Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Adaptability strategies, Adaptability strategies, Adaptability strategies,…

- - - - Material passport
        
        Storage & responsibility barrier
        
        Concept description
    - - Reduces uncertainty
      - Allows for appropriate decision making
    - - Increased work for designers
        
        Therefore, either increased cost to client or no draw for designers
      - Lack of education in building reappraisal
        
        Therefore, might be wasted effort
      - Issues around professional insurance of refurbishment projects
  - - - Allows for changing load without need for strengthening
      - Preferred by tenants, therefore increased client ROI
    - - Increases upfront carbon
        
        Running counter to lean design
      - No guarantee of necessity/use
      - Increases material cost
    - - Strengthen inaccessible/hard-to-strengthen components (e.g. foundations & bracing)?
        
        Balance required
      - Blanket overdesign
      - Overprovision of services
  - - - Allows for components to be easily replaced
        
        e.g. in event of use change, services and cladding could be changed
        
        e.g. at end-of-life of short timespan / rapid cycling materials, allows for individual component replacement rather than entire building obsolescence
      - Minimises risk of building obsolescence from technology and fashion changes
      - Benefits DfD and cradle-to-cradle/CE recycling
    - - Increased design complexity and, therefore, time
        
        Client to bear cost, or designers disuaded
      - Decreased structural efficiency
        
        e.g. might increase floor-to-floor height requirements (by not allowing services to be integrated within beams), which might limit number of floors available for construction
      - Goes against common building practices
        
        Therefore, against construction industry 'inertia'
        
        Increased risk by necessitating untested methods
        
        Increased design time & client cost
        
        Contractor disinterest
        
        Supply chain not set up for it
      - Increased material usage, therefore cost and carbon with some strategies
        
        e.g. non-composite construction
    - - Mechanical connections
        
        Between components
        
        Within components
        
        Unless they can be reused as such
        
        With finishes
      - Non-composite construction
        
        or demountable composite construction
      - Non-structural partitions
  - - - Reduced number of obstacles
        
        Reduces complexity/uncertainty of design of refurbishment
        
        Increases options for use of internal space
        
        By how much? Balance required
      - Preferred by tenants, therefore increased client ROI
    - - Increased carbon cost
        
        of long spans
        
        of moment resisting frame
      - Increased financial cost
        
        from design complexity
        
        from increased material usage
      - Uncertainty on best route forward
        
        Balance required
    - - Long spans
        
        Reduces number of columns
      - Moment-resisting frame
        
        Negates internal bracing obstacles
      - Greater floor-to-ceiling heights
        
        Links with Access
      - Narrow floor plates
  - - - Reduces uncertainty in design of refurbishment
        
        Reducing cost / encouraging refurbishment over demolition
        
        Reducing refurbishment design time
      - Improves upfront carbon reduction potential
      - Reduces upfront design and construction complexity / cost
    - - Reduced freedom of expression of architects
        
        By how much? What can be achieved aesthetically within the confines of a rectangular, simple frame?
    - - Rectangular grid
      - Avoid structural muscularity
  - - - Oversized service voids
        
        Fits in with Reserve capacity
      - Demountable finishes / service components
        
        Fits in with Separation of layers
    - - Allows for easier maintenance
        
        Increasing building lifespan
        
        Increased ROI
        
        But who sees the ROI?
        
        Reduced risk of early obsolence due to a lack of maintenance
        
        Greater CE
      - Reduces uncertainty in event of refurbishment (if components can be easily evaluated/assessed)
      - Improved overall user safety
    - - Reduced lettable floor space due to increased vertical service riser space
        
        Reducing client ROI
      - Reduced floor-to-ceiling height from increased horizontal service void depth
        
        Or increased floor-to-floor height
        
        Increasing material requirements, cost and carbon
        
        Or reducing the number of floors, reducing lettable floor space and client ROI
        
        Reducing Open strategy / flexibility of internal space
  - - - Reduces likelihood of construction errors
        
        Reduced number of individual components
      - Reduced design time
      - Reduced variation in elements, therefore increasing DfD potential / likelihood of uptake
    - - Increased rationalisation, increasing material usage and carbon
        
        Balance required
    - - Rationalisation
  - - - Improved safety, upfront, during use and at end-of-life
      - Improved environmental performance
        
        Reduced material usage
        
        Lower EC from use of low carbon materials
      - Reduced uncertainty/time in design of refurbishment
        
        Encouraging refurbishment instead of demolition at end-of-life
      - Reduced maintenance requirements
    - - Avoid toxic materials
        
        Benefitted by Separation of Layers approach, in case materials deemed hazardous in future
      - Use materials suitable for Mechanical connections
        and Separation of layers
      - Select low carbon materials
      - Specify high durability / strength materials
        
        Where appriopriate / balance required
    - - Limits development of new / uncertain materials?
  - - - Allows for greater DfD / CE
        
        Elements can be more easily split into their constituent components
      - Allows for a Separation of layers
        
        Allows for individual element replacement if outdated or damaged, minimising building obsolescence
    - - Bolted connections
      - Avoid gluing, welding, cementing, etc.
      - Non-composite construction
        
        Or demountable composite construction
    - - Increases design complexity and time
        
        Increasing cost to client
      - Increases construction complexity and duration
      - Non-standard construction technique, therefore going against construction sector inertia
      - Might increase material usage, through necessitating non-composite construction
      - Disincentivises off-site construction/prefabrication?
        
        Therefore, increasing site time, cost and reducing safety
  - - - Greater CE potential
      - Simpler design
      - Quicker construction, and reduced likelihood of construction error
        
        Reducing cost to client
    - - Common connection details
        
        'Kit of parts' design
        
        Rationalisation
    - - Increased material usage from non-optimised connection details
      - Requiring integration of supply chain to standardise connection details
        
        Reducing potential for future development / research / new solutions?
  - - - Greater CE
        
        Increased ability to reuse components
        
        Increased cradle-to-cradle recycling
        
        Reduced long-term emissions from material extraction, processing and fabrication
      - Reduced building obsolescence through ready replacement of individual components
    - - Separation of layers
        
        Mechanical connections
        
        Access
      - Rationalisation
        
        Commonality
        
        Simplicity
        
        Modularity
      - 'Kit of parts' construction
      - Temporary structures
    - - Increased design complexity in using reused elements rather than virgin
      - Requires supply chain integration/flexibility
        
        Requires greater transparency/collaboration between designers and suppliers, to know what stock is available at what time
        
        Great planning required for knowing future stock availability
      - Difficulty in insurance/certification of reused materials
- - - - Allows for late stage design changes
      - Can accommodate unique nature of buildings
      - Allows for uncertain futures
    - - Parametric modelling?
      - Material passport?
      - Early consideration of adaptability
        
        Links to supply chain integration
    - - Planning requirements currently focus on operational reductions
        
        Then focused on upfront EC reduction
        
        Which goes hand in hand with reduced client cost from reduced material usage
        
        Can increase long-term issues
        
        e.g. increased maintenance of renewables, over-insulation in future climates, etc.
      - Increased design complexity due to increased number of stakeholders to consider / please
        
        Similar to supply chain integration
  - - - Allows for early stage adaptability consideration
        
        Where greatest EC savings can be achieved
        
        Where design decisions which have the greatest impact on building adaptability are made
      - Allows for local material usage / improved knowledge sharing
        
        Understanding of other stakeholders' sphere of influence / needs & wants
      - Allows for sharing of ROI
    - - Involve all stakeholders early in design process
        
        Designers
        
        Building users & estate managers
        
        Contractors
        
        Suppliers, fabricators & stockists
      - Adaptability quantification
        
        Allowing for value-add of DfA to be determined
    - - Requires understanding of adaptability from clients
        
        Perceptions of increased costs and no guarantee of ROI
      - Uncertainty around future / adaptability quantification
  - - - Allows for DfD / CE principles to become successful
    - - Sourcing flexibility
        
        Ability to reconfigure supply chain
        
        Ability to adapt to market requirements
        
        Ability to increase supplier responsiveness
        
        Ability to integrate the supply chain
      - Vendor flexibility
        
        Combined flexibility offered by manufacturing, transport and warehousing links
      - Modularity of the supply chain
        
        i.e. replaceability of individual links within the supply chain?
    - - Goes against current construction practices / industry inertia
      - Increases uncertainty and complexity of design
        
        Increasing cost to client or disincentivising designers
- - - - Access
      - Connections