Development of policy metrics for circularity assessment in building assemblies

Autori/Curatori Matan Mayer, Martin Bechthold
Anno di pubblicazione 2017 Fascicolo 2017/1-2 Lingua Inglese
Numero pagine 28 P. 57-84 Dimensione file 514 KB
DOI 10.3280/EFE2017-001005
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

Design for material recovery is drawing increased interest as a strategy for eliminating landfill waste outputs from building end-of-life operations. Yet, a lack of comprehensive performance evaluation methods in this field is preventing policymakers and stakeholders from setting verifiable recovery goals for new construction and retrofitting. Responding to this problem, the following paper proposes an evaluation framework and a material recovery potential index (MRPI) for building assemblies. The system evaluates recovery potential at both the material and assembly levels through a series of categories and subcategories. Assessment approaches from other design and engineering disciplines are introduced and selectively adapted to reflect the unique recovery challenges that are characteristic of buildings and infrastructure. A weighting strategy is developed using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method and the entire system is successfully tested using output validation. Lastly, the MRPI is applied in a comparative recovery potential study of 12 typical envelope assemblies. Results indicate a strong correlation between MRPI scores and other environmental indicators such as embodied energy levels and global warming potential values.

Keywords:Material recovery potential, life cycle design, building end-of-life, environmental assessment metrics, design for disassembly.

Jel codes:C53, Q53, Q57

  1. NEWMOA. Construction & Demolition Waste Management in the Northeast in 2006; Northeast Waste Management Official’s Association: Boston, MA, 2009; p 65. -- Available from:, p. 8
  2. Eurostat. Reuse, recycling and recovery of ELVs, by country and year, in percent (%). 2013. -- Available from:
  3. Schvaneveldt S.J. (2003). Environmental performance of products: Benchmarks and tools for measuring improvement. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 10 (2): 137-52. DOI: 10.1108/14635770310469662
  4. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment European Union Directive 2012/19/EU, (2012).
  5. End of Life Vehicles (ELV) European Union Directive 2000/53/EC, (2000).
  6. ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, 2008. Earth-moving machinery – Recyclability and recoverability – Terminology and calculation method, Standard 16714:2008.
  7. ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, 2002. Road vehicles – Recyclability and recoverability – Calculation method, Standard 22628:2002.
  8. ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, 2010. Recyclability and Recoverability of Rolling Stock, Committee ISO/TC 269/AG 6.
  9. Kroll E., Carver B.S. (1999). Disassembly analysis through time estimation and other metrics. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 15 (3): 191-200.
  10. Sodhi R., Sonnenberg M., Das S. (2004). Evaluating the unfastening effort in design for disassembly and serviceability. Journal of Engineering Design, 15 (1): 69-90. DOI: 10.1080/0954482031000150152
  11. Germani M., Mandolini M., Marconi M., Rossi M. (2014). An Approach to Analytically Evaluate the Product Disassemblability during the Design Process. Procedia CIRP, 21: 336-341.
  12. Dahmus J.B., Gutowski T.G. (2006). Material Recycling at Product End-of-Life. In Electronics and the Environment. Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Symposium on, pp. 206-211. IEEE.
  13. Das S.K., Yedlarajiah P., Narendra R. (2000). An approach for estimating the end-of-life product disassembly effort and cost. International Journal of Production Research, 38, 3: 657-673. DOI: 10.1080/002075400189356
  14. Gungor A., Gupta S.M. (1997). An evaluation methodology for disassembly processes. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 33 (1): 329-332.
  15. Giudice F., Kassem M. (2009). End-of-life impact reduction through analysis and redistribution of disassembly depth: A case study in electronic device redesign. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 57 (3): 677-690.
  16. Villalba G., Segarra M., Fernandez A.I., Chimenos J.M., Espiell F. (2002). A proposal for quantifying the recyclability of materials. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 37, 1: 39-53.
  17. Lee Hui Mien, Wen Feng Lu, Bin Song (2014). A framework for assessing product End-Of-Life performance: reviewing the state of the art and proposing an innovative approach using an End-of-Life Index. Journal of Cleaner Production, 66: 355-371.
  18. Shami M. (2006). A comprehensive review of building deconstruction and salvage: deconstruction benefits and hurdles. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 6, 3-4: 236-291.
  19. Muthu S.S., Yi Li, Jun-Yan Hu and Pik-Yin Mok (2012). Recyclability Potential Index (RPI): The concept and quantification of RPI for textile fibres. Ecological Indicators, 18: 58-62.
  20. Berge B. (2009). The Ecology of Building Materials. Routledge, London.
  21. American Society for Testing and Materials International, ASTM D6886 – 03: Standard Test Method for Speciation of the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Low VOC Content Waterborne Air-Dry Coatings by Gas Chromatograpy. --
  22. Kaplan S.A. (1986). Development of material safety data sheets. In: Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society, 191, pp. 11-CHAS. 1155 16TH ST, NW, Washington, DC 20036: American Chemical Society.
  23. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 3, Test No. 301: Ready Biodegradability. --
  24. United States Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries – Cement, 2015. --
  25. Torgal F.P., Said J. (2011). Eco-efficient construction and building materials. Springer Science & Business Media.
  26. Castro-Lacouture D., Sefair J.A., Flórez L., Medaglia A.L. (2009). Optimization model for the selection of materials using a LEED-based green building rating system in Colombia. Building and Environment, 44, 6: 1162-1170. DOI: 10.1061/41020(339)62
  27. Kondo Y., Kenji D., Yu-Ichiro Hayashi and Fumio Obata (2003). Reversibility and disassembly time of part connection. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 38 (3): 175-184.
  28. Martin B. (1977). Joints in buildings. G. Godwin.
  29. Brand S. (1995). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built. Penguin.
  30. Seiders D., Ahluwalia G., Melman S., Quint R., Chaluvadi A., Liang M., Silverberg A., Bechler C., Jackson J. (2007). Study of life expectancy of home components. National Association oHome Builders, Bank of America Home Equity.
  31. Staib G., Dörrhöfer A., Rosenthal M. (2008), Components and Systems: Modular Construction–Design, Structure, New Technologies. Walter de Gruyter.
  32. Mayer M. (2014), Design Metrics for Disassembly and Material Recovery, doctoral thesis, Harvard University.
  33. Ishizaka A., Nemery P. (2013). Multi-criteria decision analysis: methods and software. John Wiley & Sons.
  34. Wong J. K.W., Heng Li (2008). Application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in multi-criteria analysis of the selection of intelligent building systems. Building and Environment, 43 (1): 108-125.
  35. Kuzman M.K., Grošelj P., Ayrilmis N., Zbašnik-Senegačnik M. (2013). Comparison of passive house construction types using analytic hierarchy process. Energy and Buildings 64: 258-263.
  36. Goepel K.D. (2013). Implementing the analytic hierarchy process as a standard method for multi-criteria decision making in corporate enterprises–a new AHP excel template with multiple inputs. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
  37. Addiscott T., Smith J., Bradbury N. (1995). Critical evaluation of models and their parameters. Journal of Environmental Quality, 24, 5: 803-807.
  38. Halberg N. (1999). Indicators of resource use and environmental impact for use in a decision aid for Danish livestock farmers. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 76, 1: 17-30.
  39. Bockstaller C., Girardin Ph. (2003), How to validate environmental indicators. Agricultural systems, 76, 2: 639-653.
  40. Girardin P., Bockstaller C., Van der Werf H. (1999). Indicators: tools to evaluate the environmental impacts of farming systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 13 (4): 5-21.
  41. U.S. Census Bureau, Value of Construction Put in Place, July 2015. -- Available from:
  42. Monteyne D. (2004), Framing the American dream. Journal of Architectural Education, 58 (1): 24-33. DOI: 10.1162/1046488041578194
  43. Means R.S. (2014). Means Assemblies Cost Data 2014 Book.

  • Adapting residential envelope assemblies for full circularity Matan Mayer, in Journal of Physics: Conference Series /2021 pp.012170
    DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/2042/1/012170
  • Design for Disassembly (DfD) in construction industry: a literature mapping and analysis of the existing designs Katarzyna Ostapska, Klodian Gradeci, Petra Ruther, in Journal of Physics: Conference Series /2021 pp.012176
    DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/2042/1/012176
  • Circular Construction Process: Method for Developing a Selective, Low CO2eq Disassembly and Demolition Plan Roberta Melella, Giacomo Di Ruocco, Alfonso Sorvillo, in Sustainability /2021 pp.8815
    DOI: 10.3390/su13168815

Matan Mayer, Martin Bechthold, Development of policy metrics for circularity assessment in building assemblies in "ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT" 1-2/2017, pp 57-84, DOI: 10.3280/EFE2017-001005