Design for Deconstruction in the Design Process: State of the Art
2.1. Scientific Article Review
- Search 1: Keywords: “design for deconstruction” and building in academic journals.
- Search 2: Keywords: “design for disassembly” and building in academic journals.
2.2. Professional Guidelines and Common Practice Review
- General design and construction principles
- Specific materials’ potential for DfD
- DfD throughout the design process
- Tools for DfD
- Existing building stock potential
- Barriers and drivers for DfD
3.1. General Design and Construction Principles
3.2. Specific Material Potential for DfD
3.3. DfD Throughout the Design Proces
- The predesign phase, where interior elements, service system, and structure can be designed in such a way that future modifications are possible. It is also important that the involved key players are flexible: A fixed brief, for example, will limit the building’s future use, while working with scenarios might open up for solutions that will prolong the building’s life.
- In the concept design phase, the designer together with contractor meets with vendors to identify reused materials which support DfD.
- In the schematic design, the first design is checked by producing a plan to deconstruct the building.
- In the design development phase, a detailed plan for the deconstruction of the building is carried out.
- In the construction documents, it should be insured that details do not compromise their DfD integrity. Further, bid documents should reflect the commitment to a DfD construction.
- For the construction administration, as set of ‘as-built’ documents should be created.
- The facility operation services should brief all maintenance staff on the DfD strategy of the building.
- A statement of the chosen strategy for DfD related to the building;
- A list of building elements, normally embedded in ‘as-built’ drawings. In the future, Radio Frequency ID (RFID) identification tags could take over the drawings;
- Instructions on how to deconstruct elements;
- Distribution of DfD plans.
3.4. Tools for DfD
3.5. Existing Building Stock Potential for DfD
3.6. Barriers and Drivers for DfD
- Lack of technical knowledge and supporting tools;
- Belief that end-of-life may not occur for a long period;
- Value of building materials and components of EoL is not guaranteed.
- Uncertainty of the quantity and quality of the used material;
- Lack of rules and standards related to the construction with such materials;
- Components might get damaged on-site during deconstruction;
- Common negative perception by the end user of reused materials;
- Designer and constructors conceive their design to be permanent;
- Time constraints due to the fact that disassembly might take significantly more time than mechanical demolition;
- Costs constraints due to the perception that deconstruction costs more than demolition and disposal, which is not always true;
- Contract constraints that could make reuse less feasible;
- Lack of involvement to minimise waste amongst manufacturers;
- Lack of accounting methods for the measuring the benefits of DfD.
4.1. Environmental Benefits
4.2. Financial Benefits
4.3. The Effect on Architecture and the Design Process
4.5. Temporary Structures as Testbed for Design for Deconstruction
Conflicts of Interest
- Swedish Energy Agency. Energiläget 2017; Swedish Energy Agency: Stockholm, Sweden, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Liljenström, C.; Malmqvist, T.; Erlandsson, M.; Fredén, J.; Adolfsson, I.; Adolfsson, I. Byggproduktionens miljöpåverkan i förhållande till driften Livscykelberäkning av klimatpåverkan och energianvändning av ett nyproducerat flerbostadshus i betong med lågenergiprofil Byggproduktionens miljöpåverkan i förhållande till driften Livscykelberäkn; KTH: Stockholm, Sweden, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Hradil, P. Barriers and Opportunities of Structural Elements Re-Use; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium; Luxembourg, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Avfall i Sverige 2016; Swedish Environmental Protection Agency: Stockholm, Sweden, 2018.
- Akinade, O.O.; Oyedele, L.O.; Ajayi, S.O.; Bilal, M.; Alaka, H.A.; Owolabi, H.A.; Bello, S.A.; Jaiyeoba, B.E.; Kadiri, K.O. Design for Deconstruction (DfD): Critical success factors for diverting end-of-life waste from landfills. Waste Manag. 2017, 60, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Densley Tingley, D. Design for Deconstruction: An Appraisal; University of Sheffield: Sheffield, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Rios, F.C.; Chong, W.K.; Grau, D. Design for Disassembly and Deconstruction—Challenges and Opportunities. Procedia Eng. 2015, 118, 1296–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prouvé, J.; Cinqualbre, O. Jean Prouvé: La Maison Tropicale = The Tropical House; Centre Pompidou: Paris, France, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Dean, A.O.; Hursley, T. Rural Studio: Samuel Mockbee and An Architecture of Decency; Princeton Architectural Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Ellen Macarthur Foundation. Growth Within: A Circular Economy Vision for a Competitive Europe; Ellen Macarthur Foundation: Cowes, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- European Parliament and European Council. Directive on Waste; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Chini, A.; Schultmann, F. Design for Deconstruction and Materials Reuse; CIB World: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Sanchez, B.; Haas, C. Capital project planning for a circular economy. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2018, 36, 303–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durmisevic, E.; Yeang, K. Designing for Disassembly (DfD). Archit. Des. 2009, 79, 134–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- I. EBSCO Industries, “LUBsearch,” 2018. Available online: https://www.lub.lu.se/sok/lubsearch (accessed on 3 November 2018).
- Crowther, P. Design for Disassembly—Themes and Principles; RAIA/BDP Environment Design Guide; The Royal Australian Institute of Architects: Queentown, Australia, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Guldager Jensen, K.; Sommer, J. Building a Circular Future; 3XN: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Guy, B.; Ciarimboli, N. Design for Disassembly in the Built Environment: A Guide to Closed-Loop Design and Building; Pennsylvania State University: University Park, PA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Sassi, P. Defining closed-loop material cycle construction. Build. Res. Inf. 2008, 36, 509–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaillon, L.; Poon, C. Design issues of using prefabrication in Hong Kong building construction. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2010, 28, 1025–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iacovidou, E.; Purnell, P.; Lim, M.K. The use of smart technologies in enabling construction components reuse: A viable method or a problem creating solution? J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 216, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kibert, C.J. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- National Building Specification. National BIM Report 2017; RIBA Enterprise: Newcastle, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Czmoch, I.; Pękala, A. Traditional Design versus BIM Based Design. Procedia Eng. 2014, 91, 210–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akinade, O.O.; Oyedele, L.O.; Bilal, M.; Ajayi, S.O.; Owolabi, H.A.; Alaka, H.A.; Bello, S.A. Waste minimisation through deconstruction: A BIM based Deconstructability Assessment Score (BIM-DAS). Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 105, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akinade, O.O.; Oyedele, L.O.; Omoteso, K.; Ajayi, S.O.; Bilal, M.; Owolabi, H.A.; Alaka, H.A.; Ayris, L.; Looney, J.H. BIM-based deconstruction tool: Towards essential functionalities. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2017, 6, 60–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miatto, A.; Schandl, H.; Tanikawa, H. How important are realistic building lifespan assumptions for material stock and demolition waste accounts? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 122, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stephan, A.; Athanassiadis, A. Quantifying and mapping embodied environmental requirements of urban building stocks. Build. Environ. 2017, 114, 187–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mastrucci, A.; Marvuglia, A.; Popovici, E.; Leopold, U.; Benetto, E. Geospatial characterization of building material stocks for the life cycle assessment of end-of-life scenarios at the urban scale. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 123, 54–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning; Swedish Building Code BBR; National Board of Housing, Building and Planning: Boverket, Sweden, 2016.
- Kanters, J.; Horvat, M. The design process known as IDP: A discussion. Energy Procedia 2012, 30, 1153–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bureau SLA, “People’s Pavilion,” 2017. Available online: http://www.bureausla.nl/project/peoples-pavilion/ (accessed on 3 November 2018).
© 2018 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Kanters, J. Design for Deconstruction in the Design Process: State of the Art. Buildings 2018, 8, 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8110150
Kanters J. Design for Deconstruction in the Design Process: State of the Art. Buildings. 2018; 8(11):150. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8110150Chicago/Turabian Style
Kanters, Jouri. 2018. "Design for Deconstruction in the Design Process: State of the Art" Buildings 8, no. 11: 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8110150