Manual of Recycling

Page 1

Manual of Recycling Buildings as sources of materials

Annette Hillebrandt Petra Riegler-Floors Anja Rosen Johanna-Katharina Seggewies

Edition ∂

Authors Annette Hillebrandt Univ.- Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Architect Petra Riegler-Floors Dipl.-Ing. Architect Anja Rosen M. A. Architect Johanna-Katharina Seggewies M. Sc. M. A.

With specialist contributions from: Prof. Dr. Günther Bachmann Council for Sustainable Development, Berlin Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Markus Binder Hochschule für Technik Stuttgart, Department of Integrated Building Technology, CAPE climate architecture physics energy, Esslingen / Schwäbisch Hall Univ.- Prof. Dr.-Ing. Manfred Helmus Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Academic and research field of Construction Operations and Industry

Research assistant: Julia Blasius, M. Sc.

Univ.- Prof. Holger Hoffmann Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Professor of Representational Methodology and Design

All authors engaged at: Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Faculty of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Department of Structure I Design I Material Studies Research focus: Loop potential of constructions and materials in architecture

Dipl.-Ing. Mag. Thomas Kasper Porr Umwelttechnik GmbH, Vienna Dipl.-Ing. Holger Kesting Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Academic and research field of Construction Operations and Industry Dipl.-Ing. Architect Thomas Matthias Romm forschen planen bauen, Vienna Dipl.-Ing. Michael Wengert, B. Eng. Tobias Edelmann Pfeil + Koch ingenieurgesellschaft, Stuttgart

Editorial services Editing, copy editing (German edition): Steffi Lenzen (Project Manager), Jana Rackwitz, Daniel Reisch; Carola Jacob-Ritz (Proofreading) Drawings: Marion Griese, Ralph Donhauser Translation into English: Susanne Hauger, New York Christina McKenna (Part A and B2), Berlin Copy editing (English edition): Stefan Widdess, Berlin Proofreading (English edition): Thomas Cullen, Olching Cover design: Wiegand von Hartmann GbR, München Production and DTP: Roswitha Siegler, Simone Soesters Reproduction: ludwig:media, Zell am See Printing and binding: Grafisches Centrum Cuno GmbH & Co. KG, Calbe © 2019 English translation of the 1st German edition “Atlas Recycling” (ISBN: 978-3-95553-415-8) 2

Publisher: Detail Business Information GmbH, Munich ISBN: 978-3-95553-492-9 (printed edition) ISBN: 978-3-95553-493-6 (e-book) Bibliographic information published by the German National ­ ibrary. The German National Library lists this publication in the L German National Bibliography (Deutsche Nationalbibliografie); detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at This work is subject to copyright. All rights reserved. These rights specifically include the rights of translation, reprinting, and presentation, the reuse of illustrations and tables, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilm or on any other media and storage in data processing systems. Furthermore, these rights pertain to any and all parts of the material. Any reproduction of this work, whether in whole or in part, even in individual cases, is only permitted within the scope specified by the applicable copyright law. Any reproduction is subject to charges. Any infringement will be subject to the penalty clauses of copyright law. This textbook uses terms applicable at the time of writing and is based on the current state of the art, to the best of the authors’ and editors’ knowledge and belief. All drawings in this book were made specifically by the publisher. No legal claims can be derived from the contents of this book.


Motivation 4 6 Urban Resource Exploration – Producing Structures in Closed-Loop Materials Cycles Part A  Strategies and Potential 1  2  3  4  5  6

Circularity in Architecture – Urban Mining Design Dismantling, Recovery and Disposal in Construction An Overview of Rating Systems Using BIM to Optimise Materials Cycles in Construction An Elastic Standard – Urban Mining and Computational Design Eco-Efficient Construction Using Local Resources

10 16 24 32 34 36

Part B  Construction and Materials 1  Detachable Connections and Constructions 2  The Recycling Potential of Building Materials 3  Mono-Material Construction 4  Can Loop Potential Be Measured? An Analysis Using Facade and Roof Coverings as Examples 5  Assessment of Loop Potential 6  Challenges in the Structural Design of Dismantling- and Recycling-Friendly Constructions 7  Cost Comparisons of Conventional and Urban Mining Design Constructions

42 58 102 108 114 118 120

Part C  Detailed Catalogue Overview of Examples 01 to 09


Part D  Completed Examples Overview of Examples 01 to 21


Appendix Authors 214 Project Participants 215 Glossary 216 Picture Credits 220 Subject Index 222 Supporters / Sponsors 224 3


It takes three years to build a good house. If it is sustainable, it will be valued by both its inhabitants and its visitors. However, in the scheme of things, the impact of a single house is limited. It also took three years to write this book. We hope to reach the many architects who are convinced of the urgent need for a paradigm shift in building, and that these architects will then go on to build many better houses – in order to change the scheme of things before it is too late.

Our motivation for writing this book, in the words of others:

“RESOURCE EFFICIENCY HAS TAKEN CENTRE STAGE IN THE INTERNATIONAL POLICY DEBATE” Global Material Flows and Resource Productivity, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2016

Resource consumption “The construction and use of buildings in the EU account for about 50 % of all our extracted resource and ­energy consumption, as well as about a third of our water consumption.”

We are faced with a major challenge that ­represents a society-wide, global necessity. We see this as an opportunity to take a new, concept-based architectural stance that puts a new sense of responsibility at the forefront of every aesthetic debate.

Report by the commission to the European Parliament (… on the efficient use of resources in the building sector), Brussels 2014

In the course of an 80-year lifetime, a person in Germany uses about 530 tonnes of sand, gravel, granite and limestone and approximately 40 tonnes of steel. MaRess, Resource Efficiency Paper 3.7, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy GmbH and Leuphana University Lüneburg, Wuppertal 2010

Urban Mining Design is not intended to be a new style of building, but a new paradigm: Waste is a design flaw!

“What will the plundering of the Earth lead to in all the coming centuries? How far will our greed drive us?”

German Basic Law, Article 20 a: “Mindful also of its responsibility toward future generations, the state shall protect the natural foundations of life (...)” Why wait for that? We already have the know-how, so let’s use it! With many thanks to our sponsors and to all of our collaborators who supported us with their knowledge and their lifetime efforts.

Gaius Plinius Secundus Major (the Elder), Roman scholar, died 79 CE


In 2014, 52 % of all wastes were attributable to the building sector. A four-member family generated 28.3 kg of construction waste per day in 2014, of which 1.01 kg were hazardous materials. Federal Statistical Office (Destatis), Environment, Waste Balance 2014, Wiesbaden 2016

August 2018 Annette Hillebrandt, Petra Riegler-Floors, Anja Rosen, Johanna-Katharina Seggewies



Michael Braungart, brandeins, 2008

Resource scarcity and landfill limits The EU can only cover about 9 % of its raw materials needs from its own sources. For critical materials the self-supplied proportion is assumed to be under 3 %. European Commission: Report on critical raw materials for the EU – Ad hoc Working Group, 2014

“CREATIVE APPROACHES WILL BE NEEDED THAT ADDRESS THE WAY GERMANY SHOULD DEAL WITH THE EXPECTED RESOURCE BOTTLENECKS AND EXPENSIVE IMPORTS OF THE FUTURE.” Federal Environmental Agency: “raw materials sources right in front of us (Urban Mining – Rohstoffquellen direkt vor der Tür)”, press release No. 30, 2017

“Waste disposal in landfills is especially damaging to the ecosystem and the climate. For this reason, landfill use should be available for at most 5 % of all wastes by 2030.” Jo Leinen, Member of the European Parliament, Brussels 2017

Paradigm shift “Therefore the greatest art/science/diligence and arrangement in these lands will lie / in the establishment of such a conservation and cultivation of wood / that there will be a continuous enduring and sustainable use / because it is an indispensable thing / without which the country would not want to remain in existence.” Carl von Carlowitz: Sylvicultura Oeconomica 1713


“Ephemeral construction!” [a renunciation of the concept of an architecture for all eternity] Werner Sobek “Das beste System auf dem Globus”, Deutsches Architektenblatt, 2009


“If we do not find a path to sustainable growth, (…) we will pay for it in the next crisis.” German Chancellor Angela Merkel, budget debate, Berlin 21 June 2010


Urban Resource Exploration – Producing ­Structures in Closed-Loop Materials Cycles Günther Bachmann

In 1933, the Athens Charter called for work­ places and residences in cities to be spatially separated. This was urgently needed at the time and proved a great success for architects and urban planners. The resulting cleaner air and noise reduction improved many people’s health. Technical environmental protection is now very advanced in industrialised coun­ tries, albeit at varying levels with some persist­ ent deficits, and the construction industry is currently grappling with a new and more farreaching idea of separation. Separate material streams will be necessary if the environmental goal of recovering and recycling building ma­terials and valuable substances from city buildings is to be achieved.

Notes: [1]  cf. UN Habitat, and FAO Food for the Cities multidisciplinary initiative (Pub.): Chal­ lenges of food and nutrition security, agriculture and ecosystem management in an urbanizing world. (August 2017) [2]  Friege, Henning: Ressourcenmanagement und Sied­ lungsabfallwirtschaft. Challenger Report für den Rat für Nachhaltige Entwicklung. texte Nr. 48, 01/2015,­ loads/migration/documents/Challenger_Report_Res­ sourcenmanagement_und_Siedlungsabfallwirtschaft_ texte_Nr_48_Januar_2015.pdf. As of 13.06.2018 [3]  Rat für Nachhaltige Entwicklung – RNE (Pub.): Indus­ trie 4.0 und Nachhaltigkeit. Chancen und Risiken für die Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Report. Berlin 2016 migration/documents/20161230_IFOK_Bericht_­ Industrie_4-0_und_Nachhaltige_Entwicklung.pdf. As of 13.06.2018 [4]  see also en-gb [5]  Rat für Nachhaltige Entwicklung und Accenture Strat­ egy Sustainability, in cooperation with the Ökopol ­Institut für Ökologie und Politik GmbH: Chancen der Kreislaufwirtschaft für Deutschland. Analyse von ­Potenzialen und Ansatzpunkten für die IKT-, Auto­ mobil- und Baustoffindustrie. Hamburg. Berlin 2017­ loads/migration/documents/RNE-Accenture_Studie_ Chancen_der_Kreislaufwirtschaft_04-07-2017.pdf. As of 13.06.2018


The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which were adopted in 2015, provide important impetus for resetting this ­‘circular economy’. Germany was involved in drafting the goals and is implementing them at national level in its Sustainable Devel­ opment Strategy. The SDGs are to today’s ­sustainability policy what the Athens Charter was to urban planning in its day: a concise, contemporary description of the tasks required. They call for the launch of an ambitious circular economy, a zero-tolerance strategy in dealing with soil pollution, Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) and sustainable urban development. And rightly so: Half the people on Earth now live in urban agglomerations for which the word “city” would be a euphemism. In 10 years’ time, this figure will have risen to 60 % and by the middle of the century to 80 % of the world’s projected population of 9 –10 billion people. 828 million people now live in slums and their number is growing. ­Cities are hotspots of envi­ ronmental resource consumption. All over the world they have been built on valuable agricul­ tural land, pushing food production out to less productive marginal areas. Cities use up 80 % of the world’s energy [1]. The greatest pressure these problems impose is felt in cities in nations formerly referred to as ‘developing countries’, although the greatest pressure for development is felt not there, but

in highly-developed industrialised countries. Whether we see this as contingent on history, as part of a wider responsibility and ethical approach, or as resulting from the economic efficiency that technical innovation has created, we must succeed in launching a new era, which sees the city as a mine for raw materials. cities for raw materials. The word “mine” may create misleading images and analogies, but it needs to be seen in a new, innovative context. Every mining venture starts with planning and exploration and this is just as true of cities. The goal of efficient raw ma­terials usage can be achieved by avoiding and reducing waste, making repairs and ­ensuring durability, reusing and recycling. It will require changes to prod­ uct design, ­circular economic processes and responsible ownership, and it will take new materials and redesign as well as changes to users’ behaviour and practices that reduce the use of materials in construction. ‘Urban mining’, which regards a city as a huge repository of raw materials, is in fact more like urban resources exploration. ‘Urban mining’ is a term that epitomises the city of tomorrow. It links a wide-ranging per­ spective with creative drive and this must be particularly emphasised, with useful and scal­ able instruments that already exist. These include those for quantifying secondary raw materials, recovery and recycling techniques, the digi­t­alisation of recycling patterns in ­structural ­information, profitability analyses, and business sectors such as those that ­process and recover valuable materials. Local, self-­contained closed-loop circulation of build­ ing materials would not be healthy or rational, would impede innovation and have strongly ideological traits. The future of the city lies in decentralised inte­ gration, in social mobility and in complicated and seemingly utopian tasks such as the reurbanisation of food production, which has long since begun. One fundamental prerequisite for all this is becoming increasingly clear: cities must learn to renew themselves. They need to link their energy supplies, mobility infrastruc­ ture and elements of their food supplies, all of

Urban Resource Exploration – Producing ­Structures in Closed-Loop Materials Cycles

which will require a focus on the materials used to build cities. In contrast, “imperial” approaches allow cities to continue obtaining their building ­materials from all over the world without re­flecting on that process. How much longer can that work? Construction in the Anthropocene era will rely on the recovery and recycling of building ma­terials from the “urban ecosystem”, on ­separable building materials, life cycles, ­circular planning and cost control, and on responsible ownership instead of on linear, expansive growth categories such as demands, investment costs, landfill sites and the logic of the real estate market. Unthinking, unconsidered growth in consump­ tion offers no long-term solutions. Growth can­ not be an end in itself or an unquestioned basis for business. In fact, we are observing surprising growth in companies that consist­ ently and innovatively engage with a sustain­ ability agenda. A sustainable economy is not a ‘green’ fringe phenomenon but a current challenge for the mainstream in the energy business, in consumption and in the chem­ icals and building industries. Recent headlines on the explosion of construction costs, min­ imum pay, trends in rental prices and housing demand often obscure the real megatrend, which is sustainability. The old mantra of build­ ing “bigger, more, separate” is no longer an adequate response to the real issues that will impact cities in future. Recycling and state-of-the-art construction must become more part of our general knowl­ edge than they are now. Our school atlases were wrong when they described Germany as a country with few natural resources. Germany is in fact rich in raw materials, they are just not under the earth. Germany has never had more metal, more plastic, more oil-based composite ma­terials and more minerals. Yet despite this abundance of raw materials, we still import mineral and chemical raw materials from all over the world. We have everything, but think that we need more and more. This is because the raw materials we use are not or

not completely returned to the production pro­ cess at the end of the product’s life cycle. There are some exceptions, but recycling is only done on a relatively small scale. We still have a largely linear rather than a circular economy, which is ecologically disastrous, economically irresponsible, and socially unin­ telligent. Germans like to think of themselves as ‘recyc­ ling world champions’ but the country’s declared recycling rates measure only waste that is collected and brought to treatment ­facilities, not what comes out of those facil­­ ities. In fact, Germany recycles around 35 % of its waste collected for disposal, mainly easily recyclable, mass-produced materials such as glass, paper, PET and aluminium. This is not the case with high-tech materials that are an essential part of future strategies [2]. Com­pe­ti­ tive pressures, linear logistics and product design that is inimical to recycling still too often lead to decisions being made against recycling. Complacency, the absence of better ideas and lack of education on the issues do the rest. Yet there are growing streams of ma­terials in quantities that could be important in adding value, materials for which there is still no circular process, both in the construction business and in industry.

ness models and forms of cooperation offer a rewarding, solid and durable basis for the suc­ cess of this kind of economy [5] and represent a major reform programme for both society and the economy. Progress in this area and the solutions developed to achieve these goals will, however, challenge market mechanisms and politics. One new aspect of this economy will be that neither the market nor regulation alone will be able to promise success. The combined efforts of both commerce and policymakers will be needed to develop marketable solutions in a stable regulative environment. Urban mining in a form that can exploit its great transformative potential is still largely a futuris­ tic vision. Here, as in other areas of life, utopia must measure up to reality, must withstand an assessment of its impact based on real commitment, even if that may be painful and involve setbacks. However, a lofty lack of engagement will not achieve anything. Urban mining can hold its own because many t­echniques, processes, insights and expert approaches are already in place. It is develop­ ing quickly, although that does not mean it is developing quickly and extensively enough. Global urbanisation needs urban recycling to develop much faster. Reality also needs to measure up to the necessary utopia.

The Waste Management Act (Kreislaufwirt­ schaftsgesetz) needs to be fundamentally reformed. Lobbyists and protection of the usual vested interests have blocked this reform for too long. Multi-stakeholder partnerships among actors from civil society, the fields of practice and research, and companies offer better alternatives. They cannot make laws, but they can develop practical rules. Bestpractice standards can be drawn up in co­operative competition to help develop new practices and approaches. Digitalisation 4.0 forums [3] including sustainability codices [4] can have more impact through ­participation than might initially be expected. An ambitious circular economy can already function under today’s conditions and offers a range of opportunities for profit. New busi­ 7

Part A  Strategies and Potential

1  Circularity in Architecture – Urban Mining Design Urban Development Building Cubature Building Structure Building Technologies Joining and Materials Digital Data Costs

10 10 11 12 13 13 14 14


Dismantling, Recovery and Disposal in Construction The Legal Background Waste Volumes and Recycling Quotas Dismantling and Demolition Methods The Cost and Effort Involved in Dismantling and Demolition The Development of the Anthropogenic Deposit Conclusion and Prospects

16 16 18 19 21 22 22


An Overview of Rating Systems Recycling in Building Certification Recycling in Product Certification Conclusion and Prospects

24 24 28 32


Using BIM to Optimise Materials Cycles in Construction Life Cycles Materials Cycle: Building – Construction Product An Example: Recycled Aggregate Made of Concrete and Sand-Lime Brick

32 32 32 33

5  An Elastic Standard – Urban Mining and Computational Design


6  Eco-Efficient Construction Using Local Resources Resources on the Building Site, the Genius Loci The “Vienna Model”

36 36 37

“Metal elements”, company headquarters, Bad Laasphe (DE) 2010, m. schneider a. hillebrandt architektur


Circularity in Architecture – Urban Mining Design Annette Hillebrandt

All over the world, raw materials deposits are shifting. Many raw materials are now found not where they occur naturally, but in new, anthropogenic repositories. Large quantities of raw materials are stored in our building stocks. The paradigm shift that Urban Mining Design (UMD) represents is based on circular economy planning and costs that are analysed over a building’s entire life cycle and include its environmental impact (Fig. A 1.8, p. 15). Planners still too often think in terms of waste categories instead of materials cat­egories when they plan the end of structures’ usage and the recovery of post-use building material (see “Dismantling, Recovery and ­Disposal in Construction”, p. 16ff.). In future, buildings will be planned as a form of “interim storage” for raw materials, and the buildings as resources. Easily separable structures and building products are at the heart of a high-quality recycling process. Further essential prerequisites for recycling include an absence of hazardous materials and consistent responsibility for products. Clients and developers bear the responsibility for buildings, manufacturers for building materials and products, and planners and builders for building and ­dismantling. An Urban Mining Design strategy starts at the various ­levels of construction, f­urthers the sustainable use of resources, and reduces the consumption of primary resources by using secondary raw materials, conserving the soil, air and water that sustains us (Fig. A 1.1).

1. Size of repositories

Urban Development Conserving resources starts with reusing land and building stocks. Continued use and reuse should always take precedence over developing more greenfield sites and constructing new buildings. Condensing urban spaces

Making use of moderate, energy-efficient planned height development, urban development continues to rely on densifying spaces by adding more storeys to buildings, closing gap sites and building inside perimeter block developments or in the large spaces often left between blocks in post-war housing estates. This type of densification reduces both the destruction of land and the quan­ tities of resources required to build new infrastructure. Based on simulations of the local microclimate, it can help to counter climate change and its effects. When increasing the density of spaces, aspects such as providing or enhancing fresh air corridors, counteracting or avoiding “hotspots” by expanding areas that supply evaporative cooling, making surfaces more reflective, unsealing transport infrastructure surfaces, increasing areas of ground through which water can filter, decentralising wastewater treatment, and planting bushes and trees that will resist climate change and enhance bio­ diversity must all be considered.

Primary raw materials mining

Urban mining

2. Prospecting cost and effort 3. Amount of exploration

4. Materials content

5. Transport distance

6. Demand orientation

7. Processing cost and effort

8. Environmental impact

9. Social acceptance  advantageous


A 1.1


Circularity in Architecture – Urban Mining Design

A 1.2

A 1.3

Continuing and subsequent use of brownfield sites and existing buildings

Building Cubature

The option of regenerating existing buildings for reuse should be considered first. Continued use of a building’s support structure after it has been stripped back to its shell and its ­fittings have been dismantled is particularly important because most of a building’s mass is usually in its load-bearing structural elements. Older buildings’ inadequate technical perform­ ance and energy efficiency is one obstacle that frequently stands in the way of their continued use. Planning a “building within a building” can be a solution here, especially for large halls (Fig. A 1.2). Contamination is often used as an argument in favour of demolishing old buildings. In fact, contaminants always have to first be removed from a building and disposed of separately before demolition can begin, just as they would be before reuse. The cost of disposing of contaminants is ­therefore incurred in any case and cannot be a sole basis for deciding for or against demolition. If a building cannot be or can only partly be regenerated, reusing the building’s remaining materials must be a priority. Here there is potential for reuse in the form of the on-site recycling of materials from the building and soil mass as well as in intelligent terrain modelling. These measures can reduce waste volumes, conserve natural raw materials and diminish mobility emissions (see “Eco-Efficient Construction Using Local Resources”, p. 36ff. and Fig. A 1.3). In the case of soil contamination, especially on brownfield sites previously used for industrial purposes, it is worthwhile when planning large areas to check whether building laws allow for soil remediation underground in situ or whether soil remediation ex situ/on-site is possible. The best-case scenario here is to reuse the soil as arable land or disposal of it as a harmless substance in landfill. “Landfarming”, which involves using crushed demolition and soil materials in large-scale flat beds, can be a practical solution for outdoor areas.

Buildings’ sizes and forms and their underground construction volumes greatly influence our resources footprint. Building form

A compact building provides a good surface area-to-volume ratio. Energy can be saved by minimising the outer envelope and avoiding thermal bridges, which can occur around projecting structural elements. The quantities of materials required can be reduced by keeping joining details simple, which also reduces the cost and effort involved in repair and maintenance. When designing new buildings or enhancing the attractiveness of existing ones, buffer areas can extend residential space in transition seasons. Conservatories and single-glazed loggias and atria can form parts of high-quality residential spaces, even if they are unheated. They also shield users from noise and protect areas of the facade from weathering. Studies of the sun’s path can be carried out to optimise the positioning of buildings to maxi­ mise passive solar energy yields. Terrain

In keeping with the aim of leaving the natural world as “untouched” as possible, the construction of basement levels should be dispensed with for new buildings on greenfield sites. This protects soil organisms, which are an essential part of the ecosystem. It takes at least 100 years to form 1 cm of soil (Fig. A 1.4) [1]. Foundation designs that conserve soil are described in the chapters on “Detachable Connections and Constructions” (p. 42ff.) and in the “Detailed Catalogue” (p. 135ff.). New forms of consumer behaviour (such as the sharing economy) are making themselves felt in housing construction and challenging the need for basements, which are often just underused storage spaces, or for underground garages, when there are local connections to public transport and shared mobility services are available locally. Only high-value usable areas, such as sites on steep slopes, can justify the cost and effort involved in building subterranean spaces.

A 1.1  The benefits of urban mining for all three “pillars” of sustainability – a comparison of primary mater­ ials mining and urban mining (based on “Urban Mining – Ressourcenschonung im Anthropozän”, published by the Umweltbundesamt. 07/2017) A 1.2  A building-in-a-building concept used to retain large, uninsulated halls for an auditorium and ­laboratory building (“Hall 14a”), Wildau Technical University of Applied Sciences (DE) 2007, Ander­ halten Architekten A 1.3  Former industrial sites – continued use or recyc­ ling on-site! A 1.4  Untouched ground – footing detail. Experimental House Muuratsalo (FI) 1953, Alvar Aalto Sufficiency and rebound effects

Making do with enough, or sufficiency, is the most direct way to conserve resources and reduce waste, although our consumption of residential space seems to be moving in a ­different direction. In the year 2000, the average living space per person was just on 40 m2, in 2016 it was over 46 m2, an increase of around 16 %, [2] and the figure is forecast to grow to 51 m2 by 2050 [3]. Even the most flexible and efficient construction design and methods will be futile if the trend for each person to take up more living space continues. This rebound effect will elim­ inate all the improvements in efficiency in the area of resources conservation. At the programmatic planning level, sufficiency means minimising area per person while providing communal areas (shared spaces). This will require intelligent solutions involving multiuse spaces and the avoiding of temporary vacancies over the course of a day. At the policy level, measures that combat vacant commercial spaces, weak demand for housing (in economically underdeveloped areas) and empty luxury housing that is only used as an investment (in major cities) would all be desirable. A prescribed minimum number of users per m2 of plot area would be another helpful instrument in planning new buildings to achieve the required urban density.

A 1.4


Demolition and dismantling costs [€]


Disposal costs high Personnel costs high


Disposal costs low Personnel costs high


50,000 Disposal costs high Personnel costs low


Disposal costs low Personnel costs low

40,000 Conventional demolition

Selective demolition

Dismantling / Disassembly A 2.13

Here, cost-effectiveness depends on: •  Dismantling  /disassembly costs -  Workers required (their number and qualifi­ cations) -  Use of equipment /machines (type and quantity, operating materials) -  Material (safety measures and equipment) •  Disposal costs When the costs of dismantling in proportion to disposal costs are examined and divided into conventional demolition and selective ­dismantling, it becomes clear that personnel costs are more relevant to the overall costs than the costs of disposal (Fig. A 2.13) [18]. This explains why selective dismantling, which enables recycling but requires an ex­­ tensive deployment of workers, is not used ­universally. The costs of dismantling and demolition are usually calculated based on the contractor’s experience. In contrast to cost estimates for building construction there is no general, pub­ licly available data (e.g. such as the German Construction Price Index). Estimating costs is subject to fairly great uncertainty because many parameters cannot be identified or can only be identified with great difficulty in advance (e.g. structural components covered with cladding). A lack of information on the materials involved often results in very rough estimates of dismantling and disposal costs based on the structure’s gross volume and /or on the average calculated time required for the floor area involved. The chapter on “Cost Comparisons of Conven­ tional and Urban Mining Design Constructions” (p. 120ff.) shows the end-of-life costs for selected structures. The Development of the Anthropogenic ­Deposit Building stocks in Germany have grown con­ tinuously since the Second World War and now form an enormous, man-made, anthropogenic repository of raw materials with an estimated volume of 15 billion tonnes (Fig. A 2.14). To cal­ culate the recycling potential available in the 22

total building stock, scientists have made ­forecasts and carried out sensitivity studies for mass flows in 2030 and 2050 based on ­construction and demolition activities in 2010. According to the mass flow model, the input streams for new building and renovations in 2010, at 121 million tonnes, were three times as large as the output streams from disman­ tling. Based on forecast population growth, this trend will probably reverse from 2030 and by 2050 materials volumes from ­dismantling could exceed those from new building and ­renovations 1.5-fold, if the increase in vacant buildings is to remain m ­ oderate (Fig. A 2.15). One of the study’s main messages was that the use of recyclates, in products in building construction, based on optimistic assumptions of improved conditions for a circular economy and taking theoretical technical upper limits into account, could grow from an average of approximately 7 % currently to 21 % in 2050 [19].

A 2.13  Impact of disposal costs and personnel costs on demolition and dismantling costs based on four model calculations for a solid residential building (built in 1856) with 4,200 m3 of gross volume A 2.14  Material deposited in building stocks in Germany in 2010 in million tonnes by material group A 2.15  Forecast of materials streams in construction A 2.16  Reliability of disposal based on landfill capacity in Germany

As long as the real recycling of concrete and other mineral construction materials remains impracticable, the only the way of conserving these materials, which use up lots of resources and result in large quantities of emissions, is to work with the sustainability principles of effi­ ciency and sufficiency. The examples of build­ ings in the “Detailed Catalogue” (p. 135ff.) therefore focus on construction methods that already ensure recyclability at a high-quality standard. For economic reasons, current demolition tech­ niques are primarily designed to ensure speed and to require as few workers as possible. The stricter rules governing materials separation in the amended German Commercial Waste Ordinance (GewAbfV) and the tendency of dis­ posal costs to rise will mean that selective ­dismantling will become more established. For current new building projects, this means that easy separation of materials by means of detachable connection techniques is the best way forward (see “Detachable Connections and Constructions”, p. 42ff.).

Conclusion and Prospects Currently, the construction sector can only meet the recycling quotas called for in legisla­ tion at a low-quality standard and is far from a real circular economy with closed materials cycles. Since resources are increasingly in short supply, demolition activity is increasing, landfill capacity is shrinking (see “Limited ­landfill capacity”, p. 124 and Fig. A 2.16) and demands on secondary raw materials in build­ ing construction are growing, there is an urgent need to generate closed materials cycles in building construction. This will be a major chal­ lenge for mineral construction materials pro­ ducers. Researchers are, however, already ­providing some solutions. Concrete, for ex­ample, may soon be able to be fragmented into aggregate and hardened cement by means of electrodynamic fragmentation. Ultrashort high-voltage impulses (flashes) under water create a pressure wave in the concrete that reduces it to all its individual components [20]. The question of how reactive cement can be extracted from hardened cement is, how­ ever, currently unresolved.

Notes: [1]  Recommended resolution and report of the Commit­ tee for the Environment, Nature Conservation Building and ­Nuclear Safety (Ausschuss für Umwelt, Natur­ schutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit - 16. Ausschuss), Drucksache 18/9094, 06.07.2016 [2]  Regulation (EU) No. 305/2011 of the European Parlia­ ment and of the Council of 9 March 2011 ­laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of ­construction products and repealing Council Dir­ ective 89/106/EEC [3]  Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19.11.2008 on waste and ­repealing certain directives [4]  Verordnung zur Einführung einer Ersatzbaustoff­ verordnung, zur Neufassung der Bundes-Boden-

Dismantling, Recovery and Disposal in Construction

334 39 296 159 10

‡  Concrete ‡ Brick ‡  Lime sand brick ‡  Aerated concrete ‡  Other mineral materials (incl. floor coverings) ‡  Plasterboard, gypsum plaster wall panels ‡  Other gypsum plaster products ‡  Lumber / construction timber ‡  Other wood (incl. flooring) ‡  Sheet glass ‡  Mineral insulating materials ‡  Synthetic insulating materials ‡  Plastic-frame windows /doors ‡  Other plastics (incl. cladding, pipes and cables) ‡  Metals (incl. alloys) ‡  Other materials (incl. pipes, cables and cladding)

30 83 68 119


Beton Ziegel Kalksand Porenbet sonstige Gipskarto sonstige Bau-/Kon sonstiges Flachglas mineralis Kunststof Kunststof sonstige Metalle (i sonstige


6,389 3,485

15,256 million tonnes

1,232 1,874


A 2.14   schutz- und Altlastenverordnung und zur Änderung der Deponieverordnung und der Gewerbeabfall­ verordnung (Ordinance on the introduction of a Substitute Building Materials Ordinance, revision of the Federal Soil Protection and Contaminated Sites Ordinance and amendment of the Landfill ­Ordinance and Commercial Waste Ordinance – draft bill of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety), Bundes­ ministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit, 06.02.2017   [5]  German Waste Management Act (Kreislaufwirt­ schaftsgesetz – KrWG), 24.02.2012   [6]  Waste Classification Ordinance (AbfallverzeichnisVerordnung – AVV), 10.12.2001, last amended by Art. 2 of the Ordinance on 22.12.2016   [7]  Commercial Waste Ordinance (Gewerbeabfall­ verordnung – GewAbfV), 18.04.2017   [8]  see note 4   [9]  Memorandum by the Federal States’ Working Group on Waste Issues (LAGA) 20 – Requirements for recycling of mineral residues / waste – Techni­ cal rules. Part I: General Part. 06.11.2003 [10]  DIN 18 007:2000-05 Demolition works – Concepts, procedures, fields of application. May 2000 [11]  DIN 18 459:2016-09 German construction contract procedures (VOB) – Part C: General technical specifications in construction contracts (ATV) – Demolition and dismantling works [12]  Statistisches Bundesamt, Abfallbilanz 2014. ­Wiesbaden 2016 [13]  Author’s own calculations based on “Mineralische Bauabfälle. Monitoring 2014. Bericht zum Aufkom­ men und zum Verbleib mineralischer Bauabfälle im Jahr 2014”. Published by the Initiative Kreislaufwirt­ schaft Bau, c/o Bundesverband Baustoffe – Steine und Erden e. V. Berlin 2017 [14]  Author’s own representation, based on “Ökobilanzen rezyklierter Gesteinskörnung für Beton“. Research report by Holcim (Switzerland) AG in cooperation with the Institut für Bau und Umwelt (IBU) and the ­University of Applied Sciences Rapperswil (Hoch­ schule Rapperswil – HSR). Zurich 2010 [15]  German Demolition Association (Dt. Abbruch­ verband e. V.) (Pub.) Abbrucharbeiten, 3rd edition. Cologne, 2015 [16] ibd. [17]  see note 10 [18]  Müller, Annette – Influence of disposal and person­ nel costs on demolition or dismantling costs. Data­ base: Schultmann, Frank [19]  Deilmann, Clemens et. al.: Material flows in build­ ing construction. Building the Future – Research for Use in Practice, Vol. 6, published by the Feder­ al Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung - BBSR). Berlin 2017 [20]  Thome, Volker, Fraunhofer IBP, URL: https:// / Forschung_im_Fokus/Archiv/Blitz_im_Buero.html. Retrieved on 29.07.2017



Output 2010 Input 2010 Output 2030 Input 2030 Output 2050 Input 2050 -150









Materials flows [mill. tonnes] A 2.15

Safe disposal ensured Regional landfill requirements: the darker the colouring, the greater the regional landfill requirements in order to prove a ten-year disposal security

A 2.16


Part B  Construction and Materials

1  Detachable Connections and Constructions Foundation: Footings, Cellars Support Structure Exterior Coverings: Walls, Pitched Roofs Exterior Floor Coverings: Flat Roofs, Roof Terraces Interior Walls Interior Wall Facing Floors Windows and Exterior Doors, Post-and-Beam Constructions

42 46 48 49 50 52 52 53 56

2  The Recycling Potential of Building Materials Conserving Resources and Avoiding Waste Examples of Materials: Fundamentals and Evaluation Foundations and Support Structures Exterior Walls, Pitched Roofs: Exterior Surfaces Flat Roofs: Exterior Surfaces Wall, Ceiling, Roof: Structural Panels for Exteriors and Interiors Walls, Ceilings: Interior Surfaces Floor Structures Floors, Ceilings: Surfaces Insulation Seals and Separating Layers Openings and Glazing Units 3  Mono-Material Construction Biotic Materials: Timber Mineral Building Materials: Loam, Brick, Aerated Concrete, Insulating Concrete Conclusion and Prospects

58 58 64 65 72 79 80 83 84 84 86 92 95 102 102 104 106

4  Can Loop Potential Be Measured? An Analysis Using Facade and Roof Coverings as Examples Loop Potential as a New Architectural Parameter Criteria for the Assessment of Loop Potential Facades Roof Coverings Conclusions

108 108 108 108 110 111

5  Assessment of Loop Potential The Utilitarian Benefit of Recycling Loop Potential of Constructions and Building Components Definitions Assessment Parameters and Calculation Methods Prospects

114 114 115 115 115 117

6  Challenges in the Structural Design of Dismantlingand Recycling-Friendly Constructions



120 120 124 128

Cost Comparisons of Conventional and Urban Mining Design Constructions Determination of Project Costs A Comparison of Example Constructions Cost Comparisons 1 to 3

Wadden Sea Centre, Ribe (DK) 2017, Dorte Mandrup


Detachable Connections and Constructions Petra Riegler-Floors, Annette Hillebrandt

The prerequisite for high-quality recycling is usually the ability to separate building materials cleanly by type. To facilitate this, the building components as well as the individual materials must be connected in a detachable manner. Construction involving detachable connections or joints offers several advantages over the lifetime of a building: •  Construction phase: The implementation of a detachable joint can often be more efficient, both temporally and financially, e.g. due to quick assembly that is not subject to inclement weather, or through the elimin­ation of drying times. •  Utilisation phase: Necessary maintenance procedures such as the replacement of individual damaged elements or of short-lived building component layers, as well as modernisation efforts for design reasons (due to new users), can be carried out more simply and inexpensively. •  Demolition: In the process of dismantling the entire building or individual building components, separation of materials by type allows raw materials to remain in circulation. The reuse of these raw materials has economic advantages, whereas the disposal of building waste generates costs.

B 1.1  Physical action a Interlocking b  Friction locking B 1.2  The strategy of functional separation as a ­prerequisite for disassembling by type, compared for different wall structures (according to Valentin Brenner, Sebastian El Khouli et al.) ST = structure type BC = building component M = material B 1.3  Traditional water drainage principle: joints ­covered by overlapping tiles (“monk and nun”) B 1.4  Overlapping technique is used in thatched roofing as well, here with a detachably connected substructure. B 1.5  Detachable joints as construction principle for a ready-to-disassemble house; Maison démontable 1944, Jean Prouvé


This chapter presents a selection of examples of detachable connections and constructions in use. Their organisation – as well as that in the following chapter, “The Recycling Potential of Building Materials” (p. 58ff.) – is based on the order of building components found in DIN 276. The focus lies on alternatives to ­composite constructions that are typically difficult to separate and also on a few little-known mono-­material connection systems that are not detachable in all cases but, by virtue of their mono-material composition, nevertheless pose no obstacle to the sorting by type required for recycling (e.g. in timber construction, Fig. B 1.16, p. 48). Systems that are generally made to be separable (such as in steel construction) are mentioned only for the sake of completeness. Unless otherwise specified, the dismantling of the illustrated connection systems is the reverse of the assembly process. The recycling path of the individual

­ aterials in the various joining approaches m is found in “the Recycling Potential of Building Materials” (p. 58ff.). In addition to the newly developed systems, a few traditional detachable connection technologies are presented that still endure today. ­Many millennia-old construction strategies make sense from the detachability perspective as well, especially in moisture-proofing. Here, the principle of covering gaps (Fig. B 1.3) and roof overhangs minimises moisture stresses on seams and joints and facilitates the use of detachable constructions. Even before the age of bonding, waterproof connections could be achieved by clamps or the utilisation of contact pressure. On the one hand, the current market responds to increasingly high and varied demands with a large array of complex composite materials. On the other, however, recent years have seen the development of a broad spectrum of interesting detachable constructions, admittedly mostly conceived not on the basis of detach­ ability or the associated recyclability factors, but rather for economic reasons (e.g. shorter, weather-independent assembly times), flexibility demands or in response to increased safety requirements (e.g. verifiable impermeability of cellar waterproofing before backfilling). A large fraction of the solutions described have been approved by building inspection author­ ities. Some systems, however, are subject to neither an EN nor a DIN regulation and are therefore non-standard or non-regulated products. Before a non-standard product is installed, the building client must be apprised of the ­situation as a matter of principle. In terms of ­detachability and sortability by type, a strategy of separating individual layers by function has proved to be effective (Fig. B 1.2). A roof ­construction consisting of roofing sheet and ­untreated insulation, for example, is recommended over the use of moisture-­resistant insulating material, which cannot be recycled into a high-grade product because of its resin coating. Connection types

Connections between different functional layers and building materials can be categorised by different characteristics. A common way to

Detachable Connections and Constructions

Normal force Normal force

Hampered movement Hampered movement Prevented movement

Static friction

Prevented movement

Static friction



group them is according to their physical principles (Fig. B 1.1): •  Positive locking: the interlocking of the shapes of at least two connection partners, e.g. rivets, hook-and-loop fasteners, standing seam connections, loosely laid padding (along an edge), plugs, chutes, sash locks (window handles) •  Friction locking: connection through the action of a normal force and the resulting static friction, e.g. screws, nails, bolts, pegs, clamps, wedges, loose bearings (through weight) •  Material bonding: the cohesion of connection partners by atomic or molecular forces, e.g. through gluing, welding, soldering, adhesion

crowbar, while the connection formed between two joists via a nail plate and the liberal use of a nailgun can be undone only with a great deal of effort, or not at all. Assessment of detachability

A few of the methods that rate the suitability of constructions for closed-loop systems take the detachability of joints into account, with a focus on different aspects of the process. Investigations done at the faculty for Building Construction, Design and Material Studies at the Bergi­ sche Universität Wuppertal, for example, view the economic viability of selective demolition as a combination of the labour involved and the value of the recoverable materials. In this assessment, the difficulty of separation by type is determined using a five-point scale for the physical parameter “work”, ranging from “not very difficult” to “extremely difficult” (see “The Work factor”, p. 116) [1]. The system developed at the Institute for Lightweight Structures and Conceptual Design (ILEK) at the University of Stuttgart, on the other hand, rates the degree to which the joining element is damaged during dismantling. This is also done on a five-point scale, which goes from “detachable with no damage” to “detachable only through damage or destruction”. The rating of the ­connection is integrated into the method for analysing the recyclability of buildings via the

In the case of material bonding, joints are generally non-detachable, whereas for friction and positive locking (with the exception of riveting) they are usually detachable. Sometimes, however, a definitive separation into “detachable” versus “non-detachable” is not possible. The detachability of a joint can also depend on ­factors such as weather exposure (moisture penetration, frost and thermal expansion), the material properties of the connected building components or the number of accessory joining elem­ents. A connection between two unweathered timber boards via a single nail, for example, is relatively easily detached with a Composite insulation system

B 1.1

Facade panel

Ceramic curtain facade

B 1.4

Support Support structure structure Insulation Insulation Finish Finish

Support Support structure structure

Insulation Insulation Finish Finish

Support Support structure structure Insulation Insulation Finish Finish

Support structure Insulation Finish

Support structure

Insulation Finish

Support structure Insulation Finish





























B 1.3


























B 1.2

B 1.5


Overview of joining techniques in accordance with DIN 8580 and DIN 8593 Joining DIN 8593-1

Any process by which two parts are made to cohere through the action of gravity (friction), interlocking, spring forces or a combination of these

Applying Laying Layering

The joining of form-fitted parts by making use of gravity, often in conjunction with interlocking, e.g. roofing tiles

Inlaying Inserting

Joining in which one component is fitted into the form of another component, e.g. the insertion of insulating slabs into a roof construction


Joining in which one component is slid into or over the other, e.g. the sliding in of a connecting bolt


Joining by hooking the connecting part of one component over that of the other, where the connection is secured by a tension force (spring force, gravity), e.g. the hanging of a tension spring


Joining by pushing the connecting part of one component into that of the other, where the connection is secured by a compression force, e.g. a light bulb in a swan socket or a bayonet socket on a compressed air line

Spring clamping

Joining in which one component is deformed elastically before being inserted into another, whereupon the first component returns to its original form and secures the connection via interlocking, e.g. a deforming spring washer or snap closure

Filling DIN 8593-2

A blanket term for the installation of gaseous, vapourous, liquid, pulpy or pasty substances as well as powdery or granular materials or small chunks of matter in hollow or porous solids


The installation of gaseous, vapourous, liquid, or solid matter in hollow objects, e.g. fills, blown-in insulation

Pressing on or moulding DIN 8593-3

Blanket terms for any joining process during which the components and possible connecting elements are primarily elastically deformed and unwanted detachment is prevented by friction locking

Screwing (on or in, connecting with screws or tightening)

Joining through pressing on by means of self-locking threads


Joining by pressing together using connecting elements (clamps), in which the joined components are elastically or plastically deformed while the connecting elements remain rigid, e.g. lapped/fixed flange


Joining by means of spring-tensioned connecting elements (clips), that press the (usually rigid) components together

Interference fitting

Joining of an inner and an outer component, where the external dimensions of the inner exceed the internal dimensions of the outer: joining through packing, dowelling, contraction (shrink fitting), expansion, e.g. the driving in of an anchor bolt

Nailing Dowelling Driving

Joining by the driving or pressing in of nails (tacks) as connection elements into the material. In this way several components are bonded through compression. In the case of driving, the driven element is itself a component, e.g. driving in a hook


The mutual compression of two components with the aid of self-locking, wedge-shaped connecting elements, e.g. the block setting of windows


Friction-locked joining of a crank to a shaft by means of a cone or ring-shaped slotted cotter pins (tensioning elements), in which the necessary axial force is supplied by threads

Deforming DIN 8593-5

A blanket term for the processes in which either the joined components or the connecting elements are locally or even ­ ompletely deformed. The deformation forces can be mechanical, hydraulic, electromagnetic or of some other origin. c The connection is normally secured against unwanted detachments by interlocking.

Joining through the deformation of wire-shaped objects

The braiding of wire to form two- or three-dimensional wire meshes, e.g. steel meshes. The mutual twisting of wires (stranding, splicing, knotting, wire winding, wire braiding to form meshes), e.g. stays

Joining through the deformation of sheet metal, tubing and ­profiles

Joining through centre punching or notching, sheathing, broadening, narrowing, crimping, folding, wrapping, overlapping, e.g. standing seam roofing B 1.6


Detachable Connections and Constructions

Original form

Original form

Heat Heat causes return to original form

m Mechanical loading during use

B 1.7

so-called recycling graph “joining matrix” (see “Conclusions and Prospects”, p. 30f. and Fig. 3.14, p. 31) [2]. Joining techniques

Most joining techniques are regulated in DIN 8580 and DIN 8593. In reference to these standards, Fig. B 1.6 gives an overview of detachable connecting techniques such as joining, filling, attaching and inserting as well as some kinds of shaping. The joining techniques listed there are normally designed for long-term use. In the case of constructions that are designed to undergo frequent detaching and reattaching processes, the most suitable solutions are the reversible hook-and-loop ­(Velcro-type) fasteners or connections using magnets. It is important to remember, however, that the joining (adhesive bond) between the building material and the hook-and-loop strip or magnet can itself present an obstacle to sep­ aration by type, since it is usually of the type that is either difficult or impossible to detach. Hook-and-loop fasteners Hook-and-loop fasteners consist of two elem­ ents that form a detachable connection by hooking into one another: a “fuzzy” strip with small loops and a similarly shaped hook strip with tiny little barbed hooks (Fig. B 1.8). Typ­ically, these are made of plastics such as PP, PE or PA, and sometimes of non-flammable materials like fibreglass or PPTA for specialised applications [3]. Since 2009, hook-and-loop fasteners made of perforated, thin chrome-nickel sheet have been available on the market (see p. 52f.) Magnetic connections Natural magnets consist of a rare form of magnetite (iron (II,III) oxide). Nowadays, metallic alloys of iron, nickel and aluminium with admixtures of cobalt, manganese and copper, or ceramic materials (barium or strontium hexaferrite), are used in the manufacture of permanent magnets. Especially strong magnets, such as samarium-cobalt or neodymium-iron-boron magnets, are produced in a sintering process using rare earths. A 3.14 cm3 neodymium magnet, for example, can lift 11 kg [4]. This makes it possible to extend the use of magnets to

include the joining of building materials (e.g. interior cladding, acoustic modules; Fig. B 1.9). Magnetic connections can prove advantageous in cramped installation situations, in which mounting from above is not an option. Mono-material systems Mono-material systems represent a special case: The detachability of a joint becomes ­irrelevant when the fastening element and the connected building components are made of the same material, since in this case no extraneous material hinders the separation by type (see “Mono-Material Construction”, p. 102ff.). Detaching steel beams connected with rivets, for example, would be extremely difficult and necessitate the destruction of the fastener. However, because of its mono-material nature, the entire assembly can be routed to the steel recycling facility. A similar situation is found in timber construction: connections made by wood joinery (without connecting ­elements) or with hardwood fasteners such as dowels or screws need not be separated for recycling (Fig. B 1.10).

B 1.8

Future prospects

In the future, shape memory technology, which has thus far been used mainly in machine building and biomedical applications, could play a role in the field of detachable connections (Fig. B 1.7). Shape memory alloys are materials that can “remember” the original form B 1.6   Joining techniques based on DIN 8580 Manufacturing Processes – Terminology, ­Classification and DIN 8593 Manufacturing ­Processes – Joining B 1.7   Detachable connections of the future: so-called shape memory alloys can “remember” the ori­ ginal form imprinted on them in an annealing process even after they have been deformed. B 1.8   Hook-and-loop fastener: for greater adhesion strength the hook strip or indeed both strips can be implemented as so-called mushroom head strips. B 1.9   Magnetic connections for wall glazing in wet areas B 1.10  Detachability becomes obsolete – connecting ­elements for mono-material construction: Kerbig wood screw, Gebrüder Murr, 2012 a  Wood screw b  Wood dowel

B 1.9



B 1.10


Mono-material use possible Mono-material use possible Mono-material use possible with restrictions Mono-material use possible with restrictions Mono-material use not possible Mono-material use not possible Timber Timber

Conclusion and Prospects

Loam Loam

Current research approaches and the further development of existing construction methods demonstrate the ways in which the structural and physical characteristics of mono-­ material constructions can be further improved. So-called infra-lightweight concrete with reliably low thermal conductivity values of less than 0.2 W/mK makes single-leaf concrete walls an option even for the nearly-zero energy houses built to today’s standards [12]. Gradient concretes, whose composition varies over the cross-section of the building component, offer new possibilities for well-insulating and simultaneously highly load-bearing building components [13].

Brick Brick

The use of mineral building materials can often simplify compliance with fire safety and sound insulation requirements, but in common building practice it almost always implies downcycling – except in the case of loam. Because of the purity of type inherent in mono-material constructions, the reuse and recovery of mineral materials is often possible before eventual ­disposal. Thanks to its increasing economic importance, solid timber construction has enormous potential for further development. In addition, its fast assembly times and financial advantages make its future spread beyond the traditional timber construction regions a highly likely prospect.

Lighweight concrete Lighweight concrete

A dogmatic adherence to the principles of mono-material construction sometimes makes it difficult to meet all structural and physical demands to an equivalent degree (Fig. B 3.8). An individual, targeted approach, in which the chosen main material is complemented by other substances that do not pose obstacles to recyclability – from the same waste fraction, if possible – therefore represents a sensible alternative to a forcible mono-material concept.

Aerated concrete Aerated concrete

B 3.7


Notes:   [1]  Bednar, Thomas; Vodicka, Michael; Dreyer, Jürgen: Entwicklung im mehrgeschossigen Holzbau am Bei­ spiel des Schallschutzes der Trenndecken. Annual Conference of the Österreichische Physikalische Gesellschaft (ÖPG) Fachausschuss Akustik. Graz 2000   [2]  Numerous floor constructions and their parameter values can be found in: Holzforschung Austria Öster­ reichische Gesellschaft für Holzforschung (Eds.): Deckenkonstruktionen für den mehrgeschossigen Holzbau. Schall- und Brandschutz. Vienna 2015 (HFA-Schriftenreihe Vol. 20)   [3]  Verordnung über Anforderungen an die Verwertung und Beseitigung von Altholz (Altholzverordnung – AltholzV), 03/2003, altholzv. As of 29.09.2017 As of 29.06.2017  [4]­ stoffe/lehmbaustoffe.html – Life cycle /subsequent use. Retrieved on 29.06.2017  [5]­ baustoffe/ziegel.html. Retrieved on 28.8.2017­ stoffe/ziegel/porosierte-ziegel.html. Retrieved on 28.8.2017   [6]  Bundesverband Porenbeton (Eds.): Porenbeton ­Bericht 19. Wärmeschutz und Energieeinsparung – EnEV 2014. Berlin 2014   [7]  DIN 4109-32:2016-07 Sound insulation in buildings part 32: Data for verification of sound insulation (component catalogue) – solid construction   [8]  Product information Xella Deutschland GmbH, Duisburg, 8.12.2016, Retrieved on 06.09.2017  [9]­ stoffe/porenbeton.html. Retrieved on 14.07.2017 [10]­ stoffe/beton/frischbeton.html. Retrieved on 06.09.2017 Retrieved on 06.09.2017 Retrieved on 06.09.2017 [11]­ chenbehandlungen/farben-lacke-lasuren/silicon­ harzfarben.html. Retrieved on 06.09.2017 [12]  Schlaich, Mike; Lösch, Claudia; Hückler, Alex: Infraleichtbeton Stand 2015. In: Holschemacher, Klaus (Ed.): Betonbauwerke für die Zukunft. Berlin 2015, p. 93 –104 [13]  Heinz, Pascal; Herrmann, Michael; Sobek, Werner: Herstellungsverfahren und Anwendungsbereiche für funktional gradierte Bauteile im Bauwesen. Final report of the research project funded by BBSR as part of the research initiative Zukunft Bau. Stuttgart 2011 F_2811_Abschlussbericht.pdf

Mono-Material Structures

B 3.7  Comparison of the mono-material construction ­potential of several different building materials B 3.8  Thermal conductivity and additional characteristics of selected materials B 3.9  U-values and sound reduction indices of selected mono-material exterior wall constructions Thermal conductivity λ [W/mK]

Specific heat capacity [J/kg K]

Water vapour diffusion resistance factor, µ-value (moist / dry)

Gross density [kg/m3]

0.12 ... 0.13 0.18 0.13 (0.08) 0.034 ... 0.063 0.13

1,600 1,600 1,600 ≥ 1,700 1,700

20 /50 50 /200 > 20 /50 1/2 ... 3/5 30 /50

450 ... 500 700 450 ... 500 40 ... 250 650

0.91 ... 1.40 0.47 ... 1.40 0.17 ... 1.40

1,000 1,000 ≥ 1,000

5 /10 5 /10

1,800 ... 2,200 1,200 ... 2,200 600 ... 1,200

0.81 ... 1.4 0.50 ... 1.4 0.09 ... 0.29

1,000 1,000 1,000

50 /100 5 /10 5 /10

1,800 ... 2,400 1,200 ... 2,400 550 ... 1,000

0.39 ... 1.35 (0.17)


70 /150

800 ... 2,000

0.12 ... 1.2


5 /15

400 ... 2,000

0.08 ... 0.25


5 /10

350 ... 800

Timber and timber materials Lumber / coniferous Lumber / hardwood Cross-laminated timber Softwood fibre mats OSB panels Loam materials Tamped loam Adobe bricks Lightweight loam bricks Brickwork including mortar joints Clinker Solid brick Lightweight vertically perforated brick (unfilled) Lightweight concrete With closed joints With open-pore concrete joining and porous aggregates Aerated concrete Block masonry

Measured values λB in accordance with DIN 4108-4:2017, DIN EN ISO 10 456:2010, loam construction regulations or National Technical Approvals. The values in parentheses are manufacturers’ claims based on their own measurements as well as values from research and development projects.

Type of exterior wall

Total wall thickness [cm] Sound reduction index R'w [dB] Thermal transmittance U [W/m2K] Heat capacity 1) [Wh/m2K]

Timber beam wall with 40-mm interior sheathing and exter­ ior curtain wall facing

Solid timber wall with weather­ proofing

Solid timber wall with 12-cm softwood fibre insulation and weather­proofing

Tamped loam wall

Masonry wall of highly porous bricks with rendering on both sides

Lightweight c ­ oncrete wall

B 3.8

Aerated concrete wall with rendering on both sides








42 – 45





















All values are approximate, based on typical material parameter values.


Calculated in accordance with DIN EN ISO 13 786 over the period of 1 day

B 3.9


Can Loop Potential Be Measured? An Analysis Using Facade and Roof Coverings as Examples Anja Rosen

Loop Potential as a New Architectural ­Parameter If the enormous consumption of resources in construction is to be reduced to a sustainable level, construction will have to undergo a paradigm shift. This will require the creation of a political framework, but it will also be necessary to conceptualise the loop potential of buildings by way of a design parameter. In order to incorporate the principles of recyc­ling-friendly construction, new, quantitative evaluation ­criteria will be needed with which to measure the resource efficiency of buildings and structures.

factors, the bulk of the demolition cost depends largely on the amount of human and machine labour required (see “Dismantling, Recovery and Disposal in Construction”, p. 16ff.). In order to study the measurability of demolition costs, the Bergische Universität Wuppertal, in collaboration with training centres and ­man­u­facturers, built and then dismantled a series of sample facade and roof constructions. In anticipation of the disassembly phase, ­special efforts were made in the design of the constructions to use detachable material connections whenever possible so as to sub­ sequently facilitate high-quality separation by type. The experiments are elucidated below, using nine facade and roof constructions as examples.

Criteria for the Assessment of Loop ­Potential Facades The certification systems introduced in the chapter “An Overview of Rating ­Systems” (p. 24ff.) include the ease of dis­assembly and recyclability of structures to a point, although only in a qualitative way. A method for the quantitative assessment of loop potential is ­currently being developed in a doctoral thesis at the Bergische Universität Wuppertal [1] (see also “Assessment of Loop Potential”, p. 114ff.). The systematic approach encompasses not only the technical material aspects but also economic considerations, and is ­predicated on the assumption that, according to the laws of the free market, a high-quality recovery programme will only be implemented if there is profit in it. For a qualitative assessment, therefore, there are three ­critical factors apart from the mass of the resource itself: the technical or natural recycling potential of the material, the value of the reclaimed ­substances and the effort involved in selective demolition. The chapter “The Recycling Potential of Building Materials” (p. 58ff.) introduces the recycling potential of individual substances in terms of their Material Cycle Status. The value of the materials is determined by the revenue generated from their recovery or the cost of their disposal [2]. Aside from construction site-specific 108

All the experimental stands for the facades were fabricated in the same proportions and sizes by various manufacturers and training facilities. The exception was the post-andbeam facade, for which a manufacturer’s test stand was used. Even though the facades were adapted to the given support structures, the focus of the experiment was always on the facade cladding and not the ­support element. Facing brick shell on a load-bearing exterior wall

The recycling potential of fired bricks is limited (see “Mineral materials: masonry materials, concrete”, p. 69ff.). The material is, however, notable for its longevity and its modular con-

B 4.1

Can Loop Potential Be Measured?

B 4.1  Reusable: water-struck clinkers on a solid exterior wall, lime mortar above, cement-lime mortar below B 4.2  Easily repaired: rear-ventilated curtain facade on a solid exterior wall B 4.3  Homogeneous: composite insulating system of mineral insulating panels with lightweight render on aerated concrete B 4.4  Timber cladding on a timber beam exterior wall

struction method. The focus at two of the test stands was therefore placed on the reusability of brick facades. The first test stand shows a solid clinker facing shell, half of which was jointed with eminently hydraulic lime mortar and the other with cement-lime mortar. On the second stand, bricks were dry-laid and attached to the subconstruction with stainless steel anchors (Fig. B 4.1; Fig. B 4.9 Nos. 1 & 2, p. 112 as well as Fig. B 1.20, p. 50). The ­central question in this experiment was how much time and energy would be required to disassemble the facade without damage. While the dry-laid facade including the insu­ lating shell was dismantled quickly and nondestructively using only simple tools, the real surprise came with the mortared shell: even though the cement-lime mortar was expected to have formed a tighter bond than are highly hydraulic lime ­mortar, it turned out to be possible to separ­ate the bricks in both wall types – with an approximately equal, though considerable, investment of time and energy – with very little waste, by means of a hydraulic chisel, so that in both cases the bricks were recovered with only negligible adhesions. The reason for this is the use of high-quality water-struck clinkers with very low water absorption capacity. Ventilated curtain facades on a load-bearing exterior wall

Rear-ventilated curtain facades can be mounted on a supporting wall in many different ways. On one of the test stands, two different cladding materials were affixed to an alumin-

B 4.2

ium subconstruction on a solid wall by different methods (Fig. B 4.2; B 4.9 Nos. 3 – 7, p. 112f.) in the following combinations: •  fibre cement panels with agraffe fasteners •  fibre cement panels with visible rivets •  glued fibre cement panels •  clamped aluminium sheet cassettes The mounting systems were adapted to two ­different insulating materials: for the mineral wool insulating mats, the mounting rails were attached to the supporting wall with metal angles and brackets, while anchored brackets were used with the foam glass panels. Attaching the insulation to the support wall with plate anchors or claw plates obviated the need for an adhesive. The focus of the study was the effort required to disassemble the entire construction, including cladding, subconstruction and insulation. Because of the limited recycling potential of the fibre cement panels, the goal was to remove them with as little damage as possible so that they could be reused. The results of the test showed that the agraffefastened fibre cement panels, combined with mineral wool insulation and wall brackets, were most easily and quickly removed without damage. The glued-on panels, on the other hand, could be loosened with force, but the residue of polyurethane adhesive that remained on the joining elements was difficult to remove. The dismantling of the aluminium cassettes clamped to a modular click rail required a ­certain amount of practice in the use of the

B 4.3

manufacturer-provided tools; the time spent on this would become negligible in large-scale applications. Composite insulating system on an aerated concrete exterior wall

A conventional composite insulating system comprises a number of mutually bonded ­layers of inhomogeneous materials, which makes recycling impossible. One of the test stands was therefore used to experiment with a construction that optimised material homogeneity. In this construction, pictured in Fig. B 4.3 and B 3.5 a (p. 105), the supporting structure is an aerated concrete exterior wall clad with an insulating panel made of the same substance in a substantially more porous version. The mortar used to glue on the insulating panels and the outer render are likewise made of the same material. The only foreign element is a plaster-fibreglass mesh. The test results showed that the plaster-and-mesh layer could be easily cut into and torn off, during which some of the plaster and the fouled mesh went to waste. The wall and the insulation were torn down together by machine in very little time and with comparatively low energy expend­ iture and sent on for recovery. Regarding loop suitability, it is important to remember that the recycling of mono-material demolition waste is possible, but its us­­ ability as a secondary substance is limited to a certain percentage of the newly produced material (Material Loop Potential in “Examples of Materials: Fundamentals and Evaluation”, p. 63).

B 4.4


Cost Comparisons of Conventional and Urban Mining Design Constructions Petra Riegler-Floors, Annette Hillebrandt

Are loop-compatible constructions inherently more expensive, as is generally assumed? In order to answer this question, the following ­discussion will study the entire lifetime of a ­construction, including its erection, necessary upkeep during the use phase, demolition and waste disposal. During a building cost analysis, all design ­participants typically focus exclusively on the construction phase. The use phase, if it is considered at all, is usually viewed only from the perspective of energy. Most of the time, the demolition costs are given no attention. However, since expenses are nevertheless incurred for upkeep as well as for demolition and waste disposal, the following analysis will take into account the expenditures for all life phases of the construction in the calculation of its total cost (Fig. B 7.1). As this chapter focuses on the physical structure, the operational costs of supply, cleaning and maintenance as well as running repairs will not be considered here – in contrast to the life cycle cost analyses in the assessment methodologies [1]. In an experimental set-up presented at the end of the chapter, three examples featuring conventional and recyc­ ling-compatible construction versions are ­compared with one another (p. 128ff.). Determination of Project Costs The costs for construction are taken as much as possible from the current Construction Cost Index (BKI – Baukostenindex) [2]. For the few newer or less well-known materials not listed there, costs were determined by combining the price of the material (manufacturer’s list price) with the labour costs for the installation of a comparable material from the BKI. Material and installation costs

Costs for materials and their installation form the basis of construction costs. Material costs Recyclable materials have a reputation for being generally more expensive than their commonly used, less loop-compatible coun­ 120

terparts. Figure B 7.2 shows a comparison between different insulating materials in terms of construction and demolition as well as waste disposal costs (see “Insulation”, p.86ff.). A ­significant price advantage can be seen in the case of blow-in cellulose insulation. All mat- or panel-based insulation materials are in approximately the same price range, with jute insulating mats (made from used coffee or cacao sacks), rather than a mineral oil-based insulation, representing the least expensive variant. The differences in material costs, however, carry less weight overall because of the relatively high labour costs. Installation costs Many detachable joining techniques were not developed in order to facilitate dismantling by material type, but rather to allow for faster and predominantly weather-insensitive instal­ lation, reflected in labour, construction site ­provision and pre-financing cost savings. The comparison of two different joining techniques in facing masonry (Fig. B 7.4) illustrates the advantage of detachable connections: The installation time and associated labour costs of a newly developed dry bricklaying system are about one third less than those of the traditional mortar bonding method (see “Mortarless system for brick curtain walling”, p. 50). At the end of its life cycle the dry-laid facing wall is just as easy to disassemble again, and the clinkers can be sold for reuse (see “Facing brick shell on a load-bearing exterior wall”, p. 108f.). In addition, the work required to remove old mortar adhesions from the bricks before reuse is completely avoided. Upkeep costs: life cycle of the construction and product life

The product lifetimes used in the following studies are mostly taken from the BKI [3], the table “Service Lifetimes of Building Components” of the Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (BBSR) [4] and (for green roofs) from a project report compiled by the Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics [5]. For a few of the newer or less well-known materials not

Cost Comparisons of Conventional and Urban Mining Design Constructions

Conventional construction

Recycling-compatible construction

Dismantling and recycling



€ Demolition and waste disposal


Repairs B 7.1 Dismantling and disposal costs Installation

Costs [€]

published in these tables the calculations are based on manufacturer service life claims or, where applicable, on manufacturer guarantees. The building life cycle is taken to be 50 years. This corresponds to the time period that the evaluation methodologies of the DGNB ­(German Sustainable Building Council) and the BNB (Assessment System for Sustainable Building) use as a basis for most usage profiles (see “An Overview of Rating S ­ ystems”, p. 24ff.).

120 100


Raw materials with limited availability

Renewable resources

80 60 14

40 38


20 43

14 49

Demolition costs: dismantling and waste disposal

No comprehensive data sets or statistics are currently available for demolition and waste removal costs. A demolition cost index similar to the BKI (which covers construction and refurbishment costs) does not exist, though it would be an important tool to have in future. The few demolition costs published in the BKI are too lacking in detail and make no distinctions between joining techniques. Most demolition contractors rely on estimates







Many building materials, however, have a shorter lifetime than 50 years, meaning that they must be replaced once or even several times during this period. If several material ­layers are non-detachably joined, the assumption is that the entire compound structure will have to be replaced as soon as the lifetime of the shortest-lasting component is reached. The building component layers are viewed from the outside inwards, toward the building core, where in all cases the support structure remains untouched. The above reasoning was not employed for materials that would normally not be replaced even after their life expectancy had ended, provided that they are well protected from deterioration (e.g. plastic sheeting in a floor construction). Inexpensively manufactured building materials often also have short service lifetimes. If the costs of repeated repairs or replacements based on the product’s life over the course of the building’s life cycle are added to the original cost, a lower-cost material can turn out to be more expensive overall than an ­initially more costly yet longer-lasting material (Fig. B 7.3).









Cellulose blow-in Cork ­insulation ­panels TCC 040 TCC 040

Reed Jute Hemp FibreRock PUR EPS p ­ anels mats mats boards wool p ­ anels ­panels WLG 035 TCC 030 TCC 035 TCC 040 TCC 040 TCC 040 TCC 055

Seagrass blow-in insulation TCC 045

TCC = thermal conductivity class Dismantling and disposal costs (see note 6) All material and installation costs taken from BKI Part 3 (see note 2) as well as from manufacturer claims

B 7.2

Stainless steel (curtain facade)

Stainless steel 59 (curtain facade)

Aluminium honeycomb core panels (curtain facade)

Aluminium honeycomb core panels 45 (curtain facade)

Wood shingles (curtain facade)

Wood shingles (curtain facade)


Clinker slips 37 (cemented onto composite insulating system)

Clinker slips (cemented onto composite insulating system) Synthetic resin plaster (composite insulating system)


Synthetic resin plaster (composite insulating system)

Fibre-reinforced resin composite panels 29 (curtain facade)

Fibre-reinforced resin composite panels (curtain facade) 0










Lifetime [years] B 7.3 B 7.1  Period under consideration for project costs B 7.2  Net costs of 160-mm-thick insulation materials for use on an exterior wall, including installation, dismantling and disposal. Insulation from renew­ Mortar0.95 h = € 41.80 able materials is also advantageous from an bonded ­economic standpoint. B 7.3  Lifetimes of exterior cladding materials in years according to BKI (see note 3): long-lasting mater­ 0.60 h = €costs 26.40 Dry-laid ials save replacement B 7.4  Installation time of brick facing wall (h/m2) in ­mortar-bonded curtain wall and dry-laid system variants (labour costs in0.4 €, rates 0 0.2 0.6from BKI, 0.8 see 1.0 note 2; installation times from BKI and2manufacinstallation [h/m and €] turer claims): detachable joining saves labour costs

** Grafik B 7.4 ** 0.95 h = € 41.80 0,95 h= 41,80 € 0.95 h = € 41.80 0,60 h= 26,40 € 0.60 h = € 26.40 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.60 Montagezeit h = € 26.40 [h/m2 und €] [h/m2 Mörtelverbindung Trockenstapelsystem




0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 ** Ende Grafik ** installation [h/m2 and €] B 7.4


The best possible potential (given currently available recycling paths) for the continued use of all materials used in the following constructions is indicated as end-of-life potential using these criteria: Wiederverwendung Wiederverwendung

Verfüllung/„Landfill“ Wiederverwertung Deponie Kl. 0



If a product can be used again for its ori­ Wiederverwertung ginal purpose, it is assigned to the “Reuse” category. This category encompasses Weiterverwendung ­building materials that are long-lasting, ­modular or large or for which a market exists or is expected to exist in future. Examples includeWeiterverwertung high-quality timber such as oak, ­natural Wiederverwendung stone slabs and glass facade panels, clinker Herstellerrücknahme bricks and stable and rot-proof fills such as sand and foam glass gravel. Wiederverwertung Kompostierung

If substances extracted from the breakdown Deponie Kl. I & II Weiterverwendung of a product are used for new products at the same Kl. level quality in a practically Deponie III of & VI Weiterverwertung closed utilisation loop, they are said to have Gefahrenstoff Wiederverwendung been “recycled”. This category includes all closed-loop materials: most notably metals, Herstellerrücknahme but alsoWiederverwertung biotic or mineral materials such as Verfüllung/„Landfill“ cork or loam. Deponie Kl. 0 Kompostierung Weiterverwendung Deponie Kl. I & II


Verwertung Wiederverwendung Further Energetische use

If a used building product can be used Weiterverwertung again for a purpose other than its originally Wiederverwertung intended function at a lower-quality level, it is Herstellerrücknahme considered to be of “further use”. All ­materials that are categor­ised as reusable Weiterverwendung Wiederverwendung can, of course, also be used for a different Kompostierung purpose, possibly at a lower-quality level. Weiterverwertung Wiederverwertung Energetische Verwertung Herstellerrücknahme Weiterverwendung

Manufacturer take-back

In theseKompostierung cases the manufacturer has agreed Weiterverwertung to take back its products /materials after use in order to recycle them in a closed Verwertung productEnergetische loop. These materials are, however, Herstellerrücknahme simultaneously assigned to their alternative use categories. Kompostierung

Energetische Verwertung Weiterverwertung Deponie Kl. III & VI Gefahrenstoff Downcycling Verfüllung/„Landfill“ A substance Wiederverwendung Deponie Kl. 0that can be recovered from Herstellerrücknahme processing only in a lesser-quality form is subjected to “downcycling”. This category Deponie Kl. I & II Wiederverwertung Kompostierung includes substances such as concrete, materially reclaimable timber (e.g. unwea­ Deponie Kl. III & VI Verfüllung/„Landfill“ thered Weiterverwendung timber and waste woods that have Gefahrenstoff Deponie Kl. 0 reused),Verwertung alreadyEnergetische been and mono-material synthetics, whose utilisation in recycling ­processes associated with loss Deponie Kl.isI always & II Weiterverwertung in quality. Deponie Kl. III & VI Herstellerrücknahme Gefahrenstoff Kompostierung Composting

Although the composting of naturally grown Energetische Verwertung building materials in composting facilities is not a common practice at present, it is expected to become an option for further ­utilisation in the future.

Energetische Verwertung Energetic reclamation

If a material cannot be reutilised in material Wiederverwendung form, it is used to generate energy. Ex­ amples of such materials include weathered timber, derivedWiederverwertung wood products and biotic ­insulation that have reached the end of their utilisation cascade, as long as they are not Wiederverwendung compostable. Weiterverwendung Materials of negligible mass (adhesive strips, silicone, elastomer films Wiederverwertung and other mixed synthetic materials) are also Verfüllung/„Landfill“ Weiterverwertung energetically reclaimed. Deponie Kl. 0 Weiterverwendung Herstellerrücknahme Deponie Kl. I & II Landfill classes Weiterverwertung I and II

Deponie Kl. III & VI Kompostierung Building materials that can only be disposed Gefahrenstoff of in landfills were not used in the selected constructions.Herstellerrücknahme Energetische Verwertung Kompostierung



Energetische Verwertung

Verfüllung/„Landfill“ Deponie Kl. 0 Landfill class 0 / Fill

Inert substances (e.g. contaminated, Deponie Kl. I & slightly II unrecyclable mineral materials) that must Verfüllung/„Landfill“ be disposed of inKl. a Class 0 landfill were Deponie Deponie Kl. 0III & VI avoidedGefahrenstoff in the constructions described here. Deponie Kl. I & II Deponie Kl. III & VI Gefahrenstoff Landfill classes III and IV /  Hazardous materials

The constructions shown here contain no hazardous materials.

Verfüllung/„Landfill“ Deponie Kl. 0 Deponie Kl. I & II Deponie Kl. III & VI Gefahrenstoff Verfüllung/„Landfill“ Deponie Kl. 0 Deponie Kl. I & II Deponie Kl. III & VI Gefahrenstoff

Verfüllung/„Landfill“ Deponie Kl. 0 Deponie Kl. I & II Deponie Kl. III & VI Gefahrenstoff

The designs and constructions on the following pages were created specifically for this book. The illustrations show exclusively positive examples of Urban Mining Design: The constructions can be disassembled (see “Detachable Connections and Constructions”, p. 42ff.) and their materials can be either kept in closed material loops or take the cascading ­utilisation of renewable resources into account (see “The Recycling Potential of Building ­Materials”, p. 58ff.). In addition, a few of the projects incorporate recovered building elements or materials made from previously recycled waste (secondary raw materials). Exceptions are formed by products for which no closed-loop alternatives with the same level of performance are yet available for the intended purpose, e.g. water-impermeable concrete for cellars. The avoidance of entire building component layers – leaving the construction visible – should be considered a generally positive decision. The illustrated designs and constructions are mainly suggestions and in some cases have not been fully tested in real buildings (e.g. unvarnished window frames, basement constructions in solid timber). Information regarding regulatory requirements such as National Technical Approvals can be found in the descriptions in the chapters “Detachable Connections and Constructions” (p. 42ff.) and “The Recycling Potential of Building Materials” (p. 58ff.). The constructions were planned and designed in close consultation with an expert in structural physics. In general, it is clear that vapour-proof or vapour-tight layers (MDF or OSB panels, trapezoidal sheet metals or plastic sealings) must be sealed at their joints. In the examples, building components that are exposed to moisture over limited time periods are made from domestic timber varieties of high natural durability (without chemical wood-protecting agents) (see “The Recycling Potential of Building Materials”, p. 58ff.). Specific information on the structural physics of individual detailed designs is provided in the illustration legends. Further general challenges and problems are ­covered in greater depth in the chapter “Challenges in the Structural Design of Dismantling- and Recycling-Friendly Constructions” (p. 118f.). The loop potential of the main building elements in three of the projects, which differ from one another in the constructions of their load-bearing structure, facade, roof and foundation types, were quantitatively determined as examples. The evaluations were done using a complex assessment tool that was developed in doctoral dissertation work at the Bergische Universität Wuppertal. The methodology is explained in the chapter “Assessment of Loop Potential” on p. 114ff. The last two projects focus specifically on the challenge of building (private) bathrooms in a ­loop-compatible manner. The roof and wall base details shown in the preceding projects are not examined separately in these examples.

Constructions: Annette Hillebrandt, Petra Riegler-Floors Illustrations: Johanna-Katharina Seggewies Loop potential: Anja Rosen Structural physics: Pfeil & Koch ingenieurgesellschaft GmbH & Co. KG Michael Wengert, Tobias Edelmann Contributors: Students at the Bergische Universität Wuppertal Till Arlinghaus, Julia Blasius, Dario Gräfe, Dorothee Kaspers, Janina Meiners, Nils Nengel, Fan Ling, Nils Schäfer, Xenia Sagrebin, Charlotte Schweden, Johanna-Katharina Seggewies, Alina Weidenhaupt


Example 01: Steel Skeleton Construction / Stainless Steel Clip-On Panel Facade Structure and shell as a valuable investment

A real investment: stainless steel clip-on ­panels envelop a steel framework with trap­ ezoidal sheet floors and roof. The high-priced, long-lasting and valuable materials are completely recyclable with no loss in quality after dismantling, and therefore represent a moneyback guarantee. The pitched roof and the facade are fitted with the same rear-ventilated system. Rain gutters and downpipes are hidden so that the reductionist angularity of the building cubage remains undisturbed. The material and the grid-like pattern of the shell intensify the disciplined appearance of the exterior. On the inside, a very different effect is achieved: the walls and ceilings are lined with old coffee sacks, likewise detachably fastened in panel form. The printing on the jute attests to the panels’ use all over the world. The mastic asphalt screed is dark; the polish on its surface brings out the little speckles of the light-coloured aggregates. Recyclable and spread over valuable copper pipes, it represents a perfect urban-mining building component. Thanks to its frost-proof and moisture-resistant properties it is also used on the balcony. As is often the case in steel skeleton structures, solid structural timber (KVH) and wood composite panels serve as a secondary construction. 138

Example 01

Partial elevation Scale 1:50 Vertical section Scale 1:20


Structure and foundation •  steel skeleton structure •  cavity insulation •  KVH secondary construction •  ground screw footings Exterior claddings •  stainless steel clip-on panels •  U-profile subconstruction Exterior floor coverings •  balcony: mastic asphalt screed poured on dovetailed steel sheeting Interior claddings •  jute-lined timber framing •  metallic hook-and-loop fasteners Interior floor coverings •  floating mastic asphalt screed •  wood fibre impact sound insulation Insulation •  jute fibre insulating panels •  fibreboard insulating panels Doors / Windows •  stainless steel door frames •  post-and-beam glued laminated timber / stainless steel cladding •  triple glazing •  flashings with lapped EPDM foil connections 139


Horizontal sections Scale 1:20 a  Ground floor section b  Upper floor section Roof construction (U-value: 0.18 W/m2K)

Exterior wall construction (U-value: 0.14 W/m2K)

Balcony door (U-value: 1.10 W/m2K)

•  1-mm stainless steel clip-on panel, clipped and secured with screws •  2 – 3-mm stainless steel U-profile subconstruction, secured with screws •  35/207-mm galvanised steel trapezoidal sheet in negative position, secured with screws •  24/48-mm untreated spruce battens, ­rear-ventilated, secured with screws •  0.2-mm high-density polyethylenene (PE-HD) windproofing sheet, diffusion-permeable, sd: 0.025 m, lapped and stapled •  15-mm tongue-and-groove MDF panels, d ­ iffusion-permeable, sd: 0.165 m, secured with screws •  40/60-mm untreated spruce battens, secured with screws •  60-mm jute fibre insulation panels packed between battens, 90 % recycled cacao and coffee sacks with PLA reinforcing fibres, λ: 0.038 W/mK •  200/200/9-mm galvanised steel HEB support profiles, secured with screws •  120/200-mm untreated KVH secondary ­construction, secured with screws •  200-mm jute fibre cavity insulation, 90 % recycled cacao and coffee sacks with PLA reinforcing fibres, λ: 0.038 W/mK •  22-mm OSB/3 panel with formaldehyde-free bonding agent, secured with screws •  0.2-mm low density polyethylene (PE-LD) vapour-proofing, sd: >100 m, lapped and ­stapled •  30/2.5/0.2-mm metallic hook-and-loop ­fasteners, chromium nickel steel, secured with screws on both sides •  2-mm jute fabric ceiling lining, 100 % re­ cycled, stapled onto 30/50-mm untreated spruce battens attached with metallic hookand-loop fasteners

•  1-mm stainless steel clip-on panels, clipped and secured with screws •  2 – 3-mm stainless steel U-profile subconstruction, secured with screws •  0.2-mm high-density polyethylene (PE-HD) windproofing sheeting, diffusion-permeable, sd: 0.025 m, lapped and stapled •  15-mm tongue-and-groove MDF panel, ­diffusion-permeable, sd: 0.165 m, secured with screws •  60/85-mm untreated spruce structural timber, secured with screws •  85-mm jute fibre insulation panels packed between timbers, 90 % recycled cacao and coffee sacks with PLA reinforcing fibres, λ: 0.038 W/mK •  200/75/8.5-mm galvanised steel U-support profiles, secured with screws •  120/200-mm untreated spruce KVH ­secondary construction, secured with screws •  200-mm jute fibre cavity insulation, 90 % recycled cacao and coffee sacks with PLA reinforcing fibres, λ: 0.038 W/mK •  22-mm OSB/3 panel with formaldehyde-free bonding agent, secured with screws •  0.2-mm low-density polyethylene (PE-LD) vapour-proofing, sd: >100 m, lapped and ­stapled •  30/2.5/0.2-mm metallic hook-and-loop ­fasteners, chromium nickel steel, secured with screws on both sides •  2-mm jute fabric ceiling lining, 100 % re­ cycled, stapled onto 30/50-mm untreated spruce battens attached with metallic ­hook-and-loop fasteners

•  70-mm flush-mounted stainless steel insulated frame, double-glazing •  windproof flashing with lapped EPDM foil connections

Roof drip edge

•  120/150-mm stainless steel box gutter, secured with screws 140

Floor constructions

•  50-mm floating mastic asphalt screed with polished surface, with copper pipes when functioning as heating screed •  0.34-mm recycled-cellulose-fibre grey board separating sheet, loosely laid •  60-mm lignin-bonded fibreboard impact sound insulation, two layers, λ: 0.04 W/mK, loosely laid •  48.5/250-mm galvanised steel trapezoidal sheet, point-attached with screws on a ­natural rubber elastomer underlay •  sand fill poured into the troughs of the trap­ ezoidal sheet •  200/200/9-mm galvanised steel HEB support profiles, secured with screws •  120/200-mm untreated spruce KVH ­secondary construction, secured with screws •  30/50-mm untreated spruce counter battens, secured with screws •  30/50-mm untreated spruce battens, secured with screws •  30/2.5/0.2-mm metallic hook-and-loop ­fasteners, chromium nickel steel, secured with screws on both sides •  2-mm jute fabric ceiling lining, 100 % re­ cycled, stapled onto 30/50-mm untreated spruce battens attached with metallic hookand-loop fasteners Balcony floor construction

Post-and-beam windows (U-value: 0.79 W/m2K)

•  50/160-mm flush-mounted glued laminated timber post-and-beam construction with stainless steel cladding, triple glazing, ­windproof flashing with lapped EPDM foil connections

•  35-mm mastic asphalt screed with polished surface •  poured onto 16/34-mm dovetailed galvanised steel sheeting secured with screws •  35/50-mm galvanised steel H-support profiles, special design, secured with screws

Example 01


Ver De


•  10-mm recycled polyurethane-bonded ­rubber granulate building protection matting, spot-positioned under support ­profile •  3-mm plant-based roof sealing membrane (bitumen- and halogen-free), sd: 150 m, homogeneously glued joints, loosely laid •  22-mm OSB/3 structural panels with ­formaldehyde-free bonding agent, secured with screws •  35/50-mm galvanised steel H-support ­profiles, secured with screws •  120/120/9.5-mm galvanised steel HEB ­support profiles, secured with screws •  2 – 3-mm stainless steel U-profile subconstruction, secured with screws •  1-mm stainless steel clip-on panels, clipped and secured with screws Ground floor construction (U-value: 0.23 W/m2K)

•  50-mm floating mastic asphalt screed with polished surface, with copper pipes when functioning as heating screed •  0.34-mm recycled-cellulose-fibre grey board separating sheet, loosely laid •  0.2-mm low-density polyethylene (PE-LD) vapour-proofing, sd: > 100 m, loosely laid •  60-mm lignin-bonded fibreboard impact sound insulation, two layers, λ: 0.04 W/mK, loosely laid •  100-mm pressure-resistant lignin-bonded fibreboard insulation, multiple layers, λ: 0.04 W/mK, loosely laid •  48.5/250-mm galvanised steel trapezoidal sheeting, joints rendered wind- and vapourproof with clamped natural rubber strips (µ: 10,000), point-attached with screws onto a natural rubber elastomer underlay •  sand fill poured into the troughs of the trap­ ezoidal sheet •  200/200/9-mm galvanised steel HEB support profiles, secured with screws •  galvanised steel ground screw foundation, secured with screws

Weiterverwendung Wiederverwendung Wiederverwertung

De Ver De De Ver Ge De

Weiterverwertung Wiederverwertung Weiterverwendung

De Ge

Wiederverwertung Wiederverwendung

Loop Potential of the Construction Materials: Recycling Path / End-of-Life Potential


Wiederverwendung Wiederverwendung Sand fill Recycling Wiederverwertung

Wiederverwertung Steel support profiles, ground screw footings, trapezoidal Weiterverwendung sheeting, stainless steel clip-on Weiterverwendung panels with subconstruction, dovetailed sheet metal, stainWeiterverwertung Weiterverwertung less steel box gutters, metallic hook-and-loop fasteners, ­sHerstellerrücknahme tainless steel door frames, Herstellerrücknahme post-and-beam construction, Wiederverwendung Wiederverwendung used stainless steel cladding, Kompostierung ­c opper pipes, mastic asphalt Kompostierung Wiederverwertung screed Wiederverwertung Energetische Verwertung Further Use Energetische Verwertung Weiterverwendung Weiterverwendung

Downcycling Weiterverwertung

Wiederverwendung Weiterverwertung Spruce KVH, spruce battens and floor sleepers, glued Wiederverwendung ­lHerstellerrücknahme aminated timber post-andWiederverwendung Wiederverwertung Herstellerrücknahme beam constructions, OSB/3 Wiederverwertung panels, MDF panels, copper Kompostierung Wiederverwertung Weiterverwendung Kompostierung floor heating pipes, EPDM foil connectors, low-density Weiterverwendung polyethylene (PE-LD) vapourEnergetische Verwertung Weiterverwendung Weiterverwertung Energetische Verwertung proofing, rubber granulate building protection matting, Weiterverwertung plate glass Weiterverwertung Herstellerrücknahme

Verfüllung/„Landfill“ Manufacturer take-back Verfüllung/„Landfill“ Herstellerrücknahme Weiterverwendung Deponie Kl. 0 Jute fibre rubber Weiterverwertung Deponie Kl. insulation, 0 granulate building protection mattingKl. I & II Deponie Kompostierung Weiterverwertung Deponie Kl. I & II Herstellerrücknahme

De Ge

Deponie Kl. VI Deponie Kl. III III & &Verwertung VI Energetische Composting Herstellerrücknahme Gefahrenstoff Kompostierung Gefahrenstoff Jute fibre insulation, jute fabric lining, fibreboard Kompostierung Energetische Verwertung Energetic reclamation

Verfüllung/„Landfill“ Energetische Verwertung Verfüllung/„Landfill“ Grey board separating sheet, Deponie Kl. Deponie Kl. 0 0 roof sealing plant-based ­membrane, natural rubber Deponie Kl. & elastomer high-­ Deponie Kl. IIunderlay, & II II density polyethylenene Deponie III ­(PE-HD)Kl. windproofing sheet Deponie Kl. III & & VI VI Gefahrenstoff Gefahrenstoff Verfüllung/„Landfill“ Landfill class 0 / Fill Deponie Kl. 0 Verfüllung/„Landfill“ Deponie Kl. 0 Verfüllung/„Landfill“ Deponie Deponie Kl. Kl. I0& II Landfill classes I and II Deponie Kl. I & II Deponie Kl. III & VI Deponie Kl. I & II Gefahrenstoff Deponie Kl. III & VI Gefahrenstoff Deponie Kl. IIIIII&and VI IV /  Landfill classes Gefahrenstoff Hazardous materials


ForHerstellerrücknahme a detailed illustration of loop potential see p. 142f.


Kompostierung Kompostierung Energetische Verwertung Energetische Verwertung Energetische Verwertung


Part D  Completed Examples

Technological Loop: Urban Mines 01  RCR Arquitectes – Musée Soulages in Rodez (FR) 02  kadawittfeldarchitektur – Lausward Power Plant in Düsseldorf (DE) 03  Durisch + Nolli – Training Centre in Gordola (CH) 04  Wandel Hoefer Lorch + Hirsch – Documentation Centre in Hinzert (DE) 05  Steven Holl Architects – The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City (US) 06  Graber & Steiger – Window Factory in Hagendorn (CH) Biotic Loop: Renewable Resources 07  Cukrowicz Nachbaur Architekten – Community Centre in St. Gerold (AT) 08  Michael Green Architecture – Wood Innovation and Design Centre in Prince George (CA) 09  Werner Sobek – Aktivhaus Residential Estate in Winnenden (DE) 10  Proarh – Holiday Home in Kumrovec (HR) 11  Georg Bechter Architektur + Design – Residence in Vorarlberg (AT)

190 192 194 195 196

Techno-Biotic Loop 12  architekturwerkstatt Bruno Moser – Office Building in St. Johann in Tyrol (AT) 13  NKBAK – European School in Frankfurt am Main (DE) 14  Dorte Mandrup – Wadden Sea Centre in Ribe (DK)

198 200 202

Locally Sourced Materials 15  Boltshauser Architekten with Martin Rauch – the Rauch House in Schlins (AT) 16  spaceshop Architekten – Residence in Deitingen (CH) 17  2012 Architecten – Villa Welpeloo in Enschede (NL)

204 206 208

Recycled 18  Lendager Group – Upcycle House in Nyborg (DK) 19  David Chipperfield Architects Berlin – Folkwang Museum Building Extension in Essen (DE) 20  Alvaro Siza with Finsterwalder Architekten – Cultural Institute, Formerly Hombroich Rocket Station near Neuss (DE) 21  Amateur Architecture Studio – History Museum in Ningbo (CN)

Administrative building, Reutlingen (DE) 2002, Allmann Sattler Wappner

180 182 184 186 187 188

210 211 212 213

Few built examples exist today that meet the requirements for urban mining-compatible construction. Complex ­buildings with large space allocation plans and stringent specifications (e.g. for fire safety), in particular, represent a challenge when it comes to detachable construction and selecting recyclable materials. The completed buildings featured here were often not designed or built with an eye to an urban mining principle at all, but the results of completely different motivations: a particular material aesthetic, the advantages of an ­ecologically conscious approach in general, short construction times, series fabrication economies of scale or low ­construction costs. For this reason they often fulfil only parts of an urban mining strategy: concepts for minimisation or the repurposing of space, a high proportion of renewable resources, a facade as a resource storage, the avoidance of building component layers (sufficiency thinking), sound building biology, soil conservation, local sourcing of materials or the utilisation of ­recycled materials. In the descriptions accompanying the drawings, detachable connections and recyclable materials are elucidated in greater detail, while the standard materials and joining methods are mentioned only with respect to function.




Steel as an Interior and Exterior Surface

a b


Musée Soulages Rodez, FR 2014 Architects: RCR Arquitectes, Olot


c c

c c





The materials used in the exposed surfaces were chosen for design reasons: the weathering steel on the exterior facade makes reference to the reddish l­imestone that is typical for the region and is found in the nearby cathedral, while the ­interior cladding of black steel complements the exhibited works of the artist Pierre Soulages. Black is the hallmark colour of this internationally recognised painter of non-representational art, who has been ­creating monochrome black surfaces exclusively for almost 40 years. Aside from its aesthetic qualities, steel is almost limitlessly recyclable, making it a ­perfect closed-loop material. The variability in its uses as an exposed surface material was explored fully in this building: In addition to the large-scale panels of weathering steel used in the facade, there are also longitudinal steel bar grate bridges over a water basin, horizontally placed steel plates used as a park boundary and vertical sun protection louvres of the same material attached to the outside of the post-and-beam facade. The visible floor coverings and wall and ceiling claddings in the interior are all made from black plate, as are the benches and seating alcoves in the window reveals, as well as the free-standing movable partitions.

Sections • Floor plan Scale 1:500 Facade section of the exhibition cube Scale 1:20  Vertical section • Horizontal section of the core structure’s north facade Scale 1:20










c c



Technological Loop: Urban Mines
























A 1 Exterior wall construction: 6-mm weathering steel stainless steel support 120-mm thermal insulation 360-mm reinforced concrete 520-mm installation space 2≈ 12.5-mm plasterboard 2 Roof edge: 6-mm weathering steel parapet coping EPDM joint seals 3 Roof construction: 30 ≈ 30-mm weathering steel grate 340-mm spacer, height-­ adjustable waterproofing sheet 180-mm thermal insulation vapour-proofing layer 120-mm reinforced concrete

dd 100-mm installation space 60-mm soundproofing layer 0.7-mm perforated steel sheet, coated 4 Steel sheet wall frieze, coated white 5 False ceiling construction daylight-scattering ceiling panel direct / indirect acoustics and ­artificial lighting perforated steel sheet, coated white 40-mm sound insulation, on 160/300-mm steel profile frame 6 Floor construction: 6-mm black plate 100-mm concrete levelling course 350-mm reinforced concrete

100-mm thermal insulation 100-mm rear ventilation 6-mm weathering steel   7 180-mm weathering steel fi profile   8 6-mm weathering steel   9 1012/180-mm pre-oxidised sun protection louvre 10 Insulated glass 11 Weathering steel reveal, ­removable for glass replacements 12 Insulated glass skylight 13 180/700-mm weathering steel ­facade mullion, welded 14 20-mm black plate window bench


Authors Annette Hillebrandt Born in Essen in 1963 Univ.- Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Architect BDA (German Architects’ Association) 1982–1989 studied architecture at the Technische ­Universität Dortmund 1989 –1994 employed as an architect Since 1994 self-employed architect in Cologne 1994– 2001 Hillebrandt + Schulz-Architektur, Cologne 2001– 2010 hillebrandt-architektur, Cologne Since 2010 msah m. schneider a. hillebrandt architektur, Cologne 2001– 2003 Professor of Structure, Design and Construction in Existing Buildings, FH Kaiserslautern 2003 – 2013 Professor of Building Construction, Münster School of Architecture Since 1992 member of Architektenkammer NRW ­(Chamber of Architects North Rhine-Westphalia) Since1996 active as jury member in architecture ­competitions Since 2001 member of various design committees Since 2013 Professor of Building Construction, Design and Material Studies, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, with a research focus on Loop Potential in Architecture 2009 founder of 2010 appointed to panel of experts on “Dismantling and Recycling Compatibility” of the DGNB (German Sustainable Building Council) 2011 awarded German Facade Award for rear-ventilated facades Since 2014 member of the DGNB 2015 Urban Mining Award 2016 Founding member of IRBau (Initiative for ResourceConserving Building ) 2016 co-founder of the Urban Mining Student Award 2016 founding member of IRBau Initiative Ressourcen­ schonende Bauwirtschaft (Initiative for Resource-­ Conserving Building), renamed re!source Stiftung e. V. in 2019 2017 founder of Petra Riegler-Floors Born in Saarbrücken in 1975 Dipl.-Ing. Architect 1994 –1995 Diplôme de Culture française, Sorbonne, Paris 1995 –1997 studied biology at the RWTH Aachen 1997– 2003 studied architecture at the RWTH Aachen and at ETSAV Barcelona 2004 – 2007 employee and project leader at synn architekten, Vienna 2007– 2008 research associate at the Faculty of Residential Construction and Design, Prof. Wim van den Bergh, RWTH Aachen 2007– 2011 employee and project leader at msah architektur, Cologne Since 2011 self-employed architect in Cologne Since 2013 research associate at the Faculty of Building Construction, Design and Material Studies, Prof. Annette Hillebrandt, Bergische Universität Wuppertal 2003 Euregional Prize for Architecture EAP, First Place 2003 Masterclass Steel, Archiprix International, Berlage Institut Rotterdam Since 2010 member of the Architektenkammer NRW (Chamber of Architects North Rhine-Westphalia) Anja Rosen Born in Bielefeld in 1970 M.A. Architect 1986 –1998 training as a banker, followed by employment and parental leave 1999 – 2009 employed at Hartmann-Walk Building Biology and Ecology, Warendorf 2005 – 2012 studied architecture at the Münster School of Architecture 2009 – 2011 research associate at the Münster School of Architecture; development of 2012 – 2013 employed at msah architektur, Cologne


Since 2009 employed at the agn group, agn Niederberghaus & Partner, Ibbenbüren Since 2013 DGNB auditor and certified expert for ­sustainable building (SHB) Since 2013 lecturer at the Faculty of Building Con­ struction, Design and Material Studies, Prof. Annette Hillebrandt, Bergische Universität Wuppertal Since 2010 member of the DGNB Since 2014 doctoral studies at the Bergische Universität Wuppertal in the Faculty of Building Construction, Design and Material Studies, Prof. Annette Hillebrandt, dissertation on the development of a methodology for the quantitative assessment of the loop potential of buildings in new construction design Since 2016 member of the Architektenkammer NRW (Chamber of Architects North Rhine-Westphalia) 2009 recognition award from the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Industriebau (AGI), Second Place 2010 university award 2009/10, FH Münster 2014 appointed to panel of experts on “Dismantling and Recycling Compatibility” of the DGNB (German Sustainable Building Council) 2016 co-founder of the Urban Mining Student Award 2016 founding member of IRBau Initiative Ressourcen­ schonende Bauwirtschaft (Initiative for Resource-­ Conserving Building), renamed re!source Stiftung e. V. in 2019 Johanna-Katharina Seggewies Born in Münster in 1988 M.A. M.Sc. 2009 – 2012 studied architecture at the Bergische Uni­ versität Wuppertal, B.Sc. 2012 – 2014 studied architecture at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, M.A. degree in architecture 2014– 2016 studied architecture at the Bergische Universität Wuppertal, M.Sc. 2013 – 2016 employed at blumberg + schürg architekten – ingenieure, Wuppertal 2015 – 2016 research assistant at the Faculty of Design and Building Studies, Prof. Susanne Gross, Bergische Universität Wuppertal Since 2016 research associate at the Faculty of Building Construction, Design and Material Studies, Prof. Annette Hillebrandt, Bergische Universität Wuppertal

Authors of the Technical Contributions Günther Bachmann Prof. Dr.-Ing. 1974–1978 studied landscape design 1983 – 2001 worked at the German Federal Environmental Agency: responsible for the Federal Soil Protection Act Since 2001 Secretary General of the Berlin office of the Council for Sustainable Development Chairman of the jury for the German Sustainability Award as well as the Next Economy Awards Since 2012 honorary professor at the Leuphana University of Lüneburg Active in scientific advisory panels, foundations and ­international networks Markus Binder Born in 1970 Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Architect Studied architecture at the University of Stuttgart Studied building physics at the Hochschule für Technik Stuttgart 1998 – 2011 project-leading architect at architecture offices in the greater Stuttgart area 2007– 2011 teaching associate at the Hochschule für Technik Stuttgart, Dept. of Building Physics 2009 – 2011 university teaching position in building ­physics at the Staatliche Akademie der Bildenden ­Künste Stuttgart 2011 visiting professor for Building Construction and Design, specifically climate-conscious architecture, at the Hochschule für Technik Stuttgart Since 2012 Professor of Integrated Building Technology at the Hochschule für Technik Stuttgart Since 2013 partner at CAPE climate architecture physics

energy, Esslingen / Schwäbisch Hall Since 2017 Dean of Bachelor Studies in Architecture and Associate Dean of the Faculty of Architecture and Design at the Hochschule für Technik Stuttgart Manfred Helmus Born in Leverkusen in 1959 Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. 1979 – 1985 studied civil engineering in Dortmund and Stuttgart 1989 earned doctorate at the Technische Hochschule Darmstadt under Prof. Dr.-Ing. G. König Since 1992 Professor of Construction Management Since 1999 founder and chairman of the V.S.G.K. e. V. (Association of German Safety and Health Coordinators) Since 2002 director of the AHO expert commission on construction site ordinance Since 2003 university Professor of Construction Management at the Bergische Universität Wuppertal 2015 foundation of the BIM Institute at the Bergische ­Universität Wuppertal (location for interdisciplinary ­specialist research in the field of Building Information Modelling, where processes are analysed and documented, concepts are developed, optimised and implemented in pilot projects) Recipient of the Konrad Zuse Medal from the Zentralverband des Deutschen Baugewerbes (Central Federation of the German Construction Industry) for outstanding achievements in construction informatics Member of the executive committee “Council of Building Coordinators” in the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs Member of the “personal protective gear (PSA)” standards committee of the “RFID in PSA” working group of the DIN Member of the BIM working group of the reform com­ mission “Major Construction Projects” of the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community Holger Hoffmann Born in Gütersloh in 1974 Univ.- Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Architect BDA (German Architects’ Association) 1993 –1995 apprenticeship as bricklayer in Wiedenbrück 1995 – 2000 studied architecture at the FH Münster 2000 – 2001 employed as an architect at Bolles + Wilson, Münster 2001– 2004 postgraduate fellowship through the Konrad Adenauer Foundation 2001– 2004 Städelschule Frankfurt, degree with distinction 2005 Taut Prize of the Bundesarchitektenkammer ­(Federal Chamber of Architects) 2002 – 2008 employed as an architect at UNStudio, Amsterdam 2007– 2011 Professor of Digital Construction and Design at the Hochschule Trier 2015 – 2016 Visiting professor at the Städelschule in Frankfurt am Main Since 2009 one fine day: office for architectural design, Düsseldorf Since 2011 Professor of Representational Methodology and Design at the Bergische Universität Wuppertal Thomas Maximilian Kasper Born in Vienna in 1976 Dipl.-Ing. Mag. jur.  1994– 2004 studied land and water management at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna; Thesis at Griffith University, School for Environmental Engineering; Brisbane, Australia 2000 – 2002 employed at the civil engineering firm DI Vinzenz Trugina, Trugina & Partner GmbH, Laxenburg Since 2004 at PORR Umwelttechnik GmbH, currently master builder, director of process development 2008 – 2013 studied law at Johannes Kepler University Linz 2013 founded Büro Kasper, an engineering firm for land and water management Since 2014 member of the board of directors of the Austrian Güteschutzverband (GSV) Recycling-Baustoffe (Quality Assurance Association for Recycled Building Materials)

Since 2015 vice president of the European Quality Association for Recycling (EQAR) Since 2016 president of the Baustoff-Recycling Verband (BRV) (Construction Material Recycling Association) Member of CEN (European Committee for Standardization) Expert and staff member at the Austrian Standards Institute Winner of the 2004 FCP Award for Sustainable Development in Civil Engineering Holger Kesting Born in Münster in 1975 Dipl.-Ing. 1999 – 2009 studied civil engineering at the Bergische Universität Wuppertal 2009 – 2015 employee and deputy general manager at Kullmann Bau-Unternehmen GmbH, Haan Since 2015 estimator at Kullmann Bau-Unternehmen GmbH, Haan Since 2015 research associate in the academic and research field of Construction Operations and Industry at the Bergische Universität Wuppertal Since 2016 lecturer at the Bergische Universität Wuppertal Since 2017 research associate at the Faculty of Materials in Construction, Univ.- Prof. Dr.-Ing. Steffen Anders at the Bergische Universität Wuppertal Since 2017 lecturer at the IHK Essen Member of the VDI (Association of German Engineers) – Arbeitskreis 2552 Blatt 9 Building Information Modeling – Klassifizierungen Member of the audit committee for the training of construction management assistants in architecture and engineering, IHK Essen Since 2016 active as an author Thomas Matthias Romm Born in Eschweiler in 1965 Dipl.-Ing. Architect Studied architecture at the TU Wien and the TU Berlin Since 1986 architecture and construction site practical experience concurrent with university studies 2000 thesis on recycling-compatible construction 2000 – 2003 managing director for building physics, A-NULL EDV GmbH (energy consumption analysis in BIM) 2003 – 2013 collaboration with Dr. Robert Korab, Büro für Städtebau (Office of Urban Construction); research and project development 2007– 2011 residential construction and research as independent architect Since 2011 large-scale urban mining projects in bidding consortium with Dr. Ronald Mischek ZT 2013 nominated for Austrian State Prize for Engineering Consulting Since 2015 state-licensed architect/engineer, forschen planen bauen ZT, Vienna Since 2017 lecturer at IKA, Akademie der bildenden ­Künste, Vienna 2015 co-founder of, employment and recycling economy 2018 environmental award from the City of Vienna for BauKarussell Michael Wengert Dipl.-Ing. 1997– 2002 studied civil engineering, specialising in building physics / materials, design and construction and building construction management Since 2008 employed ati Pfeil & Koch ingenieurgesell­ schaft Since 2012 power of attorney Since 2016 general commercial power of representation Since 2006 energy consultant BAFA Since 2008 member of the Ingenieurkammer (Chamber of Engineers) Baden-Württemberg Since 2010 certified Passive House designer Tobias Edelmann B. Eng. 2013 – 2018 studied building physics at the HfT Stuttgart, specialising in thermal building physics and energy technology Since 2018 employed at Pfeil & Koch ingenieurgesellschaft

Project Participants Musée Soulages in Rodez (FR) Musée Soulages in Rodez (FR) Architects: RCR Arquitectes, Olot Project team: G. Trégouët (project management) Structural engineering: Passelac & Roques, Narbonne Lausward Power Plant in Düsseldorf (DE) Architects: kadawittfeldarchitektur, Aachen Project team: Burkhard Floors (project management), Hagen Urban, Mathias Garanin, Jonas Kröber, Christoph Katzer, David Baros, Hanns Luh, Florian Graus, Marc Bennemann, Andreas Horsky, Vera Huhn, Astrid Dierkes, Julika Metz Structural engineering: Bollinger + Grohmann Ingenieure, Frankfurt am Main Training Centre in Gordola (CH) Architects: Durisch + Nolli, Lugano Project team: Thomas Schlichting, Dario Locher, Birgit Schwarz Structural engineering: Jürg Buchli, Haldenstein, Tecnoprogetti, Camorino Documentation Centre in Hinzert (DE) Architects: Wandel Hoefer Lorch + Hirsch, Saarbrücken Project team: Christine Biesel, Alexander Keuper Structural engineering: Schweitzer Ingenieure, ­Saarbrücken The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City (US) Architects: Steven Holl Architects, New York Project team: Richard Tobias (project management), ­Martin Cox (project management), Gabriela BarmanKraemer, Matthias Blass, Molly Blieden, Elsa Chryssochoides, Robert Edmonds, Simone Giostra, Annette Goderbauer, Mimi Hoang, Makram el-Kadi, Edward ­Lalonde, Li Hu, Justin Korhammer, Linda Lee, Fabian Llonch, Stephen O’Dell, Susi Sanchez, Irene Vogt, Urs Vogt, Christian Wassmann Local architects: Berkebile Nelson Immenschuh ­McDowell Architects, Kansas City Structural engineering: Guy Nordenson & Associates, New York Window Factory in Hagendorn (CH) Architects: Graber & Steiger, Lucerne Project team: Urs Schmid (project management), ­Roland Stutz (project management), David Zimmermann Structural engineering: Locher AG, Zurich Community Centre in St. Gerold (AT) Architects: Cukrowicz Nachbaur Architekten, Bregenz Project team: Stefan Abbrederis (project management), Michael Abt, Christian Schmölz Structural engineering: M+G Ingenieure, Feldkirch Wood Innovation and Design Centre in Prince George (CA) Architects: Michael Green Architecture, Vancouver Project team: Mingyuk Chen, Carla Smith, Seng Tsoi, Kristalee Berger, Alfonso Bonilla, Jordan van Dijk, ­Guadalupe Font, Adrienne Gibbs, Jacqueline Green, Asher deGroot, Soo Han, Kristen Jamieson, Vuk KrcmarGrkavac, Alexander Kobald, Sindhu Mahadevan, Maria Mora Structural engineering: Equilibrium Consulting, Vancouver

Residence in Vorarlberg (AT) Architects: Georg Bechter Architektur + Design, L ­ angenegg Project team: Anna Höss Structural engineering: Eric Leitner, Schröcken Office Building in St. Johann in Tyrol (AT) Architects: architekturwerkstatt Bruno Moser, Breitenbach am Inn Project team: Bruno Moser, Florian Schmid, Thomas Schiegl Structural engineering: dibral, Alfred R. Brunnsteiner, N ­ atters European School in Frankfurt am Main (DE) Architects: NKBAK, Frankfurt am Main Project team: Simon Bielmeier, Larissa Heller Structural engineering: Bollinger + Grohmann Ingenieure, Frankfurt am Main merz kley partner, Dornbirn Wadden Sea Centre in Ribe (DK) Architects: Dorte Mandrup, Copenhagen Project team: Kasper Pilemand (project management) Structural engineering: Anders Christensen, Birkerød The Rauch House in Schlins (AT) Architects: Planungsgemeinschaft Roger Boltshauser, Zurich, with Martin Rauch, Schlins Collaborators: Thomas Kamm (project management), ­Ariane Wilson, Andreas Skambas Structural engineering: Josef Tomaselli, Bludesch Residence in Deitlingen (CH) Architects: spaceshop Architekten, Biel Project team: Raphaël Oehler, Beno Aeschlimann, Stefan Hess, Reto Mosimann Timber structural engineering: TS Holzbauplanung, E ­ rsigen Loam construction consulting: Ralph Künzler, Winterthur Villa Welpeloo in Enschede (NL) Architects: 2012 Architecten, Rotterdam Project team: John Bosma, Frank Feder Structural engineering: Nico Plukkel Bouwkundig, Haarlem Upcycle House in Nyborg (DK) Architects: Lendager Group, Copenhagen Collaborators: Anders Lendager (project management), Rune Sjöstedt Sode, Christoffer Carlsen, Jenny Haraldsdottir, Anna Zobe Structural engineering: MOE Rådgivende Ingeniører, C ­ openhagen Folkwang Museum Building Extension in Essen (DE) Architects: David Chipperfield Architects, Berlin Project team: Ulrike Eberhardt (project management), Eberhard Veit (project management), Markus Bauer, ­Florian Dierschedl, Annette Flohrschütz, Gesche Gerber, Christian Helfrich, Barbara Koller, Nicolas Kulemeyer, Dalia Liksaite, Marcus Mathias, Peter von Matuschka, ­Sebastian von Oppen, Ilona Priwitzer, Mariska Rohde, Franziska Rusch, Antonia Schlegel, Marika Schmidt, Thomas Schöpf, Gunda Schulz, Manuel Seebass, Robert Westphal Executing architects: PLAN FORWARD, Stuttgart Structural engineering: Pühl und Becker, Essen

Aktivhaus Residential Estate in Winnenden (DE) Architects: Werner Sobek, Stuttgart Project team: Stephanie Fiederer, Thorsten Klaus, Frank Peiser, Alen Masic Structural engineering: Werner Sobek, Stuttgart

Cultural Institute, Formerly Hombroich Rocket Station near Neuss (DE) Architects: Alvaro Siza, Porto, with Finsterwalder Archi­ tekten, Stephanskirchen Project team: Burkhard Damm, José Diniz Santos, ­Matthias Heskamp, Heinz Kirschner, Steffi Zucker Structural engineering: Horst Kappauf, Monheim am Rhein

Holiday Home in Kumrovec (HR) Architects: Proarh, Zagreb Project team: Davor Mateković (project management), Oskar Rajko Structural engineering: Branko Galić, Zagreb

History Museum in Ningbo (CN) Architects: Amateur Architecture Studio, Hangzhou Wang Shu, Lu Wenyu Project team: Song Shuhua, Jiang Weihua, Chen Lichao Structural engineering: Shentu Tuanbing, Hangzhou


Picture Credits The authors and the publisher would like to sincerely thank everyone who contributed to the production of this book by providing images, granting permission to ­reproduce their work and supplying other information. All the drawings and the diagrams in this book were created especially. The authors and their staff created those graphics and tables for which no other source is credited. Photos for which no photog­rapher is credited are ­architectural or work photos or come from the archive of DETAIL magazine. Despite intensive efforts, we have been unable to identify the copyright holders of some images. However, their ­entitlement to claim copyright remains unaffected. In these cases, please feel free to contact us. Figures refer to ­illustration numbers.

Part A A


Circularity in Architecture – Urban Mining ­Design A 1.2 Werner Huthmacher A 1.3 Nils Schäfer A 1.4 Holger Hoffmann A 1.5 Götz Wrage A 1.6 Cornelis Gollhardt A 1.7 Volkswagen AG A 1.8 TEAMhillebrandt Dismantling, Recovery and Disposal in Construction A 2.1 Levels of waste legislation relevant to dis­ mant­ling and recycling in construction, ­illustration Anja Rosen A 2.2 Anja Rosen, based on the Waste Catalogue, supplement to the European Waste Catalogue Ordinance (AVV), 2001 A 2.3 Illustration based on Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives, and the Waste Management Act (Kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz – KrWG), 2012 A 2.4 Anja Rosen, source: Federal Statistical Office, waste balance 2014 (waste generation and whereabouts waste classifications, waste ­generated by industry branch). Wiesbaden 2016 A 2.5 Anja Rosen, source: Federal Statistical Office, “Abfallentsorgung”, Technical series 19, no. 1 – 2014, published in Wiesbaden 2016 A 2.6 Anja Rosen, source: Kreislaufwirtschaft Bau Initiative, published by Bundesverband Bau­ stoffe – Steine und Erden e. V., report on the generation and whereabouts of mineral ­construction wastes in 2014. Berlin 2017 A 2.7 After Stoll, Michael: “Recycling von minera­ lischen Abfällen – Aktueller Stand und Ausblick aus Sicht der Wirtschaft”. In: ThoméKozmiensky, Karl J. (eds.): Mineralische Nebenprodukte und Abfälle. Nietwerder 2014 A 2.8 Anja Rosen, based on Institut für Bau und Umwelt, Hochschule Rapperswil, in collabo­r­ ation with Holcim (Schweiz) AG, life cycle ­assessments of recycled aggregates for concrete. Zurich 2010 A 2.9 Anja Rosen, based on Dt. Abbruchverband e. V. (eds.): Abbrucharbeiten. Cologne 2015 – illustration after LAGA M 20 A 2.10, 2.11  Anja Rosen A 2.12 Anja Rosen, based on appendix A DIN 18 007:2000-05 Demolition work, terms, procedures, applications A 2.13 Müller, Annette: “Einfluss von Entsorgungsund Personalkosten auf die Abbruch- bzw.


Rückbaukosten”, data from: Schultmann, Frank: Kreislaufführung von Baustoffen – Stoffflussbasiertes Projektmanagement für die operative Demontage- und Recyclingplanung von Gebäuden. Berlin 1998 A 2.14, 2.15  Anja Rosen, based on: Deilmann et al.: Materialströme im Hochbau, Forschung für die Praxis, Vol. 06, published by Bundes­ institut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung (BBSR) in the Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung (BBR) Bonn, 2017 A 2.16 Anja Rosen, based on: Haeming, Hartmut, ­Interessengemeinschaft Deutsche Deponiebetreiber (InwesD): Entsorgungssicherheit über Deponiekapazitäten in Deutschland, ­retrieved on 01/2018 An Overview of Rating Systems A 3.1 Anja Rosen A 3.2 Anja Rosen, data sources: BNB, DGNB, BREEAM, LEED A 3.3 Anja Rosen, based on Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (eds.): Bewertungssystem Nachhaltiges Bauen (BNB), Büro- und Verwaltungsgebäude – Neubau, Version 2015, verwaltungsgebaeude/neubau/v_2015/BNB_ BN2015_414.pdf, retrieved on 29.12.2016 A 3.4 Anja Rosen, based on Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB) e. V. (eds.): DGNB System, Kriterienkatalog Gebäude Neubau, Version 2018, Kriterium TEC1.6 Rückbau- und Recyclingfreundlichkeit A 3.5, 3.6 Proprietary illustration based on BRE Global Ltd. (eds.): BREEAM International New Construction 2016. Non-domestic buildings. Technical Manual, SD233 1.0 A 3.7, 3.8 Anja Rosen, based on U.S. Green Building Council (eds.): LEED v4 for Building Design and Construction (BD+C), URL: http://www., as of 04/2016, retrieved on 12.11.2016 A 3.9 Illustration based on McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry LLC: Cradle to Cradle CertifiedTM Product Standard, Version 3.1, 2016 A 3.10 Blauer Engel, RAL gGmbH Natureplus e. V. PEFC Deutschland e.V. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) ©  2009 EPEA GmbH A 3.11 A 3.12 KÖLBL KRUSE A 3.13, 3.14  Dirk Schwede and Elke Störl Using BIM to Optimise Materials Cycles in Con­ struction A 4.1, 4.2 Holger Kesting An Elastic Standard – Urban Mining and Computational Design Roland Borgmann A 5.1 A 5.2 Tobias Nolte A 5.3 Kunlin Ji Eco-Efficient Construction Using Local Resources A 6.1 Wien 3420 aspern Development AG A 6.2 Romm / Mischek ZT A 6.3 Karoline Mayer A 6.5 Romm / Mischek ZT A 6.6 Wien 3420 aspern Development AG

Part B B


Detachable Connections and Constructions

B 1.1 Petra Riegler-Floors B 1.2 Based on Brenner, Valentin: Recyclinggerechtes Konstruieren. Thesis at ILEK S ­ tuttgart 2010, p. 54 and El Khouli, Sebastian; John, Viola: Nachhaltig Konstruieren. Munich 2014, p. 67 B 1.3 TEAMhillebrandt B 1.4 Dorte Mandrup Galerie Patrick Seguin B 1.5 B 1.6 Petra Riegler-Floors, table based on DIN 8593 B 1.7 Based on FG-Innovation GmbH, Technologie­ zentrum Ruhr: Formgedächtnistechnik – eine kurze Einführung. Bochum B 1.8 Graupner / SJ GmbH Maurice Spohn, TEAMhillebrandt B 1.9 Hans Murr Häuser in Holz GmbH B 1.10 B 1.11 BTW-Mietservice (Martin Groß) B 1.12 Krinner GmbH Switzerland B 1.13 a GEOCELL B 1.13 b FOAMGLAS® Misapor B 1.14 B 1.15 ABG Abdichtungen Boden- und Gewässerschutz GmbH B 1.16 /topmost  © Erwin Thoma Holz GmbH B 1.16 /2nd from top  Esterbauer Holzbau GmbH B 1.16 /3rd and 6th from top  inholz GmbH B 1.16 /4th, 8th and 9th from top  holzius GmbH B 1.16 /5th from top / Zainzinger GmbH sawmill and planing facility B 1.16 /7th from top  Holzbau Willibald Longin GmbH B 1.17 Warth, Otto: Die Konstruktionen in Holz. ­Leipzig 1900, Figs. 71, 84, 90 – 92 B 1.18 Maurice Spohn, TEAMhillebrandt B 1.19 Linea Cladding Systems – Franken-Schotter GmbH & Co. KG B 1.20 Daas Baksteen B 1.21 Easyklett – Kebulin-Gesellschaft, Kettler GmbH & Co. KG B 1.22 DachTechnikBriel GmbH B 1.23, 1.24  Petra Riegler-Floors B 1.25 Petra Riegler-Floors, illustration based on DIN 18 195-9 B 1.26 Maars Deutschland GmbH B 1.27 Hölzel Stanz- und Feinwerktechnik GmbH + Co. KG B 1.28 a Maurice Spohn, TEAMhillebrandt B 1.28 b, c Joh. Sprinz GmbH & Co. KG B 1.29 Forbo Flooring GmbH B 1.30 Dry Tile, trison GmbH B 1.31 Petra Riegler-Floors, various sources B 1.32 Tarkett B 1.33 Fermacell GmbH B 1.34 CREATON AG B 1.35 thermisto GmbH B 1.36 Janßen-HeizungsSysteme B 1.37 LITHOTHERM Deutschland GmbH B 1.38 Frank Kaltenbach B 1.39 Maurice Spohn, TEAMhillebrandt B 1.40 Stabalux GmbH B 1.41 © Petschenig /Uniglas The Recycling Potential of Building Materials Annette Hillebrandt B 2.1 B 2.2 Hillebrandt with Düllmann-Lüffe, based on the Cradle-to-Cradle strategy of Braungart / McDonough B 2.3, 2.4 a Annette Hillebrandt B 2.4b Hillebrandt / Seggewies B 2.5 based on AltholzV B 2.6 TEAMhillebrandt B 2.7 Based on DIN 68 800-1 and DIN EN 335 B 2.8 Technical University of Munich B 2.9 Based on DIN 68 800-1 and DIN EN 350-2 B 2.10 Based on DIN EN 350-2016, Fig. B.1 B 2.11 Christoph Schuhknecht (Bauforum Stahl) B 2.12 Sonnenerde GmbH B 2.13 b Daniela Haussmann B 2.14 Hillebrandt / Seggewies

B 2.15 – 2.17  TEAMhillebrandt Thermory AG, Estland / Brahl Fotografi B 2.18 B 2.19 TEAMhillebrandt B 2.20 Christian Richters Claudius Pfeifer, Berlin B 2.21 B 2.22 Eva Schönbrunner © Omid Khodapanahi B 2.23 B 2.24 TEAMhillebrandt B 2.25 Hillebrandt / Seggewies B 2.27 istraw – straw-based building materials B 2.28 Susanne Reichherzer / Thermo Natur Agaton Lehmtrockenbau B 2.29 Hillebrandt / Seggewies B 2.30 TEAMhillebrandt m.schneider a.hillebrandt architektur B 2.31 B 2.32 Quiel, Wieland-Werke AG, Ulm B 2.33, 2.34  Hillebrandt / Seggewies B 2.35 DESSO c/o Tarkett Holding GmbH B 2.36 Baufritz Holz, Erkheim /Allgäu, Germany Based on DIN 4108-10 B 2.37 B 2.38 tdx / Thermo Natur B 2.39 NeptuTherm e. K. research and development Karlsruhe B 2.40 ZIRO – Die Welt der Böden, Lothar Zipse e.Kfm. Isolena Naturfaservliese GmbH B 2.41 B 2.42 Hillebrandt / Seggewies B 2.43 Villgrater Natur Produkte B 2.44 Maurice Spohn, TEAMhillebrandt B 2.45 CARLISLE® Construction Materials Europe B 2.46 Hillebrandt / Seggewies B 2.47 TEAMhillebrandt B 2.48 Hanffaser Uckermann B 2.49 Schüco International KG B 2.50 TEAMhillebrandt B 2.51 Hillebrandt / Seggewies B 2.52 based on: Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Anette Müller, Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, professor for materials processing and recycling, lecture D / chapter 9: Glass

dauern von Bauteilen und Bauelementen B 7.4 Petra Riegler-Floors, based on BKI – Bau­ kosten 2016 Neubau Part 3 B 7.5 Petra Riegler-Floors, based on Federal Statistical Office Wiesbaden (publ.): “Erzeuger­ preisindizes gewerblicher Produkte (Inlands­ absatz) nach dem Güterverzeichnis für Pro­ duktionsstatistiken”, 2009 B 7.6 Petra Riegler-Floors, based on BacksteinKontor, Cologne-Ehrenfeld, quote dated 03.05.2017 B 7.7 Petra Riegler-Floors, based on various ­sources B 7.8 Petra Riegler-Floors, based on CUTEC study: Prüfung und Aktualisierung von Rohstoff­ parametern. Published by the Clausthaler Umwelt-Institut. Clausthal-Zellerfeld 2016 B 7.9 Based on Paul Kamrath Ingenieurrückbau GmbH as well as information from Recyclingpark Harz GmbH, Gesellschaft für Recycling und Entsorgung, Nordharz, as of 10.02.2017 B 7.10 Petra Riegler-Floors, based on Prognos AG / Thörner, Thorsten; INFA GmbH / Hams, Sigrid: “Bedarfsanalyse für DK I-Deponien in Nord­ rhein-Westfalen. Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse”. Study commissioned by the ­Ministry for Climate Protection, Environment, Agriculture, Nature and Consumer Protection of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia. Berlin / ­Düsseldorf  /Ahlen 2013 B 7.11 Petra Riegler-Floors, based on BKI – Bau­ kosten 2016 Neubau part 3: Nutzungsdauern von Bauteilen zur Lebenszyklusanalyse as well as on BNB and information from Paul Kamrath Ingenieurrückbau GmbH B 7.12 – 7.26  Petra Riegler-Floors, Annette Hillebrandt

Mono-Material Construction B 3.1 a Spindler GmbH B 3.1 b Tord-Rikard Söderström B 3.2 Markus Binder B 3.3 a Wienerberger GmbH B 3.3 b Jakob Schoof B 3.4 ZRS Architekten B 3.5 a Anja Rosen B 3.5 b Johan Dehlin B 3.6 a MBA/S Matthias Bauer Associates B 3.6 b Roland Halbe B 3.7 Petra Riegler-Floors, Markus Binder B 3.8, 3.9 Markus Binder


Beat Bühler

Detailed Catalogue S. 142, 143 S. 156, 157 S. 170, 171

Anja Rosen Anja Rosen Anja Rosen

Can Loop Potential Be Measured? B 4.1, 4.2 Anja Rosen B 4.3 Xenia Sagrebin B 4.5 Till Arlinghaus B 4.4 Anja Rosen B 4.6, 4.7 Nils Nengel B 4.8 – 4.10   Anja Rosen Assessment of Loop Potential B 5.1 Based on DIN EN 15 978 B 5.2 – 5.8 Anja Rosen Cost Comparisons of Conventional and Urban Mining Design Constructions B 7.1 Petra Riegler-Floors B 7.2 Petra Riegler-Floors, based on BKI – Bau­ kosten 2016 Neubau Part 3: Statistische Kostenkennwerte für Positionen, Paul Kamrath Ingenieurrückbau GmbH and information from manufacturers B 7.3 Petra Riegler-Floors, based on BKI – Bau­ kosten 2016 Neubau Part 2: Statistische Kostenkennwerte für Elemente, chapter: Lebens-

Christian Vorhofer P. 200 P. 201 top Kaufmann Bausysteme P. 201 centre RADON Photography / Norman Radon P. 201 bottom NKBAK Adam Mørk P. 202, 203 top P. 203 bottom Dorte Mandrup Beat Bühler P. 204 top, bottom P. 204 centre Reinold Amann P. 205 Beat Bühler Stephan Weber P. 206 P. 207 spaceshop Architekten Allard van der Hoek P. 208 Jesper Ray P. 210 P. 211 top Christian Richters Ute Zscharnt for David P. 211 bottom left Chipperfield Architects P. 211 bottom centre Christian Schittich P. 211 bottom right Christian Richters P. 212 FG+SG Iwan Baan P. 213 top P. 213 bottom left Amateur Architecture Studio Iwan Baan P. 213 bottom right

Part C

Part D D

Florian Holzherr

Completed examples P. 180 Pep Sau Hisao Suzuki P. 181 P. 182 top Stadtwerke Düsseldorf AG P. 182 bottom, 183 Jens Kirchner P. 184 top David Willen P. 184, 185 Tonatiuh Ambrosetti P. 186 Norbert Miguletz P. 187 top Courtesy of Andy Ryan / The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art P. 187 bottom Roland Halbe P. 188, 189 Dominique Marc Wehrli P. 190 Hanspeter Schiess P. 191 Cukrowicz Nachbaur Architekten P. 192 Ed White Photographics ©2015 P. 193 Michael Green Architecture P. 194 Zooey Braun P. 195 top Miljenko Bernfest P. 195 bottom Proarh P. 196 Adolf Bereuter P. 197 Georg Bechter P. 198 Christian Flatscher P. 199 EGGER Holzwerkstoffe /


The authors and publishers wish to thank the following companies and institutions for their sponsorship of this publication:

Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.