Ce and prefab

1. Introduction

The idea of circular economy (CE) started from manufacturing counterparts which are now
making inroads into the construction industry. Several authors define circular economy as the
new future for sustainability concept through novel flexibility metrics of buildings (Cavalliere et
al., 2019), a framework for near-future research, such as a comprehensive evaluation of the
performance of construction and demolition waste diversion, human factors, and design and
planning for waste diversion by Jin et al. (2019) and a proposal on flexible housing project that
leasing the housing components and services that allow the company to retain possession of the
housing modules and properties and thus contribute to its own future resource stock (Zairul et al.,
2018). The idea of CE is also associated with the potential in the construction industry to reduce
waste and to promote building resiliency (Cavalliere et al., 2019). In comparison to the
conventional construction strategy, prefabricated buildings also have the potential to save both
construction time and money (Mangialardo and Micelli, 2020). Studies on how prefabricated
buildings have contributed to the green building literature were also promoted by Xu & Sun
(2019) and Sáez et al. (2019). In some countries, prefabricated or industrialized building systems
(IBS) have often been described as a potential sustainable construction process, moreover with
the integration with a circular economy in the policy (Luo et al., 2021). Recent trends in CE
publications have suggested that circular economy (CE) adoption in the built environment is the
new future for the building industry (Munaro et al., 2020).
The circular economy (CE) is nothing new in the manufacturing sector. It provides the likeness
of recycling to another level, or can be simplified as ‘rubbish is the new industry’ (W. Stahel,
2008). Many articles in the literature talk about how to move current conventional construction
towards the direction of CE. However, the process so far has been in a deadlock since most of
the materials used conventionally propos a linear economy rather than circularity (Zairul, 2017).
On the other hand, prefabrication or Industrialized Building System (IBS) is defined as an
innovative process of building components utilizing a mass production industrialized system,
produced within a controlled environment (on or off-site) which include organized logistics and
an on-site installation process with systematic planning and management (Zairul, 2020).
Prefabrication and IBS advantages include shorter project plans, cost savings in the project,
enhanced site protection, better product quality, and reduced waste. Current developments have
increased accessibility to prefabrication technology, including: Building Information Modelling
(BIM), 3D printing, green buildings demand and continuous pressures to shorten schedules of
projects.
The ongoing practices in the building sector present various threats and influence the societal and
economic environment, not to mentioned the climate and sustainability (Gencel et al., 2012).
Therefore, the effort towards solving these impacts has rendered solutions from circular
economy perspectives (Akanbi et al., 2018a). CE has been proven to increase economic
productivity through the effectiveness of resource utilization, consumption, and allocation. From
the social aspect, the CE framework provides more employment opportunities and improves the
sustainability rating of companies that adopt this strategy (Su et al., 2013). The effort to apply
CE principles in conventional buildings represent a monolithic effort in nature (Minunno et al.,
2018). Therefore, prefabrication technology and IBS are the ideal solutions (Zairul et al., 2018)
towards waste reduction and lean supply chain in the construction industry (W. R. Stahel, 2016).
However, despite increasing publications on prefabricated buildings and the circular economy in
the construction industry, no review paper has discussed recent trends on the prefabricated
buildings with the integration of circular economy (CE) and what the future holds. Hence, this
article will highlight selected literature from 2015 to 2021 on the discussions that relate to
prefabricated buildings with CE strategy and to answer the following questions:
RQ 1
What are the current trends on prefabricated buildings with CE strategy?

RQ 2
How to formulate a new framework on prefab buildings with CE for the future direction of this
strategy?

2. Methodology
The term thematic review using ATLAS.ti 8 as the tool introduced by (Zairul, 2020, Zairul,
2021) was applied as this research method applies thematic analysis procedure in literature
review. Clarke and Braun (2013) defined thematic analysis as a process of identifying the pattern
and construct themes over thorough reading on the subject. The following step is to identify the
pattern and construct themes to understand the trend of prefabricated building with
a CE strategy. The tenets of the research are to analyse and interpret the findings for the
recommendation of future research in both domains (prefabricated buildings OR IBS OR
modular OR off-site OR pre-assembly buildings and Circular Economy aka CE). The selection
of literature was performed according to several selection criteria: 1) publication from 2015 to
2021; and 2) have at least the keyword(s) IBS or Industrialized Building System or IBS,
Prefabricated buildings, modular construction, pre-assembly building and off-site construction
coupled with the keyword Circular Economy or CE. Review papers were excluded from this
review due to contradiction with the objective of this paper.
The sources of literature were the research databases from Web Science of Clarivate Analytics
and Scopus of Elsevier and Mendeley. The Network of Science was chosen because it will hit all
indexed journals with a measured impact factor in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) (Carvalho et
al., 2013); Mendeley, owing to the multidisciplinary nature of research and multiple sources, and
Scopus was chosen as it has the largest collection of peer-reviewed publications. A filter was
applied in the Web of Science using “type of documents”, articles types, and proceedings papers,
NOT reviews. The analysis criteria were contained in the other datasets: “Title, Keywords, and
Abstract”. The following keywords were used as search terms: prefabricate*, build*,
industriali*ed building system OR IBS OR modular building OR pre-assembly and construction
projects associated with circular* econom*.
The articles were uploaded in the Mendeley for data crunching. Data crunching involves
removing duplicated articles, updating the authors' names, and ensuring the metadata are correct.
Next, from Mendeley, all 36 articles were exported to ATLAS.ti 8 for analysis of the current
trends in the literature. From the documents' list, several bibliometric data were established
which include the article title, year, author, author's country, periodical, keyword used and
subject area. The results of this paper are divided into two parts, Quantitative and Qualitative.
The quantitative part will report the data that was obtained from the numerical points of view,
while the qualitative part will establish themes that were established from the selected articles,
and formulate a conceptual framework on integration of CE in prefabricated buildings.

The study found that the prefabricated building with CE approach was still in its infancy, with
just a few suggestions on how the approach could extend to the built environment. The
exploratory nature of research related to circular economy comprises predominance with
quantitative and mathematical experiments, along with data collection techniques, experiments,
and mathematical model assessments. The focus of literature in the last 6 years shows the trends
and patterns on the revised subjects.

The transition to a circular economy (CE) produces a range of new challenges for
designers and requires specific knowledge, strategies, and methods. To date, most
studies regarding design for a CE have been theoretical and conceptual, hence, limited
research has been conducted on the practical implications of designing for a CE.
Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide a better understanding of how design
practitioners interpret and implement the CE concept in practice. To capture the
complexity of real-world cases, semi-structured interviews were carried out with
design practitioners (N = 12) within the disciplines of architecture and industrial
design who have actively worked with circularity in a design agency setting. The
results show that the practitioners have diverse perspectives on designing for a CE,
relating to (1) the circular design process, (2) the effects of the CE on design agencies,
(3) the changing role of the designer, and (4) the external factors affecting circular
design in practice. Some differences were identified between the architects and
industrial designers, with the industrial designers more strongly focused on circular
business models and the architects on the reuse of materials on a building level. In
addition, circular strategies and associated (similar) terminologies were understood
and applied in fundamentally different ways. As the CE blurs boundaries of scale and
disciplines, there is a need for universal design frameworks and language. The CE
concept is expanding the scope of the design process and driving the integration of
new knowledge fields and skills in the design process. The successful implementation
of the CE in practice is based on extensive collaboration with stakeholders and experts
throughout all stages of the design process. Design agencies have addressed the CE by
establishing dedicated CE research and design teams, facilitating knowledge
exchange, developing their own circular strategies and methods, and striving for long-
term client relationships that foster the engagement of designers with the lifecycles of
designed artefacts rather than perceiving design projects as temporary endeavors.
Ultimately, a holistic and integral approach towards design in a CE is needed to
ensure that the underlying CE goals of contributing to sustainable development and
establishing a systemic shift are ongoingly considered.

Richard Girling’s 2005 ‘Rubbish! Dirt On Our Hands and Crisis Ahead’ asserts
that some 80 percent of products are thrown away within their first six
months of use. This global epidemic of waste production is not limited to
consumer products since many buildings constructed today follow the same
linear life cycle process. Waste is and has been an unavoidable consequence
of architecture. However, with circular design principles, it need not be in the
future.
Circular design, in contrast to linear design, imagines a holistic process of
design, evaluation and future changes to the initial design that explicitly
values the re-use of materials and materials which are suited for repeated
re-use. In architecture, circular design methods for sustainable construction
can tap into circular manufacturing and supply chains to support wider
systems of circularity. In 2017, Paris unveiled a ‘Circular Economy Plan’ that
sets out 15 steps the city government will implement by 2020, notably
including pushing the local building industry to deconstruct buildings with the
intent to save their constituent parts for new construction instead of
demolishing them and taking the rubble to a dump.
Although circular design can promote sustainable living for building users,
current guides for implementing circular strategies don’t necessarily consider
health is not always a contributing factor to circularity. Architects and
designers can play an integral role in creating a new definition for circular
design, one which encompasses contributing factors to health and wellbeing
in building design such as air, light and sound, biophilic design, space and
layout, lifestyle and movement. This definition must also relate these factors
to sustainability, global warming, and the global economy.
In parallel to standards for circular design, like the Circular Design
Guide created by IDEO and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, institutions are
developing design standards for health and wellness, like the WELL Building
Standard and Fitwel. The next step for architects and designers is to
consider these standards simultaneously and continuously over the course of
the design process as well as during post-occupancy evaluation and when
considering potential future changes to a building’s use.
An example of combining the mindsets of circular design and design with
health in mind comes from Greg Cooper of the X-LAM (cross laminated
timber) Alliance. In a 2016 article published on OffSite Hub,
Cooper recommends using cross laminated timber for its reduced carbon
footprint and landfill contribution compared to traditional materials. Cooper
cites a study by Petra Seebacher called ‘Schule ohne Stress’, or ‘School
without Stress’, that found children who attended schools constructed with
timber were more relaxed and slept better than their peers.
The lesson from Seebacher’s study is that architects and designers should
focus on materiality, since future construction needs to use materials that
are beneficial to the wellbeing of the occupants as well as sustainable and
recyclable.
UNStudio, in collaboration with the Osirys consortium, developed a set of
forest-based composites for facades and interior partitions that improve air
quality and energy efficiency, and at the end of their use can be reused
elsewhere break down into organic materials. Pilot versions of
the composites have been constructed in Tartu, Estonia and Donostia-San
Sebastian, Spain.

Osirys pilot building in Tartu, Estonia ©Silver Siilak

Osirys pilot building in Tartu, Estonia ©Maris Tomba
Key points for architects and designers:

 CHOOSE MATERIALS THAT ARE EASILY RE-USABLE AND LAST A LONG

TIME
 EMPLOY PASSIVE DESIGN TO BOOST HEALTH AND SUSTAINABILITY
 COMBINE BEST PRACTICES OF CIRCULAR DESIGN AND HEALTH AND
WELLNESS STANDARDS
UNStudio Team: Luke Parkhurst, Bart Chompff, Filippo Lodi, Marisa Cortright

Cover image ©Maris Tomba

This project has received funding from the European Union's Seventh
Framework Programme for research, technological development and
demonstration under grant agreement No 609067.

Related projects

Steel
Steel is the most common structural framing material for nonresidential buildings in the United
States and offers an ideal example of a recycling flow that approaches circularity. After a
building is demolished, “pretty much all steel will get recycled,” says Moe. In fact, steel is the
most recycled material in the world, with about 98 percent of structural steel avoiding landfills.

This is due in large part to the nature of steel production itself, which relies largely on melting
down preexisting steel, and to the economic conditions of supply chains that incentivize its reuse.
Other metals (including aluminum) are also frequently reintroduced into the production cycle in
what Moe calls “a pretty standard flow” in the current construction context. For example, steel
made from scrap—sourced as postconsumer material or as a by-product of manufacturing—
saves iron, coal, and limestone (not to mention carbon emissions) relative to steel production
from virgin materials.

The picture is less impressive for steel used as rebar and as reinforcing material in concrete
construction: Only 71 percent of such steel is recycled, according to the Steel Recycling Institute.
The lower percentage indicates the importance of neatly separating different materials during
demolition to better guarantee their efficient reuse. Although sorting out multi-material building
elements is difficult, it can lead to safer repurposing.
Architectural glass is among the most salient building products in use today, used decoratively
throughout interiors and deployed in the envelopes of supertall and “transparent” structures.
Once removed from its built context, glass is, in theory, a surprisingly reusable material—
infinitely recyclable to virgin quality—but several important caveats qualify its broad capacity
for recycling. The main obstacle is ensuring glass panels are not mixed in with other refuse
during demolition. Another, according to Sydney Mainster, a designer and director of
sustainability at the Durst Organization— which owns about 16 million square feet of
commercial and residential space in New York—relates to the widespread coloration of glass.
“You can make clear glass into new products quite easily,” she says, “but colored glass is almost
always landfill.” Mainster attributes this to the lack of end-user demand for mixed-color recycled
glass products: The market just isn’t there.

Mic Patterson, a designer who has researched and written extensively on sustainability and
architecture, says several glass treatments and surface techniques also preclude opportunities for
recycling. In many cases, processes meant to improve glass envelope performance— such as
heat treatment, lamination, coating, and double- and triple-pane insulation—“render the primary
fl at glass material unsuitable for recycling.” In these cases, he says, the raw material, as well as
its embedded engineering know-how and production, becomes unusable. “In focusing on thermal
performance,” he adds, “we have entirely neglected important attributes of durability, reuse, and
recyclability.”

If all else fails, high-performance glass can be downcycled as aggregate in lieu of pea gravel and
stone. In this manner, glass is finding its way into mixes for interior uses like ceramic
countertops and in concrete, although it is unclear whether such cement-glass mixes perform as
well

Concrete
Concrete is critical in laying foundations, delineating floors and walls, and reinforcing building
elements, but its compositional ingredients of cement and aggregate are not renewable. (Sand,
for example, concrete’s most common aggregate, is being harvested to near exhaustion.)

There are at least two major barriers to recycling concrete. Like many building products slated
for reuse or recycling, concrete faces the challenge of isolating its core materials. Installed
concrete is never just concrete, but is paired with everything from mortar paste and gypsum to
trace plastics, metals, and woods, says Blaine Brownell, an architect and editor of
the Transmaterial book series: “The main difficulty concerns the various contaminants that are
often found in demolition waste.” Concrete’s increasingly common chemical additives also
reduce its recyclability, according to Dirk Hebel, professor of sustainable construction at the
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, since unwanted and potentially hazardous composites should
not be recycled into new products. For these reasons, says Hebel, “usually when we talk about
concrete recycling, we talk of downcycling processes.”

The most common downcycling use is of shredded or pebbled concrete as aggregate, or filler in
roadbed construction, retaining walls, and earthworks. Brownell cautions, however, that such
infrastructural repurposings are not as simple as they sound. Using different aggregates can be
“tricky,” he says, “and the process must be carefully managed to ensure the desired mechanical
performance.” Hebel adds that “only certain percentages [of concrete aggregate] are possible in
order to keep the desired strength requirement.”

Brownell and Hebel agree that architects and designers can be a part of the solution. By taking
steps to ensure building materials are cleanly sorted after a demolition and by working with
engineers and contractors to specify recycled-content concrete in projects, they can help reduce
the volume of concrete entering our waste stream and develop the basis of a circular construction
model.

Drywall
Drywall (also known as gypsum board) constitutes nearly all walls, plus some ceilings, in
commercial builds. At least in theory, it is an extremely recyclable building material, provided its
layers are kept intact. “Drywall is two pieces of paper and then that gypsum core,” says
Mainster, of the Durst Organization. “You want to keep it as whole as possible.”

Drywall’s paper envelope can be ground down and recycled like any paper or wood product, and
the gypsum core can be infinitely recycled without any significant loss of performance. “This is
the idealized closed-loop wallboard manufacturing cycle,” Mainster sums up—provided there is
foresight in planning the material’s removal. (Packer trucks and mixed-refuse Dumpsters,
commonly used in demolition, are out of the question, since they don’t keep the drywall whole.)

Key goals in building with drywall, according to Mainster, should be minimizing the use of
virgin-mined gypsum and avoiding synthetic gypsum, which is a by-product of coal-fired power
plants and may be toxic because of its heavy-metal content. Legislation may hold the key to
advancing drywall recycling, but statutes vary throughout the country. Especially stringent laws
prescribing reuse and prohibiting landfill disposal in Boston and in the Pacific Northwest—a
similar proposal is currently under consideration in New York City—have resulted in notably
high rates of drywall recycling.

Flooring
Carpet tiles and PVC, vinyl, and resilient surfaces predominate in commercial flooring, and each
comes with its own recycling challenges. Less than 10 percent of carpeting is recycled, and the
central obstacle lies in the materials required to install tiles—such as adhesives, latex and
calcium carbonate backing, and polyurethane cushions. A range of manufacturers, such as
Shaw, Interface, and Tandus Centiva, have rolled out reclamation and takeback programs,
meeting with considerable success in diverting flooring waste from landfills, but they are the
exception that proves the rule.

Sean Ragiel, president and founder of CarpetCycle—a New Jersey–based company that aims to
find uses for postconsumer carpet and building products—stresses the importance of removing
carpet tiles as cleanly as possible. This is as much an economic calculation as a material one:
Backings are low-value components that contaminate higher-value plastics like nylon and
polypropylene; when components are jumbled, “the materials are essentially ruined,” says
Ragiel. Absent legislation and economic incentives, the best last resort, Ragiel says, is to use
shredded broadloom carpets as a coal substitute in cement kilns, a technique common in Europe.

For hard-surface flooring, the state of PVC recycling is also mixed. Despite successful recycling
initiatives by manufacturers, “the economics of cheap plastics production have been a powerful
counterweight,” says Jim Vallette, research director of the Healthy Building Network. In
addition, despite pushes toward material transparency, toxic ingredients are still prevalent in
luxury vinyl tiles and PVCs, foreclosing the recyclability of those surfaces. Adhesives,
insulation, and sealants also bedevil recycling efforts: According to Vallette, even leaders in the
recycled-flooring sector can rarely offer products with more than 20 percent postconsumer
content. “The next frontier is for a company to achieve true circularity,” he says. “Zerovirgin-
material floors would be a real accomplishment.”

You may also enjoy “Sustainability Glossary: 6 Terms You Should Know.”