Circularity Indicators as a Design Tool for Design and Construction Strategies in Architecture

Abstract

This study addresses the challenges and barriers associated with the implementation of circular economy principles in architectural design and construction practices. It highlights the fragmented knowledge and lack of a unified approach to circular design as a major obstacle hindering the adoption of circularity. The existing frameworks for assessing circularity, such as the Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) protocol and the Level(s) assessment protocol, are applied to two projects with a high degree of deconstruction to understand their applicability in the architectural design process and identify their limitations. The study emphasises the significance of considering structural connectivity and circularity strategies during the concept-design stage, advocating for the incorporation of circularity at various scales beyond the microscale of materials. Furthermore, it emphasises the need for early implementation of Design for Disassembly (DfD) strategies on circularity scoring to enable meaningful comparisons of alternative designs using circularity metrics. The findings reveal the variability of circularity indicators based on the hierarchy of disassembly and highlights an early-stage design approach to deconstruction strategies to achieve circularity in architectural design. Overall, this study upscales the significance of a comprehensive and integrated approach to circularity in architectural design practices.

A New Building Information Modelling-Based Approach to Automate Recyclability Rate Calculations for Buildings

“…Steinmann et al (2019) proposed a material quality indicator based on the energy use of recycled products to assess circularity in the economy [28]. Other researchers have explored tools, such as material flow models and circularity scoring methods [29], for assessing circularity and material selection in the built environment, as well as setting up circularity strategies as early as the design stage [30]. However, a major research gap is in defining and implementing CE indicators that can also account for the presence and the impact of hazardous materials, which can undermine the recyclability capacity of construction materials.…”

Systematic Mapping of Circular Economy in Structural Engineering

“…This naturally results in a majority of Review publications, aligning with previous patterns, giving an even distribution between DfD and Reuse. The topics emphasized are LCA [21,57,[69][70][71], adaptability [21][22][23][24]57,69,70,72,73], and the potential of CE integration within specific materials like concrete [18,22,24,74], timber [23,75], and steel [73,[76][77][78][79][80], which is further explored in Section 4.5. Additionally, through the further examination of publications within the CE investigation, the recurrent critical research gaps have been identified as the need for precise standardization [21][22][23]57,74,77,78,81], digital tool integration [81], and overcoming challenges in policy [69,76,78], market acceptance [73,78], and industry-wide adoption to advance CE [18,22,72,74,…”

“…CT: [103], SC: [15,86,[104][105][106] CT: [29,33] CE: [21][22][23][24]69,72,77,81,82], SC: [19] SC: [17,25,28,[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] Case Studies Design Development Framework Review Technical Paper CT = Computational Tool, CD = Computational Design, SC = Structural Concept, CE = Circular Economy Investigation.…”