Have building-size legos finally arrived?
The Institute for Civil Engineering and Environment (INCEEN) at the University of Luxembourg have signed a "memorandum of understanding" with the Suisse Federal Laboratories of Materials Science and Technology (Empa) of the domain of ETH Zürich to collaborate on research on energy efficiency in the construction sector.
As the building sector is generating a large amount of CO2 emissions, resource consumption and waste production, new eco-construction approaches are needed. Therefore, the first collaboration project entitled "Eco-Construction for Sustainable Development" (ECON4SD) will focus on the development of novel components and design models for resource and energy efficient buildings based on the construction materials concrete, steel and timber.
ECON4SD will bring together researchers from different civil engineering fields and architecture at the University of Luxembourg and the Empa Zürich, as well as from universities abroad in cooperation with partners from industry and consultancies in Luxembourg. One vision of the project is to develop building components that can be re-used after a building has reached the end of its life cycle and is disassembled. "The ECON4SD aims to turn buildings into materials and components banks and will allow producers of structural elements to come to a different business model. That would consist in loaning materials or components to customers and take them back after use in a particular building, in order to resell them directly, recondition or recycle them," commented professor Danièle Waldmann of the University of Luxembourg. "Thereby, the project paves the way for a future CE material or component passport comparable to the already existing energy passport."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:52PM (8 children)
So many industries are ripe for "disruption"; one of the most ripe is definitely the construction industry.
Besides having a naturally slow iteration, the construction industry is virtually frozen by intricate, expensive, tedious regulations from city ordinances all the way up to international codes—it's too damn difficult to innovate even if one is passionate.
Watch the "Garbage Warrior" documentary. Anybody who wants to try something new—even at his own expense and peril—is immediately crushed by local tyrannies exercising their authoritarian muscles in the name of protecting you from yourself.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday November 03 2017, @06:44PM (7 children)
I'm not sure this idea is the answer to that. What in construction can really be reused anyway? Look at cars for comparison: can anything there be reused? Not really: everything is completely custom to that model, so parts can only be reused among cars of the same model and generation (car designs usually last 3-6 years), or sometimes among cars from the same maker where they use the same parts across multiple models. But you're not going to reuse a door from a 1972 Pinto on a 2018 Honda; the idea is ridiculous.
Buildings generally are in use for decades, and technology changes; building materials from 1950 don't make sense to use any more, and some materials are downright hazardous (e.g. asbestos). Some things have a certain degree of reusability: concrete can be pulverized and used as aggregate in fresh concrete for instance. And old lumber is frequently reused for new furniture as the quality of lumber 100+ years ago was better than much of what we have now since the wood from back then was old-growth, so really old barns are actually somewhat valuable as sources of lumber. But in these examples, the materials aren't being reused as-is (i.e., no cutting or modification), which seems to be the idea from TFS.
The problems with "local tyrannies" is a lack of homologation (I think that's the word). The building codes vary a lot from place to place. Part of this is actually a good thing: a building that's perfectly fine in Maine is probably highly unsafe in southern California. Do you really want all buildings everywhere to meet the earthquake codes of California, or the hurricane codes of the Gulf Coast? Say goodbye to having eaves on your traditional-style house, even though they actually make good sense if your house gets rained on. And buildings that perform well (in HVAC etc.) in one climate can perform horribly in another. But some things could probably stand to be standardized nationwide.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Friday November 03 2017, @06:53PM (5 children)
You could re-use beams, interior wall panels, foundation corners, trusses, elevator-shaft components, etc. All it takes is good design and a will to standardize.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Friday November 03 2017, @07:00PM (4 children)
Interior walls are usually drywall. You can't reuse that stuff; it's so brittle that attempting to remove it will fracture it. Plus it's cut to fit; there's holes for electric boxes, it's cut around openings, etc. The labor to try to reuse it would cost much more than just using a new panel.
Reusing elevator components sounds like a good way to have an elevator accident and a huge liability suit. By the time an elevator is recycled, it'll be probably over 50 years old, and certainly not worth reusing; there wouldn't be any significant cost savings over a new one and it'll need extensive refurbishing.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Saturday November 04 2017, @01:11AM (3 children)
I'm picturing standard-sized reusable panels with build in electrical, networking, etc. Plain, with windows, with door, etc.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Saturday November 04 2017, @02:24AM (2 children)
And you think people will want to reuse these things after a half-century or more, and that styles and standards aren't going to change after all that time?
People deride US houses for being cheaply made and not lasting that long, but even here they don't get torn down before at least 40-50 years at the very shortest (and that's only in places where the land is very valuable, so someone buys up a property with an older 50s house in the city, and tears it down because they want to build a bigger, more modern house, not because the old one was actually that bad).
I'm sorry, but reusing networking is really laughable. What home networking standards did we have 50 years ago? Even 25 years ago? You can't even reuse Ethernet cables from 25 years ago, even though the plugs are the same: the speeds have gone up and they didn't have Cat6.
And windows? Have you not noticed that windows have gotten a lot better in the last few decades? Ones from 25+ years ago have much worse insulation properties.
This whole idea is like the idea of reusing parts from 30-year-old cars, or refurbishing 30-50-year-old cars instead of getting newer ones. Cars back then weren't just crappy and ugly, they had horrible fuel economy, unreliable engines, and terrible crash protection (no airbags, for instance), among many other deficiencies. Some of them are OK for collectors interested in their historical aspects, but compared to modern cars it would be really dumb of us as a society to hang onto those things; the highway death rate would go up greatly.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Saturday November 04 2017, @03:48PM (1 child)
In the case of better insulation in walls and windows, etc, wouldn't re-usable, modular panels make this much easier? It's rarely done now, even though the energy savings might be significant. The old panels could be used for outbuildings or moved to more moderate climates for re-use. Just a thought.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday November 04 2017, @11:07PM
Now that's a pretty good idea: make modular panels that are easy to replace so you can upgrade. They actually have something like this already, called "SIP" (structural insulating panel). It's basically like what you say here: they're basically two engineered wood panels with foam sandwiched in between them, and they just fit together on the edges.
http://www.sips.org/about/what-are-sips [sips.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_insulated_panel [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04 2017, @02:13AM
>... homologation ...
The word you were looking for is harmonization (of rules & regulations).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @06:15PM
So... subscription model for buildings? Something spurred by the record industry so that when asked a plumber or builder if they can expect to be paid repeatedly for their work they can honestly answer "Yes"?
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Friday November 03 2017, @06:36PM (4 children)
Buildings are surprisingly single use, particularly the wood framed buildings in North America. OSB, timbers, drywall, roofing all get sent to the landfill during demo. And the lifespan of these structures are measured in decades, so these materials will need to be disposed of in the near future.
Most other industries require cradle to grave tracking of their materials, and account for the proper disposal. This motivates recycling and recyclable materials as selling the scraps is desirable over paying for landfill. I'm skeptical that this could be used effectively in construction without huge spikes in price, but perhaps the steel and concrete of commercial buildings would be used in more applications.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday November 03 2017, @06:47PM (2 children)
I'm fairly sure that concrete from commercial buildings is *already* recycled when those buildings are demolished. It can be broken up and used as aggregate for fresh concrete, perhaps in roadways or other applications not quite as high-performance as skyscrapers. Steel is readily recycled in all industries.
As for the stuff in your first paragraph, the problem is how cheap and shoddy American residential housing is.
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Friday November 03 2017, @07:24PM (1 child)
You may be fairly sure, but in 90% of the cases, you are just wrong.
The "aggregate" you imagine being salvaged for new concrete is full of re-rod, inconsistent sizes of unknown materials, with un-knowable engineering strengths.
You can't put it through a modern concrete batch plant, because you don't trust the rock, and the cement content will fuckup your mix.
At best this stuff ends up being used for is Fill. (Building "pads" upon which new buildings are build.
Example: Rubble with a cause [bizjournals.com].
Asphalt fares somewhat better, but even in that case, the unknown history and content of stripped asphalt prevents a reliable product.
Highway departments of some State governments can occasionally recycle asphalt because they were the ones that issued the contract for the donor road, and knew the specifications of what went into it.
Both Asphalt and Concrete are highly engineered products these day. The formula for Concrete Mix varies not just by the intended use, but also the weather that day, the, the haul time, the re-rod density planned, and of course the overall climate area.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday November 03 2017, @09:18PM
At best this stuff ends up being used for is Fill. (Building "pads" upon which new buildings are build.
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. I wasn't claiming that old concrete was broken up and used for new, high-quality concrete. But being used for fill is a form of recycling, and a good one at that: not all applications require high performance; a cheap, lower-performance recycled material may be a good alternative.
Similarly, when drink bottles are recycled, they aren't used to make new food-grade plastics. Instead, they're used to make lower-grade plastics for things like picnic tables and park benches and boardwalks. That plastic lumber is great stuff, compared to real wood (it doesn't dry-rot and split after a few years in the elements), but needs a lot of material, but it doesn't need to be ultra-pure high-quality stuff.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday November 03 2017, @07:01PM
Like what other industries?
Seriously, that does not happen. It just doesn't.
Cars? sold as scrap eventually, because its cheaper than mining new metals, Glass and plastic parts? - Mostly sent to the land fill. No tracking. No assurances of proper recycle.
Factories torn down multi-story buildings? Steel recycled, most of the cement busted up hauled away, but NOT mixed into new buildings.
Look, it just doesn't happen the way you imagine. The metals have value.
Realistically those are the only parts of any obsolete structure that are reliably recycled. But only because its cheap and and easy to melt down.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday November 03 2017, @06:52PM (5 children)
Who exactly wants to live in a house with any parts from a house that had reached the end of its useful life and had to be torn down?
That would usually be 100 years after the donor house was originally built. Even the chalk in the sheet rock has probably become polluted by then.
The wood (if any) is probably full of mold. No, I don't think I want a reconditioned 100 year old bathroom, thank you very much.
Also, who says we will be building the with the same materials in 100 years? These guys will probably have to redesign the entire house with an eye toward recycling and the benefit of that won't be seen for 100 years. With no guarantees of course.
The teardown of a modern single family dwelling results in:
- scrap wood - cut to unusable lengths and full of nails
- busted up sheet rock, also full of nails (this could be sent back to be the factory for recycling, but its all land filled these days)
- Misc copper plumbing, almost all of it recycled already.
- Wire - Ditto
- Glass - crushed in the process of land-filling
Stone counters, very occasionally recycled (large slabs only) the rest usually land filled.
Summary: metal-recycled occasionally
Just about everything else is just trashed.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Friday November 03 2017, @07:04PM (2 children)
Yeah, the last thing I want in a modern house is a bathroom from 1950. Those things were awful. And the toilets from back then wasted an incredible amount of water too, and the sink faucets leaked, plus everything was butt-ugly back then.
And anything made of copper is definitely not trashed these days; it's too valuable.
Drywall gypsum could maybe be recycled, but would the fuel/energy needed to capture it and transport it for recycling, then process it for recycling (after getting rid of the moldy stuff) be less than that used for just using fresh gypsum from mines?
(Score: 4, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Friday November 03 2017, @07:18PM
Those new toilets are awful. They call them low flush. They're not low flush. The first flush, OK, it's less water. But you have to flush them two, three times. Flush, flush, flush! You do 2, 3 flushes and you're lucky if it isn't still a DISGUSTING mess in there. It's a lot of water, folks. Give me the good old toilets from when America was great! #MAGA 🇺🇸
(Score: 3, Interesting) by choose another one on Saturday November 04 2017, @11:24AM
1950s may have been awful, but my house has an original Victorian (I think) water closet, high flush, lead-lined wooden cistern, lead piping (who cares, you're not drinking it) and all.
It all still works, hasn't needed any maintenance for the 20yrs I've been here (the more modern toilets in the house have needed new float valves, floats etc.), it doesn't leak, and nothing but nothing in that bowl is still there after the first flush (where other toilets often take two, three or more). Yeah, it probably uses a few gallons of water but you only need to do it once, ever. The Victorians built stuff to last, and it does (like the rest of the house).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @07:57PM
Wood is perfectly find to reuse, especially if it doesn't have a bunch of holes in it from nails/screws. Even then there are certain permanent fillers you can use which are 'as strong or stronger' than the original wood, ensuring that the renailed boards are just as good as new, assuming no damage.
Wood lasts a long time if not damaged by the elements or neglect, and even in many condemned houses most of the structural materials would still be good. Usually what makes a place uninhabitable is water damage, mold, or unrepaired structural damage at a point in the house where the weight distribution could cause a catastrophic collapse. Most of the reason for materials going to the dump is simple labor cost. Nobody wants to take the time to pull the nails out of sheetrock and then wall beams to recover the materials used in a house. It is cheaper to just bulldoze the whole place. I heard of such happening with a 100 year old warehouse out near where the big California fire just happened. The building in question was ALL REDWOOD. The owner of the building chose to have it demolished rather than having it disassembled so that the redwood could be recovered and resold, despite dozens of people willing to pay to get it, and the beam sizes being IMPOSSIBLE to find today thanks to over lumbering of old growth redwoods leading to the current conservation restrictions on them today.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Saturday November 04 2017, @11:53AM
Well, must be a market for it somewhere because round here 100+yr old reclaimed stone flooring goes for £100+ per sq yd, which is a _lot_ more than modern floor tiles. Means my kitchen floor is worth a few grand on its own. Haven't looked at prices for the stone in the walls, but I reckon a similar premium over modern materials, ditto the original 11inch wide pine floorboards (and the 8+in deep joists), which are still doing fine thanks.
But then I ain't tearing the house down any time soon, it's stood for over 150yrs and most likely it'll still be standing long after I've gone. Build stuff properly in the first place and there is no need to worry about recycling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @07:58PM (2 children)
Serious question, I know that concrete emits much more CO2 than people think but anyone know of a site that has a comprehensive(or as close to as exists) list?
(Score: 3, Funny) by frojack on Friday November 03 2017, @08:56PM (1 child)
Google.
And tie your shoes boy, you're old enough to do that by now.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @09:24PM
Thanks for that N00b but I was hoping for something with a little expertise vetting, I realize that is likely to complicated an idea or you, but it is only people...