7th Semester Dissertation Diana Zabusova

Design for
Deconstruction
7th semester dissertation
Bachelor of Architectural Technology and Construction Management
Author: Diana Zabusova

Consultant: Heidi Merrild
VIA University College, Horsens, Denmark
October 2014
Title of the report: Design for Deconstruction
Consultant: Heidi Merrild
Author: Diana Zabusova
Student number: 163674
Number of pages: 27 (2400 characters per page)
Font: Calibri (Body) 12
Number of copies: 1
Date: 23.10.2014
GENERAL INFORMATION: All rights reserved - no part of this publication may be reproduced
without prior permission from the author. NOTE: This thesis has been prepared as part of the
training for construction manager - all responsibility for advice, instruction or conclusion disclaimed.
1
Preface
The dissertation is part of final examination for Bachelor of Architectural Technology and
Construction Management education at VIA University College, Horsens, Denmark.
As a subject for my dissertation I have chosen Design for Deconstruction as a way to salvage
virgin resources and promote material upcycling. My research contains theoretical and practical
(Arup Campus, Projext XX and Kingspan Lighthouse case studies) parts and the conclusion is
drawn in regards to both of them.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my consultant Heidi Merrild who helped me to form the research
questions and guided me through my investigation, offering relevant case studies I could use for
my report.
2
Abstract
Our modern world devotes much attention to sustainability. Resources for building construction
are not inevitable, the problem of construction and demolition waste is on the agenda, prices
for key materials and transportation increase. This paper investigates Design for Deconstruction
as a new approach to building design that can contribute to material reuse and waste
prevention. The main research question is How can principles of Design for Deconstruction
create potential for upcycling and avoiding loss of virgin resources?.
Imagine a building that can be completely deconstructed at its end-of-life without losing any of
its components this sounds almost like a Lego-house built from construction materials. This
idea got me very interested in Design for Deconstruction principles and how they can be
implemented in practice. The main objectives for the research were to investigate the
theoretical background of DfD, to analyze DfD potential of different building materials and to
give examples of successful DfD applications. This paper is a secondary research, using
quantitative data from books, journals and websites that relate to the topic. Arup Campus,
Project XX and Kingspan Lighthouse case studies were the sources of empirical data for my
dissertation. Results were quite surprising what sounded like a crazy idea at first turned out to
be quite simple and achievable.
Key words
Design for Deconstruction, waste prevention, material upcycling, building material and
component reuse, virgin resource salvage, sustainability, cradle to cradle
Abbreviations
DfD Design for Deconstruction/Disassembly
C&D Construction and Demolition
EOL End-of-life
LCA Life cycle assessment/analysis
HVAC Heating, ventilation, air-conditioning
DfE Design for Environment
DfR Design for Recycling
CDM Construction Design and Management
3
Table of contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Background information .............................................................................................................. 7
Reasons for subject choice and professional relevance .............................................................. 7
Problem statement and research questions ............................................................................... 9
Delimitation ................................................................................................................................. 9
Choice of research method, theoretical basis and sources of empirical data ............................ 9
Overall structure of report and argumentation .......................................................................... 9
Theoretical frame .......................................................................................................................... 10
Seeing a building in layers.......................................................................................................... 10
Life cycle concept ....................................................................................................................... 11
Cradle to Cradle ......................................................................................................................... 12
Research and development in the field of DfD ............................................................................. 14
Principles and strategies for DfD ............................................................................................... 14
Team approach....................................................................................................................... 14
Connection design .................................................................................................................. 16
Material choice....................................................................................................................... 17
Structural elements and components .................................................................................... 18
Wood ...................................................................................................................................... 19
Steel ........................................................................................................................................ 21
Concrete ................................................................................................................................. 22
Masonry.................................................................................................................................. 24
Theoretical part conclusion ........................................................................................................... 25
Case studies ................................................................................................................................... 26
Arup Campus .............................................................................................................................. 26
Design for Deconstruction principles ..................................................................................... 27
Structure ................................................................................................................................. 27
Building materials and components ...................................................................................... 28
Project XX ................................................................................................................................... 29
4
Structure ................................................................................................................................. 30
Kingspan Lighthouse .................................................................................................................. 31
Structure ................................................................................................................................. 32
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 34
Final Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 34
List of references ........................................................................................................................... 36
List of illustrations ......................................................................................................................... 41
5
Table of illustrations
Figure 1: Moving up the waste hierarchy (European Commission, 2010)......................................................8
Figure 2: Building layers (Brand, 1994) ........................................................................................................10
Figure 3: A products physical life-cycle (Johansson, 1997)..........................................................................12
Figure 4: Example of an indirect connector (SEDA, 2005) ............................................................................16
Figure 5: Batt insulation ...............................................................................................................................17
Figure 6: Rigid insulation ..............................................................................................................................17
Figure 7: Sheep wool insulation ...................................................................................................................17
Figure 8: Cellulose batt insulation ................................................................................................................17
Figure 9: End-of-life scenarios for structural components ...........................................................................18
Figure 10: Timber-frame house (Brand, 1994) .............................................................................................19
Figure 11: Wood cascade according to C2C .................................................................................................19
Figure 12: Wood structure ...........................................................................................................................20
Figure 13: Visible connection........................................................................................................................20
Figure 14: Connection principle ....................................................................................................................20
Figure 15: Interior balcony of Tamedia office building .............................................................................20
Figure 16: Woodcube ...................................................................................................................................21
Figure 17: Embodied energy.........................................................................................................................21
Figure 18: Prefab concrete slabs ..................................................................................................................22
Figure 19: Slimline Floor C2C ........................................................................................................................23
Figure 20: REBRICK cyclic business model ....................................................................................................24
Figure 21: Robot system for stacking bricks .................................................................................................24
Figure 22: Arup Campus, Solihull, UK ...........................................................................................................26
Figure 23: Arup Campus cross section..........................................................................................................26
Figure 24: Arup Campus structural arrangement ........................................................................................27
Figure 25: Arup Campus detailed 3D section ...............................................................................................28
Figure 26: Natural ventilation and daylighting deep into the building ........................................................29
Figure 27: Project XX, Delft, Netherlands .....................................................................................................29
Figure 28: Wooden columns and beams ......................................................................................................30
Figure 29: Ground and first floor construction .............................................................................................30
Figure 30: Cardboard ventilation ducts ........................................................................................................31
Figure 31: Kingspan Lighthouse ...................................................................................................................31
Figure 32: Kingspan TEK Building System.....................................................................................................32
Figure 33: Kingspan Lighthouse section .......................................................................................................33
Tables
Table 1: The Danish waste production and management in 2011, excl. soil. ................................................7
Table 2: Team approach to DfD. Adapted from SEDA, 2005. ......................................................................15
6
Introduction
Background information
This research paper is 7th semester dissertation for Architectural Technology and Construction
Management education at VIA University College, Horsens, Denmark. The investigation focuses
on the importance of Design for Deconstruction (DfD) as a new sustainable strategy for
designing buildings with the end-of-life (EOL) concept in mind, thus minimizing construction and
demolition waste.
Reasons for subject choice and professional relevance
Before moving to the research itself, it is important to define the problem area and its relevance
in the building industry. Our modern world devotes much attention to sustainability. Resources
for building construction are not inevitable, the problem of construction and demolition waste
is on the agenda, prices for key materials and transportation increase. Sustainability is no longer
a choice for most societies: its a must. (Frank Jensen, 2012). Danish Ministry of the
Environment stated in Denmark without waste (2013, page 34) that Construction and
demolition waste accounts for by far the largest percentage of total waste volumes; about 87 %
of construction and demolition waste is recycled. Even though the percentage of landfilled
materials from building and construction sector in Denmark is low, the amount is huge. Almost
half of the total landfilled waste in Denmark is C&D waste, reaching up to 208,152 tonnes in
2011 (Table 1).
Table 1: The Danish waste production and management in 2011, excl. soil.
Note: A smaller volume for temporary storage and special treatment is not shown in this table. Therefore the sum of the
three treatment options shown is not 100 % (Danish EPA, 2013, page 19).
7
The activities within the construction sector were responsible for 35 percent of the total waste
generated in the EU. In total, this sector generated 860 million tonnes of waste out of which 95
percent were mineral and solidified wastes, comprising fractions like excavated earth, road
construction waste, demolition waste, etc. These are all inert materials which do not have
potential for energy recovery.
(Coolsweep, 2013, page 19)
As a result, the demand for recycling C&D materials increases at the legislative level.
Scandinavian countries developed an efficient system for sorting out and recycling construction,
demolition and renovation debris, thus lowering the percentage of landfilled materials. In 1997
Denmark became the first country in the world to ban landfilling of waste suitable for
incineration (Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster, 2012, page 12). That means only completely
unrecyclable C&D materials are being landfilled. Incineration, however, requires a lot of
attention when it comes to removing hazardous products from mixed waste materials. If not
filtered properly, when burned their gasses cause harm to the environment. Recycling, in its
turn, is also an energy consuming process, not to mention the quality of the downcycled
products. C&D materials are rarely reused with the same function avoiding degradation. Waste
materials are most often broken down to the lowest level of its potential: for combustion or for
recycling as secondary material (Nordic Built, 2014).
There are different ways of dealing with waste.

According to European Commissions waste
hierarchy (Fig. 1) disposal or landfilling is the least
desirable option. Recycling, notwithstanding all its
benefits and potential, is only in the middle of the
hierarchy. Re-use of the materials and waste
prevention is the most preferable way of
managing waste.
Figure 1: Moving up the waste hierarchy (European
Commission, 2010)
The question arises: why not focus on reusing materials instead of recycling them? One of the
solutions lies in the initial design of the building. Until today hardly any construction product is
designed keeping recycling/reuse in mind (Nordic Innovation, 2014, page 9). We are not taught
how to design so that it is possible to disassemble the building components at the end of their
life with the possibility of salvaging building materials that can still be reused. Design for
Deconstruction can be a new strategy for waste prevention and salvaging virgin resources.
8
Problem statement and research questions
The problem statement of this report is How can principles of Design for Deconstruction create
potential for upcycling and avoiding loss of virgin resources? Research questions are:
1) What should be taken into consideration before designing for deconstruction?

2) What are the existing systems/materials that involve DfD?
3) What are the examples of successful applications of DfD?
Delimitation
This report is focused on the importance of DfD and its potential. The problem of C&D waste is
the reason for subject choice and the need for exploring new strategies of building design. The
investigation does not cover the details of different types of waste in C&D sector (e.g. hazardous
materials). Instead it gives an overall idea of the problem with the major interest in Design for
Deconstruction as a possible solution for moving from recycling towards reusing resources. The
dissertation provides information about the existing DfD methods and the ways of their
implementation. The reason for this choice is my personal interest in the potential of Design for
Deconstruction not only from environmental and economic perspective, but also from an
average consumers point of view. As the topic is relatively new, there is no geographical
delimitation for case studies used in the report. However, quantitative data from European
Union and Nordic countries is used to give an overview of the current situation concerning
waste in the building industry.
Choice of research method, theoretical basis and sources of empirical data
This dissertation is based on secondary research. Quantitative data was used to get an
understanding of the importance of DfD.
The research was inspired by theses and articles on the subject of Design for Deconstruction. As
a theoretical basis books on sustainability, life cycle analysis, waste management, recycling and
cradle to cradle concept were used. Magazines and internet websites were the source of
newest research and development strategies in the field, as well as governmental and
manufacturers publications. Case studies that could relate to the topic were used as empirical
data for my analysis and investigation.
Overall structure of report and argumentation
The report consists of 3 parts:
1) Introduction with reasons for subject choice, problem statement and research questions.
2) Main part with theoretical frame, analysis of research and development in the field and
case studies investigation with part conclusions.
9
3) Conclusion with answers on stated questions in the introduction.
This structure will provide a logical insight into the problem from introduction, followed by the
main part with argumentation covering both theoretical and practical aspect (analyzing case
studies) and possible solution in the conclusion.
Theoretical frame
The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the background of Design for Deconstruction as an
approach to sustainable building construction. DfD is the process of designing a building to
facilitate its components disassembly and reuse at end-of-life scenarios. An incredible amount
of virgin materials can be salvaged from a building that was designed for easy and economical
deconstruction. In order to have the possibility of disassembling building components, a lot of
issues should be taken into consideration. The understanding of building layers and their life
span is, in my opinion, the framework of Design for Deconstruction.
Seeing a building in layers
In his seminal book How buildings learn (1994, page 188), architect Stewart Brand remarks
that A building is not something you finish. A building is something you start. It is true that a
building is a living creation which breathes and changes as the time goes. All buildings are
subjected to changes influenced by both climate and humans. Over fifty years, the changes
within a building cost three times more than the original building (Brand, 1994, page 13). Why is
that so? The answer lies in longevity of different building layers. Below you will find the
description of six Ss proposed by S. Brand and inspired by F. Duffys (cofounder of a British
design firm DEGW) four Ss.
SITE This is the geographical setting, the urban

location, and the legally defined lot, whose
boundaries and context outlast generations of
ephemeral buildings. Site is eternal, Duffy
agrees.
STRUCTURE The foundation and load-bearing
elements are perilous and expensive to change,
so people dont. These are the building.
Structural life ranges from 30 to 300 years (but Figure 2: Building layers (Brand, 1994)
few buildings make it past 60, for other reasons).
SKIN Exterior surfaces now change every 20 years or so, to keep up with fashion or
technology, or for wholesale repair. Recent focus on energy costs has led to reengineered
Skins that are air-tight and better insulated.
10
SERVICES These are the working guts of a building: communications wiring, electrical
wiring, plumbing, sprinkler system, HVAC (heating, ventilating, and air conditioning), and
moving parts like elevators and escalators. They wear out or obsolesce every 7 to 15
years. Many buildings are demolished early if their outdated systems are too deeply
embedded to replace easily.
SPACE PLAN The interior layout where walls, ceilings, floors, and doors go. Turbulent
commercial space can change every 3 years or so; exceptionally quiet homes might wait
30 years.
STUFF Chairs, desks, phones, pictures; kitchen appliances, lamps, hair brushes; all the
things that twitch around daily to monthly. Furniture is called mobilia in Italian for good
reason.
(Brand, 1994, page 13)
Shearing layers strategy is a technical approach to separating the different layers of a building at
the design phase to provide a possibility for cost-effective replacement and reuse of building
components at the end of their life. This idea can save both time and money, and what is the
most important virgin resources. Planning and designing with shearing layers in mind can
make renovation easier and cheaper, not to mention the decrease of construction and
demolition waste. The above classification of building layers shows that different systems have
individual life spans or different pace, which should be taken into account. A building has to
allow access to those systems without damaging the rest of the construction. Otherwise the
slow systems block the flow of the quick ones, and the quick ones tear up the slow ones with
their constant change (Brand, 1994, page 20). Combining the systems may seem effective in
the beginning because it is in most cases faster and cheaper to build. But in the long run it
becomes destructive. A good example here can be in-situ cast concrete with pipes unwisely
buried under the slab with no access to them.
Stewart Brands shearing layers strategy is based on different life cycles of building layers or
systems. Let us take a closer look at the life cycle concept in the next chapter.
Life cycle concept
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is the main tool for assessing environmental performance and thus
achieving sustainable development (Nordic Innovation, 2014, page 9). Life cycle concept is being
used for evaluating a products way from a raw material till its end-of-life (cradle-to-grave).
Considerable amount of data is required to define a products possible end-of-life solutions.
Development of the requirements and building regulations, the aging process of a material, loss
of value of the building and its characteristics are the influencing factors for products end-of-
life scenarios. Determining the best strategy for recovery of a product has led several
researchers to use cost estimation and life cycle assessment techniques (Go et al., 2011, page
11
1539). There are multiple interpretations of life-cycle phases, depending on the product. If we
look at a building as a product, its life-cycle phases can be consistently described as:
1) New building: begins with the intension of the client and ends with the commissioning
and handover of the building.
2) Usage: includes use, operation and maintenance, begins with the commissioning and
acceptance of the building and ends with the intention to carry out (periodic) renewal.
3) Renewal: includes partial or full renewal, conversion. There could be several renewal and
usage phases.
4) Demolition and disposal: begins with the intention to stop using the building and to
demolish it and ends with the complete transfer of all building materials for subsequent
uses (reuse, recycling, power generation, landfill etc.).
(Knig et al., 2010, page 10)
One of the reasons for building constant change is that materials and building components have
their own life-cycles. That is why exact definition and documentation of products used in a
building is required. Life cycle assessment calculations are based on dividing the building
according to material groups, products, technical services and connections between the
components. This method provides a possibility for easier and more efficient material reuse and
recycling when a building has reached its last life-cycle phase.
Cradle to Cradle
The above-described concept of evaluating a products environmental impact during its

different life-cycle phases can also be described as cradle-to-grave. This relates to the cases
when end-of-life of a product doesnt imply any further usage of a product besides landfilling or
incineration. Another way of dealing with a product when it becomes waste is called cradle-to-
reincarnation. This method means bringing end-of-life products back into new products,
reincarnating in other words, for example reusing parts and components or recycling. The
figure below illustrates how the material flows can be closed.
Figure 3: A products physical life-cycle (Johansson, 1997)
12
Cradle-to-cradle concept was first introduced by William McDonough and Michael Braungart in
their book Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, 2002. According to their
philosophy, the ideal material is the one that can be continuously recovered, reutilized and
recycled while maintaining acceptable quality. All materials have far longer use periods than
people expect (McDonough and Braungart, 2009, page 6). The problem is that people will
always want to buy new things; people like to be the first-owners of a product. That is why we
throw out things without thinking about alternative solutions for their usage. Cradle-to-cradle
principle implies the idea that waste equals food. This can also be described as material
cascading. Using fire to fight waste is medieval behavior (McDonough and Braungart, 2009,
page 5). Closing the loop or cascading materials, on the other hand, is the way to salvage
valuable virgin resources and minimize waste.
Thinking about waste as food may seem absurd at first. The phrase is derived from the
biological metabolism, a natural process, where dead organisms serve as food for other living
organisms. When talking about technical or industrial metabolism, food is perceived as a
resource. To eliminate the concept of waste, materials should be upcycled. A new way of
perceiving a product should be introduced a product of service.
Instead of assuming that all products are to be bought, owned, and disposed of by
consumers, products containing valuable technical nutrientswould be reconceived as services
people want to enjoy. When they finish with the product, or are simply ready to upgrade to a
newer version, the manufacturer replaces it, taking the old model back, breaking it down, and
using its complex materials as food for new products. The customers would receive the services
they need for as long as they need them and could upgrade as often as desired; manufacturers
would continue to grow and develop while retaining ownership of their materials.
(McDonough and Braungart, 2009, page 111)
This way the energy, effort, and resources that were put into manufacturing a product wouldnt
be lost to the manufacturer once the product is sold. The need for extracting new raw materials
would be minimized. People would have an opportunity to have new products as often as they
wish. This concept could be easily applied to some of the building components, for example,
windows, HVAC systems, prefabricated modules, as well as skin components like cladding and
tiles. Renovation of a building would cost less, and meeting new regulations could be achieved
easier. Designing products as products of service means designing them to be disassembled
(McDonough and Braungart, 2009, page 114). The 3Rs concept (reduce, reuse, recycle)
expanded to 6Rs concept (reduce, remanufacture, reuse, recover, recycle, redesign) since the
new Waste Framework Directive in 2008. Following the hierarchy of waste and cradle to cradle
ideas can benefit both consumers and manufacturers.
13
Research and development in the field of DfD
Design for Deconstruction is a relatively new concept in the building industry. It is not widely
spread practically, but there is a lot of research and development in the field going on right now.
DfD as a subject covers various topics concerning adaptability, prefabrication, disassembly,
modular systems. There are a lot of other terms that imply Design for Deconstruction, for
example Design for -Environment (DfE), -Disassembly (DfD), -Recycling (DfR), -Reuse, -End-of-
life, -Product recovery. Design for disassembly has been well-studied in the so-called consumer
products industry, for example, for automobiles and computers (Guy and Shell, 2002, page 7).
Design for Environment has a lot of definitions, but most of them point out that DfE is a design
approach to reducing environmental negative impacts from a product over its different life-
cycles. DfD is integral to any design for... that intends to maximize materials conservation from
building end-of-life management, and create adaptable buildings to avoid building removals
altogether (Guy and Ciarimboli, n.d.).
Principles and strategies for DfD
Team approach
In order to DfD to succeed the designer team, the client and the contractor should be involved
in the project from the very beginning of the design phase. SEDA (Scottish Ecological Design
Association) created a guide for Design for Deconstruction, where principles and strategies for
DfD are examined and typical examples of construction details with the potential of
deconstruction and waste reduction are provided. The guide uses RIBA (Royal Institute of British
Architects) work stages for analyzing parties involvement in different phases of a project. There
was a new RIBA Plan of Work launched in 2013. Below you will find the possible input that
various team members should make during work phases to maximize the potential of DfD.
Team
member/ Client Design team Contractor
Work phases
Choose design team Brief the client on DfD; Obtain training and
members that are in develop a DfD strategic plan; brief on DfD; provide
favor of assess the cost-effectiveness inspection on waste
deconstruction of building components that management strategies
can involve DfD
Brief the design team Organize meetings with the Collaborate with the
about adaptability contractor to determine design team for
and flexibility construction processes that identifying potential of
requirements for the imply DfD salvaging materials
project
14
Make sure that the Aim to include as many DfD Advice design team on
design team is principles as possible; DfD implications in the
following the collaborate with the design
flexibility in use in contractor
their design
Follow the design Develop the project design Advice design team on
process and check by making sure all the deconstruction
with the design team included DfD principles principles in detail
that key elements still function
enable upgrading
Make sure the Prepare a plan for Provide design team (if
principles of deconstruction of a building possible) with the
deconstruction are to ensure that the concept of technical information
clear DfD matches the proposed on the used DfD
design components
Allow additional time Make sure that the Perform a good
for the construction contractors invited to tender construction practice to
to ensure that all DfD are fully aware of the promote DfD; inform
principles are commitment to DfD through and sub-contractors
carefully followed in the detailed DfD plan and about DfD principles
practice clear requirements in tender and train them
documents accordingly
Demand drawings and Provide the client with all the
specifications as per practical information about
CDM requirements the potential of DfD in the
project
Ensure that Observe the building
maintenance staff and performance over time and
future contractors are use the acquired information
briefed on DfD for further projects involving
strategy DfD
Table 2: Team approach to DfD. Adapted from SEDA, 2005.
A major cultural shift is needed in all trades, which recognizes the need for construction
elements to be more separable (Morgan and Stevenson, 2005, page 18). Avoiding mechanical
demolition and moving towards preferable strategy of Design for Deconstruction will require
attention of all the parties involved in the design process. Involvement of contractors should
start at the early phase of planning and strategy defining. Following this method will make it
possible to implement all the desired concepts of DfD to practice.
15
Connection design
There are several guides and manuals for deconstruction, which propose principles and
strategies for DfD. The provided information is overall instructions on how to make it possible to
maximize component reuse and create potential for upcycling. Apart from the above-mentioned
layering strategy, allowing access to various building components, proper documenting of
materials used, LCA, cradle to cradle and team approach to DfD, the practical aspect of making
DfD possible should be discussed. Connections of building elements play an important role in
Design for Deconstruction.
Modular structure of a building allows disassembly both during a buildings usage and at its end-
of-life. As described in cradle to cradle chapter, the idea of designing a product as a product of
service benefits both consumers and manufacturers. Modularity supports the extension of a
products useful life by upgrading and service (Johansson, 1997, page 82). To enable reuse of
building components, modules should be precisely dimensioned. Connections should be simple,
clear and readily accessible. Connectors should always be designed to enable components to be
both independent and exchangeable (Morgan and Stevenson, 2005, page 26). Examples of
preferable connections when designing for deconstruction are:
Indirect connectors (Fig. 4). They dont overlap with the

components and are easier to deconstruct. Glued and welded
connections make it practically impossible to deconstruct
components properly. Moreover, chemicals may damage the
virgin material when being removed. Figure 4: Example of an
When infilled connections cant be avoided, very soft fillers, such indirect connector
(SEDA, 2005)
as lime mortar are preferable.
Screw fixing. Screws can be easily removed and reused. With regard to recycling, screws
are to be preferred to nails, which may remain embedded in the timber during
separation (Hechler, Popovic Larsen and Nielsen, 2011, page 8).
Bolted connections. Bolts can be reused multiple times, which is a better alternative to
recycling.
Focusing on designing connections for deconstruction will in the long run save both time and
money. A project shouldnt include a lot of different connection types to avoid using multiple
tools for both assembling and disassembling. An optimal amount of fasteners for building
components should be used. Where structurally possible, fewer and stronger fasteners are
preferred, which will make deconstruction easier and faster. Connection principles, however,
are not the only aspects that need to be carefully thought about. The way all parts of the
construction interconnect is also very important. Materials and building systems that imply DfD
are described in the next chapters.
16
Material choice
Separating building components by layers, as described in Brands six ss model is the basis for
Design for Deconstruction. The materials used in those different layers should be also carefully
thought about. As advised in Design for Deconstruction manual by US EPA, using fewer
materials and materials with multiple functions will also simplify deconstruction.
The most salvageable materials tend to be finish and structural wood, windows and doors,
cabinets and casework, masonry, metals (structural steel, doors, grates, grilles, railings, gutters
and downspouts, etc.), lighting and plumbing fixtures, and even ceiling tiles and carpet. Among
the more difficult items to profitable salvage include any that incorporate hazardous materials
and inefficient fixtures (such as toilets, lighting, and mechanical) and appliances.
(Guy, 2011, page 78)
It goes without saying, that avoiding hazardous materials in the construction should be
practiced. In cases when this cant be fulfilled, identifying and documenting building
components containing hazardous materials is advised. If distinguished easily, they can be
properly handled at the end-of-life. The choice of materials for different purposes will affect
how fast and cost-effective deconstruction can be performed.
There are certain features of a building that require often upgrading. Among those is insulation,
which is usually a part of a closed building component and is not perceived as a separate
layer. Since other structural parts and skins of a building may have longer life-spans, insulation
should be treated separately wherever possible. Salvaging potential of insulation also depends
on the type of insulation itself. Batt insulation (Fig. 5), for example, offers a great potential for
reuse, if not contaminated by dust and waste from other building components. It is also not as
easily damaged as rigid insulation (Fig. 6). Waste reduction can be achieved by using natural
biodegradable materials such as sheep wool (Fig. 7) and cellulose insulation (Fig. 8).
Figure 5: Batt insulation Figure 6: Rigid insulation Figure 7: Sheep wool Figure 8: Cellulose batt
insulation insulation
17
Another feature of a building that requires often upgrading is skin, especially external skin which
is exposed to weather conditions. Vulnerable parts of external surfaces (e.g. cladding) are
corners, as well as the lowest sections of cladding, where splashback can lead to discoloration
and decay in organic cladding materials (Morgan and Stevenson, 2005, page 29). When
designed with deconstruction possibility in mind, cladding will allow maintenance, repair and
replacement without damaging the whole assembly, thus avoiding unnecessary wastage of
components.
Structural elements and components
Structural elements are in most cases limited in the material choice for their design. Traditional
load-bearing materials are wood, steel, concrete and masonry. Structural systems generally
account for well over 50% of a buildings mass, so application of DfD to the structure is
particularly worthwhile (Webster and Costello, 2005, page 1). According to Brands six Ss
structure is the building, and it is most likely to stay there for its whole lifetime with other layers
being changed around it. It is true that people dont usually change the structure: it is expensive
and requires professional assistance. But what if it was possible to salvage structure elements of
a building and reuse them for the same purposes in another construction? Structural
components may offer a great potential for reuse, and the reuse of elements is already well
established for certain structural products (Hechler, Popovic Larsen and Nielsen, 2011, page 12).
Figure 9: End-of-life scenarios for structural components
Figure 9 (SteelConstruction.info, 2013) shows the percentage of landfilled, downcycled,

incinerated and re-used structural materials in the case of demolition. Re-use, as we can see, is
the least practiced option. The key principles for promoting material upcycling by means of DfD
will be described further in this chapter.
18
Wood
Wood frame structures are very easy to disassemble

and reuse, if the connection principles to facilitate
deconstruction were used (e.g. indirect connectors
and no glue). Timber frame was the original design-
for-disassembly building material just knock out
the pegs (Brand, 1994, page 194). Wood is one of the
materials that doesnt contribute to large carbon
emissions, as in order to produce timber elements
manufacturers just need to harvest wood and mill it
at the factory. The biggest challenge in reusing wood
Figure 10: Timber-frame house (Brand, 1994)
is salvaging the value of the product. Such
parameters as the size of wood elements, the way they are cut and the character of wood are
significant when it comes to deconstruction. Larger pieces retain more of their value, because
they allow more flexibility for reuse and are easier to salvage than a large number of small
pieces (US EPA, n.d.). Drilling timber for plumbing and electrical installations will create defects
in the wood, thus reducing its value and potential for reuse. Lower value, for example, smaller
components often contain such connectors as nails and screws, which need to be manually
removed this requires extra man power and time. A more economical solution here can be
defining connection free zones in timber. Areas containing nails and screws can be removed
from the rest of the timber element, thus saving both time and money and providing defect free
timber for future reuse. Another question here is whether the salvaged structural wood is being
reused for the same purposes or ends up somewhere else in the construction. Unfortunately for
structural engineers, much of the salvaged timber does not end up in structures, but instead is
sawn for flooring and furniture (Webster and Costello, 2005, page 6). Different stages with
changing functions of a material can be described as material cascades (Fig. 11).
Figure 11: Wood cascade according to C2C

19
Tamedia office building in Zurich built in 2013 by Shigeru Ban
Architects has a very innovative approach to office building
design. Seven stories high, its main structural system is
entirely made of timber, similar to the traditional Japanese
wood buildings, making the building the largest timber frame
structure in Switzerland. There are no nails, screws, glued or
steel connections used in the structure (Fig. 12, 13, 14).
Joinery was precision CNC (Computer numerical control)
milled to the millimeter (Shigeru Ban, 2013).
Figure 12: Wood structure Figure 13: Visible connection Figure 14: Connection principle
Besides the clear contribution to sustainability on the choice of timber as the main structural
material (only renewable construction material and the lowest C02 producer in construction
process) the global mechanical system has been designed to meet the highest standards in
energy issues.
(Shigeru Ban, 2014)
The building is designed to be carbon-neutral. The buildings heating and cooling system uses
groundwater, the double facade shields climatic conditions and acts as a thermal screen,
retractable glazed panels allow the space to be naturally ventilated. Fire regulations were
fulfilled by over-dimensioning wooden components by 5 centimeters. According to the
Christorh Zimmer, who oversaw the project as part of his responsibilities as Tamedia's head of
corporate communications, Charring provides natural protection for the wood components
and in case of fire it would be stable much longer than a steel structure (Cohn, 2014).
The visible wood components were supposed to appear as natural as

possible and require no further treatment or finish (Antemann, 2014).
Such design of timber structure gives a very special atmosphere to the
interior of the building (Fig. 15). This office maybe wasnt designed for
deconstruction, but there definitely are DfD principles involved: structural
simplicity and transparency structure of the building is separated from
the other layers; clear and accessible connections with no glue, nails or
screws used; precisely dimensioned independent modules large pieces
Figure 15: Interior of wood with high potential for reuse.
balcony of Tamedia
office building 20
Another good example of a wooden building can be found
in Hamburg. Woodcube (Fig. 16) presented at IBA
(International Building Exhibition) is a five-story apartment
building and is almost entirely made of wood. Its central
core is made of prefabricated concrete elements and the
rest of the buildings structural system consists of
prefabricated solid-timber floor decks and walls.
Components are joined together with wooden dowels using
no glue. It took just five weeks to construct the Woodcube Figure 16: Woodcube
(Boyer, 2013).
The objective behind the Woodcube was to build a house that would emit no greenhouse gases
whatsoever throughout its life cycle and be totally bio-recyclable (IBA Hamburg, 2013).
However, for fire safety reasons, it was necessary to sheathe both sides of the load-bearing
laminated timber walls with plasterboards (DETAIL 1/2, 2014). Thick wooden walls act as an
excellent natural insulation, avoiding the usage of toxic materials. The wood used in the
construction wasnt treated with any protective coating, adhesives or chemicals this allows
the wood to be directly reused.
Key principles for promoting wood upcycling:
Avoid glue and nails for connections to salvage the value of wood.
Use large pieces of wood, as they have more potential for reuse.
Dont treat wood with any adhesives or finishes for the same reasons.
Steel
Steel is the worlds most recycled material, and despite its potential for deconstruction, it is
rarely being reused. Steel component recovery and recycling reduces the energy, CO2 and other
environmental burdens of the steelmaking process (Fig. 17, Corus Construction Centre, 2001).
But as we can see from the graph the reduction of

environmental burdens happens only during the first,
lets say, 6 cycles of steel recycling, and reaches a
near constant value during the next cycles. Although
recycling saves tremendously on raw materials and
energy costs, the process of melting and re-forming
steel require a substantial energy input (Silverstein,
2009, page 7). Steel structure of a building can be
Figure 17: Embodied energy
designed to facilitate disassembly at the end-of-life,
thus removing the necessity for recycling.
21
The existing methods for salvaging steel for reuse rather than recycling arent developed
enough to promote design for deconstruction. Demolition practice offers heavy magnets,
crushers and pulverisers as methods for extracting reinforcement steel from concrete
structures.
The provision of a tool for the automated removal of bolts from connections could greatly
improve the number of sections available for re-use rather than re-cycling. Current methods for
removing beams are likely to lead to distortion in the proximity of the connection, with a
subsequent requirement to flame cut the steel on the ground.
(Hobbs and Hurley, 2001, page 115).
If properly designed, structural steel is a highly durable material and shows no degradation in
use unless the building is damaged by fire. Since there are yet no regulations or restrictions
related to steel reuse, steel components should be suitable for reuse if they show no visible sign
of plastic deformation.
Key principles for promoting steel upcycling:
Use bolted connections for easy disassemble.

Avoid welding as a means of steel connections.
Dont combine steel with cast-in-situ concrete such structure is almost impossible to
deconstruct and reuse.
Concrete
Concrete is one of the most challenging structural materials to reuse. Cast-in-place concrete has
no connections that could allow separating the material from the rest of the construction. It is
only suitable for recycling (in this case downcycling) and will probably end up as a material for
low-grade applications, e.g. gravel for roads and dry aggregate for new concrete. Of course, this
keeps concrete debris out of landfill meaning reduction of waste, but it doesnt create the
potential for material upcycling. New concrete still needs to be manufactured, which requires
new virgin materials and energy resources. Moreover, in the building industry, carbon dioxide
(CO2) emission mainly comes from cement production (Leung, 2009).
Precast concrete, on the other hand, offers possibility for

deconstruction and potential for reuse. Concrete element
manufacturers most likely will offer technical support to their
clients including transportation and erection of prefab
elements. They will also provide all the necessary information
about each and every element how it is reinforced, which Figure 18: Prefab concrete slabs
type of connection is suitable, load-bearing capacity and so on.
22
This makes both assembly and disassembly a lot easier. Prefabricated elements are often
designed with standard measurements, which gives more potential for their reuse in other
projects. One of the barriers for precast concrete reuse is when another cast-in-situ topping slab
is placed on top of the prefabricated elements, for example, floor decks.
One of the existing components that includes DfD and C2C concepts is Slimline Floor. The
system consists of structural steel girder with wide openings for installations, prefabricated
concrete elements at the bottom acting as a ceiling, and a subfloor of choice.
Figure 19: Slimline Floor C2C
As we can see from the illustration (Fig. 19), Slimline Floor is suitable for deconstruction and
offers a possibility for re-use of both materials and components. Slimline is thinner and lighter
than conventional floor systems, facilitates a fast building process and offers permanent
adaptability of the building installations (Slimline Buildings B. V., 2014). Horizontal service
installations integrated in the floor system can be accessed through specially cut zones (Flex
Zones) in the subfloor and ceiling. These zones are made of special end and length profiles with
an inner sleeve isolated from the Slimline floor with acoustic flanking material to eliminate
sound transmission (Slimline Buildings B. V., 2011).
Key principles for promoting concrete upcycling:
Use prefabricated concrete elements that can be reused in another construction.

Avoid cast-in-situ topping slabs on top of prefab elements.
23
Masonry
Masonry is one of the oldest structures that implies DfD. It has a long history of reuse. Even
though buildings from centuries ago werent designed for deconstruction, locals would
deconstruct abandoned buildings and reuse salvaged stones for another construction nearby.
Nowadays reusing bricks from masonry structures is practiced widely. According to the Danish
SME, Gamle Mursten, each reused brick saves the environment 0,5 kilo of CO2-emissions
compared to building with new bricks. That gives about 8 tonnes reduction of CO2 per one-
family house. Or put in another way 98% of the energy consumption required to burn new
bricks is saved by reusing old bricks (Gamle Mursten, ca. 2012). The REBRICK project represents
material upcycling at its best (Fig. 20).
Figure 20: REBRICK cyclic business model
Gamle Mursten developed an automatized system for cleaning

bricks, which is described below.
Firstly, the demolition brick debris is loaded into a hopper which

is then transported on conveyors to the separator that separates
mortar from the bricks. An automated system further separates
full bricks from broken or damaged bricks. The bricks are then
cleaned in a vibration based process that is protected by a Danish
patent. After cleaning, the bricks are manually sorted according to
their visual characteristics, quality and value and placed on a
conveyor system to be automatically stacked by a new robot Figure 21: Robot system for
stacking bricks
system (Fig. 21) that was incorporated in 2009.
(Gamle Mursten, ca. 2012)
24
The cleaning process is very environmentally friendly, as no water or chemicals are used. Mortar
separation from bricks (cleaning bricks) is carried out through a special vibrating conveyor. A
great advantage of the system is the fact that these machines can be disassembled and the
entire production facility can be moved to another location in a matter of weeks (Gamle
Mursten, ca. 2012).
According to Danish Building Regulations (2010) all buildings in Denmark must be constructed in
accordance with best practice, using materials which are appropriate for the purpose. This
means that if salvaged materials from old constructions are reused, they must meet the
requirements for load-bearing capacity equally to new materials. In case of bricks this is easily
achievable, as bricks can last for centuries. The publication on results of life-cycle analysis on the
reuse of old bricks by Danish EPA says that Provided an old brick replaces a new brick, both
technically and functionally, re-use is, to a varying degree, a more advantageous handling
method than recycling in terms of impact on the environment.
Key principles for promoting brick upcycling:
Use soft types of mortar for masonry construction, e. g. lime mortar.

Avoid cement mortar in brickwork, as it is harder than the bricks themselves and makes
it impossible to clean the bricks for further use.
Theoretical part conclusion
The theoretical background for Design for Deconstruction, as well as the research and
development in the field gave an overview of DfD concepts, basic principles and strategies.
Reports research questions What should be taken into consideration before designing for
deconstruction? and What are the existing systems/materials that involve DfD? have been
answered. Seeing a building in layers and considering each layers life cycle are the first steps to
DfD. Keeping different layers separate will enhance the flexibility of the construction and allow
transformation. Services should be readily accessible and allow replacement without damaging
the rest of the construction. Cradle to Cradle philosophy is related to the topic with its ideas
about waste reduction, material cascading and upcycling. Design for Deconstruction explores
the opportunities of preserving virgin materials value after the building has served its purpose.
Understanding of how to create potential for building components salvage and reuse is very
important. The solution lies in the initial design of the building, where a team approach of all
parties involved is required. Collaboration between the client, design team and contractors is
needed to put DfD into practice. A building designed for deconstruction may require more
attention both during the design and construction phases. In order to not lose the time and
money spent for such an innovative design approach, documentation of component
specifications and deconstruction manuals/plans should be provided. Material choice and
25
connection design will determine the level of efficiency for deconstruction of a building at the
end-of-life. Preference should be given to simple connections that can also be reused.
Prefabricated modules will make both assembly and disassembly fast and cost-effective.
Structural systems offer a great potential for reuse, if designed properly. Examples of building
systems and components that involve DfD were provided to gain understanding of DfD in
practice. In order to answer the main research question How can principles of Design for
Deconstruction create potential for upcycling and avoiding loss of virgin resources?, case
studies on the topic will be analyzed based on the obtained theoretical knowledge.
Case studies
When investigating Design for Deconstruction a lot of theory can be found, but the practical
examples of existing buildings that were either designed for disassembly or successfully taken
apart at the end-of-life are very few. The subject, as mentioned before, is relatively new and it
might take a while before the world goes back from traditional ways of constructing to a more
sustainable way of designing buildings Design for Deconstruction. The above-described
principles and strategies for salvaging building materials and reusing them in a new
construction, as well as successful applications of DfD will be reviewed and analyzed in several
case studies in this chapter.
Arup Campus
Arup Campus (Fig. 22) in Solihull, UK, is an innovative

office building by Arup Associates. The campus
comprises of two pavilions that are linked together by a
central area that contains the entrance, reception and
toilet facilities (WRAP, 2012a, fig. 23). The main idea of
the campus design was to provide a healthy, productive
and flexible working environment, reminding that
Figure 22: Arup Campus, Solihull, UK
buildings are for people, not the reverse.
Figure 23: Arup Campus cross section
26
Campus actually stands out - it's not a glass air-conditioned box, it has a facade of natural
wood. On the top of the buildings are these large chimneys, oast house type chimneys. Actually if
you look at most of the other buildings, you wouldn't know where you were really, you could be
in any business park anywhere in the country. Our building is very different and we are very
proud of it. I have to say it takes some getting used to, and very unkindly some of the local taxi
drivers do call it "The Chicken Shed". But actually the building is just astoundingly good.
(Belfield, c.a. 2007)
Arup Campus was constructed in two phases: phase 1 was completed in 2001 and phase 2 in
2007. Dividing the project in phases made it easier for the team to fulfill the initial design ideas
and consider lessons learned from the first phase before proceeding to Phase 2. The project was
to focus on sustainable design following the principle of long life, loose fit, and low energy
(WRAP, 2012a).
Arup Associates multidisciplinary design approach addressed green issues in the building,
including natural ventilation, low-energy design, use of life-cycle and environmental analyses
for design decision making, use of recycled and non-processed materials .
(Kwok and Grondzik, 2007, page 267)
Design decision making had a great focus on end-of-life potential of building materials and
components. That is why Arup Camus is a great example of how DfD principles and strategies
can be successfully implemented in the construction.
Design for Deconstruction principles
Arup Campus was designed as a warehouse of its parts. End-of-life potential and reuse
strategies were considered already during the concept stage of the project. The project team
developed maintenance and operational manuals for the flexibility and deconstruction aspects
of the design (WRAP, 2012a). Manuals were made to make sure the initial Design for
Deconstruction principles will be followed at the event of dismantling the building. The
buildings design life was estimated to be 60 years.
Structure
Design for Deconstruction of Arup Campus

starts with the choice of structural system. The
buildings structure (Fig. 24) comprises steel
frames at 6m centres supporting pre-cast
hollow core planks at the mezzanine floor and
at the inclined roof planes (Jang Wong and Figure 24: Arup Campus structural arrangement
27
Perkins, 2002). Steel frame is designed as non-composite and the floors have no structural
topping. Dry construction techniques enhance the potential of component reuse at the end-of-
life. Steel frame is assembled using bolt connections, which allows its components to be reused
elsewhere without unnecessary recycling.
Building materials and components
Material choice for Arup Campus was based on The Green Guide to Specification by BRE
(Building Research Establishment). The preference was given to low embodied energy materials
with recycled content. Availability, maintenance issues and exclusion of hazardous materials
were also considered. Most of the materials were selected with potential for salvage, reuse and
recycling. Prefabricated elements, such as concrete floor decks, metal roofing system and
timber facades were chosen because they can be easily disassembled and reused.
1. Coated steel sheet

2. Mineral wool insulation
3. Hollow core roof slab
4. Steel wide flange
5. Raised floor plenum
6. Hollow core floor slab
7. Red cedar window shutter
8. Plywood 28
Figure 25: Arup Campus detailed 3D section
Arup Campus allows transformation and adaptation. The Metsec infill floors and internal
staircases can be dismantled or moved to suit future tenant needs and to extend their usable
life (WRAP, 2012a). Modular carpet tiles from Milliken have a life span of 10 years and can be
recovered at the end-of-life.
Apart from the fact that DfD principles were used in the
construction, the building is also naturally ventilated and
provides maximum of daylighting (Fig. 26). Voids
between floors and chimney like roof pods not only
drive the natural ventilation and provide maximum of
daylighting, but also create connectivity between Figure 26: Natural ventilation and daylighting
workspaces and a healthy indoor environment. deep into the building
Moreover, the louvres and opening windows can be

manually operated, giving back environmental control to the people in the building (Arup
Associates, 2007). Absence of mechanical ventilation system eliminates the necessity of extra
holes and fittings in building components and materials, thus increasing their value and
potential for reuse. However, additional space was designed into the service routes to enable
air-conditioning to be installed at a later date - should climate change require it (WRAP, 2012a).
Project XX
Project XX (Fig. 27) is a two-storey office building by

XXarchitecten in Delft, Netherlands. Built in 1999, the
office was intentionally designed to have a life span of
just twenty years (XX in the name of the project refers
to Roman numeral 20). The reason for that was
because occupancy of office buildings in Netherlands
changes on average every 11.4 years (WRAP, 2012b). Figure 27: Project XX, Delft, Netherlands
As a result, time and money consuming renovations take place very often, or even worse a
building gets demolished long before its expiry date producing a lot of waste. Taking these
issues into consideration, architect Jouke Post developed an office design that can and will be
fully deconstructed at the end-of-life.
Project XX was designed for deconstruction to salvage financial and environmental value of
materials at the end of the building life and promote the zero waste to landfill idea. The
buildings deconstruction is planned to take place in 2019. The original idea of the project was
quite challenging, as the design team tried to find perishable construction materials that would
turn to dust, or in other words, return to its natural state as a raw material after 20 years. The
29
next priorities for design solutions were: materials that can be reused for many purposes
without any modifications, materials that require minor modifications, but still can be reused
for specific purposes, and fully separable and recyclable materials (Klomp and Post, 1999,
translated from Dutch by Google). The office should allow flexibility and transformation in case
of change of use to, for example, an industrial building. All this sounds impossible to achieve,
but let us analyze the DfD principles that were implemented in the design of Project XX.
Structure
The main load-bearing structure of Project XX office is a timber

frame. Swedlam LVL (Laminated Veneer Lumber) was used in
the construction. They are low-weight and have high bearing
strength that can be compared to steel. The use of vacuum
pressed wood meant that 25% less timber was required (WRAP,
2012b). Timber frame was combined with steel bracing. Wooden
columns and beams are connected using standard steel bolts, pins
and plates. The structural frame is separated from other building
layers. The facade (skin) is independent from the main frame with Figure 28: Wooden columns and
beams
the wooden facade frames placed on the steel consoles that are
attached to the main structure (WRAP, 2012b).
The building envelope is a triple glazed pre-assembled glass facade, which provides high levels
of insulation and removes the need for supplementary mechanical heating systems (WRAP,
2012b). To avoid overheating the glazing used for the facade has a reflective coating. Window
shadings on the inside provide the possibility for light and glare manual control. The corners of
the facade were strengthened with steel to make it more durable. Glass panes being
independent from the structure are very easy to disassemble and reuse.
The ground floor is made of prefabricated concrete slabs that contain

20% recycled aggregate. Thin foil between the floor and thermal
insulation was placed to enable material replacement, reuse or
recycle in the future. The plan of the office is very open without any
partitions allowing flexibility in the working place. This design also
creates potential for easy transformation of a building. The first floor
construction consists of prefabricated wooden elements filled with
sand for sound insulation. The floor can be completely removed
transforming a building into an 8 meter tall open space that can be
used for other purposes.
Figure 29: Ground and first
floor construction
30
Design for Deconstruction principles used in Project XX were also aimed at salvaging the value
of materials and their recovery without damage. Electrical services channels and holes for
pipework are pre-made in a limited number of locations in the floor panels (WRAP, 2012b).
Softwood cladding panels used for internal finishes were left unpainted, what maximizes their
end-of-life potential. Carpet wasnt glued to the floor, as adhesive connectors were banned for
this project.
The roof design is also enabling deconstruction. The weight of the flat roof is distributed along
the perimeter of the building, what makes its deconstruction easier. All connection fixings
throughout the building can be dismantled and most of the materials can be reused in twenty
years time (WRAP, 2012b).
An interesting decision was made concerning the material for

ventilation ducts. Since the Project XX office is a temporary building
and has a known lifecycle, the design team took that into
consideration and proposed cardboard as a material for ventilation
ducts. Such ducts are inexpensive, sufficiently durable for the
buildings designed lifetime and recyclable at the end-of-life.
Moreover, the use of cardboard instead of steel or aluminium for
ductwork reduces embodied carbon.
Figure 30: Cardboard
ventilation ducts
Kingspan Lighthouse
Kingspan Lighthouse (Fig. 31) was presented by Kingspan Potton at

BRE (Building Research Establishment) Innovation Park, Watford, UK
in 2007. It was the first house in UK to be certified with Level 6 of the
Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH), meaning that Kingspan Lighthouse
is a net zero carbon emission home. Sustainable technologies were
implemented in the design to achieve Code Level 6, such as solar
thermal panels, photovoltaic panels, biomass boiler, passive cooling
and ventilation, as well as mechanical ventilation with heat recovery.
It is designed to provide a way of living that encourages lifestyles

which are inherently light on the worlds resources, balancing the Figure 31: Kingspan
Lighthouse
practical requirements of todays homeowners with a response to the
expected climate change in the UK impacting as little as possible on
the way we live. (Potton, 2007)
The Lighthouse project enabled Kingspan Potton to develop a robust and reliable approach to
the delivery of several hundred new homes across the UK and many lessons were learned during
the design, construction and use of the Lighthouse. (BRE, c.a. 2012)
31
The reason why this project is under Design for Deconstruction case studies is because five
years after the projects completion the Lighthouse has been deconstructed and is no longer
available at BRE exhibition. Kingspan Potton adopted a zero-waste-to-landfill approach to the
building's deconstruction, making sure that as much of the building as possible was re-used or
recycled (BRE, c.a. 2012). After the buildings deconstruction materials were donated to a
charity project for The Selby Trusts Community Energy Lab.
Sometimes deconstruction of a small building like Lighthouse (2,5-storey, 93 m2) may seem
inefficient, as the amount of materials is not that big and it might be difficult to find their
further ways of implementation. Component reuse requires additional costs for their
transportation and preparation for reuse. Moreover, the next client might not want to pay for
used materials. Lighthouse project demonstrates a very sustainable approach to reducing
C&D waste and carbon emissions. The building materials didnt go to landfill, but were donated
to another project. This is a great example of sustainable thinking, when people are not
concerned about the financial benefits for themselves, but benefits for the environment. And
they were quite significant:
Approximately 11 tonnes of waste will be diverted from landfills and a reduction of 66 tonnes of
CO2 emitted are the impressive statistics as a result from this re-use project, in addition to
significant cost savings for the charity.
(Kingspan, c.a. 2012)
Structure
Kingspan Lighthouse structure is a timber frame constructed with

Kingspan TEK Building System (Fig. 32). The system comprises
142mm thick structural insulated panels (SIPs) connected with a
unique jointing system for walls and roofs, and intermediate
floors using I-beams or open web joists (Kingspan, 2014). The
panels consist of rigid urethane core with OSBs (Oriented Stand
Board) adhesively bonded on both sides. Two layers of panels
Figure 32: Kingspan TEK Building
were used in the Lighthouse wall and roof construction to achieve System
the U-value of 0.11 W/m2K. The system is quick and safe to build,
leaving minimum on-site waste. Kingspan Lighthouse got such a name because of this
lightweight construction Kingspan TEK panels have a maximum weight of 25 kg/m2.
Notwithstanding the lightweight of the system, it can be used for construction of buildings up to
four stories. Moreover, structural insulated panels provide a very high level of thermal
insulation and air-tightness. Major thermal bridges are avoided, because the insulation layer in
the Kingspan TEK Building System is not interrupted by repeating studwork (Kingspan). There
32
are, of course, some thermal bridges through the timber structure used to carry the vertical
loads. Even though the prefabricated elements contain glue and the insulation cant be
separated from OSB at the end-of-life, they can still be reused as a component. As mentioned
before, Kingspan TEK panels were donated to another project after Lighthouse deconstruction.
To achieve the highest level of the Code for Sustainable Homes, additional attention was given
to building materials. They needed to meet the highest levels for thermal efficiency and air-
tightness. Every building material and component used for the show house has been specified
for its ability to optimise the overall sustainability credentials of the building (Potton, 2007).
Kingspan Lighthouse was designed to accommodate for climate change. One of the innovative
materials used in the construction was BASF PCM (Phase Change Material) plasterboard. Placed
in the ceiling, phase changing material absorbs heat in case of room overheating and releases it
when the temperature drops. This is done by microscopic capsules embedded in the
plasterboard that can change their state from solid to liquid.
The foundations consist of off-site timber floor cassettes

on a ring beam of timber beams supported off the
ground level by screw fast pile heads (Kingspan Off-Site,
n.d.) Having enough strength for the support of
domestic scale buildings, the piles provide minimal
disturbance to the ground and can be removed at the
end of the buildings life.
The ground floor is a floating wooden construction

instead of a concrete slab. First and second floor is also
a mezzanine floor construction, which allows easy
disassemble. Floor coverings like wool carpets and
natural rubber flooring were used.
Local sweet chestnut cladding was used for the external

finish, as well as decking and internal flooring of the
Lighthouse. It is a highly durable, lightweight (20%
lighter than oak) and low maintenance material it
doesnt require any treatment. This creates more
potential for reuse of wooden boards.
Figure 33: Kingspan Lighthouse section
33
Conclusion
The analyzed case studies Arup Campus, Project XX and Kingspan Lighthouse were based on the
concepts and principles of DfD described in the theoretical frame of Design for Deconstruction.
All three projects were focused on a sustainable way of building, considering end-of-life
potential already during the design phase. To succeed with the idea, dry construction
techniques, frame structures and prefabricated elements were used. Different layers were
separated from one another, giving access to building components and services and enabling
easy disassemble. Skin materials didnt have any treatment, what enhances the possibility for
their reuse.
After researching the question What are the examples of successful applications of DfD? I can
conclude that there are just a few main principles that the building design needs to involve, and
a successful deconstruction is guaranteed. Nevertheless, Design for Deconstruction is still
challenging, as it requires more attention to both design and construction. But the outcome will
always pay off the virgin resources will be salvaged and waste from the building industry will
be minimized. Even small-scale buildings designed for deconstruction like the above described
case studies make a contribution to material upcycling and preserving the resources of our
planet.
Final Conclusion
The problem of construction and demolition waste is something building industry needs to
solve. Waste materials are most often broken down to the lowest level of its potential: for
combustion or for recycling as secondary material (Nordic Built, 2014). To improve the situation
European Commission has developed the Waste management hierarchy, according to which
reuse of materials is the best option to avoiding waste. The purpose of this paper was to
investigate the potential of Design for Deconstruction in terms of material upcycling and
salvaging virgin resources. Unfortunately, implying strategies for deconstruction in the building
design are not legislatively required. End-of-life potential of building components is not always
considered and valuable materials end up in landfill or are being downcycled. In order to
introduce Design for Deconstruction in masses it should be promoted among the clients and
used practically by architects and manufacturers.
To answer the reports main question How can principles of Design for Deconstruction create
potential for upcycling and avoiding loss of virgin resources? theoretical background of DfD,
research and development in the field and several case studies were analyzed. It became clear
that Design for Deconstruction, being an innovative approach to building design, has a lot of
potential in minimizing C&D waste by reusing building materials and components without
34
recycling them. What appeared as a crazy idea at first and seemed impossible in practice,
turned out to be very simple and realistic.
Design for Deconstruction can be applied to a whole building, as well as its different
components. During the research another potential of DfD was discovered component
upgrading. In the book Cradle to Cradle McDonough and Braungart introduced the idea of
designing a product as a product of service, when a product can be continuously modified or
upgraded to meet the client demands and constantly changing regulations. This idea can be also
accomplished using DfD principles, in particular using simple connections and separating
different layers.
Structural materials were analyzed in terms of their potential for reuse. Prefabrication plays an
important role when it comes to DfD. Prefab elements are easier to salvage if dismountable
connections are used. Timber and steel frame structures appeared to have the biggest potential
for reuse. This was also noted when analyzing the case studies, where two projects (Project XX
and Kingspan Lighthouse) had timber frame and Arup Campus had a steel frame as the main
load-bearing structure.
The report focused on the potential of DfD in terms of salvaging virgin resources and the results
showed it can be very efficient. But why is Design for Deconstruction not a common practice if
it is such a good solution? Reasons to that were also briefly examined in this paper. Component
reuse requires additional costs for their transportation and preparation for reuse. Lack of
information and training about DfD among architects and builders limits the use of DfD. The
investigation of case studies also showed that DfD strategies are more often used when
designing a sustainable home. It is not always the main objective of a project to design a
building for deconstruction. DfD is more likely to be integrated in a sustainable project, so it
stands out. And, as we all know, sustainable buildings are not a common practice yet, but I
believe that Design for Deconstruction, just as sustainability, can become a new approach to
building design.
To sum up, I would like to say that Design for Deconstruction is definitely one of the best ways
to create potential for material upcycling and avoiding loss of virgin resources. Imagine a
building that can be completely deconstructed at its end-of-life without losing any of its
components this sounds almost like a Lego-house built from construction materials. This could
become the future of the building industry, if more and more architects and manufacturers start
implementing DfD in practice.
35
List of references
Books:
Brand, S., 1994. How Buildings Learn: What Happens After Theyre Built. New York: The Penguin
Group.
Danish Building Regulations 2010.
Guy, G. B., 2011. Building Deconstruction. In: A. Sillah, ed. 2011. Green Building: Project
Planning and Cost Estimating, 3rd Edition. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Ch.3.
Johansson, G., 1997. Design for Disassembly A Framework. Ph. D. Linkping University.
Linkping: UniTryck.
Knig, H. and Kohler, N., Kreiig, J. and Ltzkendorf, T., 2010. A Life Cycle Approach to Buildings.
Munich: Arkitektur-Dokumentation GmbH & Co. KG.
Kwok, A. G. and Grondzik, W. T., 2007. The Green Studio Handbook: Environmental strategies for
schematic design. Oxford: Elsevier Inc. Pages 267-273.
McDonough, W. and Braungart, M., 2009. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things.
London: Vintage.
Shahin, V. and Jason, C., 2011. Building Systems Integration for Enhanced Environmental
Performance. Fort Lauderdale: J. Ross Publishing Inc. [e-book] Available at:
<http://site.ebrary.com.ez-
aaa.statsbiblioteket.dk:2048/lib/viauc/reader.action?docID=10520118> [Accessed 14.10.14]
Articles and brochures:
Antemann, M., 2014. Seven Storey Wood Office Building In Zurich. In: DETAIL 02/2014, English
Edition. [online] Available at: <http://issuu.com/detail-magazine/docs/bk_dee_2_2014>
[Accessed 11.10.14]
Boyer, M., 2013. Woodcube: Carbon-Neutral Five-Story Wooden Apartment Building Opens in
Hamburg. [online] Available at: <http://inhabitat.com/woodcube-carbon-neutral-five-story-
wooden-apartment-building-opens-in-hamburg/> [Accessed 11.10.14]
City of Copenhagen, 2012. Copenhagen: Solutions For Sustainable Cities. [pdf] City of
Copenhagen. Available at:
36
<http://subsite.kk.dk/~/media/BBE24DD4459F48578A6DD58B1E93749F.ashx> [Accessed
05.09.14].
Cohn, D., 2014. Inside Job: A finely crafted timber office building for a Swiss media company
makes a strong statement from within. [online] Available at:
<http://archrecord.construction.com/projects/portfolio/2014/07/1407-tamedia-headquarters-
expansion-shigeru-ban-architects.asp> [Accessed 11.10.14]
Coolsweep, 2013. Drivers for waste-to-energy in Europe. [pdf] Available at:

<http://coolsweep.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Drivers-for-waste-to-energy-in-
Europe1.pdf> [Accessed 18.09.14]
Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster, 2012. Denmark: We Know Waste. [pdf] Copenhagen:

Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster. Available at:
<http://www.copcap.com/~/media/Copenhagen%20Capacity/PDF%20Publications/Cleantech%
20PDFs/Waste%20report_2012_FINAL_low.ashx> [Accessed 19.09.14]
Corus Construction Centre, 2001. Recycling and re-use in steel. [pdf] Available at:
<http://www.google.dk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=h
ttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.steelconstruction.org%2Fcomponent%2Fdocuments%2F%3Ftask%3Ddown
loadDocument%26doc%3D675%26file%3D675&ei=foguVJvIM6n8ygP9qIGgBQ&usg=AFQjCNHlyJ
w1DazvTRhNtp9n_NlnctAKEw&sig2=iLjduAtUIMUL_ROphwRVVg&bvm=bv.76802529,d.bGQ>
[Accessed 03.10.14]
Danish EPA, 2013. Denmark Without Waste. [pdf]. Available at:

<http://mim.dk/media/mim/67848/Ressourcestrategi_UK_web.pdf> [Accessed 08.09.14].
DETAIL 1/2, 2014. IBA Apartment Building in Hamburg. Pages 38-42.
European Commission, 2010. Being wise with waste: the EUs approach to waste management.
[pdf] Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at:
<http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/WASTE%20BROCHURE.pdf> [Accessed 16.09.14]
Gamle Mursten, ca. 2012. REBRICK Market uptake of an automated technology for reusing old
bricks. (Laymans Report) [pdf] Available at:
<http://www.gamlemursten.eu/files/6413/8322/6763/Laymans_Report_web.pdf> [Accessed
06.10.14]
Go, T. F., Wahab, D.A., Rahman, M.N.Ab., Ramli, R. and Azhari, C.H., 2011. Disassemblability of
end-of-life vehicle: a critical review of evaluation methods. Journal of Cleaner Production.
[online] 19, pages 1536-1546. Available through:
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652611001582> [Accessed 22.09.14]
37
Guy, B. and Ciamboli, N., n.d. Design for Disassembly in the Built Environment: A Guide to
Closed-loop Design and Building. [pdf] Available at:
<http://www.lifecyclebuilding.org/docs/DfDseattle.pdf > [Accessed 26.09.14]
Guy, B. and Shell, S., 2002. Design for Deconstruction and Materials Reuse. [pdf] Rotterdam:
Inhouse Publishing. Available at: <http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB951.pdf> [Accessed
25.09.14]
Hechler, O., Popovic Larsen, O. and Nielsen, S., 2011. Design for deconstruction. In: L. Braganca,
ed. 2011. Summary report of the cooperative activities of COST Action C25 - Sustainabilty of
constructions: Integrated approach to life-time structural engineering, Vol. 2. European Science
Foundation, COST, Brussels, pp. 339-354. COST C25 [doc] Available at: <www.re-
ad.dk/files/31555965/dfd_16082010.doc> [Accessed 29.09.14]
Hobbs, G. and Hurley, J., 2001. Deconstruction and the reuse of construction materials. (CIB
Publication 266, Proceedings of the CIB Task Group 39 Deconstruction Meeting) [pdf]
Wellington: CIB World Building Congress. Available at:
<http://www.iip.kit.edu/downloads/CIB_Publication_266.pdf> [Accessed 05.10.14]
IBA Hamburg, 2013. Woodcube. [online] Available at: <http://www.iba-

hamburg.de/en/projects/the-building-exhibition-within-the-building-exhibition/smart-material-
houses/woodcube/projekt/woodcube-141.html> [Accessed 11.10.14]
Jang Wong, D. and Perkins, C., 2002. The Integrated Arup Campus. In: New Steel Construction.
January/February 2002, pages 21-23. [pdf] Available at:
<http://www.google.dk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CEcQFjAI&url=ht
tp%3A%2F%2Fwww.steelconstruction.org%2Fcomponent%2Fdocuments%2F%253Ftask%253Dd
ownloadDocument%2526doc%253D5735%2526file%253D5735&ei=f1Y5VPmVDMq7ygPdy4Bg&
usg=AFQjCNHpN7UUX66veLW7ilzLfEhgGK-
Kyg&sig2=WaTpauQUSVNCwRmhPnAeHQ&bvm=bv.77161500,d.bGQ> [Accessed 11.10.14]
Kingspan Off-Site, n.d. Lighthouse. [pdf] Available at:

<http://www.kingspanpanels.nl/Kingspan/media/PDFs/NL/Duurzaamheid/Lighthouse/Lighthou
se_flyer.pdf> [Accessed 20.10.14]
Kingspan, 2014. Kingspan TEK Building System. [pdf] Available at:

<http://www.kingspantek.co.uk/getattachment/0d3e59e6-e509-45e5-b604-
87f2ab55280f/Introduction-to-TEK-Building-System.aspx> [Accessed 20.10.14]
Leung, S., 2009. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions of Concrete. [pdf] Available at:
<http://www.devb.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_680/6_mr_stephen_leung_carbon_dioxide
_emissions_of_concrete.pdf> [Accessed 01.10.14]
38
Morgan, C. and Stevenson, F., 2005. Design for Deconstruction: SEDA Design Guides for
Scotland: No. 1. [pdf] Available at: <http://www.seda.uk.net/assets/files/guides/dfd.pdf >
[Accessed 26.09.14]
Nordic Innovation, 2014. Environmentally Sustainable Construction Products and Materials

Assessment of release and emissions. [pdf] Olso: Nordic Innovation. Available at:
<http://www.nordicinnovation.org/Global/_Publications/Reports/2014/Environmentally%20Sus
tainable%20Construction%20Products%20and%20Materials_Final_report.pdf > [Accessed
10.09.14]
Potton, 2007. Lighthouse by Potton. [pdf] Available at:

http://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/Innovation_Park/Kingspan_Lighthouse_Brochure.pdf
[Accessed 19.10.14]
Shigeru Ban, 2013. Shingeru Ban: Tamedia Office Building in Zurich Completed. [online] Available
at: <http://www.designboom.com/architecture/shigeru-ban-tamedia-office-building-in-zurich-
completed/> [Accessed 10.10.14]
Shigeru Ban, 2014. Tamedia Office Building / Shigeru Ban Architects. [online] Available at:
<http://www.archdaily.com/478633/tamedia-office-building-shigeru-ban-architects/>
[Accessed 10.10.14]
Silverstein, S. A., 2009. Applying "Design for Disassembly" to connection design in steel
structures. M. Eng. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Available at:
<http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/53071> [Accessed 05.10.14]
Slimline Buildings B. V., 2011. Subfloor with Slimline. [pdf] Available at:
<http://www.slimlinebuildings.com/downloads/825/SLBSubfloor_EN.pdf> [Accessed 09.10.14]
Slimline Buildings B. V., 2014. Slimline Construction. Rotterdam [pdf] Available at:
<http://www.slimlinebuildings.com/downloads/912/SLBConstruction_EN.pdf> [Accessed
09.10.14]
US EPA, n.d. Design for Deconstruction. [pdf] Available at:

<http://www.epa.gov/region9/greenbuilding/pdfs/DesignForDeconstrManual.pdf> [Accessed
29.09.14]
Webster, M. D. and Costello, D. T., 2005. Designing Structural Systems for Deconstruction: How
to Extend a New Buildings Useful Life and Prevent it from Going to Waste When the End Finally
Comes. [pdf] Available at:
<http://www.lifecyclebuilding.org/docs/Designing%20Structural%20Systems%20for%20Deconst
ruction.pdf> [Accessed 01.10.14]
39
WRAP, 2012a. Designing for deconstruction and flexibility case study: Arup Campus, Solihull.
Considering long life, loose fit, and low energy to maximise material benefits at end of life.
[pdf] Available at:
<http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Refurbishment%20Resource%20Efficiency%20Case%
20Study_Office_Arup%20Campus.pdf> [Accessed 11.10.14]
WRAP, 2012b. Designing for deconstruction and flexibility case study: Project XX, Netherlands.
Office with a known lifecycle. [pdf] Available at:
<http://www.wrap.org.uk/system/files/private/DfDF%20Resource%20Efficiency%20Case%20St
udy_Office_Project%20XX.pdf> [Accessed 16.10.14]
Websites:
Arup Associates, 2007. Arup Campus. [online] Available at:

<http://www.arupassociates.com/en/exploration/books/arup-campus/> [Accessed 11.10.14]
Belfield, A., c.a. 2007. Interview on The Arup Associates Campus Project. Interviewed by Victoria
and Albert Museum [online] Available at: <www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/audio-the-arup-
associates-campus-project/> [Accessed 13.10.14]
BRE, c.a. 2012. Kingspan lighthouse deconstruction - BRE Innovation Park Watford. [online]
Available at: <http://www.bre.co.uk/innovationpark/page.jsp?id=959> [Accessed 19.10.14]
Danish EPA, 2014. Results of Life Cycle Analysis on the reuse of old bricks. [online] Available at:
<http://www.gamlemursten.eu/news/results-of-life-cycle-analysis-on-the-reuse-of-old-bricks-
have-been-published/> [Accessed 06.10.14]
http://www.gamlemursten.eu/ [Accessed 06.10.14]
Klomp, H. and Post, J., 1999. An office for XX. Translated from Dutch by Google. [online]
Available at: <http://www.facilitaire-info.nl/gebouw/9906xx-kantoor.html#top> [Accessed
17.10.14]
Nordic Built, 2014. Component reuse. [online] Available at:

<http://www.nordicinnovation.org/nordicbuilt/cases/funded-projects-through-nordic-built-in-
2013/component-reuse/> [Accessed 11.09.14]
Videos:
Gamle Mursten, 2012. The REBRICK solution to making waste a resource. [video online]
Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLpPM6SmFmY#t=44> [Accessed 06.10.14]
40
Tables:
Table 1:
Danish EPA, 2013. The Danish waste production and management in 2011, excl. soil. [pdf].
Available at: <http://mim.dk/media/mim/67848/Ressourcestrategi_UK_web.pdf> [Accessed
08.09.14].
Table 2:
Illustrations: RIBA, 2013. RIBA Plan of work 2013. [pdf] Available at:
<http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAProfessionalServices/Practice/RIBAPlanofWork2013Te
mplate.pdf > [Accessed 26.09.14]
Content adapted from: Morgan, C., Stevenson, F., 2005. Strategic Action to Promote
Deconstruction. [pdf] Available at: <http://www.seda.uk.net/assets/files/guides/dfd.pdf> page
17 [Accessed 26.09.14]
List of illustrations
Cover page: http://www.veiligwonen.nl/images_content/yoppa-house1.jpg
Figure 1: European Commission, 2010. Moving up the waste hierarchy. [pdf] Available at:
<http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/WASTE%20BROCHURE.pdf> page 5 [Accessed
16.09.14]
Figure 2: Brand, S., 1994. Building layers, page 13.
Figure 3: Johansson, G., 1997. A products physical life-cycle, page 5.
Figure 4: Morgan, C., Stevenson, F., 2005. Plan section of an indirect connector for wooden
panels. [pdf] Available at: <http://www.seda.uk.net/assets/files/guides/dfd.pdf> page 26
[Accessed 29.09.14]
Figure 5: http://buildingdoctors.com/sites/default/files/ec_pro/thebuildingdoctors/insulation-
batt.jpg
Figure 6: http://img.archiexpo.com/images_ae/photo-g/polyisocyanurate-pir-foam-insulation-
panels-rigid-roofs-bitumen-facing-103544-5270363.jpg
Figure 7: http://www.eco-worrier.net/images/sheepwool2.jpg
Figure 8:
http://us.123rf.com/450wm/stocksnapper/stocksnapper1309/stocksnapper130900043/224368
41
80-cellulose-insulation-batt-panel-in-closeup-made-of-recycled-newspapers-used-as-building-
thermal-insu.jpg
Figure 9: http://www.steelconstruction.info/images/c/c8/B_Fig10_2013.png
Figure 10: Brand, S., 1994. Timber-frame house, page 195.
Figure 11:
http://circulareconomy.wikispaces.com/file/view/Wood%20Cascade%20Cradle%20to%20Cradl
e.jpg/344680778/480x337/Wood%20Cascade%20Cradle%20to%20Cradle.jpg
Figure 12: http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-

content/uploads/2014/02/530424dce8e44ee8ac0000b3_tamedia-office-building-shigeru-ban-
architects_a2-530x397.jpg

content/uploads/2014/02/53042af5e8e44ee8ac0000cc_tamedia-office-building-shigeru-ban-
architects_timber_detail_axon-648x1000.png

content/uploads/2014/02/5304265ee8e44ec69a0000f5_tamedia-office-building-shigeru-ban-
architects_d5-530x397.jpg

content/uploads/2014/02/530428c0e8e44ec69a000102_tamedia-office-building-shigeru-ban-
architects_tamedia_164-530x716.jpg
Figure 16: http://www.iba-

hamburg.de/fileadmin/Projekte/00_Header_1306/Woodcube_Header01_BernadetteGrimmens
tein.jpg
Figure 17: Corus Construction Centre, 2001. Embodied energy [pdf] Available at:
<http://www.google.dk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=h
ttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.steelconstruction.org%2Fcomponent%2Fdocuments%2F%3Ftask%3Ddown
loadDocument%26doc%3D675%26file%3D675&ei=foguVJvIM6n8ygP9qIGgBQ&usg=AFQjCNHlyJ
w1DazvTRhNtp9n_NlnctAKEw&sig2=iLjduAtUIMUL_ROphwRVVg&bvm=bv.76802529,d.bGQ>
[Accessed 05.10.14]
Figure 18: http://i01.i.aliimg.com/img/pb/952/998/265/1283842496609_hz-myalibaba-

web6_2543.JPG
Figure 19: Slimline Buildings, n. d. [image online] Available at:

<http://www.slimlinebuildings.com/NL/groen-bouwen> [Accessed 10.10.14]
42
Figure 20: Gamle Mursten, 2012. REBRICK cyclic business model. [image online] Available at:
<http://www.gamlemursten.eu/what-we-do/> [Accessed 06.10.14]
Figure 21: Gamle Mursten, 2012? Robot system for stacking bricks. [image online] Available at:
<http://www.gamlemursten.eu/files/cache/91eaa45ace8a9c923f56a746e39768a0.jpg>
[Accessed 06.10.14]
Figure 22: Cook, P., n.d. Arup Campus, Solihull. [image online] Available at:
<http://www.arupassociates.com/media/cache/6c/6c/6c6c26b893bb40434a7d72297884fb76.j
pg> [Accessed 11.10.14]
Figure 23: Arup Associates, 2002. Arup Campus cross section. In: New Steel Construction. [pdf]
Available at:
Figure 24: Arup Associates, 2002. Arup Campus structural arrangement. In: New Steel
Construction. [pdf] Available at:
Figure 25: Shahin, V. and Jason, C., 2011. Section through light scoop. Page 50. Available at:
<http://site.ebrary.com.ez-
aaa.statsbiblioteket.dk:2048/lib/viauc/reader.action?docID=10520118> [Accessed 16.10.14]
Figure 26: Arup Associates, 2007. Natural ventilation and daylighting deep into the building.
[online] Available at: <http://www.arupassociates.com/en/exploration/books/arup-campus/>
[Accessed 14.10.14]
Figure 27: http://www.architectenweb.nl/bin/archipedia/116170.jpg
Figure 28: http://www.xxarchitecten.nl/UserFiles/Image/archief/kantoren/projectxx1.jpg
43
Figure 31: http://www.kingspantek.co.uk/getattachment/d85eba4c-37b7-4905-9f00-
7792b3cdac07/Kingspan-Lighthouse.aspx
Figure 32: Kingspan, 2014. Kingspan TEK Building System. [pdf] Available at:
<http://www.kingspantek.co.uk/getattachment/0d3e59e6-e509-45e5-b604-
87f2ab55280f/Introduction-to-TEK-Building-System.aspx> [Accessed 20.10.14]
Figure 33: http://www.designcoholic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ekolojik-ev-lighthouse-

surdurulebilir-mimarinin-en-iyi-ornegi-designcoholic-18.jpg
44

7th Semester Dissertation Diana Zabusova

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7th Semester Dissertation Diana Zabusova

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

7th Semester Dissertation Diana Zabusova

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design for

Author: Diana Zabusova

Consultant: Heidi Merrild

Author: Diana Zabusova

Student number: 163674

Number of pages: 27 (2400 characters per page)

Font: Calibri (Body) 12

DfD Design for Deconstruction/Disassembly

C&D Construction and Demolition

LCA Life cycle assessment/analysis

HVAC Heating, ventilation, air-conditioning

DfE Design for Environment

DfR Design for Recycling

CDM Construction Design and Management

Reasons for subject choice and professional relevance

(Coolsweep, 2013, page 19)

There are different ways of dealing with waste.

1) What should be taken into consideration before designing for deconstruction?

Choice of research method, theoretical basis and sources of empirical data

Overall structure of report and argumentation

The report consists of 3 parts:

Seeing a building in layers

SITE This is the geographical setting, the urban

(Brand, 1994, page 13)

Life cycle concept

The above-described concept of evaluating a products environmental impact during its

Figure 3: A products physical life-cycle (Johansson, 1997)

(McDonough and Braungart, 2009, page 111)

Principles and strategies for DfD

Table 2: Team approach to DfD. Adapted from SEDA, 2005.

Indirect connectors (Fig. 4). They dont overlap with the

(Guy, 2011, page 78)

Structural elements and components

Figure 9: End-of-life scenarios for structural components

Figure 9 (SteelConstruction.info, 2013) shows the percentage of landfilled, downcycled,

Wood frame structures are very easy to disassemble

Figure 11: Wood cascade according to C2C

The visible wood components were supposed to appear as natural as

Key principles for promoting wood upcycling:

But as we can see from the graph the reduction of

(Hobbs and Hurley, 2001, page 115).

Key principles for promoting steel upcycling:

Use bolted connections for easy disassemble.

Precast concrete, on the other hand, offers possibility for

Figure 19: Slimline Floor C2C

Key principles for promoting concrete upcycling:

Use prefabricated concrete elements that can be reused in another construction.

Figure 20: REBRICK cyclic business model

Gamle Mursten developed an automatized system for cleaning

Firstly, the demolition brick debris is loaded into a hopper which

Key principles for promoting brick upcycling:

Use soft types of mortar for masonry construction, e. g. lime mortar.

Theoretical part conclusion

Arup Campus (Fig. 22) in Solihull, UK, is an innovative

Figure 23: Arup Campus cross section

(Belfield, c.a. 2007)

(Kwok and Grondzik, 2007, page 267)

Design for Deconstruction principles

Design for Deconstruction of Arup Campus