info@fpinnovations.
ca
www.fpinnovations.ca
Evaluating Integration of Design for
Disassembly Principles in Exterior Wall System
PROJECT NUMBER: 301014059
Project leader: Christian Dagenais
Task lead: Lal Mahalle
Scientific contribution: Dieudonné Batsy
Reviewer: Patrick Lavoie
March 2021
Abstract
Design for Disassembly and Adaptability (DfD/A) is a sustainability approach that can help extend the
lifespan of buildings, reduce generation of construction waste at the end-of-life and reduce
construction’s footprint as well. This study qualitatively assesses six light wood-frame exterior wall
assemblies designed for thermal performance. The assemblies studied are typical of low- and mid-
rise wood buildings.
Results indicate that the exterior wall systems tested against the evaluation grid have a score of 15
points out of 40 points. Mere focus on thermal performance with no attention to deconstruction of
components at the end-of-life is the reason for the poor score received from the evaluation. Findings
indicate the need for incorporating DfD/A principles at the early-design stages of systems.
Project number: 301014059 REVIEWERS
Patrick Lavoie
Technical Report TR 2021 N 57 Senior Scientist
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
[email protected] This project was financially supported by AUTHOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Dieudonné Batsy
Natural Resources Canada
Scientist
[email protected] APPROVER CONTACT INFORMATION Vincent
Blanchard Lal Mahalle
Senior scientist
Manager, Environment and Sustainability
[email protected] [email protected] Disclaimer to any person or entity as to the accuracy, correctness, or completeness of the
information, data, or any analysis thereof contained in this report, or any other
Follow us
recommendation, representation, or warranty whatsoever concerning this report.
Table of content
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 2
2 Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 2
3 Approach ................................................................................................................................. 2
4 Case study................................................................................................................................ 2
5 DfD/A principles ...................................................................................................................... 4
6 Evaluation grid ......................................................................................................................... 5
7 Selected criteria ....................................................................................................................... 5
8 Results and discussion ............................................................................................................. 6
9 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 7
10 Recommendations................................................................................................................... 7
11 References ............................................................................................................................... 9
12 Appendix ................................................................................................................................ 10
List of figures
Figure 1. Wall assembly systems ..................................................................................................... 3
List of tables
Table 1. Structural details of the wall assemblies evaluated .................................................... 4
Table 2. Design for adaptability and design for disassembly principles ................................... 5
Table 3. Summary results from the evaluation of LFW1 assembly considering DfD/A criteria ...... 6
Table 4. Scoring points of all assembly systems ....................................................................... 7
Table 5. Evaluation grid [6] ..................................................................................................... 10
i
1 INTRODUCTION
One of the goals of the circular economy is to keep materials and products in use by extending
their lifespan, recirculating them back into the economy through recycling, refurbishing, or
repurposing [1]. According to Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) estimates, unrecovered wood
waste in municipal solid waste and construction and demolition amounts to about 1.75 million
metric tons annually, equivalent to about 7 percent of the unrecovered waste stream in Canada
[2]. Recyc-Québec reports that more than 55% of residual materials from the construction sector
are wood, in various forms [3]. As is the case with all products and materials, there is an interest
in reducing wood disposal and prioritizing its reuse and recycling. One way to achieving this goal
would be to design buildings considering their end of life, and/or keeping in mind potential
changes in use.
Design for Disassembly and Adaptability (DfD/A) is a sustainability approach that can help reduce
construction waste, increase the lifespan of buildings, and reduce construction’s footprint as well.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA) produced guidelines in 2006 to inform architects, engineers
and other stakeholders with design principles [4]. In 2020, ISO published a standard, i.e., ISO
20887:2020 that contains principles, requirements and guidance for planning and evaluating
designs for disassembly of buildings and civil engineering works [5].
2 OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this project is to evaluate a number of light wood-frame exterior wall systems
used in 1 to 6 storeys buildings against DfD/A principles.
3 APPROACH
The evaluation approach consists of using the evaluation grid developed by Batsy and Lavoie [6].
This grid has never been tested since its development. This project makes it possible to determine
whether, from a practical point of view, the grid could be applied to evaluate DfD/A. Note that
the evaluation grid applied to the wall assemblies are merely a qualitative assessment without
any quantification of materials or costs. A quantitative assessment might lead to different results.
4 CASE STUDY
The case study considers a series of exterior light wood-frame wall (LWF) systems designed to
meet the minimum thermal performance (e.g., R22) (see Table 1). Structural details pertaining to
the wall systems are presented on Figure 1. It is important to mention that the walls were
designed without consideration for design for disassembly and adaptability principles.
2
Figure 1. Wall assembly systems
3
Table 1.Structural details of the wall assemblies evaluated
Stud
Interior Vapour Sheathing Exterior Effective
Wall No. Framing cavity Sheathing Cladding
finish control membrane insulation R
insulation
Regular
6 mil poly R28
latex 2x8 @ 16
1 vapour fiberglass - 22.4
paint on o.c.
barrier batt
drywall
2x4 @ 16
o.c.
Regular Vapour double
Open-cell
latex retarder stud with
2 spray - 22.4
paint on paint on ¼” gap
foam
drywall foam (using 2 by Hardboard
8 for siding
OSB Spun-
perimeter) installed on
sheathing, bonded
Regular 1½” stone 1x2 battens
3 6 mil poly 11 mm polyolefin 23.0
latex wool rigid to create a
vapour thick membrane
paint on rainscreen
4 barrier 1” XPS cavity 22.0
drywall
Vapour
Vapour R20 1” faced-
retarder 2x6 @ 16
5 retarder fiberglass polyiso- 23.2
paint on o.c.
paint batt* cyanurate
drywall
Regular
6 mil poly
latex 1½” type
6 vapour 23.0
paint on 2 EPS
barrier
drywall
XPS: extruded polystyrene; EPS: expanded polystyrene; OSB: oriented strand board; o.c.: on centre.
5 DFD/A PRINCIPLES
Design for disassembly and adaptability (DfD/A) is based on a series of principles defined in the
CSA Z782-06 and ISO DIS 20887 standards [4, 5]. Table 2 lists many principles provided in those
standards. The DfD/A principles are guidelines that can be applied at different levels: materials,
components, assembly, system, etc. which gives designers flexibility for creating innovative
building systems.
The purpose of the guidelines is not to achieve building certification or specific ratings; designers
are free to incorporate these principles if they wish in their projects based on client needs. Thus,
a design for disassembly and adaptability project may include a limited set of these principles.
4
Table 2.Design for adaptability and design for disassembly principles
Description
Versatility Ability to accommodate different functions with minor system changes
Adaptability
Convertibility Ability to accommodate substantial change in user needs by making modifications
Ability of a design or the characteristic of a system to accommodate substantial change that
Expandability
supports or facilitates the addition of new space, features, capabilities, and capacities
Accessibility Ability for ease of access to components for disassembly, refurbishment, replacement, or upgrade
Exposed and reversible Connections that are left accessible for disassembly or modification. Connections that can be
connections disconnected and/or disassembled for easy alterations and additions to structures
Quality that allows parts, components, modules, and systems to be removed or upgraded without
Independence
affecting the performance of connected or adjacent systems
Inherent finishes Condition of material left in its most basic state without contamination by an applied finish
Disassembly
Design supporting circular Choice of materials and system compositions to recover materials during their life cycle or at the
economy business models end of their life in an acceptable state for reuse and recycling.
Quality of an assembly or system that is designed to be straightforward, easy to understand and
Simplicity
meets performance requirements with the least amount of customization
Standardization / Choice of established dimensions (e.g., modular or generic) to reduce the number of different or
modularity proprietary elements used in the building
Deconstruction safety Ability to dismantle building elements with an acceptable risk for the workers and workers involved.
Ability of a constructed asset or any of its components to perform its required functions in its
Durability
service environment over a specified period without unforeseen maintenance or repair
Documentation of Documentation that supports safe disassembly shall be maintained and available throughout the
disassembly information life of the constructed works
Sources[4, 5]
6 EVALUATION GRID
The proposed evaluation grid shown in appendix (see Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable.), is
based on the example presented in informative Annex A of ISO 20887 [5]. The objective of the
grid is to facilitate the implementation of DfD/A principles and, in doing so, reduce construction
and demolition (C&D) waste generation at the end-of-life. The level of priority of the issues raised,
their weighting, and the applicable scales and units should be subject to a more formal
consultation involving a range of stakeholders. Such an approach would consider the knowledge
and priorities of the latter and would help to convey the concepts and principles of the DfD/A.
The aim of the proposal below is to stimulate discussion and foster industry adoption of DfD/A.
The grid used in this report only includes criteria which apply to wall assemblies taken out of their
building context. In practice, aspects relating to building mechanics, for example, should also be
included.
7 SELECTED CRITERIA
Since the assessment is performed for wall system, only a few applicable criteria are selected to
evaluate the assemblies. In fact, principles for adaptability, particularly, versatility, and
expandability refer to how a given space can be versatile, or expandable. Since the focus of this
case study is wall systems, versality and expandability cannot be evaluated.
5
Furthermore, the scientists performing the evaluation required additional information on
installation would have contributed to a more in-depth analysis. Selected criteria are as followed:
✓ Simplicity
✓ Easy access to components
✓ Independence
✓ Durability
✓ Design supporting circular economy business models
✓ Reversible connections
✓ Inherent finishes
✓ Durability
The maximum score which can be achieved based on the grid used in this assessment is 40 points;
the lowest possible score is 8 points. In fact, the maximum scoring is a function of how many
criteria are selected, knowing that each criterion provides a maximum sore of 5 points and a
minimum score of 1 point by default. In our case, 8 times 5 points give 40 points (as maximum
score), and 8 times1 points give 8 points (as minimum score).
8 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 3 presents the evaluation scores for wall assembly LWF1. As the wall assemblies have not
been designed for deconstruction, the results show that the LWF1 system scores poorly in all
selected criteria except for simplicity and durability. Under the durability criteria, LWF1’s
structure and components have the capacity to fulfill their functions over the lifespan of the
building without major repairs. Results show that LWF1 scores only 15 points out 40. This is a low
score in terms of DfD/A, indicating that the wall systems should have been designed to make most
of their components feasible for recovery and reuse at the end of the building life.
Table 3. Summary results from the evaluation of LFW1 assembly considering DfD/A criteria
Criteria
Score Comment
Disassembly principles
The assembly is simple, but with limited modularity
(ability add or remove components). Almost same
Simplicity 4/5
number of components compared to equivalent
system (LFW2 @ LFW6)
1/5 Access on layer-basis which is conventional access
Easy access to components / services
way: “Limited access”.
1/5 At least 3 non-structural elements (Siding, battens,
gypsum) could be removed or repaired without
Independence
affecting the performance of surrounding
components
1/5 At least two elements (OSB and Studs) can exceed
Durability
the lifespan of the assembly
1/5 Depending on nailing pattern and other connection
Design supporting circular economy aspect, sheathing could be difficult to remove.
business models Insulation is low value/high bulk and requires
storage, may not be reused. Stud reuse is doubtful.
1/5 No reversible connection at all.
Reversible connections
6
1/5 Latex paint on drywall are examples of non-inherent
Inherent finishes finishes that hinder the reusability or recyclability of
materials
5/5 The assembly can last 60 years, but minor repairs
Durability
may be needed.
Total score 15/40
Table 4 presents the scoring performance of all wall assembly systems from LWF1 to LFW6. Since
all the wall systems were designed with the same approach focused on meeting a certain level of
thermal performance regardless of designing for disassembly, all the systems have poor scores in
all selected criteria except for simplicity and durability criteria. As stated earlier, durability of the
wall assemblies received the maximum score of 5 points as all walls are expected to outlast the
service life of the buildings only requiring minor repairs. All systems have the same score because
wall assemblies look similar from DfD/A perspective. Differences, from DfD/A perspective, in wall
assemblies should lead to different scores.
Table 4. Scoring points of all assembly systems
Scoring points (pts)
Criteria LWF1 LWF2 LWF3 LWF4 LWF5 LWF6
Simplicity 4/5 4/5 4/5 4/5 4/5 4/5
Easy access to components / services 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5
Independence 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5
Durability 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5
Design supporting circular economy 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5
business models
Reversible connections 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5
Inherent finishes 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5
Durability 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5
Total Score /40 points
15 15 15 15 15 15
9 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the qualitative assessment performed, mere focus on thermal performance with no
attention to deconstruction of components at the end-of-life leads to a poor of design for
disassembly.
10 RECOMMENDATIONS
▪ To improve disassembly potential, design for disassembly principles need to be
understood and considered at the design stage.
▪ Efforts should be put to include materials and components with high potential for
disassembly (e.g., reversible connections, recyclable materials) to improve the
disassembly potential at the end-of-service life.
7
8
11 REFERENCES
1. Kelleher, M., Preliminary Resource Recovery Report Card and Gaps Assessment for
Canada. 2020.
2. Rick Leblanc. Canadian wood recycling sector positions itself for growth. 2018 April 17,
2018 [cited 2021 03/ 29].
3. Récyc-Québec, Résidus de construction, de rénovation et de démolition (CRD), Récyc-
Québec, Editor. 2018: Québec.
4. CSA Group, Design for the environment (DFE), in Z762-95, C. Group, Editor. 2016, CSA
Group.
5. ISO, Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works —Design for disassembly and
adaptability — Principles,requirements and guidance, I.D. 20887:2019(E), Editor. 2020.
6. Batsy, D. and P. Lavoie, Conception des bâtiments pour la démontabilité et l'adaptabilité
(CPD/A) - Design for Disassembly and Adaptability ou DfD/A). 2020, FPInnovations.
7. CSA Group, Guideline On Durability In Buildings, in S478-2019, CSA, Editor. 2019.
9
12 APPENDIX
Table 5.Evaluation grid [6]
Principles Description Score Score
1. Adaptability Professional Number of
principles concerned Definition Basis of estimates 1 pt 2 pts 3 pts 4 pts 5 pts pts earned
Versatility Structure Structure capacity to Additional acceptable load + 5% + 10% + 20%
support additional
loads due to a change
in use
Convertibility Architecture Minimal finishes Percentage of multi- 5% 20% ≥ 30%
allowing the use of purpose spaces
spaces for different
functions
Expansion capacity Structure / Capacity to add floor Finishes and connections Horizontal Horizontal
architecture space allowing one or more OR planned AND planned
expansion types horizontal horizontal
expansion expansion
2. Disassembly Professional
principles concerned Definition Basis of estimates 1 pt 2 pts 3 pts 4 pts 5 pts
Standardization / Structure Structural element Number of beam ≥ 7 dimensions 4–6 ≤3
modularity repeatability dimensions (height x dimensions dimensions
Horizontal: Beams and width) representing 60% of
joists total horizontal structural
elements
*Do not consider length
Standardization / Structure Structural element Number of column ≥ 10 8-9 6-7 4-5 ≤3
modularity repeatability dimensions (width x dimensions dimensions dimensions dimensions dimensions
Vertical: Columns and thickness) representing
supporting walls 60% of total vertical
structural elements
*Do not consider height
10
Standardization / Architecture Interior finish Number of different 4-6 finishes ≤ 3 finishes
modularity repeatability finishes
Standardization / Architecture Exterior finish Number of different 4-6 finishes ≤ 3 finishes
modularity repeatability finishes
Simplicity Architecture / Quality of an assembly Number of system Average Low number
structure or a system that is components vs. number of of system
simply designed, easy comparable systems and system components
to understand and has level of standardization / components and high
a low level of modularity and average level of
customization level of modularity
modularity
Easy access to Structure / Access capacity to Access type and damage to Limited access Limited Adequate Adequate Full access
components / services architecture different components surrounding elements with access with access with access with with limited
and systems significant minor minor minor damage to
damage to > damage to < damage to < damage to < surrounding
50% of 50% of 50% of 25% of elements
surrounding surrounding surrounding surrounding
elements elements elements elements
Safety of disassembly Structure Adress if safe Hazard and risk level for Medium risk Low risk and Very low
disassembly is possible workers and importance of and larger normal risk and
safety measures to be than normal measures normal
implemented in measurements measures
deconstruction/dismantling
Independence Architecture Capacity to repair and Number of systems or 2-5 elements 6-9 ≥ 10
remove components components that have installed taking elements installed
without affecting the been designed to be easily into account installed elements
performance of removed based on their the lifespan taking into taking into
surrounding lifespan hierarchy account the account the
components lifespan lifespan
hierarchy hierarchy
Durability Architecture Long life span of the Number of materials 2-5 elements 6-9 ≥ 10
components without exceeding lifespan elements elements
affecting the building according to CSA S478
performance or useful and/or ISO 15686-8
life
11
Design supporting Structure / Selection of materials Percentage of reusable and < 40% 40-60% > 60%
circular economy architecture and system recyclable materials on a
business models compositions to mass basis
recover materials *Materials that are
during their life cycle reusable as is or after
or at the end of life in minor restoration are
an acceptable valued 2x. Recyclable
condition to be reused materials are calculated on
and recycled a 1:1 basis
Reversible connections Structure Connections that are Percentage of connection 20-40% of 50-70% of > 80% of
easy to undo and allow types used that are connection connection connection
modifications and reversible types types types
additions to the
existing structure
Inherent finishes Architecture Materials with little or Percentage of materials < 20% 20-39% 40-59% 60-79% ≥ 80%
no finish whose finish is not a barrier
to reuse or recycling (mass
basis)
Durability Architecture Capacity of a structure Projected 60-year repair > 90% of initial 60-90% of < 60% of
and its components to costs (undiscounted) cost initial cost initial cost
perform their relative to original
functions over time construction cost (%)
without major repairs
Documentation of Architecture / Documentation Existence and support used Electronic Electronic
deconstruction structure presenting support support
procedures and deconstruction WITHOUT updated on
materials inventory techniques and annual an annual
approaches and listing update basis
materials present in
the building
12
[email protected]
www.fpinnovations.ca
OUR OFFICES
Pointe-Claire Vancouver Québec
570 Saint-Jean Blvd. 2665 East Mall 1055 rue du P.E.P.S.
Pointe-Claire, QC Vancouver, BC Québec, QC
Canada H9R 3J9 Canada V6T 1Z4 Canada G1V 4C7
(514) 630-4100 (604) 224-3221 (418) 659-2647
1
