By Nidhi DhullReviewed by Susha Cheriyedath, M.Sc.Oct 30 2024A recent article published in Sustainability introduced the concept of Design for Circular Manufacturing and Assembly (DfCMA) to integrate circularity and modularity in construction synergistically. This novel DfCMA framework was developed through an extensive literature review, expert interviews, brainstorming sessions, and a case study.
Sustainable Construction Design" />
Study: Design for Circular Manufacturing and Assembly (DfCMA): Synergising Circularity and Modularity in the Building Construction Industry. Image Credit: metamorworks/Shutterstock.com
Background
Unrestrained consumption patterns and human population growth are exerting unprecedented pressure on the planet and its resources. Consequently, the concept of a circular economy (CE) is emerging as an alternative to the linear economy, where resources are utilized as long as possible by reusing, recovering, and regenerating them at the end of their service lives.
The construction sector has become a priority in transitioning towards a CE, given its significant energy consumption, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, excessive material extractions, and wastage. However, adopting design for circularity (DfC) in the construction industry requires shifting design practices from object-centric thinking to a systematic framework.
Current modular building designs, which aim to improve quality and expedite project delivery, are based on traditional buildings and need suitable frameworks such as Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA). DfMA can optimize and streamline modular building design processes. Thus, the proposed DfCMA concept aims to integrate and synergize DfC and DfMA to yield optimum construction benefits.
Methods
The study involved multiple phases, including linking DfMA to DfC and formulating DfCMA. The first phase involved an extensive literature review to analyze the notions of modular construction, CE, DfMA, and DfC in construction. This helped determine the shared values of DfC and DfMA, revealing the synergies between them.
Phase II comprised eight semi-structured interviews with CE experts from construction to determine the potential advantages and viability of synergizing circularity in design processes and gain insights on circularity in modular construction.
Alternatively, phase III involved brainstorming sessions performed with five CE researchers and university lecturers in the construction sector to examine the need, potential advantages, and viability of synergizing circularity in modular designing. Additionally, it helped identify any practices integrating circularity in the theoretical DfMA approach outlined in Phase I.
To generate new ideas systematically, the brainstorming sessions adopted a creative design thinking method called SCAMPER (substitute, combine, adapt, magnify, modify, put to other uses, eliminate, rearrange, reverse).
During phase IV, a preliminary case study was performed to develop the DfCMA process further and investigate any existing complementing modular construction practices. Additionally, a specific steel modular building was chosen as a case study to evaluate the proposed DfCMA qualitatively.
Results and Discussion
Numerous overlapping constructs and commonalities were observed between DfMA and DfC, indicating synergies between them. For instance, modularity is a key element of DfMA regarding productivity as it decreases on-site work, improves quality control, and enables safer working environments.
In terms of DfC, modularity offers CE benefits through a controlled production environment that enhances materials management efficiencies. Moreover, it enables customization and scalability of the building components.
According to the phase-II participants, modularization is a valuable tool for co-creation as stakeholders are actively devoted to long-term value creation. Additionally, it improves material efficiency, decreases waste generation, and can be optimized for enhanced energy performance and lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Another prominent synergy between DfMA and DfC is that they promote the R-strategies of Reduce, Repair, Reuse, Refuse, Rethink, Refurbish, Repurpose, Remanufacture, and Recover, Recycle. Additionally, they promote design for excellence methods, such as design for reuse and remanufacturing, design for recycling, design for adaptability, and design for deconstruction. However, DfM and DfA do not essentially aim at circularity, as their primary focus is on productivity and offer circular advantages as by-products.
Based on the synergies identified above, a conceptual framework was developed to construct and operationalize the DfCMA concept, which aims to deliver a circularity-oriented modular building or circular modular building. Such a building was idealized as an optimized building designed, planned, built, operated, maintained, and deconstructed according to CE principles.
The proposed DfCMA was characterized by designing for assembly, manufacturing, narrowing resource loops, slowing resource loops, and closing resource loops. These features were correlated with the construction industry’s circular value chain, with a primary focus on circular planning, designing, material sourcing, and construction.
Conclusion
Overall, the researchers coined the term and proposed the concept of DfCMA, which envisages synergizing circularity (DfC) and modularity (DfMA) during the design stage. The individual concepts of DfC and DfMA were comprehensively evaluated to determine their shared values and commonalities, such as modularization, dematerialization, and standardization.
The case study analysis demonstrated the synergy of DfC and DfMA in delivering circularity and modularity in a modular construction project. Therefore, the researchers plan to quantitatively evaluate and validate the DfCMA framework and process through empirical research in the future.
Journal Reference
Dewagoda, K. G., Ng, S. T., Kumaraswamy, M. M., & Chen, J. (2024). Design for Circular Manufacturing and Assembly (DfCMA): Synergising Circularity and Modularity in the Building Construction Industry. Sustainability, 16(21), 9192. doi: 10.3390/su16219192. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/21/9192
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author expressed in their private capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of AZoM.com Limited T/A AZoNetwork the owner and operator of this website. This disclaimer forms part of the Terms and conditions of use of this website.