Design for Disassembly (DfD) and Building Adaptability

The researchers compared an existing Finnish concrete apartment building’s plans with a DfD redesign. Separating specialised functions, consolidating service shafts and reducing structural integration improved estimated component reuse. Standard dimensions and less customisation supported simpler, repeatable components.

Table 2 reports a reusable mass share of 31% in the original design and 67% in the redesign. These are predictions, conditional on suitable disassembly, rather than demonstrated recovery. Joint validation and economic feasibility remain further work.

For ExoSett, the relevant connection is the division between accommodation frames, service frames and accommodation modules. Each has a distinct role: carrying modules, providing access and utilities, or containing accommodation. This separation is an established design principle of the concept; its performance during actual exchanges requires engineering validation.

Design for disassembly makes buildings easier to take apart. ExoSett aims to make buildings easier to change without taking them apart. Here, that means selective removal of accommodation modules while retaining the principal supporting frame.

Eventual component recovery and adaptation during occupation are different objectives, although separation and reversible interfaces can support both. ExoSett applies these principles to accommodation modules intended to be removed, replaced or rearranged during the building’s operational life. The accommodation frame provides independent structural support for each module, so one module need not carry those above it.

The Accessible services (Simple Utilities) explains how the dedicated service frame separates accessible utility routes and standardised module connection points from accommodation. Accessibility and service separation are already part of the proposal. Detailed isolation arrangements, exchange procedures and their effects on neighbouring occupants require project-specific engineering and verification, as described in ExoSett’s design development.

Retaining the frame does not guarantee uninterrupted occupation nearby. Local exclusion areas or temporary service isolation may still be necessary. The related Demountable Connections discussion considers the interfaces and structural performance that controlled disassembly requires.

The study measures reuse by mass; simplicity through average batch size, total components divided by component types; and standardisation through the proportion of components without customisation, assessed from plans. These indicators describe design potential, not observed reuse.

ExoSett could investigate an additional measure: operational independence. This would describe how much of an occupied building must be taken out of service when an accommodation module is removed or replaced. It is a proposed measure, not an established or experimentally validated metric.

A useful starting point would record the proportion of accommodation outside the exchanged module that becomes unavailable, together with the duration. Service interruptions should be recorded separately, identifying which supplies and which accommodation are affected. The exchanged module itself should also have its downtime reported, but excluded from the neighbouring-accommodation proportion.

Comparisons would need a defined exchange procedure, building configuration and occupancy assumptions. An access restriction, loss of water and a requirement to vacate are different effects. Recording them separately would make the measure more useful than a single score and help test whether the intended separation delivers practical adaptability.

Return to Research and Reading or explore ExoSett components.