Advertisement

Environmental assessment of multi-functional building elements constructed with digital fabrication techniques

  • Isolda Agustí-JuanEmail author
  • Andrei Jipa
  • Guillaume Habert
BUILDING COMPONENTS AND BUILDINGS
  • 193 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Digital fabrication is revolutionizing architecture, enabling the construction of complex and multi-functional building elements. Multi-functionality is often achieved through material reduction strategies such as functional or material hybridization. However, these design strategies may increase environmental impacts over the life cycle. The integration of functions may hinder the maintenance and shorten the service life. Moreover, once a building element has reached the end of life, hybrid materials may influence negatively its recycling capacity. Consequently, the aim of this paper is to analyze the influence of multi-functionality in the environmental performance of two digitally fabricated architectural elements: The Sequential Roof and Concrete-Sandstone Composite Slab and to compare them with existing standard elements.

Methods

A method based on the life-cycle assessment (LCA) framework is applied for the evaluation of the environmental implications of multi-functionality in digital fabrication. The evaluation consists of the comparison of embodied impacts between a multi-functional building element constructed with digital fabrication techniques and a conventional one, both with the same building functions. Specifically, the method considers the lifetime uncertainty caused by multi-functionality by considering two alternative service life scenarios during the evaluation of the digitally fabricated building element. The study is extended with a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the additional environmental implications during end-of-life processing derived from the use of hybrid materials to achieve multi-functionality in architecture.

Results and discussion

The evaluation of two case studies of digitally fabricated architecture indicates that their environmental impacts are very sensitive to the duration of their service life. Considering production and life span phases, multi-functional building elements should have a minimum service life of 30 years to bring environmental benefits over conventional construction. Furthermore, the case study of Concrete-Sandstone Composite Slab shows that using hybrid materials to achieve multi-functionality carries important environmental consequences at the end of life, such as the emission of air pollutants during recycling.

Conclusions

The results from the case studies allow the identification of key environmental criteria to consider during the design of digitally fabricated building elements. Multi-functionality provides material efficiency during production, but design adaptability must be a priority to avoid a decrease in their environmental performance. Moreover, the high environmental impacts caused by end-of-life processing should be compensated during design.

Keywords

Digital fabrication End of life Hybrid materials LCA Multi-functionality Service life 

Notes

Funding information

This research was supported by the National Competence Centre for Research, NCCR Digital Fabrication, which was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (project number 51NF40_141853).

Supplementary material

11367_2018_1563_MOESM1_ESM.docx (179 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 153 kb)

References

  1. Agustí-Juan I, Habert G (2017) Environmental design guidelines for digital fabrication. J Clean Prod 142:2780–2791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agustí-Juan I, Müller F, Hack N, Wangler T, Habert G (2017a) Potential benefits of digital fabrication for complex structures: environmental assessment of a robotically fabricated concrete wall. J Clean Prod 154:330–340.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agustí-Juan I, Zingg S, Habert G (2017b) End-of-life consideration for hybrid material systems. Paper presented at the 14th International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components, Ghent, Belgium, 29–31 May 2017Google Scholar
  4. Aktas CB, Bilec MM (2012) Service life prediction of residential interior finishes for life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(3):362–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Block P, Schlueter A, Veenendaal D, Bakker J, Begle M, Hischier I, Hofer J, Jayathissa P, Maxwell I, Echenagucia TM, Nagy Z, Pigram D, Svetozarevic B, Torsing R, Verbeek J, Willmann A, Lydon GP (2017) NEST HiLo: investigating lightweight construction and adaptive energy systems. J Build Eng 12:332–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brancart S, Paduart A, Vergauwen A, Vandervaeren C, De Laet L, De Temmerman N (2017) Transformable structures: materialising design for change. Int J Des Nat Ecodyn 12(3):357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brand S (1995) How buildings learn: what happens after they’re built. Penguin Publishing Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. CEN (European Committee for Standardization) (2011) Sustainability of construction works. Assessment of environmental performance of buildings. Calculation method. EN 15978:2011, Brussels Google Scholar
  9. CEN (European Committee for Standardization) (2012) Sustainability of construction works. Environmental product declarations. Core rules for the product category of construction products. EN 15804: 2012, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  10. Conroy A, Halliwell S, Reynolds T (2006) Composite recycling in the construction industry. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf 37(8):1216–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Schutter G, Lesage K, Mechterine V, Nerella VN, Habert G, Agustí-Juan I (2018) Vision of 3D printing with concrete—technical, economic and environmental potentials. Cem Concr Res 112: 25-36Google Scholar
  12. Emídio F, de Brito J, Gaspar PL, Silva A (2014) Application of the factor method to the estimation of the service life of natural stone cladding. Constr Build Mater 66:484–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Commission (2011) Supporting Environmentally Sound Decisions for Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Management. Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Joint Research Centre, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  14. European Commission (2016) EU Construction and Demolition Waste Management Protocol. Ecorys, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. European Parliament and Council (2012) Strategy for the sustainable competitiveness of the construction sector and its enterprises. COM/2012/433, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  16. Frischknecht R (2010) LCI modelling approaches applied on recycling of materials in view of environmental sustainability, risk perception and eco-efficiency. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(7):666–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gosselin C, Duballet R, Roux P, Gaudillière N, Dirrenberger J, Morel P (2016) Large-scale 3D printing of ultra-high performance concrete—a new processing route for architects and builders. Mater Des 100:102–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holliger Consult GmbH (2017) Bauteilkatalog, Bauteile SIA MB 2032. www.bauteilkatalog.ch. Accessed 02.09.2017
  19. Hong W-K, Lim G-T, Park S-C, Kim JT (2012) Energy efficiencies of linear-shaped multi-residential apartment buildings built with hybrid structural systems. Energ Build 46:30–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoxha E, Habert G, Chevalier J, Bazzana M, Le Roy R (2014) Method to analyse the contribution of material’s sensitivity in buildings’ environmental impact. J Clean Prod 66:54–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2011) Buildings and constructed assets—Service life planning—Part 1: General principles and Framework. ISO 15686–1:2000, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  23. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2006) Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework. ISO 14040:2006, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  24. Jipa A, Bernhard M, Dillenburger B, Meibodi M (2016) 3D-printed stay-in-place formwork for topologically optimized concrete slabs. Paper presented at the TxA emerging design + technology conference San Antonio, Texas, USA, 04 November 2016Google Scholar
  25. Labonnote N, Rønnquist A, Manum B, Rüther P (2016) Additive construction: state-of-the-art, challenges and opportunities. Autom Constr 72:347–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lahl U (1992) Recycling of waste foundry sands. Sci Total Environ 114:185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lechner N (2015) Heating, cooling, lighting: sustainable design methods for architects. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  28. Meibodi MA, Bernhard M, Jipa A, Dillenburger B (2017) The smart takes from the strong. Paper presented at the Fabricate: rethinking design and construction, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  29. Odaglia P, Voney V, Habert G, Dillenburger B (2018) Open hardware AM in binder jet 3D printing. Paper presented at the first international conference on 3D construction printing, Melbourne, Australia, 26–28 NovemberGoogle Scholar
  30. Oxman N, Rosenberg J (2007) Material computation. Int J Archit Comput 1(5):21–44Google Scholar
  31. Pickering SJ (2006) Recycling technologies for thermoset composite materials—current status. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf 37(8):1206–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rincón L, Pérez G, Cabeza LF (2013) Service life of the dwelling stock in Spain. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(5):919–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. SIA (2010) Norm 2032: Graue Energie von Gebäuden. ZürichGoogle Scholar
  34. Silva A, de Brito J, Gaspar PL (2016) Methodologies for service life prediction of buildings: with a focus on façade claddings. Springer, Cham.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33290-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang Y, Cannon FS, Salama M, Goudzwaard J, Furness JC (2007) Characterization of hydrocarbon emissions from green sand foundry core binders by analytical pyrolysis. Environ Sci Technol 41(22):7922–7927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R, Mutel C, Nemecek T, Reinhard J, Vadenbo CO, Wernet G (2013) Overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, St. GallenGoogle Scholar
  37. Williams ED, Sasaki Y (2003) Energy analysis of end-of-life options for personal computers: resell, upgrade, recycle. In: IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, Boston, USA. pp 187–192Google Scholar
  38. Willmann J, Knauss M, Bonwetsch T, Apolinarska AA, Gramazio F, Kohler M (2016) Robotic timber construction—expanding additive fabrication to new dimensions. Autom Constr 61:16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yang Y, Boom R, Irion B, van Heerden D-J, Kuiper P, de Wit H (2012) Recycling of composite materials. Chem Eng Process Process Intensif 51:53–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Sustainable Construction, IBI, ETH ZürichZürichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Digital Building Technologies, ITA, ETH ZürichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations