consumption.
2177.5 m950 m
Original EnvelopeRWXPSPUHVIPOriginal EnvelopeRWXPSPUHVIP
Energy
consumption (kW·h)		4588.930653087.93088.13089.52372.71857.618661866.41867.7
The thickness corresponding to different insulation materials are shown in Table 5.
Table
Table 9. The payback periods.
Table 9. The payback periods.
2177.5 m950 m
RWXPSPUHVIPRWXPSPUHVIP
Payback period (year)3.962.52.813.66.42.93.531.4
The thickness corresponding to different insulation materials are shown in Table 5.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tong, Y.; Yang, H.; Bao, L.; Guo, B.; Shi, Y.; Wang, C. Analysis of Thermal Insulation Thickness for a Container House in the Yanqing Zone of the Beijing 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16417. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416417

AMA Style

Tong Y, Yang H, Bao L, Guo B, Shi Y, Wang C. Analysis of Thermal Insulation Thickness for a Container House in the Yanqing Zone of the Beijing 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(24):16417. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416417

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tong, Yurou, Hui Yang, Li Bao, Baoxia Guo, Yanzhuo Shi, and Congcong Wang. 2022. "Analysis of Thermal Insulation Thickness for a Container House in the Yanqing Zone of the Beijing 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 24: 16417. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416417

APA Style

Tong, Y., Yang, H., Bao, L., Guo, B., Shi, Y., & Wang, C. (2022). Analysis of Thermal Insulation Thickness for a Container House in the Yanqing Zone of the Beijing 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(24), 16417. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416417

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop