Deconstruction in the Lifecycle of Constructions Manuel Guilherme Palma Leal Ceppas Catarino Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in Civil Engineering Supervisors: Professor Doctor Fernando António Baptista Branco and Coordinator Investigator Armando Narciso da Costa Manso Examination Committee Chairperson: Professor Doctor Ana Paula Patrício Teixeira Ferreira Pinto França de Santana Supervisor: Coordinator Investigator Armando Narciso da Costa Manso Members of the Committee: Professor Doctor Manuel Guilherme Caras Altas Duarte Pinheiro October 2014
Transcript
Deconstruction in the Lifecycle of Constructions
Manuel Guilherme Palma Leal Ceppas Catarino
Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in
Civil Engineering
Supervisors: Professor Doctor Fernando António Baptista Branco
and Coordinator Investigator Armando Narciso da Costa Manso
Examination Committee
Chairperson: Professor Doctor Ana Paula Patrício Teixeira Ferreira Pinto França de
Santana
Supervisor: Coordinator Investigator Armando Narciso da Costa Manso
Members of the Committee: Professor Doctor Manuel Guilherme Caras Altas Duarte
Pinheiro
October 2014
i
Acknowledgments
Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation towards my dissertation
supervisors, Prof. Fernando Branco and Eng. Armando Manso, who have been extremely supportive
during the course of this research project. I would like to thank them for his guidance, encouragement
and enthusiasm throughout the duration of the project. I am also extremely grateful for the help given
by Eng. António Cabaço from LNEC, whose contribution was decisive in defining the course of this
thesis.
I would like to thank the support provided by my family, in particular my parents and sisters, who
have supported me throughout my academic life, as well as my godfather who was always available to
give me advice. They have stood behind the decisions I have made, being a never ending source of
inspiration, strength and dedication.
I would also like to extend my gratitude towards my close friends Hugo Borges, and Mafalda
Ceyrat for the help provided through informal discussions which led me to gain new ideas and
motivation to bring this thesis to fruition.
Finally, I am grateful to my University – Instituto Superior Técnico - for giving me the challenge
and opportunity to explore my academic interests and present it in the form of this thesis.
ii
Resumo
A demolição de construções é um processo gerador de resíduos. No caso de as construções
terem o fim-de-vida determinado pelo fim da sua funcionalidade física ou económica uma grande
quantidade dos seus resíduos pode ser provavelmente valorizada, prevenindo a necessidade da sua
eliminação. A Desconstrução permite remover materiais e elementos de construção da obra
mantendo a sua integridade com o objetivo de mais tarde os reintegrar noutra construção.
Os objetivos de estudo são de compreender os motivos que levaram ao excessivo consumo de
recursos e produção de resíduos na construção; de aprender quais os hábitos e técnicas de
desconstrução que estão atualmente em prática por entidades ligadas ao sector; de identificar os
aspetos que poderiam melhorar a prática de desconstrução por parte de empresas sem acrescentar
complexidade ao modo de funcionamento das mesmas; de reduzir de forma indireta a produção de
RCD (resíduos de construção e demolição) e o consumo de matéria-prima, proporcionando uma
compreensão mais profunda sobre o conceito de desconstruir e sugerindo a sua utilização em futuras
obras; de procurar uma solução inovadora em tecnologias de informação que contribua para reduzir o
fim de vida prematuro de elementos construtivos.
Os dois grandes obstáculos que a Desconstrução enfrenta são a inexistência de legislação que
promova a sua prática de forma independente da reciclagem, e o risco envolvido em não encontrar
um destino para os materiais que foram desconstruídos e que representaram um acréscimo de custos
de demolição numa outra obra.
Palavras-chave: Desconstrução, Gestão de RCD; Sustentabilidade; Avaliação de Ciclo de Vida;
Gestão de Demolições.
iii
Abstract
A significant amount of waste is generated by the demolition of constructions. Some of the waste
generated by buildings that have had their end of life determined by the end of their functionality may
probably still have value, and its disposal might be prevented. Deconstruction is the process of
removing the waste in the form of construction materials or elements maintaining its integrity in order
to reintegrate in another construction work.
The objectives of this study are to understand the reasons that lead to the excessive consume of
resources and high levels of waste production in construction; to learn what deconstruction habits and
techniques are currently applied by entities linked to the construction sector; to identify aspects in
which deconstruction could be better practiced without adding significant complexity in the mode of
operation of a deconstruction related company; to indirectly reduce the production of construction
waste and the consumption of virgin raw material by giving a deeper understanding of the concept and
process of deconstructing and suggesting it as a solution for forthcoming construction or demolition
works; and to seek a unique information technology solution that can contribute to reducing the
premature end of life of building elements and materials.
The two main obstacles that Deconstruction is facing are the lack of legislation promoting its
practice separately from recycling, and the risk involved in not finding a suitable receiver for the
deconstructed materials that brought up the costs of demolition.
Resumo ............................................................................................................................................. ii
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ iii
Contents ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Definitions ........................................................................................................................................ vii
Acronyms and Abbreviations.......................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................x
Appendixes ........................................................................................................................................ I
A - Prices charged for incoming materials at TRIANOVO recycling plant .................................. II
B - Sector 17 of the European List of Wastes, regarding C&DW.. ............................................ III
C - Lifecycle Assessment Software and Databases ................................................................... V
D - Average embodied energy in construction materials ........................................................... VI
E - Savaged materials from the Vancouver Materials Testing Lab ........................................... VII
F - Detailed cost report for TriPOD’s Shell and Structure ........................................................ VIII
G - Detailed cost report for TriPOD’s Systems .......................................................................... IX
H - Detailed cost report for TriPOD’s finish materials ................................................................. X
I - Mass, embodied energy, and specific embodied energy of the materials that
composed the Macau Pavilion at Expo 98 ............................................................................ XI
J - Template of the email that was sent to 72 different portuguese construction
industry and deconstruction related companies. ................................................................. XII
vii
Definitions
Construction materials
Material, or supply consumed or used in a construction project and incorporated in the constructed building.
Construction elements
Aggregation of construction materials, that when grouped together form the construction.
Construction waste
recycling
Separation and recycling of recoverable waste materials generated during construction and remodeling.
Upcycling Process of converting waste materials or useless products into new materials or products of better quality or for better environmental value.
Downcycling Process of converting waste materials or useless products into new materials or products of lesser quality and reduced functionality.
Bioclimatic design
Design of buildings and spaces based on local climate with the intent of providing thermal and visual comfort and making use of solar energy and other environmental sources.
Refurbishing Service of renovating or reconditioning of older or damaged materials to bring
them to a workable or better looking condition.
viii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
C&DW
Construction and Demolition Waste
LCA
Lifecycle Assessment
MSW
Municipal Solid Waste
DfD
Design for Deconstruction
BREEAM
Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method
EU
European Union
EC
European Commission
CIB
Conseil International du Bâtiment
USA
United States of America
SB Tool
Green Building Tool
ISO
International Standard Organization
LEED
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LNEC
Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil
OCDE
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
ix
List of Tables
Table 1 - Composition of C&DW as percentage by weight ..................................................................... 8
Table 2 - Hazardous C&DW in the European List of Wastes ................................................................ 10
Table 3 - Average embodied energy in construction materials ............................................................. 20
Table 4 -Energy consumption in transport ............................................................................................ 20
Table 5 - Lifecycle Assessment Software and Databases .................................................................... 22
Table 6 - Green building certification systems, their origin and the entities who promoted their
Figure 10 - Composition of pictures from the decommission and deconstruction of a barracks
building in Fort Ord.............................................................................................................. 34
Figure 11 - Construction timeline for the Vancouver Materials Testing Lab. ........................................ 35
Figure 12 - "Mallforms" temporary walls for offices and temporary barricades for shopping centers ... 36
Figure 13 - "ENVY Modular Wall Systems” creating a temporary partition and its patented award
winning hinge schematics ................................................................................................... 36
Figure 14 - The Pavilion of Macau in use during Expo 98 and it’s deconstruction process .................. 37
Figure 15 - Rebuilding of the Pavilion of Macau.................................................................................... 37
Figure 16 - Kaisersaal in Berlin’s Sony Center, before translocation .................................................... 38
Figure 17 - Scheme for the translocation of Kaisersaal, Berlin ............................................................. 39
Figure 18 - Translocation of Kaisersaal, Berlin ..................................................................................... 39
Figure 19 - Deconstructed railway sleepers used as structural elements for a balcony in a private
house in Beirã viewed from above and below. ................................................................... 40
Figure 20 - Don Justo’s Cathedral ......................................................................................................... 41
Figure 21 - Infinisky’s constructions: on the left the El Tiemblo house and on the right the Manifesto
house .................................................................................................................................. 41
Figure 22 - Slum in the city of Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam ........................................................................... 42
Figure 23 - TriPOD Plug and Play Housing System ............................................................................. 48
xi
Figure 24 - Mobile Lead Based Paint Removal System ........................................................................ 50
Figure 25 - Nail Kicker tool .................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 26 - Links between the entities involved in Deconstruction ....................................................... 58
Figure 27 - Diagram of the connections between the Decontruction supporting platform's clients and
the platform itself ................................................................................................................. 59
Figure 28 - Construction material/element publishing form ................................................................... 61
1
1. Introduction
1.1. Overview
All over the world mankind is evolving. Tradition links us to our past, without it we would lose our
identity. But some traditions can’t be kept. They come from a time where humanity didn’t have to worry
about the problems of today, and to be unable to abandon these traditions may be our sentence.
Ravaging economic growth isn’t anymore the key to evolution, but to grow in a sustainable way,
investing in the future generations and having into consideration the legacy that will be left for them.
The moment of change is known to be most likely to happen while facing the blade of the sword.
Humanity has had its share of warnings, and Earth can’t sustain its burden forever. In the same way
that in a student’s life there is a moment when he completes his degree and starts a self-sustainable
living, humanity too must learn to stop depending on an allowance.
Sustainability is now an objective, and a rather complex one to accomplish. There isn’t a sole road
to achieving sustainability, but hundreds of trails instead, and deconstruction is one of these trails. So
far it’s still a small one, but it has the potential to be traveled by everyone.
1.2. Scope
The motivation to research Deconstruction emerged during the production of a scholar group work
for the course Construction Technology in Engineering Works, coordinated by the supervisor of this
thesis. Throughout discussions with colleagues grew the perception that Deconstruction is
understudied, underdeveloped but should not be underrated. Deconstruction lacked solid studies and
was not yet fully adapted to the new technologies, especially information technology. This also led to
the discovery of a “niche” on the lack of information technology in the used construction materials
market. The author and both supervisors decided to rise up to the challenge and moved forward into
doing a study on the Deconstruction in the Lifecycle of Buildings.
No construction work is eternal, when a building reaches a certain stage of its life it has to face
obsolescence. In the same way that the bearing capacity of a chain corresponds to the capacity of its
weakest link, the life of a building also corresponds to the durability of its first element to have reached
its lifecycle end (Lobato dos Santos, 2010). This can happen due many different reasons, such as
inadaptability to new technologies, unintegrated architectural design, end of motive for existence, or
even the need for an amount of repairs so expensive that it’s deemed not worth prolonging its
existence. Depending on the circumstance, there is a choice to be made in which approach should be
taken for the obsolete construction. The choice dwells between repairing, demolishing or abandoning
the construction.
The demolition of a building is traditionally a waste generating process. The generated waste can
be taken care of with different levels of concern. A conventional demolition seeks only to remove the
2
construction materials from the worksite, and with that sole intent, the easiest way to remove it is the
destruction of its elements without concern for the characteristics of each.
In the case of seeking a selective approach regarding the type of materials to demolish (selective
demolition) there is the possibility to separate waste by material composition, so that materials with
different characteristics can have different destinations, including recycling or deposit. But it can often
be found that not all elements of a construction in demolition phase have reached the end of their
useful life. Some may be in excellent condition, and destroying them would be a loss. Buildings that
have been subject of recent partial rehabilitation are an example of a good source of construction
elements that may have a significant amount of material whose lifetime is far from expiry.
The process of deconstruction is defined as the careful removal of these materials with the intent
to re-integrate them into a new construction or rehabilitation work. Through this process it’s possible to
give construction elements an effective service life again closer to its maximum service life, while
simultaneously reducing the production of demolition waste, the extraction of virgin raw materials and
reducing the energy costs that result from their transformation.
Deconstruction can also be viewed as a concept that includes not only the activity of
deconstruction, but also the industry of Deconstruction and its inherent activities like designing for
deconstruction, the refurbishment of deconstructed materials and deconstruction materials
management.
Deconstruction can take part along the lifecycle of a construction from its grave to its cradle.
Before its building process, a construction can be designed taking into account its future
deconstructability. During its construction phase and repairs a construction can incorporate used
constructed materials that originated from deconstruction processes, and in its lifecycle end a
construction can be dismantled into components/materials, henceforth as above cited, deconstructed.
1.3. Aims
This dissertation aims at five different targets:
The first is to study and understand the reasons that lead to the well-known issue of excessive
consume of resources and high levels of waste production in construction that mankind is facing;
With the study involved in making this thesis, the second aim is to seek to learn what
deconstruction habits and techniques are currently applied by entities linked to the construction sector;
In its learning journey the third aim points at identifying aspects in which deconstruction could be
better practiced without adding significant complexity in the mode of operation of an enterprise related
to Deconstruction;
A fourth aim defined for this thesis is to indirectly reduce the production of waste and the
consumption of virgin raw material by giving its reader a deeper understanding of the concept and
3
process of deconstructing, and suggesting it as a solution for forthcoming construction or demolition
works;
The last and most ambitious aim is to seek a unique information technology solution that can
contribute to solving the issue of premature end of life of building elements;
1.4. Methodology
In order to know in detail the current situation of Deconstruction and what it involves the defined
research methodology is set to rely on two pillars:
A literature research of the state of art on the subjects of Deconstruction and Sustainability based
on published articles, conference reports, reports, books, internet sites and contact through email and
phone calls with field experts.
Beyond the search that is set to focus in published information, the methodology relies also on
attempting to consult the portuguese Construction industry and Deconstruction related companies in
order to gather their testimony on what have been their Deconstruction related practices. A total of
seventy-two emails were sent to entities from the above mentioned groups while in phase of literature
review of this thesis. The template for the email can be consulted on Appendix J. For the strategy
defined for this methodology to have an effect, at least 10 successful interviews need to be conducted.
1.5. Structure
The final object of this thesis is Deconstruction and the various ways in which it relates to
constructions along their Lifecycle. But to directly approach Deconstruction without relating to its
surrounding environment would seem unnatural. For the given reason, after the introductory chapter of
this document, this thesis addresses Sustainability. Due to the identified lack of information technology
in the field of Deconstruction, after studying it in a dedicated chapter, this thesis changes its focus to
creating a conceptual solution.
In the introductory chapter the reader is briefed with the authors overviewing concerns about the
non-changing mindset of humanity. The ambit in which he became in contact with the concept of
Deconstruction and simultaneously found interest in it is explained right after, which leads the reader
to this sub-chapter. The object of the study explains the structure of the dissertation; it is the thread of
thought that links this document together. On this sequence, there is a framing of how Deconstruction
is related to constructions, its connections to Demolition and to Recycling. The three ways to use the
term Deconstruction are explained. Following, the aims of this study are stated and its methodology is
explained. Some previous notes are given and a bibliographic review is made before entering the
beginning of the study.
The body of this thesis is Sustainability in Construction, and its explored core is Deconstruction.
The third chapter surveys this body by defining its main problem CD&W, assessing its legal framework
and what milestones are set to resolve it. Various aspects of Sustainability in Construction are
4
analyzed such as Eco-efficiency, Embodied Energy, Lifecycle Assessment and Green Building
Certification.
The core is explored on the following chapter. The term Deconstruction is further explained and
Deconstruction’s historical development is framed. The current situation of Deconstruction is made in
an international review, and some practical recent cases are shown while using an author created
distinction for Deconstruction related practices. Various aspects linked to the practice of
Deconstruction’s activities are discussed, such as its principles, the variables for its choice, the design
for deconstruction, specific equipment and legal support.
Having a body and core, the last chapter before conclusions can be viewed as a member. The
perception that there was a lack of information technology applied to the Deconstruction industry gave
the author the idea to conceptualize a platform to support Deconstruction. This chapter consists in the
mentioned conceptualization.
1.6. Previous notes
The term Deconstruction isn’t solely reserved to the meaning of which this thesis document uses
it mostly. It was used by French philosopher Jacques Derrida in on 1967 in his work Of
Grammatology, defining Deconstruction as a way of criticizing not only both literary and philosophical
texts but also political institutions through which it was intended to be impossible to demonstrate a
strict interpretation of texts (the conflict between the various possible meanings of the same word).
While conducting investigation on Deconstruction other meanings can be found for the term
Deconstruction, even if searching for both terms “deconstruction” and “constructions” at the same
time, the results may be different from the expected. A common example is to stumble upon results of
the works by Christopher S. Butler and Javier Martín Arista, Deconstructing Constructions, which
refers to Construction Grammar approaches and the roles these constructions play in the frameworks
which can be located within a multidimensional functional-cognitive space.
5
2. Sustainability in Construction
The term sustainability can be obtained by agglutination of the terms ability and sustainable.
Sustainability can therefore be considered as the ability to be sustainable. While the term ability is self-
explanatory, the term sustainable refers to the ability to survive without consuming more resources
than those which are produced. Something sustainable is something that can survive without
exhausting the provision of resources from the environment where it gathers them added to the
resources it produces on its own. Opposed to the term sustainable, something unsustainable is
something that in given time will deplete its source.
In construction, however, there is no creation of resources. The Construction industry is an
industry of resource consumption and transformation. Construction by itself will not reset the
resources consumed. The Construction industry can only be considered sustainable when analyzed in
conjunction with its constructions lifecycle. To fully assess sustainability in construction, it is necessary
to evaluate the amount of resources saved from raw natural extraction or production of waste over the
life of the construction works, the Lifecycle Assessment. Therefore, the role of sustainability in
construction is a global role, evaluating not just the consumption of resources during the act of building
or demolishing, but also the environmental impacts of the given construction along its lifetime.
2.1. Initial considerations
Europe has enjoyed many decades of growth in wealth and wellbeing, based on intensive use of
resources. But today it faces the dual challenge of stimulating the growth needed to provide jobs and
well-being to its citizens, and of ensuring that the quality of this growth leads to a sustainable future
(European Commission, 2011).
The growing consumption of raw materials observed in recent decades has generated resource
scarcity. Although there has also been an increase in the concern to reduce resource consumption
(Global Reporting Initiative, 2010/11), the consumption rate remains well above the replacement rate
by nature. According to (FootprintNetwork, 2014), the planet is currently consuming one and a half
times the amount of resources that can replenish. The forecast for 2050, if the estimated consumption
rate growth is kept, is that this planet is to consume close to triple the capacity of its renewal. (Julian
M. Allwood, 2010). This scarcity of resources not only can be scientifically analyzed via consultation of
documentation but is also empirically visible by the increasing price of raw material, which makes
sense due to reduced supply.
6
Figure 1 - Current and estimated population resource consumption in comparison to the world's resource regeneration (source: (FootprintNetwork, 2014)).
Increased production of waste comes as a direct consequence of the increase in raw material
consumption. The existing ecological deficit is coming closer to exhaust the productive capacity of
nature, and its absorptive capacity of residues. Due to the community concerns regarding
environmental impacts in developed areas, it is now more complicated to create new landfills. On the
other side, location of landfills in remote locations increases transportation costs and energy use.
The increase of resource consumption and waste production is very much attributable to the
construction industry. It is responsible for creating about 40 percent of the waste emissions worldwide
(Udayangani Kulatunga, 2006). According to (Torgal & Jalali, 2007), the C&DW represent one third of
the waste produced in the European space, approximately 500 Mt in the date of the study (2007). In
Portugal, about 4.4 Mt were estimated to have been produced during 2004, which could be reused
and from which 95 percent went to landfill.
7
Figure 2 -Current resource consumption in Portugal (source: ( (FootprintNetwork, 2014)).
The population growth, economic growth and increasing purchasing power are aspects that are
directly involved in the increase of waste and resource consumption, and are indirectly leading
civilization to a scenario of unsustainability. To counteract this trend, this dissertation studies an
efficient way to handle waste from construction and demolition, reducing the typically high energy
costs of recycling processes.
2.2. Definition and characterization of C&DW
Different definitions are applied throughout the EU, which makes cross-country comparisons
cumbersome. In some countries even materials from land levelling are regarded as construction and
demolition waste (European Comission, 2014). The main difference between these definitions
concerns the intended destination of a material; the intended destination of a material is the decisive
factor in the OECD definition (Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques,
1998).
In Portuguese legislation, according to Decree-Law No. 178/2006, of September 5th, waste is "any
substance or object which the holder intends to discard or is required to do so, particularly those
identified in the European List of Waste".
According to the European List of Waste, which was transposed into Portuguese law the March 3,
2004 under the decree 209/2004, the C&DW are composed of:
• Concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramic material;
• Wood, glass and plastic;
• Bituminous mixtures, coal tar and some tar products;
• Metals (including their alloys);
• Soil (including excavated from contaminated sites), gravel and dredging sludge;
• Isolation materials;
• Construction and demolition waste mixtures;
8
A study made from the enquiry of construction industry companies on the northern coast side of
Portugal (L. Pereira, 2002) gathered information on the amounts of waste produced by each company.
One of the verified conclusions of this study was that most of the enquired companies didn’t have or
didn’t provide information, having received only 8.8 percent of answers for the enquiry, which only half
included quantified information.
Table 1 - Composition of C&DW as percentage by weight (source: (L. Pereira, 2002)).
Waste Composition % by weight
Concrete, masonry and mortar 35
Wood 5
Paper and carton 1
Glass 0,5
Plastics 1
Metals (including steel) 5
Excavation soils and gravel from the restoration of pavements 40
Asphalt 6
Dredging and drilling sludge 5
Other waste 1,5
The heaviest slice of the C&DW comes from soils, which are mostly generated from site
preparation and excavation works. Solis are generated in significant amounts and unless they can be
reused on the worksite they were dug from they’re destined to landfill.
The second heaviest slice corresponds to inert materials where concrete is included. Concrete is
known as the most widely produced construction material (J. Selih, 2007), being present in large scale
constructions e.g. dams, skyscrapers, bridges, and being very popular in big cities who are nowadays
given the nickname of “concrete jungles”. Most of the portuguese buildings that were built before the
concrete era had a masonry/wood structure, which make their demolition provide a great amount of
waste in this segment and also in the wood segment. Mortars usually come in mixed with bricks,
concrete or wood, they are mostly used as isolation and finishing materials, and so they are not easily
detached from their support.
These aggregate wastes can be composed of different mixtures, in a conference report by (J. de
Brito, 2007), evidence is provided to conclude that a clean mixed aggregate can be charged as much
as 30 times less to recycle than a contaminated mixture containing any kind of low density non-
9
hazardous contaminants. Appendix A provides the information on the fees of recycling C&DW charged
by a recycling company called Trianovo.
Asphalt waste originates essentially from the demolishing or rehabilitation of pavements. New
pavements can include all sorts of recycled materials besides asphalt, from inert construction debris to
steel slags (Marques, 2009). Due to its impermeability it can also be found on ceilings or retaining
walls.
As stated above, in Portugal wood waste can originate in great quantities from old buildings dated
pre 1930’s. These had structural walls, wall coatings, floors and floor structures made of wood, as well
as window frames and doors. Wood mixtures such as OSB or plywood can too be found, especially in
newer construction elements. Of the known problems about wood wastes are the fact that wood has
low resistance to biologic degradation (fungal and insect attack) (Torgal & Jalali, 2011) and that wood
elements frequently contain steel nails that weren’t correctly removed, or may have been subject to
treatments to increase durability or to make them more resistant to pests. These treatments may
include potentially environmental hazardous products such as led based paints.
Since the 1980s, the construction industry has benefited from faster construction techniques
based on steel frames (Symonds, ARGUS, 1999). Structural steel can also be found in reinforced
concrete structures, window frames and electrical equipment, generally in greater amounts on recent
construction than in old stone masonry structured constructions.
Plastic in C&DW can be found as different polymers, such as Polyethylene terephthalate (PET),
High density polyethylene (HDPE), Low / linear low density polyethylene (L/LLDPE), Poly‐vinyl
Buildings have both direct and indirect impacts on the environment. These impacts can occur
during their construction, occupancy, renovation, repurposing, and demolition. The energy spent, the
use of water and raw materials, the generated waste and potentially harmful atmospheric emissions
can be measured or estimated. These facts have brought the need to create green building standards,
certifications, and rating systems aimed at mitigating the impact of buildings on the natural
environment through sustainable design.
While building certification is an undeniable advance towards sustainability, there is a general
misuse of the expression “sustainable construction”. This term is usually applied to buildings that have
adopted some sustainable measures and are in fact “more sustainable than” they would be without
those measures. Even so, building construction is still characterized by a high ecological footprint
(Maria Emiliana Fortunã, 2012) and therefore still far from achieving the net zero ecological footprint
considered as sustainable.
Currently, the most implemented systems are the Building Research Establishment
Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), from the United Kingdom, the Leadership in Energy
and Environment (LEED), from the USA, and the French High Environmental Quality (HQE).
Table 6 - Green building certification systems, their origin and the entities who promoted their creation (source: various documents and author-made research).
Origin Designation Promoter
USA LEED US Green Building Council
USA ENERGY STAR® Green Buildings Institute
USA Green Globes US Environmental Protection Agency
USA Green Building Initiative Private investment
UK BREEAM Building Research Establishment
France HQE Scientific and Technical Centre for Buildings
Australia Green Star Green Building Council of Australia
Canada BOMA Go Green Plus Building Owners and Managers Association of Canada
Canada SB Tool Private investment
Germany Deutsches Gütesiegel Nachhaltiges Bauen
German Federal Ministry for Transport, Building and Urban Development
Japan Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency
Japan GreenBuild Council
Portugal LiderA Private investment
Worldwide, there are many other green building rating and certification systems. Some aren’t
internationally applicable, but can be of influence in the green building certification industry.
24
2.10.1. BREEAM
The BREEAM system is applicable on diverse situations, in its homepage (BREEAM, 2014)
claims to be able to assess any type of building anywhere in the world. There are BREEAM
communities that share developments and a BREEAM online portal called BREEAM Extranet, which
is used by licensed BREEAM Assessors. The BREEAM system works by giving credits to the building
when a given measure is taken. These measures have different values that depend on its contribution
to the building’s environmental impact reduction. They represent a broad range of categories and
criteria from energy to ecology, including aspects related to energy and water use, the internal
environment (health and well-being), pollution, transport, materials, waste, ecology and management
processes.
This system presents itself as a composition of instruments to be used by building contractors,
users and managers aiming to enhance the building’s environmental characteristics (Pinheiro, 2006).
The general approach of the BREEAM system is based in the following phases:
Initial assessment;
Scaling, Inventory and Purchase of Materials;
Management and Operation;
Quality Control;
BREEAM’s critics note that the credit system has flaws. They state that in a building where the
objective was to reduce the energy consumption and also meet BREEAM standards the assessor
wanted to install chilled water fountains. They argued that it would be illogical because it increases
energy consumption. Also, when incorporating reused materials in a construction (the example given
was the use of a refurbished steel frame), BREEAM is set up so that no added credits are given for
reusing a refurbished frame instead of using a new one (BDonline, 2014).
2.10.2. LEED
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design was created by the US Green Building Council,
and is an also very well-known rating system for buildings. In the same way as BREEAM, its
framework consists of several rating categories, applicable to different points in a building’s lifecycle.
Each category is inserted in a LEED rating system. LEED NC and LEED EB for example, are
applicable to New Constructions and Existing Buildings and are both inserted in the Building Design
and Construction rating system. The cost to the project can depend on the rating system, the level of
certification sought and the experience level of the team.
Currently there are five LEED rating systems that address multiple project types:
BD+C – Building Design and Construction;
ID+C – Interior Design and Construction;
O+M – Building Operations and Maintenance;
ND – Neighborhood Development;
25
HOMES – Homes;
The LEED NC category, as an example, includes a guide and a project checklist in which are
represented six general areas, being necessary to fulfill a set of pre-performance requirements, from a
total of 69 sub-items (specific areas) and some mandatory prerequisites (Pinheiro, 2006). The six
general areas presented are as follows:
Sustainable Sites;
Water efficiency
Energy & Atmosphere;
Materials and resources;
Indoor environmental quality;
Innovation;
Figure 6 - Six general areas of the LEED NC category, and their given weight (source: (Pinheiro, 2006)).
Upon scoring points in the given areas, its sum corresponds to a level of certification that scales
from a standard LEED certification through “silver, “gold” and “platinum”.
(U.S. Green Building Council, 2014) states that there seems to be a growing market acceptance
of LEED standards, and that the costs of certification are normalizing. In the USA, numerous
municipalities and government departments, including the General Services Administration, and an
increasing number of private investors and owners have instituted policies requiring LEED certification
for new construction projects.
Sustainable Sites; 20%
Water efficiency
7%
Energy & Atmosphere;
25%
Materials and resources;
19%
Indoor environmental
quality; 22%
Innovation;7%
26
Depending on the project, energy related practices will contribute approximately 20-30 percent of
all available LEED points. Recent revisions to the LEED system are further increasing the number of
mandatory energy-related points required for basic certification.
2.10.3. HQE
High Environmental Quality certification is a comprehensive, multi-criteria approach that brings
together all of the stakeholders of a project. It puts energy efficiency, respect for the environment, and
the health and comfort of occupiers first (High Environmental Quality, 2014).
HQE certification is based on three principles:
Project owners set their own objectives.
No architectural or technical solution is imposed and the project team makes its own choices
to adapt them to the situation at hand.
Project management support enables all project stakeholders to get involved and meet the
goals set.
The assessment process is based on a new method that is compatible with international
indicators such as the Sustainable Building Alliance, CEN TC 350.
HQE’s evaluating criteria are defined in the DEQE (Explicit Definition of Building Environmental
Quality) reference document for environmental characteristics; it lists 14 targets divided into 2 areas
and four families. For each operation, the building owner selects the most relevant targets, defines the
quantitative and qualitative objectives relating to the selected targets and then studies the technical
solutions.
For certification to be assessed, HQE requires that a project must be in compliance with local
regulations, if any exist (accessibility, seismic standards, etc.).
HQE’s approach relies on an environmental management operation system (SMO - Système de
Management de l'Opération) establishing the implementation of responsibilities while using the
requirements defined at the origin of the project.
The renovation of a building can be certified by HQE Rénovation. This new framework, suitable
for this type of work addresses a building in its phase of deconstruction as well the phase of
rebuilding. The HQE approach adds value to buildings with respect to customers increasing demands,
offer a new mark in sustainable development. The certification provides a guarantee on the design
and is recognized by stakeholders in the building construction industry.
27
2.11. Chapter remarks
Sustainability in Construction has a well-established set of tools; more so, the constant change in
the world’s mindset seems to be in the direction of sustainable development. The need of recognizing
a building’s sustainability and its materials Lifecycle environmental burden are now valued measures
that have become of interest to the private sector. A good local example is the portuguese buildings
sustainability certification system, LiderA.
Construction investors are still facing the paradigm between choosing to build cheaper but in a
less sustainable way or to invest more in constructions that will be adaptable to new needs while
requesting less from the environment. The present economic crisis, known previously in Portugal as
the real estate crisis, keeps pushing back the advances made by Sustainability. It is an arms duel that
will hopefully be finished when the crisis is gone.
One detected flaw that keeps Deconstruction underdeveloped is the lack of Deconstruction-
specific support in the legal system. The word Deconstruction isn’t referred in any law regarding
C&DW. Reusing C&DW is referred a few times, but always while “grouped” with recycling; meaning
that the same legal value is given for recycling waste or to reusing it. Further in this thesis a review on
legislation that indirectly supports deconstruction related activities is made on subchapter 3.10.
28
3. Deconstruction in the Lifecycle of Constructions
3.1. Initial considerations
According to Antoine Lavoisier’s law, “nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is
transformed”. In the traditional demolition method, the waste that results from the demolition works are
either transformed by a long time consuming decomposition process on a landfill or submitted to
incineration. Recycling started being used as common alternative in the 1970’s, and although having
its strengths and weaknesses, it can be considered that recycling is overall a more costly solution due
to its energy costs, and landfill a cheaper but more time demanding solution.
In the Deconstruction perspective, transformation can occur by removing an element from a
construction and inserting it as an element in another construction, without having the element
undergo decomposition. This activity of dismantling and rebuilding activity or process is named
deconstructing.
There are many published definitions of the term Deconstruction. The general definition given by
authors like (Bradley Guy, 2002) or (Lobato dos Santos, 2010) is to consider deconstruction to be “the
process of building disassembly in order to recover the maximum amount of materials for their highest
and best re-use”. Other publications like (Greer, 2005), (Macozoma, 2001) or the non-official but
largely consulted (Wikipedia, 2014) give the definition for deconstruction in a simpler manner as
“construction in reverse”. Both definitions are given to the word while expressing an activity or
process.
In Portugal, there have been recent studies related to Deconstruction, with highlighted emphasis
on the works of Prof. Armanda Couto, Prof. Saíd Jalali, and Prof. José Barroso de Aguiar from the
University of Minho, and Prof. Jorge de Brito and Architect António Lobato dos Santos from Instituto
Superior Técnico.
3.2. Application of the term Deconstruction
In Portugal, it can be assumed that the concept of Deconstruction is largely unknown both to the
general public, as well as the community of the construction sector (Armanda Bastos Couto, 2007).
Besides the general inertia to mindset change in the Construction industry sector, one of the reasons
that helps explaining this is the fact that, as stated before, the term Deconstruction has been claimed
in the past by Jacques Derrida on 1967 in his work Of Grammatology, defining Deconstruction as a
way of criticizing not only both literary and philosophical texts but also political institutions.
In resemblance of the word Construction, the term Deconstruction can be used to define the
economic sector of the “Deconstruction” of works, or the process or activity to “deconstruct”. To make
this distinction, when referring to the “Deconstruction” sector it’s often used the allocation of capital
letter on the proper name, and the lowercase letter designating the activity of “deconstructing” (Lobato
dos Santos, 2010).
29
This study of the word is susceptible to various interpretations, but it is accepted that most uses of
the word "deconstruction" can follow the same lines used on the word "construction". While the
Construction sector defines the set of activities and entities linked together to perform the physical
joining of materials that give rise to a work of construction, the sector of Deconstruction will define the
same set of activities and entities linked to deconstruction works.
There are exceptions of application, while in a given context the word “construction” may refer to a
building in order to indicate something that was the result of a process of construction, it’s indicating
some object which has physical form and is physically present. That statement cannot be made by
similar application of the term deconstruction because the process of deconstructing causes a removal
of material. The result of a work of deconstruction isn’t a sole object but a set of construction materials
or construction elements which can’t be referred to as a deconstruction. Still, the process of
undergoing a deconstruction operation can be considered as a deconstruction, in the way a worksite
in which are taking place deconstruction activities can be referred as a “deconstruction”.
3.3. History of Deconstruction
Although the earliest documented manuals of deconstruction only start appearing in the early
90’s, the concept of “Deconstruction” is estimated to be almost as old as is it brother concept
“Construction”. Ever since mankind started building, we‘ve had the need to scavenge for materials,
and old abandoned constructions have been perfect sources.
Along history there are some well-known cases of construction materials reuse. The Romans are
believed to be the first civilization to commonly reuse materials in constructions. This activity started
on 3rd century and grew from then on alongside the progressive decline of the Roman Empire (Lobato
dos Santos, 2010).
After four centuries of active use, the roman Colosseum fell into neglect, and up until the 18th
century it was used as a source of building materials. Though two-thirds of the original Colosseum
were destroyed over time, the amphitheater remains a popular tourist destination, as well as an iconic
symbol of Rome and its long, tumultuous history (History Channel, 2014). On a visit to this site, the
author of this thesis was told by the official guide tours of the Roman Colosseum that the punctured
holes visible in the below picture corresponded to anchorage points of the marble coating that once
existed. The upper part of the pillars of the first floor, as well as the corresponding arcs don’t have
holes because they weren’t coated, their ornaments were directly worked on the structural stone
blocks.
30
Figure 7 - Roman Colosseum's punctured pilars and walls. The holes were part of a original marble coating support mechanism (source: internet search).
The removal and reuse of roman construction materials was so extent that it gained its own
expression – spoila. In “Roman Arquitetural Spoila” (Kinney, 2001), the term is referred to as the name
for the ancient marble ornaments that were repeatedly encountered in secondary medieval settings.
The reuse of materials that originated from the Roman Empire was extent on the following
centuries. Rome was dismantled to build Constantinople, and the monuments of Constantine
dismantled to build those of Justinian, and so on for a millennium. The marbles were always reused
with immense care, for they could never be replaced. They represented a connection to Imperial
greatness, authority, and history that money could not buy. (Orthodox Arts Journal, 2014)
Another interesting case of antique deconstruction are the foundations of the Notre Dame
Cathedral, in which were found pieces of roman antique pillars.
Figure 8 - Constitutive elements of roman pillars used as foundations in Notre Dame's Cathedral (source: (Lobato dos Santos, 2010)).
31
For the construction of the Aachen Cathedral, in the late VIII century D.C., the emperor Carlo
Magnus ordered for the retrieval of “adequate” columns in Rome, since he considered that there was
no existence of quality construction materials in the area.
Roman marbles can be found on Islamic monuments too. Given the fact that a large proportion of
once-Roman sites in North Africa, Spain, Syria, Anatolia and the homelands of Byzantium were under
Islamic control, a quick survey of early Islamic monuments demonstrates a devotion to marble spolia
at least as profound as that in the Christian West or Byzantine East (Greenhalgh, 2005).
3.4. International overview of Deconstruction practices
In 1999 a joint work from the Powel Center for Construction and the Environment form the
University of Florida and the International Council for Research and Innovation in Building
Construction created a workgroup with the aim to analyze and produce information regarding
Deconstruction and the way to turn the reuse of construction materials as a viable alternative.
During the meeting of CIB TG39 in Garston, Watford, U.K. there were made presentations from
Australia, Germany, Israel, Japan, The Netherlands, Norway, the U.K., and the U.S regarding the
Deconstruction practices of these countries. A paper by (Kibert, Chini, & Langue, 2001) reports a
summary of these presentations which is resumed bellow.
In Australia the deconstruction of 70 to 100 year old timber houses is a common practice with
about 80 percent of the materials being recovered and reused for renovation and remodeling of
existing homes or in the construction of new, replica housing. The relocation of houses is also a
common practice, with 1000 homes being moved in the Melbourne area each year out of a total
housing stock of 800000 units. For residential structures it is estimated that between 50 and 80
percent of the materials are recovered in the demolition process. The recovery of materials from
commercial buildings is significantly lower with a total recovery rate of about 69 percent (58 percent
reuse and 11 percent recycled).
In Germany, between 1991 and 1999 several case studies on Deconstruction were conducted
and revealed an exceptionally high recovery rate, in excess of 95 percent for many structures.
German studies that investigated deconstruction methods show that optimized deconstruction
combining manual and machine dismantling can reduce the required time for a conventional
deconstruction by a factor of 2 with a recovery rate of 97percent.
In the Netherlands strict government regulations ensure that about 80 percent of C&DW materials
are reused or recycled and used in other constructions, generally in creating materials for road base.
The Dutch law states that “dumping of reusable building waste is prohibited” thus forcing even higher
rates of recovery. Efforts were done to inform architects and other actors in the construction industry
about the potential for designing buildings for deconstruction.
In Norway between 25 and 50 percent of the 978000milion tons of demolition waste is estimated
to be recycled or reused in the Oslo region.
32
According to (Tulay Esin, 2007), in Turkey, mostly in Istanbul’s outlying suburbs there are building
material collectors. The collected salvaged building materials are sold in open and semi-open
salvaged building material outlets. At these outlets, wood and PVC doors and windows, kitchen and
Table 7 - Costs and revenues for demolishing and dismantling options of the unfinished office buildings (source: (Lazarus, 2005)).
Option 1 - Demolish for scrap Option 2 -Dismantle for reuse
Demolition -15000£ Dismantling -55000£
Scrap value +35000£ Shot blasting -34000£
Net value +20000£ Haulage -6000£
Structural certification -3000£
Handling, storage and sales -30000£
Wastage scrap value +10000£
Re-sale value +150000£
Net value +32000£
The predicted timescale for Option 1 was that the worksite would be cleared in 6 weeks while in
Option 2 it would take about 10 weeks for dismantling and 5 weeks for the clearance of stocks. The
accounted risks were very low on Option 1, but on Option 2 were considered the risk of damaging
materials during dismantling and the risk of being unable to resell the materials. The embodied energy
that would be saved in Option 1 was estimated as 5928571MJ. A few more examples like reflecting
practical exercises of deconstruction are given also in (Kernan, 2002).
34
3.5.2. Deconstructions from source to destination
3.5.2.1. Barracks building in Fort Ord, California
A barracks building was to be decommissioned in Fort Ord in California. This building had a great
amount of valuable wood and didn’t have much finish materials or adhesives applied.
Figure 10 - Composition of pictures from the decommission and deconstruction of a barracks building in Fort Ord. (source: (Guy, Design for Deconstruction, 2003)).
The procedures consist of:
a) The typical Fort Ord Barracks building, before the beginning of the deconstruction works;
b) Removal of the roof to ground level where it is safer and faster to deconstruct;
c) Separation of the roof into planes;
d) Removal of sheathing from ceiling joists. Working on an elevated position for convenience;
e) Removal of joists with pry bars;
f) Removing studs from sheathing using the Drive-By method;
g) Pneumatic de-nail station using a “Nail Kicker”;
h) Reclaimed old growth lumber, denailed and planed, ready for new construction;
i) The reclaimed wood was reused for the construction of a new ceiling at the Cal State
University Visitors Center, one of the new institutions at the former Fort Ord. Unfortunately no
information could be found about the amounts of recovered materials.
35
3.5.2.2. City of Vancouver Materials Testing Lab
In the Old to New Design Guide (Kernan, 2002) various case studies verify the benefits in using
salvaged materials. The City of Vancouver Materials Testing Lab was built on the grounds of some
recently deconstructed warehouse buildings. Their primary focus was to maximize the use of salvaged
materials. Approximately three-quarters of the building's structure and fabric were constructed using
salvaged and recycled materials. The constructions duration was of 9 months and the estimated cost
savings attributed to the use of salvaged materials were of approximately $50,000, although these
savings must be offset against some increased construction management fees and labor costs. A list
of the savaged materials can be consulted in Appendix E.
Figure 11 - Construction timeline for the Vancouver Materials Testing Lab (source: (Kernan, 2002)).
3.5.2.3. Center for Construction and the Environment, Florida
According to (Greer, 2005), in 2000, the Center for Construction and the Environment at the
University of Florida, found that deconstruction reduced the costs by 37 percent when compared to the
conventional demolition of their of six deconstructed wood-frame residences.
3.5.3. Deconstruction of temporary elements
3.5.3.1. Mallforms temporary walls
A very common example of deconstruction is the use of temporary walls. These are
commercialized by many companies, each with its own design. Some are more resistant and have a
more solid “conventional” wall look, while others sacrifice aesthetics to improve adaptability and
reduce complexity of installation. (Mallforms, 2014) claims their walls start saving money for its user
on the moment of the second use.
36
Figure 12 - "Mallforms" temporary walls for offices and temporary barricades for shopping centers (source: (Mallforms, 2014)).
3.5.3.2. ENVY Modular Wall Sistems
The company (ENVY Modular Wall Sistems, 2014), who won the U.S. US Environmental
Protection Agency Honors Green Building Challenge of 2009 in the category of Professional Built
Product, uses a model of business where the clients can only rent their walls instead of buying them.
They claim that every 700 sq. ft. (approximately 65m2) of Envy MWS reduces one TON of landfill
debris from conventional temp walls that are torn down and thrown away at the end of a project. Like
Mallforms walls, ENVY walls are designed to be used indoors or outdoors in Casinos, Museums,
Expo/Conventions, Airports, Hotels and Industrial facilities.
Figure 13 - "ENVY Modular Wall Systems” creating a temporary partition and its patented award winning hinge schematics (source: ( (ENVY Modular Wall Sistems, 2014)).
37
3.5.4. Dislocation deconstructions
3.5.4.1. Pavilion of Macau, from Lisbon to Loures
A report of the deconstruction of the Pavilion of Macau is made in the doctoral thesis of (Lobato
dos Santos, 2010). The building was originally inserted in the large scale international exhibition Expo
98 and bought afterwards by the City Council of Loures with the purpose of dislocating it to Loures and
serve the objective of becoming a tea house. The building wasn’t originally intended to be
deconstructed, but its characteristics were favorable to this process due to its steel structure and the
fact that it had screwed joints.
Figure 14 - The Pavilion of Macau in use during Expo 98(on the left) and its deconstruction process (on the right) (source: (Lobato dos Santos, 2010)).
The deconstruction process was initiated by a construction company (non-familiarized with
demolitions) and took 4 months. The rebuilding process started about five months after the ending of
the deconstruction, and due to lack of conditioning and deterioration none of the deconstructed
materials besides the structure were reincorporated. The absence of sketches from the original
project, the inefficient system used to identify the deconstructed elements and the fact that some
elements were missing contributed to the elongation of the rebuilding process.
Figure 15 - Rebuilding of the Pavilion of Macau; the reused elements are painted red and the new elements are painted grey (source: (Lobato dos Santos, 2010)).
38
About only 14 percent of the 1820 tons from the original buildings weight weren’t sent to landfill
(1390 tons corresponded of reinforced concrete). From the 14 percent in weight of savaged materials
4 percent were recycled and the 10 percent left were reused. The reused materials consisted on the
steel structure (160 tons) and Viroc panels (19 tons), which are cement fiber board panels composed
of a mixture of compressed and dry pine wood particles and cement (VirocNY, 2014). The total
embodied energy saved on this process, assuming that the reincorporated materials still had a full
usage life ahead, was estimated as 2456232MJ.
This case of deconstruction should be viewed as an example of the need to make a detailed plan
previewing various possible scenarios, and that such a plan must be very carefully executed. A
detailed list containing weights, embodied energy per mass and saved embodied energy can be
consulted on Appendix D.
3.5.4.2. Kaisersaal, Berlin
Figure 16 – Kaisersaal in Berlin’s Sony Center, before translocation (source: (Berlin Bildergalerie, 2014)).
After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the Emperor’s Hall was listed as a historic monument. In
the context of the euphoric mood and the great expectations for Berlin in the early 1990s Sony, the
main investor, decided to translocate the refurbished pompous Emperor’s Hall – together with parts of
the Esplanade’s façade – into their new “Center” (Schalenberg, 2009).
This 75-metre transfer on special rails, carried out in 1996, cost the company about 75 million
Deutschmarks. The hall was separated from its foundations and lifted 2,5m with computer controlled
air cushions.
39
Figure 17 - Scheme for the translocation of Kaisersaal, Berlin (source: (Popular Mechanics, 1996)).
After the buildings lift it was set on rails and pushed onto a 75 meter journey, receiving only 1
percent ratio between horizontal and vertical thrusts. Its dimensions are 17,5x13,6x12,0(m), weighting
about 1,800 tons.
Figure 18 - Translocation of Kaisersaal, Berlin (source: (Sony, 2014)).
40
3.5.5. Constructions that include deconstructed materials
3.5.5.1. Railway sleepers from the maintenance of the railroad line Marvão-Beirã
Railroads are a type of construction that has a very low tolerance to displacements. Due to the
heavy loads that railroads support they have a special need for maintenance and require frequent
replacement of the sleepers. Old railroads such as the Marvão-Beirã line had sleepers made of high
quality oak that still had very good mechanical characteristics after they no longer in service. These
sleepers auctioned to private entities.
Figure 19 - Deconstructed railway sleepers used as structural elements for a balcony in a private house in Beirã viewed from above and below (source: taken by the author).
One of the buyers of some sleepers made a balcony by installing the sleepers on a steel structure
designed specifically for that purpose. The fact that the sleepers had sustained a full service life on the
tracks meant that they were also treated regularly with very good products.
In total, 44 sleepers with the dimensions of 2,6x0,25x0,15(m) were used in the construction of the
balcony. Using the density of 750kg/m3 a total amount of 3,22 tons of wood was estimated to be used
in this construction, corresponding to 16377MJ of embodied energy.
3.5.5.2. Don Justo’s Cathedral
A former monk and farmer Justo Gallego has been singlehandedly creating a cathedral over the
town of Mejorada del Campo, close to Madrid for the past 50 years. Modeled on St Peter's basilica in
Rome, it stands over 40 meters high, complete with cloisters, crypt and grand domes. The structure
has mostly been built from discarded materials such as broken bricks and tiles for the walls and oil
drums for the columns. Practically all building materials are scavenged or donated by local
construction teams (Atlas Obscura, 2014).
41
Figure 20 - Don Justo’s Cathedral (source: (Atlas Obscura, 2014)).
3.5.5.3. Infiniski’s constructions
Infiniski, a high concept architects firm based in Spain have created a niche in reused/recycled
stylish construction that does not compromise on aesthetics. Their designs contain about 85
percent of pre-used materials and are spreading through Europe, Asia and Latin America. There
are no limitations to the usage of used materials, the examples given below se building shipping
containers supplemented with wooden cargo pallets. The pallets in addition to being cheap and
uniquely aesthetic also have the benefit of providing a cooling effect in hot climates (Infiniski,
2014).
Figure 21 – Infinisky’s constructions: on the left the El Tiemblo house and on the right the Manifesto house (source: (Infiniski, 2014)).
42
The final products of Infinisky’s constructions are state of the art houses with bioclimatic design
concerns. The houses are graded as superior to the original purpose of their building materials, and so
this building process can be considered as an upcycling process.
3.5.5.4. Slum houses
Slums are a frequently seen example of the incorporation of used materials as an alternative for
reducing costs. The usage of scavenged materials in a slum is very common. Although the houses are
considered of low quality, this characteristic is attributed not only to inferior materials but also to poor
design, low finish details and unqualified labor.
Figure 22 – Slum in the city of Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam (source: (Long, 2014)).
The above image shows the very probable use of scavenged metal sheets, wood panels and
even car tires as construction materials. The fact that the metal sheets contain different amounts of
corrosion from each other and very different shapes and sizes reveals that they have different ages
and were probably collected from different sources. This example illustrates that Deconstruction is
present in society’s various levels of income, and can be resorted to as a luxury (Infiniski’s
constructions) or in this case, as a need.
43
3.6. Principles for an optimized deconstruction process
Deconstruction as a process is practiced in a construction before its final demolition and can be
optimized if done taking into account some guidelines provided by field experts. For a building’s
deconstruction operations to achieve maximum performance, there are some key principles that were
synthetized and adapted from the bibliographic review of (Morgan & Stevenson, 2005), (Mark D.
Webster D. T., 2005), and (Bradley Guy, 2002).
Timeline definition
Time is usually a very important factor for building disassembly; make a detailed complete
plan for deconstruction;
Plan ahead for possible non-favorable scenarios;
Resource planning
Resource efficiency is an ecological issue; the rates of use of any material must be
sustainable and aim to maintain diversity in design and supply;
Get to know the deconstruction site; nothing can replace intimate “local knowledge” in relation
to designing for a particular place.
Approaching strategy
Avoid monocultural deconstruction solutions for different sites; each site is unique in terms of
climate and resources;
Be adaptable; if an element doesn’t seem to dismount right don’t try to force it, take a moment
to analyze the element and adapt to the situation;
Apply the concept of “last in first off” (LOFO); a general rule is to dismantle in the opposite
order as the order in which the construction took place;
Always, use of personal protection equipment (PPE);
Use the same tool logic; have preference on using tools that work in the same way as the
original construction tools as possible;
Transportation planning
Avoid excessive transportation of materials;
Labor planning
Try to include laborers who are familiar in deconstructing buildings;
44
Economic benefits
Assess the costs and revenues of dismantling and selling the materials and offset them
against the costs demolishing and disposal of the waste as well as the transportation costs in
both cases.
Check if there are any legal advantages or tax benefits; tax benefits may exist depending on
each city’s regulations.
3.7. Variables when choosing Deconstruction
3.7.1. Choosing Deconstruction on constructions
Using deconstructed materials may or may not be a viable option. When facing the choice
between using new construction materials or old reused materials there are various aspects that
should be taken into consideration:
Distance from the new materials supplier vs. deconstruction materials supplying site;
Quality of the used materials and remaining usage life;
Incremented complexity in incorporating used materials vs. conventional complexity of using
new materials;
Tax benefits of using deconstructed materials;
Environmental gain;
In Potential for Reducing the Environmental Impact of Construction Materials (Lazarus, 2005),
depending of the material and its embodied energy, the author states that there is a maximum
distance worth moving for a reclaimed material before the environmental advantage is lost.
Table 8 - Maximum distance worth moving for a reclaimed material before the environmental advantage is lost (source: (Lazarus, 2005)).
Material Distance (km)
Tiles 150
Slate 450
Bricks 375
Aggregates 225
Timber 1500
Steel products 3750
Aluminum products 11250
45
In (Mark D. Webster D. T., 2005), to identify buildings that are easy to disassemble and yield
salvageable characteristics it is important to search for:
Transparency - building systems that are visible and easy to identify;
Regularity - building systems and materials that are similar throughout the building and laid
out in regular, repeating patterns;
Simplicity - building systems and interconnections that are simple to understand, with a limited
number of different material types and component sizes;
Limited number of components - it is easier to dismantle structures that are composed of a
smaller number of larger members than a larger number of smaller members. Larger
members tend to resist damage more easily during the deconstruction process and can be
removed more quickly from the structure.
Easily separable materials - materials should be easily separable into reusable components.
Mechanical fasteners are preferable to adhesives. Composite materials are a difficulty unless
the composite assembly has reuse value as an assembly.
3.7.2. Choosing Deconstruction on demolitions
The general aspects to be taken in account when facing the choice to deconstruct or
conventionally demolish a building who has achieved obsolescence are:
Distance to the landfill;
Distance to a deconstructed materials buyer;
Type of waste generated and price per ton of waste charged by the landfill
Condition of the materials that can be removed and obtainable value for deconstructed
materials;
Price of deconstruction specialized labor and conventional demolition labor;
Increased construction duration due to the deconstruction process;
Tax benefits for donation deconstructing materials to Non-profit Deconstruction companies;
According (Mark D. Webster D. T., 2005) in order to identify building types and materials that are
difficult or impossible to deconstruct or have no reuse value if deconstructed it is important to be
aware of the following signs:
Complex Buildings - Buildings where the structural and other systems are difficult to
understand or hidden are challenging to deconstruct;
Non-Standard Components - custom components may have no use in any other buildings.
Imagine trying to reuse the steel framing making up the exterior envelope of the Bilbao
Guggenheim Museum;
Composite Materials - it may not be possible to disassemble certain types of composite
constructions;
Mixed Material Grades - materials that look similar but have different properties have less
value. For example, a building framed using multiple wood species or steel grades yields a
46
potentially confusing array of materials that may not be as effectively reused as materials from
a building constructed using a single material grade;
Environmental Hazards - hazardous materials such as asbestos and lead that require special
handling and worker protection;
3.8. Design for Deconstruction
The goal for designing for deconstruction is to make disassembly an alternative the demolition the
end of the buildings useful lives. By doing so, a quantity of used materials and components is
generated that can be reused or recycled, and can therefore be integrated in the next generation of
buildings. The benefits of designing a building for deconstruction today will not be realized until the
useful lives of the buildings designed for deconstruction have expired.
It is often thought that deconstruction is something that has a part only at the end of a buildings
life. But if the building’s design was made taking into account a possible later deconstruction, you’ll
find that there were applied most of the same principles that would be applied for the design of a
building that were to be easily maintained. This is due to the fact that, for both cases, the most durable
elements would logically be the ones which would be less accessible and the least durable elements
or the ones which might need upgrades would stand upfront, such as telecommunications, electrical
and maintenance systems. A building designed for deconstruction has more potential to evolve with
time as materials, fashions, technologies, and uses change.
(Guy, Design for Deconstruction, 2003) defines design for deconstruction as “the design of
buildings to facilitate future change and the eventual dismantlement (in part or whole) for recovery of
systems, components and materials. This design process includes developing the assemblies,
components, materials, construction techniques, and information and management systems to
accomplish this goal. Again, from the bibliographic review of, (Mark D. Webster D. T., 2005), and
(Bradley Guy, 2002) some guidelines were gathered for designing for deconstruction:
Aim to minimize waste by designing elements for maximum diversity of options when reused.
Aim to minimize waste by increasing the number of times a construction element can be re-
used;
Prefabrication maybe cost effective, but don’t forget the external pollution costs associated
with transportation – aim for local prefabrication wherever possible close to the site;
Use regular building systems and materials that are similar throughout the building and laid
out in regular, repeating patterns;
Limit the number of components. It is easier to dismantle structures that are composed of a
smaller number of larger members than a larger number of smaller members. Larger
members tend to resist damage more easily during the deconstruction process and can be
removed more quickly from the structure;
Use building systems and interconnections that are simple to understand, with a limited
number of different material types and component size;
47
Materials should be easily separable into reusable components. Mechanical fasteners are
preferable to adhesives. Composite materials are a difficulty unless the composite assembly
has reuse value as an assembly;
Design taking into account the element’s designed life and reason for obsolescence;
According to (Morgan & Stevenson, 2005), a plan for deconstruction should be issued to all
parties at the outset of the contract to ensure a construction process that enables the deconstruction
plan to operate. To achieve success in deconstruction the following tasks numbered below must be
made sure that are undertaken:
1) Statement of strategy for design for deconstruction relating to the building;
Demonstrate the strategy behind the designed re-usable elements and describe best practice
to ensure they are handled in a way which preserves maximum re-usability.
2) List building elements;
Provide an inventory of all materials and components used in the project together with all full
specifications and all warranties, including details of manufacturers.
Describe the design life and/or service life of materials and components.
Identify best options for reuse, reclamation, recycling and waste to energy for all building
element.
3) Provide instructions on how to deconstruct elements;
Provide up-to-date location plans for identifying information on how to deconstruct buildings.
Where necessary add additional information to the “as built” set of drawings to demonstrate
the optimum technique for removal of specific elements.
Describe the equipment required to dismantle the building, the sequential processes involved
and the implications for health and safety as part of the CDM requirements.
Ensure that the plan advises the future demolition contractor on the best means of
categorizing, recording and storing dismantled elements.
4) Distribution of DfD Plan
Revise the plan as necessary and re-issue to all parties at the handover stage, so that there is
maximum awareness of the DfD requirements for the future, including building owner,
architects and builder.
Place copies of the revised Deconstruction Plan with the legal deeds of the building, the
Health and Safety file and the maintenance file.
A key economic benefit of design for deconstruction is the ability for a client to “future proof” their
building, both in terms of maintenance and any necessary upgrading, with minimum disruption and
cost. The wider economic benefits to society include minimizing waste costs at all levels (Morgan &
Stevenson, 2005).
Otto and Wood states that in design for disassembly the critical factors are the number of tasks,
number of tools, and the time or degree of difficulty of the tasks (Kevin Otto, 2001).
48
(Guy & Shell, Design for Deconstruction and Materials Reuse, 2003) defines the preferences on
choosing the construction materials when designing for deconstruction. Wood is considered to be a
highly preferable material in design for deconstruction since it a natural material, flexible for both reuse
and recycling, and can be easily connected using interstitial connecting devices such as bolts. Steel is
also a very interesting material for design for deconstruction due to its ability to span large distances
with a small mass of material granted by its high tensile strength, making it a structural material that
can be dismantled and transported with less effort than concrete for instance. Of the other major
materials is concrete, its greatest utility in design for deconstruction is its durability as a structural
material and its ability to be shaped exactly in the way the building designer conceives it. Being very
durable, this material can act as building envelope and accommodate lesser durable building materials
that can be replaced in an easier way due to the design specifically made for them. Concrete is also a
relatively highly recycled material but is not easy to recycle when it is contaminated by other building
components. Unless these components and sub-components have their own inherent value apart from
allowing the concrete components to be recycled, it is not cost-effective to remove them for the
purpose of recycling concrete components, unless mechanical means are used.
An interesting case of design for deconstruction is the TriPOD Plug and Play Housing System.
The TriPOD is a prototype house that introduces the “Plug and Play” concept. It consists in a series of
“pods” connected together allowing functional flexibility to the occupants as their needs change. The
pods are “plugged” into the core to receive electricity and maintain a comfortable environment. The
main core contains the mechanical equipment, the ducts and pipes and serves as a main circulation
space within the house that is capable of accepting multiple pods. The idea behind the design is to
allow the owners to easily adapt the house to their changing needs by adding or subtracting spaces
without changing the structure of the house. When no longer in need for a pod, the owner may sell it
and acquire a new pod with minimal adaption efforts.
Figure 23 - TriPOD Plug and Play Housing System (source: (Tripod Plug and Play Housing System, 2014)).
49
The structure of the TriPOD Is entirely steel made, including structural steel beams, pillars, studs,
joists and insulated metal panels. The walls, the roof and the floor and use a light gauge steel system
to support structural insulated panels. About 95 percent of the structural connections are removable
fasteners that are screwed to the steel frames. Their seams are finger joints sealed with butyl sealant
to facilitate future disassembly and reuse without damaging the panels. No insulation between the
steel studs is needed because the structural insulated panels provide all the insulation necessary.
(Tripod Plug and Play Housing System, 2014) claims that the owners of plug-and-play homes will be
able to enjoy different economic benefits, such as a 10-25 percent reduction in utilities bill. The
designers are confident that high energy efficiency design of the TriPOD will pay off at the end. A
detailed cost report for Tripod’s Shell and Structure, Systems and Finish Materials can be consulted in
the Appendixes F, G and H.
3.9. Deconstruction equipment
In a similar was to the Construction industry, the usage of adequate equipment in deconstruction
operations can lead to increased work productivity and better overall results. While it’s preferable to
use in deconstructions the same type of tools that were used in their construction, there are some
construction elements that require specific tools to undo their construction process.
Before the homologation of laws prohibiting the usage of toxic materials in construction there were
various cases of appliance of these materials, being led based paint a common case. Although the
paint is toxic, the material underneath it can be of value, but the costs of transporting the materials to
an industrial site for paint removing may not be worth the gains of the refurbished materials.
John Stephens, while funded by EPA, built a Mobile Lead Based Paint Removal System (Guy,
Design for Deconstruction, 2003), consisting of a trailer that scrapes the paint of wood planks without
allowing for the dust to contaminate the environment. Its chamber is negatively pressured, capturing
all the hazardous planer shavings. This project has undergone extensive testing and has been
certified by the California Air Resources Board.
50
Figure 24 - Mobile Lead Based Paint Removal System (source: (Guy, Design for Deconstruction, 2003)).
a) The trailer parked near the removed materials from the construction site;
b) Led paint covered planks slide into the planer on one side of the trailer;
c) Clean old growth wood planks slide out of the other side of the truck;
Another interesting tool for deconstructing is the Nail Kicker (Nail Kicker, 2014). This tool consists
of a pneumatic piston mechanism inside a gun shaped handle that hammers nails from the pinpointed
end or the head. (Nail Kicker, 2014) claims that its tool can drive the head of nails through material up
to ¾ of an inch thick (approximately 1,91cm), and that the increased work productivity can lead to
achieving the payback of the investment in less the 40 work hours.
Figure 25 - Nail Kicker tool (source: (Toolmonger, 2014)).
51
3.10. Legislation that supports Deconstruction
In the development of this thesis there was a search made on the legal framework of C&DW.
Although no international laws were found directly obliging the reuse or deconstruction of construction
materials there are some national or local regulations that have empowered the deconstruction
practice. There was a time limitation in this effort due to a difficulty to contact area specialists from the
various local urban departments of the different Town Halls, as well as a linguistic limitation since most
non-international laws are written in its national language.
In the city of Lisbon, the city’s Municipal Master Plan RPDML (in portuguese: Regulamento do
Plano Diretor Municipal de Lisboa) states on the 29th article that “In situations of partial demolition or
total demolition and reconstruction, when considering that there are decorative elements in the
building’s facade or interior which must be preserved, such as masonry, doors, metalwork, tiles and
other decorative elements, a reinstatement project should be made by the entity with the given
competence”. The author tried to contact Lisbon Town Hall’s urban department by phone call in order
to gather more information, but was consecutively left waiting on line for the call to be transferred to
another person that never got to pick up the phone.
In the United States, the Deconstruction industry is currently supported by a law which has no
direct linkage to the practice of deconstruction. Under section 170 of the US Internal Revenue Code,
private individuals, corporations, and unions can to deduct from their IRS a portion of the amount
corresponding to the value of their donations. In order claim the charitable contribution deduction there
are certain criteria that must be met (About Money, 2014):
Donations must be made in the form of cash or property (a pledge or promise to donate is not
deductible until it’s actually paid);
Donations can only be made to a qualified tax-exempt organization;
The donator must be able to itemize (giving to charity is a great tax planning strategy, but it
only works for people who are eligible to itemize their deductions)
The donator must meet record keeping requirements (this includes saving canceled checks,
acknowledgment letters from the charity, and appraisals for donated property)
Tax exempt organizations are need to be recognized under the section 501(c)(3) of the US
Internal Revenue Code. The Deconstruction non-profit companies benefit from this code by issuing
tax-deductible receipts in exchange for donations of used construction materials and furniture. In the
website of a Deconstruction company (The ReBuilding Center, 2014) it is claimed that they will give a
tax-deductible receipt and documentation for all materials salvaged and donated.
In the Netherlands the Dutch Government there is a law passed on the first of April 1997 which
briefly states that “the dumping of reusable building waste is prohibited” (Bart J.H. te Dorsthorst,
2000).This law promotes the use of alternatives to landfill which supports Deconstruction.
52
3.11. Chapter remarks
Deconstruction as a process has its perks, especially when compared with its alternatives like
conventional demolition or recycling. For the practice of deconstruction to be a reality companies have
to choose its methods when facing demolition or construction works.
The state of the art regarding Deconstruction is somewhat confuse in its definitions. Also, the fact
that there are various distinct ways to practice deconstruction activities makes it somewhat confuse for
a non-field person. It can be considered a deconstruction practice to remove small dimension
materials from a building such as roof tiles, or it can also be considered a deconstruction practice to
remove an entire partitioned division. Laics are often found confused, giving less credit to
deconstruction than the credit it deserves. In order to have a well-established differentiation between
deconstruction operations in this thesis the operations are referred with specific given terms.
Although the practice of deconstruction isn’t considered as common there is a significant amount
of documented case studies. The risk of not finding a buyer for the deconstructed materials or a
suitable construction to fit them in and the additional costs that may appear due to those accidents
seems to be the capital reason that drives the industry away from investing on Deconstruction. A safer
conventional choice is always available, and the involved entities don’t seem to be adventurous. This
conclusion is also supported by the fact that none of the 72 sent emails was replied with an answer
revealing willingness to contribute with an interview. The industry’s belief in change is so small that the
smallest efforts are considered as a waste of time.
While most available papers sustain the need for development of Deconstruction in a more
commercial way, basing on its strengths and opportunities, this thesis approaches Deconstruction’s
weaknesses and threats too. To conclude this chapter, a SWOT analysis is made on the practice of
Deconstruction’s activities.
53
3.11.1. SWOT analysis
3.11.1.1. Strengths
Increased diversion rate of demolition waste from landfills when compared to conventional
demolition;
Potential reuse of building components;
Enhanced environmental protection, both locally and globally;
Preservation of architecture with genuine old materials, while adapting new construction
techniques, obtaining higher efficiency;
Reduction of the volume of C&DW produced and sent to landfill;
Maximum ambient and resources rentabilisation (exploiting materials until its limit);
Reduction of resource extraction;
Reduction of energy consumption associated to the production of new materials;
If there is no destination found for a given deconstructed element, it can always be recycled;
It’s a good tool for training workers in construction trades;
3.11.1.2. Weaknesses
The quantification and evaluation of a deconstruction process is complex and not always
comparable to conventional methods;
Most of the existing buildings have not been designed for dismantling;
Most of the building components have not been designed for disassembly;
Tools for deconstructing existing buildings often do not exist in worksites;
Disposal costs for demolition waste are frequently low;
Dismantling of buildings requires additional time and planning;
Re-certification of used components is not often possible;
Building codes often do not address the reuse of building components;
The economic and environmental benefits are not well-established, and lack incentive;
Labor costs are usually high;
Lack of established supply-demand chains;
Requires an infrastructure of skilled contractors and laborers who are familiar in
deconstructing buildings;
There is a risk of not finding a buyer or not having a suitable construction for the
deconstructed elements, which results in additional unnecessary cost;
54
3.11.1.3. Opportunities
The global economy is in need of new cost-saving solutions;
There is a general growing effort to promote sustainability (Global Reporting Initiative,
2010/11);
There are plenty of used construction material stores;
New technologies that provide better communication between entities (platforms) may be
developed in a recent future;
The milestones set to achieve a minimum target of 70 percent (by weight) for preparation for
re-use, recycling and other material recovery of C&DW by 2020 is very demanding, and will
oblige Demolition industry entities to resort to every possible option;
The fact that deconstruction requires a lot of manual labor can absorb the excess of labor from
low peaks of the construction industry;
3.11.1.4. Threats
The Demolition and Construction industries may never react to Deconstruction, and ignore it;
Labor costs may rise beyond the point where deconstructing no longer remains an
economically feasible option;
New technological advances may produce cheaper building materials that could compete with
Deconstruction;
Opens the possibility to the arise of low cost construction companies, that will use
Deconstruction to gain profits, sacrificing quality and giving Deconstruction a negative image;
The Construction investors in may not realize the full economic benefits of designing for
deconstruction;
The stock flow and quality of used building materials may be unpredictable;
55
4. Deconstruction Supporting Platform
4.1. Initial considerations
One of the greatest barriers to the development of the Deconstruction industry is the lack of
linkage between demolition works and construction works. There are companies that receive
deconstructed materials and refurbish them into buildable conditions, but there isn’t a very well-
established connection between these used materials suppliers and the building contractors or design
engineers.
Due to the fact that deconstruction operations aren’t very common overall, the income of materials
to the used materials suppliers is proportionally small. The quality of the used materials may also be
unpredictable. In comparison to the constant flow of stock and quality standards that the construction
materials industry can provide it’s natural that the construction companies might prefer new materials
suppliers.
In order to design for deconstruction, the design engineers need to know which materials are
available. Most of the used material stores don’t have or keep an updated online database. Even if the
inventory was kept online and up to date, a building designer or contractor would need to consult the
inventory of numerous used materials suppliers for each building they were to work on, which would
take a significant amount of time.
Deconstructions from source to destination have the reduced effort of not needing to consult used
materials suppliers. But on the other hand, this type of deconstructions would have an added
aggravation from the fact that the built patrimony is heterogeneous and its buildings designs are
complex and weren’t thought for deconstruction. These characteristics make it difficult to find a good
match between a deconstructed materials source worksite and construction that can receive those
materials.
The data involved in the Deconstruction industry is complex, and the system isn’t reacting in an
effective way. Intending to fill this need, this thesis responds by studying the conceptual creation of a
Deconstruction supporting platform.
56
4.2. Aims
The conceptualization of the Deconstruction supporting platform was intended ever since the
beginning of the works involved in the creation of this thesis. Its aim is inspire other entities to develop
it into implementation. Due to the character of this thesis and the authors knowledge not being
extended into the areas of computer science or arts, the conceptualization of the Deconstruction
supporting platform isn’t intended to reach the realms of programming or graphic design. If done so
the projected aims for the resulting platform are:
Making it accessible to all Deconstruction markets
Revolutionize the Deconstruction markets; in the way that beepers evolved into cellphones or
letters into emails, the Deconstruction markets will have a much more efficient tool to
communicate;
Help expand the Deconstruction industry; the increased business and will generate an
increased dedication in investigation in this area, which will generate new developments,
increasing business and so on;
Spread out the mentality of reusing materials, giving the example that in the same way
construction waste can be explored to its highest utility many other wastes can be reused too;
4.3. Analysis of the current deconstructed materials market
The web listed deconstructed materials companies follow two overall very similar business
models. There are the regular reused building material companies and the non-profit reused building
material organizations. Both ask the client for information and pictures about the materials and offer a
rough tender free of charge. If there are significant amounts of interesting salvageable materials and
the client is willing to accept the estimated value the deal is closed and the deconstruction process is
started. The non-profit organizations give tax-deductible receipts in the agreed amount in exchange for
the materials while the regular companies pay for them.
Generally, both deconstructed materials types of companies (profiting and non-profit) provide the
labor for extracting the materials with their own teams of experienced deconstruction workers. Some
of the used construction materials companies who have a strong internet presence are listed on Table
9.
57
Table 9 - Used construction materials companies (source: author-made research)
Business Model
Designation Link
Non-profit The Reuse People of America http://www.thereusepeople.org/
Non-profit Whole House Building Supply and Salvage http://driftwoodsalvage.com/
Non-profit Construction Junction http://www.constructionjunction.org/
Non-profit The ReBuilding Center http://rebuildingcenter.org/
Non-profit Building Resources http://www.buildingresources.org/
Non-profit Habitat for Humanity http://www.habitatgsf.org/
Non-profit Rebuilding Together Peninsula http://www.rebuildingtogetherpeninsula.org/
When fully implemented the platform is intended to have a worldwide international reach. Given
the circumstance that most of the countries don’t have yet a defined used materials market with
sellers, buyers and deconstruction experienced workers, the platform is initially targeted at a smaller
range of users. This range is set to target only the communities who combine all the three agents
mentioned above, such as the USA market.
4.5. Concept of the platform
The platform is intended to link entities involved in demolitions, constructions, and middle entities
as the deconstructed materials companies. Demolition involved entities are demolition companies,
owners of constructions who are planned to be demolished, or anyone who may be entitled to
ownership of the materials from a building. Construction involved entities can be contractors, building
designers, architects, or construction investors. Deconstructed materials companies are used
materials suppliers, used materials refurbishment companies, and any entity that may be interested in
acquiring used construction materials for storage, refurbishing and resale. Between these three
entities there are three possible connections.
58
Figure 26 - Links between the entities involved in Deconstruction (source: created by the author).
On the first connection the user makes with the platform, he is greeted and asked which the three
categories of users does he fit in. The access can only be granted though registration, verification and
login.
Once validated, demolition involved entities will be able to publish the materials or building
elements that they see as valuable assets. These publications are accessible to all users.
Deconstructed materials companies will also be able to publish the materials or elements they have in
storage, being these publications of access to all users. Construction involved entities only have the
need to access published information, therefore they cannot publish.
4.6. Login, registration and verification of the entities
All entities have to fill out a registration form according to their category. A copy of the company’s
license is requested for verification (if possible) and the data is confirmed through the data provided
by the Institute of Construction and Real Estate – INCI (in portuguese: Instituto da Construção e do
Imobiliário), which has a complete up to date list of data on licensed construction and demolition
entities. This is the preferable verification process. The possibility of establishing partnership with INCI
is highly valued and may be a mean to automate the process.
The companies that can’t be verified by the above process are requested to send a copy of the
owner’s citizen card through a company’s email, this e-mail must be an e-mail that is offered as a
contact on the company’s website.
All entities have to accept a Disclaimer agreement stating that they accept all the responsibilities
associated to their publications, and that the platform cannot be in any way responsible for harm done
to users through the platform.
Login is made possible after the verification of the entities through insertion of user name and
password.
59
Figure 27 - Diagram of the connections between the Decontruction supporting platform's clients and the platform itself (source: created by the author).
4.7. Security
In order to protect the platform from automated cyber-attacks the registration procedure includes
a security step, in which the user has to write a word generated by a random algorithm. Every failed
attempt to login after the second try will also need to pass through this security step. After the tenth
consecutive failed login attempt, an alert system is activated that results in blocking the IP used for
those login attempts is blocked for the next hour and simultaneously a notification is sent to the
blocked user by e-mail informing of the occurrence.
4.8. Publishing on the platform
For a user to publish a construction material or element that he’s selling on the platform a
“construction material/element publishing form” must be filled online containing the following fields:
Type – the user has two lists available, one for construction materials in which are listed the
various categories of construction wastes in the European List of Wastes, and another list for
construction elements that consists of the various deconstructible elements (door, window,
solar panel, false ceiling structure, moveable wall, others);
Function – there are several checkboxes the user can select such as “structural”, “non-
structural”, “exterior”, “interior”. The user should only select the checkboxes to which the
material may fit the purpose;
60
Quantity – consists in filling two fields being “amount” and “unit”, in which the “amount” field is
filled with a numeric value and the “unit” field is a selection on the most frequently
internationally used unit systems (kg, ton, lb., m, m2, m3, in., sq.in., cu.in.);
Condition – the user selects the condition that best describes the material he’s selling from a
list of five possible conditions (excellent, very good, good, medium and poor);
Description – the user states in a textbox all the characteristics of the material/element that
couldn’t be described above such as section dimensions, defects, color or materials (in case
of the construction elements);
Requires dismantling? – the user is prompted if the materials are already dismantled or
require dismantling works by simple selection of one of two checkboxes, “yes” or “no”; in case
of an affirmative answer the field “Availability” appears bellow;
Availability (only visible if the field “Requires dismantling?” is answered “yes”) – consists in
filling two fields being “From” and “To”, in which the user selects two dates;
Location (of the materials) –the preferred method is pinpointing on an available map (Google
maps or Bing maps are two possibilities); another possibility is submitting an address that will
automatically be converted into coordinates;
Submit pictures – an upload link is available to submit pictures;
An example of this form is illustrated in Figure 28.
61
Figure 28 - Construction material/element publishing form (source: created by the author).
62
4.9. The database
As a result of the submission of multiple publishing forms the database starts to have a wide
variety of materials/elements to be consulted. It’s now possible for the potential buyers to start
searching the platform for their needs. An example of the Deconstruction platform’s database in a raw
format can be analyzed in Table 10.
Consulting the database is a process somewhat inverse to inserting forms into it. To do so, a
“search form” must be filled containing these fields:
Type and Function – both these fields are filled in the same way as the homonymous fields in
the “construction material/element publishing forms”;
Condition – the five possible conditions (excellent, very good, good, medium and poor) are
shown as check boxes, the buyer can select any of the five;
Requires dismantling? – in the search form this field is renamed to “Are you willing to
dismantle?”; two “yes” or “no” check boxes are available as before; if the answer is “yes” the
same “Availability” field appears bellow;
Availability (only visible if the field “Are you willing to dismantle?” is answered “yes”) – consists
in filling two fields being “From” and “To”, in which the buyer selects two dates that will
afterwards crossed with the sellers availabilities;
Location (of the materials) –the user is prompted what is his location by pinpointing it on a
map and how far is he willing to travel by filling a numeric box;
Quantity” is not being included in the search fields because it tends to narrow the choices too
much. If at a given stage of the platform’s evolution is noticed that the search results are too wide the
“quantity” may be used then;
The search engine then analyzes and crosses the available data with the requests made and
shows as results the information of the materials that fit the description. Information like “quantity”,
“description” and the submitted pictures are now available. The sellers contact is shown too.
Note: the less the user fills the search form the more results are shown.
63
Type Function
Availability Location
User Constr. Materials
Constr. Elements
Str. Non-str.
Int. Ext. Quant. Unit Condition Req.
From To Coordinates Address Description Annexes dism.
DMC2 glass - no yes yes yes 3 - Excellent no - - 372.880.057,00 120x100x0,3(cm)
laminated transparent glass
Picture2 -812.466.383
DIE1 - windows no yes no yes 6 - Good yes 05-10-2014 05-12-2014 366.588.695,00 Antique Victorian window
frames with vitrals; dimensions 120x60(cm)
Img08 -766.955.203
DIE3 - doors no yes yes no 22 - Very Good yes 11-08-2014 11-10-2014 34.371.608,00 15060 U.S. 17,
Hampstead, NC 28443, USA
Office wooden doors with frames and hardware; dark natural wood colored
Picture3 -77.705.465
DMC1 insulation materials
- no yes yes yes 150 m2 Excellent no - - 370.777.991,00
Mineral wool 8cm thick Img00 -801.778.745
DMC1 tiles - no yes no yes 400 - Medium no - - 370.777.991,00
Orange standard roof tiles Picture -801.778.745
DIE2 - cooper wire
no yes yes yes 800 m Very Good yes 30-07-2014 30-09-2014 34.371.608,00 15060 U.S. 17,
Hampstead, NC 28443, USA
Acquired to power a music festival; company went bankrupt
Cooper cables.jpg -77.705.465
DIE4 wood - no yes yes yes 40 - Medium yes 14-08-2014 14-10-2014
34.003.799,00
1601 Gervais St, Columbia, SC 29201, USA
Flooring pine wood boards measuring 300x20x1(cm), varnished used for 10 years. About 10% may be unusable due to an infiltration that occurred last year.
Picture5 -81.026.628
DIE1 - photo voltaic panels
no yes no yes 10 m2 Very Good yes 05-10-2014 05-12-2014 366.588.695,00 Two modules of 2x2,5(m)
roof solar panels -
-766.955.203
DMC2 - others no yes yes yes 1 - Good no - - 372.880.057,00 Mitsubishi Mini-Split HVAC
System img01
-812.466.383
Table 10 - Example of the Deconstruction platform’s raw database after the publication of eleven material/element forms; DMC stands for Deconstruction Materials Company and DIE stands for Demolition Involved Entity (source: author).
64
4.10. Revenues and costs
Revenues are planned to be made from sponsorships and electronic ads. There are various
companies that work in the electronic adds marked, being Google Ads well conceited choice.
Sponsorships have to be searched for; in the initial phase a search on competitions for startup
businesses is highly recommended.
An alternative source of revenues would be charging the users a fee. In this case, only the sellers
should be charged. This fee could be charged by sale as a small percentage, as a periodical fee or a
mixed concept in which depending on the volume of sales of a given user he would belong in a certain
category and pay the that category’s corresponding fee periodically.
Besides the initial investment in equipment, the costs which the platform will also have to support
are the hosting server rent, the domain registry rent, staff salaries, facilities, taxes and bills.
4.11. Chapter remarks
Construction has a tradition of being one step behind in technology. Composite fiber components
were applied in other industries far before they appeared in construction. Nanotechnology has been
talked about for a few years and isn’t yet applied in normal constructions. Tradition seems to be the
obstacle. The same principles of deconstruction are applied every day in other businesses like the
automobile sector, where cars are designed to be easily disassembled for both maintenance and end
of life, and dismantled to parts that are mostly sold as used replacement parts or recycled.
Although the original aim of creating the concept of a Deconstruction supporting platform was
completed, the fact that it meant to achieve a concept without having it undergo implementation leaves
somehow a sensation of incompleteness. The full creation and implementation of this platform is
undoubtedly a proposed future work.
One characteristic that makes this project interesting for a developer is that it doesn’t need a
heavy investment to start up. The capital at risk is significantly low in comparison to the possible
winnings in connecting together large cash flow markets such as those in the Construction industry,
the Demolition industry and the Deconstruction related entities.
It is now up to involved agents of Construction to adopt or ignore the use of new information
technologies, the author certainly recommends it.
65
5. Future Developments and Conclusions
5.1. Future Developments
The works that in this thesis are considered as “works of deconstruction” or “deconstruction
related works” have very distinct characteristics. Deconstruction may apply to recovering materials
from a building that is going to be demolished or, sometimes, apply to the total dislocation of a
building. The definitions of the different deconstruction works haven’t yet been differentiated. A future
development is suggested on defining the works of deconstruction individually, with emphasis on their
characteristics and limitations.
In the legal framework review of C&DW it was noticed that the legal system can be better adapted
to the practice of deconstruction. The distinction between reusing or recycling C&DW isn’t yet legally
made. With no laws promoting the activity of deconstructing and with a Recycling industry in a stage of
development years ahead the Deconstruction industry probably won’t be able to grow to its full
potential anytime soon. A work is proposed on analyzing the legal system and studying the possibility
of legally separating these two different ways of C&DW treatment.
This study presents the conceptualization of a Deconstruction supporting platform targeted at the
entities involved in construction, deconstruction and demolition worldwide. It is a concept that, if well
implemented, can create a network between the above mentioned entities that will result in
foreseeable increase of resource efficiency. With the collaboration from these entities and their
associations with a research institute a much deeper knowledge of the needs of the Deconstruction
industry can be obtained and applied in the development of the Deconstruction supporting platform.
This development can obtain its maximum results when combined with a professional team of web
designers and programmers. For a future work it is proposed the full creation, development and
implementation of the Deconstruction supporting platform.
66
5.2. Conclusions
Sustainability in Construction has now a well-established set of tools; more so, the constant
change in the world’s mindset seems to be in the direction of sustainable development. The need of
recognizing a building’s sustainability and its materials Lifecycle environmental burden are now valued
measures that have become of interest to the private sector.
Deconstruction is one of Sustainability’s tools. It is present in today’s society various levels of
income, and is resorted to both as a luxury and as a need. Its related practices have existed probably
ever since mankind stopped being nomadic. There are documented cases of deconstructions starting
on the medieval period, and although not evolving much until a recent past they now seem to be
gradually emerging as an alternative to conventional demolition.
One of the obstacles preventing Deconstruction to succeed is the lack of legal support, since
there are no laws that promote deconstruction alone. Legally, the integration of reused materials on a
construction is equivalent to the integration of recycled materials. Being the Recycling industry a much
more developed industry than Deconstruction, the choice to incorporate recycled materials is naturally
preferred by construction companies rather than incorporating deconstructed materials. However, to
build cheaper but in a less sustainable way or to invest more in constructions that will be adaptable to
new needs while demanding less from the environment is less of a paradigm every time
Deconstruction reaches a new development.
The possible investors in Deconstruction may still be driven away by the risk of not finding a buyer
for the deconstructed materials or a suitable construction to fit them in. The additional costs that can
result from not finding a materials donator/receiver compatible pair seems to be the capital reason that
drives the industry away from investing on Deconstruction. But as the industry of Deconstruction
grows this difficulty loses its weight, for a snowball effect is to take over and there will be more and
more offer and demand for used construction materials.
The milestones set for 2020 will surely pressure the C&DW generating industries to change their
operating methods, possibly opening new doors for Deconstruction. The oncoming opportunity for
Deconstruction needs to be complemented with a change in the conventional mindset of the
Construction and Demolition industries. New construction building designs and building demolitions
need to be thought taking into consideration the possibilities that Deconstruction provides.
67
References
About Money. (2014). About Money. Retrieved 10 7, 2014, from
Appendix A - Prices charged for incoming materials at TRIANOVO recycling plant (source: (Trianovo, 2014)).
Tipologia Densidade Preço unitário
(ton /m 3) (€/ton)
RCD sujos 0,17 160,00 €
RCD sujos 0,2 130,00 €
RCD sujos 0,25 100,00 €
RCD sujos 0,3 80,00 €
RCD sujos 0,35 68,00 €
RCD sujos 0,4 59,00 €
RCD sujos 0,45 52,00 €
RCD sujos 0,5 46,00 €
RCD sujos 0,55 41,00 €
RCD sujos 0,6 37,00 €
RCD sujos 0,65 34,00 €
RCD sujos 0,7 31,00 €
RCD sujos 0,95 22,00 €
RCD sujos 1,1 15,00 €
RCD sujos 1,25 7,50 €
RCD limpos 1,25 5,50 €
Terras Limpas - 2,00 €
III
Appendix B - Sector 17 of the European List of Wastes, regarding C&DW. Any waste marked with an asterisk (*) is considered as a hazardous waste pursuant to Directive 91/689/EEC (source: (European Commission, 2000)).
17 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTES (INCLUDING EXCAVATED SOIL FROM CONTAMINATED SITES)
17 01 concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics
17 01 01 concrete
17 01 02 bricks
17 01 03 tiles and ceramics
17 01 06* mixtures of, or separate fractions of concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics containing dangerous substances
17 01 07 mixtures of concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics other than those mentioned in 17 01 06
17 02 wood, glass and plastic
17 02 01 wood
17 02 02 glass
17 02 03 plastic
17 02 04* glass, plastic and wood containing or contaminated with dangerous substances
17 03 bituminous mixtures, coal tar and tarred products
17 03 01* bituminous mixtures containing coal tar
17 03 02 bituminous mixtures other than those mentioned in 17 03 01
17 03 03* coal tar and tarred products
17 04 metals (including their alloys)
17 04 01 copper, bronze, brass
17 04 02 aluminum
17 04 03 lead
17 04 04 zinc
17 04 05 iron and steel
17 04 06 tin
17 04 07 mixed metals
17 04 09* metal waste contaminated with dangerous substances
17 04 10* cables containing oil, coal tar and other dangerous substances
17 04 11 cables other than those mentioned in 17 04 10
17 05 soil (including excavated soil from contaminated sites), stones and dredging spoil
17 05 03* soil and stones containing dangerous substances
17 05 04 soil and stones other than those mentioned in 17 05 03
Appendix D - Average embodied energy in construction materials (source: (Andrew Alcorn, 1998)).
Material Embodied energy
MJ/kg MJ/m
Calcium carbonate 1.3
Cellulose pulp 14.3
Cement, average 9.0 17550
Cement, dry process 7.7 15020
Cement, wet process 10.4 20280
Cement grout 1.9 4560
Cement mortar 2.1 3360
Fibre cement board 10.9 15550
Soil-cement 0.7 1420
Ceramic
Brick, old technology 7.7 1580
Pipe 6.8 13880
Refractory brick 5.7 12830
Concrete
Block-fill 1.4 3150
Block-fill, pump mix 1.5 3430
Grout 1.7 2380
17.5MPa pump mix 1.2 2830
Earth, raw
Adobe, straw stabilised 0.22 360
Adobe, cement stabilised 0.67 1130
Clay 0.07 45
Clay for cement 0.1 65
Rammed soil cement 0.73 1450
Insulation
Wool (recycled) 20.9 200
Paper
Kraft 13.9
Plaster, gypsum 3.8 5480
Stainless steel, average 50.4 395640
Steel, imported, structural 35.9 281820
Timber
Kiln dried, average, dressed 5.09 2200
Kiln dried, gas fired, dressed 8.2 3550
Kiln dried, waste fired, dressed 3.1 1340
Water, reticulated 0.003 3.3
VII
Appendix E - Savaged materials from the Vancouver Materials Testing Lab (source: (Kernan, 2002)).
VIII
Appendix F- Detailed cost report for TriPOD’s Shell and Structure (source: (Tripod Plug and Play Housing System, 2014)).
IX
Appendix G - Detailed cost report for TriPOD’s Systems (source: (Tripod Plug and Play Housing System, 2014)).
X
Appendix H - Detailed cost report for TriPOD’s finish materials (source: (Tripod Plug and Play Housing System, 2014)).
XI
Appendix I - Mass, embodied energy, and specific embodied energy of the materials that composed the Macau Pavilion at Expo 98 (source: (Lobato dos Santos, 2010)).
XII
Exmo. engenheiro «prefixo» «Nome_da_empresa»,
Sou estudante do IST, estou a realizar uma tese de mestrado com o tema de "Desconstrução no
ciclo de vida das construções" e procuro saber em que medida é que a «Nome_da_empresa»
emprega técnicas associadas à desconstrução nas obras que realiza.
Quando menciono desconstrução, refiro-me à desmontagem de materiais de uma obra
previamente à sua demolição/desativação para que estes venham a ser reincorporados em
construções futuras sem passarem por reciclagem ou ser levados a aterro, contribuindo para a
redução de custos de obtenção de novos materiais e de emissão de resíduos. No ciclo de vida das
construções entende-se que, quando uma obra excede a sua vida útil nem todos os seus materiais
constituintes estão necessariamente obsoletos. Uma parte dos materiais constituintes da obra deve
ter uma vida útil remanescente considerável, podendo muitas vezes ser desmontados e
reincorporados numa nova obra sofrendo apenas pequenos ajustes de dimensão e tratamentos,
quando necessário.
Um dos objetivos da minha dissertação é a criação do conceito de uma plataforma que faça a
ligação entre obras a demolir e obras a construir, e os materiais que podem transitar de uma obra
diretamente para a outra sem terem de passar por processamentos dispendiosos, ou envio para
aterro.
O que pretendo é conhecer quais as técnicas que se praticam atualmente que tenham o objetivo
de não desperdiçar bons materiais de construção pertencentes a uma obra que por algum motivo
teve o fim da sua vida útil declarado. Esta informação não se consegue obter por consulta de artigos
ou bibliografia, é um conhecimento que está apenas na experiência das pessoas que praticam
engenharia civil, e como tal gostaria de saber se a «Nome_da_empresa» tem disponibilidade para me
receber numa reunião num futuro próximo, ou se por via email ou chamada telefónica pode transmitir-
me o conhecimento que tem nesta área.
Será feita referência na tese das empresas que contribuíram para a criação do conceito da
plataforma de apoio à Descontrução.
Os meus agradecimentos,
Manuel Catarino - 919247480
Appendix J - Template of the email that was sent to 72 different portuguese construction industry and deconstruction related companies.
