A Simulation-Integrated Multi-Attribute Decision Analysis for Building-Envelope Insulation Selection: A Case Study of Polymer Aerogel Systems in Modern Religious Education Buildings

Selecting an optimal insulation solution for a building envelope requires more than minimizing thermal conductivity, since building-scale energy performance, operational carbon emissions, acoustic comfort, moisture behavior, and mechanical durability all compete for priority. This study proposes a complementary simulation and multi-attribute decision analysis (MADA) framework to support insulation-material selection for the envelope of a contemporary religious education building located in Ankara, Türkiye. Eight advanced polymer aerogel families (polyurethane, polyurea, polyimide, polymethylsilsesquioxane, polyisocyanurate, phenolic, cellulose, and nanocellulose aerogels) were combined with three structural wall materials (aerogel concrete, clay brick, and autoclaved aerated concrete) and two envelope configurations, yielding 48 candidate wall assemblies. Dynamic whole-building simulations were performed in IES-VE to quantify annual heating and cooling energy demand and operational CO2 emissions for each assembly under identical building conditions. The simulation outputs were assessed at the whole-wall-assembly scale, while literature-based material properties (thermal conductivity, density, compressive strength, sound absorption coefficient, and water contact angle) were assessed individually at the material scale through MADA. Criteria weights were determined via LOGSTA and SIWEC-M, and the eight aerogel materials were ranked using MUNRA, benchmarked against seven additional ranking methods. While polyisocyanurate aerogel (A5) achieved the lowest annual operational energy use and CO2 emissions among the simulated wall assemblies, based on the adopted criteria, the extracted property values from the literature, and the combined weighting system, the material-level MADA ranked A3 as the best material. An average pairwise Spearman correlation of 0.945 indicated agreement among ranking methods, while extended sensitivity analyses showed that A3 leads when mechanical robustness is weighted substantially, A8 is the most stable alternative across divergent priorities, and A5 leads under thermal priority. These results illustrate that operational energy performance at the building level and the multifunctional product-level suitability for the material are two separate but complementary aspects of insulation selection and that a full economic and life-cycle environmental analysis is hindered by the lack of information on additional costs and embodied carbon.