GUIDING THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY TOWARDS MORE …€¦ · relaties tussen bepalende factoren....

GUIDING THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY TOWARDS MORE SUSTAINABLE BUILDING

WORKING TOWARDS A CLEAR MODEL FOR IDF BUILDING CRITERIA

Content: Master Thesis Title: Guiding the construction industry towards more sustainable building Subtitle: Working towards a clear model for IDF Building criteria Name: Stefan Binnemars Student Number: S0112585 University: University of Twente Master Track: Industrial Design Engineering Master Specialisation: Architectural Building Components Design Engineering Internship: Van Dijk Groep Supervisors: prof. dr. ir. J.I.M. Halman University of Twente

assoc prof. dr. ir. E. Durmisevic University of Twente mr. W. Sturris Van Dijk Groep ing. J. ter Waarbeek Van Dijk Groep

Date: 09/21/2011 Report number: OPM ‐ 1050

PREFACE

This report is the result of a scientific research that was executed to finish the master track Industrial Design Engineering specialized in Architectural Building Components Design at the University of Twente in the Netherlands. The research was executed at the Van Dijk Groep in Enschede.

From the start of my study Industrial Design, I always was interested in both product design and architecture. This being said I took all the chances I had to combine the two. Firstly in my free to choose assignment, later in the master specialization Architectural Building Components Design Engineering. This in fact is the best suitable specialization I could have wished for. In the first year of the master I got the opportunity to become more involved with the master specialization in the form of research into a Building Component Database. I had just finished the course Product Life Cycle which intrigued me, thinking about the whole lifecycle of a product was kind of new to me. Together with Tjark van de Merwe hours were spend to discuss and working towards such a Building Component Database. This research has never been finished but offered a nice knowledge base for both Tjark and me. Time passed by and I saw several models of colleague students being developed, but I missed something. While one model focused on transformation capacity, and another model aimed for bringing together several professional tools, I saw what was missing. A lot of calculation and assessment tools exist, but there was not one tool which was complete, covering all aspects of sustainable building. I then knew, I wanted to learn about all aspects of sustainable building and bring them together.

As I became more closely involved with the master specialization I became a student assistant for Elma Durmisevic. Although it was a secretary kind of job I met a lot of people in the construction innovation scene. I knew if I wanted to learn about sustainable building and bring the pieces together I needed a company which was also interested in sustainable building and innovation. During several symposia I saw several innovative building concepts and met the IDF Building Methodology. The two IDF building concepts which got most of my interest were ‘Mindbuilding’ and ‘Passend Wonen’. Although Mindbuilding was a little further ahead with the development, ‘Passend Wonen’ showed more promise. I now knew what I wanted for my master thesis, I wanted to connect theory and practice, combining an assessment tool, or design tool with a building concept. When I knew that, I contacted several companies of which I thought they could be interested. I am glad that Wim Sturris offered me the opportunity to work on my master thesis at the Van Dijk Groep.

This report will describe my journey from; learning to understand sustainability, and discovering what steps are already taken, to defining a space for sustainable building and creating a model for IDF building. I am glad with the results of my research and I would like to thank Tjark van de Merwe and Harm Peters for their feedback and helpful criticism on the model, Harry de Haan for sharing his vision on the world and society, and Tanja Scheelhaase for the eye‐opener to think in terms of top‐line. I want to express my special thanks to my supervisors; Elma Durmisevic for sharing her knowledge and guiding me along the road of my thesis, Joop Halman for his encouraging feedback, Wim Sturris for sharing his vision on the construction industry and sharing the ‘Passend Wonen’ concept, and Jeroen ter Waarbeek for introducing me into the world of the construction industry. Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their support, and especially my girlfriend Karin Postma for her helpful feedback, sharing of thoughts, and great support. Stefan Binnemars Enschede, September 2011

SUMMARRY

The traditional building methodology is no longer suitable. The construction industry puts a high burden on the environment, while governments try to reduce the global carbon footprint. Buildings are made for one single purpose, while the society is changing, and the user requirements change more frequently and more drastically than ever before. This new trend craves for more flexibility while buildings seem to be more and more tangled up. This asks for more suitable, more sustainable solutions.

This invoked a lot of reactions in the forms of rules and legislations, assessment tools, and design methodologies. Although they all aim for a better future, there are a lot of differences between them. Combining most of today’s leading responses resulted in a rough outline of a field which defines sustainable building. This field consists of seven categories; Environment, Indoor Climate, Life Cycle Economics, Management, Materials, Usability, and Visual Quality. They are all defined based on the triple top line philosophy.

IDF Building is one of the latest building methodologies, and tries to learn from the past by incorporating the strong points of other models. The IDF building methodology incorporates the whole life cycle of the building and its materials. Within IDF the focus shifts to; Industrial Production to manufacture high quality products and reduce the need for craftsmanship; adaptation of building to individual use requirements during its use phase to lengthen the useful life of a building; use of Cradle‐to‐Cradle and Triple Top Line approach to answer for the need for sustainability; and focus on a Design for Disassembly approach to create flexible systems that could be replaced, reused, reconfigured and whose materials could be up‐cycled after its useful life. The main goals of the IDF Building Methodology can be summarized by: High Quality, High Usability, Buildings with Unique Identities, Low Environmental Impact or Positive Impact, and Economical Feasibility considering the whole building and material life cycle. To reach these goals the IDF Building Methodology has four main strategies: Industrial Production, Design for Individual Identity, Sustainable Design, and Flexible Buildings.

To define the IDF Building Methodology the four main strategies are linked to main criteria. Industrial to Organisation and Production, Individual to Adaptability, Environment to Energy, Materials, Pollution, and Water, Flexible to Building Hierarchy, Functionality, Interfaces, Material Levels, and Reusability. For all these main criteria, sub‐criteria and determining factors are defined. For all the determining factors are options and scores defined to create the model.

To put the model to the test two test cases are performed, one on a building level with the ‘Passend Wonen’ concept, one on a system level with the ‘Plug’. The results gave useful feedback for the building concept, system and last but not least for the model itself. ‘Passend Wonen’ could make some improvements in the Industrial and Environment categories, but scored very high on Individual and Flexible. For the ‘Plug’ the three concepts all seem feasible, however before choosing one concept based on the IDF Model a normalization would be desirable.

Future improvements for the model may lay in the next options: Integration of the possibility to choose the kind of system, this allows normalization and defining of the set of determining factors, detailed research into the social and industrial aspects, defining relations between determining factors, implementing of more possible strategies, determining of different levels of IDF Building, and lastly economic and strategic feedback.

SAMENVATTING

De traditionele bouwmethodologie is niet langer voldoende. De bouwindustrie zorgt voor een zware belasting op het milieu, terwijl overheden juist proberen de globale CO2 footprint te reduceren. Gebouwen worden steeds vaker gemaakt met slechts één doel voor ogen, terwijl het steeds vaker voorkomt dat er veranderingen nodig zijn en de gewenste veranderingen zijn steeds drastischer. Deze tendens vraagt voor meer flexibiliteit terwijl hedendaagse gebouwen steeds complexer worden. Dit vraag voor beter passende, duurzamere oplossingen. Hierop zijn verschillende reacties gekomen. Zowel door overheden in de vorm van regels en wetgeving, als in beoordelingsprogramma’s en nieuwe ontwerp methodes. Hoewel deze allen gericht zijn op een betere toekomst, bevatten ze toch een heleboel verschillen. Door de verschillende reacties te combineren is er een ruwe omschrijving ontstaan van een veld welke duurzaamheid definieert. Dit veld bestaat uit zeven categorieën: Milieu, Binnenklimaat, Levenscyclus economie, Management, Materialen, Bruikbaarheid en Visuele Kwaliteit. Al deze categorieën zijn gedefinieerd met behulp van de ‘Tripple Top Line’ filosofie.

IDF Bouwen is een van de meest recente bouwmethodologieën, en probeert te leren van het verleden door de sterke punten van andere modellen toe te passen. De IDF bouwmethodologie neemt de hele levenscyclus van een gebouw en zijn materialen in acht. IDF Bouwen richt zich op: Industriële Productie om zo tot kwalitatief hoogwaardige producten te komen en het vereiste vakmanschap te verlagen: Aanpassing van het gebouw aan Individuele gebruikerswensen gedurende de gebruiksfase van het gebouw om zo het nuttige leven van een gebouw te verlengen: Toepassing van ‘Cradle‐to‐Cradle’ en ‘Triple Top Line’ denken om aan het duurzaamheids vraagstuk te voldoen: Gericht op ‘Design for Disassembly’ om flexibele systemen te creëren welke vervangen, opnieuw gebruikt, en opnieuw geconfigureerd kunnen worden. De hoofddoelen van de IDF Bouwmethodologie kunnen worden samengevat als: Hoge Kwaliteit, Hoge Bruikbaarheid, Gebouwen met unieke Identiteiten, Lage Impact op het Milieu of een Positieve Impact en Economisch Uitvoerbaar waarbij gekeken word naar de gehele levenscyclus van het gebouw en zijn materialen. De IDF Bouwmethodologie heeft vier hoofdstrategieën om deze doelen te realiseren: Industriële Productie, Ontwerpen voor de Individuele Identiteit, Duurzaam Ontwerp, en Flexibele Gebouwen. De vier hoofdcategorieën zijn gekoppeld aan hoofdcriteria. Industrieel is gekoppeld aan Organisatie en Productie, Individueel aan Aanpasbaarheid, Milieu aan Energie, Materialen, Vervuiling en Water, Flexibel aan Gebouw Hiërarchie, Functionaliteit, Interfaces, Materiaal Niveaus en Herbruikbaarheid. Voor al deze hoofdcriteria zijn subcriteria en bepalende factoren gedefinieerd. En voor alle bepalende factoren zijn opties en scores gedefinieerd om zo tot een model te komen.

Om het model te testen zijn er twee testcasus uitgevoerd, één op gebouwniveau met het ‘Passend Wonen’ concept, en één op systeemniveau met de ‘Plug’ . De resultaten gaven nuttige terugkoppeling voor het bouwconcept, het systeem en voor het model zelf. ‘Passend Wonen’ kan zichzelf nog verbeteren in de categorieën Industrieel en Milieu, het concept scoorde heel hoog op Individueel en Flexibel. Voor de ‘Plug’ lijken alle drie concepten uitvoerbaar, het zou beter zijn om een normalisatie toe te passen in het IDF model voor systemen voordat het als keuzemodel kan functioneren.

Toekomstige verbeteringen voor het model kunnen in de volgende opties liggen: Integratie van de mogelijkheid een systeemtype te kiezen, dit maakt normalisatie toe en geeft de mogelijkheid om een selectie te maken in de bepalende factoren welke relevant zijn voor het specifieke systeem. Een diepteonderzoek naar de sociale en industriële aspecten. Het definiëren van de relaties tussen bepalende factoren. Implementeren van een grotere variëteit aan strategieën. Bepalen van de verschillende niveaus van IDF Bouwen. En als laatste Economische en Strategische terugkoppeling.

INDEX

1. Background ................................................................................................................................................................. 4

1.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2. Changing Society ............................................................................................................................................. 4

1.3. Sustainability .................................................................................................................................................... 5

1.4. Building process .............................................................................................................................................. 5

1.5. People, Planet, Profit ..................................................................................................................................... 6

1.6. IDF Building ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

1.7. Van Dijk Groep ................................................................................................................................................. 7

1.8. Passend Wonen ............................................................................................................................................... 7

1.9. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................... 7

2. Research Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1. Problem Definition ......................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2. Research Scope ................................................................................................................................................ 8

2.3. Research Goal ................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.4. Research Questions ........................................................................................................................................ 9

2.5. Research Model ............................................................................................................................................... 9

2.6. Research Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 10

3. The Need for Change of Building Methodology ........................................................................................ 12

3.1. Sustainable Development Needed! ....................................................................................................... 12

3.2. Construction Industry ................................................................................................................................ 18

3.3. Reporting, Standardization and Legislation ..................................................................................... 18

3.4. System Evolution ......................................................................................................................................... 21

3.5. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................... 22

4. Response to the Need for Change ................................................................................................................... 23

4.1. Strategies and Approaches ...................................................................................................................... 23

4.2. IDF‐Building ................................................................................................................................................... 27

4.3. Triple bottom Line ...................................................................................................................................... 27

4.4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 30

5. Sustainable Building ............................................................................................................................................. 31

5.1. The Field .......................................................................................................................................................... 31

5.2. Resulting Model ............................................................................................................................................ 32

5.3. IDF‐Building ................................................................................................................................................... 36

5.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................... 40

6. IDF Building Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 41

6.1. IDF Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 41

6.2. “Passend Wonen” ......................................................................................................................................... 43

6.3. Model Breakdown ....................................................................................................................................... 44

6.4. Hierarchical Structure of the IDF Model ............................................................................................ 47

6.5. Sources of scores .......................................................................................................................................... 49

6.6. Model Development .................................................................................................................................... 58

6.7. Conclusion & Recommendations about the IDF Building Methodology ............................... 61

7. Test Case Design .................................................................................................................................................... 63

7.1. The ‘plug’ ......................................................................................................................................................... 63

7.2. Design Parameters ...................................................................................................................................... 63

7.3. Concepts .......................................................................................................................................................... 65

7.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................... 69

8. Test Case Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 70

8.1. Is ‘Passend Wonen’ IDF? ........................................................................................................................... 70

8.2. Conclusions & Recommendations for the IDF Model ................................................................... 76

9. Reflection .................................................................................................................................................................. 78

9.1. Sustainability ................................................................................................................................................. 78

9.2. IDF Building ................................................................................................................................................... 78

9.3. ‘Passend Wonen’ .......................................................................................................................................... 79

10. Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................. 80

10.1. Conclusion Research .............................................................................................................................. 80

10.2. Recommendations Research .............................................................................................................. 80

10.3. Recommendations Passend Wonen ................................................................................................ 81

10.4. Discussion about Research ................................................................................................................. 82

References .......................................................................................................................................................................... 83

4

1. BACKGROUND

This chapter provides a background on the incentives for this report.

1.1. INTRODUCTION

In 1987 the Brundtland commission published their report “Our Common Future” (1) which made the world aware of the potential danger of our way of living and the magnitude of this problem. The commission made the statement which is highlighted in the box at the beginning of this chapter. Their report ignited a search for sustainable alternatives in various sectors of the society to make steps towards a more sustainable future.

The building industry, an industry with a high negative impact on the environment, is one of the industries which has to become more sustainable. The traditional building methods are not sufficient anymore and should be replaced by more suitable methods to ensure the building industry to meet the housing needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. To come to a more sustainable building method several steps have been made. Examples are energy efficient buildings, adaptable buildings and cradle to cradle buildings. Now however it is time to focus on an integrated approach, an approach which combines the small steps towards a leap forward in sustainable building.

1.2. CHANGING SOCIETY

The society is subject to change. The effects of the baby boomers after World War II can provide a problem in the near future. The aging of the population (Figure 1) will result in a change in demand in the housing market.

A second change in society is the lifestyle change within the population, which is becoming more and more dynamic which causes the average household size and composition to change (Figure 2). The lifestyle, and with this the corresponding housing needs, changes more frequently and more drastically nowadays.

The third change in the housing market is the change from a supply driven to a demand driven market (2). In the demand driven market the requirements of the consumer become part of the design process.

In the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s the focus of the construction industry was on family housing. However, because of the changing society, now it is time to convert to housing for the elderly people. Since the needs of society are subject to change there is a need for more adaptable building methodology.

0,0%10,0%20,0%30,0%40,0%50,0%

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Population Breakdown

Age 0 to 20

Age 20 to 40

Age 40 to 65

Age 65 to 80

Age 80+

0,0%20,0%40,0%60,0%80,0%100,0%

1950

1965

1980

1995

2010

Household Breakdown

One person Household

Multiple persons Household

Average Household size (1950=100%)

”Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (1)

FIGURE 1, POPULATION BREAKDOWN OF THENETHERLANDS (1950‐2010) (91)

FIGURE 2, HOUSEHOLD BREAKDOWN OF THE NETHERLANDS (1950‐2010) (90)

5

Therefore ability to disassemble and disconnect parts with different life expectancies will become more and more important in the future. The changing society is unpredictable but it is easy to predict that it will change(3).

A change in the construction world is the expected shift from building new buildings to renovating old buildings for new purposes or better suitability for the current requirements. (4)(5)(6)

1.3. SUSTAINABILITY

Most of today’s leading scientists and world leaders agree on the fact that the world is subject to climate change(7)(8). Therefore sustainability has become an important subject on the political agenda. There are some examples like the 1989 Montreal Protocol (9) which successfully prohibited the use of several materials causing the depletion of the ozone layer. And sixteen years later, in 2005, the Kyoto protocol (10) entered into force. This protocol pleads for reduction in the emission of greenhouse gasses (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6). It was this time that the high negative impact on the environment by the construction industry was noticed.

The construction industry, including the complete supply chain for construction and the built environment, are the main contributors to CO2 emissions (11)(12), energy consumption (13), depletion of natural resources (13), and the creation of waste (14)(15). These are all connected to the mayor problems which our planet faces.

One of the underlying reasons for this is the traditional way of building which considers a building to be designed for one specific function, while in the current society the function of a building is subject to change. This contradiction often causes the owner of the building to choose to demolish the building, causing a lot of waste, before the end of its maximum technical lifetime is reached. This conflict between the functional lifetime and the technical lifetime

of a building makes the current building methods inefficient (16).

1.4. BUILDING PROCESS

Besides the shift to a demand driven market, there are three problems in the building industry. These are high failure costs, estimated the be 10.3% of the total costs(17)(18)(19), a to be expected lack of skilled labour in the future(15)(20)(21), and to complete the summary the construction industry is one of the most dangerous sectors(22)(23) with an accident rating of 4.1 % of the personnel a year(24).

To cope with these problems, to reduce the costs and to improve the quality, there is a market trend visible in the building industry towards prefabrication. Companies aim to complete the building process in less time with higher quality by this conversion towards prefabrication. It is expected that this way of building reduces the failure costs (25)(26). Other options to reduce the failure costs are the sharing of knowledge between companies (27), complete supply chain management (28) and cooperation between companies (29).

The total built environment is growing approximately 1.1% a year but this growth is declining (Figure 3). The rest of all building activity focuses on upgrading or replacing the current built environment.

FIGURE 3, ANNUAL GROWTH OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, THE NETHERLANDS (1989‐2009) (30)

0,00%

0,50%

1,00%

1,50%

2,00%

2,50%

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

Annual Growth of the Built Environment

% Growth of the Built Environment

6

1.5. PEOPLE, PLANET, PROFIT

Elkington defines in his book ‘Cannibals with Forks’ (31), that new developments should be based on a triple bottom line, which combines the social, ecological and economical bottom line (Figure 4). Furthermore Elkington states that only when these three bottom lines are in balance development can be truly sustainable.

To prove this statement, the relations between the bottom lines should be clarified. If there is a strong relation, then the functional life expectancy will drop below its maximum technical live expectancy. This will lead to the demolishing of the building before the maximum technical life expectancy and will result in loss of the potential of the materials. Therefore it will not be as sustainable as possible.

The report ‘Bouwen met Tijd’ (3) indicates that buildings are most often being demolished because they do not fit today’s quality standards. This indicates that if the people do not want to live in the building (e.g. a low Social Value) its Economic Value will drop, making it unprofitable to sustain and eventually it will inevitably lead to the demolishing or renovation (e.g. adding money to increase the Economic and Social Value) of the building.

When the Environmental impact (negative Environmental Value) is high while in operation, and the government adjusts the requirements, the owner needs to upgrade the building (need for improvement in Economic and Social Value). When the building is upgraded both Economic and Social Value will rise. When upgrading is refused the building will eventually be demolished because of the regulations.

An important new development of this philosophy is the triple top line which focuses on positive effects in the three areas. Both will be discussed more elaborate in section 4.3.

FIGURE 4, GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE TRIPPLE BOTTOM LINE

1.6. IDF BUILDING

In the end of the previous millennium the Dutch government responded to this need for more sustainable development by initiating IFD building. However the initial goals were good the methodology did not require an integration of all aspects. This led to buildings which were specifically designed focussed on Industrial production or Flexibility. IDF Building is a building methodology which aims to set the next step towards sustainable building. IDF is a Dutch acronym in which the I stands for Industrial/Individual, the D stands for Demountable/Sustainable, and the F stands for Flexible. Individual means the adaptability of a building to the individual user needs and requirements. Flexible focuses on how this adaptability is achieved. The IDF building methodology aims for the integration of all of those aspects and focuses on Demountability and Material life cycles. The IDF building methodology will be discussed in more detail in chapter 4 and chapter 6. IDF Building is originated by a workgroup within Pioneering, a platform for innovation in which companies work together on innovative projects. The Van Dijk Group is a member of the IDF workgroup.

7

1.7. VAN DIJK GROEP

The Van Dijk Groep is a building contractor which tries to innovate in all three bottom lines, People, Planet, and Profit, or Prosperity as they like to call it. Three corresponding goals are to anticipate on the demands of the changing society, to develop a more environmental friendly building concept and to innovate the building process.

1.8. PASSEND WONEN

‘Passend Wonen’ is the housing concept of the Van Dijk Groep which should push them towards the previous mentioned goals. The English name for this concept is Transforming Home. ‘Passend Wonen’ is a building concept which is able to adapt to different functional demands.

1.9. CONCLUSION

The breakdown of the population is subject to change. Both the different age groups and the lifestyle of people change. This makes it hard to predict what kind of housing is

needed. Therefore it is important to be adaptable to this changing need.

The climate is changing and because of this policies are made about pollution. The construction industry is one of the most polluting sectors which require this sector to reduce this pollution.

The construction industry itself houses some problems as well. There are high failure costs, in the future a lack of skilled labour can be expected and labour in the construction industry is dangerous.

Because of these reasons it is important to develop a better construction methodology which is more adaptable, less polluting and less dangerous. To do this an integrated approach should be developed which contains social, environmental and economic aspects.

Van Dijk Groep is a contractor which tries to anticipate on the changing built environment by applying the IDF building methodology. They developed a building concept called ‘Passend Wonen’. This concept focuses on changing needs by making the building easy to adapt to different functionalities.

8

2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the methodology of this research.

2.1. PROBLEM DEFINITION

The construction industry is slow in its adaptation to changes. A solid building methodology would help directing the construction industry towards more sustainable building. To do this it is important to provide a clear approach which fully integrates all aspects needed for sustainable building.

Up until now most initiatives within the built environment were related to energy saving and CO2 reduction in the building process. Besides the problem of climate change, a problem equally important is the one of diminishing of natural materials and therefore also raw materials used for construction. But in order to get a good understanding of material use in construction it is necessary to broaden the current research field and incorporate the whole life cycle of the building (including all phases: construction, use, transformations, disassembly, reuse, and end of life) and their impact on the effective material use in construction.

The current assessment tools lack good assessments of material streams and are focused too much on initial impact without thinking about the use phase and the end phase. The new generation of assessment tools should include disassembly and life cycle material management.

IDF Building methodology focuses on these points, and is an integral method for sustainable building. The IDF Building Methodology however is not jet fully defined. A clear specification of criteria and definitions are needed before the IDF Building Methodology can properly be used and communicated.

2.2. RESEARCH SCOPE

General understanding is that the IDF approach incorporates the whole life cycle of the building and its materials by integrating aspects of effective construction methods (industrialization), using flexible systems that could be replaced, reused, reconfigured and whose materials could be up‐cycled (sustainability by disassembly) and adopting building to different use requirements during its useful life (flexibility). However there is a lack of understanding of what the key criteria for IDF buildings and systems are and accordingly how design aspects can be measured.

This research aims at providing more understanding of advantages of the IDF approach and defining key IDF aspects and criteria that can be used as a guideline for the development of IDF building systems. These criteria and aspects will be used to develop a method to rate building systems. The method will be tested on the development of the “Passend Wonen” concept, a new system of the Van Dijk Group.

As described above there is a need for sustainable building, but there are many different views on how to build in a sustainable way. The question is how these aspects are related and whether there is an order of importance of the different aspects.

2.3. RESEARCH GOAL

The goal of this research is to create an assessment model based on IDF Building criteria which can be used to rate a building concept or as a guideline to develop or improve building concepts using the IDF Building criteria.

9

2.4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

MAIN QUESTION

Which criteria should be fulfilled to meet the requirements for IDF Building?

SUB QUESTIONS

What is IDF Building?

o What is Industrial Building?

o What is Flexible Building?

o What is Sustainable Building?

How does IDF relate to Sustainability?

o What is sustainability?

o How did sustainability enter the building industry?

o What approaches exist on sustainable building?

How does IDF Building relate to the Traditional Building Methodology?

o What are the problems of the traditional building methodology?

What are the criteria and sub‐criteria for IDF Building?

How does “Passend Wonen” relate to IDF Building?

o What is “Passend Wonen”?

o What are the characteristics of the “Passend Wonen” concept?

o Which requirements of IDF Building does the “Passend Wonen” meet and which not?

Which requirements of IDF Building concerning concepts are not well defined?

What are the possibilities for the “Passend Wonen” concept to meet the requirements of IDF Building?

2.5. RESEARCH MODEL

The research model is shown in Figure 5. The model consists of six phases in which the complete research is performed. In the first phase the criteria are studied by performing a literature study; the second phase integrates these criteria into a model definition; in phase three the actual model is created based on the model definitions; phase four consists of a case study to test the model; phase five will be used to optimize the model and perform a case study; and the last phase will consist of the final case study and recommendations for further development.

FIGURE 5, RESEARCH MODEL

10

2.6. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

To specify the requirements for IDF Building, first the criteria and sub‐criteria need to be defined. These criteria and aspects will be retrieved by literature study, analysis of Industrial, Sustainable and Flexible building projects and researches performed into these areas. In addition, to gain field experience about Industrialization in the production process of a construction company, an evaluation of the production facilities of the Van Dijk Groep will be made. Besides the study of what the criteria for sustainable building are, research will be conducted into the relations between the different steps within sustainable building and the problems within the traditional building method. After this step the criteria and sub‐criteria need to be coupled to quantified requirements. In the end the model representing the IDF Criteria should be a step forward into the direction of sustainable building.

To bridge the gap between theory and practice, the model (implementation of the set of requirements) will be tested on a case study concerning the “Passend Wonen” concept of the Van Dijk Group. The goal of this case study is to test the model and to give recommendations for the improvement of the concept based on IDF Criteria.

In phase one, a literature study will be performed to explore the criteria of sustainability and sustainable building and how these criteria are interrelated. To make sure the literature study is a thorough one first an overview of popular and relevant books & articles, important conferences, relevant projects, government interventions, important events will be created based on reviews and summaries. These will be placed along a timeline including main events to show the development of; Environmental awareness; Sustainable Living; Sustainable Building; and Sustainable Industry. Than several of the most important, most influential, and most complete books and researches will be read in full. The books and researches

selected are the ones which are referred to most often, and which provoked the most response.

An additional literature study will be performed to explore the characteristics of, and problems concerning traditional building. This first phase will result in an overview of characteristics of sustainable building and problems concerning traditional building. This overview will be used to direct the research to the criteria which are relevant to investigate in more detail during the next phases of the research. Also, the overview will be used to create an outline for sustainable building.

Based upon the relevant criteria for sustainable building and problems concerning traditional building which have been identified in the first phase, the input parameters for IDF Building will be determined. When the parameters are determined, the requirements concerning these parameters will be defined for building concepts. To come to these requirements literature research will be performed and several ranges for the requirements will be defined. Then these ranges will be discussed with experts to determine the requirements for the parameters.

Phase three consists of the creation of a model from the criteria and parameters. This model should be well defined to enable the rating of concepts based on the IDF criteria and be of value for creating IDF concepts as a source of inspiration.

In phase four, the model on IDF Building, which is defined in phase three, will be used in a case study. The Passend Wonen concept of Van Dijk Groep will be evaluated by using the model for IDF Building. This evaluation will be used to test the functionality of the model.

In phase five, the model for the IDF Building will be revised, this will again be discussed with experts and will result in a final version of the model for IDF Building concepts.

11

Phase six will be used to evaluate the Passend Wonen concept of the Van Dijk Groep. This will result in conclusions and recommendations for Van Dijk Groep concerning their building concept. In addition to that this phase will be used to

evaluate the model of rating IDF Building concepts. This will result in conclusions and recommendations for further development of the model on IDF Building.

12

3. THE NEED FOR CHANGE OF BUILDING METHODOLOGY

This chapter covers phase one of the research and provides insight about why change of building methodology is needed. In this chapter the characteristics of sustainability, sustainable building and traditional building will be discussed. In addition the responses of International agencies and the National government are discussed.

3.1. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT NEEDED!

The word ‘sustainable’ is used often nowadays in all kinds of different situations with many different meanings. The question however is whether it is a trend or something which will last. To get a better understanding about the current state of the housing system (a building to house one or more families) this paragraph describes how the housing system evolved through the creation and growth phases and the main problems we face when we continue the to keep up an unsustainable society.

Sustainable development started slowly during the 19th century and is booming since the last two decades. The public interest however started decades later, but is gaining momentum now. A timeline can be found in the appendix (I).

3.1.1. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

As long as there are humans, there is a need for housing. At the beginning of the prehistoric age housing was more based on a nomadic lifestyle.

When cultivation and animal husbandry started, the need for a fixed place to shelter grew. The first houses (Figure 6) where of local materials but still not build to last because these tribes continued to move from place to place to make sure the land stayed fertile. The performance of these houses was low.

FIGURE 6, PREHISTORIC HOUSING

When settlements became villages and the houses became bigger, housed more rooms, and the need for durable protection against the elements grew, the need for new materials grew too. Local stone and clay was being used more and more often, this resulted in an increase of the performance. (Figure 7)

FIGURE 7, HOUSE OF WOOD, REED AND LOAM

When within the Roman Empire villages expanded and larger cities were formed, the population density became so high in these cities that new kinds of buildings were developed. An example of this is the Roman Insula (Figure 8). Other important developments during that time where sewage systems, public buildings and aqueducts, which all increased the performance of the buildings.

13

FIGURE 8, INSULA ROMANA

Sadly the fall of the Roman empire also meant the loss of knowledge about construction. So during this time a major setback in housing development occurred. During the early middle ages the housing quality remained relatively constant without proper sewage systems. Wood became the standard building material again. (Figure 9)

FIGURE 9, EARLY MIDDLE AGES VILLAGE

The late middle ages came with more wealth which resulted in bigger and better and more decorative constructions for the rich (Figure 10).

FIGURE 10, LATE MIDDLE AGES BUILDING

The industrial revolution changed the face of the earth by creating big cities with large buildings by using new materials and construction techniques. The lifestyle changed from self‐sufficient households and craftsmanship towards cheap mass production in factories. A side effect of the revolution was the poverty of the factory workers (Figure 11). The paragraph Quality of Living will explain the reaction of society on this development.

FIGURE 11, POVERTY DURING INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

Important developments in system performance during this period where the idea of prefabrication and the rediscovery of portability. One of the most famous examples is the Crystal Palace, which was originally build in Hyde Park, London for the Great Exhibition of 1851 and was rebuild in Sydenham Hill, London in 1854 (Figure 12).

FIGURE 12, THE CRYSTAL PALACE (1854)

14

Around 1900 the quality of the houses improved. Houses became bigger, contained larger rooms and had gardens around the house. (Figure 13).

FIGURE 13, AMSTERDAM, 1917

After World War II there was such a big need for housing that many big apartment blocks (Figure 14) where build. These apartments had a lower quality than the houses of the period before the World Wars, because the need for housing exceeded the need for quality. Prefabrication was very important in this period to keep up the pace of building. The most important new material was concrete.

FIGURE 14, 1950S APARTMENT BLOCK

Up until the 20th century improvements in the housing system were mostly based on the use of new materials or expanding the capacity of the houses. From the second half of the 20th century up until now there was a constant drive towards the improvement of the performance of the building. Developments like sound insulation, fire protection, reduction of energy consumption for heating, communication techniques, and home automation all added to the performance of the building, but they all did so by adding materials or

subsystems. These innovations did not lead towards a fundamental new building methodology. Instead the only thing that was done was adding lots of new technology. This is called ‘innovation by addition’. (32) Figure 15 shows an example of innovation by addition. In the left side of the figure there is an example of a standard housing construction. At the right side the following additions are made:

Improving thermal insulation o Adding insulation layer

between walls o Adding a layer of glass

Need for fresh air supply o Adding ventilation shaft

Improving visual quality o Heighten the ceiling o Visual ceiling to hide

installations Improving sound insulation for

bypass sound from room to room o Adding insulation above

visual ceiling Additional installations (internet

etc.) o Heighten the ceiling o Second floor to hide

installations

By all these additions finally a complex housing structure is created. Some of the additions are implemented to deal with problems of previously implemented additions. It can be said that this structure is far from an ideal solution.

FIGURE 15, INNOVATION BY ADDITION(33)

15

FIGURE 16, INSTALLATIONS IN A HOUSE(34)

As a result of the innovation by addition the complexity of buildings has become extremely high. Figure 16 shows an example of a house with all its installations.

By adding all those techniques a lot of relations between the subsystems of a building are formed. A relational diagram including several subsystems is shown in Figure 17.

The load bearing structure of a house nowadays has a longer technical life time than most other subsystems. But because of the complexity of the complete structure, the functional lifetime is lowered to the lowest lifetime of its intertwined subsystems. The high complexity of the current housing system craves for a simpler solution.

FIGURE 17, RELATIONAL DIAGRAM BETWEEN SYSTEM ELEMENTS(16)

3.1.2. QUALITY OF LIVING

FIGURE 18, ENSCHEDE, ONDER DE ROOK VAN DE TEXTIEL INDUSTRIE, GEERT VAN DER MOLEN (TRANSLATION: UNDER THE SMOKE OF THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY)

Besides the technical story of the evolution of housing there is another side: the quality of living. Without human interference the quality of the environment was good and the environment was self‐sustaining. However the negative effects of overexploitation of fertile grounds and pollution of the air, water and ground during the industrial revolution changed this. The air, water and soil was polluted by the heavy machinery used during that time. Factory work became the centre of a lot of people’s lives. The books ‘Life in the Woods’, by Thoreau(35) and ‘Living the Good Life’ by Nearing and Nearing (36) can be seen as a demonstration against the poor conditions of the industry and the unhealthy environment (Figure 18). Both books focus on self‐sufficiency and simple living.

Several mayor events during the 1950s to 1970s like the radioactive fallout from a hydrogen bomb test on the people of the Japanese fishing vessel Lucky Dragon 5, the oil tanker Torrey Canyon which ran aground off the southwest coast of England, and the effects of decades of mercury poisoning on the people of Minamata created awareness within the society about damage done by humans to the environment. The book Silent Spring (37) which was also published during this period underlined the problem of food chain pollution. All these cases

16

illustrated the magnitude of environmental damage caused by humans, and the problems this damage causes. Both the books about the way of living and these events created public awareness which led to the birth of the environmental movement.

In 1968 Paul R. Ehrlich linked the high population density and technological advancement to environmental impact in his book The Population Bomb (38).

In 1987 the world commission on environment and development published the report ‘Our common future’(1). The commission made an assessment concerning potential dangers of the western lifestyle and which problems were to be expected. They foresaw the following problems for the years to come if the trends are continued the way they move now:

environmental degradation increase of poverty destruction of forests desertification acidification of forests and lakes global warming ozone layer depletion food chain pollution air and water pollution depletion of ground water proliferation of toxic chemicals and

hazardous wastes erosion

Furthermore, they warn for new chemicals which bring new forms of waste, and they expect problems with the current rate of population growth which cannot be sustained because of housing shortages, insufficient health care, low food security, and insufficient energy supplies. An important note they make is that it is not just the total amount of people living on the planet, but also how those numbers relate to the available resources, species and ecosystems and energy. They state that industries should be producing more by using less resources. After the publication of this report, several rules and legislations

were slowly introduced. More information about these can be found in paragraph 3.3.

Ott and Roberts stressed in their article ‘Everyday exposure to toxic pollutants’(39) that not only the outside environment is polluted, but also the indoor environment is polluted by toxic substances. This problem is caused by the off‐gassing of industrial products like toys, carpet, paint, etc. The problem is not only the pollution but also the exposure including human contact.

3.1.3. A FINATE WORLD

Besides the damage, the current consumerism causing it can also be compared with running blindfolded towards the edge of a cliff. To prevent the downfall of the current society a drastic change in direction is needed. The resources which are being mined, farmed and so on are not endless. The first notion about this was by Hubbert. In 1956 he created the peak oil theory(Figure 19) (40) which was originally focused on the output development of limited resources, more specifically oil. Eventually this theory could be applied on the depletion of all natural resources. The theory says that during the mining of a resource, first exponential growth will be achieved. When all easy to gather resources are retrieved the growth slowly levels out and the production stagnates. Future discoveries will provide more resources, but they will be so expensive that it will be cheaper to evolve towards a new system which uses other resources.

FIGURE 19, PEAK OIL GRAPH

Both the work of Hubbert (40) and Nordhaus & Tobin(41) foresee the depletion

17

of natural resources if the current western lifestyle of consumerism is continued.

Meadows, et all. connect in ‘Limits to growth’(42) the rapidly growing world population to the finite resource supplies. Examples are the limits to food production and problems induced by industrialization like pollution, and resource depletion. Elkington in ‘Cannibals with Forks’(31), Diamond in ‘Collapse; how Societies Choose to Fall or Succeed’(43), and Ponting in ‘A Green History of the World’ (44) all state that society is able to choose to be

sustainable or unsustainable. But when they choose to not be sustainable this will eventually mean their downfall.

In ‘Small is beautiful’(45), Schumacher places criticism on western economics. Modern economy is unsustainable because natural resources are treated as expendable income. The problem is that most of the resources are not renewable and will eventual be depleted. In addition to that he states that the resistance to pollution of nature is limited.

The description of Ponting about the downfall of societies on Easter Island can be seen as an example of what bad resource management can ultimately leads to. This example can be read in Box 1.

3.1.4. PLANETARY BOUNDRIES

Not only the depletion of resources and destruction of eco systems are vital for life on the planet. In 2009 Rockstom et al. published their first article about what they call planetary boundaries (46). They aim to quantify boundaries of the planet (Figure 22). These boundaries should not be crossed in danger of bumping out of the relative stable and ideal living conditions which are present on earth since the Holocene (Figure 21).

FIGURE 21, TEMPERATURE CHANGE ON THE EARTH (47)(48)

The problem is that we already crossed four boundaries, namely; Climate Change, Ozone Layer Depletion, the Nitrogen Cycle and the Rate of Biodiversity loss. Luckily by regulations and political action currently the boundary of Ozone Layer Depletion is

“The Easter Islanders, aware that they were almost completely isolated from the rest of the world, must surely have realised that their very existence depended on the limited resources of a small island. After all it was small enough for them to walk round the entire island in a day or so and see for themselves what was happening to the forests. Yet they were unable to devise a system that allowed them to find the right balance with their environment. Instead, vital resources were steadily consumed until finally none were left. Indeed, at the very time when the limitations of the island must have become starkly apparent, the competition between the clans for the available timber seems to have intensified as more and more statues were carved and moved across the island in an attempt to secure prestige and status. The fact that so many were left unfinished or stranded near the quarry suggests that no account was taken of how few trees were left on the island (Figure 20)” (44)

FIGURE 20, EASTER ISLAND

BOX 1, EASTER ISLAND EXAMPLE

18

brought back within the threshold and the Ozone Layer is recovering.

The problem is that when a boundary is crossed too far or too long the climate on the planet can change drastically. This means that every human development should be evaluated against these nine boundaries.

FIGURE 22, THE NINE PLANETARY BOUNDARIES AND THE CURRENT STATE(46), STARTING ON TOP CLOCKWISE: CLIMATE CHANGE, OCEAN ACIDIFICATION, STRATOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION, NITROGEN CYCLE, PHOSPHORUS CYCLE, GLOBAL FRESHWATER USE, LAND SYSTEM CHANGE, RATE OF BIODIVERSITY LOSS, ATMOSPHERIC AEROSOL LOADING, CHEMICAL POLLUTION

3.2. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

As has been stated in this chapter the current fulfilment of the main function of the housing systems is good (paragraph 3.1.1), however, the complexity (paragraph 3.1.1), negative effects (paragraph 3.1.2) and costs (paragraph 3.1.3) are high.

The negative impact of the construction industry can be quantified in the following numbers, the construction industry causes:

28% of the total CO2 production (11) 40% of the energy consumption in

Europe(13) 40% of the total waste production(14) 54% of the dangerous waste

production(49) 50% of material resources taken from

nature(13)

3.3. REPORTING, STANDARDIZATION AND LEGISLATION

The severity of the problems mentioned in the previous sections and the role of the building industry were noticed both nationally and internationally. This resulted in several different responses. In paragraph 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 the responses of the government and other lawmakers will be discussed.

3.3.1. INTERNATIONAL REPORTING AND LEGISLATION

Since the international organisations cannot place binding policies on focussed parts of the society, they tried to implement standards in the construction industry by standardization. Since 1972 the focus shifted and more and more attention was given to the environmental impact of human society.

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDIZATION

Between 1947 and the present day the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) published thousands of standards, several of them concerning building construction. These relate to standards in construction drawings, calculation methods for thermal resistance and thermal bridges, thermal insulation measurements, organization of information about construction works, et cetera (50). Besides the ISO standards the European Commission started to developed legislations. These were published in the Journal of the European Union starting in 1951(51). In 1989 the European Commission created a guideline for construction related products. These guidelines are implemented in the national legislations by the member states. In 2011 the European Commission published new regulations which are an update and extension of the 1989 version and include the CE marking.

19

ENVRIONMENTAL PROGRAMME

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was initiated as a result of the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. In 1985 during the Vienna Conference by UNEP, the ‘Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer’ was agreed upon. This eventually led to the Montreal Protocol (9) which entered into force in 1989. This protocol was meant to protect the ozone layer, and is to date the biggest success of the UNEP.

In 1988 UNEP initiated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main purpose of this organisation is publishing special scientific and objective reports on topics related to climate change. Their first report was published in 1990. This report was focussed on the relation between human activities and the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses. Up to date four reports have been published and the fifth is planned to be published in 2014

In 1992 the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Earth summit, resulted in the following documents: ‘Rio Declarations on Environment and Development’, ‘Agenda 21’, ‘Convention on Biological Diversity, Forest Principles’ and ‘United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’ (UNFCCC). Both ‘Convention on Biological Diversity’ and the ‘United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’ were set as legally binding agreements.

Since the UNFCCC entered into force in the year 1995, the Conferences of the Parties (COP) have been meeting annually. In 1997, on their third meeting the ‘Kyoto Protocol’ (10) was adopted. This protocol regulates the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In 2005 COP extended the ‘Kyoto Protocol’ by the ‘Montreal Action Plan’ (52) and negotiated higher reductions on greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2006 Al Gore published the documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ (53) about the state

of the earth. Points of focus were climate change, global warming and greenhouse gasses.

3.3.2. DEVELOPMENT OF LEGISLATION IN THE NETHERLANDS

The National governments have more influence for guiding specific industries than the international agencies. The Dutch government placed legislations for housing quality since 1946. Later, after the insight that economic growth and environmental impact are connected, they also created legislations concerning more sustainable building.

HOUSING QUALITY

After World War II there was a great need for housing. To ensure housing quality the Dutch government introduced the “Voorlopige Wenken” in 1946. This policy obliged new buildings to have a bathroom. In 1951 the government introduced a new document “Voorschriften en Wenken” which put minimum requirements to new buildings concerning the size, placement of different functional spaces and the equipment. The 1965 update of this document added minimum requirements of roof insulation and improved the existing requirements. Requirements for heat and sound insulation were added in 1976.

In the following decade a lot of regional rules were made, also norms were created but no national legislations. This changed in 1992 with the First edition of the Dutch Building Code. This was a collection of previously existing local technical build prescriptions, but now they became binding for the whole country. The norms included in the Dutch Building Code relate to safety, health, usability, energy performance and environment.

As part of the sustainable building policy in 1996 the Dutch government introduced the Energy Performance Coefficient (EPC). The EPC is a value based on the energy use and loss of a building. The lower the EPC the

20

lower the energy use and the lower the CO2 footprint of a building. The strategy was to improve the EPC in small steps. In 2006 the maximum value was defined on 0.8 for new buildings, in 2011 it will be 0.6 and it is planned to be lowered to 0.4 in 2015.

In 2003 the Dutch Building Code was revised. In the revised edition the NEN norms, these are Dutch norms, are linked to the legislations within the Dutch Building Code. Also the guideline for construction related products by the European Commission is embedded into the Dutch Building Code.

ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT

Shortly after the Oil Crisis in the 1970s the Dutch government published a policy document about selective growth (54). This document relates the economy to the environment, and links the growth goals of the industry to environmental, energy, and resource goals. The document states that investments should no longer have negative impacts on the environment.

In 1989 the first National Environmental Policy (55), which was clearly inspired by the Brundtland Report, was published. The policy states that before the year 2010 most of the current environmental problems should be resolved, and the creation of new problems in a continuing economical growth should be prevented. During the nineties, the policy was revised and updated several times. In 1990 the need for sustainable building, integral chain management, energy extensification and quality improvement were added. In 1993 the strategy changed and several responsibilities were placed upon the executive parties.

In 1997 the policy Environment and Economy was published focusing attention on emissions by energy use and mobility. This policy describes a perspective in which sustainable economical developments should be desirable by economical, social, and ecological means.

In 2001 the fourth National Environmental Policy was published which concluded that for solving environmental problems system innovation is needed.

SUSTAINABLE BUILDING

The need for sustainable building was clear to the Dutch government, it was necessary for the economical, social, and ecological goals, and for the housing quality. In 1995 the ‘first action plan for sustainable building’ was published. It defined that sustainable building should be an improvement for people, environment and the economy. In addition to that a sustainable building should be an attractive building of high quality and a low environmental impact. Two years later, in 1997, the ‘second action plan sustainable building’ (56) was published. It desired a more intensive cooperation with the industry. The focus lay besides new buildings also on renovation of the existing built environment.

In 1999 a Sustainable Building Policy (57) was published. This document enclosed environmental quality and human capital, and was based on the triple bottom line(31). The focus of this policy was on boundary conditions and project realization.

3.3.3. CONCLUSIONS

There is both international and national response to the desire for change as described in the first paragraphs of chapter 3.

International the state of the earth is measured and rules and legislations to deal with some of the environmental problems are made. However there are no real legislations directing at the construction industry.

When looking at a national level the policies become more detailed. In the Netherlands the relation between economical growth and environmental problems is used as a basis for growth regulations. The housing quality improved thanks to the application

21

of building legislations by the government. This shows the important role they have in guiding the industry. Lastly, the Dutch government started a program for sustainable building. It is still developing, but eventually this should lead towards a more sustainable built environment in the Netherlands.

Locally there are some initiatives which aim at better performance of buildings by improving quality and reducing costs and environmental impact.

3.4. SYSTEM EVOLUTION

The housing system is has changed in the past and some characteristics need to change for the future. The process of change in a system is called system evolution. For the desired change in the construction industry, progress in the system evolution is needed. To explain what this means first a general understanding is needed about what system evolution is. This paragraph is based on the principles of system evolution of the TRIZ theory by Valery Souchkov (58). System evolution in general means that a system wants to evolve towards a high degree of ideality. The degree of ideality can be defined by the next formula:

In this formula the Useful Effects contain everything that creates and increases the overall value. The Negative Effects contain all factors that reduce the overall value. The costs are all expenditures needed to create the overall value (e.g. Materials, Energy, Information, Human Resources, etc.).

The path towards a system with a high degree of ideality in general can be described by the S‐Curve of Evolution and generally the system complexity can be described by the Bell‐Curve of Evolution. (Figure 23)

FIGURE 23, MODELS OF SYSTEM EVOLUTION(58)

During the journey of a system towards the most ideal final result the system passes three stages. The first is the creation phase of the system. In this phase the innovative solution to fulfil a function is implemented for the first time. In the housing system this means the first time humans settled in solid houses. The second is the expansion phase of the system, during which new subsystems are introduced to increase the functionality of the system. But when the main functions of a system are fulfilled the costs and negative effects of the system will also be high. For the housing system this is the process described in paragraph 3.1.1. Which describes the evolution of the housing system to the complex and expensive buildings with high environmental impact which fulfil their main functions (protecting its residents against the elements). At this stage the convolution phase starts. The first action in the convolution phase is the cutting of costs by minimizing the use of materials, energy, information, and labour. To achieve this the system is optimized by eliminating subsystems through function sharing or by the application of more advanced materials. In addition to this, the production processes are optimized to gain a higher quality and reduce variability of processes to reduce the number of defects and negative effects. For the housing system this means the reduction of environmental impact, material use and labour for building the house.

When further optimizing of the system becomes too expensive for the benefits it delivers, something different happens. This

22

can be a S‐jump, which means that a new way to deliver a main function of the system is found and implemented. Other options are the merging of the system with similar systems (for example combining houses with shops), or the transferring of the functionality of the system to a super‐system.

Current trends in the construction industry are focussed on reducing costs, complexity, and negative effects. These trends indicates that the construction industry is at the beginning of the convolution phase.

As sustainable development aims to minimize the negative effects and reduce the costs, while preserving or enhancing the positive effects, sustainable development can be compared to the convolution phase of the model of system evolution.

3.5. CONCLUSIONS

The theory of system evolution gives a good idea about how the evolution of the housing system develops. As described in this chapter the evolution of the housing system came with better quality but improvements were made by adding materials and subsystems. The improvement of performance however also caused negative effects on environment. The costs and complexity of current housing system is high. The housing system is now in its convolution phase which means now it is time to get to a more ideal solution for the housing system.

The National and International legislations aim to bend the building methodology to a more ideal solution for the housing system.

IDF building focuses on reducing the environmental impact and costs of the housing system by reducing the complexity of the housing system and designing for its whole life cycle. In other words IDF building is a strategy to initiate the necessary innovations for the convolution phase of the evolution of the housing system.

23

4. RESPONSE TO THE NEED FOR CHANGE

Chapter 3 explained why change in the building methodology is needed. In this chapter the response to this need for change will be discussed as a theoretical background for the model. This chapter is divided into strategies and approaches for triple bottom line and triple top line design, IDF building, and triple bottom/top line evaluation tools.

4.1. STRATEGIES AND APPROACHES

How to create concepts which score high with the evaluation tools? Several design strategies have been ignited in the recent past. These strategies will be discussed in the next paragraph.

4.1.1. DESIGN STRATEGIES ON THE CONCEPTUAL AND MANAGEMENT LEVELS

The first strategy, The Ladder of Lansink which was created by the Dutch politician Ad Lansink in 1979, is focused on waste prevention. The second strategy, the Delft Ladder(59) by Hendriks in 2001, focused on material use optimization. The steps of the ladders are shown in Table 1. The first step is prevention of material use. Then there is a group of reuse on different levels. The next step in both ladders is useful application followed by Immobilisation in the Delft ladder. All materials which are not suitable for one of the previous steps will be incinerated. All materials which are left even after incineration are land filled.

A similar more simple approach is to evaluate all aspects of a concept by the Triad approaches (60), for instance the Trias Energetica which consists of the following three steps:

1. Reduction of energy use

2. Use of Renewable energy sources

3. Efficient use of non‐renewable energy sources

Entrop and Brouwers created a general triad approach (60) which they also applied to the use of water, material, land‐use and transport. The general triad approach consists of the following three steps:

1. Prevent Use

2. Use Renewables

3. Improve Efficiency

Both the Ladder strategies and the Triad approaches focus on reducing the environmental impact by lowering the impact of material‐ and energy usage.

Ladder of Lansink Ladder of Delft

Prevention Prevention

Construction Reuse

Element Reuse Element Reuse

Material Reuse

Material Reuse Upcycling

Material Reuse Downcycling

Useful Application Useful Application

Immobilisation with useful application

Immobilisation

Incineration with Energy Recovery

Incineration with Energy Recovery

Incineration Incineration

Landfill Landfill

TABLE 1, LADDER COMPARISON

24

4.1.2. DESIGN APPROACHES ON THE FUNCTIONAL AND ELEMENT LEVEL

Following the observations of the previous chapter it became clear that a change in building methodology was needed. Several initiatives were started in the Netherlands.

LEAN CONSTRUCTION

Lean construction is a specific application of The Toyota Way by Toyota production systems. The Toyota Way consists of principles in two key areas: continuous improvement and respect for people. These areas are supported by five key principles shown in Figure 24 (61):

FIGURE 24, THE TWO KEY AREAS AND THE FIVE RELATED KEY PRINCIPLES

These five key principles are covered by fourteen practical principles(62) for managing a company:

1. Base your management decisions on a long‐term philosophy, even at the expense of short‐term financial goals

2. Create a continuous process flow to bring problems to the surface

3. Use “pull” systems to avoid overproduction

4. Level out the workload

5. Build a culture of stopping the production line to fix problems, to get quality right the first time

6. Standardized tasks and processes are the foundation for continuous improvement and employee empowerment

7. Use visual control so no problems are hidden

8. Use only reliable, thoroughly tested technology that serves your people and processes

9. Grow leaders who thoroughly understand the work, live the philosophy, and teach it to others

10. Develop exceptional people and teams who follow your company’s philosophy

11. Respect your extended network of partners and suppliers by challenging them and helping them improve

12. Go and see for yourself to thoroughly understand the situation

13. Make decisions slowly by consensus, thoroughly considering all options; implement decisions rapidly

14. Become a learning organization through relentless reflection and continuous improvement

These principles are important for creating an effective company, and to make sure that all processes in the chain of product realization add value to the product. The Toyota Way is a management tool which improves the efficiency in a company and the quality of the labour performed in the company.

OPEN BUILDING

In 1962 Habraken published a book in which he describes the theory on Open Building (63). The theory consists of the following combination of different but related ideas about the making of the environment(64):

25

The idea of distinct Levels of intervention in the built environment, such as those represented by 'support' and 'infill', or by urban design and architecture

The idea that users / inhabitants may make design decisions as well

The idea that, more generally, designing is a process with multiple participants also including different kinds of professionals

The idea that the interface between technical systems allows the replacement of one system with another performing the same function (as with different fit‐out systems applied in a same base building)

The idea that built environment is in constant transformation and change must be recognized and understood.

The idea that built environment is the product of an ongoing, never ending, design process in which environment transforms part by part

Open Building acknowledged the changing character of the built environment, the need for the ability to adapt, and the need for cooperation between all stakeholders.

INDUSTRIAL FLEXIBLE DEMOUNTABLE BUILDING (IFD‐BUILDING)

The quest for a more sustainable building methodology by the Dutch government renewed the interest in the Open Building philosophy of Habraken. This led to the methodology of Industrial, Flexible, and Demountable Building, or in short IFD‐Building. This was introduced by the Dutch group SEV (Steering committee Experiments Public housing) in 1999 (65). The new methodology led to several experimental projects in IFD‐Building, which focused mainly on the Industrial and Flexible part. IFD‐Building focuses on

reducing the amount of material used in the total life cycle of the building.

CRADLE TO CRADLE

In 2002 M. Braungart & W. McDonough published the book Cradle to Cradle (66), which rejects the old fashioned cradle to grave methodology which is commonly used, and introduced a new cyclic approach which does not focus on reducing negative impact, but enlarging positive impact.

They use the following design paradigm:

Waste equals food

Use current solar income

Celebrate Diversity

In addition to that they defined all materials as nutrients and divided them into two main categories: Biological Nutrients and Technological Nutrients. Then they defined two types of products, consumption products and service products. (Figure 25) Technological Nutrients should only be used in as service products and should always stay in the so called ‘technosphere’. An example is a bottle. Biological Nutrients are most often used as consumption products, but they can be used as service products. Eventually biological nutrients will end up in the biosphere. An example of a service product is shampoo.

FIGURE 25, TWO DIFFERENT CYCLES. THE BIOSPHERE WITH BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENTS, AND THE TECHNOSPHERE WITH THE TECHNICAL NUTRIENTS

A good example of a consumption product designed for ending up in the biosphere is the biodegradable t‐shirt of Trigema (Figure

26

26). Not only the fabric, but also the used chemicals like paint are designed for the biosphere.

FIGURE 26, THE BIOLOGICAL LIFE CYCLE OF THE BIODEGRADABLE T‐SHIRT OF TRIGEMA

A good example of a product designed for the technosphere is the Mirra Chair by Herman Miller (Figure 27). The complete chair is designed to be disassembled and all components can be reused in a new chair. The parts that wear out can be replaced by new ones for which the old worn parts can be used as nutrients.

FIGURE 27, THE TECHNOLOGICAL LIFE CYCLE OF THE MIRRA CHAIR BY HERMAN MILLER

The Cradle‐to‐Cradle philosophy led to several principles for building. Mulhall & Braungart developed a small book called ‘Cradle to Cradle Criteria for the built environment’(67). Besides this book there are several local initiatives by municipalities, for example ‘The Almere Principles’.

DESIGN FOR DISASSEMBLY

In 2006 Elma Durmisevic published her PhD‐research about Design for

Disassembly(16). Design for Disassembly responds to several previously mentioned problems. Durmisevic states that different sub systems have different life expectancies before they will be replaced in different intervals (Figure 28). To deal with this problem an open hierarchy is needed in which subsystems with different life expectancies can be disconnected and replaced at different intervals.

FIGURE 28, DIFFERENT LIFE EXPECTANCIES OF SUB SYSTEMS

Durmisevic defined eight aspects which influence the disassembly potential. These aspects are important in decision making during design:

1. Functional decomposition

2. Systematization and clustering

3. Hierarchical relations between elements

4. Base element specification

5. Assembly sequences

6. Interface geometry

7. Type of the connections

8. Life cycle co‐ordination in assembly/disassembly

4.1.3. CONCLUSIONS

The Ladder Strategies and the Triad Approaches all focus on minimizing negative impact. The best result which can be attained by this strategy is no impact.

As a design approach ‘The Toyota Way’ makes a next step, instead of only looking at cost reduction they also consider ways to

27

add value to the product. This however, is still only on one bottom line (Economic Bottom Line), but it is a step in the right direction. ‘The Toyota Way’ is an approach which considers the product, the processes and the management.

Open Building is very influential, and lays a basis for the later IFD‐Building and Design for Disassembly. These approaches are heavily focussed on reducing material use and environmental impact by flexibility and reusability.

Cradle‐to‐Cradle also focuses on the life‐cycle‐approach, but it adds a new dimension to it. The Cradle‐to‐cradle philosophy states that it is better to make a big positive impact than a smaller negative impact.

All in all there are lots of strategies and approaches. To get to a complete sustainable approach it is needed to combine these strategies.

4.2. IDF‐BUILDING

In 2008, Pioneering introduces the workgroup IDF‐Building (Individual, Sustainable and Flexible Building)(68) which initiate multi‐corporation projects focused on IDF‐Building.

IDF Building has several principles, Industrial, Individual, Sustainable, and Flexible building. All these pillars are meant to lead towards a more sustainable building methodology.

IDF Building is an integrated approach in order to lower the complexity of buildings. The buildings should be demountable to reduce negative impact, and flexibility to improve the life‐cycle performance.

Currently the projects of IDF‐building are heavily focused on prefabrication, assembly and disassembly. The projects work with use scenarios and the developments are made with major stakeholders in the production process. However no

stakeholders of the use‐phase are integrated in the design phase.

At this moment the biggest challenges for applying the IDF building methodology are the interfaces, compatibility and exchangeability.

4.3. TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE

A lot of national and international policies are based on the triple bottom line of John Elkington. In his book (31) is stated that new developments should be based on a triple bottom line, which combines the social, ecological and economical bottom line. Furthermore Elkington states that only when these three bottom lines are in balance development can be truly sustainable. For this it is important to be able to measure all three bottom lines.

4.3.1. MEASURING THE BOTTOM LINES

Companies are accustomed to measuring the economical bottom line, but not so much to the other two bottom lines, the Environmental and Social bottom line. Therefore there is a need for tools to measure the current state and evaluate concepts on all triple bottom line values.

ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE

The environmental value is based on the total of harmful and beneficial aspects of a product during its total lifetime. To quantify this, a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has to be made. A LCA is defined by Owens (69) as;

‘An analytical methodology used to provide information on a product’s energy, materials, wastes, and emissions from a lifecycle perspective along with an examination of associated environmental issues.’

The life cycle approach is important because not only the initial costs are important in assessments, but also the running costs and disposal costs. Instead of a part of the cycle, the complete cycle is assessed. Finkbeiner et

28

al. (70) describe the stages of a product’s life as:

1. Raw Material Extraction 2. Energy and Material Production 3. Manufacturing 4. Product Use 5. End of Life Treatment 6. Final Disposal

The Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC) characterizes a LCA as (71):

Evaluation of all stages of a product’s life

Calculation of a total environmental impact including all stages

Providing a comprehensive view of the environmental aspects

Comparing alternative designs on the field of environmental impact

There are several tools to assess the environmental impact of a product. One example is SimaPro which uses The Eco‐indicator 95 (72). This indicator uses eleven different categories to quantify the environmental impact. The eleven categories are:

Greenhouse gasses Ozone layer depletion Acidification Eutrophication Heavy Metals Carcinogens Pesticides Summer Smog Winter Smog Energy Resources Solid Waste

In the tool all steps of a product’s life can be described by processes, materials and energy usage. These are connected to the eleven categories by their material use, emissions and production of waste. By applying normalisation and characterisation a total impact is calculated for all eleven categories (Figure 29) and a total of the product.

FIGURE 29, EXAMPLE OF SIMAPRO OUTPUT BY THE ELEVEN CATEGORIES

Two examples of specific measurement directions are EPC, which focuses on Energy Consumption, and the Water Footprint (WF), which focuses on the water use during production.

EPW is a tool to analyse energy streams and determine the EPC of a building. To do this the energy consumption is calculated considering the use scenario. After that the total amount of energy is reduced by applying technical features and insulation of the building.

The Water footprint is calculated based on the Blue Water Footprint, the Green Water Footprint and the Grey Water Footprint. These are described by Hoekstra et al. as follows: “The blue water footprint refers to consumption of blue water resources (surface and groundwater) along the supply chain of a product. ‘Consumption’ refers to loss of water from the available ground‐surface water body in a catchment area. Losses occur when water evaporates, returns to another catchment area or the sea or is incorporated into a product. The green water footprint refers to consumption of green water resources (rainwater insofar as it does not become run‐off). The grey water footprint refers to pollution and is defined as the volume of freshwater that is required to assimilate the load of pollutants given natural background concentrations and existing ambient water quality standards.”(73)

29

ADDING SOCIAL VALUE

The Environmental Value has several measurement methods, Social Value however is harder to quantify. In recent years some benchmark utilities where developed which combine Environmental Value and Social Value. International examples for rating buildings are Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) (74) and Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) (75). Examples within the Netherlands are the Dutch version of BREEAM, BREEAM‐NL by the Dutch Green Building Council (76), and GPR Gebouw (77).

ECONOMICAL COSTS

The construction industry is still completely based on the economical bottom line. However, most of the time only the initiative costs are evaluated without looking to the complete life cycle costs. The ‘life cycle costs’ of a product is described by Ravemark as the sum of present values of investment costs, capital costs, installation costs, energy costs, operation costs, maintenance costs, and disposal costs over the life‐time of the project, product, or measure (78).

Ravemark concludes in the same report that the existing LCC tools are made for special application or problem areas. In other words, there are no general LCC tools.

To evaluate renovation concepts on all three bottom lines, Vink created a “life cycle performance evaluation model” (LCPEM). This tool can be used to evaluate concepts based on five factors; Energy Performance, Life‐Cycle Environmental Impact, Quality, Life‐Cycle Costing, and Life‐Cycle Yields (79).

4.3.2. COMPARING EVALUATION TOOLS

In Table 2 the six previously named tools are compared. In the table can be seen that there is no tool which covers all categories.

And besides that the interpretation of the categories differs between tools.

EPW WF ECO 95

GPR LEED BREEAM - NL

LCPEM

Energy X

X X X X X

Water

X X X X X

Materials

X X X X X

Pollution

X X X X

Transport

X X X X

Waste

X X X X

Health

X X X X Land-use and ecology

X X

Management

X

Quality

X X X Life Cycle Costing

X

Life Cycle Yields

X

Environment X

X X X X X X

Social

X X X X

Economical

X

TABLE 2, COMPARISON BETWEEN TOOLS

4.3.3. TRIPLE TOP LINE

A new development is the triple top line. Which focuses on the added value to the three top lines instead of the negative impact. McDonough and Braungart state that instead of focussing on reducing, reusing and recycling a company should focus on the question: “How can I grow prosperity, celebrate my community, and enhance the health of all species?” (80) Furthermore McDonough and Braungart state that: “This new design perspective creates triple top line growth: products that enhance the well being of nature and culture while generating economic value. Design for the triple top line follows the laws of nature to give industry the tools to develop systems that safely generate prosperity. In these new human systems, materials become food for the soil or flow back to industry forever. Value and quality are embodied in products, processes and facilities so intelligently designed, they leave footprints to delight in rather than lament. When the principles of ecologically intelligent design are widely

30

applied, both nature and commerce can thrive and grow.” (81)

Cradle‐to‐Cradle is a design tool based on triple top line, however to date there are no tools to measure on a triple top line scale.

4.3.4. CONCLUSIONS

It is important to consider all three bottom lines when evaluating different options since the three bottom lines are strongly related. The Economical Value depends on the Environmental value and Social Value.

There are different measurement tools available for measuring parts of the triple bottom line. There is not one tool which covers all aspects on all bottom lines.

4.4. CONCLUSION

Chapter 3 explained why there is a need for change and government response to the need. In this chapter the response is shown. There are two different kinds of reactions. One kind is are the design approaches and strategies, the other kind are the evaluation tools.

IDF Building wants to be a more complete methodology, but until now it is too much focussed on flexibility, (dis)assembly and stakeholders within the supply chain.

To get to a complete sustainable approach it is necessary to combine strategies like The Toyota Way, Design for Disassembly, and Cradle to Cradle. In addition to that it is important to develop evaluation tools for all bottom and top lines.

31

5. SUSTAINABLE BUILDING

The goal of this research is to provide a method or model to aid in the design process of IDF building. The research provided in chapter 3 and 4 shows there is a wide range of aspects concerning sustainability to keep in mind. That is why this chapter describes a field in which a scope for IDF building can be determined. The result is a rough outline of a model in which the wide range of aspects is connected. This model can, when fully developed, also be used to compare rating models and design strategies. Within this research, the rough outline of the model will not go into details, but it will show the field in which all of the existing models should fit.

5.1. THE FIELD

To define the main factors of the field, a bottom up approach was used. All problems and demands described in the previous chapters were listed and grouped, after that they are divided to form seven categories (appendix II). The seven categories are: Environment, Indoor Climate, Life Cycle Economics, Management, Materials, Usability, and Visual Quality (Figure 30). Together these seven categories cover all previously described elements of the social, economic, and ecological bottom line. The next step was to create a base line and a top line value for all seven categories. All categories are described in this paragraph including a list of requirements for the Bottom, Base, and Top line.

5.1.1. ENVRIONMENTAL IMPACT

Environment is a broad definition. For this sustainable building model the impact on the environment of the total lifecycle of a building is considered. This is done by measuring three subcategories: Environmental Issues, Strategies and Energy. The subcategory Environmental Issues considers the impact of the building during its total lifetime on the Atmosphere, Biodiversity, Environment, Human Health, Land, Natural Cycles, and Water. The subcategory Strategies evaluates which techniques are used to reduce or improve the impact on the Environment. The last subcategory, Energy considers both the Source of the energy consumption, and the way the energy is used.

5.1.2. INDOOR CLIMATE

The category Indoor Climate focuses on the quality of the indoor climate in which user control and healthy natural conditions are highly valued. To come to a score this category considers the Control of the users on the indoor climate, the Indoor Climate itself, and the effect of the Used Materials on the indoor climate. The first subcategory considers Individual Control of the Indoor Climate by the user, the second subcategory considers matters, such as Daylight Usage, Sun Protection, Natural Ventilation, Temperature Regulation. The third subcategory covers the Off‐gassing and Toxicity of the Used Materials and Paints.

5.1.3. LIFE CYCLE ECONOMICS

Life cycle economics considers the Life Cycle Costing and Life Cycle Yields. The subcategory Life Cycle Costing consists of Initial Costs, Costs During Use, and End of Life Costs. The Life Cycle Yields consists of all yields like the income from Marketing, Operation Profits, and Rent.

5.1.4. MANAGEMENT

The Management category consists of four subcategories: Design, Product Realization, Management, and Labour. The Design subcategory evaluates the Innovative character of the company and design team, the Product Realization subcategory considers the way of manufacturing of the

32

company. The Management subcategory considers the Decision Making, Cooperation, the Day‐to‐Day Management, and the Employee Management & Development. And lastly the subcategory Labour considers the Health and Risks of the working environment of the Employees.

The philosophy behind this is, when a company scores high on these subcategories, the employees are happy and healthy, creativity is stimulated, and high quality products can be developed.

5.1.5. MATERIALS

The Material category evaluates the Sources, Use, and End of Life of all materials used. From the Sources the Availability, Depletion, and Renewability are considered. During the Use phase the Kind of Product and whether it belongs to and its suitability to the Technosphere or Biosphere is determined. Lastly the End of Life Treatment of the materials is evaluated.

5.1.6. USABILITY

The Usability category evaluates the current usability and the ability to adapt to future demands. This category consists of two subcategories; the Adaptability, and the other Attributes of the Building. Within the Adaptability the Compatibility, Complexity, Demountability, Flexibility, Portability, and Use Scenarios are evaluated. Within the other Attributes of the Building the Features, Base Functionality, and Protection are evaluated.

5.1.7. VISUAL QUALITY

The category Visual Quality considers the Appearance and the Individuality of the building. The philosophy is that when a building has a good appearance and high individual identity it is less likely to be demolished.

5.2. RESULTING MODEL

The resulting model is a rough version which consists only of a possible structure and the relations between categories. The model still needs to be quantified and categories and subcategories have to be weighted by expert opinions.

Figure 30 shows the hierarchical structure of the outline of the model (from left to right) in which the (sub) division of categories and subcategories are related to the model.

Table 3 provides a more elaborate description of the outline of the model. Providing bottom line, base line, and top line criteria for all sub‐categories.

Finally Figure 31 completes the outline of the model with a graphical representation including the bottom line, base line, and top line. Within the outline of the model the leading attributes for the bottom, base, and top line of the categories are shown.

33

FIGURE 30, HIERARCHICAL DIAGRAM

34

Categories Sub‐Categories Bottom Line Base Line Top Line

Environmental Impact

Environmental Pollution

Polluting the Environment

Environmental Neutral

Cleaning the Environment

Strategies No Strategies to reduce Impact

Optimization and Compensation

Maximizing Positive Impact

Energy Energy Consuming Energy Neutral Energy Producing

Non Renewable Energy Sources Renewable Energy Sources

Indoor Climate Climate

Artificial Lighting Light Rooms using Daylight

Lighting the whole Building Using Daylight

Mechanical Ventilation Natural Ventilation

Mechanical Heating & Cooling Natural Heating & Cooling

Worse Indoors than Outdoors

Indoor Equal to Outdoors

Better Indoor Climate than Outdoors

Climate Control No Individual Climate Control

Some Individual Control Full Individual Control

Material Properties

Off‐gassing of Toxic Substances

No Off‐gassing of Toxic Substances

Cleaning the Air of Toxic Substances and Aerosols

Life Cycle Economics

Life Cycle Costing

Initial Costs Low Initial Costs No Initial Costs

Operational Costs No Operational Costs

End of Life Costs Low End of Life Costs No End of Life Costs

Life Cycle Yields

No Initial Yields Initial Yields

No Operational Yields Operational Yields

No End of Life Yields End of Life Yields

Management Design Laggards

Conservative Development Front Runners

Product Realization

Peak Workloads Levelled out Workloads

Bad Production Environment

Controlled Production Environment

Perfect Production Environment

Conservative Production Intelligent Use of Machinery

Industrialized Production

Employee Development No Development of

Employees Some Development of Employees

Development of Exceptional Employees

External Cooperation

No Cooperation with other Companies Some Cooperation

Close Cooperation along the Construction Chain

Labour Unhealthy Work Environment

Mediocre Work Environment

Healthy Work Environment

High Risk for Employees Some Risk for Employees

Low Risk for Employees

Materials Sources Rare Resource Available Resources Local Resources

Depletion of Resource Continuous Reuse of Resources

Increase of Resource Quality

Non Renewable Materials Renewable Materials Use of Renewables at

35

Categories Sub‐Categories Bottom Line Base Line Top Line a Slower Rate than the Renew Cycle

Use No Responsibility During Use Material Pool Material Rent Policy

End of Life No End of Life Plan End of Life Return Plan

End of Life Reuse or Recycle Plan

Usability Adaptability Incompatible Compatible Highly Compatible

High Complexity Low Complexity Very low Complexity

Not Demountable Demountable Easily Demountable

Inflexible Flexible Extremely Flexible

Not Portable Portable Highly Portable

No Scenarios for changing User Needs

Adaptable to Foreseeable Scenarios

Adaptable to a whole range of Scenarios

Only Main Functionality Functionality Based on Total Lifetime

Upgrade possibilities for unforeseen demands

Attributes of the Building No Features (Ethernet

Cables, Glass Fibre, Fire Alarms, Etc.) Standard Features

Many High End Features and Upgradable for Future Features

Only Base Protection Upgradable Protection

Easily Upgradable to all possibly needed Protection including extreme conditions

Visual Quality Appearance Bad Appearance Good Appearance Celebration of Nature

Individuality No Individual Identity Individual Identity Unique Identity TABLE 3, ELEBORATE DESCRIPTION OF THE OUTLINE OF THE MODEL

36

FIGURE 31, GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE OUTLINE OF THE MODEL

5.3. IDF‐BUILDING

The next step was to decide how the IDF‐Building methodology relates to the model. The Green BuildingLab is used as a representative example for IDF‐Building.

5.3.1. GREEN BUILDINGLAB

FIGURE 32, RENDER OF THE GREEN BUILDINGLAB

The Green BuildingLab is a project by the Green Transformable Building Center, a research platform based at the University of Twente. Figure 32 shows a render of the design of the building.

GOALS

The goals for the Green BuildingLab project are; to provide a platform for research, development, and cooperation. Research is important for the University of Twente and will focus on new strategies for sustainable building and the evaluation of existing strategies. Development is of great importance for the construction industry as the project provides an environment for development and a test case for product tryouts. A guideline through the project is putting the IDF building methodology into practice, which is important for both the construction industry and the University of Twente. This goal can only be accomplished

37

by cooperation along the whole construction chain.

The building itself aims to be the most sustainable building of the Netherlands, to reach a BREEAM Outstanding score, and be the first Cradle‐to‐Cradle certified building.

Furthermore the project is based on a building which will be reconfigured yearly.

COOPERATION

Cooperation is not a goal in itself, but mostly the means to reach the other goals. For true innovation cooperation beyond project boundaries is needed along the whole construction industry chain, from client to material supplier, from architect to carpet producers.

This building is designed following the IDF‐Building methodology by students of the

University of Twente in cooperation with many companies within the construction industry.

THE EVALUATION

Table 4 shows the evaluation of the Green BuildingLab on all sub‐categories. This is an illustration of how the model could work. At the right side of the table a column is added in which the argument for the score is stated, this could be a parameter of the building or a design strategy. These arguments are derived from presentations and documentation of the design of the building. A graphical representation of the score is shown in Figure 33. If the building is realized as it is designed it can be said that the IDF‐Building methodology provides a high standard since it rarely scores below the base line and even reaches the top line on three categories.


Green BuildingLab

Environmental Impact

Environmental Pollution

Polluting the Environment

Environmental Neutral

Cleaning the Environment

CO2 Neutral

Strategies No Strategies to reduce Impact

Optimization and Compensation

Maximizing Positive Impact

Design for Long Life of Components, Design for Whole Life Cycle, Maximizing Energy gains, Maximizing Biodiversity

Energy Energy Consuming Energy Neutral Energy Producing Abundant PV‐Cells, Reducing Energy Use

Non Renewable Energy Sources

Renewable Energy Sources Solar Energy, Bio‐gas

Indoor Climate

Climate Artificial Lighting Light Rooms using Daylight

Lighting the whole Building Using Daylight

Large glass façades, Solar studies

Mechanical Ventilation

Natural Ventilation Solar Chimney for natural ventilation

Mechanical Heating & Cooling

Natural Heating & Cooling Low temperature heating/cooling

Worse Indoors than Outdoors

Indoor Equal to Outdoors

Better Indoor Climate than Outdoors

No active cleaning

Climate No Individual Some Individual Full Individual Control per room

38


Green BuildingLab

Control Climate Control Climate Control Climate Control

Material Properties

Off‐gassing of Toxic Substances

No Off‐gassing of Toxic Substances

Cleaning the Air of Toxic Substances and Aerosols

Cradle‐to‐Cradle materials for indoor finishing

Life Cycle Economics

Life Cycle Costing

Initial Costs Low Initial Costs No Initial Costs Development and production costs

Operational Costs No Operational Costs

Bio‐gas and maintenance costs

End of Life Costs Low End of Life Costs

No End of Life Costs

Disassemble costs

Life Cycle Yields

No Initial Yields Initial Yields

No Operational Yields

Operational Yields Rent, Marketing,

No End of Life Yields End of Life Yields Products ready for reuse

Management Design Laggards Conservative Development

Front Runners Open development based on knowledge sharing

Product Realization

Peak Workloads Levelled out Workloads Within the cooperation every partner is informed timely

Bad Production Environment

Controlled Production Environment

Perfect Production Environment

Complete prefab production

Conservative Production

Intelligent Use of Machinery

Industrialized Production

Production in industrial production facility

Employee Development

No Development of Employees

Some Development of Employees

Development of Exceptional Employees

Development of students by discussion with experts

External Cooperation

No Cooperation with other Companies

Some Cooperation Close Cooperation along the Construction Chain

Close Cooperation along the Construction Chain

Labour Unhealthy Work Environment

Mediocre Work Environment

Healthy Work Environment

No toxic materials

High Risk for Employees

Some Risk for Employees

Low Risk for Employees

Easily handling of components

Materials Sources Rare Resource Available Resources Local Resources

Depletion of Resource

Continuous Reuse of Resources

Increase of Resource Quality

Design for Disassembly for technical products

Non Renewable Materials

Renewable Materials

Use of Renewables at a Slower Rate than the Renew

Use of Wood for temporary parts of the building

39


Green BuildingLab

Cycle

Use No Responsibility During Use

Material Pool Material Rent Policy

Producer remains owner policy

End of Life No End of Life Plan End of Life Return Plan

End of Life Reuse or Recycle Plan

Producer take‐back policy

Usability Adaptability Incompatible Compatible Highly Compatible Standardized interfaces

High Complexity Low Complexity Very low Complexity

Designed for optimal Life Cycle Coordination, and Relational Pattern

Not Demountable Demountable Easily Demountable

Designed for optimal Functional Decomposition, Systemization, and Assembly

Inflexible Flexible Extremely Flexible Designed for changing user demands

Not Portable Portable Highly Portable Designed for two man handling

No Scenarios for changing User Needs

Adaptable to Foreseeable Scenarios

Adaptable to a whole range of Scenarios

Based on some foreseeable scenarios

Only Main Functionality

Functionality Based on Total Lifetime

Upgrade possibilities for unforeseen demands

Designed for change

Attributes of the Building

No Features(Ethernet Cables, Glass Fibre, Fire Alarms, Etc.)

Standard Features Many High End Features and Upgradable for Future Features

State of the art features

Only Base Protection

Upgradable Protection

Easily Upgradable to all possibly needed Protection including extreme conditions

Designed for upgradability

Visual Quality Appearance Bad Appearance Good Appearance Celebration of Nature

Green roof and façade

Individuality No Individual Identity

Individual Identity Unique Identity One of a kind design

TABLE 4, ILLUSTRATION OF HOW THE SCORE OF THE GREEN BUILDINGLAB COULD BE

40

5.3.2. GREEN BUILDINGLAB RELATED TO IDF BUILDING

The Green BuildingLab is a good example of the aspirations of IDF Building, in addition it also contains traces of Cradle to Cradle design. This design methodology can be adapted in the sustainable part of IDF Building.

5.4. CONCLUSIONS

The IDF Building Methodology aims to be a continuously adapting and improving design methodology, which adopts new trends in sustainable design without dropping previous goals and criteria. The current state of IDF Building is in all aspects of the sustainability model at least base line, and reaches for top line on management, usability and visual quality.

FIGURE 33, ILLUSTRATION OF HOW THE GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE SCORES OF THE GREEN BUILDINGLAB COULD BE

41

6. IDF BUILDING METHODOLOGY

This chapter explains the IDF methodology. This will be done first by discussing the Goals and Strategy of IDF building. The ‘Passend Wonen’ concept is used during the model development and will be explained in this chapter. Thereafter, the model will be discussed by explaining the Hierarchical Structure and Breakdown of the IDF Building Model. And concluding the development of the model, the calculations, the interface & output, and recommendations for further development of the IDF Building Model will be discussed.

6.1. IDF METHODOLOGY

The IDF Building methodology is a new building methodology initiated by Elma Durmisevic. IDF is a reaction on IFD which focussed mainly on flexibility during use as an answer to Environmental Issues based on the Triple Bottom Line.

The IDF building methodology incorporates the whole life cycle of the building and its materials. Within IDF the focus shifts to; Industrial Production to reach high quality products and answer to the decline of craftsmanship, adaptation of building to individual use requirements during its use phase to lengthen the useful life of a building, use of Cradle‐to‐Cradle and Triple Top Line approach to answer for the need for sustainability and focus on a Design for Disassembly approach to create flexible systems that could be replaced, reused, reconfigured and whose materials could be up‐cycled after its useful life.

6.1.1. GOALS

The main goals of the IDF Building Methodology can be summarized by: High Quality, High Usability, Buildings with Unique Identities, Low Environmental Impact or Positive Impact, and Economical Feasibility considering the whole building and material life cycle.

6.1.2. STRATEGY

The IDF Building Methodology has four main strategies: Industrial Production, Design for Individual Identity, Sustainable Design, and Flexible Buildings. These four

key strategies are used to reach the previously named goals.

INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION

Industrial Production leads to high quality production because of the good production conditions. Another big advantage is the reduced need for skilled craftsmen, since the number of skilled craftsmen is declining. Next to that, Industrial Production also lowers the material losses and failure costs. And last but not least, the Industrial Production Methodologies can reduce production costs because of scale advantages.

DESIGN FOR INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY

Individual Design is important to break the monotonous sight of industrial produced buildings and create Buildings with Unique Identities. The second important point is the design for the individual user which has his or her individual requirements. To cope with these requirements adaptability is very important. This adaptability will lengthen the useful life of a building.

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

Sustainable Design reduces the negative Environmental Impact and maximizes the positive Environmental Impact following a Triple Top Line approach. Key issues which are addressed are energy use, embodied energy & water, materials, and pollution to water, air, and soil.

FLEXIBLE BUILDINGS

Flexible Buildings means the buildings are able to transform their functionality or shape as the demands of the users and owners change. This aspect makes the

42

buildings attain High Usability, reduce the negative Environmental Impact and costs of renovation by reusing and recycling parts of the building and materials.

The assumption is made that flexibility leads to saving materials through reuse which leads to lower embodied energy & water, saving costs for disposal and purchasing of new materials, when considering the whole life cycle of a building.

STRATEGY PER LIFE CYCLE PHASE

The IDF Building Methodology does not stop by the design of the building itself. It comprehends all phases of a building’s lifecycle and all the corresponding processes. An overview of the IDF Building methodology, including strategies and relevance per life cycle phase, is shown in Table 5.

Life Cycle Phase Strategy per Life Cycle Phase Relevance

Design Analysis of the Site Analysis of Solar Income of the Site Development of scenarios for building use Optimization of building in each of its life cycle phases Concurrent Engineering

Individual (Identity fits the surroundings) Sustainable (Energy Use for heating and cooling) Flexible Building (Adaptable to all scenarios) Sustainable (Energy Use/Emission Reduction) Industrial (Timely and correct decision making/Construct Time, Designing products which please all stakeholders)

Manufacturing Use of Material Saving Processes Use of Recyclable or Reusable Materials Use of Low Weight Materials Use of Less Energy Intensive Materials Use of Automation

Sustainable (Reduce Resource Depletion) Sustainable (Reduce Energy Use & Resource Depletion) Sustainable (Reduce Energy Use) Sustainable (Reduce Energy Use & Emissions) Industrial (Reduce Price & Reduce need for skilled labour)

Transport Low Weight/Volume Local partners and resources

Sustainable (Emission Reduction) Industrial (Management) Sustainable (Emission Reduction)

Assembly Dry Assembly Parallel Assembly Design for Assembly & Disassembly

Industrial (Construction Process) Sustainable (Reduce Resource Depletion & Environmental Burdens) Flexible (Reversible Connections)

Exploitation Low Energy Use Design for Maintenance/ Long Life Design for Disassembly

Sustainable (Reduce Energy Use) Sustainable (Reduce Resource Depletion & Emission Prevention) Flexible (Easy Disassembly and Reassembly to enhance usability)

End of Life Design for Reusability and Exchangeability Sustainable (Reduce Resource Depletion& Emission Prevention)

TABLE 5, STRATEGIES AND RELEVANCE OF THE STRATEGY PER LIFE CYCLE PHASE

43

6.2. “PASSEND WONEN”

‘Passend Wonen’ is a concept for residential buildings which focuses on the changing demands over the lifespan of a building. The concept consists of three different elements (Figure 35) which can be combined to numerous different variations; one level residential buildings, two level residential buildings, apartments, care facilities, etcetera. The element at the left side of the figure is able to connect elements at the same level in all four directions. The element in the middle is used for vertical transportation by a stairs which separates the element into two spaces. This element also houses the installations for two separate living spaces in the box next to the stairs. The program element at the right side is used for the various functions to meet the needs of the residents.

Current developments use the combination of elements which can be found in Figure 36; two horizontal connection elements (blue), one vertical transportation element (red) and one program element (yellow). Figure 36 shows the standard combination of elements. This combination is linked together with other identical standard combinations or mirrored combinations to a block of residential housing.

Figure 34 shows two examples of a block of four units of two level residential housing (only first floor shown). In this picture the so called ‘plugs’ (dark parts) are added which can be used to separate or to connect two adjacent spaces.

The block in the upper part of the picture shows a standard combination of four houses of two levels (only first floor shown). The block in the lower part however is slightly different. The two houses in the middle are combined to two single floor apartments, one on the first floor and one on the second floor. This is realized by only swapping and adding ‘plugs’. Note that only three of the four stairs are accessible and used in this combination and all four units are accessible from the front side of the building.

FIGURE 34, TWO VARIATIONS OF THE SAMERESIDENTIAL HOUSING BLOCK OF FOUR UNITS

FIGURE 35, BASE ELEMENTS OF THE 'PASSENDWONEN' CONCEPT

FIGURE 36, STANDARD CONFIGURATION OFELEMENTS

44

The elements are prefabricated and therefore the process on site consists solely of stacking the elements in the right order.

In the program elements an additional floor will be placed which makes it possible to use the space between them for installations. This also makes it possible to add and remove installations during the lifetime of the building without altering or otherwise damaging the elements.

By using the elements of ‘Passend Wonen’ the building is able to adapt to a change in market needs because a change in market needs means the building only needs to change the links of horizontal communication into a differently connected building. In other words, to make a new combination to meet the new market needs, the only physical changes are the ‘plugs’ in the blue elements, which are designed to be replaceable.

This ability of the concept makes the building transformable even though its base structure is rigid. This transformation capacity enables the building to change the functionality without causing much waste and without the use of additional materials, which makes the concept sustainable on material use.

An addition to this is the energy performance which is above the current standard for new buildings. At this moment a zero‐energy concept is being developed and planned to be finalized in 2011. This will make the building also sustainable on the use of energy.

Recently the acoustic performance of the elements was tested and approved for construction and a scale model of the elements was created.

The concept is ready for a pilot project which may be found in Hardenberg.

The ‘Passend Wonen’ concept will be used as a model development case. In chapter 7 the model will be tested by creating a design for the ‘plug’ using the model guidelines.

6.3. MODEL BREAKDOWN

The model is based on the four key strategies for IDF Building: Industrial, Individual, Environmental, and Flexible. The philosophy is that together these strategies will enable Sustainable Building. The model will be discussed by the four key strategies and their corresponding criteria and sub criteria.

6.3.1. INDUSTRIAL

To rate the industrialization level of a building concept two main criteria are considered; Organisation and Production.

ORGANISATION & DESIGN

The first sub criterion for Organisation is Management. Good management should enhance cooperation throughout the construction industry chain to come to better quality of the building and its components. Another important factor is the management of material flows during the build, use and disposal phase in order to enable high quality material use and reduce material losses. It is important to take responsibility for the whole building, including all of the components and elements.

The second sub criterion is Transport & Handling. It is important to take into account the Construction Workers as stakeholders. Therefore, Handling of components and Ease of Transportation are important factors. Another important aspect is the place of the partners and resources. Local partners and resources enable good cooperation and boost local community and economy.

PRODUCTION

The first sub criterion for Production is the Production Method. For Production Methods it is important the components and elements are produced in an industrialized way, enabling high precision and quality, and reducing the need for skilled craftsmanship. Key factors for this are the

45

use of autonomous processes and prefabrication. During the assembly process a dry stacking method is preferred for a clean building process, and enables a disassembly process.

The second sub criterion for Production is Production Quality. Key factors for Production Quality are the environment in which the components and elements are produced. In a conditioned environment a higher and more constant quality of products can be delivered.

6.3.2. INDIVIDUAL

To rate the level of individuality of a building, the adaptability to the surroundings and the user requirements are considered.

ADAPTABILITY

The first sub criterion for Adaptability is the Building Identity. The Building Identity is determined by the architectural quality, the site analysis, and the level of customization during the initial building process, the use phase, and a possible renovation process.

The second sub criterion for Adaptability is the Functional Adaptability. This is determined by the possibilities and effort needed for the adaptation of the structure and installations. Short term scenarios determine the suitability to long term scenarios like time independent, specific, or temporally buildings.

The third sub criterion for Adaptability is the Indoor Climate. The key factors for Indoor Climate are adaptability level and speed of adaptation of the indoor climate

6.3.3. ENVIRONMENT

To rate the level of environmental impact four main criteria are considered; Energy, Materials, Pollution, and Water.

ENERGY

The first sub criterion for Energy is the Embodied Energy. This consists of the energy used in harvesting, processing and transportation of materials.

The second sub criterion is the Energy During Use. This is determined by the need for electrical energy, energy need for temperature regulation, and the energy need for the transformation process.

The third sub criterion is the Source of the Energy. The Energy Source is important for evaluating the quality of the energy and the corresponding depletion and pollution caused by the energy source.

MATERIALS

The first sub criterion is the Material Source which is important for corporate social responsibility. For this evaluation, the value of the source and the distance to the source are considered.

The second sub criterion is the Material Quality. For this sub criterion the residual value of the material is considered based on the possible applications of the material after the useful life.

The third sub criterion is the Material Quantity. The lower the amount of material used the lower the environmental impact.

POLLUTION

The first sub criterion is the Pollution During Build process, which evaluates the pollution of the material production and processing. And the pollution caused by the building process based on the use of human resources and machinery.

The second sub criterion is the Pollution During Use Phase. The most important factors during use for pollution (besides energy) are maintenance and the transformation process.

The third sub criterion is the End of Life Pollution. For this criterion the ease of disassembly and the final disposal of the used materials are considered important.

46

WATER

The first sub criterion is Water During Use. For this sub criterion the use of Cycles, and the dependency on public services are evaluated. A strategy in which water is used in an Independent Continuous Loop is considered the highest possible goal.

The second sub criterion is the Water footprint. For this criterion the amount of water needed to produce the applied materials is calculated.

6.3.4. FLEXIBLE

Durmisevic states in her research about Transformable Buildings that: “a building can be transformed if its parts can be defined as independent parts of a building structure, and if the interfaces between parts are demountable. Independence of building products is determined by decomposition of material levels and technical decomposition; while exchangeability is determined by physical decomposition. Accordingly, indicators of independence are: functional decomposition, systematisation, hierarchy, base element specification, and life cycle coordination. Indicators of exchangeability are: type of connections, assembly sequences, and geometry of product edge.”

This part of the model is mainly based on the research into Design for Disassembly by Elma Durmisevic and this statement.

To rate the level of Flexibility five main criteria are considered; Building Hierarchy, Functionality, Interfaces, Material Levels, and Reusability.

BUILDING HIERARCHY

The first sub criterion of Building Hierarchy is the Life Cycle Coordination. For this criterion the assembly sequence of elements and components is important considering the Use Life Cycle and the Technical Life Cycle. Life Cycle Coordination means that elements and components with shorter lifecycles are replaceable without having to

disassemble or replace elements and components with longer lifecycles.

The second sub criterion is the Relational Pattern. This criterion refers to the connections between elements and components. Having interfaces only in one functional group is rated high while having interfaces with other functional groups on the building level is rated low.

FUNCTIONALITY

The sub criterion of Functionality is the Functional Transformability. The Functional Transformability is solely based on how many and how well the building or system is able to perform different functions on itself.

INTERFACES

The first sub criterion of Interfaces is the Assembly Process. For the Assembly Process the Direction based on the assembly type and the Sequences based on material levels are important.

The second sub criterion is the Geometry. The Geometry of the Product Edge and Standardisation of the Product Edge are the deciding factors for the Geometry criteria.

The third sub criteria are the Connections. For Connections the Type of Connection, Accessibility of Fixings, Tolerance and Morphology of Joints are important.

MATERIAL LEVELS

The first sub criterion of Material Levels is the Functional Decomposition which consists of Functional Dependence and Functional Separation.

The Second sub criterion is Systematisation, which consists of Structure of Material Levels and the Type of Clustering.

REUSABILITY

Reusability is determined by the Reuse Potential. For the Reuse Potential the amount of Damage to the product after its Use Lifecycle, the Material Level of the Reusability, and the Reparability of the

47

building and its components and elements. A good score means there is little to no damage dealt to the products, the damage dealt is fully reparable and the building as a whole can be reused.

6.3.5. STRATEGY

For determining weight factors for all main and sub criteria, it is important to keep in mind the strategy and scenarios for the building. For instance, when a strategy focuses on replaceability and exchangeability, multi‐functionality becomes less important. Therefore it is important to know which transformation strategy is preferred in the building.

6.4. HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE IDF MODEL

The hierarchical structure of the model is shown in Figure 37. In this figure Strategy is placed at the highest level because this influences the weighing factors. Also, the hierarchy is shown from left to right starting at IDF, which is the complete methodology, the first layer are the key strategies, the second layer are the main criteria for the strategies, the third layer are the sub criteria for the main criteria, and the fourth layer are the determining factors for the sub criteria.

48

FIGURE 37, HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE IDF METHODOLOGY

49

6.5. SOURCES OF SCORES

All scores are valued in a range from 0.1 to 1.0, where 0.1 is the worst score and 1.0 is the best score. In general the way to determine the values for the different possibilities was to first make a list of different options, secondly ordering them from worst to best options, thirdly divide 0.1 to 1.0 in a number of steps corresponding to the number of possibilities, and lastly allocate a value to all possibilities. This section provides insight in how the options are ordered. For some determining factors the scores are determined in a different way, when this is the case this is also described in this section. Appendix (III) provides a table with all determining factors the options and their respective scores.

6.5.1. MANAGEMENT

Cooperation and responsibility in the design process and material flow will result in more sustainable design through organisation.

BUILDING CHAIN INTEGRATION

Concurrent Engineering(82) enables better industrialisation through cooperation and involvement of all stakeholders. Therefore, the more stakeholders are included in the design and development phase the higher the score.

MANAGEMENT OF MATERIALS DURING USE

By maintaining ownership or having a maintenance contract, the building contractor is able to industrialize the maintenance and transformation process. Therefore, a closer contact during the use phase of a building leads to a higher score.

MANAGEMENT OF MATERIALS AFTER USE

By having a return policy the building contractor and its subcontractors are inspired to design products which are

desirable even after its first useful life, enabling an industrialized return system. Therefore a higher responsibility leads to a higher score.

6.5.2. TRANSPORT & HANDLING

TRAVELLING DISTANCE

Reducing distance between producers of base materials and subcontractors enables better cooperation in design and material flow. Also, it strengthens the local society on economical and social base.

HANDLING OF COMPONENTS

Designing for ease of handling, moderates the assembly process, which leads to faster assembly and a more structured assembly process.

6.5.3. PRODUCTION METHODS

PRODUCTION PROCESS INDUSTRIALIZATION

A higher level of industrialization of the production process reduces the need for skilled craftsmanship.

PRODUCTION PROCESS LOCATION

Prefabrication enables a better industrialization of the production process and a smoother assembly process.

BUILDING ASSEMBLY PROCESS

A dry stacking method speeds up the building process. The bigger the components, the faster the building process will be.

6.5.4. PRODUCTION QUALITY

CONDITIONS DURING PRODUCTION

Better conditions during the production of elements and components, ensures higher quality of these parts of the building and creates a better working environment for the employees.

50

CONDITIONS DURING ASSEMBLY

Better conditions during the assembly of the building create a better working environment for the construction site workers and lead to a better sight of the construction site.

6.5.5. BUILDING IDENTITY

CUSTOMIZATION LEVEL

The higher the customization level, the better a unique building identity can be created. Choice of colour is considered lowest level of customization, the choice of material is second level and the choice of determining the floor plan is considered the third level of freedom. The Customization Level is not always the same during the Initial Building process, the Use phase, and a Renovation project. Therefore this determining factor is divided into three determining factors.

ARCHITECTURAL QUALITY

This is a subjective factor, and should be rated be an independent person. However the architectural quality is very important for the Building Identity

SITE ANALYSIS

The analysis of the site is important in creating a building identity which fits the environment. The analysis of terrain, natural vegetation, water flows, and solar orbit are considered important for a building uniquely designed for its building site.

6.5.6. FUNCTIONAL ADAPTABILITY

SCENARIOS FOR ADAPTING THE STRUCTURE

Short term scenarios for adapting the structure are important since during the lifetime of the building the users and requirements change. The higher the level of freedom through adaptability the less likely the building is going to be demolished. (3)(16).

The lowest score of 0.1 is allocated to not being adaptable at all. Than four options with an improving rate of adaptability are rated with evenly divided scores between 0.1 and 1.0. Lastly there are two options which combine adaptability scenarios. These are all rated 1.0 since this will enable a high enough adaptability level to ensure a longer useful life for the building.

EFFORT OF STRUCTURAL ADAPTATION

The effort needed to make structural adaptations is based on the size (element or component) and the need for new input (relocate or replace).

ADAPTATION LEVEL OF INSTALLATIONS

Adaptation level is based on its adjustability to foreseen and unforeseen new functionalities.

EFFORT OF INSTALLATION ADAPTATION

The effort of the adaptation of installations to new needs is based on whether it needs to be reconnected either through software or a physical reconnection, or the whole installation needs to be relocated or replaced.

6.5.7. INDOOR CLIMATE

ADAPTABILITY LEVEL

The adaptability level of the indoor climate is considered high if it is controlled by individual users for a small part of the building and low if it is controlled on a whole building level.

ADAPTABILITY SPEED

The faster the indoor climate changes to the user demands, the better.

51

6.5.8. EMBODIED ENERGY

EMBODIED ENERGY IN MATERIALS/M3

Embodied Energy of a material consists of the quantity of energy needed for the production, storage, and disposal of a material.(83) The data is divided along the 0.1 to 1.0 scale by a logarithmic scale for energy use in Megawatt per cubic Meter. The source for this data is the Inventory of Carbon and Energy (84). A table with the calculated scores is provided in appendix (IV)

EMBODIED ENERGY IN PROCESSES

Embodied Energy in Processes consists of the quantity of energy needed in the production process of elements and components. For this report a global assumption is made that thermal processes need the most additional energy, mechanical processes need less additional energy than thermal processes, and chemical processes need only little to no additional energy.

EMBODIED ENERGY IN TRANSPORT

Embodied energy is the quantity of Energy used in transporting the materials, elements and components from their source to the building site. This depends on distance and way of transport. Since the distance is already taken into account in another determining factor this factor concentrates on the way of transport. The source for the scores is the Energy Manual (83). A table which includes the calculation of the scores can be found in appendix (IV)

6.5.9. ENERGY DURING USE

ELECTRICAL ENERGY NEED

The strategy for reducing the need for Electrical Energy is rated from no strategy at all, to energy reducing by efficiency, to self sufficient and even energy producing.

ENERGY NEED FOR HEATING/COOLING

Using fossil fuels for heating is very inefficient, therefore this scores very low. Electricity can be gained in a sustainable way, but heating through Electricity is still inefficient. Heating and Cooling through a heat/cold storage in the ground with low temperature differences is rated best.

ENERGY NEEDED FOR TRANSFORMATION PROCESS

By using a good strategy for transformation as little as possible needs to be destroyed. The less is destroyed and the more is reused the higher the score.

6.5.10. ENERGY SOURCES

ENERGY SOURCE

The source of Energy is rated based on the renewability and safety of the source. (85) There are two levels of options. All options with a score of 1.0 are renewable energy sources. The other options, non‐renewable energy sources, are divided along the 0.1 to 1.0 scale.

6.5.11. MATERIAL SOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE OF SOURCE

To deal with the depletion of resources the best sources of materials are either the recycled material pool or plantations for biomaterials like wood and bio‐composites. Worse are the materials which need harvesting and thereby destroy the environment.

DISTANCE FROM SOURCE

A reduced distance from the source of materials enables materials, which are suited for their specific climates & culture, to boost local economy.

6.5.12. MATERIAL QUALITY

52

END OF LIFE VALUE OF MATERIAL

After its technical lifetime the product is disposed. The question is what is done with the leftover materials. The rest value is determined by the usefulness of the possible application.

When the materials are suitable for biodegradation there is a possible positive effect on the environment.

A reuse of materials, elements, or components without quality loss, and without the need for processing is the next best thing.

Processing in the form of upcycling, recycling, or downcycling scores lower because it needs processing. Upcycling provides a higher material quality after processing, recycling provides an equal material quality, and downcycling provides a lower material quality. If the material is suitable for upcycling the disposal prevents the production of virgin materials of equal or better quality. In material downcycling the process prevents production of lower grade virgin materials but it does not lower the need for the actual product.

Immobilization of the product, the product itself is harmful and needs to be locked away to prevent harm to the environment.

By incineration the material is lost and particles will pollute the air, for some materials there is, however, a possibility to regain energy during the process.

Crushing creates a granulate which can be used as a very low grade ‘filler’ material which is not comparable to the original material quality.

The least preferable option is disposing the material in a landfill, which means the loss of material.

6.5.13. MATERIAL QUANTITY

AVARAGE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL USED PER M2

On average, temporary buildings have a weight between 150 and 200 kilograms per square meter. Several new building methods like ‘SlimBouwen’ reach around 500 kilograms per square meter, older conservative building methods weigh in the range of 1000 to 1500 kilograms per square meter.(86) The lower the weight of a building the lower amount of material is used, which leads to lower pollution, lower embodied energy, and lower resource depletion.

SHARE OF A CERTAIN MATERIAL

Since most buildings and building systems are made from several materials a possibility to allocate the total weight over several materials is needed.

6.5.14. POLLUTION DURING BUILD PROCESS

POLLUTION CAUSED BY MATERIAL PRODUCTION (MATERIAL/KG)

For the calculation caused by the production of the different materials, the Life Cycle Assessment tool SimaPro version 7.2.4 by PRé Consultants has been used. The used database and calculation method is the Eco‐indicator 95 method version 2.04 of February 2008. For the allocation of the values 0.1 to 1.0 a logarithmic scale is used. The calculation can be found in appendix (IV)

POLLUTION CAUSED BY ELEMENT/COMPONENT PRODUCTION

Because energy is already taken into account, the pollution by energy usage is not included in this factor. The assumption is made that Chemical processes create the most pollution to water, air and soil, mechanical processes create some pollution like dust. And Thermal processes create the least pollution.

53

POLLUTION CAUSED BY BUILDING PROCESS

The assumption is made that when less machinery is used less pollution is created by the building process.

6.5.15. POLLUTION DURING USE PHASE

POLLUTION CAUSED BY MAINTENANCE

During maintenance, the most pollution will form when new elements or components are needed because these need to be made or produced. Maintenance like repainting creates some pollution. If there is no maintenance needed at all, there will not be pollution either.

POLLUTION CAUSED BY TRANSFORMATION PROCESS

Since all buildings are somehow transformed during their lifetime the transformation process has a serious impact on the total pollution. When transforming is possible through element relocation it is least polluting. If elements need to be replaced new elements need to be made and so it creates some pollution. When a partly breakdown and rebuild of the building is necessary, there surely will be pollution through this process and during disposal of the old materials and production of the new materials.

6.5.16. END OF LIFE POLLUTION

POLLUTION DURING DISASSEMBLY

The easier the disassembly is and the less machinery and human resources needed the less pollution will be created.

6.5.17. WATER DURING USE

WATER CYCLES

Responsibility by reducing the stress on the water treatment plants by treating your own water. Worst is the use and then disposal of water to public sewage system. Better is to have some kind of nutrient

recovery system or treatment system to filter the water. Best is a design for a closed loop system or when the quality of the disposed water has the same or better quality as the incoming water.

WATER DEPENDENCY

This factor rates the dependency on public water services. When the building is completely dependent on the public services the score is low. When the design releases some of the stress on the public services by using grey water streams the score is better. And when the building design has a complete independent water strategy, it is rated best.

6.5.18. WATER FOOTPRINT

WATER FOOTPRINT OF MATERIAL

The water footprint of a material is a total of three footprints. The green water footprint, which is the amount of rainwater used, the blue water footprint, which is the amount of surface and ground water which is used, and the grey water footprint, which is the amount of water needed to assimilate the load of pollutants created by the material production. The total value represents all water used to produce the material. The values for the chosen materials range from 0.3 to 1450(87). To get values ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 first the logarithm is taken. Then the values are normalized between 0.1 and 1.0. The table and calculation can be found in appendix (IV).

6.5.19. LIFE CYCLE COORDINATION

TECHNICAL LIFE CYCLE COORDINATION

Technical Life Cycle Coordination means that the products which last longest are assembled first. This reduces the chance on forced disassembly when a component or element is still in good shape and does not need replacement. The scores are based on the research into Design for Disassembly (16), a table with these scores can be found in appendix (IV).

54

USE LIFE CYCLE COORDINATION

Use Life Cycle Coordination means that the products which are normally replaced first are assembled last. This reduces the chance on forced disassembly when it is not yet desired to replace a component or element. The scores are based on the research into Design for Disassembly (16), a table with these scores can be found in appendix (IV).

6.5.20. RELATIONAL PATTERN

RELATIONS BASED ON FUNCTIONAL GROUPS

FIGURE 38, RELATIONS BASED ON TWO FUNCTIONAL GROUPS (A=NOT LINKED, B=ELEMENT TO BASE, C=ELEMENT TO COMPONENT OF DIFFERENT FUNCTIONAL GROUP, D=ELEMENT TO ELEMENT OF DIFFERENT FUNCTIONAL GROUP)

When there are several functional groups there could be connections between them. This is undesirable because different functional groups have different use life expectancies. In Figure 38 the different options are shown for two functional groups, left and right, which are connected to a base component. When two functional groups are not linked (a) it is best. When a functional group is linked to a base component (b) it is a little harder to remove the components. When the element of one functional group is linked to a component of another functional group (c) there is always an extra connection which needs to be disconnected when a component needs to be replaced. And when two elements of different functional groups are connected

(d) this connection has to be disconnected when any element or component needs to be replaced. The scores are based on the research into Design for Disassembly (16), a table with these scores can be found in appendix (IV).

6.5.21. FUNCTIONAL TRANSFORMATION

MULTI‐FUNCTIONALITY

Instead of replacing elements or components, another solution to adapt to different user requirements is to enable multiple functions through one component or element. The more functions an element or component is able to perform the higher its flexibility is.

6.5.22. ASSEMBLY

ASSEMBLY TYPE

The type of assembly partly determines the ease of disassembly. In Figure 39 a graphic representation of five possible assembly types are shown. In a parallel assembly type (a) all assemblies can be disassembled without interference of other assemblies. In a sequential assembly (b) the last elements need to be disassembled first, etc. Having an interlocked type of assembly (c) both elements ‘locking’ the higher element need to be disassembled before it can be removed. In a closed assembly (d) the closing element or component always needs to be removed before other elements can be removed. And in a gravitational type of assembly (e), all elements resting on the desired element to replace needs to be removed before the element can be replaced. The scores are based on the research into Design for Disassembly (16), a table with these scores can be found in appendix (IV).

55

FIGURE 39, ASSEMBLY TYPES (A=PARALLEL, B=SEQUENTIAL, C=INTERLOCKED, D=CLOSED, E=GRAVITATIONAL)

ASSEMBLY SEQUENCE REGARDING MATERIAL LEVELS

When a building or system consists of bigger parts it is faster to disassemble. Therefore component to component connections are preferable to element to element connections, etc. The scores are based on the research into Design for Disassembly (16), a table with these scores can be found in appendix (IV).

6.5.23. CONNECTIONS

ACCESSABILITY OF CONNECTION

The better a connection is accessible the easier it is to disconnect. However when a connection is not directly accessible it is better to access it with damaging as little as possible of the other elements. The scores are based on the research into Design for Disassembly (16), a table with these scores can be found in appendix (IV).

MORPHOLOGY OF JOINT

As the area of connection is smaller the effort to undo the connection becomes less. The scores are based on the research into Design for Disassembly (16), a table with these scores can be found in appendix (IV).

STANDARDISATION OF CONNECTION

When a connection is standardised, the employees assembling and disassembling the connection become more experienced with the specific connection. In addition to that it is easier to replace an element when the new element has the same connection as the old element. This will improve the exchangeability.

TYPE OF CONNECTION

FIGURE 40, SEVEN TYPES OF CONNECTIONS (CITED FROM (16))(A=ACCESSORY EXTERNAL CONNECTION, B=DIRECT CONNECTION WITH ADDITIONAL FIXING DEVICE, C=DIRECT INTEGRAL CONNECTION WITH INSERTS, D=INDIRECT CONNECTION VIA DEPENDEND THIRD COMPONENT, E=ACCESSORY INTERNAL CONNECTION, F=FILLED CHEMICAL CONNECTION, G=DIRECT CHEMICAL CONNECTION)

In Figure 40 a graphical representation and dependency of seven types of connections are shown. The connection types are listed from A to G where A is easy to disconnect

56

without interfering with other elements and G is hard to disconnect and probably damages the element. The scores are based on the research into Design for Disassembly (16), a table with these scores can be found in appendix (IV).

TOLERANCE

The higher the tolerance the easier it is to replace elements with other elements. The scores are based on the research into Design for Disassembly (16), a table with these scores can be found in appendix (IV).

6.5.24. GEOMETRY

GEOMETRY OF PRODUCT EDGE

The product edge partly determines how hard it is to disassemble and replace an element. In example A, B and C of Figure 41 the element is replaceable without having to disassemble other elements. In example D, E and F the elements at the left or right side of the dark element need to be removed before the dark part can be removed. Reducing the amount of constraints for removal improves the flexibility. The scores are based on the research into Design for Disassembly (16), a table with these scores can be found in appendix (IV).

FIGURE 41, SIX POSSIBLE GEOMETRIES FOR PRODUCT EDGES (CITED FROM (16)) (A=OPEN LINEAR, B=SYMMETRICAL OVERLAPPING, C=OVERLAPPING ON ONE SIDE, D=UNSYMMETRICAL OVERLAPPING, E =INSERT ON ONE SIDE, F=INSERT ON TWO SIDES)

STANDARDISATION OF PRODUCT EDGE

When the product edge is standardised it is easier to replace an element when the new element has the same connection as the old element. This will improve the exchangeability. The scores are based on the research into Design for Disassembly (16), a table with these scores can be found in appendix (IV).

6.5.25. FUNCTIONAL DECOMPOSITION

FUNCTIONAL DEPENDENCE

The lower the functional dependency is the easier it is to remove or replace elements or components. Figure 42 shows a graphical representation of four possibilities. The scores are based on the research into Design for Disassembly (16), a table with these scores can be found in appendix (IV).

FIGURE 42, LEVELS OF FUNCTIONAL DEPENDENCE (CITED FROM (16)) (A=MODULAR ZONING, B=PLANNED INTERPENETRATION, C=UNPLANNED INTERPENETRATION, D=TOTAL INTEGRATION)

57

FUNCTIONAL SEPERATION

User requirements change the need for certain functions. Therefore it is better to separate building components and elements with different functionalities. Less preferable is the integration of different functionalities into one element, but if it is done it is best to integrate functions with the same life cycle into one element, because it does not change the lifecycle of the element itself. It is worse to integrate functions with different life cycles into one element because the lowest lifecycle of functions will determine the lifecycle of the total element. The scores are based on the research into Design for Disassembly (16), a table with these scores can be found in appendix (IV).

6.5.26. SYSTEMATISATION

CLUSTERING

Clustering is an effective way to reduce construction time. When clustering parts of a building it is best to do so based on functionality because it enables the best use life expectancy for the components. A little less is the clustering according material life cycles because it enables an optimal technical life cycle, however it is possible to shorten the use life cycle. Even less desirable is to cluster for fast assembly because it is only smart to do so for the building phase without thinking about use and technical life cycles. The scores are based on the research into Design for Disassembly (16), a table with these scores can be found in appendix (IV).

STRUCTURE AND MATERIAL LEVELS

Working with components based on major building functions enables fast assembly and disassembly. Working with smaller parts like elements or even base materials will lengthen the construction and disassembly of the building. The scores are based on the research into Design for Disassembly (16), a table with these scores can be found in appendix (IV).

6.5.27. REUSE POTENTIAL

DAMAGE

Reducing the amount of damage done to a product when disassembled enables a useful second life of a component, element, or material of the building. It also heightens the probability of a second life.

LEVEL OF REUSABILITY

The higher the level of reusability the higher the value of the remains of the used building.

REPARABILITY

When materials, elements, or components are damaged, the reparability determines the likeliness of reuse in its current form.

58

6.6. MODEL DEVELOPMENT

During the development of the model several challenges arose. In this section will be discussed how these challenges are handled and how the model works. In addition a developers guideline for the model is included in the appendix (V).

6.6.1. RELATION TO SUSTAINABILITY

The first important challenge is to relate the IDF Building methodology to sustainability. In chapter 5, an example of an IDF Building project was assessed on its sustainability to show a profile of IDF Building onto the sustainable building scale. However it is important to know how the IDF Building methodology aims to reach for sustainable building. Since there is a lot more to sustainable building than the initial environmental impact, the IDF Building methodology can be described as follows: the IDF Building methodology aims for sustainability by combining Industrial processes, care for Individual user needs, care for the Environment and Flexibility in building concepts, to ensure a long useful life for buildings. This means that some initial impact on the environment is accepted as long as the building is very adaptable and flexible.

6.6.2. BUILDING OR SYSTEM LEVEL

Two real live projects were used during the model development. The ‘Passend Wonen’ concept and the IDF Bathroom, which is a project of the IDF workgroup within Pioneering. While assessing these projects, one major difference appeared. The ‘Passend Wonen’ concept is a concept on a Building Level, while the IDF Bathroom is a concept on a system level. It appeared that the two concepts affected different groups of determining factors. Some determining factors could only vaguely be determined on a building level and some determining factors could not be determined on system level at all. Because of this, the model now

offers the choice to rate on a building or system level.

6.6.3. CALCULATIONS

The next challenges to overcome are how to gain one score for IDF Building from all criteria, sub‐criteria, and determining factors. How to deal with different strategies, and how to deal with relations between criteria.

SUBSCORES

All determining factors score between 0.1 and 1.0. Because the IDF Building methodology grows over time it is decided to also have a final score for IDF Building between 0.1 and 1.0. This means that a building can only be 100% IDF and when new determining factors arise the new score is also maximal 100% IDF. If an absolute score is used there should be an additional indicator to divide the scores into different levels. These indicators than should also be updated over time.

To calculate the score of a sub‐criterion the following calculation is made where n is the number of determining factors (DF) for the specific sub‐criterion:

1 2

For the main criterion the following calculation is made where n is the number of sub‐criteria(SC):

1 2

For the IDF Key factors (Industrial, Individual, Environment, Flexible) the following calculation is made:

1 2

In the end the IDF score is calculated by the following calculation:

59

4 4

4 4

WEIGHING FACTORS

For Flexibility (the ability to adapt to different user requirements) two main strategies are possible which both can lead to 100% flexible buildings: Multi‐functionality (the ability to perform multiple functions) and Transformability (the ability to transform in such a way that the new user requirements are met). Dependent on the chosen strategy, the flexibility is created by multi‐functionality, transformability, or a combination of those two. Since this influences the importance of the determining factors this should have some impact on the weighing of the sub scores. This results in additional question of which the answer alters the weighing of the criteria. This results in a different formula for Flexibility:

1 2 3 4 5

In this formula the weighing factors a and b are not the same. There are four criteria concerning the transformability (a) and one for multi‐functionality (b) These two factors are linked since the sum of all weighing factors has to be one:

4 1

The weighing factors are calculated based on the following input:

Number of weighing factors Number of influenced weighing

factors Minimum weighing factor Number of options for the

determining factor

Since there are five weighing factors which are all influenced by the chosen strategy the sum of all weighing factors has to be one.

A minimum of five percent is set as weighing factor for all criteria.

There are five different options for the strategy.

This results in the weighing factors shown in Table 6.

Choice a b

1 0,05 0,80

2 0,14 0,44

3 0,20 0,20

4 0,22 0,11

5 0,24 0,05

TABLE 6, WEIGHING FACTORS

RELATIONS BETWEEN CRITERIA

The determining factors are providing information for the calculation of the sub‐criteria. However some of the determining factors have influence on other factors. This is a major issue for the weight of elements. For instance: it is not only the material that determines the amount of pollution, embodied energy and embodied water, but also the amount of material. The more material is used, the higher the pollution, embodied energy and embodied water. This is a direct proportional relation. Therefore the weight is used as a multiplication factor instead of a determining factor.

Within flexibility there are a lot of relations between the determining factors. Two examples:

For instance a connection which can be extremely easy disconnected should score low since it is not accessible. In this example it is not important how easy the connection is disconnected since it is not possible at all. Another example concerns the reuse potential. When elements or components are not repairable they are not reusable as soon as they are damaged.

To deal with this highly complex system of relations the model should be extended to a model with an input dependent interface, and the model should be converted from a static to a dynamic model concerning

60

determining factors. It is decided not to include this alteration and recommend this as a possibility for future improvement.

6.6.4. USER INTERACTION

The user interaction poses another challenge divided over two main topics. User Input & Interface, and Model Output.

USER INPUT & INTERFACE

User Input & Interface concerns several questions, first what information is needed from the user? Second, what possibilities are necessary for the user to enable the input of a whole concept or a system? Third, how to get the information as correctly as possible?

The user needs to provide information to enable the rating of the determining factors. For instance to rate the embodied energy of a concept it is necessary to have information about which materials, what kind of production processes, and distribution is used. However the grouping following IDF is not always the most logical grouping. For instance materials should be covered in materials part, but the management of materials after use and responsibility is more a management kind of criteria. It is better to ask at once instead of in different groups, after that it is fully possible to calculate scores in different groups. Grouping of criteria for the interface is different than the grouping of the calculation model and is based on clustering of determining factors. In total there are fourteen clusters created :

Adaptability Effort Adaptability Possibilities Architectural Quality Assembly Building Process Building Structure Development Team Distribution Energy Exchangeability Materials

Production Processes Reusability Water

During the development of the model it became clear that for some categories a building or system has a combination of possibilities within a determining factor. For instance, a system consists of three or four different materials. Therefore it should be possible to enter a number of materials and select several materials. The model then has to calculate a total score for these materials concerning pollution, embodied energy and embodied water. The same is true for production processes and internal or external connections.

Another challenge is the level of required input data. Since it is a scientific model the terminology is different than the terminology of the average employee. Therefore it is of great importance to describe all determining factors in such a way that it is understandable for most people. In addition to that are some terms too abstract to relate to real world solutions, or the other way around, too focussed on one specific solution where different solutions do not fit the model.

MODEL OUTPUT

A model without understandable output is useless. Therefore some extra attention is paid to the output of the model. Since there are a lot of different determining factors, which are divided over a lot of sub‐criteria some kind of overview has to be created. There are between one to five determining factors per sub‐criteria. In addition it is necessary to see the scores relative to the maximum scores to see what the possibilities for improvement are.

At first a report based on column structure was created (Figure 43), this created an overview in which from top to bottom the hierarchy was used to show where possible improvements could be made. The downside is that it generated a report of seven pages for one building/system.

61

FIGURE 43, EXAMPLE REPORT PAGE OF INDUSTRIAL

The second option was to group all determining factors which belong to the same main criteria and plot a radar diagram. (Figure 44) In this way the four diagrams show a profile of the building or system, including the factors which can be improved, in one page.

FIGURE 44, RADAR DIAGRAM OUTPUT EXAMPLE

A possibility for additional output is to provide information about suitable long term scenarios. This can be based on the determining factors by a calculation or programmed add‐on for the model.

Another possibility for additional output is to directly provide information for improvement.

6.7. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT THE IDF BUILDING METHODOLOGY

The IDF Model includes the four main strategies stated in the beginning of this chapter; Industrial Production; Design for

individual identity; Sustainable design; and Flexible buildings. The sub‐strategies are connected to the main criteria of the IDF Model in Table 7.

The developed IDF Model creates a structure for a tool which includes more than just the initial impact of a building. The developed IDF Model incorporates the whole life cycle of the building and its materials. Therefore not only the initial impact, but also the use scenario is used to determine the sustainability of a building or system.

The hierarchy of the model as well as the calculation of the scores enables expansion of the model if new main criteria, sub criteria, or determining factors are discovered. The score will always be between 0.1 and 1.0 where 1.0 is the ideal IDF Building or System.

From all scores only the scores related to Embodied Energy of Materials & Transport, Pollution caused by Materials, Water Footprint of Materials, Relations Based on Functional Groups, Assembly Type, Assembly Sequence, Accessibility of Connections, Morphology of Joint, Type of Connection, Tolerance, Geometry of Product Edge, Standardisation of Product Edge, Functional Dependence, Functional Seperation, Clustering, and Structure & Material Levels are weighted properly. It would be best to also have the other determining factors weighted properly.

In addition to the previous point an additional research into the relations between determining factors could improve the model. In some cases determining factors directly influence each other, for instance the total amount of materials influences the total pollution caused by the usage of materials. In other cases the relations are more complex, for instance when a connection could be easily disconnected but it is not accessible the total effort needed for disassembly should be determined by the effort to access the connection.

62

The inclusion of Strategies into the IDF Model has proven to be very important since flexibility and adaptability could be reached in different ways. It is important for an assessment model as well as for a designers tool that the tool does not restrict the possible solutions. Therefore the tool should always enable the inclusion of new strategies in which another selection of determining factors is relevant.

The IDF Model also allows further development for feedback. The information gained by the model could be used to determine the best suitable strategy for a building concept.

All in all the model answers to a lot of questions, but it raises as much new questions in the process which hopefully allows the development of even better models and tools.

Main Criteria IDF Strategies

Organisation Concurrent Engineering

Production and Building Use of Material Saving Processes

Use of Low Weight Materials

Use of Automation

Local partners and resources

Adaptability Analysis of the Site

Development of scenarios for building use

Energy Analysis of Solar Income of the Site

Optimization of building in each of its life cycle phases

Use of Less Energy Intensive Materials

Low Energy Use

Materials Use of Recyclable or Reusable Materials

Pollution Use of Low Weight Materials

Water Use of Less Water Intensive Materials

Building Hierarchy Dry Assembly Parallel Assembly

Functionality Design for Maintenance/ Long Life

Interfaces Design for Disassembly

Material Levels Design for Assembly & Disassembly

Reusability Design for Maintenance/ Long Life

Design for Reusability and Exchangeability

TABLE 7, CONNECTION OF IDF STRATEGIES TO THE MAIN CRITERIA OF THE IDF MODEL

63

7. TEST CASE DESIGN

This chapter is about creating an IDF system based on the IDF criteria. The ‘plug’ of the ‘Passend Wonen’ concept is chosen to be designed following the IDF criteria.

7.1. THE ‘PLUG’

To put theory to practice a design for the system ‘the plug’ is made, and evaluated (Chapter 8) using the IDF tool. First the design parameters are described, and secondly the concepts are described.

7.2. DESIGN PARAMETERS

Several important design parameters need to be met by the designs. The Dutch building code desires fireproofing, thermal insulation and sound insulation. The ‘Van Dijk Groep’ desires certain parameters for the size, handle ability, and flexibility of the elements.

7.2.1. FIREPROOFING

The Dutch building code desires a fire resistance class two following the NEN 6065 regulations. Furthermore, a resistance versus fire throughput of at least 60 minutes between two fire compartments is desired by the NEN 6068 regulations.

The fire class and time of fire throughput cannot be calculated. A new concept needs either to be tested or a proven solution with a certificate needs to be implemented.

7.2.2. THERMAL INSULATION

The thermal insulation between two different houses needs to meet the requirements of NEN 1068. The heat transfer coefficient should be maximal 4.2 W/m2*K.

The relation between thermal transmittance and thermal resistance can be described by the following formula:

1

Where:

U = thermal transmittance value (W/m2.K) R = thermal resistance (m2.K/W)

Because U needs to be smaller than 4,2 W/m2*K the value for R has to be higher than 0,2381 m2.K/W.

The formula for calculating R is:

Where:

R = thermal resistance (m2.K/W) d = thickness of the material (m) k = thermal conductivity of the material (W/m.K)

The thickness (d) of the component is 0.150 m. Therefore the average thermal conductivity should be:

0.1500.2381

0.63

This means that except for metal most materials are suitable as insulator.

7.2.3. SOUND INSULATION

The Dutch building code provides several values for sound insulation. However the way to determine whether a building meets these values is a real life measurement. Since the ‘Plug’ is still in concept phase this cannot be done. Since the concepts need to provide enough sound insulation a rough calculation is based on building regulations for England and Wales. This section about sound is based on the book Environmental Science in Building by Randall McMullan (88)

64

Sound reduction index (R) is a measure of the insulation against the direct transmission of airborne sound. A working value for the Sound reduction index (R), at a frequency of 500 Hz, can be obtained by using the formula:

14.5 log 10 10

Where M = mass per unit area of the partition (kg/m2)

The effectiveness of sound insulation partly depends upon frequency. The rule of thumb is that sound insulation increases by about 5 dB whenever the frequency is doubled. The building regulations for England and Wales state that walls between two dwellings need to have a sound reduction index of at least 45 dB.

Good sound insulation depends upon four general principles: heaviness, air tightness, uniformity, flexibility, discontinuity.

Heaviness influences the amplitude of sound waves which affects the ‘loudness’ of a sound. Rule of thumb is that sound insulation increases by 5 dB whenever the mass is doubled.

Air tightness is very important for airborne sound. For example: a small hole in a wall which represents only a very small part of the total area of the wall, the average sound reduction index of the wall could be halved. The type of sealing used to increase thermal insulation is also effective for sound insulation. In general, ‘sound leaks’ should be considered as carefully as leaks of water.

Uniformity, the overall sound insulation of a construction is greatly reduced by small areas of poor insulation. For example, an unsealed door occupying 25 per cent of the area of a half‐brick wall halves the sound reduction index for airborne sound.

Flexible materials like rubber or foams, combined with a high mass, are best for high sound insulation.

Discontinuity in construction can be effective in reducing the transmission of sound through a structure.

7.2.4. SIZE

The measurements of the ‘Plug’ following the current drawings of the ‘Passend Wonen’ concept should be:

height 2550 mm width 1000 mm

If the concept has to be able to adapt to wheelchair usage, the minimum width for an opening is 85 cm, from a usability point of view 90 cm would be even better.

7.2.5. WEIGHT

The ‘Plug’ should be placed by two people without the need for a crane. Dutch employee regulations provide a maximum weight for lifting. The total weight for lifting by one person in an ideal environment is 23 kg. (89) This will result that the maximum for two persons is 46 kg. Besides that, a maximum which may be carried at all is determined to be 50 kg by the Arbouw. Elements heavier than 50 kg need to be lifted by a crane.

7.2.6. FLEXIBILITY

The ‘Plug’ is the one system that allows the ‘Passend Wonen’ concept its flexibility. The ‘Plug’ should be designed especially for fast assembly and disassembly. This is the most important characteristic of the system.

65

7.3. CONCEPTS

There are three concepts, concept A & B are based on a wall structure as shown in Figure 45. The concrete wall contains two ridges which provides the geometry to fix the ‘plug’. The wall structure of concept C will be discussed later.

FIGURE 45, SECTION VIEW OF THE GAP IN THE WALL. THE DARK PART SHOWS THE SHAPE OF THE GAP

7.3.1. CONCEPT A

Concept A (Figure 46) is a rather conservative concept. The concept consists of a wooden framework filled with mineral wool. One side is covered with a breathing foil, the other side is covered with a Promatect or similar plate as a finishing and fireproofing. In total this provides an element which can be easily handled by two persons. This concept is based on the old fashioned way in the construction industry. The product will be developed without input of other stakeholders, the buyer becomes the owner, and in the end of the product life the products are disposed of.

FIGURE 46, EXPLODED VIEW OF ONE ELEMENT OF CONCEPT A (FROM LEFT TO RIGHT: PROMATECT PLATE, MINERAL WOOL, WOODEN FRAME, BREATHING FOIL)

The total plug consists of two of such elements which are fixed on both sides of the ridges in the concrete structure by large

plastic bolts. (Figure 47) The submerged bolts need to be covered by a MASTERJOINT® putty like material.

FIGURE 47, EXPLODED VIEW CONCEPT A

To calculate the properties of the concepts a section view is made for both situations, at the height of a cross beam in the wooden frame (Figure 48), and at the height of the mineral wool (Figure 49).

FIGURE 48, SECTION VIEW (FROM TOP TO BOTTOM, PLATE, FRAME, FOIL, EMPTY SPACE, FOIL, WOODEN FRAME, PLATE)

FIGURE 49, SECTION VIEW (FROM TOP TO BOTTOM, PLATE, MINERAL WOOL, FOIL, EMPTY SPACE, FOIL, MINERAL WOOL, PLATE)

The formula for calculating the thermal resistance (R) is:

Where: R = thermal resistance (m2.K/W) d = thickness of the material (m)

66

k = thermal conductivity of the material (W/m.K)

The total thermal resistance is the sum of the thermal resistance of n materials:

. .

The sub‐values and total value for thermal resistance of concept A are shown in Table 8.

Element Thermal Conductivity (W/m.K)

Thickness (m)

Thermal Resistance (m2.K/W)

Promatect Plate (2x)

0.285 0.01 (2x) 0.0351(2x)

Frame (2x)

0.12 0.038 (2x) 0.3167 (2x)

Mineral Wool

Foil (2x) 0.002 (2x) Cleft 0.0257 0.05 1.9455Total 0.15 2.649 TABLE 8, THERMAL RESISTANCE FOR CONCEPT A

The thermal transmittance value for this concept is calculated as follows:

1 12.649

0.3775

This is lower than the maximum allowed 4,2 W/m2*K, this means that the concept meets the requirements for heat insulation.

Element Volume (m3)

Density (kg/m3)

Weight (kg)

Promatect Plate

0.0204 875 17.85

Frame 0.0174 900 15.66Foil 0.0051 100 0.51Mineral Wool

0.0846 100 8.46

Total (one element)

0.1275 42.48

TABLE 9, WEIGHT CALCULATIONS FOR CONCEPT A

The total weight of one element is 42.48 kg (Table 9) which is below the maximum allowed 46 kg.

To calculate the sound insulation the total area and mass are needed. The total area is the same for all concepts.

1 2.55 2.55 2

Since this concept consists of two elements the total mass of the concept is:

42.48 2 84.96

Now the formula for the sound reduction index could be filled in.

14.5 log 10 10

Where M = mass per unit area of the partition (kg/m2)

14.5 1084.962,55

10 48.69

The sound reduction index for concept A is 48.69 dB, this is higher than the minimum of 45 dB. This means that the sound reduction index is high enough.

7.3.2. CONCEPT B

Concept B (Figure 50) is based on the same concrete structure as Concept A (Figure 45). However it uses an entirely different approach on how to connect.

The concept consists of three parts. The first part is the middle part, which is a flexible hollow shape like a balloon. In this part there are two valves, one at the upper side to fill the balloon, and one at the lower side to empty the balloon. Besides that there are four holes which go through the balloon to enable a connector to pass through the balloon without creating leaks. The other parts are two Promatect‐like plates as a surface finishing, fireproofing and to maintain the shape of the balloon. For this concept it is very important the users know they cannot drill into the ‘Plug’.

This concept will be developed by a multidisciplinary team of the contractor and several subcontractors. Also, the production process will be fully autonomous.

67

FIGURE 50, EXPLODED VIEW OF CONCEPT B(FROM LEFT TO RIGHT: PROMATECT PLATE, THICK WATERPROOF BALLOON, PROMATECT PLATE)

These plates are connected with thermal disconnected screws through the holes in the balloon. During assembly one of the plates is disassembled than the other parts are positioned and the plate is reconnected.(Figure 51) After installation the balloon is filled with water or sand which locks the component in place and adds weight to improve the sound insulation.

FIGURE 51,EXPLODED VIEW OF CONCEPT B

The sub‐values and total value for thermal resistance of concept B are shown in Table 10.

Element Thermal Conductivity (W/m.K)

Thickness (m)

Thermal Resistance (m2.K/W)


0.285 0.008 (2x) 0.0281(2x)

Balloon (2 sides)

0.13 0.002 (2 sides)

0.0154 (2 sides)

Water 0.58 0.13 0.217

Sand 0.20 0.13 0.63

Total (Water)

0.15 0.304

Total (Sand)

0.15 0.717

TABLE 10,THERMAL RESISTANCE CONCEPT B

The thermal transmittance value for this concept with water is calculated as follows:

1 10.304

3.289

This is lower than the maximum allowed 4,2 W/m2*K, this means that the concept filled with water meets the requirements for heat insulation.

The thermal transmittance value for this concept with sand is calculated as follows:

1 1

0.7171.395

This is also lower than the maximum allowed 4,2 W/m2*K, this means that the concept filled with sand also meets the requirements for heath insulation.

Element Volume (m3)

Density (kg/m3)

Weight (kg)


0.0204 875 17.85 (2x)

Balloon 0.0128 1100 14.08

Total 0.0827 49.78

Water 0.3157 998 315.07Total (Water)

0.3693 364.85

Sand 0.3157 1600 505.12Total (Sand)

0.3693 554.90

TABLE 11, WEIGHT CALCULATIONS FOR CONCEPT B

The weight which needs to be lifted are one promatect plate, which is 17.85 kg and one promatect plate with the balloon attached, which weight 31.93 kg. Both of these weights are well below the maximum allowed 46 kg.

68

The weights calculated in Table 11 for the concept filled with water or sand are used to calculate the two different values for the sound reduction index.

14.5 10364.852,55

10

176.16

14.5 10554.902,55

10

262.72

Both of these values are much higher than the minimum of 45 dB which makes them very good airborne sound insulators.

7.3.3. CONCEPT C

Concept C is somewhat different from Concept A & B because the interface geometry is different for this concept. Instead of the concrete ridge which is used by Concepts A & B, Concept C uses four smaller connection points. These points are relative small magnetized metal slabs. These are the four darker points in Figure 52.

FIGURE 52, CONCRETE STRUCTURE PASSEND WONEN

Instead of using screws or pressure to fix the ‘plug’ in its desired place this concept uses magnetism. The component consists of four parts: first a wooden plate with four absorbed circles, than four round magnets which are embedded in the absorbed circles of the first plate. Attached to that there is a slab of expanded polystyrene and lastly a wooden plate to finish the surface is placed. (Figure 53)

The concept will be developed by a team which represents all stakeholders in the design, develop, production, use, and end of use phase. Besides that, the contractor will remain owner and will be involved by all alterations of the product. The production process is semi‐autonomous.

FIGURE 53, EXPLODED VIEW CONCEPT C (FROM LEFT TO RIGHT; PROMATECT PLATE, EPS PLATE, MAGNETS, WOODEN PLATE)

To assemble this concept the two elements are placed against both sides of the magnetized strip of metal and this will keep them positioned. (Figure 54) To disassemble a device is needed to demagnetize the metal strips in the concrete by adding a current which enables the detachment of the elements.

FIGURE 54, EXPLODED VIEW CONCEPT C

The sub‐values and total value for thermal resistance of concept C are shown in Table 12.

69

Element Thermal Conductivity

Thickness Thermal Resistance

Plate (2x) 0.12 0.005 (2x) 0.0417

Magnet (2x)

16 0.005 (2x) 0.0003

EPS (2x) 0.03 0.05 (2x) 1.6667


0.285 0.01 (2x) 0.0351

Cleft 0.0257 0.01 0.3891

Total 0.15 3.8767

TABLE 12, THERMAL RESISTANCE CONCEPT C

The thermal transmittance value for this concept is calculated as follows:

1 13.8767

0.2580

This is lower than the maximum allowed 4,2 W/m2*K, this means that the concept meets the requirements for heath insulation.

Element Volume (m3)

Density (kg/m3)

Weight (kg)

Wooden Plate

0.0255 640 16.32

Magnet 0.0000 7900 0.00

EPS 0.1275 30 3.83

Promatect Plate

0.0255 875 22.31

Total 0.1785 42.46

TABLE 13, WEIGHT CALCULATIONS FOR CONCEPT C

One element weights 42.46 kg (Table 13) which is below the maximum allowed 46 kg. The two elements have a total weight of:

42.46 2 84.96

This results in the following formula for the sound reduction index:

14.5 1084.922,55

10 48.68

The sound reduction index of 48.68 dB is above the minimum of 45 dB. This means the concept will reduce airborne sound enough.

7.4. CONCLUSIONS

All concepts are designed to meet the requirements stated at the beginning of this chapter. All three concepts apply products to reach the fireproofing. Calculations showed that all three concepts score high enough on thermal insulation, and high enough on airborne sound insulation. The elements are somewhat heavy, but they do not cross the maximum allowed weight for carrying products during work. And all three concepts are designed for easy assembly and disassembly which makes them IDF systems to some extent. The three concepts are compared by assessing them in the IDF model. The results are discussed in chapter 8.

70

8. TEST CASE EVALUATION

In this chapter firstly the ‘Passend Wonen’ concept is evaluated by using the IDF model for Buildings described in the previous chapter. Secondly, three concepts are created and afterwards evaluated by using the IDF model for Systems. Lastly conclusions and recommendations for the IDF model are made. The manual for the use of the IDF Model can be found in appendix VI.

8.1. IS ‘PASSEND WONEN’ IDF?

In this section the ‘Passend Wonen’ model is evaluated by using the IDF Model for Buildings. The input parameters can be found in appendix VII. The results are described in this section and graphic representations of the scores are shown in Figure 55, Figure 56, Figure 57, and Figure 58.

8.1.1. INDUSTRIAL

‘Passend Wonen’ has a maximum score on Production process location, and Conditions during production because of prefabrication. Building assembly process also scores maximal because of the dry stacking building method. Management of materials after use also scores very high, the only improvement which could be made is to find a way to recycle or up‐cycle the stone like materials.

There are some possibilities for a bigger improvement though. The conditions during assembly could be improved. Several stakeholders of the use phase of the building could be included in the design team. A closer contact with the owners of the building would improve the management of materials during use. The travelling distance between sub‐contractors could be lowered. And lastly, a complete autonomous production process could be created to reduce the need for craftsmanship.

8.1.2. INDIVIDUAL

‘Passend Wonen’ has a maximum score on all customization levels, scenarios for adapting the structure, effort of structural

adaptation, adaptability of installations, and adaptability level of the indoor climate. The scores of Effort of installation adaption, adaptability speed of the indoor climate and architectural quality are also very high. The only option for improvement in this category is to include site analysis to the main strategy of ‘Passend Wonen’.

8.1.3. ENVIRONMENT

The impact on the environment is rather high in comparison with the other key factors.

´Passend Wonen´ performs well on the energy aspects during use, the transformation process, and the material source & end of life treatment. The concept however scores low on embodied energy, the water footprint, water dependency, water cycles, the pollution during the initial production & building process, and disassembly.

To improve the scores there are several possibilities. The average weight of the building could be lowered to improve the score for embodied energy and reduce pollution. Other materials could also increase the performance. Besides that, a good strategy for water treatment and reuse could increase the environment score even more.

8.1.4. FLEXIBLE

The ‘Passend Wonen’ concept scores very good on flexibility. The Assembly Sequence, Functional Dependency & Separation,

71

Clustering, Structure & Material Levels, Damage, Level of Reusability, Multi‐functionality, and Technical Life Cycle Coordination are all maximum. The Use Life Cycle Coordination and the Assembly type both does not score maximum, but both have the highest possible score for the

concept. These scores are restricted by the strategy of ‘Passend Wonen’.

Only reparability scores low, which is not that important because almost no damage is done to the elements and components during disassembly.

FIGURE 55, IDF SCORE FOR INDUSTRIAL FOR THE 'PASSEND WONEN' CONCEPT

FIGURE 56, IDF SCORE FOR INDIVIDUAL FOR THE 'PASSEND WONEN' CONCEPT

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Building Chain Integration

Management of Materials During Use

Management of Materials After Use

Travelling Distance

Production Process Industrialization

Production Process Location

Building Assembly Process

Conditions During Production

Conditions During Assembly

Industrial

Passend Wonen

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Customization Level During Initial Building Process

Customization Level During Use

Customization Level During Renovation Process

Architectural Quality

Site Analysis

Scenarios for Adapting the Structure

Effort of Structural Adaptation

Adaptation of Installations

Effort of Installation Adaptation

Adaptability Level of the Indoor Climate

Adaptability Speed of the Indoor Climate

Individual

Passend Wonen

72

FIGURE 57, IDF SCORE FOR ENVIRONMENT FOR THE 'PASSEND WONEN' CONCEPT

FIGURE 58, IDF SCORE FOR FLEXIBLE FOR THE 'PASSEND WONEN' CONCEPT

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Embodied Energy in Materials per m3

Embodied Energy in Processes

Embodied Energy in Transport

Electrical Energy Need

Energy Need for Heating/Cooling

Energy Needed for Transformation Process

Main Energy Source during Use

Environmental Value of Material Source

End of Life Value of Material

Pollution caused by Material Production

(material/kg)

Pollution caused by Element/Component

Production

Pollution caused by Building Process

Pollution caused by Transformation Process

Pollution During Disassembly

Water Cycles

Water Dependency

Water Footprint of Materials

Environment

Passend Wonen

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Technical Life Cycle Coordination

Use Life Cycle Coordination

Multifunctionality

Assembly Type

Assembly sequence regarding material levels

Functional Dependence

Functional Separation

Clustering

Structure and Material levels

Damage

Level of Reusability

Reparability

Flexible

Passend Wonen

73

8.1.5. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PASSEND WONEN CONCERNING IDF

‘Passend Wonen’ scores high on the key criteria Individual and Flexible. There is some room for improvement on the Industrial score, where the main possibilities are the introduction of stakeholders of the use phase in the design team, improving the management of materials during use, and transforming the production process to a more autonomous process. The score which could be improved most is the score for Environment. Reducing the weight of the construction would improve the score of all sub scores for Embodied energy and Pollution. Besides that, a good strategy for water management would improve the water cycles and water dependency.

8.1.6. CONCEPT EVALUATION THE ‘PLUG’

All concepts are designed to meet the requirements of the design parameters but in a different way.

The concepts are based on the same super system, which is ‘Passend Wonen’. Therefore the IDF scores are somewhat alike. The concepts differ not only on materials and connections, but also on the design team and philosophy, this is to show the impact of these choices. The input parameters for Concept A, B, and C can be found in appendix VIII

The Industrial scores of the concepts (Figure 59) are very distinctive. Concept A, the old fashioned way scores worst, Concept B stands out on traveling distance and production process industrialization because of the local partners and the autonomous process. Concept C stands out on building chain integration and management of materials during use because of the integration of many stakeholders during the design process and the responsibility during the use phase.

The Individual scores of the concepts (Figure 60) are all low. Adaptation of installations however should not be measured since there are no installations in the system. The customization level of the concepts is very low, but in a broader point of view the concepts enable a high customization level for the ‘Passend Wonen’ concept.

Because of the different materials the Environment scores of the concepts (Figure 61) differ somewhat, but it is only marginal.

Finally the scores for Flexibility (Figure 62) show some differences. The concepts are very much alike concerning external flexibility which is shown at the left side of the figure, but differ at the internal flexibility. Concept A is clearly not made to be disassembled for end of life treatment. Concept B stands out here since the connections are easily accessible, and easily disassembled. Concept C scores lower than Concept B since the connections are less accessible and more definite.

74

FIGURE 59, COMPARISON OF CONCEPTS (INDUSTRIAL)

FIGURE 60, COMPARISON OF CONCEPTS (INDIVIDUAL) (CONCEPT B SCORES THE SAME AS CONCEPT C)

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00Building Chain Integration

Management of Materials During Use

Management of Materials After Use

Travelling Distance

Handling of Components

Production Process Industrialization

Production Process Location

Building Assembly Process

Conditions During Production

Conditions During Assembly

Industrial

The Plug Concept A The Plug Concept B The Plug Concept C

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

Customization Level During Initial Building Process

Customization Level During Use

Customization Level During Renovation Process

Architectural Quality

Adaptation of Installations

Effort of Installation Adaptation

Individual


75

FIGURE 61, COMPARISON OF CONCEPTS (ENVIRONMENT)

FIGURE 62, COMPARISON OF CONCEPTS (FLEXIBLE)

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

Embodied Energy in Materials per m3

Embodied Energy in Processes

Embodied Energy in Transport

Energy Needed for Transformation Process

Main Energy Source during Use

Environmental Value of Material Source

Distance from Material Source

End of Life Value of MaterialAvarage amount of Material

used per m2

Pollution caused by Material Production (material/kg)

Pollution caused by Element/Component Production

Pollution caused by Building Process

Pollution caused by Maintenance

Pollution caused by Transformation Process

Pollution During Disassembly

Environment


0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00Technical Life Cycle Coordination

Use Life Cycle CoordinationRelations based on functional …

Multifunctionality

Assembly Type

Assembly sequence regarding …

Accessability of Connection

Morphology of Joint

Standardisation of Connection

Type of Connection

Tolerance

Geometry of product EdgeStandardisation of product Edge

Functional DependenceFunctional Seperation

Clustering

Structure and Material levels

Accessability of Connection

Assembly Type

Geometry of product Edge

Morphology of Joint

Standardisation of Connection

Standardisation of product Edge

Type of Connection

Level of ReusabilityReparability

Flexible


76

FIGURE 63, COMPARISON OF CONCEPTS (TOTAL IDF SCORE)

8.1.7. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ‘PLUG’

In order to get the best product possible all good aspects of the concepts need to be combined into one final product. Concept A received the lowest score of all concepts, however this concept remains closest to the current practice of contractors. Concept B and C both have their positive points which can be weighed and combined to one good product.

The development of the ‘Plug’ should be done in a multidisciplinary design team which represents all stakeholders of the different life cycle phases. Besides that the producers of the ‘Plug’ should keep in touch with the users of the building to enable proper use and ensure a good end of life treatment. The production process should be autonomous wherever possible. And the ‘Plug’ should have internal connections which are easily accessible when the

product is not in use and can be disassembled very easily.

8.2. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE IDF MODEL

During the use of the model several insights showed up.

Dependent on the function of a system some determining factors either are or are not important for the total score. Therefore it should be possible to choose the system functionality. For example: Installation control change is important for installation systems or systems with installations. It is however not relevant for the ‘Plug’ which is only meant for either separating two spaces or creating an opening between two spaces.

In some cases only the materials and connection system are different. The result will be that only two key criteria are affected: environment and flexibility. And even then the affected key criteria does not

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00Industrial

Individual

Environment

Flexible

IDF Score

The Plug Concept A

The Plug Concept B

The Plug Concept C

77

differ too much because it is the same strategy which drives the concepts. When this occurs money will probably be the determining factor. Therefore it would be interesting to add a function to the model which can calculate rough prizes based on information already in the model: materials, material quantities, processing & production of elements and components, and energy usage.

Another issue is how to determine the minimum requirements for IDF Building. This could be done by determining which option is the minimum requirement for each determining factor to be named IDF. In this way a threshold is created which separates the buildings and systems into two groups. IDF or not‐IDF. This however would probably result in buildings and systems which are barely IDF without the ambition to score as good as possible.

Another option is to create a ranking system based on the scores. For example a five level system could be used which all have their

minimum specifications for each determining factor. In this system it could be that for a higher level only one or two determining factors have to be improved. This is more likely to stimulate improvement and enables different level of ambition.

The last point of interest is the size of the difference between concepts. Although the concepts are very different in material use and connection system the scores are very similar. This could be caused by several things. When similar systems are compared the scores should be normalized. In that way the differences of the systems are highlighted. When it is possible to select the kind of systems which are compared it should be possible to normalize the scores for the kind of system in such a way that the scores are better for decision making.

All in all the model works, but there are some points which could be improved.

78

9. REFLECTION

This chapter reflects the performed research to the research questions described in chapter 2. The chapter is divided into three main parts; Sustainability; IDF Building; and ‘Passend Wonen’

9.1. SUSTAINABILITY

Sustainability means that the actions performed today do not reduce possibilities for future generations. To ensure a good life for future generations the world system needs to keep its balance. To do this the planetary boundaries should not be crossed.

The conducted research provided insight in why the traditional building systems are not sufficient anymore. The traditional building methodology has become too complex, in some cases even reducing the quality of living, and last but not least putting lots of pressure on the systems of the earth, in some cases even crossing the planetary boundaries.

There are three kinds of responses which aim for more sustainable building. First there are governments which push standardization through legislations. Secondly there are measurement tools which measure not only on an economical, but also on an environmental and social bottom line. And thirdly there are the new strategies which focus on reduce, reuse, and recycle. Current strategies are; Lean design, IFD Building, IDF Building, and Cradle‐to‐Cradle design.

To gain a good view on what sustainable building is, all three responses (Legislations, Measurement Tools, and Strategies) are combined into one rough outline of a model which describes all elements of sustainable building. The seven categories: Environment, Indoor Climate, Life Cycle Economics, Management, Materials, Usability, and Visual Quality cover all aspects which are encountered in the conducted research. Sustainability desires a model which not only tells what is done wrong, but also what is done right. A true model for sustainability counts the aspects

which enable opportunities and create abundance.

9.2. IDF BUILDING

The main goals of the IDF Building Methodology can be summarized by: High Quality, High Usability, Buildings with Unique Identities, Low Environmental Impact or Positive Impact, and Economical Feasibility considering the whole building and material life cycle. The IDF building methodology aims for the integration of all of those aspects. The main focus for the IDF building methodology are on Demountability and Material Cycles throughout the whole lifecycle.

The IDF Building Methodology has four main strategies: Industrial Production, Design for Individual Identity, Sustainable Design, and Flexible Buildings. These four key strategies are used to reach the previously named goals.

Industrial Production leads to high quality production because of the good production conditions. Another big advantage is the reduced need for skilled craftsmen, since the number of skilled craftsmen is declining. Next to that, Industrial Production also lowers the material losses and failure costs. And last but not least, the Industrial Production Methodologies can reduce production costs because of scale advantages.

Individual Design is important to break the monotonous sight of industrially produced buildings and create Buildings with Unique Identities. The second important point is the design for the individual user which has his or her individual requirements. To cope with these requirements, adaptability is very important. This adaptability will lengthen the useful life of a building.

79

Sustainable Design reduces the negative Environmental Impact and maximizes the positive Environmental Impact following a Triple Top Line approach. Key issues which are addressed are energy use, embodied energy & water, materials, and pollution to water, air, and soil.

Flexible Buildings means the buildings are able to transform their functionality or shape as the demands of the users and owners change. This aspect makes the buildings attain High Usability, reduce the negative Environmental Impact and costs of renovation by reusing and recycling parts of the building and materials.

The IDF Building methodology was tested against a concept version of the sustainability field and it scored well. The IDF Building methodology scored above the base line for sustainability on all points.

9.3. ‘PASSEND WONEN’

‘Passend Wonen’ is a concept for residential buildings which focuses on the changing demands over the lifespan of a building. The concept consists of three different elements which can be combined to numerous different variations and applications.

The elements are prefabricated and therefore the process on site consists solely of stacking the elements in the right order.

In the concept a floating floor will be used, which makes it possible to use the space in between for installations. This also makes it possible to add and remove installations during the lifetime of the building without altering or otherwise damaging the elements.

By using the elements of ‘Passend Wonen’ the building is able to adapt to a change in market needs. This is because a change in market needs means the only physical

changes to the building are the ‘plugs’, which are designed to be replaceable.

This ability of the concept makes the building transformable even though its base structure is rigid. This transformation capacity enables the building to change the functionality without causing much waste and without the use of additional materials, which makes the concept sustainable on material use.

‘Passend Wonen’ is a concept which uses industrialized production processes and a standardized system, which is easy to assemble and disassemble, to meet the individual user demands and reduce the pressure on the earth systems.

Most of the IDF criteria are met by the ‘Passend Wonen’ concept, however improvements are possible for Building Chain Integration, Conditions during Assembly, Management of Materials during Use, Production Process Industrialization, Site Analysis, Water Dependency & Cycles, Electrical Energy Need, and Reparability. The main focus of the concept is on adaptability when the user demands change. Therefore some initial impact is tolerated.

The possibilities for the ‘Passend Wonen’ concept to improve are to work in close cooperation with future users and owners of the buildings which are constructed by using the ‘Passend Wonen’ elements. In addition the ‘Passend Wonen’ concept could be improved by creating better individual identity and interaction with the environment. This could also help to deal with the electrical energy need, water cycles & dependency. For industrialization the ‘Passend Wonen’ concept is already on good directions, but it could be developed in such a way that the processes are even more industrialized. Lastly the ‘Passend Wonen’ concept needs to develop a strategy for keeping in close contact with the owners of the building to keep track of the elements.

80

10. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter summarizes the conclusions around IDF Building and the IDF Model. In addition, recommendations for future research are made, and lastly this research is discussed.

10.1. CONCLUSION RESEARCH

The research first showed that sustainable building is necessary. This could be concluded from the wide range of responses. Governments responded with standardization and legislations, researchers came up with a wide variety of assessment tools, and designers, architects, and manufacturers developed a range of tools to enable more sustainable building. All in all, there are a lot of aspects to sustainable building. These are summarized in one rough outline of a model. This model could be used to place IDF Building in perspective, and to show how IDF Building relates to sustainable building in its broadest sense.

IDF Building aims for sustainable building by applying environmental friendly solutions in such a way that they can be used and reused for a wide range of scenarios to fit to the user needs. This is done by keeping the environment as well as the users in mind during the whole design process, and focusing on the whole life cycle of the building, the components, and the elements. To enable optimal use of the building, the components, and elements, design for disassembly is applied. This means that the buildings have a smart building hierarchy, the internal interfaces as well as the external interfaces are designed in such a way that they are easy to assemble and disassemble, the material levels are designed for life cycle optimization, and the elements and components are designed to be reusable and upgradable for as long as their technical life allows them.

The developed assessment tool is able to rate buildings, building concepts, and systems. The results of the assessment could be used to direct further investigation of

specific attributes. Another option is to compare different concepts or systems based on the IDF criteria which allows the manufacturer to choose the best suitable system following the IDF criteria.

10.2. RECOMMENDATIONS RESEARCH

10.2.1. DIFFERENT KIND OF SYSTEMS

The current model is flexible to some extent, as it can rate either buildings or systems. It would however be better to create a broader variety of possibilities. For instance a system could be an installation system or a structural system. This choice is not included in the current model, but it has serious impact on which determining factors are important and which are not important at all. For example: Installation control change is important for installation systems or systems with installations. It is however not relevant for the ‘Plug’ which is only meant for either separating two spaces or creating an opening between two spaces.

10.2.2. WEIGHING OF THE DETERMINING FACTORS

Not all determining factors have properly weighted scores. It would be best to have all determining factors weighed properly based on research.

10.2.3. RELATIONS BETWEEN DETERMINING FACTORS

In addition to the previous point an additional research into the relations between determining factors could improve the model. In some cases determining factors directly influence each other, for instance the total amount of materials

81

influences the total pollution caused by the usage of materials. In other cases the relations are more complex, for instance when a connection could be easily disconnected but it is not accessible the total effort needed for disassembly should be determined by the effort to access the connection.

10.2.4. STRATEGIES WHICH DETERMINE THE WEIGHING OF THE DETERMINING FACTORS

The inclusion of Strategies into the IDF Model has proven to be very important since flexibility and adaptability could be reached in different ways. It is important for an assessment model as well as for a designers tool that the tool does not restrict the possible solutions. Therefore the tool should always enable the inclusion of new strategies in which another selection of determining factors is relevant.

10.2.5. MORE FEEDBACK

The IDF Model also allows further development for feedback. The information gained by the model could be used to determine the best suitable strategy for a building concept.

10.2.6. ECONOMIC FEEDBACK

In some cases only the materials and connection system are different. The result will be that only two key criteria are affected: environment and flexibility. And even then the affected key criteria does not differ too much because it is the same strategy which drives the concepts. When this occurs money will probably be the determining factor. Therefore it would be interesting to add a function to the model which can calculate rough prizes based on information already in the model: materials, material quantities, processing & production of elements and components, and energy usage.

10.2.7. WHAT LEVEL OF IDF?

Another issue is how to determine the minimum requirements for IDF Building. This could be done by determining which option is the minimum requirement for each determining factor to be named IDF. In this way a threshold is created which separates the buildings and systems into two groups. IDF or not‐IDF. This however would probably result in buildings and systems which are barely IDF without the ambition to score as good as possible.

Another option is to create a ranking system based on the scores. For example a five level system could be used which all have their minimum specifications for each determining factor. In this system it could be that for a higher level only one or two determining factors have to be improved. This is more likely to stimulate improvement and enables different level of ambition.

10.2.8. NORMALIZATION

The last point of interest is the size of the difference between concepts. Although the concepts for the ‘Plug’ are very different in material use and connection system the scores are very similar. When similar systems are compared the scores should be normalized. In that way the differences of the systems are highlighted. When it is possible to select the kind of systems which are compared it should be possible to normalize the scores for the kind of system in such a way that the scores are better for decision making.

10.3. RECOMMENDATIONS PASSEND WONEN

‘Passend Wonen’ scores high on the key criteria Individual and Flexible. There is some room for improvement on the Industrial score, where the main possibilities are the introduction of stakeholders of the use phase in the design team, improving the management of

82

materials during use, and transforming the production process to a more autonomous process. The score which could be improved most is the score for Environment. Reducing the weight of the construction would improve the score of all sub scores for Embodied energy and Pollution. Besides that, a good strategy for water management would improve the water cycles and water dependency.

10.4. DISCUSSION ABOUT RESEARCH

10.4.1. STRONG POINTS OF THE RESEARCH

Depth of the research into sustainability

Outline of Sustainable building Relation between IDF and

sustainable building Depth of the IDF Model

10.4.2. WEAK POINTS OF THE RESEARCH

Too little expert interviews (especially the number of different experts)

No field test of the IDF Model (no other users)

The economical side has had too little attention

Too much focused on the creation of the model, too little on the development of ‘Passend Wonen’

10.4.3. MY EXPERIENCES DURING THE RESEARCH

At first I lacked the experience in the construction scene, which made it hard to

start. I had some difficulties with the reading of construction drawings and the terminology in construction scene. To improve these points I got some help of the employees at Van Dijk Bouw, besides that I read several master thesis about which were related to my research which helped to get me going.

During the research I learned a lot about sustainability thanks to the literature study. I also learned a lot about industrial processes by reading two books and assessing the wood workshop of Van Dijk Bouw. In addition to that this was the first time I performed an assignment within a company, this showed me how a building contractor works.

On the downside I worked too much on my own, which led to too little discussions, and too little involvement in the company. This is partly because of the abstractness of my master thesis and partly because of my character.

In addition to that the communication between me and my supervisors could have been better. Distance and busy agendas made it sometimes hard to meet, but I could have send weekly mail updates even though sometimes only little progress was made.

I am glad I had some sessions with other students who worked on other models. I thought it to be very helpful to discuss our models and problems we encountered. This helped to look at my own work from another angle. It also helped the quality because of the direct questions and critical attitude.

83

REFERENCES

1. The World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. New York : Oxford University Press, 1987.

2. Mullink, Bart. Vraaggestuurd bouwen breekt door. Cobouw. [Online] 12 12 2009. [Cited: 23 11 2010.] http://www.cobouw.nl/nieuws/2009/12/11/Vraaggestuurd‐bouwen‐breekt‐door.html.

3. Stuurgroep Experimenten Volkshuisvesting. Bouwen met Tijd. Rotterdam : Drukkerij Goos, 2004.

4. KEI kenniscentrum stedelijke vernieuwing. KEIoverzicht: Renovatie versus sloopnieuwbouw. [PDF] 2011.

5. Bouwcarrousel BV & 2012 Architecten. (No) Flat Future; Een nieuwe toekomst voor naoorlogse flats. Den Haag : SenterNovem, 2008.

6. Weersch, M. Voorlopig geen sloop meer; de vele kansen van renovatie. Aedesmagazine. 2010, 3.

7. American Association for the Advancement of Science. AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change. [Online] 9 12 2006. [Cited: 19 11 2010.] http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf.

8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4). Cambridge and New York : Cambridge University Press, 2007.

9. Secretariat forThe Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer & The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer. Nairobi : UNON, 1988.

10. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Kyoto Protocol. Kyoto : s.n., 1997.

11. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Milieurekeningen. Den Haag : Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2008. p. 94. 978‐90‐357‐2108‐1.

12. StatLine, CBS. CBS StatLine ‐ Emissies van broeikasgassen, berekend volgens IPCC‐voorschriften. SBS StatLine. [Online] Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 3 05 2011. [Cited: 09 08 2011.] http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=70946NED&D1=a&D2=0‐4,10‐15&D3=a&HDR=G2&STB=T,G1&VW=T.

13. David Anink, Chiel Boonstra, John Mak. Handbook of sustainable building. London : James & James Limited, 1996.

14. Vrijkomen en verwerking van afval per doelgroep. Compendium voor de Leefomgeving. [Online] Agentschap NL, 14 09 2010. [Cited: 22 11 2010.] http://www.compendiumvoordeleefomgeving.nl/indicatoren/nl0206‐Vrijkomen‐en‐verwerking‐van‐afval‐per‐doelgroep.html?i=1‐4.

15. INDUSTRIEEL BOUWEN, WAAROM EN HOE. Scheublin, Prof Ir F.J.M. (Frits). Eindhoven : Universiteitsdrukkerij TUE, 2006.

84

16. Durmisevic, Elma. Green design and assembly of buildings ans systems. Saarbrücken : VDM Verlag Dr. Müller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG, 2010.

17. Verspilling in de bouw gaat door. Bos, drs. Rick van den. 2005.

18. Faalkosten in de bouw naar hoogtepunt. Busker, drs. Henri. 2008.

19. Ing. Lenard Brokelman, Ir. Henk Vermande. Faalkosten, de (bouw)wereld uit!; Een praktische handleiding. Rotterdam : SBR, 2005. 978‐90‐5367‐000‐2.

20. Mullink, Bart. Fundeon vreest rampzalig tekort aan vakmensen. Cobouw. [Online] 30 9 2010. [Cited: 23 11 2010.] http://www.cobouw.nl/nieuws/2010/09/29/Fundeon‐vreest‐rampzalig‐tekort‐aan‐vakmensen.html.

21. FNV Bouw. Desastreus tekort aan vakmensen. Home | FNV Bouw. [Online] 30 9 2010. [Cited: 23 11 2010.] http://fnvbouw.nl/nieuws/Pages/Desastreus_tekort_aan_vakmensen_1797.aspx.

22. Arbouw. De Bouwnijverheid: Arbeid, Gezondheid en Veiligheid in 2009. 2009.

23. Is veiligheid in de bouw meetbaar te maken? Adri C.P. Frijters, Paul H.J.J. Swuste, Hester R. van Yperen. 2008.

24. Corten, K. Afrian MSc. drs. I.W. MONITOR ARBEIDSONGEVALLEN IN DE BOUW 2009. s.l. : Arbouw, 2010. 9789490943042.

25. Faalkosten in de bouw naar hoogtepunt. Economisch Instituut voor de Bouwnijverheid (EIB) & Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS). 6/7, 2008.

26. Tuns, Remco. Bouw: minder faalkosten grootste voordeel conceptueel bouwen. Bouw: minder faalkosten grootste voordeel conceptueel bouwen Bouwkennis. [Online] BouwKennis, 21 July 2011. [Cited: 24 August 2001.] http://www.bouwkennis.nl/pers/bouw_minder_faalkosten_grootste_voordeel_conceptueel_bouwen/Daling%20van%20faalkosten%20door%20prefab.

27. Busker, drs. Henri. ruwbouw‐Verminder‐faalkosten‐met‐een‐derde‐door‐te‐evalueren‐en‐kennis‐te‐delen. Usp Marketing Consultancy. [Online] 2011. [Cited: 24 August 2011.] http://www.usp‐mc.nl/uspdate.php?jaar=2010&maand=mrt&page=ruwbouw‐Verminder‐faalkosten‐met‐een‐derde‐door‐te‐evalueren‐en‐kennis‐te‐delen&mail=true&mailsent=1.

28. Ketenintegratie medicijn tegen faalkosten. Bouwkennis. 2010.

29. Samenwerking leidt tot reductie faalkosten. Bouwkennis. 2009.

30. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Woningbouw; Voorraad, wijzigingen en nieuwbouw naar voortgang, per regio. CBS StatLine. [Online] 12 05 2010. [Cited: 22 11 2010.] http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=7413&D1=0‐3&D2=0&D3=a&HD=101123‐1453&HDR=T&STB=G1,G2.

31. Elkington, John. Cannibals with Forks, the Tripple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Oxford : Capstone Publishing Limited, 1997.

32. Slimbouwen©, a rethinking of building, a strategy for product development. Lichtenberg, Jos. Eindhoven : s.n., 2004.

33. Lichtenberg, Jos. SlimBouwen. [Powerpointpresentation] Enschede : Stichting Slimbouwen,, 2009.

85

34. Randen, A. van. De bouw zit in de knoop. Delft : Delftse Universitaire Pers, 1976.

35. Thoreau, H.D. Walden; or, Life in the Woods. Boston : Ticknor and Fields, 1854.

36. Nearing, Helen and Nearing, Scott. Living the Good Life. New York : Schocken, 1954.

37. Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. Boston : Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962.

38. Ehrlich, Paul R. The Population Bomb. New York : Buccaneer Books, Inc., 1968.

39. Everyday Exposure to Toxic Pollutants. Robberts, Wayne R. Ott and John W. 1998, Sientific American.

40. Nuclear energy and the fossil fuels. Hubbert, M. King. 95, Houston : Drilling and Production Practice, 1956.

41. Is Growth Obsolete? Nordhaus, William D. and Tobin, James. Vol. 38, s.l. : National Bureau of Economic Research, 1973, Milton Moss (ed.) The Measurement of Economic and Social Performance, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 1973, pp. 509‐564.

42. Meadows, Donella, Randers, Jorgen and Meadows, Dennis. Limits to Growth. New York : Universe Books, 1972.

43. Diamond, Jared M. Collapse, How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. s.l. : Viking Press, 2005.

44. Ponting, Clive. A Green History of the World. s.l. : Penguin, 1991.

45. Schumacher, E.F. Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. London : Blond & Briggs, 1973.

46. Johan Rockström, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, et al. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society. [Online] 2009. [Cited: 11 10 2010.] http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/.

47. The Earth System: Sustainaing Plantary LifeSupport Systems. Oran R. Young, Will Steffen. 2009, Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship, pp. 295‐315.

48. West Antartic Ice Sheet and Long Term Climate Policy. Alley, M. Oppenheimer and R.B. 64, 2004, Climate Change, pp. 1‐10.

49. CBS, PBL, Wageningen UR . Gevaarlijk afval per doelgroep. Compendium voor de Leefomgeving. [Online] 22 09 2010. [Cited: 22 11 2010.] http://www.compendiumvoordeleefomgeving.nl/indicatoren/nl0208‐Gevaarlijk‐afval‐per‐doelgroep.html?i=1‐4.

50. International Organization for Standardization. International Organization for Standardization. [Online] 2010. [Cited: 16 12 2010.] http://www.iso.org/iso/home.htm.

51. European Commission. EUR‐Lex ‐ Official Journal. [Online] 01 September 2011. [Cited: 04 September 2011.] http://eur‐lex.europa.eu/JOIndex.do.

52. Dion, Stéphane. The Montreal Action Plan. Montreal : s.n., 2005.

53. Guggenheim, Davis. An Inconvenient Truth. Paramount Classics, 2006.

54. R.F.M. Lubbers, et al. Nota Selectieve Groei. 1974.

86

55. Nationaal Milieubeleidsplan. 1989.

56. Tweede plan van aanpak duurzaam bouwen. 1997.

57. Beleidsprogramma duurzaam bouwen. 1999.

58. Souchkov, Valeri. Two Weeks UT TRIZ Course Technology July 2009. [Document] Enschede : ICG Training & Consulting, 2009.

59. Hendriks, Ch.F. Sustainable Construction. Boxtel : Æneas, 2001.

60. Assessing the sustainability of buildings using a framework of triad approaches. A.G. Entrop, H.J.H. Brouwers. s.l. : Macmillan Publishers Ltd., 2010.

61. Toyota Motor Corporation. The Toyota Way 2001. 2001.

62. Liker, Jeffrey. The Toyota Way. s.l. : McGraw‐Hill, 2003.

63. Habraken. De Dragers en de Mensen. Het einde van de massawoningbouw. Amsterdam : Scheltema en Holkema, 1962.

64. Habraken, John. Open building overview. Home Page John Habraken. [Online] [Cited: 23 12 2010.] http://www.habraken.com/html/introduction.htm.

65. Stichting Experimenten Volkshuisvesting. Demonstratieproject IFDbouwen 2000. 2001.

66. Braungart, Michael and McDonough, William. Cradle to Cradle, Remaking the way we make things. s.l. : North Point Press, 2002.

67. Braungart, Douglas Mulhall & Michael. Cradle to Cradle Criteria for the built environment. Venlo : Knoops, Eco Printing, 2010.

68. Pioneering. Individueel Duurzaam en Flexibel bouwen. Stichting Pioneering vernieuwt de bouw. [Online] 16 10 2008. [Cited: 23 11 2010.] http://www.pioneering.nl/werkplaatsen/individueel‐duurzaam‐en‐flexibel‐bouwen.

69. LifeCycle AssessmentConstraints on Moving from Inventory to Impact Assessment. Owens, J.C. Ohio : s.n., 1997.

70. M. Finkbeiner, et al. The New International Standards for Life Cycle Assessment: ISO 14040 and 14044. 2006.

71. Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC). Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice. Cincinnati, Ohio : s.n., 2006.

72. Goedkoop, Mark. The Ecoindicator 95. 1995.

73. all, Hoekstra et. The Water Footprint Assessment Manual; Setting the Global Standard. London : Earthscan, 2011. 978‐1‐84971‐279‐8.

74. Building Research Establishment Ltd. BREEAM: BRE Environmental Assessment Method. [Online] 1990. [Cited: 23 11 2010.] http://www.breeam.org.

75. U.S. Green Building Council. Intro ‐ What LEED Is. USGB. [Online] 1993. [Cited: 23 11 2010.] http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1988.

87

76. Dutch Green Building Council. Dutch Green Building Council. [Online] [Cited: 25 11 2010.] http://www.dgbc.nl/.

77. GPR Gebouw. GPR Gebouw. [Online] [Cited: 25 11 2010.] http://www.gprgebouw.nl/.

78. Ravemark, Dag. State of the art study of LCA and LCC tools. 2003.

79. Vink, J.P. The Life Cycle Performance of Sustainable Renovation Concepts. Amsterdam : s.n., 2010.

80. Design for Triple Top Line; New Tools for Sustainable Commerce. McDonough, Michael Braungart & William. August 2002, Corporate Environmental Strategy: International Journal of Corporate Sustainability.

81. Beyond the Triple Bottom Line; A New Standard for Twentyfirst Century Commerce. Braungart, William McDonough & Michael. June/July 2003, GreenMoney Journal .

82. Prasad, Biren. Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals: Integrated Product and Process Organization, Volume I. s.l. : Prentice Hall, 1995.

83. Manfred Hegger, Matthias Fuchs, Thomas Stark, Martin Zeumer. Energy Manual; Sustainable Architecture. s.l. : Birkhäuser Architecture, 2008. 978‐3‐7643‐8830‐0.

84. Jones, Prof. Geoff Hammond & Craig. Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE). [Excel Document] s.l. : University of Bath, UK, 2011.

85. Sven Teske, Arthouros Zervos, Oliver Schäfer. energy [r]evolution'; a sustainable world energy outlook. s.l. : PrimaveraQuint, 2007.

86. Slimbouwen. Lichtenberg, Jos. Enschede : s.n., 2009.

87. Van der Leeden, F., Troise, F.L. and Todd, D.K. The Water Encyclopaedia. s.l. : Lewis Publishers, 1990.

88. McMullan, Randall. Environmental Science in Building. New York : Palgrave MacMillan, 2007. 0‐230‐52536‐9.

89. Arbeidsomstandighedenwet. 2011.

90. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Bevolking; Kerncijfers. CBS StatLine. [Online] 20 10 2010. [Cited: 22 10 2010.] http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=37296NED&D1=52‐55&D2=0,5,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50,55,l&HD=101116‐1047&HDR=G1&STB=T&CHARTTYPE=0.

91. —. Bevolking; kerncijfers. CBS StatLine. [Online] 20 10 2010. [Cited: 22 10 2010.] http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=37296NED&D1=14‐18&D2=a&HD=101116‐1037&HDR=G1&STB=T&CHARTTYPE=3.

GUIDING THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY TOWARDS MORE …€¦ · relaties tussen bepalende factoren....

Documents

Transcript of GUIDING THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY TOWARDS MORE …€¦ · relaties tussen bepalende factoren....