The fifth and final stage of the Buildability Process is all to do with what happens at the end of a buildings life cycle.  Many buildings are demolished, whereas we believe that, wherever possible, disassembly and reuse whould be encouraged and employed. 

The following points should be looked at when arriving at this stage:

Use the reverse of the installation process to minimize damage
Allow realistic tolerances in the deconstruction process
There should be no “false economy” solutions
Identify markets for reused materials before commissioning deconstruction
Engage with all local third sector and voluntary organisations as potential ‘reusers’
Deconstruction/re use supply chain
Look for “outside the box” proactive reuse and recycling initiatives

So that finishes our series of blog posts concerning Buildability – Managing the Lifecycle of Your Building.  The following points offer a summary of the whole process:

1) Minimise the number of different types of components – this will simplify the process of sorting on site and make the potential for reprocess more attractive due to the larger quantities of same or similar items

2) Use an open building system where parts of the building are more freely interchangeable and less unique to one application – this will allow alterations in the building layout through relocation of component without significant modification

3) Use modular design – use components and pre-assembled subassemblies that are compatible with other systems both dimensionally and functionally

4) Use assembly technologies that are compatible with standard building practice – specialist technologies will make disassembly difficult to perform and may require specialist labour and equipment that makes the option of reuse more difficult

5) Provide access to all parts of the building and all components – ease of access will allow ease of disassembly, if possible allow for components to be recovered from within the building without the use of specialist plant equipment

6) Use components that are sized to suit the intended means of handling – allow for various possible handling options at all stages of assembly, disassembly, transport, reprocessing, and re-assembly

7) Provide a means of handling components during disassembly – handling during disassembly may require points of connection for lifting equipment or temporary supporting devices

8 ) Provide realistic tolerances to allow for movement during disassembly – the disassembly process may require greater tolerances than the manufacture process or the initial assembly process

9) Design joints and connectors to withstand repeated use – to minimise damage and deformation of components and materials during repeated assembly and disassembly procedures

10) Allow for parallel disassembly rather than sequential disassembly – so that components or materials can be removed without disrupting other components or materials.  Where this is not possible make the most reusable or ‘valuable’ parts of the building most accessible, to allow for maximum recovery of those components and materials that are most likely to be reused

11) Use prefabricated subassemblies and a system of mass production – to reduce site work and allow greater control over component quality and conformity

12) Provide spare parts and on-site storage for them – particularly for custom designed parts, both to replace broken or damaged components and to facilitate minor alterations to the building design

13) Sustain all information on the building manufacture and assembly process – measures should be taken to ensure the preservation of information such as ‘as built drawing’, information about disassembly process, material and component life expectancy, and maintenance requirements.

Here is the next part of the BuildScrap.com extract for sustainable construction that we have been reading and thought we’d share with you

Q2: Does the industry have views on the use of building and planning standards across the country to promote the
sustainability of developments?

1). There was a high level of agreement from the respondents that building and planning standards provided the essential vehicle to deliver a sustainable built environment in the UK. Some suggested Government should also offer fiscal incentives to property owners and developers to operate, maintain and upgrade their buildings.

2). There was concern about the development of different local building standards across the country, adopted via planning policy, which was confusing and added to the costs of construction. National standards, rather than local standards, were the preferred way forward and great support was given to the Code for Sustainable Homes to signpost future standards.

3). Some indicated that the Strategy should describe the link between standards, regulation and other Government initiatives. The Strategy should establish a framework which would give developers and contractors a clear picture of planning standards. The framework should set out the national minimum requirements and what was expected over and above this minimum for each local area.

5). Many suggested that sustainability should be integrated with Building Regulations, planning standards and the Common Minimum Standards to achieve clarity and ensure compliance. Enhanced mandatory building and planning standards would create a level playing field in which high quality development proposals were encouraged. Periodic tightening of the standards required through Building Regulations against a timetable announced in advance would give developers the confidence to undertake the necessary research and product development.

6). Some suggested that “Inter-operability” between the different elements of construction should be visible. A high level road-map would be helpful. This roadmap should indicate roles and responsibilities across each stage of the construction process and the tools that were available to guide the process.

7). Some contended that the planning regime should not be used to promote sustainability. For instance, requiring details of a building’s likely carbon emissions would require significant investment ahead of planning approval and increase development costs.