Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Development and validation of a building design waste reduction model

C. Llatas a,⇑, M. Osmani b
a
Departamento de Construcciones Arquitectónicas I, Universidad de Sevilla, ETS de Arquitectura, IUACC, Avda. Reina Mercedes 2, 41012 Sevilla, Spain
b
School of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Reduction in construction waste is a pressing need in many countries. The design of building elements is
Received 4 September 2015 considered a pivotal process to achieve waste reduction at source, which enables an informed prediction
Revised 30 March 2016 of their wastage reduction levels. However the lack of quantitative methods linking design strategies to
Accepted 25 May 2016
waste reduction hinders designing out waste practice in building projects. Therefore, this paper addresses
Available online xxxx
this knowledge gap through the design and validation of a Building Design Waste Reduction Strategies
(Waste ReSt) model that aims to investigate the relationships between design variables and their impact
Keywords:
on onsite waste reduction. The Waste ReSt model was validated in a real-world case study involving 20
Building design waste reduction model
Design waste reduction strategies
residential buildings in Spain. The validation process comprises three stages. Firstly, design waste causes
Design waste reduction level quantification were analyzed. Secondly, design strategies were applied leading to several alternative low waste building
Design waste reduction assessment elements. Finally, their potential source reduction levels were quantified and discussed within the
context of the literature. The Waste ReSt model could serve as an instrumental tool to simulate designing
out strategies in building projects. The knowledge provided by the model could help project stakeholders
to better understand the correlation between the design process and waste sources and subsequently
implement design practices for low-waste buildings.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction prompted governments to develop environmental policies to curb

CDW. Particularly, CDW prevention and reduction at source has
The large amounts of waste generated by the construction become a priority in the EU waste management hierarchy
industry represent a growing problem that requires effective plan- (European Commission, 2008). However, the latest European statis-
ning, management and monitoring in many countries. The con- tics revealed that while the generation of some waste streams, such
struction industry in the EU-28, is the greatest producer of waste as in the household sector, remained constant and others fell,
among all European industries, being responsible for 34% of total namely manufacturing waste which decreased by 26% between
waste generation (Eurostat, 2013). Construction activities also rep- 2004 and 2012; the levels of CDW grew at a rapid pace reaching
resent a significant source of toxic substances accounting for 22% of 45% increase in the same period (Eurostat, 2015). Therefore,
all EU hazardous waste (Eurostat, 2010). Additionally, construction governmental-driven legislative and regulatory measures are
and demolition waste (CDW) recovery and backfilling rates in some proving ineffective as they have failed to reduce CDW generation
EU Member states such Cyprus, Greece and Finland are as low as resulting in a lack of quantitative waste reduction targeting and
10% (European Commission, 2011) of the overall landfilled waste. benchmarking data that would help designers and contractors
Furthermore, CDW production has adverse effects on the environ- minimize waste in their construction projects.
ment and involves a significant project budget increase due to the There is consensus in the literature that to prevent or minimize
loss of tonnage of materials being sent to landfill in addition to labor construction waste (CW), it is necessary to consider its reduction
double handling, transportation and landfill costs. In the UK, for during design (Osmani et al., 2008; Innes, 2004; Coventry and
example, where CDW equates to three times the combined waste Guthrie, 1998; Bossink and Brouwers, 1996). Nevertheless, the
produced by all households (Defra, 2007), their disposal costs the bulk of international academic research endeavors over the past
industry around £1 billion per year (WRAP, 2008). Consequently, decade have been focused on methods and strategies to manage
over several decades, an ever-increasing social awareness has CW that has already been generated if compared with design waste
(DW) reduction research, which is ‘‘limited and piecemeal”
(Osmani, 2013). As such, Lu and Yuan (2010) acknowledged there
⇑ Corresponding author. is a pressing need to investigate CW issues in project design.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Llatas), [email protected] (M. Osmani).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.026
0956-053X/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Llatas, C., Osmani, M. Development and validation of a building design waste reduction model. Waste Management
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.026
2 C. Llatas, M. Osmani / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Furthermore, approaches of existing-methods on DW reduction are Waste estimation tools provide the essential basis for
largely unfitting because ‘‘they do not specifically identify waste- understanding causes, types and quantities of construction waste
stream components in relation to their occurrence during the arising from building designs (Wu et al., 2014). Prior knowledge of
architectural design” (Osmani et al., 2008). Therefore, this paper waste in a project will enable assessment of their management
aims to develop and validate a model for Building Design Waste possibilities, including the waste prevention (Llatas, 2013).
Reduction Strategies (Waste ReSt) that accentuates and assesses However, the complexity of the construction process and the
the relationships between design variables and their impact on involvement of a diverse number of stakeholders across different
onsite waste reduction using a structured, traceable and quantita- project stages make it difficult to realistically predict the types and
tive approach. A case study was conducted to apply the proposed quantities of onsite waste streams. This is further hindered by an
model to 20 Housing buildings in Andalusia in Spain. It is expected imperceptible stakeholders’ allocation of waste minimization
that the identified variables associated with DW reduction strate- responsibilities. As such, a recent study defined and related origins,
gies and their inter-relationships could assist project stakeholders causes and sources of waste across all project life stages and
in understanding and addressing DW sources in building projects. concluded that ‘‘waste generation is affected by a wide practice of
Within the context of this paper ‘design waste (DW)’ is defined not embedding waste reduction in briefing and contractual docu-
as construction waste that could be avoided during the design ments, no baseline setting, and lack of designers’ understanding of
stage; waste ‘sources’ are associated with DW generation prove- design waste origins, causes and sources” (Osmani, 2013).
nance in the building site (e.g., damaged materials and excavated
soil); waste ‘parameters’ refer to variables considered in the design 2.2. Design waste reduction strategies
stage that affect the DW sources; ‘building element’ is a key compo-
nent of a building (e.g., beam, wall and door); and ‘building system’ A growing body of literature (Osmani et al., 2008; Baldwin et al.,
represents a group of building elements that are interrelated and 2006; Poon et al., 2004; Greenwood, 2003) indicates that designers
coordinated among themselves through the project (e.g., structure, play a pivotal role in reducing onsite CW. Coventry and Guthrie
masonry, carpentry). (1998) assigned to architects a triple role in reducing waste: giving
advice to customers, improving design practices and initiating
waste reduction at project level. Over the past decade, several
2. A review of design waste literature studies with different approaches identified strategies to reduce
DW in the project that can be grouped into soft and hard strategies.
2.1. Design waste causes Within the first group, modulation, standardization and optimiza-
tion were identified as effective designing out waste strategies for
Several studies identified design as a key stage of a project life several reasons. The modulation of the project and dimensional
cycle to identify and adopt specific waste minimization actions coherence of products improve coordination at project level as it
that could be implemented throughout the construction phase. prevents design modifications and abortive work during site oper-
Innes (2004) estimated that 33% of on-site waste is due to archi- ations (Coventry and Guthrie, 1998). The standardization of design
tects’ failure to implement waste reduction measures during applied to both the use of standard dimensions and units, such as
design stages. Uninformed design decisions such as inadequate the use of standard materials, reduces the off-cuts and improves
dimensional coordination during the design stage tend to generate buildability (Hylands, 2004). The optimization of buildability solu-
off-cuts, which were identified as a major waste cause (Bossink tions was deemed as an appropriate waste minimization strategy
and Brouwers, 1996). Similarly, Ekanayake and Ofori (2000) rated to streamline designs that conventionally require more material
lack of information on drawings, complexity of detailing, selection than necessary as a result of over-specification resulting in unused
of low-quality materials and lack of familiarity of alternative materials that generally skipped and landfilled (Greenwood, 2003).
products as the most significant causes of waste. Furthermore, Other studies focused on hard strategies to recover waste
Chandrakanthi et al. (2002) attributed DW causes to lack of through the development of cleaner technologies. Regarding the
knowledge about construction techniques during design activities, use of reclaimed CDW, designers can influence reusability and
alternative products and standard sizes available in the market. recyclability potential through the selection and specification of
Several research studies identified last minute design changes, appropriate materials and structural systems, component types
which result in rework and partial demolition, as a significant and their connections (Kartam et al., 2004; Gibb, 2001; Coventry
DW cause. This was attributed to various design related inefficien- and Guthrie, 1998). Cleaner technologies, pre-casting and prefabri-
cies, including errors in specifications and contract documents cation were identified as efficient design strategies because they
(Poon et al., 2004; Poon and Jaillon, 2002); last minute client offer significant opportunities to reduce waste (Baldwin et al.,
requirements (Poon et al., 2004; Poon and Jaillon, 2002; Coventry 2006) and better control of waste and damage avoidance (Dainty
et al., 2001); and the complexity of detailing drawings or changes and Brooke, 2004). A limited number of research studies quantified
in the type or quantity of building materials required at later stages the levels of waste reduction achieved with the use of prefabrica-
(Osmani, 2013). A recent study categorized causes of design errors tion in buildings. These studies obtained overall wastage reduction
into three types: illogical design such as clashes between different levels up to 52% (Jaillon et al., 2008); 84.7% (Tam et al., 2007a) and
building elements as well as drafting errors; discrepancies even 100% (Tam et al., 2007b). In addition, these investigations
between drawings; and missing items (Won et al., 2016). These identified building systems that were most affected, estimating
causes could be addressed through an integrated building design reduction of 74–87% in timber formwork and 51–60% in concrete
that can avoid design changes, thereby reducing onsite works (Tam et al., 2005) and 70% in building finishing works on site
construction waste generation (Cheng et al., 2015). concreting (Lawton et al., 2002). Table 1 highlights the key litera-
Additionally, there is general agreement in the literature that ture causes that related waste streams to their respective sources
poor communication between project stakeholders’ leading to and used prefabrication systems to quantify the levels of CW
mistakes and errors; ‘overlapping of design and construction’ reduction.
(Keys et al., 2000); and long project durations that allow the design However, there is a lack of quantitative approaches to assess the
to be modified to suit changes in the market, research or legislation effects of each prefabricated component on the overall waste
(Poon et al., 2004; Ekanayake and Ofori, 2000) are significant DW reduction rate in buildings. Studies that adopted a qualitative
causes. approach evaluated alternative building elements and developed

Please cite this article in press as: Llatas, C., Osmani, M. Development and validation of a building design waste reduction model. Waste Management
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.026
 C. Llatas, M. Osmani / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 3

Table 1
Design waste (DW) streams, causes, strategies and reduction (compiled from literature).

Waste stream Source/cause Design strategy % reduced Study

Concrete, timber formwork, Non-prefabrication Prefabrication 52% –84.7% –100% of all Jaillon et al. (2008)a; Tam et al.
a b c

material wastage construction waste (2007a,b)b,c

Concrete In-situ concreting Volumetric 70% of in-situ concreting Lawton et al. (2002)
prefabrication
Prefabrication 51–60% of concrete works Tam et al. (2005)
Mortar, plaster, paints Building finishing works on-site Volumetric 70% of building finishing Lawton et al. (2002)
prefabrication works on-site
Timber formwork In-situ concreting, the major contributor Prefabrication 74–87% of timber Poon et al. (2004)a; Tam et al. (2005)b
to CW, 30% of all wastea formworkb
Wet trades, concreting, The second major waste generator, 20% of Prefabrication Not noted Poon et al. (2004)
masonry, plastering all waste
and tiling
Off-cuts Cutting materials, inadequate dimensional Modulation Not noted Jaillon et al. (2008); Coventry and Guthrie
coordination, design complexity (1998); Bossink and Brouwers (1996)
Use of standard Not noted Osmani (2013); Hylands (2004)
materials
Unused materials Over-specification, lack of specifications Optimization Not noted Greenwood (2003)
Breakages Selection of low-quality materials Not noted Not noted Ekanayake and Ofori (2000)
Soil waste Unforeseen ground conditions Not noted Not noted Poon et al. (2004)
On-site material wastage, Architects’ failure to implement waste Not noted 33% of on-site waste Innes (2004)
breakages reduction measures during design stages
Rework and partial Design changes (several causes) Not noted Not noted Won et al. (2016); Cheng et al.
demolitions (2015); Poon et al. (2004);
Poon and Jaillon (2002);
Chandrakanthi et al. (2002);
Ekanayake and Ofori (2000);
Keys et al. (2000); Bossink
and Brouwers (1996)

tools obtaining a benchmarking score in the projects according to 3.1. Model development methodological approach
their level of waste reduction (Ekanayake and Ofori, 2004). A
growing number of tools, have been developed, such as The approaches used in the literature to estimate the levels and
SMARTWaste (BRE, 2007), as a means of recording and generating classification of construction waste are mainly based on the experi-
data on the quantities and types of onsite waste streams. However, ence of construction companies and developers through on-site
these tools do not associate onsite waste to its source evaluation, measurements (Bossink and Brouwers, 1996; Pinto and Agopyan,
particularly design waste. Moreover, despite the potential use of 1994; Skoyles and Skoyles, 1987); surveys (Ekanayake and Ofori,
Building Information Modeling (BIM) techniques by architects as 2004); documentary records (Forsythe and Marsden, 1999); and
a platform for minimizing construction waste in their design interviews (Serpell and Labra, 2003; Forsythe and Marsden, 1999).
projects, there are hardly any BIM applications in current practice However a major barrier for CW prediction in projects is the absence
that address design out waste in an integrated manner with the of informed CW generation data that can be assessed during the
other design parameters (Liu et al., 2015), Therefore, there is a lack pre-construction stages and extrapolated to the specificity of each
of methods and design tools, that identify waste streams in relation project. To overcome this drawback, a CW quantification model is
to their project stage incidence, as indicated by Osmani et al. proposed in this paper. Unlike other approaches, the quantification
(2008), and as such it is difficult to analyze the traceability of waste model allows to estimate ‘virtual’ CW of each building element
generated. Moreover, despite well-established recognition of the during the design process. The methodological development process
impact of design on the reduction of waste in literature, DW of the Waste Rest model comprises three interdependent and
research efforts in the last decade are limited if compared with consequential steps described below.
CDW recycling studies (Yuan and Shen, 2011).
Although existing literature emphasizes the correlation
Step 1: Evaluation of design waste (DW): Firstly, the types and
between design and CW reduction, there is a lack of methods amounts of DW can be estimated from seven DW factors
and tools that address their relationships. Therefore, this research (Table 5) by applying Eqs. (1)–(5). DW is predicted by building
set out to develop and validate a model for DW reduction strate- element and classified according to the European Waste List
gies using a quantitative, traceable and structured approach. (European Commission, 2014). Building elements and building
systems can be identified within a systematic structure of the
3. Methodology construction process (Andalusian Government, 2015). DW
parameters that affect DW sources can be identified and
As shown in Fig. 1, the adopted method is twofold: (1) develop a assessed from their respective DW factor.
model for Building Design Waste Reduction Strategies (Waste
Step 2: Development of DW reduction strategies: Secondly, DW
ReSt); and (2) carry out a real-world case study to validate the reduction strategies (R 1.1. - R 8.2) that decrease DW can be
Waste ReSt model, which has been applied to 20 new residential developed (Table 6) by applying eight causal relationships
buildings. The resulting design waste strategies of this research (C1-C8) that relate DW factors, DW reduction strategies and
are based on a systematic correlation between onsite waste reduced DW.
generation of building systems and their respective design sources.
Step 3: Assessment of DW reduction strategies: Thirdly,
The adopted methodological process for the development and alternative building elements ðAij Þ can be designed taking into
validation of the building design waste reduction model is account the latter DW reduction strategies. DW0 factors can be
described and discussed in the sections below. allocated for these alternative building elements, and the types

Please cite this article in press as: Llatas, C., Osmani, M. Development and validation of a building design waste reduction model. Waste Management
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.026
4 C. Llatas, M. Osmani / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Waste ReSt Model Design

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Evaluation of design Development of DW Assessment of DW
waste (DW) reduction strategies reduction strategies

Waste ReSt Model Validation

Case study: 20 residential buildings (Tables 2-4)

Fig. 1. Waste reduction model methodological overview.

and amounts of reduced DW can be estimated by applying Eqs. Table 3

(6)–(9). Finally, the effectiveness of design waste reduction Types of buildings in Spain-Andalusia (Spanish Government, 2015).
strategies in each building system can be achieved by applying Statistics building
Eq. (10). construction data (number of
buildings/year)
3.2. Model validation case study Buildings by type of construction Spain Andalusia
New residential buildings 44,781 13,633
A case study was carried out in Seville city in South of Spain to New non-residential buildings 35,110 9938
validate the Waste Rest model. The latter was applied to assess Renovated buildings 9671 3695
waste performance of building systems in 20 residential projects, Demolished buildings 31,910 8359

which are listed in Table 2.

The validation case study sample was chosen as it is considered
a representative situation of the current prevailing construction
programmes in the Andalusian area, as shown in Tables 3 and 4. on-site manufacture of materials). All 20 buildings were under
Therefore, the validation case study focussed on new residential construction at the time of data collection although in different
buildings (Spanish Government, 2015). stages.
There is also a higher incidence of multi-family buildings with a A major data collection barrier was the lack of output data,
number of floors greater than four storey residential buildings types and amounts of actual waste generated by building element.
(Spanish Government, 2015), aspect that was also taken into Waste data recorded by the construction companies were scarce
account in the sample selection. In terms of construction methods, and did not cover all waste streams neither all building systems.
the predominant techniques employed in the current Andalusian This situation was widespread in the construction sector in Spain
residential projects are conventional cast in situ structures, during the period of the case study (2009–2012), which was
masonry external walls and partitions and mortar or plaster coat- reflected in the National Integrated Waste Plan 2007–2015
ings (Spanish Government, 2015). (Spanish Government - Ministry of the Environment, 2009). The
In-put data (DW factors of the reference building elements and Plan noted that it was not possible to make estimates of C&D waste
their alternatives) was mainly collected through design given the lack of reliable statistics. The same challenge has already
documentation analysis and completed with onsite measurements been highlighted in the validation of other models of waste
and information gathering from suppliers and contractors. For minimization (e.g., Yuan et al., 2012) due to the unavailability of
example, the building materials, elements, systems and their historical data that resulted in reverting to literature as the sole
design parameters were identified and quantified from projects’ validation reference for the developed models.
documentation of the case study buildings (B1-B20), mainly
through the budget and design documentation (drawings, details,
specifications of technical conditions). A subsequent analysis of 4. Design waste reduction model development
the collected documentation provided information about the
materials supplied their packaging and on-site logistical processes The Waste Rest Model design is illustrated in Fig. 2 and
(collection, supply conditions, internal transport, execution, described in the sections below.

Table 2
Selected buildings.

Residential building Construction company Description Built area m2 Number of stories

B1 VIAS 109 housing- multi-family 13,910 8
B2 VIAS 134 housing- multi-family 17,981 9
B3 Copcisa 204 housing- multi-family 23,906 8
B4 CYES 147 housing- multi-family 18,592 9
B5 San José 225 housing- multi-family 27,375 8
B6 Acciona 245 housing- multi-family 45,705 9
B7 Dragados 103 housing- multi-family 14,112 6
B8 Sanrocon 66 housing- multi-family 7618 5
B9 San José 27 housing- multi-family 2882 4
B10-B20 Several 11 single-family 120–250 1–2

Please cite this article in press as: Llatas, C., Osmani, M. Development and validation of a building design waste reduction model. Waste Management
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.026
 C. Llatas, M. Osmani / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 5

Table 4
DWRi, DWPi, DWSi are the volumes of the product waste,
Characteristics of residential buildings in Spain-Andalusia (Spanish Government, packaging waste and soil expected in the building element
2015).
number ‘‘i”.
Building by type of housing Statistics building construction
(EWL)Rk, (EWL)Pk, (EWL)Sk, (EWL)⁄P/R/S are the types of the
and building system data (number of buildings, %) product waste, packaging waste, soil and hazardous waste
Spain Andalusia number ‘‘k” coded respectively according to the EWL.
Type of housing
Ni, Qi, FP, FR, FS, FC, FI are the DW factors of the building element
Single-family buildings 32 36 ‘‘i”.
Multi-family buildings 68 64
Number of storeys Throughout this analysis DW parameters that affect DW
0–1 floor 8 8 sources can be identified and assessed from their respective DW
2 floors 26 36
factor. For example and as shown in Table 5, the design of building
3 floors 15 18
>4 floors 51 38 elements that requires more materials and auxiliary resources
(DW parameter) increase Qi (DW factor) and therefore the appear-
Structure
In-situ concreting 72 91 ance of damages of materials (DW sources) resulting in a greater
Steel 6 2 amount of DW. This analysis can also be regressive, then starting
Brick walls 15 5 with the detection of DW and ending with the assessment of its
Mixed and other 7 2
DW parameters. Therefore, the sequence of DW source-effect
Floors provided by the Waste ReSt model allows the traceability of wastes
In-situ concreting 83 81
from their sources to their designing out waste parameters. This
Others 17 19
structured approach through the building process allows also the
Roofing
analysis of the waste origins as Osmani (2013) denoted, since the
Flat roof 35 50
Pitched roof 65 50
model can detect the project stages or processes during which
wastes occurs.
Exterior wall finishes
Ceramic 50 63
Stone 13 3 4.2. Step 2: development of design waste reduction strategies
Mortar 32 31
Others 5 3
DW factors are related to the DW sources. Therefore, DW reduc-
tion strategies that address DW sources can decrease DW factors.
4.1. Step 1: evaluation of design waste
Consequently, DW is reduced in accordance with Eqs. (1)–(5).
Table 6 shows the relationship between 34 DW reduction strate-
DW is analyzed in relation to seven DW factors that are defined
gies classified into eight groups (R-1 to R-8), the DW factor affected
in Table 5. The main sources of DW factors data are collected from
and the type of reduced DW according to the following eight causal
project documents, statistical data from construction databases,
relationships (C1-C8):
material suppliers’ information, execution process records
provided by contractors, and onsite auditing and measurements.
(C1) If ‘Ni factor’ decreases then DWPi, DWRi and DWSi would
Once the DW factors are obtained, the types and amounts of DW
be reduced. This will happen with seven strategies (R 1.1 to R
are then estimated. Firstly, building elements, (e.g., footings, catch-
1.7).
basins, beams, columns, collectors, etc.) are identified within the
(C2) If ‘Qi factor’ decreases then DWPi, DWRi and DWSi would
building systems, (e.g., foundation, structure, masonry, roofing up
be reduced. This will happen with six strategies (R 2.1 to R 2.6).
to finish) according to the conventional sequence of construction
(C3) If ‘FP factor’ decreases then DWPi would be reduced. This
processes. Secondly, the types of DW generated in each building will happen with three strategies (R 3.1 to R 3.3).
system are identified and quantified by applying Eqs. (1)–(5). The
(C4) If ‘FR factor’ decreases then DWRi would be reduced. This
nomenclature and code of each type of waste follows the European
will happen with ten strategies (R 4.1 to R 4.10).
Waste List (EWL) (European Commission, 2014). The EWL encoding
(C5) If ‘FS factor’ decreases then DWSi would be reduced. This
allows distinguish four main groups of DW for each building
will happen with two strategies (R 5.1 and R 5.2).
element/system with different features: packaging waste (DWPi),
(C6) If ‘FC factor’ decreases then DWPi, DWRi and DWSi would
product waste (off-cuts, debris, left-overs) (DWRi), soil (DWSi) and
be reduced. This is linked with the strategy R 6.1.
hazardous waste (EWL)⁄P/R/S. The five equations to identify and
(C7) If ‘FI factor’ decreases then DWPi, DWRi and DWSi would
quantify DW in each building system are shown below.
be reduced. This will happen with three strategies depending
X
i on the waste source (R 7.1 to R 7.3).
DWBSj ¼ Ni  DWbei ð1Þ (C8) Finally, the model also detects those building elements to
j which designers should pay more attention due to the possibil-
X X X
DWbei ¼ DWRi þ DWPi þ DWSi ð2Þ ity of generating hazardous waste. Therefore if (EWL)⁄P/R/S
Xi i i (EWL code hazardous waste) is removed, reduced, or replaced
DWRi ¼ ðEWLÞRk  Q i  FR  FC  FI ð3Þ by a non-hazardous waste; hence potential to avoid cross waste
k
X contamination. This is particularly applicable to two strategies
DWPi ¼ ðEWLÞPk  Q i  FP  FC  FI ð4Þ (R 8.1 and R 8.2).
k
X
DWSi ¼ ðEWLÞSk  Q i  FS  FC  FI ð5Þ 4.3. Step 3: assessment of design waste reduction strategies
k

DWBSj is the volume of the DW expected in the building system Within each building system ‘‘j”, attributes that influence DW
number ‘‘j”. generation (a1, a2, a3, an) can be identified to design alternative

DWbei is the volume of the DW expected in the building building elements ‘‘i” ðAij Þ. The conventional building element (Oj)
element number ‘‘i”. is defined as the building element which attributes (o1, o2, o3, on)

Please cite this article in press as: Llatas, C., Osmani, M. Development and validation of a building design waste reduction model. Waste Management
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.026
6 C. Llatas, M. Osmani / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Fig. 2. Waste ReSt model design.

have a major impact on waste generation and hence are used as a
DWROi is the volume of the design waste expected to be reduced
reference for calculating DW reduction. DW reduction strategies in the conventional building element number ‘‘j” (Oj) with
are applied to associated DW sources in accordance with Table 6, respect the alternative building element ‘‘i” ðAij Þ.
resulting in alternative building elements ‘‘i” ðAij Þ
as shown in
DWORiR R
, DWOPi R
, DWOSi are the volumes of the product waste,
Fig. 2. Subsequently, DW factors are allocated for these alternative packaging waste and soil expected to be reduced.
building elements. Thereby, the waste expected to be reduced in
(EWL)Rk, (EWL)Pk, (EWL)Sk, (EWL)⁄P/R/S, are the types of the
each conventional building element (Oj) in the alternatives is reduced product waste, packaging waste, soil and hazardous
calculated as the addition of the product waste, packaging waste number ‘‘k” coded respectively according to the EWL.
and soil. The four equations to identify and quantify DW reduction
Q Oj Oj Oj Oj Oj Oj
i , FR , FP , FS , FC , FI are the DW factors of the conventional
in each building system are noted below.
building element ‘‘j” (Oj) and Q Aji Aji Aji Aji Aji Aji
i , FR , FP , FS , FC , FI are the
X X X
DWROi ¼ DWRORi þ DWROPi þ DWROSi ð6Þ DW factors of the alternative building element ‘‘i” ðAij Þ.
i i i
X
DWRORi ¼ ðEWLÞRk  ðQ Oj Aji Oj Aji Oj Aji Oj Aji
i  Q i Þ  ðFR  FR Þ  ðFC  FC Þ  ðFI  FI Þ ð7Þ The model obtains the levels of DW reduction in volume instead
k
X of weight because it takes into account the compaction of waste
DWROPi ¼ ðEWLÞPk  ðQ Oj Aji Oj Aji Oj Aji Oj Aji
i  Q i Þ  ðFP  FP Þ  ðFC  FC Þ  ðFI  FI Þ ð8Þ
k
collection in the work that will result in the optimization of the
X waste containers and in a greater efficiency in their transport.
DWROSi ¼ ðEWLÞSk  ðQ Oj Aji Oj Aji Oj Aji Oj Aji
i  Q i Þ  ðFS  FS Þ  ðFC  FC Þ  ðFI  FI Þ ð9Þ
k However, DW factors can be redefined to obtain the DW reductions

Please cite this article in press as: Llatas, C., Osmani, M. Development and validation of a building design waste reduction model. Waste Management
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.026
 C. Llatas, M. Osmani / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 7

Table 5
Design waste (DW) factors. Definitions and correlation with DW parameters.

DW factor Main source of data Definitiona DW parameter

Ni Number factor Project document Number of building elements (be) ‘i’ necessary to execute the Number of in situ processes
building system (BS) ‘j’
Qi Quantity factor Project document/construction Amount of building material necessary to execute the building Amount of materials and auxiliary
database element number ‘‘i’’ in the unit of measurement of the project (U) resources
FP Packaging factor Material suppliers Ratio between the amount of packaging waste in real volume Packaging levels of the products
(m3) and the amount of building material in the unit of Reused packagings
measurement of the project (U)
FR Remains factor Construction database/workers, Ratio between the amount of remains to be taken away from Quality levels in the execution
builders, contractors the site building in the unit of measurement of the project (U) Strength of materials
and the amount of building material in the project measuring Quality levels in the details
unit (U) Reused materials/products
FS Soil factor Project document Ratio between the amount of soil in real volume (m3) and the Amount of excavated soil
amount of building/site-work element in the project unit (U) Reused soil
FC Conversion Project document Ratio between the amount of building material expressed in real Volume of the products
factor volume (m3) and the amount of building material expressed in
the project measuring unit (U)
FI Increasing factor In situ measurements Ratio between the amount of waste in apparent volume (m3) Quality levels in the waste collection
and the amount of waste in real volume (m3)
a
Definitions made from Llatas (2011).

Table 6
Relationships between design waste reduction strategies, DW factors and types of reduced design wastes.

Design waste reduction strategy Reduced DW factor Reduced design wastes

Ni Qi FP FR FS FC FI DWPi DWRi DWSi (EWL)⁄P/R/S
R1 Reducing the number of building/site works elements
R1.1 Need of the building element/material in the project X X X X X
R1.2 Equalization between excavated soil and backfill material X X X
R1.3 Avoidance of new building elements on site with respect to the project X X X
R1.4 Placement of prefabricated building elements X X X X X X
R1.5 Placement of building elements and components in dry X X X X X
R1.6 Planning and control of work at the time X X X X X X X
R1.7 Knowledge of recoverable waste from previous demolitions X X X X X X X
R2 Reducing the amount of resources in building elements
R2.1 Optimization of common elements by project area X X X
R2.2 Optimization of building elements X X X X
R2.3 Optimization of site-work excavation elements X X X
R2.4 Development of construction details that just do not generate waste X X X X X
R2.5 Use of pre-cast materials within building elements X X X X
R2.6 Use of coated building materials X X X X X
R3 Reducing packaging waste
R3.1 Use of building materials provided with optimized packaging X X
R3.2 Use of materials provided without packaging X X
R3.3 Recovery of packaging waste X X
R4 Reducing losses
R4.1 Proper collection and supply of materials X X X X
R4.2 Higher quality standards of the implementation process X X
R4.3 Dimensional coordination X X X X
R4.4 Use of resistant building materials X X
R4.5 Use of special pieces X X
R4.6 Removal of partial demolitions X X X
R4.7 Use of pre-elaborated building materials X X X
R4.8 Use of recoverable auxiliary materials X X X
R4.9 Use of recoverable and durable auxiliary materials X X X
R4.10 Use of building elements with less auxiliary materials X X
R5 Reducing soil
R5.1 Use of building elements that take up less volume in the ground X X
R5.2 Reuse the excavated soil as fill material X X X
R6 Reducing the volume/weight of resources
R6.1 Use of materials that meet the same function with less space/weight X X
R7 Reducing the volume of waste in their collection
R7.1 Compactness in the collection of packaging waste X X
R7.2 Compactness in the collection of debris X X
R7.3 Compactness in the collection of soil X X
R8 Reducing hazardous waste
R8.1 Elimination, reduction of materials with some characteristic of danger X⁄ X X X X
R8.2 Use of alternative materials to hazardous materials X⁄ X

R: design waste reduction strategy; Ni: number factor; Qi: quantity factor; FP: packaging factor; FR: remains factor; FS: soil factor; FC: conversion factor; FI: increasing factor;
DWPi: packaging waste; DWRi: product waste; DWSi: soil; (EWL)⁄ hazardous waste.

Please cite this article in press as: Llatas, C., Osmani, M. Development and validation of a building design waste reduction model. Waste Management
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.026
8 C. Llatas, M. Osmani / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

in weight, in particular ‘FC’ and ‘FI’ factors. The unit of comparison is evaluation of design waste sources and design reduction strategies
‘‘volume of reduced waste/U”, U is the unit of measurement of the related to thirteen building systems. The Waste ReSt model
building element. From this data, other forms of comparison can validation results are discussed below.
be obtained, such as ‘‘volume of reduced waste/m2 of construction
floor area”. Finally, the model allows the evaluation of the
effectiveness of waste source reduction of each design strategy 5.1. Evaluation of design waste
by applying Eq. (10) and the attainment of a design waste
reduction performance hierarchy. The systematic structure of the construction process was
conducted according to the Banco de Costes de la Construccion en
DWAaj  DWAbj Andalucia (construction cost database of Andalusia) (Andalusian
ERij ¼  100 ð10Þ
DWAaj Government, 2015) because the projects were drafted in
accordance with this structure. Thirteen building systems were

ERij is the effectiveness of the design waste reduction strategy identified from project documents. Within each building system,
(Ri) in each sub-system (j). building elements with common functional features were

DWAaj is the volume of wastes generated by the building identified. Table 7 shows the nine building sub-systems (O1-O9)
most waste generators and representative building elements.
element Aaj .
Once DW factors were obtained, as indicated in Table 5, waste

DWAbj is the volume of wastes generated by the building sources were then identified. Table 8 shows the main sources of
element Aaj after applying the design waste reduction strategy building material wastes used in the case study buildings. It
(Ri). highlights the inherent relationship between the type and amount
of supplied building materials and the generated onsite waste
5. Model validation results types and amounts. The same approach was adopted to assess
streams and volumes of hazardous wastes.
The verification and validation of the Waste ReSt model was Table 9, which shows the main sources of packaging wastes,
performed in a real-world case study involving 20 residential illustrates the relationship between the types and amounts of the
buildings in Spain (B1-B20), described in Section 3.2. ‘Model supplied conventional as well as hazardous building materials
validation case study’. The validation case study enabled the and their associated packaging wastes.

Table 7
Design wastes (DW) attributes, amounts, compositions and sources in building elements.

Building system (j) Ni U Building element (i)/main DW amount DW composition Resulting onsite waste streams
conventional attributes l (on)
m3 DW stream %
Foundation (O1)
1.00 m3 Cast in situ footings 1.538 Soil 96 Excavated soil
Depth = 4.00 m Concrete 2 Cast in situ concrete losses
Formwork type = brick wall Bricks 1 Broken bricks
Packaging type = sacks of cement Wood 1 Broken wooden pallets
Structure, columns and beams (O2); floors-(O3)
1.00 m3 Cast in situ columns 0.027 Concrete 83 Cast in situ concrete losses
Formwork type = metallic Metallic* 15 Release agent cans
1.00 m3 Cast in situ beams 0.110 Wood* 77 Damaged timber formwork
Formwork type = timber Concrete 20 Cast in situ concrete losses
Metallic* 3 Release agent cans
1.00 m2 Cast in situ floor 0.015 Concrete 40 Broken inter-joist blocks
Type: one-way floor 25 + 5 Wood 31 Broken wooden pallets
Joist type = pre-cast Concrete 13 Cast in situ concrete losses
Inter-joist type = concrete block Wood 11 Timber formwork losses
Masonry, exterior walls (O4); interior walls-(O5)
1.00 m2 Brick wall 0.025 Wood 47 Broken wooden pallets
Thick = 11.5 cm Bricks 28 Broken hollow bricks
Type = hollow brick 9 cm Cardboards 9 Broken sacks
Modulation = uncoordinated Concrete 6 Mortar and cement losses
Mortar type = in-situ Plastic 6 Brick plastic protection
Packaging type = sacks Soil 2 In-situ mortar sand losses
Roofing (O6)
1.00 m2 Cast in situ flat roof 0.028 Wood 49 Broken wooden pallets
Average thickness = 10 cm Concrete 16 Cast in situ concrete and mortar spills
Slope type = in-situ mortar Cardboards 14 Broken sacks
Flooring type = adhered Soil 7 In-situ mortar aggregates losses
Finishing, wall finishes (O7); floor finishes (O8); ceiling finishes (O9)
1.00 m2 Mortar plaster 0.002 Concrete 46 In situ mortar losses
Manufacturing type = in-situ Cardboards 27 Broken cement sacks
1.00 m2 Gypsum plaster 0.001 Wood 37 Broken wooden pallets
Manufacturing type = in-situ Gypsum 33 Gypsum spills
Packaging type = bags Plastic 29 Broken bags
1.00 m2 Ceramic tiles on walls 0.005 Cardboards 27 Broken boxes and sacks
Grip type = in-situ mortar Plastic 23 Broken plastic protections
Modulation = uncoordinated Ceramics 16 Broken and cut tiles
1.00 m 2
Painting 0.001 Metallic* 98 Broken cans
Packaging type = cans Paints* 1 Paint spills
*
Ni: number factor; U: measurement unit; Potentially hazardous waste.

Please cite this article in press as: Llatas, C., Osmani, M. Development and validation of a building design waste reduction model. Waste Management
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.026
 C. Llatas, M. Osmani / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 9

Table 8
Sources of building material waste.

Qi U Building materials FR FC FI Building material waste stream DW volume (m3) Qi  FR  FC  FI

Concrete, mortar and gypsum
1.00 m3 Mass concrete executed on site 0.06 1.00 1.10 Concrete 0.0660
1.00 m3 Ready-mixed mass concrete 0.04 1.00 1.10 Concrete 0.0440
3
1.00 m Reinforced concrete executed on site 0.04 1.00 1.10 Concrete 0.0440
3
1.00 m Ready-mixed reinforced concrete 0.02 1.00 1.10 Concrete 0.0220
1.00 m3 Mortar executed on site 0.03 1.00 1.10 Concrete 0.0330
1.00 m3 Ready-mixed mortar 0.01 1.00 1.10 Concrete 0.0110
1.00 u Mortar block, 15  20  40 cm 0.04 0.01 1.30 Concrete 0.0006
1.00 u Concrete block inter-joist (floors) 0.06 0.03 0.65 Concrete 0.0012
1.00 u Terrazzo tile, 40  40 cm 0.04 0.03 1.20 Concrete 0.0014
1.00 t Cement powder 0.01 0.71 1.10 Concrete 0.0079
3
1.00 m Gypsum 0.02 1.00 1.10 Gypsum 0.0220
Bricks
1.00 u Hollow brick, thick: 9 cm 0.06 0.00 1.30 Bricks 0.0002
1.00 u Hollow brick, thick: 7 cm 0.06 0.00 1.30 Bricks 0.0001
1.00 u Hollow brick, thick: 4 cm 0.06 0.00 1.30 Bricks 0.0001
1.00 u Solid brick, thick: 4 cm 0.05 0.00 1.25 Bricks 0.0001
1.00 u Ceramic block, 15  20  40 cm 0.02 0.01 1.30 Bricks 0.0003
Tiles, ceramics
1.00 u Ceramic tile, 15  15 cm 0.06 0.00 1.30 Ceramics 0.0000
1.00 u Ceramic tile, 14  28 cm 0.06 0.00 1.30 Ceramics 0.0000
1.00 u Stoneware tile, 14  28 cm 0.03 0.00 1.30 Ceramics 0.0000
1.00 u Ceramic block inter-joist (floors) 0.02 0.03 0.65 Ceramics 0.0004
1.00 u Sanitary facility (e.g., sink 50 cm) 0.02 0.02 1.30 Ceramics 0.0004
Mixtures concrete and bricks
1.00 m Circuits inside walls 0.00 1.00 1.30 Mixtures 0.0013
1.00 m2 Demolished brick wall, thick: 4 cm 1.00 0.04 1.30 Mixtures 0.0520
Glass, plastic, wood and bituminous
1.00 m2 Pane of glass 5 mm 0.02 0.01 2.00 Glass 0.0002
1.00 m PVC pipe, diam. 110 mm 0.02 0.01 1.10 Plastic 0.0002
1.00 m2 Polyethylene sheet, thick: 0.20 mm 0.05 0.00 2.00 Plastic 0.0000
1.00 m2 Wood stave flooring, 18 mm 0.05 0.02 1.70 Wood 0.0015
1.00 m2 Asphalt membrane, thick: 4 mm 0.02 0.00 1.10 Bituminous 0.0001
Metals
1.00 m Copper pipe, diam. 13/15 mm 0.01 0.00 1.10 Copper 0.0000
1.00 kg Steel reinforcement 0.01 0.00 1.10 Iron 0.0000
Insulation
1.00 m2 Polystyrene panel, thick: 4 cm 0.01 0.04 1.10 Insulation 0.0004
Others (due to testing, safety equipment, auxiliary materials, garbage, etc.)
1.00 m3 R construction waste 0.01 1.00 1.00 Mixed 0.0100
Potentially hazardous
1.00 l Release agent (if organic solvents) 0.02 0.00 1.00 Paints⁄ 0.0000
1.00 l Plasticizer (if organic solvents) 0.02 0.00 1.00 Paints⁄ 0.0000
1.00 kg Paint (if organic solvents) 0.02 0.00 1.00 Paints⁄ 0.0000
1.00 kg Adhesive (if organic solvents) 0.02 0.00 1.00 Adhesives⁄ 0.0000
1.00 m2 Timber formworks in beams 0.01 1.00 1.70 Wood⁄ 0.0136
1.00 m2 Timber formworks in floors 0.02 1.00 1.70 Wood⁄ 0.0340
1.00 m2 Metallic formworks in columns 0.00 1.00 1.10 Iron⁄ 0.0008
1.00 m Cable 10 mm2 (if hydrocarbons) 0.01 0.00 1.10 Cables⁄ 0.0000
1.00 m 2
Fiberglass panel, 4 cm (if asbestos) 0.01 0.04 1.10 Insulation⁄ 0.0004
*
Qi: quantity factor; U: measurement unit; FR: remains factor; FC: conversion factor; FI: increasing factor; Potentially hazardous waste.

Table 10 shows the main sources of soil waste provenance, – Remains Factor (FR) assessed the effects of the strength of
types and volumes. This was mainly generated during the materials on waste generation. For example, 4 cm thick hollow
excavation of various site-works. bricks would generate 24% brick waste more than 4 cm thick
DW parameters, which were identified and analyzed in relation solid brick (Table 8).
to their associated DW factors as indicated in Table 5, are described – Packaging Factor (FP) assessed the effects of the packaging levels
below. of the products on waste generation. For example, 1 ton of
cement supplied in the form of sacks on pallets and covered
– Remains Factor (FR) assessed the effects of quality levels in with plastic would generate 0.1058 m3 packaging waste more
the execution of materials on waste generation. For than 1 ton cement silos (Table 9).
example, in-situ mass concrete would generate 50%
concrete waste more than ready-mixed mass concrete Additionally, the identification of the hazardous materials
(Table 8). allowed the analysis of the generation of hazardous waste. For
– Conversion Factor (FC) assessed the effects of the volume of the example, 1 kg of paint with organic solvent would generate
products on waste generation. For example, 9 cm thick hollow 0.0010 m3 of hazardous waste which could become
bricks would generate 28% brick waste more than 7 cm thick non-hazardous waste in case of its substitution by paint without
hollow bricks (Table 8). organic solvent (Tables 8 and 9).

Please cite this article in press as: Llatas, C., Osmani, M. Development and validation of a building design waste reduction model. Waste Management
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.026
10 C. Llatas, M. Osmani / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Table 9
Sources of packaging waste.

Qi U Building materials FP FC FI Packaging waste stream Volume (m3) Qi  FE  FC  FI

Wooden pallets
1.00 mu Bricks 0.25 1.00 1.10 Wood 0.2750
1.00 mu Ceramic tiles, 14  28 cm 0.29 1.00 1.10 Wood 0.3234
1.00 u Block inter-joist 0.00 1.00 1.10 Wood 0.0008
1.00 u Mortar block 0.00 1.00 1.10 Wood 0.0017
1.00 t Sacks/bags of cement, lime or gypsum 0.02 1.00 1.10 Wood 0.0275
1.00 u Terrazzo, concrete or stone tile 0.00 1.00 1.10 Wood 0.0003
1.00 m Concrete joist 0.00 1.00 1.10 Wood 0.0003
1.00 m2 Scagliola plate 0.00 1.00 1.10 Wood 0.0041
Cardboard boxes
1.00 u Small electrical equipment 0.00 1.00 0.25 Cardboard 0.0001
1.00 m Cable 0.00 1.00 0.25 Cardboard 0.0001
1.00 u Luminaire, lamp 0.01 1.00 0.25 Cardboard 0.0014
1.00 u Plumbing material (stopcocks) 0.01 1.00 0.25 Cardboard 0.0014
1.00 u Sanitary facility, (e.g., sink) 0.05 1.00 0.25 Cardboard 0.0125
1.00 u Glazed tile 0.00 1.00 0.25 Cardboard 0.0000
1.00 m2 Carpentry (auxiliary hardware) 0.00 1.00 0.25 Cardboard 0.0001
1.00 m2 Glass (protection of panels) 0.01 1.00 0.25 Cardboard 0.0020
Cardboard sacks
1.00 t Cement, lime 0.75 1.00 0.10 Cardboard 0.0750
Plastic bags
1.00 t Gypsum, scagliola 0.75 1.00 0.10 Plastic 0.0750
1.00 m3 Cardboard boxes 0.40 1.00 2.00 Plastic 0.8000
1.00 m3 Wooden pallets (ceramic, sacks) 0.06 1.00 2.00 Plastic 0.1200
Metallic/plastic cans
1.00 l Non-hazardous liquid 0.00 1.00 1.30 Metallic 0.0012
1.00 kg Non-hazardous liquid 0.00 1.00 1.30 Metallic 0.0008
Others (textiles, wire, polystyrenes, etc.)
1.00 m3 R packaging waste 0.01 1.00 1.00 Mixed 0.0100
Potentially hazardous
1.00 l Hazardous liquid, pasty or solid matrix 0.00 1.00 1.30 Liquid, solid matrix⁄ 0.0012
1.00 kg Hazardous liquid, pasty or solid matrix 0.00 1.00 1.30 Liquid, solid matrix⁄ 0.0008
*
Qi: quantity factor; U: measurement unit; FP: packaging factor; FC: conversion factor; FI: increasing factor; DW: design waste; Potentially hazardous waste.

Table 10
Sources of excavation waste.

Qi U Excavation materials FS FC FI Excavation stream Volume (m3) Qi  FS  FC  FI

Organic soil
1.00 m2 Site clearing (thick = 20 cm) 1.00 0.20 1.10 Organic soil 0.2200
Soil and stones from ground
1.00 m3 Excavation of basements 1.00 1.00 1.25 Soil 1.2500
1.00 m3 Excavation of foundations 1.00 1.00 1.25 Soil 1.2500
2
1.00 m Excavation of slabs (thick = 15 cm) 1.00 0.15 1.10 Soil 0.1650
1.00 u Excavation of catch-basins (51  51  100 cm) 1.00 0.77 1.20 Soil 0.9216
Sand and stones from building materials
1.00 m3 Sand (mortars and pavements) 0.01 1.00 1.00 Soil 0.0100
1.00 m3 Gravel, albero fill 0.01 1.00 1.00 Stones 0.0100
1.00 u Granite tile in claddings, 40  40 cm 0.02 0.03 1.20 Stones 0.0007
1.00 u Limestone tile in claddings, 40  40 cm 0.03 0.03 1.20 Stones 0.0011
1.00 u Granite tile floorings, 40  40 cm 0.05 0.03 1.20 Stones 0.0018
1.00 u Limestone tile floorings, 40  40 cm 0.06 0.03 1.20 Stones 0.0022
1.00 t Lime powder 0.01 1.00 1.10 Stones 0.0110
Potentially hazardous
1.00 m3 Soil (if hazardous substance) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Contaminated soil* 1.0000
*
Qi: quantity factor; U: measurement unit; FS: soil factor; FC: conversion factor; FI: increasing factor; Potentially hazardous waste.

Subsequently, expected wastes to be generated during the according to the standard sequence of the execution of a
execution of building elements were estimated from knowledge of construction program. Table 7 shows the major design waste
the materials used in their execution and their amounts (Qi). The sources that were identified. The main issues in the analysis of DW
identification and analysis of DW sources was accomplished sources were:

Please cite this article in press as: Llatas, C., Osmani, M. Development and validation of a building design waste reduction model. Waste Management
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.026
 C. Llatas, M. Osmani / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 11

Table 11
Alternative low waste foundation building systems and associated design waste reduction strategies.

Foundation building system (O1) DW reduction strategy DW total (m3/m2) DW reduction %

Foundation
O1 Cast in situ footings, depth 4.00 m, permanent brick formwork, cement sacks 0.26 0
A1 Cast in situ footings, depth 4.00 m, permanent brick formwork, bulk mortar R3.2/R4.7 0.26 0
1
A12 Cast in situ footings, depth 4.00 m, recoverable timber formwork R4.8 0.25 7
A13 Cast in situ footings, depth 4.00 m, recoverable metal formwork R4.9 0.24 8
A14 Cast in situ slab3, 60 cm thick:, permanent brick formwork, cement sacks R2.2 0.21 23
A15 Cast in situ slab, thick: 60 cm, permanent brick formwork, bulk mortar R2.2/R3.2 0.21 23
A16 Cast in situ slab, thick: 60 cm, recoverable timber formwork R2.2/R4.8 0.20 24
A17 Cast in situ slab, thick: 60 cm, recoverable metal formwork R2.2/R4.9 0.20 24
A18 Cast in situ footings, depth 2.00 m, permanent brick formwork, cement sacks R2.3 0.15 42
A19 Pre-cast concrete piles, diam. 35 cm, permanent brick formwork, cement sacks R1.4 0.07 75
A110 Pre-cast concrete piles, diam. 35 cm, permanent brick formwork, bulk mortar R1.4/R3.2 0.07 75
A111 Pre-cast concrete piles, diam. 35 cm, recoverable timber formwork R1.4/R4.8 0.06 78
A112 Pre-cast concrete piles, diam. 35 cm, recoverable metal formwork R1.4/R4.9 0.06 78
A113 Cast in situ footings, soil reuse, depth 4.00 m, brick formwork, cement sacks R5.2 0.01 96

DW reduction strategy coded according to Table 6; Oj: reference building element ‘‘j”; Aji : alternative building element ‘‘i”; m2 refers to square meter of building floor area.

Table 12
Alternative low waste structural building systems and associated design waste reduction strategies.

Structural building system (O2, O3) DW reduction DW packaging DW product DW total DW

strategy (m3/m2) (m3/m2) (m3/m2) reduction (%)
Columns and beams (O2)
A2 Brick wall, thick: 24 cm, mortar on-site, not embedded beams, timber formwork 0.03 0.02 0.05 58
0:1
O2 Cast executed on site columns, not embedded beams, timber formwork release agent 0.01* 0.03* 0.03* 0
A21 Cast executed on site columns, not embedded beams, timber formwork, release agent R8.2 0.01 0.03 0.03 0/100a
without OS
A22 Ready-mixed cast in situ columns, not embedded beams, timber formwork R3.2/R4.7 0.00 0.03 0.03 21
A23 Ready-mixed cast in situ columns, metal formwork, not embedded beams, timber R3.2/R4.9 0.00 0.02 0.02 48
formwork
A24 Ready-mixed cast in situ columns, metal formwork, embedded beams, timber R3.2/R2.2 0.00 0.02 0.02 48
formwork
A25 Steel columns and beams encased in concrete on site, thick: 5 cm R1.4 0.00 0.01 0.01 76
A26 Steel columns and beams encased in gypsum, thick: 2 cm R1.4 0.00 0.00 0.01 85
A27 Pre-cast concrete columns and beams (wet-joint) R1.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 95
A28 Steel columns and beams-sprayed fire proof R1.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 96
A29 Pre-cast concrete columns and beams (dry-joint) R1.4/R1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 100

Floors (O3)
O3 Cast in situ waffle slab floor 25 + 5, inter-joist concrete block 0.00 0.01 0.02 0
A3 Cast in situ beam and pot floor 25 + 5, semi-resistant joists, concrete block R2.5 0.00 0.01 0.01 18
1
A32 Cast in situ waffle slab floor 25 + 5, recoverable inter-joist PVC block R4.9 0.00 0.01 0.01 22
A33 Cast in situ beam and pot floor 25 + 5, self-resistant -joists, concrete block R2.5/R4.10 0.00 0.01 0.01 29
A34 Cast in situ beam and pot floor 25 + 5, semi-resistant joists, ceramic block R2.5/R4.4 0.01 0.01 0.01 39
A35 Cast in situ beam and pot floor 25 + 5, self-resistant-joists, ceramic block R2.5/R4.4/10 0.01 0.00 0.01 49
A36 Cast in situ waffle slab floor 25 + 5, recoverable self-resistant block R4.9/R4.10 0.00 0.01 0.01 56
A37 Pre-cast concrete hollow core slabs 16 cm, concrete layer 4 cm R1.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 85
A38 Pre-cast concrete hollow core slabs 16 cm, without concrete layer R1.4/R1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 90

DW reduction strategy is coded according to Table 5; Oj: conventional building element ‘‘j”; Aji : 2
alternative building element ‘‘i”; m refers to square meter of building floor
area; * Potentially hazardous waste.
a
Remove 100% hazardous waste.

– The identification of the major building elements’ DW – The analysis of the key attributes that affect DW source
generators in each building system. As shown in Table 7, ten reduction, of which some of them have been included in
types of building elements were identified across nine building Table 7.
sub-systems. Other building elements were found to be low
waste generators; such as downspouts, buried piping, and 5.2. Development of design waste reduction strategies
structural joints.
– The incidence of the types of generated DW in each building Within each building system ‘‘j”, attributes that influenced DW
system. Table 7 shows the main DW sources of each building generation (a1, a2, a3, an) were identified and conventional building
element and associated waste volume generation. elements (Oj) were developed. For example, in the foundation build-
– The identification of the building elements most likely to ing system (‘‘j:1”), major attributes were ‘a1 (type of foundation)’, ‘a2
generate hazardous waste. Table 7 shows the detected (the depth)’, ‘a3 (type of formworks)’; ‘a4 (type of packaging of the
hazardous waste. formwork-materials)’ as shown in Table 7; and the conventional

Please cite this article in press as: Llatas, C., Osmani, M. Development and validation of a building design waste reduction model. Waste Management
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.026
12 C. Llatas, M. Osmani / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Table 13
Alternative low waste masonry building systems and associated design waste reduction strategies.

Masonry building system (O4, O5) DW reduction DW packaging DW product DW total DW reduction
strategy (m3/m2) (m3/m2) (m3/m2) (%)
Exterior walls (O4)
O4 Brick wall, thick: 24.0 cm, solid brick 4 cm, cement sacks, uncoordinated 0.05 0.01 0.06 0
A4 Brick wall, thick: 24.0 cm, solid brick 4 cm, cement sacks, coordinated R4.3 0.05 0.01 0.05 11
1
A42 Brick wall, thick 24.0 cm, innertube 10.0 cm, hollow brick 7 cm, cement sacks R2.2/R6.1 0.03 0.01 0.04 30
A43 Brick wall, thick: 11.5 cm, solid brick 4 cm, cement sacks R6.1 0.02 0.01 0.03 51
A44 Brick wall, thick: 11.5 cm, hollow brick 9 cm, cement sacks R6.1/R3.1 0.02 0.01 0.03 59
A45 Brick wall, thick: 11.5 cm, hollow brick 9 cm, mortar bulk R6.1/R4.7 0.01 0.01 0.02 65
A46 Block wall, thick: 14.0 cm, cement sacks R2.5 0.02 0.01 0.02 68
A47 Pre-cast concrete panel, thick: 16 cm (wet-joint) R1.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 95
A48 Pre-cast concrete panel, thick: 16 cm (dry-joint) R1.4/R1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 98

Interior walls (O5)

A:51 Brick wall built and demolished, thick: 4.0 cm, hollow brick 4 cm, cement sacks R4.6 0.01 0.06 0.07 351
O5 Brick wall, thick: 4.0 cm, hollow brick 4 cm, cement sacks 0.01 0.00 0.01 0
A51 Plasterboard panel, thick 5.0 cm R1.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 72

DW reduction strategy is coded according to Table 5; Oj: conventional building element ‘‘j”; Aji : alternative building element ‘‘i”; m2 refers to square meter of wall.

Table 14
Alternative low waste roofing building systems and associated design waste reduction strategies.

Roofing building system (O6) DW reduction DW packaging DW product DW total DW reduction

strategy (m3/m2) (m3/m2) (m3/m2) (%)
Roof slopes
O6 Ceramic tiled roof on brick wall slopes, medium height 1.50 m, cement sacks 0.04 0.02 0.05 0
A6 Mortar tiled roof on brick wall slopes, medium height 1.50 m, cement sacks
1
R4.4 0.04 0.02 0.05 2
A62 Mortar tiled roof on brick wall slopes, medium height 1.50 m, mortar bulk R3.2/R4.4/7 0.03 0.01 0.05 11
A63 Cast in situ flat roof, slope average thickness 10 cm, mortar on-site, adhered paving R2.2 0.02 0.01 0.03 47
A64 Mortar tiled roof on steel beam, medium height 1.50 m, ceramic board, gripping mortar R4.4/R2.5 0.01 0.00 0.01 73
A65 Cast in situ flat roof, slope average thickness 10 cm, bulk mortar, non-adhered tiling R2.2/R3.2/R1.5 0.01 0.00 0.01 72
A66 Cast in situ inverted flat roof, slope average thickness 5 cm, non-adhered tiling R2.2/R6.1/R1.5 0.01 0.00 0.01 79
A67 Mortar tiled roof on steel beam, medium height 1.50 m R1.4/R1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 93
A68 Cast in situ inverted flat roof, slope average thickness 5 cm, non-tiling R2.2/R6.1/R1.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 99

j
DW reduction strategy is coded according to Table 5; O : conventional building element ‘‘j”; Aji : 2
alternative building element ‘‘i”; m refers to square meter of roof.

building element (O1) with the highest waste generation attributes (e.g., reduction of the depth of excavation). From the variation of
was ‘cast in situ footings (o1), 4 m average depth (o2), permanent the attributes may arise multiple alternative building elements Aij .
brick formwork (o3), cement supplied in sacḱ (o4)’: as shown in In the structural building system (Table 12), the major attri-
Table 11. Therefore, the proposed DW reduction strategies were butes that affected the amount of wastes in columns and beams
developed by replacing the conventional attributes (on) by were: building materials (cast in situ, steel, pre-cast); the form of
alternates (an) that reduce or do not generate wastes. For example, cast in situ delivery (executed on-site, ready-mixed); the design
foundation related waste could be reduced if the conventional of beams (embedded, not embedded); the type of formworks
attribute ‘o3 (permanent brick formwork)’ is replaced by a (timber, metal); and the type of joint (dry, wet). The major
recoverable formwork such as ‘timber formwork’ or by a recoverable attributes in the floor sub-system were: materials (cast in situ,
and durable formwork such as ‘metal formwork’. pre-cast, steel); flooring type (beam and pot, waffle); type of joists
Tables 11–15 show examples of alternatives to conventional (semi-resistant joists, self-resistant); and inter-joists type
building elements (Oj) and the respective design waste reduction (concrete, ceramic, recoverable PVC).
strategies that were applied. For each alternative, DW factors were In the masonry building system (Table 13), the key attributes
obtained and DW was estimated according to the European Waste were: materials (brick, pre-cast concrete); material thickness
List (EWL). In the foundation building system (Table 11) for (24–4 cm); type of brick (solid, hollow); material modulation
example, the building element A11 was designed from O1 by varying (coordinated, uncoordinated); type of mortar delivery (bulk,
attribute ‘a4’. The ‘use of bulk mortar’ (alternative attribute) cements sacks); and type pre-cast concrete joints (wet, dry). Other
instead of ‘cement sacks’ (conventional attribute) in the brick walls building elements that were also assessed included brick walls built
is comprised within two design strategies: ‘R.3.2. use of materials and demolished as a result of design changes.
provided without packaging’ and ‘R 4.7. use of pre-elaborated As shown in Table 14, the main roofing building system
building materials’. These two strategies will lead to fewer material attributes were: roof type (tiled, flat, steel beam); materials
losses and less packaging waste. Other strategies were applied, (ceramic, mortar); roof slope type (brick, mortar, steel beam); the
such as: ‘R5.2 reuse the excavated soil as fill material’, ‘R1.4 place- slope and thickness (150–10 cm); tiling (mortar-adhered,
ment of prefabricated building elements’ (e.g., pre-cast concrete adhesive-adhered, non-adhered, without tiling); and the mortar
piles), and ‘R2.3 optimization of site-work excavation elements’ delivery (sacks, bulk).

Please cite this article in press as: Llatas, C., Osmani, M. Development and validation of a building design waste reduction model. Waste Management
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.026
 C. Llatas, M. Osmani / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 13

Table 15
Alternative low waste finishing building systems and associated design waste reduction strategies.

Finishing building systems (O7-O9) DW reduction DW packaging DW product DW total DW reduction

strategy (m3/m2) (m3/m2) (m3/m2) %
Wall finishes (O7)
O7 Ceramic tiles, mortar grip, uncoordinated 0.003 0.002 0.005 0
A71
Ceramic tiles, adhesive grip, uncoordinated R2.2/R6.1 0.004 0.001 0.004 10
A72 Ceramic tiles, mortar grip, coordinated R4.3 0.003 0.001 0.004 15
A73 Ceramic tiles, adhesive grip, coordinated R2.2/R6.1/R4.3 0.004 0.000 0.004 25
A74 Stone tiles, mortar grip, uncoordinated R4.4 0.002 0.002 0.003 39
A75 Mortar on-site, cement sacks and painting R6.1 0.001 0.001 0.002 55
A76 Gypsum plaster and painting R6.1 0.002 0.000 0.002 59
A77 Coat mortar on-site, without painting R2.6 0.001 0.001 0.002 70
A78 Cladding stone, mechanical anchorage R1.5 0.001 0.000 0.001 75
A79 Gypsum plaster, bulk and painting R3.2/R4.7 0.001 0.000 0.001 77
A710 Mortar, ready-mixed, and painting R3.2/R4.7 0.001 0.000 0.001 81
A711 Painting finish only R1.1 0.001 0.000 0.001 85
A712 Coat mortar, ready-mixed, without painting R2.6/R3.2/R4.7 0.000 0.000 0.000 95

Floor finishes (O8)

O8 Ceramic tiled finish, interrupted-partitions, uncoordinated, cement sacks 0.003 0.003 0.006 0
A8 Limestone tiled finish, interrupted-partitions, uncoordinated, cement sacks R4.4 0.003 0.003 0.006 2
1
A82 Terrazzo tiled finish, interrupted-partitions, uncoordinated, cement sacks R4.4 0.003 0.002 0.005 9
A83 Stoneware tiled finish, interrupted-partitions, uncoordinated, cement sacks R4.4/R6.1 0.003 0.002 0.005 11
A84 Terrazzo tiled finish, uninterrupted-partitions, uncoordinated, cement sacks R4.4/R2.4 0.003 0.002 0.005 19
A85 Terrazzo tiled finish, interrupted-partitions, coordinated, cement sacks R4.4/R4.3 0.002 0.002 0.004 22
A86 Terrazzo tiled finish, interrupted-partitions, uncoordinated, mortar bulk R4.4/R3.2/R4.7 0.002 0.002 0.004 37
A87 Terrazzo tiled finish, uninterrupted-partitions, coordinated, mortar bulk R4.4/3/R2.4/R47 0.002 0.001 0.002 58
A88 Carpet finish, adhesive R2.2/R6.1 0.001 0.000 0.001 86
A89 Epoxy coating finish R2.2/R6.1 0.000 0.000 0.000 99

Ceiling finishes (O9)

O9 Plaster false ceiling, bamboo branches and painting 0.006⁄ 0.001⁄ 0.006 0
A91
Timber planks and timber frame R1.4/R1.5 0.005 0.001 0.006 1
A92 Plasterboard and painting R1.4 0.005 0.000 0.006 7
A93 Aluminum strips and metal frame R1.4/R1.5 0.004 0.000 0.004 32
A94 Mortar on-site, cement sacks and painting R2.2/R6.1 0.001 0.001 0.002 64
A95 Gypsum plaster and painting R2.2/R6.1 0.002 0.000 0.002 66
A96 Gypsum plaster, bulk and painting R2.2/R6.1/R3.2/R4.7 0.001 0.000 0.001 84
A97 Mortar, ready-mixed, and painting R2.2/R6.1/R3.2/R4.7 0.001 0.000 0.001 84
A98 Painting finish only R1.1 0.001 0.000 0.001 89

DW reduction strategy is coded according to Table 2; Oj: conventional building element ‘‘j”; Aji : alternative building element ‘‘i”; m2 refers to square meter of wall, of floor, of
ceiling, in each case; * Potentially hazardous waste.

In the finishing building system (Table 15), the major attributes 5.3. Assessment of design waste reduction strategies
were: materials (ceramic, stone, gypsum, mortar); material
modulation (uncoordinated, coordinated); anchoring system The next stage in the validation of the Waste ReSt model com-
(mortar grip, adhesive, mechanical); material delivery (bulk, prised the evaluation of the effectiveness of design waste reduction
sacks); and finishes (painting, without painting, only painting). strategies in each building system obtained by applying Eq. (10).
The alternatives ðAij Þ for all building systems were ranked based Figs. 3–10 show the proposed DW strategies in nine building
on the achieved waste reduction levels with respect to the sub-systems (O1-O9) that were used to replace conventional
identified conventional building element (Oi). This process led to attributes by alternatives and the potential waste reduction levels.
the following key findings: The eight figures represent the impact of each design strategy on
DW reduction. As shown in Fig. 3, the strategy ‘R 4.9 use of
– The application of design waste reduction strategies led to a recoverable and durable auxiliary metal framework materials’
decrease of DW factors and associated waste types in would entail a 9% reduction of total foundation waste generation,
accordance with Table 6. if compared to brick wall formworks that were used in the case
– The Waste ReSt model allowed the assessment of waste study buildings. The most effective DW strategies were the reuse
reduction estimation of alternative building elements, which is of soil; the use of pre-cast piles; and the optimization of the
absent from literature in terms of DW project decision-making. foundation design.
– The obtained DW reduction levels with alternative building With regard the Structural Building System (Figs. 4 and 5), the
elements were variable, reaching in several cases almost 100%. use of pre-cast concrete with dry joints was deemed the most
A subsequent analysis identified the most effective strategies in effective strategy. Other DW strategies, such as the use of metal
each building system, which is discussed in the section below. instead of timber formworks in cast in situ columns would entail

Please cite this article in press as: Llatas, C., Osmani, M. Development and validation of a building design waste reduction model. Waste Management
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.026
14 C. Llatas, M. Osmani / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Design Waste Reduction Strategy

n n
Alternative attribute (a ) versus conventional attribute (o )

R5.2. Reuse soil

96%
100% soil reused versus 100% soil landfilled

R1.4 Placement of prefabricated elements

78%
pre-cast concrete piles versus cast in situ foongs

R2.3 Opmizaon of site-work excavaon

42%
2 m depth versus 4 m depth

R2.2 Opmizaon of the foundaon

24%
cast in situ slab versus cast in situ foongs

R4.9 Use of recoverable and durable auxiliary materials

9%
metal formworks versus brick wall formworks

R4.8 Use of recoverable auxiliary materials

7%
mber formworks versus brick wall formworks

R3.2 Use of materials provided without packaging

0%
bulk mortar versus mortar executed on-site excavaon waste

Fig. 3. Achieved waste reduction levels in Foundation Building System (O1).

Design Waste Reduction Strategy

n n
Alternative attribute (a ) versus conventional attribute (o )

R8.2. Removal hazardous waste

100% 100%
release agent without OS versus release agent with OS

R1.4, R1.5 Use of pre-cast and dry joints

15% 85% 100%
pre-cast and mechanical anchoring versus cast in situ

R1.4, R1.5 Use of painted pre-cast and dry joints

12% 84% 96%
steel-sprayed fire-proof versus cast in situ

R1.4 Use of pre-cast and wet joints

15% 80% 95%
pre-cast and cast in situ anchoring versus cast in situ

R1.4 Use of coated pre-cast

13% 63% 76%
steel coated with gypsum or concrete versus cast in situ

R4.9 Use of durable auxiliary materials

27% 27%
metal formwork versus mber formwork packaging waste
R4.7 Use of pre-elaborated building material waste
ready-mixed concrete versus on-site mixed concrete 13% 8% 21%
potenally hazardous waste

Fig. 4. Achieved waste reduction levels in Structural Building System, columns and beams (O2).

Design Waste Reduction Strategy

Alternative attribute (an) versus conventional attribute (on)

R1.4, R1.5 Use of pre-cast and dry joints

24% 66% 90%
pre-cast concrete slab versus cast in situ slab

R1.4 Use of pre-cast and wet joints

24% 62% 86%
pre-cast concrete slab and cast in situ layer versus cast in situ slab

R4.10 Use of cast in situ with less formworks

12% 44% 56%
self-resistant inter-joist block versus non-resistant block

R4.9 Use of recoverable materials

12% 9% 21%
recoverable inter-joist block versus unrecoverable block

R4.4 Use of materials with less breakages

12% 10%
ceramic inter-joist block versus concrete block

R4.7 Use of cast in situ with pre-cast packaging waste

10% 9% building material waste
pre-cast concrete joist versus cast in situ joist

Fig. 5. Achieved waste reduction levels in Structural Building System, floors (O3).

Please cite this article in press as: Llatas, C., Osmani, M. Development and validation of a building design waste reduction model. Waste Management
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.026
 C. Llatas, M. Osmani / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 15

Design Waste Reduction Strategy

Alternative attribute (an) versus conventional attribute (on)

Exterior walls (O4)

R1.4, R1.5 Use of pre-cast and dry joints 79% 18%

pre-cast concrete panel and mechanical anchoring versus brick wall 97%

R1.4 Use of pre-cast and wet joints

pre-cast concrete panel and cast in situ joint versus brick wall 79% 16% 95%

R3.3 Reuse of packaging waste

wooden pallet recovery versus wooden pallets landfilled 68% 68%

R4.7 Use of large pieces

blocks versus bricks 44% 14% 58%

R2.2 Opmizaon of walls

use of inner tube versus solid wall 33% 30%

R4.3 Dimensional coordinaon 9%

coordinated brick wall versus uncoordinated wall 11%

R4.7 Use of pre processed materials 4% 5%

ready-mixed mortar versus mortar executed on-site packaging waste
building material waste
Interior walls (O5)

R4.6 Removal of paral demolions 352%

not demolished paron versus demolished

R1.4, R1.5 Use of pre-cast and wet joints

57% 15% 72%
plasterboard panel versus brick wall

Fig. 6. Achieved waste reduction levels in Masonry Building System (O4, O5).

Design Waste Reduction Strategy

n n
Alternative attribute (a ) versus conventional attribute (o )

R1.4, R1.5 Use of pre-cast and dry joints

62% 32% 94%
steel beam slope and non-adhered ling versus brick wall slope

R1.4 Use of pre-cast and wet joints

41% 32% 73%
steel beam slope and ceramic boards versus brick wall slope

R1.1 Need of building materials

17% 20%
mineral auto-protected waterproof versus waterproof and ling

R4.7 Use of preprocessed materials

6% 9%
ready-mixed mortar versus on-site mixed mortar

R1.5 Placement of building elements in dry

non-adhered ling versus adhered ling 6% 7%

R2.2 Opmizaon of the slope

7% packaging waste
mortar slope 5 cm average thickness versus 10 cm
building material waste
R4.4 Use of resistant building materials
2%
mortar les versus ceramic les

Fig. 7. Achieved waste reduction levels in Roofing Building System (O6).

Design Waste Reduction Strategy

Alternative attribute (an) versus conventional attribute (on)

R1.1 Need of coang and finishing

absence of coang and painng versus les with mortar 65% 35% 100%

R1.1 Need of coang

only painng versus les with mortar 46% 40% 86%

R1.1 Need of finishing

colored mortar versus les with mortar 53% 17% 70%

R4.4 Use of resistant building materials

stone les versus ceramic les 35% 39%

R1.5 Use of dry joints

cladding and mechanical anchorage versus les with mortar 9% 26% 35%

R4.3 Dimensional coordinaon

coordinated les versus uncoordinated les 13% 15%
packaging waste
R2.2 Use of thinner layers building material waste
les with adhesive versus les with mortar -9% 12% 3%

Fig. 8. Achieved waste reduction levels in Finishing Building System, wall finishes (O7).

Please cite this article in press as: Llatas, C., Osmani, M. Development and validation of a building design waste reduction model. Waste Management
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.026
16 C. Llatas, M. Osmani / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Design Waste Reduction Strategy

Alternative attribute (an) versus conventional attribute (on)

R1.1 Need of coang

50% 48% 98%
only painng with epoxy coang finish versus les with mortar

R2.2 Use of thinner layers

37% 48% 85%
carpet finish with adhesive versus les with mortar

R4.7 Use of preprocessed materials

11% 16% 27%
les with ready-mixed mortar versus with on-site mortar

R4.3 Dimensional coordinaon

11% 13%
coordinated les versus uncoordinated les

R2.4 Avoidance of breakages

9% 11%
uninterrupted les -parons versus interrupted
packaging waste
R4.4 Use of materials with less breakages
6% 9% building material waste
terrazzo les versus ceramic les

Fig. 9. Achieved waste reduction levels in Finishing Building System, floor finishes (O8).

Design Waste Reduction Strategy

Alternative attribute (an) versus conventional attribute (on)
92% 8% 100%
uncoated ceiling versus plaster ceiling and painng

R1.1 Need of coang

80% 8% 88%
only painng versus plaster ceiling and painng

R1.4, R1.5 Use of pre-cast and dry joints

25% 7% 32%
aluminum strips and metal frame versus plaster ceiling and painng
packaging waste
R1.4 Use of pre-cast and wet joints
6% 8% building material waste
plasterboard panel and painng versus plaster ceiling and painng

Fig. 10. Achieved waste reduction levels in Finishing Building System, ceiling finishes (O9).

a 27% reduction; the use of recoverable blocks in floors would – While strategies vary from one building sub-system to another,
reduce wastes by 21% and the use of release agent without OS in the use of pre-cast and dry joints was the most effective strat-
cast in situ would potentially achieve 100% hazardous waste egy in almost all systems reaching up to 100% DW reduction
reduction (mainly timber formworks and contaminated in columns and beams; 90% in floors; 97% in walls; and 94%
packaging). in roofs. The use of pre-cast and wet joints would achieve DW
In the Masonry Building System (Fig. 6), the main DW strategies reduction levels ranging from 73% to 96%.
were the use of pre-cast materials with mechanical anchoring, the – The most effective finishing building system strategies were:
use of blocks instead bricks, the modulation of brick walls and the the use of uncoated and unpainted building elements, which
use of preprocessed materials, such as ready-mixed mortar. For would reduce up to 100% waste; the use of uncoated building
example, the recovery of wooden pallets would also entail a 68% elements (only painted) resulting in 86–98% DW reduction
of DW reduction. levels; and the use of unpainted building elements (only
In the Roofing Building System (Fig. 7), the optimization of the coated), which would reduce waste by up to 70%.
slopes and the use of mechanical anchorage and materials with a – With respect to the foundation building system, the reuse of
dual function would entail a 7% and 20% reduction. The use of soil would achieve excavation waste reduction by up to 96%.
non-adhered tiles for example, would imply not only less building The use of pre-cast piles would reach up to 78% reduction
material wastes (1% of total wastes) but also less packaging wastes and optimization of the excavation by halving its depth or
(6% of total wastes). the foundations by using slabs would lead to 42% and 24%
In the Finishing Building System (Figs. 8–10), the most effective DW reduction respectively. The use of recoverable formwork
strategies were those that use building elements uncoated and instead of brick formwork would achieve a 9–7% reduction
unpainted. (100% reduction); only painted (86–98%) or coated of soil waste. As far as hazardous waste is concerned, the
without the need of painting (70%). Others, such as the use of use of release agents in-situ cast without organic solvent
mechanical anchorage systems instead of mortar would entail a instead of release agents with organic solvent could remove
35% DW reduction. 100% of hazardous waste in structural building systems due
The major findings of this stage of the model validation process to contaminated formworks and release agent packaging.
were: Additionally, the use of pre-cast concrete elements as well as
reducing waste would further contribute to hazardous waste
– Nine DW strategy clusters were developed in relation to each minimization.
building sub-system that resulted in an average of five to six – The avoidance of design changes that result in partial demoli-
strategies per cluster. The main types of waste affected by the tions would be the most effective strategy in interior wall
strategies were grouped in Figs. 3–10 to simplify data. sub-system attaining 352% less waste.

Please cite this article in press as: Llatas, C., Osmani, M. Development and validation of a building design waste reduction model. Waste Management
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.026
 C. Llatas, M. Osmani / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 17

– Other strategies and their respective DW waste reduction that 9%. Furthermore, the recovery of masonry wooden pallets enabled
emanated from the model validation were: masonry wooden timber waste reduction by 68%. Other DW strategies were also
pallet recovery (68%); the use of blocks instead of bricks for evaluated that include: the use of durable materials (e.g., ceramic
walls (58%); use of metal instead of wooden for column blocks inter-joist versus concrete blocks; terrazzo tiles versus
formwork (27%); the use of ready-mixed concrete instead of ceramic tiles); the use of pre-processed building materials
in-situ concrete for columns and beams (21%); dimensional (e.g., pre-mixed mortar versus in-situ mortar); and types of
coordination for tiles (13%), brick walls (11%) and flooring building finishes (e.g., non-adhered versus adhered tiles in roofs
(11%); and the use of pre-mixed mortar in masonry instead of and pavings).
in-situ mortar (5%). This paper demonstrates that the Waste ReSt model could
significantly facilitate and support designing out waste strategies
6. Discussion that would enable the prediction of DW sources for building
elements, and inform appropriate DW strategies that would result
6.1. Validation in substantial DW reduction levels. The Waste ReSt model could
potentially be adopted as an integrated designing out waste
The results were compared with data from other research platform for building projects.
studies to test the quantitative analysis of the model validation.
A major comparison difficulty lies in the fact that the literature 6.2. Limitations
identifies broad design waste reduction strategies, as there is
limited data on waste reduction levels that are specific to each The limitations of this research related to data collection and
building system, except for prefabrication which provides data model validation are presented below.
for the entire building (Jaillon et al., 2008; Tam et al., 2007b).
Another drawback is that waste reduction obtained from other
Data collection: the research focused on residential buildings
investigations refers to the waste weight, while the Waste ReSt with low to medium-rise height in the area of Andalusia in
model provides reductions in volume. That said, this approxima- Spain. Future research studies could apply the model to: other
tion allowed the verification of the strategies developed in this building heights (e.g., high-rise); different building types
research as well as reducing levels of waste were in line with those (e.g., office buildings); and other construction methods
of other investigations. As such, the use of prefabrication (e.g., offsite construction).
techniques for the entire building achieved an overall wastage
Model validation: the lack of actual data recorded by contractors
reduction range from 84.7% (Tam et al., 2007a) to 100% (Tam limits the validation of these types of models. However, the
et al., 2007b) for the entire building. Furthermore, the use of pre- evidences supporting that the Waste ReSt model could be a
fabricated elements would imply coordination between elements. valid approach to design out waste, are:
The Waste ReSt model obtained different waste reduction rates o Waste estimation was carried out with a quantification
depending on the level of prefabrication of the components. These method already validated to predict wastes by building
vary between 100% in the case of dry joints and 73–96% in wet elements (Llatas, 2011). The absence of design waste reduc-
joints. However; the data obtained from this research resulted in tion quantitative data related to each building element in
reduction of waste emanating from the main building systems, the literature limited the comparison. Greater knowledge
which are absent from the literature. of the actual data of wastes in the construction industry
Other authors identified modulation of the project and in the future will allow the verification of the model in
dimensional coordination (Coventry and Guthrie, 1998) as a key additional case studies. Additionally, the research focused
waste reduction strategy. The Waste ReSt model went further by on the construction stage using conventional building
revealing that dimensional coordination in floor tiles, wall tiles systems. Potential model developments could include
and brick walls would potentially reduce DW by 24%, 15%, and processes (e.g., prefabricated building systems) and other
11% respectively. Greenwood (2003) reported that optimization phases of the building life cycle (e.g., refurbishment).
of material resources would generate less waste. This was specifi- o The waste reduction levels were measured by volume,
cally quantified by the findings of Waste ReSt model validation however, ‘Quantification factors’ could be redefined to
case study. For example, the effects of including a 10 cm thick measure wastes by weight.
inner tube within a 24 cm brick wall resulted in 30% reduction of o Other variables that reduce the environmental, economic
brick wastes. Equally, the design of a 10 cm deep roof slope and social impact of waste (e.g., CO2 emissions, amount of
achieved a 7% waste reduction with a lower slope of 5 cm. The resources consumed, toxicity, economic costs) could be
impact of thinner layers in finishes on waste reduction was also included and assessed.
assessed in the Waste ReSt model validation process. Indeed, the o New strategies can be incorporated (e.g., the use of
plastered walls and ceilings alternatives during the finishing reclaimed/recycled building materials or the reuse/recy-
stages, led to significant waste reduction rates ranging from 70 cling of the waste generated in constructive solutions). This
to 100%. would allow further research on reclaimed material input
Several authors have also identified design changes leading to and reclaimed material output.
partial demolitions as a major waste source (Poon et al., 2004;
Coventry et al., 2001). A specific contribution to knowledge of this 6.3. Implications
research relates to proposed DW strategies to address design
changes to partitions that led to a 352% waste reduction level. The major implications of this study are noted below.
The use of reclaimed building materials, as other studies have
shown (Coventry and Guthrie, 1998; Kartam et al., 2004) was also
Greater informed knowledge and awareness of design waste
assessed in this research. For example, the use of recoverable causes and sources and associated design strategies to reduce
blocks inter-joist instead of unrecoverable blocks in the execution onsite waste, which is absent from the literature. This research
of cast in situ beams and pot floors allowed 21% waste reduction. demonstrated this knowledge gap through the identification of
Additionally, the use of recoverable formworks instead of brick ‘DW Factors’ and corresponding ‘DW Parameters’, as summa-
formworks reduced packaging, brick, and mortar spills waste by rized in Table 5, which enable DW estimation. As such, a novel

Please cite this article in press as: Llatas, C., Osmani, M. Development and validation of a building design waste reduction model. Waste Management
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.026
18 C. Llatas, M. Osmani / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

DW source-effect approach has been introduced in this research Waste Reduction in the Design and Construction of Dwellings in
via the developed Waste ReST model that would facilitate Andalusia” (Andalusian Government, 2009). The authors are also
design waste source traceability and assessment. This will grateful for the help and support from companies and individuals
enable construction project stakeholders, particularly, designers during the validation case study.
and constructors, to make informed design and buildability
decisions to specify and select low waste strategies and References
systems.

The research developed DW strategies based on a systematic and Andalusian Government, 2009. Department of housing and regional planning of the
consequential stages to address the identified DW sources by Government of Andalusia. Grants for research on housing and architecture.
2009 Grant Call. Spain. <http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/fomentoyvivienda/po-
devising alternative building elements that exhibit higher waste
rtal-web/web/areas/vivienda/texto/f27d07e8-7aba-11df-8e25-00163e67c14a>
reduction attributes. These would assist architects, structural (Visited 28/5/2015; currently only in Spanish).
engineers and project managers to embed such strategies within Andalusian Government, 2015. BCCA (Base de Costes de la Construcción de
Andalucía). Consejería de Vivienda y Ordenación del Territorio de la Junta de
their architectural, structural and constructions systems.
Andalucía, Seville, Spain. Available from: <http://www.juntadeandalucia.es>

It is well established in the literature that there is a lack of (Last viewed may 2015; currently only in Spanish).
integrated design waste tools that consider all design variables Baldwin, A., Poon, C., Shen, L., Austin, A., Wong, I., 2006. Designing out waste in
and construction requirements. The Waste ReSt model could be high-rise residential buildings: analysis of precasting and prefabrication
methods and traditional construction. In: Runming, Y., Baizhan, L., Stammers,
integrated within BIM platforms to support architects, K. (Eds.), International Conference on Asia European Sustainable Urban
engineers and quantity surveyors to design out waste from Development, Chongqing, China. Centre for Sino-European Sustainable
the project outset. Building Design and Construction, Beijing.
Bossink, B.A.G., Brouwers, H.J.H., 1996. Construction waste: quantification and

Although DW reduction strategies depend on the type construc- source evaluation. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. ASCE 122 (1), 55–60.
tion systems and materials, the model validation process and BRE - Building Research Establishment, 2007. SMARTStart, BRE, Watford.
the resulting recommendations for alternative low waste Chandrakanthi, M., Hettiaratchi, P., Prado, B., Ruwanpura, J., 2002. Optimization of
the waste management for construction projects using simulation. In:
systems and materials yield significant waste reduction levels, Proceedings of the 2002 Winter Simulation Conference, December 8–11, San
reaching 100% in some cases. Therefore, the research findings Diego, California, pp. 1771–1777.
could potentially have a far reaching impact in the design and Cheng, J.C.P., Won, J., Das, M., 2015. Construction and demolition waste
management using BIM technology. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Ann. Conf. of
construction of ‘low waste buildings’ that are focused on the Int’l. Group for Lean Construction, July 29–31, Perth, Australia.
rationalizing the use of materials, which would inevitably result Coventry, S., Guthrie, P., 1998. Waste minimization and recycling in construction:
in financial gains associated with labor, transportation and design manual. In: CIRIA SP134. Construction Industry Research and
Information Association (CIRIA), London, United Kingdom.
disposal costs of onsite waste in construction projects.
Coventry, S., Shorter, B., Kingsley, M., 2001. Demonstrating waste minimization
benefits in construction. In: CIRIA C536. Construction Industry Research and
7. Conclusions Information Association (CIRIA), London, United Kingdom.
Dainty, A.R.J., Brooke, R.J., 2004. Towards improved construction waste
minimization: improved supply chain integration. Struct. Surv. 22 (1), 20–29.
There is a consensus in the literature that an informed building Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), 2007. Waste Strategy
design would have a major impact on waste reduction at source. for England 2007. The Stationery Office, London, UK.
However; there is a lack of quantitative and holistic approaches Ekanayake, L.L., Ofori, G., 2000. Construction material waste source evaluation. In:
Proceedings of the Second Southern African Conference on Sustainable
that closely correlate waste stream generation to the employed Development in the Built Environment: Strategies for a Sustainable Built
design strategies for building systems and elements. Therefore, this Environment, Pretoria, 23–25 August.
research addressed this knowledge gap through the design and val- Ekanayake, L.L., Ofori, G., 2004. Building waste assessment score: design-based tool.
Build. Environ. 39, 851–861.
idation of the Waste ReSt model. The validation case study showed European Commission, 2011. CDW: material recovery & backfilling (2011). <http://
that greater insights into waste sources enable the development of ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/CDW%20Statistics%202011.pdf>
design strategies that could contribute to up to 100% of (Visited 28/5/2015).
European Commission, 2014. Amending decision 2000/532/EC on the list of waste
construction waste and their toxicity. pursuant to directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the
The Waste ReSt model could trigger waste reduction Council. Official Journal of the European Union L370/0044–0086.
instruments through the elaboration of collaborative building European Commission, 2008. Directive 2008/98/CE of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives.
elements databases and design strategies that yield significant
Official Journal of the European Union L312/, 0003–0030.
waste reduction levels in building systems. Equally, project Eurostat, 2010. European Commission. Environmental statistics and accounts in
stakeholders, particularly clients, developers, designers and Europe, 2010 edition. <http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-
contractors could implement best practice for waste reduction at 32-10-283/EN/KS-32-10-283-EN.PDF> (Visited 28/5/2015).
Eurostat, 2013. European Communities. Energy, transport and environment
source in general and building systems in particular. This could indicators, 2013 edition. <http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/
in turn contribute to a quantifiable improvement in the current KS-DK-13-001/EN/KS-DK-13-001-EN.PDF> (Visited 28/5/2015).
ability to curb the rapid and significant pace of the levels of Eurostat, 2015. Waste statistics, April, 2015. <http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
statistics-explained/index.php/Waste_statistics> (Visited 28/5/2015).
construction waste generation. Forsythe, P., Marsden, P.K., 1999. Modelling construction waste performance an
Future studies could be directed at investigating the effects of arising procurement issue. In: Ogunlana, S.O. (Ed.), Profitable Partnering in
design strategies on the reduction of construction waste through- Construction Procurement. Spon, London, pp. 679–688.
Gibb, A., 2001. Standardization and Customization in Construction: A Review of
out the building lifecycle stages. Furthermore, more case studies Recent and Current Industry and Research Initiatives on Standardization and
are required to apply the Waste ReSt model in real-world Customization in Construction. CRISP, London, United Kingdom.
situations and make appropriate methodological and validation Greenwood, R., 2003. Construction Waste Minimization – Good Practice Guide.
CRiBE (Centre for Research in the Build Environment), Cardiff, United Kingdom.
adjustments that consider the context and the design and Hylands, K., 2004. Designing waste out of the construction process. In: Proceedings
construction characteristics of each project. of Minimizing Construction Waste Conference: Developing Resource Efficiency
and Waste Minimization in Design and Construction. New Civil Engineer,
London, United Kingdom.
Acknowledgements
Innes, S., 2004. Developing tools for designing out waste pre-site and onsite. In:
Proceedings of Minimizing Construction Waste Conference: Developing
The authors are grateful to the Consejería de Vivienda y Orde- Resource Efficiency and Waste Minimization in Design and Construction,
nación del Territorio de la Junta de Andalucía (Department of October 21. New Civil Engineer, London, United Kingdom.
Jaillon, L., Poon, C.S., Chiang, Y.H., 2008. Quantifying the waste reduction potential
Housing and Regional Planning of the Andalusian Government) of using prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong. Waste Manage.
for subsiding the Research Project ‘‘-CDWs = + ECO-efficiency. 29, 309–320.

Please cite this article in press as: Llatas, C., Osmani, M. Development and validation of a building design waste reduction model. Waste Management
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.026
 C. Llatas, M. Osmani / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 19

Kartam, N., Al-Mutairi, N., Al-Ghusain, I., Al-Humoud, J., 2004. Environmental Serpell, A., Labra, M., 2003. A study on construction waste in Chile. In: Ofori, G., Ling,
management of construction and demolition waste in Kuwait. Waste Manage. F.Y.Y. (Eds.), Proceedings, Joint Symposium of CIB W55, W65 and W107 on
24 (10), 1049–1059. Knowledge Construction, Singapore, vol. 2, pp. 102–111.
Keys, A., Baldwin, A., Austin, S., 2000. Designing to encourage waste minimisation in Skoyles, E.R., Skoyles, J.R., 1987. Waste Prevention on Site. Mitchell, London.
the construction industry. In: Proceedings of CIBSE National Conference, Dublin, Spanish Government – Ministry of the Environment, 2009. Plan Nacional Integrado
Republic of Ireland. de Residuos 2007–2015 (National Integrated Waste Plan 2007–2015). Ministry
Lawton, T., Moore, P., Cox, K., Clark, J., 2002. The gammon Skanska construction of the Environment, Madrid, Spain, BOE 049 of 26/2/2009.
system. Proceedings of the International Conference Advances in Building Spanish Government, 2015. Building construction data 2009 – 2013. Ministry of
Technology, Hong Kong, China; 4–6 December, vol. 2, pp. 1073–1080. Development, Madrid, Spain. Series in Statistics. <http://www.fomento.gob.es/
Lu, W., Yuan, H., 2010. Exploring critical success factors for waste management in NR/rdonlyres/97E44F6E-61C2-470F-B8E4-903EC04F8B6A/125816/Construccion
construction projects of China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (2), 201–208. Edificios2013.pdf> (Visited 28/5/2015).
Liu, Z., Osmani, M., Demian, P., Baldwin, A.N., 2015. A BIM-aided construction waste Tam, C.M., Tam, V.W.Y., Chan, J.K.W., Ng, W.C.Y., 2005. Use of prefabrication to
minimisation framework. Automation Constr. 59, 1–23. minimize construction waste-a case study approach. Int. J. Construct. Manage. 5
Llatas, C., 2011. A model for quantifying construction waste in projects according to (1), 91–101.
the European Waste List. Waste Manage. 21, 1261–1276. Tam, V.W.Y., Shen, L.Y., Tam, C.M., 2007a. Assessing the levels of material wastage
Llatas, C., 2013. Methods for estimating construction and demolition (CD) waste. In: affected by sub-contracting relationships and projects types with their
Pacheco-Torgal, F., de Brito, J., Labrincha, J., Tam, V., Ding, Y. (Eds.), Handbook of correlations. Build. Environ. 42 (3), 1471–1477.
Recycled Concrete and Demolition Waste. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Tam, V.W.Y., Tam, C.M., Zeng, S.X., Ng, W.C.Y., 2007b. Towards adoption of
Cambridge (currently Elsevier), pp. 25–52. prefabrication in construction. Build. Environ. 42 (10), 3642–3654.
Osmani, M., Glass, J., Price, A., 2008. Architects’ perspectives on construction waste WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme), 2008. Halving Waste to Landfill:
reduction by design. Waste Manage. 28, 1147–1158. Are You Committed? WRAP, Banbury, UK.
Osmani, M., 2013. Design waste mapping: a project life cycle approach. Proceedings Yuan, H., Shen, L., 2011. Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste
of the ICE-Waste and Resource Management 166 (3), 114–127. management. Waste Manage. 31, 670–679.
Pinto, T.P., Agopyan, V., 1994. Construction waste as row materials for low-cost Yuan, H., Chini, A.R., Lu, Y., Shen, L., 2012. A dynamic model for assessing the effects
construction products. In: Kibert, C.J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the First of management strategies on the reduction of construction and demolition
Conference of CIB TG 16 on Sustainable Construction, Tampa, FL, USA, pp. waste. Waste Manage. 32 (3), 521–531.
335–342. Won, J., Cheng, J.C., Lee, G., 2016. Quantification of construction waste prevented by
Poon, C.S., Jaillon, L., 2002. A Guide for Minimizing Construction and Demolition BIM-based design validation: Case studies in South Korea. Waste Manage. 49,
Waste at the Design Stage. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. 170–180.
Poon, C.S., Yu, A.T.W., Jaillon, L., 2004. Reducing building waste at construction sites Wu, Z., Yu, A.T.W., Shen, L., Liu, G., 2014. Quantifying construction and demolition
in Hong Kong. Construct. Manage. Econo. 22 (5), 461–470. waste: an analytical review. Waste Manage. 34, 1683–1692.

Please cite this article in press as: Llatas, C., Osmani, M. Development and validation of a building design waste reduction model. Waste Management
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.026