Westerholm, N.; Tuure, A.; Pajunen, S. and Kuittinen, M. (2026) Comparing technical disassembly potential methods for concrete and timber buildings. Buildings & Cities, 7(1), pp. 633-652. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
Design for disassembly (DfD) is posited as a key strategy for enhancing sustainability in the construction sector, and introducing appropriate assessment methods could promote longer lifespans for buildings and building components. This paper investigates the technical disassembly potential (TDP) of two nearly identical four-storey residential buildings (one with a concrete frame, the other with a timber frame) using two theoretical assessment methods: an alteration of the Dutch Green Building Council's Disassembly Potential 2.0 (DP2) and the Technical Disassembly Potential of Buildings (TDPB), which is developed in this study. Key factors considered include connection types, connection accessibility, geometry and interdependency. The timber building achieved significantly higher scores than the concrete building when using both assessment methods. According to the DP2 method, the timber building scored 0.42 and the concrete building 0.21, while the TDPB method produced scores of 0.61 and 0.29, respectively. Even though both methods rank the buildings in the same order, the underlying differences between the scores are substantial due to differences in the weighting criteria. The TDPB method enables a more objective and transparent assessment of TDP by relying on weighting factors based on quantitative metrics rather than environmental impact, which form the basis of the DP2 method.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building components; building design; circular economy; demountable construction; design for deconstruction; design for disassembly; disassembly potential; reuse; sustainable construction |
| Index terms: | circular economy, building design, residential building, accessibility, geometry, design for disassembly, strategy, disassembly, sustainable construction, lifespan, construction sector, building component, environmental impact, green building |
| Subjects: | sustainable design, sustainable construction, architectural elements, inclusive design, architectural design, operations management, environmental impact, construction type, industry analysis, management, design practice, material degradation and durability, sustainability and energy, mathematical modelling |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Research Practice, Construction Materials, Business Strategy, Site Management, Design Practice, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here