Sustainable Production and Consumption 48 (2024) 377–395

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Production and Consumption

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/spc

Review article

Design for Disassembly: A systematic scoping review and analysis of built

structures Designed for Disassembly
Katarzyna Ostapska a ,∗, Petra Rüther a , Arian Loli a , Klodian Gradeci b
a
SINTEF Community, Høgskoleringen 7b, Trondheim, 7036, Norway
b
SINTEF Community, Børrestuveien 3, Oslo, 0373, Norway

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Editor: Konstantinos Tsagarakis A systematic scoping review was performed to map literature in the field of Design for Disassembly (DfD) in the
Architecture, Engineering, and Construction industry and identify existing built DfD structures to compare the
Keywords:
current DfD practice and research front. Online scientific databases and architecture magazines were searched
Design for Disassembly
Scoping review
and almost 470 journal and conference articles, grey literature, and online magazine articles were selected
Design for deconstruction for scope mapping and case study analysis. Based on the gathered literature the key research focus areas
Demountable architecture were identified as follows: analysis (barriers identification, standard development, literature review, feasibility
Circular economy study, ethical issues), frameworks, Building Information Modelling (BIM), tool development (indicator, method,
Sustainable construction technology), and case study analysis (concepts, structures, connections). Qualitative and quantitative data for
151 built DfD structure examples identified in the literature were collected and analysed to give an overview
of the current practices and trends in the AEC industry. The DfD building was found to have various definitions
and implementations and 50% of the built DfD structures have area below 300 m2 . The structure in 75% of
the identified existing DfD buildings is made of timber while research literature into enabling technology is
dominated by the development of the connections for reinforced concrete and hybrid concrete–steel structures.

1. Introduction DfD gained popularity in the manufacturing industry,

(Boothroyd and Alting, 1992) in the early ’90s after the success of
Design for Disassembly (DfD) is a design approach developed in Design for Assembly (DfA) that started to be developed in the ’70s
the manufacturing industry as an answer to shrinking material and and the first methods ready for implementations were available in
energetic resources and escalating amounts of waste. DfD is a strategy the early ’80s. The main goal of the DfA was limiting the cost of the
to eliminate, rather than deal with waste and therefore, implement assembly process through better design that became profitable for large
circular economy (CE) postulates. Recent standard ISO 20887:2020 production companies. The use of DfA increased the competitiveness
has defined DfD (derived from ISO 14021:2016) in the context of of the product mainly through shorter production time, better quality
Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) as: and fewer parts (Boothroyd, 1994). The overriding goal was cost
approach to the design of a product or constructed asset [...] that optimization. However, the means to achieve it was via producibility
facilitates disassembly [...] at the end of its useful life, in such a way that design (Ohashi et al., 2002), which together with the automation of the
enables components [...] and parts to be reused, recycled, recovered for
production has contributed to a large increase in production capacity
energy or, in some other way, diverted from the waste stream
and paved the way for DfD as a method to deal with the growing
DfD within the AEC industry is a relatively young field and has been
amount of used and discarded products.
recently experiencing a rise in popularity due to the waste minimization
The general postulate to introduce the DfD to modern building
policies and circular economy transition undertaken in many countries.
construction was first formulated by Crowther (1998), who indicates
It remains growing slowly as it is a disruptive approach for a conserva-
the need to address the obsolescence through the design and recounts
tive building industry. However, the rate of growth in DfD research
and application is increasing fast and a quantitative and qualitative several historical structures and traditional or vernacular, resource-
overview of the domain is required to share knowledge, experience, and oriented building techniques, see Crowther (1999b). Earlier modern
ideas to alleviate, direct, inform and speed up the built environment attempts to develop de-mountable systems for buildings via transferring
transition in the face of global climate change. technology from the manufacturing industry are the Crystal Palace in

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Ostapska).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.05.014
Received 31 October 2023; Received in revised form 10 May 2024; Accepted 17 May 2024
Available online 21 May 2024
2352-5509/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Institution of Chemical Engineers. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
K. Ostapska et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 48 (2024) 377–395

1851 by Joseph Paxton, the Demountable House patent from 1944 by and the additional 78 articles were identified, out of which 62 were
Jean Prouve, or the de-mountable garage patent by Yang (1973). Those selected for scoping review based on reading abstracts, see Table 2.
designs were motivated by the economy, mobility requirements, or high The combined 245 literature positions are the subject of mapping and
demand for production rather than the current waste crisis. analysis in this article.
Several authors published review papers of DfD in AEC cover-
ing topics of deconstruction potential by Carvalho Machado et al. 2.4. Extracting and mapping
(2018), design process by Kanters (2018), design strategies by Leonora
Charlotte Malabi Eberhardt and Birkved (2019), Building Information Scientific literature was scanned with a focus on identifying key
Modelling (BIM) role in deconstruction by Akbarieh et al. (2020), DfD topics and outcomes of each article. The similarities were observed
critical success factors by Akinade et al. (2017), and reusability and after repeated scanning of all papers in search of recurring patterns.
recyclability factors by Akanbi et al. (2018). Reviews are naturally lim- The category for mapping was created if more than 10 articles sharing
ited in scope to allow for detailed analysis of a certain topic. Therefore, a common topic were found. Where several topics were overlapping
a broader scope of analysing the whole DfD domain within the AEC across a larger number of articles, a general category was created
industry has not been registered so far. The scoping review presenting and more detailed subcategories were formed and applied based on
the qualitative analysis of the whole published literature concerning the dominating topic for a given article. The category assignment is a
DfD in AEC is found lacking and of high interest to both researchers and function of an article, meaning the mapping is univalent, i.e. only one
practitioners. The detailed definition of DfD in practice in the forms of category and one subcategory (if relevant) are assigned to each article.
the guidelines exemplified with the real solutions requires addressing This approach is not exhaustive to the variety of issues addressed in
before the adoption can be scaled in the industry. To the authors’ the identified literature and some generalizations and omissions were
knowledge, no overview of existing built DfD structures is available. unavoidable to limit the number of categories and synthesize the field.

2. Methods: scoping review protocol 2.5. Case study analysis

The methodology for scoping review follows the Preferred Report- Throughout the literature search, it became clear that most current
ing Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and relevant built DfD structures were not reported in scientific sources.
(PRISMA), see Tricco et al. (2018) protocol and was defined in e.g., Pe- A separate search in the most popular architectural online magazines
ters et al. (2015), Arksey and O’Malley (2005), Aromataris (2015). was added to obtain the statistically representative group of struc-
The goal of a scoping review is the rigorous, transparent and effective tures for case study analysis to answer the second research question.
synthesis of evidence using a systematic, fully disclosed methodology The search procedure was already implemented in the relevant field
for replicability and trustworthiness. due to the pre-selected set of magazines so the keywords used in
the search were only Concept related. The Context was ensured by
2.1. Research questions reading full articles. The list of online magazines is the following:
archdaily.com, dezeen.com, woodinconstruction.com, e-architect.com, in-
The research question for the scoping review is habitat.com, archello.com. The case studies were all filtered for specific
What is the current research state of DfD in AEC and what are the information as the basis for the quantitative analysis, oftentimes with
characteristics of the built DfD structures? the additional search of relevant data on the website of the building’s
Thus, this paper’s goal is to provide an answer to the question of architects. The included parameters and accompanying categories for
how well is the DfD defined and established in practice within an AEC case study analysis are listed in Table 3. The data are mostly cate-
industry? The detailed definition of the search boundaries is expressed gorical, explaining solutions with the use of a limited set of labels to
via the Participants, Concept, Context (PCC) scheme. facilitate data analysis and visualization. Numerical data were used for
Participants/Field: Architecture, Engineering, Construction. building size and age.
Concept : Design for Disassembly, Deconstruction, Dismounting, De-
mounting, and Reuse. 3. Results
Context : Modern design, currently used strategies and solutions for
the circular economy. The results of the scoping review are presented in two sections
referring to the research questions: first a qualitative literature mapping
2.2. Inclusion/exclusion criteria and summary within the identified thematic categories, and then a
quantitative analysis of identified case studies of DfD structures.
Traditional, historical, vernacular, and transitory architecture is
excluded from the literature search, although reuse of old buildings and 3.1. Literature map
interventions inspired by the traditional methods are included. Effec-
tively, any DfD identified within AEC in the second half of the XXth Based on reading full papers identified in the scientific
century and later is included in the scope. Only literature published in databases, the literature was classified into five thematic groups de-
English and Norwegian languages is included. pending on the leading outcomes of the paper: Analysis, Framework,
Building Information Modelling (BIM), Tool, Case Study, see Fig. 1. The
2.3. Keyword search findings of each paper were then summarized by group and subgroup,
where applicable. The thematic development within the scientific lit-
Three large scientific databases were searched using keywords de- erature over the years is depicted in the bar chart in Fig. 2 . Between
fined in the PCC scheme. The exact query string and criteria and the 2000–2010, the field was dominated by studies focused on defining
number of hits before reading the abstracts are summarized in Table 1. the framework for DfD and the analysis of the current situation. After
The final total number of articles identified for abstract screening up 2010, the development of tools for the quantification of DfD, meth-
to the year 2021 was 548, out of which 183 articles were selected for ods for integrating DfD within BIM, and DfD connection prototypes
further analysis, and the remaining 65% were discarded based on the appeared. Overall, the most dominating research field around DfD is
content of the abstract being irrelevant for the selected scope review. the general analysis, characterized in detail by several subcategories,
An updated search was performed later on the same databases and usually aiming at a synthetic approach to promote DfD adoption
and using the same search keywords for the years: 01.2021–03.2023 in the industry.

378
K. Ostapska et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 48 (2024) 377–395

Table 1
Detailed search query data for scoping review and results from three scientific literature databases for up to the year 2020.
Database Query string Type HIT Criteria HIT
SCOPUS (TITLE-ABS-KEY (DfD OR ‘design for disassembly’ All Journal Conf. 492 include engineering, 331
OR ‘design for deconstruction’ OR ‘design for Review 228 environmental, material 147
reuse’ OR ‘design for demount*’ OR ‘adaptive 223 and energy science, 155
design’) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (architecture OR 18 English only 14
construction OR concrete OR steel OR wood OR
brick OR aluminium))
Web of Science (TI=(dfd OR ‘‘design for disassembly’’ OR ‘‘design All Journal Conf. 288 Engineering civil OR 118
for deconstruction’’ OR ‘‘design for reuse’’ OR Review 152 construction building 74
‘‘design for demount’’ OR ‘‘adaptive design’’ OR 130 technology OR 35
‘‘design for recycl*’’) AND TI=(construction OR 13 environmental sciences 9
building* OR architecture OR concrete OR steel OR OR materials science
wood)) OR (AB=(dfd OR ‘‘design for disassembly’’ composites OR green
OR ‘‘design for deconstruction’’ OR ‘‘design for sustainable science
reuse’’ OR ‘‘design for demount*’’ OR ‘‘adaptive technology OR
design’’) AND AB=(construction OR building* OR architecture OR
architecture OR concrete OR steel OR wood)) OR engineering
(AK=(dfd OR ‘‘design for disassembly’’ OR ‘‘design environmental OR
for deconstruction’’ OR ‘‘design for reuse’’ OR environmental studies
‘‘design for demount*’’ OR ‘‘adaptive design’’) AND OR materials science
AK=(construction OR building* OR architecture multidisciplinary
OR concrete OR steel OR wood))
Science Direct article: (dfd OR ‘‘design for disassembly’’ OR All Journal Conf. 271 include: engineering, 156
‘‘design for deconstruction’’ OR ‘‘design for reuse’’) Review 226 environmental science, 135
AND (building OR construction OR concrete OR 1 energy, decision 1
wood OR steel) title, abstract and keywords: dfd 7 sciences, materials 5
OR ‘‘design for disassembly’’ OR ‘‘design for science
deconstruction’’ OR ‘‘design for reuse’’
sum 605
sum without duplicates 548

Fig. 1. Identified literature count by thematic groups.

Table 2 joints between steel frames and prefabricated concrete decks without
Results of the updated search query shown in Table 1 for period 01.2021–03.2023.
compromising moment and shear stiffness. Motivation lies not only
Database HITS After title After abstract No duplicates in the reuse as a sustainable building strategy but also as a specific
SCOPUS 138 91 64 64 maintenance strategy in the seismic regions where connections require
Web of Science 81 41 36 7
ductility, undergo damage due to earthquake loads and require re-
Science Direct 103 36 30 7
placement more often than in low seismic regions. Overall, research
SUM 78
on connections between steel and concrete elements or just concrete
elements constitutes nearly 75% of all DfD connection research re-
ported in the considered literature, e.g., Brambilla et al. (2019), Ataei
et al. (2015) and Aninthaneni et al. (2018). Around 15% and 9%
3.1.1. Connections
of the literature are dedicated to the timber–timber (e.g., Yan et al.,
The group of 53 articles in the connection category are subdivided 2022; Derikvand and Fink, 2022; Aranha et al., 2021) and steel–steel
by the structural materials of focus and the disaggregated data are (e.g., Al-Sabah et al., 2022; Pongiglione et al., 2017, 2021) connections
illustrated in Fig. 3. The research is dominated by the development respectively, and only one study on timber–concrete DfD connection
of the DfD steel–concrete connection that would enable reversible was found (Derikvand and Fink, 2021). All literature references sorted

379
K. Ostapska et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 48 (2024) 377–395

Table 3
Parameters and their values (categories or numbers) applied for the analysis of case studies of built structures Designed for Disassembly identified
via literature search.
Parameter Category
TYPE building (B), shell (SH)
LOCATION country ALPHA3 code
FUNCTION residential (R), public (P), office (OFF), industry (IND), pavilion (PAV), hotel (H),
car park (CP)
MAIN STRUCTURAL MATERIAL wood (W), steel (S), concrete (C), (SC) steel–concrete hybrid, iron (I), aluminium
(A), glulam (GLT), cross-laminated timber (CLT), cork (CRK), wave laminated timber
(WLT), plastic (PL),
FACADE glass (G), wood (W), panel (P), wood panel (WP), plastic (PL), steel (S),
polyvinylchloride (PVC), clay (CL), fabric (FAB), fibre (FBR), no, brick (BR), straw
(STR), rubber (R), stone (ST), cork (CRK), aluminium (A), concrete (C),
bio-composite (BC), glulam (GLT)
FOUNDATION gravel (GR), concrete (C), concrete foot (CF), wood piles (WP), steel piles (SP),
concrete piles (CP), aluminium (A), rammed earth (RE), no
JOINT TYPE bolt (B), screw (SCR), monolithic (C), carpentry (CRP), nails (N), straps (STR), splice
(SPL), click and clamp (CC), x-fix, timber nails (TN), welds(W), no
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM frame (F), modular (M), wall-slab (WS), grid-shell (GSH)
LIFETIME short-term (ST), long-term (LT)
AREAL numeric value [m2 ]
GREEN ROOF yes (Y), no (N)
AGE numeric value [year]

Fig. 2. Growth in the literature on Design for Disassembly after 1990 divided by categories: Analysis (grey), Framework (brown), Tool (yellow), Connection (dark grey), Building
Information Modelling (BIM) (blue), Case study (green). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 3. Growth in the literature on demountable connections after 1980, disaggregated by the structural material type: concrete–concrete (grey), steel–concrete composite (yellow),
steel–steel (brown), timber–timber (green), timber–concrete (dark grey). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)

380
K. Ostapska et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 48 (2024) 377–395

by DfD connection category are listed in Table S1 in the supplementary legislative (standards, incentives, guides) and construction industry
information file. practice side, and a wide variety of proposed approaches to cut the
emissions of the AEC sector.
3.1.2. Analysis The group of feasibility studies contains 49 articles whose authors
A group of 93 papers that aim at delivering the analysis of the apply different methods to real or generic building case studies and
DfD state in the AEC industry was divided into subgroups concerning existing standards and practices to theoretically test different DfD sce-
the approach: review (10), feasibility study (43), barriers identification nario outputs and identify success factors. Feasibility studies comprise
(25), standards (4), and ethical/philosophical aspects (11). Content of all the largest and most practical part within Analysis category. Further
groups except for the ethical aspects are discussed below. subgroups based on the approach were identified:
The review group consists of 10 articles. A Systematic literature
1. Legislation and standards (2 articles) - feasibility is evaluated in
review by Malabi Eberhardt et al. (2020a) that identified strategies of
the context of current standards and certificates and practices
circular economy within AEC based on 34 articles published between
in the profession. A survey among industry professionals in the
2013–2019, points to DfD as the most common one mentioned by
UK was used to apply weights of importance for 43 predefined
94%. A literature review by Kanters (2018) presents state-of-the-art
factors influencing the reuse through DfD, see Akinade et al.
within the DfD, and investigates the influence of DfD on the design
(2020), where legislation and policy together with skills and
process, concluding in lack of commonly agreed guidelines, and a lack
competence in design for disassembly, material recovery, and
of implemented material-specific design routines. A literature review
reuse, and building flexibility were indicated as most important.
by Carvalho Machado et al. (2018) extracted characteristics of DfD,
Green building rating scores were examined by Aye and Hes
categorized them (i.e., material choice, construction techniques, con-
(2012), to identify the current level of recognition of reuse
nections, assembly, disassembly, health and safety, and deconstruction
building strategies in existing certification systems, i.e. BREAM,
plan), and analysed their impact on the success of deconstruction. The
LEED, and Green Star, as insufficient to promote DfD.
comprehensive synthesis of the literature field within deconstruction in
2. Deconstruction (10 articles) - feasibility is assessed based on
the built environment in the years 2015–2021 by Allam and Nik-Bakht
the lessons learned from the deconstruction industry and waste
(2023) provides an overview of the rapidly expanding field with cate-
management practices. Case study type, methodology and con-
gorization and distinguishes three phases of the new approach in AEC:
clusions are summarized in Table 4
design (DfD), end-of-life planning, and second-life performance phase.
3. Building Case Studies (16 articles) - evaluation of the effec-
A critical review by Oluleye et al. (2023) focuses on the application
tiveness of the existing or the potential reuse projects in the
of artificial intelligence in the circular economy of the construction
context of a specific construction technique or functional unit
and building industry and identifies two research articles within the
(e.g. school or housing). Building types and conclusions are
DfD field, where artificial neural networks, genetic algorithm, and the
listed in Table 5.
hybrid of those are applied. An overview of sustainable approaches
4. LCA Case Studies (13 articles) - demonstration of environmental
within AEC is presented by Charef et al. (2022) where 69 articles
impacts and benefits of deconstruction followed by different cir-
serve to establish a keywords database for a wide search (1208 articles
cular strategies in the function of different existing construction
identified) and qualitative mapping. The authors use meta-synthesis to
types and cost allocations in the method, see Table 6.
define seven categories for the 42 identified sustainable approaches and
5. Prototype Case Studies (8 articles) - concept studies on new
graphically illustrate connections between them. They comment on a
DfD solutions and technologies for the construction industry, see
large variety of approaches, lack of commonly agreed definitions, and
summary in Table 7.
limitations of designing for, e.g., reuse, disassembly, and recycling as
not being closed-loop in the long term due to finite material durability. Case study articles are discussed individually within the supplementary
A collection of circular economy strategies aggregated by life stage information file.
phase is gathered by Chen et al. (2022) based on a review of 61 Barriers identification is a focal topic of 24 papers, whose authors
journal articles published between 2014–2021 and places DfD in the systematically identify and structure the obstacles hindering the DfD
first stage. The authors divide the drivers for circular economy found in AEC. A common approach was recognized in the methodology for
in the literature into internal (BIM-supported design, evaluation, Life identifying barriers where either surveys/interviews, literature reviews
Cycle Analysis (LCA), material passport, waste management, service life or case studies were performed with varying criteria, boundaries and
design, component tracking and predictive data analysis, and logistic limitations. The summary for each article respectively can be found in
network optimization) and external (material certification, legislation, section S2 in the supplementary information file. The synthetic data
financial incentives). A mapping of literature concerning DfD in the overview with barriers identified through different studies is summa-
AEC industry with a focus on built DfD structures reported in the rized in Table 8. Barriers are ordered and named consequently across
online available sources was presented by Ostapska et al. (2021) and the studies. Thus, a statistical summary can be made pointing to cost
is continued within this study. A literature review gathering existing as the most frequently mentioned barrier by 62% authors, and by 24%
circularity indicators at a building and material level is conducted of them as the most critical. The cost barrier is mostly understood as
by Khadim et al. (2022). A total number of 35 circularity indicators the investment needed to introduce the new construction and decon-
are listed and half of them include DfD as a key performance indi- struction technique, but also DfD technology itself is perceived as more
cator, and material looping, adaptability, and reusability. A review of expensive than the current solutions. Almost 50% of studies point to the
the methodologies available for designers and building contractors in lack of developed technology for DfD and 20% of them place it as the
Norway to account for the DfD within the environmental assessment most important. DfD technology is mostly defined as reversible con-
and LCA specifically was presented by Lausselet et al. (2023). The nection solutions for different building components and construction
authors conclude with the insufficient incentives for DfD in current systems and specialist tools and processes for deconstruction. These in-
building codes, guides and certificate systems and the context of the clude design, evaluation and planning solutions. Consequently, 38% of
commonly applied LCA approaches not being aligned with the circular studies identify a lack of DfD skills among AEC industry professionals.
economy. Review articles addressing DfD directly or indirectly (through One-third of publications name lack of recertification as an obstacle
the broader term of circular strategies) are limited and almost solely while half of the same authors point to current standards as preventing
focus on the data reported in the scientific literature, thus omitting the reuse of salvaged elements. The remaining most important barriers
current DfD developments within the construction industry. This is are the extended time of deconstruction compared to demolition (29%
caused by the yet missing established approach to DfD at both the studies), lack of easy access to data on the building materials, condition,

381
K. Ostapska et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 48 (2024) 377–395

Table 4
Summary of DfD case studies from deconstruction industry point of view.
Reference Method /target Conclusions
Osaily, 2019 interviews with demolition contractors involve demolition contractors in the design:
material choice, legislation, longer design,
additional budget
Craven, 1994 review on construction waste statistics DfD can minimize waste if deployed in mass
production
Crowther, 2018 review analysis of 77 deconstruction new taxonomy for design for reuse/recycling from
cases deconstruction practice with focus on end-of-life
Dantata, 2005 analysis 7 deconstruction costs deconstruction cost higher than demolition due to
labour intensity, longer time and low landfill fees
Ding, 2016 analysis deconstruction waste potential to decrease waste 50% by adopting DfD
management
Budge, 2013 analysis residential house local sourcing of materials necessary for DfD
success, labour costs and landfill fees need
addressing
Guy, Shell, 2006 analysis 3 building deconstructions feasibility most reliant on proper life estimation
and corresponding layer separation, structural
simplicity, connection type
Hradil, 2014 analysis demolition waste, 3 building knowledge gap in reuse in practice, need for DfD
deconstructions pilots, data sharing, certification
Kibert, Chini, 2000 analysis of construction waste common consideration of life-time and
location-specific technical solutions needed
Hendriks, Jansen, 2005 LCA, Delft ladder, eco-cost/Value Ratio need for a decision-support system for customized
design

Table 5
Summary of DfD case studies of existing buildings and building elements.
Reference Method /target Conclusions
Hurley 2002 analysis of 6 office and 2 DfD and deconstruction techniques for non-DfD
residential buildings buildings
Kernan 2000 analysis 3 buildings from creative and open approach of designers is
reclaimed materials necessary, big uncertainty of second life
Kristinsson 2001 analysis of 2 deconstructions logistics planning is possible via DfD and DfR,
data access, multi-criteria design
Lehmann 2013 analysis of 3 timber buildings massive timber structural system is a carbon sink
and follows DfD principles
Nordby 2009 analysis of brick wall systems difficult trade-off between higher initial cost of
DfD and future gains
Salama 2017 review of concrete structures concrete structures do not follow DfD principles,
need for DfD moment transferring connections for
concrete
Shell 2002 analysis of DfD school building focus on material selection, structural system and
deconstruction plan
Oft, 2010 analysis of steel connections bolted, clamped and friction connections are
recommended
Walsh, Wang 2014 reliability analysis of reinforced need for a method for quantifying reliability with
concrete elements reusing concrete elements
Arisya 2021 modularity analysis of 2 planar and multiscale modularity increases chances
residential DfD buildings for reuse compared with volumetric modules
Bertino 2021 analysis of 4 DfD buildings and 3 key DfD principles are structural simplicity/clarity,
structural systems material selection, and data sharing
Huovila 2022 analysis of 4 reuse projects design stage affects future reuse most, DfD is a
key strategy to enable circular economy
Nordby 2008 analysis of literature, building architectural practice needs embracing DfD
systems and elements criteria: limited material selection, revertible
joints, data sharing
Cottafava, 2021 circularity indicators of 8 decision-making process is highly sensitive to the
buildings in Europe level of data specification and proper DfD
quantification
Sassi, 2008 comparative analysis of 3 need for extension beyond DfD and into
residential family houses closed-loop material cycling design
Kayacetin 2022 circularity indicators of reusability and recyclability are not correlated and
residential buildings need holistic consideration

382
K. Ostapska et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 48 (2024) 377–395

Table 6
Summary of case studies of LCA within DfD budilings.
Reference Method /target Conclusions
Malmquist 2018 EE GGE 80 buildings DfD strategy is conditional on second life, extra
emissions shall be avoided
Olson 2010 cost analysis building demolition economic feasibility subject to salvage market can
vs deconstruction be increased by modularity and DfD
Nygaard Rasmussen 2019 EE comparative analysis DfD and light frame structures are favoured over
upcycled building prefabricated concrete in the current LCA
approach due to the uncertainty of future reuse
Thirmark 2001 salvagable EE mulit-family recycling potential needs improving by DfD
housing
Densley Tingley 2013 LEED LCA 122 buildings lowest score within building and material reuse
Kakkos 2020 LCA GGE family house with resue country scale GGE saving estimated at 68-117 kt
Co2eq
Broniewicz Dec 2022 comparative LCA GGE concrete 68% less emissions when using steel as compared
and steel office to reinforced concrete
Keena 2022 comparative LCA GGE, long term emission savings when using DfD and
acidification, eutrophication, potential to offset the impact of the grid mix
freshwater use bio-based wall changes in third world countries
assemblies in Ghana, Kenya and
Canada
Menegatti 2022 LCA GGE DfD reinforced concrete higher emissions at first life cycle, lower at second
beams from recycled aggregate with huge uncertainty concerning durability
Kakkos Hishier 2022 LCA allocation approach DfD standard allocation underestimates emissions in
building in Switzerland subsequent life cycles, while other methods are
complex and require large data inputs
Krohnert 2022 LCA GGE concrete and hybrid 19% saving in emissions of steel–timber structure
steel–timber building in second life cycle but 50% higher land use
Toniolo 2021 LCA GGE DfD exhibition building recycling leads to 15% higher emissions over reuse
and 1% lower than landfilling but the result is
unique
Liu 2022 LCA, structural, thermal DfD steel multicriteria assessment results in better-insulated
frame wall component wall panel with less steel as the best choice but
only for low-wind load locations

Table 7
Summary of prototypical DfD systems in the research literature.
Reference Method /target Conclusions
Bao, Li 2020 laboratory test modular concrete proof of concept of reversible engineered
blocks with dry joints cementitious composite block system designed for
automation, robotic assembly and disassembly,
three times more costly but durable, stronger and
self-healing
Odenbreit 2023 laboratory test steel–concrete definition of structural grid distances and
composite frame system connection capacities are established for
standardization
Konstantatou 2022 design methodology interlocking mortarless and scaffold less modular technique
brick for off-earth locations sourced from vernacular techniques
Bertin 2022 LCA, design methodology hydro-demolition process is worth testing to gather
hydro-demolition for reinforced real environmental data and to assess safety
concrete frame factors for second life
Errante, DeCapua 2021 design methodology steel–timber light demountable extension as the revitalization
extension with second life of the 50 years old buildings in first life and
stand-alone house in second life
Iuorio 2019 and 2021 parametric design and robotic form finding, parametric design and robotic
fabrication plywood shell with fabrication are merged within the conceptual stage
friction joints of design to facilitate DfD
Cao 2021 parametric design and low-tech feasibility of the DfD application to complex
fabrication aluminium grid-shell shapes via modularization and automated design
was demonstrated while retaining low-tech
fabrication for fast and easy reuse

and construction and cumbersome extraction of information. Interest- of a Canadian National standard for DfD/A is presented by Clapham
ingly, the last of the barriers mentioned by over 20% authors is the et al. (2008) and later by Kyle et al. (2012). The authors describe the
negative social perception of the salvaged components, i.e. the quality procedure of incorporating environmental sustainability into the typical
and aesthetics. health and safety requirements for building performance. The initial
Four articles addressing standard development for DfD were iden- document included 14 DfD/A principles (versatility, convertibility, ex-
tified within the scientific literature. The process of the development pandability, accessibility, documentation of disassembly information,

383
K. Ostapska et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 48 (2024) 377–395

Table 8
Barriers identified in most representative studies with specification on year, study type, target group and country.
Year Country Study type Study target Barriers
2010 Portugal literature review deconstruction cost, health hazard, recertification
2020 – literature review deconstruction standards, data access, linear economy,
cost, time, uncertainty,
insurance/warranty, technology,
recertification, perception
2017 UK survey steel reuse perception, technology, recertification,
linear economy, element unavailability,
uncertainty, culture/custom
2006 – literature review steel reuse element unavailability, supply, lack of
skill, low awareness, data access, waste
disposal fees
2010 Hong Kong survey steel reuse lack of awareness, practice/custom, lack
of skill
2016 – literature review modular buildings perception, logistics, lack of skill,
practice/custom, cost, time
2015 – literature review deconstruction element unavailability, recertification,
durability, perception, logistics, lack of
skill, lack of awareness, lack of legal
incentives, time, cost
2015 Iran case study typical house practice/custom, element unavailability,
cost, data/information access
2008 UK concept analysis closed-loop cycling technology, durability, data/information
access, health hazard
2011 – literature review deconstruction uncertainty, supply, cost, time,
technology
2023 Netherland survey professionals lack of legal incentives, technology,
standards, insurance/warranty,
data/information access, recertification
2022 Finland interviews architects technology, lack of skill, supply,
recertification
2022 Kazakhstan interviews stakeholders cost, lack of legal incentives,
data/information access, technology
2023 Ghana survey professionals practice/custom, lack of skill, lack of
awareness
2021 UK survey facade stakeholders technology, success uncertainty
2022 Kazakhstan interviews stakeholders cost, technology
2021 USA interviews architects technology, practice/custom, cost
2021 USA interviews stakeholders cost, time, low awareness, linear
economy, missing guidelines, lack of
skill, data/information access, lack of
legal incentives, lack of stewardship
programmes
2022 Australia case study timber house standards, urban plans, recertification,
cost, insurance/warranty, waste disposal
fees
2021 Italy interviews stakeholders time, cost, condition assessment,
perception
2021 – literature review circular economy cost, data/information access, logistics,
lack of skill

durability, exposed and reversible connections, independence, inherent standardization reveals safety, aesthetics, economy, and sustainabil-
finishes, recyclability, refurbishability, re-manufacturability, reusabil- ity as the main drivers, while the common practice of reuse from
ity, and simplicity) with definitions and examples illustrating their pre-industrial periods has been lost in the mass production era of
practical application. Further work was focused on collecting field cheap building materials, especially concrete. Authors advocate mor-
data about DfD/A designs and incorporating them into the standard. phological standardization of heights, lengths, and interconnectivity of
The Scottish Ecological Design Association has published a guide- building elements as a combined effort of all stakeholders.
line, Morgan and Stevenson (2005), for Design for Deconstruction that
3.1.3. Framework
introduces practitioners to the importance of deconstruction and reuse
The authors of 22 papers are focused on the methodology and ap-
and provides detailed drawings of the typical construction detailing
proach to the design for disassembly and DfD framework definition. Ad-
that helps in planning and implementing deconstruction instead of dis (2008) lists four key principles for introducing DfD: including the
demolition and aims at making deconstruction a standard. Anastasiades whole life-cycle, the potential of reuse of the components, deconstruc-
et al. (2021) focus on the lack of standardization as a leading barrier to tion process design, and ownership of products and components. It is
reuse/CE and suggest preparing a more detailed guideline for standard- underlined that assessment tools need to properly distinguish between
ization recommended in ISO20887:2020 but not currently supported recycling and reuse to be useful in waste diversion from landfills and re-
by any other standards. The historical overview of the motives for flect the role of the DfD strategy without bias. Detailed guidelines based

384
K. Ostapska et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 48 (2024) 377–395

on the experience from the deconstruction industry are given by Chini LCA of concrete structures including reuse and recycling based on the
and Balachandran (2002) and include the use of homogeneous and three parameters, i.e., volume, reinforcement ratio and designed service
locally supplied materials for elements and sub-assemblies, minimizing life is described by Xia et al. (2020) and tested on nine theoretical
space and volume, avoiding soil contact to prevent rotting, avoiding case studies with different input parameters and reuse scenarios. The
toxic materials, minimizing the number of different connectors, apply authors note that open and closed loop LCA methods are suitable for
material labels, retain design documentation and disassembly plan, reuse and recycling respectively, and show that reuse strategy (DfD)
predict space for disassembly, and separate building parts based on gives more environmental savings compared to recycling (Recycled
service life. Crowther (1999a, 2002, 2005) provide many very specific Aggregate Concrete - RAC) but both strategies combined fully bring
guidelines under three main categories: consideration of the whole life the highest benefit of 15% less Global Warming Potential (GWP). A
cycle, layer separation in the building via design, and clear recycling list of principles for design for adaptability (DfA) of timber structures
hierarchy for materials, elements, and components. The distinction that overlap with DfD is presented by Jockwer and Goto (2021) based
of different aspects of decision-making for sustainable construction is on interviews with Swedish stockholders, i.e., simplicity, a minimal
presented: justification (why), timing (when), location (where), selec- amount of materials and connector types, and mechanical connections.
tion (what), and methodology (how). A strong case for introducing a The authors (Fatourou-Sipsi and Symeonidou, 2021) analyse several
product-service system (PSS), i.e., an extended producer responsibility, existing DfD structures grouping them by size, and show the variety
as a business model compatible with DfD is advocated by Cruz Rios of applied solutions, materials, volumes, and functions. The difficulty
and Grau (2020). A postulate for transformable buildings is made in obtaining proper data and the degree of circularity and DfD success
by Durmisevic (2001, 2006), Durmisevic et al. (2017), and a model are mentioned. Askar et al. (2022) review eight adaptability assessment
based on eight principles are built: service-life-based element separa- tools and five circularity assessment frameworks and conclude the
tion in building (functional separation), parallel assembly/disassembly wide variety of approaches and objectives, lack of integration (espe-
capability (assembly process), the clean material separation between cially triple sustainability goals), and lack of automated, quantitative,
components (base elements), material systematization, element edge multi-criteria models with clear effectiveness proof in practice. The
standardization (geometry), element accessibility for demounting (re- requirements for concrete were analysed by Rageh et al. (2017) in
lational pattern), life-cycle control, and use of mechanical connectors terms of their influence on concrete sustainability via a survey among
(connections). An especially detailed framework for the assessment a hundred construction professionals in Egypt. The resulting weights
of the destructibility of the building is presented by Durmisevic and assigned by interviewees to twelve requirement categories show the
Brouwer (2002) with a special focus on the connection as the usual greatest importance of the aggregate (material) and waste disposal
bottleneck of deconstruction. A framework for deconstruction based on category and to the use of recycled aggregate and landfill distance
the experience in the manufacturing industry was presented by Anumba specifically.
et al. (2006), and Design for Environment (DfE) was included next to The guidelines provided above by multiple authors are overlapping,
DfD. Ten principles for DfD were given by Pulaski et al. (2004) and thus the table with their systematization and frequency of mention
a survey among practitioners in Canada has identified the two most is shown, see Table 9. The number of mentions and corresponding
crucial: prefabrication and modularization, and minimization of the percentage of articles that mention a given guideline is shown. The
number of different materials and components. A building reuse case guidelines mentioned by at least half of the articles are: (i) the use
study with the structural system from a bolted steel frame and un- of mechanical/reversible connectors, (ii) modular design, (iii) layer
topped prefabricated concrete plates has been described as a successful separation, (iv) consideration of the whole life-cycle, (v) elimination
example. Capital project planning is adapted by Sanchez and Haas of toxic materials, (vi) preparation of the deconstruction plan.
(2018) for the circular economy. A case study comparison of planning
for green-field construction and adaptive reuse is presented and key 3.1.4. Building information modelling
principles are a holistic approach within LCA, selective disassembly Building Information Modelling (BIM) was discussed in combination
consideration, and proper identification of project objectives. Integra- with the DfD in 18 articles. BIM is considered the main platform for
tion of all three sustainability pillars in the construction design is exchanging information between construction and building industry
advocated by Sarja (2002). The author points out several requirements members. It is based on the concept of re-use of information, and can
with design for durability, optimization of many conflicting require- thus be naturally utilized for promoting the re-use of materials.
ments, and design for recycling when applicable. A comprehensive Key characteristics of the BIM tool needed to lower barriers to
list of DfD guidelines is given by Webster and Costello (2005) spe- deconstruction/disassembly were identified through interviews with
cific for the structural material of the building. Authors underline professionals by Akinade et al. (2017) and a mathematical model to
the following points to be included in the Leadership and Environ- evaluate deconstructability was proposed by Akinade et al. (2015). The
mental Design (LEED) certification; the transparency of the building most important fields of research to enable BIM to account for end-
system, use of mechanical connectors, providing storage space for as- of-life scenario analysis were presented by Akbarieh et al. (2020). A
built documentation, preparing disassembly plan, material labelling, strategy to promote reuse in the construction industry via a central
and inventory list. Furthermore, the authors express doubt about the management institution, the material bank, with the main tool as BIM is
potential salvageability of cast-in-place concrete structures and rec- introduced by Cai and Waldmann (2019). A comparison of the solution
ommend prefabricated concrete and avoiding the cast-in-situ concrete for steel structures in terms of deconstructibility has been implemented
basement where possible. The service life of buildings is shorter than using BIM by Basta et al. (2020). A direct use of BIM for connecting
their technical state allows in the majority of cases reported by Web- new building design with the existing stock of materials from build-
ster (2007) with the main cause being functional obsolescence. The ings that are ending their life has been proposed and implemented
author focuses on design for adaptability and disassembly and mentions by Bertin et al. (2020) and Yeoh et al. (2018). A probabilistic approach
over-dimensioning as an important strategy next to building system lay- with the Weibull reliability distribution function has been applied
ering, mechanical connectors use, and durability. The lessons learned to compare the re-usability of steel, timber, and concrete buildings
in the real deconstruction and reuse project are listed by Williams within commercial BIM environments by Akanbi et al. (2018, 2019).
and Bradley Guy (2003) as the guidelines for designers. Design to An implementation of the DfD for the life-cycle analysis tool within
reuse is based on flexibility, durability, and a kit-of-parts approach, BIM was performed and used to evaluate cost, energy, and emissions
following a recycling hierarchy and avoiding chemical connectors and for a case study building by Akbarnezhad et al. (2014). A new ap-
toxic materials. The authors underline the importance of changing proach to BIM using graph theory and network algorithms to facilitate
expectations of aesthetics away from newness. A novel methodology for the DfD assessment potential is discussed and tested by Durmisevic

385
K. Ostapska et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 48 (2024) 377–395

Table 9
Guidelines to the Design for Disassembly identified in the scientific literature by at least 2 sources and
percentage within the group of 22 articles discussing framework. Part 1.
Guideline Count [%]
use mechanical/reversible connectors 15 71
introduce modular design 14 67
introduce layer separation 11 52
include whole life-cycle design 10 48
avoid toxic materials 10 48
prepare deconstruction plan 10 48
use homogeneous materials, not composites 9 43
design access for disassembly 9 43
use limited number of materials 9 43
respect recycling hierarchy 8 38
use recycled materials 8 38
provide material labelling, tagging system 8 38
use standard construction assembly 7 33
use standard dimensions 7 33
use prefabricates/mass produce 7 33
design size with disassembly in mind 7 33
allow for parallel disassembly 7 33
retain documentation, as-built 6 29
consider element reuse potential during design 6 29
design component handling for ease of demounting 6 29
enable adaptive reuse 6 29
open plan design 6 29
use limited number of connectors 6 29
design for durability 6 29
design for flexibility 4 19
design for easy disassembly 4 19
consider disassembly tolerances 3 14
design durable joints 3 14
consider component ownership 3 14
design with structural grid 3 14
design lightweight structure 2 10
plan for spare parts for replacement 2 10
design for reconditioning 2 10
design for re-assembly 2 10
design for environment 2 10
consider re-manufacturing 2 10
consider selective disassembly 2 10
perform requirements analysis 2 10
design for recycling 2 10
apply optimization 2 10
over-dimension elements 2 10
use local suppliers 2 10
avoid soil contact 2 10

et al. (2017), Denis et al. (2017, 2018), and Khalili and Chua (2011). algorithm was showcased in a BIM case study with 3D visualization.
The fifteen factors for DfD (in five themes: management, knowledge, The tool aims to facilitate reuse by automating deconstruction planning
technology and tools, costs, and legal) recommended for inclusion activities within the BIM system.
in BIM were gathered from expert reviews by Obi et al. (2021). A Authors contributing to the development of BIM towards including
BIM-integrated tool based on node-edge graph analysis is described, the DfD focus on demonstrating easy implementation and practicality.
implemented, and applied by Kim and Kim (2023) to evaluate the Widespread employment of the DfD using BIM is however hindered
environmental impacts after deconstruction based on the recoverability by missing input information about buildings and materials, lack of
level and accompanying emissions of the materials, and enable com- experimentally verified methods for deconstructability assessment, and
parison for different design parameters. The authors apply the tool uncertainty in cost estimation of all logistical operations connected to
to a frame design from both steel and wood with different connector reuse.
solutions and conclude that DfD strategies make reuse highly likely but
the cost is higher, while environmental cost savings are not guaranteed, 3.1.5. Tools enabling design for disassembly
proving the importance of applying the holistic approach that combines Different approaches to introduce the DfD into common practice by
LCA, Life Cycle Costing - LCC, and DfD indicators within automated proposing tools (e.g., method, model, indicator) for evaluation of de-
tools for BIM models. A BIM-based classification tool for structural sign solutions and qualitative or quantitative assessment were discussed
solutions and building components was proposed by Mattaraia et al. in 34 articles. Integration with BIM was not undertaken but is possible
(2023) via the factors and weights system established with the ex- in most cases and briefly mentioned in some. A longer descriptive
pert interviews. The system was applied by the authors to compare summary of the key findings of each article in the specific context of
three design alternatives of simple shed design (concrete, steel, and DfD can be found in the supplementary information file in Section S1.
timber-based structure) and show the influence of the envelope and The tools proposed in the literature can be divided into thematic
partition components on the total score. A tool for mapping rela- groups:
tionships between building elements and mechanical, electrical, and
plumbing installations was developed and implemented by Marzouk • Circularity Indicators (CI) at different scales (material, product,
and Elmaraghy (2021) within the Application Programming Interface component, system, building).
(API) for Revit Autodesk. The semantic network for element connec- • LCA with extensions for DfD, novel impact allocation approaches,
tivity from the disassembly point of view was constructed and the integration with e.g., CI, service life design, disassembly potential.

386
K. Ostapska et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 48 (2024) 377–395

Fig. 4. Mapping of the tool and BIM research areas in Design for Disassembly. The percentage is based on relative mentions in the Tool and Building Information Modelling literature
categories.

• Disassembly assessment, planning, optimization, codification, rat- (2016). Those methods are based on the assembly geometry, relation-
ings and criteria. ships between elements and full specifications on connections. Iden-
• Industry 4.0 concepts, i.e., digital fabrication and computational, tification of all possible disassembly operations in a mathematically
data-driven design, robotic and additive manufacturing, topologi- rigorous way allows for further optimization and planning.
cal optimization, artificial intelligence, material tagging/tracking A variety of digitalization strategies constitute the third group of
system. tools, referred to as Industry 4.0. Artificial intelligence, see
• Other methods, i.e. Material Flow Analysis, Service Life Design, Tatiya et al. (2018), and advanced statistical methods (data science),
harvesting map. see Rakhshan et al. (2021), are proposed to overcome the complexity of
handling a large number of parameters and criteria. Additive manufac-
A graphical depiction of the identified research fields for DfD tool
turing, Soar and Andreen (2012), robotic fabrication, Kuzmenko et al.
development and BIM-integrated tools (discussed separately) is shown
(2021), and modular topological optimization, Tyburec et al. (2022)
in Fig. 4. Due to their specificity and high relevance in the industry, the
are discussed as technological enablers.
BIM-based tool developments are in separate categories even though
Many tools are proposed in the scientific literature to guide the
they are oftentimes technical implementations or integrations of other
DfD within the AEC. Different levels of technological readiness are
described methods (i.e., LCA, circularity indicators). Disassembly as-
represented, from already working application programming interfaces
sessment and planning are considered as input to circularity evaluation
in commercial software to theoretical models tested on synthetic case
presented either as a standalone tool or BIM integrated module. Around
studies. Reliable and precise solutions are presented when detailed
58% of identified publications discussing practical tools for DfD are
design information is available but even then, the prediction of reuse,
focused on methodology development, while the rest are prioritizing
recycling, or recovery rate remains uncertain. The success of DfD is
BIM interoperability and integration. Methods within LCA are well
difficult to assess beyond purely technical performance and is therefore
established but their practical application towards DfD is hindered by
considered by many authors in terms of potential, i.e. Disassembly
several methodological or technical factors. Methodological problems
Potential (DP).
step from boundary definitions and are further discussed in separate
paragraphs. Technical barriers are associated with a lack of integrated
design routines that would allow the comparison of environmental 3.1.6. Case study
impacts and benefits of different solutions at the conceptual stage. Among identified scientific literature a total number of 78 case
These barriers are being mostly addressed by the integration of LCA and studies was identified. Out of that number, 37% concerned the built
BIM. A lack of universal approach can be observed, as very few articles DfD structures, 17% concerned conceptual DfD structures, while 46%
provide generic conclusions, Malabi Eberhardt et al. (2020b), while contained a description of the performance of the prototype DfD joints
the majority provides conclusions for specific study cases of buildings for construction.
(typical houses by Kayaçetin et al., 2023, stadium, school and ware- A separate analysis of built DfD structures was performed to identify
house by Densley Tingley, 2013) or construction systems (concrete, more typical modern buildings designed for disassembly. A relatively
timber, concrete–timber hybrid by Joensuu et al., 2022, timber facade small number of 29 examples found in scientific literature databases
by Palumbo et al., 2021, concrete floor solutions by Graubner and was expanded with an additional population of 122 built DfD structures
Reiche, 2001). described in online architectural magazines.
Circularity indicators are the next group of methods after LCA,
where accounting for DfD is introduced to assess its benefits. The circu- 3.2. Built DfD data analysis
larity indicator is a set of rating criteria combined with weights/factors
to provide easily comparable numbers within the range [0,1]. Rates The analysis of the 151 examples of built DfD structures presented
are usually dependent on current practices of recycling, recovery or in the research literature and online magazines is described in this
landfilling at the material level and expert opinion on reusability at the section. The focus of the analysis was on providing the most practical
component level. More objective approaches based on the availability data on each built DfD structure (data point), e.g. location, date,
of BIM models with high level of detail or precise CAD drawings net area, function, structural material, secondary materials, structural
of assemblies incorporate methods for disassembly sequence planning system, joint type, foundation type, facade type, end-of-life scenario (if
by Sanchez and Haas (2018),Sanchez et al. (2019), Schwede and Störl defined), green roof solution, and planned lifetime.

387
K. Ostapska et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 48 (2024) 377–395

Fig. 5. World distribution of modern structures Designed for Disassembly, a heat map.

Fig. 6. Structures Designed for Disassembly after 1990 by main structural material. Materials: A- aluminium, C - concrete, CB - cardboard, CLT- cross-laminated timber, CRK - cork,
CS- concrete steel composite, GLT - glued laminated timber, I - iron, LVL - laminated veneer lumber, PLA - plastic, PW - plywood, S - steel, SC - steel, W -wood.

Raw data collected from the literature search are presented in the largest structures with a mean area exceeding 5000 m2 are constructed
supplementary information file in tables S4–S7 with category letter in steel, iron or concrete–steel composite technique. It is worth noting
code for classification and labels explained in Table 3 and Section 2.5. that the largest spread between minimum and maximum DfD building
The geographical location of the structures is mapped by country, see area is found both within solid timber (the mean area around 1000
Fig. 5, with 19% located in the Netherlands, a modern DfD leader, m2 ) and steel structures (the mean area around 5000 m2 ) suggesting
68% located in Europe, 17% in both Americas and 11% in Asia. The the possible variety of the structural solutions within those material
onset of the modern DfD in AEC is observed in 90’, see Fig. 6, but the categories. The distribution of the DfD structures by their size (net
visible growth and surge in application started in the second decade areal) across different building functions is shown in Fig. 8. Residential,
of the XXIst century. The emergence of cross-laminated timber and public, office and pavilion buildings have a wide range of area sizes but
its growth in popularity has visibly skewed the ratio of timber-based similar mean area of 2000–6000 m2 . Both small and large structures are
DfD structures from 2019 on while concrete-oriented DfD solutions represented in all functions but the large structures are rarer as there
have remained a niche. Steel frames have an established one-third are only 9 structures larger than 5000 m2 overall that skew the mean
share within the DfD structure development. A clear emergence of the area considerably, see small grey dots representing singular structure
group of small, mostly residential timber and steel DfD structures up in Fig. 8.
to 100 m2 area is observed after 2010. Larger structures were designed The most represented function in the DfD buildings is public and
earlier, mainly as public or industrial buildings or temporary exhibition residential, 30% each, followed by 17% of exhibition pavilions and 12%
pavilions. Detailed distribution of built DfD structures function over of office. Only 3 hotel buildings have been identified, all after 2013, and
time for different area ranges is depicted in figures S1–S4 in the built-in wood or engineered wood products, e.g. CLT, WLT. Industrial
supplementary information file in Section S3. The mean area of the DfD and agricultural buildings are however underrepresented considering
structure made of different structural materials is visualized in Fig. 7. their generally higher prevalence than office, public, business and hotel
Different structural materials are characteristic of different building buildings. The distribution of the structural system type and main struc-
area ranges. The rarely used structural materials like cork, cardboard, tural material across the building function is presented in bar charts
plastic, plywood or aluminium were applied in the small DfD structures in Fig. 9. The percentage distribution of data across nine categories
below 200 m2 . The medium area DfD structures with a mean below (country, material, function, structural system, foundation type, facade
4000 m2 were constructed in concrete, CLT, glued-laminated timber material, structural joint type, green roof, and lifetime) are visualized
(GLT), Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL), and solid timber (Wood). The on Pareto charts in Fig. 10. Despite just five countries contributing to

388
K. Ostapska et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 48 (2024) 377–395

Fig. 7. Mean area (grey dot) of structures Designed for Disassembly for main structural material (number indicates group count). The top and bottom lines define a maximum
and minimum area. Materials: A- aluminium, C - concrete, CB - cardboard, CLT- cross-laminated timber, CRK - cork, CS- concrete steel composite, GLT - glued laminated timber, I - iron,
LVL - laminated veneer lumber, PLA - plastic, PW - plywood, S - steel, SC - steel, W -wood.

Fig. 8. Area of structures Designed for Disassembly by different functions (large grey dot indicates mean area, the number indicates the group count). Area range 0–100 km2
(left) and 0–6000 m2 (right). Function: P - public, R -residential, PAV - pavilion, OFF - office, IND - industrial, SH - shell, H - hotel, CP - car park.

over 50% of the DfD buildings, a total of 36 locations are represented in by those large objects (mainly pavilions, terminals, stadiums), that
the data. Every third DfD structure is made from solid timber, and over contribute to 96% of the combined net area of all considered DfD
53% of structures are from wood or wood-based materials including buildings, with the remaining 4% of the area being located in 85
wood-engineered products, e.g., CLT, wave laminated timber (WLT), structures (64%) having less than 1000 m2 each, see Fig. 12. DfD case
GLT, LVL, and plywood. The second most popular material is steel, studies tend to be small structures, with 30 (23%) below 100 m2 , 54
with 35% structures built as steel frames. Concrete is used in over 5% (42%) below 200 m2 , and 66 (50%) below 300 m2 . Among residential
of cases, at a much lower rate than in typical construction. Other used buildings, smaller structures dominate and only nine (24%) have a net
structural materials with around 1.5% share are aluminium, cardboard, area around or over 1000 m2 , see Fig. 8. The service life of the buildings
and concrete–steel composites. Together, wood, steel, and concrete was categorized between long and short term with 56% of the DfD
comprise 93% of the material used for structural bearing systems in structures designed as long-term. Over 11% of cases (17 structures)
the considered case studies. have green roof solutions. Every two out of three DfD structures have
The structural system solution is dominated by frames, 74%, with bolts as the main connector type, while screws are used in 22% cases.
post and beam configuration. A modular system is used in 17% cases as Special, fully reversible connectors with easy disassembly without tools,
the main solution for big volumes of the building, while smaller scale like click clamps, straps, carpentry or x-fix are only identified in twelve
modularity also often accompanies the frame system to increase the cases.
repeatability of elements or decrease the variety of used components. A
small subset of case studies ca 5%, predominantly exhibition pavilions 4. Discussion
and pilot shell structures are built as a grid-shell structural system,
where mass customization, e.g., a large number of easily produced but The analysed literature and collected data on the current state
unique elements, is common. The foundation is made from cast con- of DfD in AEC is an attempt at systematizing existing knowledge to
crete almost in half of the buildings, i.e., the foundation is not designed support the transition of the industry. Thus, some reflections on the
for disassembly, despite the whole building being declared as a DfD current advancement and the importance of environmental analysis are
structure. However, 29% of the cases do not have a fixed connection presented below together with the limitations of this work and methods
to the ground (no foundation), or have a minimum land intervention as well as the strong suggestion for further work.
in the form of steel, concrete, or wood piles or concrete feet (21%).
The distribution of the foundation type for different functions of the 4.1. Current state of design for disassembly in architecture, engineering and
DfD buildings is shown in Fig. 9. Public and residential buildings are construction
built on cast concrete foundations in 50% cases, offices and hotels in
over 60%, and pavilions in around 23%. The net area of the buildings The efforts to limit the embodied energy in the built environment
for different functions and structural systems is illustrated in Fig. 11. are relatively new and motivated mainly by waste reduction policies.
Very large buildings are predominantly built in steel and steel–concrete The leading country in DfD in AEC is the Netherlands, where reusable
composite. The total area of the built DfD structures is dominated materials were banned from landfills in ‘The Decree for Landfill and

389
K. Ostapska et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 48 (2024) 377–395

Fig. 9. Structural material, system and foundation by building function. System: F -frame, M - modular, SH - shell, WS - wall and slab. Function: P - public, R -residential, PAV -
pavilion, OFF - office, IND - industrial, SH - shell, H - hotel, CP - car park. Legend: A aluminium, C - concrete monolithic, CF - concrete foot, CP - concrete piles, GR - gravel, RE - rammed
earth, SP - steel piles, WP - wood piles, no - no foundations. Materials: S - steel, W -wood, CLT- cross-laminated timber, C - concrete, GLT - glued laminated timber, PW - plywood, A-
aluminium, CS - concrete steel composite, CB - cardboard, CRK - cork, PL - plastic, LVL - laminated veneer lumber, I - iron, WLT - wave laminated timber.

Waste Disposals Bans’ from 1995, see Kristinsson et al. (2001). DfD unique ideas are singular cases or concepts. For example, an entirely
is an early intervention strategy to facilitate circularity in the usually new construction system, that does not compromise on circularity and
distant future and is thus difficult to prove effective in practice without sustainability is proposed in Finch and Marriage (2019) and employs
studying its outcome over time. The time horizon issue is raised in the computational design to geometrical solutions with non-orthogonal
several publications, e.g., Sassi (2008), Addis (2008), Rasmussen et al. light-frames to tackle customization to fulfil differing requirements.
(2019). Some authors explicitly state that current life-cycle analysis The discreet assembly concept with prefabricated blocks for the post-
models are not cycle models indeed, Crowther (1999a). Most life-cycle tensioned concrete frame with dry joints is being currently developed
analyses and circularity indexes are limited in the period to fit the at MIT by Donovan et al. (2023). A similar concept for concrete frames
current economic model rather than the natural infinite cycle model, made with post-tensioned hollow blocks and shear locks is proposed
for which data availability is low and uncertainty is high. This hinders by Bao and Li (2020) and for plywood modules fabricated with CNC
comparison between different performance indicators and assessments and connected with snap joints by Quirk (2012). This is a sample of con-
and leads to the prolongation of building, component, or material life cepts, more of them are reported in this paper and the majority of them
within the linear economy model instead of transitioning to the circular feature creative, innovative, and original solutions that can inform
economy model. The reversibility of the construction process does not and inspire further development within circular construction. Certain
imply the success of reuse as external economic, logistic and social early-stage trends can already be observed as some solutions and tech-
factors play important roles. The outcomes of the performed analysis of niques demonstrate visible uptake in popularity. The engineered wood
the built DfD structures are therefore limited to the technical aspects of products, i.e., CLT, GLT, and LVL outperform concrete-based solutions
reversibility and do not provide a complete recipe for reuse. The state and dominate within the same areal range, see Fig. 7. The effort to
of the art in the built DfD environment should not be treated as the improve circularity within the concrete industry is focused on research
clear trend indicator as there are many original, innovative and out-of- in reversible joints where concrete features in 75% of the articles. Tim-
the-box thinking approaches identified that are in the early stages of ber connections with a 15% share are relatively high considering the
prototype, demonstrator or proof of concept. Therefore applying statis- dominant position of concrete in the construction industry. Although
tical methods might be counterproductive as potentially disruptive and most of the commonly used timber connectors (screws, bolts) offer a

390
K. Ostapska et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 48 (2024) 377–395

Fig. 10. Distribution of structures Designed for Disassembly by different categories. The cumulative/Pareto graph is shown together with an 80% cut-off. Materials: A- aluminium,
C - concrete, CB - cardboard, CLT- cross-laminated timber, CRK - cork, CS- concrete steel composite, GLT - glued laminated timber, I - iron, LVL - laminated veneer lumber, PLA - plastic,
PW - plywood, S - steel, SC - steel, W -wood.

higher degree of demountability than monolithic or grouted joints in subsequent service lives of the buildings, see Malabi Eberhardt et al.
concrete, The reversibility level can still be increased. The DfD solutions (2020a), Joensuu et al. (2022). On the other hand, this approach is
need comprehensive assessment within a holistic context of the local believed to give a conservative estimate of environmental impacts by
economy, supply chains, labour and competence availability and range e.g., Kakkos et al. (2020). Widespread use of the LCA methods in the
of environmental indicators to assure success. green building products certifications (e.g., LEED, BREEAM, DGNB,
HQE, EPD) reflects this trend as well (Hradil et al., 2014). As DfD
4.2. The importance of life cycle analysis in design for disassembly introduces the opportunity for the multiple ‘lives’ or cycles of the
product, the definition of the life and cycle becomes problematic. The
Life Cycle Assessment is a well-established and standardized method end of life of the building is typically considered as the end of the
(ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006) for assessing the environmental cycle from the LCA perspective, and the extension of the assessment
impact of products and processes throughout their life cycle. However, to include the DfD and assign the benefits for applying this strategy
Design for Disassembly is not easily accounted for in the current requires either redefinition of the cycle or the inclusion of many cycles
methodology of the life-cycle assessment of the building or its com- (i.e., multi cycling). Many authors mention the need to include the
ponents and is therefore neglected at the design stage, Graubner and ‘whole life-cycle ’ Jaillon and Poon (2014), Tatiya et al. (2018), Tingley
Reiche (2001). The construction impacts that are included in detail and Davison (2011), Kakkos and Hischier (2022), or move towards
currently, i.e., the embodied and operational energy, put the focus on the ‘holistic approach’ (Malmqvist et al., 2018), (Kamali and Hewage,
the current emissions but neglect the emissions at the recovery stage. 2016). The choice between the two is not only a theoretical and
This allocation of environmental impacts leads to design criteria that methodological issue of the research field but is connected to the
prioritize first service life savings but omit the criteria to guarantee the policies and current linear economic model. A proposed approach to

391
K. Ostapska et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 48 (2024) 377–395

Fig. 11. Building area (bubble size), function (y-axis), and structural material (colour) in 1990–2022. Materials: A- aluminium, C - concrete, CB - cardboard, CLT- cross-laminated
timber, CRK - cork, CS- concrete steel composite, GLT - glued laminated timber, I - iron, LVL - laminated veneer lumber, PLA - plastic, PW - plywood, S - steel, SC - steel, W -wood ,
Function: P - public, R -residential, PAV - pavilion, OFF - office, IND - industrial, SH - shell, H - hotel, CP - car park. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 12. A histogram: distribution of buildings by area size for structures Designed for Disassembly below 10000 m2 (excluding the 10 larger structures of up to 92000 m2 ).

remedy the current problem varies from the ambitious idea of long- (and eliminate the sub-optimal designs (Graubner and Reiche, 2001)).
term or closed-loop material history, see Sassi (2008), to the concepts However, more research towards improving methodology and exten-
borrowed from the manufacturing industry, i.e., extended producer’s sive database building is required, e.g. introducing weighting systems
responsibility of the product, see Rios et al. (2015), Lehmann (2013) for buildings designed for disassembly, automating data acquisition
and building service system instead of ownership (Crowther, 1998). and evaluation, and incorporating automated deconstruction design
The reported shortened service life of the buildings (Villalba et al., assisting tools for BIM models.
2004), (Thormark, 2001), (Guy and Shell, 2006), with longer (residual,
leftover) technical life leads to the importance of the end-of-life strategy 4.3. Limitations
and life-cycle management or even design of the life-cycle (Jaillon
and Poon, 2014), (Kyle et al., 2012), (Nienhuis et al., 2003). Separate The limitations of this study are the subjective categories used to
assessment methods are suggested to complement the LCA after the first map the literature and direct focus on the selected aspects, e.g. frame-
nominal cycle: Building Circularity Indicator (BCI) (Vliet, 2018), Ma- works or BIM. Different approaches could be followed for analysing
terial Recovery Potential Index (MRPI) (Mayer and Bechthold, 2018), the case studies, especially when filtering after important criteria for
EcoEffect (Thormark, 2001) or Agent-Based Model (ABM) (Ding et al., a given world region, climate and materials. Those analyses are made
2016). The most advanced attempts at integration of the circular econ- possible in future by providing all background data and sources for case
omy within LCA are found in Sanchez et al. (2020), Cottafava and studies within the supplementary information file. Especially the level
Ritzen (2021), Malabi Eberhardt et al. (2020b), Broniewicz and Dec of implementation of DfD in each case study requires verification when
(2022) and recently in Gillott et al. (2023), Kakkos et al. (2020), Keena more general conclusions are drawn. DfD structures are self-declared by
et al. (2022), Kröhnert et al. (2022). The extension of the LCA method architects/engineers as there are no existing certificates and approvals
to encompass DfD is proposed in Densley Tingley and Davison (2012) for DfD buildings.
and recently in Lam et al. (2022). It is important to address the uncer-
tainty connected to the predictions of the impacts in the future cycles 4.4. Further work
and their parameters and overcome the issue of missing data and the ac-
cessibility to information, e.g. via electronic tags connected to BIM. An The assembled literature overview can be further used to monitor
important issue is the extension of the current databases of environmen- the progress of the DfD field with future literature search updates and
tal impacts that are concentrated in the production stage to include the provide analytics on the industry and markets for stakeholders and
different processes characteristic of circular economy, i.e., operation businesses planning the transition towards a circular economy. More-
and end-of-life scenarios. LCA is the most frequently mentioned method over, systematic reviews for specific topics could be further pursued,
in the analysed literature that could be used to evaluate the feasibility e.g.: current LCA and DfD integration strategies, identifying best DfD
of DfD and guide the design towards a globally sustainable solution and BIM integration paths, does DfD leads to higher initial costs of

392
K. Ostapska et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 48 (2024) 377–395

buildings, and opportunities for DfD in Industry 4.0 transition. DfD case Declaration of competing interest
studies could be further exploited by performing detailed comparative
analysis for subgroup cases and involving specific architects and en- The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
gineers in discussions, structured interviews and surveys. This would cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
help to develop normative definitions for DfD buildings that could be influence the work reported in this paper.
included in the standards and building certificates.
Acknowledgements
5. Conclusion
Authors received financial support from the Research Council of
A scoping review of the scientific literature within Design for Dis- Norway via project no 327777: SirkBygg-Circular new building - Design
assembly in the architecture, engineering, and construction industry and construction for disassembly and reuse.
reveals that analysis and framework are main focus in DfD research
but defined strategic areas of tools development, BIM integration, and Appendix A. Supplementary data
reversible connection design have emerged. Reports on case studies of
newly developed DfD techniques, pilot projects and buildings are not Supplementary material related to this article can be found online
represented sufficiently within the scientific literature and are mostly at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.05.014.
found in architectural magazines. Scientific literature consists of very
generic concepts, data analysis, and methodology and very detailed References
studies of a particular joint solution, technique, or component. An all-
encompassing technique for DfD building construction is easier found Addis, B., 2008. Briefing: Design for deconstruction. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Waste Resour.
within architectural reports on newly erected structures. Out of 151 Manage. 161 (1), 9–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/warm.2008.161.1.9.
existing building case studies, only 29 were reported via scientific Akanbi, L.A., Oyedele, L.O., Akinade, O.O., Ajayi, A.O., Davila Delgado, M., Bilal, M.,
Bello, S.A., 2018. Salvaging building materials in a circular economy: A BIM-
literature. A better overview of the current DfD building stock is then based whole-life performance estimator. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 129, 175–186.
given by combining online architectural magazines and scientific article http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.026.
reports, despite lack of the scientific rigour and detail in the former. Akanbi, L.A., Oyedele, L.O., Omoteso, K., Bilal, M., Akinade, O.O., Ajayi, A.O., Davila
The number of modern DfD structures reported in online accessible Delgado, J.M., Owolabi, H.A., 2019. Disassembly and deconstruction analytics
system (D-DAS) for construction in a circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 223,
sources has been increasingly growing in the last two decades. The
386–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.172.
Netherlands as a country, and Europe as a continent are leading in Akbarieh, A., Jayasinghe, L.B., Waldmann, D., Teferle, F.N., 2020. BIM-based
modern DfD construction, followed by the USA, Japan and China. The end-of-lifecycle decision making and digital deconstruction: Literature review.
reason is the urgent need to reform the current wasteful construction Sustainability 12 (7), URL https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/2670.
practices in the global western countries, and limits of landfill capacity, Akbarnezhad, A., Ong, K., Chandra, L., 2014. Economic and environmental assessment
of deconstruction strategies using building information modeling. Autom. Constr.
and the emerging law of extended producer responsibility. Timber and 37, 131–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.10.017.
engineered wood products are the most common sources of structural Akinade, O.O., Oyedele, L.O., Bilal, M., Ajayi, S.O., Owolabi, H.A., Alaka, H.A.,
materials for DfD construction with over half of the identified cases Bello, S.A., 2015. Waste minimisation through deconstruction: A BIM based de-
built with wood. Three out of four DfD structures have an area below constructability assessment score (BIM-DAS). Resour. Conserv. Recy. 105, 167–176.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.018.
1000 m2 and almost half (47%) is below 300 m2 . Many of those struc-
Akinade, O.O., Oyedele, L.O., Omoteso, K., Ajayi, S.O., Bilal, M., Owolabi, H.A.,
tures are small sustainable dwellings but the size is also connected to Alaka, H.A., Ayris, L., Henry Looney, J., 2017. BIM-based deconstruction tool:
the prototypical character of the projects. Bolts are the most commonly Towards essential functionalities. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 6 (1), 260–271.
used connectors, often with screws, and screws are the main connector http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2017.01.002.
in 20% cases. Facade solution is the most varying in material choice Akinade, O., Oyedele, L., Oyedele, A., Delgado, J.M.D., Bilal, M., Akanbi, L., Ajayi, A.,
Owolabi, H., 2020. Design for deconstruction using a circular economy approach:
with wood and glass as the most common cladding materials. Half barriers and strategies for improvement. Prod. Plan. Control 31 (10), 829–840.
of the DfD structures have monolithic concrete foundations with only http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1695006.
the upper structure designed for disassembly. Over 70% of the DfD Al-Sabah, S., Laefer, D., Schultz, A., McGetrick, P., 2022. Advances in and benefits of
structures are built as frames and 20% are modular. The buildings rapid steel connections. In: IABSE Congress Nanjing 2022 - Bridges and Structures:
Connection, Integration and Harmonisation, Report. pp. 742–749.
currently designed for disassembly as declared by their architects vary
Allam, A.S., Nik-Bakht, M., 2023. From demolition to deconstruction of the built
considerably in their structural material, facade solution and area. environment: A synthesis of the literature. J. Build. Eng. 64, 105679. http://dx.
However, the structural system and joint connectors are solved in a very doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105679.
similar way. The definition of the DfD is not uniform across the industry Anastasiades, K., Goffin, J., Rinke, M., Buyle, M., Audenaert, A., Blom, J., 2021. Stan-
and can be used for the whole building, its parts or specific compo- dardisation: An essential enabler for the circular reuse of construction components?
A trajectory for a cleaner European construction industry. J. Clean. Prod. 298,
nents only. No indicators and quantifications are reported by designers http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126864.
to describe the level of disassembly in their buildings, therefore the Aninthaneni, P., Dhakal, R., Marshall, J., Bothara, J., 2018. Nonlinear cyclic be-
comparison of the effectiveness of the designs is hindered. This article haviour of precast concrete frame sub-assemblies with ‘‘Dry’’ end plate connection.
provides the source data for further analysis, updates and extensions in Structures 14, 124–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2018.03.003.
Anumba, C., Rimawi, E., Isiadinso, C., Anumba, C., El-Rimawi, J., Bhamra, T., 2006.
the supplementary information file. Continued studies on the identified
Design for deconstruction lessons from the manufacturing industry. In: Association
cases to establish the most common, effective and feasible practices in of Researchers in Construction Management, ARCOM 2006 - Procs 22nd Annual
DfD is recommended. ARCOM Conference, Vol. 2.
Aranha, C., Fink, G., Hudert, M., 2021. Experimental investigation of interlocking birch
plywood structures. In: World Conference on Timber Engineering 2021. WCTE
CRediT authorship contribution statement
2021, pp. 599–604.
Arksey, H., O’Malley, L., 2005. Scoping studies: towards a methodological frame-
Katarzyna Ostapska: Writing – review & editing, Writing – origi- work. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8 (1), 19–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
nal draft, Visualization, Software, Methodology, Investigation, Formal 1364557032000119616.
analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Petra Rüther: Writing – Aromataris, E., 2015. Joanna briggs institute reviewer’s manual. URL https://nursing.
lsuhsc.edu/JBI/docs/ReviewersManuals/Scoping-.pdf.
review & editing, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Arian Loli: Askar, R., Bragança, L., Gervásio, H., 2022. Design for adaptability (DfA)—Frameworks
Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. Klodian Gradeci: and assessment models for enhanced circularity in buildings. Appl. Syst. Innov. 5
Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. (1), http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/asi5010024.

393
K. Ostapska et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 48 (2024) 377–395

Ataei, A., Bradford, M., Valipour, H., 2015. Sustainable high strength steel flush Derikvand, M., Fink, G., 2021. Deconstructable connector for TCC floors using
end plate beam-to-column composite joints with deconstructable bolted shear self-tapping screws. J. Build. Eng. 42, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.
connectors. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Performance- 102495.
Based and Life-Cycle Structural Engineering. PLSE 2015, pp. 749–757. http://dx. Derikvand, M., Fink, G., 2022. Bending properties of deconstructable cross-laminated
doi.org/10.14264/uql.2016.1192. timber-concrete composite floor elements. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 17 (4), 253–260.
Aye, L., Hes, D., 2012. Green building rating system scores for building reuse. J. Green http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17480272.2022.2077658.
Build. 7 (2), 105–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.3992/jgb.7.2.105. Ding, Z., Wang, Y., Zou, P.X., 2016. An agent based environmental impact assessment
Bao, Y., Li, V.C., 2020. Feasibility study of lego-inspired construction with bendable of building demolition waste management: Conventional versus green management.
concrete. Autom. Constr. 113, 103161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020. J. Clean. Prod. 133, 1136–1153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.054.
103161. Donovan, I., Schnitzler, J., Lee, K.J., Wongsittikan, P., Liu, Y., Mueller, C.T., 2023.
Basta, A., Serror, M.H., Marzouk, M., 2020. A BIM-based framework for quantitative PixelFrame: A reconfigurable, precast, post-tensioned concrete structural system for
assessment of steel structure deconstructability. Autom. Constr. 111, 103064. http: a circular building economy. In: CISBAT 2023. p. 1.
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.103064.
Durmisevic, E., 2001. From massive construction to decomposition of housing -a way
Bertin, I., Mesnil, R., Jaeger, J.M., Feraille, A.d., Le Roy, R., 2020. A BIM-based
to support further industrialization and customization of housing. In: XXIX IAHS
framework and databank for reusing load-bearing structural elements. Sustainability
Structures World Congress on Housing 2001, Vol. 25.
12, 3147. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12083147.
Durmisevic, E., 2006. Transformable Building Structures: Design for Disassembly as
Boothroyd, G., 1994. Product design for manufacture and assembly. Comput. Aided
a Way to Introduce Sustainable Engineering to Building Design and Construction
Des. 26 (7), 505–520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-4485(94)90082-5.
Boothroyd, G., Alting, L., 1992. Design for assembly and disassembly. CIRP Ann 41 (Ph.D. thesis). Technical University of Delft.
(2), 625–636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)63249-1. Durmisevic, E., Beurskens, P., Adrosevic, R., Westerdijk, R., 2017. Systemic view on
Brambilla, G., Lavagna, M., Vasdravellis, G., Castiglioni, C.A., 2019. Environmental ben- reuse potential of building elements, components and systems: comprehensive
efits arising from demountable steel-concrete composite floor systems in buildings. framework for assessing reuse potential of building elements. In: Hiser International
Resour. Conserv. Recy. 141, 133–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018. Conference. pp. 275–280.
10.014. Durmisevic, E., Brouwer, J., 2002. Design aspects of decomposable building structures.
Broniewicz, E., Dec, K., 2022. Environmental impact of demolishing a steel structure In: Design for Deconstruction and Materials Reuse.
design for disassembly. Energies 15 (19), http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15197358. Fatourou-Sipsi, A., Symeonidou, I., 2021. Designing [for] the future: Managing architec-
Cai, G., Waldmann, D., 2019. A material and component bank to facilitate material tural parts through the principles of circular economy. In: IOP Conference Series,
recycling and component reuse for a sustainable construction: concept and prelim- vol. 899–1, 012014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/899/1/012014.
inary study. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 21, 2015–2032. http://dx.doi.org/10. Finch, G., Marriage, G., 2019. Digital wood design. In: Lecture Notes in Civil
1007/s10098-019-01758-1. Engineering. Springer Link, pp. 1087–1115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
Carvalho Machado, R., Artur de Souza, H., De Souza Veríssimo, G., 2018. Analysis 03676-8_44.
of guidelines and identification of characteristics influencing the deconstruc- Gillott, C., Mihkelson, W., Lanau, M., Cheshire, D., Densley Tingley, D., 2023.
tion potential of buildings. Sustainability 10 (8), http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ Developing regenerate: A circular economy engagement tool for the assessment
su10082604. of new and existing buildings. J. Ind. Ecol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13377.
Charef, R., Lu, W., Hall, D., 2022. The transition to the circular economy of Graubner, C.A., Reiche, K., 2001. Sustainable development in the building industry: an
the construction industry: Insights into sustainable approaches to improve analysis and assessment tool for design of disassembly. In: Gupta, S.M. (Ed.), In:
the understanding. J. Clean. Prod. 364, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022. Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing, vol. 4193, SPIE, International Society
132421. for Optics and Photonics, pp. 372–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.417283.
Chen, Q., Feng, H., Garcia de Soto, B., 2022. Revamping construction supply chain
Guy, B., Shell, S., 2006. Design for deconstruction and materials reuse. In: Proceedings
processes with circular economy strategies: A systematic literature review. J. Clean.
of the CIB Task Group 39. URL http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB951.pdf.
Prod. 335, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130240.
Hradil, P., Talja, A., Wahlström, M., Huuhka, S., Lahdensivu, J., Pikkuvirta, J.,
Chini, A.R., Balachandran, S., 2002. Anticipating and responding to deconstruction
2014. Re-use of structural elements; environmentally efficient recovery of building
through building design. In: Design for Deconstruction and Materials Reuse. URL
components. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1771.9363.
http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB950.pdf.
Clapham, M., Foo, S., Quadi, J., 2008. Development of a Canadian national standard Jaillon, L., Poon, C., 2014. Life cycle design and prefabrication in buildings: A review
on design for disassembly and adaptability for buildings. ASTM Int. 5, http: and case studies in Hong Kong. Autom. Constr. 39, 195–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.
//dx.doi.org/10.1520/JAI101061. 1016/j.autcon.2013.09.006.
Cottafava, D., Ritzen, M., 2021. Circularity indicator for residential buildings: Address- Jockwer, R., Goto, Y., 2021. Design for adaption - Making timber buildings ready for
ing the gap between embodied impacts and design aspects. Resour. Conserv. Recy. circular use and extended service life. In: World Conference on Timber Engineering
164, 105120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105120. 2021. WCTE 2021, pp. 1497–1505.
Crowther, P., 1998. Design for disassembly : an architectural strategy. In: Queensland Joensuu, T., Leino, R., Heinonen, J., Saari, A., 2022. Developing buildings’ life cycle
University of Technology Winter Colloquium. pp. 27–33, URL https://eprints.qut. assessment in circular economy-comparing methods for assessing carbon footprint
edu.au/49696/. of reusable components. Sustain. Cities Soc. 77, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.
Crowther, P., 1999a. Design for disassembly to extend service life and increase 2021.103499.
sustainability. In: Durability of Building Materials and Components 8: Service Life Kakkos, E., Heisel, F., Hebel, D.E., Hischier, R., 2020. Towards urban mining—
and Asset Management. pp. 1983–1992, URL https://eprints.qut.edu.au/2471/. Estimating the potential environmental benefits by applying an alternative
Crowther, P., 1999b. Historic trends in building disassembly. In: Technology in construction practice. A case study from Switzerland. Sustainability 12 (12), http:
Transition: Mastering the Impacts - ACSA/CIB 1999 International Science and //dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12125041.
Technology Conference. pp. 33–36, URL https://eprints.qut.edu.au/2837/. Kakkos, E., Hischier, R., 2022. Paving the way towards circularity in the building
Crowther, P., 2002. DESIGN FOR buildability AND the deconstruction consequences. sector. Empa’s sprint unit as a beacon of swift and circular construction. In:
In: Design for Deconstruction and Materials Reuse, Proc. Deconstruction Meeting, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 1078, 012009.
TG 39, CIB World Building Congress, Vol. 272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012009.
Crowther, P., 2005. Design for disassembly - themes and principles. Environ. Des. Guide
Kamali, M., Hewage, K., 2016. Life cycle performance of modular buildings: A critical
2, 1–7, URL https://eprints.qut.edu.au/2888/.
review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 62, 1171–1183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Cruz Rios, F., Grau, D., 2020. Circular economy in the built environment: Designing,
rser.2016.05.031.
deconstructing, and leasing reusable products. In: Hashmi, S., Choudhury, I.A.
Kanters, J., 2018. Design for deconstruction in the design process: State of the art.
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Renewable and Sustainable Materials. Elsevier, Oxford, pp.
Buildings 8 (11), URL https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/8/11/150.
338–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803581-8.11494-8.
Denis, F., Temmerman, N., Rammer, Y., 2017. The potential of graph theories to assess Kayaçetin, N.C., Verdoodt, S., Lefevre, L., Versele, A., 2023. Integrated decision support
buildings’ disassembly and components’ reuse: How building information modelling for embodied impact assessment of circular and bio-based building components. J.
(BIM) and social network analysis (SNA) metrics might help design for disassembly Build. Eng. 63, 105427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105427.
(DfD)? In: HISER Conference on Advances in Recycling and Management of Keena, N., Raugei, M., Lokko, M.L., Aly Etman, M., Achnani, V., Reck, B., Dyson, A.,
Construction and Demolition Waste. 2022. A life-cycle approach to investigate the potential of novel biobased con-
Denis, F., Vandervaeren, C., Temmerman, N., 2018. Using network analysis and BIM struction materials toward a circular built environment. Energies 15 (19), http:
to quantify the impact of design for disassembly. Buildings 8, 113. http://dx.doi. //dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15197239.
org/10.3390/buildings8080113. Khadim, N., Agliata, R., Marino, A., Thaheem, M.J., Mollo, L., 2022. Critical review
Densley Tingley, D., 2013. Design for Deconstruction: An Appraisal (Ph.D. thesis). of nano and micro-level building circularity indicators and frameworks. J. Clean.
University of Sheffield. Prod. 357, 131859. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131859.
Densley Tingley, D., Davison, B., 2012. Developing an LCA methodology to account Khalili, A., Chua, D.K.H., 2011. Framework for an IFC-based tool for implementing
for the environmental benefits of design for deconstruction. Build. Environ. 57, design for deconstruction (DfD). In: Computing in Civil Engineering (2011). ASCE
387–395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.06.005. library, pp. 619–626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41182(416)76.

394
K. Ostapska et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 48 (2024) 377–395

Kim, S., Kim, S.A., 2023. A design support tool based on building information mod- Pulaski, M., Hewitt, C., Horman, M., Guy, B., 2004. Design for deconstruction: Material
eling for design for deconstruction: A graph-based deconstructability assessment reuse and constructability. Mod. Steel Constr. 44, 74–81.
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 383 (135343), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022. Quirk, V., 2012. A sustainable, printed house that snaps together. https:
135343. //www.archdaily.com/264572/villa-asserbo-a-sustainable-printed-house-that-
Kristinsson, J., Hendriks, C., Kowalczyk, T., te Dorsthorst, B., 2001. Reuse of secondary snaps-together.
elements: utopia or reality. In: CIB World Building Congress. CIB, pp. 1–11. Rageh, M.O., Hosny, H., Abdel-Rehem, A., 2017. Sustainability requirements of concrete
Kröhnert, H., Itten, R., Stucki, M., 2022. Comparing flexible and conventional mono- structures. Am. J. Civ. Eng. Archit. 5 (5), 174–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.12691/
lithic building design: Life cycle environmental impact and potential for material ajcea-5-5-1.
circulation. Build. Environ. 222, 109409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv. Rakhshan, K., Morel, J.C., Daneshkhah, A., 2021. Predicting the technical reusability
2022.109409. of load-bearing building components: A probabilistic approach towards developing
Kuzmenko, K., Roux, C., Feraille, A., Baverel, O., 2021. Assessing environmental impact a circular economy framework. J. Build. Eng. 42, 102791. http://dx.doi.org/10.
of digital fabrication and reuse of constructive systems. Structures 31, 1300–1310. 1016/j.jobe.2021.102791.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.05.035. Rasmussen, F., Birkved, M., Birgisdottir, H., 2019. Upcycling and design for disassembly
Kyle, B.R., Foo, S.H., Torrey, D., 2012. Standards development leading to change in - LCA of buildings employing circular design strategies. In: SBE19 BAMB - Building
design and deconstruction practices. In: GDC2012 Conference. URL https://www. As Material Banks.
irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB_DC25204.pdf. Rios, F.C., Chong, W.K., Grau, D., 2015. Design for disassembly and deconstruction -
Lam, W.C., Claes, S., Ritzen, M., 2022. Exploring the missing link between life cycle Challenges and opportunities. Procedia Eng. 118, 1296–1304. http://dx.doi.org/10.
assessment and circularity assessment in the built environment. Buildings 12 (12), 1016/j.proeng.2015.08.485, Defining the future of sustainability and resilience in
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122152. design, engineering and construction.
Lausselet, C., Dahlstrøm, O.A., Thyholt, M., Eghbali, A., Schneider-Marin, P., 2023. Sanchez, B., Haas, C., 2018. Capital project planning for a circular economy. Con-
Methods to account for design for disassembly: Status of the building sector. str. Manag. Econ. 36 (6), 303–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2018.
Buildings 13 (4), http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings13041012. 1435895.
Lehmann, S., 2013. Low carbon construction systems using prefabricated engineered Sanchez, B., Rausch, C., Haas, C., 2019. ‘‘Deconstruction programming for adaptive
solid wood panels for urban infill to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. reuse of buildings’’. Autom. Constr. 107, 102921. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Sustainable Cities Soc. 6, 57–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2012.08.004. autcon.2019.102921.
Leonora Charlotte Malabi Eberhardt, H.B., Birkved, M., 2019. Life cycle assessment of Sanchez, B., Rausch, C., Haas, C., Saari, R., 2020. A selective disassembly multi-
a danish office building designed for disassembly. Build. Res. Inf. 47 (6), 666–680. objective optimization approach for adaptive reuse of building components. Resour.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2018.1517458. Conserv. Recy. 154, 104605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104605.
Malabi Eberhardt, L.C., van Stijn, A., Nygaard Rasmussen, F., Birkved, M., Birgisdot- Sarja, A., 2002. Integrated Life Cycle Design of Structures. CRC Press, http://dx.doi.
tir, H., 2020a. Development of a life cycle assessment allocation approach for org/10.1201/9781482289169.
circular economy in the built environment. Sustainability 12 (22), http://dx.doi. Sassi, P., 2008. Defining closed-loop material cycle construction. Build. Res. Inf. 36 (5),
org/10.3390/su12229579. 509–519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613210801994208.
Malabi Eberhardt, L.C., van Stijn, A., Nygaard Rasmussen, F., Birkved, M., Birgisdot- Schwede, D., Störl, E., 2016. System for the analysis and design for disassembly and
tir, H., 2020b. Development of a life cycle assessment allocation approach for recycling in the construction industry. In: Central Europe Towards Sustainable
circular economy in the built environment. Sustainability 12 (22), http://dx.doi. Building Prague 2016. CESB16.
org/10.3390/su12229579. Soar, R., Andreen, D., 2012. The role of additive manufacturing and physiomimetic
Malmqvist, T., Nehasilova, M., Moncaster, A., Birgisdottir, H., Nygaard Rasmussen, F., computational design for digital construction. Archit. Des. 82 (2), 126–135. http:
Houlihan Wiberg, A., Potting, J., 2018. Design and construction strategies for //dx.doi.org/10.1002/ad.1389.
reducing embodied impacts from buildings – Case study analysis. Energy Build. Tatiya, A., Zhao, D., Syal, M., Berghorn, G.H., LaMore, R., 2018. Cost prediction
166, 35–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.01.033. model for building deconstruction in urban areas. J. Clean. Prod. 195, 1572–1580.
Marzouk, M., Elmaraghy, A., 2021. Design for deconstruction using integrated lean http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.084.
principles and bim approach. Sustainability (Switzerland) 13 (14), http://dx.doi. Thormark, C., 2001. Recycling Potential and Design for Disassembly in Buildings (Ph.D.
org/10.3390/su13147856. thesis). Lund Institute of Technology, Lund University, URL https://lup.lub.lu.se/
Mattaraia, L., Fabricio, M., Codinhoto, R., 2023. Structure for the classification of search/files/4809710/1693314.pdf.
disassembly applied to BIM models. Archit. Eng. Des. Manage. 19 (1), 56–73. Tingley, D.D., Davison, B., 2011. Design for deconstruction and material reuse. Proc.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2021.1956420. Inst. Civ. Eng. Energy 164 (4), 195–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/ener.2011.164.
Mayer, M., Bechthold, M., 2018. Development of policy metrics for circularity as- 4.195.
sessment in building assemblies. Econ. Policy Energy Environ. 2017, 57–84. http: Tricco, A.C., et al., 2018. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR):
//dx.doi.org/10.3280/EFE2017-001005. Checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 169 (7), 467–473. http://dx.doi.org/
Morgan, C., Stevenson, F., 2005. Design for deconstruction, SEDA design guides for 10.7326/M18-0850.
Scotland: No 1. Build. Future 14, 1–4. Tyburec, M., Doškář, M., Zeman, J., Kružík, M., 2022. Modular-topology optimization
Nienhuis, K., Woesthuis, N., Frantzen, I.J.W., 2003. Programmatic flux, can you cope? of structures and mechanisms with free material design and clustering. Comput.
A first introduction to the ‘timeshifting-model’. In: Deconstruction and Materials Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 395, 114977. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2022.
Reuse. URL http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB886.pdf. 114977.
Obi, L., Awuzie, B., Obi, C., Omotayo, T.S., Oke, A., Osobajo, O., 2021. BIM for decon- Villalba, G., Segarra, M., Chimenos, J., Espiell, F., 2004. Using the recyclability index
struction: An interpretive structural model of factors influencing implementation. of materials as a tool for design for disassembly. Ecol. Econom. 50 (3), 195–200.
Buildings 11 (6), http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings11060227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.03.026.
Ohashi, T., Iwata, M., Arimoto, S., Miyakawa, S., 2002. Extended assemblability Vliet, M.M., 2018. Disassembling the Steps Towards Building Circularity: Redeveloping
evaluation method (AEM). JSME Int. J. Ser. C Mech. Syst. Mach. Elements Manuf. the Building Disassembly Assessment Method in the Building Circularity Indicator.
45 (2), 567–574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1299/jsmec.45.567. Eindhoven University of Technology.
Oluleye, B., Chan, D., Antwi-Afari, P., 2023. Adopting artificial intelligence for Webster, M.D., 2007. Structural design for adaptability and deconstruction: A strategy
enhancing the implementation of systemic circularity in the construction industry: for closing the materials loop and increasing building value. In: Structures Congress
A critical review. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 35, 509–524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ 2007. ASCE library, pp. 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40946(248)27.
j.spc.2022.12.002. Webster, M., Costello, D., 2005. Designing structural systems for deconstruction: How
Ostapska, K., Gradeci, K., Ruther, P., 2021. Design for disassembly (DfD) in construction to extend a new building’s useful life and prevent it from going to waste when the
industry: A literature mapping and analysis of the existing designs. In: Journal end finally comes. In: Greenbuild Conference. Atlanta, GA, pp. 1–14.
of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 2042, 012176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742- Williams, T.J., Bradley Guy, G., 2003. Deconstruction and design for reuse: Choose to
6596/2042/1/012176. reuse. URL http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB893.pdf.
Palumbo, E., Camerin, F., Panozzo, C., Rossetti, M., 2021. End-of-life management as a Xia, B., Ding, T., Xiao, J., 2020. Life cycle assessment of concrete structures with reuse
design tool: the case of a dry wood envelope. TECHNE-J. Technol. Archit. Environ. and recycling strategies: A novel framework and case study. Waste Manage. 105,
22, 260–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.36253/techne-10617. 268–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.02.015.
Peters, M.D., Godfrey, C.M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., Soares, C.B.R., 2015. Yan, Z., Ottenhaus, L.M., Leardini, P., Jockwer, R., 2022. Performance of reversible
Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int. J. Evid.-Based Healthc. timber connections in Australian light timber framed panelised construction. J.
13, 141–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050. Build. Eng. 61, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105244.
Pongiglione, M., Calderini, C., D’Aniello, M., Landolfo, R., 2021. Novel reversible Yang, Y., 1973. Demountable garage building. Patent. (US3708933A).
seismic-resistant joint for sustainable and deconstructable steel structures. J. Build. Yeoh, J.K.W., Lee, S.L., Ong, K.C.G., 2018. Development of a BIM-based framework to
Eng. 35, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101989. support the analysis of design-for-disassembly strategies. In: Construction Research
Pongiglione, M., Calderini, C., Guy, G., 2017. A new demountable seismic-resistant joint Congress 2018. pp. 759–768. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/9780784481301.075.
to improve industrial building reparability. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 8,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-06-2016-0026.

395