Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 603–611

www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Comparison between polystyrene and fiberglass

roof insulation in warm and cold climates
Khaled A. Al-Sallal
Department of Architectural Engineering, UAE University, P.O. Box 17555, Al-Ain, United Arab
Emirates

Received 6 January 2002; accepted 8 April 2002

Abstract

This study clarifies the law of diminishing returns when improving the conservation level
of residential buildings by using case studies simulation. It explores the effect of different
climates on the decision of selecting the insulation type and thickness. It shows the importance
of using the life-cycle cost model on the decision of adding more insulation levels and knowing
when to stop. RENCON program was employed to estimate the annual heating and cooling
requirements of a 108 m2 house. The analysis was carried out for several cases of two types
of roof insulation (polystyrene and fiberglass) in two different locations (College Station, Texas
and Minneapolis, Minnesota.) R5 was found to be the most cost effective thermal resistance
in polystyrene in both locations. In fiberglass, R10 was the most cost effective. It was found
that investing money to improve the insulation levels in the cold climate house has better
returns than that of the warm climate.
 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Life-cycle cost; Payback time; Law of diminishing returns; Energy conservation; Thermal
resistance

1. Introduction

About 25 years ago, when the cost of energy was relatively affordable, many
buildings in the United States and also in other parts of the world were still built
without insulation in the walls. As a consequence of the energy crises of 1973,

E-mail address: k.sallal@uaeu.ac.ae (K.A. Al-Sallal).

0960-1481/03/$ - see front matter  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 6 0 - 1 4 8 1 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 6 5 - 4
604 K.A. Al-Sallal / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 603–611

energy conservation in buildings became an important issue in building design. As

resources of energy become more valuable to the modern world everyday, the ques-
tion is no longer should insulation be used but rather which material and how much.
In addition, people have realized throughout the years that adding insulation to build-
ings not only reduces energy consumption but also increases thermal comfort. In
general, adding more insulation is a good principle for a number of reasons: insu-
lation is relatively inexpensive, it is very durable, it functions both summer and
winter, and it is much easier to install during initial construction than to retrofit later
[4]. There is of course a limit to how much should be used. Therefore, the optimum
thickness of insulation is mainly a function of climate and the value of the energy
saved. The map in Fig. 1 gives recommended insulation levels for walls, ceilings,
and floors. These values and those required by building codes should be considered
minimum values. The most important characteristic of insulating materials is thermal
resistance since it determines the thickness required. A comparison among various
samples of 1-in insulating materials and other building materials is shown in Fig. 2.
‘First insulate, then use solar’; an old adage of the solar designer. It is true even
for houses that are not planned (or have difficulties) to use solar energy because
they still need energy anyway and this energy has to be conserved. Even in the solar
houses, there are times when they experience severe cold days and they need an
auxiliary heating. Energy conservation means that the heat (or coolness) is kept
within the house and prevented from being lost to the outside. The more energy
conserved, the less energy needed to keep the house warm or cold. Several means
can be used to achieve that. Insulating the building skin is one of them [1]. Conser-
vation measures cost money. The more energy one needs to conserve, the more
money he/she pays to add some sort of conservation measures. Above a certain
conservation level, the potential energy savings do not justify the extra cost. Energy

Fig. 1. Recommended insulation zones for heating and cooling (from Hoke, 1988 [3]).
 K.A. Al-Sallal / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 603–611 605

Fig. 2. A comparison of the thermal resistance of various materials based on 1-inch thick samples (from
Lechner, 1991 [4]).

conservation is characterized as behaving according to a law of diminishing return.

Adding more insulation, for instance, gives diminishing returns on the energy saved,
whereas the installation cost continues to increase linearly. The incremental return
associated with each incremental investment is decreased and the payback time
increases rapidly. In other words, the cost of the last increment of adding insulation
may be the same as the first increment but its cost effectiveness is much less because
the energy saving is much less. The decision to determine when to stop should be
based on a trade-off between the incremental savings versus the incremental cost.
In order to get realistic results, costs should be entered into the calculation in the
form of life-cycle costs rather than as a construction budget limitation. The life-cycle
cost includes not only the initial construction costs but also the continuing costs of
heating and cooling the building through its lifetime. Of particular importance are
the auxiliary fuel costs. The objectives of this research are threefold: to illustrate the
law of diminishing returns by doing a life-cycle cost analysis for a building using
case studies simulation; to examine the effect of different climates on the decision
of selecting the insulation type and thickness; and to view the importance of using
the life-cycle cost models on the decision of adding more insulation levels and know-
ing when to stop.
606 K.A. Al-Sallal / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 603–611

2. Experiment

The RENCON simulation program, developed by Degelman and Kim (1991) [2],
was employed to estimate the annual heating and cooling requirements of a 108 m2
house. The definitions and mathematical expressions of the terms used in the simul-
ation are described in Table 1. The analysis was carried out for several cases of two
types of roof insulation (polystyrene and fiberglass) in two different locations
(College Station, Texas and Minneapolis, Minnesota). The significant difference in
cost was considered in choosing these two types of insulation in order to generate
sufficient viable results to infer the conclusions. The plan of the experimental house
is shown in Fig. 3. The initial data used in the economical analysis simulation are
summarized in Table 2 in four different groups. Each group is identified by the
insulation type and the location and consists of six cases in addition to a base case.
The base case, named as 0, is defined as the one that has no modifications and
as the starting case of each group. The other cases are named according to the roof
insulation resistance used in each one of them (i.e. R5, R10, R15, R20, R25, and
R30). For each group of cases, three curves representing the investment cost, the
uniform annual cost, and the total life-cycle cost are plotted, as shown in Figs. 4
and 5. The highest cost effective cases in each group (i.e. the optimum insulation
resistance) can be known from the lowest point of the total life-cycle cost in these
charts. Another indicator of the highest cost effective cases is the payback time.
Table 3 shows the payback time for all cases expressed in years. Fig. 6 illustrates
the law of diminishing returns, in which the incremental savings are compared to
the incremental cost. One can view that the incremental costs in all cases remain
almost stable whereas the incremental savings decrease rapidly.

3. Analysis

From the energy analysis carried out for a 108m2 house in two different locations
and with reference to Table 3, and Figs. 4–6, the following findings can be drawn:

앫 When polystyrene is used to insulate the roof of the College Station house, R5
is found to be the most cost effective. The total life-cycle cost is 2185 $/yr, the
lowest among its group. It has also the lowest payback time; less than 1 yr (about
7 months).
앫 When fiberglass is used in the same location, R10 is found to be the most cost
effective. The total life-cycle cost is 1647 $/yr and the payback time is 0.4 yr
(4.8 months).
앫 Similar to the College Station house, insulating the roof of the Minneapolis house
by R5 polystyrene is found to be the most cost effective in its group. The total
life-cycle cost is 3327 $/yr and the payback time is 0.3 yr (3.6 months).
앫 Again, another similarity between the College station house and the Minneapolis
house, insulating the roof of the Minneapolis house by R10 fiberglass is found
Table 1
Definitions and mathematical expressions of the terms used in the simulation
Term
Investment cost
Annual energy cost
Annual payment on investment
Annual savings
Incremental investment cost
Incremental annual savings
Payback years
Uniform annual cost
Total life cycle cost
Definition Math. expression
This is the money invested to add insulation levels IC
This is the annual energy cost of a certain case. AEC
This is an equivalent annual cost as a recovery of the investment cost, con- API ⫽ IC × UCR
verted by use of uniform capital recovery factor (UCR)
This is the annual energy savings resulted from adding insulation levels, AS ⫽ AEC0⫺AECn
compared with the basic case
This is the difference in investment cost between the current case and a IIC ⫽ ICn⫺ICn ⫺ 1
previous one
This is the difference in annual energy savings between the current case IAS ⫽ AECn ⫺ 1⫺AECn
and a previous one as a result of adding more insulation levels
This is the number of years required to return the money invested in adding PY ⫽ IC / AS
more insulation levels
This is the annual energy cost of a certain case plus the annual payment UAC ⫽ API ⫹ AEC
on investment
This is the sum of the investment cost, the annual payment on investment,
K.A. Al-Sallal / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 603–611
TLCC ⫽ IC ⫹ API ⫹ AEC
and the annual energy cost of a certain case
607
608 K.A. Al-Sallal / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 603–611

Fig. 3. Plan of the experimental house.

to be the most cost effective in its group. The total life-cycle cost is 2690 $/yr
and the payback time is 0.1 yr (1.2 months).

4. Conclusion

The following conclusions can be drawn:

앫 The payback time of using insulation in a cold climate is shorter than that of a
warm climate. That is because of the considerable energy costs savings, which
resulted from using insulation in cold climates. Investing money to improve the
insulation levels in a cold climate house has higher returns than that of the
warm climate.
앫 It is recommended to use the incremental savings with comparison to the
incremental cost rather than the average cost in order to determine when to stop
adding more insulation. This is also true with any kind of improvements that can
reduce the utilities bills such as improving the conservation levels, adding solar
systems, or adding mechanical systems.
앫 It is recommended to use the life-cycle cost rather than the construction budget
Table 2
Initial data used in the economical analysis simulation

0 R5 R10 R15 R20 R25 R30

Polystyrene College Station IC 0 735 1311 1911 2450 3063 3675

APIa 0 75 134 195 250 312 374
AEC 2238 1375 1215 1160 1134 1118 1103
Minneapolis IC 0 735 1311 1911 2450 3063 3675
APIa 0 75 134 195 250 312 374
AEC 4942 2517 2258 2169 2128 2102 2076
Fiberglass College Station IC 0 331 392 490 637 735 882
APIa 0 34 40 50 65 75 90
AEC 2238 1375 1215 1160 1134 1118 1103
Minneapolis IC 0 331 392 490 637 735 882
APIa 0 34 40 50 65 75 90
AEC 4942 2517 2258 2169 2128 2102 2076
K.A. Al-Sallal / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 603–611

a
Annual payments on investment is based on 10% interest rate and 20 years of economic life.
609
610 K.A. Al-Sallal / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 603–611

Fig. 4. Investment cost, uniform annual cost, and total life-cycle cost of polystyrene cases in College
Station (left) and Minneapolis (right).

Fig. 5. Investment cost, uniform annual cost, and total life-cycle cost of fiberglass cases in College
Station (left) and Minneapolis (right).

Table 3
Payback time for all cases expressed in years

0 R5 R10 R15 R20 R25 R30

Polystyrene College Station 0 0.9 1.3 1.8 2.2 2.7 3.2

Minneapolis 0 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3
Fiberglass College Station 0 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Minneapolis 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3

limitation when making a decision to use a certain system. The life-cycle cost
includes not only the initial construction costs but also the continuing costs of
heating and cooling the building through its lifetime.
 K.A. Al-Sallal / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 603–611 611

Fig. 6. Incremental savings of polystyrene in College Station (left) and Minneapolis (right).

References

[1] Balcomb JD. Passive Solar Heating Analysis—A Design Manual. ASHRAE, Atlanta: Los Alamos
National Laboratory, 1984.
[2] Degelman L, Kim B. RENCON program for Energy Simulation. College Station, TX: Texas A&M
University, 1991.
[3] Hoke JR, editor. Architectural Graphic Standards Ramsey/Sleeper. 8th edition. New York: John
Wiley; 1988.
[4] Lechner N. Heating, Cooling, Lighting: Design Methods for Architects. New York: John Wiley
Inc, 1991.