Evaluating the Potential Impact of Building Design Strategies on Material Recovery during Deconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Construction accounts for 11% of embodied carbon and generates around half of the solid waste in our economy. Recovering materials from deconstructed buildings at the end of their life cycles can reduce embodied carbon and waste over the long term. A methodology to evaluate the impact of common circular design and construction strategies on the future recovery potential from buildings is proposed in this paper. Four main strategies were identified and modeled using an example of a newly constructed modular building in Ontario to validate the evaluation methodology. Quantitative estimates are made of the impact of the strategies on future component recovery using a decision-support optimization tool. The tool helps select optimal end-of-life options for each building component, thereby resulting in maximum recovery rates and projected value from materials resale. Application of the methodology indicates that, among the diverse strategy outcomes observed, monomaterial construction has the highest end-of-life recovery potential and the lowest environmental impact. Further, the results show variability in end-of-life process costs among strategies for achieving equivalent recovery rates. Coupling such estimates with conventional construction cost and embodied energy estimates may become an important consideration during the initial design and construction phases. Construction stakeholders can leverage similar assessments to effectively understand the impact of applying alternative strategies to any building design. This methodology has the potential for broader application to emerging circular building design and construction strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".