| Title | Comparing flexible and conventional monolithic building design: Life cycle environmental impact and potential for material circulation |
|---|---|
| ID_Doc | 22134 |
| Authors | Kröhnert, H; Itten, R; Stucki, M |
| Title | Comparing flexible and conventional monolithic building design: Life cycle environmental impact and potential for material circulation |
| Year | 2022 |
| Published | |
| Abstract | Due to severe sustainability problems caused by the built environment, calls for adopting circular economy principles in building design, such as flexibility and reversibility, are increasing. However, there is still a lack of quantitative studies on the corresponding environmental benefits in this regard. In the present study, a life cycle assessment of a multi-storey residential reference building is carried out, comparing a flexible, reversible building design using a load-bearing steel structure and wooden ceiling elements to a conventional, monolithic design based on reinforced concrete. The assessment is carried out on a whole building level, including construction, operation, maintenance, and the end-of-life phase. Both building designs show similar results for a regular life cycle of 60 years without major refurbishment (13 and 14.5 kg CO2-eq/m(2) per operational year). When longer building lifetimes are considered, the environmental impact of the reference building per operational year decreases significantly. In this context, flexible building design is advantageous as it facilitates the refurbishment of buildings, while monolithic building design often leads to premature demolition due to low adaptability. Further advantages of reversible building design include the increased potential of materials to be recirculated at the end-of-life stage of a building and in the potential reuse of structural elements. This study shows that 14% of the embodied greenhouse gas emissions of the flexible building can be avoided if the foundation, load-bearing structure and ceiling elements are kept in place for a subsequent building. Such direct reuse leads to a substantially higher environmental value retention than recycling of the same materials. |
| https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109409 |
Similar Articles
| ID | Score | Article |
|---|---|---|
26529
|
Bertin, I; Saadé, M; Le Roy, R; Jaeger, JM; Feraille, A Environmental impacts of Design for Reuse practices in the building sector(2022) | |
| 27202
|
Zhu, H; Liou, SR; Chen, PC; He, XY; Sui, ML Carbon Emissions Reduction of a Circular Architectural Practice: A Study on a Reversible Design Pavilion Using Recycled Materials(2024)Sustainability, 16.0, 5 | |
| 26912
|
Scolaro, AM; De Medici, S Downcycling and Upcycling in Rehabilitation and Adaptive Reuse of Pre-Existing Buildings: Re-Designing Technological Performances in an Environmental Perspective(2021)Energies, 14, 21 | |
| 2065
|
O'Grady, T; Minunno, R; Chong, HY; Morrison, GM Design for disassembly, deconstruction and resilience: A circular economy index for the built environment(2021) | |
| 21395
|
Honarvar, SMH; Golabchi, M; Ledari, MB Building circularity as a measure of sustainability in the old and modern architecture: A case study of architecture development in the hot and dry climate(2022) | |
| 28478
|
Pristerà, G; Tonini, D; Tornaghi, ML; Caro, D; Sala, S Taxonomy of design for deconstruction options to enable circular economy in buildings(2024) | |
| 11018
|
Morales-Beltran, M; Engür, P; Sisman, OA; Aykar, GN Redesigning for Disassembly and Carbon Footprint Reduction: Shifting from Reinforced Concrete to Hybrid Timber-Steel Multi-Story Building(2023)Sustainability, 15, 9 | |
| 24656
|
Watt, H; Davison, B; Hodgson, P; Kitching, C; Danielle's, DT What should an adaptable building look like?(2023) | |
| 28465
|
Akanbi, L; Oyedele, L; Delgado, JMD; Bilal, M; Akinade, O; Ajayi, A; Mohammed-Yakub, N Reusability analytics tool for end-of-life assessment of building materials in a circular economy(2019)World Journal Of Science Technology And Sustainable Development, 16.0, 1 | |
| 3773
|
Eberhardt, LCM; Birgisdottir, H; Birkved, M Potential of Circular Economy in Sustainable Buildings(2019) |