Measuring reuse potential and waste creation of wooden façades
Open accessAbstract
Building industry produces 38% of total waste and 40% of total CO2 emissions and uses 50% of all natural resources (EIB 2015). Taking this into account, decreasing the waste from any part of the building will help reducing total waste during the building life span. In this paper we will showcase the indicators for measuring of the waste creation from building façade upon transformation. Façade should follow transformations of the building without waste creation or without causing large financial or environmental impacts. The planning of building industry waste management begins in the design phase, as the waste prevention is the preferred option, and reuse, recycling, and other types of recovery are a second option according to EC. (Directive 2008/98/EC 2008). This paper will show the comparison between the conventional façade system made of wood and the prototype of GDC (Green Design Center) reversible façade system addressing the waste elimination. The reversible façade has been designed using design protocol for designing of low waste façade system for the future circular construction industry developed by Durmisevic 2017 as part of EU BAMB project. The protocol contains a rulebook with tools to measure the waste production during the transformation of building façade. This strategy aims to extend functional lifespan of external envelope of buildings and its components and materials, which would reduce the amount of consumed resources and generated waste during the lifespan of the façade. The contribution of this paper will also be in the field of connections in the building industry, as the importance of type of connections in the façade system with high reuse potential is noticeable.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Conventional wood façades generated four times more waste than reversible wood façades over a life span of 50 years due to the difficult substitution and separation of building materials.
“The authors found that conventional wood façades 128 generated four times more waste than reversible wood façades over a life span of 50 years, due 129 to the difficult substitution and separation of building materials.”
From Design strategies to increase the reuse of wood materials in buildings: Lessons from architectural practice (2022) · cites this paper as Androsevic et al., 2019
The Case studies section compares conventional and reversible wooden façades over a 50-year scenario, and the Discussion links the conventional system’s difficult separation and transformation to waste creation. Our copy does not state that the conventional façade generated four times as much waste; the fourfold magnitude is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bertino, G., Kisser, J., Zeilinger, J., Langergraber, G., Fischer, T., & Österreicher, D. (2021) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app11030939 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
“The relative ease and speed of disassembly allows many “second-life” options regarding reuse and recycling: doors and windows can be disassembled at low risk of damage and sold in the second-hand market [87]; the ceiling and facade panels can be dismantled and stored until a possible subsequent reuse in another lifecy…”
BackgroundPiccardo, C., & Hughes, M. (2022) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133083 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Mañes-Navarrete, D., Santafé, M. R., & Ignacio, P.-Z. (2024) · Journal of Building Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2024.110619 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Measuring Circularity of Buildings: A Systematic Literature Review
Gonçalves, J. D. S., Claes, S., & Ritzen, M. (2025) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings15040548 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Circulation of structural timber for structural purposes: a review of opportunities and challenges
Novais Passarelli, R., Chiletto, T. D. O., Brandner, R., & Ottenhaus, L.-M. (2025) · Wood Material Science & Engineering · doi:10.1080/17480272.2025.2493711 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
A review of the implementation of R-imperatives in circular construction
Jegen, P., Gast, L., & Faulstich, M. (2025) · Cleaner Production Letters · doi:10.1016/j.clpl.2025.100097 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Alasmari, E., AlJaber, A., Martínez-Vázquez, P., & Baniotopoulos, C. C. (2023) · Springer tracts in civil engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-45980-1_33 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Kawa, G., Galle, W., & Temmerman, N. D. (2022) · IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1122/1/012032 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Androšević, R., & Androšević, D. (2021) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-90055-7_59 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Circularity Tools and Frameworks for Existing Buildings
Abu-Ghaida, H., & Rosado, L. (2024) · Springer tracts in civil engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_15
Environmental Impact of Built Structures during Their Lifecycles in Terms of Construction Waste
Androšević, R. (2025) · Industrial engineering and management. · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1007471
- Authors
- Androsevic, R., Durmisevic, E., & Brocato, M.
- Affiliations
- École Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture Paris-Malaquais (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Brocato, Maurizio
- ORCID
- Brocato, Maurizio
- Venue
- IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2019-02-24
- Volume
- 225
- Pages
- 012017
- ISSN
- 1755-1315 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2918157377
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 1.69
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- European Commission (642384)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Sustainable Building Design and Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Sustainable Design and Development
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Construction Management and Sustainability
- Keywords
- wooden facades, construction waste, waste prevention, circular construction, design for reuse, waste indicators, facade transformation, building connections, construction waste management
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
