Real Value of U Values White Paper June 2016

In sulation
First Issue
June 2016
See rear cover for applicable countries
The Real Value of Improving U-values

THE IMPACT OF DIFFERING U-VALUE SPECIFICATIONS ON THE
ROI ASSOCIATED WITH ENERGY SAVINGS IN NON-DOMESTIC
AND DOMESTIC BUILDINGS IN THE MIDDLE EAST - WHITE PAPER
Understand the positive impact of

improving todays regulations
www.kingspaninsulation.ae/u-valuebenefits
Low Energy
Low Carbon Buildings
Contents
Page
Introduction 4

Executive Summary
Analysis 5
Background
Approach

Baseline U-values
5
5
6
Construction 7

Wall Construction Reinforced Concrete with Concrete Block infill

Floor Construction Concrete Slab
Roof Construction Concrete Deck
7
8
9
Case Studies
10
10
12
14
16
18
20
Villa
Low-rise Residential
High-rise Residential
Low-rise Commercial
High-rise Commercial
Hotel
Conclusion 22
Appendix A

24
Construction Build ups Specification & Cost
28
Appendix B

29
Modelled Buildings Specification & Assumptions 30
Introduction
Executive Summary
The operational expenditure of a commercial building is
a fundamental metric in understanding the valuation, and
thus the investment potential, of real estate. The operational
expenditure is deducted from the future income streams of
a building, and therefore, a higher operational expenditure
will reduce future income streams, and as such, give a
lower valuation.
The findings show that, despite the requirement for a CapEx

uplift for the additional insulation ranging from 0.01% to 3.23%
of total development costs, the additional cost of increasing
the insulation to achieve the required U-values can provide an
over whelming ROI* and energy saving potential:
Additionally, governments across the Gulf are commiting to

cut carbon emissions and energy demand, with programmes
such as Dubais integrated energy strategy, Abu Dhabis Vision
2030 and Qatars National Vision 2030.
l with the potential to save up to 92 tonnes of CO2
As such, the demand for energy reducing solutions has

intensified. However, understanding the Return on Investment
(ROI) that can be generated from the increased Capital
Expenditure (CapEx) on energy saving solutions, is paramount
to them being considered, by building owners
and developers, long term.
l up to 84% of calculations for a building showed an
l 100% of the 1,241 calculations showed energy savings
and a reduction in carbon emissions;

emissions annually in just one building;
l 1 in 5 of the total calculations showed an ROI of
over 200%;
ROI of over 100%; and
l all six modelled buildings showed opportunities for
a positive ROI one building an instant ROI and, in

absence of that, over 6,500%.
With the aim of quantifying the energy saving benefits, and

therefore, financial benefits, that result from insulating the
floors, soffits, roofs and external walls of new non-domestic
and domestic buildings, Kingspan Insulation commissioned
Mott MacDonald to investigate the energy saving benefits of
improving U-values.
All of the models in each of the

study locations showed a reduction in
cooling and overall energy consumption
when improvements were made to the
U-values of the buildings wall, roof
and floor elements
To this end, Mott MacDonald developed a research

programme to analyse six modelled buildings that denoted
representations of common building types found across
the Middle East. The modelled buildings were subsequently
analysed, by Sefaira Systems Software, to identify the energy
savings obtained via the use of Kingspan Kooltherm
wall, soffit and floor insulation solutions and Kingspan
Thermaroof insulation solutions in five different locations
across the region: Dubai, U.A.E.; Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.; Muscat,
Oman; Doha, Qatar; and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Two types of
external wall construction, one type of floor construction and
one type of roof construction were examined.
Mott MacDonald
* The overall return on the additional CapEx investment required for the use of Kingspan
Kooltherm wall, soffit and floor insulation solutions and Kingspan Thermaroof insulation
solutions to meet the required U-value specification over a 50 year lifetime of the building.
Analysis
Background
Approach
This study looks at the energy saving benefits, and therefore,

financial benefits, that result from improving U-values in floor,
soffit, roof and external wall constructions.
To quantify the energy saving benefits, and therefore, financial

benefits, that result from additional insulation in the floors,
roofs and external walls, Mott MacDonald used an approach
that comprised the following four stages.
The U-value is a sum of thermal resistances of the layers that

make up a building element (i.e. walls, floors, roofs etc.). This
value, measured in W/m2.k, shows the ability of an element to
transmit heat from a warm space to a cold space in a building
and, more specifically, from outside to inside the building. If
an element has a higher thermal resistance, it has a lower
the U-value. The lower the U-value the better insulated the
building element is. Across the Middle East, regional building
regulations are in place, which prescribe different U-value
specifications for architects and consultants to adhere to when
designing a building.
Stage 1: Developing the Building Models

Locations in which the buildings were to be modelled included:
l Dubai, U.A.E.;
l Abu Dhabi, U.A.E;
l Doha, Qatar;
l Muscat, Oman; and
l Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
The following six different building typologies were identified

to cover the majority of construction development that is
undertaken in the aforementioned locations:
The complete analysis considered six different building types

and commercial variables (e.g. geographical location, energy
usage and material cost) and a range of performance variables
(e.g. HVAC system type, HVAC operating hours and occupant
density)*, that were representative of modern day building
stock across the Middle East. The modelled buildings were
subsequently analysed to identify the energy savings obtained
by improving U-value specifications via the use of Kingspan
Kooltherm wall, soffit and floor insulation solutions and
Kingspan Thermaroof insulation solutions.
l villa;
l low-rise residential;
l high-rise residential;
l low-rise commercial;
l high-rise commercial; and
l hotel.
Stage 2: Build-up selection

For each element, common methods of construction were
identified as those typically used within buildings in the
chosen locations.
To establish the extent of the financial value for the energy

savings, regional baseline insulation specifications were
compared against improved insulation specifications. The
construction costs for each different U-value specification
were used as direct inputs into the models. The increased
CapEx was, therefore, calculated by subtracting the savings
due to the reduction in cooling plant size from the cost of the
additional insulation. The subsequent outputs from the models
were evaluated to determine the energy cost savings over the
life time of the building resulting from the increased U-value
specification. The ROI was thus calculated by dividing the
former by the latter.
For floor constructions, concrete slabs have been insulated

below through the use of Kingspan Kooltherm K10 FM Soffit
Board, or above through the use of Kingspan Kooltherm
K3 Floorboard. For high-rise buildings, a podium level has
been assumed, and therefore, soffit insulation has been used.
For low-rise buildings, the floor is assumed to be connected to
the floor so has been insulated above with floor insulation.
For roof constructions, concrete decks have been insulated
above through the use of Kingspan Thermaroof TR27
LPC/FM.
For wall constructions, two build-ups were considered,
buildings which incorporate a cladding faade have been
insulated through the use of Kingspan Kooltherm K15
Cladding board or buildings which incorporate an Exterior
Insulation Finishing System (EIFS) have been insulated through
the use of Kingspan Kooltherm K5 External Wall board.
These walls consist of a reinforced concrete structure, which
has been in filled with concrete blockwork.
Full details of the construction build-ups can be found in
Appendix A.
* See Appendix B for further details of assumptions used in Sefaira Systems Software
Analysis
U-values
Standards and regulations in the listed locations and regions
were considered for each baseline insulation specification. The
baseline U-values can be found in Tables 1 & 2 below.
Stage 3: Insulation specifications

Standards and regulations in the listed locations and regions
were considered for each baseline insulation specification.
For Dubai, this incorporated the Dubai Green Building Code;
for Abu Dhabi, this incorporated the Abu Dhabi International
Energy Code; for Doha, this incorporated Karamah
Regulations; for Riyadh, this incorporated the draft Saudi
Arabian Standard, SASO and, where applicable, ASHRAE
Energy Standard 90.1-2013 (for all buildings except low-rise
residential buildings) and ASHRAE Energy Standard 90.2-2007
(for low-rise residential buildings); and for Muscat, ASHRAE
Energy Standards 90.1 and 90.2 were considered as no local
standards are in place.
U-value (W/m2.K)

Abu Dhabi, Dubai,
Element U.A.E.
U.A.E.
Doha,
Qatar
Muscat,
Oman
Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia
Wall
0.329
0.57
0.57
Roof
0.221
0.30
0.437
0.857/3.293 0.857/3.293
0.27
0.22/0.27
Floor
1.828
0.57
1.825
1.825
1.825
Table 1: U-value regulations for commercial buildings across the Gulf

U-value (W/m2.K)

Abu Dhabi, Dubai,
Element U.A.E.
U.A.E.
The proposed improved U-values were concluded from

carefully considering standards and regulations across
the globe.
Stage 4: Cost Analysis
The cost breakdown and elemental rates for each build-up
were ascertained. Prelims, contingency, delivery costs and
professionals fees were excluded. The analysis of the cost
differential between each build-up for each construction
did, however, include a deep review of cost differences e.g.
materials, labour sundries. In addition, all costs such as
construction costs and energy costs were assessed on a
regional basis, and therefore, overall development and energy
costs are different for each of the geographical profiles.
Doha,
Qatar
Muscat,
Oman
Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia
0.57
1.48/0.857
0.53/0.857
Wall
0.57
0.57
Roof
0.31
0.30
0.437
0.22
0.22/0.31
Floor
0.36
0.57
1.825
1.825
1.825
Table 2: U-value regulations for residential buildings across the Gulf
The improved U-value specifications are shown in Table 3.

Improved U-values W/m2.K
Wall
0.45
0.30/ 0.29
0.22/0.20
0.18
Roof
0.29
0.20
0.14
0.10
Floor
0.54
0.30
0.19
0.13
Table 3: Improved U-value specifications used in Sefaira

Systems Software
Please refer to Appendix A for further details of the

construction build-up costs.
ote: Where the baselines varied, the iterations had two options. The second option would be
N
used if the first option was too close to the baseline value.
Environmental and building performance profiles for each

location and building type were created. The outputs,
generated by Sefaira Systems Software, were ascertained
and a quantified energy saving could be determined by
comparing the proposed improved specifications against
the baseline model for the specific location.
Please refer to Appendix B for further details of the model
used to generate the energy savings.
Construction
Wall Construction Reinforced Concrete
with Concrete Block infill
Wall Construction Reinforced Concrete

with Concrete Block infill
Cost of wall build-up
Cost of wall build-up
Bedding compound
(render system only)
3 mm skim coated
12.5 mm plasterboard
on dabs
Noncombustible substrate
structural masonry wall
Kingspan Kooltherm
K5 External
Wall Board
Kingspan KoolthermTM
K15 Cladding Board
Cladding panel
Mechanical fixings
(render system only)
Render system
incorporating EML
or glass fibre mesh
(alternative cladding
system)
Proprietary fixing rail
Discrete fixing bracket
Figure 2 Build-up incorporating Kingspan Kooltherm K15
Figure 1 Build-up incorporating Kingspan Kooltherm K5 External

Wall Board

Location
Cladding Board
Baseline Build-up Costs per m2 (USD $)
Location
Residential
Commercial
Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.
112.87
116.72
Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.
256.97
262.26
Dubai, U.A.E.
112.87
112.87
Dubai, U.A.E.
256.97
256.97
Doha, Qatar
120.93
120.93
Doha, Qatar
275.33
275.33
Muscat, Oman
90.46
106.58
Muscat, Oman
244.14
244.14/231.73
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
102.12
85.94
231.93
231.93/220.14
Residential
Table 6: Build-up costs to achieve baseline U-values for each of

the locations and buildings constructed using a cladding faade
insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm K15 Cladding Board
Table 4: Build-up costs to achieve baseline U-values for each of

the locations and buildings constructed using an External Insulation
Finishing System insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm K5 External
Wall Board
Improved Build-up Costs per m2 (USD $)
Commercial
U-value
(W/m2.K)
Abu Dhabi,
U.A.E.
Dubai,
U.A.E.
Doha,
Qatar
Muscat,
Oman
Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia
U-value
(W/m2.K)
Abu Dhabi,
U.A.E.
Dubai,
U.A.E.
Doha,
Qatar
Muscat,
Oman
Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia
0.54
N/A
N/A
N/A
244.74
232.50
0.52
N/A
N/A
N/A
107.50
102.12
0.45
257.79
257.79
276.20
N/A
N/A
0.45
113.42
113.42
121.52
N/A
102.62
0.30
262.26
262.26
280.99
249.78
237.29
0.29
116.72
116.72
125.06
111.16
105.60
0.22
268.53
268.53
287.71
255.74
242.96
0.20
121.83
121.83
130.53
116.02
110.22
0.18
277.51
277.51
297.33
264.30
251.08
0.18
123.25
123.25
132.06
117.38
111.51
Table 7: Build-up costs to achieve improved U-values for each of

the locations and buildings constructed using a cladding faade
insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm K15 Cladding Board
Table 5: Build-up costs to achieve improved U-values for each of

the locations and buildings constructed using an External Insulation
Finishing System insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm K5 External
Wall Board
Construction
Cost of floor build-up
Cost of floor build-up
Concrete wall
Floor screed
Concrete
slab
Concrete floor
Kingspan KoolthermTM
K3 Floorboard
Hardcore
Separation layer
(see Sitework)
Kingspan KoolthermTM K10

FM Soffit Board
Figure 3 Build-up incorporating Kingspan Kooltherm K10 FM

Soffit Board

Location
Damp proof
membrane
Figure 4 Build-up incorporating Kingspan Kooltherm K3

Floorboard


Commercial
Residential
Residential
Commercial
99.10
96.36
Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.
114.30
111.50
Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.
Location
Dubai, U.A.E.
96.87
96.87
Dubai, U.A.E.
112.93
112.93
Doha, Qatar
103.25
103.25
Doha, Qatar
119.47
119.47
Muscat, Oman
91.78
91.78
Muscat, Oman
106.19
106.19
87.19
87.19
100.88
100.88
Table 8: Build-up costs to achieve baseline U-values for each of the

locations and buildings constructed using a concrete slab insulated
below with Kingspan Kooltherm K10 FM Soffit Board
above with Kingspan Kooltherm K3 Floorboard
U-value
(W/m2.K)
Abu Dhabi,
U.A.E.
Dubai,
U.A.E.
Doha,
Qatar
Muscat,
Oman
Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia
U-value
(W/m2.K)
Abu Dhabi,
U.A.E.
Dubai,
U.A.E.
Doha,
Qatar
Muscat,
Oman
Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia
0.54
96.87
N/A
103.79
92.26
87.64
0.54
112.93
N/A
120.99
107.55
102.17
102.17
0.45
N/A
97.88
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.45
N/A
112.93
N/A
N/A
0.30
100.40
100.40
107.57
95.62
90.84
0.30
115.56
115.56
123.81
110.06
104.55
0.19
106.18
106.18
113.76
101.12
96.06
0.19
117.10
117.10
125.47
111.53
105.95
0.13
116.79
116.79
125.13
111.22
105.66
0.13
126.03
126.04
135.04
120.03
114.03
Table 9: Build-up costs to achieve improved U-values for each of the

below with Kingspan Kooltherm K10 FM Soffit Board
Table 11: Build-up costs to achieve improved U-values for each

of the locations and buildings constructed using a concrete slab
insulated above with Kingspan Kooltherm K3 Floorboard
Roof Construction Concrete Deck

Cost of roof build-up
Paving Slab
Waterproofing e.g. single-ply
non-bituminous membrane
Damp proof course (DPC)
Seperation
Layer
Screed Bedding
50mm
screed to falls
Insulation
upstand min.
300mm from
bottom surface
of horizontal
insulation layer
150mm
concrete deck
Kingspan Thermaroof TM
TR27 LPC/FM
Figure 5 Build-up incorporating Kingspan Thermaroof TR27

LPC/FM

Location

Commercial
Residential
Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.
205.30
208.74
205.30
Dubai, U.A.E.
205.30
Doha, Qatar
217.30
217.30
Muscat, Oman
198.80
196.02
188.86/186.22
188.86/185.74
locations and buildings constructed using a concrete deck insulated
with Kingspan Thermaroof TR27 LPC/FM

U-value
(W/m2.K)
Abu Dhabi,
U.A.E.
Dubai,
U.A.E.
Doha,
Qatar
Muscat,
Oman
Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia
0.29
N/A
N/A
219.96
N/A
N/A
0.25
206.26
206.26
N/A
196.44
186.62
0.20
210.44
210.44
225.47
200.42
190.40
0.14
215.07
215.07
230.44
204.83
194.59
0.10
229.98
229.98
246.40
219.02
208.07
Table 13: Build-up costs to achieve improved U-values for each

of the locations and buildings constructed using a concrete deck
insulated with Kingspan Thermaroof TR27 LPC/FM
Case Studies
Villa
A typical new build Villa located in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. The building comprises two storeys, three bedrooms and a ground
floor area of 125 m 2. The model assumed a standard HVAC System of VRF fan coil unit with central outside air. Refer to
Appendix B for further details of the building assumptions.
Baseline Building
Description
Value
Wall U-value (W/m .K) 0.57

Wall build-up costs ($/m2) 115.39
Roof U-value (W/m2.K) 0.31
Roof build-up costs ($/m2) 205.30
Floor U-value (W/m2.K) 0.36
Floor build-up costs ($/m2) 114.30
Total Development Cost ($)
282,038.03
Projected Annual Energy Usage (kWhr/year)

53,131
2
Table 14: Details of the baseline villa building model in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm and Kingspan Thermaroof
insulation solutions
Improved Building
Description
Wall U-value (W/m2.K)

Value
0.45
Wall build-up costs ($/m2)
116.72
Total Fabric Uplift ($)
460.64 (0.16% of total development costs)
Projected annual energy Usage (kWhr/year)
52,538
Saving on Cooling Equipment ($)
34.03
Carbon Emissions Reduction (kgCO2/year) 356
Return on additional CapEx
5,412%
Table 15: Details of an improved villa building model in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm and Kingspan Thermaroof
10
ROI: Modelled Villa

Improved U-values (W/m2.K)
Location
Roof
Wall
Floor
Annual Energy
Saving (kWh/year)
Carbon Emissions
Savings (kgCO2/year)
ROI
Dubai, U.A.E.
0.25
0.45
0.45
625
375
Instant
0.25
0.29
0.45
1,289
773
799%
0.25
0.45
0.30
645
387
915%
Dubai, U.A.E.
Abu Dhabi, U.A.E

Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.
Doha, Qatar
Muscat, Oman
Muscat, Oman
0.20
0.18
0.30
1,805
1,042
242%
0.14
0.18
0.30
1,915
1,147
219%
0.14
0.20
0.19
1,826
1,095
222%
0.10
0.18
0.13
1,973
1,183
143%
0.25
0.29
0.30
1,204
723
602%
0.20
0.29
0.30
1,311
787
337%
0.14
0.29
0.30
1,441
865
246%
0.14
0.18
0.30
1,847
1,109
154%
0.10
0.20
0.19
1,923
1,154
118%
0.25
0.45
0.54
1,215
603
527%
0.25
0.29
0.54
1,971
978
222%
0.20
0.29
0.30
2,143
1,063
125%
0.14
0.29
0.30
2,290
1,136
102%
0.20
0.29
0.54
4,485
2,570
1,585%
0.20
0.52
0.19
3,713
2,128
Instant
0.20
0.54
0.54
3,713
2,128
6,927%
0.14
0.29
0.30
4,665
2,674
499%
0.10
0.18
0.13
5,142
2,947
126%
0.14
0.18
0.30
5,057
2,898
219%
0.25
0.29
0.54
831
605
138%
Table 16: ROI, energy savings and carbon emissions savings for modelled villa insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm and Kingspan
Thermaroof insulation solutions.
Summary
Reductions in annual electricity demand of up to 8.9% in
Muscat, Oman. In Saudi Arabia, this represented the
largest carbon emission reduction of up to 8.9% and 2.9
tonnesCO2/year.
Across all locations, the fabric uplift for the villa was the highest
of all the modelled buildings at between 0.11 and 3.23% of the
total development costs, with 3.23% representing the biggest
improvement in U-values, and therefore, the highest uplift.
However, the villa model calculations still concluded in 57%
of calculations giving a positive ROI, across all locations, and
100% of calculations in Muscat, Oman and Dubai, U.A.E.. It
also concluded in the highest ROI within the whole study, at
instant ROIs being calculated in Muscat and Dubai.
The results showed improving the floor U-value specification

offered the best opportunity for a positive ROI, but the smallest
energy reductions. However, increasing the wall insulation,
by far, had the greatest impact on energy usage and carbon
emissions and, furthermore, improving the U-value in the walls
could significantly reduce the buildings energy consumption
as opposed to the energy consumption calculated when
improving the floor and roof specification.
The villa showed the largest improvements when improving

U-values, with peak cooling demand being reduced by up to
12.7% in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and 12.3%, 9.2%, 6.8% and
6.1% in Muscat, Abu Dhabi, Doha and Dubai, respectively.
11
Case Studies
A typical new build low-rise residential building located in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The building comprises five storeys and a
total floor area of 5,711 m 2, and a ground floor area of 1,125 m 2. The model assumed a standard HVAC System of fan coils
with central outside air. Refer to Appendix B for further details of the building assumptions.
Baseline Building
Description
Value

Roof build-up costs ($/m2)
190.40
6,175,482.25

557,303
2
Table 17: Details of the baseline low-rise residential building model in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm and Kingspan
Thermaroof insulation solutions
Improved Building
Description

Value
0.29
105.60
12,566.43 (0.20% of total development costs)
549,260
2,120.48
Carbon Emissions Reduction (kgCO2/year) 5,847
205%
Table 18: Details of an improved low-rise residential building model in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm and Kingspan
12
ROI: Modelled Low-rise Residential Building

Location
Dubai, U.A.E.
Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.
Doha, Qatar
Muscat, Oman

Roof
Wall
Floor
Annual Energy
Saving (kWh/year)
Carbon Emissions
ROI
0.25
0.45
0.45
4,501
2,700
1,869%
0.10
0.18
0.13
16,425
9,855
154%
0.25
0.18
0.45
11,297
6,778
248%
0.25
0.45
0.30
5,906
3,243
764%
0.20
0.29
0.30
7,365
4,419
189%
0.14
0.20
0.19
10,670
6,402
120%
0.25
0.45
0.30
3,457
2,075
446%
0.25
0.45
0.45
12,850
6,374
323%
0.20
0.29
0.30
19,153
9,500
129%
0.25
0.20
0.45
19,503
9,673
105%
0.20
0.29
0.30
37,808
21,664
712%
0.14
0.20
0.19
42,492
24,348
322%
0.10
0.18
0.13
44,472
25,483
198%
0.20
0.45
0.45
32,370
18,548
3,242%
0.25
0.45
0.45
5,280
3,838
476%
0.20
0.29
0.30
9,634
7,004
145%
0.25
0.18
0.45
11,072
8,049
112%
Riyadh
Table 19: ROI, energy savings and carbon emissions savings for modelled Low-rise residential building insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm
and Kingspan Thermaroof insulation solutions
Summary
The results showed improving the floor U-value specification
offered the best opportunity for a positive ROI, but the smallest
energy reductions. However, increasing the wall insulation,
by far, had the greatest impact on energy usage and carbon
emissions and, furthermore, improving the U-value in the walls
improving the floor and roof specification.
Across all locations, the fabric uplift for the low-rise

residential building was between 0.06 and 1.35% of the total
development costs, with 1.35% representing the biggest
The model calculations concluded in the most improved
U-value combinations that would provide a positive ROI, at
84% across all locations, and 100% of calculations in Muscat,
Oman and Dubai, U.A.E.
The low-rise residential building showed the second largest
improvements when improving U-values, with peak cooling
demand being reduced by up to 9.4%. Reductions in annual
electricity demand of up to 6.5%, which represented a carbon
emission reduction of up to 6.5% and 25 tonnesCO2/year. It
concluded in the second highest ROI within the whole study,
at ROI of up to 3,242% being calculated in Muscat.
13
Case Studies
A typical new build high-rise residential building located in Dubai, U.A.E. The building comprises fourty three storeys and a
total floor area of 111,886 m 2, 2,602 m 2 per floor. The model assumed a standard HVAC System of fan coils with central
outside air. Refer to Appendix B for further details of the building assumptions.
Baseline Building
Description
Value

215,796,717.29

20,175,708
2
Table 20: Details of the baseline high-rise residential building model in Dubai, U.A.E. insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm and Kingspan
Improved Building
Description

Value
0.45
257.79
20,167,376
5,506.20
165%
Table 21: Details of an improved high-rise residential building model in Dubai, U.A.E. insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm and Kingspan
14
ROI: Modelled High-rise Residential Building

Location
Roof
Wall
Floor
Annual Energy
Saving (kWh/year)
Carbon Emissions
ROI
Dubai, U.A.E.
0.25
0.45
0.30
8,527
5,116
139%
0.20
0.45
0.45
9,090
5,454
133%
0.14
0.45
0.30
9,293
5,576
118%
0.25
0.13
0.45
27,083
16,250
21%
0.25
0.45
0.30
13,220
7,932
181%
Dubai, U.A.E.
Abu Dhabi, U.A.E

Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.
Doha,Qatar
Doha, Qatar
Riyadh
0.20
0.45
0.30
14,352
8,611
147%
0.14
0.45
0.30
15,545
9,327
124%
0.25
0.22
0.30
42,430
25,458
42%
0.25
0.45
0.54
34,258
16,992
226%
0.20
0.45
0.30
34,995
17,357
119%
0.14
0.45
0.54
37,095
18,399
119%
0.25
0.22
0.54
57,786
28,662
21%
0.20
0.54
0.54
45,914
33,379
882%
0.20
0.30
0.54
101,733
73,960
145%
0.14
0.54
0.54
48,473
35,240
526%
0.14
0.30
0.30
98,283
71,452
127%
Table 22: ROI, energy savings and carbon emissions savings for modelled high-rise residential building insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm
and Kingspan Thermaroof insulation solutions
Summary
Subsequently, the results showed improving the floor and
roof U-value specification offered the best opportunity for a
positive ROI. However, increased wall insulation, by far, had
the greatest impact on energy usage and carbon emissions
and, furthermore, that improving the U-value in the walls
improving the floor and roof specification. In most cases,
this would not produce a positive ROI, however, it is safe
to assume that as we see energy prices increase, this
will change.
All locations showed examples where a positive return

on investment could be made by improving the U-value
specification, with 882% in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia being
the highest.
The high-rise residential building showed peak cooling
demand being reduced by up to 1.9%. Reductions in annual
electricity demand of up to 0.7%, which represented a carbon
emission reduction of up to 0.7% and 92 tonnesCO2/year. By
amount, this was the highest reduction in carbon emissions
in the study.
Across all locations, the fabric uplift was the lowest out of
the six modelled buildings, at between 0.01 and 0.41% of
Additionally, due to the height of the building, the uplift for the
wall insulation was significantly higher than when improving
the U-value specification in the roof and floor.
15
Case Studies
Low-rise Commercial
A typical new build low-rise commercial building located in Muscat, Oman. The building comprises nine storeys and a total
floor area of 5,400 m 2, 600 m 2 per floor. The model assumed a standard HVAC System of fan coils with central outside air.
Refer to Appendix B for further details of the building assumptions.
Baseline Building
Description
Value

6,619,443.72

2,128,044
2
Table 23: Details of the baseline low-rise commercial building model in Muscat, Oman insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm and Kingspan
Improved Building
Description

Value
0.29
111.16
2,087,738
12,599.43
295%
Table 24: Details of an improved low-rise commercial building model in Muscat, Oman insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm and Kingspan
16
ROI: Modelled Low-rise Commercial Building

Location
Roof
Wall
Floor
Annual Energy
Saving (kWh/year)
Carbon Emissions
ROI
Dubai, U.A.E.
0.25
0.45
0.45
3,095
1,857
1,361%
Dubai, U.A.E.
Doha,Qatar
Doha, Qatar
0.25
0.45
0.30
3,289
1,973
674%
0.20
0.45
0.30
3,337
2,002
376%
0.20
0.18
0.30
8,176
4,905
126%
0.10
0.18
0.19
8,415
5,049
106%
0.25
0.45
0.54
4,810
2,386
368%
0.25
0.29
0.54
8,703
4,317
146%
0.20
0.45
0.54
5,239
2,599
205%
0.20
0.30
0.29
9,319
4,623
118%
Muscat, Oman
0.25
0.52
0.54
40,306
23,095
374%
Oman
Muscat, Oman
0.20
0.52
0.54
40,490
23,201
347%
0.10
0.29
0.30
46,290
26,542
235%
0.10
0.18
0.13
48,752
27,935
160%
0.25
0.52
0.54
39,449
28,680
718%
0.25
0.18
0.54
44,345
32,239
338%
0.10
0.29
0.30
42,616
30,982
403%
0.10
0.18
0.13
43,927
31,935
255%
Riyadh
Table 25: ROI, energy savings and carbon emissions savings for modelled low-rise commercial building insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm
and Kingspan Thermaroof insulation solutions.
Summary
and 31.9 tonnesCO2/year. For other locations reductions in
peak cooling demand were up to 5.9%, 1.3%, 1.2%, and
0.1% in Muscat, Doha, Dubai and Abu Dhabi, respectively.
Four locations showed examples where a positive return

specification, with 1,361% in Dubai, U.A.E. being the highest.
100% of the improved U-value calculations in Muscat, Oman
and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia gave a positive ROI and 93% of the
calculations in Dubai, U.A.E..
The results showed improving the floor and roof U-value

specification offered the best opportunity for a positive ROI.
However, increased wall insulation, by far, had the greatest
impact on energy usage and carbon emissions. Furthermore,
improving the U-value in the walls could significantly reduce
the buildings energy consumption as opposed to the energy
consumption calculated when improving the floor and roof
specification, in some instances double the energy savings. In
most cases, this also produced a positive ROI.
Across all locations, the fabric uplift was mid-range, as

expected, at between 0.04 and 1.77% of development costs,
with 1.77% representing the biggest improvement in U-values,
and therefore, the highest uplift.
The low-rise commercial building showed peak cooling
demand being reduced by up to 12.6% in Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia. Reductions in annual electricity demand of up to 2.6%,
which represented a carbon emission reduction of up to 2.6%
17
Case Studies
High-rise Commercial
A typical new build high-rise commercial building located in Doha, Qatar. The building comprises thirty three storeys and
a total floor area of 66,680 m 2, 3,186 m 2 per floor. The model assumed a standard HVAC System of fan coils with central
outside air. Refer to Appendix B for further details of the building assumptions.
Baseline Building
Description
Value

135,665,469.80

18,892,849
2
Table 26: Details of the baseline high-rise commercial building model in Doha, Qatar insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm and Kingspan
Improved Building
Description

Value
0.45
270.20
18,882,556
5,447.48
Carbon Emissions Reduction (kgCO2 /year) 5,105
117%
Table 27: Details of an improved high-rise commercial building model in Doha, Qatar insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm and Kingspan
18
ROI: Modelled high-rise Commercial Building

Location
Dubai, U.A.E.
Doha, Qatar

Roof
Wall
Floor
Annual Energy
Saving (kWh/year)
Carbon Emissions
ROI
0.25
0.30
0.43
16,780
10,068
85%
0.25
0.30
0.30
17,123
10,274
84%
0.20
0.30
0.19
17,547
10,529
74%
0.25
0.18
0.43
24,014
14,409
30%
0.29
0.45
0.30
10,458
5,187
88%
21%
0.25
0.22
0.54
24,019
11,913
0.14
0.45
0.54
11,533
5,720
68%
0.25
0.54
0.54
137,358
78,707
18%
0.25
0.30
0.54
144,189
82,621
13%
Table 28: ROI, energy savings and carbon emissions savings for modelled high-rise commercial building insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm and
Kingspan Thermaroof insulation solutions
Summary
high-rise residential building at between 0.02 and 0.63% of
Additionally, due to the height of the building, the uplift for the
wall insulation was significantly higher than when improving
the U-value specification in the roof and floor.
The only location which offered a positive return on investment

for the increased U-value specification was Doha, Qatar at
117%. Less opportunities for a positive ROI was expected
as, where applicable, the current U-value requirements for
commercial buildings are lower than residential.
The high-rise commercial building showed peak cooling
demand being reduced by up to 8% in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Reductions in annual electricity demand of up to 0.9%,
which represented a carbon emission reduction of up to
0.9%. For other locations reductions in peak cooling demand
were up to 0.7%, 0.6% and 0.1% in Dubai, Doha and
Abu Dhabi, respectively.
Consistent with the other high-rise building, the results

showed improving the floor and roof U-value specification
offered the highest ROI results. However, increased wall
insulation, by far, had the greatest impact on energy usage
and carbon emissions and, furthermore, that improving the
U-value in the walls could significantly reduce the buildings
energy consumption as opposed to the energy consumption
calculated when improving the floor and roof specification.
Significant reduction potential was seen in the Riyadh highrise commercial building. In most cases, this did not produce
a positive ROI, however, it is safe to assume that as we see
energy prices increase, this will change.
Additionally, due to the high internal loading of a high-rise

commercial building, increasing the U-value, in some cases,
increased the thermal mass of the building and caused it to
retain heat. This resulted in the lower reductions in cooling and
electricity demand.
The fabric uplift across all locations was consistent and,
as the development costs of a commercial building are
lower than that of a residential, it came out higher than the
19
Case Studies
Hotel
A typical new build hotel located in Dubai, U.A.E. The building comprises sixteen storeys and a total floor area of 26,787m2
and a ground floor area of 3,186 m2. The model assumed a standard HVAC System of fan coils with central outside air.
Refer to Appendix B for further details of the building assumptions.
Baseline Building
Description
Value

94,243,834.58

3,880,079
2
Table 29: Details of the baseline hotel building model in Dubai, U.A.E. insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm and Kingspan Thermaroof
Improved Building
Description

Value
0.29
262.26
Floor build-up costs ($/m2)
97.88
3,835,420
12,303.46
Carbon Emissions Reduction (kgCO2 /year) 26,795
293%
Table 30: Details of an improved hotel building model in Dubai, U.A.E. insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm and Kingspan Thermaroof
20
ROI: Modelled Hotel Building

Location
Dubai, U.A.E.
Doha,Qatar
Doha, Qatar
Muscat, Oman
Roof
Wall
Floor
Annual Energy
Saving (kWh/year)
Carbon Emissions
ROI
0.25
0.45
0.45
25,363
15,217
1,334%
0.14
0.20
0.19
57,305
34,383
162%
0.25
0.20
0.45
46,992
28,195
178%
0.25
0.29
0.30
57,146
28,345
135%
0.20
0.45
0.45
41,402
20,536
323%
0.25
0.45
0.45
48,021
27,516
888%
0.14
0.20
0.19
82,127
47,058
103%
0.25
0.45
0.45
52,396
38,092
2,999%
0.20
0.29
0.30
73,796
53,650
375%
0.25
0.18
0.45
83,558
60,747
131%
0.20
0.45
0.45
55,887
40,630
1,203%
Table 31: ROI, energy savings and carbon emissions savings for modelled hotel insulated with Kingspan Kooltherm and Kingspan Thermaroof
Summary
Furthermore, buildings modelled in more temperate climates,
such as Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, showed greater results when
improving U-values. This was due to the increased internal
loading of the hotel model, and in fact, all of the other
commercial buildings that were modelled.
Four locations showed examples where a positive return

specification, with 2,999% in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia being the
highest. 100% of the improved U-value calculations in Dubai,
U.A.E. and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia gave a positive ROI and 84%
of the calculations in Muscat, Oman.
The results showed improving the floor and roof U-value

specification offered the best opportunity for a positive ROI.
However, increased wall insulation, by far, had the greatest
impact on energy usage and carbon emissions. Furthermore,
improving the U-value in the walls could significantly reduce
the buildings energy consumption as opposed to the energy
consumption calculated when improving the floor and roof
specification, in some instances double the energy savings.
In most cases, this also produced a positive ROI.
Across all locations, the fabric uplift was low, as expected,

at between 0.02 and 0.52% of development costs, with
0.52% representing the biggest improvement in U-values, and
therefore, the highest uplift.
The hotel showed peak cooling demand being reduced by up
to 7.8% in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. This represented a carbon
emission reduction of up to 2.7% and 68 tonnesCO2/year. By
amount, this was the highest reduction of carbon emissions
for this building. For other locations reductions in peak cooling
demand were up to 4.1%, 3.5%, 2.8%, 1.2%, and 1.1% in
Muscat, Doha, Dubai and Abu Dhabi, respectively.
21
Conclusion
It is clear from Mott MacDonalds findings that improving the

U-value specifications, over and above that required by local
regulations, in the floor, roof and external walls, should be a
consideration for energy conscious architects, consultants,
building owners, tenants and developers who are looking to
build energy efficient buildings with a return on investment.
Finally, whilst the carbon emissions and energy savings should

remain constant for each of the modelled buildings, one
factor that may change in the near future is energy costs. As
energy prices increase, it is safe to assume that the ROI on the
increased insulation will increase also, giving the occupier and
developer an even better return.
On the whole, the reduction in energy charges, resulting from

the specification of Kingspan Kooltherm wall, soffit and floor
insulation solutions and Kingspan Thermaroof insulation
solutions, is far greater than the CapEx cost of the additional
insulation. The offsetting of the CapEx cost of the reduced
energy charges, is further underpinned by the findings in the
modelled buildings.
Improving the U-value specifications,

over and above that required by local
regulations, in the floor, roof and external
walls, should be a consideration for
energy conscious architects, consultants,
building owners, tenants and developers.
Policy and legislation need to continue to target those activities

that consume vast amounts of energy and contribute most to
CO2 emissions, buildings in particular, which account for over
50% of energy usage in all of the modelled regions. Stricter
requirements for the building envelope can, quite clearly, help
to solve this problem.
In addition, it is key to focus on the positive effect of U-values
and understanding that should the value not be matched, the
energy consumption of the building will increase, and thus,
the energy charges and building valuations follow suit.
22
23
Appendix A
Construction Buildups Specification
& Cost
Construction Buildup Specifications
The floor, soffit, roof and external wall constructions and
corresponding buildup specifications used in the analysis
are defined by Kingspan Insulation LLC. The Uvalues are
calculated using the methods detailed in:
l
BS EN ISO 6946: 2007 (Building components & building
elements. Thermal resistance & thermal transmittance.

Calculation method);
l BS EN ISO 13370: 2007 (Thermal performance of
buildings. Heat transfer via the ground. Calculation

methods); and
l using the conventions set out in BR 443 (Conventions
for Uvalue calculations).

For the purpose of these calculations, the standard of
workmanship is assumed good therefore the correction
factor for air gaps is ignored.
Buildup Cost Breakdown & Elemental Rates
Cost data for the components comprising the buildups has
been researched and determined by the relevant building
professionals at Mott MacDonald, namely Quantity Surveyors.
Prelims, contingency, delivery costs and professional fees
are not included for in the total cost shown for the buildups,
neither is an allowance for a damp proof membrane
(where applicable).
24
Appendix A
Description
Roof Buildup Cost ($/sq.m)

Flat roof U-value (W/m2.K)
0.46
0.31 / 0.30 / 0.29
50.47
50.47
Paving slabs
21.63
21.63
Screed bedding
Sarnafil polymeric waterproofing
42.51
42.51
membrane
Kingspan Thermaroof TR27

LPC FM; telescopic tube fastener,
15.27
18.24
polyamide, thermally broken 50mm
long; helical fixing 100mm
Sisalkraft vapour control barrier
150mm laps; Insulex garde 714;
3.94
3.94
single sided
Screed
15.18
15.18
92.44
Concrete deck 2000 Kg/m3
92.44
Total
241.44
244.40
0.27
0.25
50.47
21.63
50.47
21.63
42.51
42.51
18.87
19.39
3.94
3.94
15.18
92.44
245.03
15.18
92.44
245.55
Table A1: Roof Construction Buildup Specification for Insulated Concrete Deck.
Description
Roof Buildup Cost ($/sq.m)

Flat roof U-value (W/m2.K)
0.20
0.221
50.47
Paving slabs
50.47
21.63
Screed bedding
21.63
Sarnafil polymeric waterproofing
42.51
42.51
membrane
Kingspan Thermaroof TR27
LPC FM; telescopic tube fastener,
22.34
24.35
3.94
3.94
single sided
15.18
Screed
15.18
92.44
92.44
Total
250.52
248.50
Table A2: Roof Construction Buildup Specification for Insulated Concrete Deck.
25
0.14
0.10
50.47
21.63
50.47
21.63
42.51
42.51
29.87
47.61
3.94
3.94
15.18
92.44
256.04
15.18
92.44
273.78
Appendix A
Soffit Buildup Cost ($/sq.m)

Soffit U-value (W/m2.K)
Description
Concrete deck 2000 Kg/m
Kingspan Kooltherm K10 FM Soffit
Board; telescopic tube fastener,
polyamide, thermally broken 25mm long;
helical fixing 75mm
Total
3
1.825
0.57 / 0.54
0.45
0.36
0.30
100.16
100.16
100.16
100.16
100.16
14.56
15.16
16.36
17.82
19.36
114.72
115.32
116.52
117.98
119.52
Table A3: Floor Construction Buildup Specification for Insulated Soffit.

Soffit Buildup Cost ($/sq.m)
Soffit U-value (W/m2.K)
Description
Kingspan Kooltherm K10 FM Soffit
polyamide, thermally broken 25mm long;
helical fixing 75mm
Total
0.20 / 0.19
0.19
0.13
100.16
100.16
100.16
26.24
33.91
38.87
126.40
134.07
139.03
Table A4: Floor Construction Buildup Specification for Insulated Soffit.

Floor Buildup Cost ($/sq.m)
Floor U-value (W/m2.K)
Description
Screed
single sided
Kingspan Kooltherm K3 Floorboard;
telescopic tube fastener, polyamide;
themally broken 30mm long; helical
fixing 75mm
Total
1.825 / 1.65
0.57 / 0.54
0.45
0.36
15.18
15.18
15.18
15.18
3.94
3.94
3.94
3.94
13.46
15.16
15.16
16.79
100.16
132.74
100.16
134.44
100.16
134.44
100.16
136.07
Table A5: Floor Construction Buildup Specification for Insulated Ground Floor.
Floor Buildup Cost ($/sq.m)
Floor U-value (W/m2.K)
Description
Screed
single sided
Kingspan Kooltherm K3 Floorboard;
telescopic tube fastener, polyamide;
themally broken 30mm long; helical
fixing 75mm
Total
0.30
0.20
0.15
0.13
15.18
15.18
15.18
15.18
3.94
3.94
3.94
3.94
18.29
20.13
26.93
30.77
100.16
137.57
100.16
139.41
100.16
146.20
100.16
150.04
Table A6: Floor Construction Buildup Specification for Insulated Ground Floor.
26
Description

Wall Buildup Cost ($/sq.m)

External Wall U-value (W/m2.K)
3.293
1.48
0.57 / 0.53
0.45
0.329 / 0.29
0.20
0.18
52.46
Sika Polymer render
Kingspan Kooltherm K5 External Wall
Board; telescopic tube fastener, polyamide,
thermally broken 20mm long; helical
fixing 75mm
Bedding compound
60.62
Blockwork 2000 Kg/m3
Total
113.08
52.46
52.46
52.46
52.46
52.46
52.46
12.22
13.36
14.01
17.94
24.03
25.73
7.93
60.62
133.23
7.93
60.62
134.97
7.93
60.62
135.02
7.93
60.62
138.95
7.93
60.62
145.03
7.93
60.62
146.73
Table A7: Wall Construction Buildup Specification for External Insulation Finishing System.
Factor
Description
Reynobold cladding; aluminium
composite materials cassettes with
thermoplastic cores, back ventilated,
vapour control membrane and aluminium
support system - 4mm thick
Ventilated cladding zone
Kingspan Kooltherm K15 Cladding
Blockwork 2000 Kg/m3
Total
Wall Buildup Cost ($/sq.m)

External Wall U-value (W/m2.K)
0.86
0.57 / 54
0.45
0.30
0.22
0.18
229.04
229.04
229.04
229.04
229.04
229.04
15.51
16.26
17.23
22.56
30.20
40.72
60.62
305.17
60.62
305.92
60.62
306.89
60.62
312.22
60.62
319.68
60.62
330.37
Table A8: Wall Construction Buildup Specification for Ventilated Cladding Facade.
27
The following location factors and currency exchange rates,

found in tables A-9 and A10, have been used within the model.
Country
United Arab Emirates
Oman
Saudi Arabia
Qatar
City
Currency
$1 = (21/03/16)
Dubai
Abu Dhabi
Muscat
Riyadh
Doha
Dirham
Dirham
Rial Omani
Saudi Riyal
Qatari Riyal
3.67315 AED
3.67315 AED
0.38470 OMR
3.75007 SAR
3.64150 QAR
Table A9: Currency Exchange Rates Used Within the Costing Model
Country
Oman
Saudi Arabia
Qatar
City
Location Factor
Dubai
Abu Dhabi
Muscat
Riyadh
Doha
0.84
0.84
0.80
0.76
0.90
Table A10: Location Factors Used Within the Costing Model
28
Appendix B
Modelled Buildings Specification &
Assumptions
Modelled Specifications
Building Envelope specifications, energy usage and
internal conditions have been researched and determined
by the relevant building professionals at Mott MacDonald,
namely Sustainability Consultants, and via the use of
Sefaira Systems Software.
29
Appendix B
Villa
Building Form & Layout
Storeys
FloorArea
Ground Floor Area
Roof Area
Storey Height
Window to Wall Ratio
HVAC System Type
Envelope
Glazing Type
Glazing U-value
SHGC
Shading
Use Model Shading?
Walls
Structure
Dubai AD Doha Muscat Riyadh
m2
266
5,711
m2
125
1,255
m2
140
1,255
3. 4
3.4
<40%
35%
V RF Fan C oi l Uni t s w/ C ent ral Out si de Ai r
V RF Fan C oi l Un i ts w/ Cen tr al Ou ts i d e A i r
Al um i ni m um Fram e, doubl e gl azi ng
Al um i ni m um F r ame, d o u b l e g l az i n g
De scri pt i on
W /m 2 K
Y es/N o
2. 7
2. 7
2. 7
2. 7
2. 7
2. 7
2. 7
2.7
2.7
2.7
0.4
0. 4
0. 4
0. 4
0. 4
0.4
0. 4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Y es
N o - as s u me b al co n i es
De scri pt i on
C oncret e Fram e
C oncr ete F r ame
Wall Type
De s cri pt i on
Doubl e sk i n t herm al l y i nsul at ed concret e

bl ock work wi t h pl ast er render
Doubl e sk i n t her mal l y i n s u l ated co n cr ete

bl ock work wi th p l as ter r en d er
Floor Finish
De s cri pt i on
Ti l es
T i l es
De scri pt i on
C oncret e hourdi sl ab syst em consi st i ng

of m ai n and di st ri but i on ri b beam s
Rei nforc ed Co n cr ete S l ab
Faade Area
Faad e A r ea
m 3m 2. h
5. 4
5.4
m 2 /person
20
20
W /m 2
W /m 2
20-24
20-24
Roof Type
Infiltration Type
Infiltration
Internal Conditions
Occupant Density
Equipment Power Density
Lighting Power Density
Setpoint Temperatures
Setback Temperature
Outside Air Rate / Person
Outside Air Rate / Unit Area
Contaminant Ventilation
Operating Hours
Setback to Setpoint Ramp Up Time
Air-side
Design Air Flow
Cooling Coil Source
Heat Recovery Sensible Effic
Heat Recovery Latent Effic
Peak Specific Fan Power
Heat Rejection
Cooling Coil Source
Heating Coil Source
Peak Specific Fan Power
Water-side
Chilled Water Source
Chiller COP
Peak Distribution Efficiency
Chilled Water Temperature
Heat Rejection Source
Condenser Water Temperature
Heating Hot Water Source
Boiler Efficiency/COP
Hot Water Temperature
Renewables
Renewables
Zoning
Zoning Stratey
18-28
18-28
L / s . person
12
12
L/m 2 . s)
A ir changes
24hr
24hr
H ours
L/m 2 . s
1. 5
1.5
W /L. s
Table A11: Floor Construction Buildup Cost Breakdown & Elemental Rates in Dubai.
30
n/a
n /a
0. 6
0.6
0. 6
0.6
3. 49
3.49
ai r-cool ed
a i r - co o l ed
V RF l oop
VRF loop
V RF l oop
VRF loop
0. 64
0.64
n/a
Ai r-co o l ed ch i l l er
n/a
3.1
n/a
0.9
n/a
7 C- 1 2 C
n/a
n /a
n/a
n /a
n/a
n /a
n/a
E l ectr i c b o i l er
n/a
0.9
n/a
0.85
n/a
7 0 C- 8 0 C
N one
No n e
One zone/fl oor
On e z o n e/fl o o r
Low-rise Office
High-rise Office
Hotel
43
33
16
111, 886
5 ,4 0 0
66, 660
26, 787
2, 602
600
2, 020
3, 186
2, 602
600
2, 020
3, 272
3. 8
3 .4
3. 8
3. 4
5 0%
40%
50%
40%
V R F F an Coil Units w/ Central Outsi de Ai r
VR F F a n Co il Un its w / Ce n tr a l O u ts ide Ai r
V RF Fan C oi l Uni t s w/ C ent ral Out si de Ai r
V RF Fan C oi l Uni t s w/ C ent ral Ou ts i d e A i r
A lu m inimum Fr a me, doubl e gl azi ng
A lu min imu m F r a me , do u b le g la z in g
Al um i ni m um Fram e, doubl e gl azi ng
Al um i ni m um Fram e, doubl e glaz i n g
2.7
2.7
2. 7
2. 7
2. 7
2 .7
2 .7
2 .7
2 .7
2 .7
2. 7
2. 7
2. 7
2. 7
2. 7
2. 7
2. 7
2. 7
2. 7
2.7
0 .4
0.4
0.4
0. 4
0. 4
0 .2 5
0 .2 5
0 .2 5
0 .2 5
0 .2 5
0 . 25
0. 25
0. 25
0. 25
0. 25
0 . 25
0. 25
0. 25
0. 25
0.25
No - a ssume bal coni es
Ye s
Y es
N o - assum e bal coni es
C onc rete Frame
Co n c r e te F r a me
C oncret e Fram e
C oncret e Fram e
C o n crete Bloc k wi th al umi ni um framed

dou ble gla ze d curtai n wal l system
Co n c r e te B lo c k w ith a lu min iu m f r a med

do u b le g la z e d c u r ta in w a ll s y s te m
C oncret e Bl ock wi t h al um i ni um fram ed

doubl e gl azed curt ai n wal l syst em
C oncret e Bl ock wi t h al um i ni um fr amed

doubl e gl azed curt ai n wal l sy s tem
Ti l es
T ile s
Ti l es
Ti l es
R e inforc e d Concrete Sl ab
R e in f o r c e d Co n c r e te S la b
Rei nforced C oncret e Sl ab
Rei nforced C oncret e Sl ab
Fa a de Area
Faade Area
Faade Area
Faade Area
5. 4
7 .2
7. 2
7. 2
20
10
10
15
10
20
20
7. 5
10
15
12
20 -24
21-24
21-24
21-24
18 -28
18-28-
18-28-
21-24
12
12
12
12
24hr
8 a m- 6 p m
8am -6pm
24hr
1. 5
1 .5
1. 5
1. 5
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0. 6
0 .6
0. 6
0. 6
0. 6
0 .6
0. 6
0. 6
3. 49
3 .4 9
3. 49
3. 49
a ir -cool ed
a ir - c o o le d
ai r-cool ed
ai r-cool ed
VRF l oop
VR F lo o p
V RF l oop
V RF l oop
VRF l oop
VR F lo o p
V RF l oop
V RF l oop
0. 64
0 .6 4
0. 64
0. 64
Air -c oo l ed chi l l er
A ir - c o o le d c h ille r
Ai r-cool ed chi l l er
Ai r-cool ed chi l l er
3 .1
0. 9
0 .9
0. 9
0. 9
7 C-12C
7 C- 1 2 C
7C -12C
7C -12C
C ooling tower
n/a
C ool i ng t ower
C ool i ng t ower
0. 95
n/a
0. 95
0. 95
29 C supply -35C retur n
n/a
29C suppl y -35C ret ur n
29C suppl y -35C ret ur n
Ele c tri c boi l er
Ele c tr ic bo ile r
E l ect ri c boi l er
E l ect ri c boi l er
0. 9
0 .9
0. 9
0. 9
0. 85
0 .8 5
0. 85
0. 85
70 C-80C
7 0 C- 8 0 C
70C -80C
70C -80C
None
No n e
N one
N one
One zo ne/fl oor
O n e z o n e / f lo o r
One zone/fl oor
One zone/fl oor
31
Kingspan Insulation LLC reserves the right to amend product specifications without prior notice. Product thicknesses shown in this document should not be taken as being available exstock and
advice should be sought directly from Kingspan Insulation LLC. The information, technical details and fixing instructions etc. included in this literature are given in good faith and apply to uses described
herein. Recommendations for use should be verified as to the suitability and compliance with actual requirements, specifications and any applicable codes, laws and regulations. For other applications
or conditions of use, contact Kingspan Insulation LLC. Advice should be sought for uses of Kingspan Insulation products that are not specifically described herein. The fire tests referenced in this
literature and the assigned results are not intended to reflect hazards presented by the materials and products described herein under actual fire conditions. Please check that your copy of the literature
is current by visiting www.kingspaninsulation.com.
Kingspan Insulation LLC

P.O. Box 113826, Dubai Investment Park 2, Dubai, U.A.E.
Tel: +971 4 889 1000 Fax: +971 4 883 8515
info@kingspaninsulation.ae
www.kingspaninsulation.com
Countries comprise: the Middle East as far North and East as (and including) Turkey, Iran and Oman and as far South and West as
(and including) Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
TM
Kingspan, Kooltherm, Thermaroof, and the Lion Device are Trademarks of the Kingspan Group plc.

Real Value of U Values White Paper June 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Real Value of U Values White Paper June 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In sulation

See rear cover for applicable countries

The Real Value of Improving U-values

Understand the positive impact of

Wall Construction Reinforced Concrete with Concrete Block infill

Construction Build ups Specification & Cost

Modelled Buildings Specification & Assumptions 30

The findings show that, despite the requirement for a CapEx

Additionally, governments across the Gulf are commiting to

l with the potential to save up to 92 tonnes of CO2

As such, the demand for energy reducing solutions has

l up to 84% of calculations for a building showed an

l 100% of the 1,241 calculations showed energy savings

and a reduction in carbon emissions;

a positive ROI one building an instant ROI and, in

With the aim of quantifying the energy saving benefits, and

All of the models in each of the

To this end, Mott MacDonald developed a research

This study looks at the energy saving benefits, and therefore,

To quantify the energy saving benefits, and therefore, financial

The U-value is a sum of thermal resistances of the layers that

Stage 1: Developing the Building Models

The following six different building typologies were identified

The complete analysis considered six different building types

Stage 2: Build-up selection

To establish the extent of the financial value for the energy

For floor constructions, concrete slabs have been insulated

Stage 3: Insulation specifications

Table 1: U-value regulations for commercial buildings across the Gulf

The proposed improved U-values were concluded from

Table 2: U-value regulations for residential buildings across the Gulf

The improved U-value specifications are shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Improved U-value specifications used in Sefaira

Please refer to Appendix A for further details of the

Environmental and building performance profiles for each

Wall Construction Reinforced Concrete

Cost of wall build-up

Cost of wall build-up

Proprietary fixing rail

Discrete fixing bracket

Figure 2 Build-up incorporating Kingspan Kooltherm K15

Figure 1 Build-up incorporating Kingspan Kooltherm K5 External

Baseline Build-up Costs per m2 (USD $)

Baseline Build-up Costs per m2 (USD $)

Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.

Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Table 6: Build-up costs to achieve baseline U-values for each of

Table 4: Build-up costs to achieve baseline U-values for each of

Improved Build-up Costs per m2 (USD $)

Improved Build-up Costs per m2 (USD $)

Table 7: Build-up costs to achieve improved U-values for each of

Table 5: Build-up costs to achieve improved U-values for each of

Floor Construction Concrete Slab

Cost of floor build-up

Cost of floor build-up

Kingspan KoolthermTM K10

Figure 3 Build-up incorporating Kingspan Kooltherm K10 FM

Figure 4 Build-up incorporating Kingspan Kooltherm K3

Baseline Build-up Costs per m2 (USD $)

Baseline Build-up Costs per m2 (USD $)

Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.

l with the potential to save up to 92 tonnes of CO2

l up to 84% of calculations for a building showed an

l 100% of the 1,241 calculations showed energy savings