Designing Buildings - User contributions [en]

User:BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks

2019-02-12T09:31:46Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks:

User:BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks

2019-02-12T09:30:56Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks:

BAMB

2019-01-10T15:45:37Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Protected "BAMB" ([edit=author] (indefinite) [move=author] (indefinite))

[[File:BAMB_flow_chart.jpg|link=File:BAMB_flow_chart.jpg]]

[https://www.bamb2020.eu/ BAMB] (Buildings As Material Banks) is a EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation project enabling a shift to a circular building sector. The purpose of the BAMB project is to reduce waste and the use of virgin materials in the building industry.

A number of of concepts have been developed within the project:

* Buildings levels
* Material(s) Bank
* Circular business models
* Materials Passport
* Reuse potential
* Transformation capacity
* Reversible Building, ~ Building Design
* Circular Building Assessment

These concepts are explained in a series of articles on Designing Buildings Wiki:

* Building levels
* Business models for building material circularity: learnings from frontrunner cases
* Challenging the current approach to end of life of buildings using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach
* Circular Building Assessment
* Circular Business Models
* Circular economy and design for change within the built environment: preparing the transition
* Circular Value Network
* Extending buildings’ life cycle: sustainability early design support tool
* [[How_do_current_policies_support_a_transition_towards_a_circular_economy_in_the_built_environment%3F|How do current policies support a transition towards a circular economy in the built environment]]?
* Material flows of the German building sector
* Material loops
* Material(s) Banks
* Materials Passports
* Materials Passports: Providing insights in the circularity of materials, products and systems
* Resource productivity
* Reuse of building products and materials – barriers and opportunities
* Reuse potential
* Reversible Building Design
* Systemic view on Reuse Potential of building elements, components and systems – Comprehensive Framework for assessing Reuse Potential of Building Elements
* Transformation capacity

--[[User:BAMB_-_Buildings_As_Material_Banks|BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks]] 16:06, 30 Aug 2018 (BST)

[[Category:Research_/_Innovation]] [[Category:DCN_Research,_Development_and_Innovation]] [[Category:Sustainability]] [[Category:Construction_management]] [[Category:Construction_techniques]] [[Category:Cost_/_business_planning]] [[Category:Design]] [[Category:Products_/_components]] [[Category:DCN_Product_Knowledge]]

BAMB

2019-01-10T15:45:29Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks:

BAMB

2019-01-10T15:44:18Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Removed protection from "BAMB"

[[File:BAMB_flow_chart.jpg|link=File:BAMB_flow_chart.jpg]]

[https://www.bamb2020.eu/ BAMB] (Buildings As Material Banks) is a EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation project enabling a shift to a circular buiding sector. The purpose of the BAMB project is to reduce waste and the use of virgin materials in the building industry.

A number of of concepts have been developed within the project:

* Buildings levels
* Material(s) Bank
* Circular business models
* Materials Passport
* Reuse potential
* Transformation capacity
* Reversible Building, ~ Building Design
* Circular Building Assessment

These concepts are explained in a series of articles on Designing Buildings Wiki:

* Building levels
* Business models for building material circularity: learnings from frontrunner cases
* Challenging the current approach to end of life of buildings using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach
* Circular Building Assessment
* Circular Business Models
* Circular economy and design for change within the built environment: preparing the transition
* Circular Value Network
* Extending buildings’ life cycle: sustainability early design support tool
* [[How_do_current_policies_support_a_transition_towards_a_circular_economy_in_the_built_environment%3F|How do current policies support a transition towards a circular economy in the built environment]]?
* Material flows of the German building sector
* Material loops
* Material(s) Banks
* Materials Passports
* Materials Passports: Providing insights in the circularity of materials, products and systems
* Resource productivity
* Reuse of building products and materials – barriers and opportunities
* Reuse potential
* Reversible Building Design
* Systemic view on Reuse Potential of building elements, components and systems – Comprehensive Framework for assessing Reuse Potential of Building Elements
* Transformation capacity

--[[User:BAMB_-_Buildings_As_Material_Banks|BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks]] 16:06, 30 Aug 2018 (BST)

[[Category:Research_/_Innovation]] [[Category:Sustainability]] [[Category:Construction_management]] [[Category:Construction_techniques]] [[Category:Cost_/_business_planning]] [[Category:Design]] [[Category:Products_/_components]]

User:BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks

2019-01-10T15:41:20Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks:

== About BAMB ==

In the Project BAMB – Buildings As Material Banks 15 partners from 7 European countries are working together with one mission – enabling a systemic shift in the building sector by creating circular solutions.

Today, building materials end up as waste when no longer needed, with effects like destroying ecosystems, increasing environmental costs, and creating risks of resource scarcity. To create a sustainable future, the building sector needs to move towards a circular economy.

Whether an industry goes circular or not depends on the value of the materials within it – worthless materials are waste, while valuable materials are recycled. Increased value equals less waste, and that is what BAMB is creating – ways to increase the values of building materials.

BAMB will enable a systemic shift where dynamically and flexibly designed buildings can be incorporated into a circular economy. Through design and circular value chains, materials in buildings sustain their value – in a sector producing less waste and using less virgin resources. Instead of being to-be waste, buildings will function as banks of valuable materials – slowing down the usage of resources to a rate that meets the capacity of the planet. BAMB's vision: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3EKddd_dAt0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3EKddd_dAt0]

The project is developing and integrating tools that will enable the shift: Materials Passports and Reversible Building Design – supported by new business models, policy propositions and management and decision-making models. During the course of the project these new approaches will be demonstrated and refined with input from 6 pilots.

The BAMB project started in September 2015 and will progress for 3 and a half years as an innovation action within the EU funded Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 642384.

Find out how to get involved. Visit our [http://www.bamb2020.eu/get-involved/stakeholder-network/ website].

[[File:European_flag_2.png|222px|link=File:European_flag_2.png]]

= BAMB FINAL EVENT =

[[File:Final_event_signature.jpg|1100px|link=File:Final_event_signature.jpg]]

The BAMB Consortium is pleased to invite you to participate in BAMB’s final event “BUILDINGS AS MATERIAL BANKS – A PATHWAY FOR A CIRCULAR FUTURE” (SBE19 Brussels – BAMB-CIRCPATH) that will be hold in Brussels on 05 to 07 of February 2019. The Consortium of the H2020 BAMB Project is proud to inform that the BAMB final event is part of the worldwide SBE19 Conference Series.

The event has three activities (not overlapping).

5 February - Industry day - a full conference day where the BAMB results will be shared with the participants - free of charge but you need to register 
6 February - Pilot visit - a half day visit (morning) to the BAMB pilot Circular Retrofit Lab - free of charge but you need to register 
6-7 February - Research days - one and a half day of research reports being presented - these days are subject to a registration fee

To find out more and register please visit:

[https://www.bamb2020.eu/post/bamb-final-event/ https://www.bamb2020.eu/post/bamb-final-event/]

User:BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks

2018-12-17T11:03:16Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks:

== About BAMB ==

In the Project BAMB – Buildings As Material Banks 15 partners from 7 European countries are working together with one mission – enabling a systemic shift in the building sector by creating circular solutions.

Today, building materials end up as waste when no longer needed, with effects like destroying ecosystems, increasing environmental costs, and creating risks of resource scarcity. To create a sustainable future, the building sector needs to move towards a circular economy.

Whether an industry goes circular or not depends on the value of the materials within it – worthless materials are waste, while valuable materials are recycled. Increased value equals less waste, and that is what BAMB is creating – ways to increase the values of building materials.

BAMB will enable a systemic shift where dynamically and flexibly designed buildings can be incorporated into a circular economy. Through design and circular value chains, materials in buildings sustain their value – in a sector producing less waste and using less virgin resources. Instead of being to-be waste, buildings will function as banks of valuable materials – slowing down the usage of resources to a rate that meets the capacity of the planet. BAMB's vision: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3EKddd_dAt0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3EKddd_dAt0]

The project is developing and integrating tools that will enable the shift: Materials Passports and Reversible Building Design – supported by new business models, policy propositions and management and decision-making models. During the course of the project these new approaches will be demonstrated and refined with input from 6 pilots.

The BAMB project started in September 2015 and will progress for 3 and a half years as an innovation action within the EU funded Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 642384.

Find out how to get involved. Visit our [http://www.bamb2020.eu/get-involved/stakeholder-network/ website].

[[File:European_flag_2.png|222px|link=File:European_flag_2.png]]

= BAMB FINAL EVENT =

[[File:Final_event_signature.jpg|1100px|link=File:Final_event_signature.jpg]]

The BAMB Consortium is pleased to invite you to participate in BAMB’s final event “BUILDINGS AS MATERIAL BANKS – A PATHWAY FOR A CIRCULAR FUTURE” (SBE19 Brussels – BAMB-CIRCPATH) that will be hold in Brussels on 05 to 07 of February 2019. The Consortium of the H2020 BAMB Project is proud to inform that the BAMB final event is part of the worldwide SBE19 Conference Series.

The event has three activities (not overlapping). To find out more and register please visit:

[https://www.bamb2020.eu/post/bamb-final-event/ https://www.bamb2020.eu/post/bamb-final-event/]

User:BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks

2018-12-17T11:01:26Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks:

== About BAMB ==

In the Project BAMB – Buildings As Material Banks 15 partners from 7 European countries are working together with one mission – enabling a systemic shift in the building sector by creating circular solutions.

Today, building materials end up as waste when no longer needed, with effects like destroying ecosystems, increasing environmental costs, and creating risks of resource scarcity. To create a sustainable future, the building sector needs to move towards a circular economy.

Whether an industry goes circular or not depends on the value of the materials within it – worthless materials are waste, while valuable materials are recycled. Increased value equals less waste, and that is what BAMB is creating – ways to increase the values of building materials.

BAMB will enable a systemic shift where dynamically and flexibly designed buildings can be incorporated into a circular economy. Through design and circular value chains, materials in buildings sustain their value – in a sector producing less waste and using less virgin resources. Instead of being to-be waste, buildings will function as banks of valuable materials – slowing down the usage of resources to a rate that meets the capacity of the planet. BAMB's vision: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3EKddd_dAt0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3EKddd_dAt0]

The project is developing and integrating tools that will enable the shift: Materials Passports and Reversible Building Design – supported by new business models, policy propositions and management and decision-making models. During the course of the project these new approaches will be demonstrated and refined with input from 6 pilots.

The BAMB project started in September 2015 and will progress for 3 and a half years as an innovation action within the EU funded Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 642384.

Find out how to get involved. Visit our [http://www.bamb2020.eu/get-involved/stakeholder-network/ website].

[[File:European_flag_2.png|222px|link=File:European_flag_2.png]]

= BAMB FINAL EVENT =

[[File:Final event signature.jpg]]

The BAMB Consortium is pleased to invite you to participate in BAMB’s final event “BUILDINGS AS MATERIAL BANKS – A PATHWAY FOR A CIRCULAR FUTURE” (SBE19 Brussels – BAMB-CIRCPATH) that will be hold in Brussels on 05 to 07 of February 2019. The Consortium of the H2020 BAMB Project is proud to inform that the BAMB final event is part of the worldwide prestigious SBE19 Conference Series. To find out more about the event please visit [https://www.bamb2020.eu/post/bamb-final-event/ https://www.bamb2020.eu/post/bamb-final-event/]

File:Final event signature.jpg

2018-12-17T11:00:50Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: BAMB Final event banner Copyright: BAMB

BAMB Final event banner Copyright: BAMB

User:BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks

2018-09-24T07:58:27Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks:

== About BAMB ==

In the Project BAMB – Buildings As Material Banks 15 partners from 7 European countries are working together with one mission – enabling a systemic shift in the building sector by creating circular solutions.

Today, building materials end up as waste when no longer needed, with effects like destroying ecosystems, increasing environmental costs, and creating risks of resource scarcity. To create a sustainable future, the building sector needs to move towards a circular economy.

Whether an industry goes circular or not depends on the value of the materials within it – worthless materials are waste, while valuable materials are recycled. Increased value equals less waste, and that is what BAMB is creating – ways to increase the values of building materials.

BAMB will enable a systemic shift where dynamically and flexibly designed buildings can be incorporated into a circular economy. Through design and circular value chains, materials in buildings sustain their value – in a sector producing less waste and using less virgin resources. Instead of being to-be waste, buildings will function as banks of valuable materials – slowing down the usage of resources to a rate that meets the capacity of the planet. BAMB's vision: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3EKddd_dAt0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3EKddd_dAt0]

The project is developing and integrating tools that will enable the shift: Materials Passports and Reversible Building Design – supported by new business models, policy propositions and management and decision-making models. During the course of the project these new approaches will be demonstrated and refined with input from 6 pilots.

The BAMB project started in September 2015 and will progress for 3 and a half years as an innovation action within the EU funded Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 642384.

Find out how to get involved. Visit our [http://www.bamb2020.eu/get-involved/stakeholder-network/ website].

[[File:European_flag_2.png|222px|link=File:European_flag_2.png]]

= BAMB REVERSIBLE DESIGN COMPETITION =

BAMB welcomes students of architecture and engineering from all EU universities to participate in the “BAMB’s Reversible design competition”. To find out more information about the competition please visit [https://www.bamb2020.eu/get-involved/reversible-design-competition/ https://www.bamb2020.eu/get-involved/reversible-design-competition/]

= BAMB FINAL EVENT =

[[File:Banner BAMB 3 frame.jpg]]

The BAMB Consortium is pleased to invite you to participate in BAMB’s final event “BUILDINGS AS MATERIAL BANKS – A PATHWAY FOR A CIRCULAR FUTURE” (SBE19 Brussels – BAMB-CIRCPATH) that will be hold in Brussels on 05 to 07 of February 2019. The Consortium of the H2020 BAMB Project is proud to inform that the BAMB final event is part of the worldwide prestigious SBE19 Conference Series. To find out more about the event please visit [https://www.bamb2020.eu/post/bamb-final-event/ https://www.bamb2020.eu/post/bamb-final-event/]

File:Banner BAMB 3 frame.jpg

2018-09-24T07:56:31Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: BAMB FINAL EVENT “BUILDINGS AS MATERIAL BANKS – A PATHWAY FOR A CIRCULAR FUTURE” (SBE19 BRUSSELS – BAMB-CIRCPATH)”, 5-7 FEBRUARY 2019, BRUSSELS, BELGIUM Copyright: BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks

BAMB FINAL EVENT BUILDINGS AS MATERIAL BANKS A PATHWAY FOR A CIRCULAR FUTURE (SBE19 BRUSSELS BAMB-CIRCPATH), 5-7 FEBRUARY 2019, BRUSSELS, BELGIUM Copyright: BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks

BAMB

2018-08-30T15:10:56Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Protected "BAMB" ([edit=author] (indefinite) [move=author] (indefinite))

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks

BAMB is a EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation project enabling a shift to a circular buiding sector. [https://www.bamb2020.eu/ https://www.bamb2020.eu/]

The purpose of the BAMB project is to reduce waste and use of virgin materials in the building industry.

A number of of concepts have been developed within the project, they are all explained here at Designing Buildings Wiki:

* Buildings levels
* Material(s) Bank
* Circular business models
* Materials Passport
* Reuse potential
* Transformation capacity
* Reversible Building, ~ Building Design
* Circular Building Assessment.

[[File:BAMB_flow_chart.jpg|link=File:BAMB_flow_chart.jpg]]

--[[User:BAMB_-_Buildings_As_Material_Banks|BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks]] 16:06, 30 Aug 2018 (BST)

[[Category:Research_/_Innovation]] [[Category:Sustainability]] [[Category:Construction_management]] [[Category:Construction_techniques]] [[Category:Cost_/_business_planning]] [[Category:Design]] [[Category:Products_/_components]]

BAMB

2018-08-30T15:10:46Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks:

BAMB

2018-08-30T15:09:23Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Removed protection from "BAMB"

BAMB

2018-08-30T15:08:23Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Protected "BAMB" ([edit=author] (indefinite) [move=author] (indefinite))

BAMB

2018-08-30T15:08:07Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks:

BAMB

2018-08-30T15:06:05Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Created page with "BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks BAMB is a EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation project enabling a shift to a circular buiding sector. The purpose of the BAMB project is t..."

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks

BAMB is a EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation project enabling a shift to a circular buiding sector.

The purpose of the BAMB project is to reduce waste and use of virgin materials in the building industry.

A number of of concepts have been developed within the project, they are all explained here at Designing Buildings Wiki:

* Buildings levels
* Material(s) Bank
* Circular business models
* Materials Passport
* Reuse potential
* Transformation capacity
* Reversible Building, ~ Building Design
* Circular Building Assessment.

[[File:BAMB flow chart.jpg]]

--[[User:BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks|BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks]] 16:06, 30 Aug 2018 (BST)

[[Category:Research_/_Innovation]] [[Category:Sustainability]]

File:BAMB flow chart.jpg

2018-08-30T15:05:33Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Buildings as Material Banks: integrating Materials Passports with Reversible Building Design to optimise circular value chains. Copyright: BAMB

Buildings as Material Banks: integrating Materials Passports with Reversible Building Design to optimise circular value chains. Copyright: BAMB

Business models for building material circularity: learnings from frontrunner cases

2018-08-16T13:37:27Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Protected "Business models for building material circularity: learnings from frontrunner cases" ([edit=author] (indefinite) [move=author] (indefinite))

= Authors =

K. Wang1, S. Vanassche1, A Ribeiro2, M. Peters2, J. Oseyran2

1) Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Sustainable Materials Management, Mol, Belgium. Phone (+32) 1433 5078. Email: ke.wang@vito.be.

2) IBM Global Business Services, Circular Economy Global Center of Competence, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

= ABSTRACT =

One of the expected key outcomes of the Horizon 2020 BAMB (Buildings As Material Banks) project is new business models for material circularity. The team has interviewed four “frontrunner” cases which have pioneered in incorporating elements of building circularity. The study included well-known cases such as the new Venlo city hall (the Netherlands), PROgroup (Luxembourg), Rotor DC (Belgium) and Karlstad hospital (Sweden), while taking a fresh focus on business aspects such as value propositions, stakeholders, financials and operations.

Preliminary analysis suggests that successful circular building projects are devised with a holistic view on various sustainability elements and ecosystem stakeholders. In comparison to more developed building sustainability elements such as energy, material circularity is still rather new in many aspects. Related business models vary significantly in maturity depending on product/material category, overall with ample room for growth. Supplier buy- back agreements and product-service systems are being developed, though how to put retrieved items back into the economy, as well as how to establish solid financial cases for involved stakeholders, are among the topics which still need further substantiation. Encouraging advance has been made in deconstruction business models, while more attention is needed to developing second-hand market demand. The potentials of public procurement and regulatory incentives as additional key drivers are also to be further investigated.

Keywords: circular economy, business model, building materials, case study.

= INTRODUCTION =

The BAMB (Buildings As Material Banks) project is dedicated to promote material circularity in the building sector with architectural and IT innovations (transformable building design and material passport). In addition to technical feasibility demonstration, expected key outputs also include business models. Viable and robust business models, with thorough consideration of the entire ecosystem and its highly-interdependent actors, are key success factors to implement pilot practices in real-life situations and to scale up adoption to an impactful level.

To get a good understanding of relevant practices already available on the market, the team has studied several “frontrunner” cases which have pioneered in incorporating elements of building circularity in real life. The four chosen frontrunner cases are based in four different EU member states, involving different value chain actors (such as engineering companies, consultancy firms and deconstruction companies) and different market segments (public and private). Interviews were conducted with key personnel who have had direct and in-depth involvement in these building projects, including owners, project managers, contractors and sustainability consultants. Interviews were conducted either by phone, or face-to-face with visits to the building sites.

= FRONTRUNNER CASE DESCRIPTION =

The frontrunner cases are briefly described below. More detailed descriptions can be found on the internet1,2,3,4.

Venlo City Hall, the Netherlands. The new Venlo City Hall, completed in 2015, has become an icon of Cradle-to-Cradle inspired buildings. It integrates four major circularity elements: renewable energy, building as material bank, enhanced indoor and outdoor air quality and creating water loops. Next to the design and construction achievements, a concrete business case has also been developed: an additional investment of €3.4M in sustainability is expected to result in €16.9M savings in e.g. energy and water over 40 years. The extra investment was made through mortgage, which is paid off with realized savings. Positive cash flow was already achieved after one year. Further savings could be accounted once the relation between better indoor air quality and reduced sick-leave rate is proven. On material circularity, the Venlo city hall has incorporated Cradle-to-Cradle® certified products, lease contracts and buy-back agreements with suppliers (typically at 15-25% of original prices, for office furniture and indoor finishing). Overall, a 10% residual value was estimated for the building in 40 years and the bank has reduced mortgage interest accordingly.

PROgroup, Luxembourg. PROgroup, founded in 1996, is a group of engineering companies active in sustainable buildings based on circular economy principles. Their office buildings in Windhof, Luxembourg feature a wide range of environmental and social sustainability concepts, such as Cradle-to-Cradle, product service systems, transformability, biodiversity, employee well-being and community building. Economic feasibility was demonstrated by low vacancy rates even at above-average rent. In a new steel-structure parking lot project, as contingency for future demand uncertainty, PROgroup has reached agreement with the supplier on a buy-back option of their steel beams at deconstruction. The supplier has agreed to a price point higher than the second-hand market average, since buying back their own products significantly lowers the risks compared to acquiring used beams from other manufacturers. Deconstruction will be carried out by the supplier to ensure proper dismantling and handling. It is speculated that such buy-back schemes may further incentivize suppliers to design for simple deconstruction and standardize beam specifications for various applications.

Karlstad hospital, Sweden. Karlstad is a public hospital owned by the county council of Varmland, Sweden. The county council included healthy building materials as a requirement in the neonatal unit renovation project in 2013. As a result, 800 kg of phthalates and 1598kg PVC plastic were avoided, at an additional cost of less than 0.33% of the total project budget. It was recognized that the additional upfront cost is insignificant compared to long-term costs if hazardous materials need to be taken out at a later stage. In fact, there has been a growing demand for healthy building materials over the past decade in Sweden, primarily from the public sector. Although this case is not directly about material circularity, it does provide interesting insight on the role of public procurement in mainstreaming sustainability practices.

Rotor Deconstruction (Rotor DC), Belgium. Rotor DC is a spin-off company of the

Brussels-based non-profit organization Rotor. Leveraging on years of research and deep insight of the local second-hand building material market, Rotor DC pioneers an innovative way-of-working in deconstruction. The reclaim potential of large buildings is assessed and information is made available to potential buyers already before the deconstruction starts. Cost is made neutral for building owners (deconstruction = demolishing), while additional expenses are paid by sales of used materials.

= LEARNINGS AND DISCUSSIONS =

Ample room for growth in building material circularity business models. In comparison to more developed building sustainability elements such as energy, building material circularity is still a rather new concept in many aspects. Different building products/materials require different business models, determined by characteristics such as lifecycle (e.g. beam vs. partition wall), supply risk (e.g. steel vs. concrete) and value retention potential (e.g. cable tray vs. carpet). The maturity of business models varies significantly: down-cycling and recycling at raw material level date back a long time; product-service systems for shorter lifecycle items are growing; supplier buy-back agreements for structural components are being explored. In the newer business models, how to put retrieved products/materials back into the economy, as well as how to establish solid financial cases for involved stakeholders, are among the topics which still need further substantiation.

Holistic approach is key. Successful circular building projects are devised with a holistic view on sustainability elements such as energy, user health, water and materials management where synergies and trade-offs arise. Furthermore, a common success factor in circular building design emphasized by all is stakeholder engagement from the very beginning. Early co-design processes with end-users, technicians, suppliers and communities take everyone’s needs into consideration, therefore resulting in a more holistic design, as well as creating the foundation for future support.

Public procurement can be a powerful driver. Public procurement can play a significant role in mainstreaming circularity practices. For example, healthy building materials remained expensive and niche in Sweden till municipalities started including them as requirements in their tenders. Being one of the largest client groups, demand from the Swedish public sector pulled the entire supply chain and significantly lowered extra cost over time by economy of scale. Finished public building projects are well positioned for further awareness raising and experience sharing.

Regulatory considerations. While energy has become core for most building codes and certification systems, material circularity has received much less attention in comparison. Moreover, some of the major challenges faced by new circular building business models are related to regulations. As a consequence of increased residual value with circular practices, the discrepancy between building (component) market value and book value will likely widen and needs to be properly managed in e.g. accounting and taxation. In another example, important circular business models such as product-service systems with third-party ownership (e.g. leasing) may not be feasible for some building materials due to leasehold property legislations.

Market demand needs more attention. Most frontrunner cases demonstrate the design phase of material circularity, such as choosing Cradle-to-Cradle® certified products and setting up supplier buy-back agreements, which facilitates the supply side of used building components. It is known that supply exceeds demand in today’s second-hand building material market. Therefore in addition to improving technical feasibility and information management on the supply side, further attention is needed to direct stimulation of second- hand market demand, which would be of utter importance to the actual final realization of material circularity in the building sector.

= CONCLUSION =

Compared to more developed sustainability elements such as energy, material circularity is relatively a new concept in the building sector. Encouraging advancements have been made in new business models such as supplier buy-back schemes, product-service systems and deconstruction, as well as processes such as stakeholder co-design. Suggested business model development needs include realizing circularity after take-back (e.g. re- use/refurbish/remanufacture/recycle), substantiating the financial models and stimulating second-hand market demand. The potentials of public procurement and regulatory incentives as additional key drivers are also to be further investigated.

= ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS =

This research is part of the BAMB project (www.bamb2020.eu). The BAMB project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 642384.

The authors would like to sincerely thank Mr. Bas van de Westerlo, Mr. Romain Poulles, Ms. Martina Lindgren, Mr. Henric Ernstson and Mr. Lionel Billiet for sharing their time, experience and insight in the interviews.

= REFERENCES =

# http://www.c2c- centre.com/sites/default/files/Case%20Study%20City%20Hall%20Venlo_Final_1.pdf
# [http://www.progroup.eu/ http://www.progroup.eu/]
# [http://www.construction21.org/case-studies/h/neonatal-department-at-central-hospital-in- http://www.construction21.org/case][http://www.construction21.org/case-studies/h/neonatal-department-at-central-hospital-in- -][http://www.construction21.org/case-studies/h/neonatal-department-at-central-hospital-in- studies/h/neonatal][http://www.construction21.org/case-studies/h/neonatal-department-at-central-hospital-in- -][http://www.construction21.org/case-studies/h/neonatal-department-at-central-hospital-in- department][http://www.construction21.org/case-studies/h/neonatal-department-at-central-hospital-in- -][http://www.construction21.org/case-studies/h/neonatal-department-at-central-hospital-in- at][http://www.construction21.org/case-studies/h/neonatal-department-at-central-hospital-in- -][http://www.construction21.org/case-studies/h/neonatal-department-at-central-hospital-in- central][http://www.construction21.org/case-studies/h/neonatal-department-at-central-hospital-in- -][http://www.construction21.org/case-studies/h/neonatal-department-at-central-hospital-in- hospital][http://www.construction21.org/case-studies/h/neonatal-department-at-central-hospital-in- -][http://www.construction21.org/case-studies/h/neonatal-department-at-central-hospital-in- in][http://www.construction21.org/case-studies/h/neonatal-department-at-central-hospital-in- -] karlstad.html
# https://rotordc.com/

--[[User:BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks|BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks]] 14:37, 16 Aug 2018 (BST)

[[Category:Projects_and_case_studies]] [[Category:Publications_/_reports]] [[Category:Sustainability]] [[Category:Cost_/_business_planning]]

Business models for building material circularity: learnings from frontrunner cases

2018-08-16T13:37:09Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Created page with "= Authors = K. Wang1, S. Vanassche1, A Ribeiro2, M. Peters2, J. Oseyran2 1) Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Sustainable Materials Management, Mol, Belgium...."

Challenging the current approach to end of life of buildings using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach

2018-08-16T13:32:30Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Protected "Challenging the current approach to end of life of buildings using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach" ([edit=author] (indefinite) [move=author] (indefinite))

= Authors =

Flavie Lowres1, Gilli Hobbs1

1 BRE, Watford, United Kingdom

= Abstract =

Life cycle thinking has been applied in the construction industry for more than 20 years for the environmental evaluation of construction products and processes. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is the tool that enables the quantification of environmental impacts using parameters appropriate to the various potential environmental impact categories. Standards have developed alongside to support this process, under the ISO 14000 series, ISO 21930 and 21931 for construction products, and lately European standards aimed at harmonising approaches to LCA in construction in Europe, specifically EN 15804 for product level assessments, and EN 15978 for building level assessments. EN 15978 provides a modular approach through which the environmental impacts are reported for different life cycle stages across the processes for the provision of the products and services used in the construction (A1 to A3), the delivery of the products and services to site and the actual construction process (A4 and A5), the use of the building including maintenance, repair and replacement, and energy and water use (B1 to B7), and the demolition/deconstruction and end-of-life management processes for the building (C1 to C4). There is also a further life cycle stage (D) which is aimed at evaluating the benefits or burdens resulting from any potential future reuse of components of the building which would otherwise have been disposed of as wastes from either the construction, use, or end- of-life of the building. On the whole this represents a linear approach to assessing buildings, to which a paradigm shift will be needed to apply the principles and benefits posed by circular economy thinking to the construction sector. Part of the H2020 funded project BAMB (Building As Materials Bank) will be to develop a methodology to assess the potential circularity of a building and, in particular, will investigate the potential role of LCA in circular economy.

Keywords: LCA, circular economy, Module D, end of life.

= Introduction =

The way we, as a society, “take-make-dispose”, relies on the availability of cheap resources. However, as the population and economy grow, the demand on resource availability and landfill disposal increases. There is a need to decouple economic growth and resource use. The concept of the circular economy as a way of decoupling growth from resource constraints is therefore becoming an attractive way forward. The construction industry accounts for 60% of UK materials consumption and one third of all waste arisings in the UK and as such much focus has been put on this sector to reduce its environmental impact. Whole building level assessment schemes have supported the development of more sustainable buildings, considering issues such as operational and embodied impact (through a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach) and waste reduction. LCA is currently considered the standard approach by the industry to calculate the embodied impact of buildings.

= BAMB methodology development =

Part of the H2020 funded project BAMB (Building As Materials Bank) is to create and test a decision support methodology, integrating input on materials, reversible design, reuse potential and transformation potential of buildings, systems and components. Having such information readily available, at key stages of design, product selection & procurement, operation, maintenance, refurbishment and deconstruction of a building’s life cycle, will enable better decisions to be made in ensuring the value of buildings, and their constituent parts are enhanced, rather than deteriorated.

Part of the methodology development involved reviewing the current approach to calculating the economic, environmental and social aspect of buildings and to understand how it can be applied or adapted to represent a circular economy concept. Thus we have evaluated the methodologies and approaches that are currently being used in the construction industry, including information data/databases, studies, tools and methodologies that already exist or in development. The focus has mainly been on use in Europe and the construction sector (building and infrastructure, new and refurbishment projects), but other sectors were also included if appropriate.

The review covered the following categories:

* Materials efficiency
* Design for deconstruction
* LCA and Life Cycle Costing (LCC)
* Procurement and design in buildings In-use and asset management

= Findings =

This section will focus on the findings related to the LCA/LCC categories only. Both LCA and LCC have been used extensively in the construction industry and are well established tools to measure the impact of buildings.

A number of standards have been developed over the years to support the application of LCA to the construction industry at product and building levels, under the ISO 14000 series, ISO 21930 and 21931 for construction products. More recently, European standards (through the CEN TC 350 committee work) have been developed to support a harmonized approach to sustainability in construction in Europe. Those standards apply not only to environmental, but also to economic and social evaluations. EN 15804 supports and LCA approach for product level assessments, and EN 15978 (LCA), EN 16309 (social) and EN 16627 (economic) for building level assessments. EN 15978 provides a modular approach through which the environmental impacts are reported for different life cycle stages across the processes for the provision of the products and services used in the construction (A1 to A3), the delivery of the products and services to site and the actual construction process (A4 and A5), the use of the building including maintenance, repair and replacement, and energy and water use (B1 to B7), and the demolition/deconstruction and end-of-life management processes for the building (C1 to C4). There is also a further life cycle stage (D) which is aimed at evaluating the benefits or burdens resulting from any potential future reuse of components of the building which would otherwise have been disposed of as wastes from either the construction, use, or end-of-life of the building. Another initiative that is being pushed by the European Commission is the development of Product Environmental Footprint (PEF). A PEF is multi-criteria measure of the environmental performance of a good or service throughout its life cycle. This approach is less established in the construction industry, but nonetheless worth considering for BAMB. In the last five years, tools have been developed to enable non-LCA experts to carry out the complex process of calculating the embodied environmental impacts of a whole building. Some of these tools are already well established in the market place across Europe. It is indeed important to understand the environmental impact of a product throughout its whole life, including its use in a building, rather than to compare two products on a per tonne basis, eg: 1 tonne of steel with 1 tonne of concrete. The carbon footprint of 1 tonne of steel is more than that of 1 tonne of concrete. However, the mass of steel used for 1 m2 of wall may be less than the mass of concrete required to build the same wall. The transport to site of steel is potentially higher than the transport to site of concrete. They both have the same service life and they can both be recycled – steel may even be reused. Based on all these assumptions, it is hard to make a simple decision on which solution is best. Using a whole building life cycle tool is therefore essential. A few of these tools are able to import Building Information Models (BIM) models (such as One Click LCA or the IMPACT compliant IES-ve plug-in) and have furthermore allowed integration of LCA calculations in existing software used for other applications, such as thermal modelling. From an environmental and financial perspective, it is important to take into a full life cycle perspective (cradle to grave and beyond), in order to evaluate potential benefits and impacts/costs related to circular and reversible building solutions – compared to the traditional way of building.

Life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis is a method of determining the entire cost of a structure, product, or component over its expected useful life. The cost of operating, maintaining, and using the item is added to the purchase price. The longevity of built assets makes LCC an important tool in balancing costs over a long period. A classic example of where this is often used is the understanding of additional costs in design and build to reduce energy requirements versus the cost savings of reduced energy consumption over the design life of a building.

Financial cost calculations within the building practice are usually done using own calculation spread sheets, based on real costs retrieved from tenders. In general no full LCC is performed. Architectural and engineering firms concentrate their efforts on the initial investment costs related to the design and construction of the building. Facility managers focus on energy and water consumption, maintenance and replacement costs. Concepts such as Return of Investment (or Rate of Return) and Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) are more and more integrated within the design and operation phases. These financial approaches rarely take into account (periodic) replacement costs and cost related to the end-of-use of the building. A full LCC (cradle to grave and beyond) is often limited to academic and policy support studies, and within some certification schemes, such as BREEAM, DGNB and HQE.

Assessment of social performances of buildings are not yet performed very often, although the introduction of EN 16309 starts to support the understanding of what, when or who is impacted by social aspects. Social aspects include: noise and dust created during construction stages, health and safety, security and comfort issues during the construction and use stages of the buildings or involvement of the local community.

According to the UK BIM Task Group, 2013:” BIM is essentially value creating collaboration through the entire life-cycle of an asset, underpinned by the creation, collation and exchange of shared 3D models and intelligent, structured data attached to them.” In 2016 the UK government mandated that all government construction projects will be using BIM level 2 regardless of project size. Level 2 is a managed 3D environment held within a separate discipline of “BIM” tools with attached data.

= Summary =

Tools, methods and standards already exist to evaluate the environmental or financial costs of buildings. Some tools even integrate both elements of LCA and LCC. Outputs of these methods and standards could be used to inform the BAMB methodology. An important outcome of a comparative analysis is that the commonly used standard for LCA and LCC are compatible to each other. However, some methodological aspects related to circular and reversible building solutions are lacking within these standards. For example, there is no guidance related to take into account different possible use scenarios related to replacement, maintenance and transformation. Furthermore, the value of materials and building components are usually depreciated according to their expected service life, without taking into account their real value, in case they are reused and/or remanufactured. On the whole, EN15978 represents a linear approach to assessing buildings, to which a paradigm shift will be needed to apply the principles and benefits posed by circular economy thinking to the construction sector. The BAMB methodology will be building on the approach taken by the industry by including additional indicators, stages, and assumptions. Data should be attributed using an element method. Within Europe the (regionally adapted) SfB method is often used, but alternatives such as the OmniClass, can be considered as well. Using harmonised element codes will facilitate the exchange of environmental and financial cost data. It should be investigated in a further stage of the element method approach can also be used within a BIM environment.

= Acknowledgements =

This research is part of the BAMB project (www.bamb2020.eu). The BAMB project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 642384.

= References =

1. [https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/Towards-the-circulareconomy-volume-3.pdf https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/Towards-the-circulareconomy-volume-3.pdf]

2. [http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/WRAP%20Built%20Environment%20- http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/WRAP%20Built%20Environment%20-] %20Circular%20Economy%20Jan%202013.pdf

3.[http://publications.arup.com/publications/c/circular_business_models_for_the_built_environment http://publications.arup.com/publications/c/circular_business_models_for_the_built_environment]

4. ISO 21930:2007 – Sustainability in building construction -- Environmental declaration of building products. Note: revised version to be published soon

5. ISO 21931-1:2010 – Sustainability in building construction -- Framework for methods of assessment of the environmental performance of construction works -- Part 1:Buildings

6. EN 15804:2012+A1:2013 – Sustainability of construction works. Environmental product declarations. Core rules for the product category of construction products

7. EN 15978:2011 – Sustainability of construction works. Assessment of environmental performance of buildings. Calculation method

8. EN 16309:2014+A1:2014 – Sustainability of construction works. Assessment of social performance of buildings. Calculation methodology

9. Efficiency and Reform Group, BIS Construction Sector Unit, Infrastructure UK (IUK), 2011 --[[User:BAMB_-_Buildings_As_Material_Banks|BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks]] 14:31, 16 Aug 2018 (BST)

[[Category:Publications_/_reports]] [[Category:Sustainability]] [[Category:Design]]

Challenging the current approach to end of life of buildings using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach

2018-08-16T13:32:14Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks:

Challenging the current approach to end of life of buildings using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach

2018-08-16T13:31:19Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Created page with "= Authors = Flavie Lowres1, Gilli Hobbs1 1 BRE, Watford, United Kingdom = Abstract = Life cycle thinking has been applied in the construction industry for more than 20 years ..."

= Authors =

Flavie Lowres1, Gilli Hobbs1

1 BRE, Watford, United Kingdom

= Abstract =

Life cycle thinking has been applied in the construction industry for more than 20 years for the environmental evaluation of construction products and processes. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is the tool that enables the quantification of environmental impacts using parameters appropriate to the various potential environmental impact categories. Standards have developed alongside to support this process, under the ISO 14000 series, ISO 21930 and 21931 for construction products, and lately European standards aimed at harmonising approaches to LCA in construction in Europe, specifically EN 15804 for product level assessments, and EN 15978 for building level assessments. EN 15978 provides a modular approach through which the environmental impacts are reported for different life cycle stages across the processes for the provision of the products and services used in the construction (A1 to A3), the delivery of the products and services to site and the actual construction process (A4 and A5), the use of the building including maintenance, repair and replacement, and energy and water use (B1 to B7), and the demolition/deconstruction and end-of-life management processes for the building (C1 to C4). There is also a further life cycle stage (D) which is aimed at evaluating the benefits or burdens resulting from any potential future reuse of components of the building which would otherwise have been disposed of as wastes from either the construction, use, or end- of-life of the building. On the whole this represents a linear approach to assessing buildings, to which a paradigm shift will be needed to apply the principles and benefits posed by circular economy thinking to the construction sector. Part of the H2020 funded project BAMB (Building As Materials Bank) will be to develop a methodology to assess the potential circularity of a building and, in particular, will investigate the potential role of LCA in circular economy.

Keywords: LCA, circular economy, Module D, end of life.

= Introduction =

The way we, as a society, “take-make-dispose”, relies on the availability of cheap resources. However, as the population and economy grow, the demand on resource availability and landfill disposal increases. There is a need to decouple economic growth and resource use. The concept of the circular economy as a way of decoupling growth from resource constraints is therefore becoming an attractive way forward. The construction industry accounts for 60% of UK materials consumption and one third of all waste arisings in the UK and as such much focus has been put on this sector to reduce its environmental impact. Whole building level assessment schemes have supported the development of more sustainable buildings, considering issues such as operational and embodied impact (through a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach) and waste reduction. LCA is currently considered the standard approach by the industry to calculate the embodied impact of buildings.

= BAMB methodology development =

Part of the H2020 funded project BAMB (Building As Materials Bank) is to create and test a decision support methodology, integrating input on materials, reversible design, reuse potential and transformation potential of buildings, systems and components. Having such information readily available, at key stages of design, product selection & procurement, operation, maintenance, refurbishment and deconstruction of a building’s life cycle, will enable better decisions to be made in ensuring the value of buildings, and their constituent parts are enhanced, rather than deteriorated.

Part of the methodology development involved reviewing the current approach to calculating the economic, environmental and social aspect of buildings and to understand how it can be applied or adapted to represent a circular economy concept. Thus we have evaluated the methodologies and approaches that are currently being used in the construction industry, including information data/databases, studies, tools and methodologies that already exist or in development. The focus has mainly been on use in Europe and the construction sector (building and infrastructure, new and refurbishment projects), but other sectors were also included if appropriate.

The review covered the following categories:

* Materials efficiency
* Design for deconstruction
* LCA and Life Cycle Costing (LCC)
* Procurement and design in buildings In-use and asset management

= Findings =

This section will focus on the findings related to the LCA/LCC categories only. Both LCA and LCC have been used extensively in the construction industry and are well established tools to measure the impact of buildings.

A number of standards have been developed over the years to support the application of LCA to the construction industry at product and building levels, under the ISO 14000 series, ISO 21930 and 21931 for construction products. More recently, European standards (through the CEN TC 350 committee work) have been developed to support a harmonized approach to sustainability in construction in Europe. Those standards apply not only to environmental, but also to economic and social evaluations. EN 15804 supports and LCA approach for product level assessments, and EN 15978 (LCA), EN 16309 (social) and EN 16627 (economic) for building level assessments. EN 15978 provides a modular approach through which the environmental impacts are reported for different life cycle stages across the processes for the provision of the products and services used in the construction (A1 to A3), the delivery of the products and services to site and the actual construction process (A4 and A5), the use of the building including maintenance, repair and replacement, and energy and water use (B1 to B7), and the demolition/deconstruction and end-of-life management processes for the building (C1 to C4). There is also a further life cycle stage (D) which is aimed at evaluating the benefits or burdens resulting from any potential future reuse of components of the building which would otherwise have been disposed of as wastes from either the construction, use, or end-of-life of the building. Another initiative that is being pushed by the European Commission is the development of Product Environmental Footprint (PEF). A PEF is multi-criteria measure of the environmental performance of a good or service throughout its life cycle. This approach is less established in the construction industry, but nonetheless worth considering for BAMB. In the last five years, tools have been developed to enable non-LCA experts to carry out the complex process of calculating the embodied environmental impacts of a whole building. Some of these tools are already well established in the market place across Europe. It is indeed important to understand the environmental impact of a product throughout its whole life, including its use in a building, rather than to compare two products on a per tonne basis, eg: 1 tonne of steel with 1 tonne of concrete. The carbon footprint of 1 tonne of steel is more than that of 1 tonne of concrete. However, the mass of steel used for 1 m2 of wall may be less than the mass of concrete required to build the same wall. The transport to site of steel is potentially higher than the transport to site of concrete. They both have the same service life and they can both be recycled – steel may even be reused. Based on all these assumptions, it is hard to make a simple decision on which solution is best. Using a whole building life cycle tool is therefore essential. A few of these tools are able to import Building Information Models (BIM) models (such as One Click LCA or the IMPACT compliant IES-ve plug-in) and have furthermore allowed integration of LCA calculations in existing software used for other applications, such as thermal modelling. From an environmental and financial perspective, it is important to take into a full life cycle perspective (cradle to grave and beyond), in order to evaluate potential benefits and impacts/costs related to circular and reversible building solutions – compared to the traditional way of building.

Life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis is a method of determining the entire cost of a structure, product, or component over its expected useful life. The cost of operating, maintaining, and using the item is added to the purchase price. The longevity of built assets makes LCC an important tool in balancing costs over a long period. A classic example of where this is often used is the understanding of additional costs in design and build to reduce energy requirements versus the cost savings of reduced energy consumption over the design life of a building.

Financial cost calculations within the building practice are usually done using own calculation spread sheets, based on real costs retrieved from tenders. In general no full LCC is performed. Architectural and engineering firms concentrate their efforts on the initial investment costs related to the design and construction of the building. Facility managers focus on energy and water consumption, maintenance and replacement costs. Concepts such as Return of Investment (or Rate of Return) and Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) are more and more integrated within the design and operation phases. These financial approaches rarely take into account (periodic) replacement costs and cost related to the end-of-use of the building. A full LCC (cradle to grave and beyond) is often limited to academic and policy support studies, and within some certification schemes, such as BREEAM, DGNB and HQE.

Assessment of social performances of buildings are not yet performed very often, although the introduction of EN 16309 starts to support the understanding of what, when or who is impacted by social aspects. Social aspects include: noise and dust created during construction stages, health and safety, security and comfort issues during the construction and use stages of the buildings or involvement of the local community.

According to the UK BIM Task Group, 2013:” BIM is essentially value creating collaboration through the entire life-cycle of an asset, underpinned by the creation, collation and exchange of shared 3D models and intelligent, structured data attached to them.” In 2016 the UK government mandated that all government construction projects will be using BIM level 2 regardless of project size. Level 2 is a managed 3D environment held within a separate discipline of “BIM” tools with attached data.

= Summary =

Tools, methods and standards already exist to evaluate the environmental or financial costs of buildings. Some tools even integrate both elements of LCA and LCC. Outputs of these methods and standards could be used to inform the BAMB methodology. An important outcome of a comparative analysis is that the commonly used standard for LCA and LCC are compatible to each other. However, some methodological aspects related to circular and reversible building solutions are lacking within these standards. For example, there is no guidance related to take into account different possible use scenarios related to replacement, maintenance and transformation. Furthermore, the value of materials and building components are usually depreciated according to their expected service life, without taking into account their real value, in case they are reused and/or remanufactured. On the whole, EN15978 represents a linear approach to assessing buildings, to which a paradigm shift will be needed to apply the principles and benefits posed by circular economy thinking to the construction sector. The BAMB methodology will be building on the approach taken by the industry by including additional indicators, stages, and assumptions. Data should be attributed using an element method. Within Europe the (regionally adapted) SfB method is often used, but alternatives such as the OmniClass, can be considered as well. Using harmonised element codes will facilitate the exchange of environmental and financial cost data. It should be investigated in a further stage of the element method approach can also be used within a BIM environment.

= Acknowledgements =

This research is part of the BAMB project (www.bamb2020.eu). The BAMB project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 642384.

= References =

1. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/Towards-the-circulareconomy-volume-3.pdf

2. http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/WRAP%20Built%20Environment%20- %20Circular%20Economy%20Jan%202013.pdf 3.http://publications.arup.com/publications/c/circular_business_models_for_the_built_environment 4. ISO 21930:2007 – Sustainability in building construction -- Environmental declaration of building products. Note: revised version to be published soon 5. ISO 21931-1:2010 – Sustainability in building construction -- Framework for methods of assessment of the environmental performance of construction works -- Part 1:Buildings 6. EN 15804:2012+A1:2013 – Sustainability of construction works. Environmental product declarations. Core rules for the product category of construction products 7. EN 15978:2011 – Sustainability of construction works. Assessment of environmental performance of buildings. Calculation method 8. EN 16309:2014+A1:2014 – Sustainability of construction works. Assessment of social performance of buildings. Calculation methodology 9. Efficiency and Reform Group, BIS Construction Sector Unit, Infrastructure UK (IUK), 2011 --[[User:BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks|BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks]] 14:31, 16 Aug 2018 (BST) [[Category:Publications_/_reports]] [[Category:Sustainability]] [[Category:Design]]

Circular economy and design for change within the built environment: preparing the transition

2018-08-16T13:23:52Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Protected "Circular economy and design for change within the built environment: preparing the transition" ([edit=author] (indefinite) [move=author] (indefinite))

= Authors =

Wim Debacker1, Saskia Manshoven2, Martijn Peters3, Andre Ribeiro3, Yves De Weerdt4

# VITO, Smart Energy and Built Environment, Thor Park 831, 3600 Genk, Belgium, Phone (+32) 14 33 58 94; email: wim.debacker@vito.be
# VITO, Sustainable Materials, Boeretang 200, 2800 Mol, Belgium
# IBM Global Business Services, Circular Economy Global Center of Competence, 1066 VH Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
# VITO, Transition Platform, Boeretang 200, 2800 Mol, Belgium

= ABSTRACT =

The built environment is considered as a key sector in which circular economy can be implemented. Within the H2020 project “Building as Material Banks” (BAMB), two innovative solutions are being forward to support this transition: i.e. Materials Passports and Reversible Building Design Protocols.

Based on desk research and interviews with frontrunners, key opportunities and barriers have been identified related to the implementation of both innovative solutions within policy, commercial, societal and R&D realms. In order to better understand these opportunities and barriers five emerging trends putting the current socio-technical system under pressure are explained. In addition, value chain and value network analyses of business-as-usual and state- of-the-art practices have been examined over major building phases: conceptualisation & design, construction, usage/operation, demolition/deconstruction & repurposing. We observed that that it is unlikely that an actor will be involved within all phases of the building and that the availability of building (product) information over all building phases is restricted. By supporting the development of Materials Passports and Reversible Building Design Protocols actors involves within the conceptualisation, design and construction stages will better understand why circular and change-supporting building design strategies are necessary. Moreover, the development of Materials Passport IT Platform and a BIM prototype will serve as a proof-of-concept on exchanging information on building products and the building's operation to actors involved within reverse logistics.

Keywords: system analysis, value network, actor analysis, building.

= INTRODUCTION =

According to SytemiQ & Ellen MacArthur Foundation [1], three circular innovation priorities within the built environment have been identified: i.e. designing and producing multi-usage, modular/transformable, energy-positive buildings from durable, non-toxic materials; boosting re-use of building materials and components, and integrating circular economy principles into urban design and development.

The Building as Material Banks (BAMB) project [2] introduces two innovative solutions to support these priorities: Materials Passports – i.e. digital sets of data describing defined characteristics of materials and components in products and systems that give them value for present use, recovery and reuse – and Reversible Building Design Protocols – i.e. instruments to inform designers and decision makers about the technical and spatial reversibility of building design(s) and the impacts of design solutions during the conceptual design phase.

This paper seeks answers to the following question: how can Materials Passports and Reversible Building Design Protocols support the transition towards integration of circular economy and related design strategies within the built environment?

= METHODOLOGY =

In order to answer the research question, three iterative actions have been undertaken: (1) analysing the current system (in which currently buildings are designed, constructed, renovated and demolished), (2) identifying the required system changes (towards an integration of circular economy within the built environment) and (3) describing the key opportunities and barriers related to Materials Passports and Reversible Building Design Protocols to be used and applied within building practice.

The above actions were the result of co-creation between all partners within the BAMB project, through interactive face-to-face and group sessions, value network analyses, state-of- the-art reporting, monitoring of niche activities and back-casting of leverage actions – starting from a desired view of the future. More information on the above activities is elaborated by Debacker et al. [3].

= RESULTS =

Analysing the current system. From a process point of view, the value chain of a building is described according to 4 main phases: (1) conceptualisation & design, (2) construction, (3) usage & operation and (4) repurposing & demolition/deconstruction. These phases can be further subdivided in smaller stages and milestones. From a stakeholder perspective, the built environment is the playing field of a broad variety of actors, from different type of users and owners to building professionals and policy actors. Based on a thorough analysis of the value network and the value chain of different building types and building practices within several EU countries, we observed that it is very unlikely that an actor will be involved in all building phases. Most actors are only involved in one or two main phases; and not throughout the entire value chain. We observed that the design and construction phases have relatively well established connections in terms of actors that are involved in both. However, as soon as the building is commissioned, these connections are cut off and actors that were involved in the design and construction of the building are rarely involved again during later phases. This means that a lot of valuable information about the construction, the operation, the materials and the reuse/recycling/recovery options is not available for the actors involved within repurposing and demolition/deconstruction activities. Seen from the demolition/deconstruction side, this also means that building design and construction actors do seldom take into account the end-of-use consequences when making design or construction choices, leading to waste streams that cannot be recycled or only down-cycled. Moreover, if potential end-of-use issues would be taken into account during the design and construction phases, this would also facilitate the reuse of components, that are often worth much more than their constituent materials.

Making changes in the value network is all but easy in a dominantly conservative building sector, with practises based on decades and centuries of traditions. Current renewal and refurbishment of buildings usually end up into linear solutions, because (innovative) circular and reversible building solutions are perceived as too expensive compared to the conventional solutions, being optimised for decades. However, this is viewed from a short- term perspective (i.e. taking into account only the initial investment cost and not potential life cycle gains) and based on traditional business and financing models, in which ownership of products is being pushed forward instead of (performance based) product service systems, in which resources/products are taken back by the same manufacturer or pooled with others. Furthermore, based on the completed state-of-the-art analyses, 5 main landscape trends have been discerned: (1) increasing awareness of sustainability and circular economy; (2) down- cycling and disposal of construction and demolition waste as mainstream waste management solutions within EU; (3) building vacancy and premature demolition due to mono-functional design; (4) a third digitalisation wave towards cognitive buildings and (5) an increasing number of fragmented building regulation and building codes, making manufacturing, architectural and engineering industries reluctant to take on (additional) responsibilities.

Required systemic changes. To support the transition towards a change-supporting and circular built environment, some systemic shifts are required: i.e.

# Change in design culture: (a) design buildings to support future change and possible disassembly, instead of (merely) designing them to be constructed and create the illusion they will last forever; (b) design open building systems – with the intention to exchange building components – instead of designing buildings as such; (c) educate building and product designer through life-long learning in designing for the future
# Intense collaboration within the entire value network: (a) involve key stakeholders in all important decision moments; from conceptualisation, design, to repurposing of buildings and building components; (b) Initiate harmonisation agreements within the building industry, in order to coordinate dimensions of building components and standardise connection systems. (c) provide quality reassurance of reclaimed products and recycled materials, by matching (reverse) supply with demand
# Business creation through product service systems: (a) develop business models leading to a win-win situation for end-users and manufacturers – providing end-users access to affordable and high quality buildings and manufacturers valuable resources; (b) create business opportunities based on user-ship instead of owner-ship, through performance-based product services
# Centralised management of building and material information: (a) store building information related to current, past and potential future situations in a digital and centralised way; (b) create trust within the value network, by providing transparent and traceable information; (c) use digitalised information to learn and/or augmented intelligence

Innovative solutions. Although the identified systemic changes will not happen in one-day, it is of crucial importance to start the transition today. Within the BAMB project, the development of Materials Passports and Reversible Building Design Protocols are considered as first step to support the transition. Key opportunities and barriers have been defined, should both instruments be fully implemented within building practice and policy. Main opportunities are: (1) anticipating demographic changes and changing user requirements, (2) eradicating C&D waste, (3) lowering environmental and health pressures of the built environment. (4) development of applied socio-technical solutions, (5) development of guidelines and assessment instruments, (6) exchanging valuable (resource) information within the value network; (7) introduction of new commercial services on the market; (8) introduction of innovative business models; (9) increasing adaptability and versatile use of space; (10) increasing life expectancy and real value of real estate; (11) decreasing renovation costs and added value of reusable building components; (12) decreasing periodic maintenance and replacement costs.

Main barriers are: (1) fragmented policy framework: from the EU to municipalities, (2) conflicting Energy and. Environment policy measures; (3) lack of standardisation of qualitative data/ information over the entire value chain of the product/building; (4) intellectual property of material and product related data, (5) linear construction industry models; (6) higher complexity of disassembly compared to demolition; (7) general perception that reversible design solutions entail high financial costs; (8) lack of certification and quality assurance for reclaimed products and recycled materials; (9) lack of a business model framework related to circular and reversible building; (10) Reversible building is largely unknown to the general public.

= CONCLUSION =

In order to foster circularity in the building sector, connections between all phases in the value chain are necessary in order to support communication and information transfer across the whole of the value network. This is exactly what the BAMB project is aiming for! By supporting the development of Reversible Building Design Protocols, Materials Passports and related decision-making instruments during this innovation action project, actors involved in the conceptualisation & design and construction will have a better understanding on the potential consequences of their decisions made during these two crucial phases within the value chain. Moreover, the development of a Materials Passport IT Platform and a BIM prototype will serve as a proof-of-concept on exchanging information on building products and the building's operation to actors involved in the reverse logistics.

= ACKNOWLEDGEMENT =

This research is part of the BAMB project (www.bamb2020.eu). The BAMB project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 642384.

= REFERENCES =

# SystemiQ & Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017), Achieving Growth Within, available through,
# Building as Materials Banks, website, [http://www.bamb2020.eu/ www.bamb2020.eu]
# Debacker W. et al. (2016), D1 Synthesis of the State-of-the-art, Key barriers and opportunities for Materials Passports and Reversible Design in the current system, available through [http://www.bamb2020.eu/topics/overview/state-of-the-art/ www.bamb2020.eu/topics/overview/state][http://www.bamb2020.eu/topics/overview/state-of-the-art/ -][http://www.bamb2020.eu/topics/overview/state-of-the-art/ of][http://www.bamb2020.eu/topics/overview/state-of-the-art/ -][http://www.bamb2020.eu/topics/overview/state-of-the-art/ the][http://www.bamb2020.eu/topics/overview/state-of-the-art/ -][http://www.bamb2020.eu/topics/overview/state-of-the-art/ art/]

--[[User:BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks|BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks]] 14:23, 16 Aug 2018 (BST)

[[Category:Sustainability]] [[Category:Construction_management]] [[Category:Construction_techniques]] [[Category:Design]]

Circular economy and design for change within the built environment: preparing the transition

2018-08-16T13:23:36Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Created page with "= Authors = Wim Debacker1, Saskia Manshoven2, Martijn Peters3, Andre Ribeiro3, Yves De Weerdt4 # VITO, Smart Energy and Built Environment, Thor Park 831, 3600 Genk, Belgium, Ph..."

Extending buildings’ life cycle: sustainability early design support tool

2018-08-16T13:18:40Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Protected "Extending buildings’ life cycle: sustainability early design support tool" ([edit=author] (indefinite) [move=author] (indefinite))

= Authors =

Joana B. Andrade (1) and Luís Bragança (2)

1) University of Minho, Department of Civil Engineering, 4800-058, Guimarães, Portugal, Phone (+351) 253 510 984; email: joana.andrade@civil.uminho.pt

2) University of Minho, Department of Civil Engineering, 4800-058, Guimarães, Portugal,Phone (+351) 253 510 242; email: braganca@civil.uminho.pt

= ABSTRACT =

Sustainability concerns are in all sectors’ agendas, and building industry is not an exception. Sustainable design should both, reduce the environmental impact caused by buildings throughout their life cycle and positively contribute to people’s well-being by addressing and being adaptable to their needs.

There is the need for an early design support tool to aid implementing sustainability concepts since the project beginning toward sustainable built environment. Regardless of the existing number of building sustainability assessment tools, these were not developed to be applied at early design, requiring great data detail, inexistent at these stages. Most of the tools are directed to evaluate the performance of chosen solutions rather than aiding the decision- making process. This paper presents a new approach for an early design support tool for residential building. The tool is aimed to aid designers evaluate and compare different design alternatives, allowing them to make an informed decision based on the performance of the solutions, across the three cornerstones of sustainability. Additionally, the tool was thought to increase awareness across all stakeholders, promoting and encouraging the adoption of more efficient solutions. The structure of the tool and its main framework are depicted in this paper. To identify the criteria to include in the tool it was necessary to analyse the existing sustainability assessment standards and tools as well as the project teams’ actions. The level of detail of the indicators was also analysed as at early design not all aspects are relevant or capable of being addressed. This analysis led to the nineteen indicators, spread in seven categories. Using this tool, it is expected that buildings can easily be adapted to new necessities, extending their life cycle while improving life quality, and consequently reducing their environmental impact.

Keywords: Early design stage, sustainability, buildings, flexible design.

= INTRODUCTION =

It has been largely accepted that a building’s life cycle performance depends on the decisions made during early design phases [1]. Thus, despite its difficulty, predicting design consequences for the building life cycle, at early design phases, it is crucial to improve the buildings sustainability [2]. Nevertheless, most building sustainability assessment (BSA) tools were not design to be used in such early stages as they reply on detail data, which is not available at those stages [3]. Sustainable design should then assure the reduction of environmental impact, and contribute to people’s well-being by addressing and being adaptable to their needs.

With this in mind, a design support tool was developed aiming to aid the designers decision- making process at early design phases, across sustainability three cornerstones. Additionally, the tool was thought to increase awareness across all stakeholders, promoting and encouraging the adoption of more efficient solutions.

= FRAMEWORK FOR EARLY STAGE SUSTAINABILITY DESIGN MODEL =

Aim and scope

Early Stage Model for Sustainable Design – EasyMode aims to establishing a method to aid designers’ decision-making since early stages, considering environmental, social, and economic criteria, attaining for a sustainable built environment. To do so, two viewpoints were established quantification and decision making. The quantification, intends at estimating the design solutions potential impacts. This occurs at the indicator level, quantifying the performance of each alternative. The decision-making viewpoint, provides valuable information for the decision-making process throughout the building design, from the comparison of design alternatives.

The approach established had the following premises: (i) be simple and easy to use; (ii) follow international standards for sustainable construction; (iii) comprise the three sustainability dimensions; (iv) Be applicable for dwellings; (v) simultaneity of quantitative and qualitative criteria; (vii) in line with Portuguese regulations and reality and, (viii) enable to validation.

EasyMode boundary system considers the building and its external works, within the building site and its foundations, as recommended by EN 15643-2:2011. All the building’s life cycle phases are considered, and the default reference service life (RSL) established is fifty years.

Structure

EasyMode follows the workflow shown in Figure 1 and it is structured in seven fundamental categories: (i) Project quality and management – the whole must be understood as well as its parts to pursue sustainability; (ii) Place – consider site conditions, ecology and social constrains; (iii) Selection of materials – select low impact and high performance materials, components and technologies, promote efficient use of resources; (iv) Efficiency – reduce resources exploitation, such as water and energy, by designing buildings that enable efficient use of resources and less waste generation; (v) Health and comfort – promote well-being and comfort, from thermal comfort to indoor air quality; (iv) Functionality – improve building’s functionality, such as space efficiency and adaptability potential and; (vi) Life cycle costing – consider life cycle costs for more informed decisions.

Each category has at least one indicator, comprising a total of nineteen indicators (Table 1). Designers are not obliged to evaluate all the indicators, they are able to choose the ones to do so.

The indicators were selected considering the following requisites: (i) be recognised in international BSA standards; (ii) address the whole building life cycle; (iii) presence in existing BSA tools; (iv) consider regional characteristics and; (v) cover all sustainability dimensions. The selection process accounted for a deep review of existing standards and tools [3], a survey to designers and a deep analysis to sustainability indicators required data and calculation procedures.

[[File:Figure 1. EasyMode workflow.PNG]]

Figure 1. EasyMode workflow.

Table 1. Proposed structure for EasyMode.

[[File:Table 1. Proposed structure for EasyMode..PNG]]

= Evaluation process =

The evaluation framework process is organised in three main steps: (i) input, (ii) engine and, (iii) output. The first, consists of gathering the building generic data (typology, location, climate, main characteristics, etc.), basing the assessment. The engine is the calculation stage; despite not visible to the users, it is the most important part of the tool. The algorithm implemented in each indicator differs from indicator to indicator. Nevertheless, in all it is possible to add and compare alternative solutions.

An indicative performance three-level scale is used in each indicator to enable alternative comparison and to aid setting sustainability goals; being Level 1 the minimum performance and Level 3 the highest. For most indicators, the factor for rule [4] is used to set the thresholds for each indicative performance level.

EasyMode does not weight nor aggregates indicators in an overall score; results are displayed individually, as mid-point indicators.

= CONCLUSION =

This paper presents a novel sustainable design methodology for supporting early design stages decision-making in dwellings - EasyMode. This tool enables a building project to be conscientiously designed, improving its performance while reducing its environmental impacts since early design. This way resources and materials can be spared, design for reuse can be adopted, thus improving environmental performance and social well-being toward sustainable built environment.

= ACKNOWLEDGEMENT =

This work was supported by FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal) with the Funding Programme POPH/FS, under Grant n. SFRH/BD/76043/2011 to Joana Bonifácio Andrade. This work has been partially funded by BAMB – Building as Materials Banks – a European project funded by the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation – Horizon 2020 – with the grant agreement n. 642384.

= REFERENCES =

# Bragança, L., S.M. Vieira, and J.B. Andrade, Early Stage Design Decisions: The Way to Achieve Sustainable Buildings at Lower Costs. The Scientific World Journal, 2014. 2014: p. 8.
# Østergård, T., R.L. Jensen, and S.E. Maagaard, Building simulations supporting decision making in early design – A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2016. 61: p. 187-201.
# Andrade, J. and L. Bragança, Sustainability assessment of dwellings – a comparison of methodologies. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 2016. 33(2): p. 125-146.
# von Weizsäcker, E.U., A.B. Lovins, and L.H. Lovins, Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use - A Report to the Club of Rome. 1998, United Kingdom: Earthscan.

--[[User:BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks|BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks]] 14:17, 16 Aug 2018 (BST)

[[Category:Sustainability]] [[Category:Construction_techniques]] [[Category:Design]]

Extending buildings’ life cycle: sustainability early design support tool

2018-08-16T13:17:41Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Created page with "= Authors = Joana B. Andrade (1) and Luís Bragança (2) 1) University of Minho, Department of Civil Engineering, 4800-058, Guimarães, Portugal, Phone (+351) 253 510 984; emai..."

File:Table 1. Proposed structure for EasyMode..PNG

2018-08-16T13:16:51Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Proposed structure for EasyMode. Copywrite: Joana B. Andrade and Luís Bragança BAMB

Proposed structure for EasyMode. Copywrite: Joana B. Andrade and Lus Bragana BAMB

File:Figure 1. EasyMode workflow.PNG

2018-08-16T13:15:06Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Copywrite: EasyMode workflow. Joana B. Andrade and Luís Bragança BAMB

Copywrite: EasyMode workflow. Joana B. Andrade and Lus Bragana BAMB

How do current policies support a transition towards a circular economy in the built environment?

2018-08-16T12:56:40Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Protected "How do current policies support a transition towards a circular economy in the built environment?" ([edit=author] (indefinite) [move=author] (indefinite))

= Authors =

C. Henrotay1, W. Debacker2, Molly Steinlage1

1) Division Energy, Air, Climate and Sustainable Buildings, Brussels Environment, Brussels, Belgium

2) Unit Smart Energy and Built Environment, VITO NV, Mol, Belgium

= Abstract =

Building and construction industry consumes huge quantities of materials in an unsustainable way. As a result of a linear design approach and economic model, at the end of use, but also throughout the cycle, buildings or parts of buildings are demolished and remnants treated as waste or –best case– down-cycled. This creation of waste as well as the use of virgin resources leads to an important environmental, economic and societal impact.

To create a sustainable build environment, the building sector needs to move towards a circular economy in which circular and dynamic buildings as well as their component and materials preserve value.

Policies and regulations in member states and across the EU will influence the ability to transition to a circular economy – positively and negatively. Within the H2020 Buildings As Materials Banks (BAMB) Project work is underway to understand where the opportunities and barriers lie in a complex and, sometimes contradictory, regulatory landscape.

This paper presents an overview of the current policy instruments that are considered to have relevance in relation to promoting, or possibly hindering, the adoption of circular economy opportunities in the built environment. The analysis of the current policy instruments has been done on a European level and on a member state level for 4 different countries being: Belgium, Portugal, Sweden and UK. The paper will mainly focus on the European Level and Belgium.

Keywords: Policy; EU; Belgium; Circular & dynamic buildings; Circular Economy.

= Introduction =

The building and construction industry consumes huge quantities of materials in an unsustainable way. As a result of a linear design approach and economic model, buildings or parts of buildings are demolished and remnants are treated as waste, or in the best case scenario – down-cycled.

This considerable creation of waste and the resulting consumption of virgin resources leads to important environmental, economic and societal impacts.

To create a sustainable built environment, the building sector needs to move towards a circular economy in which circular and dynamic buildings, as well as their components and materials, preserve their value throughout their lifecycles.

Policies and regulations in member states across Europe, as well as at the EU level, will positively and negatively influence the ability to transition to a circular economy. It is therefore essential to understand where the opportunities and barriers lie in a complex, and sometimes contradictory, regulatory landscape.

An overview is presented of the current policy instruments that are considered to have relevance in relation to promoting, or possibly hindering, the adoption of circular economy practices in the built environment. The analysis of the current policy instruments has been done on a European level and on a member state level for 4 different countries: Belgium, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom. These 4 countries have been chosen based on geographical distribution and their representativity with regards to the range of current practices in Europe. Further research will focus on the analysis of best practices worldwide in regards to supporting the transition towards a circular built environment.

= Current policies instruments =

When contemplating the different policy instruments that are considered relevant to promoting, or possibly hindering, the adoption of circular construction practices, binding legislation mainly focuses on energy performance and the management of construction and demolition waste.

This results from the transposition by Member States of the requirements of the revised

Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) and the revised Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (2010/31/EU) into their national legislation. The resulting level of obligation is dependent on the Member State and the (sub-) national context. While the Scottish government has e.g. developed a Zero Waste Plan, the Flemish government has set up a Regulation on recycled aggregates, and Sweden has developed The Swedish Waste Plan 2012-2017 and The Swedish Waste Prevention Program 2014-2017; in Portugal, waste management is not yet defined and implemented like in other EU countries.

Even within sustainable building and circular economy policy instruments, energy remains an essential focal point. The Flagship Initiative 4: “Resource Efficient Europe” of the 10-year strategy Europe 2020 proposed by the European Commission e.g. supports the shift towards a low carbon economy and the increase of the use of renewable energy sources, promoting energy efficiency.

Most sustainable construction policy instruments that comprise building materials’ (environmental) assessment and/or circular economy aspects, are voluntary instruments developed at the national or sub-national level.

Private certification schemes, being voluntary initiatives, have also demonstrated a positive impact on sustainable building design. This is the base on which the EU Framework for the assessment of the environmental performance of buildings is being developed. The framework aims to reduce the overall environmental impact throughout the life-cycle of buildings and to promote a more efficient use of resources in the construction and renovation of commercial, residential and public buildings by providing a voluntary reporting tool that enables its use as a module in certification schemes.

To promote a more efficient use of resources in the construction and renovation of commercial, residential and public buildings

To reduce the overall environmental impact throughout the life-cycle of buildings

= Identified Barriers =

The fragmentation of the policies over the different policy levels and the current complexity of the legislative frameworks may lead to a lack of integration of the different policies, and could in some cases even lead to contradictions. There is a need for cooperation between different government departments (including business/industry, finance and environment) in order to prevent the creation of new unintended policy barriers and to ensure that the policy response is designed to maximise system effectiveness.

It could be argued that a key barrier is presented in energy efficiency policies across Europe. The prioritisation of energy efficiency and high energy performance of buildings may unintentionally result in building design and materials that do not lend themselves to dismantling, refurbishment, reuse and high quality upcycling. It is not the high performance, per se, that could hamper the adoption of dynamic and circular building design, but the choice of construction techniques and materials to achieve the required performance.

Furthermore, the definitions provided by the EU Waste Framework seem to lack clarity. As a result, high recovery rates could correspond to the down-cycling of stony fraction used for road foundations (and other low grade applications), which is far from the definition of 'recovery' as understood within a ‘Building As Materials Bank’ approach.

An additional barrier can be seen in the fact that until recently many of the existing policies and instruments have been developed from a linear viewpoint, which does not take into consideration the potential reality of a circular built environment. For example, current urban regulations and building permits are based on a linear and static vision of buildings that may impede changes and transformations supported by reversible design and materials recovery. Similarly, some current financial incentives require complete ownership of buildings, which may be contradictory to new business plans and ownership models within a circular built environment.

The lack of knowledge and awareness of companies and technicians has also been identified as an important issue with regards to the implementation of effective resource and waste management, as well as the implementation of approaches and tools supporting the transition towards a circular construction sector, such as Materials Passports and reversible design.

= Identified opportunities =

Although the lack of clear definitions is seen as a potential barrier, the EU Waste Directive also offers an opportunity to support the transition towards a circular economy and construction industry. The Directive introduces the "polluter pays principle," leading to Landfill Taxes in several countries. The increasing cost of landfill provides an economic driver for alternative solutions which avoid end-of-life waste, such as reversible building design. Further clarification of the current definitions could also help to increase the quality level of the recovered, re-used and recycled materials.

Existing hard laws on energy performance, waste management and construction product regulations offer opportunities to address certain aspects supporting the implementation of dynamic and circular buildings. Extending these policy instruments by integrating circular and dynamic building design, management approaches and tools, would enable the development of an integrated approach meeting climate change, energy, environmental and economic objectives.

This integrated approach is essential if we want to avoid today’s energy efficiency actions hampering tomorrow’s recovery of valuable materials. The requirement found within the Energy Efficiency Directive, which stipulates that governments must renovate 3% of public buildings each year with the objective to improve energy efficiency Directive (Article 5, 2012/27/EU), presents an incredible opportunity to set the example, do things better and to respond to a variety of challenges in a sustainable and effective manner.

More recently, a new stage of policy development is underway. The Circular Economy

Package (EU), Circular Economy Strategy (Scotland), Regional Program for Circular Economy (Brussels Capital Region), etc. have been adopted. All of these policy instruments recognise that the built environment is a key sector to introduce circularity. This provides a significant opportunity to reframe sustainable building policies and instruments to allow for a circular approach.

= Conclusions =

The analysis has emphasized that the fragmentation of policies over the different policy levels, as well as between the different policy areas, may lead to a lack of integration of the different policies. As a result, current regulation could hamper the transition towards a circular built environment. However, integrating dynamic and circular building aspects into existing policies through the extension or adaptation of the latter could lead to an integrated approach. This would enable meeting climate change, energy, environmental and economic objectives, while reducing contradictions and unintended policy barriers.

Furthermore, the building sector is characterized by a complex and multi-disciplinary value network, which is reflected by the wide range of policies impacting it. It is important to assess the impact of (future) policies on the different actors found within the network. Certain stakeholders, for example, demand regulation and quality assurance certification for reclaimed construction materials (comparable to the Construction Products Regulations (CPR) which offers a common language and harmonised rules for new construction products), which could allow for reprocessed, recycled and reused materials to be widely exchanged by providing confidence in their performance and quality. However, obliging a certification scheme for all reclaimed construction products could, depending on the type of construction product, have a contradictory effect and even distort existing second hand construction products networks, as a result of the complexity of the process and the resulting cost. It is therefore crucial to investigate the potential advantages and disadvantages for all actors of the value network.

Further research on best practices and the potential of existing voluntary programs, plans, strategies and tools will thus need to take into account the potential impact on all actors before formulating policy to better support the transition towards a circular and dynamic built environment.

= Acknowledgements =

This research is part of the BAMB project (www.bamb2020.eu). The BAMB project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 642384.

= References =

# DG Environment, Resource efficiency in the building sector, May 2014.
# Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Delivering the circular economy – A toolkit for policy makers, V1.1, June 2015.

--[[User:BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks|BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks]] 13:56, 16 Aug 2018 (BST)

[[Category:Regulations]] [[Category:DCN_Regulation]] [[Category:Standards_/_measurements]] [[Category:DCN_Standard]] [[Category:Sustainability]]

How do current policies support a transition towards a circular economy in the built environment?

2018-08-16T12:56:23Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Created page with "= Authors = C. Henrotay1, W. Debacker2, Molly Steinlage1 1) Division Energy, Air, Climate and Sustainable Buildings, Brussels Environment, Brussels, Belgium 2) Unit Smart Ener..."

Material flows of the German building sector

2018-08-16T12:50:14Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Protected "Material flows of the German building sector" ([edit=author] (indefinite) [move=author] (indefinite))

Matthias A. Heinrich

Technical University of Munich, Institute of Energy Efficient and Sustainable Design and

Building, Centre for Sustainable Building, Arcisstraße 21, 80333 München, Phone (+49) 289 23969, email: m.heinrich@tum.de

= ABSTRACT =

According to estimates of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, the German building stock contains around 10.5 billion tonnes of mineral building materials, around 220 million tonnes of timber products and around 100 million tonnes of metals. Due to continuous building activities, especially renovation and retrofit measures, it is estimated that this raw material stock will grow by a further 20 % until 2050 [1].

Every year more than 450 million tonnes (5.6 t/person) of mineral raw materials (e.g. sand, gravel) and more than 15.5 million tonnes (194 kg/person) of metals (e.g. steel, aluminium, copper) are required within the sector for maintaining and constructing new buildings. The focus of this paper is the analysis of construction related raw material flows using material flow analysis (MFA) in Germany. To provide system control options in a circular economy, a deeper knowledge about material flows and stocks is required. A large range of statistical data (e.g. production, import/export, waste etc.) was evaluated and disaggregated, to investigate the impact and self-supply potential through secondary materials, of the German building industry.

Currently, the demand cannot be covered by recycled materials leaving the building sector and further primary raw materials are needed. Potentially, only 18 % of the mineral raw materials can be substituted by recycled construction waste. In contrast, for steel and aluminium the substitution rate has reached levels over 40 %.

Keywords: material flow, self-supply potential, urban mining.

= INTRODUCTION =

The overall aim of the PhD thesis is the analysis and capture of construction induced material flows and stocks in urban systems and the identification of control options. Material flows are not limited to a single spacial level (e. g. urban, regional, national) or an individual industry sector (e. g. construction, automotive, chemical). Depending on the regarded material, the system boundaries are flexible and can change over time, especially on a spatial level.

One of the project work packages was the focus on national construction induced material flows. The results of this work package are described within this paper.

= APPROACH =

The dependencies of selected materials and products used within the German construction industry were identified (Figure 1). Each of the materials and products where viewed as a black box at first.

[[File:Figure 1. Material flow and interdependencies of selected construction materials.PNG]]

Figure 1. Material flow and interdependencies of selected construction materials

The black box view was extended to gain an insight into the individual flows on a material level (e. g. glass, steel). As an example, the material flow of glass is shown in figure 2. This extended assessment was continued for the other materials shown in figure 1 and integrated into the model.

[[File:Figure 2. Material flow of glass within German construction sector (tons per year).PNG]]

Figure 2. Material flow of glass within German construction sector (tons/year)

A large range of statistical data (e.g. production, import/export, waste etc.) was evaluated and disaggregated. Together with expert knowledge a detailed picture of construction induced material flows for selected materials could be identified.

= RESULTS =

Of the selected materials, steel has shown to have the highest self-supply potential through secondary materials of nearly 50 %, disregarding system losses. Also the demand of aluminium, lead and bricks used for construction purposes can potentially be covered by around 40 %, through the use of incurred construction waste. The results are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Self-supply potential with secondary construction materials within the German building sector for selected materials

[[File:Table 1 Material flows of the German building sector.PNG]]

= CONCLUSION =

Due to the continuous growth of the construction stock, a larger amount of materials is required than can be provided through construction waste. Metals, with the exception of zinc and copper, tend to have higher self-supply potentials than other materials.

For continuous monitoring of construction induced materials flows on a national level, an improved and integrated system of data collection and documentation is required, that uses the same terminology. The often incompatible statistics leave room for interpretation, which needs to be reduced.

= ACKNOWLEDGEMENT =

This research is part of the BAMB project (www.bamb2020.eu). The BAMB project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 642384.

= REFERENCES =

[1] Internationaler Ressourceneffizienzatlas (2011), [http://www.ressourceneffizienzatlas.de/beispiele/strategien/detail/article/urban- http://www.ressourceneffizienzatlas.de/beispiele/strategien/detail/article/urban][http://www.ressourceneffizienzatlas.de/beispiele/strategien/detail/article/urban- -] mining-staedte-als-rohstoffquelle.html (Accessed on 20.03.2015)

--[[User:BAMB_-_Buildings_As_Material_Banks|BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks]] 13:34, 16 Aug 2018 (BST)

[[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]] [[Category:Sustainability]] [[Category:Construction_techniques]] [[Category:Products_/_components]]

Material flows of the German building sector

2018-08-16T12:50:04Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks:

File:Figure 2. Material flow of glass within German construction sector (tons per year).PNG

2018-08-16T12:49:19Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Material flow of glass within German construction sector (tons/year). Copyright: Matthias A. Heinrich BAMB

Material flow of glass within German construction sector (tons/year). Copyright: Matthias A. Heinrich BAMB

File:Figure 1. Material flow and interdependencies of selected construction materials.PNG

2018-08-16T12:46:23Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Material flow and interdependencies of selected construction materials. Copyright: Matthias A. Heinrich BAMB

Material flow and interdependencies of selected construction materials. Copyright: Matthias A. Heinrich BAMB

File:Table 1 Material flows of the German building sector.PNG

2018-08-16T12:41:50Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Self-supply potential with secondary construction materials within the German building sector for selected materials. Copyright: Matthias A. Heinrich BAMB

Self-supply potential with secondary construction materials within the German building sector for selected materials. Copyright: Matthias A. Heinrich BAMB

File:Table 1.PNG

2018-08-16T12:39:24Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Self-supply potential with secondary construction materials within the German building sector for selected materials. Copyright: Matthias A. Heinrich BAMB

Self-supply potential with secondary construction materials within the German building sector for selected materials. Copyright: Matthias A. Heinrich BAMB

Material flows of the German building sector

2018-08-16T12:34:23Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Created page with "Matthias A. Heinrich Technical University of Munich, Institute of Energy Efficient and Sustainable Design and Building, Centre for Sustainable Building, Arcisstraße 21, 80333 ..."

Matthias A. Heinrich

Technical University of Munich, Institute of Energy Efficient and Sustainable Design and

Building, Centre for Sustainable Building, Arcisstraße 21, 80333 München, Phone (+49) 289 23969, email: m.heinrich@tum.de

= ABSTRACT =

According to estimates of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, the German building stock contains around 10.5 billion tonnes of mineral building materials, around 220 million tonnes of timber products and around 100 million tonnes of metals. Due to continuous building activities, especially renovation and retrofit measures, it is estimated that this raw material stock will grow by a further 20 % until 2050 [1].

Every year more than 450 million tonnes (5.6 t/person) of mineral raw materials (e.g. sand, gravel) and more than 15.5 million tonnes (194 kg/person) of metals (e.g. steel, aluminium, copper) are required within the sector for maintaining and constructing new buildings. The focus of this paper is the analysis of construction related raw material flows using material flow analysis (MFA) in Germany. To provide system control options in a circular economy, a deeper knowledge about material flows and stocks is required. A large range of statistical data (e.g. production, import/export, waste etc.) was evaluated and disaggregated, to investigate the impact and self-supply potential through secondary materials, of the German building industry.

Currently, the demand cannot be covered by recycled materials leaving the building sector and further primary raw materials are needed. Potentially, only 18 % of the mineral raw materials can be substituted by recycled construction waste. In contrast, for steel and aluminium the substitution rate has reached levels over 40 %.

Keywords: material flow, self-supply potential, urban mining.

= INTRODUCTION =

The overall aim of the PhD thesis is the analysis and capture of construction induced material flows and stocks in urban systems and the identification of control options. Material flows are not limited to a single spacial level (e. g. urban, regional, national) or an individual industry sector (e. g. construction, automotive, chemical). Depending on the regarded material, the system boundaries are flexible and can change over time, especially on a spatial level.

One of the project work packages was the focus on national construction induced material flows. The results of this work package are described within this paper.

= APPROACH =

The dependencies of selected materials and products used within the German construction industry were identified (Figure 1). Each of the materials and products where viewed as a black box at first.

[[File:clip_image002.gif|446px]]

Figure 1. Material flow and interdependencies of selected construction materials

The black box view was extended to gain an insight into the individual flows on a material level (e. g. glass, steel). As an example, the material flow of glass is shown in figure 2. This extended assessment was continued for the other materials shown in figure 1 and integrated into the model.

[[File:clip_image004.jpg|435px]]

Figure 2. Material flow of glass within German construction sector (tons/year)

A large range of statistical data (e.g. production, import/export, waste etc.) was evaluated and disaggregated. Together with expert knowledge a detailed picture of construction induced material flows for selected materials could be identified.

= RESULTS =

Of the selected materials, steel has shown to have the highest self-supply potential through secondary materials of nearly 50 %, disregarding system losses. Also the demand of aluminium, lead and bricks used for construction purposes can potentially be covered by around 40 %, through the use of incurred construction waste. The results are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Self-supply potential with secondary construction materials within the German building sector for selected materials

National usage

Building sector national usage

Potential secondary materials through construction waste

Self supply potential of building sector**

Material

Year

Mio. t/a

t/p/a

Mio. t/a

t/p/a

Mio. t/a

t/p/a

(%)

Mineral raw materials

2013

540

6,70

450

5,58

78,8

0,98

18%

Sand & gravel

2013

236

2,93

211

2,62

*

Specialsand & -sands

2013

9,7

0,12

3,5

0,04

*

Natural stone

2013

207

2,57

196

2,43

*

Limestone & dolomite

2013

23,7

0,29

7,1

0,09

*

Gypsum & anhydrite

2013

4,5

0,06

3,9

0,05

0,6

0,01

15%

Clay & kaolin

2013

13,3

0,16

3

0,04

*

Brick clay

2013

11,3

0,14

11,3

0,14

5,1

0,06

45%

Recycling material

2013

66,2

0,82

66,2

0,82

*

Mineral products

Concrete

2014

110

1,36

110

1,36

21,9

0,27

20%

Cement

2014

27,3

0,34

27,3

0,34

0

0,0

0%

Glass

2015

2,9

0,04

1,9

0,02

0,27

0,003

14%

Metals

Steel

2015

44,4

0,55

13,8

0,171

6,5

0,081

47%

Aluminium

2015

3,1

0,04

0,5

0,006

0,2

0,002

40%

Zinc

2015

0,64

0,01

0,5

0,006

0,025

0,0003

5%

Copper

2014

1,47

0,02

0,7

0,009

0,067

0,0008

10%

Lead

2014

0,36

0,00

0,036

0,0004

0,015

0,0002

42%

* No data

** No system losses

= CONCLUSION =

Due to the continuous growth of the construction stock, a larger amount of materials is required than can be provided through construction waste. Metals, with the exception of zinc and copper, tend to have higher self-supply potentials than other materials.

For continuous monitoring of construction induced materials flows on a national level, an improved and integrated system of data collection and documentation is required, that uses the same terminology. The often incompatible statistics leave room for interpretation, which needs to be reduced.

= ACKNOWLEDGEMENT =

This research is part of the BAMB project (www.bamb2020.eu). The BAMB project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 642384.

= REFERENCES =

[1] Internationaler Ressourceneffizienzatlas (2011), [http://www.ressourceneffizienzatlas.de/beispiele/strategien/detail/article/urban- http://www.ressourceneffizienzatlas.de/beispiele/strategien/detail/article/urban][http://www.ressourceneffizienzatlas.de/beispiele/strategien/detail/article/urban- -] mining-staedte-als-rohstoffquelle.html (Accessed on 20.03.2015)

--[[User:BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks|BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks]] 13:34, 16 Aug 2018 (BST)

[[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]] [[Category:Sustainability]] [[Category:Construction_techniques]] [[Category:Products_/_components]]

Materials passports: Providing insights in the circularity of materials, products and systems

2018-08-16T12:28:26Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Protected "Materials Passports: Providing insights in the circularity of materials, products and systems" ([edit=author] (indefinite) [move=author] (indefinite))

= Author =

Lars Luscuere 
Scientific Project Manager 
EPEA Nederland 
Bogert 1 
5612LX Eindhoven 
The Netherlands

= The Challenge =

Manufacturers and their customers are looking for reliable and convenient data on product designs, pathways, and composition in order to determine their potential for a Circular Economy (CE), including; optimal productivity, recycling vs. downcycling, and optimising residual value of materials. Due to the CE, demand is growing for ways to put the recovery potential of materials, products and systems into practice. Existing tools only partially meet those needs because they focus more on measuring and reducing negative environmental impacts rather than increasing positive value creation.

= The Solution =

Materials Passports are a tool to put the CE into practice. MPs, as well as an accompanying software system, are being developed in the EU Horizon 2020 Buildings as Material Banks

(BAMB)[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/MaterialsPassportsPaper.pdf#_ftn1 [1]] project, based on the concept described in the publication ‘Resource Re-Pletion.’ (Hansen, Braungart, Mulhall, 2012)[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/MaterialsPassportsPaper.pdf#_ftn2 [2]], using the term Nutrient Certificates:

“Nutrient Certificates are sets of data describing defined characteristics of materials in products that give them value for recovery and reuse. The certificates are a marketplace mechanism to encourage product designs, material recovery systems, and chain of possession partnerships that improve the quality, value, and security of supply for materials so they can be reused in continuous loops or closed loops or beneficially returned to biological systems. This is done by adding a new value dimension to materials quality. This new dimension is based on the suitability of materials for recovery and reuse as resources in other products and processes.”.

The scope of passports is on the level of materials, products and systems. This means that a single passport would refer to a material, product or system. For a material it can define its value for recovery. For products and systems it can define general characteristics that make them valuable for recovery such as their design for disassembly, but it can also describe specifics about a single product or system in its application. For instance, the connection of a product to a building is essential to understand its value for recovery.

= Materials Passports as an innovation mechanism =

Materials Passports have the potential to be used by many types of stakeholder throughout the value chain of a building, and through that deliver a multitude of value propositions. One of these is their ability to influence innovation and design of products. Having a pragmatic approach to not only operationalise circular potential, but to put it into practice, they provide incentives for innovation in more than one way:

-By providing guidance. The passport is not normative first and foremost like a certificate would be. Having a passport does not necessarily make the product good for the Circular Economy. It is about what is in the passport. If the product indeed has good circular potential the passport is an enabler to fulfil that potential. By providing the opportunity for a producer to deliver essential information about its products it will become clear to that producer which information is still missing, or which aspects of the product are not up to par. This potential is also identified by Desso in the ‘Towards the Circular Economy report (WEF, 2012)’.

-Materials Passports provide an opportunity for manufacturers or suppliers to stand out from the crowd. Either through transparency on their respective products, or by showcasing well thought out products with good circular potential.

-Traditionally some industries are less transparent and/or knowledgeable about the actual substances used in their products. Developing a better understanding of one’s products is an important step in innovation before appropriate optimisation can occur. One mechanism through which this can occur is by requesting passports in tendering procedures.

-Materials Passports provide a driving force for novel ownership and business models. Reversibly designed products and systems are especially interesting for leasing constructions for example.

= Standardization and existing tools =

There are several existing tools with thematic relations to Materials Passports. These include tools aimed at measurement and declaration of impacts on environmental indicators such as Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and Environmental Product Declarations (EPD). Tools aimed at inventorying compositional data such as Bills of Materials and Bills of Substances. Tools detailing technical and static properties such as Materials Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and Technical Data Sheets (TDS) and tools which share goals and mechanisms for action with Materials Passports, exemplified in the ‘Building a circular future’ report (3XN, 2016), which gives a detailed and accurate account of passports.

Passports have the potential to incorporate existing mechanisms such as TDS, MSDS, EPD, Bill of Materials, Bill of Substances, et cetera where relevant as support for circularity claims. This avoids reproducing data and reinventing the wheel, which are key concerns of product manufacturers and their suppliers, who will play an important part in populating passports. At least in the early stages.

Materials Passports are about realising the full circular potential of products. This can be supported by measurements of impacts, which includes beneficial impacts of products in their application such as improved air quality. Measurements of negative impacts however is not a goal in itself for passports. Similarly, compositional data may be used to support claims and information about the circular potential of products, but passports are not limited to compositional data on products or buildings. This is important as the ingredients list analogy is easy to make. Compositional data is relevant to understand the circular potential of products, but it may not be sufficient.

Illustrative of the distinctiveness of passports is that they hold dynamic data. Data which can be dependent on the spatial or temporal context products are used in. As mentioned earlier in this paper the way a product is connected to a building is vital to its circular potential. A reversible connection may be preferable to the product being glued in place with no chance of uncontaminated recovery. It is also important to know whether maintenance has taken place and whether parts were replaced, as this potentially changes the materials and products that are available at time of recovery, and their value for recovery. As passports have the ambition to inspire action related to the CE these are important questions that passports should be able to answer, and which are generally not answered by the traditional tools mentioned.

Building information modelling (BIM) is an important investigation in the BAMB project. For Materials Passports to work it is important that there is alignment between the data that can sit in the Materials Passports Platform, and the data available in BIM and BIM-objects. Part of the complexity is the current lack of standardization of BIM. For passports it is important that for instance BIM-objects can be connected to the relevant products. The other way around, viewing passport data in BIM, sounds appealing, but as 3XN states “…it is recommended that only information identifying the unique element be entered into the model, as that would allow the model to operate faster. As long as all elements of the structure are uniquely identifiable in the model, all other information on the unique characteristics of the structural elements can be kept in a separate database, as long as there is access to this information.” (3XN, 2016). To clarify, the ‘model’ referred to is the BIM or the Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) model. The “Database” refers to the Materials Passport Database.

= Transparency and secrecy =

Two topics of high importance for the development of Materials Passports are those of transparency and secrecy. Materials Passports are under development as of the time of writing this paper. Considerations about these topics include:

Information stored for Materials Passports should have a purpose. That means that is should be accessible by those parties capable of connecting it to an action. Having information stored which cannot be accessed due to secrecy is not beneficial for this.

In certain cases it is not realistic that important information will be made available transparently, even though there may be a general trend towards more knowledge and transparency in the years to come. This is for instance currently the case in the polymer industry, where compositional information is regarded as competitive knowledge.

There are cases where detailed information is important, but not necessary to be fully transparent to the public, as long as an evaluation of the information can be presented transparently. This is for instance the case for compositional information: The end user might not be interested in the full details of what is in a product, but more in the fact that a product contains no harmful substances or beneficially cleans the air. A building manager in turn might be more interested in for instance the next pathway of the product.

Third party knowledge trustees will have an important role in cases where detailed information is required, but cannot, will not, or does not have to be made public. Third party knowledge trustees will draw conclusions based on evaluations of detailed knowledge and make these conclusions available in Materials Passports.

= Conclusion =

Materials Passports aim to support the CE and fill a marketplace gap with reliable information for diverse users on the composition, pathways and circular designs of products. By doing so, they provide a mechanism for innovation.

= References =

3XN Architects & Danish Environmental Protection Agency. 2016, “Building a circular future”

Hansen, K. Braungart, M. Mulhall, D. 2012, “Resource Re-Pletion. Role Of Buildings. Introducing

Nutrient Certificates A.K.A Materials Passports As A Counterpart To Emissions Trading Schemes”, The Springer Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology Meyers, Robert A. (Ed.)

World Economic Forum. 2014, “Towards the Circular Economy: Accelerating the scale-up across global supply chains.”

-----
[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/MaterialsPassportsPaper.pdf#_ftnref1 [1]] BAMB, Buildings As Material Banks, is a EU Horizon 2020 project enabling the shift to a circular building sector. The project is carried out by a consortium consisting of the following 16 partners: IBGE-BIM, EPEA Nederland B.V., VITO, BRE, ZUYD, IBM, VUB, Ronneby Kommun, Sundahus I Linkoping AB, TUM, Universiteit Twente, UMINHO, Sarajevo Green Design Foundation, DS-ABT, BAM and Aurubis Bulgaria AD.

[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/MaterialsPassportsPaper.pdf#_ftnref2 [2]] Resource Re-Pletion. Role Of Buildings. Introducing Nutrient Certificates A.K.A Materials Passports As A

Counterpart To Emissions Trading Schemes, Katja Hansen, Michael Braungart, Douglas Mulhall, The Springer

Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology Meyers, Robert A. (Ed.) July 2012

--[[User:BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks|BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks]] 13:28, 16 Aug 2018 (BST)

[[Category:Sustainability]] [[Category:Construction_management]] [[Category:Construction_techniques]] [[Category:Design]] [[Category:Products_/_components]]

Materials passports: Providing insights in the circularity of materials, products and systems

2018-08-16T12:28:08Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Created page with "= Author = Lars Luscuere Scientific Project Manager EPEA Nederland Bogert 1 5612LX Eindhoven The Netherlands = The Challenge = Manufacturers and ..."

Systemic view on reuse potential of building elements, components and systems

2018-08-15T09:55:12Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Protected "Systemic view on Reuse Potential of building elements, components and systems – Comprehensive Framework for assessing Reuse Potential of Building Elements" ([edit=author] (indefinite) [move=author] (indefinite))

=== AUTHORS ===

Elma Durmisevic (1), Pieter R. Beurskens (2), Renata Adrosevic (3) and Reonald Westerdijk (4)

1,2 University of Twente, Department of Design, Production and Management, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB Enschede, Phone (+31) 53 489 2520; email: e.durmisevic@utwente.nl, p.r.beurskens@utwente.nl, 3 Sarajevo Green Design Foundation, Patriotske Lige 33, 71000 Sarajevo, renata@sarajevogreendesign.com, 4ZUYD University of Applied Science, Nieuw Eyckholt 300, 6419 DJ Heerlen, Phone (+31) 45 400 6060 reonald.westerdijk@zuyd.nl

=== ABSTRACT ===

The physical impact of the increasing building mass in industrial and developing parts of the world is undeniable. In Europe, the building industry accounts for 38 percent of the total waste production, 40 percent of the CO2 emissions and 50 percent of all natural resources used within the building sector. (EIB 2015) Such negative impact of the construction sector is primarily related to the fact that built environment has been optimized for a linear system and one end of life option, demolition. The design of building products with high reuse potential is a necessity to move towards a construction industry that (1) creates building products with an increasing resource productivity; (2) is less dependent on virgin resources and; (3) contributes to the elimination of the concept of waste. As part of the EU Buildings as Material Banks project this paper will discuss the broader framework of a tool that will be able to assess reuse potential of building and its components and enhance their future environmental and economic value propositions. Due to the systemic nature of the tool the paper will showcase several case projects and the assessment of reuse potential indicators, measuring functional, technical and material dependences on three levels of a building’s composition (i.e. building, system, and component). Further to this the relation will be made between indicators of reuse potential with different value propositions based on which the framework for measuring environmental and economic impact of different reuse options will be established. Finally the paper will elaborate on gaps between design related data and existing capacity of Building Information Modeling (BIM) for the purpose of integrating the Reuse Potential Tool with BIM .

Keywords: Reversible building, design for disassembly, reuse potential, reuse options.

=== TOWARDS HIGH REUSE POTENTIAL OF BUILDING ELEMENTS ===

One can say that buildings are characterised by their static rigid structures that cannot be modified without demolition. They are not designed to be transformed to meet changing requirements without demolition and waste generation, and their products are not designed to be recovered and reused. Major barriers for high reuse of building elements can be summarises in eight points:

* Lack of valid data about the technical composition of the building and quality of the elements
* Lack of instruments for certification of reusable elements.
* Lack of protocols for design, and disassembly
* Lack of reversed logistics strategies in place
* Lack of market strategies. Is there a market for reuse and how to define these in procurement documentation?
* It is not known how to manage the risk of investment in reusable structures over longer period of time?
* Buildings are demolished not only due to low disassembly potential of their structures but also due to the lack of decision making protocols to support and guide the preparation of disassembly.
* Costs of new elements are often cheaper than the costs of recovered elements.

These barriers are directly related to the design and decision making protocols and life cycle management strategy. However understanding of decision making and management strategies can start only once we have full understanding of reversibility of building, reuse options of elements and how to increase their reuse potential through design. Transformable buildings with reusable elements, have potential to form a driving vehicle for utilizing built environment in the future as a material bank for new buildings or products. At the core of this new design approach lay two concepts (1) capacity of building to transform building space and structure to meet new requirements and (2) potential to reuse physical structures and elements in new building products and buildings. A base line for both concepts, aiming for high transformation capacity and high reuse potential is disassembly, upon which reversibility of building space and reversibility of building structure to initial set of elements can prosper.

The model of Durmisevic (2006) highlights key indicators for such reversible buildings in relation to their transformation and disassembly without waste generation. It brings into focus two indicators of reuse ( independence and exchangeability of building products) and associated eight criteria for design of building configuration with high disassembly /reuse potential as precondition for multiple reuse options (see figure 1). The model is used as a base line for development of the comprehensive framework for assessing reuse potential of elements and understanding their environmental and economic impact. Indicator of independence is provided through separation of functions on building, system and component levels and development of independent functional modules. Exchangeability is provided by minimization of complexity and number of relations between different elements and typology/morphology of connections that supportreuse.

Figure 1. Model of Durmisevic that provides guidelines and asses capacity of building structure to be transformed and disassembled without damaging building elements

Two indicators of disassembly and reuse potential are defined by eight design criteria that can be analyzed and evaluated separately. But they can also be used as design guidelines for design of transformable structures with high reuse potential of its elements. (Figure 2 left). Eight design criteria are formed by three main design domains (figure 2 left): (i) functional domain– defines functional composition/ separation (ii) technical domain- defines hierarchy and dependence of elements by relational pattern and type, number of relations between the elements, and base elements (see figure 2 right) (iii) physical domain- defines exchangeability of elements by typology, geometry and morphology of connections and assembly/ disassembly sequences.

Figure 2. Left; eight criteria for high disassembly and consequently reuse potential from model Durmisevic (2006). Right diagram representing relations between elements within two buildings typical housing in the Netherland in 90’s and Richard Hardon house UK. Figure right illustrate difference between complex unstructured and structured hierarchy and relational pattern between elements within building. Examples illustrate also the difference between reuse potential of structures with dedicated base element (each element has multiple relations) and without (only base element has multiple relations).

Figure 3 presents how design decisions about geometry of connection and base element can influence assembly/disassembly sequences and type of connections and how evaluation guides towards improvements made from the first solution to the alternative.

Figure 3. Assessment model with related spin diagram offering information on aspects that can be improved in order to increase disassembly of structure and associated reuse potential.

For example criteria 4 from the model deals with existence of base element of the structure and indicates whether the configuration has recognised intermediary which functions as a base of configuration and intermediary between elements. To provide independence and exchangeability of elements within two product configurations, each product configuration should define its base element, which integrates all surrounding elements of that configuration (Durmisevic 2006). This element functions as intermediary between elements as well as between independent configurations. As shown in figure 4 on the left, elements of the facade system marked with red are base elements of the façade system and at the same time intermediary between facade and loadbearing structure. Without this intermediary number of relations between the façade elements and loadbearing structure would be much bigger and would complicate recovery of façade elements.

Figure 4. Analyses of reuse potential using model of Durmisevic: left, façade system of Erasmus building analysed by Beurskens right housing project in Switzerland analysed by Androsevic.

While conventional construction method of Erasmus building indicates many functional and physical dependences between elements of the building on different levels of assembly that can complicate recovery operations on building and system level, the modular building of Sarajevo based office indicates more structured and open relational diagrams with recognised functional clusters. This high independence of modules makes disassembly on building level feasible, however exchangeability indicator of elements within the modulus is very low because physical connections between elements within modules indicate that due to many chemical and direct connections the reuse potential of elements is compromised.

Figure 5. Spin diagram evaluation of reuse potential: left, façade system of Erasmus building, right housing project in Switzerland, indicating the aspects that can be improved upon and cause difficulty during disassembly.

=== FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING REUSE POTENTIAL AND ITS ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ===

In order to be able to measure reuse potential of building elements their disassembly potential needs to be assessed. If parts of the building do not have disassembly potential building cannot be adapted to the new requirements without demolition and building elements cannot be recovered. Once building elements are recovered their reuse options can be assessed based on efforts needed to reuse the elements. Processes around different reuse options ( 1 direct reuse, 2 reuse by repartition, 3 reuse by reconfiguration, 4 reuse by adding strength ed) and the efforts and logistics needed, will ultimately determine reuse potential and its environmental and economic impacts. Systemic view on reuse potential and framework for its assessment is presented in figure 5.

Figure 5. Framework for assessing reuse potential/ and their environmental and economic impacts.

The framework relay on model of Dumrisevic 2006, that covers two key indicators for high reuse potential (1) the functional/physical independence of elements and (2) the potential for their physical exchangeability. A third indicator has been added that looks at reuse options in order to provide accurate assessment of reuse potential (3) multiple reuse options of building systems/component/elements. Indicator of multiple reuse options is analysed based on the level of damage that can occur during the recovery process. Evaluations of this category is in progress as well as understanding how data that support reuse potential can be integrated into BIM and their evaluation process atomised.

=== CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK ===

Indicators have been identified after analyses of the barriers that construction sector face concerning circularity of material, and conducting analyses of case projects testing the model of Durmisevic2006. Through this process two indicators (1) independence and (1)exchangeability form model of Durmisevic have been tested, verified and third indicator that addresses multiple reuse options has been identified as third important indicator of reuse potential.

After analyses of the reuse potential indicators a study has been made in order to understand the possibility of integrating reuse data into a BIM model and where the gaps are. Understanding relational patterns that represent number and complexity of relations between elements and the typology of connections are key to accurate assessment of reuse potential and BIM has features that can help to atomise evaluation process in future. are (1) relational diagrams representing functional and technical dependency and (2) typology of connections. Understanding of these two feed into the understanding of processes around reuse and different reuse options in terms of time, efforts and costs that can be integrated into 4D BIM. This research aims at developing a workable model that can measure reuse potential. Further formalisation of the tool and BIM integration will be done in the later stage.

=== ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ===

This research is part of the BAMB project (www.bamb2020.eu). The BAMB project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 642384.

=== REFERENCES ===

Central Intelligence Agency. (2016, August 15). Library: THE WORLD FACT BOOK: EUROPE :: UNITED KINGDOM. Retrieved September 12, 2016, from Central Intelligence Agenct Website: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-] factbook/geos/uk.html Durmisevic, E. (2006). Transformable Building Structures: Design for disassembly as a way European Commission. (2000, September 06). 2000/532/EC: Commission Decision of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes . Offical Journal of the European Communities , 1-22. Retrieved September 12, 2016, from [http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000D0532 http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000D0532] EIB. (2015). Investeren in Nederland. Economisch Instituut voor de Bouw. ETC/ SCP (2013) Municipal waste management in the Netherlands. Retrieved 5 November, 2015, from [http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/managing-municipal-solid-waste http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/managing-municipal-solid-waste] European Commission (2015) Construction and Demolition Waste management in The Netherlands. Retrieved 5 November, 2014

Report in PDF [https://www.bamb2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Systemic-view-on-Reuse-Potential-of-building-elements-components-and-systems-Comprehensive-Framework-for-assessing-Reuse-Potential-of-Building-Elements.pdf https://www.bamb2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Systemic-view-on-Reuse-Potential-of-building-elements-components-and-systems-Comprehensive-Framework-for-assessing-Reuse-Potential-of-Building-Elements.pdf]

--[[User:BAMB_-_Buildings_As_Material_Banks|BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks]] 10:32, 15 Aug 2018 (BST)

[[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]] [[Category:Sustainability]] [[Category:Construction_techniques]] [[Category:Products_/_components]]

Systemic view on reuse potential of building elements, components and systems

2018-08-15T09:54:56Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks:

Reuse of building products and materials – barriers and opportunities

2018-08-15T09:44:23Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Created page with "= Author = Gilli Hobbs, Katherine Adams BRE, Watford, United Kingdom = Abstract = BRE have been working with the reclamation sector in the UK for around 20 years to promote th..."

= Author =

Gilli Hobbs, Katherine Adams BRE, Watford, United Kingdom

= Abstract =

BRE have been working with the reclamation sector in the UK for around 20 years to promote the reuse of end-of-life building products and materials in preference to recycling and recovery. Much of this has been dedicated to the promotion of pre-demolition and pre- refurbishment audits to facilitate targets being set and markets for reusable resources sourced prior to work commencing. Against this backdrop the surveys undertaken to measure levels of reclamation in the UK over a 15 year period showed a significant decline. The cause of this decline was investigated and revealed a number of challenges which were affecting both the supply and demand for reclaimed products and materials. Many of the challenges to reuse are connected to the availability and robustness of data. Therefore, the work currently being undertaken as part of the H2020 funded project BAMB (Building As Material Banks) provides a great opportunity to address such gaps in buildings of the future. However, since the existing built environment will have a major impact on resource flows for many years, it is also important to consider approaches to improve data in this context also. Therefore, this presentation will summarise the challenges for reuse of building products and materials in existing and future buildings. It will then briefly describe the opportunities and solutions to address these challenges in the context of improved data access, management and evaluation. Finally, the BAMB research which should contribute to providing solutions will be explored.

Keywords: reuse, pre-demolition audit, circular economy, deconstruction, end of life.

= Introduction =

Reuse should be considered as a priority compared to recycling but this option increasingly does not occur. Reuse typically requires minimal processing before reapplication in a similar application, whereas recycling typically requires breaking down waste into a homogeneous material for a lesser value application or introduction as replacement feedstock for manufactured components. A common misunderstanding lies between the realms of reuse and recycling of old buildings; they are often considered together when they are actually competing choices for the continuing use of resources.

Historically, the reuse of building materials and products has been high, with the building blocks of old structures typically used to form new ones, and old materials repurposed until no longer fit for use; however this has decreased in the last 70 years. What are the factors behind this shift in behavior and how can we reverse the continuing decline in the reuse of products and materials? To this end, BRE have been working with the reclamation sector in the UK for around 20 years to promote the reuse of end-of-life building products and materials in preference to recycling and recovery. Much of this has been dedicated to the promotion of pre-demolition and pre-refurbishment audits to facilitate reuse through setting targets and identifying markets for reusable resources prior to work commencing. Against this backdrop, surveys undertaken to measure levels of reclamation in the UK over a 15 year period have shown a significant decline[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftn1 [1]].

= Challenges to increasing reuse =

There are a number of challenges affecting reuse. Depending on national and local circumstances, these can include:

* Mismatch of supply and demand – both in terms of quantity and quality. If heavy materials need to be moved long distances to reach their markets, this can increase costs and environmental impact significantly.
* Insufficient time allowed for deconstruction and careful packing of reusable items – the length of time needed to deconstruct can be unappealing where extra costs are incurred through having a building (such as local property taxes) or loss of revenue on a replacement building owing to an extended scheduling of works. There can also be a time constraint linked to planning permission expiration.
* Lack of facilities locally – some countries, such as the UK, have a good spread of reclamation facilities, although space is limited and expensive in highly built up areas. This can cause a disparity between the location of the stocks of reclaimed items and the market for such items. The third party costs will need to be added to the purchase price, which can diminish the attractiveness of reclaimed products compared to new. This is particularly key when matched against possible risks associated with reuse.
* Reluctance to use products without certification of tested performance is one of the biggest barriers to reuse, particularly in a structural capacity. Often there is very little information on where the product has come from and its length of use in a particular application. This means that the ‘worst case scenario’ is normally applied to the potential reuse applications. Testing of performance can be expensive and require destruction of samples to mitigate possible risks of further use. These costs will be added to the cost of the product/material and may override savings from reuse.
* Health and safety risks of manual deconstruction are considered to be a key reason for the move to mechanical demolition techniques. Whilst these risks can be mitigated through improved data on the building design and composition, such information is often not available.
* Building technology is a mixture of traditional and rapidly changing techniques. Both can cause challenges in further reuse, such as cement mortar used in brick and block construction, through to rapid fix, prefabricated panelized systems which are multi- material composites.
* Value of products and materials can be an opportunity or a barrier. In case of low value/cheap products and materials, the incentive to reuse versus the cost of careful removal can be low or negative.

In summary, there are multiple and inter-related reasons for the fall in reuse, making it inevitable. The main challenge is to consider how to overcome these barriers in the forthcoming and existing built environment.

= Opportunities to increasing reuse =

There are many opportunities to reuse materials, from all stages of the supply chain, including procurement, design, construction, refurbishment and demolition. Some high level strategies include:

* Reuse of offcuts and surplus materials within the construction project (or exchanged with nearby projects)
* Design for deconstruction and adaptability
* Pre-demolition audits, on-site sorting and separate collection
* Waste exchanges and industrial symbiosis
* Standards and testing of products to promote reuse
* Planning and procurement practices which promote incorporation of reclaimed products and materials
* Involvement of the community sector to maximize local benefits

The Waste Framework Directive[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftn2 [2]] (WFD) considers reuse to be any operation by which products or components that are not waste are used again for the same purpose for which they were conceived. When in compliance with the WFD, reuse can effectively remove materials and products from the wastestream and allow for further application without the regulatory restrictions that can accompany recycled material application.

The EU policy on Construction Product Regulation (CPR)[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftn3 [3]] and its Basic Requirement of Construction Works (BRCW) 7 Sustainable use of natural resource could provide a good basis for optimizing resources, including reuse. The inclusion of this requirement will allow Member States to regulate for the use of sustainable products and for a sustainability characteristic to be included in the DoP (Declaration of performance) and the CE marking. However, this is yet to be defined and needs a method for describing the products performance.

Pre-development audits include demolition and refurbishment assessments of what can the reused from deconstruction and strip out respectively. These should also inform the potential to reuse products and materials in subsequent construction and/or fitout (of refurbishment). A recent EU project has developed further guidance relating to pre-demolition audits[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftn4 [4]][file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftn5 [5]].

Certification is not always required to enable reuse, even in structural applications. For example, the Steel Construction Institute in the UK recommends the following for reuse of structural steel[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftn6 [6]]: For example, deconstructed sections are inspected to verify their dimensional properties; tested to confirm their strength properties and the section is then shot or sand blasted to remove any coatings and refabricated and primed to the requirements of the new project. This will usually involve cutting the ends of the beams and columns to the required length.

However, the absence of warranties and manufacturing data can severely hamper future reuse, so a significant opportunity exists around improved data management at the point of design and throughout an asset’s life cycle. This is a key area of work within the Building as Material Bank (BAMB)[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftn7 [7]] project, where Building Information Modelling (BIM) is being linked to aspects of Reversible Building Design and improved product data (Material Passports) to facilitate future reuse at building, system, product and material levels.

Greater promotion of the benefits of reuse compared to recycling could encourage more clients and designers to spend time and energy to increase reuse, often with a cost benefit attached. For example, there can be great community benefits in reuse, as demonstrated by

the Community Wood Recycling group in the UK, whom also undertake reuse activities. In 2015 they obtained over 17,000 tonnes of waste wood, nearly half of which was reused and provided training and work experience places for more than 600 unemployed people[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftn8 [8]].

Other benefits include the heritage value of the products which stay in circulation, as demonstrated in a market assessment of Truly Reclaimed Wood in the UK[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftn9 [9]]. BRE worked with Salvo on this Innovate UK funded project to understand the main drivers for decorative reuse that could be used to move the market away from reproduction towards genuine reuse. A surprising conclusion to this market study of architects and clients revealed that access to the reclaimed product/material’s history was deemed more important than environmental benefits.

In terms of environmental benefits, the evidence is difficult to access in a way that is meaningful to those seeking to justify end-of-life reuse. In Life Cycle Assessment terms, the main benefit of reuse, in terms of displaced embodied impact, will be accounted for in the subsequent application. This approach does not translate into benefits to those responsible for enabling such reuse, through careful deconstruction or designing for high reuse potential. The work in BAMB should allow for environmental benefits to be more transparent to such decision makers and therefore promote activities which support future reuse.

= Recommendations to Increase Reuse =

In a recent project, BRE worked with other partners to identify best practices across the EU, which included increasing the level of reuse[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftn10 [10]]. The results from evaluating Member States policies, practices, performance and stakeholder viewpoints were used to develop a series of recommendations. In terms of reuse, these recommendations included:

* Mandatory pre-demolition and renovation audits with promotion of reuse – as currently in place in Hungary & Finland. Ideally, these would be undertaken by an independent party and the actual performance (in terms of levels of reuse) compared to the suggested levels of reuse proposed in the audit
* Managing supply and demand – where products and materials cannot be used again on the same site, there should be mechanisms to match supply and demand (linked to clear traceability to promote best use options). This could be through stockholding facilities, such as reclamation yards, and material exchanges/reuse platforms, which directly connect those with surplus materials/products to those who might want them.
* Innovation in reuse – some of the issues preventing reuse, such as time consuming manual labour needed to separate products, can be alleviating through new technologies. For example, the REBRICK[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftn11 [11]] mechanical brick cleaning system in Denmark.
* Support for the reclamation sector – both in terms of R&D and business support. There are new start ups and longstanding enterprises in this space, though the demand for the ‘reclaimed aesthetic’ can lead to the stocking of reproduction items, which should be discouraged.
* Construction product declaration and recertification to address a key barrier to reuse. This is challenging in existing buildings where the data link to the past, in terms of manufacturing information, are often severed through periods of multiple ownership and management.
* Better impact data – especially in the context of life cycle assessment. There is currently little distinction between reuse and recycle in calculating impacts, although this is under review in a number of projects, including BAMB, Holistic Innovative Solutions for an Efficient Recycling and Recovery of Valuable Raw Materials from Complex Construction and Demolition Waste (HISER) and FISSAC[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftn12 [12]].
* Data management, including BIM, could be improved and manipulated to give much better understanding of the reuse potential of new developments, prior to construction. This could facilitate a much better end of life outcome in terms of future reuse. This is a key outcome from the BAMB project, which is also looking to adapt to existing buildings to influence refurbishment options.

= Conclusions =

Many of the challenges to reuse are connected to the availability and robustness of data. Therefore, the work currently being undertaken as part of the H2020 funded BAMB project provides a great opportunity to address such gaps in buildings of the future. However, since the existing built environment will have a major impact on resource flows for many years, it is also important to consider approaches to improve data in this context also. This is where projects such as HISER and BAMB can also contribute valuable knowledge and support to provide decision makers with the relevant tools and techniques to enable greater reuse.

= ACKNOWLEDGEMENT =

This research is part of the BAMB project (www.bamb2020.eu). The BAMB project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 642384.

-----
[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftnref1 [1]] BigREc survey 2007 [http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/BigREc%20Survey%20report.pdf http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/BigREc%20Survey%20report.pdf]

[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftnref2 [2]] [http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/]

[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftnref3 [3]] [http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/construction/product-regulation/ http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/construction/product][http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/construction/product-regulation/ -][http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/construction/product-regulation/ regulation/]

[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftnref4 [4]] [http://www.construction-products.eu/documents/document/20161123090156- http://www.construction][http://www.construction-products.eu/documents/document/20161123090156- -][http://www.construction-products.eu/documents/document/20161123090156- products.eu//documents/document/20161123090156][http://www.construction-products.eu/documents/document/20161123090156- -]

[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftnref5 [5]] _11_22_resource_efficiency_workshop_1_dg_growth.pdf

[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftnref6 [6]] [http://www.steelconstruction.info/Recycling_and_reuse http://www.steelconstruction.info/Recycling_and_reuse]

[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftnref7 [7]] Buildings as Material Banks - [http://www.bamb2020.eu/ http://www.bamb2020.eu/]

[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftnref8 [8]] [http://www.communitywoodrecycling.org.uk/about-us/our-impact/ http://www.communitywoodrecycling.org.uk/about][http://www.communitywoodrecycling.org.uk/about-us/our-impact/ -][http://www.communitywoodrecycling.org.uk/about-us/our-impact/ us/our][http://www.communitywoodrecycling.org.uk/about-us/our-impact/ -][http://www.communitywoodrecycling.org.uk/about-us/our-impact/ impact/]

[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftnref9 [9]] [http://www.salvonews.com/story/truly-reclaimed-wood-x92406x9.html http://www.salvonews.com/story/truly][http://www.salvonews.com/story/truly-reclaimed-wood-x92406x9.html -][http://www.salvonews.com/story/truly-reclaimed-wood-x92406x9.html reclaimed][http://www.salvonews.com/story/truly-reclaimed-wood-x92406x9.html -][http://www.salvonews.com/story/truly-reclaimed-wood-x92406x9.html wood][http://www.salvonews.com/story/truly-reclaimed-wood-x92406x9.html -][http://www.salvonews.com/story/truly-reclaimed-wood-x92406x9.html x92406x9.html]

[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftnref10 [10]] Resource Efficient Use of Mixed Wastes - Improving management of construction and demolition waste. Report due for publication 2017 -

[http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/mixed_waste.htm http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/mixed_waste.htm]

[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftnref11 [11]] https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/news/new-old-bricks-construction-industry

[file://admfs02/homedirs/camsj/Desktop/DBW/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf#_ftnref12 [12]] HISER [http://www.hiserproject.eu/%3B www.hiserproject.eu/][http://www.hiserproject.eu/%3B ;] [http://www.hiserproject.eu/%3B F]ISSAC https://fissacproject.eu

Paper in PDF: [https://www.bamb2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf https://www.bamb2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Reuse-of-building-products-and-materials-barriers-and-opportunities.pdf]

--[[User:BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks|BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks]] 10:44, 15 Aug 2018 (BST)

[[Category:Sustainability]] [[Category:Construction_management]] [[Category:Construction_techniques]] [[Category:Products_/_components]]

Systemic view on reuse potential of building elements, components and systems

2018-08-15T09:32:44Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Created page with "=== AUTHORS === Elma Durmisevic (1), Pieter R. Beurskens (2), Renata Adrosevic (3) and Reonald Westerdijk (4) 1,2 University of Twente, Department of Design, Production and Man..."

=== AUTHORS ===

Elma Durmisevic (1), Pieter R. Beurskens (2), Renata Adrosevic (3) and Reonald Westerdijk (4)

1,2 University of Twente, Department of Design, Production and Management, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB Enschede, Phone (+31) 53 489 2520; email: e.durmisevic@utwente.nl, p.r.beurskens@utwente.nl, 3 Sarajevo Green Design Foundation, Patriotske Lige 33, 71000 Sarajevo, renata@sarajevogreendesign.com, 4ZUYD University of Applied Science, Nieuw Eyckholt 300, 6419 DJ Heerlen, Phone (+31) 45 400 6060 reonald.westerdijk@zuyd.nl

=== ABSTRACT ===

The physical impact of the increasing building mass in industrial and developing parts of the world is undeniable. In Europe, the building industry accounts for 38 percent of the total waste production, 40 percent of the CO2 emissions and 50 percent of all natural resources used within the building sector. (EIB 2015) Such negative impact of the construction sector is primarily related to the fact that built environment has been optimized for a linear system and one end of life option, demolition. The design of building products with high reuse potential is a necessity to move towards a construction industry that (1) creates building products with an increasing resource productivity; (2) is less dependent on virgin resources and; (3) contributes to the elimination of the concept of waste. As part of the EU Buildings as Material Banks project this paper will discuss the broader framework of a tool that will be able to assess reuse potential of building and its components and enhance their future environmental and economic value propositions. Due to the systemic nature of the tool the paper will showcase several case projects and the assessment of reuse potential indicators, measuring functional, technical and material dependences on three levels of a building’s composition (i.e. building, system, and component). Further to this the relation will be made between indicators of reuse potential with different value propositions based on which the framework for measuring environmental and economic impact of different reuse options will be established. Finally the paper will elaborate on gaps between design related data and existing capacity of Building Information Modeling (BIM) for the purpose of integrating the Reuse Potential Tool with BIM .

Keywords: Reversible building, design for disassembly, reuse potential, reuse options.

=== TOWARDS HIGH REUSE POTENTIAL OF BUILDING ELEMENTS ===

One can say that buildings are characterised by their static rigid structures that cannot be modified without demolition. They are not designed to be transformed to meet changing requirements without demolition and waste generation, and their products are not designed to be recovered and reused. Major barriers for high reuse of building elements can be summarises in eight points:

* Lack of valid data about the technical composition of the building and quality of the elements
* Lack of instruments for certification of reusable elements.
* Lack of protocols for design, and disassembly
* Lack of reversed logistics strategies in place
* Lack of market strategies. Is there a market for reuse and how to define these in procurement documentation?
* It is not known how to manage the risk of investment in reusable structures over longer period of time?
* Buildings are demolished not only due to low disassembly potential of their structures but also due to the lack of decision making protocols to support and guide the preparation of disassembly.
* Costs of new elements are often cheaper than the costs of recovered elements.

These barriers are directly related to the design and decision making protocols and life cycle management strategy. However understanding of decision making and management strategies can start only once we have full understanding of reversibility of building, reuse options of elements and how to increase their reuse potential through design. Transformable buildings with reusable elements, have potential to form a driving vehicle for utilizing built environment in the future as a material bank for new buildings or products. At the core of this new design approach lay two concepts (1) capacity of building to transform building space and structure to meet new requirements and (2) potential to reuse physical structures and elements in new building products and buildings. A base line for both concepts, aiming for high transformation capacity and high reuse potential is disassembly, upon which reversibility of building space and reversibility of building structure to initial set of elements can prosper.

The model of Durmisevic (2006) highlights key indicators for such reversible buildings in relation to their transformation and disassembly without waste generation. It brings into focus two indicators of reuse ( independence and exchangeability of building products) and associated eight criteria for design of building configuration with high disassembly /reuse potential as precondition for multiple reuse options (see figure 1). The model is used as a base line for development of the comprehensive framework for assessing reuse potential of elements and understanding their environmental and economic impact. Indicator of independence is provided through separation of functions on building, system and component levels and development of independent functional modules. Exchangeability is provided by minimization of complexity and number of relations between different elements and typology/morphology of connections that supportreuse.

Figure 1. Model of Durmisevic that provides guidelines and asses capacity of building structure to be transformed and disassembled without damaging building elements

Two indicators of disassembly and reuse potential are defined by eight design criteria that can be analyzed and evaluated separately. But they can also be used as design guidelines for design of transformable structures with high reuse potential of its elements. (Figure 2 left). Eight design criteria are formed by three main design domains (figure 2 left): (i) functional domain– defines functional composition/ separation (ii) technical domain- defines hierarchy and dependence of elements by relational pattern and type, number of relations between the elements, and base elements (see figure 2 right) (iii) physical domain- defines exchangeability of elements by typology, geometry and morphology of connections and assembly/ disassembly sequences.

Figure 2. Left; eight criteria for high disassembly and consequently reuse potential from model Durmisevic (2006). Right diagram representing relations between elements within two buildings typical housing in the Netherland in 90’s and Richard Hardon house UK. Figure right illustrate difference between complex unstructured and structured hierarchy and relational pattern between elements within building. Examples illustrate also the difference between reuse potential of structures with dedicated base element (each element has multiple relations) and without (only base element has multiple relations).

Figure 3 presents how design decisions about geometry of connection and base element can influence assembly/disassembly sequences and type of connections and how evaluation guides towards improvements made from the first solution to the alternative.

Figure 3. Assessment model with related spin diagram offering information on aspects that can be improved in order to increase disassembly of structure and associated reuse potential.

For example criteria 4 from the model deals with existence of base element of the structure and indicates whether the configuration has recognised intermediary which functions as a base of configuration and intermediary between elements. To provide independence and exchangeability of elements within two product configurations, each product configuration should define its base element, which integrates all surrounding elements of that configuration (Durmisevic 2006). This element functions as intermediary between elements as well as between independent configurations. As shown in figure 4 on the left, elements of the facade system marked with red are base elements of the façade system and at the same time intermediary between facade and loadbearing structure. Without this intermediary number of relations between the façade elements and loadbearing structure would be much bigger and would complicate recovery of façade elements.

Figure 4. Analyses of reuse potential using model of Durmisevic: left, façade system of Erasmus building analysed by Beurskens right housing project in Switzerland analysed by Androsevic.

While conventional construction method of Erasmus building indicates many functional and physical dependences between elements of the building on different levels of assembly that can complicate recovery operations on building and system level, the modular building of Sarajevo based office indicates more structured and open relational diagrams with recognised functional clusters. This high independence of modules makes disassembly on building level feasible, however exchangeability indicator of elements within the modulus is very low because physical connections between elements within modules indicate that due to many chemical and direct connections the reuse potential of elements is compromised.

Figure 5. Spin diagram evaluation of reuse potential: left, façade system of Erasmus building, right housing project in Switzerland, indicating the aspects that can be improved upon and cause difficulty during disassembly.

=== FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING REUSE POTENTIAL AND ITS ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ===

In order to be able to measure reuse potential of building elements their disassembly potential needs to be assessed. If parts of the building do not have disassembly potential building cannot be adapted to the new requirements without demolition and building elements cannot be recovered. Once building elements are recovered their reuse options can be assessed based on efforts needed to reuse the elements. Processes around different reuse options ( 1 direct reuse, 2 reuse by repartition, 3 reuse by reconfiguration, 4 reuse by adding strength ed) and the efforts and logistics needed, will ultimately determine reuse potential and its environmental and economic impacts. Systemic view on reuse potential and framework for its assessment is presented in figure 5.

Figure 5. Framework for assessing reuse potential/ and their environmental and economic impacts.

The framework relay on model of Dumrisevic 2006, that covers two key indicators for high reuse potential (1) the functional/physical independence of elements and (2) the potential for their physical exchangeability. A third indicator has been added that looks at reuse options in order to provide accurate assessment of reuse potential (3) multiple reuse options of building systems/component/elements. Indicator of multiple reuse options is analysed based on the level of damage that can occur during the recovery process. Evaluations of this category is in progress as well as understanding how data that support reuse potential can be integrated into BIM and their evaluation process atomised.

=== CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK ===

Indicators have been identified after analyses of the barriers that construction sector face concerning circularity of material, and conducting analyses of case projects testing the model of Durmisevic2006. Through this process two indicators (1) independence and (1)exchangeability form model of Durmisevic have been tested, verified and third indicator that addresses multiple reuse options has been identified as third important indicator of reuse potential.

After analyses of the reuse potential indicators a study has been made in order to understand the possibility of integrating reuse data into a BIM model and where the gaps are. Understanding relational patterns that represent number and complexity of relations between elements and the typology of connections are key to accurate assessment of reuse potential and BIM has features that can help to atomise evaluation process in future. are (1) relational diagrams representing functional and technical dependency and (2) typology of connections. Understanding of these two feed into the understanding of processes around reuse and different reuse options in terms of time, efforts and costs that can be integrated into 4D BIM. This research aims at developing a workable model that can measure reuse potential. Further formalisation of the tool and BIM integration will be done in the later stage.

=== ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ===

This research is part of the BAMB project (www.bamb2020.eu). The BAMB project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 642384.

=== REFERENCES ===

Central Intelligence Agency. (2016, August 15). Library: THE WORLD FACT BOOK: EUROPE :: UNITED KINGDOM. Retrieved September 12, 2016, from Central Intelligence Agenct Website: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/geos/uk.html Durmisevic, E. (2006). Transformable Building Structures: Design for disassembly as a way European Commission. (2000, September 06). 2000/532/EC: Commission Decision of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes . Offical Journal of the European Communities , 1-22. Retrieved September 12, 2016, from http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000D0532 EIB. (2015). Investeren in Nederland. Economisch Instituut voor de Bouw. ETC/ SCP (2013) Municipal waste management in the Netherlands. Retrieved 5 November, 2015, from http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/managing-municipal-solid-waste European Commission (2015) Construction and Demolition Waste management in The Netherlands. Retrieved 5 November, 2014

--[[User:BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks|BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks]] 10:32, 15 Aug 2018 (BST)

[[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]] [[Category:Sustainability]] [[Category:Construction_techniques]] [[Category:Products_/_components]]

User:BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks

2018-08-15T09:05:56Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks:

== About BAMB ==

In the Project BAMB – Buildings As Material Banks 15 partners from 7 European countries are working together with one mission – enabling a systemic shift in the building sector by creating circular solutions.

Today, building materials end up as waste when no longer needed, with effects like destroying ecosystems, increasing environmental costs, and creating risks of resource scarcity. To create a sustainable future, the building sector needs to move towards a circular economy.

Whether an industry goes circular or not depends on the value of the materials within it – worthless materials are waste, while valuable materials are recycled. Increased value equals less waste, and that is what BAMB is creating – ways to increase the values of building materials.

BAMB will enable a systemic shift where dynamically and flexibly designed buildings can be incorporated into a circular economy. Through design and circular value chains, materials in buildings sustain their value – in a sector producing less waste and using less virgin resources. Instead of being to-be waste, buildings will function as banks of valuable materials – slowing down the usage of resources to a rate that meets the capacity of the planet. BAMB's vision: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3EKddd_dAt0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3EKddd_dAt0]

The project is developing and integrating tools that will enable the shift: Materials Passports and Reversible Building Design – supported by new business models, policy propositions and management and decision-making models. During the course of the project these new approaches will be demonstrated and refined with input from 6 pilots.

The BAMB project started in September 2015 and will progress for 3 and a half years as an innovation action within the EU funded Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 642384.

Find out how to get involved. Visit our [http://www.bamb2020.eu/get-involved/stakeholder-network/ website].

[[File:European_flag_2.png|222px|link=File:European_flag_2.png]]

= EVENT “CIRCULARITY IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT ENABLED BY DIGITALIZATION”, BAMB AND SBC ONE PLANET NETWORK, 20 SEPTEMBER 2018, BRUSSELS, BELGIUM =

BAMB (Buildings as Material Banks) [https://bamb2020.us13.list-manage.com/track/click?u=aebd7cc2b2d192de19bb888b6&id=f195c0f7f1&e=86027bb8b2 www.bamb2020.eu] and the One Planet Network [https://bamb2020.us13.list-manage.com/track/click?u=aebd7cc2b2d192de19bb888b6&id=4ad14a0861&e=86027bb8b2 www.oneplanetnetwork.org] invite you to join them to learn from ongoing exemplary initiatives and debate how currently available tools are supporting a systemic shift towards circularity in the built environment through digitalization, assessment and procurement.

Take a look at the [https://www.bamb2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2018-06-25-Event_One_Planet_Network_BAMB.pdf exciting programme] and ensure your presence at this game changing event by registering today! Participation is free of charge. Please, note that you should already pre-select your afternoon parallel session. The break out rooms will be organized according to the shown interest and availability of spaces.

Date: 20th September 2018 
Time: 10:00-16:30

Place: Brussels Environment (IBGE-BIM), Tour & Taxis, Avenue du Port 86C/3000, 1000 Brussels, Belgium

Participation is free of charge.[https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/circularity-in-the-built-environment-enabled-by-digitalization-registration-47159479272 Register at Evenbrite]

User:BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks

2018-08-15T09:02:20Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks:

== About BAMB ==

In the Project BAMB – Buildings As Material Banks 15 partners from 7 European countries are working together with one mission – enabling a systemic shift in the building sector by creating circular solutions.

Today, building materials end up as waste when no longer needed, with effects like destroying ecosystems, increasing environmental costs, and creating risks of resource scarcity. To create a sustainable future, the building sector needs to move towards a circular economy.

Whether an industry goes circular or not depends on the value of the materials within it – worthless materials are waste, while valuable materials are recycled. Increased value equals less waste, and that is what BAMB is creating – ways to increase the values of building materials.

BAMB will enable a systemic shift where dynamically and flexibly designed buildings can be incorporated into a circular economy. Through design and circular value chains, materials in buildings sustain their value – in a sector producing less waste and using less virgin resources. Instead of being to-be waste, buildings will function as banks of valuable materials – slowing down the usage of resources to a rate that meets the capacity of the planet.

The project is developing and integrating tools that will enable the shift: Materials Passports and Reversible Building Design – supported by new business models, policy propositions and management and decision-making models. During the course of the project these new approaches will be demonstrated and refined with input from 6 pilots.

The BAMB project started in September 2015 and will progress for 3 and a half years as an innovation action within the EU funded Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 642384.

Find out how to get involved. Visit our [http://www.bamb2020.eu/get-involved/stakeholder-network/ website].

[[File:European_flag_2.png|222px|link=File:European_flag_2.png]]

= EVENT “CIRCULARITY IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT ENABLED BY DIGITALIZATION”, BAMB AND SBC ONE PLANET NETWORK, 20 SEPTEMBER 2018, BRUSSELS, BELGIUM =

BAMB (Buildings as Material Banks) [https://bamb2020.us13.list-manage.com/track/click?u=aebd7cc2b2d192de19bb888b6&id=f195c0f7f1&e=86027bb8b2 www.bamb2020.eu] and the One Planet Network [https://bamb2020.us13.list-manage.com/track/click?u=aebd7cc2b2d192de19bb888b6&id=4ad14a0861&e=86027bb8b2 www.oneplanetnetwork.org] invite you to join them to learn from ongoing exemplary initiatives and debate how currently available tools are supporting a systemic shift towards circularity in the built environment through digitalization, assessment and procurement.

Take a look at the [https://www.bamb2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2018-06-25-Event_One_Planet_Network_BAMB.pdf exciting programme] and ensure your presence at this game changing event by registering today! Participation is free of charge. Please, note that you should already pre-select your afternoon parallel session. The break out rooms will be organized according to the shown interest and availability of spaces.

Date: 20th September 2018 
Time: 10:00-16:30

Place: Brussels Environment (IBGE-BIM), Tour & Taxis, Avenue du Port 86C/3000, 1000 Brussels, Belgium

Participation is free of charge.[https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/circularity-in-the-built-environment-enabled-by-digitalization-registration-47159479272 Register at Evenbrite]

Circular Building Assessment

2018-08-15T08:51:26Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks:

== [[File:Circular_building_scenarios_&_scope_-_BAMB.PNG|link=File:Circular_building_scenarios_&_scope_-_BAMB.PNG]] ==

== CIRCULAR BUILDING ASSESSMENT ==

=== DEFINITION ===

Circular Building Assessment is an assessment approach and method that aims to provide a holistic evaluation and interpretation of multiple sustainability aspects of buildings and their parts.

Taking a life cycle approach, aspects that are included are the environmental impact, financial costs, health consequences and social value of the object under study. Developed within the BAMB-project, Circular Building Assessment fosters better informed decision-making about ‘circular’ alternatives compared to linear, business as usual options.

=== GUIDELINES ===

Environmental impacts of construction products and buildings are typically evaluated using life cycle assessments (LCA), and financial impacts by means of life cycle costing (LCC). Conventionally, their implementation is not without flaws. Despite European standards and recommendations, modelling closed material loops is not harmonised across the continent for example.

Also, social value assessments are many and varied, covering a plethora of aspects of societal costs and benefits. Moreover, most metrics in conventional societal impact or value studies, do not have a relevance when rethinking value networks in construction, and the economy in general. Therefore, a mayor revision of those assessment methods was indispensable.

Circular Building Assessment is facilitated through data extraction from Building Information Modelling and Material Passports where available. Consequently, from a certain level of detail, an evaluation of the transformation capacity and reuse potential of the building and its key parts can affect the assessment outcomes for all aspects.

Moreover, the BAMB project aims to compare within the Circular Building Assessment method the overall impact of the replacement of new products with reclaimed ones, of service life extensions resulting from improved transformation capacity, and the future reuse of parts enabled by their increased reuse potential. (Read more at [https://www.bamb2020.eu/topics/data-decision/ https://www.bamb2020.eu/topics/data-decision/])

=== RELATED TERMS ===

Life cycle, life cycle phases: the series of consecutive and interlinked stages a building or part passes through, from production, over operation and transformation to its end of life.

Service life, estimated service life: the period a building or part meets or is expected to meet a set of requirements given a set of in-use conditions, determined from reference service life data.

Life cycle assessment, LCA: a procedure for evaluating the lifetime environmental impact of a building, or building part, including scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation.

Life cycle costing, LCC: a procedure for evaluating the financial impact of a building, or building part, over an agreed period of analysis and as defined in a predetermined scope.

Scenario: a collection of assumptions concerning an expected, or challenging, sequence of future events, such as building transformations, price evolutions and any technical development.

=== REFERENCES ===

CEN (2011) EN 15978 Sustainability of construction works, Assessment of environmental performance of buildings – Calculation method. European Committee for Standardisation.

CEN (2015) EN 16627 Sustainability of construction works, Assessment of economic performance of buildings – Calculation methods. European Committee for Standardisation.

European Commission (EC) (2013), Annex II: Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide to the Commission Recommendation (2013/179/EU) on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the lfe cycle environmental performance of products and organisations.

EeBGuide (2012) Operational Guidance for Life Cycle Assessment Studies of the Energy Efficient Buildings Initiative. Accessed March 2017 via [http://www.eebguide.eu/ www.eebguide.eu]

ISO (2006) ISO 14040-0 Environmental management, Life cycle assessment – Part 0 Principles and framework. International Organisation for Standardisation.

--[[User:BAMB_-_Buildings_As_Material_Banks|BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks]] 09:50, 15 Aug 2018 (BST)

[[Category:Sustainability]] [[Category:Construction_management]] [[Category:Construction_techniques]] [[Category:Design]] [[Category:Products_/_components]]

Circular Building Assessment

2018-08-15T08:50:36Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Protected "Circular Building Assessment" ([edit=author] (indefinite) [move=author] (indefinite))

== [[File:Circular building scenarios & scope - BAMB.PNG]] ==

== CIRCULAR BUILDING ASSESSMENT ==

=== DEFINITION ===

Circular Building Assessment is an assessment approach and method that aims to provide a holistic evaluation and interpretation of multiple sustainability aspects of buildings and their parts.

Taking a life cycle approach, aspects that are included are the environmental impact, financial costs, health consequences and social value of the object under study. Developed within the BAMB-project, Circular Building Assessment fosters better informed decision-making about ‘circular’ alternatives compared to linear, business as usual options.

=== GUIDELINES ===

Environmental impacts of construction products and buildings are typically evaluated using life cycle assessments (LCA), and financial impacts by means of life cycle costing (LCC). Conventionally, their implementation is not without flaws. Despite European standards and recommendations, modelling closed material loops is not harmonised across the continent for example.

Also, social value assessments are many and varied, covering a plethora of aspects of societal costs and benefits. Moreover, most metrics in conventional societal impact or value studies, do not have a relevance when rethinking value networks in construction, and the economy in general. Therefore, a mayor revision of those assessment methods was indispensable.

Circular Building Assessment is facilitated through data extraction from Building Information Modelling and Material Passports where available. Consequently, from a certain level of detail, an evaluation of the transformation capacity and reuse potential of the building and its key parts can affect the assessment outcomes for all aspects.

Moreover, the BAMB project aims to compare within the Circular Building Assessment method the overall impact of the replacement of new products with reclaimed ones, of service life extensions resulting from improved transformation capacity, and the future reuse of parts enabled by their increased reuse potential.

=== RELATED TERMS ===

Life cycle, life cycle phases: the series of consecutive and interlinked stages a building or part passes through, from production, over operation and transformation to its end of life.

Service life, estimated service life: the period a building or part meets or is expected to meet a set of requirements given a set of in-use conditions, determined from reference service life data.

Life cycle assessment, LCA: a procedure for evaluating the lifetime environmental impact of a building, or building part, including scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation.

Life cycle costing, LCC: a procedure for evaluating the financial impact of a building, or building part, over an agreed period of analysis and as defined in a predetermined scope.

Scenario: a collection of assumptions concerning an expected, or challenging, sequence of future events, such as building transformations, price evolutions and any technical development.

=== REFERENCES ===

CEN (2011) EN 15978 Sustainability of construction works, Assessment of environmental performance of buildings – Calculation method. European Committee for Standardisation.

CEN (2015) EN 16627 Sustainability of construction works, Assessment of economic performance of buildings – Calculation methods. European Committee for Standardisation.

European Commission (EC) (2013), Annex II: Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide to the Commission Recommendation (2013/179/EU) on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the lfe cycle environmental performance of products and organisations.

EeBGuide (2012) Operational Guidance for Life Cycle Assessment Studies of the Energy Efficient Buildings Initiative. Accessed March 2017 via [http://www.eebguide.eu/ www.eebguide.eu]

ISO (2006) ISO 14040-0 Environmental management, Life cycle assessment – Part 0 Principles and framework. International Organisation for Standardisation.

--[[User:BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks|BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks]] 09:50, 15 Aug 2018 (BST)

[[Category:Sustainability]] [[Category:Construction_management]] [[Category:Construction_techniques]] [[Category:Design]] [[Category:Products_/_components]]

Circular Building Assessment

2018-08-15T08:50:25Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Created page with "== File:Circular building scenarios & scope - BAMB.PNG == == CIRCULAR BUILDING ASSESSMENT == === DEFINITION === Circular Building Assessment is an assessment approach ..."

File:Circular building scenarios & scope - BAMB.PNG

2018-08-15T08:49:57Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Circular building scenarios & scope; 1) using existing building stock – displacing new products & materials 2) optimising life cycle of the building and components – transformation capacity & life cycle co-ordination 3) Optimising future use of buil

Circular building scenarios & scope; 1) using existing building stock displacing new products & materials 2) optimising life cycle of the building and components transformation capacity & life cycle co-ordination 3) Optimising future use of building stock reuse potential. Coopyright: Gilli Hobbs - Buildings As Material Banks

Reversible Building Design

2018-08-15T08:41:25Z

BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks: Protected "Reversible Building Design" ([edit=author] (indefinite) [move=author] (indefinite))

== [[File:Reversible Building Design.PNG]]REVERSIBLE BUILDING, ~ BUILDING DESIGN ==

=== DEFINITION ===

Reversible Building is the design and construction strategy that has the ambition to realise buildings whose parts follow material loops and facilitate building alterations and support changing user needs.

Emphasising the ability of buildings and their components to return to an earlier state, this strategy strives for high resource productivity

It includes a spatial dimension, in which the building can be efficiently refurbished, as well as a technical dimension, wherein the building’s components can be disassembled and used again or deconstructed and recycled or biodegraded.

=== GUIDELINES ===

To bring the strategy ‘Reversible Building Design’ into practice, various principles, guidelines and techniques have already been proposed. Examples include, the generality of spaces, the adaptability and upgradability of assemblies, the durability and compatibility of building parts and the reversibility of their connections.

Moreover, as many of these design principles facilitate building transformations to changes in needs and requirements, Reversible Building is a synonym for design strategies such as Design for Change. However, whereas Reversible Building Design emphasises the establishment of material loops, Design for Change generally aspires to effective and efficient building transformations.

In BAMB, a Design Protocol for dynamic & circular building will be developed in order to enable different stakeholders in the construction value chain to implement Reversible Design strategies and approaches in construction and refurbishing activities. (For more information visit [https://www.bamb2020.eu/topics/reversible-building-design/ https://www.bamb2020.eu/topics/reversible-building-design/])

=== RELATED TERMS ===

Disassemble, Design for Disassembly: the act of removing components from an assembly resulting in pure material flows, facilitating their recycling or biodegradation. Design for Deconstruction is the design and construction strategy that enables the partial or total deconstruction of a building.

Deconstruct, Design for Deconstruction: the act of removing components from an assembly without damage, enabling their reuse. Design for Disassembly is the design and construction strategy that enables the partial or total disassembly of a building.

Design for Change: the design strategy based on the principle that our needs and requirements for the built environment will always change; its aim is to create buildings that support change effectively and efficiently.

Generic, Generality: a building or space that supports changing needs and requirements without physical alterations and the initiation of new material flows. Generality is the degree to which a building or space is generic.

Adaptable, Adaptability: an assembly of building materials that can be altered with a minimum of material flows initiated to support changes in needs and requirements. Adaptability is the degree to which an assembly is adaptable.

Upgradable, Upgradability: an assembly of building materials of which the condition and performance can be improved efficiently. Upgradability is the degree to which an assembly is upgradable.

Compatible, Compatibility: building parts that are designed in accordance to dimensional and possibly other standards, to ensure they are interchangeable or easy to combine.

Reversible connections: connections, i.e. physical relationship between building parts, that can be undone without damaging the parts they connect, e.g. bolts, screws, or soft lime mortars.

Circular building: a building designed according to Reversible Building principles.

Circular building products, ~ parts: building products or building parts designed according to Reversible Building principles.

=== REFERENCES ===

Durmisevic E. (2006). Transformable building structures: design for disassembly as a way to introduce sustainable engineering to building design and construction (doctoral thesis). TUDelft.

Galle W. and Herthogs P. (2015). Veranderingsgericht bouwen: gemeenschappelijke taal. Mechelen: Openbare Vlaamse Afvalstoffen Maatschappij OVAM. 
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2017). Accessed March 2017 via www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

--[[User:BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks|BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks]] 09:41, 15 Aug 2018 (BST)

[[Category:Sustainability]] [[Category:Construction_management]] [[Category:Construction_techniques]] [[Category:Design]] [[Category:Products_/_components]]