Thormark, C (2000) Including recycling potential in energy use into the life-cycle of buildings. Building Research & Information, 28(3), pp. 176-183. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Previous life-cycle studies of buildings tended to omit the phases after demolition. If recycling is not included, the potential benefits of recycling are not possible to assess. A parametric study of a one family house is presented which focuses on the potential energy savings by recycling the various building materials after demolition. The results indicate that it can be more important to design a building for recycling than to use materials which require little energy for production, that the creation of effective recycling depends upon its consideration and inclusion at the design stage, that the re-use and adaptation of existing foundations is an important component of recycling.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building materials; demolition; embodied energy; environment; life-cycle analysis; recycling; Sweden |
| Index terms: | re-use, recycling, adaptation, Sweden, energy-saving, building material, design stage, energy use, foundations, embodied energy |
| Subjects: | structural engineering, health safety and environment, Geography, user focus, waste management, building materials, professional practice, energy systems |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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