FRAMEWORK FOR BUILDING DESIGN RECYCLABILITY

BY Fan Zhang

Submitted to the graduate degree program in Civil Engineering and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas School of Engineering in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science

___________________________ Dr. Oswald Chong, Chair

Committee Members

___________________________ Dr. Yong Bai, P.E.

___________________________ Thomas E. Glavinich, D.E., P.E.

Date Defended: ______________

The Thesis Committee for Fan Zhang certifies that this is the approved Version of the following thesis:

FRAMEWORK FOR BUILDING DESIGN RECYCLABILITY

Committee:

___________________________ Dr. Oswald Chong, Chair

___________________________ Dr. Yong Bai, P.E.

___________________________ Thomas E. Glavinich, D.E., P.E.

Date Approved: _____________

II

Abstract Recycling of building materials is an important aspect of sustainable construction, while sustainable construction is a critical issue to fulfill overall sustainable development. Researchers have proved that building materials recycling is technically feasible and facilities for recycling are available, too. They have identified many obstacles of building materials recycling, but most of them are derived from experience. Researchers suggested many ways to maximize building materials recycling, but they are not powerful enough. This thesis will summarize the obstacles and put them into categories. After that, a case study will be used to testify that these are real obstacles. This thesis will focus on developing the concept of building design recyclability by giving the definition of design recyclability, describing the principles that make a design recyclable, generating drives of design recyclability, and testifying these drives. At the end, some suggestions will be given for future research directions.

i

.........................6 Metals.......1................ 31 2................................... 18 2................................................................................ 12 2....................... 10 Chapter 2 Literature Review....................... 6 1............................... 8 1..................1 Technologies for Building Materials Recycling ..............................................5 Bricks ........................................................................................................ 26 2................................................................................ vi Chapter 1 Introduction .......................................................... 29 2........................2...........Table of Contents Abstract .................1 Characterization of Building-related C&D Wastes .................3....1 Recyclables Collection..........................................2 Building-related Materials Recycling Rates .............7 Others ....1.............................1 Interpreting Sustainable Construction.......3 Drywall ................................................... 32 2........ 1 1........................................ 31 2.......................................................3 Building-related Materials Recycling ................................. 13 2................................2 Reduce..........3.2 Wood.. 4 1.................................2..................................2 Sustainable Construction ................... 28 2.......................... 1 1............................................................................................................................................................................................2.....1........4 Asphalt Roofing .............................................. v List of Tables ............................1.... Reuse.......................1..............1 Sustainable Development. 35 ii ................... 12 2..............................................1..2 Transfer Stations ....1..................................................................... 21 2....................1 Concrete ..................................................... and Recycling of Building Materials ............................................................................2................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 1. 5 1..............................................3 Re-manufacturing Facilities.......2 Facilities for Building Materials Recycling.. 23 2............................................ i List of Figures ..................................................2..

.............................. 69 4..............4 Market for Recycled Products ................................1...........................................2............ 73 4.................2.......... 37 3............2 Case Study .................... 39 4.......................................... 70 4.......................4.......................4 Alternative Materials ....................................1 Pre-design Phase ..1.......6 Regional Factors ................2............................3 Strategies for Increasing Building Materials Recovery Rate................... 47 4......................4......................................................................................................................2 Principles for Building Design Recyclability ................................... 37 3........................1 Social Factors................................................................................ 41 4.................2 Environmental Factors .1 Identifying Obstacles of Building Materials Recycling...............................................................3........1 Face Institute in Texas ................................................................................. 51 4.......................3 Summary ....................................4................................2 Design Phase...............................................................................................1Defining Building Design Recyclability..............................2 Research Methodology ............................................2. 74 4............................................................. 51 4.............4 Building Design Recyclability.............. 63 4...............................................................3 Systems and Two Stage Buildings........................1.................................1.......4.........2 Deconstruction ... 36 Chapter 3 Research Objectives and Methodology.................... 78 iii ................... 59 4............................................3............ 39 4................................... 62 4............................................................1................................................................. 65 4.................. 68 4.........5 Participants’ Factors............. 69 4..... 40 4...............3 Economic Factors.......1 Extended Producer’s Responsibility .. 38 Chapter 4 Data Analysis and Concept Development..................... 36 2...............................4............................... 45 4............1.......................... 46 4..............1 Research Objectives.................................. 48 4....................................3 Post-design Phase.. 71 4................2......................................2.......................4 Materials Natural Factors.......................3...2....2 Face Institute in California...........3...........................

.................................................................................. 87 References...................... 85 5...............................3 Generating Drives ............................................4.............................................4 Testifying Drives .............................4.................................................. 79 4....4.....................................................................1 Findings and Summary .. 85 5.... 89 iv .............................. 81 Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations..................................................................................2 Future Research Directions........................

........................................................................................................................3: Generation of Construction and Demolition Debris from Buildings ......................................... 4 Figure 1....2: Wood Recycling Practices......6: Recycling Process............................3: Drywall Recycling..................1: Recycling Rate for Top 15 Big Cities ..........................................1: Sustainable Development and The Triple Bottom Line......................................1: The Process of Concrete Recycling................................ 20 Figure 2...............2: A Typical Surgery Building ................. 9 Figure 2............... 32 Figure 4.....................4: Methods of Bricks Recycling ........................................................... 49 Figure 4..... 51 v ................................ 3 Figure 1...................................5: Composing of Carpet.................. 22 Figure 2...................List of Figures Figure 1....................... 26 Figure 2.. 29 Figure 2..2: Capital Stock and Flows of Benefits: A Modernised Economic Model for Sustainable Development....................................................................................... 16 Figure 2..........................

............................................2: Wood Wastes Generated on Site .....................................................14: Results of Implementing Design Recyclability .................11: Basic Steps to Building Deconstruction ......4: Benefits Derived form Transfer Stations..........................................................10: Considerations for Deconstruction during Design Phase ............. 64 Table 4.. 80 Table 4..List of Tables Table 1.....3: Components and Materials of a Typical Surgery Building ................ 13 Table 2............ 10 Table 2.......................................13: Drives for Building Design Recyclability ..................................................2: Hazardous Substances in Building Components ......... 67 Table 4......................... 40 Table 4.....................................8: Policy Tools for Achieving EPR ..6: Obstacles of California Face Institute Recycling .. 81 vi ............................. 59 Table 4...................7: Analyzing the Obstacles of California Face Institute Recycling......... 33 Table 4.......... 43 Table 4..... 61 Table 4..9: Construction versus Other Industries..............................1: Obstacles of Building Materials Recycling .....1: The Percentage of Typical C&D Debris..............12: Principles for Building Design Recyclability ..................................................... 19 Table 2...... 24 Table 2...........5: Analyzing the Obstacles of Texas Face Institute Recycling ........................................................4: Obstacles of Texas Face Institute Recycling ..... 55 Table 4.......................... 68 Table 4.................... 72 Table 4..............................................3: Potential Usages and Benefitsfor Asphalt Shingles......................... 58 Table 4..... 65 Table 4.......................................1: Environmental Benefits of Concrete ... 52 Table 4..................

Page left intentionally blank vii .

2001). has become a popular subject for the researches who are interested in construction.. sustainable construction.Chapter 1 Introduction During the past few decades. the earth’s ability to provide resources and absorb pollution will be very limited. Gilbert and Graham. 1999. human beings have had a great effect on the natural environment which supports our lives. because the current material recycling rate is far from satisfying and there are a lot of untouched issues in this area. et al. the implementation of sustainability in the construction industry.1 Sustainable Development People began to look for ways to save the earth and human beings themselves two decades ago. material recycling has become a hot topic. Lingard. the concept of sustainable development has been brought out. If we continue consuming and polluting at the current rate. As sustainable development draws more and more attention from the public. 1. 1 . They have made some progress. As an important part of sustainable construction. The consumption of non-renewable resources and the creation of wastes have been identified as the most significant issues that our society must pay attention to (Lave. To solve these problems and make sure our next generation will still have a healthy environment to live in. The inventing of the phrase sustainable development can be viewed as the starting point when people began to pay attention to the natural environment that they have relied on.

economic.Sustainable development is a very complex concept. These three aspects are often symbolized as three overlapping circles. which is known as the three pillars of sustainability: social. 2003). The initiation of this concept was from the Brundtland Commission report for the United Nations in 1987. environmental protection. and social preservation to achieve sustainable development..1). The Brundtland report highlighted the need to balance economic development. et al.. and have been characterized by business in particular as the “triple bottom line” (Fig. and environmental issues. 1. 2003). 2 . 1987). and there are over 200 definitions of it (Parkin et al. These could be interpreted as minimizing the negative impacts to ensure a good quality of life for current and future generations (Leiper. Brundtland described sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development.

. and financial capital.Figure 1. manufactured capital. represent all the resources available to a society.. 2003). 2003) Many researchers have tried to explain this concept using their own ways. a UK sustainable development charity. social capital. The relationship between the triple bottom line and the five capitals are shown in Figure 1. used a five capitals framework to illustrate sustainability (Parkin et al. These five capitals.1: Sustainable Development and The Triple Bottom Line (Source: Parkin et al. Forum for the Future.2. natural capital. human capital. 3 .

but also our ecological systems and human health. we will get the expected benefits.2 Sustainable Construction All activities of industry and individuals will have impacts on the environment. It is impossible to calculate the net contribution because it is hard to give comparable quantity to each item. 1. 2003).2: Capital Stock and Flows of Benefits: A Modernised Economic Model for Sustainable Development (Source: Parkin et al. However. 2003) In this model. From this point of view. each capital is represented by stocks. This is a good way to understand sustainable development. sustainable development can be interpreted as the process by which we manage capitals and flows successfully. which are often negative (Griffiths. but it is just for understanding not for measurement. By investing in different types of stocks. it is still helpful to know that having a building constructed costs not only money and labors. Smith and Kersey.. The construction industry 4 .Figure 1.

The CIB also addressed seven principles for sustainable construction. utilizing resources and influencing the environment (Boyle. Reuse resources 3. 1997). 2003.1 Interpreting Sustainable Construction Sustainable construction is applying the principle of sustainability to construction industry (Hill and Bowen. Reduce resource consumption 2. providing employment. the construction industry is worth 5 . defined the goal of sustainable construction as creating and operating a healthily built environment based on resource efficiency and ecological design. Globally. Protect nature 5.plays an important role by providing the building environment and infrastructure. Focus on quality Construction industry has tremendous impact on every aspect of people’s lives (McDonald and Smithers 1998).2. 2005. Eliminate toxics 6. Use recyclable resources 4. The Conseil International du Batiment (CIB). an international construction research networking organization. There are a lot of explanations for sustainable construction. generating economic wealth. Head. Hendrickson and Horvath. 2000). Apply lifecycle costing 7. They were: 1. 1.

groups attempt to close current landfills and have made it extremely difficult to open new ones. and aquatic environments (Mustow..2 Reduce. 2002. Peng. But the landfill is a really a bad thing. The closing 6 .. Since the United States is a “throwaway” society. Miyatake. construction and its products also consume large amount of energy and resources. 2006.2 trillion (Mustow. realizing sustainable construction is the key for us to fulfill sustainable development. The traffic and other problems make it a bother to nearby residents.2. 1997). most of the wastes go to landfill. 1996. and Recycling of Building Materials Construction industry consumes plenty of raw materials and generates huge amount of waste (Bossink. Modern landfills require mandating daily cover. However. construction is a US$1 trillion industry that employed over 6.approximately US$ 3. Therefore. clay caps and leachate collection systems to avoid bad smells and to control pests growth. In most communities. Methane emissions from landfills can pose a safety hazard to nearby buildings and contribute to urban ozone problems and global warning. and release pollution to the air. Furthermore. et al. Reuse. 2006). clay and rubber liners. even with these requirements.4 million people in 2004 alone. and we will have to recycle and mine landfills (Gorgolewski. 2006). In the United States. The construction industry is the dominant user of most minerals. 1. 2004). et al. The World Watch Institute estimates that by 2030 the world will have run out of many raw materials for buildings. landfills are still unpopular. Poon. ground. according to the 2007 EPA report.

there are three ways: reduce. 7 . the cost of landfill is and will be increasing along with the time. is trying to save materials by using less. Construction industry is a big contributor to landfill. Recycle means taking a product or material at the end of its useful life and turning it into a usable raw material to make another product (Cameron. Reduce. As a sequence. et al. which are commonly known as three Rs (Poon. reuse. It requires proper design and construction practices. Yu and Jaillon. Poon.. 2004. 2004). also called source reduction. Reuse is to use a component again with some treatment. The environmental impact is increasing from the first to the last. To minimize construction wastes and save raw materials. and recycle. which prevents the generation of waste from the first stage. Greater environmental benefits result from reuse than recycle because reuse requires little reprocessing. 2003).of many landfills in the last decade and the opposition to opening new ones has led to the concern that we are running out of landfills. Most of the construction and demolition wastes (C&D wastes) go to landfill. This needs reprocessing materials and remanufacturing. Reduce is the most preferred method of waste management because it has minimal environmental impact and save materials at the very beginning.

3 shows the percentage of wastes generated from each stage. 8 . revenue earned from materials sales and tax breaks gained for donations (Inyang. while in 1996 the number is 136 million (Franklin Associates.1. Figure 1. It can conserve space in landfills. and sometimes can reduce project costs through avoided disposal costs. reuse is not usually possible for buildings materials. and the rest comes from new construction.3. 1. 1998). transportation. However. 2003). too. Reuse or recycling C&D materials can reduce the environmental effects of extraction.3 Building-related Materials Recycling It is recommended that as many components of a building as possible be extracted from the waste stream for reuse at the end of their useful life. and at that time. recycle will be a good choice. avoided purchases of new materials. The majority of this waste comes from building demolition and renovation. and processing of raw materials.1 Characterization of Building-related C&D Wastes US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that more than 160 million tons of building-related construction and demolition waste was generated in the United States in 2003.

1998) The composition of construction and demolition waste varies significantly.Figure 1.1): 9 . Wastes from older buildings is likely to contain plaster and lead piping. depending on the type of project form which it is being generated (Gavilan and Bernold. 1994). while new construction waste may contain significant amount of drywall.3: Generation of Construction and Demolition Debris from Buildings (Source: EPA report. laminates and plastics (Franklin Associates. 1998). EPA estimates the overall percentage of debris in construction and demolition wastes falls within the following rages (Table 1.

One project is located in Richmond. VA. There are some successful stories. most of the C&D materials can be recovered through reuse and recycling.6 million. Cost-saving associated with recycling and reuse of demolition materials is estimated to be approximately $ 3. However. if we plan properly. Another example in Emeryville. or sent to waste-to-energy facilities.6 percent.500 tons of material from landfills.3. which is 94. 10 . achieving a 93 percent overall recycling rate. recycled.Table 1. It is the former Lucent Richmond Works facility. 1998). 2008) 1. which was fenced off and left idle. while the remaining 60 percent of the materials were sent to landfills (Kim and Rigdon.1: The Percentage of Typical C&D Debris (Source: Modified form EPA Website.2 Building-related Materials Recycling Rates Of the total building-related C&D materials generated. CA. the developer diverted 84.000 square feet of old and dilapidated manufacturing buildings. leaving behind over 700. After demolishing the existing onsite buildings. EPA estimates that only 40 percent were reused. got an even higher rate.

11 . the average 40 percent is really unfavorable. and figure out how to conquer them to achieve higher rate.Comparing to these high rate. These will be valuable endeavors. It is important to find out the obstacles for building materials recycling.

US Army Corps of Engineers. US Air Force. 2004). 2002.1 Technologies for Building Materials Recycling Technology feasibility is the foundation of building materials recycling. a lot of organizations put funding into this area. Reviewing and summarizing them will give us a clear view of preconditions for materials recycling. et al. they all have made some effort on construction materials recycling. we can figure out what we still need to do. 2. Based on their findings. US Department of Transportation. et al. What are the reasons for that? Is it because we do not have the ability to recycle building materials or we just do not want to? Many researchers have tried to develop the technologies and facilities for building materials recycling. Bartlett. US Department of Housing and Urban Development.Chapter 2 Literature Review As building materials recycling has become a hot subject. Sometimes the remanufacturing process is complicated due to the contaminations. The average building materials recycling rate is 40%. US EPA has funded many projects about building demolition.. Fortunately. etc. 12 . while some must be remanufactured... current technologies can support most of the materials recycling. Some components can be reused with proper treatment. which is quite low comparing to automobile and electronic industries. Some European countries and Japan have gone even further than the US on building materials recycling (Allen.

Blast furnace slag.1.1 Concrete Concrete is the most commonly used material in construction. 2000). water. shown in table 2. are abundant in supply and take a less toll in their extraction than other construction materials. concrete is in tune with the environment (Environmental Council of Concrete Organizations. 1998).1 Table 2. As the largest component of C&D wastes.2. as a nearly inert material. recycled polystyrene. The estimated recycling rate for concrete is about 50 to 57 percent (EPA. and cement. many materials that would end up in landfills can be used to make concrete. the ingredients of concrete. aggregate.1: Environmental Benefits of Concrete First of all. Moreover. concrete is ideal for recycling. and fly ash are among materials that can be included in the 13 . Secondly. Concrete is environmentally friendly in a variety of ways.

conserving resources by reducing maintenance and the need for reconstruction. Local shipping minimizes fuel requirements for handling and transportation. Another environmental plus for concrete is energy efficiency. affords high R-factors and moderates temperature swings by storing and releasing energy needed for heating and cooling (Environmental Council of Concrete Organizations. Leftovers are easily reused or recycled. Recycled concrete can be used as aggregate for new concrete mixtures. 2000). And concrete is a durable material that actually gains strength over time. concrete products and ready-mixed concrete can be made from local resources and processed near a jobsite. Since the materials for concrete are so readily available. concrete offers significant energy savings over the lifetime of a building. Further commendable characteristics of concrete are waste minimization and long life. Whether cast-in-place or precast. bolstered by insulating materials. 2000).recipe for concrete and further enhance its appeal (Environmental Council of Concrete Organizations. 14 . In homes and buildings concrete’s thermal mass. too. Once in place. concrete is used on an as-needed basis.

the physical processing of the material is the same: the concrete shards are fed into an impact crusher. and finally through a series of screens that grade the aggregate according to its size. hauling it to a recycling facility Regardless of which recovery strategy is used. The process can be illustrated by Figure 2.When structures made of concrete are to be demolished. Concrete debris was once routinely shipped to landfills for disposal. Soutsos. but recycling has a number of benefits that have made it a more attractive option in this age of greater environmental awareness. concrete recycling is an increasingly common method of disposing of the rubble.1. and the desire to keep construction costs down. more environmental laws. 15 . Generally. concrete debris can be recovered using the following two strategies (Parry. et al. crushing onsite and reusing it as compacted base or drain material. 2. followed by an electromagnet that removes reinforcing steel. 2004): 1. 2004.

Larger chunks may go through the crusher again. These systems normally consist of a rubble crusher. Metals such as rebar are accepted. and rocks. Large road-portable plants can crush concrete and asphalt rubble at up to 600 tons per hour or more.Concrete Debris Recycled on Site Portable Crusher Reuse on Site Crushing Machine Hauled to Recycling Facilities Using Magnet to Remove Rebar Sorted by Size Small Size Large Size New Concrete Figure 2. paper and other such materials. which must be free of trash. often along with asphalt. The remaining aggregate chunks are sorted by size. 16 .1: The Process of Concrete Recycling Concrete aggregate collected from demolition sites is put through a crushing machine. Crushing at the actual construction site using portable crushers reduces construction costs and the pollution generated when compared with transporting material to and from a quarry. bricks. dirt. Crushing facilities accept only uncontaminated concrete. since they can be removed with magnets and other sorting devices and melted down for recycling elsewhere. wood.

side discharge conveyor, screening plant, and a return conveyor from the screen to the crusher inlet for reprocessing oversize materials. Compact, self-contained minicrushers are also available that can handle up to 150 tons per hour and fit into tighter areas.

However, the concrete made from recycled aggregate is not as strong as the one made from natural aggregate. A decrease in the compressive strength was observed. The mechanical properties of the concrete decreased with the increase in the proportion of aggregate replaced (Topcu and Guncan, 1995). Many attempts to develop high-grade uses of construction waste are reported in the literature (Topcu and Guncan, 1995; Collins, 1996; Tavakoli and Soroushian, 1996). RILEM Technical Committee 121DRG (1994) recommended that only 20% of the natural aggregate can be replaced with recycled coarse aggregate in the preparation of new concrete of all strength classes, and limited the concrete classes when 100% recycled construction waste is used (Katz, 2004).

Several methods to improve the properties of new concrete made from recycled aggregate were reported in the literature. Sri Ravindrarajah and Tam (1988) improved the properties of new concrete by altering the water/cement ratio, adding pozzolans, and blending recycled and natural aggregates. Montgomery (1998) treated the aggregate with a ball mill in order to remove old cement paste from natural stone. He found that the cleaner the aggregate was, the stronger was the concrete. Winkler and

17

Mueller (1998) and Montgomery (1998) milled recycled fines and used them as a cement replacement.

Generally, recycling concrete is possible and the process is not complicated. But if we can not make the performance of recycled concrete satisfy the need, there won’t be a big market for it. Therefore, we still need to develop better technology to increase its properties. There is still a long way to go for concrete recycling.

2.1.2 Wood Wood is ubiquitous in the C&D wastes. In the United States, nearly all new singlefamily and low-rise multifamily residential structures use traditional wood-frame building technology (McGregor, 2006). Moreover, there are also large amounts of wood used in flooring, paneling, siding, roofing, cabinetry, decking, etc (Clean Washington Center, 1997).

Prior to 1990, recycling of wood waste in the United States was limited. Today, there are more than 500 wood processing facilities. Job-sites generate wood in the form of construction, demolition, and land-clearing debris (Table 2.2).

18

Table 2.2: Wood Wastes Generated on Site

Construction debris includes off-cuts of engineered wood products, solid sawn lumber, and pallets from material deliveries. Demolition generates timbers, trusses, framing lumber, flooring, decking, and millwork, doors, and window frames suitable for reuse or recycling depending on their condition. The recycled wood must be free of chemicals, including paint, strain, waterproofing, creosote, pentachlorophenol, petroleum distillates, and pressurizing treatments (Falk and McKeever, 2004). The stumps and branches from land clearing can be chipped and composted, recycled as boiler fuel, or reused on site as landscaping mulch.

The wood recycling practice can be illustrated by Figure 2.2:

19

The markets for recovered wood are dominated by production of landscaping mulch and waste wood for fuel.2: Wood Recycling Practices Most of the above practices can be applied not only to wood but also to most of the wastes in building construction.Identification Source Separation Sampling and Testing Supplier Relationships Sourcing Site Storage Material Handling Size Reduction Screening & Contamination Removal Safety and Training Quality Control Client Relationships Facility Design Processing Pulp and Paper Fiber Composition Panel board Other Fiber Composite Pressed Fuel Products Manufacturing Figure 2. Chipped or shredded wood 20 .

also known as gypsum wallboard.1. Although recycled gypsum has so many usages. which is a low-value. plentiful mineral that exists in large natural deposits. It is estimated that the recovery rate for wood in construction is usually between 50-90 percent. these industries demand clean and consistent feedstocks. Deconstruction is very important for lumber reuse. and an ingredient in the production of cement. 2. sewage sludge bulking medium and animal bedding (Falk and McKeever. Recycled gypsum can be used to manufacture new drywall. However. it is seldom recycled in the United States. Gypsum is a major ingredient in the production of fertilizer products. Recovered wood can be used to manufacturer value-added products such as medium density fiberboard and particleboard. is manufactured from gypsum. This phenomenon has 21 . It can also be used as an additive to composting operations (Claisse.is also used as a composting bulk agent. which creates an acidic leachate. which can be difficult to achieve with wood from the waste stream. It can also be used to improve soil drainage and plant growth. Because of contaminates in the form of wall-coverings and paints. after going to landfill. gypsum wallboard is not recycled. 2006). 2004).3 Drywall Drywall. in which way to preserve their integrity and value. However. gypsum wallboard produces hydrogen sulfide.

In this approach. On site processing Scraps from New Construction Mobile grinder Soil amendment Plant nutrient Scraps from Demolition Separating from paper Grinder Size reduction Screening system New drywall Fertilizer Cement Additive to composting Dust collection system Figure 2. the concept of recycling gypsum drywall at the construction site has been proposed.3: Drywall Recycling Scraps generated during the construction process are clean. scrap drywall from new construction is separated and processed using a mobile grinder and then size-reduced material is land applied as a soil amendment or a plant nutrient. This approach may be feasible when the soils and grass species show a benefit from the application of gypsum. This recycling technique offers a potential 22 .3. In recent years. while those generated during demolition usually contain paints and fasteners. we have to recycle gypsum no matter for the sake of environment or for the law. The recycling process is shown in Figure 2. Therefore.caused some municipalities to ban the material from land fills.

2004). 2. 2006). glass fiber matting. cold patch. 2006. 2004. Robert and Isacsson. There are a number of potential end usages for asphalt roofing waste including hot mix asphalt. The major components of asphalt roofing waste include asphalt. haul and dispose of the drywall For the demolition scraps. several processing methods have been utilized for preparing gypsum drywall for recycling. 1997. mineral filler and granules. Many of these operate using some type of grinder followed by a screening system. built-up roofing. Dust issues may need to be addressed and screening will normally be necessary. Limbachiya.1. Robert and Isacsson. organic paper felt and nails (Karlsson. Standard size reduction devices are also found at many waste processing sites can be used to process drywall. Several vendors market self-contained drywall processing equipment. The two major objectives of processing are separation of gypsum from the paper and the size reduction of the gypsum itself. and torchdown roofing. new roofing materials. etc (Katz. The table below describes the details of usage of recycled asphalt shingles. waste-to energy fuel. Karlsson. Hanson.4 Asphalt Roofing Asphalt roofing materials include composition shingles. 23 . and a dust collection system is typically included.economic benefit when the cost to process and land apply the ground drywall at the construction site is less than the cost to store.

Secondly. Cutbacks from shingle factories can be ground up and immediately be added to the hot mix asphalt process. The ceramics in the shingles provide a source of aggregate. or regenerated with rejuvenating chemicals prior to the hot mix asphalt process (Mallick. 2005).Table 2. The added asphalt cement decreases the demand for virgin asphalt cement. certain properties of asphalt pavement have been shown to 24 . 2000). First of all. Finally.3: Potential Usages and Benefitsfor Asphalt Shingles Hot mix asphalt (HMA) is the largest current market for recycled asphalt shingles (Shen and Du. recycled asphalt is cheaper so that there is an economic advantage to the producers. reducing the demand for mined aggregate. This has several benefits. hot mix asphalt requires certain gradations of aggregate.

The practice of using recycled asphalt shingles as cold patch has been employed for years. These include rutting and cracking resistance (Hanson.improve with the addition of recycled asphalt shingles. making it easier to haul. Patches using recycled asphalt shingles usually have a longer life than other materials. 1996). It is typically ground to 1/4 inch and passed under a magnetic separator in order to sufficiently remove all nails. The patch is also less dense than other materials. it is very convenient to use this kind of patch. No equipment is needed as the patch may be compressed by vehicle traffic. reducing loss of gravel. or parking lot surfaces. reducing noise. The advantages include minimizing dust. 2007). The recycled asphalt shingled cold patch can be stored longer because it does not clump as quickly as other materials (Button. Further more. unpaved roads. Recycled asphalt shingles has been used in temporary roads. 1997). This is probably due to the fibers form the felts or fiberglass in shingles. A pothole is simply filled approximately an inch over grade (Shingle Recycling. driveways. and longer life with less maintenance. 25 . Recycled asphalt shingles may be ground and mixed into the gravel used to cover rural. The processed shingles are spread and compacted for an easily installed surface.

5 Bricks As shown in Figure 2.Recycled asphalt shingles have been used as part of the sub-base in road construction.4.1. 2. there are two different ways in which bricks can be recycled. 2004). S. The usage of waste to energy is not recommended due to the air pollution. It can also be used to produce new roofing shingles. A large force is needed in order to crush bricks. and a report prepared for the U. Hughes and Kwan. Masonry Chunks Crushing Transport to recycling center Week mortar Masonry walls Removed by hands Strong mortar Pushed down by Machinery Clean bricks off mortar Pick up undamaged bricks Figure 2.4: Methods of Bricks Recycling The most common way is crushing them and using the remaining material as a hardcore fill (Gregory. These machines are 26 . which means that heavy machinery is required. Department of Energy showed that the addition of up to 20% of recycled shingles did not affect the performance of new shingles.

one brick at a time. Hughes and Kwan. A demolition contractor will only consider the value of the whole bricks if it was built using a soft lime mortar. However. 2004). The second method of recycling bricks is removing the whole brick by hands (Gregory. it is preferable to demolish the building by hand. allowing them to be picked up and cleaned by hand. so they are only appropriate at sites where there is a large amount of appropriate material that is available to be crushed. the material will be uniformly graded and much easier to transport than demolition rubble. If the building was constructed using a modern hard cement. The mortar is cleaned from the bricks by hand using a small light hand-axe and an 27 . and the cost of running a crushing machine is considerable. and any masonry chunks can be put through the crusher without the need to separate the mortar and bricks. it is very difficult to remove the cement from the bricks without causing damage. The crushing process is simple. If the mortar is too strong to be removed by hand. If the mortar is weak enough. After crushing. the walls can be pushed over with machinery. which can be easily removed because it is old and weak. It is possible for the contractor to figure out the strength of the mortar by scraping it with a knife or similar instrument. This method will cause damage to some of the bricks. and the force of the fall will loosen bond between the bricks.expensive and require a lot of room to operate. so that each brick can be individually cleaned and placed on a pallet as it is removed. hardcore is not a valuable material.

1. After demolition. old bricks actually have a higher price than new ones. The rebar in reinforcing concrete is always made form recycled steel and will be recycled during demolition. Hughes and Kwan. In some areas of the country. More than 7 million tons of steel is recycled into reinforcing bars every year. Nowadays. and it always been called “a green material”. The rebars are melted down to create new steel products. which uses between 20% and 100% recycled steel to manufacture new steel. used brick is becoming more and more popular because of its unique and antique look. Structure steel.6 Metals Metals are the highly recycled materials due to their own value. 2004). the dominating member of all metals in construction.experienced person can clean 1000 bricks in a day (Gregory. which is the entire feedstock. 2. has been recycled for over 150 years. The steel industry has well established infrastructure for scrap collection. most of the contractors extract and sell the rebars as ferrous scrap. so it is a true green product. as this scrap is a feedstock of the steel manufacturing process. 28 . and there is very little difference in strength performance between using recycled steel and virgin material.

a large amount of energy will be saved. Researches have to be done on how to maximize metals’ reuse. These replacements produced almost 2 million tons of waste carpet and padding. and an adhesive layer (Figure 2. Figure 2.5). enough to cover New York City’s five boroughs more than 1. 1998).Metals are always recycled. In 1997. 70% of annual carpet production was used to replace existing carpet. 1997) A lot of programs have been established for carpet recycling. primary and secondary backings.5 times (EPA.5: Composing of Carpet (Source: US EPA. In 1996. but seldom reused.7 Others Carpet is composed of face fiber. Although technology exists to recycle carpet and some carpet fibers are desirable in new products. If we can reuse metals instead of recycling them. manufacturers produced 1. commercial-scale collection and recycling 29 . Carpet covers nearly 70% of floor space of new homes built in the 1990s.7 billion square yards of carpet. 2.1.

polystyrene (PS) insulation board. For recycling. because plate glass is made of many different processes and ingredients. However. Doors and windows have high salvage value for reuse. paint buckets and caulk tubes. and Overcash. it is possible to use it as a feedstock for the manufacture of fiberglass. the size of the used ones may not fit for new frames. customers are not likely to accept used doors and windows because they are out of fashion. manufactures will not normally accept plate glass of unknown origin. Breakage and obsolescence prohibit their reuse too.is not yet readily available. joint compound. floors. and polypropylene (PP) electrical components. siding. high-density polyethylene (HDPE) piping. pipe and wiring insulation. The plastics used in building construction are seldom recycled due to the contamination. Many builders place fiberglass insulation leftovers and scraps in partition walls for sound deadening (Searles and Vaux. gutters. 30 . Glass found on construction and demolition sites is primarily plate glass from windows and doors. 1993). Plastic is the most complex component of C&D debris (Barlaz. Many types are generated: polyvinyl chloride (PVC) window frames. polyethylene (PE) vapor barriers and packaging. Some of the obstacles include the material complexity of carpet and the complex handling practices for carpet waste. Sometimes. However. 2004). Haynie.

2. They are. however. These programs may require residents to use one or more containers to separate and store recyclable materials that are diverted from the normal waste stream. 2008). sorting and processing recyclables into raw materials such as fibers. drop-off centers. 1995). and deposit-refund programs (EPA. Drop-off centers depend on voluntary participation. Single-family residential units are often served by curbside programs (White. more expensive to operate because they must be staffed. and handle cash. buy-back centers. secured. 1994). recyclable collection is contractors’ responsibility. 2. collecting recyclables varies from community to community. Buy-back centers offer all of the benefits of drop-off centers and the increased incentives of monetary benefits to participants (Rogoff and Williams. Depositrefund programs are used in certain states and fit for certain items such as bottles. Demolition 31 .2 Facilities for Building Materials Recycling The whole recycling process includes collecting recyclable materials. manufacturing raw materials into new products. but there are four primary methods: curbside. Some contractors put big containers on job sites to collect recyclables. and selling recycled products.1 Recyclables Collection For MSW recycling. Franke and Hindle.2. As to construction industry.

6: Recycling Process Historically. As landfills closed.2. haul distances became greater. 2001).6). Sorted Recyclables collected on site Unsorted Specific transfer stations Processing Big transfer centers Manufacturing facilities Sorting & processing Figure 2.contractors sort waste and transport them to transfer stations or just send all the waste to transfer centers without sorting. the next leg of their journey is usually the same. Recyclables are bought and sold just like any other commodity. Recyclables are sent to a transfer station to be sorted and prepared into marketable commodities for manufacturing (Figure 2. and prices for the materials change and fluctuate with the market. giving rise to the use of transfer stations in which the waste is transferred to large-capacity transfer trailers the trailers are then hauled to the landfill.2 Transfer Stations Regardless of the method used to collect the recyclables. solid waste was collected in packer-type collection vehicles which delivered the waste directly to landfills (McGraw-Hill. 32 . 2.

4. 2001). This results in fewer trips to the disposal or processing site. An overall reduction in capital and operating cost for the collection fleet can result. Advantages associated with transfer stations have resulted in a rapid growth in the number constructed in the past three decades. and transporting recyclables as well as incorporating material processing systems into the same transfer facility (McGraw-Hill. transfer stations have also been used for diverting. Table 2. Transfer stations currently being designed are typically enclosed in a building to reduce problems associated with noise. 2001). collecting. and blowing litter and to provide an aesthetically pleasing facility. The principal benefits derived from a transfer station are shown in Table 2.In recent years. 33 . allowing the collection fleet more time on the route to perform collection service.4: Benefits Derived form Transfer Stations Transfer truck legal payloads of 18 to 25 tons can be obtained. compared to the 4 to 10 ton legal payload of most collection trucks (McGraw-Hill. odor.

a reduction in the number of vehicles will result in a smaller working area. A landfill that receives only waste hauled in transfer 34 . The additional travel time of the truck to the disposal site keeps these workers from their collection duties. A total mileage savings will result from the fewer trips. However.the-road fuel use of collection equipment and transfer tractors are similar. Over.Many route trucks operate with two-or three-person crews. and safer conditions at the landfill due to reduced traffic. Since the length of the landfill dumping face is generally determined by the number and type of vehicles using the site. The flexibility of a transfer system allows the solid waste manager the freedom to shift the waste destination with minimal impact on collection operations. a reduction in nonproductive time can be achieved. less daily cover requirements. Significant fuel savings will be experienced as a result of the fewer trips required to the disposal or processing site. Since transfer trucks require only a one-person crew. just as important is the reduction in the number of flat tires and damage to power transmission and suspension systems that results from operation on muddy and irregular landfill surfaces.

surfacewater drainage. the land requirements to meet drainage regulations can be as much as 25% of total site. transfer vehicle storage. and employee parking. vehicle wash bay. the recyclables are ready to undergo the next part of the recycling loop. 2001). The re-manufacturing facilities are usually the same as the manufacturing facilities using the virgin materials. and auxiliary facilities (McGraw-Hill. maintenance structures. dust. Auxiliary requirements can include offices for staff. a scale house and scales. More and more of today's products are being manufactured with total or partial recycled content. Considerable additional area may be required for landscaping and screening berms to minimize adverse environmental impacts.3 Re-manufacturing Facilities Once cleaned and separated.2. 2. In some parts of Florida. Environmental awareness has led designers of transfer stations to place greater emphasis on minimizing adverse impacts such as noise. and odor. utilities. fuel storage and dispensing equipment. 35 . The transfer station site must have adequate area for on-site roads.trailers may require a working face less than half that required for a landfill receiving a similar quantity of waste hauled in packer-type vehicles.

In other words. damages. research objectives will be developed.4 Market for Recycled Products Purchasing recycled products is the finial step to complete the recycling loop. contaminations. Are these the only reasons for the unfavorable recycling rate? Can they be avoided? What are the other reasons? Is there any method to increase the recycling rate? Having these questions in mind. By buying recycled. we can also find that due to the obsolescence. as well as businesses and individual consumers.2. Then why don’t we do the environment a favor? It is obvious that the recycling rate for different materials is quite different. As consumers demand more environmentally sound products. each play an important role in making the recycling process a success. we can recycle nearly everything in a building if we really want to.2. What are the reasons for the difference? From the literature.. etc. manufacturers will continue to meet that demand by producing high-quality recycled products. we usually do not recycle certain building materials. 2. 36 . we can draw the conclusion that the current technologies can support most materials’ recycling and the facilities are available to process these recyclables. governments.3 Summary From the above literature review.

What are the reasons for the low materials recycling rate in construction industry? How can we increase the recycling rate? This paper will focus on solving these problems. some questions keep haunting in mind. and (2) to identify the solutions on how to break obstacles and increase the recycling rate.Chapter 3 Research Objectives and Methodology After targeting building materials recycling as the research topic and reviewing relevant literatures. too.1 Research Objectives The main purposes of this paper are (1) to find out obstacles of building materials recycling. 3. the following research questions will be answered: ♦ What are the causes of obstacles? ♦ How can we sort them? ♦ Who are responsible for these obstacles? ♦ How can we identify the obstacles? ♦ How can we prove they are the obstacles? To fulfill the second objective. To fulfill the first objective. To achieve these main objectives. some sub-objectives will be developed. the following research questions will be answered: 37 .

Interview industry professionals will also help to identify the obstacles. The same case will be used to testify the drives. A case study will be used to testify these obstacles. a more effective suggestion will be given. After having all the above information. Literatures will be reviewed to find the current solutions for increasing recycling rate.2 Research Methodology To fulfill the above objectives. literature will be reviewed to find the obstacles of building materials recycling. Drives will be derived from principles.♦ What are other people’s suggestions on increasing building materials recycling rate? ♦ Is there a more effective way? ♦ What is building design recyclability? ♦ What are the principals for building design recyclability? ♦ What are the variables of design recyclability? ♦ How can design recyclability increase materials recycling rate? ♦ How to prove that? 3. The concept of design recyclability will be developed and the principles of it will be described by analyzing and summarizing the above information and findings. 38 .

or in large pieces. Some of them are people’s problems. contractors generally must remove them intact. but in reality. such as trash.1). Moreover. case studies will be used for testifying. and regional factors (Table 4. For example. nails. in order for materials to be reusable. Some materials may require additional labor before they can be reused. environmental. participants. There are also some other important factors and I’d like to put them into six categories: social. the building materials’ recycling rate is far from 100%. None of them has testified their findings. However. after identifying and sorting the obstacles. materials must be separated from contaminants. 4. floor and ceiling tiles. economic. plumbing fixtures. in order to be recyclable. and broken glass. it is possible to recycle nearly everything in a building. In this paper. like drywall and lumber.1 Identifying Obstacles of Building Materials Recycling Technically. while some of them are related to the materials’ characteristics. like windows and frames.Chapter 4 Data Analysis and Concept Development A lot of researches have been done about the obstacles of building materials recycling. A new concept will be developed to suggest a more effective way to increase recycling rate. most of them are based on experience or opinions from industry professionals. 39 . There are a lot of obstacles for building materials’ recycling. materials natural.

so people may think that they won’t bother having nothing 40 . The US is a country full of resources.1: Obstacles of Building Materials Recycling 4.1.1 Social Factors Lack of education Many people in the US haven’t realized how necessary recycling is.Table 4.

it is common for people to drive their cars to the recycling facilities just for taking a box of old newspapers there. More researches need to be done on how to encourage people to recycle things. If no one wants to buy the reused ones. windows and carpet are all this kind of items.2 Environmental Factors Hazardous components 41 . many nonrenewable resources are exhausted. People’s willingness Recycling is usually a voluntary activity. If we continue consuming and polluting at current rate. around the world. Doors. However. People’s preference for fashion Customers always prefer new and fashionable items to used ones. Sometimes. they are not truly reused. Many educators have already tried to integrating recycling into K-12 educational system. we have to draw people’s attention to recycling. our next generation will have to dig the landfill. In England.to use. we can not find a market for the used ones. The American can not live a good life without a healthy global environment. people know that recycling is benign. Therefore. 2001).1. 4. Sometimes even if we can salvage some components during demolition. but they don’t have a strong willingness to do it (Teo and Loosemore.

2). 2000). Therefore. et al. authorities have frequently enacted regulations or bans to minimize their impacts. we have used and continue to use large quantity of chemical substances and additives in all types of products to enhance technical properties (Sheridan. Some of these additives have negative impact on environment.Throughout the construction industry. The following is a table showing hazardous substances in building components (Table 4. 42 . Hazardous components prevent recyclable materials from recycling.

2: Hazardous Substances in Building Components (Source: Strufe.Table 4. 2005) 43 .

Because much of the C&D wastes are inert. OSHA worker protection requirements for both ACM and LBP are tougher on deconstruction than demolition because the exposure is much greater. and a large fraction of C&D debris generated in the United States ends up in landfills. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) both have federal regulations governing the management of asbestos containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) in buildings.There are environmental regulations about safety of demolition sites to protect workers from hazardous materials. 1998). 44 . Having separate containers for each type of materials can reduce contamination. site condition is also an important factor for building materials recycling. Site condition The demolition job sites always don’t have enough space for storage of recyclables and on-site sorting. Low tipping fee One of the reasons for the unfavorite building materials recycling rate is the lower tipping fees. C&D landfills generally have lower tipping fees. Each container should be labeled. solid waste rules in most states do not require the landfills to provide the same level of environmental protection as landfills licensed to receive MSW (EPA report. and this makes recycling certain material even harder. Therefore. Therefore.

we have to find a place to store them.3 Economic Factors Materials markets In some of the research projects.4. Since no one what to use the recycled materials. landfill. If possible. Preplanning can maximize materials recovery in the time allowed. the markets for recyclables in the U. S. Cost Effectiveness The feasibility of any recycling program depends on whether the total cost of recycling is less than the sum of cost of labor. hauling fees and taxes. tipping. are not enough (Ueda. Then. But will the recyclables really be recycled? How many of them will go to landfill after being recycled on site? These depend on the recycled materials markets. Unfortunately. the recovery rate during demolition can be as high as 90%. Deconstruction will take longer time and need more skilled workers than demolition. Project Timeline In order for recycling as many materials as possible. If we can not sell the recycled materials. If the condition is satisfied. we usually do deconstruction rather than demolition. If the recycling cost is more 45 . contractors can do offsite source separation and recycling. Then why do we bother recycling them. they will go to landfill eventually.1. demolition projects always are often on a tight schedule due to financing arrangements. 2003). Nishino and Oda. However. recycling is cost effective. the timeline prevent Contractors from recycling materials.

hauling. then recycling operations are not cost effective. Conjunction The conjunction method of different pieces of materials is very import for deconstruction. designers must know what the size limitation of transport vehicles is and design the buildings using smaller size materials. small project may look for alternative vehicles to transport recyclables to transfer stations. Size too big Some of the materials like timber are too long to be transported. there will be some add-on value to the recyclables.1. 46 . the quantity of each material is not big enough for a hauling vehicle to go and pick it up.than the landfill. However. deconstruction. But comparing to using virgin feedstock. and processing costs will always make recycled feedstock more expensive. Another method is transport all of the wastes to transfer center by collection trucks. The common collection truck has a legal payload form 4 to 10 tons. 4. For example bolts are better than welds in the ease of separation. Therefore.4 Materials Natural Factors Quantity too small For single-house demolition projects. if we consider selling recycled materials as feedstock. To solve this problem.

and an adhesive layer. Carpet is composed of face fiber. Take carpet as an example. labors will be capable to do their job. too. preplan. reuse may be a good option. Complicated composing Some of the building components have very complicated composing.5 Participants’ Factors Contractors’ experience Contractors with knowledge of recovery methods and local markets may be able to recover more materials than contractors unfamiliar with reuse and recycling issues. It is impossible to separate carpet into four parts and recycling. The experienced contractors can deal with oversights quick and sound. Experienced contractors can be more effective in planning. primary and secondary backings.1. 47 . Labor capability If the deconstruction workforce is familiar with reuse and recycling. Then. 4. With proper education. it will be easier for the contractor to do his job. especially when it is made from carpet tiles. the ease with which components can be recovered form a building is greatly affected by how the building was put together in the first place. and recyclables transportation. and some practice.However. workforce education.

It is good for the contractor to build a solid relationship with local recyclers. it will make contractors job easier. 1996). The owner should understand recycling and allow contractor to use enough time to salvage recyclables (Ruff. 48 . There is a news form the New York Times. a trade magazine. 4. Moreover.Relationships among participants Owner.1) of recycling rates for top 15 big cities in the US.6 Regional Factors Regional traditions In the United States. designer and contractor should cooperate with each other to make a building recyclable.000 Houston residents have been waiting as long as 10 years to get recycling bins from the city.6 percent of its total waste. Here is a list (Figure 4. Dzombak and Hendrickson. according to a study by Waste News. 2008). the recycling rates vary from region to region. but if owners and designers can have some knowledge of recycling.1. According to this news. San Francisco and New York recycle 69 percent and 34 percent of their waste respectively (Ellick. Nowadays. By comparison. state to state. city to city. recycling building materials is contractors’ responsibility. 25. titled “Houston Resists Recycling”. Houston recycles just 2.

1: Recycling Rate for Top 15 Big Cities (Source: the New York Times. no-zoning layout makes collection very expensive.Figure 4. 49 . paper and plastics. and there is little public support for sorting glass. And there appears to be even less for placing fees on excess trash. 2008) City officials of Houston say real progress on recycling will be hard to come by. Landfill costs there are cheap. The city’s sprawling.

People living there just do not have the awareness of recycling. even though contractors’ participant is important to recycling. in states which lack the recycling abilities. for most of the products. Regional markets After recyclables being sorted and processed. Regional capacities Suppose that contractors are experienced and well educated about recycling. Regional capacity for recycling is another vital factor. we can not only use recycled as feedstock. They have the ability to do deconstruction and onsite sorting. residents in California take recycling as something they have to do. They are very aspiring to recycling everything if it is possible. and they claim that the recycling rate of their project is nearly 100%. it is just one link of the whole chain. There are regulations about the highest percentage of recycled feedstock for the product properties. On the contrary. Therefore. On the contrary. they will be sold to manufacturing facilities. the recyclables are really been recycled.It is a traditional culture for Houston and many other cities in Central America not to care about recycling. However. What will happen to the recyclables after they have been sent to transfer stations? In some states. the recyclables will be sent to landfill eventually. where transfer stations have the technology to process recyclables and sell them to manufacturing facilities. Some manufacturing factories even don’t accept recycled 50 . They send all the recyclables to nearby transfer stations.

their findings are mostly based on experience and the opinions gotten form industry professionals. The 51 .2). Figure 4. Texas is a part of San Antonio Metropolitan area.2 Case Study Although a lot of researches have identified obstacles of building materials recycling. The recyclables which can not be sold for remanufacturing will go to landfill and become nonrecyclables. 4. None of them has testified these obstacles.1 Face Institute in Texas The face institute used in this paper is located at 6501 Blanco Road. The city of Castle Hills. A case study. Texas. Castle Hills.2: A Typical Surgery Building 4.materials because virgin materials are cheap and abundant in supply. will be used in this paper to figure out whether these are real reasons for the low recycling rate and which have more negative effect than the others.2. a face institute (Figure 4.

Table 4. Table 4.517 SF. slightly higher than Houston.3 shows the materials and components used in that building.000 800 4 4 8 8 8 19 8 8 8 13 8 14 8 13 8 18 16 16 19 16 16 64 75 250 2 2 52 . Beam & Column Formworks External Wall Stone Veneer Roof trusses Studs Storefront Door Material steel concrete wood CMU limestone wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood Metal Metal Metal Alum.recycling rate in that area is about 4%.& Glass wood Size & description 60'Length 40'Length 38'Length 36'Length 34'Length 32'Length 30'Length 28'Length 26'Length 24'Length 22'Length 20'Length 18'Length 16'Length 14'Length 12'Length 10'Length 8'Length 6'Length 4'Length 2'Length 1/2"-6" 1/2"-8" 3/4"-4" 6'*8' 3'*2' Unit Ton CY MBF SF SF ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea Quantity 160 25. This building is a typical surgery building. The building area is 5.000 5. with size and quantity. Texas.3: Components and Materials of a Typical Surgery Building Components Rebar Slab.5 1.

000 50 64 2 54 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 53 .000 5.000 3.Window Wall Ceiling Floor Base Door hardware Door frame Window frame wood wood wood wood Wood & glass metal metal glass glass glass glass glass glass glass glass glass glass glass glass glass glass glass gypsum board gypsum board carpet vinyl tile rubber vinyl metal metal metal metal metal metal metal metal metal metal metal metal metal 3'*7' 6'*7' 4'*7' 4'*5' 3'*7' 3'*7' 4'*7' 11'-4 1/2"*8' 5'-8 3/4"*8' 13'-8 1/2"*3' 10'-3"*3' 16'-8"*5'-6" 5'-7 1/2"*5'-6" 14'-4"*8' 8'-1"*8' 3'-9"*8' 7'-9 1/2"*8' 12'-3 1/2"*8' 8'-3"*8' 2'-8"*3'-10" 2'*3' 4'*4' 5/8" thick 5/8" thick 4" thick 3'*2' 3'*7' 6'*7' 4'*7' 4'*5' 11'-4 1/2"*8' 5'-8 3/4"*8' 13'-8 1/2"*3' 10'-3"*3' 16'-8"*5'-6" 5'-7 1/2"*5'-6" 14'-4"*8' ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea SF SF SF SF SF SF ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea 40 1 2 2 8 6 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 10.000 5.000 2.

metal metal metal metal metal metal metal metal lead gypsum X-Ray Protection board Fire alarm control panel NA Smoke Detector NA Cold water pipe steel Hot water pipe steel Backflow prevent valve steel Butterfly valve steel Heavy duty floor drain NA Hub drain NA Vent pipe steel Sanitary sewer pipe steel Circulation pump NA Water closet NA Lavatory NA Sink NA Water heater NA Duct heater NA Fan NA Air diffuser NA NA NA Grille NA NA NA NA Louver NA NA NA Conductor copper Tube NA Junction box NA Telephone outlet NA 8'-1"*8' 3'-9"*8' 7'-9 1/2"*8' 12'-3 1/2"*8' 8'-3"*8' 2'-8"*3'-10" 2'*3' 4'*4' ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea LF LF ea ea ea ea LF LF ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea LF LF ea ea 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 300 1 20 160 320 1 50 2 1 300 320 1 4 4 19 1 1 2 18 14 18 2 7 15 1 1 1 1 2.000 9 37 5/8" thick with 1/16" lead SF 10"DIA. 12"face 6"DIA.000 13. 24"face 8"DIA. 12"face 8*8 12*12 14*14 24*12 12*12 18*18 30*24 54 .

CMU. wood. concrete. which didn’t embody recycling at all. including steel. It used nearly all typical building materials for such a small building. gypsum board.4: Obstacles of Texas Face Institute Recycling Rec ycla ble or Not Y N N N Y Why not 9 10 11 Compo -nents Rebar Slab. etc. Table 4. rubber.Safety switch Lighting NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2'*4' pole mounted surface mounted darkroom light utility drum light incandescent can wall mounted floodlight compact can recessed can under counter light sign light lamp mounted emergency lighting ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea 6 56 2 8 1 4 7 2 1 8 8 2 1 8 6 This is just a traditional design. Beam & Column Formwork External Wall Stone Material 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 15 steel concrete wood CMU limeston ----○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ----○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 55 . limestone. vinyl tile.4) describes whether these components and materials can be recycled and what prevent them from being recycled. aluminum. glass. The following table (Table 4.

Veneer roof trusses Studs storefront Door e wood Metal Alum.& Glass wood Wood & glass metal glass gypsum board gypsum board carpet vinyl tile rubber vinyl metal metal metal lead gypsum board NA NA steel steel steel steel NA NA N N N ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ N N N N ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ○ Y ----○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Window Wall Ceiling floor Base door hardware door frame window frame X-Ray Protection Fire alarm control panel Smoke Detector cold water pipe hot water pipe Backflow prevent valve butterfly valve heavy duty floor drain hub drain 56 .

the numbers represent the following reasons: 1: Low salvage value 2: Quantity too small 3: Size too big 4: Out of fashion 5: Site condition 6: Regional materials market 7: Regional traditions 8: Regional capacities 9: Hazardous components 10: Conjunction method 11: Complicated composing 12: Contamination 13: Obsolescence 14: Damages 15: Cost effectiveness 57 .vent pipe sanitary sewer pipe circulation pump water closet lavatory sink water heater duct heater fan air diffuser grille louver conductor tube junction box telephone outlet safety switch lighting steel steel NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA copper NA NA NA NA NA N N Y N N N Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ----------------- ○ ○ ----○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Note: In this table.

4 Table 4.Among the total 48 items. The other 40 items can not be recycled there. it is obvious that the regional factors are responsible for most of the non-recyclable items. 58 . TX. If we can avoid regional factors. only 8 of them can be recycled in the area of San Antonio. Contamination contributes a lot. the recycling rate should increase tremendously.5 will summarize the results of table 4. Table 4. too.5: Analyzing the Obstacles of Texas Face Institute Recycling From the above table.

4.2.2 Face Institute in California Supposing this face institute is located in Los Angeles, California, where people are willing to recycle everything. Therefore, the regional traditions will not be an obstacle of materials recycling. Then the table will be like this (Table 4.6).

Table 4.6: Obstacles of California Face Institute Recycling Compone -nts Rebar Slab, Beam & Column Formwor ks External Wall Stone Veneer roof trusses Studs storefront Door Recy -cled or Not Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y --------------------------------------------------------Why not 9 10 11 --------○ ○

Material steel concrete wood CMU limeston e wood Metal Alum.& Glass wood Wood & glass metal glass gypsum board gypsum board carpet vinyl tile rubber

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

12

13

14

15

Window Wall Ceiling floor

Base

59

vinyl door hardware door frame window frame X-Ray Protection Fire alarm control panel Smoke Detector cold water pipe hot water pipe Backflow prevent valve butterfly valve heavy duty floor drain hub drain vent pipe sanitary sewer pipe circulatio n pump water closet lavatory sink water heater duct heater fan air diffuser grille metal metal metal lead gypsum board NA NA steel steel steel steel NA NA steel steel NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Y Y Y Y N ○ Y

----------------○

----N Y ----Y N ○ N N ○ N Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N ○ ----○ --------○ ○ ----------------○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ----○ ○ ○

60

louver conductor tube junction box telephone outlet safety switch lighting

NA copper NA NA NA NA NA

N Y Y Y Y Y Y

○ -------------------------

Note: In this table, the numbers represent the following reasons: 1: Low salvage value 2: Quantity too small 3: Size too big 4: Out of fashion 5: Site condition 6: Regional materials market 7: Regional traditions 8: Regional capacities 9: Hazardous components 10: Conjunction method 11: Complicated composing 12: Contamination 13: Obsolescence 14: Damages 15: Cost effectiveness

Table 4.7: Analyzing the Obstacles of California Face Institute Recycling

61

they always recycle more materials than the amount that local markets can absorb. The building is the same one. especially in Japan and Europe (Boonstra and Knapen. 2002). if people’s will for recycling is strong. comparing with these factors. They will transport recycled materials overseas. These are obstacles in Texas. 2006. but they just do that for the sake of environment. 4. It may not be cost effective. However. Bossink. the size of components. The regional market is another important factor for recycling. and make items recyclable. we can conquer the minor obstacles and make recycling possible. and there are still problems in California. Other manufacturing industries such as electronic industry and automobile industry have gone further in recycling than construction industry (Bohr. 36 of them are recyclable in California and 12 of them are nonrecyclable. 1998). 62 . Therefore. 2000. However. are all the same. regional tradition is the leading one. the conjunction methods. A lot of researchers have focused on how to increase building materials recovery rate. we can try to figure out the ways to break them and increase the recycling rate. they can conquer other obstacles.Among the 48 items. which means the quantity of materials.3 Strategies for Increasing Building Materials Recovery Rate After identifying and testifying the obstacles. If people are willing to recycling materials. etc. Onuki. in some states like California.

2000). EPR is a way to ensure that the polluter pays for the environmental impacts that its product causes (Hanisch. As to construction industry. it is expected that it will look for ways to design products to minimize end of life costs such as disassembly and disposal costs through instruments like design for recyclability. reduced material usage. 63 . product disassembly. it is still an unacquainted concept.8).3. remanufacturability (Guggemos and Horvath. EPR requires producers to be financially or physically responsible for their products after their useful life. reduced or eliminated use of toxic materials. The following table shows the policy tools to achieve EPR (Table 4. 2003). By placing the end of life burden on the manufacturer.1 Extended Producer’s Responsibility Extended producer’s responsibility (EPR) has been used as a policy tool for electronics recycling in some counties for years.4.

2003) Construction industry is a unique industry that has both product manufacturing and service components. The following table compares construction with other industries (Table 4.9). 64 .8: Policy Tools for Achieving EPR (Source: Guggemos and Horvath.Table 4.

2002).2 Deconstruction The cost and ease of removal of components from a building at the end of its life are significant factors affecting the amount of reuse and recycling that occurs (Rose. switchgears. 2003) For the unique characteristics of construction industry. boilers. Ishii and Stevels.9: Construction versus Other Industries (Modified form Guggemos and Horvath. The ease with which components can be recovered from a 65 .3. 4. The producer is easily identified through markings on component. These components have shorter lives than the building structure. and other engineered-to-order products. it may be possible to take back certain building materials or components such as air conditioning. However. water tanks. elevators.Table 4. taking back an entire building is not feasible. electric panels.

and materials should be chosen that can be readily reused or recycled. To facilitate disassembly. For easy disassembly. the designer should consider the following things (Table 4.10). Designers need to think about not only how materials will be put together but also how components will be separated at the end of life.building is greatly affected by how the building was put together in the first place. 66 . components should be incorporated into buildings in a way that facilitates separation.

at the concept stage. the building’s lifetime changes. The proper sequence of disassembly increases jobsite safety and efficiency. Potential problems during refurbishment and eventual deconstruction should be investigated. the chronology of the deconstruction process is very important. For example. allowing site access for machinery and designing floors to take the additional load of demolition plant and rubble should be a consideration. The design team needs to think through. It also 67 .10: Considerations for Deconstruction during Design Phase Designers should consider at the outset how components will be replaced in the building during its useful life and how the building will be dismantled at the end of its life to maximize the usefulness of the components and materials. Furthermore.Table 4.

11: Basic Steps to Building Deconstruction (Source: Chini and Bruening. There are five basic steps for deconstruction as shown in Table 4.3. An innovation project in Osaka.11. Table 4. 2004). while the infill is designed to be easily replaceable. Brouwer and Kearney. This classification provides the principal guideline for implementing the two stage buildings. 2004). named NEXT 21. That is an experimental multi-family 68 . 2003) 4. if components can be dismantled easily and undamaged.protects recyclables from unnecessary damage. it will be more likely to reuse or recycle them. The infrastructure is designed to be permanent. Japan. best illustrated these concepts (Kim. Brouwer and Kearney.3 Systems and Two Stage Buildings Systems building is an integrated system assembled from a series of multiple independent subsystems (Kim. Building systems are classified into two groups: the infrastructure and the infill. Since different components in a building have different life time. As to recycling. independent subsystems provide convenience for maintenance and renovation.

housing fitting for high-density urban area. The components are easy to be taken out. 69 . but in the US. it will be very convenient for contractors to do recycling. Bamboo is considered to be a highly recyclable material. Then the concept of design recyclability comes to my mind. and it is good for renovation and recycling. I realize that if designers can implement recycling on the first stage of a project. no facility can recycle bamboo. 4. 2003). and it has to be transported to other countries. structural stressed skin panels. Baled straw can be stacked like bricks for both load bearing and non-load bearing infill walls. Straw fiber can be processed and manufactured as medium density fiberboard. Another suggestion about alternative materials is using straw. 4.4 Alternative Materials Considering using more recyclable materials to take place of current materials is another attempt to increase recycling rate (Reid.3. and non-structural partitions.4 Building Design Recyclability After finding the obstacles of building materials recycling and reviewing other people’s suggestion on increasing building materials recycling rate.

4. We can define recyclable design and building design recyclability as follows: “According to the design. Recyclability describes the ability of materials to be recovered at the end of their original service life. be reused or remanufactured into additional products”. but design can make materials recycling easier. Actually.4. we can call this design a recyclable design. using recycled materials has nothing to do with the 70 . all the materials for buildings can be recycled at the end of their service lives or the recycling rate can reach to a satisfying level. Therefore. therefore. and the ability to provide convenience for achieving higher materials recycling rate is building design recyclability.1Defining Building Design Recyclability Recyclability is a word used to describe characteristics of materials. Many organizations set using recycled materials as one of the criteria for design recyclability (Environmental Defense. 1999). Design is not something that can be recycled.” There is a common misunderstanding of recyclability. with good performance of contractors. we can use recyclability to describe the potential possibility for a design to provide convenience for materials recycling. One of the definitions of recyclability from European Environment Information and Observation Network is “Characteristic of materials that still have useful physical or chemical properties after serving their original purpose and that can.

I will address the principles for building design recyclability form three phases: pre-design phase. 71 . we should also find out how designs can make materials more recyclable and what to do to make a design become a recyclable design.2 Principles for Building Design Recyclability After clearly understanding the definition of building design recyclability. and post-design phase (Table 4. but that is not an issue to discuss here. even though it is benign.recycling rate.12). It is recommended to using recycled materials.4. design phase. 4.

12: Principles for Building Design Recyclability 72 .Table 4.

They should know the recyclability of different materials. designers can use proper materials for different components according to their lifetime.2. Get information of materials recyclability Designers can not only be aspiring. which are largely driven by fashion in stead of physical obsolescence. Regional factors are more important to the final recycling rate.4.4.1 Pre-design Phase Inspire designers’ willingness for recycling Thoughts determine actions. from a range of 25-100 years for the main structure to perhaps a range of only 5-10years for internal fit out and even shorter periods for furniture and decoration. This information also helps when considering using subsystems and layers. Get information of different lifetime of components The lifetime of various components in a building can vary considerably. After that. Having these kinds of information in mind. The designers should know the importance of recycling and be willing to recycling. only these kinds of information are not enough. but they should also be knowledgeable. Get information of regional capacities 73 . they will have the motivation to develop recyclable designs. However.

we can avoid the appearance of non-recyclables at the first stage. systems and two stages building design Systems and two stage building design is good for renovation and deconstruction. designers should communicate with owners about their idea. Therefore. Get information of regional markets Designers should have the information of regional recycling markets.2. On the contrary. Owner is the payer for everything. too.4. the recyclables will be sent to landfill eventually. where transfer stations have the technology to process recyclables and sell them to manufacturing facilities. we’d better considering other materials. they can choose to use the materials which can be recycled locally. 4. In this way. the recyclables are really been recycled. In some states. Communicate with owner about recycling issues After getting all the information of recycling and determining to deliver a recyclable design.Regional capacity for recycling is another vital factor. without owner’s agreement. nothing can be implemented. Parts are easy to be separated with little damage. Therefore. The building built in layers can be 74 . in states which lack the recycling abilities. If no market for some kind of recyclables.2 Design Phase Consider using layers. if designers are familiar with regional recycling capacities.

According to the information about regional recycling capacities and regional recycling markets. we can not sell them because they are already out of fashion. Reducing the number of materials also simplifies the separation process and supports recycling. Try to reduce the types of materials used for the whole building. choose materials that can be easily recycled and sold in that area. while functional components can last longer. Reduce the number of different materials used Reduce the number of materials used to manufacture a component or assembly. that have been widely recognized as recyclable materials. Sometimes even if we can salvage some aesthetics components. aesthetics components always have shorter life. Therefore. the quantity for a single type of material is too small for a collection truck to pick it up. 75 . Use functional components instead of aesthetics components Customers always prefer new and fashionable items to used ones. Choose recyclable materials Choose materials and components. like steel.easily replaced as necessary throughout the life of the building. The components with the shortest lifetimes should be in the most easily accessible layers. Because sometimes during demolition.

and an adhesive layer. Materials secured with bolts or screws are easier to deconstruct than those secured with nails or rivets. Using regular size components. This category often includes treatments and finishes applied on site. which can achieve better environmental benefit than recycling. and windows. doors. Reversible mechanical fixings are preferable. can make them more likely be reused. If the size is too big to be transported. should be avoided. Use prefabricated components that are assembled on site Prefabricated components that are assembled on site can often be easily disassembled for reuse or recycling. is another example. composed of face fiber. such as roof trusses. the material can not be recycled. Processes that are inherently irreversible. Avoid using complex composite materials Complex composite materials are difficult to be separated and recycled. Carpet. primary and secondary backings. Generally. mechanical fixings are preferable. Use mechanical fixings and other conjunction methods that are easy to separate Methods of fixing are important for deconstruction. Designers may try to use more prefabricated components to increase recovery rate. such as welding. 76 . which are easier to separate than adhesives or cement.Use regular size components Regular size components are most easily be reused and resold.

and there are a lot of consequent re-work and materials waste. Hazardous components prevent recyclable materials from recycling. Throughout the construction industry. we have used and continue to use large quantity of chemical substances and additives in all types of products to enhance technical properties. Therefore. authorities have frequently enacted regulations or bans to minimize their impacts. 77 . Leave sufficient space for deconstruction Sufficient space should be provided for the machinery that will be needed for deconstruction. Consider alternative materials Considering using more recyclable materials to take place of current materials is another attempt to increase recycling rate. Avoid mistakes Designing mistakes will cost a lot. Designers should figure out ways to avoid using these hazardous materials. Some of these additives have negative impact on environment.Avoid using hazardous components Hazardous materials create many future problems and should be avoided. although it is impossible. For everyone’s good. mistakes should be avoided.

Avoid change orders Just like design mistakes.4. all the parties should try the best to minimize them. These will help demolition contractor to identify materials and make deconstruction easier.2. Mark all materials with standard material identification codes. A recyclable design is just the first step to recycling. they are annoyed and unavoidable. designers should communicate with contractor about their recycling goals and effort. and details of renovation work carried out during the life of the building. Since they will bring huge materials waste. too. Record the materials During a building’s life there should be a log that includes information on the design of the original building. Develop a deconstruction plan 78 . and contractor’s proper practice is crucial to the finial out come.4. specifications for materials used in construction. Contractors are suggested to mark parts for simple material identification.3 Post-design Phase Communicate with contractor Before the beginning of job site work.

If not. Communicate with deconstruction contractor If possible. because it is impossible for them to follow all the principles and some principles may not count for as much as others. and I will just identify the drives. 79 . Drives are derived from principles. a detailed deconstruction plan will help. too. and the designers should consider this process and prepare a strategy for the deconstruction of the building. 4. However. designers may communicate with deconstruction contractors to help them to follow the deconstruction plan or to form a more feasible one.4.13.A deconstruction plan should be provided by designer. The quantification of variables will be a very complicated process. Different types of variables must use different method to quantify. designers may roughly know to deliver a recyclable design. shown in Table 4. it is hard to determine whether a design is a recyclable design without quantified variables. Deconstruction is the reverse of construction.3 Generating Drives With the principles for building design recyclability. The variable quantification will be the major task for future researches. This paper will focus on developing the framework of building design recyclability.

and two stages building design Choose recyclable materials Use functional components instead of aesthetics components Reduce the number of different materials used Use regular size components Avoid using complex composite materials Use mechanical fixings and other conjunction methods that are easy to separate Use prefabricated components that are assembled on site Avoid using hazardous components Leave sufficient space for deconstruction Consider alternative materials Avoid mistakes Communicate with contractor Avoid change orders Record the materials Develop a deconstruction plan Communicate with deconstruction contractor Drives Education about recycling Knowledge of materials recyclability Knowledge of materials lifespan Knowledge of regional recycling capacities Knowledge of regional recycling markets NA Systems design Layers design Two stages design Regional highly recyclable materials used Functional instead of aesthetics Number of types of materials used Standard size components used Complex composite materials used Conjunction method used Prefabricated components used Hazardous components Space for deconstruction Alternative materials NA NA NA Record for materials Deconstruction plan NA Post-design Phase This is the first attempt to develop the framework of building design recyclability. This concept contains various types of information.13: Drives for Building Design Recyclability Phases Pre-design Phase Principles Inspire designers’ willingness for recycling Get information of materials recyclability Get information of different lifetime of components Get information of regional capacities Get information of regional markets Design Phase Communicate with owner about recycling issues Consider using systems. layers.Table 4. What has been done in this paper 80 .

k. i a. c. f a. 4.4 Testifying Drives The same case will be used to testify the above drives. Details are shown in Table 4. 6. 7.14. 10. 6. f. d. 6. 6. 7 4. f. 5. c. 7. 7. 14. b. 15 2. 15 4. 14 4. p ----a. i a. d. Beam & Column Formworks External Wall Stone Veneer roof trusses Studs storefront Door Material steel concrete wood CMU limestone wood Metal Alum. d. 8. 11. More effort is needed to fully develop the concept of building design recyclability. f a.14: Results of Implementing Design Recyclability Recyclable or Not Y N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N Recyclable or Not after Implementing Design Recyclability Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Components Rebar Slab. f. 7. f a. c. f. k. 11. 15 Drives ----a. f a. p a. 10. 8. b. 8. f. 14 1. 14 2. c. b. 12 4. 8. 12. f. 12. 8. c. 7 1.is just a beginning and the drives identified above are far from enough. d. 11. c. d. 7. d. 4. I. b. a. b. k. f. b. 10. 6. d. b. c. b. 15 1. 2. c. 6. 13. Table 4. 6. c. 8. i a. d. b. 15 ----3. i a. 5. b. f. 4. b. 6. d. 12. d. 12. c. f a. o. n. c. b. i a. 7. 7.4. d. d. 15 2. c. 7. 12 10. 4. 13. c. c. d. 7. 6. f Window Wall Ceiling floor glass gypsum board gypsum board carpet vinyl tile 81 . b. b. 7 1. d. 12.& Glass wood Wood & glass metal Obstacles ----2.

13. f. d. 9. c. 12. 14 ----4. 14 2. f a. c. 14. b. 6. 7. 14. f a. 12. 7. 10. f ----a. c. 12. b. d. f. b. 5. d. f. 7. 15 1. c. 14 12 12. f a. 14 7. 8. f a. m ----a. 15 door hardware door frame window frame X-Ray Protection Fire alarm control panel Smoke Detector cold water pipe hot water pipe Backflow prevent valve butterfly valve heavy duty floor drain hub drain vent pipe sanitary sewer pipe circulation pump water closet lavatory sink water heater duct heater fan air diffuser grille metal metal metal lead gypsum board NA NA steel steel steel steel NA NA steel steel NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA a. c. d. 8. f a. d. 11 ----6. 15 13 12. f a. c. 10. c. f. 14 6. b. 15 4. c. b. b. b. d. 12. f a. 15 7. c. d. d. b. 6. f a. 15 ----------------6. d. 6. 7. 13. b. 15 4. 6. 5. 7. 12. f a. c. b. b. d. d. b. c. f a. 7. c. b. b. d. 7. 6. b. 8. b. d. d. c. 13 12. 9. 7. b. f. f ----------------a. 12. p a. 6. 12 7. 7.Base rubber vinyl N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N Y N N N Y Y Y Y N 1. 7. d. b. d. k a. 10. n c. b. 14 6. 12. c. d. c. d. f a. f a. c. 12. d. c. k a. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 82 . Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y c. 14 12.

d. d. b. c. 7 6. b. d. f a. b. 6. b. 7. 7. b. 7. f a. the numbers and letters represent the following reasons and drives: 1: Low salvage value 2: Quantity too small 3: Size too big 4: Out of fashion 5: Site condition 6: Regional materials market 7: Regional traditions 8: Regional capacities 9: Hazardous components 10: Conjunction method 11: Complicated composing 12: Contamination 13: Obsolescence 14: Damages 15: Cost effectiveness a: Education about recycling b: Knowledge of materials recyclability c: Knowledge of materials lifespan d: Knowledge of regional recycling markets e: Systems. 7. b. b. 15 1. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Note: In this table. 7 a. f c. d. c. 15 6. layers. f a. 7. f a. 14. c. 15 6. f a. d. c. c. d.louver conductor tube junction box telephone outlet safety switch lighting NA copper NA NA NA NA NA N N N N N N N 6. 14. d. c. 15 3. 6. 14. and two-stages design f: Using regional highly recyclable materials g: Functional instead of aesthetics h: Number of types of materials used i: Standard size components used j: Complex composite materials used k: Conjunction method used l: Prefabricated components used m: Hazardous components n: Space for deconstruction o: Record for materials p: Deconstruction plan 83 . 12. f a. 15 1. 6.

implementing design recyclability will be an effective way to increase building materials recycling rate. it is possible to recycle everything in a building. Therefore. it is obvious that after implementing design recyclability. 84 .From the above table.

Numerical obstacles of building materials recycling have been identified. environmental. most of them are derived from experience and none of them has testified their 85 . materials natural. Although a lot of researchers have identified obstacles of building materials recycling. 5. and they can be put into six categories: social. economic. and recycling facilities are usually available. all the findings in this paper will be summarized here and all the doubts and questions generated during the research process will be list as recommendations for future research directions.Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations Finally. Then why is the building materials recycling rate still low? Many answers have been found for the above question. participants. However.1 Findings and Summary Recycling of building materials is an important aspect of sustainable construction. the current materials recycling rate for construction industry is far from satisfying. Researchers have proved that technologies for building materials recycling are ready for applying. and regional factors. while sustainable construction is a critical issue to fulfill the overall sustainable development.

Contamination is another major obstacle which prevents many materials from being recycled. Regional factors are responsible for most non-recyclable materials. 3. Some obstacles are leading ones. 1. However. and many non-recyclable materials will become recyclable if building’s location changed. 4. researchers have addressed some solutions to solve these problems. After allocating obstacles to each non-recyclable materials and components. This paper used a case study for testifying. designers’ action can change the out come of recycling tremendously. some interesting phenomena come out. If we can break these leading obstacles. 2. too many responsibilities of recycling on site have been put onto contractors. Using more recyclable materials and making building more deconstructable can make designs 86 . 5. There are always multiple obstacles for a single item.findings. in current construction practice. non-recyclable materials will become recyclable even though other obstacles still exist. If designers can deliver a recyclable design. while the designers’ role in recycling has always been omitted. After identifying the obstacles of building materials recycling. Increasing people’s willingness for recycling can help to conquer most obstacles. it will be very easy for contractors to do their job and fulfill the goal of recycling. As primary participants in the first stage of a project.

Quantifying variables will be the focus of further research. there are many other issues for designers to consider. We may learn from the LEED certification system. too. However.more recyclable. Another research direction will be delivering the concept of green design. design phase and post-design phase. Recyclable design is part of green design. it is important to identify leading obstacles and break them.2 Future Research Directions Since the leading obstacles always determine whether the materials can be recycled or not. Variables have been derived form principles. to see how they quantifying variables and crediting activities. This is the first attempt for developing the concept of building design recyclability. The principles for it have been described from three phases: pre-design phase. This paper is the first stage of delivering the concept of building design recyclability. The concept of building design recyclability has been defined and explained. 5. to make a design recyclable. It is not a fully developed edition but a start. Further researches are needed. and they need to be quantified. Green design will be a more comprehensive concept 87 .

There is a long way to go for us to fulfill sustainable construction. minimizing impact to surrounding. etc. The research about sustainable construction and materials recycling will be continued. 88 . using recycled materials. Construction industry is still behind other manufacturing industries in recycling.including energy saving. due to its uniqueness and traditional waste behaviors.

Vol. 4. 633-642. G. 173-180. Bossink. “Knowledge Infrastructure for Sustainable Building in The Netherlands”. No. Issue 3. Pgs. Bossink. “Recyclability of Moisture Damaged Flexible Pavements”. England”. A. Philipp (2006). Proceedings- 89 . Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. Construction Management and Economics. Boyle. “Waste Minimisation and Material Reuse at Eden Project. Proceedings-Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability. Pgs. “Sustainable Buildings”. Haynie. (1996). Pgs 55-60. and Williams Bill (1993). H. Williams.pdf Boonstra. J. Fred H. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 157. Vol. 798-810. A. 510-530. Issue 1. No. (1993). 18. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering. Vol. No.ieee. Marjo (2000). Cameron. Texas Transportation Institute. “Framework for Assessment of Recycle Potential Applied to Plastics”. Joe W. Japan. and Overcash. Serji N. Pgs. and Brouwers. Bartlett. B. 122. 119. Proceedings-Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability. “Registering Recycling as A New Reality”. A. Chiel and Knapen. Issue 8. 908-920. “Environmentally Benign Manufacturing: Trends in Europe. et al. Michael F. 4. et al. Journal of Environmental Engineering. (2004). Amirkhanian. (1996). 1. 41-48 Button. Barlaz.. Pgs. 124. G.. Retrieved 9/12/08. (2005). (2002). Devon and Scherocman. Vol.References Allen. “Construction Waste: Quantification and Source Evaluation”. Pgs. from http://ieeexplore. “Policy Tools for Electronics Recycling”. Vol. 158. 5 Pgs. 885-892. “A Dutch Public-private Strategy for Innovation in Sustainable Construction”. July 1996. C. James A. H. No. Vol. Vol. Morton A. Pgs. Bohr. Vol. 20. and the USA”. Robert (2003). Dave.org/iel5/10977/34595/01650049. “Roofing Shingles and Toner in Asphalt Pavements”. Construction Management and Economics. H. (2002). 5. B.

Collins. Stuart F. Vol. Vol.com/construction/brick/tips-on-recycling-bricks/ Ellick. and Independent Streak Is Cited”. from http://www. Retrieved on 11/9/08.ecco. “Tips on Recycling Bricks”.Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability. (2003).org/process. 2003 Claisse. (1993). published on July 29.drywallrecycling. Chini. P. No.html Dahab. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice. (2003). J. Earth 911. Issue 1.htm Collins. May. F. (2006).K. 156. Proceedings-Institution of Civil Engineers Construction Materials.com/2008/07/29/us/29recycle.cwc. 3-4. Retrieved on 11/15/08. Pgs 396-401. “Recycled aggregates in ready-mixed concrete.. Pgs. “Deconstruction and Materials Reuse in The United States”.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt &emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Environmental Council of Concrete Organizations (2000).” Proc. D. The Future of Sustainable Construciton-2003 special issue. Pgs. U. Building Research Establishment. “Houston Resists Recycling. 159. Llewellyn and H.nytimes. “Processing Gypsum Drywall for Recycling” retrieved on 11/10/08. “Why Concrete”. Issue 2. “Sustainable Development Progress—Cement and Concrete”. The New York Times.org/wd_bp/wbp0101.. and Woldt W. M. “Gypsum: Prospects for Recycling”. Abdol R. from http://www. J. Construction Materials Recycling Association. (1996). Clean Washington Center (1997) “Identifying Generations Streams of Wood Waste Materials” retrieved on 11/10/08. Vol. R. 156. Pgs. Adam B. and Bruening. Retrieved on 11/10/08. “Solid Waste Management: Cooperative Extension Initiative”. Issue 1. 2008. 119. from http://www. “End-of-Life Vehicle Management: Design-for- 90 . from http://www. Sustainable use of Materials. A. from http://earth911.htm Environmental Defense (1999). 75-77. Proceedings-Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability. 9-10. W. eds. E. (2008). 4. Davis.org/why. Vol.

Gregory. European COST E31 Conference : Management of Recovered Wood Recycling Bioenergy and other Options. 157. Issue 7. “Source Evaluation of Solid Waste in Building Construction”. and Kwan. and Kersey. “Strategies of Extended Producer Responsibility for Buildings”. March 1997. (2003). J.edf.(2004). Carola (2000). Vol.eu/gemet/concept?langcode=en&cp=7009 Falk. (2004) “Recovering Wood for Reuse and Recycling a United States Perspective”. Retrieved on 11/16/08. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. National Center for Asphalt Technology. Report No. Hanson. and Lynn. Pgs. 2224. Todd A. Foo. and Horvath. Hanisch. and McKeever. A. Auburn University. S. R. J.Recyclability-An Implementation Tool for EPR Principles”. Pgs. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management.. P. T. Angela A. Griffiths. R. Kee Y. Leonbard E. (1997). “The Implications of Reuse and Recycling for The Design of Steel Buildings”. 156. Hughes.eionet. 155-161. Guggemos. Smith. from http://www. Volume 34. Robbert H.htm European Environment Information and Observation Network (2008).. Issue 3. from http://www. No. “Is Extended Producer Responsibility Effective?” Environmental Science & Technology. Gorgolewski. AL. Proceedings-Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability. 9. Pgs. Arpad (2003). “Characterization of Building-related Construction and Demolition Debris in The United States”. 33. “Recyclability”. “Brick Recycling and Reuse”.. 170A-175A. S. Vol.europa. 2. K. 536-552. Pgs 147-155. Vol. (1994). 91 . Environmental Protection Agency Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division Office of Solid Waste. Retrieved on 11/16/08. Issue 3. Vol. I. Rafael M. Proceedings-Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability. “Evaluation of Roofing Shingles in HMA”. G. 120. Mark (2006). and Bernold. The U. Gavilan. Vol. A. Pgs. Journal of Infrastructure Systems.org/documents/905_GC_recyclability. Pgs. David B. April 2004 Franklin Associates (1998). 65-74. EPA530-R-98-101. “Resource Flow Analysis: Measuring Sustainability in Construction”. 3. J. No. Douglas I. 489-496.

1. “Internet-based Design Visualization for Layered Manufacturing”. Vol. MI. Amnon (2004). Arpad (2000). No. 129. Vol. No. Ian (2003). (2002). Proceedings-Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability. 156. 179-183.jp/lc/pub/CirpAnnals2001-draft. Pgs. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 126. “Material-Related Aspects of Asphalt Recycling—State-of-the-Art”.html#ranr Kim.umich. Ulf. Issue 4. “Qualities. Retrieved on 9/12/08. “A Functional Basis for Engineering Design: Reconciling and Evolving Previous Efforts”. 1.Head. Vol. et al. from http://www. Use. Construction Sectors”. Chris and Horvath. 15. 65-82. National Pollution Prevention Center for Higher Education. and Examples of Sustainable Building Materials”. “Framework for Recycling of Wasters in Construction”. Pgs. Ryan and Kearney. Construction Management and Economics. Karlsson. Pgs. Vol. Kim. Jee. No. 18. Katz. “Sustainable Construction: Principles and A Framework for Attainment”. Issue 3. 38-44. from http://www. 151-157. 10. “Resource Use and Environmental Emissions of U. (2003). R.. 597-603.p df Kimura. Robert and Isacsson (2006). Retrieved 9/10/08. Jennifer. Hilary I. 11. Haeseong J. “Product Modularization for Parts Reuse in Inverse Manufacturing”.edu/~nppcpub/resources/compendia/ARCHpdfs/NEXT21.u-tokyo. Pgs. Hirtz. Pgs. Vol.cim. Pgs. (2003). 223-239. Hill. 6. Pgs. Peter R. Brouwer. (1997). from http://www. et al. Issue 2. “Treatments for the Improvement of Recycled Aggregate”. and Bowen. Paul A. Fumihiko.umich. Julie. No. Retrieved on 8/15/08. 81-92. Vol. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications. Vol. Research in Engineering Design. Hendrickson.edu/~nppcpub/resources/compendia/architecture. Brenda (1998). “Better Buildings through Sustainable Development”. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. and Campbell. Jong-Jin.ac. “Next 21: A Prototype Multifamily Housing Complex”. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. S. Vol. 887-898. Ann Arbor. Richard C.pe. 16. Journal of Environmental Engineering. Inyang. Jong-Jin and Rigdon. Pgs.pdf 92 . 13.

McGregor.. Vol. Lester B. et al. Issue 8. 125. Construction Management and Economics. Vol. “Procurement of Ethical Construction Products”. “Technology Development and Sustainable Construction”. “A Strategy for Sustainability”. Thomas Telford. Vol. “Evaluation of Use of Manufactured Waste Asphalt Shingles in Hot Mix Asphalt”. 809-817 Lund. No. (2006).. and M. K. Pgs. Pgs. et al. Vol. Montgomery. 5-6. 4. (2001). Limbachiya. Issue 1. Technical Report No. Helen. (1999). Proceedings-Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability. “Municipal Solid Waste Recycling Issues”. Issue 1. Vol. Bruce and Smithers. Chelsea Center for Recycling and Economic Development. Herbert F. A. Yasuyoshi (1996). Pgs. E. Henderson. “Improving Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling Performance Using Goal Setting and Feedback”. Miyatake. 26. Second Edition. 19. A. D. Q. R. 10. New York. Gilbert.Lave. Two Penn Plaza. “Workability and compressive strength properties of concrete containing recycled concrete aggregate. 159. July 2000 McDonald. Journal of Management in Engineering. Pgs. eds. 11-21. NY 10121-2298. Guinerver and Graham. Proceedings-Institution of Civil Engineers Construction Materials. G. London. Issue 1. Mustow. Issue 1. 157. Peter (2001). (1998). Rajib B. 59-66. et al (2000). 156. Mukesh C. 944-949. “The McGraw-Hill Recycling Handbook”. 12. University of Massachusetts. 99-106. (2006). Pgs. Vol. S. 16. Dhir. “Implementing A Waste Management Plan during The Construction Phase of A Project: A Case Study”. Pgs 23-27. Lingard. “Sustainable Timber Procurement”. USA Mallick. Sustainable Construction: Use of Recycled Concrete Aggregate. Construction Management and Economics. Pgs 71-78. 289–296. Vol. No.” Proc. Proceedings-Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability. C.. Issue 2. 93 . 159. ProceedingsInstitution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability. Published by McGraw-Hill. Mark (1998). Limbachiya. N. Pgs. Leiper. Journal of Environmental Engineering. Vol. “Coarse Recycled Aggregates for Use in New Concrete”. (2003). (2004).

Pgs. Chi-Sun. Murray (2003). Sommer. Vol. and Jaillon. Issue 4. Issue 1. Pgs. 22. and Williams. 675-689. Poon. 799-805. USA Rose. from http://www. Vol. Pgs. Vol. Issue 8. et al. Construction Management and Economics. Issue 1. New Jersey 07656. L. and Uren S. S. “Protocols for alternative materials in construction”. “Management of Construction Waste in Public Housing Projects in Hong Kong”. Issue 7. Parry. Chi-Sun. Vol. Mill Road.com/en/otr/downloads/otr-161-04. Construction Management and Economics. F. 22. Proceedings-Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability. Ann T. Issue 3. Rathmann. Peng. Construction Management and Economics. Vol. 22.umich. Chi-sun. 157. (2003). Poon. Yu. Pgs. 64. Proceedings-Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability. Ab (2002). 175-178 Rogoff. “Approaches to Implementing Solid Waste Recycling Facilities”. W. Retrieved 9/10/08.edu/~nppcpub/resources/compendia/ARCHpdfs/ARCHr&r intro. (1994). Vol. Retrieved on 8/15/08. Tony (2004). Marc J. 11-14. Published by Noyes Publications. Pgs. “Recycling and Reuse of Building Materials”. “Reducing Building Waste at Construction Sites in Hong Kong”. National Pollution Prevention Center for Higher Education. 156. 15. et al. Pgs.pdf Parkin. (2004). “Minimizing Demolition Wastes in Hong Kong Public Housing Projects”. Shoichi (1998). (2004).Onuki. Catherine M.oki. (1997).. Ishii. Vol. 19-26. 156. Pgs. “Design Aimed at Recycle for Printer and FAX/MFP”. Kurt. “Development of Asphalt and Concrete Products Incorporating Alternative Aggregates”. OKI Technical Review. Pgs. Proceedings-Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability. from http://www. et al. Ann Arbor. Chun-Li. 49-58.pdf Reid. Construction Management and Economics. John F. Issue 5. Vol. Kosuke and Stevels. 461-470. 111-112. Poon. (2004).. MI. “Sustainable Development: Understanding the Concept and Practical Challenge”. “Strategies for Successful Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Operations”. “Influencing Design to 94 . Park Ridge.

Pgs. et al. 83-93 Ruff. 122. Pgs. Pgs. T. Shen. Pgs. 400-406. Vol. David A. 4. Issue 1. 348-353. (2004). “Eliminating Hazardous Materials from Demolition Waste” Proceedings-Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability . 109-110. “Analyzing What’s Recyclable in C&D Debris”. C. Vol. Vol. 163-171 Searles. Camilla (2004). Pgs. Kasai. et al (2000). 157. Y. Chris and Vaux. BioCycle.. Dzombak. form http://epa.” RILEM Proc. Pgs. N. and Radioactive Waste Management. No. Construction Management and Economics. 139-148. M. 157. “Using Recycled Demolition Waste in Concrete Building Blocks”. Pgs. U. Proceedings-Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability. Proceedings-Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability. Der-Hsien and Du. Sheridan. 575–584. Toxic. (1996). Cynthia M. “Developing A Sustainable Market for Recycled Glass”. 4. 13. Sri Ravindrarajah. 51-54. Vol. Vol.. 17. Issue 1. and Hendrickson. Issue ES3. No.. Jia-Chong (2005). Pgs 25-30 95 . (1988). Strufe. Practice Periodical of Hazardous. 4. Pgs. Issue 3. Chris T. pdf Sassi. “Methods of impoving the quality of recycled aggregate concrete. 157. 20. “Policy Options for Hazardous-Building-Component Removal Before Demolition”. Journal of Composting & Organics Recycling. retrieved on 8/26/08. Chapman and Hall. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. 21-30.. and Tam. 111-117 Soutsos. Niels (2005). Vol. Vol. Sandler. Vol. Eva (2001). 158. No. “Green Procurement of Buildings: A Study of ‘Swedish Clients’ Consideration”. Vol. Demolition and Reuse of Concrete and Masonry. Sterner. P. Issue 3. “Application of Gray Relational Analysis to Evaluate HMA with Reclaimed Building Materials”. Scott K.K. “Ownercontractor Telationships on Contaminated Site Remediation Projects”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/Analyzing_C_D_Debris. ed. November 2003. (2004). “Designing Buildings to Close The Material Resource Loop” Engineering Sustainability. Pgs. Ken (2003). 3. Research in Engineering Design..Improve Product End-of-life Stage”.

from http://www. Vol. Glasgow G64 2NZ. eds. (2007).” Proc. I. K. 2007. and Hindle P. Wester Cleddens Road. (1995). Published by Blackie Academic & Professional. 52. M. M. and Loosemore. 25. Bishopbriggs. A. Wai K. 1385–1390. (2003). Issue 1. C. Retrieved on 9/5/08. “Recycling Construction and Demolition Waste for Construction in Kansas City Metropolitan Area..net/agreements/1987-brundtland. Nishino. Issue 7. and Oda. “Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development”. S.. Thomas Telford. CIRP AnnalsManufacturing Technology.Teo. Josh D. (2001). (1998). Pgs. Dhir. “Integrated Solid Waste Management: A Lifecycle Inventory”. “Using waste concrete as aggregate. B. 741-751 Topcu. “A Theory of Waste Behavior in The Construction Industry”. Pgs. and Mueller. Pgs. R. Construction Management and Economics. Vol. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). “Integration of Economics into Engineering with an Application to the Recycling Market”. White. H. Chong. N. P.. M.” Cement and Concrete Research.. N. Issue 7. UK Winkler. M. 19. “Recycling of fine processed building rubble material. London. M..php 96 . and Guncan. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.worldinbalance. Pgs. A. Sustainable Construction: Use of Recycled Concrete Aggregate. Vol. Henderson. Kansas and Missouri”. K. Changwan. 33-36 Warren. Limbachiya. and M. Franke. 193-200. F.. and Kim. N. A. 157–168. H. (1995).. Ueda. an imprint of Chapman & Hall.